The committee met at 8:31 a.m.

[Paul Choi in the chair.]

Paul Choi (Chair): Good morning, everyone. My name is Paul Choi. I am 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 on 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/consultation.

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

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Good morning, everybody. I’m Elenore Sturko. I am the MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale, and I’m the critic for Public Safety and the Solicitor General. Looking forward to another round of presentations from the community.

Bryan Tepper: I am Bryan Tepper, MLA, 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. Jennifer Blatherwick, the MLA for Coquitlam-Maillardville, and I am also the Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity.

Steve Morissette: Good morning. Steve Morissette, 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 very much, Members.

Obviously, we can’t do this just alone. We have a lot of staff around the precinct who are supporting us out of the Parliamentary Committees Office and Hansard, in addition to other services around our Legislative Assembly. Thank you, everyone, for being here.

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

Thank you for being here today.

Jocelyn Brown: Good morning.

Paul Choi (Chair): Good morning. You have five minutes for the presentation, five minutes for questions after.

Budget Consultation Presentations

Jocelyn Brown

Jocelyn Brown: Thank you. My name is Jocelyn Brown. I am here today to talk about what it feels like to fall through the cracks. If this has ever happened to you, metaphorically or literally, you know you’re not just concerned for yourself, but I’m here today to help others avoid the same fate.

I am a parent representing a small yet profoundly impacted group of children in B.C. born with a rare congenital syndrome called ectodermal dysplasia. This genetic condition results in multiple congenital birth defects, including cleft lip palate and severe oligodontia, which is the absence of eight or more permanent teeth, which can significantly affect a child’s ability to chew, speak, grow and socialize. In my son’s case, he is missing 12 adult teeth.

[8:35 a.m.]

In addition to the dental abnormalities, these children experience craniofacial abnormalities that require coordinated care across multiple medical disciplines, including oral and maxillofacial surgeons; prosthodontists; orthodontists; plastic surgeons; ear, nose and throat specialists; general dentistry; and speech-language pathologists.

These are not cosmetic concerns. They are complex medical conditions requiring comprehensive, long-term care and treatment to ensure children’s physical function, psychosocial development and overall well-being. Despite this medical necessity, the B.C. Medical Services Plan does not cover these interventions, nor are these services eligible under the new federal Canadian dental plan.

In B.C., families must rely on the SOFI program, which stands for the severe oligodontia funding program, administered by B.C. Children’s Hospital. This is in collaboration with the B.C. Dental Association. This program offers a one-time grant. Typically, families receive up to $16,000. The maximum that we have received is $25,000. My son’s care is estimated at $75,000.

The lifetime maximum benefit for these families is $25,000 through the SOFI program at B.C. Children’s Hospital. This figure is significantly lower than the actual cost of the comprehensive care. The care includes things like sinus lifts, bone grafts, dental implants and custom prosthodontics.

When SOFI was originally introduced 20 years ago, it allowed funding of up to $100,000 per patient, reflecting the real cost of the multidisciplinary care. Over the past 20 years, this funding has been whittled away to a maximum of $25,000.

In 2024, the SOFI program received 14 applications for the funding. Ten were approved, two were pending at the time of reporting, and two were deemed ineligible. These numbers show that although the patient population is small, the need is consistent and measurable. Yet these families remain excluded from the very system that is supposed to ensure equitable access to medically necessary health care.

By the time these kids reach late adolescence — approximately 18 for girls and 21 for boys — they must undergo multiple rounds of painful reconstructive surgeries, followed by restorative dental procedures. These interventions are not only critically necessary to restore basic function but to prevent further deterioration, such as jaw fractures and the loss of remaining teeth.

My son experiences chronic pain, nutritional deficiency, speech impediments and impairments, and it has had a severe impact on his mental health. Parents are left with no choice but to take on significant financial debt to access the care for their children.

I am here today to ask for your support in addressing this critical gap in the B.C. health care coverage. Specifically, we urge you to help modernize the SOFI program by increasing the funding limit and to advocate for changes to MSP to recognize congenital dental abnormalities related to genetic syndromes as legitimate medical conditions eligible for coverage.

Children born with cleft lip palate, craniofacial syndromes and oral cancer are currently eligible for surgical coverage. Children with ectodermal dysplasia — by the way, cleft lip palate is included in this group — are just as medically complex. Their needs are equally urgent and deserve the same consideration. No family should be forced to choose between their financial security and their child’s health.

We ask you to help ensure the B.C. health care system evolves to address the pressing needs of these children born with these congenital conditions. That’s what I have for you today.

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

Jennifer Blatherwick: Good morning. Thank you for coming to present to us today and advocating for your son and for children like your son.

I’m wondering…. You were saying that with the SOFI funding…. Is it that the funding pot has decreased or that there are more people applying for the existing funds?

[8:40 a.m.]

Jocelyn Brown: You know, I’m a parent; I’m not an administrator, although my background is, actually, at Children’s Hospital. My understanding is that it’s both. The original funding was for $100,000 per child, and at the time, from my understanding from my son’s surgeons, there were probably five or six children per year that needed the support.

One of the concerning pieces that cleft lip and palate children have, although they have a comprehensive program at B.C. Children’s Hospital, is that if they’re missing the teeth not on the cleft, not on their palate, the families are still forced to absorb the cost for the surgeries for the implants for those kids. Even though, just like my son, we were all diagnosed at medical genetics at B.C. Children’s Hospital, parents still have to foot the bill for this medical genetic birth defect.

Coupled with that, obviously, the costs have gone up over the past 20 years for the cost of surgery. Many of the specialists that take care of these kids don’t charge market rate for the surgeries because they know it is so cost-prohibitive for the families.

Sunita Dhir: Thanks, Jocelyn, for sharing this and for your presentation. The funding cap — is it lifetime funding now, or do you have an annual cap?

Jocelyn Brown: It’s a maximum of $25,000 per child for their lifetime. The average is $16,000 per family right now. Thankfully, my son received the $25,000 because his case is so severe.

Sunita Dhir: Yes. I was aware of $16,000, but the cost is $75,000, you said?

Jocelyn Brown: That’s the estimate from his specialists, yes.

Sunita Dhir: Okay. And what is covered under MSP? I am aware that some dental coverage is under MSP for children. Is anything…? No?

Jocelyn Brown: No, not in this case. He has seen an orthodontist through the cleft lip and palate program, but everything else I have to pay for personally and is not covered under MSP.

Sunita Dhir: And it’s all being done at B.C. Children’s Hospital?

Jocelyn Brown: My son actually just did his first surgery on Monday, and it was at UBC Hospital. My deposit was $23,000. I own my own business with my husband. We don’t have extended health. That was our first instalment of many surgeries that he’s going to have to go through.

He’s 21 years old now. He was diagnosed when he was eight years old and diagnosed at B.C. Children’s Hospital medical genetics with ectodermal dysplasia. None of its programs…. I have exhausted the….

I’ve worked with my MP to try to look at the Canadian program, and this is far too specialized for the new Canadian federal program, so it’s ineligible.

Sunita Dhir: Thanks so much for your advocacy.

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

Jocelyn Brown: Okay. I just was wondering what the next steps are. Do I get a response from the Finance Committee at some point? When are decisions made about some of the proposals put forward?

Paul Choi (Chair): Yes. We will release a report publicly in due course. The exact timeline isn’t here yet.

Jocelyn Brown: Okay. I have a report prepared I’m happy to share with you. It has a little more statistics through B.C. Children’s Hospital and the Canadian Dental Association. I’m happy to submit it to you if you care to see it. It’s a little more detailed than my presentation.

Paul Choi (Chair): Yes, you can send it to us. Thank you so much.

We’ll move on to our next presenter. Our next presenter is Sharon Dong, from CityReach Care Society.

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

[8:45 a.m.]

CityReach Care Society

Sharon Dong: Good morning. My name is Sharon Dong, and I serve as a director of Food for Families at CityReach Care Society. We are a registered Canadian charity with over 20 years of service supporting more than 4,500 individuals across Vancouver, the Tri-Cities and Surrey.

Since 2020, CityReach has grown 30-fold. In 2024 alone, we moved over 1.4 million pounds of surplus and donated food. We distribute it not only to individuals but also to schools, community centres and neighbourhood houses.

We are proud to be one of the founding members of the Vancouver food recovery network. Food recovery refers to the process of collecting surplus and unused food and redistributing it to prevent waste and to feed people in need. It is an important strategy for addressing both food insecurity and environmental sustainability.

The 2019 B.C. poverty reduction strategy rightfully identified food security as a key priority. However, five years on, the compounded pressures of poverty and inflation have left families worse off. Across the province, food programs are full. People are calling, emailing or just showing up in person desperate for help. At the same time, social impact organizations are stretched thin, unable to keep up with rising operational costs due to stagnant or insufficient funding.

At CityReach, we have been responding through food recovery, diverting perfectly good food from waste and getting it into the hands of those that need it. But we have done this critical work without any multi-year core funding from the provincial government. We are the boots on the ground, holding the line until long-term policy shifts can take effect.

In 2024, in the B.C. poverty reduction strategy, Hon. Sheila Malcolmson again emphasized the importance of acting on urgent issues like food security. I want to underscore to this committee that we are already doing this.

The Vancouver food recovery network comprises four major organizations: CityReach Care Society, Food Stash Foundation, Vancouver Food Runners and Quest Food Exchange. We support over 60,000 individuals, and together, we support 229 unique social purpose organizations.

Again, we are doing this with minimal support from the province. Our work aligns with the B.C. government’s strategic priorities of food security, poverty reduction, housing stability, social inclusion, employment, accessibility and meeting basic needs. We are not just handing out meals. We are fortifying the front-line organizations that support individuals on their journey out of poverty.

CityReach alone contributes over $4 million worth of food support annually, yet we receive less than $100,000 in funding from the province. This gap forces us to divert critical time and energy toward fundraising rather than service delivery at this critical time.

Now, I ask you: what if we stop tomorrow? What if the Vancouver food recovery network ceased operations? This would create an immediate $17 million shortfall in essential food support, and hunger doesn’t wait.

Therefore, I respectfully request the following: (1) multi-year core funding for the Vancouver food recovery network and for organizations outside the Food Banks B.C. and United Way B.C. umbrellas; (2) incorporate food security funding into the province’s base budget so that it is not just short-term and emergency allocations; and (3) establish a provincial body and appoint a parliamentary secretary for food security to ensure strategic oversight and leadership.

Thank you for the opportunity to share today. We are doing the work. Now we need the province to stand with us.

Paul Choi (Chair): We will now move to questions by members. Seeing no questions, thank you so much for your presentation today.

[8:50 a.m.]

Moving on to our next presenter, we have Michelle Reining from Vancouver Food Runners.

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

Vancouver Food Runners

Michelle Reining: Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Michelle Reining, and I’m the founding executive director of Vancouver Food Runners, a registered charity that recovers edible surplus food from over 140 businesses and delivers it to more than 140 non-profits across Metro Vancouver. We do this through an innovative tech-powered model using the Vancouver Food Runners app, supported by hundreds of dedicated volunteer drivers.

Last year our volunteers delivered 1.22 million pounds of surplus food valued at $4.4 million. This food was kept out of the landfills and redirected to where it could make a meaningful difference through community food programs.

At Vancouver Food Runners, we see our mission as supporting the non-profit sector — front-line organizations providing counselling, health care, housing, employment programming and other critical social services. With nearly one in four households in B.C. experiencing food insecurity, many people accessing these essential social services are coming to these programs hungry because they cannot afford to eat on a regular basis. By providing fresh, healthy food donations that non-profits can use in community meals and food boxes, we save these organizations time, money and resources.

At Food Runners, we focus on food recovery so they can focus on transformative social programming that strengthens individuals and communities. But let me be clear. Food recovery is not a solution to food insecurity, but it does build non-profit capacity, reduce food waste and promote sustainable practices in the food industry. We also help food businesses recognize their surplus and provide them with ongoing data. This is often a first step in preventing waste within their operations.

Despite our proven impact, our work is underfunded. This year alone I’ve submitted over 70 grant applications and outreach packages to potential funders. We did receive $8,000 over the last two years from Food Banks B.C., but no other government support for our core operations.

In addition, we are ineligible for major provincial funding. For example, we do not qualify for the B.C. community gaming grant because we deliver food to non-profits and not directly to individuals. We are also ineligible for United Way funding because we do not have physical infrastructure, a food hub location, even though our volunteers deliver thousands of pounds of food to United Way food hubs across Metro Vancouver each month.

We are not alone in these funding challenges. As a part of the Vancouver food recovery network, comprised of Vancouver Food Runners, Food Stash Foundation, CityReach Care Society and Quest non-profit grocery markets, we work together to create efficiency and maximize impact in the food recovery space. Together our four organizations move almost 5 million pounds of rescued food annually and support food programs, reaching over 60,000 community members every week. Yet provincial funding is concentrated in just a few organizations and doesn’t reach our four organizations.

Last year the Vancouver food recovery network delivered over $17 million in rescued food. Yet between our four organizations, we received only $77,000 in provincial funding, and Vancouver Food Runners received no provincial funding for our core operations in 2024.

We are calling for a more equitable funding approach that recognizes the full ecosystem supporting food access in B.C. This aligns directly with the mandate of the Hon. Sheila Malcolmson, Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, to support British Columbians struggling with food and unable to afford the basics, by leading work on food security.

To support this mandate, we recommend multi-year core operating funding for major food recovery organizations in B.C., particularly those outside the traditional food bank model; expanded eligibility for provincial funding, such as the B.C. community gaming grant, to include non-profits delivering food to other non-profits; for United Way B.C. to include food recovery organizations that support their food hub model, even if they themselves are not hubs; and also establishing a provincial body to coordinate food security efforts, aligning funding, monitoring and addressing policy gaps and to appoint a parliamentary secretary for food security to ensure strategic oversight and leadership.

Thank you for your time.

[8:55 a.m.]

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

Moving on to our next presenter, we have Fraser Young.

Thank you for joining us. If you can have your camera on, that would be great. Perfect.

Fraser Young: Good morning.

Paul Choi (Chair): Good morning. Thanks for joining us. You have five minutes for the presentation and five minutes for questions after.

Fraser Young

Fraser Young: Thank you.

I’d like to begin with a quote. My first topic is about inclusive playgrounds. The quote is: “Creating safe, accessible spaces for children to play is crucial for our communities. Access to play shouldn’t depend on parents’ ability to fundraise for these facilities.”

That quote was made by Bowinn Ma, Minister of Infrastructure, after announcing that 25 more school playgrounds would receive provincial funding of $200,000 in 2025. That’s under half a percent of the total budget for the school infrastructures being put in place.

However, the budget does indeed fall short and relies heavily on parents still funding, because the total cost of the school, especially a school playground, especially one that’s built for accessibility and the ground surface and whatnot, could easily hit $1 million.

Also, other challenges…. There, unfortunately, is zero oversight or requirements before giving the funding that the planned playground is in fact going to be accessible. My recommendation with this is that the government make sure, before giving out the funding, that the playground design is fully accessible.

We have lots of materials available. Rick Hansen Foundation is a good resource. We’ve got, in Canada…. Canadian Tire JumpStart has done a lot of research with the University of Toronto and Alberta, as well as Holland Bloorview, creating guides on accessibility for playgrounds. I’m hoping that those standards could be upheld prior to a playground being funded.

Then, as far as the money, with the cost of everything going up, what was probably once a very generous grant of $200,000, like I said, barely scratches the surface. A We-Go-Round, as one of the major suppliers calls it, which is basically a merry-go-round that a wheelchair can go on…. That one piece of equipment is about $60,000.

I’m proposing that perhaps the grant be expanded to $1 million for schools with 300 children or less and, for larger schools, perhaps for every extra hundred students, so the playground is of decent capacity, an extra $250,000. That’s my first point.

My second, because I know I’m limited on time here, is regarding transit. Each regional transit system pertaining to B.C. Transit creates a multi-year plan where they talk about routes and transit stations and all kinds of improvements needed. All government parties sign on to this, even at the municipal level.

However, as we’re finding out in Vernon, almost all of the items that were supposed to be completed…. This is the final year of this plan. Almost none of them have been put in place, and when I recently met with Minister Farnworth and his team on this matter, I was told that, basically, that’s a wish list, but the funding itself isn’t tied to that.

[9:00 a.m.]

I’m proposing, since the provincial government is a key player and stakeholder, that when they’re developing these plans, they have a budget in mind, that the plan be funded and that the future budgets account for whatever is signed off in that plan so that our route 10 in Vernon, for example, would be built. It’s actually where the MLA lives. We have a whole transit centre that was supposed to be built — not built. We have a route that connects to Kelowna and the airport that was supposed to have additional hours of service expanded. None of that was put in place. Those are just some of the examples and just for one transit system.

That’s the end of my presentation. I thank you for your time.

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

Bryan Tepper: I think I missed what you said there about the wish list. Can you tell me what was that in response to?

Fraser Young: For the Vernon transit system, there’s a regional plan where it says that from, I think, 2021 to 2025, we’re going to expand routes. We’re going to list specific routes, the specific hours that were agreed to. There’s a transit station supposed to go in near the Polson Place Mall. Different hours of service connecting the communities of Kelowna and Vernon….

Right now the bus doesn’t even run hourly. Commuters can’t rely on it; and air travellers, same thing. So when pushed and we look at it, this is the plan; this is the final year. Unless we’re planning on a very busy Q3 and Q4, it doesn’t look like it’s going to get done.

I was told that, basically, that’s just…. You know, it’s put out there, but it’s not tied to funding. There were issues with funding apparently. That has been the feedback I’ve been getting from just about everybody I talked to about these failed promises.

Bryan Tepper: I think everybody’s having problems with the funding right now.

So it’s the regional plan that was put forward to the ministry? I think that’s what you’re saying.

Fraser Young: Well, the ministry is a partner in that plan. So the ministry, local government, B.C. Transit itself, all agree to this, and yet the money’s not there.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much for your presentation today. I appreciated you speaking about accessibility and playgrounds. You know, all kids, I think, should have the right to play. It’s part of what makes a healthy community. I look forward to a day when, instead of saying playgrounds and accessible playgrounds, they’re just called playgrounds, and everybody gets a chance to play. Thanks very much for that. I appreciated your time.

Fraser Young: Thank you.

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

Moving on to our next presenter, we have Vanessa Daether, from Cowichan Green Community.

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

Cowichan Green Community

Vanessa Daether: Good morning. Thank you to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for creating this opportunity for me, on behalf of my organization, to present.

My name is Vanessa Daether, and I’m the executive director of the Cowichan Green Community. We are a community food security organization that offers services throughout the Cowichan Valley of Vancouver Island, where we respectfully recognize the territories of the Hul’q’umi’num’-speaking peoples of the Quw’utsun Nation, as well as the MÁLEXEŁ Nation and the territories of the Ts’uubaa-asatx Nation and of the nuučaan̓uɫ-speaking peoples.

I will start my presentation with a brief overview of our organization and the context in which we work before proceeding with my recommendations.

The Cowichan Green Community, as I noted, is a food organization. We deliver 30-plus regional food-based programs and services that aim to increase food access, long-term food security and support for our local food system. We are one of eight designated Island Health food hubs on Vancouver Island, meaning we collectively work with Island Health and hundreds of community partners to support healthy and resilient food systems and to address the root causes of food insecurity.

[9:05 a.m.]

For my organization, our key services include running a diversity of agricultural or land-based programs, such as a regional farm and food map, delivering agricultural training programs that directly support the next generation of food producers. As well, currently, we’re building a ministry-funded food hub in North Cowichan that, by this fall, will showcase a shared-use, HACCP-certified commercial kitchen and food distribution warehouse for the processing, distribution, aggregation and storage of local food for our community.

We also operate a number of programs designed to support individual and household access to food, including a low-barrier grocery store that, while it is open to the public, features a coupon program for community members who are registered, so they can access $25 a week of free food. We run a food recovery program where we partner with regional grocery stores to redistribute surplus food in our community to those who need it, and we deliver a Meals on Wheels program for 46 isolated seniors in our community, delivering food to their doorstep each week.

Now, when we look at the broader context in which we work in, that being food security, the situation is complex, and food insecurity issues continue to rise. We see this at our doorsteps on a daily basis. From a food-access perspective, in our community, household food insecurity continues to rise. Our organization, along with countless other organizations who provide service in our region, reports a continued and upward trend in the demand for our services, with new clients and demographics seeking emergency food services, including our youth, families and seniors.

While our organization is not a food bank, we field countless phone calls, emails and site visits each week from individuals in crisis, as well as service providers supporting community members who simply do not have enough food to eat. Month by month, the demand continues to increase, and we see this as a crisis.

If we look at our food system from our local food economy, our food producers also face challenges, as well as our supply chains, and they face risks from multiple fronts. As an Island community, the majority of our food arrives to our tables from off-Island. This presents an incredible market opportunity as well, but we need to make sure that we have robust local supply chains and supports to ensure that our food producers are resilient in the face of climate change, trade volatilities and the rising cost of living, which affects consumer behaviour.

For our recommendations for the committee today…. We have two. First, we request that you prioritize funding for organizations, such as ours, whose mandate includes enhancing the local food economy, supporting immediate household food access and facilitating long-term solutions to the root causes of food insecurity through community programming. Local food organizations such as ours play a vital role in our regional food system, and they often operate with limited or unstable funding. But the demand for our services is high, and we are well-positioned to meet community needs quickly when allocated sufficient resources. A solution would be to award direct service contracts with our organizations to allow us to continue conducting our meaningful work.

Second, we encourage you to continue to support the local food economy. We need local food and to support our local food producers. Continue investing in critical infrastructure development for local food production, distribution, processing and storage. From the market side, look to expand solutions like the Ministry of Agriculture’s Buy B.C. program to encompass local governments and regional districts, so they can also implement local procurement policies and reach that 30 percent target in their jurisdictions.

Thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate your attention.

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

Jennifer Blatherwick: Good morning, and thank you for your presentation.

For your first recommendation, you’ve asked for prioritizing funding and increasing food security, and you mentioned direct contracts. Are you thinking a direct contract through, like, SDPR? What ministries, specifically, are you thinking?

Vanessa Daether: We’re open. Food insecurity and the concept of food intersects multiple jurisdictions, so I don’t see this as a one-ministry solution. Ministries of Social Development, Health, Agriculture — there are lots of opportunities here, I think, to support the work we do.

You know, food isn’t just necessarily directly about producing food or to market. It is a complex issue that intersects with our economy, our health, social service systems and more.

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

Vanessa Daether: Thank you for having me.

[9:10 a.m.]

Paul Choi (Chair): Moving on to our next presenter. We have Jeremy Dunn from B.C. Dairy.

B.C. Dairy

Jeremy Dunn: Thank you very much, and thank you for having me present to your committee today. My name is Jeremy Dunn. I’m the general manager of the B.C. Dairy Association. Our association represents the province’s over 400 dairy farms, all family-run businesses that are essential to B.C.’s food security, rural economies and environmental stewardship. Together, B.C.’s dairy farms support over 12,000 jobs and contribute over $1.2 billion to B.C.’s GDP.

We’ve entered an era of global uncertainty. Trade relationships are strained. Climate volatility is rising, and B.C.’s farmers are being asked to adapt faster and absorb more risk than ever before. As potential trade action threatens Canada’s dairy and supply-managed sectors, it is more important than ever that we strengthen our capacity to feed Canadians with high-quality, locally-produced food.

We can’t rely on foreign governments or multinational corporations to meet the basic needs of our people. This is why we’re urging the province to invest decisively in food sovereignty, the ability to produce, process and distribute our own food on our own terms while we’re supporting export opportunities to countries that value high-quality Canadian food products.

Our top priority is bold provincial leadership to advance food sovereignty, and that begins with decisive action on water. There’s a clear path forward. Farmers across the province are calling for practical, achievable steps, including clearing the groundwater licensing backlog that has stalled thousands of producers, empowering local watershed planning with the tools and capacity to succeed, expanding water storage through both traditional and nature-based solutions, and modernizing permitting and financing pathways for critical agricultural infrastructure. These are shovel-ready actions that will help farmers respond to climate change, grow more food and build long-term water resilience.

The agricultural water infrastructure program was a critical early success, but to truly meet the moment, this program must evolve into a core delivery mechanism, helping drive urgent work on water storage, streamline permitting and infrastructure investment.

We cannot talk about food without talking about water. There is no food without water, and there is no food sovereignty without secure, farmer-accessible water. This means, more than ever, that B.C. cannot afford to outsource its food supply. We must control what we grow, how we grow it and who we grow it for. Food sovereignty starts with water sovereignty.

From a food-processing and competitiveness perspective, food sovereignty is also about how we process and distribute food here at home. To fully realize the economic and food security potential of B.C. agriculture, we need to strengthen our domestic processing capacity. This means modernizing facilities, scaling innovation and creating skilled jobs across B.C.

Programs like the B.C. manufacturing jobs fund provided a foundation, but targeted investments are needed to grow processing and improve competitiveness. These include supporting existing facility expansion to increase volumes and improve efficiency; working with local governments to ensure they can support new processing facilities through adequate transportation, wastewater and energy infrastructure; and reducing red tape to support long-term growth.

\With the right investments, B.C. can ensure that more of the food we produce is also processed here, maximizing economic value, reducing reliance on imports and supporting the sustainability of our farms and communities. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food is being asked to do more, leading drought response, disaster recovery and food systems planning, but its core budget has remained relatively flat, limiting its ability to meet rising demands.

We’re asking for a meaningful increase to the ministry’s base budget to ensure it can scale successful programs like climate adaptation, water infrastructure and risk management, staff regional offices and technical roles that support producers across B.C. and deliver on food competitiveness programming and agricultural land planning. This is about institutional capacity to deliver sovereignty. B.C.’s farmers are ready to invest, innovate and lead, but we need a ministry that is resourced to match that ambition.

[9:15 a.m.]

My conclusion is the world is changing. The climate is shifting, and trade relationships are becoming less reliable. B.C. can protect our people, our food and our future if we act now by funding the tools, programs and infrastructure needed to build a secure climate-resistant food system, investing in food-processing capacity and competitiveness to ensure more of our food is processed here at home and resourcing our ministry to lead and deliver on that vision. You can help secure a sovereign, climate-resistant, B.C.-based food system.

Thank you very much, again, for having me here today.

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

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much for your presentation and advocating for B.C. food sovereignty.

I just want to make sure that I fully captured what you were asking for. Foundationally, you want an increase to the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture, and that is to lead initiatives around increasing our food capacity through better management but also having value added by increasing processing for food locally. Is that correct?

Jeremy Dunn: Correct, yes. On the primary production side, securing our access to water is critical for future investments. Conversely, most of the inputs in B.C. must be processed into consumer products, and we need a greater base of processing. We need to be able to innovate that processing, and our processors need to have growing businesses as well. Growing processors support growing farm businesses.

Steve Morissette: Thank you for the presentation. I live in the West Kootenays, and there used to be multiple dairies there. There are none anymore. I understand it’s licensing. The dairy farmers sell their licences, I understand, for good money, and then their infrastructure, their land and that, can no longer be used for dairy because they’ve sold their licence. They’ve got the water, the infrastructure — everything.

How does that impact dairy? It seems like it’s pretty concentrated in the Fraser Valley and probably the Peace. I don’t know that so much, but if you could explain, please.

Jeremy Dunn: Yeah, we have active dairy farms in many regions of the province and, essentially, in all four corners. It is concentrated in the Fraser Valley, with about 75 percent of our production there. We have ten active dairy farms in the Creston area.

Dairy farms are organized into what’s called a milkshed, which supports both a dairy community and the transportation of raw milk to processing. Processing — there are over 30 dairy processors in B.C., the largest ones being in the Lower Mainland, where most milk that is produced in the province is processed into consumer products.

Securing water allows our farmers to know that when they’re making generational investments in barns and other infrastructure on their farms, they’ll have the water to produce the crops to feed the animals to produce the milk necessary. So it’s a very integrated system, and from a farmer perspective, water is really at the heart of that.

If you’re going to have an agricultural land reserve you protect, having agricultural land without agricultural water isn’t going to result in the food we need as a community.

Steve Morissette: If I could follow up, how is it possible to get dairies back in areas where there is the infrastructure, where there is the water?

Jeremy Dunn: You know, looking at where dairies are situated in the province is certainly something that we would entertain with the province. Dairies are in areas of historical significance and where the resources, in terms of growing the crops necessary, are.

Climate change is changing where crops can be grown, and we’re always connected with the ministry on that. It’s one of the reasons the ministry needs a higher budget, to be able to have the technical people to assist the industry, to assist growers to be growing the right crops in the right places to feed British Columbians.

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

Jeremy Dunn: You’re welcome, and good luck with your consultations.

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

The committee recessed from 9:19 a.m. to 9:40 a.m.

[Paul Choi in the chair.]

Paul Choi (Chair): Welcome back, everyone. I will call the committee back to order and move on to our next presenter.

We should have Aaron GreyCloud II with us. You have five minutes for the presentation and five minutes for questions after.

Aaron GreyCloud II

Aaron GreyCloud II: I am Aaron GreyCloud. My father was also Aaron GreyCloud, so if anybody recognizes the name, my father was previously in politics. I’m currently residing in the community of Kitimat. Most of the time I advocate for fathers’ rights. I am Nisga’a, Blackfoot, Crow, Cree and Inuit.

I have spent the last year writing to politicians about the current financial state of the country and how it affects me and my children as a single father of three who has to try three times harder to raise the same kids their mother does in this province due to federal and provincial policies along with family court.

I have also written to the British Columbia Utilities Commission about B.C. Hydro and their overpriced social credit score system they call the payment plan, only to be told that my complaints and issues with their monopoly were just a mere suggestion, to the Utilities Commission, who literally laughed in my face, which is how I ended up talking here today to you all. I felt it was my civic duty to hold the government accountable on behalf of all who cannot be here today themselves or were unaware of how to voice themselves and be heard.

But from what I am seeing, the pandemic did create a financial tailspin that everyone around the world is still recovering from. Many are calling it a silent depression. This silent depression that the pandemic created, created a model of financial collapse that we all saw, first affecting the small businesses and ordinary people and then the bigger businesses and government sectors.

This model of collapse will repeat in 2026 and probably worsen by 2030, especially if another pandemic were to happen. That would be an executioner’s blow. The worst part is that with the misconduct and misappropriation of funds from 2022 to 2025, we might not be able to recover from this depression now.

[9:45 a.m.]

From Liberal overspending to Conservative unwillingness to invest in anything except oil and gas, the Canadian future does look bleak. The power grab policies David Eby is putting in place to rush and meet the demands of the housing crisis will also create a financial nightmare that has not yet been calculated into this equation. That doesn’t even account for the mayors and municipalities who also misappropriated funds and have not been building any new housing.

The past year alone as a single parent has been a nightmare to navigate, not just because of B.C. Hydro’s overpriced payment plans, but inflation and rent are sky-high. So me and my children’s future is uncertain, especially since two-parent families who can afford to own their homes can’t pay their mortgages or get second mortgages or loans big enough to assist them, and they may end up homeless. Next year’s increased homeless population is also going to weigh down on the province financially.

A single pipeline will not fix this, and it may make things worse due to environmental damage. After putting aside the amount of money wasted on the Site C dam, the amount of money the dam will create from energy production will be offset by the energy it will be wasting running the new pipeline, which is not a solution. So 2026 already seems to have a mountain of debt written into it and no significant generated income.

That’s why, as a First Nations of Canada, I am thinking of the past and how we were reluctant to be assimilated into this culture when the last Cree was forced from the woods in 1970. This isn’t taking care of us. This is not thriving like we once were before first contact forced us into cities and houses.

If things continue the way they are, by 2030, we will become a Third World country. The apparent answer to the question seems to be, scarily, another world war, just like they did in the first depression. That’s kind of why I’m here, because I kind of want to know what we’re going to do to get out of that.

It’s slightly apparent now why Carney was reluctant to make a 2026 budget, as a budget would make it obvious how these politicians are all failing us.

Assisted suicides are not the answer either, like the MAiD program would suggest, as there have already been 428 illegal euthanasias, and nobody is being held accountable.

There are options, other options other than oil and gas, yet oil and gas is only looked at as the only option. Free energy research has shown serious, promising results, as well as hydrogen vehicles, which just a few days ago Toyota has announced, and they plan to put Tesla out of business.

Again, this is another reason I question why oil and gas is looked at as the only serious option. Better doesn’t always mean being heavily monetized into counterproductivity, either — the way oil and gas is. It should be illegal for companies to buy products in order to arrest the progress and financial gain of competitors.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much. Sorry, that’s time. We will move on to questions by members.

Bryan Tepper: You were talking about options of generating money other than oil and gas. You mentioned hydrogen, but you said Toyota is producing the vehicles. How do we generate money off of that?

Aaron GreyCloud II: One of the other options I was seeing, too, both from Korea and from Africa, is that they can take plastic and re-convert it back into oil, gas or diesel. This is something we should be looking at similarly, the way Toyota did, to find other forms of fuel.

Bryan Tepper: How are we generating money? I’m just trying to delve into the options you’re talking about.

Aaron GreyCloud II: Yeah. Given the amount of plastic that we’ve had since 1980 and the amount of plastic going forward, that’s also an environmental threat. If we can reuse that plastic and, you know, turn it back into the petroleum products that made it, that would save everybody.

I think if we develop and fund research…. Like I said, it has already been shown to have promise. In both Africa and Korea, they’ve found ways to make diesel, oil and gasoline from repatriated plastic.

[9:50 a.m.]

Bryan Tepper: I’m aware we can do that. I mean, that’s just not a large supply, though, right? The vast majority of our oil and gas goes into energy, as opposed to plastics. Reclaiming plastics is going to be sort of a small portion of anything that gets redeveloped, I guess.

Are there any other ideas we have for the province?

Aaron GreyCloud II: Yes. I had mentioned it as well. They call it free energy — free energy devices that can take energy from the air. The higher you go up in the stratosphere, the more energy you can pull. Again, that shows promise.

I actually was researching a fellow who was showing that they used Thomas Edison to demonize this. They used Thomas Edison, and there’s a historical event where he had murdered an elephant to show that electricity was dangerous. That was mostly just so that they could buy Tesla’s patents and then shelve them so that it wouldn’t go forward. It does work, and it would have put J.P. Morgan and the rest of them out of business at that time.

Bryan Tepper: Okay, so do we have anything immediately…? You keep saying: “Things we could develop in the future.” Like, for this budget, what are you looking for?

Aaron GreyCloud II: They have been developed now. People just need to be funded. That’s really what it comes down to. People that are doing these things don’t have the funds themselves to make it mass-produced.

That’s really where it lies, putting the money towards this research rather than towards things that are just hurting us in the long run.

Bryan Tepper: I guess I’m still confused, because you’re talking about spending money or investing money or whichever you want to do on all these things. But you said we don’t need to generate income from oil and gas. So I’m just looking for where we’re going to generate the income from to run the province; we have a lot of social services.

Aaron GreyCloud II: It will still generate income, but again, like I said, there are going to be offsets from certain things, especially when environmental damage is factored into it.

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

Moving to our next presenter, we have Sue Maxwell from Zero Waste B.C. Thanks for joining us today. You have five minutes for the presentation, five minutes for questions after.

Zero Waste B.C.

Sue Maxwell: Great. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

Zero Waste B.C. is a non-profit association dedicated to driving systemic change towards zero waste and a circular economy in B.C. Zero waste is defined as the conservation of all resources by means of responsible production and consumption — reuse and recovery of products, packaging and materials without burning and no discharges to land, water or air that threaten the environment or human health.

There are many benefits to pursuing zero waste: increased resilience to price increases, supply chain disruptions, planned obsolescence, community emergencies and climate change. Also, improved affordability, quality local jobs, spurring innovation, strengthened community ties and social connections, decreased greenhouse gas emissions, reduced pollution and health risks and reduced waste.

With that in mind, we have three main areas of focus for this budget. The first is that there should be a provincial zero waste and circular economy strategy. Zero waste and circular economy are essentially concepts to eliminate waste and reduce pollution while being far more effective with the materials we have.

In 2017, there was a UBCM resolution passed calling for a zero waste strategy provincially, and another one in 2021 for a circular economy strategy. The province committed to developing that strategy as part of CleanBC and started their preliminary work under the climate action secretariat, including internal engagement, vision and guiding principles; meeting with key industry sectors; and looking at what kind of skills and training would be required.

With the loss of the U.S. as a reliable trading partner and the ensuing economic turmoil, now is really the time for the provincial government to approve and implement a zero-waste and circular economy strategy. So the next step for the province is really to adopt the framework for the strategy and move this forward. That would include work across multiple ministries.

The second one is to improve extended producer responsibility, also known as EPR. B.C. had been a leader in that but is now being surpassed by other jurisdictions. B.C. signed on to the Canada-wide action plan in 2009 and then also developed its own five-year action plan in 2021. But for both of those, key deadlines are being missed.

[9:55 a.m.]

In addition to looking at the number of programs that operate under that, there’s also the quality of the programs. It’s a proven way to reduce the tax burden on citizens, ensure that producers are paying for their products, reduce waste and provide jobs. Also, the province has recently released its what-we-heard report on the consultation on what to do with non-residential packaging.

The next steps that we would really like to see in the budget would be for the province to follow through on that 2021 action plan and add mattresses, electric vehicle batteries and more hazardous waste to the recycling regulation; improve the recycling regulation to meet best practices; and develop and implement strategies to address non-residential packaging. Funding should be secured for that.

Our final item that we are looking at is phasing out waste-to-energy in B.C. There’s only one incinerator in B.C., and that is in the top 25 greenhouse gas point sources across B.C. The province recently required the Metro Vancouver facility to meet its existing provincial air pollution standards by 2028, but those standards are already out of date and not meeting best practices for testing and for, also, emission levels.

When better practices have been implemented…. We’ve seen that all incinerators in Oregon and California have now closed. The one in Metro Vancouver requires a lot of maintenance as it’s 37 years old, and the average ones that shut down in the U.S. were 30 years old.

There’s almost $400 million in capital costs predicted to keep the Metro Vancouver facility running and to connect it to district energy. Given Metro Vancouver’s recent challenges with cost overruns and financial management, we really think this is a good time to rethink allowing burning waste and the risk of a stranded asset before any more money is wasted.

In addition, this facility does not pay any carbon taxes on the fossil fuel it burns as plastic. There’s also an increased amount of waste being burned at cement kilns, as well, for which they are not designed.

The next steps would really be for the province to include in the budget funds to be able to update the air emission standards and testing requirements for burning waste, update the clean and renewable energy definition to make it clear that burning waste is not clean nor renewable, eliminate fossil fuel subsidies for all fossil fuels but also make sure that fossil fuels burned as plastic are included and ensure no subsidies are given for waste burning.

Thank you very much for your time.

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

Jennifer Blatherwick: Hello, and thank you for your presentation.

I’m just following up on one of the things you mentioned in point 2. The Vancouver incinerators burn waste, but did you also say that cement kilns are used for disposing of excess? Did I hear that correctly?

Sue Maxwell: I wouldn’t frame it that way exactly. Not excess. It’s more that cement kilns are also being permitted to burn different kinds of waste, and they are not suited to that. The air quality emission standards that are set for those are far lower than what is required for the waste incinerator, so there are just greater health risks there.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions?

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

The committee will take a recess at this point.

The committee recessed from 9:58 a.m. to 10:26 a.m.

[Paul Choi in the chair.]

Paul Choi (Chair): The committee is now back to order. We’ll move on to our next presenter. We have Karina Younk from the B.C. Marine Trails Network Association.

Thank you very much for joining us. You have five minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions after.

B.C. Marine Trails
Network Association

Karina Younk: Thank you for the opportunity to present our marine recreation perspective to this committee.

Our vision at B.C. Marine Trails is to have the entire B.C. coastline linked through marine routes and land sites for sustainable water-based recreation. This vision for B.C.’s 27,000 kilometres of coastline is unmatched anywhere else on the planet, and it’s built on collaborative partnerships, respectful relations with Indigenous communities and by valuing the energy our volunteers bring to this process.

We invite this committee, in your budgetary decisions for 2026, to commit to preserving public spaces for future generations, to allocate resources for collaborative partnerships and to recognize and value the work that volunteers and communities bring to the collective vision of super, natural British Columbia.

Our three recommendations, from a coastal marine recreation lens are: first, we recommend the province provide predictable and stable multi-year operational funding for coastal partners working together to ensure continued public access to marine recreation sites. The rural economic development infrastructure programs provide multi-year financial support and stability.

Currently most outdoor recreation funding targets short-term annual initiatives through a yearly intake process that’s less cost-effective, both for non-profit organizations applying and for funders reviewing the applications. Precious paid staff and donated volunteer hours are spent preparing annual applications to secure funding of up to $10,000.

Increasing funding and extending it over a three- to five-year term instead of a one-year term would afford outdoor recreation organizations better opportunities for long-term planning, implementation and assessment.

Second, we recommend supporting the unique work being done by organizations like ours toward reconciliation through respectful relationships and economic development partnerships with rural and Indigenous communities. We applaud the province’s funding of Indigenous-led and Indigenous-partnered projects.

Our challenge is that we’re seeking concurrence for the over 4,000 coastal sites we have on our B.C. Marine Trails map. As capacity allows, we’re currently sharing our coastal sites database with 53 of 74 coastal nations. This process takes time to amplify local Indigenous marine recreation initiatives and directives.

We communicate these through our broad public network. For example, working with the ʕaaḥuusʔatḥ, it involved sharing information about stewardship fees. The Mowachaht/Muchalaht and Haida Nations are using our marine trails information to support their economic development initiatives. This important work takes time and familiar faces, both factors that are sometimes negatively affected by annual funding uncertainties for us and for nations.

Third, we recommend valuing the contributions of volunteers in funding models aimed at building and maintaining B.C.’s outdoor recreation appeal.

[10:30 a.m.]

Funding models can amplify the benefits by valuing the immense contributions of non-profit organizations and their members’ donations of skills, time, resources and local knowledge. At B.C. Marine Trails, our vision is amplified by volunteers visiting and caretaking of remote coastal sites and sending us site condition reports of their actions, observations and updated photos.

This volunteer data allows us to update our map for the benefit of the public and our members. We’re able to share this data with B.C. Parks, with Recreation Sites and Trails, with First Nations communities and with coastal debris collection organizations so that these groups can target their actions more effectively. By collecting and sharing data, we bring to life the old saying: many hands make light work. Through creative collaborations, we amplify the impact of every dollar of funding received.

The government can also amplify funding impacts by valuing in-kind volunteer donations of time, skills and resources in all funding application models. Our volunteers’ contributions, our collaborations with other organizations and our respectful partnerships with Indigenous communities amplify our ability to work toward our vision. We invite this committee to consider the powerful impact of volunteer contributions, along with the value of non-profit organizations’ commitments to long-term partnerships and reconciliation efforts, in the funding models and visions of the B.C. government.

I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to present. We’re ready for your questions.

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

Jennifer Blatherwick: Hello, and thank you for your presentation. I have a few questions.

For your second priority, I wasn’t quite clear on how much funding you want and what you want it for. You talked about having a lot of data resources that are used by multiple partners. What is your funding ask, and what specifically would it be used for?

Karina Younk: We’re coming to you with not a specific funding ask but rather a general ask, in terms of outdoor recreation.

B.C. Marine Trails is partnered with the Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C. What we’ve realized is that all of our outdoor recreation organizations are continually looking for funding in different ways and different models.

Our challenge, when we’re working with First Nations communities, is that most of the funding opportunities are targeting a one-time partnership with one nation, where we’re actually working with many nations. So the way that the funding models are set up doesn’t necessarily work for B.C. Marine Trails.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Let me see if I can repeat that back to you. You’re looking for sustainable funding to support partnership and reconciliation work across multiple nations and multiple organizations, not just one-time projects that are directed to unilateral or bilateral partnerships.

Karina Younk: That’s exactly right.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Then in terms of valuing volunteers, the community gaming grant application model allows you to count in-kind donation of volunteer hours, but you’re asking to shift some of the other funding models that don’t include an accounting of volunteer hours or in-kind donations. The purpose of that is so that you can use those as outside funding to have matching-funding models.

Karina Younk: Absolutely. When we’re doing matching funding, it’s really difficult because we provide lots of volunteer hours but don’t necessarily have the cash to provide the equipment or whatever is needed for the projects.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Yeah, you’re rich in volunteer hours, and you need to be able to count those in applications for funding. Okay.

Karina Younk: Absolutely.

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

Karina Younk: Thank you very much, and have a good day for the rest of your time.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you. You too.

Moving on to our next presenter, we have Rebecca Hurwitz from Clayoquot Biosphere Trust.

Thank you so much for joining us. You have five minutes for presentation and five minutes for questions after.

[10:35 a.m.]

Clayoquot Biosphere Trust

Rebecca Hurwitz: Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with the standing committee today.

My name is Rebecca Hurwitz, and I’m joining you from the territories of the Tla-o-qui-aht, Ahousaht, Hesquiaht, Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ and t̓uk̓ʷaaʔatḥ Nations. I share my gratitude for their stewardship of these lands and waters for generations upon generations.

I’m here today as the executive director of the Clayoquot Biosphere Trust, the organization that stewards the Clayoquot Sound UNESCO biosphere designation and the regional community foundation based in Tofino.

The CBT is a registered charity and unique in Canada. We’re the only organization co-governed by Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners to steward a UNESCO biosphere region. Together we support research, education and community development in one of British Columbia’s most ecologically significant and culturally rich areas.

Today I’m here to respectfully request that the province of British Columbia invest $5 million towards the development of the Clayoquot Sound biosphere centre, a 10,000-square-foot capital project in Tofino that will serve as a regional hub for learning, reconciliation and sustainability.

This investment will enable us to build a centre that supports Indigenous economic development through training programs in areas such as tourism, ocean technology and food sovereignty, expand research capacity to address regional and global climate challenges like biodiversity loss and climate change, build skills and opportunities for youth through education and employment readiness programs, strengthen local food security with a regional food hub and culinary teaching kitchen and provide much-needed culturally safe public space for shared learning, collaboration and community connection.

The biosphere centre will also enhance regional tourism, which remains a major economic driver for Vancouver Island. As international travel patterns shift and more Canadians choose to explore their own country, particularly in light of the tariffs from the United States, Tofino and Clayoquot Sound are poised to welcome growing numbers of domestic travellers.

The centre will serve as both a visitor destination and a storytelling hub, offering immersive educational and cultural experiences rooted in the ecological and cultural significance of the biosphere. By strengthening the local tourism offering in a sustainable and values-based way, the centre will help diversify the economy and broaden market access for Indigenous tourism operators.

This project is well aligned with Budget 2026 priorities. It supports a strong, diversified economy through social enterprise and Indigenous business development. It advances climate action and ecological stewardship through research and community development. It delivers on government goals around skills training, food security and culturally safe services, particularly in rural and remote communities.

Importantly, this is a shovel-ready project. The CBT owns the land, and we’ve completed rezoning. All design work is complete, and we’re in the final stages of permitting and approvals. The construction will follow social procurement principles to maximize local benefit, creating 50 to 80 jobs for the 18-month construction period. Once operational, the centre will be financially self-sustaining and will not require ongoing government funding.

This is more than just a building. It’s a platform for community-driven solutions built through partnerships, rooted in place and designed to reflect the global significance of the Clayoquot Sound UNESCO biosphere region. We invite the province of British Columbia to partner with us through a $5 million investment in the Clayoquot Sound biosphere centre — a lasting contribution to reconciliation, sustainability and opportunity on the west coast and an investment in a stronger and more resilient British Columbia.

Thank you for your time. We welcome you to visit Tofino this summer and see the vision that is taking place.

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

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much for your presentation. I’m hoping you could talk a little bit more. You were speaking that this is going to be…. The centre that you’ve proposed is a multiple-purpose building with multiple focuses. You discussed a little bit about the regional food hub. There was some reconciliation, skill-building.

What I’m sensing from a project of this size is that you must have multiple community partners who are going to go in with you on this. Now, is the plan to co-locate some of these partnerships within the centre?

[10:40 a.m.]

Rebecca Hurwitz: Yeah, I can speak to that for sure.

The Clayoquot Biosphere Trust is the project developer and owner of the building. We have over 80 letters of support from local community organizations and several partnerships already through our programs and activities. We will operate the centre, and we will have other organizations and institutions come into the classroom facility and the teaching kitchen and be renting office space from us as well. That’s a component of the building.

Yeah, a third space or a community space in a place with a lot of tourism spaces, a lot of amazing outdoor spaces. We need these community spaces to be able to deliver programs that align with our values.

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

Rebecca Hurwitz: Thank you very much, and good work in your deliberations.

Paul Choi (Chair): Moving on to our next presenter. We have Jack Magnus from Clean Energy B.C.

Thank you for joining us. You have five minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions after.

Clean Energy B.C.

Jack Magnus: Good morning, everyone. It’s a pleasure to be joining you today from the traditional territory of the Snuneymuxw and Snaw-naw-as First Nations in Nanaimo.

My name is Jack Magnus. I’m presenting on behalf of the Clean Energy Association of B.C. We’ve been the leading voice for B.C.’s clean energy sector for over 30 years, with more than 200 members, including renewable energy developers, First Nations, permitting experts and post-secondaries.

I’d like to thank you for your service on this committee. The consultation comes at a critical time, and we recognize the challenging fiscal situation.

Nonetheless, I’m pleased to present three recommendations, the first related to the First Nations equity financing framework. Specifically, CEBC recommends the accelerated expansion of the framework with the prioritization of projects from B.C. Hydro’s calls for power. The framework is crucial to enabling Indigenous ownership in major projects. Not only will it facilitate local ownership and benefits when we need them most, but it will also facilitate reconciliation.

Based on Budget 2025, CEBC understands the framework is projected to total about $2 billion by 2030. Considering the current call for power has been accelerated, we recommend the province likewise accelerates the expansion of the framework with a target of $2 billion as early as 2026. This will ensure financing is accessible for First Nations participating in B.C. Hydro’s 2025 call but also future calls for power.

The Canada Infrastructure Bank alone may not be able to deliver another full round of financing. For context, the 2024 call for power resulted in about $3 billion in First Nations equity. Expanding the framework and increasing collaboration with the Canada Infrastructure Bank and the Indigenous loan guarantee corporation will be crucial to filling any program gaps that may arise.

In addition to being expanded, the framework should prioritize projects from the calls for power. We cannot afford to delay these First Nations on projects as B.C. is facing unprecedented electricity demand. Prioritizing these projects will help nations and industry work together to deliver electricity when we need it for housing, mining, low-carbon fuels and wind. Not only will these renewable projects bring billions in investment and thousands of jobs; they’ll also catalyze growth and revenues from all the sectors that rely on our grid.

Our second recommendation is to support tariff and tax credit adjustment clauses in electricity purchase agreements. Long-term EPAs are foundational to financing clean energy projects. These agreements are based on expected policy conditions, including the availability of tax credits and assumptions around tariffs.

New tax policy or tariffs can arise after an EPA is finalized. This will introduce risk beyond the developer’s control. Without a mechanism to adjust for this, a project’s economics can collapse, and this risks investments, local employment and First Nations revenues.

To protect these projects and ensure B.C. remains competitive, the province should work with B.C. Hydro to implement a tariff and tax credit adjustment clause in existing and future EPAs. This would allow reasonable adjustments to the price if tariffs or tax incentives change after the contract is signed. We also recommend the Ministry of Finance work with the Ministry of Energy to advocate with the federal government given its role in tax and tariff policy.

Our final recommendation is to protect and expand clean energy programs for First Nations and remote communities. Funding programs for community clean energy are critical to emissions reduction, affordability and energy security in the face of extreme weather and rising demand. Considering ongoing efficiency reviews, CEBC is concerned about these programs, which support technologies like solar and batteries, as well as energy efficiency upgrades and community energy plans.

[10:45 a.m.]

For example, B.C. Hydro’s solar and battery rebate program for First Nations was suspended in December 2024 without consultation. B.C. Hydro stated the pause reflected its budget and market conditions, but the suspension left nations without funding or certainty about future support.

Other important programs include the First Nations clean energy business fund, the Indigenous clean energy initiative and the community energy diesel reduction program. These programs should be expanded to help First Nations and remote communities reduce cost, improve reliability and drive local revenues and jobs.

Hundreds of clean energy initiatives have succeeded, thanks to these programs. For example, since 2011, the First Nations clean energy business fund has supported over 150 First Nations communities with more than $21 million. Since 2016, the Indigenous clean energy initiative has provided about $30 million for 135 projects led by over 90 First Nations.

To maintain affordability for ratepayers while growing these programs, CEBC recommends the province work with Natural Resources Canada and the Canada Infrastructure Bank to identify program stacking opportunities. This will spread costs without damaging outcomes for First Nations and remote communities.

I look forward to your questions, recognizing we have about ten seconds left here. Thanks, everyone.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. We will move to questions by members, starting with MLA Blatherwick.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you for your presentation. I am looking at your second recommendation, supporting a tariff and taxation adjustment clause. I just want to make sure that I understand correctly what you’re asking for. You’re asking for flexibility in the rates that you would charge end-consumers in the result of tariff or taxation changes that would affect the pricing of the energy?

Jack Magnus: Thank you for your question. To clarify, the independent power producers in the First Nations that own the projects do not set the rates. That goes through the B.C. Utilities Commission, of course, and the electricity purchase agreements are with B.C. Hydro. Those are available for this last call for power on the B.C. Utilities Commission website.

The request here is that the province work closely with B.C. Hydro and the federal government to see if there can be a new clause added to existing and future EPAs, effectively allowing for the renegotiation of the purchase price, within reason, and well documented via the B.C. Utilities Commission in this case, to ensure that over the term of the project, which is usually 20 to 30 years, the economics do not collapse under the pressure of tariff on important critical equipment.

As everyone knows, across sectors, lots of the equipment required for major projects is not manufactured in Canada. So it is critical that we all work together here with these new clauses to allow for flexibility. Yes, correct.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Okay. Then just to make sure I understand, the smaller energy producers would have a price set through the B.C. Utilities Commission, and they would be selling the energy to B.C. Hydro. Is that what we’re talking about where the rate adjustment is? Is it at the B.C. Hydro level?

Jack Magnus: The commercial negotiations occur between the producer and B.C. Hydro. They sign a contract, which includes the purchase price, over the term of the project, and that contract is then put to the B.C. Utilities Commission for review to ensure it’s in the best interest of the ratepayer. In this case, it would be a clause that would allow for renegotiation of that contract between B.C. Hydro and the IPP, subject to review by the BCUC.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you very much for your time to present to us today.

Jack Magnus: Thank you, everyone. Hope you have a great rest of your day.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. We will have our next presenter join us — Vik Khanna, from The Visual Thinking Company.

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

Visual Thinking Co.

Vik Khanna: Thank you very much. I’m joining you all from the city of Kraków. I’m here, and I’m going to be watching The Scorpions concert in a few minutes.

I wanted to take the time out to be here because this is really important. What’s happening is there’s a moment coming which will take technology and take social infrastructure and put those two things together.

[10:50 a.m.]

Visualize everything that you and I own as taxpayers at any level of government — so local, school board level. We’re talking basic. We’re talking child care, very basic. Then we’re talking parks, recreation, community. Then we’re talking health care, find a doctor, find a specialist, find a primary care centre, find a hospital.

Then we’re talking swimming pool, ice rink, anything that goes into building a Canadian, things that elementary school children would participate in, those kinds of things. Those kinds of things are important to me. They’re important to me because I believe in Canadian values. I believe that social infrastructure means we build great Canadians.

If we don’t have high-quality social infrastructure, it means something else. What that something else means is kind of playing out right now. If we like that, then the Vancouver school board will close Sir Guy Carleton Elementary School. Okay? That’s not good, because I went there.

I’m mapping out everything that we own in Canada as a systemwide experiment, because I’m an entrepreneur. I’m going to map out everything that we own as any level of taxpayer for all of Canada, as a systemwide experiment using technology. Then I’m going to use AI and algorithms to make sense of it. Then I’m going to sell this data to everybody.

I think, from a select-standing-committee perspective, it’s important and vital that one immediate directive go out right away: that every long-range facilities plan in British Columbia be aligned for integrated planning. If it’s not, we’re not doing justice for the taxpayers. The Visual Thinking Company, my company, will be looking at this as case studies, because we’re going to use robots and algorithms to make sense out of all social infrastructure in Canada.

The Vancouver school board does not know what it’s doing, I can tell you that. I’m a proud product of the VSB, all my kids went to the VSB, and I hope all my grandkids go to the VSB. I’m a proponent of public education.

I’ll be here for your questions.

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

Jennifer Blatherwick: Hello, Mr. Khanna, and thank you for your presentation.

I think I’m trying to figure out exactly what your budget ask is.

Vik Khanna: Well, the budget ask is probably around $3 million for a ROI to save hundreds of millions. Okay? In terms of budget, budget $3 million to save hundreds of millions of dollars.

The estimated savings is 19 percent in infrastructure costs. So Bowinn Ma’s department, you know, the department of Infrastructure, will get a massive ROI by spending $3 million.

Jennifer Blatherwick: You had said that your proposal was for your private company to complete this thing. Are you suggesting that British Columbia should fund the actions of your company?

Vik Khanna: Up to you. I mean, I’m a private entrepreneur, and I’m doing my own thing. If the government wants to take advantage and save money in the Ministry of Infrastructure, then they should spend a little money to save a lot of money. That’s up to them.

I mean, it’s a massive ROI. It is going to happen, and it will happen in other places in Canada first; my suspicion is in Regina and Saskatchewan. I’ve done a 23-day road trip across the country. I went and drove to Montreal. I drove back. I visited every school board on the way. Okay. I have my feel of the country, and I don’t feel B.C. could be a fast mover.

I think other provinces are going to move a little faster on integrated planning, because other provinces are already thinking that way, of integrated planning, where B.C. just passed, like, you know, our legislation, Bill 15, a couple of weeks ago, right?

Sunita Dhir: Thank you so much, Vik. Thanks for your advocacy for public education, and I know you’re an advocate for the Vancouver school board.

[10:55 a.m.]

Help us understand your vision. You suggested that you’re using AI to build models that will help us understand the infrastructure needs for building schools. How do we know it’s accurate?

Vik Khanna: Okay, there’s going to be a very evolved product line. Let’s call it a catchment maker. The catchment maker will take national housing targets, national immigration targets. It’s federally aligned and provincially aligned. It doesn’t care about what’s going on at the local level. Okay? It doesn’t care.

It takes national targets and provincial mandates and says: “Integrated planning — how do we ensure that we’re doing equity and justice locally? How do we ensure that we’re spending our money wisely?”

How do we ensure that, say, in the case of Regina…? You have the Regina public school district. You have the Regina Catholic school district. You have the Prairie Valley school district, which is based in Regina but serves the suburbs of Regina. Then you have the francophone school district of Regina. You have four school districts in Regina. That’s a lot, and then there are layers of complexity.

In Vancouver, it’s messed up 12 layers deep. Nobody can figure it out, okay? Nobody can. I know how to figure it out. I did it. I’m going to use all these catchment maker and algorithm tools. I’ve been working on this for six years, by the way. This is not overnight thinking.

Algorithms. The moment has arrived where you can use all this powerful technology, and it will be extremely coherent. The city of, say, Burnaby has different data. New West has different data. Vancouver has different data. Yet they share one Metro Vancouver and Burrard Peninsula housing and immigration target.

The locals don’t want to meet. They don’t want to get together. They don’t want to plan. They don’t want to think. They don’t want to do it. Nothing. That’s the problem. The catchment maker will help fix all that. It’s a tool.

Sunita Dhir: So $3 million…?

Vik Khanna: Well, the tool will be sold. The company will be selling many, many millions of dollars’ worth of product next year, right? The $3 million…. What you want to budget for is a partnership that goes into allocation. If you wanted to spend money on…. Not me, okay? Say, you want to spend $3 million on integrated planning tools, and then you want to put out content. Go for it. Don’t give the money to me. I’m a pure play entrepreneur. I’m not asking for favours. I’m not even applying for EBC. I’m a pure play entrepreneur.

I’m going to raise money from the United States and from my friends in Toronto, because I’m part of a program called QuantumShift. We’re going to raise money, and we’re going to do big business.

This has nothing to do with local Vancouver or British Columbia, but if British Columbia wants to be a leader, then do budget $3 million and do consider doing business with me, because I’m coming, and I know what I’m doing.

Bryan Tepper: Yeah, I thought I was solid on what you were asking for. I just want to make sure. You’re not asking for money as a grant or anything? You are looking to sell your product, right? Is that correct, I guess I should say?

Vik Khanna: A hundred percent. I’m a pure play entrepreneur, so I’m not looking for grants or handouts. I want you to open up a bid. Make it fair.

My issue is with the planning going on. My issue is that we’re wasting our taxpayer dollars, and we’re providing our kids with less. Now, an example of that would be Edith Cavell Elementary School. I don’t need to do an FOI. Edith Cavell Elementary School. I look at it. I walk by it every day. We spent more money as taxpayers on a non-heritage building, upgrading it, and we left the HVAC and the asbestos and the lead pipes and all that shit in there. Why would we do that?

We need to give our heads a think when it comes to infrastructure. We need to save our money and give our kids better environments. Period.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you for your presentation and your time today. Enjoy your Scorpions concert.

[11:00 a.m.]

We will move on to our next presentation. We have Alex Hemingway from B.C. Society for Policy Solutions.

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

B.C. Society for Policy Solutions

Alex Hemingway: Hi there. Thanks very much for hearing from me today. My name is Alex Hemingway. I’m a senior economist representing B.C. Policy Solutions, which is an independent research institute made up largely of the former staff of the B.C. office of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which some folks might be familiar with.

Our province faces enormous challenges right now that require robust public investment to address. We have three recommendations to present today relating to tax policy, housing and social investments.

The first recommendation is to implement a suite of fair tax reforms to reduce economic inequality and increase provincial revenues. As a share of GDP, provincial government revenues in B.C. remain today substantially lower than they were 25 years ago, having fallen from 21.4 percent of GDP in 2000 to a projected 18.9 percent this year.

In other words, B.C. is harnessing a much smaller share of our economic pie to invest in the public good than we once did. To raise revenue and reduce inequality, the provincial government should, at a minimum, increase the top two income tax brackets by two points each, which would affect less than 5 percent of the highest-income tax filers; increase the corporate income tax rate by one point, from 12 to 13 percent; and tax high-value land wealth by increasing provincial property tax rates on value above $3 million and adding a new bracket above $7 million.

To add further revenue options and also to build trust in the tax system, B.C. should convene a citizens assembly on fair tax reform, where everyday British Columbians, selected by lottery, can help deliberate on how to best pay for our shared priorities together, with access to experts who can help inform those citizen deliberations.

The second recommendation is to create 25,000 new units of non-market housing per year, while enabling a broader increase in housing supply of all kinds with targeted provincial action. To ramp up non-market housing production, the province should significantly increase capital grants to projects under programs like the community housing fund to ensure that good, non-profit housing projects aren’t being turned away due to lack of funds.

The province should also take the initiative by developing more housing projects itself at a larger scale, either through B.C. Housing or a new Crown agency wherein most of the project costs can be booked as self-supported debt, which is backed by the rental income generated in those projects.

To enable a broader increase in housing supply, the government should follow through on its promise to create a new annual infrastructure fund for municipalities, while requiring that big cities like Vancouver bring an end to the apartment bans that they continue to impose on most of their residential land. These city-imposed apartment bans suppress housing creation, hurt economic productivity and block workers’ access to job-rich cities.

The third recommendation is to increase key social investments that create economic multiplier effects and reduce the cost of living. For example, the province should significantly increase investment in public child care spaces that enable more young parents, especially mothers, to participate in the labour force. It should increase investment in public transit infrastructure and operations, which would raise economic productivity while reducing household transportation costs.

In the primary care system, resources should be focused on the evidence-based community health centre model, which is a high-quality continuous care model that is cost-efficient and takes pressure off of our crowded hospitals.

Social assistance and disability rates should be raised to no less than the poverty line to ensure a decent life for all and to help unleash the human and economic potential of the British Columbians who are struggling most.

[11:05 a.m.]

Taking the road of belt-tightening or austerity at a time like this would represent a false economy. That’s because failing to make key social investments now would not only hurt B.C. families but also damage our long-term economic growth and productivity. Strong public investment can strengthen our economy and be funded through inequality-reducing taxes.

I’ll leave it there. Thank you very much.

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

Jennifer Blatherwick: Those were about 15 recommendations, crammed into three broad topics. I am hoping to get a little bit more clarification on No. 2. You were asking for funding for the infrastructure fund for municipalities.

Is that correct?

Alex Hemingway: Correct.

Jennifer Blatherwick: With the goal of, together with all the other tools — B.C. Housing and the non-profit partnerships — to come to a new yearly goal of 25,000 below-market homes?

Alex Hemingway: The goal, the 25,000 units, is a target for non-market housing specifically, but I’m also emphasizing the broader issue of housing supply, including private supply, that could be enabled. The infrastructure fund is a piece of that puzzle. We hear from municipalities about the need for infrastructure funding, and that’s often used as an excuse to not build more housing at a local level, which I think is wrong-headed. We’ve published some research on that.

We do have an infrastructure deficit. It’s helpful for the province to step in with some of that funding, and that should be conditioned on local government measures, particularly in the big cities that make it easier to build homes and bring apartment bans to an end. It remains the case in our big cities that you cannot build apartments on the vast majority of residential land, which is a big problem.

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

Moving on to our next presenter, we have Roger Francis from Michael Smith Health Research B.C.

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

Michael Smith Health Research B.C.

Roger Francis: First I’d like to acknowledge that while the work of Health Research B.C. takes place across the province, our office is located on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territories of the Coast Salish peoples, including the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ Nations.

Health Research B.C. is the province’s health research agency. A healthy province with a resilient economy requires evidence and knowledge generated by health research. As a leader in British Columbia’s health research system, Health Research B.C. enables and advances world-class health research. We achieve that by building and retaining research talent for the province’s future, by catalyzing the health research system and solutions and by mobilizing communities for research impact.

First, I also want to acknowledge the ongoing support we have received from the provincial government. We certainly appreciate our continued partnership that helps solve provincial priorities through health research.

We have one recommendation: that the government continue to build on the momentum in the health research and life sciences sector in British Columbia by ensuring it stays engaged, by ensuring it keeps investing in research and by ensuring it supports new opportunities as they emerge.

Sustained support for health research addresses not only human health, but also economic health. Combined, of course, the professional, scientific and technical services and the health care and social assistance sectors are key generators of our economy at B.C., adding up to over 15 percent of GDP right now. The power behind all that generation is people, the talented researchers and clinicians who provide the evidence to decision-makers throughout the province.

[11:10 a.m.]

British Columbia is home to the fastest-growing life sciences sector in Canada, and the life sciences and biomanufacturing strategy in this province is positioning us really well to nurture new talent, develop lab space, leverage research capacities and support additional employment. This strategy is a reminder that investing in health research today saves lives tomorrow.

Researchers in B.C. have delivered life-changing innovations for years, and by supporting research talents, British Columbia has been catapulted to the world stage. For example, funding through Health Research B.C. helped decode the SARS virus in six days. Funding contributed to uncovering the link between previous pandemic immunity and H1N1 that informed vaccine policy.

More recently, B.C.’s legacy to the world was that nearly every COVID-19 vaccine candidate that reached late-stage development in 2020 used components consulted, initiated, developed or manufactured by a B.C. company or scientist, and many of these talented researchers were funded in part through Health Research B.C.

Our recommendation is simple: extend that legacy. For Health Research B.C., sustained funding produces results like…. Since our inception, over 3,000 researchers and teams have been funded across British Columbia. About 90 percent of the scholars that we fund stay in B.C. five years after their award. They train an average of 12 next-generation innovators, and they hire, on an average, another three additional staff, thereby supporting thousands of jobs. Some formerly funded researchers have gone on to establish leading science companies in this province.

In the last three years, our funded researchers, conservatively, have probably brought in over $350 million extra to this province — 90 percent of that from non-government B.C. and extramural to B.C. sources.

Sustained funding for health research drives the economy. It incents innovation. Sustained funding for health research talent provides the platform to advance better care for all British Columbians. For example, expanded clinical trials allow citizens of British Columbia to participate in clinical drug trials, join research teams and co-design new priorities. This should continue.

Our recommendation will remain simple. Keep building on the momentum in the health research and life sciences sector in British Columbia. Ensure the government stays engaged, keeps investing in research and supports the new opportunities as they emerge.

Thank you.

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

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much for your presentation and your emphasis on ensuring B.C. can remain a leader in health science research and innovation.

I was wondering…. I am not familiar with the structure of Health Research B.C. and how it relates to the provincial government. I understand that it’s funded almost entirely by provincial dollars. What is the structure of the organization? What kind of organization is it?

Roger Francis: We are a not-for-profit registered charity. The government does fund the majority of us right now. However, through partnerships, we actually increase the amount of money coming into this province to do the work of health research in this province. Does that…?

Jennifer Blatherwick: That’s exactly what I was looking for. Thank you. I was on your website, and it wasn’t immediately clear.

So you don’t have a specific budget number to ask? Your general ask is that we continue to expand the research and continue that support for Health Research B.C. and also that, in general, we create support and conditions that would allow the life sciences sector to grow and flourish?

Roger Francis: Correct. We have had a successful relationship with the government of British Columbia for nearly 25 years, and over that period of time, the partnership has been very strong in not only supporting health researchers do the work that they need to do to advance innovation but also producing, as I mentioned, strong outcomes for the health of British Columbians in this province.

[11:15 a.m.]

Steve Morissette: I think you mentioned a contribution to the GDP, but I didn’t quite catch it.

Roger Francis: Yeah, it’s a quick back-of-napkin calculation. If you look at all of the areas that actually benefit from or are integrated into health research and health research funding as an enterprise, there is no specific part of GDP, but the scientific aspect of it, the higher education…. All of those combined actually provide about 15 percent of GDP in this province.

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

Moving on to our next presenter, we have Beth Campbell Duke.

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

Beth Campbell Duke

Beth Campbell Duke: Thank you. As you said, my name is Beth Campbell Duke. I’d like to just say that the topic for me is the ongoing COVID pandemic. That is the elephant in the room for me and my family, especially with COVID and long COVID impacting all of us in British Columbia mentally, physically and financially. There are pieces to its mitigation that have to be handled by the government.

I’d like to give a bit about myself. I am a former research technician and regulatory affairs officer. I used to work at a biotech company in Saskatoon. As a regulatory affairs officer, I dealt with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the pesticides directorate of Health Canada.

I left biotech to retool as a high school science teacher, where I was accredited to set final exams for senior, grade 12–level biology and chemistry.

I moved to Fanny Bay on the Island in 2008 due to my husband’s lung issues. Saskatoon winters are hard. He has since had a lung transplant. Then after we moved to Victoria in 2018, he had a life-altering motor vehicle accident and is now a cancer patient. We moved here to be closer to follow-up medical care.

In the summer of 2020, as COVID hit, we helped my aging parents move from Ontario in with us into a condo in Victoria. We took that window of opportunity in the summer to get into an accessible condo to keep my dad out of long-term care, as we all know what was going on then.

In late 2019, just before COVID, I reinstated my teaching certification, planning to return to the classroom. I have recently relinquished it due to the lack of COVID safety in schools, and I don’t see ever returning.

My family is isolated due to the ongoing pandemic as we struggle to access adequately safe health and community care. I have cancelled appointments. My husband has refused to remove his mask for some lung function testing when staff refused to mask. There is no masking now in either the transplant or oncology clinics or our nurse practitioner’s office, which has very bad ventilation and, of course, is full of sick people.

Things are serious and tense still on the ground for those of us who need to care about COVID and airborne safety. The ongoing pandemic has impacts on the citizens and the economy. The true health costs of COVID and long COVID impact the health care system, disability payments and, increasingly, people’s ability to work and participate in the economy. COVID is a scientific problem, first and foremost, with medical and financial implications, so we need to start listening to scientists with expertise in the processes of science.

I’ll get to my key recommendations. Again, COVID is a scientific problem. It has medical and financial implications. Advice on policy must come from those in disciplines that are skilled in the processes of science. These include epidemiologists, aerosol scientists, occupational hygienists. Until we address the scientific realities of aerosol spread, we will continue to fail.

[11:20 a.m.]

My three asks — first, prioritize developing a clean indoor air act, which was put forward by the B.C. Green Party prior to the election. Yes, there’s a cost to enacting clean air legislation, and it pales when compared to the full costs of continuing to kill and harm citizens, who are workers in all sectors, due to a disease that we can take actions to prevent.

Three, counter misinformation through funding and public education campaigns for clean air, when and how to mask, using a respirator and the efficacy of vaccination. Engage scientists and scientific communicators in this task, not just PR professionals.

In conclusion, as a spousal family care partner living in the province that has the highest rate of care partner burnout in Canada, I don’t need the ongoing extra burden of having to constantly negotiate and cajole for access to safe health care.

We need clean air, better access to respirators and a considerably better public understanding, in general, of the science and ethics of protecting ourselves and others. The physical, mental and financial health of everyone in our province depends on it.

I’d like to leave you with a recent skeet from Dr. Raywat Deonandan, professor of epidemiology: “You know, if you want to attract more health care workers to a province, one of the many things you can do is invest more in public health.”

There we go. Thank you.

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

Bryan Tepper: The Clean Air Act or whichever, however you’d like to do it, the clean air facilities, would that extend to commercial places, residential? How do you foresee who’s going to install?

Beth Campbell Duke: Well, I think if we can start at the top of where people are impacted, that would be helpful. Anything that we can do that’s a shift is beneficial.

Right now hospitals and schools are the seat of infection. Hospitals have pretty decent clean air. They’re designed for that. One thing I would say is, having a lot of experience at Vancouver General, when you walked in prior to COVID, there were big screens that showed handwashing statistics. There was a push for sanitizing hands.

Clean air. It would be great if you could walk into any sort of public building — hospitals, schools…. Even start with those two places. They’re the biggest ones. Just educate people on what clean air parameters are. What’s the CO2 level? What’s the 2.5 micron particulate matter, etc.? The tech is there, and I think the expenses…. People keep saying: “Well there’s going to be an expense.”

We’re seeing the expense of not doing anything across the board, even where people aren’t recognizing it. Lost days in work. There are insurance companies, insurance actuaries. They’ve got a handle on this. They’re refusing insurance, etc.

I see it starting with the areas where we currently have the highest WorkSafeBC COVID and long COVID claims, and that’s hospitals and schools.

Bryan Tepper: Okay. Mostly — I’ll call it commercial or whichever — public spaces.

Beth Campbell Duke: Sure. And for us, like I said about our nurse practitioner’s office, that doesn’t fall under Island Health. So they’re just a separate entity. They’re in what was an office space, and they’ve slammed up drywall, and it’s not safe going in there, honestly, so we don’t.

Bryan Tepper: Okay, so respirators then…. I can see how you’d supply it to the people working. If you’re going to schools, teachers would…. How would people coming in be supplied with that?

Beth Campbell Duke: When you go into the hospital, when there’s the poorly worded mask mandates with so many loopholes…. But even then, when you go in, they provide you with medical masks. So just upgrade those and make those more available.

Bryan Tepper: Okay. So not respirators then? You’re saying just upgraded masks?

Beth Campbell Duke: Yeah, to a respirator. So a KN95 and an N95 are called respirators. They seal. It’s the fit-and-filter thing, right? A medical mask, in theory, has a good filter, but the fit is awful, and so there’s no seal around the mouth. It just sits, and aerosols go in and out. It’s an airborne issue, so we need to cut down on it.

[11:25 a.m.]

Remember, too, that we got rid of an entire strain of the flu during 2020-21 when we were wearing masks that we cut out of socks. If you remember, there were things online. They might have had a good fit because they were elasticized, but the filter was awful.

Doing this, once we get on top of things, you can kind of loosen off. But we need to acknowledge aerosol. It’s an airborne issue.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I also have long COVID, and I want to thank you for your continued advocacy on this. It’s an ongoing issue. It’s not one that’s ended.

Certainly, your recommendations about what you were looking for were very clear, so I don’t have any questions around that. But I just wanted to acknowledge your work and your effort for coming here today. Thank you.

Beth Campbell Duke: Thank you for the opportunity.

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

Beth Campbell Duke: Awesome. All right. I’m good to go.

Paul Choi (Chair): Yes, thank you so much for your time today.

We’ll have our next presenter join us. We have Sarah Linklater from Breakthrough T1D.

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

Breakthrough T1D

Sarah Linklater: Thank you and good morning, members of the committee. I’m Sarah Linklater, and I’m chief scientific officer of Breakthrough T1D Canada, formerly JDRF.

Along with our global affiliates, Breakthrough T1D is the world’s largest charity focused on accelerating research to cure, prevent and treat type 1 diabetes and its complications. We also advocate on behalf of Canadians living with type 1 diabetes, including the approximately 40,000 residing in British Columbia. We help to make every day better for them while representing their voice on critical issues, such as public access to life-sustaining medications and devices, which is why I’m here today.

Type 1 diabetes is a lifelong autoimmune disease in which a person’s immune system destroys insulin-producing cells in the pancreas, making them dependent on daily insulin therapy to survive. Managing type 1 diabetes is a significant financial burden for individuals with the disease, and many treatments and devices remain out of reach. Even with careful management, risk of long-term complications such as heart disease, kidney failure and eyesight loss is high.

Breakthrough T1D supports the goal of making access to medications and technology for managing type 1 diabetes equitable and affordable for all Canadians that need them. Given that the biology and the lived experience of the disease varies widely from person to person, patient choice with respect to medications and devices is a top priority.

We appreciate this opportunity to bring type 1 diabetes and the needs of British Columbians living with the disease into focus today. To that end, Breakthrough T1D is making two recommendations to this committee as it prepares its report on the upcoming provincial budget.

First, we recommend that the provincial formulary as it relates to treatments for type 1 diabetes must include, at a minimum, the medicines that are among the WHO’s essential medicines list. This is a register of minimum medicine needs for every country’s health care system. It’s important to note that one type of insulin used widely by people with type 1 diabetes, called insulin degludec, is included on the WHO list but is missing from the proposed provincial formulary.

[11:30 a.m.]

In addition, glucagon, which is a life-saving medication used in the emergency setting of a severe low blood sugar, is also missing from the provincial formulary. Both of these medicines are central to the management of many people with type 1 diabetes. We therefore recommend that they be added to the proposed provincial formulary.

Our second recommendation relates to coverage for automated insulin delivery systems. These are also known as artificial pancreas or hybrid closed-loop systems, and they are for managing type 1 diabetes. An AID system consists of an insulin pump, a blood glucose sensor and an algorithm that enables communication between those two to automatically adjust basal insulin levels without the wearer having to constantly measure glucose and dose insulin throughout the day.

Several such systems are Health Canada–approved and have been shown in the medical literature to be associated, by far, with the best health outcomes in both adults and children with type 1 diabetes. In line with this evidence, the newly updated clinical practice guidelines for type 1 diabetes, released earlier this year, recommend these systems as the standard of care for all people with type 1 diabetes.

Currently, we have some coverage in B.C. for insulin pumps, some coverage for glucose sensors, but for the most part, that coverage does not provide access to the components that make up these AID systems that are covered in several other provinces. Achieving equity in diabetes care means that existing funding policies must adapt and adopt the latest technologies, like AID systems. Without expanded access in British Columbia, people with T1D in the province have limited access to the standard of care.

In summary, British Columbians living with type 1 diabetes rely on these medicines and devices to improve their health outcomes and reduce life-threatening complications. Making the standard of care available to people with type 1 diabetes and allowing for patient choice will allow for optimal management of this highly diverse disease by all British Columbians living with it, not only benefiting these patients and their families but also reducing burden on health care systems.

For British Columbia’s type 1 diabetes community, it is critical for this government to expand and sustain its public coverage to include these medicines and AID system components to address their needs.

Thank you very much.

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

Jennifer Blatherwick: Hello, and thank you for your presentation. I am just trying to work my way through. You are very supportive, obviously, of the coverage that’s coming in to cover diabetic medication and devices. But what you’re saying is: here are these pieces that previously, under the older regulations, were not covered. If we’re going to be moving forward for the best and most effective treatment, you would like these additional things to be included in our standard, yes?

Sarah Linklater: Yes, exactly. The coverage proposed is very positive, but there are some key gaps that mean some key components, especially with AID systems and the medications we highlighted…. They will still be really important gaps in the proposed coverage. We’re proposing that the province consider filling those gaps to ensure that all of these standards of care are available to people with type 1 diabetes.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I just want to make sure that I understand. You’re asking for specific things like insulin degludec and glucagon to be covered as medications. When we’re talking about devices, there is some coverage for, say, glucose sensors, like individual components, but the integrated units like the AID units are not automatically covered at this point.

Sarah Linklater: Yes. So if you imagine there are several different insulin pumps on this side, there are several different glucose sensors on this side, and there are some algorithms that enable these different components to talk to each other to create the AID system. And if you imagine a matching exercise, a lot of those matches don’t exist right now in the components covered. So we are advocating for a little bit more expanded coverage of those components so that people can access these closed-loop systems.

If a user were to wear the insulin pump and the glucose sensor, they’d achieve more improved outcomes than with no devices alone. But their outcomes, their ability to stay in the safe target range or below HbA1c 7 percent, for example — which is recommended — are more than doubled if they are able to access the closed-loop system or the components all linked up so that they’re talking to one another.

[11:35 a.m.]

Steve Morissette: Your first recommendation…. You’re asking to include some medicines from WHO that are missing. Help me understand, because I know nothing about this. Are these medicines where there aren’t other options being provided? Are they better medicines? Are they…? Yeah, just explain that to me, please.

Sarah Linklater: There are many different types of insulin on the market. Depending on the stage of your disease, your age, how much insulin you require or the devices that you use, you may need to use a different type of insulin in order to manage your blood glucose day to day.

An insulin that many people use, called insulin degludec, has the longest half-life of any of the insulins on the market. There is no existing insulin on the formulary, whether primary or biosimilar, that does the job of insulin degludec. This would put that drug out of reach for many people that would require it.

With respect to glucagon, if I may, that is used in the setting of severe hypoglycemia — severe low blood sugar, where the person is unable to take glucose or carbohydrates to address that. They need rescue therapy by another person, and the product is usually squished up the nose. It’s very easy to use, and it is life-saving. It’s not just for management; it’s truly life-saving. A single dose of that, which every type 1 diabetic should have with them, is around $100 to $130. That’s a significant cost for some people.

Steve Morissette: If I may just follow that up. Currently, patients that need those medications are on their own — out of pocket?

Sarah Linklater: Yes, I believe so.

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

Moving on to our next presenter, we have Daniel Kreines, from the Association of Interior Realtors.

Thank you for joining us today. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after.

Association of Interior Realtors

Daniel Kreines: Hi, everybody. Thank you so much for having me. My name is Daniel Kreines, and I’m the government relations and policy associate for the Association of Interior Realtors. I have three policy suggestions to share with you today, so let’s get started.

The first is funding for a full review of the Strata Property Act. This act is older than I am, and a lot has changed since 1998, both in the realm of technology and where we find ourselves in the housing crisis. We’ve heard multiple times from the housing policy branch that they are interested in reviewing the act; however, they need dedicated funding for a full consultation.

The previous 2019 law report on the SPA at this point is outdated. It lacked critical consultation from many industries, including organized real estate. As well, the housing market today is completely different than it was six years ago. In a 2022 BCFSA report to the ministry, titled Enhancing Consumer Protection, it was recommended that it should be mandatory to obtain critical strata documents prior to listing a property.

We agree with the idea and have it as one of our bylaws. Due to excessively high rush fees and lengthy delivery timelines, it is currently paused, to ensure our members don’t get unfairly penalized. If the legislation was refreshed to make this more doable, we would reinstate the bylaw.

Key priorities in the review of the SPA should include (1) the cost of essential documents, (2) reducing delivery timelines to better fit the digital age, and (3) the standardization of rush fees, which currently vary from $100 to $500 on top of the actual cost of documents, which are typically between $150 and $200. These priorities need to be addressed in order to deal with critical issues of consumer protection and to improve the strata-buyer experience.

On to the second point. In order to build the 700,000 homes we need to bring back housing affordability to this province, we should re-evaluate our methods on getting homes built. When the government wants to incentivize something, typically they give tax incentives or tax breaks. With housing, there tend to be a lot of buyer-side measures or tax burdens instead.

In order to get more homes built, the ministry should put money aside for a review on taxes related to housing, to see if they are still meeting their original intended goals and providing the best possible outcome for building more homes for people to live in. If certain taxes are determined to not meet these goals, lowering them or changing the threshold could encourage more investment into housing development and make the home-buying process less strenuous and more accessible for the first-time buyer.

[11:40 a.m.]

The final policy point is creating a municipal modernization fund for municipal property documents. Delayed access to these critical documents and the absence of digital records remain major concerns across the province. As of right now, we have a complete patchwork system. One town has an advanced digital system that they’ve created, while the one next door is digging through the basement to find physical copies, taking precious time away from their other tasks.

The city of Kelowna is a great example of a modern property document system. They’ve been consistently improving and have just released last month a new version of their system that improves timelines drastically, saving themselves both time and money in the long run. They call it the PIR, the property information request system.

Addressing the challenges of access to property documents will directly benefit many smaller communities and municipalities across the province. Many of whom we’ve heard from directly want to create a property document system similar to Kelowna’s. But unlike Kelowna, they do not have the funding or staffing available to create one, and that’s where the province should step in.

If we provide smaller municipalities with the funding to improve and digitize their systems, it’ll make the planning, development and conveyancing of housing much more straightforward and will support the future growth of communities across British Columbia.

Key property information such as easements, zoning, open permits, plumbing and septic — these are all major concerns that can cost consumers a lot of money, and they are more often missed in rural properties, making a municipal property document modernization fund even more important for consumer protection and improving the buyer experience.

To sum everything up, we recommend (1) funding a full review of the Strata Property Act, (2) funding a formal review of housing related taxes and (3) the creation of a municipal property document modernization fund.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak in front of the committee, and I’m ready to answer any questions you may have.

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

The committee will take a recess at this point.

The committee recessed from 11:42 a.m. to 1:01 p.m.

[Paul Choi in the chair.]

Paul Choi (Chair): I will call the committee back to order and start with our next presenter. We have Wendy Wall from Vancouver Island Strata Owners Association.

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

Vancouver Island Strata
Owners Association

Wendy Wall: Thank you to the standing committee for allowing me to speak today. My name is Wendy Wall. I’m the president of the Vancouver Island Strata Owners Association, or VISOA for short.

I’m joining you today from the ancestral territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən peoples, known today as the Esquimalt and Songhees Nations.

If you’re not familiar with VISOA, it’s a non-profit society. It’s been providing education and support to strata owners since 1973. Since the early 2000s, we have supported British Columbians throughout the province.

When we talk about Homes for People, we think about the entire housing system: rental, social, housing for seniors, single-family homes and strata housing. Strata housing in B.C. is different than other provinces. In B.C., it includes duplexes, townhomes, condominiums. We have more strata corporations than any other province. At 34,000 stratas, that’s nearly triple the number in comparison to Ontario.

I’m giving this introduction to make the case for the need for a strata housing branch. Already, over 25 percent of the population of British Columbia lives in strata housing. With the statutes passed in 2023, British Columbians are encouraged to build small-scale, multi-unit homes. Most of these new multiplexes will be strata titled.

In 2023, a government news release said that the province would see more than 130,000 new multi-unit homes during the next ten years. That’s an additional 32,000 strata corporations. This underscores an urgent need. Small stratas often find themselves in litigation, with little in the Strata Property Act that can be relied on to resolve their issues. The act was written in 1998. A strata housing branch could address policy changes to support small and larger stratas.

For example, there are over a hundred shovel-ready amendments drafted that have not yet been actioned. These were drafted by the B.C. Law Institute during a six-year project from 2013 to ‘19 with the involvement of numerous stakeholders and experts. With a mandate from the province, and capacity in a strata housing branch, these important changes could be implemented, as well as amendments to support small stratus.

Homes for People is more than constructing homes. Construction is not the end. It’s the beginning. New and existing strata owners need policy support to help them succeed in a complicated legal framework of ownership. It requires volunteer strata councils with busy lives to operate their stratas in an increasingly complex landscape of regulatory requirements.

[1:05 p.m.]

The next request supports the first. We need a registry for strata corporations. Currently there is no way for provincial or local governments to track or contact strata corporations. The B.C. registry includes businesses, societies and more, but not strata corporations. Societies, for example, receive important notifications through the B.C. registry, such as reminders for compliance with changes to the Societies Act.

Our governments have no way to identify or contact strata corporations. For example, there are new requirements in the Fire Safety Act that are coming into force in August, but we have no way to inform all stratas about them. A registry could also provide data about stratas, which is vital to developing effective policies and programs for energy efficiency, decarbonization, overheating and more.

Given that the registry is already built, adding strata corporations as a new category could be a low-cost and achievable solution. A strata housing branch could explore Ontario’s registry, for example.

Finally, our government is looking for efficiencies in spending and is currently reviewing our climate platform and CleanBC programming. There are opportunities for efficiencies by creating a strata stream in the CleanBC programs, instead of putting them through a stream designed for single-family homes or a stream designed for large industrial and commercial businesses.

This would provide equitable opportunities for stratas and strata owners by eliminating gaps, reducing administrative costs for delivery partners. It would also remove the expensive and complex legal barriers that stratas face due to conflicting requirements in the rebate programs and the Strata Property Act.

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

Jennifer Blatherwick: Hello, and thank you for your presentation. You might’ve seen me nodding several times during your talk. It’s very difficult for small stratas to negotiate the landscape of legal responsibility and due diligence, so thank you for your advocacy.

When you’re talking about creating a stream in CleanBC, are you now…? Now that there’s been a shift towards multi-unit residential buildings for, say, the heat pump rebate, are strata corporations eligible there?

Wendy Wall: The CleanBC programs are wonderful. They’re very welcome. It’s just that they’re difficult to navigate for stratas.

I’m going to give you an example. Townhomes are part of the single-family-home stream. But in strata law, the strata owner does not have the legal responsibility for windows, exterior doors, insulation, solar panels. So something like a heat pump or a hot water tank…. If that townhouse unit has their own, then the single-family stream is great. But as soon as we get into giving rebates to an individual owner for something that a strata corporation is legally responsible for, it creates a legal complexity which, yes, you can navigate, but….

Here’s an example: 40 townhomes who wanted to do insulation. They have to make 40 applications to the program. Each of those people, depending on their income, could get a different rebate, but under the Strata Property Act, the costs of that project have to be divided by unit entitlement, which is a calculation of an amount under the Strata Property Act. So we have a very complex situation where they need legal advice and to create very complicated resolutions to just be able to participate in the program.

I think administration for both our government delivery partners and administration for our strata corporations could be aligned and streamlined.

Jennifer Blatherwick: So what you’re asking is, say…. Instead of making 40 individual applications and then having some coming in and going out again, you’re asking: can strata corporations make one application for 40 units and then be in charge of purchasing, organizing and then getting them repaid? Okay. Thank you.

Wendy Wall: Thank you for clarifying that as well. I didn’t say it that well.

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

[1:10 p.m.]

Moving on to our next presenter, we have Nizar Laarif from the Aboriginal Housing Management Association.

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

Aboriginal Housing
Management Association

Nizar Laarif: Good afternoon. Thank you to the committee members for allowing us this opportunity to participate in Budget 2026. My name is Nizar Laarif. I’m the director of public affairs with the Aboriginal Housing Management Association, also known as AHMA.

AHMA represents 42 Indigenous housing providers, scattered all across B.C. This budget ask is after a consultation session with all of them. We all came, in turn, with the three budget asks that I’ll be presenting today.

Our first budget ask is with regard to stabilizing Indigenous housing providers by addressing their non-controllable cost pressures. As most of you know, in the years of the pandemic and the years after the pandemic, there were inflationary cost pressures, mostly on non-controllable costs.

We’re talking about insurance, utilities, maintenance, property tax, etc., which were not addressed in the budgets of the last three or four years. This created a budget gap between what we currently fund them at and what their obligations are in terms of non-controllable costs. After going through a thorough analysis of the data, we estimate that this non-controllable budget gap is $11 million annually. This is, again, to fund the part of the non-controllable costs gap for 42 Indigenous housing providers across B.C.

Our second ask is with regard to building capacity for integrated critical support to meet the complex and intersecting needs of Indigenous tenants, including those affected by health issues, gender-based violence and youth aging out of care, who are at risk of homelessness.

For that matter, our members require $9.5 million annually to support 5,600 existing households and an estimated 2,000 new households with trauma-responsive, culturally safe wraparound services. It would also include $1 million per housing society, for 42 housing providers, to be able to administer this funding. This investment supports government priorities in reconciliation, housing stability and improved outcomes for vulnerable populations. It additionally yields a high return on investment through prevention and early intervention.

Our third ask is with regard to advanced equity in new builds and unfunded capital renewal. As you know, B.C., as part of Building B.C., has issued two calls under the Indigenous housing fund — 1,750 units for each call. So far, between the units that they received final approval for, the units under construction and the units that became operational, we have around 2,500 units. This leaves 1,000 units that still would fall under the second call of the IHF.

We are requesting B.C. to include those 1,000 units in the 2026 budget and to issue that call as soon as possible. That’s in addition to $250 million, which represents the deferred capital renewal for our overall stock, which is about 6,000 units. So there is an unfunded capital renewal of approximately $250 million that, eventually, if it’s not dealt with, will threaten the health and the overall condition of the portfolio. We estimate that gap at $250 million overall.

This will protect existing stock and residents, with appropriate maintenance to ensure that units remain safe and healthy, and expand supply to meet urgent demand. All these investments reflect a shared commitment to reconciliation, equity and improved housing outcomes for urban Indigenous Peoples.

AHMA stands ready to work in partnership with our province to deliver on these priorities. Thank you very much.

[1:15 p.m.]

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

Jennifer Blatherwick: Hello. Thank you for your presentation. I think I really got a little bit lost between your second and your third request. For your second request, you wanted capacity for individual supports for housing? Was that right?

Nizar Laarif: For wraparound services in general. Many of our tenants are living currently in a unit that does not offer wraparound services. So we’re talking about Elders with health and mental issues. Alzheimer’s is one of the main issues that a lot of our Elders are dealing with, and the level of service that they receive does not cover that. We have also…. As I mentioned, a lot of our tenants are victims of gender-based violence. A good portion are youth aging out of the care system, and they are at risk of homelessness. So the second ask is mainly with regard to the wraparound services gap that currently exists.

The third ask is with regard to building the remaining units that were previously committed and promised under the first and the second call of the Indigenous housing fund, which is 1,000 units so far. So we want those units to be in the 2026 budget.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Okay, so there was a call for housing units, and it was like a total of 1,750? Is that right?

Nizar Laarif: There’s an overlap between the first and the second call. There was the first call of IHF — I believe, in 2019 or 2020 — and the province promised 1,750 units, followed by a second call in 2022 or beginning of 2023 and another 1,750 units. So between the two calls, we have 3,500 units. So far, only 2,500 are either built or under development or received final approval. There are a remaining 1,000 units, and we are requesting them to be released as soon as possible as part of 2026.

Jennifer Blatherwick: There you go. Thank you.

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

Moving to our next presenter, we have Sarah Stewart, from B.C. Coalition to End Youth Homelessness.

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

B.C. Coalition to End Homelessness

Sarah Stewart: Good afternoon, and thank you to the committee for the opportunity to present. My name is Sarah Stewart, and I’m the executive director of Aunt Leah’s Society, an organization that has supported youth from government care in British Columbia for 35 years. I also serve as the co-chair for the B.C. Coalition to End Youth Homelessness. I’m here today to speak about the urgent need for targeted investment in youth housing in Budget 2026.

In B.C., when youth age out of care at 19, they’re expected to live independently, often without family, financial stability or a safe place to live. As a result, they are 19 times more likely to experience homelessness. According to the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, 50 percent of homeless youth in B.C. have experience with government care.

In recent years, the Ministry of Children and Family Development has made meaningful progress. Through the SAJE program, youth from care now receive $12,050 a month in unconditional income supports at the age of 19 and 20 and $600 a month in rent supplement up to the age of 27 if they’re enrolled in education, training or life skills.

These are important investments, but income support alone doesn’t create housing. The average rent for a one bedroom in B.C. is over $2,180 a month and nearly $2,900 in Metro Vancouver. Young people from care may now have more money in their pockets, but there’s still nowhere for them to live. This is because B.C. lacks a youth housing strategy.

[1:20 p.m.]

While youth from care are recognized as a priority population by B.C. Housing, there’s no dedicated youth housing portfolio, no tailored housing supports and no coordinated plan across ministries. That’s the gap we need to close.

For Budget 2026, we recommend the following three actions. One, create a dedicated youth housing strategy and portfolio. Youth from care are simply not young adults in a general housing system. They are a distinct population requiring a tailored response. We need B.C. Housing to lead a dedicated youth housing strategy in partnership with MCFD and the Ministry of Housing. This strategy should include a youth-focused housing portfolio, coordinated policy and service delivery between ministries and long-term alignment with the financial supports provided through SAJE.

The second recommendation is to fund transitional housing with wraparound supports. Youth in care need three- to five-year transitional housing programs that provide a stable bridge into adulthood. These programs must include wraparound supports, including mental health care, life skills, development, education and employment support so that youth can succeed and thrive, not just survive.

This model is working. Aunt Leah’s is currently building a 90-unit mixed-income development that includes deeply subsidized housing for former youth in care, but non-profits like ours cannot meet the demand alone. This model must be scaled.

The third recommendation is to expand access to rent subsidies and youth housing navigation. Even with current SAJE supports, many youth still fall short. B.C. needs to expand access to rent-geared-to-income units and deep subsidies for youth not in education or facing mental health and substance use barriers and expand access to youth housing navigators and case managers to help youth find, secure and maintain housing and build long-term stability.

These are not just housing solutions; they are smart, upstream investments in health, education and justice. Research from the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness and the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth shows that every dollar spent on youth housing with supports saves $2 to $4 in public systems cost.

This government has already shown leadership by investing in financial supports through SAJE. Now it’s time to take the next step: turn that financial support into real homes. Budget 2026 is an opportunity to close a critical gap, prevent youth homelessness and offer young people a path to independence and belonging.

Thank you for your time. I welcome any questions.

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

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much, and appreciate you coming here to be a voice for youth, especially around housing. So challenging, right? Even if they have the money, it’s very difficult for them to independently obtain a rental. There’s such competition that people, in general, don’t want to rent to young people.

When you were first talking, you mentioned that their monthly support was $12,500. I think what you meant was $1,250, right?

Sarah Stewart: That’s right. Thank you.

Jennifer Blatherwick: No worries. I was thinking: “Wow, that’s a lot.”

I actually was hoping to give you a little bit more opportunity to talk about the development of your 90-unit building and what that means and why that model is so important for the strategy.

Sarah Stewart: What Aunt Leah’s has seen, and same with many other members of the Coalition to End Youth Homelessness, is that — and research and experience shows — transitional housing with wraparound supports is effective because it replicates what most families are already doing for their children, which is providing ongoing housing, financial help and life guidance well into a young person’s 20s.

Aunt Leah’s is creating and building, in partnership with B.C. Housing, 90 units so that we can offer the 400-plus young people that we work with a continuum of housing so that any of their goals, the plans that they have at the age of 19 aren’t disrupted by the fact that they can’t find that safe housing. It replicates what is happening in general for young people who are coming from homes where housing is stable and income is stable.

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

[1:25 p.m.]

Okay, moving on to our next presenter. We have Christopher Livingstone, from the Aboriginal Front Door Society.

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

Aboriginal Front Door Society

Christopher Livingstone: Great. Thank you for taking the time to listen to me.

My name is Chris Livingstone, and I am thankful to be living and doing the work that I’m doing on the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ Nations. I try to remain connected to the land, and I hope you’re able to help us as well.

Today I’m here to talk about the Aboriginal Front Door Society, a society that’s been in existence since about 2001. It’s been a place of cultural safety rooted in Indigenous teachings and traditions for Indigenous people in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. It’s created by our Elders’ wisdom and community voices. AFDS is committed to restoring dignity and building a welcoming circle of kindness and connection.

Just for a little bit of background info, I know you guys have been listening to a lot today, but I’m trying to bring you to the small world of Main and Hastings, where we provide a place of support, pride and healing rooted in our people’s traditions. We honour each individual’s journey, welcoming with open arms and listening ears. Here everyone is seen, valued and uplifted.

The AFDS is a pillar of strength in the Indigenous community. We address immediate and long-term challenges for some of our most vulnerable members. Through culturally grounded care, we create a space of belonging, understanding and empowerment for all those that walk through our doors.

A little bit about what we do and our offerings — we’ve been providing essential services encompassing mental health support, addiction recovery, food and housing assistance and culturally rooted wellness programs. Aboriginal Front Door Society is a vital access point for people seeking immediate, life-sustaining support in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.

We offer street storage for 600 unhoused residents that are sleeping outside. We know many of them access our bins twice per day, resulting in thousands of interactions with our volunteer staff. We put out emergency hampers and meals, distributed to hundreds of individuals every week. As well, we feed 400 to 500 people per day.

Our outreach services connect those who can’t come inside, ensuring continuity of care and access to basic needs. We hand out daily supplies, including hygiene kits, harm reduction materials and warm clothing.

Our work is responsive, trauma-informed and grounded in relationships. AFDS has built deep trust in the community, and that deep trust saves lives. AFDS is one of the few culturally led spaces in the Downtown Eastside where culture and ceremony are accessible daily. We do smudging, access to traditional medicines. We have Elders that are able to talk to people. We do cultural workshops and programming. It’s all designed to be able to support the community or the member or client trying to figure out who they are.

[1:30 p.m.]

If you’ve spent any time at Main and Hastings, you know that Aboriginal Front Door Society is more than a service provider. It’s a lifeline. It’s a safe space to land, a hot meal when no one else is cooking, a set of listening ears where nowhere else is quiet. Every day hundreds of people come through to store belongings, connect with culture, get support with housing or just rest their heads for a moment. It’s Indigenous-led, deeply trusted and one of the few places in the area that centres dignity, healing and belonging in everything that it does.

That’s why we’re asking the province to restore funding for 390 Main Street services after September 2026. The funding was currently put in place in response to the Hastings Street encampment, as well as Crab Park, and before it, Strathcona and Oppenheimer Park. We’ve done more than just stabilize a difficult situation. It’s become a foundation for consistent, culturally safe care for more than 600 community members daily.

To wrap it up, the funding was put in place a couple of years ago. We’ve been going year to year. For some reason, this year they only made a plan to extend it for six months, so I’m asking or hoping is that the committee or the government could help to keep that funding going until 2027, where we can find other suitable funders or access different groups that may be interested in helping.

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

Any questions by members?

Jennifer Blatherwick: Can you just tell me: what was the annual amount of the funding?

Christopher Livingstone: Yes. The funding comes from the city, and then it’s B.C. Housing that gives it to them. It’s $115,000 per month, which supports over 50 volunteers with low-threshold employment programming.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Yeah, I just wanted to say thanks for your work on the Downtown Eastside. Appreciate your advocacy. Very interesting program with the storage for people on the street, the bin program. Great opportunity to help people feel a sense of security and creating those important interactions. Thank you very much for your ongoing work.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much, and thanks for your time to present to us today.

We will move to our next presenter. We have Taylor So as our next presenter. Thanks for joining us. You have five minutes for your presentation and five minutes for questions after.

Taylor So

Taylor So: Good afternoon, Members. My name is Taylor. I am a policy student in Minister Ma’s riding. I only have one recommendation today, and it’s a super easy one.

Earlier this year, I was made aware of a call on the floor of the House to defund the First Nations Leadership Council. I was a little bit concerned to hear that. I’m not under the impression that that funding is going to disappear, but we don’t always know when a call is going to gain traction. I think at this point in history, one of our goals is to try and, in a very colonial turn of phrase, balance our nationalism with a commitment to the original owners of the property.

Today I just want to do my part in heading off whatever that call might become down the road by emphatically expressing my support as a white taxpayer for continued funding of First Nations leadership and governance initiatives.

In very downstream, indirect ways, the funding does have an impact. I think it’s just not always apparent until we actually take a step back and take the time to look. The most important impacts that I see are actually on trade and defence. If anyone has questions about that, I can provide some examples.

[1:35 p.m.]

First I just wanted to make a couple of broader comments about how supporting Indigenous leadership affects me personally. I’ve lived in a lot of cities up and down the west coast, and I think something that people here take for granted is that there are places across the continent where there is no Indigenous presence whatsoever. There’s no art, no native-owned businesses, no music, no non-profits. You can’t even take a course in Indigenous studies in those regions, which is, I think, a real shame.

None of this is to say that I haven’t made mistakes. I’m quite embarrassed about the times when I’ve done something racist, and in those moments, I’ve really questioned whether I should consider myself an ally. But people have explained the impacts of my actions. I’ve recognized them, I’ve apologized, and then I’ve moved on.

I don’t have any issue describing myself as a settler or a colonizer because to me those are just accurate terms. They don’t instil any shame or guilt in me because it’s not really about me. It’s about history, culture, geopolitics and institutions. In light of those colossal factors, I’m not capable of seeing a marginalized person’s pain as an attack on my existence.

To wrap up, all of these things that I’ve learned have been, in large part, a downstream result of supporting Indigenous leadership. I know that I’m also one of many white settlers who supports continued funding for reconciliation efforts. I appreciate that it’s a grind and it can be very exhausting, but I just want to assure the members that the effects are real, and I see the progress that’s being made. I think the money is well worth it.

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

Jennifer Blatherwick: Hello, thank you so much. I’m just clarifying. You don’t have a specific budgetary ask, just the continued support specifically for funding the First Nations Leadership Council but also in general for the continued commitment to reconciliation initiatives broadly?

Taylor So: Yes, that’s correct.

I also want to clarify. I did try to get in touch with people to find the actual numbers. It was really difficult to find, and I still haven’t heard back from people. I regret that I wasn’t able to actually bring numbers today.

But yes, specifically the First Nations Leadership Council, which I understand is sort of indirectly funded through a few different agencies, and then, more broadly, reconciliation, as it’s a part of that. Yes.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you very much for taking the time to come and present to us today.

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

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

CUPE Local 723, Campbell River
School District Support Staff

Andrea Craddock: Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Andrea Craddock, and I’m a proud representative of CUPE Local 723, which includes support staff working in school district 72, Campbell River.

We are education assistants, youth care workers, Indigenous support workers, clerical staff, tradesworkers, IT, custodians, bus drivers and more. I have worked as an education assistant for 16 years and operated a family daycare for eight years prior to becoming an EA.

Today I want to highlight three priorities for Budget 2026: resourcing inclusive education, retaining school support workers and expanding public child care.

One, inclusive education. Inclusive education is a cornerstone of our public education system, but we’re not resourcing at the level students need. Classrooms today include more children with complex and diverse learning needs, but staffing levels haven’t kept up. There simply aren’t enough education assistants and other support staff to provide the individualized support that inclusion requires.

Some students that lack basic self-regulation skills require one-on-one support, limiting an EA’s ability to assist other diverse learners in a classroom. This means some students just don’t get the support they need, as EAs are stretched further with increasing complex behaviour challenges.

[1:40 p.m.]

When staffing falls short, students don’t get what they need and support workers burn out trying to cover the gaps. This undermines inclusion and leads to higher turnover.

Our first recommendation is to increase core funding to school districts, with a dedicated focus on staffing for inclusive education, especially education assistants. Two, recruit and retain education workers. Hiring more EAs and other support staff is essential, but we also need to stop losing experienced workers already in the system. Across B.C., school support workers are leaving because the work is insecure, underpaid and often part-time or seasonal. This includes not only education assistants but also IT and trades workers. When these positions remain vacant or constantly turn over, it creates disruption for students, puts our digital security at risk, delays basic maintenance and adds stress on departments already stretched.

Our second recommendation is that Budget 2026 provide targeted funding to improve job security, increase access to full-time hours and ensure competitive compensation across all support staff classifications, including custodial and trades roles.

Three, expanding public child care in schools. In Campbell River, we’ve seen firsthand how public child care delivered in-house by school districts can benefit family, students and staff alike. Our district runs several before- and after-school programs using CUPE education assistants. We currently have six CUPE-staffed centres, with approval for four more.

Students and parents are so grateful for a program located at their school site, meaning fewer transitions, with trusted and trained staff. From EAs, they are enjoying the increased hours, improvements to their pensions and not having to take a second and third job to make the bills.

These programs give parents peace of mind, create secure jobs for workers and make efficient use of public space and staff. They’re a win-win, but most districts can’t get them off the ground without start-up funding. Our third recommendation is that Budget 2026 include start-up funding to help all school districts launch or expand publicly delivered child care programs using education assistants.

Together, these three recommendations build on each other. Investing in inclusive education means hiring more staff to meet students’ needs.

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

We will now move to questions by members.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much for focusing on the health and well-being and the needs of children and the staff in your district.

You were talking about, for No. 3, seamless day child care.

Andrea Craddock: Yeah, so before-and-after. It’s called a number of different things, but yeah, before-and-after child care.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Currently, the regulations allow for school districts to run child care a little bit above cost so they can do it.

But you’re saying that in order to make that initial investment into creating the child care, getting the licensing in place, all that, that they should need start-up funding in order to get the ball rolling.

Andrea Craddock: Correct, and all the seed funding that could potentially go into getting supplies for the program, etc., right? Yeah.

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

Moving on to our next presenter, we have Laura Kwong, from B.C. DPAC Coalition. Thanks for joining us. You have five minutes for the presentation and five minutes for questions after.

B.C. DPAC Coalition

Laura Kwong: Hello, my name is Laura Kwong, and I’m a settler on the unceded lands of the qiqéyt First Nation. I’m speaking today on behalf of the B.C. DPAC Coalition. Our coalition of 11 district parent advisory councils represents the families of over 292,000 students residing in multiple Indigenous territories across B.C.

[1:45 p.m.]

We acknowledge all First Peoples in our province and their cultures in enduring relationships to the land and waters they have stewarded since time immemorial.

When we shortchange schools by underfunding them now, we shift costs to other parts of the system. Every dollar not invested in education will eventually be spent many times over in health care, mental health, crisis response, youth justice or social assistance. When we heard the promise for an education assistant in every K-to-3 classroom, we were optimistic for the potential impact in our communities, but this requires funding.

Funding education is the most cost-effective preventative investment that you can make. We want to acknowledge that you likely don’t feel that education is underfunded, as the overall dollar amount in the provincial budget has gone up each year. But this increase is largely driven by enrolment growth and your own per-student funding formula and not by structural reinvestment in quality or capacity.

It’s also true that this government has funded education more generously than the previous one, and that matters. But their funding cuts haven’t been repaired. Meanwhile, classroom complexity has increased, and new mandated services have been added without any funding.

Amid this time of global instability and economic uncertainty, investing in education can build lasting resilience for B.C. Schools equip future workers with the skills we need to stay competitive. This is not a cost. It’s an investment in productivity, equity and innovation.

Schools are community hubs providing stability, connection and resources for families. Just like hospitals, transit and housing, public schools are foundational infrastructure for livable, equitable communities, meaning overcrowded classrooms, deferred school maintenance and staff shortages are provincial infrastructure failures, not just budget issues.

In uncertain times, we look to public institutions for fairness and support, and strong schools are the most visible expression of government keeping its promise to support and care for citizens. New immigrant families arrive in B.C. every day and are surprised to find our schools run like a charity. History shows that jurisdictions that maintained or increased education spending during economic downturns recovered faster and more equitably.

This is a moment to show bold leadership — not to retreat under pressure but to invest in what matters most for B.C.’s future. Health care will be better if the future of public education is a priority today, as will innovation, social support networks, climate resilience and public safety. We don’t want to just stop the bleeding. Students and their families need to see that our government understands education is core public infrastructure and a strategic investment in our future.

We are requesting, first, increases to base funding and all special purpose funds to reflect full economic inflation costs borne by districts and increased funding to address the inflationary impact on rapidly rising benefits costs; second, increases to the base funding formula to reflect the full cost of inclusive education.

School district 40, for example, is spending $17.4 million on inclusive education yet only receiving $9.7 million from the province. The $7.7 million difference made up from operating is cutting off one hand to save the other.

School district 36 estimates they’re spending $54 million beyond what is provided on inclusive ed. Yet these funds, both the designated plus the additional operating funds, are still not meeting the needs of inclusive education for our students.

Third, a five-year plan to meet the capital funding gap as identified by the B.C. School Trustees Association, where $1.7 billion more is needed for land acquisitions. And $6 billion more for new schools and substantial increases to the annual facilities grant is needed for deferred maintenance, which was estimated in 2023 to be $9 billion. And next year we absolutely do not want to hear new announcements about old funding.

Public education isn’t charity; it’s strategy. Failure to adequately fund education has long-term economic impacts and is unaffordable for our society. On behalf of parents, caregivers and the over 292,000 students that we represent, thank you for this opportunity to present and for your consideration of our budget requests.

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

We will now move to questions by members. Seeing none, thank you so much for your presentation today.

We will take a short recess.

The committee recessed from 1:50 p.m. to 2:36 p.m.

[Paul Choi in the chair.]

Paul Choi (Chair): We’ll call the committee back to order. We’ll move on to our next presenter. We have Barbara Coates from Dan’s Legacy.

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

Dan’s Legacy Foundation

Barbara Coates: Thank you so much for this opportunity, and hello to all the committee members. First of all, how are you all doing? I know you’ve been at this, I think, since 9 a.m. this morning. Are you okay? Is everyone fine?

Paul Choi (Chair): We are doing amazing. Lots of coffee. Thank you.

Barbara Coates: Okay, good. Well, hang in there. I think you have more hours to go. Thank you so much for this opportunity to make a presentation.

I’m Barb Coates. I’m the executive director of Dan’s Legacy Foundation. I’m Zooming in today with you all from the traditional and unceded territory of the Tsawwassen First Nation, who have been stewards of this land since time immemorial, and I’m honoured to live, work and play on these lands.

I’d like to tell you a little bit about Dan’s Legacy, who we are, what we do and the impact we have in the community. Dan’s Legacy is a charity which operates in the Lower Mainland, with the bulk of our youth clients coming from Surrey, Vancouver and New Westminster.

When Dan’s Legacy was founded back in 2007, it was done so by a family who had lost their son to an overdose. Dan had experienced a sexual assault, and he turned to substances to self-medicate for the overwhelming psychological pain that he lived with after this attack.

Unfortunately, at that time, there were no age-appropriate or trauma-informed programs available to him, and in the end, he succumbed to an overdose. His family wanted to ensure that other youth got the help that could have saved his life, and they created this charity in his name.

Today what we do is provide trauma-informed and culturally sensitive counselling, social work and outreach support services, as well as clinically supported job skills training programs in the culinary industry to youth at risk. Everything we do is free of charge, and we try to keep our wait-list to no more than a month.

I heard Sarah Stewart from Aunt Leah’s Place speaking with you earlier, and they are one of our community partners. The counselling that we provide to the youth that work with Aunt Leah’s and with us helps them to maintain their housing. So that’s just one of the ways that we collaborate in the community.

The one thing that’s different about Dan’s Legacy is that we take a harm prevention approach. We are there for the youth when they first ask for help. Last year we worked with over 800 youth, and we had a 50 percent success rate in helping these young people to stabilize in only four months.

The youth that we work with are aged between 15 and 25. They come from a variety of backgrounds. We’re starting to see more new Canadians who have experienced trauma in refugee camps and war zones.

[2:40 p.m.]

Approximately 20 percent of our clients are Indigenous, and 43 percent identify as LGBTQ. The top three issues they are asking for help for is trauma, depression and anxiety. When they complete our programs, the three improvements they see are enhanced self-esteem, improved coping skills and stronger self-regulation skills.

At present, the focus remains on investing in harm reduction strategies, which are critically necessary to saving lives, but we strongly recommend to the committee to consider increased investment in harm prevention.

The two recommendations that we have for the committee are: invest in harm prevention programming through community-based mental health services, because prevention-focused programs that address mental health, substance use and trauma at the community level can reduce downstream costs in health care, justice and social services. And we urge the province to increase direct funding to organizations like ours and others that deliver wraparound low-barrier services to youth before the crisis points are reached.

We also encourage…. Our point No. 2 is to expand funding to multi-year funding. Stability is critical for long-term impact. Multi-year funding would allow service providers to build capacity, retain qualified staff and focus on delivering consistent care. Predictable funding enables sustainable program development and evaluation.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity, as well as the province of B.C. for having supported Dan’s Legacy since 2018, with funding from various ministries totalling over $7.5 million. Your support has helped us grow to where we are today, and we take pride in our responsible stewardship of these public funds. Thank you.

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

Sunita Dhir: Thank you so much for your presentation. I have two questions. The first one is: how do you raise awareness of the services that are available through your organization? And the second one is: what’s your current funding model?

Barbara Coates: How we raise awareness is we partner with about 11 other community organizations across the Lower Mainland and one in Whistler called Zero Ceiling. It’s through those partnerships that we are able to get in front of the youth who are already asking for a wraparound type of support from these community organizations. We embed our therapists in some of these organizations so that when a youth walks through the door, we are literally standing there waiting for them.

We also take opportunities to make public speaking engagements. We reach out to various representatives in the community at the provincial, federal and municipal levels. We engage in media relations activities as well. I think the majority of the youth find us through word of mouth. Their friends recommend us to other friends, and we have a self-referral portal on our website. When we opened that up, the requests for support literally came flooding in.

Now, our funding model is primarily from grants. Like I mentioned earlier, we’ve had significant support from the provincial government. We’ve also had support from the federal government, as well as community, private and public foundations. To a certain extent, some individual donors, but the majority of our funding comes from grants.

Does that answer your question?

Sunita Dhir: Yes. Thank you so much.

Jennifer Blatherwick: My question has already been answered. Thank you.

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

Barbara Coates: Well, thank you very much, and good luck with the rest of your afternoon.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. We will move on to our next presenter. We have Alycia Sinclair from Canadian Addiction Treatment Centres.

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

Canadian Addiction Treatment Centres

Alycia Sinclair: Good afternoon, and thank you, committee members, for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Alycia Sinclair, and I’m the director of operations in B.C. for Canadian Addiction Treatment Centres or CATC. I live in Surrey, and I’m proud to work for an organization deeply committed to accessible, destigmatized, patient-centred addiction care. I have over a decade of experience in health care operations.

A question that has been on my mind since starting at CATC: what if the answer to one of B.C.’s biggest health care challenges is already working but simply not being used to its full potential?

[2:45 p.m.]

CATC is the largest provider of opioid addiction treatment in Canada and has been a vital part of B.C.’s front-line response to the opioid crisis for over 30 years.

In B.C., we operate six outpatient clinics in Vancouver, New Westminster, Surrey, Abbotsford and Chilliwack. We serve 1,500 patients each month.

Our model provides a full continuum of opioid agonist treatment and wraparound supports. Alongside our specialized addiction medicine physicians, we have counsellors and support staff. We offer Suboxone, methadone, Kadian and Sublocade, infectious disease care and primary care access, counselling, case management and system navigation, such as referrals to detox or inpatient treatment.

What makes CATC distinct? We meet patients where they are geographically, emotionally and clinically. Through our partnerships with Northern Health Authority, CATC delivers virtual physician care in underserved communities like Kitimat, Prince Rupert and Dawson Creek. Through our Island Health Authority partnership, CATC delivers virtual addiction counselling services.

In many remote and rural communities, virtual care is not a convenience; it is the only option. Our call to action is this. CATC has the capacity today to expand virtual services to many more British Columbians, especially those living in rural, remote and underserved communities.

In Ontario, this model is used extensively. In B.C., we are underutilized, which raises the question: what’s preventing B.C. from scaling this model that is already proven and already saving lives?

This is not an ask for new infrastructure. We are offering an existing one that’s ready to be deployed further. This is what cost-effective health care looks like.

We serve patients who are often turned away elsewhere, people with complex needs, trauma histories and long-standing barriers to care. Many primary care physicians do not want to treat this population. It disrupts their workflow. But at CATC, this is our work.

The cost of inaction isn’t just measured in hospital stays, first responder resources or policing. It’s measured in patients relapsing because they couldn’t access care, communities losing loved ones over and over again.

At CATC, we are already a partner in this effort. We’re not proposing a hypothetical. We’re offering to scale a model that is already working and to do it now. If we agree that care should be accessible, dignified and effective, my last question is simple. What do we need to do together to make that happen for every single British Columbian?

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

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

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Thanks for your presentation. Do you know if your virtual services are the only ones being provided right now? I know that in 2024, the then Mental Health and Addictions Minister, Jennifer Whiteside, had made an announcement of a virtual opioid dependency program that was supposed to be across the province but administrated through every health authority.

Is your program one that would be part of that, or are you guys independent and could expand to provide your services to every health authority?

Alycia Sinclair: The latter. We are helping currently, and we have capacity to expand to 12 new communities tomorrow, serving 600 patients for the province. So I think it’s a “both” answer to your question.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Okay. If I understand, you guys are doing Sublocade, Suboxone, Kadian, methadone. So for your virtual program, you visit patients virtually, if that’s what needs to happen, and then a prescription can be given virtually anywhere in the province that there is a prescriber or a pharmacy available. Is that…?

Alycia Sinclair: That’s right. So we will liaison with the health unit or a pharmacy in order to deliver the medication to the patient.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): As a budget ask, what would it cost to have your services moved to every health authority, per health authority or per region?

[2:50 p.m.]

What’s the kind of budgetary requirement that we would need to have as a recommendation in order to expand your services to all the jurisdictions that would need it?

Alycia Sinclair: For example, for Prince Rupert, it’s about $53,000 annually for that community. We’re looking at $636,000 annually for 12 communities. It’s roughly about $1,000 a patient per year. It’s definitely reasonable.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Yeah, it’s not bad actually. You said you serve about 1,000 patients per month.

Alycia Sinclair: Currently 1,500.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Okay, 1,500. Does that include some follow-up care and check-ins? Do you have any statistics on what the success rates are?

If a person came to your program today to seek help, to get…. Let’s say they wanted to go on Sublocade, and then they had monthly check-ins to renew their doses. Do you track that patient long term to see how they do over a period of time, how successful their treatment is and how long it lasts? Hopefully forever.

Alycia Sinclair: Yeah. Please, if I don’t answer all those questions, just circle back.

We do. We have an EMR system that tracks patient care throughout their whole entire journey, and it’s a wraparound service. So even if we see the clients for the prescription monthly, we have counsellors on site, case managers. We like to have a high touch point with the client to help them through their journey and increase their success.

I do have studies that I can share with you about success rates based on medication and type of treatment. Really, we are their partner for life. A lot of the clients…. We even have one that’s been with us for 20 years. We’re there for them throughout their whole entire journey, whatever that looks like.

Elenore Sturko (Deputy Chair): Fantastic. I would be interested, actually, to maybe see some of your data, so thank you very much.

Steve Morissette: I’m really interested in this. I’m from rural B.C., but I’ve never heard of you before. How do people connect with you? How do they get referred? How do they connect?

Alycia Sinclair: With our outpatient clinics, if you’re looking to physically see us in person, you can walk in, and we have rapid access to treatment. If it’s the virtual side of things, which is what brings me here today, it would be a partnership with the health authority.

We would have a block of time where the addiction medicine physician, you know…. You’d know that they’re in. You’d come in, and you’d book an appointment. We’d see you virtually through a health unit, a pharmacy, the CHCs that we’ve been building throughout the province — things like that.

Steve Morissette: Currently, then, do you have partnerships with the health authorities, like Interior Health?

Alycia Sinclair: We do. We have currently, with Northern Health, the three virtual care centres there, but we’re looking to expand that. There’s certain, you know…. Just some fine-tuning of some relationships and some partnerships that we need to structure formally in order to contract those pathways in all the other health authorities.

We have everything ready. It’s just requiring that administrative mechanism to formalize that engagement with the health authority.

Steve Morissette: Do you currently have partnerships with each health authority?

Alycia Sinclair: Currently it’s Northern Health and then Island Health with the virtual counselling.

Steve Morissette: Okay, thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Recognizing MLA Blatherwick.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you. My questions were answered.

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay, that is it for questions. Thank you so much for presenting to us today.

Moving on to our next presenter, we have James McLean from the Canadian Centre to End Human Trafficking.

Thank you for joining us today. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after.

Canadian Centre
to End Human Trafficking

James McLean: Thank you, Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to speak with you today.

My name is James McLean. I’m the director of research and policy at the Canadian Centre to End Human Trafficking. Our work mobilizes system change by collaborating with leaders with lived experience, all levels of government, businesses, and front-line service providers. Together, we advance best practices and try to eliminate duplication of effort across governments.

[2:55 p.m.]

In May 2019, our organization launched the Canadian Human Trafficking Hotline, a confidential, multilingual, 24-7 service that connects victims and survivors with social services and law enforcement if they choose. Each day our trained staff help vulnerable individuals avoid harm, exit trafficking situations and access the support they need for recovery.

This front-line work gives us a unique perspective on both the progress we are making and the gaps that remain in our collective response.

Many Canadians are unaware that human trafficking is happening in our own communities, yet data from our hotline provides insights into the scale of the problem. In its first five years, the hotline received nearly 20,000 calls, identified over 2,000 cases and recognized more than 3,100 individual victims and survivors across every province and territory. Across all provinces, B.C. ranks third highest in terms of the number of cases we’ve identified through the hotline.

Our research shows that traffickers actively move victims across jurisdictions, using our major infrastructure to avoid detection and to exploit the gaps in provincial and territorial anti-human-trafficking responses. This makes trafficking a truly pan-Canadian challenge.

Survivors who leave their trafficking situation often depend on a range of public services such as housing, health care, education, mental health and addiction support, legal aid and employment services. Since human trafficking spans so many policy areas, it cannot be tackled by a single ministry or government alone. What’s needed is a comprehensive, coordinated and whole-of-government approach, one that prevents trafficking by addressing root causes and applies a trauma-informed lens.

Until 2016, B.C. had its own strategy. However, since this strategy expired, anti-human-trafficking work has since been combined with gender-based violence initiatives. Now, to be clear, we wholeheartedly and unreservedly support combatting gender-based violence in all its forms.

However, the absence of a separate and dedicated anti-human-trafficking framework leads to ad hoc, disjointed efforts that fail to address the very unique interventions required to both prevent and respond to human trafficking. It also excludes labour trafficking, which is a very real issue in British Columbia.

Some provinces, like Ontario, Alberta and Manitoba, have seen tangible benefits from dedicated anti-human-trafficking strategies. We think it’s time for B.C. to reestablish a similar approach.

That is why we are calling on this committee to earmark a minimum of $24 million per year for a dedicated and renewed anti-human-trafficking strategy for British Columbia. This amount corresponds with per-capita investments we are seeing in other provinces.

With this investment, B.C. can develop a coordinated, evidence-based response that draws on lessons learned from across Canada. For example, this funding could be used to establish a dedicated survivor advisory table to inform government decision-making.

Further, in B.C., the coordination of human trafficking issues is led by an office that has other responsibilities. We are calling for the government to fund a dedicated senior official with staff whose sole focus is combatting human trafficking in British Columbia.

The $24 million investment could also be used to increase education and awareness; ensure there are appropriate services available like substance abuse and legal aid, as well as other supports that meet the unique needs of sex and labour trafficking survivors; to deliver training and capacity for front-line service providers; compensate survivors who share their expertise with the government; and hire more Crown attorneys who specialize in human trafficking.

Front-line organizations based in B.C. are well placed to identify other opportunities where this funding could have the biggest impact, and we encourage you to engage with them.

Human trafficking is complex and constantly evolving, which is why it demands a unified, well-resourced response. By investing in a dedicated strategy, B.C. can protect vulnerable individuals, support survivors and demonstrate leadership in the fight to end human trafficking.

Thank you for your time and your consideration.

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

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

I just want to clarify your request. You’re looking for a dedicated official with staff? Is that a government-level public servant that you’re looking for?

James McLean: Yeah.

[3:00 p.m.]

Jennifer Blatherwick: The $24 million to implement the strategy — there was some discussion about a survivor’s advisory table and compensation. But $24 million would be the sum total, including the dedication of the public official and their staff?

James McLean: That’s correct. What we’ve seen…. That would be on an annual basis, and that is the per-capita percentage that we’re seeing in provinces like Ontario. That funding would be set aside for these types of holistic approaches.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you. I’m not sure if anybody else has any questions. Nope? Okay. I think this is a really great opportunity to ask a little bit more — so that we can just get it on the record — about trafficking.

You mentioned in the very beginning of your presentation that traffickers move their victims across jurisdictions to avoid detection. I’m hoping you can expand more on that and how that happens and why it’s so important to cooperate across jurisdictions in order to prevent it.

James McLean: Yeah. Thank you very much for that question. It’s an important one. Traffickers are very savvy, and they know that in order to avoid detection, they can leverage jurisdiction gaps.

We launched a project in 2019 that looked at how traffickers use our major highways and airports to move victims across the country and across the provinces to avoid detection. What we found was that major thoroughfares like the Trans-Canada Highway and our major airports are major hubs for traffickers to move their victims around.

That’s why it’s so important that we have a dedicated strategy that brings everybody together so that traffickers are not able to exploit these gaps and so that jurisdictions are working collaboratively together to share information and to share resources.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions?

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

James McLean: Thank you for your time.

Paul Choi (Chair): Moving on to our next presenter, we have Richard Tarnoff from the Vancouver Island Region Restorative Justice Association.

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

Vancouver Island Region
Restorative Justice Association

Richard Tarnoff: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I’m Richard Tarnoff. I represent the Vancouver Island Region Restorative Justice Association. It’s made up of 19 restorative justice programs on Vancouver Island. I’m grateful for this opportunity to speak about something that’s close to my heart and that is likely important to you too.

It’s the question of how we respond to harm and crime in our communities and what kind of future we’re trying to build together. Restorative justice offers us a way forward, one rooted in relationship, accountability and community responsibility. It invites everyone affected by harm into a courageous, structured conversation. It asks what happened, who was affected, what do they need and what can be done to make things as right as possible.

This approach has deep Indigenous roots grounded in collective wisdom and practised across generations as a way of restoring balance, not enforcing punishment. It’s not new. It’s not experimental. It’s deeply human, and it works.

Let me tell you a true story about a case that we recently facilitated with a young man charged with possession of illegal drugs for the purpose of trafficking. I’ll call him Ryan. His father, who was Indigenous, had died in prison. Numerous relatives had died from overdoses, and he had grown up believing he would never amount to much. He started using drugs and soon found himself selling drugs to pay for his habit.

When he was caught, he faced the likelihood of going to jail. Fortunately, his lawyer proposed restorative justice, and Crown counsel agreed. The circle gave him a chance to look at how he had ended up making bad decisions. During the process, his mother described how frightened she was about the prospect of him being imprisoned. A community member shared how traumatic it was for her to witness someone nearly die of an overdose.

[3:05 p.m.]

In the end, Ryan agreed to volunteer at a food bank, move away from the friends that contributed to his lifestyle and take some employment-related training. He’s currently employed and has been drug-free for a year.

Research shows that restorative justice significantly outperforms the traditional justice system in victim satisfaction and accountability. It gets to the root causes — trauma, disconnection, mental illness and addiction — in ways that the criminal legal system often exacerbates. We see this effectiveness in schools. RJ programs have been shown to reduce suspensions by over 80 percent, increasing student engagement and youth empowerment.

The economic case is very strong. While incarceration can cost up to $190,000 per person per year, restorative approaches can save up to 74 percent of that cost through reduced burdens on health care, emergency services and the justice system itself.

The greatest return is this: when we invest in restorative justice, we’re investing in a culture of connection, one where people are not reduced to their worst mistake, where accountability isn’t about shame but about repair, where we support each other through conflict and where people are brought together in healing.

Right now, restorative justice organizations are doing this work against the odds. They operate as non-profits, dependent on volunteers and inconsistent funding, often spending enormous energy writing grants just to keep the doors open. That time and energy could be more effectively spent on supporting victims, facilitating healing and mentoring youth, all of which contribute to healthy and vibrant communities.

Restorative justice needs to be embedded in our infrastructure, seen as a core part of the justice system, not an afterthought. That means sustainable funding, formal recognition and integration with schools, policing, health and governance.

We have three recommendations. One, increase the provincial accountability program funding for RJ organizations from $4,000 to $10,000 per year per organization to cover basic overhead expenses.

Two, remove the freeze on certifying new CAP programs. Many communities that would like to start restorative justice programs are unable.

Three, we need a better funding model. With the support of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General and VIRRJA, we could propose that one or more RJ programs carry out a sustainable funding pilot project. This would be a low-risk, cost-effective opportunity to gather research and data about the impacts of stable funding for programs across the province.

Thank you very much.

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. I worked with restorative justice when I was involved with the citizens advisory committee for Corrections Canada, and there were some genuine, real positive effects for both community and the people who had committed the offences.

I am wondering…. You mentioned that you’re looking to increase funding from $4K to $10K — was that correct? — for each of the groups?

Richard Tarnoff: Yes. There is a basic grant that the ministry has provided for many years to every certified program of $4,000 per year. But as costs have gone up — just the basic costs of keeping a program running — that doesn’t even cover insurance and the systems you have to belong to. So we’re asking that that be raised to $10,000.

Jennifer Blatherwick: So $10,000. And I’m so sorry. I missed, if you said somewhere, how many programs that included.

Richard Tarnoff: In our association on Vancouver Island, there are 19 programs. There are also many other programs in the rest of B.C. I’m not quite sure how many that is.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I was just trying to get an idea of roughly, if we increased it for X number of programs, how much that would be altogether.

Richard Tarnoff: I think it’s about 50 or 60 total programs in B.C.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Perfect. Thank you, and thank you for your work.

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

Richard Tarnoff: You’re very welcome. Thank you for your work.

[3:10 p.m.]

Paul Choi (Chair): Moving on to our next presenter, we have Ryan Mitton, from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

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

Canadian Federation
of Independent Business

Ryan Mitton: Thank you, committee members. My name is Ryan Mitton. I am the director of legislative affairs for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

As you may know, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is Canada’s largest association of small- and medium-sized businesses, with 100,000 members across every industry and region, including 9,700 members here in B.C. We are a non-partisan and non-profit organization that regularly polls its membership to provide high-quality, ground-level data from small business owners across the province.

I’ll begin by laying out a bit of the economic context here in B.C. and then delving into our recommendations.

Firstly, small businesses here in B.C. are facing a rising cost of doing business. High taxes such as WorkSafeBC premiums, the employer health tax and the PST are all factors that can deter investment. Crime and vandalism also have an impact on the cost of doing business, with an average of $5,000 per impacted business when these cases arise. Additionally, when we layer on uncertainty from the U.S.-Canada trade dispute, it creates a clear picture that small businesses are facing a storm on multiple fronts.

We recently asked small business owners if they would recommend someone else start a business in B.C., and 62 percent said no — the highest of any province across Canada. When we asked why, 89 percent said it’s difficult to keep up with the costs of doing business, like rent, utilities, insurance and input costs; 77 percent simply said the tax burden is too high, while two-thirds say that the burden of government regulation is too much.

As a result of these factors, long-term small business confidence recently hit an all-time low in March. That’s the lowest in our recorded history of doing the measure. Thankfully, however, we are starting to climb out of that hole dug earlier, and I’m optimistic that with cooperation and collaboration, we can rebound this small business confidence metric.

Now on to our recommendations as to how we can address these challenges and make life better for small business owners in B.C.

Our first recommendation is not only to not increase taxes but to reduce the cost of doing business in B.C. with targeted tax relief for B.C. small businesses. Our first component of doing that is we recommend that the province eliminate PST on all capital investments, including machinery and equipment, to boost growth and innovation and improve B.C.’s productivity.

A recent report, Removing Roadblocks: Unlocking Small Business Capital Investment, published in January 2025, shows that 65 percent of B.C. small business owners say eliminating the PST on capital investments would encourage them to invest more in their business. Removing the PST could unlock up to $1.6 billion in new small business investment.

Our second recommendation is to raise the employer health tax exemption threshold to $1.5 million in payroll and index it to inflation. Payroll taxes impact small businesses’ ability to hire workers and grow. Doing so in line with our recommendations would keep us in line with other provinces like Manitoba, which has a payroll tax threshold of $2.25 million.

This would also build on positive movement from the province that, in Budget 2024, saw the EHT threshold raised to $1 million. Our research showed that this benefited two-thirds of small businesses, saving them up to $3,600 a year.

Our final recommendation is to cut red tape to help small business owners focus on growth instead of paperwork. I want to be very clear that red tape is regulations that waste time for small business owners, not important regulations like those that address health and safety.

Our recent research showed that the combined cost of red tape in Canada reached $51.5 billion last year from all three levels of government. In fact, the average business in Canada spends a month out of the year alone simply addressing red tape. That is why we are recommending B.C. extend its net-zero increase commitment for red tape reduction through to 2030 and consider passing one-in-one-out legislation to require that for every new rule B.C. adds, one rule gets taken out.

We would also like to further commend the province for doing its ease-of-doing-business review through EaseBiz BC, and we hope to see positive results out of that consultation.

[3:15 p.m.]

I would also like to add that red tape reduction includes lowering internal trade barriers. As part of this recommendation, we would like to see B.C.’s unilateral recognition of goods and services from other provinces endure beyond the requirements set out in Bill 7. We would also like to ensure that goods and services from B.C. are recognized in other provinces, such as has been announced by the province of Manitoba with its memorandum of understanding with B.C.

We would also like to ensure that legislated or enforced timelines for certification of professional occupations here in B.C. are upheld. B.C. currently has no such timelines.

That is just a brief overview of our recommendations to reduce targeted taxes for small businesses, cut red tape and ensure that B.C. is a cost-effective place to do business.

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

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

We will go to questions by members.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Hello, and thank you for your presentation. I’m just wanting to clarify. In one of the last points, you talked about having a legislative timeline for approving regulated professions. Was that correct? Did I hear that right?

Ryan Mitton: Yeah, for professional occupations and certifications. I understand the province is taking some measures to address international credential recognition, but we don’t have a clock, so to speak, on certification recognition from other provinces. Implementing that would satisfy one of our recommendations from our internal trade report card. You can also view that in our 2024 version, and we are hoping to have our updated 2025 internal trade report card out soon.

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

Ryan Mitton: Thank you for hearing the voice of small business.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. We’ll move on to our next presenter. We have Angela Clancy, from B.C. Disability Collaborative.

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

B.C. Disability Collaborative

Angela Clancy: Good afternoon. Thank you, hon. members of the committee, for your time today. My name is Angela Clancy, and I am here today representing the B.C. Disability Collaborative, which is a group of 18 provincial organizations with experience supporting tens of thousands of children and youth with disabilities and complex needs. Today I’ll be presenting three recommendations related to the needs of this population.

Recommendation 1. In November 2022, Premier Eby stated that every child should have the supports they need to thrive. Unfortunately, however, the current reality is that a substantial number of disabled children, youth and families lack the support they need in school, home and community settings. Our first recommendation is to increase disability funding for both the Ministries of Education and Child Care and Children and Family Development.

In a 2024 report entitled Too Many Left Behind, the Office of the RCY estimated that at least 100,000 children and youth under the age of 18 in B.C. have a disability or support need, and of these, 51 percent are currently ineligible for supports from MCFD and the extent to which they receive specialized disability supports through the Ministry of Education and Child Care is unclear because of lack of data.

This contrasts dramatically with the results of a 2023 survey by the RCY that was completed by over 1,100 families across B.C., in which two-thirds of respondents agreed that current services do not meet their disabled children’s needs. These gaps are most acute for children and youth who live in rural and remote areas. Families identified both in- and out-of-school services that would result in an immediate improvement, all of which require additional funding through Education and Child Care and MCFD.

Recommendation 2. Additional funding to the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills is required to support workforce recruitment, training and retention of professionals who provide support to disabled children and youth. In 2023, the RCY survey, the top out-of-school priority identified by families of disabled children and youth under the age of 12 was access to speech-language, occupational and physiotherapists, behaviour analysts, sign language interpreters and deafblind interveners.

[3:20 p.m.]

Across all age groups, families identified focused literacy and math instruction by specialists, teachers and educational assistants as the top in-school priority. Additionally, the Disability Collaborative convened 42 provincial organizations in June 2024 to discuss a path forward for children and youth with support needs.

One of the primary recommendations was to boost funding for current child development and other community-based providers to provide therapy services across all age ranges. A substantial allocation of funding for additional faculty at B.C. colleges and universities is required to enable the admission of additional applicants into these programs.

Recommendation (3) Our final recommendation is to provide increased funding through the Ministry of Health for counselling and other mental health supports.

In 2023, the RCY survey…. The top out-of-school priority identified for families of disabled children between the ages of 13 and 18 was mental health counselling supports. Mental health supports for caregivers and families was identified as a top priority for age ranges zero to 18. All nine families involved in one of our campaigns, called the “I am one of them” campaign, identified significant mental health supports were lacking.

Such supports must be provided by professionals who understand and have disability competence and are able to deliver disability-competent treatment. None of the publicly funded mental health supports in B.C. currently meet those needs.

In 2022, Premier Eby said: “We are focusing on listening to families of children and youth with support needs. We will work collaboratively with all partners to make sure our services work for every child.”

We appreciate this commitment, and it is in this spirit that we present our concerns and recommendations. Thank you for your time, and I’m happy to answer any questions.

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

Angela Clancy: Thank you very much. Have a good day.

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

The committee recessed from 3:22 p.m. to 3:45 p.m.

[Paul Choi in the chair.]

Paul Choi (Chair): Welcome back. I will call the committee back to order, and we will go to our next presenter.

We have Danielle Sunshine from TRRUST Collective Impact.

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

TRRUST Collective IMPACT

Danielle Sunshine: Thank you. I’d like to begin by acknowledging that I am speaking today from the unceded territories of the Coast Salish peoples, the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ Nations. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Dani, and I am here on behalf of the TRRUST Collective. TRRUST is a collective impact initiative made of over 70 organizations and more than 400 members, including young people, non-profits and government agencies, working collaboratively to improve outcomes for youth transitioning out of government care in Vancouver.

Our work is guided by young people with lived experience in government care. These youth have identified critical barriers that must be addressed to ensure successful transitions to adulthood, and today I am here to ask for your support in removing these barriers.

Young people transitioning out of care face significant, interrelated challenges such as access to safe and affordable housing, adequate income to meet the high cost of living and timely and culturally appropriate mental health supports.

To put the housing crisis for youth transitioning from care in context, as of April 2025, the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Vancouver was $2,536 per month, making it the most expensive city in Canada. Yet youth receiving the Ministry of Children and Family Development SAJE program supports get only $1,250 per month, with some qualifying for additional $600 housing subsidy. This means even with two roommates, these young people are spending between 46 percent and 68 percent of their monthly income on rent, which is well above the recommended 30 percent threshold.

Often they’re forced to live with strangers in unsafe or unstable housing, losing vital connections to their communities, families and cultures. It’s no surprise, then, that youth with care experience are highly mobile and at greater risk of homelessness. In fact, the ministry itself has acknowledged that 50 percent of former youth in care will experience homelessness at some point in their lives.

Mental health challenges among youth in care are exacerbated by poverty and unmet basic needs. The Canadian Mental Health Association estimates that waiting until a crisis occurs to provide care costs our economy $6.6 billion annually. Mental health is not just about access to services; it’s about ensuring young people have stable housing, income and a sense of belonging in their community.

Beyond the lack of family support, these youth also face systemic barriers that prevent them from thriving. Though MCFD is legally responsible for their care, existing supports are fragmented and broken.

We believe that there is a better way. If youth transitioning out of care were provided with a stable housing supplement similar to the SAFER, Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters, program that is available to seniors in B.C., we could address housing, income insecurity and mental health challenges in one coordinated step. This would reduce bureaucratic and administrative burdens on youth, offer support in a more trauma-informed and dignified way and lead to better long-term outcomes while saving public funds. Research shows that when people’s basic needs are met, communities thrive.

[3:50 p.m.]

We are calling for increased investment in safe, supportive housing tailored to youth transitioning out of care; a pilot housing supplement program in Vancouver for youth from care, modelled after the SAFER program, ensuring no more than 30 percent of monthly income goes towards housing, available until age 27; collaborative implementation through consultation with the TRRUST Collective young leaders, TRRUST organizations and our member network; and free access to publicly funded community resources such as recreation centres, pools and arenas for youth in and from care to promote mental health and well-being.

In closing, I leave you with two questions. If this were your child, what level of support would you want them to have as they transition into adulthood? Can any young person reasonably be expected to survive, let alone thrive, on $1,200 a month?

We believe if this pilot initiative can succeed in Vancouver, then it has a strong potential to succeed in communities across the province and beyond. TRRUST is uniquely positioned to support this work. As a youth-centred collective grounded in lived experience, we can provide critical input into both the implementation and evaluation of the initiative.

It is time for MCFD to fully uphold its role as a responsible guardian. That means ensuring young people leaving care are not left to navigate adulthood alone.

Thank you for your time and for your commitment to creating real and lasting change.

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

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

We will move on to our next presenter. We have Sacia Burton from B.C. Poverty Reduction Coalition.

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

B.C. Poverty Reduction Coalition

Sacia Burton: Thank you so much. Good afternoon. My name is Sacia Burton. I’m calling on behalf of the B.C. Poverty Reduction Coalition from unceded xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ territory.

The B.C. Poverty Reduction Coalition brings together over 75 community mobilizations and organizations, including Neighbourhood Houses, labour unions and front-line workers across sectors and across our province, to support policy development and systemic change towards poverty eradication in our province. Our policy recommendations have been noted as priorities from our coalition members and reflect the three key areas of investment we’d like to see in Budget 2026.

Firstly, we recognize that B.C. is eight years into a ten-year plan to fully implement $10-a-day child care across the province. Alongside our allies in child care and labour advocacy, we’re calling for the province to recommit to investing in this program and ensuring that it is universally applied.

The $10-a-day program has been implemented inequitably across the province through a patchwork approach, and gaining a $10-a-day spot is akin to winning the lottery. Parents with the most time to research and apply for these spots are the most likely to be able to access them, leaving low-income families, lone-parent households, racialized mothers and newcomers without community connections bearing the higher-cost child care spots that they are least equipped to afford. We call on the province to follow through on the vision of universally accessible, affordable child care.

Secondly, we are reiterating our recommendations to reform disability and income assistance programs through increased rates and the institution of earning exemptions. Social assistance reform has been a consistent point of our advocacy. Although there have been small increases to both the disability and income assistance programs through our tenure as an organization, both systems continue to offer rates well below B.C.’s official poverty line.

In short, people receiving income or disability assistance in B.C. are often not able to meet even their most basic needs and are put in the position of choosing between essentials in order to stretch their dollar. To compound the issue, program enrolment imposes strict earning caps, which preclude people who are receiving assistance to surpass an income threshold.

Keeping rates below the poverty line while imposing earning caps leaves thousands of people dependent on assistance, with few avenues for exit. Earning caps disincentivize work and penalize those who take steps to expand their earning options.

Investing directly in poverty reduction by increasing assistance rates is more cost-effective than maintaining the status quo. Our health care and community services are overburdened and struggling to meet our community’s needs.

[3:55 p.m.]

Raising assistance rates allows people to meet their needs on their terms, rather than relying solely on the non-profit and charity services that are stepping up to fill in these gaps.

Investing in a meaningful increase to assistance rates would break the cycle of intergenerational poverty for thousands of families and transform the lives of those experiencing the deepest levels of poverty in B.C.

Finally, we’re calling for an investment in a continuum of non-market housing, including accessible and family-oriented units across municipalities in B.C. According to Statistics Canada data, B.C. has the dubious honour of leading the country as the province with the highest rate of unaffordable homes. This is evidenced by the meteoric rise in rent bank usage and the stories we hear every day of people being priced out of their communities. The lack of new and truly affordable rental housing amid an ultra-low vacancy rate is a burden shouldered by renters.

We encourage the province to address the housing crisis by scaling up the BC Builds program and investing in housing that meets the needs of our community members, including our unhoused neighbours and tenants facing removal or eviction who cannot afford to stay in their communities at current market rates.

Our recommendations of investing in the $10-a-day child care initiative, raising assistance rates and increasing truly affordable housing stock through the BC Builds program will, if implemented robustly, have a profound positive impact on thousands of families and people in B.C.

Our recommendations are rooted in dignity and the vision for a province without poverty. We hope the B.C. government will take these recommendations seriously as they prepare Budget 2026. Thank you.

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

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

We will take a quick recess.

The committee recessed from 3:57 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

[Paul Choi in the chair.]

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

We’ll start with our next presenter. Our next presenter is Tamara Taggart from Down Syndrome Society of B.C.

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

Down Syndrome Society of B.C.

Tamara Taggart: I apologize for my voice. I have been sick with a cold for a few days, so please forgive my husky voice.

Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Tamara Taggart, and I am the volunteer president of the Down Syndrome Society of British Columbia. I’m here today to speak on behalf of individuals with Down syndrome and their families across our province — families who continue to face persistent barriers to the supports and services they urgently need.

First, we are calling on the provincial government to provide individualized funding of $25,000 per year for every person in B.C. with Down syndrome. This funding should be available based solely on diagnosis, so no complex application process or additional eligibility hoops. Families should be able to use these funds as needed on therapies and supports, such as speech-language pathology, occupational and physiotherapy, mental health counselling and tools and travel for services and respite care for caregivers.

Why is this necessary? Well, the current system is not working. Too many children and adults with Down syndrome are receiving inadequate or no services at all. Families are stuck on wait-lists, struggling with inconsistent and insufficient public support and often paying out of pocket to fill the gaps.

This is not just a matter of service delivery; it’s a matter of rights. Canada ratified the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities in 2010. Article 25 of that convention clearly states that governments must provide people with disabilities access to the health services they need because of their disabilities. That includes early identification, early intervention and services to prevent further disability. Today in B.C., we are falling short of that obligation.

In addition to individualized funding, we are also calling for accountability in how inclusive education funding is used within the public education system. In this school year alone, over $1.3 billion has been budgeted for inclusive education in B.C., yet we continue to hear widespread reports of students with disabilities, including those with Down syndrome, being excluded from classrooms, denied adequate support and left behind. Graduation rates for students with disabilities remain disproportionately low.

This raises a serious question. Is the $1.3 billion enough, or is it being used for purposes other than supporting inclusion? We are urging the province to review, audit and publicly report on how inclusive education dollars are being allocated and spent, because right now many families simply aren’t seeing the benefit of that investment.

[4:05 p.m.]

Finally, I want to draw your attention to the recommendations made by the coroner’s jury following the inquest into the tragic death of Florence Girard, a woman with Down syndrome who was 50 pounds and died of starvation while in government care. The jury made several recommendations, and I just want to highlight two of them.

First, they recommend that the province support family members who choose to care for their loved ones at home, providing them with access to information, medical and financial support and respite services. If a family member wishes to provide care, they should be supported to the same level as a home-share provider and held to the same expectations.

Right now families face an uphill battle. If they want to care for their loved one, they’re expected to do so without adequate support, usually at their own financial and emotional expense.

Second, the jury recommended immediate increases to the compensation for home-share providers, including a living wage that reflects the complexity of care involved, and regular adjustments tied to inflation. Underpaying care providers leads to burnout, turnover and gaps in care that place vulnerable people at risk.

These recommendations are clear, reasonable and, I think, urgent. To summarize, we are asking for three things: (1) $25,000 per year in individualized funding for every person in B.C. with Down syndrome, based on diagnosis; (2) accountability and transparency in how inclusive education funding is being spent; and (3) implementation of key recommendations from the Florence Girard inquest, supporting both families and care providers with a living wage.

These are practical measures that would have a profound impact on the health, safety and quality of life for people with Down syndrome, and they are long overdue.

Thank you again for your time and for your commitment to building a more inclusive and equitable British Columbia.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation and for presenting to us even though you’re a little under the weather. We will now go to questions by members.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thanks so much for your presentation. My aunt had Down syndrome and was a joy in my life. Thank you for your advocacy.

I am looking at your first recommendation, which is individualized funding of $25K a year. Are you thinking that would work in a similar way to, say, the $22,000 per year that’s given to children under five who are diagnosed with autism?

Tamara Taggart: Yeah, individualized funding.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Individualized funding per diagnosis. But I noticed that you didn’t have, like, an age cap or an age range upon that. But just, I’m guessing, from diagnosis means that you’re thinking mostly of children.

Tamara Taggart: No. All people. There are not very many people. Well, actually we don’t know how many people in B.C. have Down syndrome because there is no data. There’s no…. We have no idea. We estimate there are about 1,200 to 2,000 children, and there are about 4,000 adults, I’ll say.

I mean, I guess my son is about to enter into adulthood, being 18, turning 18 soon. So it’s not very many people.

Jennifer Blatherwick: It’s a very small number now. Okay, so that’s a really clear ask.

The second one isn’t quite like a budget ask. It’s not like a budget line item, but you’re asking for accountability in part of the budget.

And then your third one is also not specific to Down syndrome but really for the larger home care provider system for children and adults also who need….

Tamara Taggart: Adults, really, in the home shares. A lot of people with Down syndrome do go into home share. I hear a lot from aging parents who are terrified of what’s going to happen to their child as they…. A lot of parents in their 70s who are concerned…. I mean, I think about it all the time too.

I will say that item 2 — I mean, $1.3 billion is a lot of money. I don’t know one family that feels like we’re getting our money’s worth, because there doesn’t seem to be inclusive education. Maybe you could find a bunch of money there. I don’t know.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions?

Sunita Dhir: I had the similar question that MLA Blatherwick asked about the $25,000. Do you have any recommendations around that? You answered that there’s no age limit for that.

[4:10 p.m.]

I was just wondering: do you have any recommendations on how that money should be spent? Is it to make them more independent? Towards their education?

Tamara Taggart: Well, I can only speak from my own experience and the experience of the people in my community that I talk to all the time.

It’s really expensive for speech therapy, and we do know that people with Down syndrome benefit from having speech therapy from a very young age. None of that is covered for people with Down syndrome — none of it. If we want to go twice a week for speech therapy, it’s $200 a week. Plus, mom or dad is driving somewhere to get that.

It really is a full-time job, as I’m sure most people know, to be a caregiver, especially of a child with a disability. That money would go towards…. I don’t know if independence is the right word. It’s really allowing somebody with Down syndrome to be the best that they can be and learn how to speak or learn how to eat food. We had to pay almost $15,000 for food therapy for our son, out of pocket, just so he could learn how to chew and swallow because of his low muscle tone.

Other families — kids with autism and their families — don’t have to worry about that, but a lot of us do. We have to worry about…. We go without sometimes, and that is to the detriment of our child’s growth.

Sunita Dhir: Thank you so much. You had very clear recommendations.

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

We will move on to our next presenter. Next we have Hayley Neimy from the British Columbia Association for Behaviour Analysis.

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

B.C. Association
for Behaviour Analysis

Hayley Neimy: Great. Mr. Chair, hon. committee members, thank you so much for the opportunity to speak here today. My name is Dr. Hayley Neimy, and I’m the current president of the British Columbia Association for Behaviour Analysis, BC-ABA. I’m a doctoral-level board-certified behaviour analyst with nearly 20 years of therapeutic experience supporting individuals with disabilities and their families.

Today I’ll present three key recommendations we have regarding the children and youth with support needs service framework under the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Recommendation 1 is equitable services across disabilities. We recommend immediate expansion of individualized funding through MCFD to include children and youth with disabilities beyond autism. This funding must be timely, needs-based and diagnosis-inclusive to ensure equitable access to critical developmental and behavioural services across the province.

Far too many neurodiverse children and youth in B.C. remain unsupported. This includes but is not limited to children diagnosed with ADHD, fetal alcohol syndrome, Down syndrome, dyslexia and other learning, intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Currently only children in British Columbia with a formal autism diagnosis receive individualized funding explicitly through the autism funding unit, or the AFU. This exclusion creates a two-tiered system that prioritizes diagnostic labels over actual need, resulting in inequitable access, worsened outcomes and increased pressures on families already in need.

ADHD and FASD, for example, have prevalence rates somewhat equal to or greater than autism, yet these children receive no comparable financial supports for therapeutic services. We recommend expanding individualized funding to all children and youth with developmental disabilities who require therapeutic intervention.

This funding, therefore, should be flexible, diagnosis-neutral and aligned with functional support needs. Doing so would promote equity, support early intervention and improve long-term quality of life for thousands of children and families across British Columbia.

Recommendation No. 2 is equitable access across the entire province. We recommend fast-tracked broadband infrastructure funding in high need areas to ensure access to virtual services and additional funding to attract and retain behaviour analytic service providers in underserved regions.

[4:15 p.m.]

Currently there are over 100,000 households in rural, remote and Indigenous communities here in the province that still lack high-speed internet. And with the CYSN framework launching this year, two years before broadband expansion is fully complete in 2027, there are many families that are at risk of being excluded from virtual services.

This is an equity issue. Children and youth in remote communities deserve the same access to therapeutic supports as those in urban centres. We recommend prioritizing broadband rollout in high need areas and investing in incentives, such as relocation stipends and service bonuses to attract qualified providers to these areas. A hybrid model combining virtual and in-person services should be supported to meet the needs of underserved regions.

Lastly, our third recommendation is to expand behaviour analytic training programs. We recommend increased funding to expand graduate-level training programs in behaviour analysis in helping to build a sustainable, regulated behavioural workforce across the province.

There’s a critical shortage of certified behaviour analysts here in B.C., with only 535 across the province, which is far fewer than other allied health professionals, like occupational therapists and speech and language pathologists. These graduate trained experts play a key role in supporting children and youth with complex needs, using individualized and evidence-based strategies.

UBC Vancouver is currently the only university in the province that offers the required coursework for certification, and limited faculty capacity results in qualified applicants consistently being turned away, many of which leave the province to train and then do not return.

We recommend increasing investment to expand existing programs and develop new graduate-level training at institutions with existing infrastructure across the province, including sites like Capilano University, which has a bachelor’s program, and perhaps expanding to UBC Okanagan. A strong local workforce is essential to the success of the CYSN framework.

In closing, these three recommendations — expanding beyond individuals with autism, investing in rural infrastructure and workforce access and strengthening local training pathways for certified behaviour analysts — all reflect a shared goal. That’s to ensure that all children and youth with disabilities in British Columbia have truly equitable access to high-quality, timely, individualized and evidence-based therapeutic supports.

I thank you so much for your time, and I’m happy to answer any questions you may have.

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

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you so much. I’m going back to your first recommendation. One of your requests was having individualized funding beyond autism. We were just discussing with the last presenter that autism….

Children under the age of six receive significant funding upon diagnosis. You suggested that funding could be diagnosis-neutral, so responsive to the symptom rather than the label. I understand the need of wanting to be child- and patient-centred and respond to their needs and their family’s support needs. The analysis of that is very challenging. Really, when asking for that, then, you’re also asking for additional funding to support that infrastructure that would be required.

Hayley Neimy: Correct. Part of that would require some kind of specific needs-based analysis, much like some of the family connection centres have tried to roll out in those hub pilot areas — not necessarily diagnostic-neutral in totality but just ensuring that individual children and youth outside of autism are being considered for this additional funding and that it’s not limited to only having an autism diagnosis.

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

That concludes our presentations today. I will now open it up to the committee members to see if there’s any other business. Seeing none, I want to thank everyone who presented, and that concludes our meetings today. We will return tomorrow for more virtual public meetings. I’d also like to take the opportunity to thank all the staff and everyone that makes our work possible.

I will now seek a motion to adjourn.

Motion approved.

Paul Choi (Chair): This meeting is now adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 4:19 p.m.