The committee met at 8:30 a.m.

[Paul Choi in the chair.]

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

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

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

I will now ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Good morning. I’m Elenore Sturko. I’m the MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale. I’m the critic for Public Safety and Solicitor General. I’m glad to be here and looking forward to hearing presentations.

Bryan Tepper: Hello. I’m Bryan Tepper, MLA for Surrey-Panorama and critic for Community Safety and Integrated Services.

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

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

Steve Morissette: Good morning. I’m Steve Morissette. I’m MLA for Kootenay-Monashee and Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Development.

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

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you to all the members for being here in the early morning and in Victoria.

Assisting the committee today are Darryl Hol and Kayla Wilson, from the Parliamentary Committees Office; and Danielle Suter, from Hansard Services.

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

We will start with Ms. Theresa Williams, from Canadian Groundfish Research and Conservation Society.

Good morning. Thank you for joining us today. As you heard, you have five minutes for the presentation and five minutes for questions.

Budget Consultation Presentations

Canadian Groundfish Research
and Conservation Society

Theresa Williams: First of all, good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to participate in this consultation process.

As you know, my name is Theresa Williams. I’m the executive manager of the Canadian Groundfish Research and Conservation Society. I’ve been in that role for about 18 months. Prior to that — and also right now — I was an active participant in our commercial fishing sector. I own…. Obviously, I don’t operate it myself, but I do hire the crew that runs a 100-foot trawl vessel. And that trawl vessel, for perspective, does provide over one million meals per year of what we would know as snappers — there are a variety of rockfish in B.C. — cods and soles.

I’m an active participant, and I’m also in this role as executive manager of the society, which is an industry association that works collaboratively with DFO management, enforcement and science on making sure that we’re participating in the process around developing policy and helping to participate in CSAS processes around stock assessments for all of the stocks on the west coast of B.C. That’s what I do.

I’m going to just spend a couple minutes running down my ask and also some of the rationale and then some of the consequences if that ask is successful, and hopefully my timing is going to be perfect. I apologize if I’m speaking too quickly.

[8:35 a.m.]

Our ask, as industry, is for the restoration of the fuel tax–exempt status for commercial fishers in B.C. Prior to 1985, fishers were included in the language of the tax acts with farmers. But in 1985, there was a rewrite of the bill to consolidate three different fuel tax statutes. For some reason, the language around fishers fell out of the rewrite, so we lost the exempt status.

Why we would like this exemption reinstated…. Well, there’s a myriad of reasons, but the top three …. It would help us to compete in the U.S. market against our direct competitors, who are the fishers of Washington and Oregon states. Those fishers enjoy either rebates on fuel tax or they are exempt. That’s the number one reason.

The No. 2 reason is that it would level the playing field for us nationally. Again, B.C. is the only province or territory in the country that does not offer any fuel tax treatment that’s favourable for its fishers. Every other province does, even Manitoba and Saskatchewan. You wouldn’t think there were significant fisheries there, but there are. Furthermore, they’re actually named in the legislation.

The third reason is that our B.C. commercial fishing sector has many challenges over which we have little or no control, mainly coming out of Ottawa. Specifically, we are trying to work proactively around marine planning so that we don’t lose any more access than we already have lost, while still respecting both the First Nations’ and the government’s need for social, cultural and biological preservation. We’re trying to work collaboratively there but not having a lot of success, frankly, even though the province has been supportive by funding socioeconomic impact analyses for us.

The other challenge, obviously, is the Chinese tariffs on seafood coming out of B.C. and the ever-present threat of the U.S. tariffs on seafood, which we did see about 36 hours of back in early March. We learned really, really quickly how expensive that is — and devastating, frankly.

In conclusion, if we’re successful with our ask, the benefit of this exemption would be shared, actually, by both vessel owners and crews directly because of the way we pay our commercial fishing crews around a share-of-catch program that’s recognized by the Canada Revenue Agency. They share in net profitability of each trip, and the fuel costs are part of that calculation. So there is potential for direct benefit to fishers themselves and their families in addition to the vessel owners.

The cost to the province for this ask, we estimate, on an annual basis would be about $800,000. And that….

I’m out of time. That’s the end of my presentation. Any questions?

Paul Choi (Chair): Thanks so much for that. Yes, going to questions.

Claire Rattée: Thank you for your presentation.

The $800,000 cost annually…. I’m not positive, but I feel like you were maybe about to go into saying something about what that would actually mean for this market, what it would mean for this industry. Could you maybe finish that thought? I’m just curious if you have an idea of what the trade-off is and what we gain economically.

Theresa Williams: What we would gain economically? Okay, so for example, from a crew member’s perspective, this is money that ends up actually in their pockets at the end of a trip. Therefore, they have a little bit more money to spend on the things that they want to purchase or that actually help drive the economy.

Claire Rattée: In a general sense, though, the biggest thing is that this is going to help to keep this industry competitive with threats of tariffs and tariffs already being imposed by the Chinese government. Would you say that without this, it’s going to potentially make this industry not competitive anymore on a global scale? Or is it just going to make it so difficult that…? You know what I mean? Is this going to be a significant challenge if this doesn’t get done?

Theresa Williams: We are struggling with…. I wouldn’t say death by a thousand cuts, but we have so many challenges in this industry, and we are fighting such big fights with Ottawa. We’re trying to be collaborative. We’re trying to focus our energy on battles that we might have a chance of winning, and this feels like one of those battles.

[8:40 a.m.]

This would help us be competitive directly in our existing market with Washington and Oregon, where we fish the same fisheries, the same stocks. Half of our market here in B.C. is that I-5 corridor: Washington, Oregon, California. This would help us there. It would also help us, yes, in the event that tariffs do come in.

Quite frankly, it would also be very validating for our seafood sector in B.C. to be sharing the same recognition and benefit as our farmers do. We’re all protein producers. Furthermore, we produce our protein at a much lower carbon cost than every other land-based protein producer. We’re 25 percent of what beef does, for example, per pound.

Not sure I’ve answered your question.

Claire Rattée: That’s okay. Maybe I’ll try and clarify. I am supportive of this request. I’m just trying to understand if there’s a potentially positive economic impact for us. I believe there is, whether that’s maybe increased production, more money going back into the economy. Even though there’s an upfront cost of not collecting that tax revenue, I would imagine that this is still going to have positive economic impact.

Theresa Williams: Yes.

Claire Rattée: You know, is there a potential to see an increased production, anything like that, as a result of some cost-saving measures?

Theresa Williams: Yes. The answer is yes. There’s money that will be coming back into the economy just through a little bit more money in people’s jeans that they have to spend.

Most of that’s in sort of rural communities, by the way, because most of our fishers are…. The majority of them are on the Island, actually — Port Hardy, Ucluelet, some of them in Parksville, French Creek, that sort of area. So, yes.

Claire Rattée: Food security as well. Obviously, anything that can increase the potential of production is good. Thank you.

Theresa Williams: Yes. Thank you.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you for your presentation. I am reminded of an earlier presentation by the Deep Sea Trawlers Association.

Theresa Williams: Yes. Sorry.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Yeah, it was also equally passionate in advocating for this sector. Thank you for the work you do in keeping us all fed.

Theresa Williams: Thank you.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I’m hoping you can tell me a little bit about: how did you calculate the amounts that you’re asking for? It’s a pretty simple calculation, but how did you come together with the different industries to calculate it?

Theresa Williams: We are fortunate in our sector that we do have some really good associations, including the B.C. Seafood Alliance, which is an umbrella organization that represents all of the commercial fisheries. So Zoe and I, who you referenced, we work in trawl. Christina Burridge is the manager for the B.C. Seafood Alliance.

We’ve polled as many of the sectors as we can get at, and that’s where that number comes from, estimating fuel usage, etc. For me, frankly, on my boat, I’ve done the math on it. It’s a $37.50-per-crewperson per-trip benefit on this, and they do about 24 trips a year or so. It’s about $1,200, $1,500 back to them each year for my crew members, and then we’ve extrapolated that to the entire industry.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Okay, thank you.

Theresa Williams: I’m out of time, but I just also want to say, in closing, thank you for your service. I don’t think that being an elected official is an easy job, and I appreciate that. Thank you.

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

We will move on to our next presenter. If I can have Mr. Thomas Hackney come forward from B.C. Sustainable Energy Association.

Thank you for joining us today. Five minutes for the presentation, five minutes for questions.

B.C. Sustainable Energy Association

Thomas Hackney: Hello, Mr. Chair, Madam Deputy Chair and committee members. Thank you for having me today. My name is Tom Hackney. I’m the policy advisor for the B.C. Sustainable Energy Association.

BCSEA is a public interest advocacy group, and our members support urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in B.C. and a transition to clean energy. We deliver courses on sustainable energy in schools, we stage free public webinars, we intervene at the B.C. Utilities Commission, and we have four chapters around B.C.

[8:45 a.m.]

Our three recommendations today are (1) maintain and enhance funding for CleanBC and the Roadmap to 2030, (2) put a special focus on heavy-duty battery-electric freight vehicles, and (3) put a special focus on industrial heat.

The first point is funding for CleanBC and the Roadmap to 2030. BCSEA strongly supports the government’s reasserted commitment to achieve B.C.’s legislated greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. The recent Climate Change Accountability Report confirms that increased efforts are needed to meet those targets.

CleanBC and the Roadmap should be adequately funded, both for their planning and convening functions and for incentives and pilot projects. Funding for planning should be adequate to engage stakeholders in all sectors and develop credible decarbonization pathways. Incentive levels should reflect the magnitude of effort needed to achieve provincewide reductions for each program. For example, the heat pump and energy coach incentives should be ramped up to levels that will optimally reduce total emissions from B.C.’s buildings.

The second point is heavy-duty battery-electric vehicles. Policies on light- and medium-duty vehicles seem to be progressing well, but heavy-duty vehicles require special attention. Emissions from this sector have risen by about 26 percent since 2007, not fallen. There is a gap in technology development and deployment. The B.C. government should help bridge this gap with policy development and incentives and pilot projects, as needed.

For example, piloting a megawatt EV charging system for selected routes could be appropriate in this case. Any work on hydrogen or decarbonized fuels should not replace or detract from work on heavy-duty battery-electric vehicles.

My third point is industrial heat. Within CleanBC and the Roadmap, the government should also put a special focus on decarbonizing industrial heat. Industry causes almost 40 percent of B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions, much of it from process heat. The government should support technology development and employment, including incentives and support for pilot projects.

For example, high-temperature heat pumps are advancing to the stage where they could start to efficiently replace gas boilers. Thermal batteries can store electrical energy as heat for on-demand process use, and deployment of waste heat recovery and combined heat and power can reduce fossil fuel use.

Those are my submissions. Thank you very much for listening, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

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

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much for your presentation and your advocacy on this issue. I’m hoping we could talk more about the heavy-duty electrical vehicles and exactly what you’re asking there.

Is your thought that there would be funding for incentives for development of technology? Or are you thinking of purely funding currently existing technologies and infrastructure?

[8:50 a.m.]

Thomas Hackney: I think it’s kind of a bit of everything. I mean, the curve is advancing — just not as quickly as it should be — to meet the emissions reductions that we need. I’m advocating that the government should identify where we are on the curve and formulate its policies to advance the deployment of battery-electric vehicles as quickly as possible.

With light-duty vehicles, the government has implemented — or asked B.C. Hydro to implement — a system of EV charging stations around the province. That was clearly appropriate for light-duty vehicles. For heavy-duty vehicles, it could be identifying a specific route along which such a program could be most appropriate or something of that case.

So no, I don’t have a really exact, precise prescription.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you. I appreciate the clarification.

Bryan Tepper: I’m just wondering. Do you have the economic impact from CleanBC, how it’s affecting the province? The economic impact from CleanBC?

Thomas Hackney: No, I’m not aware of that. I don’t know if that calculation has been made.

Bryan Tepper: That’s it. Thanks.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Speaking of some of the ideas that you have for decarbonizing industrial heat and waste heat recovery, again, the challenge, of course, of all of these things is the leading edge of the technology and where the government is.

For the tech incentives, because that is both capital infrastructure and research infrastructure, do you have a specific target for the amount of tech incentive, implementation incentive or…?

Thomas Hackney: No. I think, in general, the magnitude of the greenhouse gas reductions that could potentially be achieved in this sector should be a guide for how much effort should be taken. Whether that can be achieved through policy alone, that would be great for the taxpayers. But if it’s necessary to pilot projects and help technology develop, the CleanBC program in past years has been proactive in providing funding to industry and partnering with industry, and that’s essentially what we would like to see continuing.

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

We will move on to our next presenter. If we can have Mr. Charles Melton from Turo come forward, please.

Thanks for joining us. Thank you for coming. You have five minutes for the presentation, five minutes for the questions.

Turo

Bassem El-Rahimy: Thank you. Good morning, Chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Bassem El-Rahimy. I’m presenting instead of Charles, and I’m the head of Turo Canada, a peer-to-peer car-sharing marketplace. I’m here today to represent our community of over 32,000 B.C. residents that use the Turo platform for their mobility needs.

Turo is a peer-to-peer car-sharing platform. What we do is connect B.C. residents who share their personal vehicles — as we call them, hosts — with individuals looking to book those vehicles — as we call them, guests. To be clear, Turo doesn’t own any cars. The cars shared on Turo are cars owned by B.C. residents.

I’m here today to talk about a matter of fairness and economic opportunity for British Columbians. B.C., as you know, is in a cost-of-living crisis. The sharing economy is a vital part of that solution, and we’re here to help.

From ballooning vehicle prices to insurance to maintenance, the costs associated with car ownership are adding up. We also know that experts are warning that with tariffs and inflation costs, these costs could rise by up to 25 percent, making it even harder for Canadians to afford to live. This pressure has prompted many B.C. residents to rethink traditional car ownership and to switch to more flexible alternatives like car-sharing.

Turo launched in British Columbia in 2020, with more than 32,000 residents who actively use Turo’s peer-to-peer car-sharing platform. When you think of Turo hosts, these are individuals who are listing their personal cars for short-term use.

[8:55 a.m.]

They’re everyday people using the sharing economy to supplement their income. They use that to offset the high cost of car ownership and even just to make better use of underutilized assets. The average Turo host, to give you a sense, earns about $500 a month from sharing their vehicle.

On the other side of our marketplace, our users can also include guests. These are the people who have opted for a car-free lifestyle and need a car to just run errands, or even visitors from other provinces or other countries who need a vehicle while they’re visiting the beautiful province of British Columbia.

As you can see, Turo’s model doesn’t only support affordability, but we also contribute to environmental efficiency by optimizing existing resources instead of adding more cars to the road.

However, there’s a problem. There’s an issue of double taxation that’s hurting fairness in this province. Turo hosts in British Columbia face a higher tax burden that puts them at a disproportionate economic disadvantage, and I wanted to tell you a little bit more about that.

To kind of explain to you how this works, when a B.C. resident buys a vehicle, they pay the provincial sales tax, the PST, just like anybody else across the province. Meanwhile, the nearest industry comparable, traditional car rental enterprises, are exempt from the PST when they purchase a new vehicle.

However, unlike most provinces, B.C. also levies something called the passenger vehicle rental tax, the PVRT. The passenger vehicle rental tax is a legacy mechanism that was introduced to offset the PST exemption on fleet vehicles that is given to commercial rental car enterprises. Under the current law, the PVRT also applies to every peer-to-peer car-sharing transaction. It also applies to every rental car transaction. Again, this was created to recover the loss of revenue from the exemption from the PST.

The result of this policy-making is that B.C. Turo users are double-taxed, once when they buy their car, with the application of the PST, and again when that same car is used and being shared on a car-sharing platform with the application of the PVRT. This creates an uneven playing field that penalizes B.C. residents from participating in the sharing economy.

Our ask today is simple. We’re asking for fairness. As the government prepares for the 2026 budget, we’re asking to level the playing field. Either exempt B.C. car-sharing marketplaces from the PVRT or require car rental companies to remit PST on their fleet purchases.

The current system places a disproportionate burden on ordinary British Columbians. These people are teachers, students, new immigrants. All they’re trying to do is earn extra income in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis.

We’ve done the math, and you can see it in the document that we’ve shared just momentarily. The impact of this double taxation is staggering. It’s a staggering disproportionality on the residents. B.C. Turo users pay upwards of 500 percent more tax in B.C. compared to those generated by B.C. car rental companies.

At a time when people are doing all that they can to meet ends meet, public policy should empower, not punish innovation and inclusion. We believe your government can lead the way in creating smart, modern, equitable regulation for the future of mobility.

Thank you for your time, and I welcome any questions you may have today.

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

Sunita Dhir: Thank you so much for your presentation. This is really a new concept for me. I do understand that there are some commercial car-sharing companies. Your ask is to exempt these lenders of PST as well as PVRT?

Bassem El-Rahimy: Thank you for your question. No. What we’re asking for is to remove the PVRT from B.C. car-sharing marketplaces or add PST to the purchases of fleet from traditional car rental. It’s not a matter of removing the tax. It’s to only make sure that there’s only one tax that’s applicable at once.

To add to your question, in the event that a company has an exemption from paying PST on their vehicles, those transactions should absolutely include a PVRT to kind of offset that loss of tax revenue. However, when B.C. residents who share their car and who have paid PST…. We are asking that they’re not double-taxed and also required to pay PVRT, as that then becomes a matter of kind of double taxation.

So it’s not about removing both taxes; it’s to make sure that only one is applicable at once.

Sunita Dhir: Okay. The other commercial car-sharing companies are PST-exempt, but they are paying PVRT.

[9:00 a.m.]

Bassem El-Rahimy: Exactly. To my knowledge, that is correct.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions?

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much for your clear explanation. That really helped.

I think there aren’t any statistics about that on this page. I’m not sure if that was intended.

Bassem El-Rahimy: Statistics on…. Sorry?

Jennifer Blatherwick: You mentioned that there was further information on the material, but there isn’t any material on the cost or taxation model on here.

Bassem El-Rahimy: Oh, my apologies. We may have given the wrong pamphlet.

Jennifer Blatherwick: That’s okay.

Bassem El-Rahimy: But we do have it, so we could swap it out, just to make sure we’ve given you the right information. You’ll see what a B.C. resident pays versus what a traditional car rental company in B.C. would pay. Thank you for calling that out.

Jennifer Blatherwick: When people purchase their individual vehicles, they are not always intending to become part of the car-sharing market. Of course, they pay PST at point of purchase. PVRT is collected on each trip, and is it remitted by your company or remitted by the individual hosts?

Bassem El-Rahimy: It would be remitted by Turo, by our company.

Jennifer Blatherwick: When people are paid out, are they considered individual contractors?

Bassem El-Rahimy: The way the platform works is, because we connect these hosts, the people that share their car with guests, we are able to collect and remit the PVRT on behalf of those transactions. The relationship between Turo and the host is one of partners. Because they’re sharing their asset, not their time, there isn’t that issue of classification around labour.

I would have to get back to you on exactly the legal classification of those users, if we do treat them as independent contractors, but it’s a little bit less relevant to the relationship between Turo and the host because they’re not trading their time for earnings; they’re trading an asset for earnings.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Okay. Part of the purpose of charging the PVRT is road maintenance, right? I think that’s where I’m getting stuck. The users of Turo, or the hosts of Turo, are using their asset in order to make money, but they’re also participating in the road system. That’s part of why the PVRT exists.

I’m not sure how we would capture that piece of taxation that is supposed to go back to road and bridge maintenance from commercial users of the road, because that’s what…. You know, they’re using their asset to become a commercial user of the road. You see my concern there?

Bassem El-Rahimy: Yeah, I’m following the question. To my understanding, a primary or an additional reason for introducing the PVRT is really about offsetting the lost tax revenue that is created from a PST exemption when that vehicle is purchased. That exemption doesn’t exist for residents like you and me who may just be purchasing a vehicle and are required to pay the PST. In terms of the province generating that revenue, it is generated on that PST transaction.

Now, I’m not as familiar, so I would have to get back to your office on which tax gets used for which funding or which activities, but the point I’m trying to communicate is that there is a mechanism for the province to earn a fair share through that taxation mechanism, through the PST. It’s when both are levied at the same time — the PST and, then, the PVRT when the vehicle is shared — that that creates that double taxation issue, which puts a B.C. resident at a disadvantage.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Okay, thank you.

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

Bassem El-Rahimy: Thank you so much for your time today, much appreciated.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you.

We will call the next presenter, Mr. Greg Moy, from the Insurance Bureau of Canada, forward, please.

Thank you for joining us today. Five minutes for the presentation, five minutes for questions.

Insurance Bureau of Canada

Greg Moy: Appreciate it. Thank you very much, Chair. Good morning. My name is Greg Moy. I’m here representing the Insurance Bureau of Canada. We’re the national industry association representing Canada’s home and business insurers.

[9:05 a.m.]

We’re really on the front lines of rebuilding after disaster. What we’re seeing is a growing problem from more severe weather events.

I come with two recommendations today. The first one’s pretty loaded. The first one is to increase investment in disaster risk reduction for floods, wildfire and earthquakes. The second one is to give drivers a choice — open up the auto insurance market to more competition; look to Quebec as the model that B.C. should endeavour to strive.

For the first one, increasing public investment will help improve community resiliency and is key to help us adapt from more major floods, wildfire and earthquakes. It’s to ensure that we’re in the best possible position to protect as many homeowners, tenants and businesses as possible.

The second one. More competition, more choice, can help with the premiums that drivers pay and the services that they receive. Quebec is a model that B.C. should look at to improve our system, provide the best possible products and services at the best possible price.

Slide 3. This is a slide that we show decision-makers across the country. It’s pretty clear. Insured losses are going up since we started tracking them. Last year was $9.2 billion in insured losses. There are more wildfires and more floods that are occurring, which means more insured losses. And B.C. is not immune. There are a number of events sprinkled in here with B.C. numbers: the West Kelowna wildfires in 2023; 2021 — everybody recalls the atmospheric river event that affected Abbotsford, Merritt and Princeton; and as well, Lytton.

As insurance claims from severe weather rise, so do pressures continue on premiums. The call to action is pretty clear. The solution is clear: that we must properly invest to make our homes, businesses and communities more resilient against severe weather. As a society, we know the risks that we continue to face.

Speeding along here…. For flood, we noticed that in this year’s budget, there was no new funding for adaptation, resiliency measures. We believe that more funding should be dedicated for B.C.’s existing adaptation flood strategies. The federal government has indicated that it’s going to stand up a national flood insurance program. We’d like to see, in B.C., continued support for that.

Wildfire. A couple of things we noticed from speaking to folks on the ground — to pre-position assets such as personnel and equipment in rural communities that really need more of that support, so think Fort Nelson, Tumbler Ridge and such, not Kelowna or Vancouver; to improve fire- and hazard-mapping so that communities can respond and undertake the work to keep us all safer. That’ll help us discourage new builds in high-risk fire zones and such.

Earthquake. Earthquake insurance is widely available in B.C., but more work needs to be done to ensure that earthquake insurance is widely accessible to British Columbians. That includes advocating for a federal backstop solution which will make this a reality. The fact of the matter is that other provinces have other disasters that are more relevant to them. Earthquake is number one here in B.C., as well as in Quebec, so it’s really good to continue that conversation piece when we’re at the table with the feds.

Finally, my second recommendation is to give drivers a choice and open up auto insurance to more competition. B.C. drivers pay 40 percent more than the lowest-premium province with no-fault insurance, which is Quebec. Optional premiums — and these are all from ICBC’s current service plan — have increased by 30 percent between 2021 and 2024. They are expected to be increased by 29 percent over the next year.

B.C. should look to Quebec as the solution. It’s a fellow no-fault province, except insurers there have the ability to compete to repair your car, and it shows in the price that they pay. There’s really no public policy rationale for having an ICBC monopoly on who can repair your vehicle. Competition would also bring efficiency such as bundling innovation in an open market with competition, and our industry would love to help make that a reality.

With that, I’m happy to take your questions.

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

Steve Morissette: You said B.C. is 40 percent more for no-fault insurance versus other provinces that provide no-fault insurance, correct?

[9:10 a.m.]

Greg Moy: Comparing B.C. to itself on the optional side. I understand about the rate freeze on the basic side, but when you take a look at the amount that drivers are paying for their optional premiums, we’ve seen a 40 percent increase, and that’s from the most recent ICBC service plan.

Steve Morissette: Do you have the figures for the base amount?

Greg Moy: Those are frozen, as far as I’m aware. I think the current government has implemented a freeze.

Steve Morissette: Yes, but I’m just curious about the comparison to other provinces.

Greg Moy: I’d have to get back to you. I don’t have that on me.

Steve Morissette: One more, if I could. You talked about the choice for different repairs. As I understand it, ICBC accredits repair shops mostly for safety, for making sure frames are correctly repaired and so on.

So you’re advocating for any repair shop to be able to…?

Greg Moy: I’m advocating for any insurance company to be able to engage with repair shops to be able to bring down that price through competition with ICBC.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Following along that same vein, you’re asking for…? Now, currently, different companies can provide the optional part of the insurance?

Greg Moy: In B.C., that market is very restricted. ICBC does most of the optional premiums in this province. The changeover to no-fault increased that market exposure for ICBC over private insurers to be able to provide those products.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I think my concern, of course, is always equity of access. Certainly, we’ve seen across different insurance markets that you can offer a different product that is a lower price.

Are we are we asking for a strictly equivalent product to the consumer that insurers would then be able to offer at competing prices? Or are you suggesting that there would be different packages of insurance?

Greg Moy: I would say to allow other insurers to be able to compete at the same ability that ICBC currently has. Because they currently have all the access to driver’s abstracts, history records of vehicle damage and so forth. But if you make it an even playing field to see what the options would be if other companies would be able to come in….

We see that in Quebec they allow all insurers to be able to repair a damaged vehicle, and they have a no-fault system as well. Their prices, I think the number here…. The average premium for Quebec is $1,165, versus B.C., which is at $1,634.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I think my concern is: are people going to get, from the consumer standpoint, exactly the same product from the insurer as they would get from…?

Greg Moy: That’d be completely up to government to define what needs to be covered. But currently, the only entity that is allowed to sell you basic and most of optional is ICBC in this province.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Can we talk a little bit more about the national flood insurance program?

Greg Moy: For sure. Oh sorry, you want me to…?

Jennifer Blatherwick: Yeah, we didn’t get very far on that one. I was hoping that you had more detail there.

Greg Moy: Yeah, not a problem. So 10 percent nationally…. We know that individuals aren’t able to obtain overland flood insurance, and that’s just the risk that they face. It’s roughly that same percentage here in B.C. as well.

The current program, and it’s being developed by the federal government right now, is to seed some of the riskier products into a pool, which then would allow insurers to be able to provide product to place and make sure that those individuals are able to obtain some sort of coverage. Because currently, right now, they’re not able to, and the numbers from DFA speak for themselves.

Jennifer Blatherwick: You’re thinking that you would distribute risk amongst the insurers by putting the people into a pool…?

Greg Moy: The mechanics are still being developed by the ministry staff as well as folks that regulate the industry.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Interesting. Okay. And that would be across provincial lines?

Greg Moy: It is currently for a national program. We do have a high exposure rate for individuals that obviously aren’t able to get that coverage here in B.C.

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

Greg Moy: Appreciate it. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, everybody.

[9:15 a.m.]

Paul Choi (Chair): We’ll call up Ms. Shireen Clark from CUPE Local 374 to the front.

Thanks for coming today. Five minutes for the presentation. Five minutes for questions.

CUPE Local 374, Community
Services of Greater Victoria

Shireen Clark: Good morning, everyone. My name is Shireen Clark. I’m the president of CUPE Local 374, representing 1,000-plus municipal workers and community service workers across Greater Victoria, including in North Saanich, Sidney, Oak Bay, Esquimalt, Colwood, Metchosin and Sooke, as well as within Abilities Community Services, B.C. Healthy Communities and Together Against Poverty Society.

I’m honoured to join you today from the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking peoples — the Songhees, Esquimalt and W̱SÁNEĆ peoples.

I would also like to recognize and honour our executive board member, Steve Migliarese, who passed away suddenly a week ago and who was very much looking forward to being here with us today.

Today I will be talking to you about municipal finance, fair taxation and library funding. Our first recommendation is to identify ways to financially support municipal governments by identifying revenue-generating tools and by working with the federal government to increase transfer payments to municipalities.

Municipalities are facing difficult decisions when it comes to their finances. They’re struggling with responsibilities and the respective costs from provincial and federal levels of government while also faced with limitations on their ability to generate income. Property tax is the largest source of income for municipalities and the only revenue for smaller ones. With rising housing costs, increased property taxes to sustain all the service levels are unfair to the residents.

Without annual increases for both services and staffing, it can affect services such as water and sewer, garbage collection and road and parks maintenance. As well, with the increasing costs everywhere, this then impacts our rec centres and the costs for residents to attend and use the facilities.

One cost municipalities have no control of is policing within the RCMP. They are informed what the annual cost will be, and they have to pay what they are told.

Municipalities need long-term, stable funding for local governments to respond to modern challenges. We would like the government of B.C. to play a role in changes to the local government finance system to look at other revenue-generating possibilities and to invest in municipalities as they deal with increased costs to operate. We also need the support of the government of B.C. to lobby the federal government to increase their support for municipal levels of government to ensure strong, local services for years to come.

The housing crisis and cost of living not only affect the cost for municipalities but lead into my next topic of fair taxation. Our second recommendation is to better support all British Columbians by fairly taxing those with the most wealth in the province to better fund the public services on which they rely.

The growing gap between the wealthy and the remainder of society has continued to expand, creating a widespread affordability crisis. Buying a house is out of the realm of possibility for many — as well as an increase in rent and food costs.

One tool that can and should be utilized to build stronger communities is to expand and strengthen our systems of progressive taxation. Progressive taxation ensures there are resources to enact types of social spending essential to a fair and just society, with everyone able to contribute fairly and to their means. When there is a fair share of resources drawn from wealthy individuals and corporations, British Columbians are better able to participate equally in the economy.

For our province, more robust and sustainable, progressive taxation would mean better funding for critical investments in housing, child care, health care, education, public transportation and infrastructure, as well as many other public services we as British Columbians rely on.

An example of a simple change that would see an immediate result is the creation of new tax brackets for higher-income earners. B.C.’s income tax bracket for 2025 will feature a maximum of 20.5 percent applied to all incomes over $259,829. All income over that is at a flat rate. Tax falls on the middle-income earners, which is increasing the gap and removing the middle class, with higher-income earners saving more and lower-income earners putting all their money back into the economy.

Another important element of progressive taxation is ensuring that tax expenses and exemptions are fair and equitable. In 2018, the B.C. Auditor General raised concerns over this issue. They noted that in that time, the reporting process hadn’t changed much in 25 years. To date, there is still no meaningful change. A process needs to be implemented to analyze the current structure of tax exemptions and credits to ensure they function as intended to meet the policy objectives of the province.

This leads to my final topic of library funding. Our third recommendation is for the provincial government to provide permanent funding to support B.C. libraries. As municipalities struggle with limited financial options and economic pressures downloaded from senior governments, workers and the public feel the effect. This is incredibly evident in the library sector.

Libraries are community spaces which have exceeded their traditional roles of borrowing books. They now provide not only that but also warming and cooling spaces for vulnerable people. They educate children and youth. They provide tools to the lower-income and unhoused people.

[9:20 a.m.]

Library work is expanding rapidly. Workers continue while falling behind in wages with other public workers. Library workers face precarious working conditions, dealing with violence in the workplace and struggling to do more with less. B.C.’s rural libraries are important hubs for community service and Internet access and have far fewer resources to fund services. Even worse, many rural and Indigenous communities have no access to library services. Direct funding is needed to support all libraries.

Thank you for having me today. I’m happy to take any questions.

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

Jennifer Blatherwick: Hello. Thank you so much for your presentation. Boom, like four seconds left. Well done.

You mentioned that you’re looking for additional revenue-generating tools for municipalities. I’m hoping that you can give us some examples of what you’re thinking.

Shireen Clark: Good question. I’m going to be honest. I’m a little scattered, given what I just said at the beginning. I’m normally a little more on the ball, but the sudden death has kind of thrown me off a little bit.

I think it’s looking at…. Working in the municipalities, the funding that goes in there…. It’s more, I think, really sitting down and having more working groups looking at the different findings. I know that it goes up from…. When I used to work in the municipality, we could get funds for different things in different projects, but it’s seeming to be that it only can be allocated to certain areas.

I think we need to look at funding that can be allocated more to staffing, because I think that with all the projects that are coming up with building permits, they don’t have enough staff to meet the demands of what’s needed. So it’s more like looking at funding that can go towards the staffing, as opposed to just a particular project or a particular area.

Jennifer Blatherwick: You’re thinking that there would be some kind of mechanism…? Something that we’ve heard a little bit from school districts and other municipalities is that when they have big infrastructure projects that they don’t have the in-house expertise to execute and trying to put that off the side of someone’s desk, it’s very challenging for the completion but also the successful integration of the project. That’s very tough. So you’re asking for, basically, overhead?

Shireen Clark: Yes.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Then if there’s no specific idea on the revenue generating, that’s okay.

My condolences on the loss. That’s very tough.

Shireen Clark: Thanks.

Jennifer Blatherwick: For permanent funding for supporting public libraries, I’m hoping you can come…. Maybe just from your perspective and your community, what would be a dollar figure that you would be asking for?

Shireen Clark: Oh my gosh, that’s…. A dollar figure?

I think it really depends on the communities. I mean, for us here across greater Victoria, there are different libraries. Some of them are Victoria. Some of them are like Vancouver Island. They all seem to be different. But I think it’s the staffing. I mean, if you’re looking at wages, I think you would probably look to be able to have those members go up.

Let’s just say in a small community…. I’m just going to say Sooke, for example, just because they’ve had it. Let’s say $100,000 in a year would help them have that extra staffing or maybe, perhaps, in some of the areas where the vulnerable sector is coming in, to be able for them to have security on hand to help those workers to be able to do their jobs.

Steve Morissette: Thank you for the presentation. I didn’t quite catch, I don’t think…. Your first recommendation was around RCMP and what municipalities pay for RCMP.A review of that? Was that your…?

Shireen Clark: No, I was just explaining some of the costs that municipalities have no control over. RCMP fund — they have no control over how much cost that is. So that cost goes up. Then if they have other projects, too, where the money is coming from to staff and the municipality for all the other work.

Steve Morissette: Yeah, and that is a problem. I came from a small municipality, and when a municipality reaches certain population levels, it jumps a huge amount. Yeah, okay.

Library services. You spoke about direct funding for library services?

Shireen Clark: Yeah, funding to the libraries every year, whether it be through a grant or revenue, however it’s generated, just to have the funding for them to be able to operate it.

Many of the workers, especially in the larger communities where the libraries are used for many other things besides what the traditional use of a library is…. They’re facing it hard. It’s hard. It’s hard work for those workers in there. They’re not trained to be dealing with those other things, so there needs to be some sort of funding to help them be able to do their work and keep them safe at work as well.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Thank you for your presentation. Sorry for your loss. Really appreciate that you came.

[9:25 a.m.]

I just want to really make a comment to put on your radar in terms of the RCMP. Municipalities have two business lines for policing. One is the municipal business line; the other is called provincial business line. So for areas surrounding a municipality, RCMP are provided by the province. Within the city or municipality, those are generally paid for by municipalities.

In all of British Columbia, the number of police on the provincial business line has not increased since 2012. It’s remained steady at 2,602 since 2012. Municipalities are often increasing their cop-to-population ratio. But the cop-to-population ratio paid for by the province has not changed. In fact, it’s gotten worse because they didn’t add more people to that line.

So just one suggestion for the municipalities would be to request more RCMP officers on the provincial business line, because it is their responsibility to fund that line. What ends up happening, especially because of the complexity now of criminal activity and the addictions and social problems that most municipalities in B.C. are grappling with right now, is that municipalities end up also serving a lot of calls outside of the rural areas and supplementing the provincial business lines.

It’s just something for you to consider when you speak to the province about your policing model.

Shireen Clark: Thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation, and sorry for your loss as well.

Next I’d like to call Ms. Deirdre Sims from the B.C. Epilepsy Society to come forward, please. Thank you for coming today. Five minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions.

B.C. Epilepsy Society

Deirdre Syms: Thank you very much, and thank you for having me. My name is Deirdre, and I’m from the B.C. Epilepsy Society. I’m the executive director, and I’m also a person living with epilepsy. We’re an organization that serves about 4,000 clients every year in 100 communities.

I have two asks for you today. I believe you met my colleague in Penticton. One is our first recommendation: to review criteria being used to assess things like disability funding, CSIL criteria, home support criteria — all these things. Epilepsy seems to fall through the cracks for these kinds of criteria.

As a person living with epilepsy, I think what I’d like you to consider is that although we have the ability many times to do activities of daily living, those same activities of daily living can maim us or kill us. I’m here with you today because I survived a near-fatal shower. I also have what I call my Harry Potter scar, because it’s a lightning shape, because I had a seizure and hit my chest of drawers. So these things, although we can often do them, can often be quite dangerous.

I can also tell you of clients who have scars from cooking, who passed away from crossing the street. So there’s a whole other aspect of this, I think, that maybe is either overlooked or misunderstood, and I would ask you to consider that.

The other section I would asked for is, as Christine did, permanent funding. We offer really important programming to a section of population that doesn’t get this programming or services elsewhere.

Things that we offer would be…. We tend to specialize in mental wellness support. We have counsellors on staff that live with epilepsy that have been specially trained to provide epilepsy support. They don’t get this anywhere else. In fact, that’s a program that doesn’t exist anywhere else in Canada. It’s here in B.C.

We offer memory strategy support. If a person, because of their epilepsy, is having memory issues that are interrupting their work, that’s interrupting different things, they can get support at our organization. They can’t get that elsewhere.

We offer support for the health care system. When a dialysis unit said, “Well, what do we do if someone has a seizure hooked up to a dialysis machine?” we built a program that answered that question.

When the association for dental hygienists said, “What do we do when someone has a seizure in a dental chair?” we built a program and a workshop that answered that question.

[9:30 a.m.]

We go into schools and help teachers. We go into businesses and help businesses. We make the community safe. This is outside of answering questions for clients themselves. This is outside of offering a place where people with epilepsy can actually meet, build community.

In one of our parents groups, we had someone going into the seizure investigation unit, where you have to have two adults. When you put a child into a seizure investigation, you have to have two adults. Because they were a single parent, they met someone else that would be their second parent — their second — because you have to wait…. You have to be up 24 hours a day because you have to click a button every time that child has a seizure — 24 hours a day.

So people need community in this medical condition. I’m sure that’s like that for many medical conditions, but for whatever reason, epilepsy, outside of our community, lacks that.

I was diagnosed at six years old. I have 40-plus years of stories I can share with you, but what I can tell you is that we need places like the B.C. Epilepsy Society. We need support, and we exist at the pleasure of rotating granting cycles that may decide we’re a priority for them, and next year they may not. We exist at the pleasure of donors who…. Many of them are loyal, and we appreciate that, but that can also run dry.

We are a small organization because we have to be, and we have loyal volunteers, but again, those are not things that we can depend on. What we need is permanent funding so that we can grow our support so that people have a place to go.

Thank you very much. I’m happy to answer your questions.

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

Claire Rattée: I’m just wondering if you can let us know what your specific funding request is. I know you’re saying permanent funding, but can you let me know a dollar figure of what it is that the society is looking for?

Deirdre Syms: Yeah. Our current budget is about $380,000 to $400,000 every year.

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

Seeing none, thank you so much for your presentation today.

Moving on to the next presenter, if I can have Ace Mann from reThink Community Education come forward, please.

Thank you for coming today and presenting to us. Five minutes for the presentation, five minutes for questions.

reThink Community Education

Ace Mann: Wonderful. Hello and good morning. It’s a privilege to join you here on the unceded territories of lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking peoples, also known as the Songhees and xʷsepsəm Nations.

My name is Ace Mann, and I use they/them pronouns. I’m the president of reThink Community Education, and we strive to inspire people to imagine and create a better world together, so I’m sure we all have something in common there.

The annual economic cost of mental illness in Canada is estimated at over $50 billion per year, encompassing health care costs, lost productivity and reduced quality of life. Data from StatsCan shows a stark reality. Marginalized people are over twice as likely to get a mental health diagnosis as any one of their peers at least once in their life.

My three proposals for today are: bolstering low-cost housing; increasing support for cultural funds, particularly for marginalized folks; and increasing Indigenous reconciliation efforts. Each of these investments represents a strategic pathway to a healthier, more prosperous B.C. by improving morale and mental health for everyone in the province while also significantly reducing the financial burden of health care.

First, our housing crisis is severe and decouples our housing market from our local labour market. This means that making home ownership or affordable rentals is a near impossibility for many. This is causing good people and their talents to leave the province, which extracts wealth from B.C. and our economy.

As the B.C. Real Estate Association put forward to this committee about two weeks ago, using innovative tools like modular and prefab housing can be very useful when it’s done right. Additionally, sustained commitment to the B.C. Rent Bank, operated by the Vancity Community Foundation, directly works to prevent homelessness and has saved people and this province over $30 million in just the last fiscal year.

[9:35 a.m.]

When people have secure, affordable homes, mental health improves significantly, and the vicious cycle of poverty, homelessness, criminality and addictions can be weakened — a cause, I’m sure, that is very important to the work of MLAs Sturko, Rattée and Tepper. This translates to long-term significant savings in health care costs, social security services and law enforcement, which currently bear much of the financial burden of the housing insecurity crisis.

Second, funding cultural initiatives and community spaces is not a luxury. These places are essential incubators for identity, belonging and creative expression. Supporting these vital networks actively, proactively, addresses many mental health challenges at their root.

This sector already contributes about $8.9 billion to B.C.’s economy and also houses over 100,000 jobs. For every dollar invested, we are seeing a rate of return of nearly 20 times that amount in economic activity.

Cultural expression and community connection are vital for mental well-being, particularly for queer and marginalized individuals, and this includes — as I’m sure MLA Dhir is well aware — amazing immigrants and other people who speak English as a second language who face additional barriers and discrimination.

So I echo some of the previous presenters to this committee when I urge the province to increase the B.C. Arts Council annual budget to $58 million.

Finally, true reconciliation is not only a moral imperative but also a powerful engine to economic growth and environmental stewardship. As a province, we knew this back when we passed DRIPA into law two years before we were to pass UNDRIP federally. The province of B.C. just recently published this year about the economic gains and significant revenues achieved through Indigenous conservation efforts, resource development, job generation and the attraction of billions of dollars of investment to this province.

Ecologically, Indigenous traditional knowledge is invaluable. These partnerships support the shared goal of saving 30 percent of our land by 2030 and to ensure the sustainable management of our natural resources, which benefits not just British Columbians but all of Canada and, in fact, the world, based on the size and productivity of our incredible rainforests. When Indigenous communities thrive, the benefits ripple outward, and we get a more inclusive society, where all marginalized groups can be heard and valued, on land where we can all live sustainably.

By investing in affordable housing for residents, nurturing cultural vitality in marginalized communities and committing fully to Indigenous reconciliation, we are making financial decisions that lead to a more mentally healthy populace and a safer, more prosperous British Columbia. These are not merely expenditures; they are foundational investments in our collective future. Investing in our social fabric is not merely a compassionate act; it is a fiscally responsible strategy that strengthens our province’s economy and reduces future costs.

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

Paul Choi (Chair): Going to questions by members. You did such a good job on your presentation, we have no questions. Thank you so much for your presentation today.

Ace Mann: Thank you so much. And happy belated Father’s Day to any father figures, and maybe a very first Father’s Day to some of you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Amazing. Thank you.

Moving on to the next presenter. If I could have Janice Perrino from Nanaimo Regional Hospital District come forward, please.

Thanks for joining us today. Good morning. You have five minutes for the presentation, five minutes for the questions.

Nanaimo Regional Hospital District

Janice Perrino: Thank you. I’m Janice Perrino, chair of the regional hospital district of Nanaimo and a councillor for the city of Nanaimo.

Allow me to start by telling you our recommendation. The Nanaimo Regional Hospital District recommends that the province accelerate the approval processes, including concept planning, business planning and treasury board approval for the new patient tower and cardiac catheterization lab at the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, to see these projects built as soon as possible.

Just in case you’re not aware, the regional hospital district is a form of local government. We have a 19-member board of elected officials who also serve on the regional district of Nanaimo. Our funding is raised through taxation from our residents, and it’s reflected on their property tax bills.

We have formally agreed to fund our share of 40 percent on the new patient tower, catheterization lab, the ICU, HAU and a long-term-care facility. I’m happy to say that the ICU is open now and operational, and the HAU has just finished construction. Our region is ready to do our share, and we already have close to $100 million raised and in the bank.

[9:40 a.m.]

Last October Premier David Eby said that a new patient tower and catheterization lab would be built in Nanaimo. We are thrilled and incredibly thankful, but the problem is we have no date of when the concept and business plan will start for Treasury Board to give approval to move to construction.

Let me give you a little bit of background about the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital. It’s almost 63 years old. When the hospital was built in Nanaimo, our population was less than 15,000. Today we’re at 110,000, and we’re growing rapidly. In fact, the whole region is growing rapidly.

Of all of the people moving to our region, about 58 percent are seniors, and they, of course, are the biggest users of the hospital system. The population for the central and north Island is about 450,000 people, and 80 percent of the Island’s Indigenous communities are in the central and north Island.

The hospital has 346 beds, and we run on average 50 to 100 patients over capacity almost every single day. I can’t begin to tell you what a strain that is for our staff. Patients are in storage closets, in the chapel, in the gym and, of course, in the hallways. They have no windows, no quiet, no privacy and, of course, no bathroom.

I want you to picture your loved ones in those very glamorous blue gowns using a commode in the busy hallways of our hospital with maybe just a curtain. This is no way for anyone to be treated.

The catheterization lab, better known as a cath lab, for cardiac patients is desperately needed for both heart attack and stroke patients. A cath lab is considered standard cardiac treatment, but we only have cath lab services in Victoria, and they have to serve the whole Island.

When Victoria is too full to accept any more patients in the central and north Island, we have to give them what are called “clot busters” to keep them alive until they can get to the surgery, but sometimes people have brain bleeds. We lose about 20 patients per year that don’t need to die.

Cardiologists don’t want to work in Nanaimo because they can’t effectively care for their patients. We have to have this service for the central residents and the northern residents.

Two weeks ago, we had a patient who presented with a heart attack. His doctor is absolutely insistent that if we had a cath lab in Nanaimo for him to have his surgery, he would be alive today. He’s left his wife and children, and he was just 54 years old.

No matter what message I leave with you today, the central and north Island residents are absolutely desperate to see a patient care tower expansion and a catheterization lab at the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital. We absolutely must accelerate the approval process for the concept and building planning and the Treasury Board approval.

I want you to know that our board has agreed to pay up front for the concept and business plan.

I can’t thank you enough for taking the time to listen to me, and of course, I welcome any questions.

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

Bryan Tepper: I just had the question of the timeline on the new construction. Obviously, it hasn’t gone anywhere, but what’s the timeline you’ve got so far?

Janice Perrino: Well, I know from past experience that it will take about 18 months for the design, the concept, the business plan. Then you have to go to the RFP. Then you have to go through all that part of the process. So we’re looking at, at the very best case — today if they said, “You’ve got it” — at least six to eight years. Needless to say, we’re anxious.

Sunita Dhir: Thank you so much for all the work that you’re doing.

My question is: what’s the difference between the Nanaimo Regional Hospital District and the hospital foundation? Are you guys the foundation?

Janice Perrino: No, we’re not. Thank you so much. We are, actually, a form of the local government. So we do taxation. In fact, our taxation this year for the hospital was 21.1 percent. We take that from all of our regional district residents, so it’s very different.

The hospital foundation goes to their donors and asks them to make gifts, so it’s very voluntary. This is quite different. We tell them: “This is what you have to pay. You want the hospital expansion, the cath lab, the ICU and the long-term care? That’s what you have to do.”

Thank you for asking that question. It’s a good one.

Sunita Dhir: Just to follow up, you mentioned that you have already raised….

[9:45 a.m.]

Janice Perrino: It’s $100 million, and it’s in the bank. We’ve been taxing very heavily for the past five years. We want the public to understand. They know how desperately we need these facilities. So we’ve been putting away…. Actually, over the past, I think, four years we’ve been taxing at a rate of 28 percent. We’ve come down this year because of the tariff talks and all of the fear that the public has. So we brought it down to 21 percent. But at 28 percent, we’ve been putting away a lot.

Of course, we’re spending all the time. The ICU cost us a great deal of money, and we’ve just done a surgical suite for the endoscopy. The list is endless. We’re there for Island Health. We are making sure that we’re there to support them in what they need to do. But they, of course, need to have the Treasury Board approval to move forward. That’s why I’m here today.

Sunita Dhir: Do you also collect donations?

Janice Perrino: No, not at all.

That’s right. That’s strictly the hospital foundation. They’re doing a great job. We keep telling them: “Raise more. You need to raise more.” But no, our job is strictly local government, and we’re there to do this. It’s a very powerful form of letting the public know what’s going on, and they’re behind us 100 percent.

Paul Choi (Chair): Seeing no other questions, thank you so much for your time and your presentation today.

The committee will take a short recess at this point.

The committee recessed from 9:46 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.

[Paul Choi in the chair.]

Paul Choi (Chair): We will call the committee back to order and continue with our presentations. We will call the next presenter with us. If I can have Jack Sandor from Homes for Living come forward, please.

Thank you for coming to present to us today. You have five minutes for the presentation, five minutes for questions.

Homes for Living

Jack Sandor: Good morning, everyone. My name is Jack Sandor, and I’m a director with Homes for Living, a non-profit, community-led, housing advocacy group passionate about making housing more affordable for renters and primary homeowners. I’d like to start by thanking you all for the opportunity to speak today.

Our three recommendations are aimed at increasing housing supply. We recognize that we’re in difficult fiscal times right now and have therefore identified potential funding sources for these recommendations.

Our first recommendation is to increase the amount of money being spent on public, social and other forms of non-market housing and to do so by creating a larger and more permanent funding source.

The province and other levels of government currently spend quite a high amount of money managing both the direct and indirect costs of homelessness, due in large part to a lack of funding for this type of housing. Increased spending on non-market housing to prevent homelessness is an investment that will pay off in the long term, both in terms of future financial costs to the province and the human and community costs of homelessness. An ounce of prevention really is worth a pound of cure.

We suggest funding this by redirecting many or all real estate-related taxes, such as property transfer taxes, the foreign buyer tax, the home-flipping tax, etc., towards a permanent funding stream for below-market housing construction. This increased construction activity will also help benefit local employment and B.C.-based industries such as forestry, thereby helping the province’s finances and strengthening our economy.

Our second recommendation is to provide funding to municipalities that exceed their housing targets, particularly those that deliver primarily urban infill housing. We recommend sourcing that funding from penalties on municipalities that fail to hit their targets, thereby, ideally, making this a cost-neutral approach for the province.

As mentioned earlier, increased housing construction helps the provincial budget in myriad ways. Conversely, this means that failing to increase housing construction hurts the budget. This, combined with the fact that the housing targets that have been provided are notably lower than the estimates of how much housing each municipality is actually anticipated to need, provides excellent justification for this action.

We also recommend that this funding be tied not only to the amount of housing built but also the type. Research shows that suburban sprawl or lower density, more single-family-housing-dominant communities have much higher costs per taxpayer and typically fail to generate enough tax revenue to pay for their own infrastructure, thus requiring subsidy. On the flip side, denser communities tend to generate a surplus of tax revenue, meaning much lower costs per taxpayer.

Our third recommendation is to provide increased funding for financing all types of housing projects but especially non-market housing projects. This is a low- to no-cost way for the province to help spur increased housing construction, conferring all the previously mentioned benefits.

Financing is a major challenge for housing construction, and being able to secure funding quicker and at lower rates would directly lead to more housing being built. This also presents little risk to the province, as the money comes back with interest if the project is successful. If it stalls, the province could either take the project over and bring it across the finish line themselves or auction it off and recoup some of the costs.

Those are our three suggestions. Thank you very much for your time. I’m happy to take any questions.

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

[10:35 a.m.]

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you for your presentation. I’m not sure how many of these are budgetary questions as opposed to policy questions. If we look at your third ask, which is financing, can you go through a little bit more about how you think that would work? What would the structure of that be?

Jack Sandor: My understanding is that the province, effectively, already does this, to some degree, through BC Builds. We’re suggesting expanding that program. As I said, housing is quite a difficult thing to build. It requires a lot of upfront risk and a lot of unknowns. By making funding easier and more reliable to secure, it can lower that risk and get a lot more housing built.

What we’d ideally be looking for is, effectively, just an expansion of that financing through BC Builds, ideally, opening it up to all kinds of projects but with a specific focus on non-market. Any kind of non-market housing, in our view, should be able to access low-cost financing through the province.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you so much for your presentation today.

We’ll call up our next presenter. If I can have Marie-Pierre Lavoie from Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique.

Thanks for joining us today. You have five minutes for your presentation and five minutes for questions.

Conseil Scolaire Francophone
de la Colombie-Britannique

Marie-Pierre Lavoie: Bonjour. Good morning, members of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. I’m Marie-Pierre Lavoie, board chair of the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique. I’m here today representing over 6,000 francophone students and their families and over 50,000 British Columbian children eligible for francophone public education.

Francophones have been in British Columbia since the 19th century. Did you know that French was in fact the most widely spoken European language in B.C. until the 1850s?

Unlike any other public school district in B.C., the CSF has a legal obligation to serve eligible francophone students across the entire province. This creates three unique challenges. To address them, francophones need access to education in all locations, including remote areas, as well as early childhood support but also proactive cultural reinforcement. Today I will focus on the funding gaps that exist in these three critical areas.

The first unique challenge we encounter is when opening new programs. The CSF was created in 1995. We went from having no students or schools to now serving more than 6,000 students. We have constantly worked to support francophone families, yet we still cannot serve all eligible families in need. Since 2017, for example, we have opened schools in Duncan, Smithers, Golden and Kimberley, bringing French education to families who previously had no access.

But here’s the reality: every new school we open operates at a significant deficit before reaching sustainability. For example, when the francophone school in Kimberley opened in 2021, it operated with a deficit of over $200,000 for the first year. This is not an inefficiency. It is the unavoidable cost to offer francophone education in our communities. Each small school requires essential services regardless of enrolment size, and in many cases, the CSF must build education infrastructure from the ground up.

The second challenge directly affects our younger ones. Research consistently shows that early exposure in minority language settings is critical for language and cultural transmission. However, current provincial funding only covers kindergartens, starting at age five, and does not support our specific needs equitably. For francophone families, every extra year of French exposure helps students by strengthening their cultural identity. The CSF will fund a program for four-year-olds starting in 2026 to support our communities.

The third challenge we face today is related to our community’s value to B.C. The CSF delivers far more than just education. We are B.C.’s primary vehicle for francophone cultural vitality and identity, which drives significant economic benefits. Our graduates actively contribute to the bilingual workforce in B.C., supporting our tourism industry, B.C. government and more.

Beyond economics, francophone culture enriches all our province. We preserve and promote one of Canada’s founding languages while contributing to B.C.’s reputation as a welcoming and multicultural society. However, the province’s investment in our cultural mandate has stagnated.

[10:40 a.m.]

As you might know, the federal government provides funding to provinces to support linguistic minorities and expects provinces to match this investment. While we receive federal OLEP funding, our province has never matched their required contribution of $7.5 million, contrary to federal commitments.

Members of the select standing committee, today we respectfully come before you to request three targeted investments. First, establish a fund that recognizes the true cost of opening new francophone schools. The CSF requires an additional $1 million per new program during its initial years.

Second, extend our provincial kindergarten funding to include four-year-olds, or pre-kindergarten, acknowledging the unique linguistic preservation imperative we face. A $10 million funding envelope would enable us to offer this essential early childhood support in all our schools.

Third, ensure equitable OLEP funding allocation. Immediate rebalancing is needed to properly support our communities with the province matching of $7.5 million.

Overall, we are asking for adequate funding to fulfil B.C.’s constitutional promises to francophone families. When we succeed in preserving and promoting French language and culture, we strengthen B.C.’s identity. Our students become the bilingual workforce that drives B.C.’s international competitiveness.

Thank you for your time, and I will welcome questions.

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

Jennifer Blatherwick: So nice to see you. Fantastic presentation. Thank you so much for your advocacy on this issue.

Even though — school trustee before…. It’s so unique for the CSF to be delivering programs from beginning in communities that have never had French language programming before. In some communities, I know that you’re able to use school buildings that are no longer used by districts, and that reduces your setup cost, but it’s still…. You have to provide the infrastructure of people before you often have enough registered students in order to sustainably have…. This is very challenging. Basically, your more populous programs are subsidizing the new programs while they get off the ground.

Could you break down a little bit for us what is the difference, sometimes, between your capital investment, like in buildings and infrastructure, and what would be your investment in people in those first beginning years?

Marie-Pierre Lavoie: Right. To start, let me just say, when we open new programs, they are not students who come from another school that we have. They are brand new students to the system, which is why it’s difficult for us, because we have regional schools. We don’t have neighbourhood schools.

The infrastructure program we have is, as you know, definitely funded with a different envelope. The province…. We look for sites. We look to other school boards to see if they have excessive or sites that they could rent to us or sell to us. Our objective is always to purchase, because then we know that we are home and the school is there to stay. The funding for that varies immensely.

The funding on the operational side…. We need a principal. We need at least one teacher. In some places, we start with six, ten students with new programs. We have a request to start a program in Creston next year and in Castlegar, and the numbers show that we would start with ten, 15 students.

You’re right; funding does not…. The amount of money that the students would bring in would not fund a principal, a person at reception, maintenance fees, teachers, obviously, and EA supports and all the supports that children need — library, etc. That’s how it’s broken down.

Claire Rattée: I was just curious…. The funding that was supposed to be matched from the federal government…. I know you mentioned that we’ve never met the target of actually matching it, but how much funding is there currently? What is the gap right now?

[10:45 a.m.]

Marie-Pierre Lavoie: It’s $7.5 million. We are receiving $7.5 million from the federal government, but the province is supposed to also match that amount of money.

Claire Rattée: Oh, so we’ve not put any money towards it.

Marie-Pierre Lavoie: Not for the matching part.

The other issue with the OLEP is that it’s supposed to be divided between French, first language, and French immersion, second language. Here in B.C., more than 60 percent goes to immersion, and just a little bit over 30 goes to French, when it’s supposed to be the opposite in the agreements.

Bryan Tepper: I’m just not familiar with that. You’re running full schools. Are they private schools?

Marie-Pierre Lavoie: No.

Bryan Tepper: It’s in the public system.

Marie-Pierre Lavoie: Yes.

Bryan Tepper: Is the school board then funding you the same as everybody else? Or is that separate?

Marie-Pierre Lavoie: You got it. We are SD 93. We are the last, I guess, public school board — in numbers, anyway. And yes, we are elected officials, as well, on the board, and we are public system. We teach French first language. Everything is in French. All classes are in French except, obviously, the English classes, which have to be taught in English — and if there are other languages.

Yeah, we are completely public, and we are funded the same way as the English school boards.

Sunita Dhir: Thank you so much for your presentation. My question is about your second recommendation — that francophone education should start for four-year-old students. How will that work? Publicly funded starts from kindergarten.

Marie-Pierre Lavoie: That’s right. In history, the French school board was the first public school board to offer full-time kindergarten. We were pioneers. Whereas English school boards had half-day kindergarten, we had full-day kindergartens. The reason was logistic to start with, because of transportation. Because our schools are regional, it was not feasible for parents to have half-day kindergartens.

Our view is to do the same thing with four-year-olds — to have pre-K. We are in dire need of daycare spaces, of preschool spaces, across the province, no matter the language. What we would like to do is to…. We are in dire need of that, but pre-K is also where we can do screening for students and see what they would need — what extra help they would need — during their schooling years.

It also helps with transmitting French. Some students who come, who are eligible to be taught in French, don’t speak French to start with. They might have a parent who’s anglophone, or with another language, and at home, that’s the language that is mostly spoken. When they come to our school, they sometimes don’t speak French. Pre-K would enable us to give them a better start for kindergarten.

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

Marie-Pierre Lavoie: Merci beaucoup. Thank you for having me.

Paul Choi (Chair): We will have the next presenter come to the front, Christine Lervold from school district 62, Sooke, please.

Thank you for coming. Five minutes for the presentation. Five minutes for the questions.

School District 62, Sooke

Christine Lervold: Great, thank you. Good morning. I am grateful to be here today to present our perspectives to inform the development of the K-to-12 budget considerations for the upcoming provincial budget. Again, my name is Christine Lervold, and I am the vice-chair of the Sooke school district, a former student, parent and teacher, and I proudly served, also, as a B.C. public servant for over 25 years.

With nearly 14,000 students, Sooke school district is one of the fastest-growing districts in the province, serving five municipalities and one regional district.

Our district resides upon the traditional territories of the Coast Salish, specifically the Esquimalt Nation and Songhees Nation, and we are honoured to work with the Sc’ianew Nation, Coast Salish, T’Sou-ke Nations, including the west coast paaʔčiidʔatx̣ and nuučaan̓uɫ.

[10:50 a.m.]

I’ve had the opportunity to review what other districts and the BCSTA have brought forward for your consideration, and I would like to provide my gratitude to them in taking the opportunity to advocate for the K-to-12 system in B.C. We also echo these concerns.

As you consider the priorities that will shape the future of British Columbia, we respectfully urge you, this committee, to focus on three critical areas that we believe will strengthen our public education system and ensure equitable access to quality learning environments for all students.

The first issue is that of inflationary pressures and funding certainty. We have a collective mandate to ensure that all learners, including Indigenous learners and students with diverse abilities, receive the supports they need to succeed. Despite the growing complexity in student needs, funding allocations have not kept pace with costs to deliver inclusive education, leaving the school district to stretch limited resources further and further each year.

There has been significant growth in the proportion of students with inclusive education designation. For the ’25-26 school year, we are forecasting designated enrolment in our district at over 19.5 percent. In addition, the CommunityLINK grant intended to support vulnerable learners and priority populations with services such as counselling, youth workers and other supports has not kept pace with growth and complexity.

From an operating expense perspective, each year, unfunded inflationary pressures for items such as benefits, services, supplies, utilities and expenses continue to increase beyond what is provided in the current funding model. We also see uncertainty in the unique geographic funding factor, where year-over-year fluctuations have amounted to nearly half a million dollars.

Despite these increases, our district continues to seek operational efficiencies and innovative methods to proactively manage and mitigate these increasing costs. However, it is becoming increasingly challenging to make stable, student-centred decisions in this unstable funding environment, and inevitably, operating funds are redirected from the classroom to support these increasing and uncertain operational costs.

The funding methodologies need to be modernized to reflect present day and future realities in our classrooms and allow us our ability to more reliably plan long-term staffing and program delivery. We need to close the gap on what is currently funded and required to deliver inclusive education and adjust the funding formula to reflect the inflationary pressures and mitigate the funding uncertainty.

The second is that of safe, accessible and inclusive facilities. We’re extremely grateful for the past investments in new capital. However, as one of the fastest-growing districts in the province, our enrolment growth continues to outpace the number of seats we have, which is requiring faster approvals and new schools. Our capital plan shows that without new land acquisitions and capital projects, in the next three years our district may require an additional 35 portables at a cost of over $14 million. Our district does not have the funding available, not to mention that we do not have space on our current sites to provide these portables.

When critical building systems fail, it means that students aren’t able to occupy spaces, resulting in less-than-ideal learning conditions. Every effort is being made in our district to maintain our buildings, but funding allocations for the asset rehabilitation and minor capital are not significant enough to make meaningful progress. We also highlight the need for improved accessibility across school buildings, including elevators, washrooms, learning environments and inclusive playgrounds.

The third is that of targeted investments for technology and future-ready learning environments. Students must be equipped with the tools and the skills to navigate an increasingly digital world, including access to assistive technologies, AI learning materials and up-to-date science and library materials. Many schools lack the infrastructure and expertise to support this shift, creating inequities that disproportionately affect our students. Without these investments, students risk falling behind where digital fluency is essential.

In addition, in the ever-changing world of technology, cybersecurity and cost for threat protection are not accounted for. Once again, these technology costs are added cost pressures experienced by all districts and are not accounted for within the current funding model yet would enable the ability to modernize classroom technology, upgrade and refresh digital assets, provide professional development for educators and mitigate the risks associated with cyberthreats.

In closing, our schools and staff are doing extraordinary work educating students, serving as a front-line system and providing safe, inclusive spaces where students have the opportunity to choose different pathways and programming to meet individual needs.

[10:55 a.m.]

I’ve attended multiple graduation ceremonies over the past few weeks, and I can tell you that our students are achieving remarkable things. They are supported by a collaborative network of teachers, administrators, education assistants, ECEs, bus drivers, library assistants, counsellors, clerical and facility maintenance teams and district staff.

We are ready and willing to be part of the solution, but we require your partnership to build a more modern, integrated and responsive approach to funding public education. Let’s work together so that every student can thrive.

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

Any questions?

It does not look like we have any questions. Your presentation was really good, and we heard very similar things from other school boards as well. Thank you so much for your presentation today.

Christine Lervold: Thank you very much for your time.

Paul Choi (Chair): We will take a short recess. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 10:56 a.m. to 11:11 a.m.

[Paul Choi in the chair.]

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

We have Tracy Humphreys from BCEdAccess Society here joining us.

Thank you for taking the time to come to present to us. You have five minutes for the presentation and five minutes for questions.

BCEdAccess Society

Tracy Humphreys: Thank you so much. Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to present today.

I’ll start by saying I’m a white settler, and I want to recognize the Songhees and xʷsepsəm Nations as the ongoing stewards of this land we’re meeting on and to share my gratitude and respect for the Elders and Knowledge Keepers, past and present.

I am committed to the advancement of the TRC’s 94 calls to action, and I’m especially, personally, focused on those related to education and the rights of children. I’m a disabled parent of three adults with disabilities now.

I have met some of you before, and I’ve presented to this committee several times over the years. I am the founder and the former executive director of BCEdAccess. I was, until recently, the executive director of BCCPAC. I’m now director of operations for the Family Support Institute of B.C.

I’m actually presenting as an individual this year, and so when I submitted my name that was one thing I couldn’t really speak to, but I carry with me all of those experiences anyway and all of the voices of families that I’ve listened to, and I’ve spent the last 12 years listening to families from all over B.C.

In fact, last summer I travelled through B.C. as part of the family voices project, and I sat with families in Fort Nelson, Terrace, Prince Rupert, Daajing Giids, Salmon Arm and many other places. We were there to hear about their experiences with services for children and youth with support needs, but again and again, they also spoke about education, health care and housing. The message was really clear: families don’t live in silos, and neither should government.

Your Budget 2026 consultation paper — I really liked how it talked about strengthening services, improving delivery and building a future where people can thrive in B.C. And for that to be possible, ministries need to be more connected. The issues families face don’t fall neatly into one portfolio, and they need coordinated, equitable support. One place, because I live and breathe there, what intersects for many is K-to-12 education, and all the other ministries kind of overlap with that work.

My first recommendation is that Budget 2026 fund an audit of individual education plans. This is not just for paperwork but also for outcomes. Currently, the ministry reviews IEPs for compliance, but there’s no evaluation of whether they’re actually working for students. We need to know whether these IEPs — which were developed using a lot of resources and money — help students to learn, belong and succeed.

We also need school- and district-level data on exclusion: how often students are sent home early, placed on shortened days or denied access altogether. And, ideally, we want that to be disaggregated, intersectional data.

[11:15 a.m.]

My second recommendation is to expand the mandate of the Representative for Children and Youth to include vulnerable students in education. Right now, when a child is excluded from school or denied services, the RCY has no jurisdiction and there’s no independent oversight. It kind of ends at the school district, which doesn’t make a lot of sense. I did already submit this recommendation and a report when their legislation came up for a review.

My third recommendation is to fund accessibility implementation and legal support for families of children with disabilities in education. With the Accessible B.C. Act now law, standards are going to be coming out soon, and I’m actually proud to be on the technical committee for the development of the standards on services. Many organizations, including schools, non-profits and others, don’t have the resources to meet those standards really. So they need funding for physical upgrades, maybe, and training especially on ableism on access needs.

Then I’m also recommending that we need a legal aid clinic. CLAS B.C., Community Legal Assistance Society, has clinics in different areas. I’m recommending that there should be one for families experiencing discrimination in education, because right now, most of the lawyers in practice in B.C. are working for the public bodies those families might need to address their issues with. So I think it’s an important idea.

When you fund education, you’re also supporting health, you’re reducing poverty, you’re enabling employment and you’re strengthening the economy. And when you cut those supports, families carry the cost across the rest of their lives. Thank you.

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

We’ll turn to questions by members. Any questions?

Steve Morissette: I’m a little slow. I didn’t catch…. Expand Children and Youth to which…?

Tracy Humphreys: The Representative for Children and Youth — their mandate is pretty narrow right now. Actually, their act was reviewed in the last couple of years, and there were a number of recommendations made. I can’t remember if it was this committee actually or…. There was a committee that made some recommendations, and expanding it to education was one of those recommendations. I’m really just asking that you act on it.

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay, seeing no other questions, thank you so much for your time, for presenting to us today.

We’ll go to our next presenter. If I can have Chris Atchison from B.C. Construction Association come forward, please.

Thank you so much for joining us today. You have five minutes for the presentation, five minutes for the questions after.

B.C. Construction Association

Chris Atchison: Great. Good morning, members of the committee. Thank you for having me today.

My name is Chris Atchison, and I’m the president of the B.C. Construction Association. The BCCA is the non-partisan trusted voice of British Columbia’s industrial, commercial, institutional and multi-unit residential construction industry. We work collaboratively with four regional construction associations, and collectively we represent more than 250,000 individuals working in the construction industry and more than 28,000 companies that work to build British Columbia. We advocate for integrity, productivity and connection across our sector to ensure the construction industry can thrive in building B.C.

Today I am here to advocate on behalf of B.C.’s construction industry by encouraging this committee to work with us and the Ministry of Finance by allocating resources in Budget 2026 to invest in industry-led workforce solutions, to commit to long-term infrastructure planning, to embrace technology and innovation and to respect competitive, fair procurement and contract processes.

We have appreciated past collaboration on initiatives such as the advancement of prompt payment legislation and the deputy ministers industry infrastructure forum. These are positive examples of government and industry working together, and we encourage continued dialogue to build on this momentum as we address emerging challenges.

[11:20 a.m.]

Construction is facing a labour shortage, and a recent survey that was conducted by our association shows overwhelming support for expanding and protecting a diverse and skilled workforce. We must strengthen the pipeline of talent to build the housing, infrastructure and economic stability of British Columbia, and we need dedicated funding for construction-focused training and upskilling, including supports for underrepresented groups. People power and build our province, so let’s invest in them.

The future of our province also depends on strong infrastructure built with certainty and foresight. Recognizing that tariffs and supply chain disruptions pose threats to affordability and timelines, B.C.’s procurement must be proactive and long term. We strongly recommend that in Budget 2026, the government of British Columbia invest in long-term infrastructure planning by reducing interprovincial trade barriers and diversifying supply sources to enhance economic resilience.

To remain competitive, British Columbia’s construction industry must evolve through innovation in project delivery, materials and workforce development. Modern methods of construction need modern tools, and the B.C. Construction Association is leading the charge.

We strongly recommend that Budget 2026 include investment in pilot programs that advance digital adoption, innovation and productivity across B.C.’s construction sector.

We sincerely appreciate being invited to present to this committee. I do have some additional detail on our recommendations, starting with investing in industry-led solutions. Our workforce shortages are not temporary; they are structural. And according to BuildForce Canada, we will need to recruit tens of thousands of new construction workers over the next decade just to replace the retirements and to meet growing demand, especially in housing and infrastructure building. This is not a crisis in the making; it’s a crisis that’s already here.

We need long-term, industry-led solutions that can connect employers with workers in real time. We have examples of programs like that that have been working in British Columbia for a while.

I would also say that we need to commit to predictable infrastructure planning and innovation. That’s our second recommendation. We’re not asking for more infrastructure dollars. We’re asking for predictability, to the extent that is possible. A multi-year rolling capital plan published and regularly updated would allow the industry to plan for workforce and equipment needs more efficiently.

To meet B.C.’s housing infrastructure and climate targets, we must accelerate the adoption of technology, modular methods and productivity tools. We recommend the creation of a construction innovation fund to support SMEs investing in modernization.

Finally, modernize public procurement in contracts fairness and consistency. We are concerned by the trend of public owners moving away from contract A protections and unreasonable supplementary conditions that shift risk unfairly onto contractors building the province. We ask that the government ensure that contract conditions are reasonable and not punitive, that they mandate the use of standard industry contracts, like CCDC, where appropriate, and outlaw the removal of contract A from provincially funded projects to protect fair, open and transparent competition, which is a legal concept that has buttressed public sector procurement for over 40 years.

With my time expired, I just want to say that we’re not asking for special treatment. We’re just asking for consistency, fairness and, above all, partnership so that those who are building B.C. to the mandate that has been outlined can do so with clarity, consistency, sustainability and to a standard the British Columbians expect. Thank you.

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

Bryan Tepper: You said piloting digital adoption there. Can you explain a little bit of that, please?

Chris Atchison: Basically, there are a number of ways that this can be done. In British Columbia, we have contractors, and we have some projects that are emphasizing the use of, say, building-information modelling or digital twinning. This is helpful both in the procurement phase and in the life cycle of buildings as well. So BIM is a commonly used construction term, but there’s no effective standard of BIM for provincial projects like hospitals, schools or prisons. It could be anything.

What BIM does is it allows people to work with contemporary models of building, engineering and design that last throughout the life cycle. It saves millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars, on all projects in the long run.

[11:25 a.m.]

What we see is there are some outliers in industry that have adopted this, but there’s no essential standard. If government were to have a standard of adopting, standards that exist in other parts of Canada or other parts of the world, then they could bring a better product to British Columbia. It’s an investment up front to that technology, which pays for itself over the life cycle of a project.

One example of that would be building information modelling, or BIM.

Bryan Tepper: All right. I’m a little embarrassed. I don’t know enough about that. I should, but….

Chris Atchison: That’s all right. Construction is complicated.

Bryan Tepper: Yeah, I know. I come from a construction family, and I’m missing out. Thank you. I’ll look more into that myself, too.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you so much for your presentation today.

We will take a recess.

The committee recessed from 11:26 a.m. to 12:56 p.m.

[Paul Choi in the chair.]

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay. Thank you for coming back. We will call the committee back to order.

We’ll start with our next presenter. If I can get Margareta Dovgal from Resource Works Society to come forward, please.

Thank you for joining us today. You have five minutes for the presentation and five minutes for the questions.

Resource Works Society

Margareta Dovgal: Thank you so much. It’s my pleasure to present to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services as you consult on the B.C. Budget 2026. My name is Margareta Dovgal. I’m the managing director of Resource Works Society, a Vancouver-based non-profit dedicated to championing responsible natural resource development in British Columbia and Canada.

Economic uncertainty is biting both consumers and businesses alike. Statistics Canada’s latest capital and repair expenditures survey shows non-residential investment intentions in B.C. have fallen by $613 million for 2025. It’s the only province that is declining at that rate.

Since 2019, the province has added virtually no net private sector jobs — those are coming from numbers by BCBC — while public sector employment has grown 22 percent. That divergence between growth in public sector employment and a lack of growth in private sector employment signals a weakened investment climate.

Yet the world needs what British Columbia produces — critical minerals and metals, sustainably managed forestry products and some of the lowest-carbon oil and natural gas available. British Columbia stands at a turning point. Either we lead the next resource-led, low-carbon boom or we watch capital and talent cross the Rockies and the Canada-U.S. border. The choice is stark, but it’s simple. Decisive policy now can transform our natural advantages into durable middle-class paycheques and world-class environmental results for families provincewide today.

Turning the demand that the world has into lasting prosperity depends on three actions. First, restore investment competitiveness. B.C.’s proposed sectoral cap on upstream oil and gas emissions collides with statutory obligations for reliable, affordable energy. Our new report by Resource Works, Shaping the Peace: Balancing Energy, Environment and Reconciliation in Northeast British Columbia’s Peace River Region, shows how unclear targets and fractured permitting deter capital in one of B.C.’s most productive regions, the northeast.

Investment rules aren’t abstract. They decide whether families thrive or pack up and leave. We therefore call on government to ensure that the forthcoming CleanBC review works to align emissions goals with economic realities and reconciliation commitments. Clarity would unlock private capital, expand Indigenous equity and strengthen the revenue base that funds our health, our housing and our climate adaptation into the long term.

Second, balance climate ambition with affordability. Since December 2023, the Energy Futures Institute, chaired by former Attorney General and former B.C. Environment Minister Barry Penner, has promoted a reliability-first, affordability-anchored energy strategy. We recommend legislating an annual energy adequacy and affordability outlook to report on projected supply, demand, rates and emissions.

[1:00 p.m.]

It is key to keep in mind that, although B.C. Hydro is the public utility, it’s important not to leave behind, from such consultations, such efforts and cross-sectoral planning, utilities like FortisBC. A public outlook would arm legislators with common evidence, shield households from rate shocks and prevent unforeseen hits to the provincial balance sheet.

Third, close the urban-rural knowledge gap. Many urban voters underestimate that natural resource industries still generate roughly half of B.C.’s goods exports. That number is even higher when you look nationally at what Canada puts out into the world. This misunderstanding fuels resistance to projects that pay for public services.

These goods exports are the foundation of our collective well-being, and that’s a fact that needs to be thoroughly understood by British Columbians, whether they live here in Victoria, over in Vancouver where I’m from or all across the province and into the northeast — a region that we’ve recently just studied at Resource Works.

Targeted, urban-focused outreach explaining the economic and environmental performance of resource regions — whether that be the northeast, the northwest, the Interior, the southern Interior, wherever in the province where resource workers, jobs and communities are — would build a social licence required for growth-oriented policy and reduce costly delays.

This isn’t just a public policy imperative; this is a political reality. As elected representatives, I’m hoping to understand a little bit more the work that is being done to advocate for that and ensure that wherever people are, wherever their economic base is, they have a better understanding of the province’s entire economy.

Investment competitiveness, energy reliability and economic literacy are interconnected. By grounding CleanBC in economic evidence, publishing an annual energy outlook and bridging the urban-rural divide, this committee can help government craft a Budget 2026 that safeguards provincial revenues, advances reconciliation and positions British Columbia as the world’s most responsible supplier of the resources a low-carbon future demands.

Thank you for your time, and I invite you to read Shaping the Peace, the report now available on the Resource Works website.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much. We’ll move on to members’ questions.

Claire Rattée: Thank you for all the work that you’re doing. I’m very proud to represent one of the ridings that makes up a big portion of that, and I know this is really important work.

I was wondering if you could give me a couple of examples possibly of budgetary asks for the first piece — restoring investment competitiveness. I agree that’s a really important piece. Do you have anything specific that you can give as recommendations from a budget perspective?

Margareta Dovgal: Yeah, I think it’s partially to do with the regulatory red-tape piece, so it’s not so much what’s in the budget but more of what allows for money to flow into the budget.

From the perspective of the budget specifically, I would be looking at listening specifically to the industries that are the most productive on where they’re seeing uncompetitive conditions as it relates to specific tax rates, specific permitting fees. I think that’s sort of one of the pieces that I see often.

The permitting system as a whole needs an overhaul. It’s not so much the cost that is paid to government as much as it is the cost of participating in the process.

I’d say it’s a systems approach that is needed rather than specific issues, but I would defer to folks at industry associations who are studying those issues more specifically on where exactly they’re needing just a little bit more to make investment in a particular area, region or industry more competitive.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions?

Seeing none, thank you so much for your presentation today.

Moving on to our next presenter, if I can have Joshua Johnson from Axon Canada come forward, please.

Thank you for joining us today. Same thing — five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions.

Axon Canada

Joshua Johnson: Dear members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here today to talk about the opportunity we at Axon Canada, as an innovative technology company and public safety partner, are seeing regarding automatic licence plate reader, otherwise known as ALPR, technology across Canada, North America and the globe.

We recommend that the government of British Columbia allocate provincial grant and technology funding to police services across the province for their purchase of ALPR systems. Further, this program and ask is based on similar funding that the government of Ontario distributed in the 2022-2023 fiscal year.

[1:05 p.m.]

At Axon Canada, we are happy to work with every police agency across the country as a customer of our products and have been within Canada for decades. Also, it’s always personally nice to be back in my hometown of Victoria, B.C.

At Axon, we produce both hardware and software solutions. You’ve probably heard about our hardware, the Taser conducted energy device, that saves lives every day and enables police officers to safely de-escalate complex situations and our body cameras, which many police services use in B.C., including the RCMP, Vancouver police and Delta police.

Regarding Axon’s ALPR system and the benefits we have been seeing since the product rolled out a few years ago, it is currently used by numerous B.C. police services already, including Delta police, Central Saanich police and police agencies across Canada, like the Ontario Provincial Police, Toronto police, Peel regional police and Tsuut’ina First Nation police.

They’re able to use the camera and its advanced image detection capabilities to scan licence plates moving upwards of 225 kilometres per hour, capture licence plates in low light and across multiple lanes of traffic and without the need for costly additional infrared cameras. The benefits we have seen for police agencies that have deployed ALPR systems is substantial and, quite frankly, shocking.

As an example, there have been over 12,000 stolen vehicle recoveries that were aided by our Axon fleet 3 system across North America in 2023, 12,282 criminal arrests and almost 26,000 tickets issued for various offences. Additionally, 1,439 stolen licence plates were recovered, preventing their criminal misuse and potential implication in violent and gang-related crimes.

According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, in 2023, insurance claims for stolen vehicles hit a record $1.5 billion across the country, a 254 percent increase since 2018. Over 84 percent of Canadians are worried about rising vehicle thefts and their impact on public safety, based on research from the Équité Association of Canada.

To further contextualize this issue, on average, every 4.6 minutes, a vehicle is stolen in Canada. Also, organized criminal involvement in auto theft increased 62 percent between 2022 and 2023 according to the Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada.

Fleet 3 ALPR systems hold tremendous potential to reduce the number of vehicle thefts and the issues I highlighted before, as they enable officers to consistently be on the lookout for plates that are on a hot list, which can also include individuals that have warrants and are wanted for violent crimes, such as human trafficking, gun and drug smuggling and armed robbery.

When we have surveyed police agencies, they equate one ALPR system as being equivalent to the use of five officers looking for a suspect vehicle. My favourite quote is one that I heard from a detective sergeant with Toronto police. He said that it’s been a game-changer and that officers are comparing it to the shift from a typewriter to the computer.

Further, the Ontario Provincial Police, when they were just recently implementing their systems, during a 22-minute traffic stop in Toronto, flagged 32 vehicles. These flags included one suspended driver, four unlicensed drivers and 27 expired registrations in a province that has eliminated validation tags, similarly to B.C.

I, personally, also while on a ride-along, have seen a fleet 3 system have a hit on a vehicle where the driver had a warrant, and there was a recovering of illegal firearms and drugs in the vehicle.

In order to make the best use of this technology, we believe that it would be in the B.C. government’s best interests to support police services in their purchase of this technology and to create a grant or fund for their use. This investment would create a positive ROI. It should also lead to an increase in stolen vehicle recoveries and a reduction in drivers who are illegally driving with suspended licences or without licences at all on B.C. roads, and have a large, oversized impact on public safety across the province.

Thank you very much for your time and listening.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. Going to questions now.

Claire Rattée: If I understood that correctly, there are no RCMP detachments, currently, that are using this. This is just independent police detachments.

In that case, if there’s no precedent for it currently, do you have any idea what the provincial share of that cost would be, what that process would even look like if we were to move towards that when other provinces haven’t? Can you kind of break that down a little better?

Joshua Johnson: Yes, 100 percent. I think that’s a fantastic question.

With Ontario, which have the OPP, the government allocated roughly $80 million to fund this system across the whole province for the OPP and municipal police agencies, and it can be kind of a very complex method in terms of how many front-line vehicles you want to have deployed and a lot of back-end work. I think, in terms of the cost for some place like B.C., if we just look at population, it’d be roughly a third of that $80 million.

[1:10 p.m.]

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions?

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Sorry. I thought CFSEU also uses ALPR.

Joshua Johnson: Oh, yes, they do. As well, the RCMP uses a different ALPR system. There are many different providers of the system across Canada.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): So they are using ALPR in gang enforcement and to look for prohib drivers? But just not Axon?

Joshua Johnson: That and, as well, on top of it…. In terms of the ALPR systems that are being used, there isn’t necessarily the same information-sharing that’s being created between those systems and, as well, CPIC, provincial hot lists and supporting interagency information-sharing, from our understanding.

Bryan Tepper: Yes. I have used ALPR, and it is fantastic. It’s probably the greatest cost-benefit analysis of what we’re using our money for. Having that would be the number one thing that I think we should now add for technology to policing. As always, our problem is that we then end up with, probably, too many arrests and more people released.

Yeah, I can’t say enough fantastic stuff about any ALPR system. I haven’t seen the Axon one. I guess the question being: what is the cost per unit from Axon?

Joshua Johnson: Great question on that end. I can’t comment specifically on the cost per unit for Axon, as there are a lot of configurations that happen. I can say that the comparison with other ALPR systems in the market…. Because we leverage image detection and a lot of smart technology, including AI, it’s roughly 80 percent the cost of equivalent infrared systems that are in the market.

I would just also mention that in terms of the ROI for ALPR systems that we’ve seen, they have been incredibly substantial for police agencies, to the point where they’ve actually turned off notifications for simple things like validation tags because there are so many hits that are occurring. And then it’s also at the officer’s discretion on if they choose to make an arrest or stop.

What we’re simply trying to do is modernize the process of checking a licence plate and then delivering that information to the officers to make that decision and choice.

Bryan Tepper: To follow up again: how are you interfacing with the policing systems that we’ve got?

Joshua Johnson: Yeah. In Ontario, as an example, we bring in CPIC information. We also cross-reference that with provincial hot list data. And then because our Axon Evidence solution, which is being used by the RCMP as well as most police agencies across Canada…. That can act as an information-sharing portal to take that hot list, to take those reads, if a police agency would like to share it and cross-reference it against other potential provinces or hits for a stolen vehicle. As I’m sure you’re well aware, it can take some time for a stolen vehicle to actually register in CPIC, but it can be registered a lot quicker with the local agency.

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay. Seeing no other question, thank you so much for your presentation.

We’ll move on to our next presenter. Can I have Pablita Thomas from B.C. Hospice Palliative Care Association come forward, please? Hello.

Pablita Thomas: How’s everyone doing?

Paul Choi (Chair): We’re great. Thanks for asking. Thanks for coming to present to us today. You have five minutes for a presentation and five minutes for questions.

B.C. Hospice
Palliative Care Association

Pablita Thomas: Beautiful. Before I start my presentation, just out of curiosity, has anybody accessed or known anyone that has accessed hospice palliative care services in B.C. or even across the country? I just kind of want to.... Okay. We’ve got more than half. That’s good.

A lot of this that I’m going to speak about is really about access, but I’m really going to highlight the gaps and the inequity in the current funding model that we have for hospice societies providing grief, bereavement and end-of-life supports in community.

Before I start, my name is Pablita. I am the executive director of the Hospice Palliative Care Association, which is the united voice for the 70-plus hospices that support B.C. and the two that support Yukon. I’m really here to advocate on behalf of our hospices that have been providing community supports for over 40 years in the most remote and rural communities, suburban and urban areas that we call home.

[1:15 p.m.]

I’m here with one simple message: hospice societies are delivering critical health and mental health services but are doing that in a shoestring funding model. Given our current flux in mental health support needs, community supports, grief and bereavement, it is time that hospice societies are funded equitably, just like their other mental health partners that support people when they need help.

There are three recommendations. We’re looking at making end-of-life care a priority for our province, and that is because…. There is an end-of-life strategy in B.C., but unlike other jurisdictions, the last time the end-of-life strategy was updated was in 2012.

As we know, in B.C. in 2030, a quarter of our population will be over the age of 65. Those individuals want to die and be supported at home. Currently, our health care system cannot support that, so community organizations like hospice societies are there to support those primary health care supports in community areas. Really, when we talk about rural and remote communities, they are the only game in town, so we’re needing to expand their services.

Making the end-of-life strategy a priority would recognize hospice societies for the work that they’re doing in community and bring them alongside in that strategy so that they can get the support they need in funding but also in community capacity.

The other recommendation we’re hoping to have the budget committee consider is just recognizing grief and bereavement as a public health priority. I know when we talk about mental health, we really talk about the clinical aspects of mental health, but I’m pretty sure everyone in this room has either supported or been somehow affected by someone that has passed away and has gone through bereavement.

Also, we know individuals that are grieving, grieving a loved one’s death. They might be grieving the loss of work, the environmental crises that we have. Those are normal grief journeys that we’re not pathologizing as mental health, but we need the supports in community. Those are who hospice societies are supporting with charity funding, bake sales and mismatched grant funding, which is not sustainable.

Looking at a recognition of grief and bereavement as a health priority would put grief and bereavement as equal to mental health supports. The majority of the population, 70 to 80 percent, are accessing or wanting to access grief and bereavement support, not needing to pay for a clinical provider to provide clinical mental health support. I just want to make sure there’s a clear distinction there.

We also want to really recognize that grief left unsupported may contribute to isolation — as we’re seeing with some of our seniors in rural and remote communities — emotional distress and health system strain, both for our health care providers and the system as a whole. It doesn’t just hurt individuals; it pressures schools, emergency rooms, housing supports and our justice systems.

Lastly, I really would like the committee to consider hospice societies as equal partners in the health care continuum of care when we talk about end of life. Stabilizing support for hospice societies is key. I want to be very clear. Hospice societies are not asking for special treatment when we’re asking for this funding. We are asking for recognition and stability of services that already exist, that hospices already deliver with high impact — evidence informed and doing the work that government has said they want done.

With a $733 million commitment from the federal government to British Columbia around age and dignity closer to home, hospice societies have not seen a cent of that. So we are asking for $3.3 million for the next three years to build on — not something that is new — stabilizing hospice societies.

In the last five years that I’ve been in leadership, five hospices have closed their doors. We are needing grief, dying, caregiving and loss not as a partisan issue but as a health care and community issue that needs to be addressed and prioritized.

Thank you for that.

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

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much for your presentation and for the work that you do. Looking at making end-of-life care a priority with a strategy for sustainable funding, what is the current funding model now?

[1:20 p.m.]

Pablita Thomas: Do you really want me to answer that question? When it comes to hospice societies…. I know I’m trying to make a mockery of it, just to kind of think about it.

We have 70 hospice societies. There are nine of them that are residential hospices. They get annual contracts by the health authority for the amount of beds that they support. They’re the 24-hour residential hospice houses, and they’ll get a certain amount. Usually, it covers

Just to kind of think about it, we have 70 hospice societies. There are nine of them that are residential hospices. They get annual contracts by the health authority for the amount of beds that they support. They’re the 24-hour residential hospice houses, and they’ll get a certain amount. Usually it covers 50 percent of their clinical team — the majority of the bulk of it.

When we look at Prince George, for example, they have a ten-bed hospice. They might get close to $3 million in contract from their health authority. But really, their operational contract is closer to $9 million or $11 million.

The balance of that, for Prince George, is fundraising. Now, that’s a residential hospice, so usually it’s around 30 to 40 percent funding model, but it’s not a blanket funding model. Every region has their own.

When we look at hospice societies that don’t have beds but that are doing the bulk of the services in community around grief and bereavement and at-home palliative care supports, that dwindles down to 15 percent on average.

We did a report in the last ten years to look at the government funding compared to donation and charities. Year over year for the past seven years, hospice donations have been going down by 16 percent, and government funding is around 3 to 5 percent. We’re one of the only jurisdictions in Canada that has that low funding amount from government.

Mind you, with the CRA reports that we do, that’s health authority contracts but also gaming. They have to apply for those annually, right? They put that all in government funding.

Claire Rattée: Knowing that, if the residential hospices are only being funded at about 40 percent and the non-residentials about 15 percent, do you have a dollar figure of what this would look like annually? Let’s say, magically, money appears, and government can actually put that money towards it. What is that shortfall that needs to be made up?

Pablita Thomas: To be honest, I really think the shortfall is around the grief and bereavement. Even with the hospice houses, it’s easier for them to attract donors because they can see the house, right? They know the 24-hour palliative care model.

But for that grief and bereavement, which is where the majority of the services are being held in community and in their hospice residence, I would say that number is conservatively at $3.3 million a year.

Claire Rattée: Okay. Could I have a follow up, if that’s okay? Thank you.

When it comes to the issues around funding by bed, I know this is an issue in many sectors. For example, when you’re looking at treatment and recovery for addiction services, currently the province only funds about half of the cost of actually delivering those services, even though they’re being marketed as being a public bed. This is why a lot of times those services have to actually take on private clients to offset those costs. Then they get priority, and it’s a whole issue, right?

Do you have an idea, currently, if we’re looking just at the residential one — because that’s just an easier one to kind of find the exact numbers on — what that shortfall is in a dollar figure if you were to look at properly funding a bed, for example, versus the current funding model?

Pablita Thomas: Absolutely. We actually just did an environmental scan a month ago that we are going to be releasing to our bureaucratic staffers. I’m more than happy to shoot those numbers to the committee after this meeting.

I would like also to stress that when we look at beds and heads and bed count, our residential hospices are being funded where they can sustain. I’m not saying they’re doing well, but they can sustain because they have the bed model.

Our biggest issue, really, is the community hospices that don’t have beds but that are doing the grief and bereavement psychosocial and at-home support. That is where we’re needing to really put some resources in. When we look at our rural and remote communities, to be honest, they don’t care about beds. They care about — and you know very well, coming from a rural community — being supported at home. This is where our hospices are falling short.

I would say for the smaller hospices that do not have hospice beds, closer to a $60,000 contract every year would at least allow them to have a clinical psychosocial support but also one full-time paid staff. Right now, in the 70 hospices, 53 of them support rural and remote communities, and 30 of them have one FTE.

[1:25 p.m.]

Claire Rattée: I appreciate that. That’s a specific figure — $60,000. Sorry, I think I should have made a note of this. How many non-residential hospices are in the province — just so I can kind of put that number together?

Pablita Thomas: It would be 59.

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

Okay, next presenter. If we can have Emily Rogers from Together Against Poverty Society come forward, please.

Thanks for joining us today. You have five minutes for the presentation, five minutes for questions.

Together Against Poverty Society

Emily Rogers: Thank you. My name is Emily. I’m here on behalf of Together Against Poverty Society. We are a legal advocacy organization here in Victoria.

I have three simple and meaningful reforms to speak to you about today. The first is ending the EI clawback for PWD recipients. The second is streamlining the PWD application process. The third is a landlord licensing system.

To the first, ending the EI clawbacks for people on disability assistance. Everybody on PWD is entitled to earn an annual earnings exemption of $16,200 to supplement their social assistance benefits. While working, they pay into employment insurance, just like everybody else. If they are laid off of their job, they are required by the Ministry of Social Development to apply for EI. That’s fine. However, if they receive any EI payments, that money is clawed back dollar for dollar from their assistance amount.

Essentially, these people are working just like everyone else, they’re paying into EI just like everyone else, but they’re unable to receive the benefit of that insurance. People work to supplement their assistance because they need to do so to survive. Assistance isn’t enough to live on. So they work, and then when they receive EI, it’s clawed back and they’re left scrambling.

We have someone who just got laid off from the Bay, and she’s unable to afford her life-saving medication because her EI is being clawed back from her, even though she’s done everything right and everything that she’s been asked to do.

Our solution is to end this, to align EI with other wage replacement programs like WCB and ICBC and allow it to count towards the annual earnings exemption just like earned income does.

Secondly, we think it’s essential to redesign the PWD application process. Currently, there are two sections to the PWD — Persons with Disability — application process: a medical report and an assessor’s report. The province pays each of those assessors each time an application is done. It’s $130 for a medical report and $75 for an assessor’s report. However, these reports really have a lot of duplication, are unnecessarily long and redundant.

Our suggestion is to streamline them into one main assessor’s report. A physician could still verify the diagnosis and duration of the disability, but the main assessment could be done by other qualified, prescribed health care professionals in our community, alleviating the burden from physicians and our health care system. This would ease the pressure on our health care system and generate an estimated $1 million in annual savings from assessor report fees alone, not to mention the knock-on savings that would be realized throughout the rest of the system if the PWD process is simpler.

Quite frankly, neither people with disabilities nor the province can leave it as it is. The system is currently not working. It’s too clunky, repetitive and redundant, and this is a simple way to save money and make it easier for people to navigate the process.

Our third recommendation is to implement landlord licensing. Business licensing exists in almost every sector — restaurants, contractors, child care providers. Housing is one of our most fundamental essential services in people’s lives, and it should be no exception. It would provide government, for the first time, a comprehensive and reliable source of data on the rental market, how many units are being rented and at what rates.

Policy-makers and advocates have long struggled to access this type of accurate provincewide rental data. Without this information, it’s nearly impossible to create evidence-based housing policy solutions or evaluate the effectiveness of what already exists. Landlord licensing would fill this gap and equip us with the tools that we need, that you need, to respond proactively to our housing challenges.

Importantly, much of this infrastructure already exists through the speculation and vacancy tax system. Property owners are already being asked to report information about how they use their properties, and landlord licensing would expand upon this framework.

Critically, it could be revenue-neutral if you so choose. A modest licensing fee could fully fund the administration of this framework, ensuring that it pays for itself. It’s a straightforward and actionable opportunity for us to gain a lot of information about our rental market, show leadership and modernize our rental regulation framework.

[1:30 p.m.]

Each of these reforms is practical, targeted, fiscally responsible and, most importantly, offers concrete relief to people who need it most.

Thank you for your consideration.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. Moving to questions by members.

Claire Rattée: I have two questions. My first one is on that second point. I just didn’t type fast enough. How much money did you say that would save if we streamline the applications and get rid of the duplicative reports?

Emily Rogers: Modestly, it would be around $1 million. There are 15,000 applications that happen each year, and the lower of the two fees is $75. Just simple math on that multiplication is around $1 million.

Claire Rattée: Perfect, thank you. Then, more of a comment on that first one, around the EI clawbacks…. This is something I’m not super familiar with, I guess, is the easiest way to put it. I do know that there’s a significant issue around the persons-with-disabilities assistance currently, around caps on what people are allowed to earn while they are on disability assistance.

That’s something I’ve already been looking into, so more just a comment than anything — that if you guys have a lot of experience with this, I wouldn’t mind reaching out to get a bit more information on it.

Emily Rogers: Oh, please. Absolutely. It’s certainly one of our main areas of legal advocacy, so we’re very well versed. Absolutely. Happy to.

Bryan Tepper: The clawback…. Is there an escalating clawback, or does it just start at the $16,000-whichever-it-was? Is it 100 percent after that or…? What do we have?

Emily Rogers: The problem is that the EI doesn’t count towards the $16,200 at all. Regardless of how much money that person has used throughout the year, every dollar of EI is clawed back — period.

Bryan Tepper: Outside of the EI, though, like regular…. So WCB or another job — is it an escalating clawback, or is it straight?

Emily Rogers: No, after you’ve hit your AEE, it’s dollar for dollar after that.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much for your presentation.

Landlord licensing — I wasn’t clear. Are you intending that we would register every landlord or only landlords who rent to people who are on PWD?

Emily Rogers: Oh no, everybody.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions?

Seeing none, thank you very much for your presentation today.

Emily Rogers: Thank you so much. Done a lot of listening today. Thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you.

We will take a quick recess.

The committee recessed from 1:32 p.m. to 1:40 p.m.

[Paul Choi in the chair.]

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay, thanks for coming back. We are calling the committee back to order.

We’ll move on to our next presenter. We have Bridgitte Anderson from Greater Vancouver Board of Trade with us. Thanks for joining us today. You have five minutes for the presentation, five minutes for questions, and you can begin whenever you’re ready. Thank you.

Greater Vancouver Board of Trade

Bridgitte Anderson: Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. As you said, my name is Bridgitte Anderson. I’m the president and CEO of the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade. I’m joining you today from the traditional territory of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ Nations. On behalf of our board of directors and over 5,000 members, thank you for the opportunity to present.

B.C. is facing a pivotal moment. The global economy is undergoing profound shifts. Businesses are navigating a volatile trade environment, inflationary pressures and rising costs. Our province is grappling with historic deficits, a tough job market — especially for young people — and persistent unaffordability.

B.C.’s future and our ability to sustain public services depends on deliberate action to strengthen the economy. That is why in January we launched our agenda for growth, the 3 percent c,hallenge, a call for governments to commit to a target of 3 percent real GDP annually. Meeting this goal could add $9,000 to our GDP per capita, generate over $4 billion in government revenues and create tens of thousands of jobs.

To support this agenda, we released a report based on input from employers across B.C. It recommends, first, reduced costs and improved tax competitiveness. We need tax reform. For example, increasing the employer health tax exemption to $1.5 million and indexing it to inflation would relieve pressure on small and medium businesses.

Exempting capital investments in machinery and equipment from PST would signal that B.C. is serious about productivity and innovation. This would reduce the marginal effective tax rate across all industries from 27.9 percent to 7.7 percent, bringing B.C.’s tax rate closer to Alberta’s. It could also increase B.C.’s capital stock by about 1 percent and lead to higher wages, with an increase in annual income ranging from an estimated $700 to $1,700 per worker.

Second, streamlined permits and approvals. We welcome measures to advance major projects here in B.C. Business leaders continually cite uncertainty as a barrier. We need a path forward in partnership with local First Nations, many of whom are now equity owners in projects. Together we can streamline processes and provide certainty. We also need to unlock employment lands to support trade and industry, especially in Metro Vancouver where land scarcity is straining economic growth.

Third, expand opportunity. Let’s finish the job on internal trade with mutual recognition of goods, credentials and services. Let’s also diversify trade through infrastructure investments in roads and ports and programming, such as the trade accelerator program, which has helped nearly 400 businesses from across all B.C. export to new markets.

We also need to have a timeline to balance the budget with clear fiscal guardrails that demonstrate stability and affordability of the debt, which is now planned to grow to $209 billion by 2027-28. Other jurisdictions are acting boldly to enhance their competitiveness. Now it is B.C.’s moment to shine. Budget 2026 must place economic growth at its core. That is how we create resilience, raise incomes and sustain public services. Thank you.

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

Claire Rattée: Thank you for your presentation. I, again, didn’t type fast enough. The first recommendation on reducing costs, improving tax competitiveness and tax reform…. I got the piece about the employer health tax. Could you repeat the second portion? I couldn’t remember what it was. Sorry.

[1:45 p.m.]

Bridgitte Anderson: Sure. It’s exempting PST on machinery and equipment. In fact, this was a measure that was included in budgets from 2020 to 2022. I think what’s important to note here is that signalling this change and doing this change would actually signal that B.C. is serious about productivity and economic growth. And the stat that we’re using is that we’ve reduced the marginal effective tax rate from 27.9 percent to 7.7 percent. That is a meaningful difference.

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

Next we have Amanda Sayfy from Dress for Success Vancouver.

Thanks for joining us today. You have five minutes for the presentation, five minutes for questions.

Dress for Success Vancouver

Amanda Sayfy: Hon. members, thank you for the opportunity to be here to advocate for equity-denied British Columbians. Just this month, the province released its Pay Transparency Annual Report, shedding light on systemic inequalities embedded in our workforce.

Women in B.C. are paid an average of 85 cents for every $1 earned by cisgender, non-racialized men. This drops to 74 cents when you factor in the intersecting barriers experienced by disabled, Indigenous, racialized and transgender women. Women are also twice as likely to work part-time, often due to caregiving responsibilities and inflexible work environments. Part-time roles typically offer lower pay, fewer benefits and limited advancement. This puts B.C. eighth among Canadian provinces for pay equity.

This report reinforces why Dress for Success Vancouver exists. For 26 years, we’ve empowered equity-denied women and gender-diverse individuals into full and fulfilling employment, driving economic inclusion for unemployed and underemployed Metro Vancouver residents. Our work builds their financial independence and decreases their need for further public support.

In 2024, 2,300 individuals accessed our services. Among them, 75 percent were Indigenous or from racialized communities; 56 percent were newcomers to Canada, navigating credential recognition, language barriers, racism and discrimination; 55 percent were unemployed, including nearly 30 percent unemployed for 12 months or more; and 7 percent identified as 2SLGBTQIA+, including trans women in early transition.

The intersecting barriers our clients face impact their access to stable, well-paying work and their ability to contribute to B.C.’s economy now and in the future. While we know that a strong first impression will help our clients get a foot in the door, our impact goes far beyond professional attire. It’s the social capital that we help our clients build, the professional relationships that will help them access good employment and grow their careers. Our relationships — who we know, who we can depend on and who advocates for us — are a determining factor of success.

Think of any of your newcomer constituents. They’re building community from scratch. Dress for Success helps our equity-deserving clients build a professional network of support, one that will directly contribute to their ability to secure good employment and grow their careers, creating resilience for themselves, their families and communities. This is a proven poverty reduction tactic, a support that is integral to ensuring that no one is left behind.

I applaud the province for the Pay Transparency Act, the work of the gender equity office and the investments in the poverty reduction strategy, but more support is needed to sustain the community-based non-profits doing this work on the ground.

My recommendations today are to include $115,000 in the 2026 provincial budget to underwrite services provided to clients of Dress for Success who are referred by publicly funded programs or allow flow-through funding from established service delivery contracts.

Over 30 percent of our clients are referred by government-funded non-profits, WorkBC centres, settlement agencies like SUCCESS and MOSAIC and employment leaders like the YWCA. These are vital partners that depend on our services to help their clients get job-ready and secure employment. And yet 100 percent of our annual operations rely on fundraising alone.

The charitable landscape is shifting. Imagine Canada reports that donations are declining while demand rises. We’ve applied for more grants than ever this year but with lower success. Despite strong alignment, we’ve been unsuccessful in securing key provincial and municipal grants. Competition is fierce, and the criteria are increasingly narrow.

[1:50 p.m.]

Personally, after 20 years as a fundraiser in B.C., I see firsthand that the sector is in a period of transition. Innovation and bold thinking will be essential, but bridging the gap will also require government investment in organizations already doing this work — organizations you and your non-profit partners rely on.

In May, the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation reported a net increase of 67,000 jobs year to date. But on the ground, we’re seeing something different. Our dressing services are booked when a client has a job interview or a job offer. In the past month, appointment lead times dropped from three to four weeks to just one week. This is an indication that there may be fewer job opportunities available.

If that’s true, we must ensure that when opportunity returns, equity-deserving women and gender-diverse people aren’t left behind. They deserve the same chance at well-paying jobs and long-term economic security. Our clients are ready. They’re determined to break down barriers and pursue new opportunities. And we know that when women rise, communities thrive. But we need the province’s help to keep doing this vital work.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

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

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much for your presentation and your advocacy for women — very appreciated.

I just want to ask some questions about your first request. Did I hear you correctly? It was $150K to underwrite client assessments or possibly flow-through funding from clients who were referred from provincial entities? Was that right?

Amanda Sayfy: Yes. I think there are two different ways to secure support for the clients we serve. One would be a direct budget allocation, and I’ve requested $115,000 to help underwrite our programs.

Then the other opportunity to support our work would be to allow for flow-through funding through established government service delivery contracts — an example would be through WorkBC centres. These are a publicly funded resource across the province, and we receive a good number of clients referred directly from them.

We’re providing a vital support as a supplement to the work being done by WorkBC. Allowing a subcontract or a flow-through allowance from contracts like these would support the sustainability of our organization and organizations like ours.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions by members? Seeing none, thank you so much for your presentation today.

We’ll go to our next presenter, if we can have Alex Mitchell from the Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce.

Alex Mitchell: Absolutely. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. Am I okay to start now?

Paul Choi (Chair): Yes, five minutes for your question. Thank you.

Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce

Alex Mitchell: Thank you so much. It’s my privilege to represent the Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce, speaking on behalf of our nearly 800 members from across Abbotsford’s diverse and resilient business community, acknowledging that we’re joining you from the unceded traditional territory of the Stó:lō peoples.

Speaking on Abbotsford businesses, from home-based entrepreneurs to large-scale manufacturers, they’re grappling with rising costs, labour shortages and infrastructure vulnerabilities that threaten their ability to be competitive. These pressures are particularly acute for small and medium-sized businesses, which are critical for the economic vitality of our entire province.

To ensure a more resilient and competitive future for British Columbia, the Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce offers the following three recommendations for budget this year.

First is lowering the cost of doing business and enabling workforce growth. Small businesses in the Fraser Valley are facing unsustainable cost pressure from escalating property taxes, rising input costs and workforce shortages. This collection of challenges that are affecting businesses have a knock-on effect for those businesses looking to operate in our region.

Our recommendations for lowering the cost of business include lowering costs and reducing red tape and the business burden, such as increasing the employer health tax exemption amount to $1.5 million and indexing it to inflation; freezing new provincial fees and levies that are affecting businesses and their inputs during this key period of time; and increasing post-secondary student seats in high-demand fields like trades, health care and agriculture, particularly at institutions in the Fraser Valley that meet the needs of our local employers.

[1:55 p.m.]

Secondly, our recommendation is to invest in resilient, trade-enabling infrastructure. The Fraser Valley is a critical gateway for provincial and national trade, with over $65 billion in goods moving annually through Highway 1 between Langley and Chilliwack. B.C.’s ability to compete globally depends on reliable infrastructure. We know what happens when we don’t invest in our infrastructure. The 2021 floods laid bare what’s at stake: $16.3 billion in GDP losses, shutdowns at the trade routes and severe damages to farms, businesses and families. And this is all the more important as we look at the impacts of climate change.

This recommendation includes immediately funding work on critical flood planning for Sumas Prairie to protect productive agricultural regions from future climate-driven disasters; accelerating the widening of Highway 1 through the Fraser Valley to improve labour mobility, reducing congestion and increasing supply chain reliability, with clear timelines and earmarked dollars in the budget for the next phase from Abbotsford through Chilliwack; and really ensuring that infrastructure funding supports export-driven growth, particularly for sectors that are vulnerable to trade disruptions like agriculture and advanced manufacturing.

Our last recommendation is around driving economic growth and supporting innovation. Abbotsford is home to innovators that are shaping the future of sustainable food systems.

Here, we’re asking for a continued effort to preserve and protect quality farmland, specifically in Abbotsford, while also looking for innovative opportunities to add to our local food security through ag industrial land uses, working collaboratively with municipalities to unlock more industrial and trade enabling land for development and the promotion of local jobs, legislating clear timelines for permitting decisions that are affecting local development and really reviewing the impact of amenity cost charges and development cost charges on industrial lands.

In conclusion, we see this budget as an opportunity to drive resilience and competitiveness in our regional economies, one that recognizes the importance of the Fraser Valley and delivers on the infrastructure, affordability and talent pipelines, recommendations that are required to realize B.C.’s shared economic future.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for the presentation. Moving to questions, starting with MLA Rattée.

Claire Rattée: One of the things that you had mentioned…. You were talking about lowering costs and red tape. You talked about the employer health tax, freezing new provincial fees and levies, increasing funding for high-need trades training, things like that.

Could you give me a few examples of some of the provincial fees and levies that you’re talking about freezing?

Alex Mitchell: Yeah, so it really is making sure that there are no new, increased fees on businesses. As businesses are looking at any sort of permitting, as they’re accessing government services, ensuring that there is clear and efficient processes in place to be able to ensure that we’re not adding additional costs along the way.

The employer health tax is one that we continue to speak about. But it really is taking a wholesale look at all of the different costs that are added on to businesses and ensuring that we’re not increasing red tape throughout the process.

Claire Rattée: Yeah, I just wanted clarity on that. Obviously, the employer health tax one…. I know that’s an important one, but you’re not speaking about any specific fees or levies; you’re just saying not bringing more forward in this next upcoming budget because of how much difficulty businesses are already facing.

Alex Mitchell: That’s correct.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions? Nope. Okay, thank you so much for your presentation today.

Next we have Katie Fenn, from B.C. Recreation and Parks Association. Thanks for joining us today. You have five minutes for the presentation and five minutes for questions, and you can begin whenever you’re ready to go.

B.C. Recreation
and Parks Association

Katie Fenn: Wonderful. Thank you so much. I’m grateful to come to you today from the Coast Salish territories of xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ, where I live and work, in North Vancouver.

On behalf of B.C. Recreation and Parks, 7,800 professionals making up over 12 million hours annually of the community well-being focused workforce in our province, I’d like to thank you for your time and dedication to do this important consultation work on behalf of our province.

We know that for every 34 days a person with chronic disease spends in the costly health care system on average annually, they spend the remaining 331 days of the year in their communities accessing recreation and parks, doing their best to keep themselves well and enjoying their lives.

[2:00 p.m.]

Today I have one philosophical ask — that you approach the overall budget process, as you grapple with the difficult decisions and recommendations, by asking yourself: “How does this have impact today, tomorrow, in ten years and for the next seven generations?” I ask that you look to inhibit the downstream effects we are seeing today with prevention-based impact decisions today.

To that end, I have three social impact investments to share with you. While small in dollars, they have significant immediate and long-term economic and social impacts.

The first is $2.57 million to strategically plan for and administer social infrastructure in B.C. B.C.’s recreation and parks infrastructure is facing a provincewide renewal crisis, with many facilities originally built during the postwar investment boom now reaching the end of their usable lifespan with no sustainable replacement in place.

Pools and arenas are among the largest municipal sources of CO2 emissions, adding urgency to the renewal efforts.

The Canadian Parks and Recreation Association has developed a national database framework, and B.C. is now positioned to enter the provincial data input phase. This is a timely and urgent opportunity to ensure B.C.’s data is complete, accurate and actionable. By making this small infrastructure investment today, we can ensure that the decisions in the years ahead are strategic for the province as a whole and data informed.

The second ask is $1.05 million over three years to expand and sustain the delivery of critical and evidence-based programs that support older adult health — mobility, falls prevention and well-being — across British Columbia.

In support of B.C.’s aging forward strategy, BCRPA has a long history of delivering provincially funded programs to support older adults to become and stay physically active, reduce isolation and become connected and resourced within their communities. This includes our work with “Choose to Move,” reaching over 3,600 adults since January 2016.

Through expanded provincial coordination training and program delivery of the Osteofit and ActivAge programs, BCRPA aims to ensure that older adults in all B.C. health authorities have equitable access to safe, high-quality physical activity programs that improve well-being, reduce health care costs and support aging in place.

The third ask is $340,000 to support injury prevention through safe swimming. There still remains an aquatics crisis in B.C. Most folks who try to register anyone swim lessons will know this firsthand. This is also true across the country. This is confounded by a workforce issue that is a supply issue as well as a work style issue across the province and the country. Increasing access to swim-for-survival programs is needed, as well as overall training for swimming as a fundamental life skill.

This funding would be built on the successful National Safe Swimming Recovery model of subsidized training for lifeguards, which also includes a one-time wage subsidy to increase program access. As one example, the small investment into the town of Victoria — so $1,200 for free access to life-saving lifeguarding training and $1,200 wage subsidy for six lifeguards — increased 350 kids swimming a week to 550 kids swimming a week in a matter of four months.

I’d like to thank you for your time, and please let me know if you have any comments or questions.

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

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much for your presentation. I just want to make sure I understand. The B.C. Recreation and Parks Association, you are largely part of municipal governments, yes? And you are like a sub-department of a municipal government?

Katie Fenn: We are an umbrella organization. We’re an independent, non-governmental organization. So all of our members are the municipalities across B.C. We also have some First Nation governments who are members as well.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you.

When you’re speaking of social infrastructure, you did specifically mention pools and arenas and that there’s a database being developed to kind of have an inventory of those things. You’re not just speaking of pools and arenas. You’re also speaking of other community recreational infrastructure as well?

Katie Fenn: Correct.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Could you give some examples of that?

Katie Fenn: Some other examples, so tennis courts, sports fields, you can also put…. So this comes out of the U.K. and Australia as well. In those settings where they have provincial or state funding, they can also put in anything from libraries to arts and culture centres as well. So when I’m speaking of social infrastructure, I’m also speaking of those areas too.

[2:05 p.m.]

Jennifer Blatherwick: When you were talking about developing elder programming, one of the things that is challenging within British Columbia is developing programming that’s culturally specific and for seniors who have English not as a first language or have different cultural sensitivities or requirements. Is that included in your plan for elder programming?

Katie Fenn: It is, and it is a priority. We’ve done some pilots with the Punjabi-speaking community specifically. That is already underway. We also have some targeted demographics where we know access isn’t as readily accessed as others. For example, men as well. There are some areas where we do see a high population of women who are accessing older adult programs.

Any barriers that are in place, we have a good way of working with the folks at UBC to make sure we’re researching and understanding who is accessing and who is not, and then prioritizing and tailoring the program as needed.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much.

Bryan Tepper: Your first ask was $2.57 million for infrastructure. That doesn’t seem like a lot for infrastructure. What’s the plan for that?

Katie Fenn: The plan for that is $500,000 to complete the database for B.C. When I say complete the database for B.C., that is to fully look at it from a social infrastructure perspective. That would be including arts and culture, libraries. We have a lot of data in there right now around arenas and tennis courts and others, but we would like to see a complete data set. That’s number one. To have complete data is $500,000.

And $2 million for a ten-year strategy, because we know that we need to affect at the governance level as well as the policy level, to have a fulsome strategy that understands how we make these decisions in the province. We know that at this point, we can have not complete regional decision-making and not complete provincial decision-making in terms of what we’re putting in our communities and how everything works together. So that’s that ask.

Then the additional $70,000 is to convene and collaborate around this work, to make sure that we have folks around the table that are helping to support both of those asks.

It is not actually building the infrastructure. It’s making sure that we have the governance structures and the policy structures in place to do it in a fulsome, thoughtful way.

Bryan Tepper: Okay, thank you. Yeah, I get that now.

Your third ask is…. It’s more about the name, actually. I think you said it was injury reduction through safe swimming?

Katie Fenn: Yeah, that’s correct. Injury prevention through safe swimming. Essentially, making sure that folks have the basic skills that they need to swim for survival as kind of the threshold, to ensure that we don’t see drownings that we could expect to see in ten years if we don’t get people skilled up.

Bryan Tepper: All right, thank you very much. Just cleared that up.

Steve Morissette: Thank you for the presentation. Just curious. The social infrastructure — does that also include natural infrastructure like a lot of towns have, like beaches and trails, that sort of thing?

Katie Fenn: Yeah, absolutely. Thank you for asking that specific question. We know that what we have in the province and nationally is unsustainable in terms of what we did in the ’60s: we put arenas and pools everywhere and then tried to upkeep them. We know that outdoor infrastructure, outdoor recreation is the way of the future, so that is inclusive of that investment, to be thinking more holistically of what is the path forward to sustainable investment. That is outside, a big part of it — accessible to trails, access to nature, absolutely.

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

Katie Fenn: Thank you so much for your time. Enjoy the rest of your day.

Paul Choi (Chair): The committee will take a recess at this point. Thank you.

The committee recessed at 2:09 p.m.

[2:15 p.m.- 2:20 p.m.]

The committee resumed at 2:34 p.m.

[Paul Choi in the chair.]

Paul Choi (Chair): I will call the committee back to order. Thank you for coming back.

[2:35 p.m.]

We will go to our next presenter. We have Tara McGlone from CUPE Local 5536.

Thank you for joining us today. You have five minutes for the presentation and five minutes for questions after.

CUPE Local 5536,
B.C. Harm Reduction Workers

Tara McGlone: Good afternoon, and thank you so much for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Tara McGlone, and I am the president of CUPE Local 5536, B.C. Harm Reduction Workers. We represent front-line workers doing this harm reduction work. We are people staffing overdose prevention sites, safe consumption sites, supportive housing programs and emergency shelters.

I am grateful to join you today from the unceded traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples, including the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ Nations.

Today I would like to offer some recommendations from our union on three areas that we believe are vital for this next upcoming budget. Those would be harm reduction, community health and affordable housing.

Harm reduction can mean different things to different people. For us, as harm reduction workers, it’s the intentional daily work of reducing harms associated with drug use. It includes reversing overdoses, offering peer support, providing clean supplies and creating safe-use spaces that connect people to various required services. It’s a public health approach grounded in compassion, dignity and evidence.

Since the B.C. government declared the toxic drug crisis a public health emergency in 2016, more than 16,000 lives have been lost. Just last year more than 2,200 people died. These are not overdoses in the way that people often assume. They are actually poisonings caused by an increasingly toxic and unregulated drug supply.

Our union believes that if government meaningfully collaborated with drug policy experts and people with lived and living experience and prioritized access to a safe, regulated supply, we could prevent many of these deaths. That’s what evidence has shown.

We need the government to continue and expand funding for overdose prevention and supervised consumption services, sites like Insite, as well as the dozens of peer-led and community-run programs across B.C.

Our recommendation is to scale up access to regulated safe supply and supervised consumption services with stable, long-term investments in peer-led, community-based harm reduction programs that are proven to save lives.

Next, I would like to recognize that harm reduction is in itself health care, but right now our system doesn’t tend to treat it that way. Our members are often the first to respond to overdoses, mental health episodes and other acute crises. We do this work in emergency shelters, supportive housing and overdose prevention sites, and we do it while chronically understaffed, undersupported and overstretched. We deeply care for the people that we serve, and we want nothing more than to provide the care and connection our communities need, but we can’t do that without the support.

When we are properly staffed, we see real results, not just for individuals but across entire communities. We are asking the province to treat harm reduction and mental health services as essential parts of B.C.’s public health system. These services reflect the spirit of the Canada Health Act — comprehensive, universal, accessible care — but they are often treated as add-ons and not as essentials.

Our second recommendation is for permanent dedicated funding to support safe staffing levels, mental health supports and harm reduction services as core parts of B.C.’s health care system. The toxic drug crisis and the housing crisis are deeply connected. No one wants to use drugs outside in an alley, alone and unsupervised. But when people are unhoused or underhoused, they’re often left with no other option, and that increases the risk of death.

Our members work in these supportive housing projects, where we see the impact every day. When housing is safe, stable and adequately staffed, people have a chance to stabilize, access services and build community. But too often, housing policy is inconsistent and local decisions reflect stigma more than evidence.

We need provincial leadership to intervene where municipalities may fall short. That means funding public and non-market housing and ensuring it comes with wraparound supports like peer services, trauma-informed care and voluntary treatment options.

Our recommendation is to invest in supportive and non-market housing tied to community health services and to act when local policies fall short of meeting the needs of unhoused and underhoused people.

[2:40 p.m.]

B.C. has the opportunity to be a national leader in responding to the toxic drug crisis that we are experiencing, but that takes investments in front-line services and the people that provide them. As a union representing workers on the front lines, we know what works, and we are asking for you to support solutions rooted in evidence, care and dignity. Please scale up harm reduction, strengthen community health and invest in housing.

I thank you again for your time today.

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

We’ll now move to questions by members.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I just left a career working in this field, and I just want to say how much I appreciate the work that you and your fellow members do. You save lives every day, and you change them, so thank you.

I appreciate your emphasis on how harm reduction is health care. Could you talk a little bit about the harm reduction funding model and how that works for your members?

Tara McGlone: Yeah, absolutely. Our members all work for non-profit organizations. Specifically, our largest employer is the PHS Community Services Society. They are based in Vancouver and Victoria. We also have a certification with the Ladysmith Resources Centre Association. That is largely funded through the government, which is B.C. Housing and Vancouver Coastal Health.

When we bring up any kind of, you know, “What our members are experiencing is understaffing and not being supported,” the response that we receive from the employer is that if they were directly funded, rather than through B.C. Housing and Vancouver Coastal Health, then that could greatly improve the working conditions for these folks that are providing the care. That’s our understanding of the funding model for these non-profits.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Good afternoon. Does your work include educating on the dangers of drug use or proactive education on available treatment options?

Tara McGlone: Yes, absolutely. I think that something that can often come across as harm reduction versus treatment — it is not understood. We are very much of the position that people should have access to any kind of treatment options should they need it. During the time before they’re ready for treatment, we provide that harm reduction and that care.

Educating people on treatment options and detox is very, very fundamentally something that harm reduction workers provide and do on a daily basis. We absolutely support all of that.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): The new guidelines for OPSs just came out, I think, within the last two weeks. It did not have suggesting or educating on treatment options as one of the core functions at overdose prevention sites.

Can you talk about what proactive measures your workers are taking on a daily basis with people who are using drugs to let them know about available options to reduce or stop drug use?

Tara McGlone: Yes, absolutely. That is kind of fundamental in the care that is provided to people accessing these sites and folks that are living in the supportive housing units, in the buildings. It’s part of when we’re engaging with community members and speaking directly to them about what their options are. It’s always given as an option that detox and treatment are there, and we do the best we can.

I know that PHS specifically — we have Insite, which is our safe consumption site. Above it, we have Onsite, which is a detox and treatment centre. Harm reduction and recovery work very much in tandem, which I think is something that is largely not understood.

We are absolutely, as harm reduction workers…. What that includes is offering all of the options to people, which includes attending detox and recovery and treatment — absolutely.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Is it offered only when requested or proactively offered?

[2:45 p.m.]

Tara McGlone: It’s a combination of both. I think that when people come in, and they’re coming in to use these sites, it’s something that is made very, very clear, and people are made aware that these are their options. Under the human rights code, people are able to make their own decisions, but they need to be making informed decisions. Part of the work that we do is providing people with all of their options so that they can understand what they can do moving forward.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Sorry, just one last follow-up. Do you think that it should be part of the core functions of OPSs that education on treatment and recovery options is proactively part of the core functions?

Tara McGlone: I think that in what we’re already doing, that does fall under what our core functions are, so I would agree with that, yes. Offering the options and the education is part of what we do, and we would support that for sure.

Bryan Tepper: Just a quick question, I guess. I think you were talking about Insite when you said that when they’re fully staffed, they get results. I was kind of hoping for what results you’re talking about out of that.

Tara McGlone: Yeah, absolutely. Insite, since it first opened, which was, I believe, over 30 years ago now…. We’ve not had a single death at Insite at all, because we are there working in tandem with Vancouver Coastal Health. There are nurses there to reverse any overdoses or any toxic drug poisonings.

To me, when it’s fully functional, when we’re able to operate all of our booths and there are the nurses that are there working with our mental health workers, which is my members, it’s pure results. We at Insite also offer the option of accessing Onsite, which is the detox and treatment centre just directly above.

That’s when we see real, positive change in people’s lives, when they can make that choice of accessing these services that are available to them. I think that is directly provided by harm reduction workers and what we do.

Paul Choi (Chair): Quick question by MLA Blatherwick.

Jennifer Blatherwick: No, actually, she answered it already.

I was going to ask about the relationship between Insite and Onsite and give more opportunity to explore that, but you anticipated my question, so all good.

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

Tara McGlone: Thank you very much. I really appreciate the time, and I truly am grateful that you all would like to hear about harm reduction and the work that we do. It’s truly appreciated. Thank you so much.

Paul Choi (Chair): Next we have Karen Ranalletta from CUPE B.C.

Thank you for joining us. Five minutes for the presentation, five minutes for the questions, and you may begin when you feel ready.

CUPE B.C.

Karen Ranalletta: Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, committee members. My name is Karen Ranalletta, and I am the president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, British Columbia, CUPE B.C.

I’d like to begin by acknowledging that I am joining you today from the territories of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation, as I am in Ottawa attending a meeting of our national executive board.

I speak to you today as a representative of more than 120,000 British Columbians — workers who deliver critical public services in every corner of our province, in communities big and small. CUPE members work in libraries, local government, public schools, health care, child care, community social services, transit, emergency services and post-secondary education.

With my time today, I want to talk to two issues: the challenges that our colleges and universities are facing and the need for fair taxation.

CUPE has addressed this committee before on the topic of fair taxation and our members’ firmly held belief that everyone must pay their fair share to build a better British Columbia. Today that principle is more important than ever.

Despite substantial government investments, the affordability crisis for low- and middle-income families is deepening, and the gap between the wealthiest and everyone else continues to widen. These two trends are a sign that simply reorganizing or reprioritizing government spending won’t be enough to address the scope and scale of the crisis.

Government must now consider stronger measures. That requires generating new revenue, revenue from a tax system that is fair, transparent and rooted in people’s ability to pay.

[2:50 p.m.]

That’s why we’re calling on the government to strengthen progressive taxation. That means asking more of people who can afford it so that our public services remain strong and the affordability crisis does not deepen further. It also means equipping government with the funds necessary to meet the demands of our time, including meaningful investments in local governments — so in school boards, municipalities — to address the financial challenges facing our communities.

One place to start would be a review of B.C.’s tax brackets, which continue to benefit those at the top. In 2023, B.C.’s highest personal income tax rate, 20.5 percent, applied to income over $240,716. For 2025, that threshold will rise to $259,829 due to inflation indexing. While these adjustments are meant to protect all taxpayers from bracket creep, they result in the greatest benefit for those at the top. Now a top earner will pay over $3,800 less in provincial taxes next year than they would have on the same income.

The problem is made worse by the flat-rate system. It means someone earning $300,000 pays the same rate on that income as someone earning $3 million. As research by the B.C. Society for Policy Solutions has shown, B.C.’s tax system has become more progressive since 2017, but there’s still more work to do.

Provincial revenues as a share of GDP have never recovered from the deep tax cuts of the early 2000s, cuts that disproportionately benefited high-income earners and large corporations. Budget 2026 is the opportunity to correct that. We urge this committee to recommend bold, progressive tax reform to raise new revenue fairly and invest in the services and workers that support communities across the province.

Switching over to post-secondary, for the past several decades, reduced public funding to our colleges and universities has been replaced by revenue generated from international education. This pattern has produced a dependency on international revenue to cover the most basic costs of the public system.

With recent changes to the rules for international students by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, international student numbers are dropping. As a result, the system is in crisis — I’m sure you’ve heard this several times — with program cuts and service reductions happening at campuses across the country and in B.C. as well. The cuts are deep and limiting programs, research, location, service and facility options for all and current prospective students. The impacts are not confined to international students.

Responsive, affordable and high-quality post-secondary education is necessary for a strong economy and a robust labour force and critical to our healthy democracy. The cuts being made at our colleges and universities are not sustainable. Worse, they are counterproductive and stand in opposition to B.C.’s goal of building a stronger, less-U.S.-dependent economy. All British Columbians need this committee to provide a clear and unequivocal recommendation to government to better fund the post-secondary system in our province.

In particular, this should include targeted funds for trades programs to address the shortage of skilled trades workers and funding for B.C.-based innovation and research that sparks a more diversified economy. Increased public funding for post-secondary education will better supply the health, education and other professionals our communities need and provide young people and retraining workers the education they need to obtain good, family-sustaining jobs.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to share our members’ priorities for Budget 2026. I look forward to any questions you may have.

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

Any questions?

Bryan Tepper: You’re advocating for, you said, big business and the tax rates there. What are you advocating for there?

Karen Ranalletta: We’re advocating for a review of the tax brackets.

Bryan Tepper: Are there tax brackets for businesses that…? Or how does that work in what you’re looking at?

Karen Ranalletta: Well, I was focused on personal income tax in that, in our words.

Bryan Tepper: Okay. I didn’t follow. You said big business in there somewhere. That’s where I was a little confused.

[2:55 p.m.]

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much for your presentation.

When you are talking about fair taxation, you’re talking about revenue generation rather than a budget initiative. In that particular case, you’re not asking for a specific budget figure; you’re asking for a policy change to revenue generation.

Karen Ranalletta: Yep, and a review of the tax bracket.

Jennifer Blatherwick: And a review of the tax bracket. Now, just following up on MLA Tepper’s question, for review, you specifically mentioned the personal income tax bracket. But I’m hearing that you also meant that to be inclusive of the commercial tax rate as well.

Karen Ranalletta: Yes. I mean, I would say we’ll address that in our written submission. But today we’re focused on the….

Jennifer Blatherwick: There are only five minutes.

Karen Ranalletta: Yeah, yeah, I know. Five minutes per union of 120,000 people in 11 sectors.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Appreciate that. Thank you for your presentation.

Paul Choi (Chair): Seeing no other questions, thank you so much for your time and your presentation.

Next we will go to Ian Bushfield, from B.C. Humanist Association.

Thanks for joining us today. You have five minutes for presentation and five minutes for questions. You may begin as soon as you’re ready to go.

B.C. Humanist Association

Ian Bushfield: Thank you so much, Chair and members of the committee, for your time this afternoon. I’ll quickly introduce myself and our organization before walking you through our three recommendations for Budget 2026.

My name is Ian Bushfield. I’m the executive director of the B.C. Humanist Association. Our organization was founded over 40 years ago to provide a community and a voice for the 52 percent of British Columbians who are humanist or non-religious. We promote progressive and secular values and challenge religious privilege.

Our first recommendation is to end the statutory property tax exemptions for places of worship. Presently municipalities are required by law to exempt a place of public worship from property taxes. We’ve estimated that for 2019, the statutory exempted amounted to almost $46 million in forgone revenue that had to be paid by homeowners and local businesses.

Additional property owned by religious groups — for example, parking lots, thrift shops or even vacant land — can also be exempted at council’s discretion through a permissive exemption, costing an additional about $12.5 million. In other words, every British Columbian is required to indirectly tithe $12 to support local religious groups, disproportionately benefiting long-established Christian congregations who hold prime real estate.

Were our organization so privileged as to own property in B.C., there’s no equivalent statutory exemption available to us, and we’d be on the hook for the full property taxes unless a local government were so generous as to grant us a permissive exemption as a charity, which is much less commonly granted.

Given the tight fiscal constraints many municipalities operate under, we’ve seen an uptick in recent years of councils re-evaluating their permissive tax exemption policies. For example, some have denied requests, while others are capping the total amount of exemptions they are willing to grant.

Given municipalities can already grant permissive exemptions for charities, we recommend removing the special statutory and permissive exemptions granted to places of public worship in the Vancouver and community charters. This would empower local communities to make these decisions directly and on equal footing with other secular organizations that provide benefits to their community.

Our second recommendation is to phase out faith-based and elite private school funding. The province of B.C. contributes over half a billion dollars annually to independent schools. We calculated that almost 70 percent of this funding goes to faith-based schools, almost all of which are Christian. And while it’s true that some secular independent schools provide educational opportunities for students with special needs, they receive the smallest portion of this funding, with even elite secular schools receiving more funding.

Taken together, private school subsidies segregate our society along religious and class lines. We have documented publicly funded private schools that exclude 2SLGBTQ students and staff, as well as schools that teach creationism as science. Amid growing concerns about antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia and other hate, as well as to try to ensure British Columbia remains economically competitive, we recommend no longer supporting this two-tiered education system.

Polls overwhelmingly show British Columbians do not support public funding going to private religious schools. It’s only a small, ideologically motivated lobby that pushes this myth of school choice to deprive our public system of much-needed resources.

Our final recommendation is much more broad. It’s to just generally ensure that government spending goes to secular and inclusive programming. Canada is no longer a Christian nation, if it ever were one. Instead, this is a vibrant, multicultural democracy where the Charter requires the government maintain religious neutrality.

[3:00 p.m.]

However, that duty is undermined when government partners with faith-based non-profits to provide social services. The most egregious example is the $1 billion in public funding that goes annually to Catholic health care providers in this province that refuse to provide care when it violates the orthodoxy of the bishops and nuns who are in charge of those facilities, namely abortion, contraceptives and Medical Assistance in Dying.

Similarly, when it was elected, this government admirably committed to universal $10-a-day child care by 2027, but we have seen public funding going to evangelical daycares such as Kamloops Christian School and Christian Life Children’s Centre, meaning public funds are subsidizing religion and religious education directly.

The same story is true for affordable housing projects and addiction treatment programs, where some of our most vulnerable neighbours are at risk of publicly subsidized religious coercion. We need strict rules to ensure that public money does not go to organizations that proselytize or discriminate on protected grounds.

With that, I’ll happily hear your questions.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation. Going to questions by members.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much. That was fast. I think you were our fastest presenter that we’ve had so far.

Could you just go back to point 2? What were you estimating that the credits that go to private schools amount to?

Ian Bushfield: It’s about $500 million annually. It goes up a little bit each year. There are two tiers of private schools, independent schools, in B.C. There’s phase 1, which receives 50 percent of the funding of a neighbouring public school. Those schools have to operate at or below the cost of a public school. Almost all of those are religious, but there are some that serve special needs.

Group two private schools, independent schools, can operate at or above the cost of public schools, and they get a 35 percent subsidy. Those are your elite schools, the kind of prep high schools and stuff.

There are other private schools that get no funding, but there are very few of them, relatively.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much.

With your first point, you are not directly advocating, again, for a budget expenditure? You’re advocating for a revenue-generating measure through the municipalities, for the municipalities — not for the province, necessarily.

Ian Bushfield: Yeah, there’s a small amount of property taxes that goes to the province — for example, through the school tax and rural area taxes. This change wouldn’t necessarily affect a dollar amount, but it would change the “who pays?” question, depending how it was assorted.

The way most municipalities set their property taxes is that they decide how much money they need and then divide that among the ratepayers. So the same amount of money would be collected. It would just be burdened differently.

Jennifer Blatherwick: That’s a good point. All right, thank you.

Bryan Tepper: I noticed it was predominantly Christian schools you were talking about. My riding does not have any. It has Sikh schools, Khalsa schools. Does that fall into the same category?

Ian Bushfield: Yep. Yeah, we broke down all of the independent schools we could identify in British Columbia. We’ve gone through every website and kind of categorized them.

When we did that, most of them are Catholic or a kind of vague Christian. They don’t specify a denomination, but they may be evangelical or just Protestant. There are a small number of Sikh, and there are a couple of Jewish and Muslim schools as well.

Bryan Tepper: Excellent. The funding shortfall for…. In speaking with the Surrey school board, they were saying, basically, at this point, with the funding that they have, that if the private schools were not there and weren’t getting money from outside sources to deal with that, the school system would probably just basically collapse with the shortfall because of the amount of money they save by having private schools.

Is that something you’re concerned about that we need to deal with? How would we deal with that?

Ian Bushfield: Can you just explain the argument a little bit clearer, so I understand the question?

Bryan Tepper: Well, basically, the property taxes are paying for a certain number of students. You used 35 percent for the schools getting funding. The rest is coming from either religious organizations or the parents of the children. What would we be able to do with those kids if we were pushing them out of the private schools back into a public system with a 65 percent shortfall?

[3:05 p.m.]

Ian Bushfield: My understanding is that B.C.’s private school enrolment is about average for Canada, but B.C. is only one of a couple provinces that actually subsidize private schools. There are more kids that attend private schools in Ontario, where they don’t get a subsidy, than there are in B.C.

So I don’t believe the evidence is strong that cutting off the subsidy would necessarily mean there’s a rush of all of these students back to the public system, because people choose private schooling for many different reasons — because it’s important to their faith or it’s a matter of personal preference. I’m not convinced that eliminating this subsidy would result in a tidal wave to fund in the public system.

Bryan Tepper: Okay, so you’re okay with the schools, just not the funding?

Ian Bushfield: I think the schools need a close eye on regulation, but I don’t think we should be funding them. I’m not advocating closing the schools.

Steve Morissette: Just quickly, to my knowledge, municipalities do have the choice to offer a tax exemption to churches, etc. I don’t know that there’s any need for anything there.

Ian Bushfield: The place of public worship is explicitly exempted from property taxes in the Community Charter and the Vancouver Charter. It’s additional lands that they can exercise discretion over.

I apologize if I talked too fast in my speech, but thank you for hearing me out.

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

We’ll move on to our next presenter. We have Drew Hall from CUPE Local 2278 with us.

You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions, and you may begin whenever you’re ready. Just please make sure you are unmuted. Thank you.

CUPE Local 2278,
UBC Teaching Assistants

Drew Hall: Great. All right. Hi, everyone. Thanks for having me here. My name is Drew. I use they/them pronouns, and I’m the president of CUPE Local 2278, representing over 3,000 members working as teaching assistants, graduate academic assistants, tutors, markers and exam invigilators at UBC, as well as English language instructors and teaching assistants at the University of Northern British Columbia in Prince George.

I’m joining today from the territories of the stolen land of xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ and Stó:lō First Nations here at UBC Vancouver campus.

I’m here to present three recommendations that would really impact the work and lives of our members, both at UBC and UNBC. Our first recommendation is to increase funding for post- secondary institutions to restore a majority public funding of the base budgets with a progressive increase to 75 percent base public funding, including increased research funding and capacity.

Over the past 20 years, public operating funding in the post-secondary sector has steadily declined. In the ’70s, roughly 75 percent of post-secondary funding came from the public government sources, but today less than half of that funding comes from governments. This shortfall has increased due to the decline in revenue from international student tuition fees and then huge costs associated with deferred maintenance of buildings, so buildings falling apart on campus.

In compensation for these budget shortfalls, universities have turned to continually increasing tuition for international students and relying on that as funding. But we’ve seen with the recent cuts in international student visas from the federal government that universities are kind of in a crisis.

This model of exploiting international students is not only unfair but it’s left universities in kind of a tough situation where now we’re seeing reductions in instructional time and hours given to TAs, who are essential in making the instructional operations of the university run and involved in most of the contact hours and teaching students at the university. We’re seeing supports being eliminated for students and faculty. Also, if the university is forced to continue cutting positions, especially TA positions, it risks losing its status as a world-class institution and having a decline in the quality of education at this university.

We also see the impact that this increased reliance on other types of funding has on graduate student research at the university. Students are now torn between feeling accountable to for-profit companies that are funding research at the university rather than staying true to their values and publishing research for the public good and that spirit of really kind of getting to the bottom of investigating the things that are important.

[3:10 p.m.]

We’re urging the provincial government to step up their financial support for B.C.’s public colleges and universities, making sure that public funding is a major factor in university operations.

Our second recommendation is expanding affordable public housing initiatives, including the development of affordable on-campus housing at UBC and also other campuses across the province. The cost of living in B.C., as you know, is among the highest in the country. Most of that is driven by housing costs, so students are often turning over in their rentals more quickly than non-students because of the kind of transient nature of being a student. That gives landlords the opportunity to increase rental rates between tenants.

We’re recommending that the B.C. government expand its work to increase housing supply but also, most importantly, real vacancy controls that limit rent increases on rent charged between tenants. This is very important for making sure that students are not exploited and pushed into housing situations that are unaffordable and unsafe.

Our final recommendation is to increase funding to the labour board to address the backlog of cases and facilitate prompt access to collective bargaining. The Labour Relations Board, as you know, is an important body that helps level the playing field between workers and employers.

Our local has spent the last three years going through a process to attempt to certify thousands of graduate research assistants at UBC. This process entailed organizing workers to sign union cards. But then also, after the employer, UBC, objected to this certification, the labour board took almost two years to issue a decision. We were kept in limbo in this decision for almost two years as the labour board heard the case and continued to extend its own deadline to make a decision.

Most of the reasons for that delay were because the labour board doesn’t have enough capacity to actually process decisions. This is an unfair timeline for workers who deserve the rights to have a fair arbiter of whether or not they’re able to access collective bargaining. We’re asking for increased funding to support the operations of the labour board as well.

Thank you for your time.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. Moving on to questions by members.

Jennifer Blatherwick: There won’t be a ton of questions because we’ve heard from many post-secondary institutions already, and you have very common concerns. But great presentation, and thank you for coming.

I just want you to be a little bit more specific around vacancy control. This isn’t exactly a budgetary ask. There is no budgetary expenditure. You’re really asking for a policy change here. But I just want to clarify. What you mean is that you want rental price control on units, not resetting when someone leaves a tenancy and then a new person comes, but you want the rental control to be on the unit itself, not on the tenancy.

Drew Hall: Yeah, exactly. So when a tenant leaves a unit, as you know, then there is no standard for the amount of rent that’s able to be charged on that unit, and that can raise up to market price, which is a huge driver of unaffordability of housing, especially in students who often move a lot and have to come to a new city to start a new degree, start a new degree program. So not having that benefit of having been in a unit for an extended period of time and benefiting from that rent control is a huge burden to our members.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Okay, thank you.

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

Okay. Thank you so much for your presentation today.

We will take a short recess.

The committee recessed at 3:14 p.m.

[3:20 p.m.]

[3:25 p.m.]

The committee resumed at 3:27 p.m.

[Paul Choi in the chair.]

Paul Choi (Chair): All right. We will call the committee back to order. We will start with the next presenter. We have Tiffany Melius from Options for Sexual Health.

Thanks for joining us today. You have five minutes for the presentation and five minutes for questions after.

Options for Sexual Health

Tiffany Melius: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you today. As mentioned, my name is Tiffany Melius, and I am the executive director of Options for Sexual Health. As the Finance Committee does the important work of listening to the people of British Columbia, I’m honoured to bring forward the voice of our organization, our patients and the communities that we serve.

I’m joining you today from the unceded, traditional and ancestral territories of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ peoples.

Options for Sexual Health is B.C.’s largest provider of sexual and reproductive health services. We have a unique provincewide view of the coordination of sexual and reproductive health services across B.C. We operate 52 clinics across the province, 31 directly, including physical and telehealth clinics, and the rest through our affiliates, reaching over 14,000 people per year.

We are much more than birth control or STI screening. In many communities, we are the only point of care for sexual and reproductive health. Especially in rural and remote areas, we fill critical gaps, gaps left by a shrinking supply of walk-in clinics and wait-lists for primary care. We also train teachers to deliver provincially mandated K-to-12 sexual health education. We operate the Sex Sense information and referral service and combat misinformation through digital and physical outreach.

We serve British Columbians from all walks of life, with particular focus on those who face barriers to care, including youth, newcomers, 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals, people without MSP coverage and those without access to a family doctor. Our care is inclusive, non-judgmental, trauma-informed and affirming.

I’d like to share a few comments from people who have engaged with our services, just to illustrate the work that we do. One patient told us: “The Options clinic is the only place I can go. I don’t have a doctor. I live in a rural area. If this clinic closes, I don’t know what I’ll do.” Another said: “Without this clinic, I wouldn’t have been diagnosed with early cervical cancer. They referred me; they saved my life.”

[3:30 p.m.]

From a social worker: “This is one of the only safe, affordable places for my clients to go. Without it, they’ll end up in emergency rooms or, worse, go without care.” These stories are not rare, and they reflect the real and growing need in communities across B.C.

The B.C. government has taken bold and meaningful steps, like universal coverage for contraception, but coverage only works if people can access care, and that’s what Options delivers day in, day out across the province.

We and the sector at large are ready to do more, given the support and resources. Some examples include maintaining and expanding abortion access, particularly in rural areas, supporting youth through education and outreach and training more health providers to provide sexual health care.

To continue and to grow, we need stability. The sector’s ask…. We’re not here today to ask for a specific funding amount. Instead, we’re asking you to recognize the essential role of community-based sexual and reproductive health services in B.C.’s health system and to support the conditions that allow us to thrive.

Our ask is stable multi-year funding that recognizes the administrative and overhead costs it takes to deliver services, (2) support for recruitment and retention in the non-profit health workforce and (3) a comprehensive and collaborative sexual and reproductive health plan for B.C. to increase efficiencies by streamlining currently fragmented service delivery.

At a time of economic uncertainty, preventative community-based care is one of the building blocks for healthy communities, and it is one of the smartest investments we can make, with studies showing significant economic savings as a result. It protects services, it reduces pressure on emergency rooms, and it delivers on the province’s vision of better, faster care.

Thank you again for your time and the work you’re doing on behalf of all British Columbians. We in Options for Sexual Health are proud to be part of the health system. We are ready to continue that work in partnership. I welcome your questions.

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

Jennifer Blatherwick: Hello, and thank you so much for your questions, your presentation and your advocacy and your work in this sector. It’s essential for the health of, you know, more than half of British Columbians, especially — right? — who are often denied access to appropriate reproductive care depending on where they live.

I’m hoping that you can give us a little bit more detail on what you’re looking for in terms of comprehensive sexual and reproductive health in the….

What are you looking for to be funded? Where do you see the gaps? And this is a really difficult question: what are you looking at in terms of cost?

Tiffany Melius: I think that in terms of cost, we’re even a bit premature to answer that question because, I think, there hasn’t been…. The collaboration piece is the key piece that hasn’t been done so far.

All of the health authorities work differently. Sexual reproductive health care is delivered differently in each of the health authorities, which is why I highlight Options’ provincial view — we’re the only organization that really works provincially to be able to look at all of these different services and how they integrate or don’t integrate.

Some of the gaps, I would say, are when we have referral pathways, some communities, some family doctors will offer some services, and others won’t. We don’t have a comprehensive mapping of where those services are, referral pathways, continuity of patient care. Some convening of all of the different groups, whether they’re abortion care providers, whether they’re family doctors, whether they’re health authority representatives, Options for Sexual Health, would be one of our big calls.

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

Options for Sexual Health had been facing a closure of 25 out of 30 locations, but I believe — correct me if I’m wrong; I just want some clarity — that some funding was then provided to help sustain those. The Elizabeth Bagshaw Clinic, as well, is supposed to close now at the end of June, sort of reducing the locations where women’s or sexual health services can be provided in the province.

[3:35 p.m.]

Do you see this becoming an ongoing problem? How long is the new funding to help preserve those other locations? How long is that on the horizon for, and what should we be looking at long term in terms of making sure that these locations for sexual health services are going to stay open for people?

Tiffany Melius: Yeah, thank you, great questions. We’re very grateful to the ministry for providing the bridge funding for this year. That will be finishing at the end of this fiscal, so March 31, 2026. We’re currently in a strategic review process in partnership with the ministry and the health authorities to determine what comes next.

That speaks to my first two asks around the conditions that allow us to continue: sustainable multi-year funding that recognizes overhead as a necessary piece of what needs to be funded for us to continue and the support for recruitment and retention of our workforce, because one of the largest pieces that we are having challenges with is not paying our staff well enough in matching the BCNU rates to be able to actually keep them. So being able to support those two initiatives would be super helpful for us.

We are working in conjunction with the Ministry of Health to determine that. So any support for that work is also greatly appreciated.

Bagshaw clinic — I believe there were multiple factors that led to that closure, but I’m not a representative of Bagshaw, so I can’t speak to that specifically.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): My follow-up is, can you speak a little bit about what the impact would be if those some 25 clinics for sexual health and reproductive services were to close — what the impact would be on our province.

Tiffany Melius: It would be widespread and extensive. We’re one of the leading testers for STIs. We’re one of the only providers in some of those rural and remote communities where if people don’t get the care that they need through us, they will either go to an emergency room, which is obviously way more expensive than they need to for this kind of care, or they will go without care.

That could lead to an STI epidemic, more unplanned pregnancies, extensive challenges with pregnancy options, counselling not existing or being provided — lots and lots of implications.

Sorry, I realize my time’s up.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): I’ll just end with a comment. You know I like talking about sexual health, an often stigmatized subject, but thank you for making your presentation today and reminding us of the importance of funding reproductive and sexual health in the province.

Tiffany Melius: Thanks very much for your time.

Paul Choi (Chair): MLA Tepper, did you have a question? No? Okay.

MLA Blatherwick, no other questions?

Jennifer Blatherwick: I always have a lot of questions, but I see that we are out of our five minutes of time.

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

Our next presenter is Keanin Loomis from the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction for B.C. region.

Thanks for joining us today. You have five minutes for the presentation, five minutes for the questions after.

Canadian Institute of
Steel Construction, B.C. Region

Keanin Loomis: Thank you so much. Good afternoon, and thank you to the Chair and the committee for inviting me to present on behalf of the CISC as part of the Budget 2026 consultations. I appreciate the opportunity to do so remotely, from my hometown in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada’s steel town.

I’m Keanin Loomis, and I am the president and CEO of the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction. We represent the steel fabricators, manufacturers, constructors, engineers and architects who are building Canada’s infrastructure with steel.

In British Columbia, we have 46 member companies. Eleven of them are fabricator members who transform raw steel into critical components for projects like bridges, schools, hospitals and emergency facilities. Their work strengthens supply chains, supports well-paying stable jobs and drives growth across the province.

Our members also play a pivotal role in disaster recovery. During the 2021 atmospheric river event, for example, they acted swiftly in the Coquihalla Highway restoration, providing essential services that stabilized communities and minimized economic losses from downtime.

However, this industry is increasingly facing global trade pressures, offshore competition and rising costs that make it harder and harder to respond to infrastructure and disaster recovery needs.

It is not hyperbole to say that unless the B.C. government takes measures to support the B.C. steel fabrication industry, soon there may be no British Columbian capacity to build your province’s infrastructure.

[3:40 p.m.]

B.C. has long been a leader in policy innovation, setting ambitious goals through initiatives like CleanBC and demonstrating a readiness to tackle complex emerging challenges.

Just as importantly, this province has shown a pragmatic willingness to adapt, adjusting course when needed to better reflect economic realities and public priorities. We encourage the committee to apply that same forward-looking leadership to support B.C.’s domestic manufacturing base, starting with steel.

According to the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, B.C.’s manufacturing industry contributes $17.3 billion to GDP and supports 390,000 jobs. Yet capital investment is just $13,800 per worker in the manufacturing industry, falling behind Alberta at $23,300 and Saskatchewan at $19,100. Strategic action in Budget 2026 can turn the tide, securing local capacity, building supply chain resilience and positioning B.C. as a global leader in sustainable construction materials.

To that end, we offer two recommendations. One is to strengthen public procurement practices to prioritize domestic Canadian steel fabrication, and the second is to expand targeted provincial investments to boost industry innovation and competitiveness in the steel sector.

Expanding on the first recommendation, to strengthen public procurement practices…. The government of B.C. should use its procurement power as a strategic lever to strengthen domestic fabrication and ensure that taxpayer-funded infrastructure investments deliver maximum economic benefit for British Columbians.

Three key actions to support this recommendation are to introduce minimum domestic steel fabrication content requirements for infrastructure projects funded by the B.C. government; mandate source country disclosure for all structural steel used in provincially funded projects; and strengthen the call for competitive fairness and transparent, inclusive procurement processes that would reinforce the importance of supporting domestic capacity and long-term resilience.

Transparent public procurement policies that prioritize local steel and provincially funded projects such as highways, hospitals, transit infrastructure and schools help ensure taxpayer dollars recirculate in the B.C. economy, reinforcing skilled trades, innovation and industrial capacity across the province. Further, by reducing reliance on offshore imports, B.C. can build economic security while aligning public spending with its climate, safety and infrastructure goals.

Our second recommendation is to expand provincial investments to support industry innovation and competitiveness in the steel sector. Steel fabrication is increasingly high-tech and low-carbon, but modernizing requires significant capital investment. B.C.-based firms are ready to invest in cleaner, smarter fabrication, but they need the right mix of policy and investment to do so.

Pathways to support this recommendation could include expanding R-and-D funding and innovation grants specific to the steel construction sector; introducing targeted programs to support modernization of fabrication facilities and equipment; or designating a portion of the B.C. manufacturing jobs fund to steel-specific projects.

It won’t be news to you that B.C. is a high-cost jurisdiction, where the value of the land our members operate on and the high costs of labour present them with the conundrum of whether it’s not just easier to cash out. You must protect industrial land or you will no longer have any industry. The B.C. manufacturing jobs fund is $180 million, but very rarely does it go to the B.C. steel industry. We’d like to see you designate a quarter of that to steel fabrication.

I want to thank you again for the opportunity to appear today. The CISC and our members stand ready to partner with government to strengthen local industry, deliver economic value and help build a resilient, sustainable future for British Columbia. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

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

Going to questions by members.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much for your presentation. I’m wondering if you could just repeat for me the figures. You said how many people in British Columbia work in the steel industry?

Keanin Loomis: That was in manufacturing. So $17.3 billion in GDP, supporting 390,000 jobs in B.C.’s manufacturing industry.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you. The first point that you made about strengthening the public procurement process, making sure that there’s some kind of Canadian content for projects…. Currently, where does the B.C. steel production predominantly go?

Keanin Loomis: B.C. does not produce any steel in the province. That is limited to about 17 producers across the country from Alberta to Quebec. We represent the fabrication industry. We’re the ones that take that steel, and we engineer it so that it then becomes your hospitals, your schools, etc. We cut it, we connect it, and then we erect it as well.

[3:45 p.m.]

Jennifer Blatherwick: Sorry. I misspoke. Where does the fabricated steel go once it’s…? Where is it used?

Keanin Loomis: Yeah. It goes into our infrastructure, either in highrise condos…. Bridges are a big one for the steel industry, of course. Hospitals, schools, etc.

Part of the issue that we’re dealing with is that many are choosing other materials to build with than steel. So we’re being phased out, especially when it comes to B.C., where the forestry industry is very predominant.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I see. Of the fabricated materials that are produced here, they all stay within the province? There are none that leave the province for export?

Keanin Loomis: Some of it would go into the U.S., yes, into Washington. I do know a number of our members work in the U.S.

Some of our members just do domestic solely. But very rarely would a B.C. fabricator fabricate for other parts of the country.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Thanks for the presentation. Sorry. I just wanted you to clarify. I might have misunderstood. You were asking for transparency in procurement, in where the steel is coming from. Is that correct? Is that to determine whether it’s domestically produced or what country it’s originating from?

Keanin Loomis: That’s correct. Yes. It would align with mandates that are coming down from the federal government, as well, to be able to report the source of steel used in projects.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Just to follow up: currently, do you have any statistics on what is coming from outside of North America into British Columbia for the manufacturing and what is domestically produced?

Keanin Loomis: There is far more coming in from Asia to B.C. than domestically. There is a good amount coming in from the U.S., but because of the access to the ports, it is, according to our members, easier to import from Asia as opposed to railing it or trucking it across the Rockies.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Okay. Sorry, just clarifying. Is it the organization’s wish that we have that transparency so we can increase the amount of domestically supplied steel to support the Canadian jobs and less reliance on Asian steel?

Keanin Loomis: Yes, absolutely. That’s a big part of it, and part of it is the transparency in the process itself when we’re invited to bid on projects in the province. There’s not a ton of transparency there, so we’re often left out of the loop.

I would say that within your jurisdiction, the Pattullo Bridge is one of the prime examples across the country of what not to do when it comes to procurement of steel and going overseas. First of all, when Supreme Steel did not win that bid on the Pattullo Bridge, they closed up shop in B.C., so there was a huge loss of jobs there — again, indicative of what we’re asking for.

The other thing is, of course, that there have been a lot of delays on that project. Certainly, one of the issues is that the lowest bid is usually not the best bid, and we are finding that now. A lot of costs involved. My members are now fixing a lot of the mistakes. If you had gone with a Canadian fabricator, I’m sure that there would be cars driving on that bridge right now.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Very interesting. Okay. Thank you.

Bryan Tepper: Is there a quality difference between, let’s just say we pick, China and Canadian steel?

Keanin Loomis: There’s a huge range of quality coming in from China. And yes, we do need to inspect it. Some of it…. The chemical composition is a little off, and we’ve had issues with drywall as well. Basically, all materials coming in from China should be inspected.

Now, on the other hand, they have some really amazing, state-of-the-art facilities there, but they also have some, what we refer to as, Temu steel coming in from Asia as well.

Bryan Tepper: For a follow-up, then, the Pattullo — is that part of the problem with the steel on that?

Keanin Loomis: The problem wasn’t so much with the steel; it was with the welds on that bridge. That’s a big part of the process. When you’re welding it overseas and shipping it over here, it’s tough to make adjustments on site.

That’s another benefit of going with a domestic fabricator that’s located fairly close to the project itself. They will accompany the steel to the project and make sure that all is right from the very beginning.

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

Keanin Loomis: Thank you for the opportunity.

[3:50 p.m.]

Paul Choi (Chair): We will go to our next presenter. We have Katie Crocker from Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies of British Columbia with us.

Thanks for joining us. You have five minutes for the presentation, five minutes for questions.

Affiliation of Multicultural Societies
and Service Agencies of B.C.

Katie Crocker: Good afternoon, and thank you for this opportunity to consult on the 2026 B.C. budget. As you said, my name is Katie Crocker. I am the chief executive officer of AMSSA, the Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies of British Columbia. We are the provincial umbrella association for agencies serving newcomers in B.C. We represent over 90 organizations in B.C. who build culturally inclusive communities.

We would like to share three priority areas with you as you consider the 2026 B.C. budget. First priority area is to maintain the current level of settlement and integration services in British Columbia. The province of B.C. has recognized the importance that settlement services play in helping newcomers establish themselves so they can contribute to the economic and social fabric of British Columbia. These are people who play a vital role in B.C.’s key labour market needs, particularly in construction and health care.

However, many newcomers are navigating challenges in accessing B.C.’s labour market, English language acquisition and meeting basic needs such as housing. When these core settlement needs are met, they allow newcomers to better contribute to B.C. For example, according to Statistics Canada, immigrants account for one in four health care sector workers.

The province of B.C.’s Newcomer Services Program provides these services to work permit holders, study permit holders, naturalized Canadian citizens, B.C. provincial nominees, refugee claimants and CUAET visa holders, as these groups are ineligible for federally funded settlement services. Between April and December of 2024, the B.C. NSP program served over 36,000 unique clients, demonstrating the need for maintaining the province’s current level of support.

AMSSA also praises the province for the demonstration of its values for human rights and global peace and security through the settlement and integration services. The B.C. safe haven program is integral to the well-being of refugee claimants and asylum seekers, as they are not eligible for federally funded settlement services. Counselling, one-to-one information, English language training, housing search and job finding are just some of the many needed services provided through this program.

Even while their needs are met, it should be recognized that refugees, when they are successfully resettled, are also valuable contributors to B.C.’s economy. Statistics show that after five years, the proportion of refugees earning middle-class incomes is almost equal to the percentage of Canadians and total immigrants earning this amount. The B.C. safe haven program provides refugee claimants and asylum seekers with the needed foundations to succeed, and AMSSA strongly encourages the province to continue its current level of support.

Our second key priority area is addressing the increasing impact of anti-immigration sentiment on newcomers in this province. In the past few years, anti-immigration sentiment has grown exponentially both in the province of B.C. and Canada as a whole, in large part due to the conflation of newcomers with Canada’s housing crisis. More than just heightened focus by media organizations, the settlement sector has noticed that this negative sentiment has caused material harm to both its newcomer clients and staff.

Newcomers make up a significant portion of many of the province’s key industries. The 2024 B.C. Labour Market Outlook predicts that in the decade to come, an estimated 671,000 people will retire from B.C.’s workforce, and immigrants will be the ones to fill that labour market gap. In fact, while B.C.’s economic reliance on newcomers is well documented, what is less certain is newcomers continuing to choose Canada and — by extension, B.C. — as their home.

The 2024 Leaky Bucket report examines onward migration figures for Canada and cites that one in every five immigrants who land in Canada will decide to leave within 25 years. Moreover, it’s not just internationally that we are losing immigrants.

When looking at interprovincial migration data in 2024 alone, B.C. saw a net loss of over 10,000 migrants just to Alberta, something that experts attribute to a combination of Alberta’s lower cost of living and the province’s own purposeful efforts to incentivize newcomers from other parts of Canada to make their home instead.

[3:55 p.m.]

British Columbia is a province brimming with talent and potential in large part because many of the newcomers that chose to make it their home. If we do not want to lose that talent to greener pastures abroad or even one province over, it is imperative that we directly acknowledge and address the adverse effects of rising anti-immigration sentiment and ensure that B.C. remains a welcome and viable place for all newcomers to call home.

Our third priority is to develop an all-ministry approach to newcomer integration that pulls support and funding from different federal and provincial ministries.

Recognizing my time is up….

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

Sunita Dhir: Thank you so much for your presentation and advocacy. We value everybody who wants to make B.C. their permanent home.

You mentioned anti-immigration sentiment. What initiatives do you have in mind to combat that kind of sentiments?

Katie Crocker: Yeah, thank you for that question. B.C. has been funding Resilience B.C., which has been an anti-racism promotional and support program. We would like to see ongoing support for Resilience B.C.

We would also like to see there be more engagement with communities that have local immigration partnerships. There are over 20 local immigration partnerships in the province of B.C., and these are organizations that are already working in community. They’re working with employers, school districts, health authorities, and any increased support for local immigration partnerships would definitely be a step in the right direction for ensuring that the anti-immigrant sentiment is combatted in the communities.

We also expect our political officials to be speaking positively about immigration. We expect them to not be referring to immigrants as the cause of the housing crisis. We all know the cause of the housing crisis was long impacted by poor housing policies and that to blame newcomers for the housing crisis is extremely unfair.

So we expect that our politicians are speaking positively about immigration and about the positive impact that immigrants have on the housing situation in Canada, on the health care situation in Canada and that they actually are the way forward and not the blame.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions?

Okay, follow-up.

Sunita Dhir: My other question is about the international credential evaluation act, because of our initiatives in enhancing this process of international credential evaluation. Do you have any special programs that you are putting forward in this area, in international credential recognition?

Katie Crocker: No, we don’t have any programs necessarily that we’re putting forward. We work closely with partners at the Immigrant Employment Council of British Columbia, as well as other organizations that are looking at how this act, the ICRA, could be broader.

At this time, particularly if we look at the medical field, there are only two professions that fall under the medical field, as we know: veterinarians and paramedical occupations. The vast majority of positions that are coming open in the health care sector — such as registered nurses, nurses aides, LPNs and whatnot — are not covered under this act. This is where we would like to see an expansion of the act.

We know that that is something that is being discussed and that this is still a fairly new act, but at this time, we have not had any information coming forward to us about an intention to expand the act. We would be encouraging the provincial government to be working with organizations like ours and the Immigrant Employment Council of British Columbia and some of our members to be able to expand that act so that we are addressing more relevant occupations and the credentialing of those occupations here in Canada.

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

Katie Crocker: Thank you for your consideration.

[4:00 p.m.]

Paul Choi (Chair): We’ll have our next presenter.

Our next presenter is Lee Nevens, from Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch.

Thanks for joining us here today. You have five minutes for the presentation, five minutes for the questions.

Canadian Bar Association,
B.C. Branch

Lee Nevens: Great. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, committee members. My name is Lee Nevens, and I go by they/them pronouns. I’m here today in my role as president of the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch. We represent over 8,000 lawyers and law students from across the province.

Our members practice at the forefront of our justice system, providing legal services to British Columbians in every area of law, from family disputes to criminal matters to major provincial infrastructure projects. We work as sole practitioners, small firm lawyers, government lawyers and in-house counsel, from small communities to major firms in large cities.

While the scope and context of our work is very broad across the province, we are united in our call for funding to modernize our courts. British Columbians deserve a reliable justice system that delivers fair outcomes efficiently and effectively. But our courts are bogged down by delays due to poor technology and infrastructure, as well as inefficient processes.

Court backlogs in B.C. drive up legal costs for businesses and force families to wait a long time for answers to their legal problems. These expenses are even more devastating amid economic instability, while British Columbians try to keep up with the rising cost of living.

To address this, the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch recommends funding for three priorities: first, technology to improve court service delivery; second, provincewide expansion of the provincial court early resolution process; and third, Indigenous courts.

First, investing in technology for court service delivery. To make the justice system easier to navigate and to reduce costly delays, we ask the government to help accelerate the implementation of the court digital transformation strategy, which is a joint effort across all levels of court in B.C. and the Attorney General, to improve accessibility and convenience for British Columbians through technology. There is lots to be done, and the current funding and pace are frankly just not enough to keep up.

British Columbians should be able to make virtual appearances for routine hearings and to easily file their court records online. What our courts need is an online booking system for hearing dates, improved hardware such as microphones, cameras, computers, upgrades to B.C. OnLine, which is an online filing system that’s now over 20 years old, and Wi-Fi availability throughout courthouses and not just inside courtrooms.

Expanding the infrastructure for these can remove barriers to justice, especially for those living in rural and remote communities who would otherwise have to travel long distances if they can’t access courts virtually just to file their documents or to appear briefly in court.

Our members have witnessed how these kinds of court delays have truly eroded public confidence in our justice system, and we think that replacing this out-of-date court filing system and our scheduling processes with modern technology that speeds up the delivery of justice can help to build and restore that trust.

Our second priority that we want to highlight is the early resolution process in B.C., which offers legal guidance to families dealing with matters like separation and child support before they file applications within the provincial court. Introduced as a pilot project in 2020, the process has helped families access early legal support, explore their options and reach agreements without resorting to continued litigation.

The process can reduce conflict and stress for those families. Plus, by reducing the number of subsequent court applications, the early resolution process reduces delays in other parts of the court system and helps free up the courts to focus on more complex cases.

We acknowledge and appreciate that the province has approved expansion of the early resolution process to more court registries throughout the province, but the government must now fully fund that expansion so that more families can actually benefit and access that early support.

Third, the provincial courts need more funding for Indigenous courts. British Columbia’s nine Indigenous courts are tailored to respond to the needs of Indigenous peoples and communities by supporting rehabilitation, reducing reoffending and repairing harm done to victims. The sentencing courts can achieve these aims if they have funding for training on court processes, compensation for Indigenous Elders and increased Indigenous court sittings in populated areas.

Without these resources, it’s challenging for the courts to operate in a timely manner, appropriately compensate and support Elders who participate in the process and continue this important approach that upholds respect for and the traditions of our Indigenous peoples.

[4:05 p.m.]

To close, the government must invest in a court system that provides British Columbians with fair, secure and reliable access to justice. On behalf of the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch, I urge you to modernize our courts by investing in technology, in early resolution programs, in early resolution process and in Indigenous courts.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments, and I’m pleased to answer any of your questions.

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

We will now go to questions by members, starting with the Deputy Chair.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Hi, Lee. Great to see you again.

I appreciated getting a presentation from the bar association, maybe a couple months back, before the budget actually dropped for this year.

I just want to know your perspective on…. Hearing from you that we need to speed up the digital transformation for the system here provincially at all levels of court, I’ve heard also from some B.C. prosecutors who think that maybe we need to look nationally, as well, to make it easier for our court system to interact with other jurisdictions, especially with criminal matters.

I want to know if you had any thoughts on that, or if the bar association had been looking at upgrades that could potentially make it easier for us to access information in other jurisdictions.

Lee Nevens: Thanks very much for your question.

I haven’t actually heard of that particular concern, but I think we certainly would support integration with other jurisdictions where it’s helpful, as well as finding funding and leverage at all levels of government where it can be applied to help British Columbians.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Excellent. Okay. Thank you.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much.

Could you talk a little bit more about the current way that the Indigenous courts work — you said that there were nine locations where they operate currently — and a little bit more about how that functions and what the current funding model is?

Lee Nevens: Right now, there are the nine sentencing courts that we have established. I don’t have details on their funding model. But we do have business cases for all of these that have been prepared, both from government as well as from the courts themselves, that set out the details of the funding that’s required for them.

Sunita Dhir: Thank you so much, Lee, for your presentation.

Pardon my ignorance, but currently, there’s no virtual hearing process available to anybody over the phone or by Zoom?

Lee Nevens: There are a few limited ways where people can appear virtually or by phone. Like, for example, some case planning conferences or some emergency measures that were taken during the pandemic, but it is quite limited.

There are a lot more areas where we think it could be used to create efficiencies within the system so that cases can be processed quicker and people’s expenses are lower, both for travel as well as for their lawyer’s time.

Sunita Dhir: Thank you.

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

Moving on to the next presenter, we have Alison Silgardo, from the Seniors Services Society of B.C. joining us today. Thanks for coming. You have five minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions after.

Seniors Services Society of B.C.

Alison Silgardo: Thank you. Good evening, Chair and hon. Members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. As you said, my name is Alison, and I’m the CEO of Senior Services Society of B.C.

I’m here to speak about a growing crisis in our province, seniors facing homelessness and housing insecurity, and request your support. Let me begin with three brief stories that show the human face of the crisis.

Jane, 86, lived in a Burnaby rental home for 26 years. When the owner passed away, she was given notice to leave. Despite having income and references, she could not secure housing. When the deadline arrived, Jane moved into her car. Within three days of connecting with us, she was sheltered, and within a month, she was permanently housed with the help of a partner agency.

[4:10 p.m.]

Tom, a contractor who worked on the SkyTrain, lost his home twice due to property sales. We housed him and found a long-term home that he loved. Unfortunately, Tom also had mental health challenges, and his mental health supports did not transfer to the new region. His health declined, and he killed himself.

Gary stubbed his toe and was hospitalized for three months. When he was discharged, his landlord had re-rented the unit and discarded all his belongings. He had no ID, no home and no possessions. That week we received four similar calls from seniors discharged at noon who found themselves homeless.

These are not rare cases in B.C. One in five seniors who become homeless experience it for the very first time after the age of 55. Many are independent and have paid rent for decades but find themselves without a home and unable to navigate the system. Seniors are facing significant barriers to housing — digital exclusion, mobility limitations and the complex system that is difficult for them to navigate alone.

To address this, we developed, six years ago, the SHINE program, seniors housing information and navigation ease. SHINE is a community-based system designed to prevent and respond to seniors homelessness. It operates through a hub-and-spoke network.

The central theme at Seniors Services provides leadership and coordination while local partners across B.C. deliver services on the ground. This model is based on five key pillars: centralized housing navigation, systemic support coordination, standardized data collection, capacity building for partners and outcome-based evaluation.

SHINE currently operates with 8.4 FTEs across B.C. funded annually, which limits continuity in staffing and service delivery. In addition, SHINE offers no-cost, sliding scale counselling, legal support and a community of practice to build creative, real-time solutions for seniors in time.

To address critical needs, we piloted wraparound services, and the results are really impactful. For 15 consecutive months, Seniors Services have had more affordable housing units offered to us than seniors in the Lower Mainland seeking housing. In addition, every senior that we’ve placed through this continuum has stayed permanently housed, with five exceptions. These results have earned us strong partnerships with both affordable and market housing providers.

To meet the growing needs, we are asking for your support to scale SHINE across the province in the 12 cities that it’s currently in, at the rate of $320,000 per city per year for the 12 cities and $400,000 per year for central coordination, training and data infrastructure. This investment will allow us to prevent homelessness, ease the pressure on emergency services and help seniors age with dignity and stability.

Chair and members: seniors have contributed immensely to our communities. They do deserve to age in dignity, not desperation. With your support, we can expand this model to ensure they receive timely, coordinated help when they need it most.

Thank you, and I welcome your questions.

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

Claire Rattée: Sorry, just a quick question. I missed the second part there. I got that you’re looking for support to scale the current programming at $320,000 per city per year for 12 cities. What was the second request?

Alison Silgardo: The $400,000, which is the backbone for this operation.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you so much for your presentation today.

For committee members, we will now move to see if there is any other business. Seeing none, thank you to everyone who presented.

That concludes our meeting today, and we will return tomorrow for more virtual public hearings. I will seek a motion to adjourn.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 4:14 p.m.