The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

[Paul Choi in the chair.]

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

I’d like to acknowledge that we are meeting today in Kamloops, which is located on the traditional territories of the Secwépemc Nation.

I would also like to welcome everyone who is listening to and participating in today’s meeting. In particular, I would also like to welcome MLA Peter Milobar, from Kamloops Centre, for joining us today.

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 la-bc.ca/consultations. I will now ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Donegal Wilson, MLA for Boundary-Similkameen. I’m pretty excited to be here in Kamloops. For many people, especially in rural B.C., this is one of the few opportunities they have into the budget process. I’m glad we could be here, and I look forward to hearing from everybody today.

Rohini Arora: My name is Rohini Arora. I’m the MLA for Burnaby East. I’m really looking forward to hearing from all of you today about what matters to you.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Hello, my name is Debra Toporowski. My traditional name is Qwulti’stunaat, and I’m the MLA for Cowichan Valley.

Bryan Tepper: Hello, I’m Brian Tepper, MLA for Surrey-Panorama. I’m excited to be on TRU land here, and I love coming up here. That’s great.

Paul Choi (Chair): Also assisting the committee today are Darryl Hol and Kayla Wilson, in the back, from the Parliamentary Committees Office, and Amanda Heffelfinger and Dwight Schmidt, from Hansard Services. Thank you so much for rushing and setting it up in record time.

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 of questions from the committee members.

The first presenter I’d like to invite is Abdus Samad Khan, from the Thompson River University students association, to come forward, please.

Budget Consultation Presentations

Thompson Rivers University
Students Union

Abdus Samad Khan: Hi, my name is Abdus Samad Khan, and I’m a student here at Thompson Rivers University. I’m also currently serving as the community affairs executive at the Thompson Rivers University Students Union. I would like to begin by thanking you for the opportunity to share our recommendations for how the 2027 B.C. budget could and should invest in our post-secondary education system.

[2:35 p.m.]

We believe that ensuring there are ample resources allocated for the implementation of the recent sector review, bringing up long-term clarity and stability to how public funding is distributed across the sector, preserving the success of the domestic tuition fee cap that has kept tuition fees affordable, and expanding the B.C.

we believe that ensuring there are ample resources allocated for the implementation of the recent sector review, bringing up long-term clarity and stability to how public funding is distributed across the sector, preserving the success of the domestic tuition fee cap that has kept tuition fees affordable, and expanding the B.C. access and future skills grants are not only investments that will benefit students and their families but are also timely, given the current financial crisis facing B.C.’s, universities and colleges.

Let’s begin with what we think is the most simple and straightforward recommendation: to ensure there are ample resources allocated for the implementation of the recent sector review. Our current financial crisis has created the need for us to rethink how the post-secondary sector works in light of the recent sector review — what its role is, what we can expect from it, and what resources those outcomes might require.

Stakeholders across the sector were asked to participate in shaping this reality moving forward. However, like any reasonable change management project, long- and medium-term savings, improvements or directions will likely require an initial investment up front. Allocating dedicated, earmarked funding in the upcoming budget will signal to the sector and broader community that this review and its changes are both real and immediate. With some transition support now, significant impact can be realized.

Second, while we understand that the dedicated funding review has been scrapped and replaced with the broader sector-wide review, this has meant that the initial inquiry of how this system is being funded and is that model optimal, logical or functional has not been resolved.

As you may or may not be aware, we have been working on the funding issue since 2014. So before jumping to the position of, “Give us more money,” we thought it prudent to attempt to better understand how this existing funding model was allocating public dollars. As you can imagine, we were very excited when the government committed to conducting the funding review.

While some of our colleagues have appeared before you and requested specific amounts of money in new funding or funding that meets a certain percentage of that university or college’s budget, our request is not that. Our request is the same as it has been since 2014.

While we are clear that the sector-wide review outlined no new funding mandate, we simply cannot have an informed conversation about how the system might need to move forward unless there is a shared understanding of how it is being funded now and whether that model is failing to perform or working as it is intended to. We must bring consistency and clarity to public funding of post-secondary education.

Our third recommendation is to preserve the domestic tuition fee cap and its successes. The tuition fee cap has been a tremendous success as a policy instrument. Relative to housing, food and transportation, the cap has kept tuition fees affordable for B.C. students and their families while providing stable and predictable revenue to the sector.

In a system riddled with failures, this policy has served the sector well, crossed party lines and been critical to supporting access to public post-secondary in B.C. Students across the province are aware that highly leveraged and risky strategies around international enrolment, and the changes to immigration policy which expose those strategies as vulnerable, have created a crisis.

However, students and the families are not prepared to pay the consequences of poor management that, in many instances, they advised against. Any changes to this policy in the form of increasing or eliminating the cap would both be a mistake and be perceived as incredibly hostile by students and families.

Lastly, we recommend the expansion of both the B.C. access grant and the future skills grant. In 2020, the government introduced the B.C. access grant as a form of non-repayable financial aid, and in 2023, the government introduced the future skills grant as the same.

The literature is clear. First, that the B.C. access grant and future skills grant reduce real and perceived financial barriers, leading to increased enrolments. Since 2023, the future skills grant has supported 12,000 new trades, 74 percent of which have said that they would not have enrolled without the grant — enrolments that are more important now than ever, not just in vital trades but across the economy as a whole.

And second, that the B.C. access grant and future skills grant increase a student’s likelihood of completion. As a student’s share of non-repayable student aid increases and their share of repayable financial aid decreases, the probability of that student graduating increases.

[2:40 p.m.]

Given the high demand for public tax dollars across a range of sectors and the importance of graduating folks to become the next labour force and tax base, maximizing the public investment in students is a no-brainer. Growing the B.C. access grant and expanding the future skills grant to reduce dependency on student loans and, ultimately, post-graduation debt will both attract new students

also a range of sectors and the importance of graduating folks to become the next labour force and tax base.

Maximizing the public investment in students is a no-brainer. Growing the B.C. access grant and expanding the future skills grant to reduce dependency on student loans and, ultimately, post-graduation debt will both attract new students into the system and maximize the investment in students already in the system.

In short, increasing the B.C. access grant and the future skills grant is good for the students, good for the taxpayers and good for the economy. We recommend a gradual and continual increase to this investment in students.

This concludes our recommendations for you here today. We would like to thank you for your time and consideration, and we are happy to take any questions you have.

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

Rohini Arora: So you gave four recommendations, if I understand correctly.

Abdus Khan: That is correct.

Rohini Arora: Now, I’m most interested in your second recommendation. They’re all great, but I’m most interested in No. 2. You said that you would like to know what the funding model looks like currently in order to have the information ahead of you so that you can then dig into what it could look like, what it might look like.

Of course, most of post-sec…. We’ve had many presentations. None of them have said what you’ve said. So can you talk me through your reasoning for this? You did say that without the full information, we can’t make an informed decision. But can you dig into this a little bit more for me? You’re the outlier.

Abdus Khan: Thank you so much. What we are trying to figure out here exactly is how the system works at the core of it. There seems to be no transparency, and we don’t understand how the funding model, at the moment, works.

At the very core of the system, if we don’t understand how it works, we won’t be able to take steps forward to fix it or change it or better it for the future of the B.C. students.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. Any other questions? Okay, seeing none, we have canvassed this issue from other student unions across the province. That’s why you have less questions than usual, but certainly, there are certain unique things about your recommendation as well. So thank you so much for that. Thank you so much for coming and presenting to us today.

I would like to invite our next presenter, Danielle Cuthbertson from Invasive Species Council of B.C. Thank you so much for coming today. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you may begin when you’re ready.

Invasive Species Council of B.C.

Danielle Cuthbertson: Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Danielle Cuthbertson, and I’m an executive director with the Invasive Species Council board of directors. I’m here on behalf of the council today, as well as the many people across British Columbia who are working every day to protect our lands, our communities and our economy against the growing impact of invasive species.

You likely recognize this topic from previous engagements. I believe you might have even heard from the Central Kootenay Invasive Species council last evening.

The reality is that the threat is not going away, and it’s intensifying. Invasive species may seem like a minor issue compared to some of the other issues in front of you, but their impacts are anything but small. They are non-native plants, animals and insects, mostly moved by people and development, that are causing not only environmental, cultural and economic harm across the province.

The economic losses are staggering. In Canada, invasive species cost over $2 billion a year in lost crops and control efforts alone. Just one invasive plant species is projected to cost $20 million annually with no intervention. These are not hypothetical numbers. They are real, ongoing risks to our infrastructure, our agriculture and our communities. That’s why we have three recommendations for you today.

[2:45 p.m.]

Our first recommendation is around strengthening and enforcing regulatory tools. Right now invasive species are slipping through outdated and inconsistent regulations. The Weed Control Act, for example, has not kept pace and is often not enforced. This allows the sale and movement of invasive species to continue unchecked. Land managers and users introduce or spread invasives with very little consequences. Due to this

inconsistent regulations. The Weed Control Act, for example, has not kept pace and is often not enforced. This allows the sale and movement of invasive species to continue unchecked, and land managers and users introduce or spread invasives with very little consequences.

Due to this, we need updated regulations, consistent enforcement, and clear monitoring and reporting systems. And we need performance indicators to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable. Prevention must be recognized as a priority within frameworks such as the biodiversity and ecosystem health framework.

Our second recommendation is around stabilizing and increasing funding. For more than 20 years, most partner funding for invasive species work has come from fiscal year-end surpluses from different provincial ministries. This places over 30 partners at risk every year, with no certainty for secure funding going forward for long-term planning. Yet these partners, who include community organizations, First Nations governments, local governments and others, are regularly leveraging these provincial dollars at ratios as high as 5 to 1 while delivering on-the-ground results.

We are asking government to establish $15 million in core base funding annually across all of the lead natural resource ministries to ensure stable, predictable funding for operations, education and awareness programs. Meeting the 30 by 30 commitment that the province has and advancing the biodiversity and ecosystem health framework both depend on reducing the impacts of invasive species.

Equally important is the need for a $10 million trust fund, which would provide stable, long-term support for early detection, rapid response, outreach and prevention work that protects critical values such as biodiversity, cultural practices and communities.

Lastly is recommendation No. 3, which is to integrate prevention into major projects and conservation lands. Major projects are one of the highest risk pathways for new introduction of invasive species. Prevention must be built into planning, approvals and implementation, and not treated as an afterthought. Sites need to be monitored, and best practices must be required to prevent the spread of invasives.

As B.C. moves towards the 30 by 30 conservation goal, we must recognize that simply protecting land is not enough. Conservation lands cannot protect biodiversity if invasive species are allowed to take hold.

In closing, invasive species affect everyone, from gardeners to hikers, from rural residents to those living in rural and remote communities. With B.C.’s growing focus on conservation and climate resilience, it’s vital that we protect the biodiversity we are working so hard to conserve. We ask that you be invasive wise and ensure that the 2027 budget and government services demonstrate leadership through strong regulations, stable funding and proactive prevention. Together we can protect B.C.’s nature, culture and communities for future generations.

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

We’ll now turn to questions by members.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation. You’re correct. The Central Kootenay did present as well.

Just a couple of questions. The first one. Do you know when the Weed Control Act was last updated?

Danielle Cuthbertson: It’s been years.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): A long time.

For the funding, you asked for $15 million in base core funding for operations. I’m going to assume that’s per year?

Danielle Cuthbertson: Per year spread across the natural resource ministries. It’s not per ministry.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): So $15 million shared between the ministries, and that would fund 30?

Danielle Cuthbertson: Yes.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): You said “partners.” Is that regional?

Danielle Cuthbertson: It’s local governments. It’s regional invasive species councils. It’s First Nation governments. It’s education institutes. It’s a number of organizations that are funded through that fiscal year-end contribution.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Then the $10 million trust fund would make, I’m assuming…. It wasn’t really clear in the last presentation whether that…. Because it’s a trust fund, that makes it sound like it’s a one-and-done.

[2:50 p.m.]

Danielle Cuthbertson: Yeah. The idea is that it would be. If government was able to make a $10 million investment in a trust fund, we would be looking to leverage private contributions to match that and build the trust. Then, although the decision hasn’t been made, the expectation is that we would just pull off of the interest each year to be able to invest in these actions that have to be taken immediately and now to prevent the spread.

The fiscal year-end money that’s received

that and build the trust and then although the decision hasn’t been made, the expectation is that we would just pull off of the interest each year to be able to invest in these actions that have to be taken immediately and now to prevent the spread. The fiscal year-end money that’s received, we never know if we’re getting it, and it comes at the end of the year for future planning for the following year. So it’s really hard to manage any upcoming new species that invade or actions that have to be taken in a quick manner.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): I have one more question, but I’ll let somebody else go.

Rohini Arora: No. That’s okay. Go ahead. I have the same question.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): The last question then was on…. With that year-end money, the planning, I’m assuming you’re talking about…. What would happen if a partner was not to have their funding for a year? Like, what are the impacts, like, to catch back up?

Danielle Cuthbertson: The impacts could actually mean the cessation of certain organizations. They rely so heavily on provincial funding, and then, as I said, they’re leveraging that five times over. So if the provincial funding isn’t coming, they lose their ability to leverage and therefore may not have the funding they require to continue into future years. And there has been about a 20-year expectation set by providing these funds for the last 20 years for most of these organizations.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. Seeing no other questions, thank you for coming and presenting to us today.

We will invite our next presenter to come forward, Brant Hasanen from Kamloops and District Chamber of Commerce.

Thank you for joining us today. You have five minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you may begin when you’re ready.

Kamloops and District
Chamber of Commerce

Brant Hasanen: Thank you. My name is Brant Hasanen. I appreciate the opportunity to perform and appear before the committee today on behalf of the Kamloops and District Chamber of Commerce. I am the policy advisor for the Kamloops and District Chamber, as well as past president of the chamber.

Today what I’d like to do is talk about two policies that reflect a growing concern among our members and the cumulative impact of government decisions on the cost of doing business in British Columbia.

The first is provincial downloading. Across B.C., municipalities are increasingly funding services and responding to challenges that stem from provincial responsibilities, including homelessness, mental health, public safety pressures, housing growth and related infrastructure demands.

Because municipalities have limited revenue tools, these costs are often recovered through increased property taxes, user fees, permits and other local charges. For businesses, this means higher operating costs, commercial property tax increases, development and permit costs rise, infrastructure investments are delayed as municipal resources are redirected elsewhere. The result is a less competitive business environment and fewer resources available for economic growth.

Our members understand the importance of addressing these complex social and infrastructure challenges. Their concern is that the financial burden is increasingly falling on municipalities, local taxpayers and employers rather than being matched with sustainable provincial funding.

The second policy addresses a cumulative impact of provincial taxation. Over the past several years businesses have seen the introduction and expansion of multiple tax affecting payroll, professional services, transportation, property ownership and day-to-day operations. While each measure may have been introduced for a specific purpose, businesses experience them all collectively.

The expansion of PST to the additional services is a recent example. Many of these services, including accounting, engineering, architecture and security, are not optional costs for business. They’re essential services required to operate and grow and comply with regulations.

[2:55 p.m.]

For our members the concern is not a single tax measure, it’s the overall impact of an increasingly complex and costly operating environment that affects investment decisions, expansion plans, hiring and competitiveness. Taken together these policies highlight a broader issue. When costs

the concern is not a single tax measure. It’s the overall impact of an increasingly complex and costly operating environment that affects investment decisions, expansion plans, hiring and competitiveness.

Taken together, these policies highlight a broader issue. When costs are continually added at either the municipal or provincial level, businesses ultimately bear the burden. That affects not only individual employers but the economic health and competitiveness of communities across British Columbia.

Therefore, we have and would like to bring forward, respectfully, three recommendations.

One is that we require that any new legislation, regulations, policy changes or mandates affecting local governments include a mandatory fiscal impact statement and a long-term funding plan to ensure responsibilities are not transferred to municipalities without sustainable funding and track and publicly report on the same.

Second, bring in a PST exemption mechanism for municipalities in relation to the expanded PST. That should be an exemption mechanism also for businesses and affected stakeholders and those impacted. The PST that is proposed in the 2026 budget and it was presented by the province of B.C. If nothing else, we would prefer to see a complete rollback of that initiative as the intended revenue requirements versus the cost of such an endeavour does not balance.

And third, the chamber recommends that you strike an independent commission to perform a review of the provincial taxation system in British Columbia with the aim of achieving tax reform, including a review of the efficiency and effectiveness of current legislation.

Thank you for your time and consideration, and I will be happy to take questions. And if I may, I have a question for the commission after I’ve received questions.

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

We’ll turn to questions by members.

Bryan Tepper: Actually, I’m more interested in your question, so I’ll get you to do it right now.

Brant Hasanen: Are there any other questions regarding my presentation?

Bryan Tepper: Well, let’s get with your question first. Then we’ll go back to us.

Brant Hasanen: My question for the commission is this. The points that I brought up have a great deal of detail, data and well-informed information to substantiate the reason for the recommendation. I find it interesting that the commission does not permit those who take the time to personally attend and present to this commission and yet not be able to provide a written document to support our recommendations…. Thus, I feel that just the recommendation does not completely educate and inform the commission on what our points are.

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay. So there is a written submission component that we have. We did it in this year, where we allow those who apply within the time limit to come and present in person and some people to come and do a written submission. The reason for that was because some people are more comfortable doing in-person presentations versus some in written format.

Because we are over-subscribed, we try our best to give space for different diverse groups to come and present. However, if you have a written document that you want to submit in supplemental to your presentation, you can email it to us. We’ll certainly consider that as part of the presentation as well.

Brant Hasanen: I appreciate that very much, and it would have been helpful to know that that was an option because I think it important that we do attend in person to put a face to the commission and understand your roles and responsibilities. I did find it somewhat punitive, though, that because we take the time to do that, based on the information provided, we are not able to submit written documents. So we will be happy to submit our documentation by email.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you. Yeah, it is something we can take and consider as we send out our instructions, and as we do the consultation, we’re always looking to improve.

[3:00 p.m.]

It is also something we’re looking at to balance, ensuring that we get equal voices from different groups of people. We might have a group that may not be as well funded or might not have as much resources. We don’t want that to be overwhelmed by other groups that might have a lot of funding behind them. So that’s something we are also looking to factor in as well.

But, absolutely, we are not here to limit people’s ability to submit documents, information, for sure.

Brant Hasanen: That’s terrific. Thank you.

want that to be overwhelmed by other groups that might have a very lot of funding behind them. So that’s something we are also looking to factor in as well.

But, absolutely, we are not here to limit people’s ability to submit documents, information, for sure.

Brant Hasanen: That’s terrific.

Bryan Tepper: I’ll get into this, then. Thank you.

I’ve got to, I think, maybe explain a little bit more about the review of the effectiveness of the laws around that. I think it was a little fast, so could you delve into that a little bit deeper for us just to give more explanation?

Brant Hasanen: Is that our recommendation no. 3?

Bryan Tepper: Yes, yes. Your last one.

Brant Hasanen: Yeah. This is something that is constantly being brought up in the world of businesses and economic development. Countries like New Zealand, for example, they have a process where all stakeholders contribute to the creation of a new tax. The tax is implemented if it makes sense. A year later, the same people review the impact of the tax. Did it actually benefit? Did it generate the revenue that it was originally intended to do?

What we’re finding in the business community is that there are taxes that are introduced — and I’m sure they’re for good reasons — but the actual value of that tax to the community, to the taxpayer and economic growth is often in question. It’s difficult for the business community to get straight answers around: “What was the intent of the increase in the tax? How did it do?”

Thus, the independent commission is something that is being called for in all provinces, as well as on the federal level, to stop, take a breath, have a look at how decisions are made with implementation of a new tax to get contributions from all stakeholders to be able to ensure that it’s the right tax for the right reason to get the right results.

Paul Choi (Chair): Does anybody else have questions?

Bryan Tepper: Hold on a second here. I’ve forgotten what the second aspect of it is, just to know what you’re doing.

Brant Hasanen: Okay. Just to be clear, I think, it’s important that the notion of an independent commission is one that includes the taxpayer. It includes levels of government. It includes administration, as well as the business leaders that are most impacted by said tax.

Bryan Tepper: Okay. I remember what….

Oh, do you want to go?

Rohini Arora: If you remember your question, go for it. I’ll jump in after.

Bryan Tepper: Yeah. It was around the actual chamber of commerce information.

How’s your downtown? I’m going to speed this up.

Paul Choi (Chair): I will ask all members to keep it very quick, because we’re out of time.

Bryan Tepper: Yeah. I’m going to go to this very quickly. I’m going to explain quickly, and then you do a quick answer.

The downtown core and what it looks like. Basically, to get a quick answer of that, is there a high vacancy rate in downtown due to the ongoing concerns that almost every town has in their downtown core?

Brant Hasanen: Well, great question, but the role of chamber of commerce is much broader than just a downtown core. That would be a good question for the business improvement association to be able to give a more accurate response to that. I’m not in a position to be able to answer that. I apologize.

Bryan Tepper: Okay. No problem.

Rohini Arora: When you were talking about New Zealand, were you talking about the country itself, or are you breaking it into…. Yeah, okay. So at the federal level versus the provincial or state level?

Brant Hasanen: That’s right, yeah.

Rohini Arora: Okay. There is obviously a slight difference there, in terms of the way that our jurisdiction is divided within this country, so I think that’s something to take into consideration.

Respectfully, I would also like to say that I have noticed that there have been many pilot projects where things have been monitored. Sometimes they’re tweaked, and there’s enabling legislation. Then, from that, come the regulations. So when you talk about a commission on tax reform, taxes go into social services, education, as you know, health care, so it’s very broad. So when you think of something like this commission, in what timeline are you thinking in your mind?

Brant Hasanen: That’s a great question, and the first answer is, with reference to the New Zealand model, although it is federal in scope, the same model will work provincially, just based on what the intent is and what the model looks like. I’ll be happy to send you the information regarding that if you’ll take it into consideration.

What was your second question?

Rohini Arora: The timeline around the commission itself, because that’s quite extensive.

Brant Hasanen: And that’s critically important. The timeline will be one that is in the best and most efficient use of the people involved and who the stakeholders are, with the intent of moving as quickly as possible but still not sacrificing the effectiveness of the commission.

Rohini Arora: Thank you.

Brant Hasanen: You bet.

[3:05 p.m.]

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you for coming and presenting to us today.

I’d like to invite our next presenter, if I can have Karina Finstad come forward from Literacy Society of the North Okanagan.

Thank you for joining us. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you may begin when you’re ready.

Literacy Society of the North Okanagan

Karina Finstad: Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Members of the committee.

Paul Choi (Chair): I’d like to invite our next presenter. If I can have Karina Finstad come forward from Literacy Society of the North Okanagan.

Thank you for joining us. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you may begin when you’re ready.

Literacy Society of the North Okanagan

Karina Finstad: Good afternoon, members of the committee. Thank you for all the travelling that you guys are doing. I’m sure you’re all tired.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I’m here representing the Literacy Society of the North Okanagan. It’s based in Vernon. We provide community-based literacy programs for children, adults, families and seniors throughout the North Okanagan area.

Our work is largely volunteer-driven. This year, 79 volunteers supported our programs, working alongside a small staff team to help meet literacy needs in our community. Our volunteers read one-to-one with children in schools. They provide individualized tutoring for adults working to improve their reading, writing and other essential skills. They also support seniors through our digital literacy program, helping them to learn to use devices and access services in an increasingly digital world.

I see every day how literacy changes lives. After years in this field, I’ve come to a very simple belief: literacy is the foundation everything else is built on.

When I reviewed the budget consultation materials, I saw your key priorities: economic resilience, workforce development, health care, affordability, community safety. Literacy strengthens every single one of them.

My own nine-year-old son is finishing grade four. He’s smart and curious, and he has a loving family, yet because of learning disabilities, he’s reading at a low grade one level. As his mother, I worry about his future. Research tells us that reading proficiency is one of the strongest predictors of a child’s future educational, employment and life outcomes. That’s a heavy thing for a parent to carry. As a literacy coordinator, I know he is one of thousands of children across B.C. facing the same struggle.

In our community, one school recently asked if grade five students could join a program designed for grades two to four, because so many older students are still struggling with the foundational reading skills. Principals and teachers have told me the need for one-to-one support has grown dramatically. Our volunteers delivered over 2,800 reading sessions this year alone, and teachers say they don’t know what they would do without that help.

Just as literacy helps children imagine a future for themselves, it can help adults build a different future than the one they thought was possible. I think of an adult learner, an Indigenous man in Vernon, living with poverty, fetal alcohol syndrome and the effects of childhood trauma. Despite these barriers, he attended every tutoring session and worked hard. A network of community literacy supports gave him hope and a path towards stability and employment. But recent funding pressures have created gaps, making his progress uncertain.

Literacy is one of the smartest investments we can make. It affects nearly every issue the government is trying to address. Strong literacy skills improve employment rates, reduce health care costs, lower justice system involvement and help people retrain in a changing economy. Economist Craig Alexander estimates that a 1 percent increase in literacy scores could lead to a 3 percent increase in labour productivity and income per capita, adding roughly $8 billion to British Columbia’s economy. Yet the provincial literacy network has received no core funding increase in 15 years and is now facing cutbacks.

I respectfully offer three recommendations to the committee.

One, increase funding for literacy outreach coordination, to a minimum of $4.5 million, to maintain and develop programs across over 400 communities around B.C. It is currently at $2.187 million from the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

My second recommendation is to increase funding for the community adult literacy program to $4.5 million, to better serve hard-to-reach and vulnerable populations, including immigrants, seniors and Indigenous people. It is currently at $3.4 million from the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills.

And my third recommendation is to formalize the role of literacy as a fundamental strategy for social change and a better economy by creating a B.C. literacy strategy.

Literacy is not a separate issue. It is the foundational infrastructure that supports a stronger economy and healthier communities. Whether it’s a grade four child fighting to read or an adult learner trying to build a better life, the story is the same: literacy opens doors and builds resilience.

[3:10 p.m.]

Thank you for your time.

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

Rohini Arora: Thank you so much for your presentation. I want to ask you. You said 2,800 reading sessions. Were you talking

opens doors and builds resilience. Thank you for your time.

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

Rohini Arora: Thank you so much for your presentation. I want to ask you…. You said 2,800 reading sessions. Were you talking about just for children, because you do adults and children.

Karina Finstad: That one is just our children’s program.

Rohini Arora: Just for the children. And what about the adults, just out of curiosity?

Karina Finstad: This year we’ve had 4,812 learner hours for all of our programs.

Rohini Arora: Everyone monitors the work that they do slightly differently, as you can imagine. So when you say learner hours, do you mean…. How many hours are you able to give to each adult, currently?

With this increase in funding…. Obviously, it wouldn’t all go to Vernon. That would be great, and I’m sure you would love it. What would that look like, in terms of hours that you could dedicate per adult? What would it look like in speeding up or at least adequately supporting their comprehension levels?

Karina Finstad: Our adult literacy program is run by volunteers, but the coordinator of the program is paid. Currently the $2.187 million for the literacy outreach, just for example, it’s spread between 98 LOCs across B.C. That’s only $22,000 a year for their wage. So that’s a part-time position as a coordinator.

Increasing it might mean that that coordinator can do a full-time position, adding more volunteers to the program. And we leverage the funding to have more donations in that too.

Rohini Arora: Yeah, the matching.

Karina Finstad: Yeah.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much for the presentation. We did hear similar recommendations a couple of times now, so not a lot of questions.

Mine is more on number three, that strategy piece. Do you know of a jurisdiction that has a good strategy in place that we should be looking to, or is this something where B.C. would be leading?

Karina Finstad: I’m not sure. I think that’s something that B.C. would be leading. We do have…. Decoda Literacy Solutions is the organization that funnels the money and spreads it to the communities around B.C. I believe there are other provinces that have that model as well.

Paul Choi (Chair): Seeing no other questions, thank you so much for coming and presenting to us today.

Before we invite our next presenter, I just want to recognize that we have MLA Ward Stamer in the back, joining us from Kamloops–North Thompson. Thanks for joining us as well.

I will invite our next presenter forward, Fiona Clare from Literacy in Kamloops.

Thank you for joining us. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after. You may begin when you’re ready.

Literacy in Kamloops

Fiona Clare: Good afternoon. Thank you for this opportunity to speak about the importance of funding for our provincial literacy network.

I’m Fiona Clare, I’ve been the literacy outreach coordinator in Kamloops for 16 years. It’s been a passion job for me. Definitely not getting rich off it. I’m fortunate that I’ve been able to work a passion job. This is not the case for many of my colleagues across the province who have to juggle two or three jobs in order to maintain that literacy outreach coordinator position.

Our literacy network of 98 LOCs across 400-plus communities, coordinated by Decoda Literacy Solutions, has proved itself a highly efficient funding machine. In 2024-25, $1.8 million in coordination funding, which has not increased over the past 16 years, was leveraged into over $11.3 million through local fundraising, donations and in-kind support. That’s a good investment in anyone’s books.

We are grateful for the LOC funding we receive from the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs and the community adult literacy program funding from the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education. But, as I’m sure you hear all too often, it’s just not enough.

[3:15 p.m.]

It’s true that economics is the driving force for most financial decisions. You have likely heard from many of my colleagues across the province about the impact of literacy as a powerful economic driver. We know that strong literacy skills reduce dependence on social services, improve employment opportunities, support children’s educational achievement and strengthen

for most financial decisions, and you have likely heard from many of my colleagues across the province about the impact of literacy as a powerful economic driver. We know that strong literacy skills reduce dependence on social services, improve employment opportunities, support children’s educational achievement and strengthen community resilience.

Today I’d like to focus on literacy as a human issue rather than simply an educational or economic one.

Community literacy programs embody the very best of humanity. Fortunately, we live in a country that values kindness, compassion and caring, a country that still values diversity, equity and inclusivity. Yes, most of us complain about paying too much in taxes, but we truly do value the programs and services that provide support when needed.

Funding community literacy programs is not simply a budget decision. It is a statement about who we are, the kind of community we want to be, the kind of province and country we value and want to protect.

Formal education systems cannot meet every learning need throughout a person’s life. Community literacy programs extend learning beyond the classroom, helping adults upgrade skills and adapt to technology changes; supporting families, newcomers, seniors and vulnerable learners to succeed; and creating pathways into further education.

A caring community recognizes that not everyone starts from the same place, and community literacy programs meet people where they are at and help them move forward at their own pace. When we help people gain the skills and confidence they need to participate fully in society, we create a more inclusive and compassionate community for everyone, and I think this is more important now than it’s ever been.

Community literacy programs are often partnership programs, which prove cost-effective as organizations work together sharing resources, referring learners and supporting clients. This results in less duplication of services and less competition for funding, and it builds better community.

Community literacy programs are often volunteer-driven. We usually focus on the benefits to learners, but volunteers benefit too. These programs give volunteers, many of whom are seniors living in isolation, the opportunity to participate again in community and to feel purposeful and valued.

Over the years, we have trained thousands of volunteers and have heard from them how this experience has improved their lives. Some have actually said it saved their lives. And it’s not just older adults who benefit but youth too. We hear from them how the experience has improved their employability skills and helped them find direction. It’s a win-win.

There are 1,000 stories we could share about the impact community literacy programs have on learners’ lives, how they have finally managed to achieve their personal learning goals whatever they may be, from learning to read to learning a new language, graduating, getting a better job, supporting their children’s learning. Literacy is the foundation for participation in community life.

So the real question is not whether we can afford to invest in community literacy but whether we can afford not to. We are here today to recommend, as my previous colleagues have done in many communities, increased funding for the literacy outreach network and for the community adult literacy program so we can maintain and expand the services and the creation of a B.C. literacy strategy. Increased funding today is an investment in people, in community and in our province’s future.

Thank you for your time, and I’m happy to answer any questions.

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

Rohini Arora: Thank you so much for your presentation. I love being grounded in your values and speaking to where you come from and how we should view each other in society. I think it’s really important to remind ourselves what’s important, so I thank you for that.

Earlier your colleague Karina had mentioned about…. I think it was 98, if I’m not mistaken. So when you talk about this increase in funding, is that particularly for coordinators in each of these 98 locations? Is that…?

Fiona Clare: Yes. So I did get clarification — because that was what we were encouraged to ask for — from Decoda Literacy Solutions, and I asked where the funding was going to be used. Majority of the funding would be used to support literacy outreach coordinators and give them more of a living wage, because as I said, many have had to combine the job with many other jobs in order to try and sustain that position.

[3:20 p.m.]

Rohini Arora: Okay. And then you said that majority would be used for that. What would the other be used for? I’m curious because it really helps us understand more about where it’s directly going, so thank you.

sustain that position.

Rohini Arora: Okay, and then you said…. Sorry, Chair, a follow-up?

Paul Choi (Chair): Yes, continue.

Rohini Arora: You said the majority would be used for that. What would the other be used for? And I’m curious because it really helps us understand more about where it’s directly going, so thank you.

Fiona Clare: So I know that Decoda Literacy Solutions just recently vacated their offices in downtown Vancouver, because I think they couldn’t sustain the rent in that, and they are now working remotely from their homes. So I assume that it would go into some operational costs to support the infrastructure of the actual provincial literacy organization that then funnels all the funding out to the network of over 400 communities.

Rohini Arora: Thanks. Chair, if you allow me, if no one else is going to say anything…. So, just to clarify, you said they’re working remotely. So they did have a location downtown but they gave it up, and so now this is about operational requirements within their homes probably, or whatever, in their office space, just to be able to run things. Is that what I’m…? So, really stretching every dollar as much as they can.

Fiona Clare: Stretching, yes. They actually…. We lost about, I think, four staff members from Decoda and, as I said, the office space as well. And they’re looking for a place for their library. So I think it was really operational costs that just…. As we know with cost of living, everything’s increased so much and our funding has not increased — ever.

Rohini Arora: Well, I, not just as an MLA…. I’m single-sided deaf and so for a long time my family was worried about my comprehension levels. I lost my hearing when I was six years old, and so I recognize the work you do, and I know how incredibly important it is for even kids like me. I’m staring at my phone because I also use closed captioning and I read lips. I make it work. And it’s important to have access too. As you said, it doesn’t always meet every learning need in a person’s lifetime, and that is very true, and I can speak to it myself. So thank you for the work that you do.

Fiona Clare: Thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. Seeing no other questions, thanks for coming and presenting to us today.

I’d like to invite our next presenter, Jeremy Heighton from Kamloops North Shore BIA to come forward.

Thank you for joining us. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you may begin when you’re ready.

Kamloops North Shore
Business Improvement Association

Jeremy Heighton: Good afternoon, Chair, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today.

I’m Jeremy Heighton. I’m the president of Business Improvement Areas of B.C. I’m currently the executive director for the Kamloops North Shore BIA and also director for downtown Kamloops BIA. In my collective roles, I represent 60 BIAs and 55,000 businesses and commercial districts across our province.

BIAs work at the street level every day. We hear directly from business owners, property owners, employees and community members about the opportunities and the pressures facing British Columbia’s local economies.

Today I’d like to speak briefly on three interconnected priorities.

First is the cost of doing business in B.C. Small businesses throughout British Columbia continue to experience significant cumulative cost pressures — labour, taxation, regulatory requirements, insurance, utilities, leasing pressures, and now the expansion of the provincial sales tax into additional service categories. These pressures are layering additional financial strain onto businesses that are already operating with very narrow margins. And for any non-profits, such as myself, I estimate the PST expansion alone will cost approximately $5,000 in the next 12 months.

Now, we need to be clear. We understand and support the goals behind public policy changes. However, the pace and cumulative impact of multiple policy decisions across different levels of government are creating growing operational challenges, particularly for independently owned businesses that do not have large administrative or financial reserves.

BIABC recommends a repeal of the policy change and that the province undertake a cumulative impact review of the cost of doing business in British Columbia. This would help government better understand how labour, tax and regulatory changes interact together in real practice. We also encourage government to explore targeted flexibility, transitional supports or relief measures wherever appropriate.

[3:25 p.m.]

Our second concern revolves around tariffs, trade disruption and economic uncertainty — the reality that we live in every day. Businesses across British Columbia continue to face uncertainty related to global supply chains, tariffs, inflationary pressures and international market instability. These pressures affect everything from construction materials and equipment to retail inventory and food supply costs.

At the same time, there is a growing recognition that strengthening Canada’s domestic marketplace

global supply chains, tariffs, inflationary pressures and international market instability. These pressures affect everything from construction materials and equipment to retail inventory and food supply costs.

At the same time, there’s growing recognition that strengthening Canada’s domestic marketplace represents an important opportunity to improve economic resilience, and some reports identify billions of dollars in inaccessible current domestic opportunity. BIABC recommends the province continue working toward the removal of interprovincial trade barriers while also expanding internal initiatives such as Buy B.C. and supporting local procurement and sourcing strategies.

We also encourage the government to ensure that the CMRA, Canadian mutual recognition agreement, delivers measurable and practical outcomes for businesses and consumers alike, including opportunities to further expand participation in areas such as agriculture, food products and beverage production.

Our third area of focus is public safety and commercial district security, something I’m sure you’re all very, very familiar with. We’re very pleased to see the adoption of Bill C-14 this morning.

BIABC has acknowledged the province’s ongoing efforts to develop and pilot a non-violent repeat offender program in select B.C. communities, viewing it as an important step towards a more consistent and effective response to individuals who repeatedly cycle through our justice system. As the program is evaluated and expanded, we encourage government to ensure it is implemented provincewide, with strong collaboration between police, counsel, probation, health providers and community leaders.

In closing, British Columbia and Kamloops small businesses are resilient. We’re innovative, and we’re deeply invested in our communities. We create jobs, we activate main streets, and we support local charities. We help to define the identity of the communities we represent throughout the province.

Our request today, really, is fundamentally about partnership. We’re asking government to continue strengthening communication and coordination with the small business community so that policy decisions are informed by practical, on-the-ground realities that include a designated minister for small business.

We’re not big business. We’re moms, we’re pops, we’re community leaders, and we’re champions. We care about our main streets and our communities, and we invite you to stand with us and create something truly powerful — an interconnected system where policy and reality combine to create dynamic community-level outcomes.

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

Bryan Tepper: Well, I will throw the question that was put to you from previous.…

Jeremy Heighton: I was warned.

Bryan Tepper: Yeah, I can take a little bit more time on it, actually, and ask two. Basically, what are you hearing from...? I guess you’re all over the place, but is there anything better or worse in certain cities when it comes to how businesses are working? Is anybody thriving in the downtown core of any place right now in B.C.? Or is it...? Do we have any?

Jeremy Heighton: We have a tough economic environment. Let’s be honest. I mean, whether it’s international trade or localized economies, we are all struggling. We are struggling under even something as simple as the minimum-wage increase year over year. We understand why it occurs. However, it isn’t just the one person who makes minimum wage. It ripples through the entire organization. What we have seen in organizations in my area specifically are profits which have gone from 8, maybe 9 percent a year, to 2 or 3 percent.

We are seeing small business, mom-and-pops, three or four employees struggling to make ends meet under the taxation burden, under the fee burden, under things like triggering the B.C. building code when you do a use change. They’re all piling up, and what’s happening to small business is they’re saying: “Is it worth it anymore?”

I was talking to a national accounting firm the other day. They said that for the same business type in B.C. versus Alberta, the profit is twice as great in Alberta. It’s because of the taxation regime that is forcing businesses to the lowest possible denominator. It’s difficult, because we are not just about making profit. We’re about investing in arts, in community festivals and events. We support the fabric of the community. Iit’s very difficult right now for business in B.C.

Bryan Tepper: I will ask specifically about Kamloops as well. Is there a vacancy problem, or...?

[3:30 p.m.]

Jeremy Heighton: It depends. Like all communities, it depends. It depends on the vibrancy of the specific area. It depends on whether the properties are old, in need of revitalization. It depends on if there’s densification or revitalization of an area currently ongoing.

There are a few things that come into play when you start to look at commercial vacancy rates. It’s not just about the cost of the lease. It’s about the vibrancy of the area. It’s about the number of foot traffic coming into each and every area. So I would suggest on my side, on the

in need of revitalization. It depends on if there’s densification or revitalization of an area currently ongoing.

There are a few things that come to play when you start to look at commercial vacancy rates. It’s not just about the cost of the lease. It’s about the vibrancy of the area. It’s about the number of foot traffic coming into each and every area. So I would suggest on my side — on the North Shore, where it’s my dominant role — we’re probably in about 4 percent vacancy. Downtown, we’re probably about 7 percent to 10 percent vacancy, but again, we have a lot more second-storey offices.

We have some buildings which are in need of rehabilitation. On the North Shore, we have 1,000 new residential units and nine new mixed-use buildings going in. So it really depends where you are and what the overall feel in the community is. But having said that, I can tell you that the current economic situation does not assist.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): I want to lean a bit into the statement you made around the profit, because people are like: “Well, 2 percent? You’re still making profit.” But as a small business owner, just to put some lens on that, I just did some quick math. On a $1 million dollar business — which almost none of those mom-and-pop are doing in revenue. — that’s like $20,000.

So if you have that kind of revenue, one hit, one unexpected expense, one staff member totals a truck, insurance, anything like that…. Do you feel that many businesses are in that bubble right now where they’re…?

Jeremy Heighton: Yes, 74 percent. Based on our survey, where it could be BIABC, it is significant. We are seeing businesses really questioning why they’re even in business anymore. In fact, if you look at a small business owner that’s making $7,000, $10,000 a year working 15 to 18 hours a day, potentially seven days a week, it’s actually cheaper to be an employee. But they love what they do.

This is the point. To your point earlier, Rohini, they’re passionate. Service to their community is what is really fuelling them as small business owners, this sense of connection to others. If we take that away, then all we do is open up community and economics to big players with big dollars that have small margins. But who cares? They leverage dozens of locations.

If you’re looking at the corner store in your neighbourhood, they’re struggling, and they’re struggling hard. When we start losing those cultural connecting points, what I call the tapestry of community, we actually lose community.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): I agree.

Bryan Tepper: Sort of out of the scope of your questions and everything else. But since I’ve got you here and, you know, you’re all around…. I’ve heard from many — I was going to say several — of the small businesses that are around in the Lower Mainland. The mandatory sick leave policy, they say, is killing them. How’s that affecting, and is there any way you can foresee what we could do? Can we do anything with that?

We heard about this last year. Everybody’s brought it up this year.

Jeremy Heighton: There was a lot of conversation last year about expanding to ten days. That was scary for a lot of employers. The reason it’s scary is because you don’t just lose the five days of the employee workload. If you have a small shop, you need to bring somebody to cover those five days, which actually does cost you ten days. If you were to expand that policy to ten days, now you’re expanding it to 20 days of cost to a small business.

One of the suggestions I have made in the past is rather than having a sick day provision, you have a tax credit position for small business where they can still pay out some of the wages, but then they can claim it back as a tax credit. It’s not a full recovery, but at least it’s something to give them some kind of a buyback into the process.

I think there are all of these things. On the surface, they’re thin slices. They’re one-offs. You go: “Oh yeah. I get that. I see that.” But cumulatively the weight is too heavy for business. So we have to explore alternate opportunities to move into space where we can help businesses to thrive. Sometimes that takes a little bit of innovation.

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

I would like to invite our next presenter, if I can have Councillor Stephen Karpuk to come forward, please. We can also see you have a lot of your colleagues here also supporting you here, as well. So thanks to all the other councillors for joining us here as well. Thank you.

As you see, you have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for your questions after, and you may begin when you’re ready.

City of Kamloops

Stephen Karpuk: I thought speed dating at UBCM was quick.

My name is Stephen Karpuk. I’m a city councillor here in the city of Kamloops. I’m also a TNRD director for the regional government, and I also sit as a director on the Southern Interior Local Government Association, representing 37 communities throughout our area.

[3:35 p.m.]

But today I represent the city of Kamloops, and I’m here with two things that I’d like to share with you. First, I’d like to share our community’s vision for the future in Kamloops, that being our Build Kamloops program. Build Kamloops is a multi-year, multi-phase,

as a director on the Southern Interior Local Government Association, representing 37 communities throughout our area.

But today I represent the city of Kamloops, and I’m here with two things that I’d like to share with you.

First, I’d like to share our community’s vision for our future Kamloops — that being our build Kamloops program. Build Kamloops is a multi-year, multiphase, visionary program that ensures our community continues to be the tournament capital of Canada. It is aimed to catch up and keep pace with the recreational leisure needs of one of Canada’s fastest-growing communities. And it’s intended to enhance our recognition as a premier arts and culture destination.

Build Kamloops is an intentional, bold plan that addresses key infrastructure needs tied to health, mental health and community safety. Build Kamloops supports the provincial priorities of protecting core services, building strong communities and managing cost pressures. Our Build Kamloops plan will increase community health, livability, resiliency and economic opportunities by supporting youth engagement, creating safe, inclusive community spaces, adding workforce attractions, further increasing tourism and cultural event spaces, adding capacity for local and regional emergency events and aiming to increase public safety by addressing the root causes of crime and disorder.

I’d like to remind you that Kamloops is the only city and the largest municipality in our Thompson-Nicola regional district. We are the regional hub for services that every community needs and seeks us out for, whether it’s educational, professional services and others. Build Kamloops is a community-endorsed plan that is for everyone in our region and any visitors who seek us out because of what we have and what we’re going to create with this plan.

We have a plan to self-fund these projects through direct taxation, philanthropic donations and other marketing and sponsorships, but we know that with some provincial support, we’ll realize our build Kamloops plan sooner and make it go farther.

So our ask is that you elevate our build Kamloops plan to the Treasury Board for funding and that you voice your support when asked about it. We are looking for any financial support, but our hope is that you will convey that our build Kamloops plan is worth a substantive investment. It is an ask that is supporting a regional economy, not just our city, that is vital to a strong B.C. and of which we are proud to be part of.

And I’m going to move to my second ask, as I’m moving through this fairly quickly.

I’m also here to advocate on the need for the provincial asset — that being the red bridge — to be fully funded. Premier made this comment to our communities, and I stress communities because it is many that use that asset on a daily and weekly basis historically.

So this bridge and the need for its replacement is really a key infrastructure. It’s for safety, mobility and regional transportation function. It has been historically, in its three previous iterations, a key linkage between communities on north and south sides of the river. And we need to have some confirmation going forward that there will be funding to replace this key asset. Kamloops is a major transportation hub, and we access those services to basically build our community economic outlook. We use it to the movement of goods and people.

And it is not just for us. I reflect back that when I go to Vancouver, I use the Port Mann Bridge. I use SkyTrain. I take a ferry. All of those may not be in my community, but they are a provincial asset that is funded and has benefit to all who can go and use it.

I draw your attention that in Kamloops — being the hub of all of the transportation that comes through our area, not just in rail but in transit by motorway — we have the Yellowhead Bridge, which is on Highway 5 if you come off Highway 1 going down our hill and gets you on to our neighbours at Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc territory.

If we were to lose that bridge, the only access to go north is to go east and go across a very narrow bridge, come through the communities of Sun Rivers, Tk'emlúps Indian band land and out onto the highway or to come right through our city, where our city is not designed for a highway, and then back out over the Halston. In the case of an infrastructure loss, the need here would be profound, as we’ve seen for the last two years.

So our ask is: please elevate this. Push it to the level that the Premier has said he will fund, and give us a bridge that links our communities, gives us connectivity, gives us the safety economically and in our transportation and meets the needs of our community for the going in the future.

We recently had an engagement, and I believe about 9,000 community voices were elevated to say that we need a new bridge. That bridge needs to have traffic capacity and hopefully a multi-use path.

I’ll yield that for time.

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

We’ll now turn to questions by members.

[3:40 p.m.]

Bryan Tepper: I got a little lost with the bridges. You’ve got one, but how many bridges are nearing end of life, I guess? Because we hear about it all over the place.

Stephen Karpuk: The Yellowhead Bridge, which is a provincial asset, is partnered. I think, historically, it was to take the capacity off the old

bridges. You’ve got one, but how many bridges are nearing end of life, I guess? We hear about it all over the place.

Stephen Karpuk: The Yellowhead Bridge, which is a provincial asset, is partnered. I think, historically, it was to take the capacity off the old wooden bridge. That was the Red Bridge that burned down on September 19, 2024, so it’s been almost two years.

That replacement has now got the main thoroughfare of Highway 5 North connecting to the interchange on Highway 1. That is a very, very well-used bridge. I don’t know the numbers of people using, but the little Red Bridge still had about 9,000 people per day travelling back and forth — not insignificant but a relief valve if we had some work that had to be done on the Yellowhead Bridge, which is something that’s up going if you drive across it and look at the infrastructure that its state is.

We have some city-owned assets. That would be our Overlanders Bridge. We also have the Halston Bridge, which is a ministry bridge.

So we’re missing one, and it is a vital and key linkage. There are businesses on the north side and south side of our river that are suffering and have since we’ve lost this infrastructure. But it also is that key infrastructure that gives us a relief valve for when we have to do those upgrades on the other bridges to increase connectivity, not just within our community but within the region itself.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): As someone who has used that bridge previously, it is an important connection. Just wondering, you said that the funding…. I took the hint that the funding has not been secured for the Red Bridge, though it was announced that it was coming, in some sense. I’m just wondering…. What has been…? Have you been applying for money and not getting a response? I’m just wondering how we put it into the report. Is it that there’s a funding ask in that needs to be…? Or is it just “get it done” basically?

Stephen Karpuk: As this is a provincial asset and not a city or Tk’emlúps asset, coming back to the perimeter, this will be rebuilt. Of course, the final say is when. It’s often the question. This is our position on both sides of the river as we’ve had collaborative discussions up until this point — fully funded by the province. This is our intention. It’s that the province needs to step up and replace the bridge, because it was their bridge. It’s not our bridge. It’s not Tk’emlúps’ bridge. It’s the province as a whole. And our expectation is that it will be fully funded.

To your point, funding has been assigned for design, and we have gone through that process. We’ve been welcoming the involvement of the Ministry of Transportation and Transit in their collaboration. It’s somewhat of a step process to go through, but we’re there. We see the need. I think our community sees the need and have over 9,000 people voicing their concerns already that this needs to happen in a public way. I think it shows that there is a need that needs to happen.

Bryan Tepper: Do we have a dollar value on the bridge, the new construction?

Stephen Karpuk: I would be completely speculative, but I’ve heard anywhere from $80 million to $200 million.

Paul Choi (Chair): Seeing no other questions, thank you for coming and presenting to us today.

Stephen Karpuk: I appreciate that. Just to leave you with a little bit of a symbolic reminder of the bridge itself, I do have socks. These are, I guess, intentional advocacy. They’re not a buy. We’re not looking for your absolute support at Treasury Board, but we want to leave you with this.

I’ve said this every time I’ve met a minister, MLA, when we hand these out. The intention of this is that when you put it on, you think about the idea that we brought forward. When you wash it, you’re thinking about the idea, and when the opportunity comes up to support it, you’re remembering the idea.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you.

We will invite the next presenter forward, Christopher Young from Kamloops Symphony Society, please.

Thank you so much for coming to present to us. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you may begin when you’re ready.

Kamloops Symphony Society

Christopher Young: Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Christopher Young. I’m the executive director of the Kamloops Symphony Orchestra and Music School. Thank you again for hosting me today.

British Columbia’s arts and culture sector is a major economic driver, with more than 211,000 British Columbians supported directly and indirectly, and almost $24 billion in total economic impact in 2023, according to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce’s art works report. This is driven by one in five Canadian artists calling B.C. home. That is a competitive advantage built over generations, and we are letting it erode.

[3:45 p.m.]

This sector creates 13 jobs for every $1 million of output in B.C., more than oil and gas, more than manufacturing and more than agriculture. It is one of the most employment-intensive sectors in the province, and yet there’s a widening gap between what this sector contributes to the economy

competitive advantage built over generations, and we are letting it erode.

This sector creates 13 jobs for every $1 million of output in B.C. — more than oil and gas, more than manufacturing and more than agriculture. It is one of the most employment-intensive sectors in the province, and yet there’s a widening gap between what this sector contributes to the economy and how public investment has kept pace with it.

Every government facing this challenge has run into real constraints: fiscal pressures, competing priorities and a sector that is easy to defer because it rarely stops functioning entirely. The arts keep going, but someone always pays. A small staff works beyond their roles. A handful of volunteers try to fill the gaps. When sacrifice becomes the price of participation, the arts belong only to those who can afford it. That is not resilience. That is a sector slowly hollowing out. Each year of delayed or reduced support makes it harder to turn around.

You may already know this history, but in the late 2000s, funding declined by up to 88 percent over a two-year period. When other provinces were investing, B.C. fell behind, and organizations and artists across this province have not quite fully caught up.

In 2017, B.C. committed to increase the B.C. Arts Council base to $48 million, a goal that has yet to be achieved. The B.C. Arts Council budget now sits at approximately $40 million. Adjusted for inflation, that 2017 commitment is now equivalent to over $58 million.

This committee has the opportunity to clearly convey that the time for half-measures is over. The opportunity cost is simply too high, and it is growing. When investment does not keep pace, we leave economic activity on the table. We leave jobs on the table. The cost of not investing is not zero, and it never was. Underfunding a sector that returns $1.14 in GDP for every dollar of output is not being fiscally conservative.

Here in Kamloops, the Kamloops Symphony Orchestra is approaching its 50th anniversary. The KSO is the largest music society in the B.C. interior and the largest regional orchestra west of Regina. We reach 12,000 audience members a year across multiple electoral districts with performances in Kamloops and Salmon Arm, and as of next year, we are expanding to Merritt and Revelstoke. Our audiences come from Williams Lake to Vancouver to Calgary to travel to hear us.

We are a regional institution that employs more than 100 professional musicians every season from across B.C. Ultimately, we are a $1.5 million operation that reinvests money directly into multiple sectors and regions of the provincial economy every time we take the stage.

Our music school serves 400 students and families annually, larger than an elementary school and growing because the alternatives are vanishing. Band programs that operated in 20 Kamloops schools in the 1990s now operate in five, while the district string program was recently cut. When public education retreats from music, those families don’t stop needing music education. It just costs them more.

We do all this with two permanent full-time staff, no dedicated administrative capacity for the music school, higher concert costs than comparable Metro Vancouver organizations and less opportunity for ticket revenue to offset them. Support goes towards artists and programs with the bare minimum to support the administrative structures that make it all happen. We have survived recessions and a pandemic, and we are still here and growing. That is a testament to the dedication of our organization and the passion of our community.

The communities we serve are among the fastest-growing in Canada, but as this committee has heard, Interior organizations can’t rely on the philanthropic infrastructure, the availability of personnel and the larger networks of volunteers that sustain Metro Vancouver organizations. Provincial investment isn’t a supplement for us. It is the foundation on which everything else is built.

So today I’m adding our voice to the B.C. Museums Association, the Greater Vancouver Professional Theatre Alliance and the B.C. Alliance for Arts and Culture to ask for a clear path to sustain at least $58 million in annual B.C. Arts Council funding, not as an aspiration but as a plan.

The people this community serves —across Kamloops and the B.C. interior and every community where the arts are the difference between a place people choose to live, work and play and a place people leave — deserve more than survival.

The people served by this committee deserve what investment actually produces: a student who gains confidence to stand up and sing alone in front of their school, a child who learns to dream bigger than their town they grew up in and then chooses to stay and build their dream anyway, a performing arts centre that draws a full house on a Saturday night and sends people to dinner downtown, and a province where talented people are inspired and supported to build something bigger than themselves. That is what we can deliver together.

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

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): So the ask is for $58 million to the B.C. Arts Council. And you said…. I missed the next part. It’s funding to fund a strategy?

[3:50 p.m.]

Christopher Young: That is the ask. The NDP government, when it first came in, in 2017, promised to double the base grant for the B.C. Arts Council to $48 million, which is now, with inflation, $58 million equivalent.

Paul Choi (Chair): Follow-up.

so that is the ask. The NDP government, when it first came in in 2017, promised to double the base grant for the B.C. Arts Council to $48 million, which is now, with inflation, $58 million equivalent.

Paul Choi (Chair): Follow-up?

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): And I’m going to assume that that $58 million trickles down to organizations like yours. It’s not just for the Arts Council; this is funding for all of arts in B.C.

Christopher Young: Yes, exactly.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): I knew the answer. I was just getting it on the record.

And then I think, because we’ve canvassed it pretty extensively…. I appreciate you adding your voice, but I don’t have any more questions.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: I just wanted to give you a chance to expand on the 400 students. And then you said five schools that have bands now?

Christopher Young: Yes. We’re seeing an increase in demand for music education within the region. We have students who have come from Salmon Arm, Hundred Mile, coming to Kamloops here to study at the music school. But also within the community itself, with the decrease in music education opportunities within the public school system, there is increasing demand on not-for-profit organizations to continue to provide that service.

We are seeing growth to the point where I am actually burning out my faculty because we cannot keep up with the amount of demand being asked by parents and students. So we are trying to be as creative as we possibly can with new opportunities, but with that comes increased administrative burden and increased facility needs that currently aren’t being met.

But ultimately, we are looking at the B.C. Arts Council as our opportunity for getting the funding required to support organizations like the Kamloops Symphony Orchestra and Music School to be able to provide those services more effectively.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Just a follow-up, Chair.

Thank you for your presentation. Our first week, we were lobbied by a 12-year-old, and she shared some of her experiences of some of the things that she’s missing in school. One of them was about music in school, so just wanted to share that. Thank you.

Christopher Young: Thank you.

Rohini Arora: Thank you so much for your presentation. I wanted to ask you: you said that you’re seeing an increase in pressure in terms of students wanting to come to KSO to learn. Could you tell us how much of that percentage is coming out of the public school system? Do you know?

Christopher Young: Since seeing the dissolution of the district strings program, now almost two years ago, we have seen an uptick in the amount — especially strings. Our voice programs are increasingly in demand. We’ve actually started a children’s chorus and youth chorus, which are the only non-public school opportunities for children to sing together. And we are currently working towards a youth orchestra as well because we are seeing that increasing demand there, but we don’t have the resources yet to be able to create that program.

Rohini Arora: And just quick: so you said strings and voice. And then what about…?

Christopher Young: Oh, yes. Piano, everything…. Everything is up. Yeah, we can’t…. We’ve been recruiting some of our upper-level students to become faculty to begin to teach beginners, because we can’t keep up. So we’ve been actually providing employment opportunities for youth within the community.

Rohini Arora: Thank you.

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

Christopher Young: Thank you very much.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much.

The committee will take a short recess.

The committee recessed at 3:54 p.m.

The committee resumed at 4:02 p.m.

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

I will now go to our next presenter. We have Elizabeth Moore from Federation of Independent School Associations in B.C.

Thank you for joining us. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you may begin when you’re ready.

Federation of Independent School
Associations in B.C.

Elizabeth Moore: FISA feels very privileged to have this opportunity to present to the committee, and at the outset I’d like to commend the province for maintaining strong investments in K-to-12 education and for recognizing the important role that B.C.’s diverse education system plays in serving B.C. students and families. We are truly one system, two complementary sectors.

The Federation of Independent School Associations in B.C., five associations, represents over 96 percent of the 97,000 students enrolled in the 344 B.C. independent schools. They’re located in all corners of British Columbia. If independent schools were a school district, they would be the largest school district in the province. The next biggest would be Surrey, which enrols 85½ thousand students. B.C.’s independent schools educate approximately 13.3 percent of the province’s K-to-12 students but utilize only 6.6 percent of the provincial education budget. And to receive funding, schools are required to run as a not-for-profit society.

In 1977, the B.C. Independent School Act was enacted, and successive governments over successive decades have affirmed the recognition and partial funding of the B.C. independent school sector. B.C. independent schools provide educational choice to B.C.’s diverse, pluralistic society. Schools membership include Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Sikh, Christian faith-based schools, pedagogically-focused university prep schools, Montessori and Waldorf schools, online schools, boarding schools and inclusive education schools that enrol exclusively students with exceptionalities.

[4:05 p.m.]

FISA supports a strong K-to-12 education system, both public and independent. Our schools provide relevant educational programming that aligns with the goals and values of B.C. families. We are — and I emphasize again — one system, two complementary sectors.

Partial operational funding

a strong K-to-12 education system, both public and independent.

Our schools provide relevant educational programming that aligns with the goals and values of B.C. families. We are, I emphasize again, one system, two complementary sectors. Partial operational funding saves taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually while providing families with educational choice, and independent schools provide K-to-12 enrolment capacity with no taxpayer support for capital projects.

Recommendation 1 is to increase support for students with diverse learning needs. Independent schools are experiencing the same increases in student complexity as public schools, including learning disabilities, mental health challenges, autism spectrum disorder and other inclusive ed needs. Our request is to review inclusive education funding rates and eligibility criteria to ensure B.C. students receive the support required and schools receive adequate funding to implement those supports.

Our second recommendation or request is to invest in teacher recruitment and retention across the entire K-to-12 system. Teacher shortages affect all B.C. schools, and independent schools are competing in the same labour market and are facing increasing recruitment challenges.

Our request is to expand the post-secondary teacher education program capacity. If practicum placements are a barrier, independent schools feel we are underutilized and would welcome providing more practicum placements. And secondly, to increase the incentives for teacher certification and entry into the profession, especially for rural and remote locations.

The third recommendation is to continue independent school funding. As previously referenced, the continued operational funding…. We request continued operational funding as prescribed in the Independent School Act. Secondly, to provide proportional access to special purpose grants, such as the mental health funding, and to also ensure grant adjustments reflect inflationary and compensation pressures affecting schools.

To conclude, FISA appreciates the province’s continued commitment to K-to-12 education as witnessed in the present budget, and we ask that Budget 2027 continues to strengthen educational opportunities and support for all B.C. students regardless of the school they attend, whether public or independent, to continue to provide a world-class education system.

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

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you for your presentation. On your second recommendation around teacher recruitment and retention, you talked about expanding the opportunity in spots for education, and then you talked about practicum placements. I don’t know if I glazed over, but what was on the retention? What do you see as a way to retain teachers and to attract them to the profession?

Elizabeth Moore: If I start with attraction first of all, it’s just to make it…. Particularly in independent sectors, because that is what I am advocating for, is to make sure that there are opportunities provided at the university level that the independent sector is also an option, not just public.

For instance, at UBC, the long practicum placement, which is the ten-week placement, which is generally where students are recruited, is only largely available for public schools, not for independent schools, unless it’s an IB program. Because they’re short of places, they then reach out to the independent sector to provide placements for those students in the long practicum.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): So if I’m hearing you correctly, then, if we’re able to recruit more teachers into the independent schools, we’ll be able to retain them once they’re there? Or is there a strategy for the retention?

Elizabeth Moore: Well, I think retention is public and independent — keeping teachers in the system. It’s a hard job. Rising special needs, which is my other recommendation, means that the classrooms are complex, in both public and independent.

[4:10 p.m.]

So going back to my first call, which is support for students with diverse learning needs, making greater supports for teachers in the classroom makes the job easier, and that certainly would be a retention.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Perfect. Thank you for tying the two together.

Rohini Arora: Thank you for your presentation. I’m curious

is making greater supports for teachers in the classroom makes the job easier. And that certainly would be a retention.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Perfect. Thank you for tying the two together.

Rohini Arora: Thank you for your presentation. I’m curious about the supports in the classroom. Do you…. Because you, of course, advocate for independent schools, do you find that they’re also bringing in educational assistants? You also talked about a pedagogical perspective that often requires a pedagogical instructor or support person who’s bringing teachers together to go through the process.

I think through…. If I remember correctly, in child care for sure, there’s a particular area where pedagogy services are being utilized. There’s funding that’s provided, and that is to support ECEs and ECEAs in supporting children.

We think about education from infancy to 12. And so I’m wondering, when you say greater supports for teachers, do you also mean more educational assistants or….

Elizabeth Moore: All of that, yeah. So funding and identifying students, being clear…. We’ve had generous federal support for mental health and wellness. There are changes in the autism spectrum funding that are being navigated by parents.

But all of these inclusive ed needs require teacher support, and with increasing complexity in the classroom and increasing inclusive ed needs within the classroom…. It requires teacher support, it requires funding for those students, and so one of my requests is to consider the funding. Is it sufficient in order to support the inclusive ed supports in the classroom and the needs?

Rohini Arora: So that would be separate from maintaining the funding formula, currently, for independent…. Under the Independent School Act?

Elizabeth Moore: Yes, it is. So that was one of the requests, to consider the special grants, provide proportional access to special purpose grants. But also to consider, under my first request, which is the inclusive ed, which is to just review the eligibility criteria and the funding rates for the three categories in inclusive ed — are those sufficient in order to meet the need.

Paul Choi (Chair): Seeing no other questions, thanks for coming and presenting to us today.

Elizabeth Moore: Thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): I’d like to invite our next presenter to come forward. I have Tara Ettinger from Big Bear Child and Youth Advocacy Centre to come forward, please.

Thank you for joining us. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after. You may begin when you’re ready.

Big Bear Child and Youth
Advocacy Centre

Tara Ettinger: Afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the budget consultations.

I’d like to begin by acknowledging that I’m speaking today on the traditional unceded territory of the Secwépemc People.

My name is Dr. Tara Ettinger. I’m a registered clinical counsellor, adjunct professor at UBC Okanagan and executive director of Big Bear Child and Youth Advocacy Centre for Kamloops and surrounding rural and Indigenous communities.

Today I’m speaking from operational experience and scholarly expertise. I championed both the development of Big Bear and its programming, drawing on my doctoral research and culturally safe trauma-informed child abuse investigations, particularly forensic interviewing with Indigenous children, youth and families.

My perspective has also been shaped by ongoing collaboration with law enforcement, child protection agencies, Indigenous partners and multidisciplinary professionals.

As a researcher, I have examined the child and youth advocacy centre model, a.k.a. CYC, and continue to evaluate the effectiveness and outcomes of its practices. CYC should be understood as an integrated public infrastructure that brings justice, child protection, health and advocacy into a coordinated response system, while serving as a model that’s improved child abuse investigation processes and outcomes and continues to drive ongoing innovation through research, evaluation and multidisciplinary practice.

[4:15 p.m.]

Research on CYC models shows that this integration reduces fragmentation, duplication, delays in service delivery while improving interagency coordination compared to siloed approaches.

These system efficiencies also reduce repeated service contact and unnecessary duplication across justice, health and social services. From a fiscal perspective, this represents reduced duplications

duplications, delays in service delivery while improving interagency coordination compared to siloed approaches. These system efficiencies also reduce repeated service contact and unnecessary duplication across Justice, Health and social services.

From a fiscal perspective, this represents reduced duplications across multiple publicly funded systems and improved downstream cost containment through earlier coordinated investigations. Government evaluations have found that CYAC investigations can cost less than traditional approaches. Canadian social return analyses have estimated approximately $3 to $5 in social benefit for every dollar invested.

Early and coordinated responses to child abuse are associated with improved long-term health, education and social outcomes, while delayed or fragmented processes responses are associated with increased long-term system involvement and public expenditure pressures. This is particularly important for Indigenous and newcomer communities, where culturally safe engagement directly affects access to supports and system effectiveness.

Despite the demonstrated effectiveness of this model, CYACs in B.C. remain funded through a patchwork of grants, donations and short-term project funding with no provincial policy framework guaranteeing equitable access for children across the province. Without stable and predictable core funding, CYACs operate within short funding cycles that limit staffing stability, reduce training and evaluation capacity and constrained system level improvement work.

At Big Bear, we operate within this reality. Core services depend on grant applications, donations and staff carrying multiple responsibilities beyond their primary roles. While this does allow us to continue serving children and families, it creates uncertainty and limits our ability to deliver services to every client at the full capacity that they deserve. Funding instability weakens coordination and creates unequal access. Children should not receive a different response to abuse based on where they live or whether their community can raise the funds to support them.

My recommendation is that the budget establish CYACs as a provincially recognized component of B.C.’s child-serving system and develop a provincial policy framework to ensure equitable access and long-term sustainability. From a fiscal standpoint, this is an infrastructure investment that reduces duplication, improves efficiency and lowers long-term demand on Health, Justice and social services.

The issue before this committee is not whether the CYAC model works. The evidence seems clear that it does. The question is whether access to that model will continue to depend on short-term grants and local fundraising or whether B.C. will recognize CYACs as an essential public infrastructure and ensure that every child, regardless of where they live, can access a coordinated response to abuse.

This recognition and policy matters, because it establishes CYAC as a core component of a child-serving system rather than an optional enhancement dependent on local capacity. Every child only gets one first response to abuse. The response is either fragmented or coordinated. CYACs make coordination possible. The evidence shows that coordinated systems work better for children, for families and for government.

Thank you for hearing me today.

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

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): I appreciate the presentation. We have had a few presentations, so the question is going to be very specific on the request for the core funding for the CYACs. Do you have a number that should be in the report that is required to properly fund them?

Tara Ettinger: Every CYAC’s a bit different based on how they’re set up and so forth. I think when we’re looking at…. There are nine operational CYACs in B.C. If we even looked at $600,000 for each CYAC, that’s $5.4 million, $5.5 million. We do have a few more that are in development.

I guess the crucialness of that is when we’re looking at Big Bear, it’s like…. When we first opened we were on a really low budget of just over $200,000, and we keep getting an increase of children that we’re serving. This year we’re anticipated to serve over 250. That’s just for children investigations in our area.

[4:20 p.m.]

When you think about the families that are connected to that, that number doubles. When you think of the impact number of how many children we’re looking at and then across the province, we’re looking at over 1,500 families. So when we think about the long-term impact of that, are we okay with 1,500 kids not being supported appropriately within our province every year?

the impact number of how many children we’re looking at, and then across the province we’re looking at over 1,500 families.

When we think about the long-term impact of that, are we okay with 1,500 kids not being supported appropriately within our province every year? Again, going back to our budget, in the last two years we’ve been at about $350,000. That’s half of what we really need, right? Realistically, we’re needing $600,000 to $650,000 a year. That was a long answer to your question.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Just a quick follow-up. Thank you for the work you do. I definitely appreciate that you attached a number to it. I understand that it’s not a firm number but just for the report.

Rohini Arora: I had a very similar question to the Deputy Chair’s. I’ll ask if you can break that down for me a bit further. In terms of $350K, it’s what you’re currently using in the last two years, and you’re saying you need double. You said 250 children are what are projected.

Are there wraparound supports for them? You said you’re a counsellor. Is that correct? So there’s counselling, and then of course there are probably other particular trauma supports that might be needed. I’m wondering. Is it hours? How do you base it, in terms of your internal metrics?

Tara Ettinger: Of why we’re needing more funding?

Rohini Arora: Yeah, and like how it breaks down.

Tara Ettinger: I’ll just clarify my role. I’m a clinical counsellor. I started as a counsellor and saw the need for better-coordinated processes during investigations. So I did that, researched the CYACs and opened up the CYAC. Now I’m the executive director, still a clinical counsellor. That’s not my role in the CYAC.

CYACs have different roles within them. We do have advocates that support right from the get-go. So we’re providing information. There’s coordination right at the get-go. When we’re getting referrals from child protection and police, we’re making sure this is coordinated, that we’re all working together. Everyone does great jobs separately. Coming together, this is where we’re fulfilling those gaps, right? The ones that are hindered through those gaps are the children. It’s the investigation, right? We’re filling those gaps by coordinating things together.

Where funding is needed is right now with my role, honestly. I’m a coordinator. I’m an advocate. I’m applying for money. I’m the janitor. There are just multiple roles. I’m a part-time bookkeeper. We don’t have the capacity to have these separate roles. So I guess that’s where I’m looking at, where it’s: “You know what? This is where we’re needing everything to come together so we can support the CYACs and all the roles within them. Does that answer your question?

Rohini Arora: Yeah, okay.

Paul Choi (Chair): Seeing no other questions, thanks for coming in and presenting to us today.

I’d like to invite our next presenter, Shannon Wagner, from Thompson Rivers University.

Thank you so much for joining us today and allowing us to hold this meeting here. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you may begin when you’re ready.

Thompson Rivers University

Shannon Wagner: Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. First, we want to welcome you to Kamloops and to Thompson Rivers University.

I want to begin by acknowledging that we’re gathered on the ancestral lands of Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc, within Secwépemc’ulucw and the traditional territory of the Secwépemc People. At TRU, this acknowledgement is tied to the responsibility to the peoples, communities, lands and economies of this region.

TRU is a university for a place and for a purpose. Our place is interior British Columbia, a vast region of communities, industries, nations, landscapes and opportunities. Our purpose is to make education, training, research and innovation high quality, relevant and meaningful.

TRU is a dual-sector university. That means we bring together trades and technology with academic degrees, research and graduate education in one institution. When the province needs skilled workers, TRU trains them. When employers need talent, TRU develops it. When regions need real problems solved, TRU does the research. And when learners need flexible pathways, TRU builds them.

[4:25 p.m.]

We thank the government for recent investment in skilled trades. This has supported program growth, helped TRU respond to workforce needs in the Interior and laid the foundation for major project development. But this is also a difficult time for post-secondary education.

International education has changed quickly. The challenge today is not only caps or provincial attestation letters; the challenge is uncertainty. Students and families abroad are making decisions where Canada’s policy direction has become harder to read

education. International education has changed quickly. The challenge today is not only caps or provincial attestation letters. The challenge is uncertainty. Students and families abroad are making decisions where Canada’s policy direction has become harder to read. The effects demand recruitment and planning.

TRU is responding by strengthening domestic recruitment, adjusting costs and building new programs aligned with provincial and regional priorities. But institutional action alone is not enough. Policy certainty matters.

That is why the post-secondary policy review underway is so important. Last year, this committee recommended a review. Government listened. We appreciate that. Now, the opportunity is to clarify institutional roles, align policy with mandate and create a stable planning environment.

For TRU, that means recognizing what British Columbia already has in place, a dual-sector research university serving the Interior with open learning, trades and technology, regional delivery, research excellence and strong graduate education. It also means modernizing policy, so TRU can work more fully with partners and over time award PhDs in our own name, subject to DQAB approval and the same quality assurance expectations that apply across British Columbia.

British Columbia wants regional research capacity, advanced talent development and practical innovation aligned with provincial priorities. To deliver that, institutions need policy tools that match those expectations.

Wildfire demonstrates why this matters. TRU is working with B.C. wildfire service to build a wildfire research, education, training and innovation ecosystem. The goal was set by the Premier and was clear. Everything from chainsaw training to PhDs, all focused on wildfire.

The work is underway. Last week, our first cohort of graduates from wildfire education programs crossed the stage. We are expanding research through the institute for wildfire science adaptation and resiliency and working with BCWS on training modernization, wildfire research, drone technology and innovation. This is what a dual-sector research university is designed to do.

Wildfire is complex. It crosses boundaries — public safety, health, climate adaptation, transportation, economic disruption, Indigenous stewardship and community dislocation. Solutions require research, technology, operational knowledge, training and strong community partnership. TRU is leading in this area, but the scale of the challenge requires focused investment.

The wildfire initiative needs operating support and research capacity now and infrastructure investment as the program grows. Our message is straightforward. First, continue investing in dual-sector capacity, especially skilled trades and workforce training.

Second, use the post-secondary policy review to create certainty, clarify institutional roles, align policy with mandate and create a framework that allows TRU to thrive as a dual-sector research university, including enabling PhD delivering in the future.

Third, make focused investments in the wildfire ecosystem being built by TRU and the B.C. wildfire service. With clear policy, focused investment and strong partnership, TRU can do even more for Kamloops, the Interior and British Columbia. Thank you.

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

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): I’m going to admit that I gapped. So I got no. 2 and no. 3, and I missed no. 1. I’m sorry.

Shannon Wagner: No. 1 was to continue investing in dual-sector capacity, especially skilled trades and workforce training.

Paul Choi (Chair): I also want to ask, so has there been any discussion about TRU offering PhD, and if so, what sort of stage it’s at. In general, what sort of process would you have to go through to have that granted?

Shannon Wagner: Currently, there have been some discussions between our president and a number of government representatives about what the possibilities could be around the advancement of a PhD.

[4:30 p.m.]

We have looked at a variety of different options, including looking at collaborations with other institutions, and/or whether there are opportunities through policy change, legislative change, whether the policy review will have a piece of that. At the moment, we’re really looking at all the different options for how that could potentially become a reality for the future.

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay, thank you.

My understanding is your role

through policy change, legislative change, whether the policy review will have a piece of that.

At the moment, we’re really looking at all the different options for how that could potentially become a reality for the future.

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay. Thank you. My understanding is your role as VP of researchers was new in TRU as well. Just curious how it’s been kind of forming out in the last three years — understandably, research is about grants and funding — and how that sort of front has been kind of filling out.

Shannon Wagner: Obviously, I think I’m probably going to give you a bit of a biased perspective, given that it’s my position, but I think that the decision to bring the vice-president research role into TRU has been transformational for the institution. I feel pretty confident that I can say that outside of it being me in the role.

Having a vice-president research changes the way that we approach research and the research that is addressed from a community, provincial and national level here at TRU. When I think about something like TRU Wildfire, which has truly, I believe, been transformational both for the institution, the community and the province…. That has come from the activities around research at the institution.

We currently have three research chairs working in this area and another one that’s currently under recruitment. We’ve got a number of faculty members specifically dedicated to an issue that is, as we’re seeing as early as today, one of the quintessential issues of our time and in particular, for the interior of British Columbia. It requires local, dedicated and meaningful research support to really answer the questions around wildfire. And it’s vitally important and something that we’re taking really seriously, directly tied to the ability of this institution to address research needs of the region.

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay. Thank you very much. Seeing no other questions, thank you so much for coming and presenting to us today.

We’d like to invite our next presenter, Cindy Ozouf from CUPE Local 4879, to come forward please.

Thank you so much for joining us. You have five minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you may begin when you’re ready.

CUPE Local 4879, Thompson Rivers
University Support Staff

Cindy Ozouf: [An Indigenous language was spoken] and hello, everyone.

I’d like to begin by acknowledging that I’m speaking from the territory of Stk’emlúpsemc te Secwépemc within the Secwepemcul’ecw. I’m grateful to be here, and I hold deep respect for the Secwépemc People and this land.

My name is Cindy Ozouf. I am the first vice-president of CUPE 4879. We represent 500 workers right here at Thompson Rivers University and in our Williams Lake location.

Our members keep the university running every day across trades, technical, administrative, academic support; and student roles, including electricians, carpenters, technicians, administrative and admissions staff, library employees, course editors, production and marketing staff, advisers, orientation leaders; and student workers, such as co-op and work study students and teaching assistants. Together we keep the university functioning, from classrooms and labs to student services, facilities and administration and direct support to both students and faculty in their daily work.

I want to thank the panel for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of CUPE 4879.

Across B.C.’s post-secondary system, including at TRU, we’re seeing the same pattern. Expectations keep rising, but the capacity to meet them hasn’t kept up. We’re being asked to do more with less, and that’s starting to show up in very real ways for students and for the people who support them.

The CUPE B.C. submission to the 2026 post-secondary system review is clear on this point. The issue isn’t commitment; it’s capacity, coordination and sustained investment. We’re seeing longer wait times for services, fewer in-person supports and more reliance on digital systems that don’t always replace the human connection students need to succeed.

We know student success is about much more than what happens in the classroom. It depends on advising, financial aid, accessibility supports, IT services, libraries and all the day-to-day work that supports students and holds our institution together. When those areas are stretched, students feel it, especially those already dealing with financial pressures, caregiving responsibilities or who are the first in their family to attend post-secondary.

[4:35 p.m.]

CUPE workers also point to a system-level problem. Post-secondary education in B.C. has become fragmented. Institutions are often pushed to compete with one another instead of working together. This creates duplication in some areas, gaps in others and uneven access across the province.

What’s needed is a more coordinated provincial approach, one that respects the different roles of colleges, universities and polytechnics, while planning and funding them as part of a

another instead of working together. This creates duplication in some areas, gaps in others, and creates uneven access across the province.

What’s needed is a more coordinated provincial approach — one that respects the different roles of colleges, universities and polytechnics while planning and funding them as part of a connected public system.

As B.C. looks to build and grow our economy, the value of post-secondary education in public skills training is so very clear. Equally clear is the way in which our system is challenged to respond. We’re only now making the investments in trades training that should have occurred years ago. But we still lack critical investments in applied learning, progressional programs and training for emerging fields, training workers for an evolving economy and supplying the professionals our local economies need.

We also need provincial investments in research capacity and applied research, turning the discoveries of today into a more diverse, productive and sovereign economy of tomorrow. We will not achieve our broader economic goals if we fail to produce the labour force needed to achieve them. This requires planning, funding, coordination and focus.

I sit on the TRU board of governors as a CUPE member, and I recognize how fortunate I am to have that opportunity. From this position, I can see the challenges up close and the compromises we make. But more than that, I see firsthand how disconnected the conversations are from the economic realities we face or the goals we are trying to achieve for British Columbia and Canada.

For Budget 2027, we ask that you consider the following priorities.

First, directly invest in the core student services at our public post-secondary institutions. These are critical to student success and need dedicated provincial funding.

Second, increasing funding for public trades and vocational programs, applied learning and professional programs and applied research. These are all critical to building the modern economy of the future and supporting economic diversification.

And third, invest in a modernized and responsive funding model for public post-secondary education in B.C., one that ensures our institutions have the resources they need to fulfil their role as critical economic infrastructure.

If B.C. can better support public post-secondary education and the workers who deliver it, the benefits will multiply across the economy for years to come.

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

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

We’ll now turn to questions by members.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): During your presentation you talked about that duplication and gaps that we’re seeing where some things are being offered twice in the same area, whereas there’s the gaps in others.

I’m wondering if you could articulate a little bit, because you did say that it was especially in the rural. I’m just wondering if you’d articulate what you were highlighting for rural.

Cindy Ozouf: For rural, I mean, right here at TRU we have law school, we have nursing, and I think that directly serves the Interior. And I think that’s great, but I think more health care…. Nursing is just one aspect but there are so many other health care needs that our province needs, especially in a small community like Kamloops. I mean, we’re bigger but….

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you. So do you think that kind of leads into your No. 2 about increasing funding for applied learning and trades, like perhaps expanding those programs?

I know that we heard from the imaging — I think it was imaging — association specifically that there’s a real shortage of people actually able to read the test when they come in. Radio…?

A Voice: Radiography.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Okay, thank you. I was putting it in layman’s terms. But yeah, definitely. So I think….

Do you have, for the report…? When you say increase funding, is there a set number or just an overall ask?

Cindy Ozouf: An overall ask, for sure.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Okay, thank you.

Rohini Arora: Thank you for your presentation. I’m curious and just sort of digging into what the Deputy Chair was asking.

You’re talking about more health care workers. So in the Kamloops area in particular, are you talking about physiotherapists, chiropractors and that area? Or are you talking about techs, like people to take blood in labs?

Cindy Ozouf: Absolutely. For example, for opticians. We don’t have opticians in B.C. You have to travel to a different province to actually get licensed as an optician — which is part of health care, right? So just as an example.

[4:40 p.m.]

Rohini Arora: Thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. Seeing no other questions, thanks for coming and presenting to us today.

actually get licensed as an optician, which is part of health care. Just as an example.

Rohini Arora: Thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. Seeing no other questions, thanks for coming and presenting to us today.

We’ll invite our next presenter to come forward, Jack Keough from Yellowhead Community Services to come forward, please.

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

You may begin when you’re ready.

Yellowhead Community
Services Society

Jack Keough: I guess I’d like to first acknowledge that we’re meeting on the traditional, unceded territory of the Secwépemc Nation.

Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to participate in this 2027 budget consultation process. It’s been over 20 years since our agency last presented to this committee, and I’ll discuss the relevance of that later in our submission.

My name is Jack Keough. I’m the chairperson of the Yellowhead Community Services Society. We are a health care, social service non-profit and also a registered charity that delivers a wide range of services and programs in many of the small rural communities surrounding Kamloops.

These communities include Ashcroft, Barriere, Blue River, Cache Creek, Clearwater, Clinton, Lytton and Lillooet. Our catchment spans the boundaries of the Thompson-Nicola, Cariboo and Squamish-Lillooet regional districts. This deep presence in rural B.C. affords us a unique and well-informed perspective on the economic, social and health care matters that impact these communities.

Our funders include all three levels of government, Crown corps and others, namely Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, Ministry of Children and Family Development, Education, Community Living B.C., B.C. Transit, B.C. Housing, Interior Health Authority, United Way B.C., Decoda Literacy, TNRD and the districts of Clearwater, Clinton, Ashcroft and Cache Creek.

Our programs are diverse and varied. They span mental health and substance use, affordable housing, transit services, child and family services, programs for persons with intellectual and physical disabilities, women’s services and a robust and integrated range of early childhood development and children and youth with special needs.

I should also note that for three years, our agency managed the Clearwater medical clinic, thereby allowing physicians to focus on their medical practice, not the administrative functions of health care.

Let me preface our core message by stating that it is not our intention to oppose any government financial mandate or imperative. Rather, we want to highlight the real consequences when resources shrink or are realigned, particularly the profound impact on rural communities.

I’ve worked in the public and private sector for over 40 years, primarily in rural communities throughout the North and the Interior. I know this will surprise you, given my youthful appearance, but I worked for the province and was active in union politics in the early ’80s when the restraint program was introduced. I won’t elaborate on the response to that, but I will highlight that the impact on rural communities was devastating as government withdrew services from small communities throughout the province.

In 2001, the government of the day was elected on a mandate to reduce the size of government. Unfortunately, this burden fell most heavily to the rural parts of the province. In towns like Clearwater, we saw the massive downsizing of the Ministry of Forests employees, closure of correctional facilities, closure of elementary school, court services and probation services and Ministry of Human Resources. A total of approximately 160 direct jobs were lost in 2003 in Clearwater.

Now, approximately 20 years since our last government to realignment, we are fearful of decisions that could further erode the ability of rural B.C. to maintain its economic sustainability. History and our experience suggest that another economic tsunami could be on the horizon. History may not repeat itself, but it certainly rhymes and echoes.

Our second message is a warning about how governments realign services during times of restraint. Regionalization and centralization are trigger words for our communities and agencies. These initiatives typically mean or translate into the withdrawal of resident services, to be replaced by itinerant services or an equally inefficient and ineffective service delivery model.

This results in local job losses, eroded community support, excessive windshield time that detracts from the service and the further unravelling of the fabric of these communities. We have already experienced this with B.C. Transit and the 2021 effort to create hubs in the child and youth with special needs program offerings.

[4:45 p.m.]

In closing, I would like to take you back to 2001-2002. At that time, seeing the compounding impacts of mill closures, school closures and government jobs exiting to larger centres, our agency took the initiative to create the first Rural Communities Summit, held in Clearwater in June of 2003. We could see the echo of the ’82-83 restraint program. In an effort to raise awareness of the plight of rural B.C. and create a louder

mill closures, school closures and government jobs exiting to large centres. Our agency took the initiative to create the first Rural Communities Summit, held in Clearwater in June of 2003.

We could see the echo of the ’82-83 restraint program. In an effort to raise awareness of the plight of rural B.C. and create a louder, unified voice, we travelled the province enlisting the support of regional districts, local councils and key stakeholders.

Today we are bringing the same voice to you. We are imploring you to give serious consideration to the survival of these regions and rural communities. We ask that the vital ground-level services offered by agencies like Yellowhead Community Services are not eroded but enhanced, ensuring that rural British Columbia remains a viable and sustainable place to live, work and exist.

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

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

We will now turn to questions by members.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Is there anything more that you wanted to add? We do have a short time here, so I just wanted to…. I hear that you do a whole wide range of services, so if there’s something that you forgot to mention or want to add….

Jack Keough: Thank you for that question. Yes, given the five-minute time frame, you’re trying to get your message and your points across. What we’ve experienced — and this happens repeatedly — is a government will make an announcement around regionalization of a service. I’ll give you an example. It’s a major reason why we are here. We are fearful of this.

Over the last 20 years, we have developed a wide range of integrated early childhood development services and programs. We’ve pulled most of the services out of Kamloops but also got additional funding. We were creating hubs and deconstructing silos when nobody was talking about it — the reason being, we had to. We didn’t have large amounts of money.

We brought these services together. We built them around day cares, preschool, infant development programs, supported child development, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, autism services. We get no funding for autism services, yet we developed it ourselves. We even recruited a pediatrician from Kamloops to visit Clearwater and to embed herself into our services and programs.

So we’re way ahead of the curve, but what happens is government will come along and say, “We’ve got a great idea; we want to create a hub,” and they will take all the services out that we’ve created in Clearwater and move them to Kamloops. That’s what regionalization means.

We’ve seen that with B.C. Transit. We’re fearful it’s going to happen with children with special needs. We’ve seen it with WorkBC. It happens repeatedly. That’s our message that we want to get across. We can’t afford to lose any more services out of these communities.

We used to have a Thompson Rivers presence in the community in both Barriere. The legislation that created this university…. It’s interesting. The previous presenter…. It was created on the basis that there would be regional centres. I argued with the vice-president at the time, saying: “You can’t withdraw that service.” He said: “Well, it did say that in the legislation. You’re correct, but it never defined it.” It could be a laptop on a desk. So there are no longer regional centres in those communities.

Rohini Arora: First off, I just want to thank you so much for your presentation, and solidarity to all of your work in the labour movement. I know how important it is.

I wanted to ask you…. My brain just did a flip on me.

Jack Keough: It’s the end of the day, isn’t it?

Rohini Arora: That’s okay. I wanted to ask if you’ve had conversations with…. You mentioned so many ministries. I tried to track everything you said in terms of what Yellowhead does, but have there been conversations about the fear around this regionalization and what it could mean? Has this been communicated to anybody and if so, where?

Jack Keough: Again, based on our experience, we think it’s more effective if we get ahead of the decision-making. We have been in situations where we have come behind the decision-making and are trying to realign. In anticipation of this…. This is based on the 2021-2022 document that the ministry put out around these hubs. When the new announcement of an additional 430-some million for children with special needs was announced, although the term “hub” wasn’t used, we felt that we’d better get ahead of this before this happens and it’s too late.

[4:50 p.m.]

So yes, we’ve written Jennifer Charlesworth, the children’s representative. We actually have meetings slated to meet with her. We have a Zoom meeting with the representative from the ministry, and we’ve enlisted support from our MLAs as well as our local governments.

yes, we wrote, and we’ve written Jennifer Charlesworth, the children’s representative. We actually have meetings slated to meet with her. We have a Zoom meeting with the representative from the ministry, and we’ve enlisted support from our MLAs as well as our local governments.

Rohini Arora: Follow-up?

Paul Choi (Chair): Just confirming, Deputy Chair, did you have a…?

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): It’s okay. Give her, her follow-up.

Rohini Arora: I’m also the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth.

Jack Keough: It’s nice to meet you.

Rohini Arora: Nice to meet you. I’d love to hear from you if you want to send something over to our committee.

Jack Keough: We definitely will, and it’s interesting because Minister Wickens today, of course, announced the possible integration of Social Development and Poverty Reduction with MCFD. We applaud that move, but…. I was going to say something else. Now, I’m getting that little bit of a brain fog.

We just hope that, again…. The whole notion of hubs and integrated services — it’s a great idea. I used to be on the Provincial Child Care Council. If any of you saw a schematic of early childhood development services, what they looked like ten years ago and even present, it’s a dog’s breakfast. And excuse my language and my metaphor, but it’s all over the place. So we really tried to bring it all together so there wouldn’t be duplication, and it’s a much more efficient system.

And yes, I would love to contact your committee. Thank you for your time.

Paul Choi (Chair): All right. Thanks for coming and presenting to us today.

We’d like to invite our next presenter, Kúkpi7 Rosanne Casimir from Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc.

Thank you for joining us.

You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you may begin when you’re ready.

Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc

Kúkpi7 Rosanne Casimir: Perfect. Thank you. [An Indigenous language was spoken.] Very wonderful to be here. I know it’s the end of the day but also welcoming all of you to Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc, and I really appreciate this opportunity to be able to share.

Good afternoon and thank you again, and I’m honoured to be here on behalf of the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc, presenting to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

I appreciate the province’s focus on fiscal responsibility, protecting the core services and investing in infrastructure that strengthens British Columbia’s long-term economic future. These are priorities that we also share.

And today I’m here to speak about the urgent need to rebuild the red bridge and why it must be included as a priority on Budget 2027.

So first and foremost, this is a matter of public safety. The red bridge is the fastest and most direct route for first responders to access Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc lands. Without it, emergency response time is delayed, and traffic is forced onto congested and less safe routes. Risk also increases for medical, fire and public safety incidents. This directly impacts not only our Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc members but also residents and businesses.

And just quick, we have probably about 5,600 people that reside on Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc. We have 1,400 band members plus, but we have only about 500 that reside on our reserve. So reliable access is not optional when we’re looking at serving everyone. It is a fundamental safety requirement. Since the loss of that bridge, people have been seen walking over the nearby train bridge. That is unsafe.

The red bridge is also a critical economic connector. Businesses on the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc lands are experiencing reduced access and visibility but also loss of customer traffic as well. And that is difficulty attracting investment.

Some have put it plainly: “The red bridge, any colour.” They’ve said that because that reflects the urgency.

And this is a current constraint on economic activity that has a broader impact. Businesses operating on the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc lands support employment, supply chains but also regional growth. Businesses on the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc lands generate significant tax revenues for both British Columbia as well as Canada through corporate income as well as sales tax. Yet without reliable infrastructure like the red bridge, that economic contribution and the revenue that it also generates is put at risk.

[4:55 p.m.]

This is not just a local issue. It directly affects provincial and federal economic outcomes as well. When access is constrained, growth slows, investment is discouraged, and economic momentum is also disrupted. Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc property tax and lease revenues are also affected. So rebuilding this bridge supports long-term economic resilience.

Many businesses are experiencing uncertainty about the future with some considering closing or relocating its conditions if it doesn’t improve. These businesses

also disrupted. Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc property tax and lease revenues are also affected, so rebuilding this bridge supports long-term economic resilience.

Many businesses are experiencing uncertainty about the future, with some considering closing or relocating its conditions if it doesn’t improve. These businesses represent a diverse economic base, including construction, manufacturing, retail but also services.

The absence of the bridge is creating ongoing financial strain, not just a one-time gap. So for Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc, replacing the Red Bridge is more than infrastructure. It is about self-determination, economic reconciliation, participation in the regional growth.

The Red Bridge was a visible symbol of connection between the Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc as well as the city of Kamloops. Its absence creates a divide. Its replacement will be a powerful example of reconciliation in action.

The bridge supports everyday life. It connects people to employment, services, but also family and community. It serves our members as well as non-members alike, including those without transportation, so this is essential infrastructure for the entire region.

I also wanted to add that when we’re looking at how this ties specifically to reconciliation, well, it’s not only about policy. It is also about infrastructure that enables participation. So that Red Bridge — it supports Indigenous economic development. It also improves access to employment and services. It also enables TteS to fully participate in the regional economy.

With it, we need to restore the opportunity, the connectivity, but also that shared growth. And reconciliation is demonstrated through practical, measurable outcomes that include jobs, revenue and access.

kukwstsétsemc.

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

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Welcome. I was excited to see you walk through the door.

We did have someone here earlier advocating for the Red Bridge, so we’ve heard from them as well. I just wanted to give you that space too if you had something more to add to your presentation.

Kúkpi7 Rosanne Casimir: Sure, there is. I just wanted to add a piece on the tax contributions. I think that’s quite important, especially…. It does quantify. I don’t have the exact figures present to today, but we know that businesses on the Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc lands employ a significant amount of workforce in this region, this area. It generates a lot of sales and corporate activity, and it also contributes across multiple tax streams.

I know that we’d be very happy to work with the province to quantify those contributions, but the key point is that the province is already benefiting from this economic activity, and that revenue is also now at risk.

When I look at the provincial tax that’s collected on our reserve, that includes personal, corporate, provincial sales, but also carbon taxes and also from the households and the businesses. Also the carbon tax, motor, as well. There’s also excise tax, and that includes fuel but also tobacco. So a lot of that revenue goes to the province, and we also contribute a lot federally as well.

And the majority of taxes…. People think that comes to our band. It doesn’t. It goes outwards. And knowing and sharing the population that we have on the reserve, the majority is open to everyone that comes to choose and live and reside, play, work within the Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc area. Even when I look at our own workforce, they’re paying taxes, but it doesn’t come back to the band.

That’s always a huge area and a question that I always like to share with people, especially who don’t know. We have, in the past, worked with fiscal realities on leakage studies of taxation that is generated on reserve but also leaves our reserve, and it is quite exponential.

[5:00 p.m.]

And so knowing that it goes to the province and also to the federal government and just knowing how that ties in with being able to support that in the budget is something that I think is really important, and it is quite critical.

Bryan Tepper: Does the bridge go from right downtown Kamloops to reserve land?

Kúkpi7 Rosanne Casimir: Very close. It just goes over the river. So it’s not a very big

is something that I think is really important, and it is quite critical.

Bryan Tepper: Does the bridge go from right downtown Kamloops to reserve land?

Kúkpi7 Rosanne Casimir: Very close. It just goes over the river. It’s not a very big bridge, but it’s a very important bridge. I know you’re probably not familiar with the Kamloops area, but if you look, there’s a river, the South Thompson, coming in this way. It is a bridge that connects from Lawrence Street over…. It’s right in the downtown core. That is really just pretty much adjacent to like Royal Inland Hospital, to many of the services and the health services that are also provided down by London Drugs area.

It also serves many of the…. You know, people always assume the industrial park. It’s more than an industrial park. We have a huge housing development just right over the bridge, and it’s not band housing. It’s actually city held, and it’s public housing. Then beyond that are many…. You know, there’s medical health. There are tribal councils. There are a lot of heavy industrial and light industrial businesses and plants and lots of businesses that are feeling the pinch. So it’s just like all right there, like adjacent. If we step outside, we could probably see it.

Bryan Tepper: The reason I asked actually is because there is federal money. I’m curious if we make a recommendation around this, if we can recommend trying to get some of the federal money and help out the government in committing to building back the bridge here. We’re just looking for ways we can go about this.

Kúkpi7 Rosanne Casimir: I love that concept, because again, we contribute significantly from our IR 1 to the province. We also do that with the federal government as well. Again, with the federal government, it’s the personal income tax, the corporate tax, GST, excise, gas, alcohol, cannabis, but also tobacco. That all goes to the federal government as well.

Again, I think it’s an excellent idea. I have heard someone advocating politically to also have an outreach with the federal government. And I’m on board with that, because to me, I’m totally supportive of how we can do this here for the greater.

Bryan Tepper: I think we need to get it built.

Kúkpi7 Rosanne Casimir: Excellent. I agree. And I’m really glad to hear that we had our acting deputy come in and do a presentation earlier.

Rohini Arora: We got socks.

Kúkpi7 Rosanne Casimir: Yes, I know. I didn’t bring you socks, but I brought you a package.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Thank you for the package too. You know, when we leave, and we hear a lot during these weeks that we’re travelling, and we have something concrete to add to our recommendations….

Kúkpi7 Rosanne Casimir: Absolutely. I appreciate that. For me it was really important to provide you that recommendation sheet and also to provide you a little something as I was going through my presentation. To me it’s just something that is so important. And I’m just always open to more questions and looking at ways to support alongside the city as well as MoTT and also, hopefully, with the province as well to be able to advocate with the federal government to be able to support building this bridge sooner than later.

I know that looking at…. The longer that we wait, prices change. And looking at how important it is to act now, knowing that there are a lot of collaborative steps that are taking place between the city, the Kamloops, as well as the Ministry of Transportation and Transit and doing the feasibility…. That’s working with the province. So to me, those are excellent collaborative efforts to achieve and accomplish what everyone has been asking for. [An Indigenous language was spoken.]

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. A quick question from the Deputy Chair.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Just a comment. The only thing I really wrote in my notes was the Red Bridge back in any colour.

I think it hits, but it’s also kind of sad because it was a historical bridge. Keremeos has a historical red bridge, and I would be very sad if something happened. So I know that it is important to the community to maintain some of that historical significance, but I do get why you said that we just need the bridge. But hopefully there could be some cultural…. You know, whether there was history with the bridge and the colour and the design and all of that. So I’m hoping they’re able to reincorporate that.

There’s a great dog beach that’s right below that I used to take my dog to.

[5:05 p.m.]

Kúkpi7 Rosanne Casimir: I totally agree. I know that we’re very actively involved when it comes to cultural heritage but also how to support with educating. We’re fully on board.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much. Seeing no other questions, thank you for coming and presenting to us today.

Kúkpi7 Rosanne Casimir: Thank you. Very much appreciated.

very actively involved when it comes to cultural heritage, but also how to support with educating, and we’re fully on board.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. Seeing no other questions, thank you for coming and presenting to us today. I will ask if there is any other business.

Seeing none, I want to thank everyone who presented today. Thank you for having us in Kamloops, and I also want to thank the members for all your thoughtful questions. Thank you to all the staff and Hansard for your support.

That concludes our meeting today. Our committee will be in Prince George tomorrow morning from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. for our next public hearing. At this point, I will seek a motion to adjourn.

The committee adjourned at 5:06 p.m.