Hansard Blues
Select Standing Committee on
Finance and Government Services
Draft Report of Proceedings
Draft Transcript - Terms of Use
The committee met at 3 p.m.
[Paul Choi in the chair.]
Paul Choi (Chair): All right. Good afternoon, 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.
I’d like to acknowledge that we are meeting today in Courtenay, which is located in the traditional territories of the K'ómoks First Nation.
I would also like to welcome everyone who is listening to and participating in today’s meeting. Our committee is currently conducting its annual consultation with British Columbians on their priorities for the next provincial budget. British Columbians who are not presenting to the committee can still share their views by making written comments, and the details on how to provide submissions are available on our website at bcleg.ca/consultation.
I’d like to thank everyone who’s joining us today here. I will now ask members of the committee to introduce themselves, starting with the Deputy Chair.
Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): I’m Elenore Sturko. I’m the MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale. I’m the critic for Public Safety and Solicitor General. I’m happy to be here today and looking forward to listening to the presentations.
Sunita Dhir: Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Sunita Dhir. I’m the MLA for Vancouver-Langara and Parliamentary Secretary for International Credentials.
Claire Rattée: Claire Rattée, MLA for Skeena and critic for mental health and addictions.
Steve Morissette: Good afternoon. I’m Steve Morissette, MLA for Kootenay-Monashee and Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Development.
Bryan Tepper: Good afternoon. I’m Bryan Tepper, MLA for Surrey-Panorama and critic for Community Safety and Integrated Services.
Jennifer Blatherwick: Good afternoon. 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 so much for that. Assisting the committee today are Darryl Hol and Kayla Wilson from the Parliamentary Committees Office; and Simon de Laat and Amanda Heffelfinger from Hansard Services. Thank you all for helping us out today.
We are 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.
The first presenter we have is Ms. Brandi Klee from the Vancouver Island University Students Union. Please come to the front. Thank you very much for joining us and presenting to us today. As we said, you have five minutes for a presentation and five minutes for questions, and you can begin whenever you’re ready to go.
Vancouver Island University
Students Union
Brandi Klee: Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Brandi Klee, and I am here on behalf of the Vancouver Island University Students Union, representing over 10,000 students studying at the VIU Nanaimo, Cowichan and Powell River tiwšɛmawtxʷ campuses.
Our main Nanaimo campus is quite unique, built into a hillside with sweeping ocean and mountain views, campus bunnies and, yes, hundreds of stairs. But what makes it a truly special community is the tight-knit learning environment: small class sizes where professors know their students by name and the integration of trades, undergraduate and graduate education all under one roof. It reflects the diversity and workforce needs of mid-sized and rural communities in B.C.
Right now, our institution is under threat. Students at VIU and across the province are facing mounting challenges that jeopardize both their educational success and B.C.’s long-term economic resilience. VIU is grappling with an accumulated $40 million institutional deficit. In the past year alone, we’ve seen numerous program cancellations and suspensions, including the elimination of our flagship music department, our dental assistant program and over 11 graduate programs, including the master’s of community planning.
[3:05 p.m.]
Just in the last month, we saw 14 program cancellations and six program suspensions. Student and community supports like the ElderCollege and a mid-construction campus daycare were also cancelled. In addition, hiring freezes, layoffs and reduced services directly impact access to education, as well as long-term projects and campus development being shelved until external funding becomes available.
These issues are not isolated. They are symptoms of a structural problem: systemic and chronic underfunding of B.C.’s post-secondary system. In 2000, provincial funding made up 68 percent of public post-secondary operating budgets; today it’s just 40 percent. Institutions have been forced to rely on tuition, especially from international students, to fill the gap, but international enrolment can be volatile, especially with the recent IRCC permit changes and unpredictable events like what we saw in the pandemic.
At VIU, new international student enrolment has dropped by nearly 50 percent over the past year. The consequences for students are real. Course delays and cuts delay graduation by semesters or even by years, adding to tuition costs, housing bills and student debt. It delays entry into the workforce and puts further pressure on industries already experiencing shortages.
Students are paying more and receiving less — overburdened counselling services, fewer support staff and rising ancillary fees, which often go unregulated. This is not sustainable, and this is not fair. We’re calling on the province to take three key actions in the budget for 2026.
Restore public funding to 75 percent of institutional operating budgets, as public education should be publicly funded. The current reliance on international students is not only inequitable; it is risky. Reinvesting in core funding, which will stabilize institutions, protect students and better align programming with B.C.’s labour market, is needed.
Second, complete and implement the funding formula review. The existing model is outdated and opaque, and we need a funding framework that is inflation-adjusted, that is responsive to institutional realities and that supports access in rural and Indigenous communities. This is especially urgent for institutions like VIU, where regional campuses are a lifeline for students.
Three, strengthen the tuition limit policy and close fee loopholes. The 2 percent cap on domestic tuition is important, but it is undermined. Institutions are introducing new ancillary fees and/or reclassifying services to find loopholes in the legislation. We need enforcement, transparency from institutions and clear definitions to stop backdoor fee increases.
Students at VIU and across B.C. are ready to lead, but we need a system that invests in us first. We know the government’s priorities include affordability, economic growth and equitable access to opportunity. Post-secondary education touches upon all of these. It is how we train all of our future workers, and there is no path to a strong and sustainable economy without investing in the people who will power it.
Thank you for your time and for making post-secondary education a priority.
Paul Choi (Chair): Thanks so much for the presentation. We will now go to questions by members.
Jennifer Blatherwick: Hello. We’re going to be a little short on questions, because you are, I think, number 15. The presentations are all very similar. I think you must have collaborated.
Brandi Klee: We are trying to move forward in advocacy for all students across B.C. and Canada, yes.
Jennifer Blatherwick: I guess what I’d be wondering is: do you have anything that is a smaller request and that is specific to your university?
Brandi Klee: The ancillary fees that were placed onto credits — to a per-credit program and framework, instead of by course — raised tuition fees for certain programs up to 433 percent, such as for English as a second language. Also, the adult basic education programs went from zero to a much higher percentage. Those are specific needs that we have to address at VIU.
Jennifer Blatherwick: Let me just repeat it back to you to make sure I understand. Ancillary fees were placed per credit hour on courses, instead of having it be by course? If it’s $75 for English 101 and English 101 is three credit hours, it’s $75, $75, $75?
[3:10 p.m.]
Brandi Klee: To our understanding, yes. I can get your card, to follow up as well.
Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions? No? Okay, that is it. Thank you so much for your presentation. Thank you.
We’ll go to our next presenter. If I can call up Mr. Brian Koehler from North Island College Faculty Association. Thank you so much for joining us today. You have five minutes for the presentation and five minutes for the questions, and you may begin whenever you’re ready to go. Thank you.
North Island College
Faculty Association
Brian Koehler: Great. Thank you very much.
Hon. members of the committee and attendees, thank you for the invitation to speak to you today. My name is Brian Koehler. I’m the secretary and bargainer of the North Island College Faculty Association and appearing today in place of Jen Wrye who was unable to attend in person. I’ve worked at North Island College since 2013 in the area of computer science and digital design and development.
In case you’re not familiar with North Island College, we provide learning to students in the 80,000 square kilometre region in the traditional territories of 35 First Nations of the mid- to north-Vancouver Island region, as well as into the mid-Mainland region.
This is our 50th year, and ours is a story of community development, educational innovation and resilience. We opened to give people across this region equitable access to post-secondary education and the possibilities it provides. NIC has offered a wide array of courses and programs in varied delivery models to meet these needs. Today we teach our students on campuses in Comox Valley, Campbell River, Port Alberni and Mix̱alakwila, online and in community.
Post-secondary education is an economic driver that should not be ignored. According to Research Universities Council of B.C., the sector has a $16 billion impact annually. This college is an anchor institution and an economic hub in this region. It provides opportunities for students to change their lives by finding better employment. It provides local employers with workers. It also employs local people who ultimately reinvest in the community and the province.
This is increasingly at risk since COVID. This last year, in particular, has been especially challenging for the college. We have faced constrained post-secondary budgets leading to overall course reductions, budget cuts and, ultimately, layoffs.
The Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada or IRCC changes have revealed how deeply this system is in crisis. Investment in higher education has been stagnant, undermining student affordability and student access to higher education.
It’s not just the areas impacted by the IRCC changes that are being reduced but others as well. Students in and from this region have fewer and fewer choices than ever before.
Port Alberni residents cannot study psychology at home to eventually become detectives. Campbell River residents cannot stay home to learn to become metal fabricators. People in the Comox Valley will have a harder time getting adult basic education leading to admission to health care programs. They won’t have office administration or anthropology or maybe even business education. The Ucluelet Centre was just closed, and the Mix̱alakwila or Port Hardy campus is smaller than ever. We used to have campuses and centres in the communities of 35 First Nations.
Cuts and efficiencies make it challenging for this college to meet its mission, which shortchanges people and their communities. We need a systematic inclusive vision for a funded system of post-secondary that works for all British Columbians where they live.
Therefore, we urge the committee to recommend the following: to complete the post-secondary funding review: to lobby the federal government to reverse this damaging policy with attention to regional needs and conditions, with special attention to smaller cities and remote or rural communities; and to provide bridge support for higher education to address the unexpected shortfall caused by the IRCC changes.
We know the third call is a tall order in this climate, but B.C. cannot weather the economic storm of tariffs and a need to retrain individuals without a strong post-secondary system. Thank you.
Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for the presentation. We’ll go to questions by members.
Jennifer Blatherwick: I guess it would be the same question. Those are massive asks. Do we have a smaller one that’s specific to your community?
Brian Koehler: I don’t think we do have a smaller one. I think the impact we’ve seen from the reduction in international student enrolment has really put a crunch on our institution.
[3:15 p.m.]
The budget is so reliant on that international tuition that any reduction really is going to have ripple effects in terms of creating access for students to the programming and the courses that they need. These are big structural problems that need real significant change.
Steve Morissette: Thank you for the presentation. Just some clarity. I didn’t quite catch your third ask.
Brian Koehler: Normally, the colleges are not allowed to run a deficit. This was about, just during this difficult period, relaxing those rules, possibly, to allow the college to run a deficit.
Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions?
Seeing no other questions, thank you so much for your presentation today.
I’d like to call up the next presenter, Ms. Maurita Prato from LUSH Valley Food Action Society to come forward.
Thanks for joining us today to present to us. You have five minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions after. You may begin whenever you’re ready to go.
LUSH Valley Food Action Society
Maurita Prato: Thanks again for having me. My name is, as you just mentioned, Maurita Prato. I’m the executive director of LUSH Valley Food Action Society. It’s here in the Comox Valley, so in the traditional territory of the K'ómoks First Nations.
Our organization provides food services like meals and food boxes to people in need. But we also support our local farmers and food processors and teach people how to grow and cook food. As a food security organization, we aim to empower people and support our local economy while supporting healthy food access services for those who are suffering from food insecurity.
I also sit as the co-chair of the Comox Valley Food Policy Council. This is a network that works to advocate for local government policy and plans that support local food economies, food education and people who need access. We do this work through cross-sectoral discussion, public education, research and policy development.
The main challenges and trends that we’re seeing right now: challenge 1, food insecurity is at an all-time high. This is across Canada and B.C. The 2024 provincial rate for B.C. is 21.8 percent, but that’s from 2022 data. So we know it’s a lot higher. We’re dealing with long wait-lists for our programs. We are seeing decreases in funding as well as additional competition and rising costs. So that’s challenge 1.
Challenge 2 is increased vulnerability in our local food systems and supply chains. This is as a result of increased weather events and increased risks of weather events such as fires, droughts, storms, earthquakes, etc.
To add to those weather events and risks is challenge 3, which we all know about: the instability with our U.S. trading partner, which is and will impact our food supply chains and access.
In terms of recommendations and tying into your Budget 2026 goal of protecting B.C. amid economic turmoil, the first recommendation is a request for increased funding to support resilient food systems in the face of these increased risks that I just named, in particular, funding for local food processing and cold storage infrastructure and funding for continued research into emergency planning and preparedness for the agriculture and food sector.
The second recommendation, which ties into your budget goal of strengthening health care services and people that rely on those services, is more funding for food program delivery for organizations whose mandates specifically include supporting our local food economy and empowering people to move people out of poverty.
For example, we are a member of the Island Health food hub model, which is a group of eight food security organizations across the island that are working on the social determinants of health. We think of those as upstream solutions to the root causes of poverty and food insecurity. But we’re struggling to get the support that we need, so we’d like to see a prioritization of funds for food security organizations that include food access programs using local food. Another example is funding for the farmer market coupon program.
A way the province could save money and also support these organizations is a system of awarding direct-service contract agreements with food security non-profits, such as the Island Food hubs groups.
[3:20 p.m.]
My third recommendation aligns with your budget goal of a strong, diversified economy for B.C. And there is a request for the expansion of the Ministry of Agriculture’s Buy B.C. program. Currently, that program, through the provincial government, supports government institutions to purchase 30 percent local food.
So I’m proposing an expansion that would include support for municipal governments and regional districts under the program so municipal and regional governments can implement procurement towards 30 percent local B.C. foods, towards that target across their jurisdiction.
Those were the three recommendations to support a stronger B.C. by creating more resilience in our food systems and our local food systems in the face of emergencies and trade uncertainty and also an aim to alleviate poverty through upstream approaches to food service delivery.
Thank you.
Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation.
We will now turn to questions by members.
Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much. These are some really good, practical, sound recommendations based on your experience in this sector and your community.
When you were talking about food program delivery and making sure that you’re focusing on funding food charities, non-profits, organizations that also support local food suppliers, you mentioned having funding for the farmers market coupon program, and then you said one more thing, and I just couldn’t write fast enough.
Maurita Prato: Sure, yeah, so we’re part of an island-wide group called the Island Food Hubs. We’re a network of eight organizations up and down the islands that specifically have that mandate that ties in sort of that systems perspective that’s also looking at supporting local food economy. So we’ve been looking or thinking: “Is there a way for some sort of direct service agreements with government that would just cut out some of the costs?”
Jennifer Blatherwick: So like giving you the capacity to buy directly from suppliers or growers — is that what you’re thinking?
Maurita Prato: No, more so if there was a contract with government that said: “Okay, you have this service contract. You will provide 200 meals to B.C. Housing residents, and we’ll just set that up, and you’ll continue that sort of year after year, rather than having to compete for a specific grant each time and then having programs disrupted.”
Jennifer Blatherwick: I see. So you’re thinking that you would get a contract through SDPR or the Ministry of Housing or something and that then you would be tasked to deliver food services for people living, especially in supportive housing, or….
Maurita Prato: Yeah. Supportive social housing is one of the easier groups to support. And then it’s consistent support as well. So you really see the health benefits when people are receiving high-quality food services and living in locations.
Jennifer Blatherwick: Absolutely.
I think you do a lot of education around food as well. Do you do a lot of workshops around food preservation? I think that that’s huge for people that are learning how to feed themselves sustainably. That’s a big piece. Do you get funding for that right now?
Maurita Prato: We do receive some funding through B.C. Gaming for that. But we often have to find other funds and match other funds to actually meet the demands that we’re seeing.
Jennifer Blatherwick: Do you cooperate with the local school district through their feeding futures funding?
Maurita Prato: We do get some funding, yeah, through feeding futures, but we’ve also run food programs for a number of years through various types of funding. So we work primarily with Indigenous education on the meal program.
Jennifer Blatherwick: That’s great. Thank you.
Claire Rattée: Thank you for your work that you’re doing on this. Food security is something that I’m really passionate about, and I represent a riding that is struggling a lot with food security.
Something that you mentioned was the coupon program for farmers markets. And I just didn’t quite catch if you were saying that’s something that you guys are already doing but you’re looking for funding on it or if that was an idea of a program.
Maurita Prato: Yeah, so it’s an existing program that different organizations get funding to provide coupons to folks that can go and just spend those at the local farmers market. So through my work on the Food Policy Council…. One of our partners is the Comox Valley Farmers Market. And they run that program, but they always run out of coupons.
[3:25 p.m.]
I think that’s been a really great program that has been supported over the years, but certainly there’s more need there. And that could be an easy way to really match the local food economy with people that are in need of food.
Claire Rattée: Okay. If I could follow up quickly…. Is that something that your organization is running right now? Where is that being funded out of, currently, that program?
Maurita Prato: What happens is right now the farmers market gets the coupons, and then they distribute that out to mainly social service agencies. So, for example, Family Services in the Comox Valley, I know, receives some. I think the Wachiay Friendship Centre receives some. We collaborate with those groups, but we’re not distributing the coupons at the moment. We’re partnering with some of the farms.
Claire Rattée: Who’s paying the farmers, though, that are then giving? Do you know what I mean? Who’s actually funding that? Is that provincial, or is that an organization?
Maurita Prato: I believe that is a provincially funded program.
Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you so much for your presentation.
We’ll call up the next presenter, Ms. Arzeena Hamir from Mid Island Farmers Institute.
Thank you for joining us today and presenting to us. You have five minutes for the presentation, five minutes for questions, and you may begin whenever you’re ready to go.
Mid Island Farmers Institute
Arzeena Hamir: Great. Thank you for having me here at the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.
My name is Arzeena Hamir. On behalf of the Mid Island Farmers Institute, I’d like to make a submission in support of farm infrastructure here on Vancouver Island and across the province. I’m a local organic farmer and an agronomist. I was also the former area B director on the regional district and recently finished a position at the Investment Agriculture Foundation of B.C.
We know that agriculture is in decline, especially here on Vancouver Island. Net farm income is at an all-time low, according to Statistics Canada, and the number of farms has decreased from 416 in 2016 to 351 in 2021. That’s the largest single decrease in a four-year census in living memory.
This has been the single largest drop, as I said. All of this is happening at a time when demand for local food is at an all-time high. We know that without farmers and local food we lose our food security, as Ms. Prato also mentioned. We are already importing over 90 percent of our food from off-island, and we saw the impact of this reliance during COVID when supply chains were disrupted and produce shelves remained empty for days and weeks here in the Comox Valley.
What can be done to reverse the trend? Farmers on the Mid Island Farmers Institute were surveyed on what supports would most help them increase production. More than 70 percent of the respondents indicated that support for infrastructure costs was the biggest impediment for growing. As the majority of the farms on Vancouver Island and in B.C. are small-scale, many don’t have access to capital to cover the upfront of capital costs.
The B.C. Ministry of Agriculture does have a mechanism to fund some of these capital costs, for example, the food safety program that IAF distributes. Under that program, funding of up to $25,000 is available on a cost-share basis to cover the cost of things like improving cold storage, dry storage and wash station sanitation systems, for example. It’s been incredibly popular with farmers. The fund can also cover the cost of receiving certification so that farmers are enabled to sell to larger supermarket chains.
The problem is that funds are used up incredibly quickly. Over the last two years that IAF distributed the funding, a wait-list of over 100 applicants who qualified but were not able to make the cut has happened. So Mid Island Farmers Institute is asking the Finance Committee to increase B.C.’s portion of the funding for the program by $500,000 per year over the next five years. Additionally, we ask that this funding be specifically earmarked for farmers so that they are not competing with food processors for the funds.
Increasing farm infrastructure is part of the necessary nation-building that is so desperately needed here in Canada.
Thank you, and I’m open to questions.
Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We’ll now turn to questions by members.
[3:30 p.m.]
Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you. That was a great presentation. So when you’re asking for an increase of $500 per year, are you saying…?
Arzeena Hamir: $500,000.
Jennifer Blatherwick: Sorry. Thank you. $500,000 per year. Are you saying $500,000, $1 million, $1.5 million?
Arzeena Hamir: $500,000 every…. In 2026….
Jennifer Blatherwick: So you’re just….
Arzeena Hamir: Right now what happens is the federal government and Ministry of Agriculture have a five-year agreement for funding for the industry. We have a five-year agreement that already has funding for things like that food safety program. We are asking that in addition to that funding we add another $500,000 specifically earmarked for farmers.
Jennifer Blatherwick: So your thinking is that this won’t change who applies. It won’t change…. But what it will do is just allow more people to have the capacity.
Arzeena Hamir: Yes.
Jennifer Blatherwick: The program currently caps the grants at $25,000?
Arzeena Hamir: Yes.
Jennifer Blatherwick: Is that sufficient per grant?
Arzeena Hamir: You know, it’s a sufficient…. It’s a 70-30 cost share, so 70 percent of the cost is through the program, and 30 percent the farmers pay for. Most of the infrastructure that farmers are looking at is in and around the $50,000 range, so $50,000 is the maximum that I think most farmers are looking at for a piece of infrastructure.
The fund does cap out at $25,000. It’s still a significant amount of money, and it’s not too much paperwork that a small-scale farmer can’t do it themselves.
Jennifer Blatherwick: That’s fantastic. How long has that program been going on?
Arzeena Hamir: I believe this is year three, so there are two more years left.
Jennifer Blatherwick: They’ll be done in 2027, and so you’re asking for the province to come up with matching funds to sort of….
Arzeena Hamir: There are some provincial funds that go into that program already, but we’re asking for in addition to…. It doesn’t require the creation of a brand-new disbursement program, and this is one program that we could add on to.
The province has other programs that specifically have, in the past, targeted small-scale new farmers, and so if the committee felt that new farmers also needed to be supported…. But from what I’m hearing…. We surveyed already existing farmers. For them, this is the crunch right now. In order to expand production and meet the needs of food safety, these are the things that they’re looking at.
Jennifer Blatherwick: Really, I think your point about the profitability of farms decreasing is this value-added proposition, being able to do some processing, and that will increase the amount of dollars farmers are able to get out of their land.
Sorry, I don’t want to monopolize.
Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions? No. Continue on.
Jennifer Blatherwick: When we’re talking about the decrease in the number of farms, do you guys keep track of the data on the acreage of agricultural land that’s maintained?
Arzeena Hamir: Just through census, the Canadian census, we can see approximately how much farmland is actually being farmed, so you get an idea of active farmland. Thank goodness we have the ALR, because we know the actual acreage of farmland isn’t decreasing.
We haven’t seen the pressures here in the Comox Valley that we have, for instance, in the Lower Mainland. We’re not seeing a decrease in…. There’s no paving over, but we have a lot of farmland that tends to be idle or not used to its highest use. It would be lovely to see more of that farmland in production.
Jennifer Blatherwick: I would say one of the things that we see is an amalgamation. Sometimes that’s a really positive thing, because it allows it to stay in production, and other times it’s a concentration of high-intensity farming that doesn’t necessarily reflect back on small farmers.
Thank you for your presentation. I appreciate that work you do, that you keep us all fed.
Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions? Seeing none. Okay, thank you so much for your presentation.
We’ll call up the next presenter, Ms. Gillian Anderson from Great Blue Heron Society, to come forward.
Gillian Anderson: Thank you.
Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for coming. You have five minutes for presentation and five minutes for questions after. You may begin whenever you’re ready to go.
Gillian Anderson: Okay. There are a fair number of figures in here, none of them really important, but I will leave this behind. Thank you.
Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you.
[3:35 p.m.]
Great Blue Heron Society
Gillian Anderson: Thank you, and we appreciate you coming out here. I’d like to speak to you about some actions that the B.C. government can take to protect B.C. birds.
A staggering three billion birds have vanished from North America in the last half-century. Birds are critical pest control agents. Barn owls can eat more than 11,000 mice that would have consumed 13 tonnes of crops. In America, birders spend an impressive $107.6 billion, with a b, annually on bird-related activities, so it’s a huge economic driver.
We have two main concerns. The first is that heron habitat is being rapidly lost, particularly with the acceleration in housing starts. The second is that the habitat set aside in wildlife management areas is being abused.
Herons are a species of concern protected federally under the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Species at Risk Act and blue-listed by the province of B.C. Their habitat — big trees for nesting and roosting, wetlands and old fields for hunting — is being destroyed, and it’s difficult to restore tall trees and wetlands.
The province’s Develop with Care guidelines recommend buffer zones around colonies and nests, but these are voluntary. As development ramps up, the province must require all cities, municipalities and regional districts to document and zone for permanent protection all the remaining heron nesting sites and roosting trees. This may require funds to be transferred to some districts for biological surveys and administrative hours, but given the threats facing herons, we feel this would be a sound use of funds.
The second aspect of such wildlife protection is that wildlife management areas, WMAs, that have been set aside need to be protected. We hear of WMAs where dogs run off leash, flushing or injuring resting and feeding birds, where people picnic and leave garbage and dog excrement on the beach. WMAs are for wildlife. It’s one of the few areas they have to find food, rest and raise young, but there’s virtually no conservation monitoring. This needs to change. The province needs to fund more staff for on-site monitoring.
Our second concern is for all B.C. birds, both migratory and birds who live here year-round. Roughly 100 million birds are killed every year in Canada by roaming domestic and feral abandoned cats. Even if we assume that all ten provinces have a uniform kill rate — it’s unlikely because B.C. is fairly populous — that would still be ten million birds killed in B.C. every year by cats, and the number is probably much higher.
Imagine being an endangered migratory bird. You leave South America. You survive an arduous journey coping with wildfires and drought and the loss of the feeding and resting areas that have been destroyed since last year’s migration. You survive predation, dodge collisions with cars, transmission wires and windows as you make your way up the coast. Finally returning to B.C., you find that the copse of trees where you have nested for years is miraculously still standing. You build a nest, you lay your precious eggs, and before your young fledge, a well-fed, bored domestic cat kills you.
In just seven years, an unspayed cat and her unspayed kittens can produce over 450,000 cats. The province should require local authorities to initiate bylaws and offer strong incentives to bring about a blanket ban on unspayed cats across B.C., including funding either free or low-cost spaying. A complementary requirement to ban roaming cats in urban areas would be critical in reducing these bird deaths.
Cost of spaying programs and enforcement would lessen as the cat numbers decrease. Community groups would get behind this initiative, and the public, especially in cities, is generally supportive. There may be some resistance from some cat owners, but in a few years, the psychology of cat ownership would change and it would be unthinkable to let your cat roam and kill endangered birds.
An accompanying requirement that all new construction feature bird-friendly glass would help reduce another major preventable source of avian deaths. In Canada, window collisions kill as many as 42 million birds a year — again extrapolating roughly against the ten provinces, a very conservative four million deaths of birds annually in B.C.
Even if the reduction in bird deaths from these two initiatives is a very conservative five million birds annually, in other words, we effectively restore five million breeding birds to the ecosystem. What a bang for the conservation buck, a fabulous return on the funds needed to implement these requirements.
Thank you very much. We appreciate you coming out to the communities.
Paul Choi (Chair): Thanks so much for your presentation.
We will now turn to questions by members. Any questions?
Jennifer Blatherwick: Hello. Thank you so much, and thank you for your advocacy. I think this is one of those things that if you don’t know about it, the numbers sound impossible, but they’re accurate. It’s really changing not just the urban landscape but the suburban one in terms of birds.
[3:40 p.m.]
It’s a cycle, right?
Gillian Anderson: Unfortunately.
Jennifer Blatherwick: I’m hoping that while we have your five minutes of questioning here that…. You didn’t really get to talk a little bit about the window collisions at the end and the safety mitigation measures that people can do to make things safer for birds.
Gillian Anderson: Well, when new construction goes in, they can purchase bird-friendly glass. I think the decals are implanted into the glass, I believe. There are also decals that people can buy. They’re not cheap, but they are effective. You mostly have to do the lower set of windows. I mean, it would be ideal to do both, but that’s where a lot of the collision spurts are coming up. They’re not cheap, but they could be, perhaps, subsidized.
Jennifer Blatherwick: In my area, they have a program where a lot of them that have ground-floor glass…. They’ve instead done frosting on the glass, and they’ve done it in beautiful decorative designs, and it has really decreased the amount of bird collision, because they see it as a solid object, even though it’s still glass. It’s permanent, so it’s very effective.
Now, you’ve talked a little bit about feral, banning cats…. In my area, there’s a really strong program. Things are going very well. Maybe you could talk a little bit about the challenges in rural environments as well.
Gillian Anderson: Well, it’s funny. I was just talking to a lady other day from the local PAL Society. They’re a group of volunteers who raise funds. They catch feral cats, and they try to home them, or they hang on to them if they’re unhomeable. I said to her: “Well, if you’re spaying and neutering steadily, that would be really good, wouldn’t it? There must be a decrease.” And she said: “No, not really. We’re having to go up into all the logging roads and set traps, because people are having litters of kittens, and they just take them up there and open the door, and away they go.”
There are people who say either, “I don’t want to spay my cat; it’s natural for a cat to have litters,” or: “It’s nature.” But of course it isn’t, because cats are a completely invasive species brought from…. They’re not North American. Or they just don’t care, or they can’t afford it. Unfortunately, unless there’s really a concrete program, persistent and comprehensive, I don’t think we’re going to see much difference.
Jennifer Blatherwick: Well, thank you.
Gillian Anderson: You’re welcome. Thank you.
Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions?
Seeing none, thank you so much for your presentation.
Moving on to the next presenter, I’d like to call Ms. Mandy Fraser from Mount Arrowsmith Biosphere Region to come forward, please.
Thank you for joining us today. Five minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions, and you may begin whenever you’re ready to go. Thank you.
Mount Arrowsmith Biosphere Region
Mandy Fraser: Thank you, and good afternoon. My name is Mandy Fraser. Today I’m representing the Mount Arrowsmith Biosphere Region, one of only three UNESCO-designated biosphere regions here in British Columbia.
We are internationally recognized for our work connecting biodiversity, sustainable economic development and reconciliation through collaborative, on-the-ground partnerships. Biosphere regions bring unique value to communities by conserving biodiversity and cultural heritage, supporting sustainable development, facilitating cross-jurisdictional collaboration, facilitating research and education, advancing provincial and national priorities, and supporting integrated land and resource management.
Addressing today’s complex challenges — climate change, biodiversity loss, reconciliation and social justice — requires strong interjurisdictional and regional collaboration. Yet many organizations working within biosphere regions face persistent structural barriers, departmental silos, fragmented jurisdictional boundaries and limited capacity that forces a focus on the day-to-day operations rather than long-term collaborative planning.
We hear consistently from our partners that collaboration is both critically needed and structurally difficult to achieve. This is where biosphere regions stand apart.
[3:45 p.m.]
As relationship-driven, non-partisan organizations with a regional, watershed and ecological lens, biosphere regions are uniquely positioned to convene across jurisdictions and world views, to provide stable platforms for coordination as governments and staff change, to integrate social and ecological priorities to support holistic planning, and to facilitate cross-sector collaboration, including with private and non-profit sectors.
As relationship-based organizations, biosphere regions bring cost-effective and sustained coordination capacity, delivering long-term impact more efficiently than short-term consultants or fragmented programs. With modest, stable investment, biosphere regions can unlock the full potential of regional collaboration and amplify progress towards the province’s most urgent goals.
Biosphere regions are an underleveraged asset in B.C. Despite our UNESCO designation and our strong alignment with provincial priorities, biosphere regions in B.C. receive no core funding from the province, only limited support from federal and municipal partners.
We are asking for stable core funding: $100,000 annually per biosphere region, which includes Mount Arrowsmith, Clayoquot and Howe Sound. With this funding, we could significantly scale up our impact across B.C. Without stable funding, our capacity remains limited.
With just $100,000 annually, we could establish full-time coordination staff at our public education centre, expand successful programs to serve more communities across the region and increase capacity to support B.C.’s 30 by 30 conservation targets, including through collaborating on applications for protected areas, other effective area-based conservation measures and key biodiversity areas.
Biosphere regions already deliver on provincial priorities. This modest investment would amplify our impact, stabilize operations and ensure that B.C. realizes the full value of these designated sites, enhancing our ability to deliver high-impact, community-driven outcomes that directly support provincial priorities.
I’d like to thank all the elected MLAs here today for your time, for your public service and for your consideration of this request. I’m happy to follow up with a written submission or any additional information at your convenience as well.
Paul Choi (Chair): Thanks so much for your presentation.
We will now go to questions by members.
Steve Morissette: Thank you for the presentation.
I’m not quite clear on “biosphere region.” Is it a designated area like a provincial park? Or is it…? What is it?
Mandy Fraser: Thank you for the question. There are 759 in the world, 19 in Canada, three in British Columbia. They are designations given by UNESCO, recognizing that these are really special places.
The Mount Arrowsmith Biosphere Region ranges from the Nanoose Bay to Qualicum Bay, from the top of Mount Arrowsmith down 300 metres into the Salish Sea, so it’s about 1,200 square kilometres. About 45,000 folks populate the biosphere region.
That designation that comes from UNESCO recognizes how special the place is for a number of reasons and for the work that we’re doing here and for our commitment to working with the community, connecting people with nature. It’s a prestigious designation, and it takes a lot of work to maintain. We just went through a ten-year periodic review and were successful in continuing our designation for the next decade.
I hope that answers your question.
Steve Morissette: Yes.
Claire Rattée: I know you touched a little bit on what the $100,000 is for, and I know that in the grand scheme of things that’s not a lot. But I was just wondering if you could give me a little bit more clarity around what that money was going to be used for. I think I was having a hard time keeping up and typing.
I think you mentioned a program coordinator or something to that effect, and then you said increasing capacity to achieve the 30 by 30 targets, but could you give me a few more specifics on what your organization’s plans are to do that?
Mandy Fraser: Yes. Thank you for the question.
Essentially the funding would be core funding, so for staff, for the lease for our public education centre and just to ensure that we have the funds to do the work that we do. Currently we are self-funded through grants and project work and contract work, and unfortunately that doesn’t always include any administrative or overhead or core fees that we face. So just ensuring that we can continue to do the work and expand with increased capacity and increased staff.
Claire Rattée: Thank you.
[3:50 p.m.]
Steve Morissette: I’m just not clear on the work you do. What does it impact? I don’t understand.
Mandy Fraser: We have five strategic objectives. We work to conserve biodiversity. We do research and education. We work towards sustainable development, mitigation and adaptation to climate change, and reconciliation with First Nations.
Those are the same strategic objectives that biosphere regions all across Canada have. We have various projects and initiatives and work that we do that touch on those strategic objectives.
For example, we’ve submitted applications for OEBCMs that have actually been designated as protected areas. Two new protected areas have been designated in the Mount Arrowsmith biosphere region recently.
We have youth programs. We offer programming at our education centre that brings in folks of all ages to learn, to connect with one another, with their environment. Lots of different community engagement initiatives, citizen science. We have volunteer projects that give folks the opportunity to go out and collect long-term data and be part of that research.
We also took over the Brant Wildlife Festival in 2023, which is a 34-year-old festival now that we facilitate in our community, for our community. We have a lot on the go always but really just working towards those five strategic objectives, in a nutshell.
Steve Morissette: You mentioned development. Would that encompass a new subdivision or forestry or that sort of thing?
Mandy Fraser: Our governing body is a regional round table of stakeholders that includes the private sector, Mosaic Forest Management, First Nations, municipalities, the regional district — really regional representation. That’s the body that guides our work. We’re making sure we’re collaborating with those partners any way that we can.
We have a project right now where we’re working to inform the next official community plan, ensuring that the development moving forward is being done sustainably and where those considerations can be made.
Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation.
Mandy Fraser: Thank you for your time.
Paul Choi (Chair): Moving on to the next presenter, I’d like to ask Mr. Bob Brash from the Truck Loggers Association to come forward please.
Thank you so much for joining us today. You have five minutes for the presentation, five minutes for questions. You may begin whenever you’re ready to go.
Coast Forest Policy Coalition
Bob Brash: The first thing is a bit of a correction. I’m no longer with the Truck Loggers. As of a couple weeks ago, it’s a new guy named Peter Lister, in case any of you deal with him in the future. But good to see a couple of familiar faces from our caucus sessions during my day as executive director of the TLA.
I’ve worked in the coast forest sector in senior leadership positions for associations, government, private companies and First Nations development corporations for the last 30 years, the last five of those years with the Truck Loggers. I just recently left the TLA and am now involved with a new body.
I’m representing today the Coast Forest Policy Coalition, and that’s who I represent today. Our coalition was formed by the TLA, Western Forest Products, Mosaic Forest Management, Domtar and the USW in an effort to bring a collective voice to provincial forest policies that are leading to mill closures, thousands of lost jobs, community instability, and perhaps most important to your committee’s work, a reduction in forest sector revenues that flow to the provincial treasury.
We started our work by commissioning a study on the state of the coast sector today and where we’re headed. This work was done by Jim Girvan and Rob Schuetz, two very well-respected B.C. forest industry analysts with a strong reputation for accurate and credible studies.
Time is tight. I’ll touch on some of their findings. First, the annual allowable cut or harvest on the coast has dropped by about 20 percent since 2005. Fourteen sawmills have closed, and 30,000 jobs have been lost in the last 20 years.
Since the introduction of new forest policies in 2019, the coastal harvest has dropped by one-third from the preceding five-year average. This has led to 5,400 more jobs disappearing in the sector. It’s also led to $400 million less of aggregate tax revenues flowing into the provincial coffers since 2022.
[3:55 p.m.]
Second, the government is committed to a provincial harvest of 45 million cubic metres a year. While specific volume targets have not been assigned to the coast, we expect that to be around 12 million to 15 million cubic metres annually. That’s a minimum, I must stress. That’s a volume to let us survive. Our harvest traditionally has been 55 million to 60 million for the last many years.
The target’s one thing, but more important is the actual harvest. Since 2019, the total coastal harvest on Crown lands is down by 43 percent from the preceding five-year average.
Third, global demand and price conditions suggest there is always going to be a growing demand and higher prices for lumber products. Unfortunately, B.C. is not able to respond to these positive conditions due to policies which are constraining the fibre supply and do not encourage investment into new and existing mills or equipment for contractors.
That said, if some of these constraints and bureaucracy were eliminated, we could create, by our estimates, at least 3,000 jobs or more and add $300 million to the provincial treasury. At a time when the provincial budget has a $10 billion hole in it, surely such a big injection of revenue into the government’s pockets would be welcomed.
But what needs to change? Let me be clear. Unlike probably a lot of folks that you’ve listened to over the last few days, we’re not here asking for money. We’re here to highlight some commonsense steps government can take, and I cannot understate the urgency by which government should take these steps. We need action now.
I’ve been in this business for, unfortunately, over 50 years now. My dad was in the Forest Service too. I’ve never seen a bunch of people in the forest sector so worried about their future and where things are headed.
So what can government do? The government can do one thing right away. Our fibre supply on the coast is already severely constrained, but there are several other government policy initiatives underway that could tighten that supply even further.
There are initiatives like the private managed forest land review, the watershed strategy, 30 by 30, the biodiversity framework and more recommendations probably flowing out of the old-growth strategy, which haven’t been implemented. Government should simply hit the pause button on these until we’re able to digest the changes that we’re already having to deal with.
Secondly, you’ve heard me describe the worrying gap between the AAC and the actual harvest. We must see this gap closed if the coast industry is to survive, attract investment and build upon our contribution to the provincial economy.
B.C. Timber Sales also has an obvious role in this, but they’ve fallen well short in their targets seven out of the last eight years. I just want to emphasize, even though a review is in place right now for B.C. Timber Sales, how important it is that they live up to their obligations. If we want to keep people working in this business, we have to take action now to keep them.
Thirdly, the other reason the actual harvest is falling so short of where it needs to be is the complicated and very time-consuming bureaucracy around cutting permit processes and approvals. Frankly, it’s a mess. Government may say it approves 90 percent of all permit applications in 40 days. That’s basically correct, but it ignores the fact that it takes 18, 24, 36 months or longer to take in the reviews and consultation before the application is actually even submitted.
These are complex issues with, obviously, many, many numbers attached to them. We would be pleased to brief any of you on our full study, which we’ll be releasing more broadly soon.
Thanks for the opportunity to talk to you today. It’s a serious time in the B.C. forest sector. It’s time that we have to all work together on solutions. That’s what this group is all about, so I welcome any questions.
Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much. I just want to clarify. What’s the company you work with now?
Bob Brash: We’re calling ourselves the Coast Forest Policy Coalition. That’s the group that is together currently comprised of the TLA, Western Forest Products, Mosaic, Domtar and the USW.
I will add that in my career, it’s not too often you get a broad spectrum of folks together like that to talk about issues. We’re going to try to work together to present to government things that, collectively, we know will work to move this industry ahead.
Claire Rattée: Thank you for the work you’re doing. Forestry is also something that’s really important to my region and is suffering there.
Some of the recommendations you made didn’t get into much specificity, and I feel like because you have a lot of experience here, you probably can provide a little bit more — but time constraints.
[4:00 p.m.]
For example, around the complicated bureaucracy around cutting permits: do you have solutions that can be kind of summarized quickly when it comes to an issue such as that? Because I know that would make a big difference.
Bob Brash: Well, you kind of hit the nail on the head with your question. It is a complex world out there right now. I think every one of us…. It’s very easy to identify the issues.
We’ve already been working…. I mean, in my previous job…. All the people that are involved in this coalition have been trying to work with government on identifying both the issues and the solutions. To be frank, it’s going to take a different way of thinking from what we’ve done for the last many years for the actual solutions.
Can I get into sort of some detailed ideas and stuff — technical solutions? I could probably rattle some off. But frankly, I think that’s better done in more detail later on with working-type groups. That’s our intent. It’s not just to go with: “Here’s the problem. Get the cutting arms out.” That’s not the solution; that’s the problem. It’s going to take some tough work.
We’ve been…. I go all the way back to the forest practices code, when that first came in a few decades ago. That caused a bit of an upheaval in the industry. Then we have all these other initiatives that have happened since 2019. We’re still learning how to deal with all this new regulatory environment.
A long-winded answer. I’m sorry about that. But it’s going to take some work to retract from that.
Bryan Tepper: I’ve got a couple of questions for you here, probably, hopefully quick if you do know the answers. If not, it’ll be even quicker.
The number of people. How many people are employed in the forestry industry, I guess?
Bob Brash: The estimates have always been, for the last few years, about 100,000 people, directly and indirectly. I think it’s 40,000 people directly.
Now, those numbers, obviously, today are probably down a little bit because of the diminished harvest. Like I said, down 43 percent each of the last two years in the province. But those are the broad numbers.
Bryan Tepper: Do you know, now…? I’m not sure. I’m going to pick dates. But if you’ve got something else you can give me…. Say, ten years ago to today, how much money, either raw numbers of how much money it’s adding to the B.C. economy or percentage-wise GDP — anything like that that you have with you or you would know.
Bob Brash: Yeah, I’ve got a few numbers. The most common number is before the last couple years, because COFI has actually done some great work, and other associations also. It’s about $14 billion — the contribution to the GDP for the forest sector in British Columbia. I think $9 billion of that $14 billion actually goes directly to wages and B.C. suppliers.
I believe the numbers are also…. When things are, you know, full throttle in the industry — or reasonable throttle, I should say — that’s about $4 billion of tax revenue to all forms of government, whether it’s provincial, federal or municipal.
By the way, I’ll even add to that. The stumpage that the government gets from the sector is — whatever, pick a number — $500 million, $700 million, $800 million, depending on the year. The more important contribution is obviously from corporate and personal taxes.
Bryan Tepper: Has it gone up or down, or are we collapsing by…?
Bob Brash: Down substantially. The interesting dynamic is that the government has set this target of 45 million cubic metres for the province because each of the last two years were at 32 million, which is not sustainable. We’re going to lose people, we’re going to lose investment, we’re going to lose facilities, and we’re going to lose pulp mills. So it’s got to get up to a minimum 45 just to survive.
I lost track. What was your question related to that, though?
Bryan Tepper: I was on the change up and down, or how much we’ve lost in the forest sector in the last ten years, say.
Bob Brash: A lot. So do the math. If you’re harvesting 55 million to 60 million cubic metres, and right now, we’re at 32 million, we probably lost GDP contribution to the province of — pick a number — $6 billion to $7 billion annually.
Bryan Tepper: Sounds about right. And the 45 million — that’s what’s allowable. How much of that is getting permitted?
Bob Brash: The current problem is that the AAC for the province is about 55 million to 60 million, something like that. We’re harvesting 32 million cubic metres. The 45 was a target that was worked out with government, that the Premier committed to at the TLA convention — and the minister in other venues too — to just keep the lights on. That’s it.
If you want to attract investment, and you want to retain crews and build new infrastructure to be globally competitive, 45 is just to keep the lights on. That’s not to accomplish all these other things that we want to accomplish as a sector and, I’m sure, as a government.
[4:05 p.m.]
Bryan Tepper: I’ll quickly ask: are we going to get there?
Bob Brash: There used to be a target that you’d be one to two years ahead with approved areas to harvest. We call them cutting permits. Right now, on the coast, the average — because I went to a meeting about this just a few weeks ago — we’re at is about two to three months of permits approved ahead versus the one- to two-year target as a minimum. So, no, we’re not in good shape.
Steve Morissette: Just your first recommendation was to pause any additional changes until it’s reassessed and sorted out?
Bob Brash: Since you asked the question, I’ll probably take it one step further.
We’re in this predicament right now because of a lot of factors. One of the major factors is the regulatory environment we deal with. Not only positive, but I think there has to be a collective vision for the forest sector that we establish. Then that regulatory environment has to match whatever that collective vision is right now.
Right now, there’s been no change in the legislative package that we have to deal with as an industry, and that’s a big part of why we got into the problems we’re into today. But everybody is expecting different results in terms of achieving this 45 million. So if you don’t change the foundation — and that’s the legislative package — then how are you going to expect these changes to happen?
Steve Morissette: Okay. Thank you.
Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation.
Bob Brash: I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you very much for finding the time.
Paul Choi (Chair): Moving on to our next presenter, to Megan Ardyche from Save Our Forests Team–Comox Valley, please. Thank you for joining us today. You have five minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you may begin whenever you’re ready to go.
Save Our Forests Team, Comox Valley
Megan Ardyche: I’m here to speak on behalf of Save Our Forests Team–Comox Valley, SOFT for short, and we are grateful for this opportunity. My name is Megan Ardyche.
Our presentation is a very brief compare and contrast of the economic contributions and costs of tourism versus logging and related industries to B.C.’s economy. The following figures for both industries are from 2022.
British Columbia promotes itself to the world as “Super, natural British Columbia.” According to a government website, “Tourism is a key driver of the provincial economy. Despite consisting mainly of small businesses, the tourism sector is one of the largest employers in B.C., significantly contributing to economic growth and community well-being.”
Destination B.C. tells us that tourism employed over 154,000 people in 2022. According to a technical report on the economic impact of B.C.’s forest sector, logging and related industries employed approximately 100,000.
Tourism industries are found mostly in small communities, often remote, and increasingly, more of them are Indigenous owned; 92 percent of those are small businesses employing less than 50 people, and they directly contribute to their local and community economies. In 2022, there were 16,910 tourism businesses in operation in B.C.
In contrast, a report done by global research firm Statista on the number of forestry and logging operations as of December 2022 shows a total of only 1,496 companies, and those are primarily large multinational companies whose profits do not stay in the community or even in B.C.
There are many more economic statistics which tip the scale in favour of tourism, but I will mention the most important one for our purpose here today: government subsidies. According to a 2021 article by investigative reporter David Broadland, over the past 10 years, the cost to the public purse of managing B.C.’s publicly owned forests has exceeded all direct revenues collected from the forest industry by $3.65 billion.
[4:10 p.m.]
B.C. taxpayers are on average losing through these subsidies $365 million each year to the forest companies that operate in B.C. That doesn’t include the provincial costs of addressing catastrophes such as severe landslides as a result of clearcutting, creek and river silting, severe flooding and fighting wildfires.
Moreover, the valuation of services provided by natural assets such as forest ecosystems should be included in any economic calculations. These free but nonetheless valuable benefits from old-growth forests include climate change mitigation; carbon sequestration; water filtration, absorption and slow release of water, mitigating droughts; soil cohesion; biodiversity; wildlife; thriving wild salmon populations; and First Nations spiritual and cultural practices. Add in the tourism benefits, and we can see that old-growth forests are a net gain.
Those benefits aren’t provided by monoculture tree plantations and certainly not by clearcuts. When making your budget decisions, we ask that you consider all the benefits of retaining the old-growth forest ecosystems we have left. They are a greater benefit to B.C.’s economic health than cutting them down is. Simply put, they are worth more standing. Remember, B.C. taxpayers are actually paying $365 million more to the logging companies than the province gets in revenues from them.
We aren’t suggesting there should be no logging. There are enough existing clearcuts that can be turned into tree plantations. The companies can harvest second-growth or third-growth trees, and I would suggest the companies start supporting themselves rather than taxpayers supporting them. Corporate welfare, at a cost of $365 million annually, is not sound fiscal management.
Besides making economic sense, preserving the remaining ancient old-growth forests is just the right thing to do. “Super, natural British Columbia” — let’s make sure it doesn’t disappear altogether.
Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation.
We’ll go to questions by members.
Bryan Tepper: I didn’t follow the $365 million a year. What is that going to?
Megan Ardyche: That is because of government subsidies. That was over ten years — $3.65 billion, over ten years, that the government is paying to the forest companies, over and above what revenues are being received. So the $365 million per year is 10 percent of the ten-year figure.
Bryan Tepper: Sorry, but what’s that money going in…? You said something about the upkeep. They’re not just getting that as cash.
Megan Ardyche: They are getting subsidies.
Bryan Tepper: As straight cash back to the companies? Or was it for maintenance? You said something about that. I’m just trying to figure out what it was. Maybe I misunderstood.
Megan Ardyche: I don’t think I specified where that money was going or how it was being spent, but it is in government subsidies to the industry. So that is cash they’re getting.
Bryan Tepper: Okay, thank you.
Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions?
Steve Morissette: I think what you said, what I heard is that it was the $3.65 billion was the cost of the B.C. government managing the forests, giving it, processing the annual cut and so on. That’s what I took out of it. In any case, that’s what you’re saying: that’s how much it costs us to log.
Megan Ardyche: That’s how much it costs us to log and process. It’s the related industries. It’s not just the logging but also the processing, yes.
Steve Morissette: Do you know where those figures came from?
Megan Ardyche: Well, those particular figures came from David Broadland, from an article he did in Focus on Victoria. He’s an investigative reporter. I think that managing B.C.’s publicly owned forests — which he is referencing and, I think, you were referring to — results in $3.65 billion being given over ten years. Probably a lot of that is the regulatory environment that the previous presenter was referring to, which he wants to eliminate.
Steve Morissette: Thank you.
[4:15 p.m.]
Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions?
Seeing none, thank you so much for your presentation.
At this point, we will take a brief recess.
The committee recessed from 4:15 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
[Paul Choi in the chair.]
Paul Choi (Chair): I will call the committee back to order and move to our next presenter. We have Mr. Brodie Guy from Island Coastal Economic Trust here with us.
Thank you for coming and joining us today. You have five minutes for the presentation, five minutes for questions. You may begin whenever you’re ready to go.
Island Coastal Economic Trust
Brodie Guy: Okay, thank you very much.
Good afternoon to you all. Welcome to our community here, and thanks for the opportunity to speak with you today.
My name is Brodie Guy. I’m the CEO of Island Coastal Economic Trust. I’m honoured to represent our partnership of coastal mayors, First Nations and community leaders. Our board chair, Michelle Staples, who’s the mayor of the city of Duncan has asked me to present on her behalf. Mayor Staples is in a ceremony, as we speak, with Indigenous high school graduates down in Cowichan.
As part of my introduction, I’d like to respectfully acknowledge that we’re gathered on the unceded traditional territory of the K’ómoks First Nation. Gila’kasla, č̓ɛč̓ɛhaθɛšt — these are the Kwak̓wala and ʔayʔaǰuθəm words spoken here to say thank you — to the K’ómoks First Nation for allowing us to conduct our business on their territory today.
Island Coastal Economic Trust was founded by the province in 2006 with a bold goal: to strengthen and diversify the economy across Vancouver Island, the Sunshine Coast and surrounding islands and inlets. Serving over half a million people, we invest in regional development through start-ups, infrastructure and business growth with a model that’s unique. It’s created by government, but it’s led by communities.
To date, we’ve invested $67 million to unlock more than $370 million in total new investment into B.C.’s coastal economy. In just the past year, we invested $2.1 million, catalyzing $23 million in new investment in construction, regional collaboration and job creation. Projects we’ve supported have created thousands of permanent jobs and empowered Indigenous and rural entrepreneurship.
One example is our $5 million investment in the Nanaimo Airport expansion. That investment has generated over $500 million in regional economic return. More recently we invested with Tiičma Enterprises, a Nuu-chah-nulth–owned company, in establishing a new corporate head office in Campbell River that will employ over 100 professionals.
This work is more critical than ever, as B.C. faces economic uncertainty while positioning itself as Canada’s economic engine. The trust offers a proven community-led mechanism to de-risk and to deliver high-impact projects. We work directly with First Nations, local governments, non-profits, industry associations and businesses to commit our funds as their equity contributions that enable larger provincial, federal and private investments in viable business plans and major infrastructure projects.
In 2023, the province committed $10 million to maintain the trust’s operations. Elected leaders across the island and coast welcomed this support. But our trust’s capacity remains fairly limited, with just $2 million annually to invest across a significant region of the province.
Crucially, the province’s commitment also enabled a transformative process to deliver on action 4.39 of B.C.’s Declaration Act action plan. This action calls for the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation to co-develop regional economic mechanisms with First Nations and the three economic trusts across B.C. by 2027.
Over the past year, our independent Indigenous-led planning process has been led by Sanala Planning, who have engaged all 53 First Nations across the trust legislative service region. Sa̱nala met one-on-one with the leadership of 33 First Nations who invited in-depth dialogue to provide insights on the governance and future of the trust. Their recommendations were delivered by First Nations to Minister Diana Gibson on June 4 and outlined a clear path for a co-governed sustainably financed trust.
These recommendations are being endorsed by the mayors, regional district chairs and MLAs across Vancouver Island and Sunshine Coast to comprise the regional advisory committees established by B.C. under the governing act. A regional consensus is emerging: transform the trust into a co-governed, permanently financed development organization. This will be a first in Canada and a global model for regional economic development.
[4:35 p.m.]
This is a uniquely made on the coast vision for co-governance and shared decision-making. This opportunity is about more than funding; it is about economic reconciliation and co-creating a future in alignment with the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples and B.C.’s Declaration Act to deliver significant economic impact for all British Columbians.
This is not about something new; it’s about building on what works. Community-led development works. Reconciliation and prosperity go hand in hand. And B.C. needs strong regional partners to build a resilient, inclusive economy.
So on behalf of the communities we serve, I respectfully urge the province to act on First Nations’ recommendations, committing to transformational legislation and investment in Budget 2026. Thank you.
Paul Choi (Chair): Thanks so much for your presentation.
We will now go to questions by members.
Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much for your presentation.
You’ve given some really good examples of the projects you’ve invested in that have magnified economic growth in your area. I could tell that there were more projects that you could have talked about, but you have a limited amount of time. So I’m hoping that you could give us a little bit more detail about some of the other projects that the trust has worked on and what they’ve led to.
Brodie Guy: Sure, yeah. Happy to share another investment just a couple of years ago. We’ll work with people…. We don’t have deadlines in our trust. We’re not a program; we’re a permanent institution working for communities, and that really works well with government-funding programs that will have call for proposals, because we’ll just work with people all the way through their projects.
An example would be an acquisition of a luxury floating lodge resort that used to locate in Haida Gwaii. It was a salmon-fishing resort. It was purchased by the Ka:'yu:'k't'h'/Che:k:tles7et'h' First Nations and brought down to northern Vancouver Island on the far west coast, a fly-in-only community. People come from all around the world, and they fly into this place you would never otherwise go to, probably, or have a place to stay. And they’re now there. The floating lodge is right across from their community, Houpsitas.
It employs people as guests, guides, people who are embracing their language, their culture. They’re learning it. They’re getting paid to do it. And they’re hosting people that pay big dollars to come and be part of B.C.’s tourism economy in a place that hadn’t had tourism. So that would be one example.
Lots of investments around the island. The Vancouver Island convention centre, where many events are held in Nanaimo, was a strategic investment of the trust.
We’re outside of government. Government created us specifically to be accountable to government but outside of government. We’re not a government reporting entity. So when we put money into projects like the convention centre or any of these examples, it’s private capital that goes in. De-risk projects. We work on the business plan.
Again, not a program; it’s a long-term thing. We might work for two years on a business plan or capital plan with people, and then it’s ready for significant…. Usually, like the floating lodge, fully privately financed bank loans with the First Nations putting up their own equity in us.
Other examples. Significant government investment in the convention centre, for example. But it starts with that seed where the local communities, especially transitioning economies…. They don’t have that industrial tax base here anymore, and it’s really challenging. Like Port Hardy. They say: “We’re going to raise the taxes by 1 percent. That’s going to get us $20,000 in net gross revenue to support….”
You can’t keep putting that burden on the local people. The industry has not been there to support it. So the trust really can play a significant role in terms of those economic transitions and being a real partner for government when we’re trying to do big things around regional economies.
Claire Rattée: Thank you for the work that you’re doing and giving an explanation of that. The only actionable request that I heard, and maybe I heard wrong, that you gave was to act on the First Nations budget recommendations that they presented to the Ministry of JEDI on June 4, I believe it was.
Are you able to give me some examples of what those were? I don’t know…. Was it hundreds? Or were there a couple of really big ones that were overarching that you could give examples on?
Brodie Guy: Sure. The process was enabled by the government’s investment in all three trusts — each trust is a unique organization — and, obviously, recognizing a distinctions-based approach with First Nations across British Columbia, the engagement with First Nations and understanding their vision for inclusion in governance, to be included in an organization established under Crown law, that we’re….
The outcome that we’re now prepared for, based on the First Nations recommendations, is updated and modernized legislation, which the Ministry of Jobs is committed to under the DRIPA action plan, and we talk on a biweekly basis about that.
[4:40 p.m.]
Then the related issue of that…. The recommendations speak to…. From First Nations: Ensure the trust receives long-term sustainable funding to enable leadership, collaboration and foster a stronger, more resilient economy for coastal B.C. Establish a co-governed board with at least equal First Nations representation.
So it’s a vision that says equal, shared decision-making at the board.
Amend the legislation to allow First Nations representation on these regional advisory committees. Now, under the act, it’s named that mayors, regional district chairs and MLAs serve at those, and they provide strategic advice as independent advisory bodies to the board. They also appoint to the board. First Nations, under the act, are not allowed to be at that table. They’ve never been allowed. This is why this is named under the DRIPA action plan.
Claire Rattée: That’s very helpful. Thank you. I think I was a bit unclear. I have been fairly involved with the one that’s in my region. Yeah, there aren’t any First Nations at the table there. I appreciate that. I just needed some clarity on what exactly that looked like.
Jennifer Blatherwick: Fantastic. I will keep it really short. You had mentioned that…. Shoot, you know what? I got derailed from my question. That has never happened. We’ve been travelling around the province, and no one has derailed me from a question before.
However, the question that you asked, following MLA Rattée, was not a budgetary ask, really. It was a regulatory ask. Do you have a budget ask?
Brodie Guy: There is a budget ask in the First Nations report, which is to capitalize the trust such that it can be financially sustainable. The concept is that the trust should steward capital, that there should be an investment in the trust such that it operates….
MLA Rattée would be familiar with the Northern Development Initiative Trust. There are other models across British Columbia. Stewarding the capital, investing it, acting entrepreneurially so you create wealth for the region, wealth for British Columbians. It’s not re-spending taxpayer dollars as a flow-through. It’s a true investment leadership model.
That vision, with First Nations calling for this now, is so that there is a self-determination and a longevity to that engagement in the co-governance, that it’s not a short-term relationship, but it sets it up to be a long-term, enduring one.
Jennifer Blatherwick: So you’re asking that it be more like a venture capital model where investment…. Then a return comes back to the trust. Is that what you’re saying?
Brodie Guy: To steward the capital much like you would see large trusts, pension funds, all those things. You’re investing the capital. Some of that would be impact investing in the region. Some of it would be capital markets. It’d be a blended approach, but you’re generating wealth from that capital rather than just spending it on projects.
Paul Choi (Chair): Okay, thank you so much for your presentation.
Brodie Guy: Thank you very much.
Paul Choi (Chair): Now we’ll move on to our next presenter. If I can get Ms. Lisa Lovlin from GSK Canada to come forward, please.
Thanks for joining us today. You have five minutes for the presentation, five minutes for questions, and you may begin whenever you’re ready to go.
GSK Canada
Lisa Lovlin: Good afternoon, esteemed members of the Select Standing Committee on Finance.
I would like to begin by respectfully acknowledging that we are gathered on unceded territory of the K'ómoks First Nations, the original stewards and traditional keepers of the land.
My name is Lisa Lovlin, and I’m the senior manager of government affairs and public health at GSK, the manufacturer of the shingles vaccine Shingrix. Today I’m here as an advocate for the health and well-being of seniors in British Columbia, to discuss the urgent need for a shingles vaccination program for seniors in the province in the upcoming 2026 budget.
Shingles is not just a medical issue. It’s a serious public health concern affecting one in three individuals with over two-thirds of cases occurring in those over 50 years of age. In fact, by the age of 85, one in two will experience shingles. These statistics underscore the vulnerability of our seniors and the necessity for proactive measures.
[4:45 p.m.]
Let me share a personal story about my father. A little over a year ago, at the age of 83, my dad experienced a debilitating case of shingles that started with nerve pain, mistakenly attributed to muscle strain. This soon escalated into a painful rash and excruciating discomfort that rendered daily activities unbearable.
Despite numerous hospital visits and treatments, including antivirals and pain relief, he continues to suffer from postherpetic neuralgia, a common long-term complication of shingles. The relentless nerve pain, particularly on his scalp and around his face has profoundly impacted my father’s quality of life. The joy he once found in simple pleasures, like tending to his garden or sharing a laugh with family, has been overshadowed by constant discomfort.
This ongoing ordeal is a heart-wrenching example of how shingles can devastate a person’s life. It serves as a stark reminder that shingles is more than just a rash. Shingles and its complications have diminished my father’s ability to engage in daily activities, participate in social events and maintain his independence. And he’s not alone. Up to 40 percent of people who experience shingles report at least one complication from the illness.
Additionally, shingles leads to escalating health care costs, estimated to be around $67 million to $82 million annually due to hospitalizations and emergency visits, imposing financial strains on our health care system and families like mine.
But it doesn’t have to be that way, because shingles is preventable. Currently, there is no public funding for shingles vaccine in B.C., leaving many seniors facing financial barriers that prevent them from accessing this important vaccination. Many live on fixed incomes, making the cost of the vaccine a significant hurdle. As a result, many seniors may forgo the crucial opportunity, remaining vulnerable to a disease that can significantly impair their health and well-being.
When we compare B.C. with other provinces, we see others demonstrating a commitment to public health through shingles vaccination programs. Provinces and territories like Yukon, Ontario, Quebec, PEI, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland have implemented age-based programs to protect their various groups of older adults against shingles.
The First Nations Health Authority in B.C. provides funding for over-60s, but more needs to be done to protect seniors across the province. With British Columbia being home to the third-highest senior population in Canada, it is essential that we match or exceed the support provided elsewhere in the country.
Furthermore, the B.C. seniors advocate highlighted five recommendations in his report titled Ageing Matters: Listening to B.C. Seniors. The fourth recommendation calls for adherence to the guidance from the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, which states that all people 50 and older should receive the shingles vaccine. The report explicitly urges the province to provide this vaccine at no cost to seniors.
In conclusion, I urge the committee to champion the inclusion of a shingles vaccination program in the upcoming 2026 budget. This initiative will not just protect our seniors; it will empower them, helping them to live healthy, fulfilling lives free from fear of preventable suffering. By taking action, we send a powerful message that British Columbia values its senior citizens and is committed to their health and well-being.
Thank you.
Paul Choi (Chair): Thanks so much for your presentation.
Going to questions, starting with MLA Rattée.
Claire Rattée: Thanks for presenting. I probably won’t have a ton of questions for you, because we’ve actually heard this so many times already throughout the budget consultation process of a need for this program for seniors.
I do have one question for you, just because I’m hoping that you’ll probably be able to answer this. What is the efficacy rate of this vaccine?
Lisa Lovlin: Yeah. So it has a very high efficacy rate, at 90 percent. And then, over ten years, it sustains that efficacy. It just goes to show you that you get two shots, usually about three, four months separation, and then you get that long-lasting efficacy. Nothing is 100 percent, of course, but a very high efficacy rate.
[4:50 p.m.]
Claire Rattée: Thank you. I appreciate that. I have had family that’s suffered with shingles, so I know how important this is, like elderly family. I know it can be debilitating, so thank you.
Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions?
Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you for your presentation and your advocacy on this issue. Like MLA Rattée mentioned, we have had some presentations on this, which is great because it means that there are a lot of people thinking about it in the province.
I’m looking at the footnotes here. We have two doses at $163 each. Usually when we talk about public health, we estimate the administration of the vaccine including costs and dispensing costs and administration costs at about $400 for like both doses.
And your thought is that we would deliver them…. Like I see you’ve deliberately separated them out into different groups. And I’m hoping…. We certainly had other groups talk about the logic of why the groups are divided into 16-74 and 65 to 69 and 75. I’m hoping you can talk about the logic of why you’ve divided them into that.
Lisa Lovlin: Yeah, so I mean, typically when we look at public health vaccine programs, we do split them up into cohorts. Usually it comes down to…. Hey, I would love it if everyone 50 and over were covered by the province, but financially, that doesn’t tend to be feasible. So we decided as a company to focus more on seniors because, as I alluded to in my presentation, they tend to be the ones who are on fixed incomes. I think the average income as a senior citizen here in the province is $30,000. I mean in that regard, that’s why we focused in on seniors.
When we look at breaking it down into the…. It really just comes from feedback from Public Health. They want to know different cohorts and what that price tag might look like. So that’s why I broke it down like that for you. But I mean, I kind of just decided, working with my medical team and HEOR team, to just keep it short and give a few examples of what a cohort can look like, but it could look like any cohort you want it to look like.
Jennifer Blatherwick: If I can, I’m going to just continue along that vein. You have some overlapping cohorts here: 60 to 74, and then within that 65 to 69.
So 60 to 74 still has a significant number of people who are still in their working life and could conceivably be covered under some plans by private insurance. In that cohort, you’ve sort of blended them all together. And then 65-69, obviously most people, a significant number of people, there would be retired people and no longer have access to private. That’s why I was asking. What was the logic of putting the 60 to 74 age range together
Lisa Lovlin: Just different provinces have done different cohorts. I had questions from public health to look at different cohorts. I believe Public Health has shared with me that they have requested a variety of different cohorts throughout the years because it has been recommended by NACI since 2018.
So they continue to ask for it every year. It doesn’t get funded. I’m just trying to give some choice on what that could look like.
Jennifer Blatherwick: I see. And hopefully figure out ahead of time what answer it is that they might be looking for. I understand that.
One of the things I really appreciate about your presentation is you’ve broken out some of the consequences as well. Like postherpetic neuralgia…. That is not a piece that we’ve heard from some of the other presentations. And there are significant costs associated with that ongoing condition. So really appreciate that additional breakout and information.
Great presentation.
Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation.
We will move on to our next presenter, Ms. Laura Fitzgerald from Moderna Biopharma Canada Corporation. Come forward, please.
Thank you for joining us today. Five minutes for the presentation, five minutes for questions, and you may begin whenever you’re ready to go. Thank you.
Moderna Biopharma Canada Corp.
Laura Fitzgerald: Hon. Members, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. Before I begin, I’d like to respectfully acknowledge that we’re gathered on the unceded traditional territory of the K’ómoks First Nations, the original stewards and traditional keepers of this land.
[4:55 p.m.]
My name is Laura Fitzgerald, and I speak for Moderna Canada and for many partners who keep British Columbians protected against COVID-19.
Moderna is a global leader in mRNA medicine with more than a decade of experience in this technology which is transforming how we prevent and treat diseases. While the COVID-19 vaccine marked a major milestone, it’s just the beginning. Our pipeline now extends into areas such as oncology and rare diseases. The technology for COVID will be used for these new areas.
Earlier this week, we were approved by Health Canada to begin producing our COVID-19 vaccines at our Laval facility, starting in fall 2025, reinforcing our long-term commitment to supporting pandemic preparedness and health security for Canadians.
Why does this matter? Because the federal advance purchase contracts expired for COVID vaccine on March 31, 2025. What this means is the province will need to fund and buy COVID-19 doses for those who will be covered under their publicly funded program for the fall and beyond.
At the same time, COVID has not disappeared, and the clinical threat is known to affect our fastest-growing population. In 2023, 70 percent of COVID-19 deaths occurred in Canadians 80 and older, with another 25 percent of those in 65- to 79-year-olds. British Columbia already has about 1 million or more residents aged 65 percent and above, and that cohort is growing at 3.4 percent per year.
Again, the burden of COVID-19 remains with us, and its impact on British Columbia’s hospitals remains heavy. I only have the statistics for ’23-24, so that’s why I’ll be sharing them with you. In ’23-24, the province recorded over 9,300 hospitalizations, 1,188 ICU visits and over 1,500 deaths. Patients with COVID stayed an average of 20 days, nearly three times the all-cause average for other lengths of stay. National emergency department statistics show that there were over 94,000 COVID-related visits in ’23-24 alone, which means if you take it in B.C.’s number, that’s around 10,000 to 12,000 emergency room visits.
Vaccination makes a dent, a measurable dent, and B.C., as you may not be aware, has the highest rate of COVID immunization in the country, for which I congratulate you.
In the fall, the ’23-24 campaign, 27 percent of British Columbians six months and older received a new dose of COVID vaccine. Coverage in the really at-risk populations: 59 percent in the 80-plus, 45 percent in the immunocompromised population and another 40 percent in high-risk adults. This really demonstrates that there’s great demand for this vaccine for our most at-risk populations.
Coverage also matters to our workforce. Let’s think about the 75,000 regulated nurses, 15,000 physicians and 70,000 allied health care professionals, roughly 3 percent of the British Columbia population, who may choose to be vaccinated if they desire. A peer-reviewed economic model that was just recently published shows that for a 10,000-employee firm — not talking about health care professionals alone — if you were able to achieve vaccination rates of 70 percent, it prevented 3,100 lost days of work and saved the employers approximately $900,000 or $875,000 in productivity gains.
Who should be covered? Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization strongly recommends at least one annual dose of COVID-19 for seniors, long-term-care residents, people with high-risk medical conditions, pregnant individuals, Indigenous People and front-line caregivers. It also recommends a second dose for those adults 80 and above and those who are immunocompromised during the season.
At this point, I also want to mention our own cost-effectiveness model showed that maintaining a publicly funded program similar to last year for the next three years would, conservatively, prevent about 17,600 hospitalizations and 700 deaths. In short, COVID funding will help keep preventable illness from our already taxed emergency rooms and hospitals.
[5:00 p.m.]
Therefore, we respectfully ask the committee to recommend and consider for the ’26-27 budget that you ensure that there is dedicated and continued funding for COVID vaccine procurement and delivery and beyond; guarantee free access for everyone on the NACI priority list for vaccination; and strongly consider broader working-age populations included in your programming, whose productivity gains will offset program costs and ensure worker availability to drive economic activity; and — by the way — continue to use the pharmacies and primary care teams that have effectively delivered past campaigns so efficiently.
That’s my time.
Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for the presentation. I will now go to questions by members.
Steve Morissette: Thanks for the presentation. What I think I heard you say is that it has been covered up till 2025, and you want to continue that coverage onwards.
Laura Fitzgerald: Yes, and the reason is that while we were in the pandemic, the federal government was providing the funding for the vaccine, and it was providing it to the provinces for free. What is happening now is that that contract has sunsetted. The responsibility of immunization usually rests with the provinces, as do the other health care activities, so it will now move into your budgets, if you choose it to be funded.
Does that answer your question, sir?
Steve Morissette: Yes, perfectly.
Jennifer Blatherwick: I appreciate the advocacy on continuing vaccination and making sure that people stay safe. I have long COVID.
Laura Fitzgerald: I’m sorry to hear that.
Jennifer Blatherwick: I lived.
Laura Fitzgerald: I’m glad to see that.
Jennifer Blatherwick: That is the important part. I had friends who did not.
I think one of the things that we talk about often in public health is the struggle to create a vaccine that’s continuously effective against an ever-changing virus. We know that the COVID-19 virus changes so fast, and that is an ongoing concern. Every year, you’re kind of guessing at how effective the vaccine can be, because you’re trying to predict where it’s going to go.
How many other provinces in Canada have indicated their plan to also continue with the advanced funding model?
Laura Fitzgerald: Right, thank you. That’s a rather complicated question, and it varies by province. What we’re seeing is that dedicated budget lines are starting to appear in certain jurisdictions. However, they’re not completely elucidated at this point. Eligibility rules for coverage for ’25-26 in most provinces have not been identified, and no province has formally committed to whether or not they’ll stick to a narrow design of their program versus a more widened program, which is what we’ve been seeing up until this point.
This is actually why Moderna wrote to governments across the country in fall of last year to remind them that this needs to be funded for ’25-26. Then the purpose of this presentation is to talk about continued funding beyond.
You are correct. The virus does emerge, and variants do exist. One of the things that’s interesting about an mRNA vaccine is that because of the way that the vaccine is made and the unique aspects of the platform, we can identify and then make vaccine relatively quickly so that there will be better matches for care.
Jennifer Blatherwick: Much faster response time. Mm-hm. What we didn’t really talk about was the amount of dollars here. We’re the budget committee, so our job is to say: how many dollars?
Laura Fitzgerald: At this point, there is no private market for COVID vaccines. There are ongoing conversations. There’s actually a tender, which I can’t speak about right now, for a COVID vaccine for the ’25-26 period. I think that will guide purchasing decisions as well. But at this point — I’m sorry — because of the tender conversation, I can’t talk about it.
What I would like to suggest is that the cost benefit of COVID vaccines is very high, and that the return on investment will be very good for you. Once we get through this process, we’ll be able to share more information for you.
Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions?
Seeing none, thank you so much for your presentation.
Moving on to the next presenter, if I can have Ms. Michelle Waite from school district 71 for Comox Valley to come forward, please. Thank you so much for joining us today. You have five minutes for the presentation and five minutes for questions, and you can begin whenever you feel ready.
[5:05 p.m.]
School District 71, Comox Valley
Michelle Waite: gilakas’la and welcome. It’s an honour to welcome you to the traditional territory of the K’ómoks First Nation. Thank you for travelling here to hear directly from those who care deeply about public education.
[An Indigenous language was spoken] Michelle Waite, chair of the board of education for Comox Valley schools, joined today by my colleagues in spirit, who share a deep commitment to the 11,000 students we serve.
You’ll notice the bentwood box at the centre of the table. Traditionally used by many Indigenous peoples to hold sacred items, it symbolizes care, protection and the interconnectedness of all things. Today it represents the 11,000 students in the Comox Valley and the more than half-million students in British Columbia.
The box holds medicines that heal and restore balance. We are reminded of our responsibility to create learning environments that uplift every child. This conversation, above all, is about them.
We are asking the committee to recommend bold legacy investment in public education in the 2026 budget. Despite broad recognition of its importance, the financial foundation of B.C.’s public education system is eroding. In 2001-2002, B.C. school districts received 15.49 percent of the provincial budget. By 2023-24, that number had dropped to 7.97 percent, about half. B.C. now ranks near the bottom nationally for K-to-12 spending relative to GDP.
While per-pupil funding has increased slightly, inflation has outpaced those gains, leaving districts under unsustainable financial pressures. This isn’t just about balancing budgets. It’s about student outcomes and equity of opportunity.
We’re seeing troubling declines in student achievement. Grade 10 numeracy rates have dropped from 62 percent in 2015 to 48 percent in 2021. Literacy rates have declined as well. These are not only educational concerns. They are economic and societal ones. Foundational skills are eroding at a time when supports for students with complex needs are increasingly strained.
In our district, the complexity of student needs has grown dramatically. What was once exceptional is now commonplace. Students are arriving with trauma, mental health challenges and complex behaviours. For example, one of our elementary schools will welcome four kindergarten students this fall who each require full-time, one-on-one support. But current funding categories fall far short of meeting these needs, and this is only one example.
Without sustainable funding that matches today’s reality, we risk our schools becoming places of triage instead of learning. Our strategic plan focuses on the core competencies of learning — on equity, reconciliation and inclusion — but they require resources.
We are not asking for redistribution. We are asking for bold investment to grow the pie itself.
Districts are becoming masters of doing more with less, but we have reached the limit. Stretching and reallocation further will compromise students’ outcomes and staff well-being. Our educators are feeling occupational fatigue, the result of being asked to continually do more without adequate support.
Imagine what meaningful increases could achieve: smaller classes; more educational assistance; expanded mental health services; stronger early learning interventions; and modern, safe, inclusive environments that reflect the needs of every child. As costs rise, per-pupil increases have not kept pace. It’s time to turn recognition into action.
[5:10 p.m.]
As governors and MLAs, we make decisions whose full impact may not be seen in our time. But like planting a tree, we do so knowing that others will one day sit in its shade. On behalf of Comox Valley schools, I ask you to plant that tree through bold investment in public education in the 2026 budget so that today’s learners may one day sit beneath the shade of education that you made possible.
gilakas’la. Thank you for listening.
Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We will go to questions.
Claire Rattée: Thank you for your presentation.
Do you have any specific funding requests, anything specific to your school district that you’re looking for?
Michelle Waite: Well, initially, yes. We would love our district to be funded to partner with the ministry to develop a provincial K-to-12 gender-based violence action plan. B.C. has declared gender-based violence an epidemic, and we have a district-based committee. The work that they’ve done within our district and with our community supports that information.
A coordinated provincial framework is essential to provide equitable protection, prevention and support across B.C.’s school communities. Advanced ed has an act; they’re required to have sexual violence policies, and there is an action plan that’s under development or has been developed. But it begins in K to 12.
While that is our ask, we recognize you’ve heard from — oh, at least a dozen by Wednesday — passionate educators and teams about public K-to-12 education. What we’ve realized is that it’s not about cutting up the pie or slicing it different ways. It’s about the pie — I know it’s around dinnertime — becoming bigger.
When you think that there has been a 50 percent reduction, or close to it, in the percentage of the B.C. budget going to education, and the complexities that we know our province is facing and the world is facing, one of the main ways, we believe, to plant those trees to grow that shade is to provide more funding — period — to public education.
Claire Rattée: I appreciate that. Thank you.
I think it is more so a matter of…. We have heard from many of the school districts. In my mind, having some specificity around what the school districts are looking for when it comes to funding so that we can then put that into our recommendations…. You know, is there a dollar figure? Is there a percentage amount? Is there something tangible rather than just saying…?
I agree that this is necessary. This has, in my opinion, been the most common thread throughout these public consultations in every community we’ve gone to, that funding for education needs to be increased. But I’m kind of looking, at this point, if somebody can give us a bit more specific direction about how we look at that model and how we change that. Does that make sense? Like, if there’s something specific that’s being looked for.
Michelle Waite: Well, I guess in saying that we need more money, bring it back to 15 percent of the provincial budget.
Claire Rattée: Okay. Thank you.
Michelle Waite: I think the inflation…. As some of my colleagues may have said in some of their information that they’ve shared with you over the past two weeks, the amount of money that we’re receiving doesn’t match inflation. Our budget is about $165 million in our school district, and $17 million of that is goods and services. We can’t buy what we used to buy with what we have now, because it’s not the same.
That’s just such a small portion of our budget, that $17 million. Thinking about the inflation rate that hasn’t been matched with public dollars to education, that 20- to 25-percent loss of money on that $17 million, that’s a really rough example. Districts can’t even match the status quo most of the time, and they’re trying to figure out what to cut rather than to actually move forward in the work that we need to do in public education for the leaders of today, which are our students.
So I’ll give you my big ask: what we had before.
Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you so much for your presentation.
[5:15 p.m.]
Moving to our next presenter, Ms. Joan Miller from Vancouver Island North Film Commission. Come forward, please. Thank you very much for joining us. You have five minutes for presentation and five minutes for questions, and you may begin whenever you’re ready to go.
Vancouver Island North
Film Commission
Joan Miller: Thank you very much. Thank you, committee, for your generous time for our region. I much appreciate it. It is actually a real privilege for me to be able to speak to you today on behalf of our region and the film industry, which, to us, is an economic driver and a job creator.
Who I am: Joan Miller, executive director of Vancouver Island North Film Commission, known as INFilm. We are an Association of Film Commissioners International–certified regional film office. Our society was registered here as a not-for-profit in 2001. This is our 24th year of service to our region.
INFilm is funded by six regional districts that make up the service region as well as a yearly grant from the provincial government. Our mandate is to attract, facilitate and grow the motion picture industry as a local economic driver.
I would like to take this time to thank you for the benefits resulting from some of the provincial investments that we’ve been able to receive: our benefits from the B.C. regional film commission fund, which gives us our annual fee; the CWRG, community workforce recovery grant; and the rural economic diversification and infrastructure fund.
Annual provincial funding for regional film offices has allowed four of us full-time offices and three part-time liaison offices to support the growth of the motion picture industry in the regions of B.C. As a not-for-profit, INFilm has attracted and serviced over $225 million in direct economic impact throughout our rural service boundaries.
Our 24-year challenge is not knowing from year to year if we have the funding to continue our work. INfilm, like all AFCI-certified film offices, cannot charge for our services. Year-to-year grants and aid from both local and provincial government do not allow us to have long-term planning.
Our local skilled labour force has grown through multiple skills training programs developed and delivered through the ability to access community workforce grants. Although the participants are located in pockets all around our rural communities, opportunities for them to find employment in the film industry when production lands in a community have opened up as a result of this cross-sector upskilling.
Access to the rural economic diversification and infrastructure program grant allowed us to purchase a complete locations kit, a 14-foot cargo trailer for use as a small prep office and a first-aid trailer along with four Voltstack 5k green energy electric generators. We loan this equipment to domestic production as a soft incentive to offset some of their costs. Although a recent acquisition, it has already been used by four domestic features, with more scheduled over the next six months.
The REDIP program also allowed us to train and contract 12 locally based photographers, who have shot and loaded over 2,000 new location files into the B.C. Film Commission’s digital locations library. The local photographers are now benefiting through the employment as scouts and crew being hired on by productions interested in filming in our region.
The intent of this presentation is to request a review of the distant tax and training incentives originally created by the province to support growth in the rural areas of B.C. We believe that small tweaks to the current tax credit criteria could create a trackable difference in the current level of economic employment opportunities in the rural areas of B.C.
Unlike the Lower Mainland and the two large, urban cities located in the distant tax credit zones, Victoria and Kelowna, the remainder of the rural regions do not have the population base to support a local, fully qualified crew that production can hire, saving on costs of travel, accommodation and per diem necessary when they bring the crew from Vancouver.
The current distant criteria — 51 percent of qualified shooting days with a minimum of five days of principal photography in order to access the distant incentive — is very hard to achieve for both domestic productions and large U.S. productions that fill the hotels and spend money on local services in rural communities, particularly if they require bricks-and-mortar studios, specialized services and equipment that they can only get in Vancouver.
Skills training. We have successfully developed and delivered motion picture skills training focused on upskilling local labour to cross over and work in both resource and the motion picture sector. With a few small tweaks to the film training tax credit, it would allow both domestic and service production to access the graduates from the industry, recognize training and open up local employment in the regional districts.
[5:20 p.m.]
I just want to finish by supporting a CMPA presentation, which…. They met in front of you last week. In our region, we are seeing an uptake in domestic production resulting from access to the motion picture fund. The CMPA has requested a renewal of the domestic motion picture fund.
We encourage renewing and expanding the fund to include more opportunities for rural-based producers to access key development funding in order to fully flush out their pitch packages, necessary to acquire the distribution deals that open the doors to multiple funding sources. Removing or reducing the 51 percent IP ownership required to be eligible for the credits will stimulate more production in B.C., with increased opportunities to attract the production to the rural regions of B.C.
In the bottom of my presentation, I did include a graph from 2017 to 2022 that shows that the peak $9 million was invested or rebated through distant location tax credits. Considering that they spend hundreds of millions of dollars rebating tax credits in the province, I feel that we have a little bit of room to grow.
So thank you for that, and I’m happy to answer any questions.
Paul Choi (Chair): Thanks so much for that presentation.
We’ll go to questions by members. Any questions?
Steve Morissette: Yeah, this one, removing or reducing the 51 percent ownership requirement. We’ve heard that one before, earlier this week. And that would be a big help?
Joan Miller: Well, it would be a help for the domestic industry in our province. It will allow them to do co-production deals across the provinces, which now has been a barrier for them to leverage more production. So we do support that because more and more, out in the rural regions, we are seeing more domestic production come our way because the costs of filming in Vancouver are so expensive. They want to get out into the areas. They want to access more locations. They want to work in the rural, but they also find that….
There are two 51 percent incentives. One has a threshold for accessing the extra distant tax credit. The other one is the threshold for accessing co-productions, having 51 percent ownership. Those ones go way back to the early days of tax credits.
I feel that with a bit of a review, not having to ask for us to have any more money invested…. We’re not asking for more money. We’re just asking for a review to maybe lighten the criteria so that more production could get out and shoot in the rural parts of the province.
When they do come, they fill our hotels. They spend so much money in services. They do hire our locals. But as I said, unlike Kelowna and Victoria, who are doing well with what is already set up…. They have that population base where they have full crews. They have union zones. Production goes there. They don’t use the tax credits towards travel; they use it in their budget. It helps them a lot.
But for us, definitely, for all we film…. Right now we have a production in Powell River. We had Tofino. Or there could be something — and I will say I looked you up — in Kitimat or Fruitvale. I was working with the Kootenays yesterday because of our successes with the REDIP program, how we were able to leverage all these soft incentives that have really made a difference to attracting production. I shared with them all of my contracts, all the information that we paid for, for lawyers.
We’re very much a collaborative group. We work collaboratively together. Our goal is to support economic development and to open the door for new jobs and to help diversify our resource communities. So yes, we share everything collaboratively.
Steve Morissette: If I could just follow up. This is a great economic development piece. Do you guys collaborate with — we just had them here earlier — Island Coastal Economic Trust, Southern Interior, Northern...?
Joan Miller: Yes, Island Coastal Economic Trust has been supporting us for the inception of them. I am a great grant writer. We have not survived being a not-for-profit. I spent the first seven years doing this for free. The first piece that I ever did get was from Island Coastal Economic Trust. I think it was $15,000 to begin shooting our locations.
Two years ago, when I applied for the REDIP grant, Island Coastal Economic Trust came in with a $30,000 investment in order for us to help build our leveraging packages. We’ve been able to share all of our new 2,000 location images with our tourism, our local communities. We ensured that everything that we do has shared across all the not-for-profits or the communities. So they have been a longtime key investor to help us continue to stack and grow.
[5:25 p.m.]
I will say as far as the regions go, other than the big cities, we have been able to…. If you see the reports that I put, we are the only ones that have created skills-training programs. We’ve taken carpenters, electricians. We’ve paid fully for their training so that they understand when a production comes, they can work in the construction business, or they can work on a film set.
We share all of our information, we share all our skills with our regions. And we’re here to…. I’m speaking on behalf of our organization, but as a former president of the provincial regional, I do know that the regions understand I’m here and are in full support of the tweaks that we’d hope that would help attract production out to them as well.
Steve Morissette: Perfect. Thank you.
Bryan Tepper: The 51 percent ownership was lowered down. Does that help everybody, basically, equally or do the Interior and the Island benefit more than the Vancouver area?
Joan Miller: The 51 percent IP ownership hasn’t really got anything to do with…. It helps the B.C. producers, right? So no matter where they are located, it helps them access more co-production deals. It benefits them everywhere equally across the province. But my one comment was that we are now seeing in the regions….
I will use this as an example: we had The Last of Us film in Nanaimo last year. They were there for five weeks of prep but only filmed for two days. They could only claim two days of tax credits. They spent all the money to be there because that was the only place they could get what they wanted, what they needed to be able to do. So for them, we’d like to reduce the barriers of how much they have to do to claim it because they would have stayed for four or five or six more days and shot, which meant 800 crew filling hotels for four or five or six more days.
For domestic productions, they are so much smaller. We’re investing in our own IP. We’re growing our own industry. Because of the swing in the industry across the world, British Columbia has always relied on being the service provider for L.A. The east coast has that, but they really produce their own content. They really help support their domestic producers. We didn’t do that so much.
So when we see the things happening in L.A. — the clawbacks, COVID, strikes, and now the studios are reorganizing, and who knows the Trump effect — we, in Vancouver, more than anywhere, are caught without having a client, whereas in the rest of our regions, we’re so diversified. We have a very strong documentary season, commercials. We do the domestic productions. They will come out because they can get more. We’re providing them equipment. We’re loaning them everything to help to make it easier and more financially lucrative to be in our area.
Well, they will come and spend a longer time. They will probably leave behind the same amount of money as what one day of a big studio will, but those are still such important economic drivers for resource-based areas.
Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation.
Joan Miller: Thank you very much for your time. I hope you have a good evening.
Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you.
Okay, we have our next presenter, Mr. Bradd Tuck from B.C. Funeral Association to come forward, please.
Thanks for joining us. You have five minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions, and you may begin whenever you’re ready to go. Thank you.
B.C. Funeral Association
Bradd Tuck: Thank you. Well, good afternoon and thank you for having me.
My name is Bradd Tuck, and I’m the executive director at the British Columbia Funeral Association. Prior to my role here, I was a licensed funeral director and embalmer and part of the family ownership of two funeral homes, cemeteries, green burial and crematorium here on Vancouver Island, servicing Parksville, Port Alberni and the West Coast.
Our association is a member-based not-for-profit representing funeral providers, cemeteries, crematoriums and supplier businesses across the province. Our members are corporate, municipal, independent and not-for-profit.
What we’re here to talk to you today about is the Ministry of Social Development’s provincial burial program. For those that don’t know, the provincial burial program is a social safety net. It’s designed to ensure that there’s dignified funeral services for everyone in this province, regardless of what means they have.
After a short intake process, determining whether or not the estate has access to funds, the Ministry of Social Development will fund the funeral services based on a prescribed set of fees. Those fees were set in 2007 when this program came into inception. They haven’t been updated or looked at since. Those fees reflect the cost of doing business in 2007, and nearly two decades later, we’re seeing that those fees barely cover the costs that the funeral homes are putting out in order to offer those services.
[5:30 p.m.]
This is particularly challenging in the rural areas of our province. The fees right now for basic services are $1,285 for the basic registration of death, the transfer from the place of death to the funeral home and the sanitary care of the decedent until disposition. Disposition is paid at cost, so cremation or burial, and then an additional $815 is provided for funeral services. There’s a small allocation for an urn, set at $200, and then there’s transportation paid, which is a particularly challenging piece.
The transportation is paid on a sliding scale, with just 60 cents per kilometre paid if a decedent needs to be transferred more than 100 kilometres from the place of death to the funeral home or from the funeral home to the place of the eventual disposition.
Sometimes there’s a question as to why we would need to go so far. That, particularly, has to do with the regionalization of our health care and medical services. Autopsies and any kind of investigation generally happen in bigger city centres. Those can be four- to six- to eight-hour drives from the rural funeral homes, and they’re being paid only 60 cents per kilometre.
There are no provisions there to look at how much time it actually takes — or even ferry expenses when a funeral provider needs to come from Victoria, from Nanaimo, across to Vancouver to bring a decedent back to their home community.
What we’re looking for is to raise these fees to match another provincial program, the Public Guardian and Trustee’s burial program. The Public Guardian and Trustee has their basic service fee set at $2,001 for the same basic services. They set the cost and allocation for an urn at $400 as opposed to $200, and they give $2,500 for the funeral services.
One of the key pieces that’s different between these two programs is that they don’t tell you what needs to be done for that $2,500, which gives families the choice to be able to choose culturally appropriate funeral services for them. Sometimes there may not be a need for more money for funeral services for what you think of as a chapel service or a reception, but it may be the purchase of a culturally appropriate casket like a cedar paddle casket, commonly used on the west coast. We may also be looking at things like visitations or bathings that aren’t typically covered under this program.
What we are hoping for is to see this program match what other provinces have done, which is nearly doubled the benefits. Newfoundland, Alberta, Saskatchewan — they’re all provinces that have recognized that their programs weren’t keeping up, and they’ve made these investments, and they’ve recognized the critical and essential nature of funeral services.
Particularly in our rural regions, we are finding that funeral providers are no longer able to serve clients who need to utilize this program. So what happens is that if somebody comes to a funeral home, and they say that they need to access the provincial burial program in order to fund the funeral arrangements, sometimes these funeral providers are saying: “Unfortunately, we can’t do that for this funding.”
The funding is restricted. That doesn’t allow the family to add additional funds to it, so they have to find another funeral provider. I know that that’s something particularly of focus that we’re feeling in the North and in the Kootenay regions.
We think with this investment, we’d see a really strong support for funeral services, for families, for those trying to access culturally appropriate funeral services — and particularly, supporting the rural regions of our province. Thank you.
Paul Choi (Chair): Thanks so much for the presentation.
Going to questions, starting with MLA Rattée.
Claire Rattée: Thank you for the presentation.
I’m not familiar with this program, and this is interesting. Can you break it down for me? Is this program eligibility based on the individual that is now deceased? Is it based on the family that that would go to? What are the financial barriers? Where is that threshold, and how much is this being used right now in the province?
Bradd Tuck: Yeah, so the means test is a little bit of both. There is, first of all, the estate. So what financial assets exist in the estate? Interestingly, they don’t look at non-cash assets. Investments and homes aren’t currently considered an asset that’s available to pay for funeral services.
That’s one of the policy changes that we think needs to be there, because we often see that people own homes, they don’t have a lot of cash in their accounts, and they’re applying for this program. They’re getting approval because there’s no money in the bank account, but the estate has a large value to it. We think that might be one of the ways that they could free up funds for this.
They also look at the responsible party. The responsible party would be the spouse, the executor, or it would be the parent of somebody under the age of majority. That’s who they’re looking at to see whether or not there are funds available to be able to pay for things.
[5:35 p.m.]
As far as utilization, the case numbers vary year by year. They have been growing steadily. About five years ago, they were at about 2,500 cases that were funded under this program. Now it has been sitting at around 3,000 to 3,250 over the last few years. I think last year’s numbers that we saw were 3,250 approximately.
We did the math to see what this would cost, and we’ve broken it into two pieces. The first thing we think that needs to happen is the basic service fee, set at $1,285, needs to raise to $2,001. That’s applied to every case that applies to this program. That would be about a $2.5 million annual cost.
We would like to see the prescriptive nature of the $815 first removed, so that that can go towards whatever services that family may want, whether that’s a different casket, whether that’s a cemetery marker or something that’s not currently covered under the program. And then we’d like to see that $815 raised to that same rate as the PGT, at $2,500. That would be an additional about $5.5 million cost.
The overall ask in a perfect situation would be about $8 million annually. The minimum would be about $2.5 million annually that we think would get this program up to the standard that it needs to be.
We think that there are ways that this can be recovered. Changing who’s eligible for the means test and looking at the responsible party would be a really big piece of that.
Another piece of it that we’ve been engaged with the Attorney General as well as with the Ministry of Social Development is increasing the Canada pension death benefit.
Provincial support needs to be there in order for the federal government to increase the Canada pension death benefit. It’s currently set at $2,500. If it was increased to $3,500, for any case that is able to apply to bring back those funds so they’re eligible to apply to cost recovery with that, there would be an additional $1,000 that would come back into that.
So we would like to see our government, and I think we’ve heard our government would, support CPP raising the death benefit to $3,500 as well, which takes some people out of needing to apply for this program and also helps with the cost recovery.
Paul Choi (Chair): Follow-up?
Claire Rattée: Follow-up. Thank you.
This is interesting. Two things then. If it’s about roughly 3,000 people that are needing to use this benefit, can you put that in the context of — it sounds morbid — how many funerals there are in the province, generally, on any given year so I know how many that are out of there?
Bradd Tuck: Vital Statistics does do that statistic. It’s about 60,000 deaths that occur annually in our province.
The death rate is increasing. Immigration, both from outside of Canada but also from within Canada…. Generally we get older populations come to B.C. The riding I live in, Parksville-Qualicum, is a great example of that. When you look at our demographic shift, there are a lot more older individuals in our population now. So we do expect that the demand for the program is going to increase.
Claire Rattée: My other question would be, when you were talking about the means test and changing that to include non-cash assets…. I’m going to assume from that comment that, as somebody that works in this industry, you’ve seen it likely, perhaps, be misused and used in situations where it probably shouldn’t be. Would you say that that’s common? Would you say it’s uncommon?
Bradd Tuck: I would say that it is common, and it’s an incredibly frustrating thing to see. This is supposed to be a social safety net. It’s not supposed to be a funding mechanism. But because it’s known of as something that you can access, there are often cases where individuals will know: “If there’s no money left in the estate here, we won’t need to pay for funeral expenses and then we can utilize this program.”
I think some better management of the program itself may free up some of the funds needed so that there are more funds available for the people who actually need it.
Paul Choi (Chair): Seeing no other questions, thank you so much for your presentation.
Bradd Tuck: Thank you for your time.
Paul Choi (Chair): Is there any other business from the committee? Seeing none, thank you, everyone who presented.
That concludes our meeting today. Our committee will be returning to Victoria for more in-person and virtual public hearings next week. I’ll seek a motion to adjourn.
Motion approved.
Paul Choi (Chair): This meeting is now adjourned. Thank you very much, everyone, including all the supporting staff that have helped us to make this week very smooth and possible. Thank you very much.
The committee adjourned at 5:39 p.m.