Medic Minutes With Greg September 2026

Building a Better at Home Community

I’m excited to announce that I have been meeting with the coordinator of a fantastic volunteer-based organization called Better At Home.

This group provides a variety of non-medical home support services to community members. There is no cost to use the service as it is funded by United Way and run by volunteers.

It is my hope that we can start a local Sayward Chapter of Better at Home and so I’m looking for volunteers!

Please consult the Better At Home information in this month’s edition of the Go Sayward Scoop to see if you’d be interested in helping with any of the activities listed.

You don’t need any particular set of skills, even just the willingness to sit with someone and visit for a while is very valuable.

If you are interested in learning more, please call, text or email me at:

250-201-7539

CP.Sayward@BCEHS.ca

Gregory Litschke

Local Business Highlight – Advanced Builders

Advanced Builders is a diversified construction and general contracting company serving residential and commercial projects locally and across the North Island.

The company offers services covering the construction process from pre-construction planning and contract administration to construction, renovation and restoration.

Advanced Builders says its approach allows clients to work with a coordinated team throughout a project, with a focus on timely completion, cost-effective execution and quality control.

The company brings together experienced professionals and specialized teams from across the construction industry, working collaboratively through the design and building process.

For Advanced Builders, construction is about more than the physical structure. The company emphasizes collaboration with employees, clients and local communities, viewing strong working relationships as an important part of every project.

Building trust is also a stated priority, with the company emphasizing honesty, safety and accountability in its relationships with clients and partners.

Advanced Builders also says it looks for intelligent and more sustainable approaches to construction wherever possible.

With experience spanning new construction, renovations and restoration, the company provides services for a range of residential, commercial and historical projects across the North Island.

For property owners, businesses and organizations in communities such as Sayward, the company offers a local option for managing construction projects from planning through completion.

Visit www.Advanced-Builders.ca for more info.

Campfire Ban Lifted Across Vancouver Island, But Some Local Restrictions Remain

VANCOUVER ISLAND, B.C. — Campfires are once again permitted across the Coastal Fire Centre as wildfire conditions improve, but residents and visitors are being reminded that the lifting of the provincial ban does not necessarily mean every community has reopened outdoor burning.

The BC Wildfire Service lifted its Category 1 campfire prohibition at noon on Thursday, September 3, covering the entire Coastal Fire Centre, including Vancouver Island. The decision follows recent rainfall and cooler fall conditions that have reduced wildfire danger across much of the region.

The change will come as welcome news to campers and residents hoping to enjoy a late-season fire.

Campfires are allowed — but bigger fires aren’t

While Category 1 campfires are now permitted under the Coastal Fire Centre’s rules, Category 2 and Category 3 open fires remain prohibited throughout the region, with the exception of the Haida Gwaii Forest District.

Other prohibited activities and equipment include:

  • Fireworks

  • Binary exploding targets

  • Burn barrels and burn cages

  • Controlled-air incinerators

  • Air curtain burners

  • Carbonizers

The restrictions are intended to limit the potential for human-caused wildfires as B.C. moves into the fall season.

Local fire bans can still apply

The provincial announcement does not override restrictions imposed by individual municipalities, parks or other authorities.

That distinction is particularly important on Vancouver Island, where fire conditions can vary considerably from one community to another.

For example, Sooke’s campfire prohibition remains in effect despite the Coastal Fire Centre lifting its Category 1 restriction. The District says local fire danger remains high to extreme and that recent rainfall was not sufficient to reduce the risk enough to lift its municipal prohibition.

Metchosin has also kept its local campfire prohibition in place because of continued high to extreme fire danger.

Residents should therefore check their local fire department or municipal website before starting a fire.

What about Campbell River and North Island communities?

In Campbell River, recreational fires are permitted subject to the city’s local regulations.

The city’s rules allow recreational fires for cooking or providing heat when they are contained in an approved permanent outdoor fireplace, barbecue or fire pit no larger than 60 centimetres (24 inches) in diameter, or in a fully enclosed burner or similar device. A fire must be supervised and appropriate extinguishing equipment must be readily available.

Category 2 and Category 3 open fires remain prohibited.

The same principle applies throughout the North Island: provincial restrictions are only part of the picture. Local governments can impose additional restrictions when conditions in their communities warrant them.

Fire safety remains important

The end of the campfire prohibition does not mean wildfire season is necessarily over.

BC Wildfire Service says the decline in fire danger is the result of a combination of recent rainfall, shorter days, longer nights and cooler temperatures. However, officials continue to encourage caution whenever people use an outdoor fire.

Anyone having a campfire should:

  • Never leave it unattended

  • Avoid having a fire during windy conditions

  • Keep water and firefighting tools nearby

  • Keep the fire contained

  • Completely extinguish it before leaving

  • Check for any local restrictions before lighting it

A fire should be completely out and cool to the touch before it is left unattended.

Significant penalties remain for prohibited fires

The consequences for violating an active fire prohibition can be substantial.

A person found contravening an open-burning prohibition can receive a $1,150 violation ticket and may face an administrative penalty of up to $10,000.

If the matter goes to court, a conviction can result in a fine of up to $100,000 and/or up to one year in jail. Anyone whose prohibited fire causes or contributes to a wildfire may also be ordered to pay firefighting and associated costs.

Check before you light

For people across Vancouver Island, the return of campfires is a welcome sign that conditions are beginning to shift toward fall.

But the rules can differ between communities, and conditions can change quickly.

Before lighting a fire, residents should check the latest BC Wildfire Service restrictions as well as local municipal or fire-department rules for their specific location.

Wildfires, unattended campfires and open-burning violations can be reported to 1-800-663-5555 or *5555 from a cellphone.

BC Tax Expansion Faces Growing Opposition as October 1st Deadline Nears

New Leger poll finds two-thirds of British Columbians want planned PST expansion cancelled, while businesses warn of higher costs and a legislative committee calls for repeal

British Columbia’s planned expansion of the provincial sales tax is facing mounting opposition from taxpayers, businesses, industry organizations and a multi-party legislative committee, with the new tax rules scheduled to take effect October 1.

A new Leger poll commissioned by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) found that 66 per cent of British Columbians want the provincial government to cancel the expansion, compared with 15 per cent who support proceeding with it. Another 19 per cent were undecided. Among respondents who expressed an opinion, 82 per cent favoured cancelling the changes.

The polling comes less than two months before the expanded tax is scheduled to take effect and shortly after the B.C. legislature’s Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services recommended that the government repeal the planned expansion.

Despite the recommendation, Finance Minister Brenda Bailey has said the government intends to proceed.

What is changing October 1?

The B.C. government’s 2026 budget expands the province’s 7 per cent PST to several professional and commercial services that have historically been exempt.

Beginning October 1, PST will generally apply to:

  • Accounting and bookkeeping services
  • Architectural services
  • Engineering and geoscience services
  • Security and private investigation services
  • Non-residential real estate services, including certain property and strata management services

There are special rules for architectural, engineering and geoscience services. Rather than applying the 7 per cent tax to the entire purchase price, PST generally applies to 30 per cent of the value, producing an effective tax rate of 2.1 per cent on those services.

The province is also removing or narrowing some existing exemptions affecting products and services including clothing repair materials, clothing and footwear-related services, basic cable television and landline telephone services.

The government says the changes bring B.C.’s tax treatment more closely into line with other provinces.

Poll shows broad opposition

The Leger survey commissioned by the CTF suggests opposition is not concentrated in one particular political, demographic or geographic group.

According to the CTF, opponents of the expansion form a majority across gender, age and regional categories.

Vancouver Island residents, women and British Columbians aged 55 and older recorded the strongest opposition, according to the organization’s release.

The headline results were:

ResponseBritish Columbians
Cancel the PST expansion66%
Proceed with the expansion15%
Unsure19%

Because the poll was commissioned by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the results should be understood as commissioned polling rather than a government survey. Nevertheless, the findings add another data point to a debate that has already generated significant opposition from business organizations.

Businesses have been warning about higher prices

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business conducted its own survey earlier this year involving 439 B.C. business owners.

The February survey found that 80 per cent of respondents opposed expanding the 7 per cent PST to professional services.

Even more significantly, 72 per cent said they were likely to pass some or all of the additional tax costs on to customers.

The CFIB said accounting and bookkeeping services were identified as the professional services most likely to negatively affect small businesses, followed by property management, security and architectural, engineering and geoscience services.

The implication is straightforward: while the tax may technically be charged to a business purchasing a service, the eventual economic cost can be distributed through the broader economy.

A business paying PST on accounting, security, engineering or property-management services may incorporate those additional expenses into its operating costs, potentially affecting prices charged to customers.

Security services become taxable

The inclusion of security services has generated particular criticism from businesses in communities dealing with property crime.

The Business Improvement Areas of B.C. has argued that the expansion effectively taxes businesses for purchasing security services they increasingly consider necessary to protect employees, customers and property.

In Kelowna, local business representatives told Global News that businesses were already spending heavily on security because of repeated property crime and other safety concerns.

That creates an unusual policy tension: governments and communities encourage businesses to invest in security, while the provincial tax system is simultaneously adding a 7 per cent tax to many of those services.

The issue has become one of the central arguments made by opponents of the expansion.

Business groups launch “Stop the Squeeze” campaign

The Greater Vancouver Board of Trade has organized a campaign called Stop the Squeeze, arguing that the tax expansion will increase the cost of doing business at a time when B.C. companies are already facing high operating costs.

The organization says the expanded PST could affect the cost of building homes, operating businesses, maintaining security and attracting investment.

The campaign has attracted support from a wider coalition of business organizations.

The Business Council of British Columbia has also called for the expansion to be scrapped, arguing that the tax increases input costs and could weaken B.C.’s competitive position.

The B.C. Chamber of Commerce has taken a similar position, while advocating for a longer-term move toward a value-added tax system rather than expanding the existing PST.

Why businesses object to the PST structure

One of the more technical arguments against the expansion involves the way B.C.’s PST works.

Unlike a value-added tax such as the GST/HST, the PST generally does not provide businesses with broad input-tax credits.

That means taxes paid on business inputs can become part of the cost of producing another good or service.

The Business Council of B.C. argues this can cause taxation to compound through supply chains and contribute to higher effective costs for investment.

The B.C. Chamber has made a similar argument, saying the province should consider moving toward a value-added tax with input tax credits rather than expanding the current PST.

The distinction is important because opponents aren’t necessarily arguing that sales taxes should never apply to professional services.

Some are instead arguing that the structure of the tax is the problem.

Accountants warn of implementation complications

The accounting profession has also raised concerns about how the new rules will work.

The Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia says the final regulations released in July provided additional clarity regarding issues such as multi-jurisdictional work, corporate-group services and resale arrangements.

Under the new rules, accounting services performed in B.C. will generally become subject to the 7 per cent PST unless a specific exemption applies.

CPABC has advocated for longer-term sales-tax modernization, including consideration of a value-added tax model with general input tax credits.

That position is significant because it demonstrates that opposition to the government’s approach extends beyond organizations that simply oppose taxation.

Some professional organizations are instead arguing for a different tax structure that they believe would be less distortive.

Housing industry joins the opposition

The B.C. real estate industry has also warned that expanding the PST could work against the province’s housing objectives.

The British Columbia Real Estate Association recommended that the province not proceed with the PST expansion, arguing that taxation policy can affect the financial viability of development projects and ultimately the pace at which new housing reaches the market.

This adds another dimension to the debate.

The province is simultaneously attempting to increase housing supply while imposing additional taxes on some of the professional services involved in developing and managing that housing.

Architects, engineers, property managers and other professionals can all play a role in construction and development projects.

Critics argue that additional taxes on those inputs could ultimately become another cost incorporated into development budgets.

Legislative committee calls for repeal

Perhaps the most politically significant development came from the B.C. legislature’s Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

Following its 2027 budget consultation, the multi-party committee recommended that the provincial government repeal the planned PST expansion to professional services.

The committee’s recommendation was framed partly around simplifying and streamlining the province’s taxation system.

The committee includes MLAs from government and opposition parties, making the recommendation notable even though it does not itself force the government to change policy.

The recommendation was welcomed by organizations including the CFIB and Greater Vancouver Board of Trade.

Ottawa isn’t responsible for this tax

The debate is entirely provincial.

The PST is administered by the Government of British Columbia, not Ottawa.

The upcoming changes were included in B.C.’s 2026 budget and are being implemented through provincial tax legislation and regulations.

That distinction matters because the argument over the expansion is ultimately about how the B.C. government chooses to raise revenue and structure its tax system.

The government’s case

The B.C. government has defended the expansion as part of its broader approach to taxation and public services.

The province says expanding PST to professional services generally brings B.C. more closely into line with how other provinces treat those services.

The government is also dealing with a significant fiscal challenge.

B.C.’s 2026 budget projected a $13.3-billion deficit for 2026-27, while the new tax measures are expected to generate approximately $1.4 billion over three years, according to government figures reported in connection with the budget.

The government’s argument is that additional revenue is necessary to help maintain core public services, including health care and education.

Finance Minister Brenda Bailey has indicated that the government is not planning to reverse the expansion, despite the legislative committee’s recommendation.

That puts the government directly at odds with both the committee recommendation and several major business organizations.

A $1.5-billion tax question

The CTF estimates that the PST expansion will cost British Columbians nearly $1.5 billion over three years, while government budget reporting has put the expected revenue at approximately $1.4 billion over the same period.

The difference illustrates one of the fundamental disagreements in the debate.

The province views the expansion primarily as a source of revenue.

Opponents view it as a cost that will be absorbed by businesses, consumers and the broader economy.

Both can occur simultaneously: government can collect additional revenue while businesses and households bear additional costs.

The economic question is therefore what happens to that money after it moves through the tax system—and whether the resulting public-service benefits outweigh the economic costs associated with higher prices and business inputs.

October 1 deadline approaches

With the implementation date now less than a month away, businesses providing or purchasing affected services are preparing for the changes.

The province has released detailed guidance covering accounting, architectural, engineering and geoscience, security and non-residential real estate services.

Businesses affected by the changes may need to determine whether they must register for PST, collect the tax, remit it to the province or self-assess tax on certain purchases.

That makes the issue more than a political debate.

For affected businesses, the October 1 date represents a concrete change to invoices, accounting systems and operating costs.

The larger issue: how should B.C. tax business?

The disagreement over the PST expansion ultimately goes beyond the individual services being taxed.

It raises a broader question about how British Columbia should structure its tax system while attempting to improve productivity, increase housing supply, attract investment and maintain public services.

The CTF says the answer is to cancel the expansion.

Business groups have called for its repeal and, in some cases, a longer-term transition toward a value-added tax.

The B.C. government argues the expansion broadens the tax base and provides revenue for essential public services.

Meanwhile, the province’s own multi-party finance committee has recommended that the expansion be repealed.

And according to the new Leger poll commissioned by the CTF, 66 per cent of British Columbians surveyed want the government to cancel the changes, compared with 15 per cent who want them to proceed.

Unless the government changes course, however, the new rules remain scheduled to take effect October 1, 2026.

For British Columbians, the debate is now moving from whether the tax expansion is a good idea to a much more immediate question:

Will the province proceed with a tax increase that its own legislative finance committee has recommended cancelling, despite growing opposition from taxpayers and the business community?

Ottawa Extends Federal Fuel Tax Relief Into 2027

Canadian Taxpayers Federation welcomes extension but calls on the government to make the fuel-tax cut permanent

The federal government is extending its temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel, keeping the full tax reduction in place through January 31, 2027.

The announcement comes as the government had been scheduled to restore the federal fuel excise tax on September 8. Under the extension, gasoline and diesel will continue to benefit from the temporary tax relief through January, followed by a phased return to the regular rates beginning in February.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) welcomed the extension but said Ottawa should go further and make the reduction permanent.

Gasoline tax remains at zero

The federal excise tax on gasoline is normally 10 cents per litre, while the federal excise tax on diesel is normally 4 cents per litre.

Those rates were reduced to zero beginning April 20, 2026, as part of the government’s response to elevated fuel prices and international energy-market disruptions.

The temporary suspension was originally scheduled to end September 7, with the full tax returning the following day.

The new proposal extends the zero-rate period through January 31, 2027. Beginning February 1, the government plans to restore half of the regular federal excise tax until March 31.

That means the federal rates would temporarily become:

  • 5 cents per litre on gasoline
  • 5.5 cents per litre on leaded aviation gasoline
  • 2 cents per litre on diesel
  • 2 cents per litre on other aviation fuel

The full rates are scheduled to return April 1, 2027.

Taxpayers federation calls for permanent cut

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation praised the extension, arguing that lower fuel taxes can benefit both drivers and businesses.

Franco Terrazzano, the organization’s federal director, said the CTF had been advocating for fuel-tax relief and that extending the measure would provide additional assistance to Canadians facing higher costs.

The organization is now calling on Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government to make the reduction permanent rather than allowing the tax to return to its previous level.

Kris Sims, the CTF’s Alberta director, similarly argued that Ottawa should reduce government spending to make permanent tax relief possible without increasing government debt.

Poll finds opposition to restoring the tax

The CTF said a Léger poll it commissioned found significant opposition to restoring the federal fuel tax at its previous level.

According to the organization, 63 per cent of Canadians surveyed opposed increasing the gas tax in September. Among respondents who had made a decision on the question, the opposition rate was 71 per cent.

The CTF said opposition was recorded across demographic groups, including different age groups, genders and provinces.

The poll was commissioned by the CTF, meaning its results should be considered in that context rather than as a government survey.

Ottawa says the measure is temporary

The federal government has presented the fuel-tax suspension as a temporary affordability measure.

When the original reduction was announced in April, Finance Canada said eliminating the federal excise tax would save motorists up to 10 cents per litre on gasoline and 4 cents per litre on diesel. The government estimated the initial suspension would provide more than $2.4 billion in tax relief during 2026.

The measure applies to the federal excise tax. It does not eliminate provincial fuel taxes or other charges that can affect the price motorists see at the pump.

The government also continues to apply sales taxes to fuel.

Different from the former carbon price

The fuel-tax suspension should also be distinguished from the federal consumer carbon price.

Ottawa permanently removed the federal consumer fuel charge from legislation earlier this year. That measure eliminated the federal consumer-facing carbon price, while the current gasoline and diesel excise-tax suspension is a separate measure.

The distinction matters because the two taxes have different purposes and operate through different parts of Canada’s tax system.

What happens next?

The government’s September 2026 legislative proposal would keep federal fuel excise taxes at zero through January and then restore them gradually.

The proposed timeline is:

April 20, 2026 – January 31, 2027:
Federal gasoline and diesel excise taxes remain at zero.

February 1 – March 31, 2027:
Half the normal excise-tax rates apply.

April 1, 2027:
Regular federal excise-tax rates are scheduled to return.

The Department of Finance’s legislation confirms that the extension is designed around this staged return.

For motorists, the immediate result is that the federal portion of fuel taxation will remain suspended beyond the original September deadline.

For the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, however, the extension doesn’t go far enough.

The organization argues that if Ottawa can temporarily eliminate the tax while maintaining government operations, it should look for permanent spending reductions that would allow Canadians to keep the tax savings.

The federal government, meanwhile, continues to characterize the measure as temporary relief.

The debate has therefore shifted from whether Canadians should receive a fuel-tax break to whether the reduction should become a permanent part of Canada’s tax system.

Sources: Canadian Taxpayers Federation and Department of Finance Canada. The CTF’s statements and polling claims are attributed to the organization, while the tax rates and implementation timeline have been cross-checked against the federal government’s legislative proposal.

Canada Imposes Temporary Duties on Chinese Plywood After Dumping Investigation

CBSA finds preliminary evidence of dumping and subsidization as Canadian producers report lost sales and declining market share

Canada has imposed provisional duties of up to 227.5 per cent on certain plywood imported from China after the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) made preliminary determinations that the products were being dumped and subsidized.

The measures took effect August 24 and apply to decorative and other non-structural plywood originating in or exported from China. The investigation remains ongoing, meaning the preliminary findings are not yet final.

The case began after Columbia Forest Products, along with the Canadian Hardwood Plywood and Veneer Association, filed a complaint with the CBSA in February alleging that increasing Chinese imports were being sold at unfair prices and were harming Canadian producers.

Two other Canadian manufacturers, Husky Plywood and Rockshield Engineered Woods Products, also supported the complaint.

Chinese imports gained ground in Canada

CBSA data indicates that China accounted for an increasing share of Canada’s decorative plywood imports between 2023 and 2025.

Chinese products represented approximately:

  • 63.4 per cent of Canadian decorative plywood import value in 2023
  • 61.4 per cent in 2024
  • 67.5 per cent in 2025

Over the same period, the domestic industry’s share of the apparent Canadian market fell from 42.7 per cent to 37.3 per cent.

China’s share of the overall Canadian market increased from 36.3 per cent in 2023 to 42.4 per cent in 2025, according to CBSA estimates.

The figures are based on import value rather than physical volume, because the agency encountered inconsistencies in how imported plywood quantities were reported.

What is “dumping”?

Under Canada’s trade-remedy system, dumping generally occurs when a product is exported to Canada at a price below its applicable normal value.

Canadian producers alleged that Chinese plywood was being sold below fair market value while manufacturers also benefited from government subsidies.

The CBSA’s investigation found sufficient evidence to proceed with both dumping and subsidy investigations. The agency also said there was reasonable evidence that government influence could be affecting prices in China’s engineered-wood sector.

The CBSA estimated an overall dumping margin of 33.8 per cent during its investigation period.

Duties vary dramatically by exporter

The provisional duties are not the same for every Chinese exporter.

For example, CBSA’s preliminary determinations established provisional rates including:

ExporterProvisional duty
Dehua TB New Decoration Material43.3%
Feixian Jianhao Wood Factory172.1%
LinYi QianFeng Wood Factory82.8%
Shandong Baozhu International Trading173.6%
Suzhou Dongsheng Wood24.7%
Xuzhou Meibang Wood12.6%
All other exporters227.5%

The rates combine applicable anti-dumping and countervailing duties. Some exporters had subsidy amounts below Canada’s threshold for imposing a provisional countervailing duty.

The 227.5 per cent figure therefore does not apply automatically to every Chinese plywood shipment. It applies to subject goods from exporters that have not received a specific provisional rate.

Canadian producers cite lost sales and jobs

The domestic producers told the CBSA that increasing Chinese imports were contributing to lost sales and market share.

The complaint included examples of sales lost to Chinese products, along with allegations of price undercutting, price depression and price suppression.

The producers also reported negative effects on financial performance, production levels, capacity utilization and employment.

After reviewing information supplied by the producers and its own customs data, the CBSA concluded there was a reasonable indication that the allegedly dumped and subsidized imports had caused injury to Canada’s domestic decorative plywood industry.

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal reached a similar preliminary conclusion in June, determining that there was a reasonable indication that dumping and subsidization had caused or threatened to cause injury to the domestic industry.

What products are affected?

The investigation covers decorative and other non-structural plywood, including certain multilayered plywood and veneered panels.

These products can be used in applications such as cabinetry, furniture and interior finishing.

The measures do not cover every type of plywood. CBSA specifically excludes certain structural plywood, finished plywood flooring products, specially shaped panels and several other products from the scope of the investigation.

Final decision still months away

The current duties are provisional rather than permanent.

The CBSA is scheduled to issue its final determinations on dumping and subsidization on November 23, 2026.

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal is conducting the separate final injury inquiry. Its current schedule calls for a finding on December 22, 2026, followed by reasons in January 2027.

If the Tribunal ultimately finds that the dumped or subsidized imports caused injury to Canadian producers, permanent anti-dumping and countervailing measures could follow.

If the required injury finding is not made, the proceedings would end and provisional duties could be refunded in accordance with Canada’s trade-remedy rules.

A broader trade issue

The plywood investigation comes as Canada is increasingly using its trade-remedy system to respond to concerns over heavily subsidized or low-priced imports from China.

For Canadian plywood manufacturers, the issue is particularly significant because the domestic industry’s share of the apparent market has declined while Chinese imports have expanded.

For importers and buyers, however, the immediate impact is the possibility of substantially higher costs on affected products as the federal investigation proceeds.

For now, the key distinction is that Canada has made preliminary findings of dumping and subsidization—not a final determination. The ultimate outcome will depend on the CBSA’s final investigation and the Tribunal’s determination of whether the imports caused injury to Canadian producers.

Sources: Canada Border Services Agency and Canadian International Trade Tribunal.