Black Bear Deaths in BC Drop to Lowest Level in Over a Decade

New data from the British Columbia Conservation Officer Service shows that fewer black bears were killed in the province in 2025 than in any year over the past decade, marking a significant decline in lethal wildlife encounters.

According to the figures, conservation officers dispatched 178 black bears for public safety reasons and euthanized 33 bears due to injury or welfare concerns. The combined total represents the lowest number of bears killed in conflict situations in roughly 15 years of available records and reflects a substantial drop compared with previous years, including a sharp decrease from 2023 levels.

Conservation officials note that bears are classified differently depending on circumstances. Bears are dispatched when they pose an immediate risk to public safety, often after becoming habituated to human food sources and repeatedly entering residential areas. Euthanization occurs when bears are suffering from serious injuries or health issues that cannot be treated.

Regionally, the West Coast recorded the highest number of bears killed for public safety reasons, while the Okanagan reported the most euthanizations linked to animal welfare concerns.

Strong Natural Food Supply Credited for Decline

Wildlife experts point to a particularly strong berry crop across much of British Columbia in 2025 as a key factor behind the reduced number of bear conflicts. When natural food sources are abundant, bears are less likely to roam into communities in search of unsecured garbage, compost, or other human-related attractants.

Some communities also reported fewer bear sightings overall, suggesting that many bears remained deeper in forested areas rather than venturing into populated zones.

Focus Remains on Prevention and Public Safety

Despite the encouraging numbers, conservation officers stress that human-bear conflicts remain largely preventable and continue to emphasize public education as a cornerstone of wildlife management.

Residents are encouraged to:

Secure garbage, compost, pet food, and bird feeders;
Keep barbecues clean and manage fruit trees carefully;
Practice bear-aware behaviour when hiking or living near forested areas;
Report bear sightings when animals show concerning behaviour.

Officials say proactive measures help protect both people and wildlife by reducing situations that lead to bears becoming habituated and ultimately destroyed.

A Positive Trend, With Caution

While the decline in bear killings is viewed as a positive sign for wildlife conservation in British Columbia, authorities caution that continued vigilance is necessary, particularly as communities expand into traditional bear habitat.

Conservation officers and wildlife advocates agree that ongoing education, community cooperation, and responsible management of attractants will be essential to maintaining and improving this trend in the years ahead.

North Island Film Seeks Sayward Locals For Extras

A feature film set to shoot on Northern Vancouver Island early next year is inviting local residents to get involved, bringing both community participation and an international story to the region.

The production, titled Exchange, will be filmed in Sayward, Campbell River and nearby locations from February 4 to 14, 2026. Casting is now underway for local background performers to appear in non-speaking roles such as students, townspeople and police officers. Applicants from their teens through middle age are welcome, and no previous acting experience is required.

Producers note that background performers are essential in creating authentic community environments throughout the movie. Although the roles do not involve dialogue, participants will be on set with professional cast and crew, gaining a close-up look at how a feature film is made. Scheduling will depend on the needs of each scene, with some individuals called for specific shoot days.

Exchange is described as a character-focused drama with strong thriller elements. The story follows an 18‑year‑old Thai exchange student who vanishes while studying in Canada. Her mother travels overseas to search for her, confronting cultural challenges, isolation and unsettling clues as she navigates an unfamiliar country. During her search, she forms a connection with a Thai teenager living in Canada, and together they work to uncover what happened. As the investigation deepens, tensions surrounding the exchange program and the student’s host family begin to surface.

Written and directed by Chatchai Hongsirikun, the film is being produced as a non‑union feature. Alongside background roles, the team has also been casting several speaking parts—such as police officers and local youth—with a focus on hiring Vancouver Island talent whenever possible.

The production is expected to bring economic benefits to Northern Vancouver Island, including increased demand for accommodations, local services and short-term employment. Community participation is also a key priority, helping highlight the region’s landscapes and small-town character on screen.

Residents interested in appearing as background performers are asked to send their name, age, a recent photo, availability during the filming window and contact details to sublunarcasting@gmail.com.

The production team encourages anyone curious about the filmmaking process to apply, emphasizing that enthusiasm and local involvement are just as valuable as experience.

Critics Say Canada Is Importing LNG It Could Produce at Home

Canada’s stance on liquefied natural gas (LNG) is facing renewed criticism, as opponents argue the federal government’s long‑held claim that there is “no business case” for Canadian LNG exports no longer aligns with reality — especially now that the country is importing LNG from overseas.

For years, federal leaders have maintained that exporting Canadian natural gas as LNG was not economically viable. Critics say this position slowed or halted key infrastructure projects — including pipelines and coastal export terminals — that would have enabled Western Canadian gas to reach global markets.

Because of these delays, Canada failed to build meaningful LNG export capacity despite being one of the world’s top natural gas producers. During that time, countries such as Germany, Japan, and Greece expressed interest in Canadian LNG, but industry proponents were repeatedly told that the economics did not justify major investment.

The situation took a striking turn when Canada recently imported a full LNG shipment from Egypt. The cargo was liquefied at the Idku terminal, shipped across the Atlantic, and unloaded at the Saint John import facility in New Brunswick, where it was regasified and fed into the domestic system. Critics argue this demonstrates that both supply and demand clearly exist — and that Canada’s policy environment has constrained domestic production and export opportunities.

Opposition parties have seized on the import as evidence that the government’s “no business case” stance has allowed other countries to dominate global LNG markets while Canada missed out on jobs, investment, and the chance to help displace higher‑emission fuels like coal abroad.

These concerns have surfaced repeatedly in the House of Commons, with MPs pointing to international partners that sought Canadian LNG and arguing that federal policies prevented the infrastructure needed to meet that demand.

Supporters of the government’s approach counter that climate commitments and emissions standards must guide decisions on large fossil fuel projects. They also note that global LNG prices, construction costs, and market volatility shape investment choices, and they highlight ongoing discussions about expanding energy infrastructure — including potential export capacity in Eastern Canada.

The debate ultimately reflects larger questions about Canada’s place in global energy markets, how to balance economic opportunity with climate goals, and the extent to which federal policy encourages or discourages private‑sector investment. With LNG remaining a major global energy commodity, decisions made now will shape Canada’s competitiveness well into the future.

Timeline: Canadian LNG Policy and Development

Year	Event	Significance
2005–2010	Initial LNG export proposals	Early companies propose coastal LNG export terminals in British Columbia to serve Asian markets; government reviews environmental and economic feasibility.
2011	Federal government studies LNG export economics	Officials assess global LNG demand and Canadian costs, concluding that infrastructure investments were high and market risks significant.
2014–2015	Liberal and Conservative governments debate LNG exports	Policy uncertainty grows as governments question the economic justification for large-scale LNG exports amid fluctuating global prices.
2016	LNG Canada project receives federal environmental approval	The first major project gets greenlight, but financing and construction timelines face delays; debates continue over climate impacts.
2018	FID (Final Investment Decision) delays	Companies cite market risks, pricing volatility, and lack of regulatory clarity, delaying the start of LNG export projects.
2020	Federal government emphasizes “no business case” for Canadian LNG	Government officials argue that exporting LNG is not economically viable under current market conditions; critics say this discourages investment.
2022	Multiple proposed projects stall or cancel	Several BC LNG terminal projects fail to secure financing or government approvals, reinforcing the perception that Canada is losing ground in global LNG markets.
2025	Canada imports LNG from Egypt	Despite being a major natural gas producer, Canada imports LNG to meet domestic demand, illustrating ongoing supply gaps and infrastructure challenges.
2026	Calls for policy review grow	Opposition politicians argue that Canada’s export policies have ceded global markets to competitors and that domestic LNG could provide jobs, trade opportunities, and climate benefits abroad.

BC Property Rights Under Scrutiny as Critics Say Government Response Falls Short

Private property rights in British Columbia are once again under intense scrutiny after a recent court ruling affirmed elements of Aboriginal title that overlap with privately owned land in Richmond. The decision has sparked political debate and legal uncertainty, with critics arguing that the provincial government’s response—ranging from legislative amendments to financial guarantees—falls short of resolving the confusion created by the ruling.

Background: Court Ruling and Its Impact

The controversy originates from a case in which the court recognized Aboriginal title claims over specific parcels of land, including some already held by private owners. The ruling has raised difficult questions about how Indigenous rights intersect with long‑established private property interests.

Homeowners in Richmond say they are already feeling the effects, reporting difficulties selling their homes, securing mortgages, and obtaining financing. Real estate experts warn that prolonged uncertainty could depress property values and deter investment or development in the affected area.

Government Response

Premier David Eby’s government has introduced proposed amendments to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) and announced up to $154 million in financial assistance for impacted homeowners. The funding is intended to help residents navigate legal and financial complications stemming from the ruling.

Provincial officials describe the measures as an attempt to balance the protection of property owners with the province’s commitments to Indigenous reconciliation. They emphasize that DRIPA is part of B.C.’s broader effort to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and ensure Indigenous rights are reflected in provincial law.

Criticism From Opposition

Opposition voices argue the government’s actions are insufficient. Steve Kooner, Conservative MLA for Richmond‑Queensborough and Opposition critic for the Attorney General, has dismissed the measures as “band‑aid solutions” that fail to address the underlying issues.

Kooner points to several concerns:

Many homeowners were unaware of potential legal implications until after the ruling.
The uncertainty is already disrupting property sales and financing in the region.
Decisions made when Eby served as Attorney General may have contributed to the current ambiguity around how Aboriginal title interacts with private land.

He contends that only sweeping legislative reform—including the possibility of revising or repealing DRIPA—would adequately safeguard private property rights while clarifying how they coexist with constitutionally protected Indigenous rights.

Legal and Policy Context

Legal scholars note that the issue sits at the intersection of provincial legislation, judicial interpretations of Aboriginal title, and constitutional protections for Indigenous rights. Because Aboriginal title is constitutionally recognized, courts must reconcile it with other land interests, including private ownership. This creates a complex legal landscape in which even long‑established property rights can be affected by newly affirmed Indigenous claims.

Broader Implications

The Richmond case is being closely monitored across the province. Many see it as a potential precedent for how B.C. will navigate the relationship between private property rights and Indigenous reconciliation. There is growing concern that similar disputes could arise elsewhere, with implications for development, housing markets, and investor confidence.

Political analysts expect the debate over DRIPA and property rights to remain a flashpoint in provincial politics. Homeowners are calling for clearer communication from the government and a more definitive legal framework that reconciles private property protections with constitutional obligations to Indigenous communities.

Next Steps

As legal proceedings continue, stakeholders are watching to see whether the government will pursue deeper legislative reforms or rely primarily on financial compensation for affected landowners. The decisions made in the coming months could shape how property rights and Indigenous title are balanced not only in British Columbia but potentially across Canada.

Timeline: Property Rights and Aboriginal Title in BC

Year	Event	Significance
1997	Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (Supreme Court of Canada)	Landmark ruling establishing the legal framework for Aboriginal title in Canada. Recognized that Indigenous groups have constitutionally protected rights to their traditional lands.
2019	B.C. passes DRIPA (Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act)	Requires provincial laws to be aligned with UNDRIP (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples). Lays groundwork for reconciliation policies affecting land management.
2020–2022	Implementation and consultations on DRIPA	Provincial government begins policy alignment; some private landowners raise concerns about potential impact on property rights.
2023	Court case filed in Richmond over Aboriginal title	Indigenous groups claim title over areas including privately owned land; case raises questions about the intersection of Aboriginal title and private property.
2025	Court rules in favor of Indigenous title claim	Confirms that Aboriginal title applies to some privately owned parcels; creates uncertainty for homeowners and developers.
Late 2025	Government announces financial compensation plan	Premier Eby’s government proposes up to $154 million in financial guarantees to affected property owners.
Early 2026	MLA Steve Kooner and opposition criticize government response	Opposition labels measures as “band-aid solutions” that do not fully protect private property rights. Calls for DRIPA reform or repeal continue.
2026 and beyond	Ongoing legal and policy discussions	Further court challenges and legislative revisions expected; potential precedent-setting impact for property rights and Indigenous reconciliation in B.C.

Federal Firearms Buyback Program Faces Criticism Over Cost, Participation, and Effectiveness

Canada’s federal firearms buyback program is drawing renewed scrutiny after a recent pilot phase saw very limited participation, prompting broader debate about its cost, implementation challenges, and overall impact on public safety.

The initiative was launched as part of the federal response to the 2020 prohibition on certain firearm models. It is designed to let owners of newly banned firearms voluntarily surrender them for compensation, with the aim of reducing the number of prohibited weapons in circulation.

Early results, however, have intensified criticism. Publicly discussed figures show that only a small number of firearms were turned in during the pilot, a level of participation that critics say falls far short of expectations. They argue the outcome underscores a gap between the program’s goals and the realities of lawful firearms ownership in Canada.

Licensed gun owners already operate under strict federal rules, including background checks, mandatory safety training, continuous eligibility monitoring, and secure storage requirements. Opponents of the buyback maintain that these individuals are not the primary contributors to gun crime, which they link more closely to smuggling and the illegal firearms trade.

Recent Statistics Canada analysis of homicides where origin information was available indicates that the vast majority of shooting homicides involve firearms that were not legally owned by the accused. In other words, the Canadian Government’s misguided focus on legal, licensed gun owners instead of criminals will not result in a significant reduction of gun violence.

Cost concerns have also become a focal point. The program has required extensive planning, staffing, and coordination with provinces, police services, and private contractors. With low participation in the pilot, critics question whether the significant public spending involved can be justified, particularly at a time of heightened attention to government expenditures and affordability pressures.

Implementation issues have added further complications. Several provinces have expressed reluctance to participate, citing jurisdictional disputes and doubts about the program’s effectiveness. Practical challenges — such as transporting, assessing, and disposing of surrendered firearms — have contributed to delays and rising administrative costs.

Supporters counter that firearms policy must be assessed over the long term and argue that reducing access to prohibited weapons remains an important public safety measure. Federal officials also emphasize that compensation programs are intended to respect property rights while enforcing updated regulations.

Even so, critics argue that resources would be better directed toward border enforcement, action against organized crime, and initiatives addressing the underlying causes of violence. They warn that focusing on compliant gun owners risks diverting attention from strategies that could more directly reduce criminal activity.

As the federal government weighs its next steps, the pilot’s results are expected to influence decisions about whether the buyback will be expanded, redesigned, or reconsidered. Future direction may hinge on participation rates, financial implications, and the program’s ability to demonstrate clear public safety benefits.

The discussion reflects a wider national debate over firearms policy — one that continues to balance public safety priorities, fiscal responsibility, and the rights of lawful gun owners across Canada.

Canadians To Face More Tax Hikes In 2026

Canadians could see their overall tax burden rise in 2026, according to a new analysis from a national taxpayers’ advocacy group, despite the federal government’s plans for targeted tax cuts.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) says that although some income tax reductions are scheduled, increases to payroll deductions and other federal levies are likely to outweigh those savings for many families.

A key change is the planned reduction to the lowest federal personal income tax bracket. The government has promoted the cut as a measure to improve affordability for lower‑ and middle‑income earners. The CTF, however, argues that any benefit will be modest once other tax‑related cost increases are taken into account.

Payroll taxes are set to climb in 2026, with higher Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Employment Insurance (EI) contributions. These mandatory deductions affect most workers and are split between employees and employers. According to the CTF, the combined increases could cost individual workers several hundred dollars over the year, reducing disposable income.

The report also points to the ongoing effects of carbon pricing. Although the consumer carbon tax was removed in 2025, the industrial carbon price remains and is scheduled to rise again in 2026. The CTF contends that businesses pass these costs on to consumers through higher prices for goods, services, and transportation, adding to inflationary pressures.

Another expected increase comes from federal alcohol excise taxes, which automatically adjust each year based on inflation. This means beer, wine, and spirits are set for another tax hike in April 2026, affecting both consumers and hospitality businesses.

CTF federal director Franco Terrazzano says the combined impact of these measures means Canadians should not anticipate meaningful tax relief next year. He argues that government revenues are growing more because of higher taxes and mandatory contributions than from economic expansion.

The federal government, meanwhile, defends its approach, highlighting targeted tax cuts and social programs aimed at affordability and economic stability. Officials also emphasize that CPP enhancements are designed to strengthen long‑term retirement security, framing payroll contributions as investments rather than traditional taxes.

Critics maintain that with many Canadians already facing high housing costs, rising food prices, and elevated interest rates, additional deductions and indirect taxes will further strain household budgets.

As 2026 nears, the CTF is urging the federal government to broaden tax relief and rein in spending growth, warning that without changes, Canadians will continue to feel the effects of an increasing overall tax load.