The committee met at 3:00 p.m.

[Elenore Sturko in the chair.]

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Elenore Sturko. I’m the MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale and the Deputy Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

I’d like to acknowledge we’re meeting today in Penticton, which is on the traditional territories of the Syilx Okanagan peoples.

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

Our committee is currently conducting its annual consultation with British Columbians on their priorities for the next provincial budget. British Columbians who are not presenting to the committee can still share their views by making written comments. The details on how to provide submissions are available on our website at bcleg.ca/consultations.

I’ll now ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves.

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

Steve Morissette: MLA Steve Morissette for Kootenay-Monashee. I’m 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.

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

Bryan Tepper: Well, thank you, MLA Sturko, in the chair. I am Brian Tepper from Surrey-Panorama and the critic for community safety and integrated services.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Excellent. Thank you, guys.

Assisting the committee today are Darryl Hol and Kayla Wilson from the Parliamentary Committees Office. Simon DeLaat and Amanda Heffelfinger are assisting us from Hansard Services.

We’re now 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 for questions from committee members.

We’re going to begin our hearings over here in Penticton with the Coalition of Child Care Advocates of B.C. We’d like to welcome Sharon Gregson.

Budget Consultation Presentations

Coalition of Child Care
Advocates of B.C.

Sharon Gregson: Thank you very much. It’s a pleasure to be here.

My name is Sharon Gregson. I represent the Coalition of Child Care Advocates of B.C. For decades, our organization has been at the forefront of advocating for a high-quality, publicly funded child care system as the cornerstone of a thriving B.C. economy.

By 2017, the $10-a-day child care plan that we developed with our partners, the Early Childhood Educators of B.C., included comprehensive policy and funding recommendations, with detailed analyses from external economists predicting multiple economic benefits that arise when parents, primarily mothers, can fully participate in the workforce, knowing their children are receiving high-quality child care.

B.C. started implementing the $10-a-day plan in 2018. By 2021, the federal government had begun adding long-term funding through agreements with each province and territory. Recent economic reports confirm that Canada-wide progress to date has generated powerful economic returns.

However, progress in B.C. is falling behind. Unfortunately, commitments made by the provincial government in 2018 and repeated many times since — the commitments of achieving universal, high-quality child care in ten years — are very far from being realized.

For example, in the B.C. Budget 2024 service plan for the Ministry of Education and Child Care, the minister of state of the day had confirmed her accountability for “continuing to implement initiatives that support ChildCareBC, the government’s ten-year plan to provide universal, affordable, accessible, quality and inclusive child care to every family that wants or needs it.” That’s a direct quote.

That service plan also confirmed: “The ministry is committed to improving affordability for families by reducing fees, with the goal of families paying $10 a day per child once the ChildCareBC plan is fully implemented.”

However, B.C. has no targets, timelines or new provincial funds to deliver on their ChildCareBC commitment. Even Premier Eby’s 2024 election promises of $500 million for child care capital expansion and the expansion of school-age child care were not reflected in the 2025 budget.

[3:05 p.m.]

There are three key priority areas with solutions.

On affordability. Currently, only 25 percent of children ages zero to 12 in B.C. have access to a licensed child care space. Of all the spaces currently operating, only 10 percent of them are $10 a day. Those families are indeed lottery winners. Families not in $10-a-day spaces receive some affordability benefits, but those benefits have eroded over time, and many families are still paying over $1,000 a month for child care.

The solution is for all current providers to be invited to operate as $10-a-day sites with sufficient funding and accountability to operate quality programs and fairly compensate their staff.

The second point: on accessibility. While progress has been made in the growth of new spaces since 2018, there remains a huge and uneven gap across this province between demand and supply. A solution is for B.C. to provide provincial planning for the expansion of programs, particularly utilizing modular buildings installed on public land, as is being done with K-to-12 classrooms. Every elementary school should be providing before- and after-school child care to all the children who need it in that school.

Third priority: around quality. Quality for children is delivered by early childhood educators, yet with a median wage of just $29 an hour in this province, stuck at that rate for the previous 18 months, their compensation does not reflect their expertise or value. The solution is a province-wide wage grid starting at $30 to $40 an hour based on qualifications and experience, plus benefits, which will help recruit and retain skilled educators, ensuring B.C.’s children receive the high-quality care they deserve.

I will add that the B.C. government has committed in its federal agreement to develop a wage grid. There’s still no sign of it.

In closing, B.C. Budget 2025 confirmed the lack of ongoing child care progress with a flatlined provincial budget of $866 million last year and this year, and for the next two years. This is in complete contradiction to the commitments this government has repeatedly made to B.C. voters. Returning to a budget that prioritized quality child care so that parents can fully participate in the workforce would ensure B.C. fulfils its commitment to British Columbians and regains its position as a national leader in building a quality $10-a-day child care system.

Currently, most other provinces and territories, including Ontario, Alberta and Manitoba, have sailed past us in establishing set child care fees for all families, not just a few lottery winners, and/or implementing wage grids for all educators.

The $10-a-day plan is effective social policy and an economic commitment to the future of B.C.’s children, families and communities. With a renewed provincial investment, which I hope you’ll recommend, in expanding a quality child care system, Budget 2026 can secure a legacy of equity, sustainability and prosperity for our province.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much.

Committee members?

Claire Rattée: Thank you. Nice to see you again. I know that you’re very knowledgeable in this space, so I just have a simple question.

I know we spoke about this at length, but when it comes to allowing all the current providers to operate $10-a-day spaces, what would you say, based on your expertise, is the biggest hangup here with allowing more spots to be open for that? Is it a lack of, I guess, training being set throughout all of those spaces? What is the biggest hangup, would you say?

Sharon Gregson: The biggest hangup is that applicants are not being invited to operate as $10-a-day sites. The last application period was open in mid-2024, and only a few of those applicants were allowed to transition to be $10-a-day. That was announced in April of this year.

There are many that applied that were not permitted to transition to $10-a-day, and there’s no current application period. So programs that want to be $10-a-day at this point have no opportunity to transition.

Claire Rattée: So it’s essentially coming down to a lack of funding, then, I would assume. The government isn’t willing to fund enough, offset the cost of enough spaces to be able to operate that. It’s not about the different operators maybe not having the same standards or similar training or anything like that. It’s got more to do with the funding.

Sharon Gregson: I wouldn’t say that it’s funding. I would say that it is a lack of targets and timelines and the budget to support that — of how to grow the system. The only current target the government has is to achieve 20,000 $10-a-day spaces by April of 2026. That’s in the federal agreement.

[3:10 p.m.]

We’re at just about 16,000-plus at the moment, so there will be a few more thousand announced over the next year, we expect. That barely moves the needle beyond the 10 percent that currently exists.

Bryan Tepper: Yeah, I agree with that. We don’t have the spaces for what everybody wants right now.

With the $10-a-day daycare, what happens with mothers that want to stay home with their children?

Sharon Gregson: I always get asked this question, and there are many, many programs that support parents who want to make the choice to stay at home.

The reality is in today’s environment that if you’re a single parent or even a two-parent family, many parents need to work, particularly when a child turns three. Maybe not as much — the rates are not as high for infants and toddlers. But to support a family, parents need to know that they have access to quality child care.

There are programs like StrongStart, family drop-in programs, libraries, community centres that offer mostly free drop-in programs for parents that are choosing to stay at home and are able, frankly, to stay at home. We want to make sure that there are high-quality environments for children when their parents go to work as well.

Bryan Tepper: If we’re providing $10-a-day daycare with higher wages, are we not just forcing an inflationary period, where we are forcing those that even are on the edge right now having to send their kids to daycare so that they have to work?

Sharon Gregson: No. The waiting lists across this province are ridiculously long. Parents are on waiting lists for years. Their children age out before they get a space. So it’s not a matter of forcing people to go to work. People need to go to work, so we should be providing high-quality, affordable child care so that they can go to work, particularly women, because it’s a gender equity issue to make sure that their children are safe and nurtured and well cared for.

If you have a baby in Nelson now, you can barely even put yourself on a waiting list, because the waiting lists are so long that they’ve been shut down. So it’s not a matter of creating the need. The need is there. We need to meet it.

Bryan Tepper: Yeah, I guess that’s my point there. We already have an overburdened system, and now we’re going to force more people into the system, are we not?

Sharon Gregson: We need to grow the system to meet the demand.

Bryan Tepper: I mean, we do agree with that portion. But what happens when we’re adding more people to the system, then, though?

Sharon Gregson: I’m not sure I understand what you mean. Adding more parents into the system or more educators?

Bryan Tepper: No, no. We’re going to add more kids into the system now, because we’re now bringing more people into the system, and we’re already overburdened. So are we not forcing more kids into the system, or is there some way or a mechanism of keeping people at home?

Sharon Gregson: No. What we’re doing is ensuring that children can move out of unlicensed, potentially unsafe or illegal child care situations into situations where they are in safe, licensed, monitored child care with educated staff, quality early childhood educators.

It’s actually about ensuring quality for children and allowing those parents to participate in the workforce, because that’s what they want and need to do.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation. That was really informative.

We’re going to now move on to our next presenter, from First Things First Okanagan. We’re going to hear from Margaret Holm. Thank you for joining us this afternoon. You’ll have five minutes for presentation time, followed by up to five minutes for questions from committee members. You may begin when you’re ready.

First Things First Okanagan

Margaret Holm: We are a climate action and education group, First Things First Okanagan.

I’m going to address the CleanBC program and their allocation of $100 million over the next two years to provide heat pump rebates as part of B.C.’s climate mitigation plan. Our government states that heat pumps are a three-in-one solution for British Columbia. They provide necessary cooling, as B.C. has become a hotter province, as you are experiencing; they lower energy bills through improved efficiency; and they shrink the household carbon footprint.

I don’t know if you’re aware that emissions from buildings in British Columbia are the third-largest source of emissions in our province.

This $100 million commitment in the budget for heat pumps is part of the government’s overall strategy to reduce greenhouse gas in B.C. The problem is, despite rebates that start at over $5,000 — and depending on the region you live in and the income, you can get even more funds — the out-of-pocket costs are a barrier, a significant barrier for most residents.

[3:15 p.m.]

Considering the large amount of money that the government is investing in this program, there really isn’t significant uptake. The current approach requires homeowners to pay high upfront costs, ranging from $8,000 to $19,000. I was actually quoted over that for my heat pump. This discourages widespread participation. The current rebate model demands that homeowners pay the full amount before they’re reimbursed.

There have also been reports of price inflation with HVAC installers, because there’s kind of a market response when you raise the rebate amounts. Sometimes the price jumps up as well. Renters are largely excluded from this due to a lack of incentive from landlords because they don’t directly benefit from this.

The government’s figures themselves estimate that out of spending $50 million a year for the next two years…. It’s going to provide rebates for about 4,100 homes per year. Now, we have two million homes in British Columbia, at least — two million dwellings — so this is really a negligible impact.

We feel that this slow uptake of rebates, despite the amount of money that’s being spent, is really jeopardizing the province’s climate plan and our ability to lower emissions. So we have a proposal. To maximize this public investment and accelerate emissions reductions, we recommend two solutions.

The first one is to have a direct-funded heat pump installation program via registered contractors. This is done in other parts of the world. You disperse funds directly to a certified installer instead of reimbursing homeowners. This is called a direct install model.

The government achieves 20 to 50 percent cost reductions through this bulk purchase. It eliminates financial barriers, reduces administrative overhead and accelerates the uptake. It also limits price inflation because you’ve got government rates for contractors. I note that in last fall’s election platform, the NDP actually committed to bulk purchasing of heat pumps, but it’s not reflected in the budget.

Our second solution is to include heat pump installations in B.C.’s carbon credit and financing schemes. We already have private sector emitters that include oil and gas, heavy industry and public service organizations. They’re required to get carbon credits if they’re unable to lower their emissions in other means.

We feel that the carbon credit system could increase the funding capacity for heat pumps for residential and municipal purchase. By purchasing carbon credits within B.C., these private sector emitters — in other words, they’re funding the installation — help reduce emissions right inside our province.

Right now, if you need to purchase carbon credits…. For instance, FortisBC is buying a significant amount of renewable natural gas credits from the United States, so B.C. is unable to claim any of the benefit of this emission reduction.

With 2030 targets looming, building emissions are rising. We need innovative financing. Just throwing some money in the budget for rebates that really aren’t taken up isn’t really doing the trick. We feel that we can amplify the effectiveness of this home rebate program by doing this either direct install…. Some provinces are doing it. Some countries are doing it. And we could also include this heat pump into the carbon credit scheme, which is already being administered in our province.

This is a dual strategy. We feel that it delivers greater equity, because right now only a certain percentage of the population can afford heat pumps. It’s greater cost-efficiency and greater climate impact for our province.

I urge the committee to ask the government to explore these options rather than just kind of an ineffective rebate program with limited uptake. You can unlock much bigger potential for a program to try and get more heat pumps into homes in British Columbia.

Steve Morissette: Thank you for the presentation. So you’re saying that a company could purchase carbon credits from the government, and the government would use that money to help fund heat pumps? Is that what you’re saying?

[3:20 p.m.]

Margaret Holm: They wouldn’t be purchasing it from the province. Right now there is a carbon credit program. Company X, who is unable to lower their emissions, is actually required to step up their emission reductions.

Every year, they have targets. They actually go into their carbon credit financing scheme, look down the list, and they choose somebody. Sometimes somebody’s planting trees in Vietnam or something. You’ve probably experienced this if you ever buy carbon credits for your flights. Many of them are outside of our country.

We’re saying: why not include heat pump installation bulk, not just one home at a time? But there’s no reason why there couldn’t be a scheme, also, for municipalities that are required to upgrade systems with their schools, their libraries, that sort of thing. Integrate heat pump installation into the carbon credit system. It’s being done in Alaska, actually, so there are models for this. It’s not a scheme that hasn’t been tried in other parts of the world.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you, and thank you for your advocacy for heat pumps and environmental responsibility.

The latest version of the heat pump rebate program only came into effect April 30, so I’m wondering where you’re getting your data that there’s not a lot of uptake.

Margaret Holm: Well, I don’t know, $50 million is quite a bit, so they’re hoping…. They’re saying that the uptake will be about 4,100 homes per year, which seems to me to be a low uptake. You can go and look at what the uptake has been. It’s used every year, but it’s really pretty limited.

Jennifer Blatherwick: My understanding was that the rebate was fully consumed every year. So that whatever….

Margaret Holm: I’m saying you could make it $100 million a year. But it’s still…. When you think of the fact that we have two million buildings, you’re not going to reach your target with these very limited numbers of homes per year that are converting.

I’m not saying that it’s not being used. Rebates are being used, but they’re really just like EV rebates. There’s a certain segment of the population that can afford to purchase heat pumps and purchase EVs. It’s been shown…. Actually, there’s a Nanaimo climate group that’s done surveys and asked people why they don’t have heat pumps, and cost is the main barrier.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Cost is the main barrier. Okay. All right.

I am looking at the second recommendation that you, similar to MLA Morissette…. Using credits within British Columbia as opposed to offshore or within the North American market.

Margaret Holm: Why not have credits that go towards schemes within our province? Doesn’t have to be heat pumps; it could be other things too, obviously. Right now, buying…. To me, it doesn’t make sense to be purchasing credits toward lowering emissions in the United States. It’s really…. It’s sort of on paper. Do you know what I mean? It’s not actually doing any good in our province.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Seeing no further questions from our committee, we’ll move to our next presentation. Next we’ll hear from B.C. Rural Health Network, Paul Adams.

Good afternoon. You’ll have five minutes presentation time, followed by up to five minutes questions from our panel. You can start when you’re ready.

B.C. Rural Health Network

Paul Adams: Welcome to the Okanagan, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today, hon. Chair, hon. members of the committee.

My name is Paul Adams. I am the executive director of the B.C. Rural Health Network, which is a provincial charity working to improve access to health care and equitable health outcomes across rural B.C. We are not a representative body, but we ground our positions in the lived experiences of rural residents, communities and non-profits.

Our membership includes over 75 non-profits with rural health mandates, 30 municipalities, three regional districts and residents from all corners of the province. We have Indigenous, non-Indigenous, municipal, unincorporated, large rural towns and rural communities.

Our role is to serve a critical communication link between community and their governments, helping ensure that rural voices inform health policy.

[3:25 p.m.]

Today I’m here to speak about the equity in rural health access and how Budget 2026 can help us move towards more equity.

First, it is important to be clear about what equity means in this context. It’s not about spending the same dollar amount per capita across the province. It is about ensuring equitable health outcomes regardless of where a person lives and regardless of their diagnosis.

Because of B.C.’s geography and diversity and population density, it will always cost more money to deliver health care in rural and remote areas. That is simply a reality. But if we fail to make those investments, we are not saving money. We are shifting costs downstream onto more expensive parts of the system and onto patients themselves.

We also know that many rural health gaps could be addressed through targeted practical investments, low-hanging fruit that can have immediate and measurable benefits.

That is why we’re recommending that Budget 2026 establish a rural health equity fund as a permanent budget line starting at $50 million and allocated annually and should be secured in the long-term fiscal plan of the province. The fund would be governed collaboratively, chaired by the Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Health, co-chaired by the rural Health critic and with health critics from the other official parties.

A governance board would include membership from rural communities, Indigenous partners, municipalities, rural health care providers, health authorities, non-profits within the sector and cross-ministry representatives.

This fund is intended to support new programs and to strengthen existing programs and is not simply a mechanism to distribute existing funds to existing programs. The focus is on targeted, high-impact new investments that will deliver measurable improvements for rural residents and for system efficiency.

Three areas of priority for investment have been identified through engagement with communities across B.C.

First is medical travel assistance. For many rural residents, non-emergency medical travel is an insurmountable barrier in terms of cost, logistics and lost time. Strengthening travel assistance is not just an equity issue. It is a cost-saving measure. It helps patients access care earlier, preventing more complex and expensive interventions later.

Second is community engagement and communications. Investing in trusted local communication channels helps residents navigate an often fragmented system, improves trust and strengthens the feedback loop between government and communities. It also addresses inefficiencies by helping people access the right care in the right place at the right time.

Third is community-level recruitment and community-level health education. Recruitment works best when it is locally driven. The fund would support community-based efforts to attract and retain providers and expand community-level health education pathways. These investments would complement broader provincial initiatives, reduce costly turnover and improve continuity of care.

The proposed investment is modest at $50 million, which represents just 0.14 percent of the health care budget and only 0.053 percent of the total provincial budget. This is an affordable step toward a more equitable and sustainable health care system for British Columbia.

Chair and members, achieving rural health equity is not optional. It is required under the Canada Health Act and is a matter of fairness to British Columbians who contribute equally to our public system. Rural residents are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for fair access to care without unreasonable barriers or burdens.

We urge the committee to recommend the creation of this fund, and we offer the B.C. Rural Health Network as a partner to help ensure its success.

I thank you, and I welcome any questions.

Claire Rattée: Thank you. It’s nice to see you again. Thank you for the work that you’re doing advocating for rural communities.

I know five minutes is a short period of time. I was wondering if you could expand a little bit on the medical travel assistance for non-emergency travel. Obviously, being from a rural community as well, I know what currently exists and where the gaps are, and I know there’s a significant amount of them, so I was hoping you could just expand on that a little bit.

Paul Adams: Sure. You’ll see that I’ve given you a sheet with a QR code, which has a lot of research that we’ve developed in conjunction with the UBC Centre for Rural Health Research.

[3:30 p.m.]

There are extensive studies done on the out-of-pocket costs to rural residents. Just for a single diagnosis, going out of community to see a specialist and having testing done has an average out-of-pocket cost of $2,000 to an individual. So it’s a significant burden.

We’ve been very strong promoters — and thank you for your video clip, MLA Rattée — of Hope Air and the services that it provides across the province. We promoted them when the public really didn’t know a lot about Hope Air.

At the time when we promoted them and started creating awareness, they offered two weeks of accommodation along with travel and ground transport and meals. Due to demand increasing, due to our promotion of them, they couldn’t keep up with the accommodation. So now it’s simply a straight flight program, and that doesn’t really do you a lot of good. If you don’t have any expendable income available, and you get flown to a city and dropped off, you’re now left probably in a worse situation. We have to make sure that the funding tracks the demand of the programs that we put in play.

Organizations like the Canadian Cancer Society, Hope Air, East Kootenay Angel Flight, Helicopters Without Borders…. All of these programs provide amazing services. Not only are they amazing but they increase the numbers of dollars spent per dollar invested because they have volunteer bases, they have philanthropy donations coming in from outside of the community, they create long-term relationships with hotel chains, with Uber, with all kinds of different providers so that they can really magnify an investment at a high level.

From all of our work around the province, and we engage with communities on a daily basis…. One of the biggest challenges people face is how they reach care outside of their community. With the challenges that we face with emergency room closures and additional pressures on the system, these are all becoming a heavy burden upon the patient in actually receiving care in a timely fashion.

So the goal of this $50 million is to have it easily deployable, which isn’t tied up in bureaucracy, is governed in a collaborative, cooperative fashion, much like the table of this Finance Committee. By the way, this is 20 years since my first presentation to this committee. So again, I think that these types of non-partisan collaboratives work very well in ensuring that we get good policy in play that really represents the interests of the people and not of a political position.

That is my pitch to you all.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Any further questions? Great.

Well, thank you for your time. I should have said welcome back, then, if you were here 20 years ago.

Paul Adams: I’ve been here many times in those 20 years. Not every year, but many times.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Thank you for participating today.

We’ll now call on Innovative Medicines Canada, Charles Brown.

You’ll have five minutes for presentation, followed by up to five minutes of questions from our committee, and you can begin when you’re ready.

Innovative Medicines Canada

Charles Brown: I appreciate that. Thanks for welcoming me.

My name is Charles Brown. I’m with Innovative Medicines Canada. Just a bit about our organization. We’re a company that…. We represent up to 50 pharmaceutical companies in Canada, so we’re an industry association. We support, of the members in Innovative Medicines Canada, 110,000 high-paying jobs, high-qualified and well-educated jobs, in Canada. We contribute $33.2 billion in direct R&D investment in Canada, and $18.4 billion in indirect investment in terms of the knowledge-based economy.

A few of the issues that I wanted to talk to you a little bit about today were mostly to do with the current budget that was presented by the B.C. government; namely, with regards to the health care funding, PharmaCare. In British Columbia, the government needs to invest more funds directed towards B.C. PharmaCare. Without these additional funds, drug coverage for patients in the province will decline. So I don’t think…. It’s not a question.

In March 2025, the B.C. government announced its budget. In the next three years, the health budget was to grow from $35 billion in 2025-26 to $37 billion in ’27-28. The largest share of that was delegated to health authorities and hospitals, with the funding expected to rise from $29 billion in 2024-25 to $31.6 billion in 2027-28.

[3:35 p.m.]

The government highlighted that funding this would focus on long-term care, which we are here, which is good, I guess, and also staff recruitment, retention — and support the rare disease initiatives. Yet the B.C. funding for PharmaCare will be actually declining. They actually have a flat budget coming this year, and then it’s forecasted to decline and remain flat over the next three years. It’s a small decline over the previous year and then flat after that.

In 2025, the British Columbia population is projected to grow to be around, this year, 5.7 million people. The projection for 2029 is 6.1 million people. So it’s a nearly 8 percent increase over five years. The trend indicates that the growth over forecast budget timelines…. Furthermore, the demographic in B.C. suggests an aging population with a larger proportion of population relying on B.C. PharmaCare for drugs and prescription needs.

The British Columbia population is also aging. Currently, the population 65 and older now represents 20 percent of the population, with 26 percent of that same amount…. It will be 26 percent in 2043. So it will be growing.

Furthermore, due to inflation and other economic pressures, drug costs are expected to increase over the coming years. The Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association now notes that the average price of pharmaceutical drugs has increased by 0.6 percent, so close to 1 percent, per year since 2019, so it is increasing.

Innovative Medicines Canada is concerned that the British Columbia government is not allocating enough funds for the B.C. PharmaCare budget. Specifically, while the Ministry of Health is increasing, the PharmaCare budget is decreasing slightly from $1.8 billion to $1.78 billion. So it’s a slight decline in 2024-25, and then it remains flat over the next three years.

IMC believes this is insufficient to provide adequate access to patients, given the growing and aging population in British Columbia and the inflation pressures. Innovative Medicines Canada recommends increasing the B.C. PharmaCare budget over the next three years and subsequent years at 4 percent. That was kind of in line with what previous increases were over years before that, and it’s in line with previous budgets.

Our second recommendation is to proceed with the accelerated access pilot program. This, largely, is a pilot program that was done, led by Ontario, in terms of the Premier of Ontario, and it was signed on by the Council of the Federation and ministers within all provinces.

British Columbia patients wait, currently, an average of 704 days after health care regulatory approval to gain access to innovative medicines on the public plans. Without improved availability and timely new access to new medications, health and the life science programs designed to help British Columbians, this could be a detriment for people investing and looking to invest from other countries into B.C. and the rest of Canada.

If British Columbia can contribute to reducing Canada’s time to patient access, this achievement will also create a more attractive destination for research investment, clinical trials and biomanufacturing.

Innovative Medicines Canada applauds the collective agreement amongst Canada’s Premiers to take meaningful action that speeds up approvals for life-saving medications, as announced in the 2024 Council of the Federation press conference. IMC recognizes that the importance of collaboration is important in achieving the goals, and the Premiers recognize this with all their stakeholders, including drug manufacturers who work together to deliver on this initiative.

By ensuring that patients can benefit from Health Canada–approved treatments through the initiatives like project orbis, which is directly looking at oncology drugs available….

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Mr. Brown, that concludes your time. Did you get through all your recommendations?

Charles Brown: I’m missing one.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): So for your first answer, why don’t you just tell us what the last recommendation for the budget is.

[3:40 p.m.]

Charles Brown: The last recommendation is around Bill C-64. It’s rejecting bulk purchasing, which is really about making transparent net price negotiations that have been done in Canada that would be providing pricing to the private insurance market in Canada. This could directly impact the public market and the public pricing for pharmaceutical drugs in Canada negatively.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Okay, great.

Questions from committee members?

Jennifer Blatherwick: Can I just follow up on that last point? Are you saying that you are in favour of Bill C-64 or against Bill C-64?

impact the public market and the public pricing for pharmaceutical drugs in Canada negatively.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Okay, great.

Questions from committee members?

Jennifer Blatherwick: Can I just follow up on that last point? Are you saying that you are in favour of Bill C-64 or against Bill C-64?

Charles Brown: One section of Bill C-64, which was to do with bulk purchasing.

Bill C-64 was proposed by the previous administration under Justin Trudeau, which was looking at…. It was, at the time, heavily influenced by the NDP government, as well, that they were working with.

It was looking towards funding of national pharmacare. One of the aspects of that, though…. B.C. has taken advantage of that and has signed on to bilateral agreements with regards to Bill C-64 in terms of providing some things like HRT, a few small things, diabetes, other things like that — not medication, but diabetes devices, things like that.

The issue that we had was with bulk purchasing, which was saying that they…. They already have a mechanism in terms of the public setting, which is the pCPA, which negotiates the net pricing for all jurisdictions in Canada and the provinces, in terms of what they would pay for net pricing.

The problem is that within Bill C-64 and bulk purchasing, this would allow transparency of those prices to other areas of, for example, private insurers. If this was to happen, it could impact the overall price in terms of what would be the average net price that could be seen out there, which could impact the public setting negatively if these prices were made to be transparent.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Sorry, can I just follow up on that? Your argument is that if the negotiated prices from the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance became available to the public, private companies would take advantage of that information to try and negotiate lower prices for themselves?

Charles Brown: Absolutely. What would happen is that by doing so…. There already is a negotiated pricing stream for the provinces, which is quite competitive in terms of what net prices you would pay from around the world. If this was to happen, it would affect the pharmaceutical’s ability to continue to provide research, innovation, clinical trials and other investments in the life sciences sector.

Plus, it would probably impact the net pricing because it would be cutting into the pharmaceutical industry’s revenue for sure. So in terms of what they would be pricing for the public, it could be adversely impacted.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Okay, thank you very much. Seeing no further questions, we’ll conclude with you and move on to our next presentation. Thank you for your time today.

We’re going to hear from the Okanagan Similkameen Parks Society, Ian Graham.

Ian Graham: I’m one of those seniors they were talking about.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Welcome to the committee. You’ll have five minutes for your presentation, and then we’ll have up to five minutes for questions.

Okanagan Similkameen Parks Society

Ian Graham: Super, I appreciate it. Before I start, I just want to really congratulate your support staff. We had some glitches getting set up. It was taken care of wonderfully. So thank you to your support staff.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): I agree. Thank you to the support staff who are here with us today making this possible.

Ian Graham: Okanagan Similkameen Parks Society — we are much more than just integrating protected areas and making them become parks, although that’s kind of where we started out some 60 years ago.

Today, rather than do the same presentation that we’ve done over the last few years — last year we weren’t able to, but earlier than that — I would like to look at the year 2025 and the idea that you cannot allow the existential development south of our border, or in some ways east of our border, to consume all of the energy in this budget process.

[3:45 p.m.]

I believe that what you’ve got to do is ensure that it is not devalued and, even more, that the environment and other areas have to become more of a priority.

We continue to live in a time of severe climate crisis, regardless of what is happening out there. We continue to have rapid extinction of the biodiversity and nature of our environment throughout the province. We continue to have increased, unaccountable weather extremes, whether they set up for the droughts, which we know about here, the wildfires, which we know about here, or the flooding — not to mention the heat domes and polar vortexes. Those things do not go away, regardless of what the headline on CNN is.

Adequately, we have to resource the ministries that are working and regulating in the areas responsible for this, and that would include Environment and Parks. It includes Education, and it includes the budget office.

It is really important that we support suppression crews and natural disaster response teams. That has to be the mindset that you as a committee and those people in the Legislature voting on this budget for 2026 have to have in mind.

What they have to do is insist that the programs that are being implemented are rigorously, scientifically based, and that includes First Nations. It includes rural communities. It includes the knowledge that comes from all sorts of other small groups out there. As long as it meets the rigors of testing, it should be listened to and debated.

Insist that there is an educational component to the government outreach so that it is understood and can be debated and argued and possibly revised. That’s an important mindset. Insist that there is protective legislation for our various areas that require it and that there is enforcement of any laws and regulations stemming from that.

It may be that in some cases, it’s a program of First Nations. It may be in some cases, a place where young people are involved, maybe some place where you have experts of the flora and fauna. But all of that is going to be important to keep in mind.

I’m going to come to the last part, where I have the three recommendations here. It requires consultation, study and commitment from all of our legislators. It requires emphasis on short timelines, which many species and/or areas have prior to a tipping point, yet longer timelines in terms of whether or not we are seeing differences — and long enough timelines that we’re not talking, kind of, first quarter, second quarter.

Finally, this will require that our natural, reoccurring resources are valued as much as the monetary values of monetary resources.

Now, I realize I have not given you a specific “here’s what you need to do,” but I think it’s really important, coming from a philosophical bend where you say: “This other stuff is still important.” If you want to know about specifics, go back into the papers and see what we’ve told you the last ten years.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much for the presentation.

Questions from members?

I guess I’ll just make the comment….

Oh, you had one. Okay, great. Then I’ll make my comment after. MLA Morissette, please go ahead.

Steve Morissette: Thank you for the presentation. What I’m hearing from you is that you want us to look at everything throughout ministries with an environmental lens.

Ian Graham: I wouldn’t say environmental. I would talk world view, from the idea that it is not only our physical environment, but also our social environment and so forth. I know “environmental” often gets narrowed down, but that’s…. Yes. It’s not just about tariffs and so forth.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Seeing no other questions, I’ll just say that I appreciate that you came, even not having a specific budgetary ask. You’re not the first person to come and present to us to remind the committee to remember things like the arts, nature and the value of things that can’t necessarily be sold but must be experienced here in B.C. — like our nature and wildlife.

[3:50 p.m.]

Thank you very much for your time, and we’ll go to our next presentation.

Next we will have a presentation from the Quad Riders Association of British Columbia, from Kristin Parsons.

Thanks for being here.

Kristin Parsons: Thanks for having me.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): You’ve probably heard, but I’ll repeat it again. We have five minutes of presentation time, followed by five minutes for potential questions from our committee members. You may begin when you’re ready.

Quad Riders ATV Association of B.C.

Kristin Parsons: Thank you for the opportunity to present today. As you know, my name is Kristen Parsons, and I do represent the Quad Riders Association of B.C., ATVBC. We represent the voice of ORV riders in B.C. In particular, we have over 5,000 dedicated members, part of our 43 clubs that are situated around the province, and they help to build and maintain multi-use trails for ORV community and rec users.

We’re here today to urge the provincial government to make outdoor recreation a funding priority in the ’26 provincial budget. Outdoor recreation in B.C. is not only vital for public well-being and environmental stewardship; it’s a critical pillar of rural economic development. With increasing demand, aging infrastructure and growing complexity in land-use decisions, the time for strategic advancement is now.

Today we are outlining three key areas in urgent need of sustained government support. The first is supporting the community-based outdoor recreation volunteers and non-profit groups for which I sit here today and speak to. Volunteers are absolutely the foundation of B.C.’s recreation economy. In 2024 alone, Rec Sites and Trails had over 400 partnership agreements with volunteer-powered community organizations, delivering 391,000 volunteer hours, equating to 188 full-time-equivalent positions.

That’s work being done in these communities at no cost and all completely volunteer-led. It’s just a subset of the broader impact volunteers have on the B.C. outdoor recreation economy. This remarkable contribution to public infrastructure is being shouldered heavily by aging and under-resourced volunteers, highlighting both their dedication and the urgent need of greater support.

Volunteer fatigue is increasing, and many organizations are finding it harder to attract new and younger participants. The reality is that younger generations face mounting pressures from high cost-of-living and demanding work and family obligations, and it’s limiting their ability to contribute. At the same time, volunteer groups are faced with rising expectations, including requirements for Indigenous consultation and land-use compliance but without the funding, resources or capacity to keep up. Without sustained investment in this volunteer network, we risk significant decline in the quality, safety and accessibility of outdoor rec across B.C.

ATVBC is calling for the creation of a stable and predictable outdoor recreation infrastructure investment fund. It’s a mouthful, I know. We are joining Outdoor Recreation Council’s call for a $30 million annual fund over three years to support infrastructure upgrades and trail maintenance, strengthen rural and regional economies and directly support the volunteer groups doing the work on the trails.

Part of this fund must also include an operational stream to help associations maintain infrastructure, retain staff, coordinate volunteers and maintain long-term capacity. The ability of these groups to sustain their work depends not only on project funding but also organizational stability.

Next is our call for increased funding for the parks and recreation program, as always, known as Rec Sites and Trails, under the Ministry of Environment and Parks

In 2022’s provincial budget, there was a three-year uplift to the parks program, and it has made a meaningful difference. It allowed for expanded seasonal trail maintenance crews; an improved ORV trail fund process; and the newly piloted, updated process for the section 57 program, which was long awaited, and we are very excited about that.

But this progress is now at risk. Trail demand is rising rapidly. While the complexity of trail management has increased significantly due to reconciliation obligations, climate impacts and overlapping land uses, we are not keeping pace with the growth of the demands.

We are asking for a targeted increase to the ministry’s park and recreation program, including $6 million annually to maintain and improve the 475,000 kilometres of rail trails alone; $3 million annually to address current staffing shortages and enable stronger oversight of our partnership agreements and the 44,000 kilometres of recreation trails; and participation in modernized land use and forest landscape planning.

We would like to see a dedicated yearly fund continue to support the seasonal maintenance crews, which takes additional pressure off of our volunteers, and funding for implementing the upcoming B.C. outdoor recreation strategy, which is led by the Ministry of Environment.

[3:55 p.m.]

Investing in the parks and recreation program is an investment in public infrastructure, rural development and reconciliation. It is essential that this funding uplift not only be renewed but increased to meet today’s challenges.

Lastly, an improvement to and a sustained access to our outdoor recreation through road infrastructure investment. Access is essential. You cannot enjoy a trail you cannot get to. B.C. has over 44,000 kilometres of sanctioned recreation trails, but the access roads that lead to them, along with parks and rec sites, are deteriorating. Forest service roads and other resource roads leading to rec sites are increasingly impassable and becoming decommissioned, creating barriers for tourism, emergency response, volunteer maintenance and equitable public use.

I am out of time, but my call basically is that we recommend the establishment of an annual fund for the maintenance of high-priority recreation access roads.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Excellent. That’s very good. Thank you.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Hello. Thank you. I’m just hoping to parse out exactly what you were asking for. You’re looking for $6 million annually to improve trails?

Kristin Parsons: Yes and no. What we’re looking for is a $30 million annual support for improving the infrastructure upgrades and trail maintenance. In particular, in our second ask…. An overall investment fund is what we’re looking to see established.

Under the ministry’s park and recreation program…. They had certain budget uplifts recently. What we’ve seen is a really great outcome of that, but it was only a three-year program. In particular, those seasonal maintenance crews made a massive difference in some of our areas where we just don’t have the support, so we want to see that continue to be carried on.

The $6 million, actually, in talking with staff, was the minimum they could see that they would need to maintain and improve just the rail trails in B.C. That’s separate from that 44,000 trails. The 475,000 kilometres of trails and the rail trails are completely separate. What they were able to do over the last couple of years has helped them catch up a little bit, but there’s still so much more to go.

As you can imagine, with the floods of 2021 — that was a huge hit to our rail trail system. They’re just constantly behind, so we need to continue to fund that moving forward.

Steve Morissette: Yeah. I hear you. We’ve got a significant rail trail in my riding, and it joins on to my neighbour in Boundary-Similkameen as well. I’m hearing lots of rumbling of there being safety issues with tunnels, with trestles, etc., which are going to cost a fortune to maintain safely. So I see why you need the money.

Do you have any…? I don’t know if your organization would have any figures on tourism dollars generated?

Kristin Parsons: Absolutely. We have an economic impact study that we released last year. I can’t refer right to the numbers in front of me, but it is a massive impact to the B.C. economy that that ATVing and ORVing does for B.C.

You must live in the Boundary area, Christina Lake area.

Steve Morissette: I live in West Kootenays.

Kristin Parsons: Yeah. We are regularly working with rec sites and trails on those issues, including the trestles and whatnot. Time and time again, it all comes down to funding. They’re very underfunded for the ability to maintain such a massive amount of infrastructure and trails in addition to all of their other trail requirements around the province.

But it is an asset that is unique to Canada and an amazing asset that if maintained correctly could be a world-class experience for everybody. I can certainly pass on the economic impact study to you to get an idea of just how much of an impact this can be as it grows as well.

Steve Morissette: That would be great. Thank you.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Seeing no further questions, we’ll go to our next presenter. Thank you very much.

Now we’re going to hear from the Trails Society of British Columbia, Ciel Sander.

Thanks for joining us.

Ciel Sander: Yeah, thank you.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Five minutes for presentation followed by up to five minutes of questions from our committee. Please begin when you’re ready.

[4:00 p.m.]

Trails Society of B.C.

Ciel Sander: Okay, great. Good afternoon. My name is Ciel, and I volunteer as the president of Trails Society of B.C., also called Trails B.C. We got started as a provincial organization in 1995 to work with the government of British Columbia to place the Trans Canada Trail in B.C.

Our goal is to advocate for quality trail experiences, for self-propelled recreation and transportation for all ages and abilities on greenway trails.

I’m not sure…. It looks like you might have flown here, but you can actually ride all the way from Castlegar to Hope. I would stop off here in Penticton and spend my money on a bicycle.

I want to echo that rail trails absolutely need to be funded. But let’s just imagine for a moment the rail trail as a diamond, because it is a gem in British Columbia, and it has a lot of historical and cultural significance.

Once there were some people who found a big, beautiful diamond. It was 550 carats — or kilometres — one of the biggest in North America. It had a history important to Canada and British Columbia, as it helped with confederation and development of the place we now call British Columbia. The people dug it up and cleaned the mud off the diamond and gave it to the government so they could cut and polish it into a beautiful gem for everyone to use.

While the government was deciding how to cut and polish it, some investment was made, putting it into a safe and keeping it clean. Some small pieces, about 19 carats and 17 carats and 12 carats, were cut and polished, and they were sparkling, beautiful and well admired.

Meanwhile, over the years, a few people decided that they wanted to hack pieces off of it and turn it into diamond dust. Rather than stopping the destruction of the diamond, the government decided to let most of the destruction go ahead because the government balked at the cost of polishing and cutting the diamond. In the end, rather than having one of the most beautiful and biggest jewels, the people were left with a pile of diamond dust and a few small gems.

Like this diamond trail, the majority of the rail trail remains rough and chunky and not well maintained for active users. We have small gems of rail trail. Coming out of Penticton are 19 kilometres, and 17 kilometres are east of Grand Forks. The Myra-Bellevue Provincial Park, or the Myra trestles, makeup 12 kilometres. Then we have, of course, the Othello Tunnels, which we’re very pleased that B.C. Parks was able to reopen this year.

People come from long distances to ride on long rail trails. The KVR isn’t your typical rail trail that you would find in North America. Currently, the trail underserves the communities it connects. Most people in British Columbia want quiet and unspoiled connections to the outdoors, away from machines and vehicles. We have people that get displaced on the highways due to poor surface conditions.

The grade is gentle and there’s regular access to highways and communities. It’s front country. These rails to trails are perfect to be used by seniors, children and others who are not able to take advantage of recreational trails located in a more remote or rugged terrain. But this is not what happened.

I have three recommendations for you to consider as you make the difficult decisions about spending money. First, continue to support and enhance B.C. Parks and Recreation Sites and Trails B.C. Outdoor recreation is an important sector in the economy of our rural communities. Please allow the Ministry of Environment and Parks to maintain current levels of funding. Now is not the time to defund these portfolios.

Second, more residents are wanting to be outside. Protection of the natural environment while managing outdoor recreation is critical. Both user management and access management are increasing in complexity, with more people wanting to enjoy the great outdoors. We support management plans for the entire length of the Kettle Valley Rail Trail so it can be developed into a cohesive visitor experience. If it were anywhere else, it would be a linear park.

Finally, commit to reconnecting the section of the Trans Canada Trail between Hope and Princeton. We understand this will cost a lot of money. However, continued investment of a connected trail will support a profitable recreation industry and is earth-friendly. Our future generations will be forever grateful to have long-distance trails that can travel off our busy and dangerous highways.

Do we really want this diamond to turn into dust?

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): That was so cool and perfectly timed. Very good. Thank you for that.

[4:05 p.m.]

Bryan Tepper: Very interesting, the two presentations. Are they — what do I say? — mixed-use? Are we doing powered and unpowered on the same trail?

Ciel Sander: Well, personally, I consider what people say as mixed-use to be motorized, because the motorized vehicles displace the active users, typically.

The Trans Canada Trail was put together as primarily an active outdoor recreation trail. The exception was snowmobiles. That was negotiated in the late ’90s with the rail trail coming between Castlegar and Christina Lake. In the wintertime, there were some parts of the Kettle Valley Rail Trail that were used by snow machines.

Bryan Tepper: So right now, is motorized allowed on these sections?

Ciel Sander: Yeah. It’s considered undesignated, with the exception of those little gems I told you about, which are designated non-motorized. That’s in provincial parks, right here in Penticton and 17 kilometres east of Grand Forks.

The rest of the 550 kilometres is not managed properly.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Any further questions from our committee?

Well, thank you so much for the presentation. I’m going to say it was one of the more creative ones that I’ve heard so far. Thank you for that. It was very enjoyable to listen to.

Ciel Sander: It actually came from my husband. We rode from Greenwood to Penticton a couple of weeks ago to assess the trail, and he got kind of creative.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Well, that was very, very neat. Thank you so much for that.

We’ll move to our next presenter, which is Okanagan College Students Union — Brianne Berchowitz.

Hello. Thank you for coming. Thanks for the presentation. We will have five minutes for presentation time, followed by up to five minutes for questions from our committee members. You may begin when you’re ready.

Okanagan College Students Union

Brianne Berchowitz: Perfect. Hello, committee members. My name is Brianne Berchowitz, and I’m the executive director for the Okanagan College Students Union. Our organization represents 5,000 students studying in Penticton, Salmon Arm and Kelowna. I’m here on behalf of the students union with one clear recommendation.

We are pushing for the restoration of public funding to B.C.’s public post-secondary institutions’ operating budgets, to no less than 75 percent. I’ll be focusing on the sizable funding gap, because a sufficiently funded post-secondary sector benefits all British Columbians. We believe it is the key to tackling many of the other social and economic struggles our peers and community members are voicing to you, like the one we just heard.

Historically, the provincial government funded institutions at around 75 percent of their operating costs, but funding was reduced to around 68 percent of institutional costs in the year 2000. Today, on average, that number has dropped to just 40 percent.

Now, though, institutions are forced to fill the gap, primarily by cash-cowing students into paying premium, if loosely justified, ancillary fees and consistently increasing tuition fee costs, especially for international students, which is both volatile and unsustainable.

Since the fall of 2023, there has been a 70 percent drop in international student enrolment at Okanagan College, leading to an anticipated $13.4 million loss in revenue and a projected $8.3 million deficit in the 2025-26 fiscal year. Let’s let those figures sink in — an $8.3 million deficit in public post-secondary, in one institution. This means that faculty are being laid off, staff are being forced into early retirement, and students are being negatively impacted in regards to their learning opportunities.

We are seeing, firsthand, the impacts of systemic underfunding. Significant cuts to specific programs are further undermining the economic growth and strength of our regions.

Here’s another example. In 2023, OC lost funding for its registered nursing bridge program with UBCO, which was a cornerstone of our newly built Health Sciences Centre, which is now empty. This has increased pressure on the first two years of UBCO’s nursing degree. It’s also intensifying program competition, straining the development of future local health care workers and weakening a pipeline of future local health care workers, which is weakening a pipeline critical to addressing our region’s health care staffing shortages.

When you invest in local education, you invest in local jobs and services while positively impacting the sustainability of essential sectors. On the other hand, when you cut programs of essential sectors, you set the precedent for outsourcing services that should be provided by local professionals. Without proper funding, multiple campus institutions, like Okanagan College, are pressured to centralize student support services and adjust in-person delivery to save costs.

[4:10 p.m.]

In this past year, OC was forced to shift several programs from in-person learning to online formats, with little to no notice for both students and faculty.

The feedback from students on how negatively impacted they were by these last-minute, cost-saving measures was fairly immense. The changes disproportionately affected rural learners and the employees, leaving inadequate experience for students paying the same tuition across the valley.

This is not about resisting change or innovation, but it’s about protecting access and equity in public education. The very purpose of having regional campuses is to provide quality, local and accessible education in smaller communities like Penticton but also for folks in surrounding towns like Peachland, Summerland, OK Falls and Oliver.

Of course, institutions are making do with what they have but at the cost of the very students they are serving. Students are expected to shoulder the burden of ever-increasing costs of post-secondary operations, which is far beyond just expensive textbooks. Students cannot be expected to learn in outdated teaching environments and also be at the forefront of the community when they graduate. Proper government funding for post-secondary education and its necessary costs is how we tackle the larger issues across the province.

Good-quality education leads to better economic outcomes. OC is a major economic driver in the region. Beyond producing skilled graduates and offering high-quality, diverse programs, OC employs around 1,200 people across the valley, making it one of the largest employers in the Okanagan. But it is suffering and it will continue to suffer without changes being made by decision-makers like yourselves. An efficiently funded post-secondary education system creates positive waves in all sectors of our economies and communities.

Thank you in advance for prioritizing the health of publicly funded colleges and universities in your budgetary discussions. We all know that education is a cornerstone of economic and social development for society. By properly funding post-secondary institutions back to no less than 75 percent of their operating budgets, this will not only benefit the lives of all British Columbians but will also provide a brighter economic outcome for the province.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much for the presentation.

Looking to committee members for questions.

Okay. Seeing no questions from our panel, we’ll thank you very much for your presentation.

Brianne Berchowitz: Thank you so much. Enjoy the rest of your afternoon.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Yes, you too.

We’ll move to our next presentation: the Centre for Epilepsy and Seizure Education in British Columbia, from Christine Petkau.

Hello. I’m sure you’ve heard me say it before: five minutes for presentation, followed by up to five minutes if there are any questions.

Welcome, and please begin when you’re set.

Centre for Epilepsy and
Seizure Education in B.C.

Christine Petkau: Okay, thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Christine Petkau. I’m executive director of the Centre for Epilepsy and Seizure Education in British Columbia.

Our organization is 26 years old now, and we support people living with epilepsy, primarily outside of the greater Vancouver area. Our services for the epilepsy community in British Columbia include one-to-one case supports; monthly support groups via Zoom; art therapy; 24-7 online, peer-moderated group support via private Facebook groups; epilepsy education and presentations to schools, businesses and community organizations throughout B.C.; and extensive video and print resources that are available on our website.

Last year we delivered services to more than 1,500 clients in 51 B.C. communities, with three part-time staff.

I’m not sure if you’re aware, but more than 55,000 people in British Columbia live with epilepsy. Across Canada, that represents one in 100 people, and about 30 percent of those people are unable to control their seizures with medication, sadly. Epilepsy in First Nations communities runs about two times the general population.

Today we’re bringing two recommendations before the committee.

Our first recommendation is a review of the criteria that’s used to determine access to disability funding for individuals who suffer from regular seizures. People living with epilepsy often lose their licences. They have difficulty working, they struggle to find the right combination of medications, they have cognitive difficulties and they often suffer significant injuries from their seizures. Sadly, about 17 people a year die from epilepsy in British Columbia.

Today I’ve brought Veronica Wall with me. Veronica has lived in the South Okanagan most of her life and was first diagnosed with epilepsy when she was 16. We were told only one person can speak, so I’m going to read a statement that Veronica has prepared to describe her life with limited supports.

[4:15 p.m.]

“Hello, my name is Veronica Wall. I’m 36, and I’ve had epilepsy for over 20 years. The lack of time management, depression, anxiety, side effects from heavy meds, seizures that sometimes happen during shifts and the recovery time needed after a seizure, all have contributed to me losing many jobs over the years. That made it necessary in the past to work multiple part-time jobs to survive and have backup in case I got fired from one.

“I’ve been unable to get any form of disability benefits, so the expensive meds, ambulance fees, injuries and dental work from cracked teeth from bashing my head and grinding my teeth during seizures have forced family to bail me out time and time again, financially.

“I work part-time now, but it just isn’t enough to survive on. I can’t drive without risking others’ safety, but cabbing and busing everywhere gets really expensive. I used to walk home from work and would sometimes wake up on the side of the road. But the night I woke up alone in a snowbank, I realized that I just couldn’t do that anymore. It just simply wasn’t safe.

“The negative stigma and fear that some people exhibit when they see someone having a seizure or waking up from one has made people abandon me instead of calling 911. They accused me of being high on drugs instead of attempting to help — and that’s a common problem.

“Please help people like me get the access we need to disability and the benefits needed for us to live safely. Thank you for hearing my story.”

Thank you, Veronica, for sharing your story.

Our second recommendation is dedicated to funding for epilepsy organizations in B.C. to support operations as well as programs for clients. In B.C., there are actually only two small organizations that serve this distinct population, and you’ll hear from the other next week in Victoria. Our organizations are entirely reliant on grant funding and donations.

Unlike other neurological conditions, we have no permanent funding in B.C. to sustain our operations. We are regularly increasing our program offerings, particularly in mental health supports, which is a major need, and employment supports. However, we don’t have the funds to hire more staff to provide those services. That results in burnout for our existing staff and gaps in support for people who need it.

The need for services for those who are living with epilepsy in B.C. continues to grow, and the non-profit organizations that provide these services to individuals are a vital component of their health and well-being.

We urge you to bring to the attention of government the need to support the programs and services provided by epilepsy organizations in British Columbia. On behalf of ESEBC, the organization I work for, and the British Columbians that we serve, we want to thank you for advancing those ideas to your budget selection.

Claire Rattée: Thank you for the work that you’re doing. I actually used to suffer from seizures for a long time. I’ve never gotten a proper diagnosis because I also, full disclosure, did have a problem with drugs. But there were assumptions that I was on drugs when I had seizures, and I wasn’t given scans. Smashed out my teeth. Been there. It’s really fun, so I know how important this is.

I have a question around the disability funding, because that was kind of the first one that you spoke about — reviewing the criteria. I would just like to better understand. Is it that you can’t get disability funding if you have a diagnosis of epilepsy, or is it more an issue that you can get disability funding, but because you are then not able to work to make up the difference in the income…?

I think that most people with epilepsy — I know many — would still prefer to have employment. It’s just that it’s prohibitive to be able to have full-time employment or enough to make a living wage, and so it’s more so an issue around how we need to make it possible for people that are on disability to still be able to earn income up to a certain cap.

Is that kind of more the issue, where it’s not actually about the diagnosis itself? It’s not going to completely take away your ability to work, but it can significantly decrease it?

Christine Petkau: Yeah, and you’re right on all these counts. The thing that we find is really challenging for clients as well is that it’s like not even getting past the barrier of meeting the idea of performing the tasks of daily living, which is a major criteria in accessing funding.

You can. You can shower and you can buy groceries when you’re not having seizures. But for people who are unable to control their seizures with medication, that’s really not viable. Yeah, you can have a shower. Functions of daily living. You could go to the bank. But you’re constantly dealing with the cognitive challenges, the fogginess that meds bring to you, the stigma of having a seizure in a workplace, which, as Veronica will tell you, is a significant thing as well.

Veronica Wall: I’ve lost a lot of jobs because they don’t understand.

Christine Petkau: A tremendous amount of stigma around the condition that continues to exist, right?

[4:20 p.m.]

But yes, and you’re mentioning some very useful things as well and very true. Again, for most people on disability, though, if they choose to marry, then that also eliminates the possibility of getting disability funding because it makes one person essentially a child in the relationship. The other person’s income is the one that is then weighed in and so now benefits are gone as well. It’s a bit of an infantilizing kind of a problem there too.

So there are multiple aspects to that question. Our wish is to have those criteria looked at with this sort of thought in mind, that there are people who aren’t going to meet that exact definition.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I’m hoping to parse out…. When you’re talking about “disability,” disability tax credit, that would normally be federal…? You’re talking about PWD, right?

So you’re asking for a change in eligibility to PWD.

Christine Petkau: What is under provincial jurisdiction. Yes.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Seeing no further questions….

Christine Petkau: I have handouts because I didn’t want you to have to take notes. So I did bring all the notes with me for you.

If you don’t mind, I’m going to snap your photos too so I know who I’ve talked to because somebody at home will ask me this question.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Thank you so much and thank you, Veronica, as well. Thank you for sharing your story and experience with the committee.

Is there any other business?

Seeing no other business, I would like to thank everyone who presented. That concludes our meeting today. Our committee will be in Vernon tomorrow morning for the next public hearing.

I’ll now seek a motion to adjourn.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 4:21 p.m.