The committee met at 8:30 a.m.

[Paul Choi in the chair.]

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay. Good morning, everyone. My name is Paul Choi. I’m the MLA for Burnaby South–Metrotown and Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, a committee of the Legislative Assembly that includes MLAs from government and opposition.

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

Our committee is currently conducting its annual consultation with British Columbians on their priorities for the next provincial budget.

Today we will receive a presentation from the Minister of Finance. We will then begin our public hearings, which will continue over the next three weeks.

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 bcleg.ca/consultations

After the consultation closes, we will carefully consider all the input provided and make recommendation to the Legislative Assembly on what should be included in the 2026 provincial budget.

The committee intends to release its report in August.

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

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Good morning. I’m the Deputy Chair, and my name is Elenore Sturko. I’m the MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale, and I’m critic for public safety and the Solicitor General.

Claire Rattée: Claire Rattée, MLA for Skeena and critic for mental health and addictions.

Bryan Tepper: Bryan Tepper, MLA for Surrey-Panorama and critic for community safety and integrated services.

Sunita Dhir: I’m Sunita Dhir. I’m the MLA for Vancouver-Langara and Parliamentary Secretary for International Credentials.

Steve Morissette: Steve Morissette, MLA for Kootenay-Monashee and Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Development.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I’m Jennifer Blatherwick. I’m the MLA for Coquitlam-Maillardville, and I am the Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much, Members.

Assisting the committee today are Karan Riarh and Kayla Wilson from the Parliamentary Committees Office and from Hansard Services.

We are beginning today’s meeting with a presentation from the Minister of Finance and the Budget 2026 consultation paper.

Minister, thank you for joining us today. I will now turn it over to you.

Budget Consultation Presentations

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you and good morning to all the committee members and those participating online.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that I am here today on the traditional and unceded territories of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

I am Brenda Bailey. I am the MLA for Vancouver–South Granville and acting as British Columbia’s Finance Minister. It’s an honour to get a chance to present to you as you begin your very important work on the Select Standing Committee for Finance.

I’ll share with you that I, too, have been on this committee in the past, and my opinion is that it’s one of the most democratic things I’ve had the opportunity to do while in government — to hear so directly from people and things of such importance in their lives. So I’m hoping that your experience on this committee is also very worthwhile.

This committee is an annual consultation where members connect and invite submissions from people all across B.C. about their needs, their priorities, their concerns, their ideas, to inform the provincial government investments next year.

I appreciate the time and effort that all of you will be putting into this consultation this spring and summer. It’s a heavy lift, this committee, but it’s worth your time.

It’s been three months since we released Budget 2025. I’ll offer a high-level overview of the budget in just a moment.

The budget was released in early March amidst extreme tariff uncertainty. There are ongoing and massive shifts happening right now in global trade policy and relationships. It’s bad for affordability, and it’s bad for economic growth.

So more than ever, our focus is on helping people with costs, protecting the services people most rely on and on protecting and growing our economy. This year’s budget invests in lower child care, school food programs, family benefits, rent supports and more. The budget invests in making communities safer with more funding for policing services and addressing public safety concerns around shoplifting, robbery and violent crime.

[8:35 a.m.]

A growing population needs access to health care, education and infrastructure. Our budget invests in new hospitals, long-term-care beds and in the first medical school in western Canada in more than 55 years. We are renovating and building new schools and creating prefabricated school projects that will

and violent crime.

A growing population needs access to health care, education and infrastructure. Our budget invests in new hospitals, long-term-care beds and in the first medical school in western Canada in more than 55 years. We’re renovating and building new schools and creating prefabricated school projects that will create 6,485 new seats across 16 school districts.

We’re keeping goods and people moving across B.C., which of course is essential for a strong economy. Budget 2025 invests in projects around the province, including the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain, and restoring critical road infrastructure damaged by landslides in the Cariboo.

In this budget, we set a $1.5 billion savings target over the fiscal plan. All ministries are engaged across government in this work, getting rid of inefficiencies in process and programs, reducing travel and administrative costs, reducing all government programs to make sure that they are delivering and that we are making the right investments for British Columbians, cutting red tape.

Our government, our work, our investments are also focused on ways to grow the economy in the midst of a slowdown and a trade war. There’s great potential despite these big challenges — mining in critical minerals, technology and science, working across Canada to get rid of interprovincial trade barriers and reduce reliance on U.S. markets.

Our government has prioritized economic growth, affordability, health care, education and public safety. As we look ahead to the budget in 2026, we want to hear from people about their priorities. I encourage everyone to participate in this budget consultation led by your committee.

I again thank all members for taking time away from their homes and their families to connect with people throughout the province on this annual consultation, and I encourage British Columbians to participate.

Paul Choi (Chair): We’ll turn to questions from committee members.

Bryan Tepper: I guess I would ask the…. It was $1.5 billion in savings you’re looking for. Could you expand on how we’re expecting to realize that?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The efficiency review has two different components to it. The first one is looking at discretionary spending, things like travel costs and consultation, working with consultants in various different ministries, administrative costs, looking at those kinds of costs across the board. That work has been happening since December. We’ve also had a hiring freeze across the public service and filling roles really within the public service instead of bringing additional people in.

Then, of course, the very big work, which is working very closely with every ministry, looking for how dollars are landing and the question of whether, in fact, when a program is designed, every dollar is being spent the way that we thought it would be and lands the way that we expected it to.

It’s kind of a normal process to go through. I’ve been in business a long time, and we would often review programming and spending and ensure that it’s landing the way we expect it to. That’s the work we’re doing across government right now.

Bryan Tepper: If I was to follow up on that, the consultants…. Just because we’ve just had a federal election, it was sort of a point of contention there with consultants and how much we were spending. Do you know how much we are spending and how much we expect to save off of that?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We’re going to have some numbers to share in Q1. We’re one month in, in terms of the numbers that we have from this fiscal year. It’s a standard process that every quarter, we report out on both spending and revenue, and that report-out will be coming in the middle of September.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions?

I have a question. Do you have any messages that you can share with the presenters that will be presenting to us on what sort of focus they can have and what they can expect from this budget, and any advice for us on what sort of mindset or focus you want us to have as a committee as we listen to the public, going forward?

[8:40 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: A couple of things I would say.

First, I think the work is challenging in a context of fiscal constraint. What I would say in regards to that is there is significant money in the system. We have made deep investments over the

forward?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: A couple of things I would say.

First, I think the work is challenging in a context of fiscal constraint. What I would say in regards to that is there is significant money in the system. We have made deep investments over the last seven years, and some of those are not yet fully in fruition. It’s important to recognize that there is still significant support for the programs that we’ve prioritized and the programs across government.

So although we’re working on an efficiency review, it doesn’t mean that there isn’t support for programming across the province — there is. There’s also, really, the largest capital investments we’ve seen in the province’s history. I think it’s important to recognize that while we’re looking for efficiencies, we’re also deeply committed to those priorities of health care and public safety and education and affordability. I think that’s a good context to hold while you do this work. It’s not brakes on everything. It’s an efficiency review, and we still will be very engaged in supporting British Columbians.

The second piece that I will bring forward is that the focus on economic development across British Columbia is very deep, and it’s very deep across Canada. We’re working closely with the federal government on identifying priorities that will grow the economy across Canada. I think that this is an opportunity to connect with business communities while you’re out and about as well and to hear their priorities and the opportunities that they see, the recommendations that they hold for government, the ideas that they have for growth.

The next budget will be looking at both economic growth and efficiency in providing programming for people across the province.

Paul Choi (Chair): One last question. Could you, for the benefit of the public and for us, current state of our budget and the level of fiscal restraint that we must exercise as we make recommendations for the budget next year? That would be great.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The amount of deficit in Budget 2025 is $10.9 billion, with an expectation that we will begin the process of getting back to balance over a sequence of budgets coming. That’s the important work that we’re doing right now in terms of the efficiency review and the program review.

I will highlight that this work is deeply integral to the well-being of the province. It’s not a nice-to-have, it’s a must-do in terms of the importance of how credit ratings view us and the importance of people making investments knowing that the province is on the right track. This is work that we will complete.

I think it’s also important to recognize that British Columbia remains a very appealing place for investment. We know that although we did have two out of the four credit rating agencies downgrade us one point this year, we also know that we’re having success in our sovereign bond sales and in fundraising, and that the valuation has not really reflected that downgrade, because, of course, across the world there are challenges in regards to global trade. So we’re seeing opportunity to continue economic growth here, and we’re finding that people view British Columbia as a safe place to invest.

I think also that we have everything that people are looking for — our critical minerals, our incredibly talented people, our thriving tech sector, our amazing natural resources. So although we’re in a time where we’re facing significant decline in GDP growth, we also are very well placed to push hard on economic growth, and I think we’ll be successful there.

I’ll share with you when I first began this work, when I was given the role in late November, early December…. At that time, the projections for GDP were around, different people, but 2.4 to 2.6 percent. The number in the budget is 1.8. We’ve seen predictions from economists bounce around a little bit on that, some of them lower.

[8:45 a.m.]

It is a challenging time, without question, because of the threat of tariffs and, in fact, imposition of tariffs — for example, what we’ve seen in regards to steel. But having said that, British Columbia compares favourably internationally, and the opportunity to make investments here and for people to continue to grow good lives here remains very, very strong. And that’s the work ahead of us.

position of tariffs — for example, what we’ve seen in regards to steel. But having said that, British Columbia compares favourably internationally, and the opportunity to make investments here and for people to continue to grow good lives here remains very, very strong. And that’s the work ahead of us.

Steve Morissette: I’m new to this committee. We’re all new on this committee, I think. I don’t know if you’ve been on before. But anyway, I may have missed this in the early part, but I’m not quite sure of the process. We gather input as we go around the province, we compile that, and we compile a report. We present that to Treasury Board. So that’s going to be the important part for us, is how we present to Treasury Board, and then Treasury Board makes the decisions on 2026 budget. Is that correct?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’m not sure if it will go directly to Treasury Board or directly to me, but yes, the recommendation that you bring forward will be read by myself and others within the Ministry of Finance.

I encourage you to do the very hard work of not making 200 recommendations. It’s really hard to boil your recommendations down, but please do that work. It becomes less powerful if that work isn’t done, I’ll share with you.

So it really is, again…. This is why I think this is one of the most democratic things that I was involved in, in government and that I’m really looking forward to your recommendations, and I assure you, personally, we’ll read them. Because it is deeply democratic to hear directly from people and to apply your lenses as both government and opposition to what’s happening on the ground. And, of course, we have many ways that we hear from people’s voices — many. This isn’t the only one, but this is a very important one.

So I’m excited for you. I think the work is exciting and integral and sometimes difficult, but it is really deeply democratic to have that ability to connect so strongly with communities directly to where decisions are held, and that’s the work that you’re doing.

Steve Morissette: Can I supplement?

Paul Choi (Chair): Yes, absolutely.

Steve Morissette: Thank you for that. That’s a good point on not coming with a big pile of recommendations, because I remember in local government, we’d take recommendations to UBCM and we’d approve, I don’t know, 100 or 200 recommendations. And I thought: “This is just silly.” We’d get basically a form letter back on most of them, you know: “We’ve heard you.” And I thought it would be so much better if we went with ten or 20 and focus on what is really the most important.

So I think that’s work that we’ll have to do within this committee.

Bryan Tepper: You brought up trade barriers. Just because I was reading in the paper about the deals being made, maybe you can give us an update on interprovincial trade barriers. Are we making any progress on anything there?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yeah, thanks for the question.

So already two trade barriers have come down. As you know, it’s an exclusion-based methodology, and right away, we brought down some barriers in regards to both fishing and procurement. But the work on interprovincial trade is really facing a July 1 deadline, and so we’ll have some more to say at that timeline.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Good morning again, and thanks for that.

If this is not a question that’s suitable for this committee, we can speak offline or speak at another time. During the estimates for Solicitor General and Ministry of Public Safety, the minister and I had discussed and I asked several questions on enforcement with respect to things like illicit cannabis, illicit tobacco, illicit vapes.

In Alberta, they invested $20 million and got over $400 million in return from reducing the number of illicit products that were being purchased.

[8:50 a.m.]

How much does any of those types of conversations or recommendations, from even other ministries, estimates…? Do you take those into consideration when you’re looking at the budget? Only that, you know, already one recommendation I would have is that if we can get money and tackle organized crime simultaneously and bring in those revenues for the province, it would definitely be something that’s favourable. So what kind of consideration are you giving to those types of discussions?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you very much for the question. I think two things I’d like to say here.

One is this is a really good time to remind everyone that the recommendations are coming from the people on the ground. We all have things that we would like to accomplish

would definitely be something that’s favourable. So what kind of consideration are you giving to those types of discussions?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you very much for the question. I think two things I’d like to say here. One is this is a really good time to remind everyone that the recommendations are coming from people on the ground. We all have things that we would like to accomplish in government, and they’re important. And the role of the opposition is important to drive those things forward. But my understanding of the work of this committee is really to be focused on what you hear on the ground from people.

And I think, MLA, the question that you’re asking about is work that’s ongoing throughout the year. I don’t have that particular file. As you know, that’s the Solicitor General’s work. But I’ll share with you that on the tobacco tax file, which is ours, we look at it all the time. And the question is a really interesting one, because it’s about at what pricing do you drive the black market or the grey market, and at what pricing do you deter people from smoking? So there’s analysis done on that on the ongoing way, and also questions of enforcement.

We’ve stepped up enforcement on tobacco and recently had a major bust in Kamloops, for example, that also included cannabis as a secondary outcome.

But I think the important perspective that you bring on this and your highlighting of work that are done in other provinces is a welcome one. And my view is that would be advocacy within the ministry and within the work and government. Whether that’s raised by people on the ground as you do this important work will be yet to be seen, I think

But that’s one of the challenges of this committee in my experience when I was on it: it really is about taking the voices that you hear from people in communities and elevating them up and helping it form recommendations that come directly into finance.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): I do believe that some companies will be presenting to us about their concerns with illicit markets in the tobacco realm, and of course, even raising these issues…. Not a proponent of smoking or vapes or any of this, but they are legal, and people do use them. When we eliminate illicit sources, it drives people who would already be smoking towards products where we can collect those revenues for the province.

One of the considerations which, actually, I believe is in the Ministry of Finance too, is some of the regulations surrounding vapes. Health Canada, along with industry members, had done an inspection, I think, of close to a hundred stores, retailers, selling vapes, and they were 96 percent non-compliant. Overselling…. So the amount of the e-liquid and stuff contained within those devices exceeded what is actually allowed here in British Columbia. So, really, it’s stolen revenue because it’s got more usage or whatever than what we’re collecting those taxes on.

I would just hope that we don’t leave anything on the table during these challenging times. Every dollar that we can collect comes out of the hands of criminals and into our health care system, for example, or schools would be really important. So I hope that the ministry does continue to do this important work.

Part of it…. Yes, Solicitor General and the Ministry of Public Safety. Part of it is through those regulations and taxation that we have through your office as well. So thank you very much.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you. Agreed.

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay. If there are no other questions, I’d like to thank minister for coming and talking to us on behalf of the committee. At this point, we will take recess to reset the room before the hearing from presenters.

Thank you.

The committee recessed from 8:54 a.m. to 9:38 a.m.

The committee recessed from 8:54 a.m. to 9:38 a.m.

[Paul Choi in the chair.]

Paul Choi (Chair): We will call the committee back to order.

We are going to hear from a number of organizations and individuals about their priorities for the next provincial budget. Each participant will have five minutes to speak, followed by up to five minutes of questions from committee members.

First, we will turn to Mr. Kevin Hall from University of Victoria.

University of Victoria

Kevin Hall: Good morning, and thanks, everybody. My name is Kevin Hall. I’m the president and vice-chancellor at the University of Victoria. I’d like to start by acknowledging we’re here on the lək̓ʷəŋən territories, the Songhees and xʷsepsəm Nations, and I pay my respects to elders past and present.

This year in B.C., across Canada, it’s been really difficult for families, for businesses, and for the post-secondary sector, of which I’m in. I think together we’re all facing a very complex landscape. We’ve got affordability concerns for our students, staff and faculty. There’s uncertainty around U.S. tariffs, the opioid crisis and many other factors affecting our communities.

At UVic, we’ve tried to navigate these challenges. As is often the case, we find that these challenges sometimes also bring opportunities. I’d like to speak to three today, three critical areas of focus for UVic.

The first is health care. We share all parties’ commitments to building a strong economy, and this is going to require a very well-funded health care system. In May, UVic launched our new faculty of health which brings together programs in nursing, medical sciences, public health, social work, health information sciences and so much more.

[9:40 a.m.]

This integrated approach with health is going to strengthen education, is going to strengthen research and, in particular, strengthen our community partnerships. Government investment is helping us to educate more nurses, public and allied health professionals, with a focus on serving rural and underserved communities through provincial pathway programs such as the one we have with Selkirk

which we hope is going to strengthen education, is going to strengthen research and, in particular, strengthen our community partnerships.

Government investment is helping us to educate more nurses, public and allied health professionals, with a focus on serving rural and underserved communities through provincial pathway programs, such as the one we have with Selkirk College in Castlegar which enables students to complete a bachelor of science in nursing in their local community and then graduate with a UVic degree. We’d like to do more of that. We’d like to do much more of that.

We have a proposed academic primary health care centre in Saanich that’s going to support the province’s commitment to team-based care and would improve access to much-needed primary care for thousands of south Island residents while also providing a practical clinical training facility for our future health professionals.

To realize this vision for the health care centre, we’re going to need provincial support, both in capital and operational support. Continued investments in training seats and infrastructure are essential for UVic and our partners to really prepare the skilled health professionals that B.C. needs. With the committee’s explicit support for this work, we can work to address the urgent workforce gaps and advance health care priorities for the province.

The second area is around workforce development. UVic continually works with its partners to address B.C.’s evolving workforce needs. We do this by growing our high-demand programs, such as nursing, engineering and computer science. With strong provincial support, these expansions have enabled more students to pursue careers in critical fields of health, technology and green infrastructure.

To ensure that our post-secondary sector is ready to meet the challenges and to prepare for tomorrow’s need, we ask for greater agility and flexibility to the Degree Quality Assessment Board process, DQAB. By streamlining and accelerating program approvals, public post-secondaries like UVic will be able to launch new labour-market-aligned programs more efficiently.

UVic also supports expanding programs that help us diversify our own revenue streams. Options include bolstering microcredential and professional programs that provide flexible, short-term training options to upskill and reskill and meet the needs of learners and employers in this province. These programs are increasingly important for us to generate revenue and to help offset the financial pressure which results from the federal changes to international student enrolment policies which have impacted the whole sector’s financial sustainability.

We appreciate the province’s partnership in addressing these sector challenges, including your advocacy with the federal government on international students and your support for measures that help our institutions adapt to these challenges that we have.

The third priority for us, the last one I’ll leave you with, is housing. We’ve had a recent housing expansion at UVic. We now have, the largest in our history, beds for over 3,000 students on our campus. We have 26,000 students that are registered at UVic. That’s helping us to ease, if you like, a little bit the rental pressure market at UVic. Pending government support, we’re also planning a new 500-bed residence for upper-year and graduate students.

We’re taking this one step further by looking off our campus. UVic’s new real estate strategy is going to utilize university-owned lands to address the regional housing needs. Currently we have two developments underway at the Ian Stewart complex. We have a multi-use development going on that will create 1,800 units of market-ready rental housing and some commercial space. We also have a future development at the Cedar Hill corner of Oak Bay, which will further expand housing to increase housing density.

UVic is a proven partner for the province. We are committed to help this province move itself forward in these challenging times. Thank you for your opportunity to present today.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much, Dr. Hall. I’ll now I’ll turn it over for questions from members.

Steve Morissette: I’m MLA Morrissette from Kootenay-Monashee, and Selkirk College is in my riding. So when you mentioned Selkirk, that piqued my interest. You said you’re looking to expand those kinds of programs rurally, through rural B.C. Just quickly, what’s that look like?

Kevin Hall: The program at the Castlegar works really well because it means that students can get their nursing degree while there, which makes it much less likely that they’re going to leave Castlegar.

This is one of the problems we have in this province, right? Students come to Victoria, they go to Vancouver to do nursing, and they decide they’re going to stay because there are lots of opportunities. We believe that actually educating in place and in locations where we can is much more effective in trying to address those rural needs for health care where there is just a lack of professionals in that space.

[9:45 a.m.]

Sunita Dhir: Thanks, Kevin. I was listening to your health care project. You mentioned nursing. What other

lack of professionals in that space.

Sunita Dhir: I was listening to your health care project. You mentioned nursing. What other…. This is an in-demand profession. Are you considering other health care professions?

Kevin Hall: Yes, thanks for the question. So we actually educate virtually in all other health care professions, except medicine, where we do have a joint program with UBC. But we’re talking about physiotherapy, speech pathology, social work, psychology — everything that’s really needed to wrap around a physician in the primary health care system.

Sunita Dhir: For your primary health care centre, all these professions will be working in that and getting training at the same time?

Kevin Hall: Yes. The concept we have is really to use it, first of all, as a basis to give our students the necessary training that they require by their accreditation bodies. We often send our students out to be placed throughout Island Health or across the province.

There’s a shortage of spaces for the training that is required by the profession that goes beyond the classrooms. So we felt that having a facility on our campus, first of all, would address the issue of having our students get access to the training they require to get certified.

But secondly, because it’s in North Saanich, it’s actually a clinic that could be utilized to service the population where we’re very underserviced. The wait times, the lineups for any kind of health care in North Saanich and Victoria in general is substantially significant. We feel it can help bridge that gap.

The third piece, I think, which is really interesting, is because we’re a university and we do research, we can use the clinic to also do clinical-based research. That could be everything from drug trials or it could be trials in new technology to address health care.

We have a biomedical engineering program at UVic. Our professors in biomedical engineering are often coming over to Vancouver to go into the hospitals to test some of their new discoveries around health care devices, health care technologies. Having that clinic at UVic would really have an impact on those three areas — training, the public access and the research component, which I think would help also drive a big piece of the economy.

Sunita Dhir: That sounds like a great project.

For internationally trained professionals, you mentioned that you guys are trying to get microcredential courses. Is that only for the health care sector or for other engineering, veterinarians?

Kevin Hall:Yes, I’m very aware of your portfolio. We’re trying to do it across the board. I think any degrees that we offer at UVic, we feel that we can provide service to the profession and to international immigrants coming here by giving that upskilling and reskilling that’s required to meet the certification process in Canada. We’re looking at doing that both here in Victoria but we’re also looking at: could we do that offshore as well? Could we sort of do some kind of pre-clearance, pre-visa work with people who are interested in immigrating to Canada with professions where there is some upskilling and reskilling required.

Bryan Tepper: The housing, is the housing on the grounds or off? I was a little confused because I don’t know the area all that well.

Kevin Hall:The housing is on what we call our outlying lands project. There’s our main campus, but we have two pieces of property. One is just across McKenzie, beside Mount Douglas High School. That’s where we used to have a swimming pool and an ice rink — the ice rink’s still there — and the Saanich fire hall sits there.

That’s about 11 acres altogether. We’re planning on doing a development there of about 1,800 units. We’re restricted to six stories because of the geotechnical conditions there, unfortunately.

The second piece is on Cedar Hill Cross Road. It’s in Oak Bay, at the corner of Cedar Hill and Cadboro Bay Road, essentially. That’s 28 acres. We anticipate we could do between 5,000 and 6,000 units there.

The project at the Ian Stewart complex is moving along fairly well. We’re having a little bit of a struggle with Saanich on a few issues around permitting. But it’s moving well.

We’ve got some Indigenous consultation going on. The piece on Cedar Hill Cross Road is moving much slower because we’re working with Oak Bay on that. I know they’re going through some OCP changes right now. We’re hoping to be part of that so that we’re ready to roll once that OCP change is made by the end of the year.

[9:50 a.m.]

Bryan Tepper: If I can just quickly…. I know we’re out of time now.

So the one close to — on campus, really — any student housing in that, or is that all market-based?

Kevin Hall:It’ll be a combination. What we hope is that through the rental system, we can allocate some of the properties to things like graduate students, many of them typically have families, perhaps undergraduate students with families.

so the one on campus really, is that any student housing in that or is that all market based?

Kevin Hall: It will be a combination. What we hope is through the rental system we can allocate some of the properties to things like graduate students. Many of them typically have families, perhaps undergraduate students with families. So it will be a combination of student and market driven.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. Okay, well thanks for coming and presenting with us today, Dr. Hall. We will now get the next presenter up. Thank you.

So next presenter we have is Dr. Nikki Macdonald from B.C. Association of Institutes and Universities. Same thing, you have five minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions from committee members.

Nikki Macdonald: Thank you very much. Good morning. I’d like to thank the Chair and members for this opportunity to present on behalf of the Pacific Association of Canadian Institutes and Universities. I represent nine public post-secondary institutions at British Columbia and the Yukon. We recently changed our name from the British Columbia Association of Institutes and Universities to reflect the broader geography of the Yukon.

In British Columbia, my members include Kwantlen Polytechnic University, Capilano University, Emily Carr University of Art and Design, Vancouver Island University, the Justice Institute of British Columbia, Nicola Valley Institute of Technology, the University of Fraser Valley and British Columbia Institute of Technology. As you can see, we are a diverse group, but we share a common focus on applied learning, creating opportunities for students to learn in their communities and through flexible learning along with our degree programs. We offer skilled trades training, work-integrated learning and micro-credentials. We also conduct applied research in partnership with industry.

There are two recommendations that I would like to propose to the committee. The first recommendation is for the committee, in its report, to specifically recognize the vital role of public post-secondary institutions in building the resilience and productivity of the B.C. economy.

In health care, our MI members provide training in critical programs in policing, paramedical, nursing, biomedical engineering, as well as specialists in MRI, radiation therapy and medical lab technologies.

Our graduates are essential to address the housing crisis. We provide specialized training and apprenticeships to build diverse forms of housing. Our members partner with industry to provide training for vital sectors such as manufacturing and transportation, and we are working with industry partners to grow the film, animation and television sectors in B.C.

Our members are directly engaged with First Nations from Squamish to Vancouver Island. Nicola Valley Institute of Technology, as British Columbia’s Indigenous Public Post-Secondary Institute, has a specific mandate from the province to work with local Indigenous communities to deliver programs informed by them.

The second recommendation is that the committee encourage the British Columbia government to continue to work in partnership with the public post-secondary institutions towards a model of financial sustainability. Two years ago, public post-secondary institutions were contending with the lingering effects of the pandemic and a funding model that was out of date. The result was that many institutions were facing deficits. Public post-secondary institutions have only two levers to address deficits. They can reduce costs or increase revenue.

During the past two years, my members have taken a two-pronged approach to reduce costs. First, they conducted program and service reviews to streamline and make improvements while driving efficiencies. Second, they made across-the-board reduction to operating expenditures and reduced costs through vacancy management and staff reductions via early retirement packages.

Public post-secondary institutions have only three sources of revenue: domestic tuition, which is capped at 2 percent increase; an operating grant from the province; and international student tuition. Over the past year, public post-secondary institutions have seen a sharp drop in revenue from international student tuition. This is a direct result of the federal policy changes for international students.

[9:55 a.m.]

The impact is twofold. First, the federal policy changes were made in a chaotic manner. We have 13 policy changes over 10 months. As a consequence, international students stopped applying to study in Canada because of the instability. Secondly, the federal government significantly reduced the number of international students being admitted to Canada.

manner. We had 13 policy changes over ten months. As a consequence, international students stopped applying to study in Canada because of the instability.

Secondly, the federal government significantly reduced the number of international students being admitted to Canada. Public post-secondary institutions and communities across British Columbia are now making the tough decision to close programs and lay off faculty and staff. This affects not only local economies but more broadly the B.C. economy. We need the public post-secondary sector for the skilled labour force, research and innovation to face the challenges of the U.S. tariffs and the changing global economy.

I’m happy to take your questions. Thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. Questions from members.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much. You have a tough job. This is a huge variety of different sectors and different areas of focus that you represent.

When you are talking about recognizing the value of public education in the growing economy, especially as it relates to the practical hands-on work that many of your members do, could you be a little bit more specific in how you think the Finance Committee could bring that forward?

Nikki Macdonald: One of the things that we’ve learned through some of the public surveys that have been conducted by the national associations is that the public doesn’t understand, necessarily, the value of public post-secondary education. And so what we’re really looking for out of the committee is this is an investment that we as taxpayers have already made into our institutions. So when we talk about training, for example, it’s really about encouraging those training programs that are being delivered by BCIT or some of my other members, rather than, for example, going with some private training facilities.

Sunita Dhir: Thank you so much. Looking at the revenue, you have three types of revenues. It is unfortunate that international students’ revenue is down significantly because of the change in federal policies.

For domestic students, are there any measures being taken for higher enrolment? Like, what’s being done to increase the revenue there?

Nikki Macdonald: Well, in terms of increasing the enrolment, what we’re looking at are two things. One is obviously looking at the demographics 18 to 24. And that’s where the flexible learning, I think, has resonance because many students want to be able to go and do a post-secondary program, but they want to stay in their communities. Having online learning, having…. Many of my institutions are what are called “access institutions” which means they really encourage students of all…. They support a student to come in to post-secondary differently, a little bit, from UBC or SFU, which have a higher grade point average. So growing that domestic population.

The other group we’re really looking at is what I call the 25-to-58-year-olds. And those are people who want to continue to learn. I think Kevin in his presentation talked about “upskilling.” They want to be able to learn, but they want to continue to work. So that’s where the micro-credentials…. BCIT, for example, was one of the real innovators in micro-credentials early on.

All of my members now provide different types of flexible learning so people can work and learn at the same time.

Steve Morissette: Thank you. Have you looked at…? With international students, they’re not going to come anymore because they can’t stay, correct?

Nikki Macdonald: Well, no, we’re just… They’re not applying. So, we’re seeing three changes. One is our members participate in international fairs across the world, and people aren’t coming to Canada’s desk to say: “What does it take? Can I come to Canada to study?” So, we’re seeing a drop in interest in coming to Canada.

We’re also seeing, as you noted, because of the postgraduate work permit, particularly for my members and the type of learning that we provide, that was very important for students to be able to come in to do a biomedical engineering program and then to know that they could move into the workforce and potentially to permanent immigration.

[10:00 a.m.]

Steve Morissette: And just to follow up to that, is there any opportunity…? Have you looked at like bringing students from south of us that don’t necessarily want to stay here, that may want to come up here for education? It may be cheaper because of the cost

into the workforce and potentially to permanent immigration.

Steve Morissette: Just a follow-up to that, is there any opportunity…? Have you looked at, like, bringing students from south of us that don’t necessarily want to stay here, that may want to come up here for education? It may be cheaper because of the cost, because of the difference in the dollar.

Dr. Nikki Macdonald: Absolutely. Yeah, we do, quite a bit, recruit students who come for the Canadian credential. British Columbia has a quality assessment process that is top of the world. People come here to get that credential because they know it can be accepted around the world. Not all of our international students are coming here to stay. They’re coming, as well, to get that credential and then take that to whatever the next part of their journey.

Sunita Dhir: I have another question. In terms of provincial grants, do you see any significant change from previous years, or is it always the same?

Dr. Nikki Macdonald: It’s pretty much the same. We would describe it as flatlined. One thing that the B.C. government has been generous, if I compare it, for example, with Ontario or the Atlantic provinces, is they do fund the collective agreement increase. When you look year to year on our…. Because we are part of the government reporting entity, if you look at our financials, it will appear that there has been an increase. In fact, that’s really an increase in supporting that collective agreement.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much, Dr. Macdonald.

We’ll get the next presenters now from Royal Roads University. If I can get Mr. Alex Kortum to come to the front, please.

You have five minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions from members. Whenever you’re ready, please begin.

Royal Roads University

Alex Kortum: Good morning, Chair and committee members. It’s a privilege to join you on the lands of the Esquimalt and Songhees Nations. I’m Alex Kortum. I’m the vice-president of finance operations at Royal Roads University.

I know I’m one of several post-secondary speakers today and that you will likely be hearing a lot of the same. We are, as a sector, experiencing unprecedented challenge. Taken together, changes in immigration policy, geopolitical tensions and issues of affordability have strongly impacted the sector.

We know how important it is to activate strategies that drive economic development, increase productivity and foster innovation. To continue contributing to growing and strengthening the economy in British Columbia, Royal Roads provides the committee with three recommendations today.

One, invest in sustainable funding that represents both an investment in post-secondary education and support for key capital projects. A good example of this is government support for the new John Horgan campus and the implementation of the West Shore education partnership, for which we are incredibly grateful. This initiative brings five educational institutions together and offers British Columbians a range of educational experiences. As this new building and our new programs get up and running, we look forward to continuing to work with government on future capital projects.

Secondly, Royal Roads recommends continuing to work with the federal government on internationalization of education. Of course, this includes bringing students to Canada, but it could also mean diversifying revenue sources by opening new campuses in transnational locations. If students can’t come to us due to challenging immigration policies, we can work to bring high-quality, accessible education to them.

Finally, Royal Roads recommends streamlining resource intensive administrative processes, in particular modernizing government’s degree quality assurance process to support a more efficient and normal evaluation process so institutions from across British Columbia can dynamically adapt to meet the needs of today’s learners and labour market.

[10:05 a.m.]

In closing, post-secondary institutions are foundational in a democratic society. They teach and train, build the skilled and talented workforce that drives our economy, ensuring we have strong communities and a prosperous B.C. Continued and sustainable funding for B.C.’s public

post-secondary institutions are foundational in a democratic society. They teach and train both the skilled and talented workforce that drives our economy, ensuring we have strong communities and a prosperous B.C. Continued and sustainable funding for B.C.’s public universities is an essential tool for growing a resilient economy.

We are committed to meeting the moment in partnership with government, industry and other institutions, to work with Ottawa to speed up international admissions processes for those students who are permitted to study here. We are committed to providing relevant programs and working together with education and industry partners in British Columbia to strengthen our communities through learning.

Our vision is inspiring people with courage to transform the world. Thank you for your time today, and I’d welcome any questions you may have, Chair.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much.

I will go to questions from members. I will go to MLA Blatherwick.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much. Thank you for your presentation, and thank you for not even using all of your time.

I was just wanting to touch a little bit more on your third ask, which was the streamlining resource-intense projects. Am I understanding that correctly, that there are administrative processes that universities have to go through, and your thought is that there could be some kind of centralizing or resource-sharing that would eliminate administrative burden?

Alex Kortum: Yes, so when new programming is developed, ultimately, that is approved by the government or the B.C. Public Service, specifically the ministry. It’s quite a rigorous process. It can be lengthy.

I think there’s an opportunity to maybe take alternative approach. So for example, it could be a self-certification model where the government more does periodic audits on a sample of files, versus reviewing each and every application. Because ultimately what that does is slow down our ability to get programs to market and to learn as quickly.

Sunita Dhir: Thank you so much. My question is about the federal internationalization of education. I am so much interested in if they cannot come here, we can take the education there. That would make it easier.

What kind of projects do you have in mind for campuses in collaboration with foreign governments?

Alex Kortum: Yeah. I think a big role that government could play is promoting accessibility, enabling institutions like Royal Roads and other institutions in B.C. to be able to quickly establish programs in a country.

So for example, Royal Road recently has opened programming in the United Arab Emirates, where we are able to deliver programming. So continuing to support initiatives like that right across B.C. and for all institutions.

Sunita Dhir: Which faculty is that in UA?

Alex Kortum: Still on business.

Sunita Dhir: Business? Thank you so much.

Bryan Tepper: Well, to follow up on that…. You covered some of it. I have two questions. Progress on any of that — have you made any…? Is there movement towards getting anything open internationally?

And, you sort of covered it a bit. Provincial versus federal support. What can we do as opposed to federally? If you can cover that as well.

Alex Kortum: Absolutely. So in terms of provincial funding, we are enormously grateful for the funding that the province provides on the operating side. On the capital side, a lot of the funding has focused on student housing, and we would encourage the provincial government to continue with supporting student housing. It has a number of direct impacts to us, but also to availability of housing in British Columbia.

In terms of transnational programming or offering programming outside Canada, as I mentioned, we have recently opened programming in the Middle East out of the UAE. And we’re continuing to look at other opportunities throughout that era.

[10:10 a.m.]

Steve Morissette: So transnational programs — what’s the benefit of those?

continuing to look at other opportunities throughout that area.

Steve Morissette: Transnational programs — what’s the benefit of those? Is it providing financial sustainability for the institution?

Alex Kortum: That is one of the key benefits. I would say it also continues to build on Canadians’ reputation as a quality education provider right around the world.

Paul Choi (Chair): There are no other questions. Thank you so much for your time.

We will get the next presenter up.

Sunita Dhir: I do have another question, sorry.

Building on the same one, for international projects, I know currently you have business. Would you consider other faculties, like health sciences or any skilled trades?

Alex Kortum: Absolutely, and we are continuing to review those and build those out as demand.

Paul Choi (Chair): Next we will have Lorenda Calvert, from the B.C. Museums Association.

Thank you very much for joining us. Again, five minutes for the presentation and five minutes for questions from members. You can begin whenever you’re ready.

Lorenda Calvert: Good morning. My name is Lorenda Calvert. I’m the acting executive director for the B.C. Museums Association. Thank you for listening to me. This is my first time doing this, so I’m delighted.

Let me be clear. I know budgets are tight. I know there are a lot of priorities on your desk.

But here’s what we also know. The cultural sector contributes $8.9 billion to B.C.’s economy. That is larger than the impact of agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, which is $5.8 billion, and utilities, which is $6.3 billion, and similar to that of mining and oil and gas extraction, which is $8.2 billion.

The cultural sector supports over 100,000 jobs, and B.C. has the highest proportion of cultural workers in Canada. Seventy percent of B.C. tourists engage with cultural institutions. For every dollar invest, there is a return of $19 in economic activity, creating jobs, building infrastructure, attracting tourism and making our communities richer and more enjoyable places to live.

I’m asking you, our provincial leaders, our policy-makers, to take three clear, tangible steps in Budget 2026.

First, increase the B.C. Arts Council annual budget to $58 million and ensure that more money goes to the organizations applying. That’s not just operational funding. That’s community access, that’s stable jobs, and that’s what keeps the doors open in towns big and small.

Second, invest $150 million over five years in cultural innovation. Our sector is ready. They’ve got the plans, the teams and the vision to expand facilities, modernize exhibitions and connect with the next generation.

Third, create dedicated ongoing funding for reconciliation and repatriation, a $750,000 fund to support Indigenous communities in reclaiming their ancestors and belongings and a $500,000 fund to help museums do this work responsibly and aligned with UNDRIP.

As a B.C. resident, I am and was so incredibly proud that our government passed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act into law two years before our federal government would pass UNDRIP into law. This government’s commitment to those beliefs is clear and evident. Let’s continue with that good work.

Also, between 2017 and 2023, this government’s investments helped move B.C. from the bottom of the pack to leading the country in cultural funding. We saw positive GDP growth in the cultural sector while the rest of the country was in decline. But momentum only works if we keep pushing forward.

With inflation, rising costs and the end of COVID-era programs, institutions are back to survival mode, just trying to hold on to staff, programs and basic community services, all while both provincial and federal governments are encouraging Canadians to be tourists in their own country, to visit cultural landmarks and support local economies.

That is a good thing, but we’re pointing them towards museums and heritage sites that are understaffed and underfunded. That doesn’t just hurt our cultural institutions; it undermines our broader economic and social goals.

This is not a handout. It’s a high-yield investment with economic, social and cultural returns.

[10:15 a.m.]

Let me say this clearly. This work isn’t easy. Cultural workers are being threatened for telling hard truths about our history, for standing up for reconciliation, for creating spaces for LGBTQ voices. These folks are doing that work that strengthens our democracy, and they’re doing it while struggling to make rent or work in buildings that haven’t been updated in decades.

This government has stepped up in recognizing the needs

Cultural workers are being threatened for telling hard truths about our history, for standing up for reconciliation, for creating spaces for LGBTQ voices. These folks are doing that work that strengthens our democracy, and they’re doing it while struggling to make rent or work in buildings that haven’t been updated in decades.

This government has stepped up in recognizing the needs to invest in infrastructure. Cultural institutions deserve the same urgency, because museums aren’t just buildings filled with artifacts. They’re hubs of learning. They’re centres of community. They’re places where we wrestle with our past and imagine something better together.

If we believe museums matter, and if we believe the people who power them matter, as well, then we need to reflect that in our funding decisions. Let’s finish what we started, let’s protect the gains we’ve made, and let’s make sure that when we say we care about truth, reconciliation, creativity and community, our budgets back that up.

Thank you, and thank you for the work that you do. I hope I can answer any questions you have.

Paul Choi (Chair): Questions from members?

Sunita Dhir: How many museums are you representing here today?

Lorenda Calvert: We have a membership of between 450 and 500 museums, and there’s about 600 museums throughout the province. The BCMA uses a very broad definition of museum, so that includes historic houses, parks, aquariums, science centres. Our membership is broad.

Sunita Dhir: So around 600 museums?

Lorenda Calvert: Six hundred museums throughout the province, but our membership is about 500.

Sunita Dhir: Five hundred, okay.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Cultural sector is very broad, so can you tell me a little bit more about what that encompasses? What do you encompass in your ask for cultural sector?

Lorenda Calvert: Are you trying to understand what the cultural sector looks like or what that funding would mean for the cultural sector?

Jennifer Blatherwick: Oh, that is a great parsing question. But let’s start with what do…? Let’s more broadly define the cultural sector.

Lorenda Calvert: So for the BCMA, we define it as non-profit organizations that have a mandate for education. And that falls under things like museums, heritage houses, parks, aquariums, science centres. The cultural sector also includes arts. We work really closely with our partners at Arts B.C., theatres, and we work really closely with the associations with RAIL, which is the theatre association. I’m blanking on what their acronym stands for.

But the cultural sector includes arts, theatre, heritage houses, education centres like Science World. It’s broad. It’s places where you see performances, go to galleries, archives.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I’m just going to…. When you start to talk about cultural sector, and I looked at what you represent, and I thought, “Oh, that doesn’t really….” But you would be partnering and working collaboratively with the organizations that would collectively represent other members of the cultural sector.

Lorenda Calvert: When you look at the resources that we produce or the advocacy work that we’re doing, it overlaps frequently with those associations. And Archives B.C., I think, has 1.5 full-time staff members, so we’re all just going to try to work together.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Of course, thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any questions on this side?

Sunita Dhir: Listening to your recommendation about funding, the first one is…. You asked for $58 million to organize for jobs and community access. And then I understood the reconciliation funding of $758,000 and $500,000. The second ask is $150 million for innovation. Could you shed some light on that, please?

Lorenda Calvert: Sure, $150 million over five years for infrastructure investments. So a good example would be the Maritime Museum here that is looking to build the new facility in the Inner Harbour. Seeing a commitment for funding that would support infrastructure like that collaborative partnership that they have with the Esquimalt and Songhees Nations, that would be the kind of funding we’d love to see invested into the arts and culture sector.

Sunita Dhir: That answers the question.

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay. If there are no other questions, we’ll end it here.

Thank you so much for coming and presenting with us.

Lorenda Calvert: Thank you so much. This was really fun. I appreciate the opportunity. Have a great rest of your day.

[10:20 a.m.]

Paul Choi (Chair): Next, we will have Mr. Doug Jarvis from ProArt Alliance of Greater Victoria come and present. Good morning.

Doug Jarvis: Good morning.

Paul Choi (Chair): Again, five minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions, whenever you’re ready.

ProArt Alliance of Greater Victoria

Doug Jarvis: Okay, thank you very much. Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I’m happy to follow

ProArt Alliance of Greater Victoria come and present. Good morning.

Doug Jarvis: Good morning.

Paul Choi (Chair): Again, five minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions, whenever you’re ready.

ProArt Alliance of Greater Victoria

Doug Jarvis: Okay. Thank you very much. Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I’m happy to follow my colleague from the BCMA to keep it within the arts and culture sector. My name is Doug Jarvis, and I’m the administrator for the ProArt Alliance of Greater Victoria.

I want to acknowledge that ProArt and its 22 member organizations work on the traditional territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking peoples. We make our living here alongside the Songhees, xʷsepsəm and W̱SÁNEĆ peoples as artists, programmers, technicians, administrators, educators and in many other roles that work together to make art happen in our communities.

Our work is grounded in relationships with the land and with the peoples of this land. This is the context in which we gather here to offer perspectives on the value of the public support and resources that this province provides in service to the success, wellness and health of all of its citizens.

On behalf of the ProArt membership and the regional arts community, I want to thank you. Thank you for the work you have done and continue to do with communities to support the development of arts and cultural spaces as part of our critical social infrastructure.

Over the past year, B.C.’s arts and culture sector has faced the complexities of a rapidly shifting economic and political landscape. The re-election of the B.C. NDP has offered some continuity, a stabilizing factor amid broader uncertainties such as global trade tariffs that are disrupting international touring, supply chains and cultural exchange.

While much of public life has reanimated following the global health events of the early 2020s, the ripple effect of that period on workforce sustainability, organizational planning and audience engagement continue to be felt. Many of our member organizations are still managing the financial and psychological aftershocks of that time. Recovery is underway but is uneven and vulnerable to external pressures like inflation, the rising cost of living and escalating capital expenses.

One success story from this time is Open Space Arts Society, which undertook a major phase of access renovations to its location at 510 Fort Street here in Victoria. This project, made possible through a $270,000 investment from the B.C. Arts Council’s arts infrastructure program, allowed Open Space to significantly reduce physical barriers, install a long-needed elevator, upgrade its seismic safety, create gender-inclusive washrooms and reimagine its public space to better reflect the diversity of the communities it serves.

The provincial government’s recognition during the pandemic recovery period that cultural infrastructure required urgent attention made this project possible. ProArt believes that this recognition must be sustained. The conditions that made those investments necessary have not disappeared; they’ve evolved. While Open Space is one of the organizations that has benefited from such support, there are many others in our region with pressing infrastructure and facility needs.

Rising rental costs have led many groups to seek more stable, long-term solutions. For example, the Other Guys Theatre Co. is working to acquire a facility that will accommodate multiple performance venues in the downtown core. At the same time, the Victoria Arts Sustainability Coalition is developing a plan to secure a shared facility for five local arts organizations, consolidating expenses and creating space for collective sustainability.

Each of these initiatives requires public investment to ensure that arts organizations can continue to operate in a region with rising commercial property pressures. The arts sector in greater Victoria is both valuable and vital, and this region is ready to support multiple arts-owned facilities.

While I’m on the topic, who at the province can I speak with about the former Maritime Museum building in Bastion Square? It has been some time since stakeholders explored its cultural potential. I’d like to reopen that conversation. The building itself deserves renewed attention and could become a significant cultural hub here in the provincial capital.

In alignment with our provincial colleagues through the B.C. Coalition for Arts, Culture and Heritage, we offer the following three budget recommendations. One, strengthen the B.C. Arts Council core funding capacity. We urge the provincial government to follow through on its long-standing commitment to double the B.C. Arts Council’s annual budget to $58 million. This investment is about creating a durable foundation for innovation, stability and sustainability across the sector. In our region, core funding supports organizations like Open Space to engage local artists and reach underserved communities in meaningful ways.

[10:25 a.m.]

Two, sustain emergency-level support while the sector recovers. The 2023 one-time recovery funding helped many organizations survive a period of acute instability, but the recovery is ongoing. We recommend maintaining the $34.5 million in temporary stabilization funding over the next two fiscal years to avoid losing hard-won progress. Arts organizations are still contending with inflation, rising insurance costs, workforce precarity and sector-wide burnout.

Three, finally, co-create a provincial arts, culture and heritage action plan. We call on the province to work with the sector to co-develop a provincial action plan for arts, culture and heritage, grounded in equity, resilience and long-term vision. In greater Victoria, this would support

rising insurance costs, workforce precarity and sector-wide burnout.

And (3), finally, co-create a provincial arts, culture and heritage action plan. We call on the province to work with the sector to co-develop a provincial action plan for arts, culture and heritage, grounded in equity, resilience and long-term vision. In Greater Victoria, this would support regional cultural planning that aligns with municipal development, housing and community wellness strategies.

Thank you for your time and attention. We look forward to continuing our work with you to ensure that our sector not only survives but thrives in the years ahead.

I would welcome any questions. Thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Yes, a question from members?

Jennifer Blatherwick: I appreciate it. Obviously, there was some conversation about the priorities across the sector, and I really see that there’s some unanimity in these conversations.

Doug Jarvis: Yes.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Now, can we talk a little bit about your second funding priority? You mentioned you wanted a continuance of emergency level. Could you talk a little bit more about that?

Doug Jarvis: Yeah. That item, I think what we’re looking at is that, as we know, prior to the pandemic, it would be hard to say that everything was completely sustaining, development to sustaining, the arts organizations as they existed at that time. The pandemic, as we all know, kind of highlighted a lot of the deficiencies and brought a lot of the issues, and in particular infrastructure issues, to the surface.

I think what the sector and, specifically, the members, organizations of the B.C. coalition for arts, culture and heritage recognizes that that was great. Everybody appreciates that work, but we noticed with a lot of that kind of funding that that increase, it helped certain things immediately so that places could be stabilized. But what we also recognize is that there was already an existing need for long-term infrastructure development. So it kind of helped, right?

The existing need for long-term development, plus the ongoing rise in expenses and operating costs, are kind of now working together. I provide the example of Open Space. I also work at Open Space as the executive director, so I’m happy to address any questions to that specifically. But what I noticed during that time was that there was an emphasis on infrastructure support, and I was aware of that and took the opportunity to make the applications and to see that happen. I think, even in that, in our building, it was one thing to do with that building that took care of it.

Again, operating in a facility in a city such as Victoria, for example, it takes investment every few years to kind of keep up — right? — and to maintain. There’s a constantly changing kind of landscape of who needs spaces, what resources are necessary, the rising costs. You’ve probably heard that from absolutely everybody. So how do we do that in secure spaces with secure employment?

That’s a whole other area that is very necessary, sustainable jobs. For a community such as ProArt here in the capital region, we’re also having to be dealing with that transience, or people coming and going. So all of these things add up — infrastructure, operating costs and sustainable funding — as part of this. So continuing that emergency level is maybe just a recognition that things haven’t completely just gone back to normal or totally been taken care of where…. There’s that evolution of change that happening at the same time.

Jennifer Blatherwick: So when you’re talking about infrastructure, you’re referring to both capital investment in, say, like the spaces that currently exist and are perhaps rented or owned by arts organizations. Are you also encompassing human resources infrastructure and administrative infrastructure?

Doug Jarvis: I think they go hand in hand. Again, it’s hard to operate. Like, Open Space owns and operates its building, and it has for many years. It is one of the fortunate organizations to do so. As I say, arts-owned facilities here in the city, we need more of them.

But, yes, in order to maintain a building, our technician has gone from just kind of installing exhibitions in our gallery to maintaining a building. We have a commercial tenant. The pandemic, in particular, kind of decimated the local restaurant industry. You know, all of these things kind of add up and add into the costs and the administrative costs of maintaining buildings.

[10:30 a.m.]

That’s not unusual, right? I don’t want to say that the arts are different than any other sector or anybody else maintaining a building, but I think it’s just that we put so much energy, rightly so, into new projects, into artists, all of that, but we know in behind the scenes you can’t maintain a steady plan. You can’t expand on and introduce or support all kinds of other ways of being and other

or anybody else kind of maintaining a building.

But I think it’s just that we put so much energy, rightly so, into new projects, into artists, all of that. But we know, in behind the scenes, that you can’t maintain steady, plan, you can’t expand on and introduce or support all kinds of other ways of being and other ways of doing without some kind of stability to take that on, right?

And so I’d say yes, it does include all of those others.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): If there are no other questions, thank you so much for coming and presenting with us.

Doug Jarvis: Thank you very much. Thanks for the opportunity. Have a good day.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you. Thank you very much.

We will take a five minute recess. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 10:30 p.m. to 10:37 a.m.

The committee recessed from 10:30 p.m. to 10:37 a.m.

[Paul Choi in the chair.]

Paul Choi (Chair): We’ll call the committee back to order.

Next we have Mr. George Scott from International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees Local 168.

You have five minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions. Whenever you’re ready.

IATSE Local 168

George Scott: Thank you, and good morning. Honoured to be here. I am indeed George Scott. I serve as the president of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees Local 168 here on Vancouver Island. We are live-entertainment workers engaged in a variety of trades and crafts, with nine employers across the Island.

Yesterday alone we supported a ZZ Top concert at the Save-on-Foods Memorial Centre, a small local multicultural festival in Centennial Square, as well as a dance school recital at the Royal Theatre. That is a small scope of work that we undertake.

Our workers are parents of school-aged children. We are children of aging parents. We are active participants in the life of the places we live in. And we are taxpayers.

I have three asks of the committee. To speak to the first, the province currently provides a tax credit on production labour for filmed entertainment shot in British Columbia, which has been recently increased for foreign and domestic productions.

We understand the reasons for these credits, but they are not necessarily tied to telling Canadian stories. Those credits support telling any story set anywhere, a story that can be of any place. And those credits often go back to studios that are not based in British Columbia, having told American stories for international audiences.

We propose for the next budget a live-entertainment labour tax credit to mirror the one that supports our film industry that in fiscal ’23-24 saw the credit level absorbed by the province reach $909 million. A mere rounding error in the film entertainment tax credit could fund a live-entertainment labour tax credit.

Our first ask is the creation of such a credit system that would build capacity for artistic creation of the province by allowing arts creators and presenters to defray some of the costs of a show. Requirements that the story be written by British Columbians, based on a British Columbia story to be directed, composed, choreographed, designed and performed by British Columbians and presented in British Columbia venues could see the incubation of a show like Come From Away, a little Newfoundland story that took over the world, incubated at Sheridan College near Toronto — or not.

[10:40 a.m.]

But the stories are still worth telling, be they historical, modern or visions of a shared and culturally diverse future. These stories won’t get told without investment. In our current political climate, as we see threats from our friends to the south, B.C. stories seem even more important. Let’s tell B.C. stories in B.C.

We at IATSE 168 propose an initial investment for the next budget

In our current political climate, as we see threats from our friends to the south, B.C. stories seem even more important. Let’s tell B.C. stories in B.C.

We at IATSE 168 propose an initial investment for the next budget cycle of $9 million, that mere rounding error I spoke of earlier.

One challenge our industry faces affects many B.C. workers. For ZZ Top yesterday, our crews loaded in at 10 a.m. on a Sunday. Some workers worked the load-out call until 2 and then returned at 10 p.m. Some of our workers worked straight through from 10 a.m. to 2 a.m. this morning. Many of our shows are evenings and weekends.

We appreciate that the government has taken an effort to create $10-a-day daycare, but that does not work for our workers. It is built on a very old 9-to-5, Monday-to Friday-system. There are hundreds of workers in the province who do not work these old-economy schedules. We understand this because we’ve been a union of gig workers since 1893.

Our second ask is that if a $10-a-day daycare system can work for 9-to-5, Monday-to-Friday workers, can not a $15-a-day program function for those who do not?

We also know that the province is having challenges gaining and retaining health care workers. Imagine if they had access to 24-7, seven day a week, reasonable priced child care. Those are our two main asks.

The final ask is a commitment to fund the B.C. Arts Council, as promised by the government in 2017. That promise to double the funding for the B.C. Arts Council remains unmet. Respectfully submitted.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much and thank you for your presentation.

Can we talk a little bit about your first ask, the idea of a creation for a live entertainment tax credit. Now, what kind of expenses are you thinking that would defray or be set against?

George Scott: This would cover off the work of playwrights, dramaturges, choreographers — the full spectrum of people who are involved in the creation of a live performance piece. Actors don’t get paid very much money who work on the live side, but the companies that do pay them could effectively pay them more, near a living wage, if a labour tax credit like this was in place. Those actors are not represented by what’s traditionally a union, unlike our stage workers.

Bryan Tepper: To follow up on that then, I understand why the government brought in the tax credit for the for the film industry. We’re bringing in money from the outside of the country. How does that work?

I mean, let me say that I also understand the importance of telling B.C. stories as well, but that’s not bringing in money. So the tax credit is more of an economic influence, I would say, as opposed to that. Is there an economic influence that you see with that as well for the live entertainment?

George Scott:I mean, we spend money, right? We earn it in B.C., and we spend it in B.C. The last time I left this country was in 2005 because I haven’t had the means to do so since.

I think the fact that you’re giving B.C. artists the opportunity to get some more money, flow it through into the economy, effectively does that. This ask is, you know, let’s give it a run, see how it works, spend $9 million, right?

Bryan Tepper: Okay. I’m a huge fan of lower taxes for everybody, so it doesn’t go too far.

But I will move on to the child care. You explained it fairly well. Can you expand a little bit on more what you’re looking for in the child care?

George Scott: Obviously, we’re going to support $1-a-day daycare because we have a lot of parent members of our union. The challenge given our scope of work, as I noted yesterday at ZZ Top, is we had people who walked into the building at 10 a.m. on a Sunday and left at 2 a.m. this morning. There is no daycare available in that sort of schedule at any affordable rate.

[10:45 a.m.]

So people who should be earning in this economy have to make choices to not earn because they simply can’t afford that, right? That’s 16 hours of work, which is great, but if you’re paying two-thirds of that in child care, what is the purpose of going to work? Allowing parents of young children to be full members of the economy

hours of work, which is great, but if you’re paying two-thirds of that in child care, what is the purpose of going to work and allowing parents of young children to be full members of the economy?

Bryan Tepper: Do you have an idea of what you’re looking for then?

George Scott: I mean, the system’s already in place, and I appreciate it’s a funding challenge — everything is a funding challenge — of somehow extending it. And like I said, not necessarily the $10-a-day but any reasonably priced daycare being available.

The economy is not nine to five Monday to Friday anymore, right, which is why I noted we can support health care, probably, by allowing people to get back into the workforce if there is reasonably priced child care. It’s not just for us.

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay. Other questions?

Steve Morissette: Yeah, I totally understand that the child care piece. That’s a huge challenge. I know in my own riding, because we have a lot of shift workers in health care, in smelters, in pulp mills, one municipality is trying to do that — provide extended daycare.

The real tough issue is workers. It’s tough to get them for the day shift, let alone other shifts. So that’s a big challenge that we have to work through because this affects a lot of people throughout the province.

Yeah, so I guess not really a question but a comment that I understand. That is a big challenge.

George Scott: Absolutely.

Steve Morissette: Yeah.

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay, any other questions? No? Okay.

Thank you so much for your time. And thanks for your presentation.

George Scott: Thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much.

Okay, so next, we will go to the next presenter, Mr. Alan Lowe from the Victoria Chinatown Museum Society. Thank you so much. You have five minutes for presentation and five minutes for questions. You may begin whenever you’re ready.

Victoria Chinatown Museum Society

Alan Lowe: Thank you. Good morning. Thank you for allowing us to make this presentation. My name is Alan Lowe, founding chair of the Victoria Chinatown Museum Society, as well as the former mayor of the city of Victoria. I was also on the working committee that the late Premier John Horgan had created for the Chinese Canadian Museum Society and was also one of the founding directors of the Chinese Canadian Museum Society of British Columbia.

The Victoria Chinatown Museum Society — in Canada’s oldest Chinatown — was incorporated on January 9, 2020. We incorporated about five months before the Chinese Canadian Museum Society of B.C. The Chinese Canadian Museum, B.C., has had a lot of support from the British Columbia parliament as well as assisting them in building or in operation costs as well as having a building in downtown Chinatown in Vancouver.

Being the oldest Chinatown in Canada…. We believe that Victoria is a destination point for tourists. It is steeped with history, and there are a lot of stories to be told.

Our goal is to maintain the focus of Victoria Chinatown as a living museum and to recognize major milestones to our community that will educate the Chinese and broader community about the importance of Victoria’s Chinese community in shaping British Columbia and Canada.

We have had the Fan Tan Alley Museum open for about 2½ years now, and we have actually had over 150,000 guests come through. We are open by donation only, so we don’t charge an admission fee, and due to the location, we have been able to share the story to over 150,000 people. I think that that has been a great success.

We have also been able to operate this facility through donations from our generous patrons, all from the local Victoria area. We do not receive any government funding at this time to sustain our operations.

[10:50 a.m.]

We believe that the Chinese-Canadian heritage in Victoria and the stories that we have should be shared. We feel that this is great for tourism, great for arts and culture, and we believe that this will be an asset for British Columbia.

We have two simple asks: the committee to look at allocating some funds or more funds to tourism and culture, to

and the stories that we have should be shared. We feel that this is great for tourism, great for arts and culture. And we believe that this will be an asset for British Columbia.

We have two simple asks: the committee to look at allocating some funds or more funds to tourism and culture, to showcase assets such as the museum in Victoria, as well as the museum that is in Vancouver.

And we are looking for some support on an annual basis to the Victoria Chinatown Museum Society, due to the fact that we are a growing organization. We’re mainly operated by volunteers. And we have one and a half staff members at this point.

In order to be a flourishing museum, we really need to have an executive director, which is a curator that will bring our museum to the next stage, as well as having funds to operate and to change out our exhibits. Because if we don’t change out our exhibits, it’s going to go stale and we won’t have people coming back. We want our customers and our clients and our patrons to come back. We want to have opportunities to share our stories with not only local Victorians, but tourists alike, and we feel that we have a great story to tell.

Our requests are simple, our requests are minor, and we hope that we have your ear so that you could bring that back to the Legislature. Thank you very much.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much.

Questions from members?

Sunita Dhir: In terms of annual support to hire staff, do you have a figure in mind? How much do you think your budget will be?

Alan Lowe: Yes, we do. It’s not even a rounding error that we’re asking for: $200,000 a year.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Looking at your first request, which is more funding to tourism, arts and culture, can I just clarify: would you be applying or looking for additional funding through the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture or through the B.C. Arts Council or…?

Alan Lowe: Any way we can. We would apply for any grants that are available, but if there was a line item saying that “we’d like to give a certain amount to the Victoria Chinatown Museum Society,” it would be even simpler for me.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions? No? Okay.

Thank you so much for your presentation.

Alan Lowe: Thank you for your time.

Paul Choi (Chair): Just checking if we have Narisse Christensen. No? Okay.

Next, I will go to Mr. Ryan Hunt for Museum of Vancouver.

Thank you so much for coming today. You have five minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions. You may begin whenever you’re ready.

Ryan Hunt: Thank you so much. Hi, my name is Ryan Hunt. I’m the CEO of the Museum of Vancouver, located on the sovereign territories of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ peoples. I’m here to talk about why funding arts, culture and heritage is a sound investment for the government of B.C. in Budget 2026.

In this current era, where all levels of government are more concerned than ever in return on investment, investing in cultural institutions like my own has a proven track record of that return. In fact, it’s one of the most sound cultural investments that any government can make.

A recent study by Hill Strategies found that the overall GDP impact of Canada’s arts, culture and heritage sector is $73 billion annually, making it larger than agriculture, larger than accommodation and food services and even larger than oil and gas extraction.

In an era where organizations like the Business Council of B.C. are calling on government to “put the economy on the top list of priorities,” investing in arts, culture and heritage is not an act of charity; it’s a sound fiscal investment.

With this, I implore you to keep in mind three policy recommendations. First, that the government of B.C. increase the B.C. Arts Council’s annual budget to $58 million annually.

Second, that the government of B.C. establish a strategic infrastructure investment of $150 million over the next five years.

[10:55 a.m.]

And third, that the government partner with the arts, culture and heritage sector, as well as Indigenous cultural organizations to establish permanent ongoing funding that supports repatriation.

The first recommendation to increase the B.C. Arts Council’s budget has recently been

of $150 million over the next five years.

And third, that the government partner with the arts, culture and heritage sector, as well as Indigenous cultural organizations to establish permanent, ongoing funding that supports repatriation.

The first recommendation to increase the B.C. Arts Council’s budget has recently been echoed by the B.C. Union of Municipalities. For organizations like my own, increased cultural investment during the COVID years made the difference between our ability to grow and stagnate. Using the increased investments in the B.C. Arts Council that started with the B.C. NDP in 2017, we’ve been able to expand our booking programs to increase new permanent streams of revenue, to build deeper relationships with host nations, ensuring that we are being more equitable and able to embody reconciliation in a more real way. And overall, for the first time in the better part of a decade, have sufficient staff capacity to meet our needs and mandate as an organization.

The second recommendation to create an investment in strategic infrastructure for the cultural sector, $150 million over the next five years, organizations like my own and dozens, if not hundreds, of cultural institutions around the province have shovel-ready projects that are ready to go. And with a small investment from the government, we can actually get ahead of a lot of our needs for the first time in a long time, modernizing our exhibits, embracing emerging technologies, and actually being strategic with considerable forethought in how we use those investments. Again, to create an ongoing return on investment.

And lastly, and I think most critically, I implore the government to create an ongoing fund that supports repatriation of Indigenous belongings in museums. I join my colleagues at the B.C. Museums Association recommending an annual investment of no less than $750,000 and that money be administered for and by Indigenous communities through an organization like First Peoples Cultural Council.

Something that I think is not widely understood outside of the sector is that the work of repatriation is slow and expensive. For an example of that, in 2017, I won’t give the specifics out of cultural consideration, the Museum of Vancouver worked with an Indigenous community to repatriate a number of small belongings. This was not a large project, it was not a large repatriation like the recent repatriation of a totem pole from the Royal B.C. Museum, but simply through travel, consultations, ensuring that the items were properly packaged and shipped safely, that repatriation work took two years and cost $40,000. Around a third of museums in B.C. have Indigenous belongings in their collections, and two-thirds of museums operate on less than $200,000 annually.

An organization like ours has the financial position to make a $40,000 investment in redressing past harms. But for so many organizations, it’s outside of their financial reality, which means no matter how much they support repatriation and how right they see it, it just means they don’t have the funding to do the work properly. Having the ongoing support for repatriation in B.C. would be a meaningful step towards the government’s obligations towards DRIPA and would make a lasting legacy of reconciliation in our province.

So that’s all my time. Thank you so much.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thanks very much. Questions from members.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much. I appreciate your presentation.

I’m just looking at the idea of increasing funding to the strategic infrastructure. We’ve heard some conversation here about the sort of overlapping idea of infrastructure. And specifically you spoke about capital projects, so investing in physical buildings. But we’ve heard from other presenters that for them, the idea of infrastructure also encompassed human resource costs, administrative costs. And I was wondering if you could touch a little bit on that idea in relation to sustainability for your sector.

Ryan Hunt: Well, we would never say no to human infrastructure because that is honestly one of the most challenging things to fund, no matter what the sector. You hear of buildings being built without people to put in them. That’s very true in the cultural sector.

And as well, a lot of ongoing revenue-generating activities need people to sustain them. At the Museum of Vancouver right now, we’re working to redevelop our gift shop, which will require both capital and human resources to maintain and grow. So I think that would be a tremendous support for any industry.

[11:00 a.m.]

Bryan Tepper: Repatriation…. I might be a little confused. You said bringing them to museums, but places with museums already have them, which is, as we heard earlier, part of the overarching group of — I can’t remember now — the museum organization, so

Bryan Tepper: Repatriation…. I might be a little confused. You said bringing them to museums, but places with museums already have them, which is, as we heard earlier, part of the overarching group of — can’t remember now — the museum organization. So are you talking about moving them from the other museums around into yours, or just finding them and bringing them into the local museums?

Ryan Hunt: Yeah, so repatriation can take a lot of forms. Kind of its most straightforward is, say, the Museum of Vancouver has Haida belongings in its collections. It works with the Haida Nation to return those to whatever facility the Haida deemed most appropriate. That’s kind of the most straightforward return.]

But there are also a lot of really complicated situations where, for example, say the Royal Ontario Museum has belongings from a nation here, but the Royal Ontario Museum won’t return those belongings unless they go to a museum. If that nation doesn’t have one, it might be a situation where the Museum of Vancouver would partner with, say, the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh to bring home Sḵwx̱wú7mesh belongings to their territory while the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh build up the ability to host it in their own cultural centre.

Often when it comes to international repatriations, there’s honestly an untold number of belongings housed in international collections. Many times, non-Indigenous museums have to be an intermediary between the international organizations or collectors and the nations here. So it’s kind of…. It’s a bit of a murky, complex situation that can take a lot of different forms.

Bryan Tepper: I was confused as to where the museums we’re talking about…. I was like, from Cranbrook to somewhere else or whatever, but no, that clears it up. Thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Great. If there’s no other questions, thank you so much for your time and we’ll have the next presenter up.

I will next ask for Mr. Bruce Batchelor from Trelawny Consulting Group.

Thanks for coming. Same thing, five minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions. You may begin whenever you’re ready.

Bruce Batchelor: Thanks very much for making time for me to present here. I guess I’m going to suggest something a little different. I’m not looking for more money. I’m actually talking about some programs that will save the government a lot of money.

A trio of innovative transportation programs would rapidly deliver significant improvement on key government priorities and CleanBC targets, helping with affordability for families, strengthening our economy, cutting traffic congestion and even improving B.C.’s balance of trade. The projected cost to government would be about $9 million per year and the net savings to government is projected to be well over $100 million per year.

The daily trips that B.C. citizens and businesses undertake have massive consequences for affordability, health, safety, the economy, environment and government costs. There is a deep need and an urgency to take action to improve on all these fronts. And huge improvement is possible. So there’s three transportation efficiencies programs that have been tested and could be rolled out even this year, awaiting only approval from the Premier and cabinet. Together these…. Well, I just already mentioned those things.

I’m just going to talk about what the three programs are. One of them is a safe, accessible, active and affordable routes to school program that would be launched with every one of B.C.’s elementary, middle and secondary schools, and that’s about hundred schools and the students, teachers and PACs would have $1000 annually to collaborate on tangible actions for their school community, drawing initially on a menu of ten tactics. The students themselves will share their progress and innovations through explainer videos they post on a dedicated wiki, which is closed and moderated, so no trolls or advertising. This creates a virtuous feedback loop to increase participation and impact.

[11:05 a.m.]

The second program is a trip choices improvement program. This concept has been already formally approved and advocated by the boards of Metro Vancouver and the capital regional district. This program would require all large employers and major trip generators in B.C. to assess and make best efforts to improve on the VKT, that’s the vehicle kilometres travelled, mode share and carbon burden associated with their employees’ commutes, with their clientele’s trips and their local service and delivery.

B.C. to assess and make best efforts to improve on the VKT, vehicle kilometres travelled, mode share and carbon burden associated with their employees’ commutes, with their clientele’s trips and their local service and delivery.

When TCIP is fully rolled out over the next four years, managers at B.C.’s 87 largest employers will be empowered to be making improvements to the trip choices of over half of B.C.’s workforce, and we will be supporting managers in analyzing and implementing across 15 complete tactic toolboxes.

The third program is pay-as-you-drive insurance, which would be introduced by ICBC in stages to various classes of vehicle owners, perhaps beginning with the owners of new EVs as soon as possible. There’d be no tiers as exist now. All policies would be priced totally on a per-kilometre basis. No tracking technology is required. Instead, drivers can update their automatic billing by submitting photos of the odometer in a similar manner to depositing a cheque in online banking.

Inducements to reduce driving would follow the pattern of B.C. Hydro’s peak savers program. Rates would be set separately for rural and urban drivers and for essential work. No one would pay more than currently, because lower VKT should create fewer claims. Over time, road usage charges can be transitioned from fuel taxes to pay-as-you-drive insurance, or paydee, with much less opposition than congestion charges, tolls or higher registration fees.

I’ll just skip through. If anybody wants more details on it, I have some papers here. I understand I can’t formally give them to you, but you can take them if you want.

Our recommendations to the committee are two. Allocate a development and operations budget totalling $9 million annually to cover developing and operating the three transportation efficiency programs. The second is that we recommend that budget oversight of this contract be managed by the Premier’s office.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much.

We’ll turn to questions from members.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you for your presentation.

I’m just trying to parse a little bit. I’m not familiar with Trelawny Consulting Group and how you’re connected to these three projects.

Bruce Batchelor: Okay. I’m the CEO of Trelawny Consulting Group. During the 1990s, we did oodles of management and communications consulting to the government. I’m sort of back because I wanted to push these. I’m sort of obsessed with pushing through these ideas. There seems to be a huge need to be more efficient with transportation in a way that’s equitable, that’s affordable and has so many benefits.

I’ve been developing apps and doing international research and interviewing — I’ve talked to eight cabinet ministers so far, for example, and people in all the ministries — to refine these programs and figure out how we can actually achieve the CleanBC targets of reducing vehicle kilometres travelled and improving the mode share of walking, cycling and buses.

This is an initiative that has involved lots of consultants in B.C. to create this, an informal consortium who have been working on it, doing things like pilot projects, testing it out, building apps, consulting widely.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I was wondering if we could talk a little bit more about the trip choices improvement program. Clearly this is a passion of yours. When you’re saying the trip choices improvement program, are you saying that there is already digital infrastructure that has been built for this program?

Bruce Batchelor: Yes, and there’s more that we can access and roll out further. Some of the key concepts here are that…. In society, we have governments doing a lot of things to try and improve on this. We have individuals that are trying to improve on this. We have municipalities. But what we really don’t have working on this is larger organizations.

[11:10 a.m.]

Those organizations might be school boards. They might be health authorities. They might be companies. For most of those, almost all the studies we’ve seen…. When they improve the commuting, especially, of their employees, it benefits them tangibly

school boards, they might be health authorities, they might be companies. For most of those, in almost all the studies we’ve seen, when they improve the commuting, especially, of their employees, it benefits them tangibly.

The costs for doing some of these things are usually quite minimal, and the benefits are huge. Just for an example, studies out of the U.K. said that if people have a shorter commute, if you can give them a shorter commute, you’ll get seven extra days’ worth of productivity a year from them.

Some of the things that you’re doing could be as simple as hooking up with carpools. They could be helping people work at a closer location. Most of these things don’t cost hardly anything. Yet businesses and large organizations, ministries, don’t know about it.

Also, for change to happen, it really has to come at the policy level. It has to come down from the top. That’s why the two regional government organizations have recognized that what we need to do is require all organizations to assess what’s going on and have a look at what they could do.

They just have to report annually on that carbon burden and the VKT and then tell us what they did. If they do nothing, that’s fine. Next year they put in the same figure.

But you do have a possibility here of awakening, in many, many organizations, what is, I think, there. I think there are people in almost all organizations who would like improvement. They need to have authority and responsibility coming down from the top. That’s why it would be mandatory for all large organizations to do this.

The starting large organizations could be ones that are public sector organizations. That doesn’t require any new legislation at all because in the Climate Change Accountability Act, the government has the power. Cabinet could just make a regulation. So we could get started right away.

Sunita Dhir: This is an interesting idea, but developing a plan for the whole province seems a little bit complicated. Have you had any success in the past? Do you have any examples of any success stories? At the municipal level, I can think of some success for schools. But provincially….

Bruce Batchelor: Thanks for the question. If you’re doing a program and we’ve rolled out pilot projects and stuff, it really doesn’t take any more work to scale up, in this age where we have technology and tools to do things.

Most programs aren’t being rolled out person to person. What we’re talking here is not having a situation like you have for WorkSafeBC or food, where you have inspectors everywhere. Instead, most of the program will be delivered electronically in the modern way of doing things, creating wikis, having forums, having apps that work.

Once you roll those out in a small situation, expanding doesn’t take hardly anything else. The real key here is that we can actually operate on a provincial scale without really a problem for doing that.

An example could be…. Before, you might have to have somebody in person conduct a little workshop on some tactic that is happening, and instead, now what we can do is make an explainer video. I’m sure every one of you has used an explainer video to stop a leaking tap or something else like this.

The idea can be to put the agency in the hands of people who are very capable in organizations and schools and places like that. Just give them the menu, give them the tools, the tactics. Once you build up that toolbox, then they can look at it and say: “What applies to us? What can I do? Here are all the details of what I need to do.”

Does that sort of make sense to you?

Sunita Dhir: Yes. Thank you so much. This is a new concept, but it does make sense, yes.

Bruce Batchelor: Yeah, it is a new way of looking at it, and B.C. would actually be leaders in doing this on a scale like this and using the modern technology.

[11:15 a.m.]

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much. That is time. Thanks so much for presenting to us.

We’ll have the next presenter up. Next will be Ms. Shelley Besse from First West Credit Union.

like this and using the modern technology.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thanks so much for presenting to us.

We’ll have the next presenter up. Next will be Ms. Shelley Besse from First West Credit Union.

Thank you for joining us. Again, five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions from members. You may begin whenever you’re ready.

First West Credit Union

Shelley Besse: Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Shelley Besse, and I’m the chief credit officer at First West Credit Union, one of Canada’s largest credit unions. We are headquartered in Langley, British Columbia, and operate across British Columbia.

I’m here to offer recommendations shaped by our experience in financial services. With the right policies, B.C. can lead the country in building a more inclusive, resilient and community-focused financial system.

First West serves more than 280,000 members throughout Envision Financial, Island Savings, Valley First and our Enderby brands. We manage more than $19.6 billion in assets and employ 1,300 British Columbians. One third of our branches are located in communities with fewer than 10,000 people — including Hope, Keremeos and Enderby — where we are, today or will soon be, the only financial institution in that community.

As British Columbians face rising inflation, housing challenges and pressures on small businesses, credit unions like us are uniquely positioned to help. We offer locally informed solutions and reinvest profits and expertise into our communities. But to continue delivering the impact, we need supportive policies, regulation that reflects our distinct cooperative model.

Here are the three recommendations. First, remove interprovincial trade barriers in financial services. Despite federal commitments to improve competition in the financial sector, the reality tells a very different story. On one side are trillion-dollar banks, while on the other, a long list of small credit unions. What’s missing is a strong middle tier.

Institutions like First West are ready to grow but are constrained by outdated, duplicative and fragmented regulations. Among Canada’s top financial institutions, few are credit unions, and even fewer can expand nationally under the current rules. This isn’t just our issue; it’s about national competitiveness. We’re not asking for special treatment, just a level playing field, streamlined regulations, interprovincial operations and timely approvals for provincial credit unions to operate federally.

One of our members, a major B.C.-based developer in the Okanagan, has successfully expanded their operations across the four western provinces. While they deeply value their relationship with First West, we are restricted from lending outside of British Columbia. As a result, this member has no choice but to seek financing from other financial institutions. Removing provincial barriers and enabling First West to operate nationally would allow us to continue serving our growing member with the consistency and financial expertise they trust.

We urge the committee to support harmonized financial regulations so credit unions can grow responsibly and serve more Canadians, especially in underserved areas.

Our second ask is to re-establish B.C. as a centre of excellence in cooperative banking. B.C. has a strong legacy in cooperative finance, but that leadership is at risk. The U.K. Labour Party has committed to doubling the size of its co-op sector as part of its economic plan. B.C. can and should match this ambition. This requires policy reform, investment incentives and regulation that supports credit unions as engines of inclusive growth. Government procurement and investment must start including credit unions, not just out-of-province banks.

Let’s ask: who provides banking that supports government programs and initiatives? Too often, it’s not credit unions. Let’s change that and position B.C. credit unions as integral to our economy, just as Desjardins is to Quebec.

[11:20 a.m.]

Our third recommendation: empower Canadians through cooperative finance. Credit unions are Canadian-owned, locally governed and purpose-driven. We support small businesses, entrepreneurs and homeowners often overlooked by the banks. Our roots go back to the 1940s when Ladner fishermen and Fraser Valley immigrant farmers were denied fair financing and started their own credit unions that became First West.

Today we see similar needs. Small business owners seeking flexible financing, first-time homebuyers navigating a challenging market and community groups needing

when Ladner fishermen and Fraser Valley immigrant farmers were denied fair financing and started their own credit unions that became First West.

Today, we see similar needs — small business owners seeking flexible financing, first-time homebuyers navigating a challenging market and community groups needing support. In many rural communities, we are the only financial institution present. We are there when others are not.

We urge the government to partner with credit unions on housing, small business growth, digital infrastructure and financial literacy to advance B.C.’s economic goals. Now is the time for bold leadership. As you prepare budget recommendations, we urge you to remove barriers that limit credit unions from expanding across Canada, commit to making our province a centre of excellence for cooperative banking, and include credit unions in the province’s investment and procurement strategies.

Together, we can build a strong, more inclusive economy and financial sector for all of British Columbians. Thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. Questions from members.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you for your presentation. I think one of the things I’d be really interested in hearing more about…. I understand the interprovincial trade barriers, and you’ve mentioned harmonizing requirements and ensuring that there is no restriction to lending in other provinces. Now, are those the only barriers that you perceive to nationalizing British Columbia cooperative banking, or are there other ones?

Shelley Besse: The trade barriers are different for each province. So the reason for the harmonization is to ensure that there’s a level playing field across Canada. Today, as I had shared, we’re restricted from doing any lending or taking deposits from members that are outside of the province of British Columbia.

What we’re asking for is to work…. It could be working together between provinces to look at how you harmonize regulation. It could be creating a passport type that the U.K. and Switzerland also have. So there may not necessarily be one option. There could be many options that government could look at.

Sunita Dhir: My question is about the insurance for banks versus credit unions. I do understand, with my limited knowledge in finance, that banks provide national-level insurance.

Shelley Besse: CDIC.

Sunita Dhir: CDIC. I had forgotten that word. So credit unions are more provincially insured?

Shelley Besse: Yes. Each province has its own deposit insurance corporation, and each province can be different. That’s where there needs to be some harmonization.

Sunita Dhir: So that has to change as well?

Shelley Besse: I think it depends on the options that government could look at. It may not necessarily be a requirement. It really depends on what options could come forward that would work between the provinces.

Sunita Dhir: Thanks. That answers my question.

Bryan Tepper: I didn’t get enough on cooperative finance. Could you just tell me more about that?

Shelley Besse: So the second recommendation around cooperative finance?

Bryan Tepper: Yeah.

Shelley Besse: Today British Columbia is home to three of the largest credit unions in Canada. We’ve had a strong cooperative…. Cooperative is credit union. It means member-owned. We’ve had very strong history. But just recently, Vancity has now moved into the second-largest credit union, behind Servus in Alberta.

What we’re saying is there’s an opportunity for a number of things. Firstly, for credit unions to be at the table when government is considering policy or legislative changes or updates to ensure that there’s a voice for credit unions on those types of things that will impact credit unions.

It’s an opportunity for us to look at growing beyond our provincial boundaries today. If you were to create a credit union system today, you likely would not bound it by provincial boundaries. You would look at having a system that worked across the country.

Bryan Tepper: So you’re talking about a B.C. credit union being able to finance out of Alberta?

Shelley Besse: Yep.

Bryan Tepper: Yep. Okay.

[11:25 a.m.]

Jennifer Blatherwick: Sorry, if we could just go back to how you see credit unions fitting into the procurement strategy. I’m hoping you can offer a little bit more detail there.

Shelley Besse: I think we would need to better understand the opportunities. It may be that we may have members that could provide services to the government. It could be that

how you see credit unions fitting into the procurement strategy, and I’m hoping you can offer a little bit more detail there.

Shelley Besse: I think we would need to better understand the opportunities. It may be that we may have members that could provide services to the government. It could be that we’re at the table looking at whether or not we can provide financing as we look at investments or initiatives that the government has underway.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you.

Steve Morissette: Thank you for the presentation. Yeah. I think this is probably pretty necessary for us to help out, because I understand that credit unions are struggling right now in B.C. They’re doing okay, but just the income is a challenge.

Can you just….

Shelley Besse: Do you want me to respond to that?

Steve Morissette: Yes, please.

Shelley Besse: I can respond on behalf of our organization. As we saw inflation hit and the rising rate environment happen so quickly, one of the things that we did as an organization is we reached out to our members to have conversations with them, those members who had variable rates, and encouraged them to lock in their mortgage into fixed rates, because we believed that the rates were going to continue to escalate.

So for our organization, because we were proactive and protecting the interests of our members, we also, then, forwent some of the income from that, because as rates increase, your deposits reprice much more quickly than your loans do. It takes time, over the course of a couple of years, to recover some of those funds where you have a bit of a mismatch between deposits and lending.

Steve Morissette: Thank you.

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

Next, we will have Mr. James Casey from World Wildlife Fund Canada to come to the front. Thanks so much for coming. Just a reminder: you have five minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions, and you may begin whenever you’re ready. Thank you.

World Wildlife Fund Canada

James Casey: Thank you, Chair and committee members, for the time today to present. As you said, my name is James Casey, and I’m here representing WWF Canada. Some of you may know WWF Canada is a science-based conservation organization committed to preserving biodiversity and seeking a future where people and nature thrive across the country. We support a number of conservation projects here in B.C., ranging from post-wildfire restoration to doing it in blue carbon habitats here on the coast.

Personally, I live here on the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən peoples in Victoria, where I work as part of a team seeking to realize the implementation of target 2 from the convention on biological diversity, which is that 30 percent of degraded lands are under effective restoration by 2030. As part of that work, I administer a fund known as the nature and climate grant program, which has provided about $500,000 to restoration projects here in B.C., and WWF contributes roughly $1.5 million to Indigenous-led conservation and restoration across the province every year.

In signing the Tripartite Framework Agreement on Nature Conservation here in B.C., B.C. has committed to working with Canada and First Nations on developing a restoration framework for the province. We at WWF believe achieving this commitment requires more funding and investment than is currently committed in Budget 2025 and so have the following recommendations to bring forward.

Recommendation 1, we’d like to see the issue of a $100 million conservation bond for the province to support the restoration sector in capitalizing on the roughly $1.1 billion worth of restoration work that has been identified across the province. This work was identified in a 2024 study by the B.C. Oil and Gas Research and Innovation Society and has demanded high levels of restoration need across multiple sectors, including mining reclamation, reforestation, fish habitat restoration and a growing demand for the implementation of nature-based climate solutions to address mitigation and adaptation to climate risk.

[11:30 a.m.]

Fulfilling this demand can only partially be met by the private sector, so we would recommend the bond be issued to help bring public sector financing to that issue.

We also happen to support a fund known as the seed orchard program here in B.C., and we’ve learned from those seed orchard producers that they require

and can only partially be met by the private sector. And so we would recommend the bond be issued to help bring public sector financing to that issue.

We also happen to support a fund known as the seed orchard program here in B.C. We’ve learned from those seed orchard producers that they require more funding than we are able to provide under the program. And so we’d like to see B.C. investing part of that fund in growing the supply chain. So we’re talking about producers of materials and education and research and also, ultimately, a broader supply chain.

Recommendation two, we would like to see you carry forward with the Watershed Security Coalition’s idea of growing the B.C. watershed workforce by creating a new revenue stream in the province, increasing water rentals for industrial users and dedicating 10 percent of that increase to the watershed security fund. This will help grow B.C.’s watershed workforce while at the same time enhancing B.C.’s ability to address water-related risks, which are increasing due to climate threat across the province.

I personally happened to work a lot in estuaries, and I know that the amounts identified through the Watershed Security Fund and the B.C. salmon enhancement restoration fund fall far short of what is needed to allow our estuaries to adapt to a changing climate. And so I think additional funds need to be found in support of restoration for coastal environments under coastal marine strategy.

To enable that, we would suggest building a plan to identify how leftover funds at the end of the fiscal from the current $3.9 billion contingency fund can be transitioned from emergency response into proactive resilience-building. Climate impacts are now costing British Columbians billions a year, both in emergency response and through undermining natural asset values across the province. To overcome that challenge, forward-thinking planning is required.

I hope these recommendations may enable continued progress on delivering B.C.’s commitments under the Tripartite Framework Agreement on Nature Conservation. I thank you again for your time, and I am open to any questions you may have.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. For the questions, I’ll go to the Deputy Chair.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Thank you for the presentation. Just wondering about the water rental fees, something that I’ve discussed with some other groups in the past. What type of increases or, potentially, scale, like in other provinces, were you envisioning for British Columbia?

James Casey: I think there’s a detailed submission from the Watershed Security Coalition that I would probably direct your attention to and can provide to the committee. But in a brief, on-the-spot response, we are currently at a couple of dollars, and increasing that at least to $34 to be in line with the increases that recently happened in Quebec would make sense.

Paul Choi (Chair): Follow-up questions? No? Okay. Recognizing MLA Blatherwick.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you. I am going to follow up on that question, though.

My area of knowledge is not particularly deep when it comes to water rental. So I was hoping you could expand on who is renting and what the purposes of the rental are.

James Casey: Sorry. I missed the second part of that question.

Jennifer Blatherwick: What the purpose is of the rental. So who’s renting? What are they using it for?

James Casey: There’s a fee charged in the province to access water by various users based on a volume that they have submitted to in a license. All industrial players, ranging from agriculture to mining to hydro production, are required to pay that fee. There has been a challenge with the fee not being sufficient for cost recovery on what goes into managing, implementing the Water Sustainability Act. So upping the amounts recovered through that fee application would be the purposes of the increase.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Follow-up? Yes.

Jennifer Blatherwick: So when you’re saying that you want an increase from the current rate of $3 to $4 dollars to, say, what was currently having to 30….

James Casey: Well, I would say in a range of the $30 range.

Jennifer Blatherwick: And what are you charging that on?

James Casey: It would be a volume.

Jennifer Blatherwick: A volume — so volume per liter, a volume per….

James Casey: Yeah, something like that. Yeah, per cubic metre.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Per cubic metre. Thank you.

[11:35 a.m.]

Bryan Tepper: The seed orchard and the supply chain…. Sorry. Can you tell me what the investment or what you’re looking to increase or what we’re doing with that…?

Recognizing — I’ll go for the first question — MLA Tepper.

Bryan Tepper: The seed orchard and the supply chain — can you tell me what the investment is or what you’re looking to increase or what we’re doing with that?

James Casey: Okay. There’s a range of needs. The seed orchard that we currently fund is looking at growing local producers, their ability to harvest from a native source. So basically, there’s a process where you have to identify a wild seed source, bring it into a growing facility, grow it, produce it and sell it back to the restoration practitioner.

There’s the ability to hire staff to go harvest the seeds. There’s the infrastructure, greenhouses, watering, labeling, management and sale of all that. That’s kind of like one piece of the work.

There is understanding what the demand is going to be. It’s a big challenge. So undertaking forecasting of where projects are likely to come on board in the next two to three years, what kind of products they’re going to need. Then having it grown in time to provide it back to those in a time-sensitive manner is a key piece of the work.

There’s also an important piece of work looking at the valuation of the benefits from restoration. So you’ll probably hear some presentations over the next little while about natural asset valuation or payment for ecosystem services. That fits within how you raise the capital to support that supply chain. So that’s the financing side.

Then I would say that there’s an education need here as well. How do we build our programs, like the restoration program at BCIT or at UVic so that they can support communities’ expertise?

Then maybe I’d throw in a last one around the qualified environmental professional programs. How do you build out something that would support that program being applied to something like the Society for Ecological Restoration?

But the key thing is that having that capacity in community is a big challenge.

Paul Choi (Chair): Well, that is it. Thank you so much for your time.

We will go to the next presenter. Next we have Ms. Erin Gray from West Coast Environmental Law. Thanks for joining us.

Again, you have five minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions, and the timing is on our screen for your reference. You may begin whenever you’re ready.

West Coast Environmental Law

Erin Gray: Good morning. My name is Erin Gray. I’m a staff lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law. I wish to speak to our recommendation that in the next budget, funding is specifically allocated for the implementation of two overarching policy frameworks that are critical to the prosperity of B.C.

First is the B.C. coastal marine strategy, which was released in July 2024. Second is the B.C. biodiversity and ecosystem health framework, which was released in draft form in November 2023 and is currently being finalized.

Why are these frameworks so important? B.C. is the most biodiverse of any of the provinces or territories in Canada. Healthy ecosystems provide a range of benefits, including clean air and water, food and water security, flood and disease prevention and social and psychological wellness. They also underpin B.C.’s economy.

Healthy ecosystems are critical for key sectors such as tourism, recreation, agriculture, fisheries and forestry. At a time when the province is focused on economic response, ecosystem health is directly related to building B.C.’s value in a global trade context.

On the marine side, ocean-based activities contribute $21 billion annually, which is about 8 percent of B.C.’s GDP, and directly employ 131,000 people full-time. This does not account for the vast amount of services to humans provided by marine and coastal areas.

Nearshore areas of B.C.’s Lower Mainland have been found to provide the equivalent of $30 billion of ecosystem services per year. These are services like erosion control, storm protection, water filtration and the aesthetic and recreational value of beaches.

Despite this, for a long time, B.C.’s management of lands and waters has failed to address the cumulative and compounding impacts of development, over-exploitation and climate change. On the coastal side, this has led to catastrophic declines in salmon and strain on local economies and coastal communities that were struggling even before the extra challenges of tariffs and the worsening affordability crisis.

[11:40 a.m.]

On the land side, this has led to battles over resource development and successful lawsuits against the province for failing to follow the proper process in approving development, including failing to consult First Nations. However, these two overarching policy frameworks I mentioned can offer solutions to these issues.

First, the B.C. coastal

worsening affordability crisis. On the land side, this has led to battles over resource development and successful lawsuits against the province for failing to follow the proper process in approving development, including failing to consult First Nations.

However, these two overarching policy frameworks I mentioned can offer solutions to these issues. First, the B.C. coastal marine strategy is a policy encompassing 116 specific activities aimed to build the blue economy, clean up our coasts and waters and develop resilience to climate change. change.

Our first recommendation, then, is that sufficient funding be allocated in the next budget for the implementation of the B.C. coastal marine strategy. The Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship is currently establishing priority activities among those 116. Those activities, as well as establishing governance structures with First Nations, must be resourced in the budget. As efficiencies are considered within government, the goals of the strategy also speak to streamlining processes and current regulations.

The second overarching policy framework I mentioned is the biodiversity ecosystem health framework, which was a recommendation from the old-growth strategic review panel. It seeks to prioritize the management of ecosystem health rather than just resource extraction and recognizes that healthy ecosystems are necessary for strong, prosperous communities.

Our second recommendation, then, is that funding be allocated in the next budget for the implementation of the biodiversity and ecosystem health framework, including associated land use planning and watershed planning processes. This will require setting up expert scientific and Indigenous knowledge entities, either new ones or drawing on existing bodies, to ensure that the province has access to the best information when making land use and resource decisions.

To conclude, climate change is costing our province dearly in the loss of human life. Damage to infrastructure, costs to our health care system and disruption in business are significant. The province spent over $1.1 billion on wildfire response in 2023 alone, and this will continue. So investing in adaptation now, which both policies I mentioned do, will save money in the future.

The Canadian Climate Institute found that for every $1 dollar spent on adaptation, $13 to $15 can be returned in direct and indirect benefits and savings, so there is an economic cost of not supporting ecosystems to be able to adapt and be resilient in the face of climate change and other stressors. This is an instance where not acting and not funding these kinds of initiatives incurs a cost later.

Both the B.C. coastal marine strategy and biodiversity and ecosystem health framework support nature, which in in turn supports us, and these initiatives require a strong funding commitment in the next budget for them to be successful.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. We’ll now go to questions from members.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you for your presentation. I’m just going to the biodiversity ecosystem health framework. Now, we talked a little bit about management of ecosystem health and biodiversity within marine — and fresh water as well?

Erin Gray: In the biodiversity ecosystem health framework? Yes, it would involve the whole province. The coastal marine strategy is coastal marine waters.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Now, I was hoping that what you could do is just give me a few examples of what kind of strategy, policy framework implementation — what that would look like. What are you asking for?

Erin Gray: Certainly. I can start with the coastal marine strategy. It’s 116 specific activities. Some are existing policies or programs; some are new. They span quite a range — things like reforming the way licences are offered to the fishing sector, for example. There are those that are about monitoring actual water, water health and putting in place monitoring criteria.

There’s expanding and funding the clean coast, clean waters program, which prevents and also cleans up marine debris. There are some specifically…. I mean, many involve working with the federal government, because of course, marine areas are multi-jurisdictional, as well as working with local governments and of course First Nations. That’s quite a wide-ranging policy framework because it does encompass many smaller policies, and it has a 20-year vision.

The ministry, as I mentioned, is right now prioritizing among those 116 activities to schedule how they roll out.

[11:45 a.m.]

Our ask is that once those are released — my understanding is that by the fall, we will understand the priority activities — those be fully resourced as well as setting up a governance structure with the co-governing First Nations that are currently being consulted.

That’s the coastal marine strategy, the biodiversity ecosystem

those are released, which…. My understanding is by the fall, we will understand the priority activities, that those be fully resourced as well as setting up a governance structure with the co-governing First Nations that are currently being consulted. So that’s the coastal marine strategy.

The biodiversity ecosystem health framework— it’s been released in draft form. I mean, some of what is involved in implementing it is going to be dependent on what the final policy looks like. And so we don’t have a date yet, but that is also being handled within the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

Jennifer Blatherwick: One of the questions, of course, that we’ve been talking about a lot is the budget is very tight, and we’re looking at activities that will both require government expenditure but then would also create benefits in economy and local development. You’ve touched a little bit on that here, and I was wanting to just ask you if there are some final points that you’d like to make about economic development and benefits to communities within British Columbia.

Erin Gray: Yes, absolutely. So as I mentioned, there’s support that directly targets the small-scale fisheries, which is an industry that’s certainly been struggling lately. And so within the coastal marine strategy, there are many things that would benefit the fisheries sector. Right now, I think that the Premier is on a mission to Asia. And they’re supporting our shellfish industry. That’s another one that is directly impacted by the policies in the coastal marine strategy.

There are policies regarding recreation and tourism. Again, I think that I’m going to focus more on the coastal marine strategy because it’s actually been released in final form and is in the process of starting implementation. But all of those sectors I mentioned, I think the recreation and tourism industry on the coast is like $5 billion a year of value.

And so these are parts of our GDP and parts of our economy that can’t be ignored.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions? No? Okay.

Well, thank you so much for your time.

We will now, for the committee, take a break for lunch. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 11:47 a.m. to 1:02 p.m.

The committee recessed from 11:47 a.m. to 1:02 p.m.

[Paul Choi in the chair.]

Paul Choi (Chair): We will get started and call the committee back to order.

Thank you very much, everyone, for coming. We will start with Ms. Katie Keats from Surfrider Foundation Canada.

For your information, you have five minutes for presentation and five minutes for questions. You may begin whenever you’re ready. Thank you.

Surfrider Foundation Canada

Katie Keats: Great. Okay. Thanks, everyone. As was mentioned, my name is Katie Keats. I am the beach cleanup program manager for Surfrider Foundation Canada.

Our head office is located here on the traditional territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən people, but we operate in communities all over the province, as I’ll mention in a moment.

Surfrider Foundation is a non-profit, grassroots organization that’s dedicated to the protection and enjoyment of the world’s oceans, waves and beaches for all people through a powerful activist network.

Surfrider Foundation Canada is part of the global Surfrider community of international affiliates located around eight countries in the world. Surfrider has three volunteer-run chapters and four student clubs here in B.C.

Here in Victoria, we have the South Vancouver Island chapter, the University of Victoria and Mount Doug Secondary School Club. We’ve got Tofino and Ucluelet Pacific Rim chapter, Vancouver chapter, Ucluelet Secondary School and Vancouver Island University up in Nanaimo.

Surfrider focuses on several key environmental issues, including plastics reduction, ocean protection, beach access, coastal preservation and water quality. We are a key stakeholder with regards to plastic reduction, and we offer a unique perspective given the role leading grassroots, volunteer-driven pollution prevention initiatives in communities across B.C. over the last 20 years.

In recent years, the province of B.C. has demonstrated major leadership in reducing plastic pollution through the clean coast, clean waters initiative. It has been a groundbreaking program removing hundreds of tonnes of marine debris from shorelines across the province. The introduction of the Single-Use and Plastic Waste Prevention Regulation also demonstrates leadership in addressing plastic pollution in the province.

However, there are several key categories of plastic that also need to be addressed in order for the province to significantly reduce the impact of plastic pollution in B.C. coastal marine environment.

[1:05 p.m.]

For the purposes of today’s budget consultation, we’ve prepared three recommendations for the community to consider. The first is creating an ongoing, provincewide marine debris monitoring and response program. Launched in 2020, clean coast clean waters has been a groundbreaking program, removing significant amounts

environment. For the purposes of today’s budget consultation, we’ve prepared three recommendations for the community to consider.

The first is creating an ongoing provincewide marine debris monitoring and response program. Launched in 2020, clean coast, clean waters has been a groundbreaking program removing significant amounts of material from shorelines and demonstrating that marine debris is an ongoing form of pollution in B.C.

Government has committed to developing a long-term vision for CCCW in the coastal marine strategy. However, in 2025, the government decided not to provide additional funding for the program, impacting dozens of coastal communities that continue to be impacted by the ongoing buildup of debris. It’s imperative that government follow through on its commitment and the CMS and continue to fund CCCW.

Our second recommendation is to eliminate the use of expanded polystyrene plastic, also known as EPS or Styrofoam, from being used in aquatic infrastructure. EPS is the most ubiquitous form of plastic pollution on B.C. shorelines, which is derived from marine infrastructure. Over the course of 2021 to 2023, CCCW removed the equivalent of 200 to 572 docks, depending on dock size and foam volume used.

There are made-in-B.C. solutions currently being implemented for foam-free docks, such as air-filled floats. This approach is low cost, supports growth of sustainable industry and is tariff proof. The CMS identifies the activity to prohibit the use of polystyrene in future marine infrastructure construction. If achieved, the point source pollution will be reduced.

The Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship can amend the following policies to prohibit polystyrene: the land use operational policy of private moorage, and also with aquaculture…. Amending these policies is a low-cost approach to reducing EPS that follows the footsteps of other jurisdictions in North America such as Washington and Ontario.

Our third recommendation is to prohibit accommodation providers from offering single-use amenities in guest rooms. Hotel amenities are a very common yet unnecessary form of single-use plastic. Surfrider’s community of 155 water-friendly businesses in B.C. have shown that reusable amenities systems save money, lower waste and reduce water consumption.

Surfrider’s petition has signatures from 574 B.C. residents, 29 accommodation providers, six tourism agencies and 11 environmental organizations. Based on a U.S. study, after the first transition year, businesses can save $10,000 or more per year by switching to refillable containers.

Business is already adopting reusable systems. The provincial Single-Use and Plastic Waste Prevention Regulation can address these materials, which will create a level of playing field across the entire industry.

To close, Surfrider Canada acknowledges that the economic climate is difficult at the moment. But just because things are constrained it shouldn’t mean that the environment should suffer. It’s important to note that the EPS and mini-bottle recommendations are low-cost opportunities, and the province can lean on its expertise with producer-pay stewardship programs to explore creative ways to fund CCCW moving forward.

Surfrider takes pride in its collaboration and positive approach to solving environmental problems. We look forward to continuing the strong relationship we have built with the province of British Columbia. Together, we have the opportunity to make the coast a cleaner, safer place for all people to enjoy.

The Chair: Thank you very much for that. Questions by members. Recognizing MLA Blatherwick.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you for your presentation. Can we go back to No. 2, which was eliminating EPS from aquatic infrastructure?

Can you tell me…? Now, currently, EPS is used in flotation maintenance. Is that correct?

Katie Keats: Yes.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Could you expand a little bit more on what you see as a viable alternative?

Katie Keats: Currently there have been some options to look at what’s called encapsulated foam floats for docks, which, in our opinion is not a viable solution, as they can still release foam into the environment when they hit rocks or other forms of damage.

Air-filled floats — there are, I believe, two businesses that are currently making them in B.C. One’s in Campbell River, and the other…. You’ll have to forgive me. We can get back to you on that one. But they are air filled. They are repairable. They are a lower-cost option to EPS, which breaks down and needs to be replaced far more often.

The Chair: Recognizing MLA Dhir.

Sunita Dhir: It’s great work that you’re doing. Single-use plastic in hotels — I often witness so many bottles being thrown away.

[1:10 p.m.]

About the first ask of a marine debris monitoring program. You mentioned that in the 2025 budget, there is no funding for this. Prior to 2025, how much was allocated towards this initiative?

so many bottles being thrown away.

About the first ask of the marine debris monitoring program, you mentioned that in the 2025 budget, there’s no funding for this. Prior to 2025, how much was allocated towards this initiative?

Katie Keats: The initiative…. We work in partnership with Ocean Legacy Foundation. I can’t remember the number right off the top of my head, but Surfrider Canada received $160,000 the first year and $75,000 the second year. I know that the budget was cut extensively for shoreline cleanup, and the focus was moved towards derelict aquaculture sites and derelict vessels as well.

I apologize that I don’t have that number in front of me at the moment. I think it was $5 million for 2024, if I’m not mistaken, for a bunch of different programs.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Just following back up on that, there is existing funding for within the sector, within the realm of this; it’s just being allocated to other projects? Is that…?

Katie Keats: It’s no longer being allocated. All the projects are finishing up currently. They’ve just finished up actually, I think, in the spring. There’s no additional funding being allocated towards this initiative.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Was the funding through…? Which ministry or program?

Katie Keats: I believe Ministry of Environment started it, but it was also in tandem with Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. The coastal marine strategy is through them, so it was kind of a partnership.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions?

Sunita Dhir: Most of the work that you mentioned is volunteer-driven. Do you also have paid staff for this?

Katie Keats: Yes. I am paid staff. I was previously a volunteer with our local chapter. Then essentially in 2023, when we received funding from CCCW, my job was born. I used to run our shoreline cleanup program. Essentially, the funding has been able to support our beach cleanup program administration, purchase of new equipment and basically any other costs associated with it for the last two years.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions? No? Okay.

Well, thank you so much for your time and your presentation.

We will move on to the next presenter. Next we will have Mr. Ben van Drimmelen from B.C. Nature.

Thanks so much for joining us today. You have five minutes for presentation and five minutes for questions. You may begin whenever you’re ready.

B.C. Nature

Ben van Drimmelen: All right. I’m red-green colour-blind. I’ll try to separate out those lights, like traffic lights. I’ll watch for the red.

Hello, Chair and members of the select standing committee. Thanks for the opportunity to appear. I’m Ben van Drimmelen, a director with B.C. Nature. That’s a federation of more than 60 naturalist clubs and about 7,000 members provincewide. B.C. Nature has a long-standing concern about this government’s fading action to protect and conserve species at risk in this province.

Of all of Canada’s provinces and territories, B.C. is home to the richest diversity of vascular plants, mosses, mammals, butterflies, breeding birds, the largest number of species of reptiles and amphibians found in any single province or territory. B.C. has most of the global range of 99 species. It has the largest population of grizzly bears of any province. There are at least eight insect species that are found just in the southern Okanagan. Just about the entire world population of western sandpipers migrates along the B.C. coast.

B.C. also has the highest number of species at risk. Many species in British Columbia are at risk of extinction. There are about 4,000 native species in B.C. for which conservation status has been assessed, and there’s at least concern about 43 percent of them, so almost half.

In summary for this part, B.C.’s diversity is still globally significant, but without immediate action, it’s rapidly deteriorating, especially as climate change is starting to kick in.

[1:15 p.m.]

Now, B.C. Nature has for some four decades been concerned about one distinct subset of species at risk, and that’s endangered species. B.C. is one of the few remaining provinces without a stand-alone law to protect species at risk and the habitat they need to survive and recover. Nevertheless, our conservation data centre does, on a scientific basis, keep detailed records of which species are in danger

subset of species at risk, and that’s endangered species. B.C. is one of the few remaining provinces without a stand-alone law to protect species at risk and the habitat they need to survive and recover. Nevertheless, our conservation data centre does, on a scientific basis, keep detailed records of which species are in danger of disappearing.

I did a quick count of those species that are listed both by the B.C. conservation data centre and also formally listed as endangered by the federal government under the Species at Risk Act, and there are 103 of those. They’re endangered, they’re at serious risk of disappearing completely, and there are a lot more species that are heading that way.

Now, this government did promise an endangered species act several years ago, but then they watered that down to a species at risk act, and then it was diluted further to a proposed biodiversity act. That, too, fell by the wayside, and now we’re dealing with something called a biodiversity and ecosystem health framework. It’s been promised but of course not yet delivered, and who knows if that will ever become legislation?

You see the pattern here. The government increasingly neglects our declining biological diversity and increasing vulnerability of ever more species at risk and at risk of disappearing forever. And what do we see in budgeting over the last 50 years? The proportion of the provincial budget that was allocated to management of all renewable resources has steadily dropped from about 5 percent in the 1970s and ’80s down to 2 percent in the early 2000s and down to 1 percent last year.

This government, presumably in response to the closeness of that last election, has now apparently lost its environmental compass completely. Species extinction is forever, but the government is focused on what are comparatively short-term issues, important issues: jobs, cost of living, affordable housing and health care. Those are continuing to squeeze out management and conservation of the very resources that are needed to deal with these short-term issues.

The most delicate management and conservation is essential if the relentless extermination of our already-endangered species is to be stopped. B.C. Nature has a simple and general request, rather than a recommendation, of this committee. However you can do it, please recommend that this government keep some realistic funding in the budget to protect and conserve the biological diversity for which this province has long been known. And especially, allocate some funding to the recovery and orientation of species at risk, in particular those at the very brink of extinction, those 103 species that I already mentioned, and their essential habitats.

That concludes my submission.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much for that presentation. I will now go to questions by members.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you for your presentation. I am looking at…. You were mentioning that we have a high amount of species who are at risk, species who are on the verge of extinction, here in British Columbia. When you’re asking for investment in funding to maintain, stabilize, rehabilitate, like either biodiversity habitat or the species themselves, what are you intending that that funding should be focused on? What efforts?

Ben Van Drimmelen: I think it should simply be focused on government resources, government staff. In other words, there are people now, biologists and forest ecologists, that can’t go to land use planning meetings. You have First Nations there, and you have industry there. And the government employees that should be providing that public interest input simply can’t get to those meetings.

It’s a fairly ugly situation. The staff are here, they’re being paid, but they’re being told, at least now, that they’re not allowed to travel. They have to watch all the expenses due to the budget strain.

It’s not funding anything external. I think it’s just how the government allocates the funding that they have in their budget. I don’t know if this committee can offer some influence on that, but I hope they can.

Jennifer Blatherwick: You’re saying that for regional district consultation meetings, just because of the current budget constraints and the directive for employees to limit travel as much as possible, it’s preventing them from giving governmental insight into consultation process.

Ben Van Drimmelen: Public insight, or a presentation and information about the very species that the government is managing, the species that are at risk and the endangered species.

[1:20 p.m.]

Bryan Tepper: You mentioned the species at risk federally, are you looking for something different provincially? How did that look, for what you’re asking for?

Ben Van Drimmelen: It would be nice. If we had an endangered species act, there would be parallel…. Basically, the federal government can designate things under law in various

Bryan Tepper: You mentioned the Species at Risk Act, federally.

Are you looking for something different provincially? How does that look for what you’re asking for?

Ben van Drimmelen: It would be nice.

If we had an endangered species act, there would be parallel. Basically, the federal government can designate things under law in various statuses of endangered, threatened and vulnerable. The province can’t do that. The Wildlife Act, since 1982, has had one species called “threatened,” which is a sea otter, and it’s growing in numbers. I’d hardly call it threatened.

There are only three species it lists as “endangered.” The white pelican, which is not endangered as far as I’m concerned. They just live at one particular lake, so they’re a rare species. The Vancouver Island marmot: yes, that one could well be a species that’s endangered. And the burrowing owl, I’m not sure what’s happening with the burrowing owl. They keep planting burrowing owls in the Okanagan, they keep disappearing to the Okanagan for the winter and they don’t come home. I don’t know if that makes them endangered.

But three species endangered, when in fact there are at least 103. This is just an embarrassment for British Columbia, I think, and has been since 1982. That list of four species hasn’t changed.

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay, any other questions?

Sunita Dhir: So you have identified that 103 species are endangered or at risk. The funding that you have suggested, is it to develop a plan to protect these species or to identify more endangered species?

Ben van Drimmelen: No, they would have their hands full just for these.

There are species recovery programs that the province and the federal governments have done working together. They’re not getting implemented. They’re not getting updated, and of course there are a bunch of species that they haven’t done recovery plans for.

So it’s the status of the species first, confirming that they’re in danger. There’s a conservation data centre; there’s a government agency that can do that. And then there’s the recovery plan. How are they going to do it? And it’s done for a number of species. I don’t know how many have been implemented. I suspect a number are still in the draft stage, and there would be a number of species that there hasn’t been any recovery work done for at all.

So it’s to get the staff, the professionals, the biologists, to sit down, do the homework, and then start to implement some of these recovery plans.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions? No, okay.

Thank you so much for that presentation.

We will now move on to the next presenter. If I can have Ms. Kiki Wood from Stand.earth come to the front, please.

Thank you for joining us. As a reminder, you have five minutes for presentation and five minutes for questions. You may begin whenever you’re ready.

Kiki Wood: Good afternoon. Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to speak today.

British Columbia needs a new economic vision that prioritizes and moving away from dependence on resource extraction and instead prioritizes sustainable and equitable growth. Despite the rapid expansion of fracking and LNG since the NDP took over from the former Liberal government, the public return from these industries has not kept pace with the rising environmental, social and economic costs.

Government subsidies have played a significant role in enabling this growth. Programs such as the deep-well credit, the marginal and ultra-marginal well credits have supported oil and gas drilling that would otherwise not be profitable or financially viable. These subsidies have diverted public funds towards highly profitable private companies, while externalizing those costs onto British Columbians through increased emissions, deteriorating public health, and water insecurity in oil and gas producing regions.

At the same time, the province continues to invest in forest biomass, including wood pellets, which are a growing source of global greenhouse gas emissions. These operations often rely on the use of old growth forests for low-value products, offering limited job creation compared to higher-value forest uses. Funding for utility scale biomass, particularly through the Forest Enhancement Society, should be reevaluated and discontinued in the upcoming budget.

The consequences of these policy choices are mounting. Northeastern B.C. now experiences the province’s highest number of earthquakes, linked directly to fracking activity. Peer-reviewed medical research has identified elevated rates of rare cancers and birth defects in communities near oil and gas development. These are not isolated outcomes. They reflect a systemic under-regulation of industry and public under-investment in health, safety and long-term resilience.

[1:25 p.m.]

We urge the committee to consider a more comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of resource extraction in this province. While these industries offer jobs and some economic activity, the long-term liabilities such as environmental degradation, health care and health system costs and climate-related disruptions are disproportionately high. Future budgets must reflect the true cost of these industries.

In 2023, British Columbia made progress by redesigning its royalty system to eliminate outdated subsidies.

some economic activity, the long-term liabilities such as environmental degradation, health care and health system costs and climate-related disruptions are disproportionately high. Future budgets must reflect the true cost of these industries.

In 2023, British Columbia made progress by redesigning its royalty system to eliminate outdated subsidies and secure better returns on our public resources. However, the delayed implementation of this policy undermines its intent. With the province currently facing a $9 billion deficit, this is a missed opportunity. The royalty system must be implemented without further delay, and rates should reflect the need to generate sustainable revenue for the province, not simply maintain industry competitiveness.

One particularly urgent issue is water use. The oil and gas sector remains the only industry in B.C. permitted to extract fresh water, contaminate it, and then dispose of it without treatment, effectively removing it from the water cycle permanently. In 2023, over 6 billion litres of water were extracted from the Peace and Fort Nelson regions during a worsening drought, while the province received just $15,000 in return. This practice not only harms farmers and fish populations; it severely undercuts our climate resilience and financial stability as a province.

We recommend three immediate measures: first, to set appropriate pricing for industrial water use that reflects scarcity and public value; second, to mandate the treatment and reuse of fracking wastewater to reduce fresh water withdrawals initially; and third, to institute the authority of the water stewardship branch over oil and gas permits.

Additionally, we must ensure that polluting industries bear the full cost of their activities. This includes emission reductions, particularly methane, as well as end-of-life cleanup. Fracking operations must be subject to strict bonding requirements to ensure companies and not communities cover cleanup costs when operations cease. The cost of inaction is not only financial; it is an opportunity cost, where public funds and political capital are diverted away from clean energy, innovation and climate resilient infrastructure.

One clear opportunity for progress relies in the building sector. With more than 215,000 new homes expected by 2030, we must act now to lock in low carbon construction. The zero carbon step code offers a proven and budget neutral pathway to do this. We strongly urge the government to finalize and accelerate its implementation, phasing in through 2026 with final implementation by 2028. This schedule aligns with industry and municipal leadership and will deliver long-term emissions reductions, public health benefits and lower household energy costs.

In conclusion, B.C.’s 2026 budget must mark a turning point. We need to phase out subsidies for oil and gas and forest biomass. We need to charge fair prices for public resources like water. We need polluters to pay the full cost of their environmental impact. And we need to prioritize historic investments in conservation, clean energy and local innovation. This approach will not only strengthen our economy; it will make a more resilient war chest and more capable of meeting the current challenges. Thank you very much.

Paul Choi (Chair): Right on time. Thank you so much. We’ll now turn to questions from members.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you. That was a great presentation. I was wondering if you could talk to us…. You touched on setting appropriate pricing for water use and we’ve heard a little bit more about that from other presenters today. So what we’ve encompassed in previous presentations is a conversation about industrial water use. So commercial, industrial use, agriculture…. You’re encompassing the same conversation?

Kiki Wood: Yes.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Okay. So you’re looking at cost recovery in terms of water management, resource management.

And then for one of the other recommendations that you have touched on a little bit was your second one. It was reducing the water usage in fracking. But then we didn’t…. Five minutes is very short. So this is like a budgetary process and I’m wondering if you can just relate that to budget for me.

Kiki Wood: Yeah, that’s a great question. I think this relates to budget because of the impact water use has on other social and environmental factors. So as water is one of the driving forces of our electricity grid, water security has far-ranging impacts not only for cattlemen, ranchers and farmers but also for our electricity security. So requiring companies to use less fresh water initially, I think, has pretty wide-reaching impacts on our energy and agricultural security in the province long term, which, while not a specific budget thing, I think, has pretty far-reaching budget implications for our stability and GDP.

[1:30 p.m.]

Jennifer Blatherwick: Appreciate it. Thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions? No? Okay.

All right, well, thank you so much for your presentation. And yes, we will move on to the next presenter. I’d like to call Mr. Dan Levitt from Office of the Senior

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions? No? Okay.

All right. Well, thank you so much for your presentation.

We will move on to the next presenter. I’d like to call Mr. Dan Levitt from office of the seniors advocate to the front, please.

Thank you so much for coming. Again, as a reminder, five minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions, and you may begin whenever you’re ready.

Office of the Seniors Advocate

Dan Levitt: Good afternoon. I’m Dan Levitt, B.C.’s seniors advocate.

I will start today by acknowledging we are meeting in the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən peoples, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

I’d also like to recognize the hard work done by each of you here in Victoria as well as back in your constituencies. I’ve been able to be at many events and meetings with MLAs and seen firsthand the commitment and caring shown to people of all ages throughout British Columbia.

This is my first opportunity to present to this committee after being appointed B.C.’s second seniors advocate in March of last year. I will focus my requests of this committee and Budget 2026 to two items.

The first has the opportunity to save government funds and help seniors age the way they want to. I’m speaking about aging in place through improved home support services. Home support continues to be one of the top concerns I hear from seniors and caregivers around the province. People are frustrated with the costs and the lack of access to services.

The data continue to show that the level of service is not keeping pace with population growth. Currently, one in five people in British Columbia is 65 or older. Over the next decade, by 2036, that number will grow to one in four, 25 percent.

Overwhelmingly, seniors want to remain home as long as possible. The cost of home support is a financial barrier for low- and moderate-income seniors. Thirty percent of B.C. seniors receive the guaranteed income supplement, GIS, which means they don’t pay for home support. However, this means that 70 percent of B.C. seniors will pay if they need home support.

Today, a single 75-year-old senior with an annual income of $32,000 a year is earning too much to qualify for GIS and is, therefore, required to pay for home support, which will cost them nearly $10,000 a year for one hour of home support. And for many seniors, one hour of home support is not enough. Therefore, it’s critical that the committee consider ways to improve public home support by making it more affordable.

Alberta and Ontario do not charge for home support, and B.C. should follow their example.

A robust home support system is essential to ensuring seniors can live safely in their own homes as long as possible. Keeping seniors at home is also far less costly to government than having them move into long-term care or assisted living or waiting in a hospital until a space opens up. My office did a review of home support services in British Columbia in 2023 and found it cost government $14,000 a year to provide one hour of home support per day and $60,000 per year for a long-term-care bed for a senior with an income of $29,000 a year.

The lack of home support is driving seniors to publicly subsidized long-term care and assisted living prematurely. And the wait-lists continue to grow. Improving home support makes sense financially for government and supports aging in place.

[1:35 p.m.]

The second request I’ll make of this committee will, no doubt, make some of you a little uncomfortable. I’m talking about shingles. It’s a viral infection that causes a painful rash. Usually, it’s a strip of blisters that wraps around one side of your torso. Nearly one in three Canadians will develop shingles in their lifetime. They also tell me about their experience with shingles, and the stories I hear from seniors are horrific. The pain can last for weeks or months and be debilitating.

However, there is good news. There is a vaccine. The bad news is what it can cost the senior — $400 for two doses. And the costs are not covered by government or most extended health plans.

are horrific. The pain can last for weeks or months and be debilitating.

However, there is good news. There is a vaccine. The bad news is what it can cost the senior: $400 for two doses. And the costs are not covered by government or most extended health plans. When I meet with seniors, the cost of the shingles vaccine is one of the issues I hear most often about.

The vaccine was approved in Canada by the National Advisory Council on Immunization in 2008 and have recommended that Canadians over 50 get the shingles vaccine. Seven provinces and territories in Canada now cover the shingles vaccine free of charge for certain older and high-risk populations. In fact, Newfoundland Labrador began covering it yesterday.

Shingles doesn’t just impact those who contract it. It also is a major burden to the Canada health care system, costing $67 to $82 million annually. These costs come from doctors visits, hospitalizations and treatments for complications that could largely be avoided through vaccination.

Seniors without a physician tell me they end up in emergency rooms for treatment, increasing the backlog and impacting patient flow in hospitals. Allowing older adults to suffer unnecessarily seems inhumane. And I know British Columbians want better for seniors.

I’m urging the committee to have B.C. be the eighth jurisdiction in Canada to provide shingles vaccines to seniors and put an end to what is a completely preventable illness for older people.

Thank you. This concludes my remarks. I’m happy to take any questions.

Claire Rattée: I appreciate what you’re talking about there because those are actually both things that I have been working on and I’m pretty passionate about.

I’m curious. With the report that you said that your office did…. Is that available on your website for us to be able to read through it?

Dan Levitt:All our reports are available on our website.

Claire Rattée: Perfect, thank you. I just wanted to know where to find that. Thanks.

Bryan Tepper: So who are you looking at for providing the government-funded vaccines? Because you mentioned certain high-risk populations, whichever. Is it just that or certain populations or are we looking at everybody?

Dan Levitt: What other provinces have done, other jurisdictions, is they have covered certain populations. So in one province, they covered people from 65 to 74 for the shingles vaccine. Other places have covered everyone.

If you look at the uptake of shingles of any vaccination, you’re not going to get everyone taking it. So the actual cost is lower. The $400 is the retail price. The group buying…. The price is actually about $250, I believe, in Canada.

So you figure the cost of $250 for the vaccine, and then people are going to get it. There are 1.1 million seniors today. If you offered it free for everybody, half of them would take it. And then you think of the cost.

But you could also segregate based on income or based on other measures to make the load, if you will, your cost, different.

Bryan Tepper: So I would say what would be your ask on that? Considering it’s 50 and over that are susceptible to it, what would be what your organization would like to see provided?

Dan Levitt: At a minimum, I’d like to see people at 65 be offered the shingles vaccine free. It could be income-tested. So if you think, for example, something similar is the SAFER program. SAFER program…. the cap is $40,000 of income, so you might say $40,000 of income and less. Sixty-five to 74, that window…. You might allow everyone currently who’s above. And then going forward, a ten-year window to take the vaccine. That’s what some provinces are doing.

There are other models around there so that you’re not biting off the cost for everybody. Currently First Nations and people who are incarcerated have it covered in B.C., but they’re the only ones.

Bryan Tepper: Okay, that sounds good. I’ll leave it at that.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you. Any other questions? No? Okay.

If that’s the case, thank you so much for your presentation.

We’re going to take a quick recess, and then we’ll come back in about five minutes. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 1:39 p.m. to 1:49 p.m.

The committee recessed from 1:39 p.m. to 1:49 p.m.

[Paul Choi in the chair.]

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay. For the interest of time, we’ll get started, so we’ll call the committee back to order.

Next, we’ll hear from Ms. Sarah Erdelyi from the Canadian Association of Medical Radiation Technologists for B.C. Division. Thanks for coming. You have five minutes to present and five minutes for questions by members, and you can begin whenever you’re ready.

[1:50 p.m.]

Canadian Association of
Medical Radiation Technologists,
B.C. Division

Sarah Erdelyi: Thanks so much. Hi there. My name is Sarah Erdelyi, and I’m the provincial manager for British Columbia at the Canadian Association of Medical Radiation Technologists. I am also a medical radiation technologist, myself, and work here in Victoria as an MRT educator. So thank you for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of

whenever you’re ready.

Canadian Association of
Medical Radiation Technologists,
B.C. Division

Sarah Erdelyi: Thanks so much. Hi there, my name is Sarah Erdelyi, and I’m the provincial manager for British Columbia at the Canadian Association of Medical Radiation Technologists. I am also a medical radiation technologist myself and work here in Victoria as an MRT educator.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of CAMRT-BC and the many dedicated MRTs across the province. The MRT profession includes radiological, nuclear medicine and magnetic resonance imaging technologists as well as radiation therapists. These professionals are essential to diagnostic imaging and cancer care across British Columbia.

Each year, MRTs in B.C. perform approximately 6 million medical imaging exams and radiation therapists deliver hundreds of thousands of radiation treatment sessions to cancer patients. These numbers are growing steadily with our aging and expanding population and with increased demand for these services.

I was here in 2022 and ’23 to speak about the growing demand for MRT services and the increasing pressure of staffing shortages. Since then, shortages in the profession persist, and MRTs are being stretched very thin. As of last week, I reviewed the career pages for all B.C. health authorities, and there are currently over 300 job postings for MRTs in the province. This does not include privately operated imaging facilities or internal postings.

It’s also important to note that the MRT shortage is a national issue; therefore, we cannot rely solely on out-of-province recruitment to meet B.C.’s needs. A potential long-term solution is to make MRT programs more accessible, affordable and attractive so we can build a sustainable homegrown stream of professionals from all communities across B.C.

Our recommendation is to reduce financial barriers for students in B.C.’s MRT education programs. Just to give you an idea of the financial strain and impacts, the tuition for the two-year medical radiography diploma program here on Vancouver Island is approximately $32,000. On top of that, students are often required to relocate, sometimes multiple times, for clinical placements, incurring additional housing and travel expenses. And in some cases, students or applicants assign placements in rural communities to climb their seat in the program altogether simply because the costs of all this are too high.

These challenges are also not unique to one program; they’re being reported across B.C. So we’re asking for the same types of financial supports that have helped address shortages and other health care professions, such as clinical placement stipends or employer-sponsored education, particularly for hard-to-recruit areas, and eligibility for loan forgiveness programs for MRTs, which is similar to other health professions.

The other issue that I want to speak about in the last couple of minutes here is how the composition and demographics of B.C.’s MRT workforce are evolving. In today’s health care climate, administrators are using a range of strategies to keep essential imaging and cancer treatment services running. What that means is that we’re seeing an increased reliance on agency staff, an influx of internationally educated MRTs, greater use of technologist assistant roles and new graduates quickly moving into high-demand roles, often with limited support.

Departments are also working really hard to upskill their existing staff into more specialized roles that go beyond the entry-level training programs currently offered in B.C.’s post-secondary institutions. At the same time, there’s a surge in students that are entering clinical placements who need structured supervision and feedback to support their development. This mix of professionals with different levels of clinical readiness is adding pressure to team functioning, scheduling and workflow.

While carrying out their core responsibilities, which is patient care, MRTs are also taking on the added workload of training more students, supporting new team members and backfilling gaps across departments. Our recommendation for Budget 2026 is to invest in structured onboarding, transition to practice programs and ongoing professional development for MRTs.

MRT roles are growing more complex, yet in B.C., this remains an unregulated profession. The absence of regulation makes it even more difficult to standardize qualifications and ensure the right professionals are placed in the right roles. We believe how we train, support and recognize MRTs will directly impact retention. MRTs must feel valued, have access to advanced training and earn credentials that reflect their evolving expertise.

As B.C. is moving forward with its health human resources and allied health strategies, we urge that MRTs be prioritized in this work. Investing in MRTs is not just about filling vacancies; it’s about recognizing and retaining the professionals who deliver essential diagnostic and therapeutic care to British Columbians.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. Questions by members.

[1:55 p.m.]

Claire Rattée: Is there any difference in the availability of these job postings from rural, remote, northern communities versus urban centres? Is there a significant gap between the two?

Sarah Erdelyi: The shortages are everywhere, but I think it might vary depending on the modality. What I mean by that is some practising in CT or computed tomography, for example — we’re seeing a lot of shortages there, whereas in other aspects of imaging we

from rural, remote northern communities versus urban centres? Is there a significant gap between the two?

Sarah Erdelyi: The shortages are everywhere, but I think it might vary depending on the modality. What I mean by that is some practising in CT, or computed tomography, for example — we’re seeing a lot of shortages there, whereas in other aspects of imaging, we might not be seeing them quite as much.

I think there are quite a few job postings in Interior Health right now, again, across all different modalities. But there are also shortages in major centres like Fraser Health, Surrey Memorial Hospital, Royal Columbian Hospital, so it really is widespread.

Bryan Tepper: You talked about barriers. Are there prerequisites for the program, to get in for the two-year program?

Sarah Erdelyi: High school prerequisites, for the most part. They’re two-year diploma programs, so for the most part, for the imaging disciplines anyway, we’re doing a lot of recruitment efforts into high schools right now, which I think is helping.

It’s really just helping them match their interests, I think, and making sure that they’re on the path to completing those prerequisites while they’re in high school and learning about what this career is all about.

Bryan Tepper: Are there grade levels that they need to achieve for any of these?

Sarah Erdelyi: Oh, yes. Yeah, so our exact prerequisites for the majority of imaging disciplines would just be grade 12 English, physics, biology or anatomy and physiology and then pre-calculus or math. So it is a very science, math type of student that would apply to our programs.

Bryan Tepper: Okay. I’m just going to keep going.

It’s unregulated. I actually thought it was regulated.

Sarah Erdelyi: A lot of people do think that.

Bryan Tepper: So what do you need to…. Like, you need the diploma to get in, though?

Sarah Erdelyi: Yeah, so we have a national entry-to-practice certification process, and that’s something that our association is a certifying body for, MRTs in Canada, as well as a professional association.

Our educational programs in B.C. allow graduates to get their entry-to-practice certification. Then, after that, there’s no additional provincial licensure required, like there would be for other professions. So we actually are regulated in most other places in Canada.

It’s sort of that what happens after they’ve certified throughout their career that allows them to maintain a licence to practice.

Bryan Tepper: Okay. Then, finally, because I’ve heard stories from immigrants that practised for 20 years in a different country, and there’s a language barrier to updating. But, say, a CAT scan or whatever machine they’re using, they can do that in their sleep, but the other disciplines would not be something…. They’re having difficulties getting through to be able to work in the province. Is there a way of certifying individual disciplines, I guess? Is that the correct term?

Sarah Erdelyi: As the national certifying body, we have a pathway for internationally educated medical radiation technologists to apply for a credentials assessment. They’ll go through their employment history, their educational history and make sure that their qualifications and work experience are substantially similar to a Canadian graduate. They have to also meet English language proficiency requirements in order to write the exam and practice in an English-speaking setting. So we are offering that already.

One of the challenges is that the pass rate for internationally educated applicants is very low, compared to a Canadian graduate. So our association is also working on a national experiential bridging program to help deal with some of these issues and these challenges and support them in that phase.

One of the things that I was trying to emphasize is: what happens when they get here and are hired? How are we supporting them as team members and employees in our workplace settings? Again, because technology changes, there’s different equipment at different sites. There’s different terminology that we use to describe things. Even though their technical knowledge is there, just how do we kind of socialize them into our practice settings and make them want to stay?

Bryan Tepper: Thank you, yeah.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Thanks for the presentation.

You mentioned that in other provinces there’s a regulatory body, like a college or whatever.

Sarah Erdelyi: Yes.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): And we don’t have the same in British Columbia?

Sarah Erdelyi: Not yet. We have applied to be regulated, more than a decade ago, and we’ve been actively advocating to be prioritized for regulation.

Radiation therapists have been designate to be regulated. This took place, I believe, in 2017, and we’re just waiting. The other imaging disciplines, the application has been filed. I guess with the regulatory modernization work, we just haven’t been prioritized yet.

Elenore Sturko: Who oversees?

[2:00 p.m.]

Sarah Erdelyi: The Ministry of Health, regulatory branch would be in charge of regulation, but otherwise, each individual health authority is kind of making their own decisions in terms of policies and practices, so we see wide variation. We do have diagnostic accreditation program standards that are administered under the authority of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C., but they don’t regulate professionals. They don’t give us a licence to practice or set our education and qualification standards. So it really is a challenge for us when we’re

kind of making their own decisions in terms of policies and practices. So we see wide variation.

We do have diagnostic accreditation program standards that are administered under the authority of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C., but they don’t regulate professionals. They don’t give us a license to practice or set our education and qualification standards. So it really is a challenge for us when we’re looking at expanding skills and scopes and doing anything above entry to practice.

Elenore Sturko: So I guess it really would standardized practices in British Columbia, take the burden of making sure that regulations and educational requirements are being met out of the hands of the individual health authorities and into a central body….

What are some of the names of the organizations in, like, Alberta, Saskatchewan?

Sarah Erdelyi: Regulatory colleges?

Elenore Sturko: Yes.

Sarah Erdelyi: We actually have an organization. It’s called the Alliance of Medical Radiation and Imaging Technologists Regulators of Canada. That organization is a group. All the members of that are the regulatory colleges in other Canadian jurisdictions, and so we don’t have a B.C. equivalent to participate in that, although I do go to some of those meetings just to fill in the gaps so that there’s still a feedback loop or updates provided as far as what’s happening in B.C.

But that’s where you’d go to find the list of all the regulatory colleges for MRTs in other jurisdictions.

Elenore Sturko: Okay. Great. Thanks.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. We are running a little late, so I will move on to the next presenter. Thank you so much for your time.

Sarah Erdelyi: Thank you.

*Paul Choi (Chair): I will now call up Mr. Dominic Rockall from Clements Centre Society.

Thank you for coming and presenting to us. You have five minutes for presentation and five minutes for questions. You may begin whenever you’re ready. Thank you.

Clements Care Society

Dominic Rockall: Good afternoon, committee members, and thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee. My name is Dominic Rockall, and I’m the CEO of the Clements Centre for Families in Duncan, B.C.

I’d like to open by acknowledging that we meet today on the unceded Coast Salish territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən and W̱SÁNEĆ Nations.

Clements Centre is a B.C. non-profit society and registered charity that has served people in the Cowichan region since 1957. Currently we support over 2,300 children, adults and families with early intervention therapies, adult community living services and family support programs.

Our services span the entire lifespan. We like to call it “from twinkle to twilight.” Kind of a tagline there. Our goal is inclusion, independence and growth for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Today I urge you to act on three critical recommendations to support the well-being of children and families across British Columbia and the Cowichan region.

Recommendation one is to expand the therapy workforce. In 2022, the government added 90 new, publicly funded therapy positions across B.C. That investment is making a difference. It has been really helpful, and it needs to continue.

In the Cowichan region alone, we have currently over 300 children on a wait-list for early intervention services, some waiting over a year. This is children under the age of five. These delays mean missing critical developmental windows for support. And provincewide, just 67 percent of children entering kindergarten are developmentally on track.

So we recommend continued investments to increase the number of funded therapy positions across B.C. This is about smart, preventative spending, because for every dollar invested in early childhood development, the return is estimated to be between $4 and $12 in future health, education and social cost savings. That’s been researched in a number of different research projects.

Recommendation two is to train mental health professionals to serve children with intellectual and developmental disabilities. We often talk about — and I’m sure you all know about — the mental health crisis, the youth mental health crisis we have, but we talk far less often about how severe and acute it is for children with developmental disabilities, due to a lack of trained clinicians, system fragmentation and narrow diagnostic eligibility criteria. Most child and youth mental health teams, CYMH teams, are not equipped to support neurodivergent children. And this same problem continues into the adult system of supports.

[2:05 p.m.]

So we recommend provincial funding for a targeted training initiative to equip mental health professionals to work effectively with children and adults with developmental disabilities. This wouldn’t be a big training necessity, because the people that do this work are already masters-level trained clinicians. They just need a little support to be able to serve that extra

training initiative to equip mental health professionals to work effectively with children and adults with developmental disabilities. And this wouldn’t be a big training necessity because the people that do this work are already master’s level trained clinicians. They just need a little support to be able to serve that extra demographic.

Recommendation number three is to invest in a new child development centre in Cowichan. Referrals to programs and services at the Clement Centre for Families have tripled over the past decade, and we’ve run out of space. Our current building cannot meet the growing needs. We have a lack of therapy rooms, specialized equipment and space for families, which limits service delivery, increases wait lists and creates inequities for rural and Indigenous families. So we’re requesting an $8 million capital investment to build a new purpose-built child development centre in Cowichan.

The new facility would expand access to life-changing therapies, attract and retain skilled professionals and meet the needs of our region’s growing diverse population. We have the experience, the land and strong local support, including the municipality of North Cowichan and Indigenous Nations for this project. We are ready to build.

So in closing, I just want to say that early intervention really changes lives. It’s like the baseline. We’re getting to individuals when they’re just entering the world. Cowichan really needs the infrastructure to meet the growing demand for services. So please act on these three priorities. Expand therapy staffing across the province. Train mental health professionals to serve children and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities and fund a new child development centre in the Cowichan region.

Thank you for your time and your commitment to creating a British Columbia where every child and family can thrive. Thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. I will turn to questions by members. Any questions? No? Okay, well, you did such a good job. There’s no questions.

We’ll move to the next presenter, Marc Bains from HeartLife Foundation.

Five minutes for presentation, five minutes for question, and you may begin whenever you’re ready. Thank you.

Marc Bains: Fantastic, thank you so much for allowing me to speak today. I’m really grateful for this opportunity. My name is Marc Bains. I’m the co-founder of the HeartLife Foundation along with Dr. Jillianne Code. We are Canada’s first and only patient-led heart failure organization that engages, educates and empowers people with heart failure so they can live the quality of life they deserve.

Today I am representing the 137,000 British Columbians living with heart failure. We’re here to ask for your support and investment in heart failure care by adding heart failure to the lifetime prevention strategy, supporting universal access to guideline-directed medical therapy, and then also taking a team-based approach to heart failure care.

This journey is personal for me. I was diagnosed with heart failure in 2008 at the age of 23. I lived with heart failure for 10 years till I had my life-saving transplant on June 6, 2018. So in a few days from now, I’ll have my seventh anniversary. I turned 40 earlier this year. I know you’re probably thinking, “this guy doesn’t look a day over 30,” so obviously telling the truth, but I can assure you I am.

I felt heart failure. I felt the fear associated with the unknown. I knew about the fatigue, the shortness of breath walking up my stairs, the visits in the emergency room at 2:30 a.m. that lasted 12 hours, 24 hours, the hospital stays that were 30 days or more, and the feeling of going into cardiac arrest, which I did many times, not knowing if I was going to wake up on the other side and see my wife again. But I also know the power of the right care at the right time.

My co-founder, Dr. Jillianne Code, lived with heart failure for 10 years, had not just one transplant but two transplants. When the system works, this is us. But we’re not alone. As I mentioned, there’s 137,000 British Columbians living with heart failure who are going through this exact same thing that we went through — 19,000 new diagnoses every single year; 20 percent of those individuals when diagnosed will be back in hospital within 30 days with worsening heart failure. This is unbelievable stat.

[2:10 p.m.]

Heart failure costs B.C. almost $590 million annually in all related costs, $80 million of that directly related to heart failure hospitalizations. That’s why we’re here with these three recommendations that follow our national strategy for heart failure but also aligned with Bill S-204, which was introduced in the Canadian Senate last week by Senator Yonah Martin that

million annually in all related costs — $80 million of that directly related to heart failure hospitalizations. That’s why we’re here with these three recommendations that follow our national strategy for heart failure but also align with Bill S204, which was introduced in the Canadian Senate last week by Senator Yonah Martin, that calls for a national strategy for heart failure.

Again, (1) add heart failure to the lifetime prevention strategy by funding NT-proBNP. NT-proBNP is an affordable, effective and available blood test that can support early diagnostics of heart failure. Alone, it can save almost $63 million. So that’s what early diagnostics does for heart failure.

(2) Provide universal access to guideline-directed medical therapy. These medications, when given at the maximum tolerable dose to patients within three to six months of diagnosis, can add five to six years on a person’s life, improve their quality of life, reduce hospitalizations and complications and save almost a $100 million a year in heart failure–related health care costs.

(3) Align with the provincial minister’s mandate letter and take a team-based approach to heart failure care. Support the recruitment and retention of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, tech workers — who we heard about two sessions ago — and patient advocacy groups so we can work together to support patients and caregivers where they are, particularly in rural, remote and Indigenous communities.

These recommendations will clear waiting rooms, will reduce the strain on hospitals in this province. They will save annually, again, almost $163 million for B.C. So my ask is simple but urgent. Invest in heart failure by adding it to the lifetime prevention strategy in B.C., provide universal access to guideline-directed medical therapy and take a team-based approach to heart failure care.

Thank you so much for your time. I look forward to any questions that you may have.

The Chair: Thank you so much for the presentation. We’ll now turn to questions by members. Recognizing MLA Blatherwick.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Not a day over 30.

I’m really interested in having a little bit more conversation about universal access to heart failure therapy. This is a really short presentation, so you really can’t get into specific details. But you’re not just talking about medication. You’re talking about others, like unified forms of intervention. Is that correct?

Marc Bains: Particularly, recommendation 2 is focused on medications. That’s guideline-directed medical therapy. Depending on the type of heart failure you have, there’s a certain number of medications or proven therapies that can support care.

My heart failure was reduced ejection fraction. There are four key medications that I should be optimally on, based on studies that would yield those results. That happens along different forms of heart failure care.

But you’re right. To your point, there are other therapies or interventions that can be provided, like cardiac rehab. Access to that, for example, would support care in the community.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you.

Marc Bains: Yes, keep going.

Jennifer Blatherwick: So when we’re talking about NT-proBNP, which is a really simple blood test that can…. One of the areas we’re talking about is cost reduction.

Could you talk a little bit more about, say — if it’s not an area in which you have expertise, that’s totally fine — the cost of the test and cost of administering the test?

Marc Bains: Of course. I don’t know the cost of administering the test. It does depend on the lab itself. What we see, based on research leading up to this, was anywhere from $10 to $50, depending on the lab.

What we saw in the Fraser Valley…. Our community engagement manager had to pay for her own test for NT-proBNP, and it was $50 Canadian. You can get the tests in hospital. I always say that in hospital, we have universal care. But then, when you leave the hospital, your postal code, your sex, your ethnic background, your education and your income level depends on the care you get.

It changes where you get it, not only in B.C. but province to province. Some provinces have full coverage, universal access, where in B.C. again, covered in the hospital but not in the community. So that’s what we’re asking for.

The Chair: If there are no other questions….

Jennifer Blatherwick: So when we’re talking administering the test within medicine…. One of the things that we often get asked for in stuff like this is also an educational component to ensure that knowledge about tests and implementation of tests is universal across medical professionals.

[2:15 p.m.]

However, these are very long-standing medications, the test itself has a great deal of longevity. Do you feel that there’s like a necessary role in here for education for primary care physicians about these medications, about these tests, or are we at a sufficient place of knowledge?

tests is universal across medical professionals. However, these are very long-standing medications, and the test itself has a great deal of longevity.

Do you feel that there’s a necessary role in here for education for primary care physicians about these medications, about these tests, or are we at a sufficient place of knowledge?

Marc Bains: Great question. I don’t think we’re at a sufficient place of knowledge, not just for the test or the education but overall in heart failure in general. We find in community practice, there is a lack of awareness around signs and symptoms of heart failure. Necessarily people don’t think about heart failure when they see their patients. And so education plays a key part in that.

HeartLife…. Part of our mandate is to educate community practice, whether that be GPs, but also thinking about pharmacists where we have our regular touchpoints. Do they have the education? Are they empowered to provide the support and care? So that happens at the base of the community. And that goes back to recommendation 3, taking that team-based approach to heart failure care, where we’re really supporting people in the community.

Jillianne and I were both diagnosed in metropolitan areas. I have access to three major heart centres within my home in Vancouver, but we’re both the exception and not the rule. So we want to be able to support all British Columbians with this.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Fantastic. And so team-based care is incredible, but really challenging to implement in rural, remote and northern areas just because of distance and communication. There has been quite a bit of shift in the medical field in the last little while using virtual and remote options.

How do you see, specifically, heart failure team-based care in relation to rural and remote and northern implementation?

Marc Bains: That’s a great question, and it revolves around that hub-and-spoke model where you have those central areas for health care, like St. Paul’s for example. But then you have these different nodes where you can either send mobile units — heart failure units, whatever they may be, specialists — or then upscale in those communities but create those clear referral pathways back to those major centres.

Of course there are hurdles involved with that in terms of…. Someone with heart failure travelling from northern B.C. to St. Paul’s takes eight hours when they’re sick. It’s not easy. So there are different hurdles associated with that. But it’s that hub-and-spoke model that we’re looking into that would provide value.

And you’re right. Virtual care coming in, especially through COVID — we learned a lot, we learned that we can do it, and we learned we could do it well. So how do we then push that across the province?

Jennifer Blatherwick: That’s great. Thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay, that’s time. So thank you so much for your time. We will have the next presenter up…

Marc Bains: Appreciate the opportunity.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much.

…Carolina Ibarra from Pacifica Housing Advisory Association, please.

Thank you for coming today to present to us. I’m sure you heard: five minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions. You can begin whenever you’re ready.

Pacifica Housing

Carolina Ibarra: For sure.

Hi, everyone. I’m Carolina. I’m CEO of Pacifica Housing. Thank you so much for this opportunity. As the name of our organization says, we do housing across the continuum. We’re a non-profit. We do everything from homelessness outreach to market rental housing.

I’m sure there are going to be a lot of asks around housing, so I thought: “What could I say that is not just going to be what everyone would repeat?” So I thought maybe I’d focus on building on what we have currently.

I’m not sure if you’re aware, but since about 2018, it was estimated that we’d lose about 30,000 affordable units just because of expiring operating agreements. So those would no longer get subsidies, and on turnover, they would become market rentals to sustain the building.

Just in 2024-2025, there are about 11,000 that are being lost. Since 2020, seven of our buildings have stopped being subsidized housing. For family housing, that’s a really big deal. I understand that it’s probably not possible to get them back on operating agreement and maybe not a really good idea, but there are some things that can be done.

One thing is to invest or continue investing in the renewal of some of those buildings. Some of the buildings are not suitable for redevelopment. Particularly, we have a lot of buildings that have three- and four-bedroom units, which is unheard of. We would not be able to redevelop and yield that, but investing in the health of the physical infrastructure would allow us to focus any income that we get from rent into managing the tenancies without needing to increase rent significantly to pay for repairs.

BCNPHA estimated that about $600 million is required in the province. Obviously that cannot all be done at once, and it would require a partnership with the federal government. But I do think that a concerted investment of that is going to be really important to affordability retention and ensuring that what we do have is protected.

[2:20 p.m.]

Another thing that has worked really well in this province are rent supplements. SAFER — Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters, I think

think that a concerted investment of that is going to be really important to affordability retention and ensuring that, you know, what we do have is protected.

Another thing that has worked really well in this province is rent supplements. SAFER — Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters, I think it is — is the most well known, but there’s another one called supported rent supplement program that’s new in British Columbia. It took a while to get off the ground, but I can tell you that it is incredibly effective for people, and it’s very cost effective.

It’s not a very big program, though, but if I can give you an example: we support 54 clients between greater Victoria and Nanaimo with rent supplements, and that’s about $36,000 a month for 54 people, some of whom would otherwise be homeless or in supportive housing. So we’re actually moving them along the continuum. For them to be homeless, that 54 people would probably cost closer to $4 million to manage. So the cost benefit is huge, and it also helps us make space in our existing supportive housing for people who really don’t need to be there but who can’t afford to move on.

I guess, the last thing I would suggest or I would ask is that we currently…. Obviously, we need a lot more housing and a lot more supportive housing, but we have a lot of underutilized supportive housing space, and that’s because it’s not all funded equally. Some of the new programs, the per unit per month — the programs that are effective come close to $5,000 a month. That means that people have all the proper supports, the meals. It prevents eviction. That actually starts helping them build the skills to move on in their life.

But that’s not across the board. We’ve got buildings where they get $250 a year. So my suggestion is — and I don’t know the actual total number of supportive housing units; I couldn’t, in B.C., find that information — an average of $5,000 per month per unit would actually allow us to account for appropriate support staff and programming and meals.

A lot of those older buildings are falling apart, and even though we don’t get that subsidy or that amount a month, they’re probably costing more than $5,000, but something like that would actually allow us to plan. It would also allow us to hire. You know, we manage big budgets, like $30 million budgets. You want a proper CFO to be overseeing that kind of money. Accounting properly for that per unit per month would really help us do that.

Oh, 17 seconds to spare.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for that. We will turn to questions by members. Any questions?

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much for relating the investment of an infrastructure back to budget, and I think this is a budgeting process, and it’s really important that when we talk about choices and investment that we’re also talking about maintenance of the assets we already have.

So when you’re speaking of the number of units that you manage under your umbrella, you manage them under, I guess, varying different agreements?

Carolina Ibarra: Yes.

Jennifer Blatherwick: So can you just talk a little bit about, give us some more detail about, what is the range of services that you provide under those different agreements?

Carolina Ibarra: If I look at just the housing that we provide, we have supportive housing, most of which is owned by the province and we operate. We do have a handful of buildings that we actually own, and the province just pays for the operation. They don’t do those partnerships anymore, but they do exist; they’re actually really good. Then we do rent geared to income — subsidized housing. That’s where people meet a threshold, and they pay 30 percent of their income in rent. That’s not sufficient to operate, so we get a subsidy. So those are the ones that are expiring.

We do have a number of buildings that we just got a loan to build it, essentially, which are also really effective but not great for people at the lower income bracket, because we just…. Subsidized housing at the lowest level is impossible to sustain without a subsidy.

Then we do have some buildings that are CHF, community housing fund, where we have, I think it’s 20 percent deep subsidy, 50 percent rent geared to income, and the balance is market.

[2:25 p.m.]

What they all have in common though, except for the market ones…. I’d say the ones that are pure market or low end of market aren’t as much of a problem. Anything where we subsidize the rent, it’s very difficult to pay for infrastructure upgrades. I’m talking like roof replacements, pipe replacements. But when they start going

ones…. I’d say the ones that are pure market or low end of market aren’t as much of a problem. Anything where we subsidize the rent, it’s very difficult to pay for infrastructure upgrades. I’m talking like roof replacements, pipe replacements — when they start going, they’re super expensive.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions? No, okay.

Thank you so much for your time and your presentation.

Next I will call up Laura Vye from Victoria Child Abuse Prevention and Counselling Centre. Thank you for coming to present. A reminder: five minutes to present and five minutes for questions. You may begin whenever you’re ready.

Laura Vye: Good afternoon, standing committee members. Thank you for the opportunity today. My name is Laura Vye, and I’m the executive director of the Victoria Child Abuse Prevention and Counselling Centre, a non-profit agency dedicated to providing trauma-informed counselling, advocacy and specialized victim service support to children and youth who have experienced sexual abuse, physical abuse, family violence, and exploitation. We’ve 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 of 24 years who specialized in child abuse, sexual assault and intimate partner violence investigations, I can tell you firsthand that I’ve seen the results of unhealed and unresolved childhood trauma and the effects on people, families and our communities.

In Canada, approximately 60 percent of individuals report experiencing some form of sexual abuse before the age of 15. In British Columbia, Indigenous youth under the age of 15 are experiencing physical and/or sexual abuse at more than double the rate of non-Indigenous youth. Child pornography reports increased by 52 percent in 2023, highlighting a disturbing trend in child exploitation.

These statistics are not just numbers; they represent real children and real families in our communities who are desperately in need of support. Child abuse is a serious and prevalent public health issue with both immediate and long-term health and social impacts that affect children, families and communities across Canada. Last year our organization served 558 children and youth, which was up from 494 the year before.

Children exposed to trauma are significantly higher at risk for 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 the loss of potential community contributions.

The Victoria Child Abuse Prevention and Counselling Centre, as a non-profit organization, receives limited core funding from MCFD for sexually abused children only. We also receive project and application-based funding from DoJ, civil forfeiture and others to support our child and youth advocacy centres and victim service program. As a result, we must rely on yearly community contributions and non-government grant applications to support children and youth who experience non-sexual abuse. This means that our government does not fund trauma counselling and services for children and youth who have been victims of other forms of trauma such as physical abuse, severe neglect and witnessing family violence.

Our centre provides unique and specialized intensive counselling therapy for the children and youth for up to two years. At the Victoria and West Shore CYACs, we work closely with local police, RCMP, child protection, mental health and medical services, Crown counsel and Indigenous agencies to provide wraparound support when reports of child abuse are received. Our agency has affiliations with the B.C. Network of Child and Youth Advocacy Centres that unites the 11 CYCs throughout our province. And two of my provincial colleagues will be presenting at a future date to this committee.

So what can community and government do? Commit to investing in child and youth trauma counselling and access to mental health services for improved outcomes. This is not merely a compassionate choice — it is a strategic and cost-effective one. Early intervention can significantly reduce the long-term costs associated with untreated trauma. Imagine what our communities could look like in the future if vulnerable children, youth and families receive immediate access to programs to help them heal from trauma.

[2:30 p.m.]

A call to action: one, we are seeking your commitment to call upon government to provide core sustained funding for currently unfunded child abuse counselling with $250,000 extra per year; and two, we are seeking your commitment to call upon government to increase core

trauma. A call to action. One, we are seeking your commitment to call upon government to provide core, sustained funding for currently unfunded child abuse counselling with $250,000 extra per year. We are, two, seeking your commitment to call upon government to increase core funding for sexual abuse by $200,000 in order that all children have timely access to trauma care following their abuse.

Children have a right to mental health, trauma and medical services that will make their abuse journey less traumatic and a right for a healthier future. Society and government have a responsibility to support our most vulnerable and valuable resource: children and youth. Imagine what our communities could look like in the future if our children, youth and families received immediate access to programs to help them heal from trauma.

Thank you for your time.

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

We’ll go to questions by members.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you for your presentation.

Yeah, this is tough work and even tougher to come and have to ask for funding all the time to do it, so I thank you so much.

I’m wondering. I didn’t quite catch. You had asked for two different pieces of core funding. Could you just differentiate those a little bit for me?

Laura Vye: Sure. The one ask is for core sustained funding for the currently unfunded forms of trauma. Right now we only get funding for sexual abuse. All of the other forms of trauma that children experience are not funded by MCFD. The No. 2 ask was to increase our current sexual assault funding so that we can reduce wait-lists and provide better service.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Can I clarify? You guys are a CYAC or you work with CYAC?

Laura Vye: Our umbrella agency is the Victoria Child Abuse Prevention and Counselling Centre, and one of our programs is a CYAC. We have one in West Shore and one in Victoria. Then one of our other programs is the victim services support for all of the children and youth in greater Victoria.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Perfect. Thank you so much.

When you’re looking for an investment in counselling, one of the things that’s very challenging about this field is that it’s really difficult to find personnel who are fully qualified to support children through complex trauma, through, you know, the physiological. Is there sufficient personnel with the level of expertise that’s required to hire?

Laura Vye: Yes, all of our counsellors and therapists have master’s level education that specializes in child and youth mental health and different modalities of counselling, from EMDR to art therapies, play therapies. To answer your question, yes, we have 14 people on staff, seven counsellors right now.

Jennifer Blatherwick: The treatment, of course, of the after-effects…. You mentioned the intervention that’s required for families to be able to properly support their children and their young people through this situation. What kind of services are offered for the families?

Laura Vye: Great question. The children’s caregivers or family members, whoever is supporting them through their journey, also come to our centre and have sessions in either group situations or with individual counsellors to learn their own strategies in how to support their child moving forward — a lot of safety skills and prevention strategies, education around internet use, preventing exploitation, those kinds of things. We’re treating not just the toddler, youth but the family and caregivers as well.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions? No? Okay.

Laura Vye: Thank you so much.

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

Laura Vye: I left some handouts as well.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you.

We will take a quick five-minute recess. If I can ask members to come back in five minutes, please.

The committee recessed from 2:34 p.m. to 2:42 p.m.

The committee recessed from 2:34 p.m. to 2:42 p.m.

[Paul Choi in the chair.]

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay, I will call the committee back to order and continue with our presentation. Next we have Janine Theobald from Mental Health Recovery Partners of South Island.

Thanks so much for coming and presenting to us today. You have five minutes for presentation and five minutes for questions. And you may begin whenever you’re ready.

Mental Health Recovery Partners,
South Island

Janine Theobald: Hello, hon. members of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. My name is Janine Theobald, and I’m the executive director of Mental Health Recovery Partners, South Island. Our non-profit has been providing services in the capital region for over 40 years.

One in five British Columbians experiences mental health challenges, yet half of these individuals do not access support. Barriers to access, such as stigma and long wait times, are exacerbated by lack of attachment to GPs and primary care providers. Emergency departments are often the first point of access for mental health and substance, MHSU, services. These barriers highlight the urgent need for appropriate accessible and community-driven solutions.

Navigating the MHSU system can feel like a tangled spiderweb, leaving people in distress feeling stuck and disoriented. Through collaboration, that web becomes a safety net, ensuring every door becomes the right door for care. Through nimble, innovative and person-centred responses, we prevent unnecessary emergency room visits, easing pressures on a stretched health care system.

Our organization is a place where people receive recovery-oriented support and build healthy relationships, reducing isolation and increasing their capacity to remain well in community. We collaborate across sectors to help individuals access food security, housing, employment support, youth-focused services and disability resources, ensuring that recovery is not only possible but sustainable.

Despite our vital contributions, non-profits continue to face financial uncertainty due to rigid funding structures and limited resources. Funding is often project-based for a single fiscal year and with limited overhead funding.

[2:45 p.m.]

The work of the Parliamentary Secretary for Community Development and Non-profits needs to be laser-focused in these uncertain times. Advocacy for financial stability in our sector must remain a priority.

Peer support is evidence-based, cost-effective and profoundly transformative. Peer supporters in this sector are trained professionals

of the Parliamentary Secretary for Community Development and Non-Profits needs to be laser-focused in these uncertain times. Advocacy for financial stability in our sector must remain a priority.

Peer support is evidence-based, cost-effective and profoundly transformative. Peer supporters in this sector are trained professionals who have lived in living experience of mental illness and substance use. Our trained peer supporters walk side by side with those seeking help, providing hope and expertise while demonstrating recovery is possible. Peer support reduces hospitalization rates, increases engagement with care and improves long-term stability, helping individuals regain control of their lives.

Beyond direct support, peer programs create meaningful employment opportunities, allowing individuals to turn their greatest challenges into their greatest strengths. Expanding peer support ensures service users and peer supporters experience greater stability, resilience and self-determination. Further, peer support professionals can effectively and economically fill gaps in the workforce.

We laud the province’s investment in the innovative CRCL teams, formerly the peer-assisted crisis teams. CRCL has proven to be a powerful alternative to traditional crisis intervention, reducing reliance on law enforcement and ensuring individuals in distress receive trauma-informed and person-centred care. Within the first two years of CRCL operations, only 1 percent of over 10,000 calls required escalation to police attendance, resulting in appropriate use of law enforcement resources. CRCL’s success reinforces the undeniable power of peer-led intervention. Expanding this model to include stabilization services will facilitate seamless crisis and recovery-oriented support.

The following three recommendations align with the province’s vision for cost-effective, effective, seamless, timely and accessible care and will strengthen the role of non-profits in the MHSU sector.

One, increase the administrative allocation for provincially funded contracts from 10 to 15 percent, ensuring non-profits can maintain operational stability and provide high-quality and innovative services in the MHSU continuum of care.

Two, allocate targeted resources to support and expand the mandate of the provincial Parliamentary Secretary for Community Development and Non-Profits with a specific focus on the MHSU sector.

And three, invest in evidence and community-based initiatives that generate positive outcomes, sustain wellness in community and reduce reliance on emergency departments. This includes interventions such as community-based crisis stabilization and specialized peer support roles in the MHSU continuum of care. Thank you so much for your time and consideration.

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

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you for your presentation. I’m just wondering, when you say increasing the administration overhead from 10 to 15, you’re talking about direct government contracts with ministries like MCFD?

Janine Theobald: Thank you for that clarifying question. For example, our organization does have contracts with the health authority, as do many others delivering peer support and other services, MHSU services, and so it would be, in our case, looking at being able to have that allocation from 10 to 15 percent just to support some of the operational expenses to deliver those services.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you. Then when we’re talking about targeted resources for the parliamentary secretary, can you tell me a little bit more about like what actions are you looking specifically to get out of that?

Janine Theobald: Yes, it would be great to see some opportunity for targeted engagement with MHSU-serving organizations, and that might look like staff support, that might look like engagement, budgets or data collection and review resources.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Data collection is always the challenging one, right?

Janine Theobald: Yes.

Jennifer Blatherwick: For evidence- and community-based interventions, you’ve talked about peer support. Can I just check with you? Are you doing an honorarium-based model or an employment-based model?

Janine Theobald: We have an employment-based model at our organization. As mentioned we have contracts with the health authority, but that is for our peer supporters that are in the hospital. They’re right at the psychiatric intensive care, emergency services and then in the acute care units. They’ll provide peer support and then engage individuals once they are discharged

We also have a community-based peer support program where people access…. It’s self-referral. It has to be self-determined. And that is for people who are our staff that are not working in the hospital and we fund that through grant writing and fundraising.

[2:50 p.m.]

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you. For your community-based support, you’re talking about following up after an intervention, like other hospitalization or an institutionalization. So what kind of services does the peer support model offer within the community?

Janine Theobald: Great question. We see people before, during

about following up after an intervention, like either a hospitalization or an institutionalization.

So what kind of services does the peer support model offer within the community?

Janine Theobald: Great question.

We see people before, during, post admission, as well as the family members and loved ones. We have peer supporters who have lived experience of a loved one that they support.

It’s a mutual-based relationship. Our peer supporters are not advocates, but they will work to support people to advocate for themselves. So they may share their own story. They’ve been trained in the profession of peer support, so there is that appropriate sharing. They will share things that have worked for them, challenges that they’ve had and otherwise.

It’s really driven by the peer, so sometimes it can be very goal-oriented, sometimes it’s just about a sense of community and belonging and being able to re-engage in community, perhaps after an acute admission.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): I just had questions, just more about along the lines of, like, what the roles of the peer workers were. All the peer support workers, are they all in recovery? Or what type of peer experiences do they have?

Janine Theobald: Yeah. I’ll speak specifically around our organization, but there is a broad network of individuals providing peer support.

Our peer supporters are people who have a lived experience of mental illness, usually with a diagnosis. Some of them may have intersectional experiences with substance use or otherwise, and they are generally on their recovery journey. So this relationship is really mutually beneficial, because that person who, whatever stage of their journey, join and receive peer support, are working with someone who has gone through this journey and still does.

Recovery is not linear, but it can be sustained in community in certain ways as well. So, yeah, they all have lived experience and are walking their recovery journeys.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Are your peer support workers required to stay sober on shifts?

Janine Theobald: Yes, yeah. We are a mental health primary organization. There are, at times, substance use supports but our…. We’re primarily mental health support users.

Speaking to what I was really trying to describe around the collaboration, a collective impact and strengths-based approach, there are organizations who are really in that lead for providing substance use recovery oriented supports and different types, so we will want to make sure that we’re the right service at the right time. Then we’ll navigate and support people to connect, because it can be really challenging to figure out where to go.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Okay. Great. Thanks.

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

Janine Theobald: Okay. Thank you very much.

Paul Choi (Chair): We’ll move to the next presenter. I’ll ask for Geoff Morrison from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers to come to the front, please. Thank you for coming to present to us. As always, five minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions, and you may begin whenever you’re ready.

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

Geoff Morrison: Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and committee members.

Canada stands at a pivotal moment. Our country has the opportunity to become an energy superpower in both clean and conventional energy. Our challenge is to diversify our trade markets and capitalize on the current ambitions to build a substantial amount of new infrastructure at an unprecedented speed. B.C. is well positioned to lead this charge, but we must act.

We’ve made responsible progress. Soon LNG Canada will ship its first cargo, and Cedar LNG and Woodfibre continue to advance. Should LNG Canada phase 2 and Ksi Lisims LNG proceed, B.C. will rank amongst the world’s top five LNG exporters. This will be a tremendous achievement in support of our trade diversification ambitions.

Innovation is at the centre of this success, as demonstrated by our ability to produce more natural gas from fewer wells with lower emissions intensities. Since 2014, methane emissions from B.C.’s oil and gas sector have declined over 45 percent alongside substantial production growth, but there’s more to do.

[2:55 p.m.]

British Columbia enters this budget cycle facing record deficits, rising debt, and a negative credit rating outlook. Restoring fiscal health requires attracting private investment and improving productivity. The natural gas value chain presents our province’s most immediate opportunity to achieve both. Natural gas and oil are critical trade drivers, accounting for two of B.C.’s top five exports to the United States.

outlook. Restoring fiscal health requires attracting private investment and improving productivity. The natural gas value chain presents our province’s most immediate opportunity to achieve both.

Natural gas and oil are trade drivers, accounting for two of B.C.’s top five exports to the United States. In 2024, they represented B.C.’s largest export proportion to the U.S.-bound trade, 15 percent. Natural gas is also a top five world export. However, further market diversification is key.

The expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline is beginning to reshape oil export patterns. Previously, virtually no Canadian oil was shipped to Asia. Yet between May and November last year, China imported over 50 percent of the crude exported through TMX. Similarly, propane exports to Asia have surged from zero in 2018 to 40 percent of Canada’s total propane exports in 2024.

Today more than 20 percent of Japan’s propane imports come via the Port of Prince Rupert. Over the next two years, energy export growth will primarily be driven by LNG. This will contribute to an increase in government royalty revenues as outlined in B.C.’s three-year fiscal plan.

With the right policies, natural gas can further boost provincial revenues, drive innovation and solidify Canada’s position as a trusted source of safe, secure, reliable, responsibly produced energy.

CAPP’s three recommendations are as follows:

(1) Create an integrated natural gas value chain and export strategy. LNG is not just about coastal facilities. B.C. needs systems and policies that support decades of upstream production. Government, First Nations and industry must work together to remove regulatory policy barriers across the entire value chain. Meaningful and respectful partnerships with Indigenous communities are essential for sustainable development and to achieve the permitting certainty and land use solutions we all desire. This requires proper funding for data systems needed to support durable cumulative effects, management decisions and restoration activities.

(2) Modernize the fiscal framework with competitiveness in mind. B.C. must finalize its new royalty framework following a predictable, principled approach. British Columbians deserve a fair share, but maintaining a long-term investment climate is critical. Competitiveness concerns, especially with new compliance costs, must be addressed.

(3) Align climate policies with competitiveness, innovation and global outcomes. A sectoral emissions cap is not the right approach. Market-driven solutions should deliver emission reductions at the lowest cost while encouraging investment and economic growth. A cap is an unnecessary policy layer on top of an already complex regulatory environment that will limit production, drive investment and jobs elsewhere, cause carbon leakage and reduce government revenues and economic potential.

In closing, natural gas is already B.C.’s largest source of resource revenue. With new LNG exports, natural gas is poised to become the province’s leading global export by value. Our recommendations will unlock billions of dollars of private sector investment, helping achieve Premier Eby’s economic growth mandate; create high-paying jobs, particularly in Indigenous and rural communities; strengthen B.C.’s fiscal position and safeguard essential public services.

CAPP and its members remain committed partners in realizing these objectives. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We’ll go to the questions. Recognizing the Deputy Chair.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Thanks for the presentation. Could you outline a little bit about just how, I guess, important natural gas will be to B.C.’s fiscal outlook?

Geoff Morrison: That’s a good question. If you look at the most recent budget, probably around page 28, there’s a section that talks about resource revenues. It anticipates that natural gas revenues are expected to increase 59.7 percent next year to $920 million. The following year, it would be $1.2 billion.

Bryan Tepper: We had a presentation earlier that was worried about the subsidies that LNG is receiving. That $1.2 billion — is that pre- or post-subsidy? How does that affect…? Can you describe that for us?

Geoff Morrison: That’s government revenue, so I can’t refer…. I don’t understand what subsidies you’re referring to. But that would be government revenue, counted in the budget.

[3:00 p.m.]

Bryan Tepper: Excellent. Okay, I’ve got one more. I’m just going to go ahead again.

If we replaced coal with greenhouse gas in what’s going on in Asia, do we have any idea of what the greenhouse gas reduction would be in something like that?

Geoff Morrison: Yeah, that’s a great question. There’s a broad theory about that. It’s difficult to show

Bryan Tepper: Thanks, I’m just going to go ahead again, cut in. If we replaced coal with greenhouse gas in what’s going on in Asia, do we have any idea of what the greenhouse gas reduction would be in something like that?

Geoff Morrison: Yeah, that’s a great question. There’s a broad theory about that. It’s difficult to show molecule for molecule what happens, and so it’s an ongoing discussion that this government is actually looking at as well. I mean, in principle, it certainly makes sense, but it’s difficult to show on paper that you can attribute action X in B.C. to action B in China or whatever they might do.

But broadly speaking, the energy demand is going up globally, and finding lower emission substitutes or profiles for energy is important. B.C.’s LNG is amongst the cleanest. So if you’re just talking about displacing LNG for LNG, you can stand assured that B.C.’s gas has got a better environmental record than other LNG.

Bryan Tepper: Which I keep hearing is much better than coal. That’s what I guess I’m getting at is it’s….

Geoff Morrison: That’s, again, it’s one of those…. There are 100 studies on both sides that say the opposite thing. So I’m couching more carefully because I don’t want to get in trouble.

Bryan Tepper: All right. That’s it for me.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much for your presentation.

I was hoping we could talk a little bit more about — I’m going to hope that I wrote down your words correctly — an integrated expert value chain. Is that right? Okay, thank you. So you talked about that one of those things would be establishing data systems. Could you just expand, please, on the purpose and the use of the data system?

Geoff Morrison: Certainly, in northeastern B.C., where the upstream industry operates, there’s question around cumulative impacts. So understanding the proper data, getting real-life ground truthing of that data, is critically important for regulators and governments to make decisions about what are appropriate and not appropriate activities on that landscape going forward. That would include support for restoration activities as well.

Jennifer Blatherwick: So you’re talking about establishing really healthy data collection both on the environmental impacts but possibly health impacts, social impacts as well?

Geoff Morrison: Sure, I would be open to that. I’m not limiting that in any way. Yes, understood.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Sorry. I didn’t realize I was pushing the boundary of it.

Geoff Morrison: No, no, you’re not. There is already a robust air emissions network in northeastern B.C. and water network in B.C. funded through the regulator and other sources as well.

Jennifer Blatherwick: When we’re talking about modernizing fiscal, you specifically referred to, you know, finalizing the royalty. From the perspective of your members, can you just talk about the proposed increase in royalty? What is the specific ask from your members around the royalty?

Geoff Morrison: I think, specifically, we’re looking for this government to meet its deadlines. We already blew past a deadline last September where the new royalty system was supposed to be in place, and that creates a lot of investor uncertainty. So we are hopeful that the government puts the resources into finishing that work in a principled way so that we can hit the deadline for January 1, 2027.

You can imagine, if you don’t know the fiscal terms of the jurisdiction you’re investing in, it’s very difficult to make long-term decisions. We are living on an interim system, and it’s critically important that the government finish that work.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you.

Steve Morissette: Just quickly, I hear lots from constituents about fracking and about…. And we heard from another presenter this morning about the millions of litres of water that are used in fracking. Is industry doing any work on reducing the amount of water use, cleaning it afterwards? I don’t know if that’s even possible.

Geoff Morrison: Excellent question. I understand the concern; it’s a real one. The water that is used in hydraulic fracturing is…. The industry does its best to reuse and reduce that.

There are a few examples where there is a water hub. In northeastern B.C., Ovintiv has that, and it maximizes the recapture of that water and reuse of that water. Also, there is an innovative solution in Dawson Creek where Shell invested — I can’t remember the sum, but they invested into Dawson Creek’s wastewater system, so that it’ll take wastewater to use for hydraulic fracturing as well.

[3:05 p.m.]

And then, all of that water, once it’s been used in an oil and gas well, it can never be released into the environment again. It will be stored deep underground from which the oil and gas in the depleted reservoirs came from. So there are lots of dedicated resources to reducing or reusing that water. I can’t remember the exact percentage, but it’s a very high percentage of reuse.

in an oil and gas well. It can never be released to the environment again. It will be stored deep underground from which the oil and gas in the depleted reservoirs came from.

So there are lots of dedicated resources to reducing or reusing that water. I can’t remember the exact percentage, but it’s a very high percentage of reuse. It depends on where the water is and where the next well is being drilled, but a very high percentage of that is available, and a very small percentage of the natural water table or water system in northeastern B.C. I think it’s like 0.03 percent of the water gets used out of the environment from northeastern B.C. in any given year.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. I want to say thanks for your presentation, and we’ll move on to the next presenter.

Next, if I can call Miss Sandra Hudson from Victoria Women’s Transition House Society to the front.

Thank you so much for coming. And again, five minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions, and you may begin whenever you’re ready. Thank you.

Victoria Women’s
Transition House Society

Sandra Hudson: The nice woman who greeted us is handing out an infographic, just as a visual aid.

Good afternoon. My name is Sandra Hudson, and I am the incoming chair of the Victoria Women’s Transition House Society. Our current chair, Maurine Karagianis, is on her vacation and sends her regrets. I am here today with our executive director, Makenna Rielly.

Intimate partner violence touches us all. I am certain in your own communities and across the province, you know the important work that is being done by transition houses and other organizations. I also know that you are all aware of the need for affordable housing for women fleeing intimate partner violence as an essential component of a comprehensive response to domestic violence and a critical step in supporting survivors on their path to safety and independence.

Here in greater Victoria women, especially single mothers, and women leaving violence are hardest hit by the capital regional district housing crisis. Safe, affordable housing is critical to women’s safety and well-being. Victoria Women’s Transition House is working towards a future where safe, secure housing is affordable and accessible for all women and their families.

There are three program stages of transitional housing. The first program stage is emergency services, including contact with a 24-7 crisis line and linked with an emergency shelter for up to 30 days. The programs at this stage for women and their children emphasize safety planning, trauma counselling, food resources and housing if available.

Our second-stage transitional housing program is part of a spectrum of services and programs continuing crisis services if additional time is needed. Second-stage housing plays a vital role as it provides safety with time for women to rebuild their lives, heal from abuse, develop resiliency and move towards living violence-free for themselves and their children, which in turn breaks the cycle of violence.

Second-stage programs not only give time to recover but also allow for a focus on healing from trauma and abuse with counselling, legal support and workshops such as life skills. Our programs provide safe, affordable, temporary accommodation for women and children who have experienced violence.

Our third-stage programs are moving to independent, affordable housing with outreach supports if assistance and resources are needed.

Even though the government contracts with us to provide services, year after year, increases to contracted amounts are rarely increased to meet costs. Thus we are required to fundraise to meet service demands. The Ministries of Children and Families and Public Safety and Solicitor General have been stagnant since 2008, only allowing increases for union members under their contracts.

Although B.C. Housing has been very generous with our new West Shore housing project, they still do not pay for the second-stage services at Harrison Place, our second-stage program for women over 50. We recently confirmed that we are qualified operators and will apply for the new transitional housing programs. Our ultimate goal is to present Harrison Place as a housing project for the second-stage portfolio and receive appropriate funding for the program.

While we celebrate the commitment to our new building and expanded program, we recognize the potential threats posed by the need for continued support from government officials to address the chronic underfunding of our essential service programs.

[3:10 p.m.]

A primary concern still lies in our dealing with the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, as the outdated funding formula they employ fails to adequately account for the increased service demands we have faced since 2012. The reliance on population data from 2006 for FTE calculations has hindered our ability to secure necessary contract adjustments, impeding our ability to meet the service demands effectively.

funding formula they employ fails to adequately account for the increased service demands we have faced since 2012. The reliance on population data from 2006 for FTE calculations has hindered our ability to secure necessary contract adjustments, impeding our ability to meet the service demands effectively.

Furthermore, while initiatives by B.C. Housing are commendable, the lack of funding for Harrison Place, a second-stage housing in their portfolio, is a major setback for the program and for the maintenance of the building.

In conclusion, as we approach our 51st year in greater Victoria in 2025, we are thrilled to celebrate the much-anticipated opening of our second-stage facility in the West Shore area. The upcoming year promises to be one of hope as we embark on new initiatives to enhance our operations and programs in the West Shore community. Our collective pride and the meaningful impact we make in our sector has established us as a prominent organization known for our leadership and commitment to excellence.

While reflecting on our accomplishments over the year, it is important to remember that our unwavering dedication to fulfilling our mission remains a cornerstone of our success. We look forward to continuing our journey of service and innovation, guided by our shared values and vision for a brighter future, but we require sustainable core funding to support our programs to meet our mission. Thanks.

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

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much for your presentation. I’ve cut out two areas of question. One is when you’re talking about support for your second-stage funding and the one on the West Shore, was that through the women’s transition housing fund?

Sandra Hudson: Yes, it was.

I’m sorry. I’m the incoming chair, so I have our ED here with us just to help me out.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Okay, thank you so much. I appreciate that. And so congratulations on that upcoming near completion. How many units is that?

Sandra Hudson: It’s 50 units. It’s 15 shorter-stay units and 35 longer-stay units. The 15 shorter-stay units are for up to six months, and the longer-stay are for up to two years, with reviews every six months.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Okay, thank you.

And when you’re talking about Harrison Place, you were saying that that particular project has not received full funding yet.

Sandra Hudson: It’s not received full funding. It’s treated as a third-stage housing project, although we operate it as a second-stage project. So if you look on the chart that I gave you, under Harrison Place, you’ll see the gap in funding. The women who are in the program require support, so we support them as if it were a second-stage housing project.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I see. Okay, and so when we’re looking at that particular project and its classification as like a third- rather than second-stage, if you’re providing second-stage services, what’s the barrier for it being approved as a second-stage?

Sandra Hudson: We haven’t gotten the money.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Oh, I see what you’re saying.

Sandra Hudson: Yes, we require the funding, although we fundraise the difference for what the services would be between a third- and a second-stage. But we would like to have government funding so that we have permanent funding so that those women are always going to get the appropriate services and we don’t have to be worried every year whether or not we can fundraise the difference.

Sandra Hudson: Okay, thank you so much.

Sunita Dhir: The charts that you provided. Looking at the funding overview, most of the funding is coming from Public Safety and Solicitor General’s ministry. What kind of grants are you applying for, like federal or provincial…?

Sandra Hudson I believe — although I’m not an expert, as I said — those grants come from a variety of sources, not only government grants but also from corporate grants, that kind of thing. And we do have a staff member who has…. A lot of her work is in grant writing.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions?

Okay, thank you so much for your time

[3:15 p.m.]

Sandra Hudson: Thank you. And if any of you would like a tour of our new West Shore facility, please get in touch with us. We’d be happy to show it off.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you.

Okay, next I would like to ask for Mr. Eric Gagnon from Imperial Tobacco Canada to come forward.

Imperial Tobacco Canada

please get in touch with us. We’d be happy to show it off.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you.

Next I’d like to ask Mr. Eric Gagnon from Imperial Tobacco Canada to come forward.

Thank you for coming today to present to us. You have five minutes to present and five minutes for questions, and you may begin whenever you’re ready.

Imperial Tobacco Canada

Eric Gagnon: Perfect. Good afternoon, and thank you for the invitation to be here. My name is Eric Gagnon. I’m the vice-president of corporate and regulatory affairs for Imperial Tobacco Canada. I’ve been in this role for almost 20 years now, during which I’ve made dozens of trips to British Columbia to warn about illegal tobacco activities.

Let me ask a question to this committee. Do we want a legal, regulated and taxed tobacco and nicotine industry in B.C., or are we going to allow an illegal, unregulated and untaxed market to dominate? Right now, that’s the reality on the ground.

With cigarettes, EY Canada released a study in September of 2023 that estimates the illegal market share in B.C. to be at least 32 percent or maybe as high as 45 percent. We at Imperial also had Abacus Data conduct a study, and the results were similar — an estimated illegal market share of 34 percent.

We believe the illegal market share has grown since then, and you see evidence in the public accounts. In 2022-2023, B.C. saw a 25 percent year-on-year decline in tobacco tax revenue. That is unheard of. That same year, B.C. recorded the largest tobacco tax revenue shortfall of any province since we began tracking in 2013, an incredible $220 million. Your tobacco tax revenue shortfall since 2014 and 2015 now totals a staggering $638 million and can only be explained by a thriving illegal tobacco market.

But here’s the opportunity. Every 5 percent reduction in the illegal market is worth roughly $25 million in annual tobacco tax revenue. If B.C. were to bring its illegal market share down to a more manageable 15 percent, you would see a $100 million revenue gain annually. That’s not all. Under the proposed tobacco industry litigation settlement, B.C. stands to receive approximately $3.6 billion. These are significant financial benefits that are only accessible if the legal market is protected and restored and could add another $70 million in annual payments.

Meanwhile, let’s not overlook the serious public safety implications. The illegal tobacco trade is entirely controlled by organized crime groups. These are the same networks responsible for trafficking fentanyl and cocaine, often through the same channels. Almost every seizure of illegal tobacco now includes hard drugs. This is no longer just a tax issue; it’s a major public safety concern.

Fortunately, you have options. Enforcement works, and other provinces are already acting. Alberta and Ontario both recently announced new enforcement measures, including more dedicated resources, increased fines and demands for federal action, including addressing the growing online market for illegal tobacco and nicotine products. We believe it’s time for B.C. to take similar steps, and we’re here to support you.

In our discussions with finance officials, there’s a strong interest in moving forward, but they need political direction and resources. Without a clear mandate from the government and this committee, B.C. is on its way to becoming Canada’s playground for organized crime groups.

Lastly, the situation is even more urgent when it comes to vaping products and nicotine pouches. Our scans suggest that up to 90 percent of these products in B.C. are sold illegally. The vaping market is flooded with unregulated and uncompliant products, which often exceed legal nicotine and volume limits. Likewise, illegal and high-nicotine-dose pouches are widely available online and in specialty shops across the province. Meanwhile, our 4 milligram nicotine pouch, Zonnic, the only Health Canada nicotine pouch approved for cessation, is only available behind the counter in pharmacies. In other words, current regulations are being bypassed for both vaping products and nicotine pouches.

[3:20 p.m.]

There are three straightforward actions that would have an immediate impact. First, crack down on anyone selling illegal vaping products and nicotine pouches. Second, shut down any illegal websites selling these products in B.C. Third, increase access to all flavoured vaping products and Health Canada–approved nicotine pouches

immediate impact.

First, crack down on anyone selling illegal vaping products and nicotine pouches. Second, shut down any illegal websites selling these products in B.C. And third, increase access to all flavoured vaping products and Health Canada–approved nicotine pouches in convenience stores that have a proven record of respecting the law and not selling to youth. This will be a huge step forward to eliminate the illegal market.

Let me say it again. Enforcement works. We can help you put a plan in place tomorrow to address illegal tobacco, vaping products and nicotine pouches, based on proven methods used in other jurisdictions.

It comes down to political will. The tool exists. The revenue is real. The public safety stakes are high. And the path forward is clear. Let’s work together to restore order, protect public health and ensure that B.C.’s legal and regulated market is not just a goal but a reality.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. We’ll turn to questions by members.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Hi. Thanks for coming. I think the only mistake in your presentation is you said B.C. will become an organized crime group playground. It is an organized crime group playground.

Second, or maybe a little bit better off, but top two places for organized crime groups, Ontario and B.C…. Can you talk a little bit about if you have information on what type of success they’ve had, for example, in Ontario and Alberta with recouping revenues that they got by disrupting the illicit market?

Eric Gagnon: Yeah, so Ontario and Alberta are fairly new. The measures were announced in their last budget, which is a huge win, especially in Ontario, where it’s the epicentre of contraband tobacco, but Quebec has a real model in place. When I joined the organization 15 years ago or so, they had a 40 percent illegal market, and they’re now down to approximately 15 percent, if not a little bit lower. They have a program called ACCES Tabac, which they replicated for ACCES Cannabis and ACCES Alcohol, and basically it has put in place a dedicated task force, resources on the ground and given them powers.

And that’s what Ontario and Alberta did.

A good example in B.C…. We’re not sure how many dedicated resources on contraband tobacco, but we know there are 16 officers focused on cannabis. But I think you’re losing a lot more money on illicit tobacco than you are on cannabis. At the same time, it’s probably the same people dealing these substances. So maybe expanding their opportunity to intervene and include tobacco…. That’s the type of thing you should maybe consider.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much for your presentation. And thank you for outlining the magnified risk when we’re looking at illegal market, especially as it relates to organized crime and who benefits and the parallel path for both hard illegal drugs and for tobacco.

One of the things you mentioned was increasing access in convenience stores and other venues for legal products. I just want to clarify, did you say flavoured vapes would be something?

Eric Gagnon: Yeah, because in B.C. right now, there’s regulation at the provincial level that convenience stores can only sell tobacco flavours, while in specialty shops, you can sell every flavour.

So the first thing is I was doing a press conference in parliament in Ottawa last week…. There are too many flavours in the market in Canada, so we believe restricting flavours to probably tobacco, mint and menthol at least….

But the problem is…. Vaping is recognized as a less harmful alternative to smoking by many health groups, including Health Canada, Public Health England and others, and the challenge is that when you restrict the access to these products where adult smokers buy their cigarettes, they’re not encouraged to try to use a less harmful alternative. So what we see is….

We know that convenience stores have a very high compliance rate when selling adult-only products. We see it with cigarettes or other products. So allowing them to sell the products that are regulated in this province, I think, would be a good thing to do. But right now they cannot compete because they’re not allowed to sell flavors while others do.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I think maybe I had a misunderstanding. I thought that flavouring in vapes was controlled under the tobacco and Firearms Act federally. No?

Eric Gagnon: Flavors are still allowed federally. There’s draft regulation at this point in time that they were considering banning flavors except tobacco, mint and menthol. But the regulation you have in place here, which includes a 2-millilitre cap and flavors in specialty shops, is provincial. But when you look

[3:25 p.m.]

still allowed federally. There’s draft regulation at this point in time that they were considering banning flavours except tobacco, mint and menthol. The regulation you have in place here, which includes a two-millilitre cap and flavours in specialty shops, is provincial. But when you look at the data that we have, nobody’s respecting the two-millilitre cap provincially or the 20-milligram cap federally.

The products that are sold right now in some specialty shops or online, a lot of them, are…. From what we evaluate, 90 percent are illegal.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I guess, certainly reducing the amount and the number and especially the young people that are exposed and are at risk for developing a lifelong habit of vaping or tobacco use — that’s a huge concern, a huge safety risk.

And I’m not clear on the benefit of advocating for flavoured products. I just want to be very clear. You’re advocating that you would be allowed to use tobacco, mint and menthol. Is that right? Flavours?

Eric Gagnon: The first thing is that we have the same goal. Nicotine products should not be consumed by kids. I have two kids. I don’t want them to use nicotine. I don’t want them to use cannabis nor alcohol.

What we’re saying is the convenience channel is a channel that has demonstrated that they can be trusted to sell adult-only products. So if you want a channel that is going to respect the regulation whilst not selling products to youth, that’s the best place to put the product, not putting it in places where there’s no track record of selling regulated substances.

It’s the same thing with nicotine pouches. This province has decided to remove a cessation-approved Health Canada product to put it behind the pharmacy counter. Ninety percent of your nicotine pouch in this province right now is illegal, so if you want to protect youth, make sure that the people selling the products are people that can be trusted.

I mean, flavours are already available in this province, like it or not. So if the federal…. What we’ve been advocating is for federal leadership to restrict flavours, which has not happened yet. But in this province, you can walk in any specialty vape shop and buy any flavour of vaping product that you want, or online too.

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

We’ll move on to the next presenter. I would like to call Denise Watson from B.C. Association for Child Development and Intervention to come forward, please.

Thank you for presenting to us today. Again, five minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions, and you may begin when you’re ready.

B.C. Association for
Child Development and Intervention

Denise Watson: Thank you so much. I’m here to represent the B.C. Association for Child Development and Intervention. We’re 42 member agencies, commonly known as child development centres, and we’re recognized leaders in innovation, delivering quality services to over 30,000 children with disabilities to help them thrive and reach their full potential. We’re skilled in delivering these essential services in a cost-effective manner, leveraging government funding along with additional community fundraising.

Child development centres have been building stronger futures for British Columbians for more than five decades. Our accredited, not-for-profit organizations are located in urban, rural and remote parts of the province and are community-based and accountable to committed volunteer boards. No child is turned away regardless of severity.

The primary programs that we offer include infant development specialists who provide guidance to families, particularly those with infants who are born prematurely or with low birth weight or those who have spent time in ICUs. We also provide therapies to support young children in learning to move, walk, play, talk, socialize and understand their world before starting school. We also have child development inclusion specialists who support children’s participation in child care.

Many of our members also provide services for children with FASD, autism and offer programs including child care, school-age and teen programs, family counselling, respite and provincial specialties. Parents of children with disabilities in B.C. deserve support, and their children deserve every opportunity to reach their potential. We know that early intervention is critical for better outcomes in attachment, behaviour and school.

[3:30 p.m.]

Children are our future and must be nurtured today so they can grow into healthy thriving adults. Up to 20 percent of children have some type of disability, so in B.C., for the 275,000 children under the age of six, this means 55,000 of them

Children are our future and must be nurtured today so they can grow into healthy, thriving adults.

Up to 20 percent of children have some type of disability. So in B.C., for the 275,000 children under the age of six, this means 55,000 of them need support. Investing $1 today saves the economy at least $10 later.

I have two recommendations. The first one is for all B.C. children to be included in child care. Decades of under-investment in services have led to unacceptable wait times, fragmented service delivery, and children not being able to access services in a timely manner.

Budget 2023 gave the sector a boost in therapy staffing to support underserved children and for this families are grateful. However, the supported child development program was not included. This program is essential for enabling children’s inclusion in child care. There are wait times of over a year in some regions in the province, and some children age out of eligibility before they ever get support.

Federal and provincial governments have committed to developing a public child care system in B.C. with significant investment in space creation. And they’ve wanted to improve affordability and accessibility. But is it truly accessible when children with disabilities are turned away or asked to leave? Imagine being expelled from several child care programs before turning five. That is happening today. The shame, stress and financial hardship of having to quit work to care for a child with unmet needs is the reality for some families. This harms B.C.’s social and economic prosperity.

So my first recommendation is to significantly invest in the supported child development program, and also to realign some of the current budget to focus these specialists on training, coaching and capacity building. That would actually enhance inclusivity. Investing $10 million to hire more child inclusion specialists would help create a truly accessible child care system in B.C., one that we can be proud of.

Secondly, we need a robust human resources strategy for this sector. We face many challenges in recruiting qualified allied health professionals to deliver these therapy services. We lack the profile that the health sector and education sectors have. Additionally, B.C. has limited training spaces at the university level. Wage discrepancies are also common across the sector, further disadvantaging us, making it difficult to attract and retain talent.

So my second recommendation is to establish a dedicated office to recruit professionals into the community not-for-profit sector.

Paul Choi (Chair): Denise, the time is up, so if you could just wrap it up, please….

Denise Watson: Yep, that’s fine. That’s okay.

Paul Choi (Chair): Oh, okay. All right, thank you so much for your presentation. We’ll now turn it over to members for questions.

Denise Watson: Certainly.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much for your presentation.

I just want to be sure that I’m understanding. You’re asking for not like an occupational therapist — you’re asking for a very specific funding for support workers to help children with disabilities integrate into child care.

Denise Watson: That’s right, and they have them now. They’re just so oversubscribed that there are children waiting, sometimes up to a year, to receive these services.

The staff are typically child and youth workers. Some are bachelors of psychology. There’s a variety of people who fill those roles across the province.

Jennifer Blatherwick: And so they’re…. You’re asking not just for more personnel, but you’re also asking for some focus on them being able to provide education and training for the current child care providers to increase their facility and ability to support those children.

[3:35 p.m.]

Denise Watson: That’s right. They currently do a little bit of that, but a lot of the budget goes to one-on-one workers going into child care. And what that has said to the child care community is in order to take a child with a disability, you need a worker. We’ve, over time, inadvertently created that by giving workers for individual children, and that isn’t necessarily what’s best for the child or for the program.

and what that has said to the child care community is: in order to take a child with a disability, you need a worker.

And we’ve, over time, inadvertently, created that, by giving workers for individual children. And that isn’t necessarily what’s best for the child or for the program. So to have truly inclusive places, we need to preserve some of the funding for one-on-one workers. But what would be better is to put the experts into these programs — coach, model, mentor — not just put people through a training program but actually support them in their professional development to include all children.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you.

When you’re talking about retention of allied professionals, this is a very challenging area. And there are different challenges within urban communities and within rural, remote and northern communities. I’m hoping you can talk to us a little bit about the different challenges in the environments.

Denise Watson: Yes, it is true. Northern and remote, we tend to have trouble, just like we do with other health and other professionals to work in those areas. But what’s happened over time is education sector pays more. The hospital sector pays more. Therefore, we’re losing people, even in the Lower Mainland, even here on the Island — and Victoria has always had strong staffing locally. But we’re losing people to these other sectors because of compensation. That’s why a look at wage grids and also looking at training programs in the universities with this potential recruitment office that would help to even let people know the benefits of going into this community not-for-profit sector….

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions? No? Okay.

Well, thank you so much for your time.

Denise Watson: Okay, thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you. I would like to call up the next presenter, Janet Morris-Reade from the Association of Service Providers for Employability and Career Training.

Thank you so much for coming to present to us today. You have five minutes for presentation and five minutes for question, and you may begin whenever you’re ready.

Janet Morris-Reade: Thank you very much for allowing me to speak. This is a really great opportunity to inform government. The work that you’re doing is hard work, especially on — I hate to say it — such a lovely sunny day outside. So I really appreciate the work you’re doing.

My name’s Janet Morris-Reade, and I’m the CEO of the Association of Service Providers for Employability and Career Training, which you might also know us as ASPECT. We sent out a letter after the last election, so hopefully you have some understanding of who we are.

We represent about 100 community-based employment service providers throughout the province, and they deliver employment services, pre-employment services largely, to communities throughout the province. Our recommendations today will align with the 2026 budget priorities: protecting B.C. amid economic turmoil, building a strong, diversified economy and making communities stronger and safer.

Every day our members help people find meaningful employment, support employers with workforce needs and reduce pressure on crisis systems like income assistance and health care and housing. Employment service providers are often the first point of contact for people in transition, those laid off, changing careers or re-entering the workforce. We support job seekers of all backgrounds, including newcomers, youth, persons with disabilities, older workers and people facing complex barriers to employment through career planning, training access, digital skills development and one-on-one coaching, as well as others. We also help people navigate systems, apply for EI, connect to wraparound supports like child care and mental health services.

[3:40 p.m.]

For employers, especially small businesses and those in rural and remote communities, we assist with recruiting, training and retaining staff. We offer wage subsidies, onboarding help, and access to untapped talent pools, including Indigenous job seekers and internationally trained professionals. Our providers also sit on local chambers.

We assist with recruiting, training and retaining staff. We offer wage subsidies, onboarding help and access to untapped talent pools, including Indigenous job seekers and internationally trained professionals. Our providers also sit on local chambers and workforce round tables to ensure that services reflect the local needs.

This work directly supports B.C.’s labour market stability and economic growth, moving people into in-demand sectors like health care, construction, technology and helping communities build inclusive, resilient workforces.

But I’m here to tell you that the system is at risk. Due to the federal cuts last year of $624 million for the labour market transfers, B.C. has lost about $77 million. As a result, programs are being cut, rural offices are closing, and highly skilled staff are being laid off.

The people hit hardest are those furthest from the labour market and those who need the most support to succeed. Federal reductions in immigration and international student intakes and supports are also shrinking our future workforce. Our members help these populations integrate into the economy, but those services are now in jeopardy.

With growing uncertainty with the U.S. tariff dispute, we need a resilient system in place now, not after the damage is done. Displaced workers and employers rely on this network, and we’re ready to help, but we need your support.

Today we have three recommendations.

The first one is to stabilize and sustain the employment services network by bridging the federal funding gap with provincial investment. We recommend allocating $50 million over two years to offset the loss of federal workforce development agreement funds. This would prevent further closures, retain staff and maintain core services, especially in rural and equity-deserving communities. It will also give government time to redesign programs without losing the infrastructure already in place.

Our second recommendation is to recognize employment services as essential infrastructure. Formally include community-based employment service providers in workforce and economic development planning by establishing a cross-ministry advisory table with employment service providers, Indigenous and regional economic representatives to bring everyone to the table.

Embedding powers in workforce strategies and recognizing employment services as infrastructure in provincial policy will ensure that policy reflects labour market realities and prepare B.C. for future shifts.

I see I have the red light, so we’ll stop with that. In closing, B.C.’s employment service providers are already advancing your budget goals. We’re ready to do more, but we need your investment to keep the system strong. Thank you for your time.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. I will go to the questions. Recognizing MLA Tepper.

Bryan Tepper: You said three. If you wouldn’t mind saying the third one.

Janet Morris Read: It’s something that’s not normally part of this committee’s work. But it is an issue that is a challenge in general for all social services that are funded. It’s to ensure funding predictability and flexibility.

That means to create a rural and remote stabilization fund, because those are the areas that are most at risk right now, to support high delivery costs in those regions and also to support innovation through a dedicated development stream of funding for community-driven responsive program models, which all already exist.

When there’s a layoff for a resource-based industry, there’s already an emergency fund for that. But quite often, by the time the province is able to react, our service providers are already providing services for those in their community.

Paul Choi (Chair): Recognizing MLA Blatherwick.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Can we just talk a little bit about your idea around establishing a cross-ministry table? That got a little bit short shrift in the middle there. Can you just talk about that a little bit more?

[3:45 p.m.]

Janet Morris Read: There is a round table called the Social Services Sector Roundtable, and that is to focus on social services. Now, employment services should be at that table. In fact, ASPECT is at that table. It’s an important cross-ministry collaboration, and it was incredibly important throughout the pandemic.

table called the Social Services Sector Roundtable, and that is to focus on social services.

Now, employment services should be at that table. In fact, ASPECT is at that table, and it’s an important cross-ministry collaboration. It was incredibly important throughout the pandemic for the government to respond to the needs of the sector. However, employment is kind of in that world but also in the economic development world. So although we have contact with the Ministry of Jobs and other ministries that also have employment programs, there’s not really a formal place where we can all get together and talk.

Generally speaking, some of the funding goes to industry sectors and not necessarily to the experts who actually know what they’re doing with the money. It’s not a slight on the industry sectors. It’s that the industry sectors don’t have a historical competency in that area. There’s an opportunity there, where if you bring employment service providers to the table, you’ll have an understanding of the entire landscape, the economic landscape, from the job seekers to the employers to the economic development within an area.

That intelligence, what I’m saying today, is at risk. We’re working in those areas already. We’ve been working in those areas for many, many years, but a lot of it is going unnoticed by government because it’s not funded.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you.

So, talk to me about how your services interact with WorkBC.

Janet Morris Reade: Our members are WorkBC members, WorkBC organizations.

WorkBC is a fabulous program, but it has limitations for those with barriers to employment. It’s not a panacea for all, and especially because WorkBC is an outcomes-based model, which means you don’t get paid unless you deliver services.

In rural and remote communities, that’s a real challenge, because you have a smaller workforce, but you also have a high percentage of returning clients with barriers to employment.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I would say that the struggle is always going to be, as you were saying, the people who are furthest from employment, those who face complex barriers and additional challenges to becoming integrated again into the workforce.

So you include WorkBC within your family of members, but I’m assuming that you also have, like, niche-specific or community-specific organizations that provide services as well.

Janet Morris Reade: Employment services is really quite diverse.

You have single-service employment service providers, but you also have large multi-service providers, where employment services are part of the work that they do. That actually is great. The diversity is really, really great, because there’s information sharing. There’s the capacity building within the sector as a whole.

The challenge that we’re having now is, because of these cuts and because of the need to have these outcomes as a cost per capita, some of those communities that we rely on are going to be missing out.

A couple of years ago, we did research about employment services in rural and remote, and we found that it was really a social-justice issue when we had no idea going in. We knew that it was more expensive. We knew that the funding model wasn’t as equitable as it could be, but we had no idea. It was quite shocking.

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

We’ll move on to the next presenter.

Janet Morris Reade: Can I just take a picture of you for my newsletter?

Paul Choi (Chair): Unfortunately, no photos in the chamber.

Janet Morris Reade: No? Okay. I have done it in the past years, but it just depends on which committee. Just you guys are doing really important work, so I wanted to acknowledge that. But thank you so much for your time today.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you. Thank you.

Interjection.

Paul Choi (Chair): Yes.

Janet Morris Reade: This is the challenge, right? Because you’re doing all of this work. But, really, this is the work of government, is the consultations with the public, and it’s not easy. It’s really not easy, and I applaud you for doing it, because I certainly wouldn’t.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you for your kind words.

Next, we will call Jacquelin Green from Saanich Neighbourhood Place. Thank you for coming to present to us. You have five minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions, and you may begin when you’re ready.

[3:50 p.m.]

Saanich Neighbourhood Place

Jacquelin Green: Okay. Good afternoon, thank you so much for the opportunity to be here. My name is Jacquelin Green, and I’m the executive director at Saanich Neighbourhood Place. It’s one of many neighbourhood places or houses across B.C.

The neighbourhood house movement in B.C. is over 125 years old, and we’re often considered the heart of the community. We create safe and inviting spaces for people

thank you so much for the opportunity to be here. My name is Jacquelin Green, and I’m the executive director at Saanich Neighbourhood Place, and it’s one of many neighbourhood places or houses across B.C.

The neighbourhood house movement in B.C. is over 125 years old, and we’re often considered the heart of the community. We create safe and inviting spaces for people of all ages and backgrounds to build connections, access services and strengthen their community. Building on the talents and resources of the local community, neighbourhood houses respond to evolving and emerging needs and assets unique to their communities.

There are dozens of neighbourhood houses across the province, in communities large and small, urban, rural and remote, providing an incredible array of supports, programs and services to their communities.

A sampling: parent-taught drop-ins; parenting programs; senior services; service navigation; early intervention in families to prevent violence; food security; family support; pre- and postnatal education and support; mental health services for children, youth and adults; programs for newcomers; and the list goes on.

Most of us also operate not-for-profit child care centres. In our case, we provide 49 full-time and 20 part-time spaces for children in the CRD, and thank you for those child care spaces grants, because it helped to build our building.

We see thousands of British Columbians every year in our centres, and we hear their concerns and their fears, their needs. And we hear their hopes and dreams too, for their families but also for the province.

Currently, most neighbourhood houses are funded through a patchwork of things, contracts, grants, partnerships. Some of us have social enterprises. At our centre, we have some contracts to provide services to assist the Ministry of Children and Families with early intervention programming in the child protection area. We have money from Island Health for pre- and postnatal programs. We have a small municipal grant, and I think we have 21 other small grants.

What isn’t funded is general operational funds — the things that we need to ensure that we can offer all of those other programs. It’s not very flashy to pay for toilet paper. I often say that to people and they laugh, but those are the things we need funding for so that we can offer all of those other amazing kinds of programs.

Very few grants are available for this, and it’s really challenging to run programs when there is no stable and ongoing core funding. We have to keep the lights on. We want to pay our staff a living wage, and we need to ensure that we have the space to run those programs and operate those child care centres.

I would like to recommend that the committee consider including flexible, ongoing core funding to neighbourhood houses and family resource programs across the province. We want to support equitable salaries — and you heard an earlier speaker talk about the difference between community social services and Island Health or the provincial government; we lose a lot of employees to the provincial government because we cannot compete — operational and infrastructure needs and to assist us just in delivering those very important services.

We are very uniquely placed to partner with the province in providing local solutions to those increasing community needs, and we can assist you in addressing important government priorities. The government is heavily invested in providing much-needed housing to communities across the province and has made it a priority, and it’s very important.

But you know what? We need to be building communities, not just housing. All the families living in that housing need and deserve opportunities for connection. They need support. They need to be able to participate in their neighbourhoods. Building communities alongside that housing can assist in providing the positive early start needed to begin to address and slow the rapid increase in serious community issues like substance use and mental health challenges.

Neighbourhood houses are in the business of creating healthy individuals and families within healthy and engaged, supported communities. And this improves overall participation and safety in neighbourhoods where they are located. Investing in neighbourhood houses is an investment in the communities that must be built alongside housing.

A second government priority is making communities stronger and safer. Communities are built through connection, support and participation. Addressing street-level crime and providing housing and supports for unhoused people is absolutely essential. But it is only one aspect of creating strong and safe communities.

Neighbourhood houses provide opportunities for support, for connection and for early intervention. And you’ve already heard someone speak about the critical nature of early intervention. We talk a lot about the roots of the complex problems that we are facing.

[3:55 p.m.]

However, this is an opportunity to look at those roots, to look at how we might begin to address those problems.

I see your red light, and I’m very close to done.

This is one of the most important things we can do to reduce trauma, substance use, mental health challenges and later involvement in crime. Let’s invest dollars in preventing the situations that lead to the

to look at those roots, to look at how we might begin to address those problems.

I see your red light, and I’m very close to done.

This is one of the most important things we can do to reduce trauma, substance use, mental health challenges and later involvement in crime. Let’s invest dollars in preventing the situations that lead to this. It is always less expensive over time to prevent the damage from happening rather than to try and fix the damage. We are committed to early intervention and prevention, and we’re already in the community. We see everybody. We can assist individuals and families in a multitude of ways to address this.

Strong and safe communities start with strong and safe families. Providing ongoing, stable core funding to Neighbourhood Houses will allow you to join us in the opportunity to build healthier, stronger and more resilient children, families and communities in every single part of this province.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak today, and I really appreciate you taking the time to listen. Thanks so much.

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

Jacquelin Green: You should get a gold star for questions today.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Oh, thank you for thinking that it deserves a gold star. So Neighbourhood Places are funded under legacy contracts to MCFD, is that right?

Jacquelin Green: Well, they’re funded from a patchwork. There’s a legacy contract. We have a contract, for example, to provide services in conjunction with child protection teams, early intervention services, but many are not. So everybody has their own little quilt of patchwork of different funders.

Most of us, honest to goodness, scramble for all kinds of different funding. We have CCOF funding for child care operating. We have small grants from municipalities. Depending on where you live, it could be $2,000 or it could be $100,000. You know, there’s a real variety. But there are Neighbourhood Houses that have…. In our case, we have 50 staff, but there is a Neighbourhood House on Salt Spring that has one, and the work they’re doing is so valuable.

We see people every single day — all kinds of people. Everybody comes to see us for something or other. During the pandemic we were one of the few places that were still open. We were…. Everybody else was not going anywhere or doing anything, and we were open because we do food security programming and people need food, so we just stayed open.

But we kind of fly under the radar because it’s not really flashy. For us, we’re hidden away in Pearkes Recreation Centre. I bet if you asked ten people, eight of them would not know that we were there, but for the two that did, their lives have changed dramatically because of the impact that they’ve had. We had over 20,000 visits to our centre last year.

Jennifer Blatherwick: And I just was…. So your contracts that you do have with government that are direct contract, that is, you know, administration costs are limited to 10 percent under those contracts. We certainly had a question from other social service and social service agency providers to ask if there could be flexibility in those contracts to increase from 10 percent to 15 percent.

Jacquelin Green: And 15 would be amazing.

Jennifer Blatherwick: And then another piece, for your services especially, is capital overhead. Capital overhead is very, very challenging. We’ve had some questions around how we support non-profit providers with better ability to have sustainable capital.

Jacquelin Green: Yes, the grant was lovely, but it’s killing us. The building is killing us because it costs so much to keep that building going. And there’s…. I mean, the operating fund does not support the costs of paying the rest of the mortgage for that building, but the services still need to happen, and we have a large group of vulnerable families.

I mean, we are the ones providing daycare for whatever kid needs to come. With a support worker, without a support worker — however they come, we say yes, because we’re a community organization and we’re committed to supporting our community. That’s everyone, right? That’s the kid with autism. That’s the teenager with a substance use issue. It’s the mom who’s escaping violence. It’s the senior who doesn’t have food. And it’s just the mom and dad who need a place to stop by and connect with other parents. It’s everyone.

I think it’s a missed opportunity for the government because we’re already there, and we love to have people connect with us. And we want to connect you with your communities. We would love to help you to do that. It’s really important.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions? If not, continue on. Do you have any other questions?

[4:00 p.m.]

Jennifer Blatherwick: Oh, we could talk all day, but we only get five minutes for questions.

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay, thank you so much for your time and your presentation.

We will have next Maria Howard from Family Services of Greater Vancouver to the front.

Thank you for joining us.

do you have any other questions?

Jennifer Blatherwick: Oh, we could talk all day, but we only get five minutes for questions.

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay, thank you so much for your time and your presentation.

We will have next Maria Howard from Family Services of Greater Vancouver to the front.

Thank you for joining us today and presenting to us. You have five minutes for the presentation and five minutes for questions. You may begin whenever you’re ready.

Family Services of Greater Vancouver

Maria Howard: Great. Thank you for having me. I might just declare at the beginning that I have glaucoma, so sometimes the light and my sight don’t work out. I can see you all and whatever, but if it looks like I’m not seeing you, just know it’s okay.

Again, thank you so much for having me today. My name is Maria Howard. I’m the CEO of Family Services of Greater Vancouver.

I’m also very honoured to be a guest on the lək̓ʷəŋən territories, home to the Esquimalt, Songhees and W̱SÁNEĆ people. It’s an honour to be a guest here and a guest on this territory.

We really appreciate that this is unusual budget time, and due to a lot of the economics going on, we also appreciate that the need for efficiencies and strategic investment is very, very important.

Family Services of Greater Vancouver has been around for just about 100 years. We came out of the First World War, so I think it’s fair to say that we understand about challenges — cultural, social, economic. It’s through the use of resiliency, flexibility, results-oriented and people-centred that one is able to move forward and continue to help, and that’s what our commitment is.

Today I’d like to share a couple of ideas with you. One of them is directly related to the conversation of an unusual budget time, which is really around financial literacy and financial empowerment. I’m sure you as MLAs and your peers have people, constituents, come into your offices all the time and talk about cost of living and their struggle to manage. At Family Services, we do hear that all the time.

Out of COVID, Family Services started working with a number of partners, specifically Prosper Canada, to offer financial empowerment. It’s a service that helps people learn about financial skills, whatever they need. That could range from tax credits, tax applications, getting ID so they can actually apply. It’s everything that someone needs, but it starts with, actually, the person because financial literacy doesn’t work if the person is in crisis and they can’t manage everything else that’s going on around them. The way that Family Services approaches financial literacy is helping the person first and then helping them with the skills.

This program has been a great success. Last year we saw over 3,000 people and helped them access over $2 million in benefits. It’s something that has to be available for many British Columbians. The reason why the program that we’ve been doing with Prosper Canada, we believe, is so important and actually making an impact is because we’re not there to sell anything. We’re not trying to get them to sign up for a bank account or buy an investment. We’re there purely to help them achieve the goal that they need.

We’re really excited that actually with Prosper Canada and hopefully through a grant through the Employment and Social Development of federal Canada, Family Services will be considering to be a hub of financial literacy within British Columbia.

My ask to you today really is around financial literacy, which I know already is a commitment for this government through WorkBC and through many other programs. But as this time unrolls in the next 12 to 24 months it’s to consider how we can make sure that there are funds available to those who are being hit by the tariffs, how we can make sure that people have access to those benefits through streamlined, clear, consistent ways, and ensure that those groups that sometimes just need a little extra help — like youth, seniors, those in the gig economy, single families — have that support there so that they can move ahead.

Again, we know that it’s not just the financial aspect that’s a part of what’s going on. It’s everything else in their life. But if they can have someone walk along beside them and learn those skills and make some decisions, we know that they will build their resiliency and move forward.

The second one is also connected to the economic uncertainty, but it’s more behind the scenes, and that’s really around technology. I don’t know if anybody went to the web senate last week or followed it, but there were some very innovative and amazing ideas that came out of that. That innovation and that empowerment goes for the non-profit sector as well.

[4:05 p.m.]

Unfortunately the non-profit sector tends to drag behind when it comes to technology for many reasons, but we’re actually more of a target to those who prey on cyber attacks because we are known to have lots of money flowing through our accounts. We’re also known to have not very good security. Things like cybersecurity are absolutely incredible, moving to the cloud, having systems that can produce data and case management so that not only are we secure, but when we partner with governments like yourself or other municipalities, we can actually share our

through our accounts, we’re also known to have not very good security. So things like cybersecurity are absolutely incredible. Moving to the cloud, having systems that can produce data and case management. So not only are we secure but when we partner with governments like yourself or other municipalities, we can actually share our data so that we know that the programs that we’re partnering together to help people are actually making a difference. And if they’re not, then we can be nimble and resilient and make changes.

Right now many of the contracts don’t support a lot of technical funding, but we ask that this is a consideration going forward about the ability to put some funds into the non-profit sector to support.

Those are my two asks, my two suggestions. Again, I just appreciate the time of being here today.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much for that. We will turn to questions by members.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you for coming. This is a tough area. You focused on how do we make sure that funds are available to people who may be within crisis and that they’re accessing all the grants and services that are available to them so they can stabilize.

One of the services that you provide people is to walk through paperwork with them. That’s very challenging for people within the sector, especially people in crisis, as the executive functioning required to access some services. So I’m hoping you could talk a little bit about the supportive services that you provide to people who don’t just need to be told that those things exist but also the practical help that’s required in order to get that paperwork in and to get it done.

Maria Howard: Absolutely. It is not only the neurofunction; it’s also English as a second language. It’s someone who’s living in poverty and trying to feed children and find a place to live. You’re not really worried about your taxes. There are many things that people are struggling with, and that’s why we take an approach of seeing the person first and then doing the finances later.

We offer a range of services. We actually have a phone-in line that people can phone in and talk through their problems. We do one-on-one actual counselling where we sit and actually go through the paperwork. We actually get on the phone with them, the CRA. We go through all those services. We actually then also do group work where they can come to either virtual or in-person sessions and actually learn the different aspects of it.

The services we provide, we do it in about eight different languages at this point in time, and the model that we’re trying to grow and working to grow as a hub model is to do a train the trainer. So many agencies around the province who are interested in this, we would go in and train them in different services, but certainly virtual and phone lines are also a way to be able to access from a central location.

We do the whole gamut because we recognize that what works for one person is not necessarily going to work for another. If you’re a youth living on the street and you don’t have ID, you need another very different support. If you’re a mother with three kids and you’ve just immigrated here, you need another totally different level of support. Both are equally necessary and both need the tools that help them move forward.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions? No? Okay.

Thank you so much for the presentation.

Maria Howard: I appreciate your time.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you

We will take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:08 p.m. to 4:15 p.m.

The committee recessed from 4:08 p.m. to 4:15 p.m.

[Paul Choi in the chair.]

Paul Choi (Chair): All right. We will get it started and call the committee back to order. We have Elizabeth Cronin from Victoria Transit Riders Union with us.

Thanks for presenting to us. Five minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions. You can begin whenever you’re ready. Thank you.

Victoria Transit Riders Union

Elizabeth Cronin: Okay. Hi. Thanks, everyone, for having me. My name is Liz. I am a member of the organizing committee for the Victoria Transit Riders Union. We’re a group of users of transit in Victoria, and we’re advocating for excellent and fare-free transit in Victoria but also across the province.

So the asks I’m making here today are to immediately, as soon as possible, make transit fare-free for all teenagers in the province and for all seniors in the province. And following that change, whenever it’s feasible, given the constraints of acquiring more infrastructure required for providing transit, to eliminate fares completely within the province of B.C.

This is something that has been tried, both for specific groups and completely, in various jurisdictions around the world. I won’t list them all now, but you can look them up. But there has been some data that has come out of those places, and we strongly believe this would be a very evidence-based change to make in the province.

Recently we were advocating for this change with some teenagers, who really want this to happen for their people who are also teenagers in different jurisdictions, who don’t have access to free transit, and they do. You may be aware the city of Victoria has made transit fare-free for teenagers within the city of Victoria, but the kids in Esquimalt don’t have that. The kids in Oak Bay don’t have that.

We know that the Union of B.C. Municipalities has asked the province to make transit fare-free for people in grade 12 and under. We would prefer it be all people 19 years and under in the whole province because some of the folks who aren’t in school would be the ones who would need the change most badly.

Social isolation, as we all experienced during the pandemic, is very, very harmful. It’s really dangerous. It hurts your physical health and your emotional well-being as well. Social isolation is a challenge that seniors and youth face more often than other people in our society, so that’s part of the reason we were hoping to start with those groups. There’s a mental health crisis for young people in our society.

A lot of that mental health crisis is, I believe…. I’m a mental health provider. I’m a trauma therapist, and I work at a non-profit in Saanich. I’m a registered social worker. I believe a lot of that is because of the moral distress people are experiencing when they’re not seeing government make changes that need to be made in situations where there are really serious crises happening. We’re hearing many ideas about punitive and unhelpful and not evidence-based responses for some of these crises, and we need to have bold, progressive action that is based on evidence to actually address the crises so that people can feel cared for by their government and they can see their conditions improve in their daily life.

The affordability crisis and the climate crisis both would be really, really addressed by making fares go away on public transit in B.C. You would see the biggest benefits, obviously, if you do it for everyone, but starting with the youth and the seniors…. They would immediately feel that.

And they wouldn’t just feel that their life got easier, accessing things like health care, social opportunities, food, things that they need to care for themselves and for others. I believe that they would also feel that their government cared that there is an affordability crisis, that their government cared that there’s a climate crisis. We’re already hearing again on the news about the fires, and that really affects people’s mental health. My clients tell me about it in counselling sessions I do with clients. They need to feel like action is being taken, and it’s being taken seriously.

When you get to the point where you eliminate fares for the whole population, you get huge savings in the area of administering the fares. We know that a lot of the funding for transit already doesn’t come from the fares. It’s so inefficient to repeatedly harvest money at the point of the use of this service.

[4:20 p.m.]

We are asking the government to make a smarter choice that benefits people, and we really believe that you would see savings, especially in areas like health care.

I used to be an outreach worker, and I drove people to medical appointments. A lot of the times I was driving folks because they could not afford the bus fare. They couldn’t get to their medical appointment, and I had to drive them.

They also couldn’t get to medical appointments leading up to that point, when they could have taken care of their health a lot earlier. The

in areas like health care. I used to be an outreach worker, and I drove people to medical appointments. A lot of the times I was driving folks because they could not afford the bus fare. They couldn’t get to their medical appointment, and I had to drive them. They also couldn’t get to medical appointments leading up to that point, when they could have taken care of their health a lot earlier.

The ICU is very expensive, and it’s a road that it takes people to get there.

If you provide people with freedom of movement, they will take good care of themselves. They will take good care of each other.

In Montreal, they made transit free for seniors, and ridership increased by 15 to 20 percent. Every single one of those visits, folks were taking care of themselves, they were taking care of each other, their health was improving, and we really need that to happen in B.C. for these demographics and, then, for the whole population.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for that presentation. I will go to questions by members. Any questions?

Jennifer Blatherwick: One of the things you’re talking about is an inequity of service across a region. So say here, where the city has declared transit to be free for teenagers, now, is the city…? Because I’m from the Lower Mainland, so we have the TransLink model, right, which is different than what happens here. So is the city of Victoria compensating the transit system, or what is the arrangement for…?

Elizabeth Cronin: I’m not an expert on how they’re administering that exactly, but we did go and we spoke to municipalities. We were speaking at Oak Bay when Oak Bay was considering making a similar model. I believe that the city is getting their own funds, paying for bus passes that then the teenagers use when they’re on the bus, which costs money to administer as well.

Anything where you’re means-testing, anything where you’re giving passes to certain people, you really see the biggest benefit when you eliminate all of that. But we understand it would take time to scale up, and that’s why we do think it is worth it to take the time to make the passes, do whatever it takes for the youth and the seniors, to start.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much. When you’re talking about transit, now, here in Victoria, am I understanding correctly, transit is just bus space? Is that right?

Elizabeth Cronin: Yes.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Okay, again, Vancouver….

So when you’re transporting, is there a system here where you have different buses for different routes? In Vancouver, we have much smaller buses for less busy routes and bigger buses for…. Same here?

Elizabeth Cronin: Yes, I believe so.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Okay. When you’re looking at a reduced transit model, has there been any research on, say, here in Victoria, now that you’ve had this policy in place of free transit for teens, has there been an increase in ridership in Victoria?

Elizabeth Cronin: That is a good question. I don’t know the numbers for overall ridership. I do believe that I heard that the teens were using the bus more and there was an increase in ridership in that demographic, yeah.

Jennifer Blatherwick: That would be really useful to have: is there an increase in ridership, and also is there a decrease in traffic congestion?

Elizabeth Cronin: Yes. The congestion thing is one of the areas where I believe our society could see the biggest savings. Apparently, just in the Metro Vancouver area — and this was in 2015 — congestion was estimated to cost between $500 million and $1.2 billion every year.

There’s a really excellent article by Marc Lee, who is an economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, I believe. So in the Tyee, you can find an article called “Why B.C. Should Make Their Public Transit Free.” Being a social worker, I get very focused on the social side of this argument, but there is definitely this other congestion piece, and that was really prominently discussed in the Marc Lee article.

Claire Rattée: Sorry I missed the beginning of your presentation there. I was trying to make a phone call.

So I’m not sure if you touched on this or not, but are there any studies that you guys have done as an organization around proving that model out, of why this would end up resulting in cost savings?

Elizabeth Cronin: Well, we are quite a new organization. On the research side, we have been doing surveys with folks, and we’re still working on compiling that information. So we haven’t put together anything like what you’re describing exactly, but I really strongly believe that you would see savings in things like health care. And I believe, in general, just in the social science literature, it would be extremely evidence-based, and there would be research to support that.

[4:25 p.m.]

Claire Rattée: If I can follow up, thank you.

Just on another thing, as, I guess, a bit of an anecdote, there’s a cross section here that I’ve got a lot of interest in around people that are unhoused using transit systems. I’ve done a fair bit of research into this, and through discussions with B.C. Transit — I haven’t had them with TransLink yet, but — as an interesting side piece, they’ve really moved away from fare enforcement.

anecdote, but there’s kind of a cross-section here that I’ve got a lot of interest in around people that are unhoused using transit systems. I’ve done a fair bit of research into this. Through discussions with B.C. Transit — I haven’t had them with TransLink yet, but — as an interesting side piece, they’ve really moved away from fare enforcement because of, honestly, some of the safety issues that they were facing. So that is already a piece that’s kind of been looked at.

Now my understanding from B.C. Transit was that TransLink does still do fare enforcement. I’ve not seen any evidence of that to be honest. I have family in the Lower Mainland, and they’ve certainly not seen evidence of fare enforcement when it comes to, at least, particular populations, right? I’ve got one sister that uses the bus for work every morning, and she has witnessed frequently that there hasn’t been fare enforcement, but obviously for her there is. So it’s kind of created a bit of an inequitable system and it’s, I think, contributed to some of the stigmatizing that goes on, unfortunately.

But you know, it’d be interesting maybe for your organization to have that conversation with B.C. Transit about their decision to stop fare enforcement with certain populations and what that has actually played out to do for B.C. Transit, right, as far as their bottom line.

Elizabeth Cronin: The fare enforcement piece — it was such a short time to speak, but — that’s one of the reasons we’re so passionate about the elimination of fares. It is not safe for the transit operators. And we have our union of transit users…. We’ve worked really hard to develop a relationship with local transit workers and with the folks in the union, and we know that many of them support fare-free transit partly because they do face challenges at their work around fares that sometimes affect their safety.

Also with respect to public safety, we want them to be focusing on other things. Their job is very high stakes. They’re driving…. Like there was just a death that had to do with operating a bus. It’s a very high-stakes job. We don’t want them to be counting money that people are putting in a little box. There’s so much important work they need to do outside of that.

My sister lives in Victoria, and she was stranded in Oak Bay recently with two children under five years old and the bus driver wouldn’t let her get on the bus because she didn’t have the money. And so there still is fare enforcement happening.

Interjection.

Elizabeth Cronin: Well, she has also seen them refuse entry on the bus to folks who are in extreme poverty and clearly unhoused, and that impacted her children because then an altercation started at the front of the bus.

We just can’t continue like this. There is growing extreme poverty in this province. We need to come from a place of welcoming people into services and not having these conflicts. And that’s like one of the reasons we’re really passionate about it. I’m so glad you brought that forward.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thanks for the presentation. That ends our presentations for today. So you’re free to leave. Thank you.

For the rest of the committee, any other business? No.

Can I have a motion to adjourn?

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 4:28 p.m.