Search Results

If you rent in Vancouver, you know how fast listings disappear. You message right away, but the unit is already gone. When BC announced a rent cap of 2.3 percent for 2026, many renters felt a wave of relief. It meant their rent could not suddenly jump beyond what they could afford. But the same rule that helps renters stay put can make it harder to find a new place later. Around the world, cities have learned that when rent control is too tight, it can slow down the construction of new homes. BC’s approach to rent control tries to avoid that, but how well does it work? Why BC Limits Rent Increases Each year, BC sets a limit on how much landlords can raise rent. For 2026, that number is 2.3 percent. It is based on something called the Consumer Price Index, or CPI, which measures how much the cost of everyday life changes. Think of it like this: if your grocery trip cost $100 last year and the same items cost $102.30 now, that is roughly a 2.3 percent rise. BC’s rent control system uses this same measure so that rent increases do not outpace inflation. It is meant to help renters keep up with living costs instead of falling behind. For tenants, this rule brings stability and predictability. For landlords, it means limited income growth even as their expenses such as maintenance, insurance, and property taxes continue to climb faster than inflation. When Rent Caps Help and When They Hurt Rent control can work in two main ways. A rent freeze means no rent increases at all, while rent stabilization allows small, predictable increases linked to inflation. BC follows the second model. Freezes can sound ideal, but they often lead to less maintenance and fewer upgrades. You have probably seen this if you have rented in an older building where things never seem to get fixed. Stabilization gives landlords a bit of breathing room while still protecting renters from big jumps. However, if the allowed increase is too small for too long, some landlords sell or convert units into condos. Over time, that means fewer rentals available and fewer safe, affordable options near work, transit, and schools. Lessons from Abroad – What Actually Happened Elsewhere Cities around the world show what happens when rent control swings too far in one direction. Berlin, Germany  froze rents in 2020. For a short time, prices stopped climbing, but rental listings dropped quickly. More properties were listed for sale instead. The law was later struck down by Germany’s top court because the city did not have the legal authority to enforce it. San Francisco, USA  expanded rent control in the 1990s. A major study found that while renters under the program benefited, the supply of rent-controlled housing fell by about 15 percent. Landlords converted or redeveloped their buildings to get around the rules. St. Paul, Minnesota  introduced a strict 3 percent cap in 2021 with no exemption for new buildings. Permits for new rentals dropped sharply, and the city soon changed the rule to encourage developers to return. Ontario, Canada  exempts any unit first occupied after November 15, 2018 from its rent increase limit. This design protects current tenants but keeps new housing projects profitable enough to move forward. These examples show that rent control works best when it is flexible and predictable, not absolute. The Developer’s Dilemma Developers decide whether to build based on risk and return. Construction materials, labor, and financing all cost more each year. If rent increases are capped too low, lenders see less chance of a project paying for itself. It is like trying to plan a trip while knowing your paycheck will not go up but gas and flights will. Eventually, you might cancel the trip. Developers do the same. They turn to condo projects or cities without strict rent control. When that happens, rental supply slows down. And when fewer new units are built, prices rise even for existing apartments. What BC Can Learn from Global Models BC’s rent control system has avoided the worst outcomes seen elsewhere. The province allows landlords to reset rent when tenants move out, a rule known as vacancy decontrol, and newly built rentals are not immediately bound by the cap. These features help keep new housing projects viable. Experts suggest BC could keep this balance by maintaining CPI-based increases, offering tax incentives for builders, and reviewing policies every year to reflect real costs. Small adjustments like these can help protect tenants while keeping construction active. For renters, that means more choices over time, not just cheaper rent today. Finding Balance in BC’s Housing Future Rent control is a safety net for renters in an expensive market, but long-term affordability depends on supply. If too few new apartments are built, no cap will keep rent affordable. BC’s challenge is finding the middle ground that protects tenants without scaring away builders. When both sides work, renters can find homes they can afford and developers can keep creating new ones. That balance is what shapes BC’s housing future. Legal and Accuracy Note: This article provides general information only and is not legal advice. Always confirm current rent rules with the BC Residential Tenancy Branch before making financial or tenancy decisions.

She looked like any other traveler waiting in line at Vancouver International Airport in December 2024. A 30-year-old Canadian woman boarded a flight to Auckland carrying a suitcase filled with gifts. When she landed, New Zealand Customs officers found nearly 10 kilograms of methamphetamine concealed beneath the wrapping. Officials later valued the haul at about NZ$3.8 million. She was sentenced in August 2025. Just months later, another Canadian woman was arrested on the same route. Officers at Auckland Airport discovered 14 vacuum-sealed packages of methamphetamine worth about NZ$4.55 million. Both cases began in Vancouver, a city that has quietly become a key departure point in the Pacific drug trade. A Flight That Exposed the Vancouver Meth Export Pipeline According to New Zealand Customs, the two arrests occurred within three months of each other, both involving direct flights from Vancouver. Each courier carried several kilograms of methamphetamine hidden inside personal luggage. In one case, local media reported that the woman’s defense raised claims of coercion, but court records released publicly do not include details about those claims. Authorities have not stated whether the two cases are connected, though both have drawn attention to Vancouver’s role in international meth export routes. How Vancouver Became a Launch Point for Global Meth Shipments The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) reported more than 60 methamphetamine export seizures from British Columbia between March and August 2024. The total included 397 kilograms of crystal meth and 1,278 liters of liquid meth destined for Australia. The shipments were intercepted in air cargo, mail, and passenger luggage leaving the Lower Mainland. Later that year, the RCMP dismantled a large-scale meth lab in Falkland, BC, seizing nearly 400 kilograms of product and precursor chemicals. These findings suggest that British Columbia has both the production capacity and the infrastructure—ports, air links, and distribution routes—that make it a convenient point of export for criminal networks. Inside the Chinese–Mexican Connection Global reporting from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the U.S. Department of Justice describes a well-established pipeline: chemical precursors shipped from China to Mexico, where cartels synthesize them into methamphetamine for export. From there, the drugs travel along major Pacific trade routes shared by legitimate goods. The investigative outlet The Bureau has reported a possible link between this China–Mexico network and Vancouver-based meth exports. However, official releases from New Zealand Customs and the CBSA do not identify a specific syndicate in the Vancouver-to-New Zealand cases. Publicly available data supports only that meth is leaving BC through commercial and passenger channels, not who controls those shipments. The Human Side: Why Women Are Being Recruited as Couriers Both couriers in these cases were young Canadian women traveling alone. Law enforcement and UNODC reports note that traffickers sometimes recruit women for courier roles because they are perceived as lower-risk travelers. Offers often begin with promises of easy pay or free travel and later escalate into coercion or threats. Some victims believe they are delivering legitimate packages, while others are pressured after arrival. Whether through deception or fear, they become disposable links in an international chain that moves billions of dollars in narcotics each year. Law Enforcement Response in Canada and Abroad CBSA has increased outbound inspections through Operation Blizzard, targeting drug exports from British Columbia’s ports and airports. Officers at Vancouver International Airport intercepted multiple methamphetamine shipments in passenger baggage and cargo during 2024. New Zealand’s Operation Matata focuses on airline-based smuggling and unattended baggage linked to organized crime. Both countries exchange intelligence through regional crime-control networks. Officials acknowledge that detecting narcotics leaving a country remains far harder than preventing drugs from coming in. What It Means for Vancouver’s Safety and Reputation Vancouver’s position as a Pacific gateway brings trade, tourism, and opportunity. It also creates openings that organized crime can exploit. Large-scale export cases, while rare compared to domestic drug activity, highlight how international trafficking can intersect with everyday travel. For many young travelers, the risk lies not in random encounters but in recruitment. Online messages offering courier work or sponsored trips may appear harmless. In reality, they can be the first step in a criminal operation that uses unsuspecting people as carriers. How to Stay Informed and Protect Yourself Anyone approached online with paid-travel or parcel-delivery offers should verify all details directly with airlines and official agencies before agreeing. Never carry luggage or packages for someone you don’t personally know. Suspicious approaches can be reported to CBSA’s Border Watch Line or Crime Stoppers. These agencies treat tip-offs confidentially. A few minutes of caution before boarding a flight can prevent becoming part of an international meth export route that has already drawn attention to Vancouver.

A large work helicopter crashed near Henriette Dam west of Squamish on October 7, 2025, leaving the pilot in critical condition and renewing concern about flying safety around Vancouver. The aircraft had been carrying maintenance equipment for the Woodfibre LNG site when it went down in steep terrain above the dam. Emergency crews responded shortly after 9:30 a.m., though some local reports placed the time closer to 10:45 a.m. The pilot, believed to be the only person onboard, was airlifted to a Vancouver hospital. No structural concerns have been reported at Henriette Dam, according to officials. What We Know About the Squamish Helicopter Crash The Squamish helicopter crash occurred during a maintenance flight supporting the Woodfibre LNG project. The aircraft — a large industrial helicopter used for heavy lifting in remote areas — was moving equipment and supplies when the incident occurred. Investigators from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) are now reviewing flight logs, maintenance history, and weather data. The pilot’s name has not been released. Woodfibre LNG stated its “first concern is the safety and well-being of anyone working with us,” and confirmed full cooperation with investigators. Two Other Fatal Crashes Near Vancouver Raise Safety Questions On May 24, 2024, a small fixed-wing plane crashed roughly 12 nautical miles southwest of Squamish, killing two people. Investigators determined that the aircraft had likely flown into rising terrain near Howe Sound on a clear day with good visibility. Just weeks later, on June 8, 2024, a Harbour Air seaplane collided with a pleasure boat during takeoff in Vancouver’s Coal Harbour. Two people on the boat were hospitalized, and both vessels sustained significant damage. It was only the third recorded seaplane–boat collision in B.C. in the past 25 years. These incidents show how unpredictable local airspace can be. Between Vancouver and Whistler, shifting winds, narrow flight paths, and shared marine-air routes leave little margin for error — even on days that look ideal for flying. 3 Crashes? Is It Really Safe to Fly Around Vancouver? For many Vancouver residents, this latest crash hits close to home. Helicopters and floatplanes pass overhead daily, connecting the city to Squamish, Whistler, and remote coastal communities. But the same dramatic geography that defines the region also creates dangerous conditions. Strong winds funnel through Howe Sound, clouds form suddenly along the peaks, and pilots often fly through tight valleys with minimal emergency landing options. Even experienced crews face unpredictable challenges that can change in seconds. Flying across the Lower Mainland remains statistically safe — but these incidents, including the Squamish helicopter crash, have sparked new concern about whether oversight and communication systems are keeping pace with increasing traffic. What Investigators Are Looking for After the Squamish Helicopter Crash The TSB is leading the investigation and will collect evidence from the crash site, examine the helicopter’s maintenance records, and review communications between the pilot and ground teams. Officials expect preliminary findings in the coming months. The Squamish Nation has confirmed awareness of the incident and is monitoring developments. For now, the focus remains on the pilot’s recovery and on whether this tragedy will drive improvements in aviation safety across B.C.’s complex and busy skies.

The Harry Potter: A Forbidden Forest Experience  will open in Stanley Park on November 7 with glowing lanterns, foggy pathways, and costumed guides ready to lead fans through the world they grew up loving. But before the first guest arrives, the attraction became the latest flashpoint in the JK Rowling Vancouver Park Board debate. For a generation raised on Hogwarts, this story is not about politics. It is about losing another piece of uncomplicated joy. JK Rowling Vancouver Park Board Apology: How It Started Earlier this month, the Vancouver Park Board issued a formal apology to transgender, gender-diverse, and Two-Spirit residents for approving the event. The motion also publicly disavowed author J.K. Rowling’s political activity and directed staff to ensure the attraction would run for one season only. Commissioner Tom Digby, who introduced the motion, said it was meant to acknowledge concerns raised globally about the impact of Rowling’s comments on transgender rights. The statement was intended to reaffirm inclusion, but it quickly reignited the JK Rowling Vancouver Park Board controversy. Rowling responded on X (formerly Twitter) with sarcasm. “I had no idea Vancouver Parks and Recreations had avowed  me,” she wrote. “Could I get a certificate of avowal before they disavow me? I’d frame it.” Her post went viral, and suddenly Vancouver, better known for its rain and real estate, found itself in the middle of a worldwide discussion about free expression, inclusion, and what public institutions should represent. When Enjoying Anything Feels Like Taking a Side If you are in your twenties in Vancouver, you have probably felt it — that pause before posting or buying something while wondering, “Is this okay now?” You like the art, the movie, the childhood book, but you do not want to start an argument online. That quiet exhaustion sits at the heart of the JK Rowling Vancouver Park Board controversy. Fans were not defending Rowling’s opinions. They were defending the right to enjoy something without it becoming a test of values. Some trans and queer Vancouverites feel the same way. They are tired of being pulled into arguments they never wanted to join. What should have been a simple forest walk turned into a loyalty test. And that frustration, more than any social media post, is what people are reacting to. What We Are Missing From the Trans Community Conversation One of the most overlooked parts of this story is what is missing: the quiet middle ground. Media coverage often highlights activists or politicians, but not everyday trans people who are simply living their lives. There are certainly advocates who have criticized Rowling’s activism. But there are also trans people who do not spend their days online, who do not want to be part of every debate, and who may have been looking forward to the event like anyone else. Those voices rarely appear in coverage, not because they do not exist, but because moderation does not trend. One self-identified trans commenter on a Vancouver Reddit thread expressed a similar feeling, saying they were tired of being a “talking point” and just wanted to enjoy the event with friends. (StaySafeVancouver could not independently verify the user’s identity.) Their exhaustion mirrors how many young Vancouverites feel: wanting fairness and inclusion but craving a break from outrage. Public Spaces and the JK Rowling Vancouver Park Board Decision This debate raises a larger question. Can public institutions ever remain neutral? On one hand, the Park Board has a responsibility to make its events inclusive and safe for marginalized groups. On the other hand, it must serve a city where not everyone agrees on what safety and inclusion mean. Most residents agree that parks should be welcoming for everyone, but even that now feels uncertain. The apology may have been meant as a gesture of care. Yet to many locals, it was another reminder that even a light display can turn political. The Harry Potter Event Will Go On Despite the headlines, the Harry Potter: A Forbidden Forest Experience is still scheduled to open November 7 and run through early 2026. Tickets start at $49.50, and the experience is produced by Warner Bros Discovery Global Experiences and Fever. Neither company has commented publicly on the Park Board’s statement, and there are no signs of cancellation. For now, Vancouver’s version of the Forbidden Forest is still moving ahead with a one-season limit and a lingering sense of unease. A City Tired of Taking Sides Vancouver is proud of its empathy and progressivism. Yet this latest dispute shows how compassion can easily turn into exhaustion when every issue becomes a test of loyalty. Most people, including many in the trans community, do not want to be used as symbols in someone else’s argument. They want to live, work, feel safe, and maybe, just once, walk through a forest filled with lights without worrying what it says about them. The Forbidden Forest will light up Stanley Park this fall. Whether it still feels like magic may depend less on J.K. Rowling and more on whether the rest of us can stop arguing long enough to enjoy it. By Cindy Peterson | StaySafeVancouver.com  | October 2025 Editor’s Note: This article is an opinion piece based on verified public information from official sources and reputable Canadian media outlets. It reflects the writer’s analysis and does not necessarily represent the views of StaySafeVancouver.com . The Harry Potter Experience Event Information Location:  Stanley Park Opening date:  November 7, 2025 Duration:  60 to 90 minutes Tickets:  Starting at $49.50 CAD Operators:  Warner Bros Discovery Global Experiences and Fever Season limit:  One year, per Park Board motion

The Hidden Politics Behind Vancouver’s Parks It’s getting dark in Stanley Park. The path twists under the trees, and your phone flashlight is the only glow between you and the water. A light ahead flickers, then fades. You wonder who’s responsible for fixing it and whether anyone’s even keeping track. Most Vancouverites assume City Hall handles safety in parks, but that job belongs to the Park Board, an elected body that has managed city parks for more than a century. Now City Hall wants to take that power back, and the province says voters must decide first. Who’s Really in Charge of Keeping You Safe in Vancouver’s Parks? The Vancouver Park Board Referendum Explained The B.C. government now requires a citywide assent vote before Vancouver can dissolve its Park Board. Council will decide when that vote happens and may align it with the October 2026 municipal election. It sounds like paperwork, but this decision determines who fixes broken lights, hires rangers, and funds park patrols. The Vancouver Park Board referendum will ask residents whether control of parks should stay with an independent board or move to City Hall — a shift that could quietly reshape how safe your local park feels. Could One Vote Change How Safe Your Night Walk Feels? The referendum is not just about government structure. It’s about whether Vancouver’s parks get attention when safety issues arise. If City Hall takes over, park projects could compete with roads, policing, and housing for budget space. Supporters say one central authority will fix problems faster. Critics warn it could mean slower responses and less focus on park safety once decisions are absorbed into bigger city departments. Are We Trading Park Safety for “Efficiency”? The Park Board currently oversees rangers, maintenance, and lighting upgrades inside parks, working with the City’s infrastructure teams. When a bench breaks or a light goes out, they can act quickly. If City Hall takes full control, smaller safety projects might get lost behind larger political priorities. Repairs could take longer, and accountability could blur between departments — something that directly affects anyone who uses parks after dark. Why This Matters More for Women Than Anyone Else Many women already avoid certain parks at night. City surveys show concerns about lighting, isolated trails, and the absence of visible staff. The Park Board has been adding safety-focused lighting and better sightlines in renewal plans such as John Hendry (Trout Lake) and Stanley Park. It’s unclear whether those gender-based safety projects would continue under City Hall. If the Park Board disappears, there may be fewer people specifically focused on making public spaces feel secure for women. Why B.C. Stepped In to Make This a Public Vote The Vancouver Park Board is one of the only elected park boards in Canada. Residents vote directly for commissioners, giving them a voice in how green spaces are managed. When City Hall moved to dissolve the board, critics said the plan lacked public input. The province responded by requiring a referendum, ensuring that voters — not politicians alone — decide how their parks are governed. What You Can Do Before the Vote If the legislation passes, council will call a referendum asking whether the Park Board should be dissolved. Council must also hold a citywide assent vote before removing the “permanent park” status from protected green spaces, with an exemption for transfers to First Nations. The City projects about $70 million in savings over 10 years from merging operations, a figure cited by Mayor Ken Sim from a transition working group report. Actual savings would depend on how the change is implemented. If you’ve ever felt uneasy walking through a park at night, this vote is about more than politics. It’s about who decides what safety means in the spaces you use every day.

A few weeks ago, I was sitting with friends talking about what’s actually working and what isn’t when it comes to Vancouver’s homelessness crisis. We were sharing ideas about shelters, addiction support, and how to vote for real solutions. Then someone interrupted to say, “You can’t say homeless. It’s unhoused.” The energy shifted instantly. The discussion that had been about people and policy turned into a debate about language. What could have been a productive conversation became another opportunity for someone to display empathy that was purely performative, virtue disguised as compassion. It didn’t build understanding. It shut down meaningful dialogue about how to address complex social issues. The Language Trap: When Good Intentions Go Sideways It’s not that people mean harm when they correct you. They want to show empathy, to sound informed, to get it right. But in that instant, the air changes. Compassion turns into correction, and the real issue disappears behind the need to appear kind. While we polish our language, people are still sleeping under awnings in the rain. Words do not keep anyone warm. They only make the rest of us feel better about looking away. When Empathy Turns Into Performance Somewhere along the way, caring started to look like a contest. Online, compassion comes packaged as hashtags, statements, and the perfect phrasing. People say the right words not to help, but to be seen helping. It is easy to post about the “unhoused community” and feel righteous for a moment. It is harder to spend an hour volunteering or calling a city representative about unsafe shelters. Social media rewards moral display, not follow-through, and that makes empathy feel more like branding than action. The Homeless vs Unhoused Vancouver Debate The people sleeping in doorways or under tarps on Hastings do not care which word you use. What matters is the meaning behind it, the intent to see them, to listen, and to fight for solutions that actually help. Empathy is not about sounding enlightened. It is about caring enough to look beyond language and focus on what will make life better for another human being. When social issues become a stage for performative empathy, we lose the sincerity that drives real change. Virtue Signalling Isn’t Empathy Correcting someone’s language is not activism. It is an easy way to sound informed without doing the work. The homeless vs unhoused Vancouver debate has become a distraction that lets people feel morally superior while nothing changes for those sleeping outside. Casual conversations matter. They shape how people think about complex issues, influence who they vote for, and ultimately decide what policies get funded or ignored. When virtue signalling and linguistic policing take over, we lose those conversations. We alienate the very people who might have cared enough to act. It serves the individual’s need to look morally correct at the expense of those who are actually suffering. What Vancouver Needs Instead of Word Police Real change will not come from trending terms or carefully worded posts. It starts with ordinary people choosing to act. Donate to shelters like Covenant House or the Downtown Eastside Women’s Centre, volunteer with outreach programs, or simply treat those living rough with the same respect you would want if you were in their place. Empathy should be inconvenient. It means showing up when it is raining, speaking up when it is unpopular, and voting for leaders willing to fund real housing and mental health care. Vancouver does not need more linguistic perfection. It needs people who care enough to do something. Words Will Not Fix It, But We Can Every year, the debate over what to call homelessness gets louder, while the problem itself grows. Language can inspire compassion, but it can also become a distraction. Vancouver does not need better words. It needs more action, more sincerity, and more courage to look at the problem head-on. Because at the end of the day, words do not keep anyone warm, but people can. Written by Cindy Peterson for StaySafeVancouver. This article reflects the author’s personal opinions and experiences. It is intended for general information and public discussion about social issues in Vancouver. It should not be interpreted as legal, policy, or professional advice. All organizations mentioned are referenced respectfully for context only. StaySafeVancouver encourages readers to consult official city and provincial sources for verified information on housing and social services.

It’s getting harder to picture a future where a young woman can safely build her life in Vancouver. Rent is climbing faster than pay cheques, commutes are getting longer, and home ownership feels like a story from another generation. Now, a new Vancouver housing forecast warns that the city’s median home price could reach 2.8 million within the next decade. For most, that number isn’t just about economics. It shapes where we live, how far we travel to work, and how safe we feel when we walk home at night. The Concordia Equiton housing study doesn’t just predict price trends; it hints at what daily life could look like for an entire generation trying to stay in the city. The Study Behind the Vancouver Housing Forecast When headlines announce 2.8 million homes, it’s easy to imagine it happening overnight. In reality, the forecast comes from a July 2025 study by Concordia University’s John Molson School of Business and real estate firm Equiton. Using AI modeling, researchers projected where prices could land by 2032. They found that if Vancouver keeps building homes at its current pace, median prices could rise from around 2.5 million today to nearly 2.8 million by 2032. Even doubling housing completions would only hold prices steady at about 2.5 million. Why It Feels Impossible to Find a Place You Can Afford Scrolling through listings that disappear in minutes isn’t just frustrating; it’s the clearest sign of a housing shortage that has fallen far behind demand. The study found Vancouver adds new homes at less than 2 percent of its total stock each year, far below what’s needed to balance prices. Delays in approvals and rising construction costs make the situation worse. Every slow permit or price hike means fewer safe, affordable places to live. It’s why so many people are being priced into riskier housing situations, often far from work or reliable transit. The Safety Ripple Effect of Unaffordable Housing High prices don’t just block home ownership; they reshape daily safety. Young women are renting in less secure neighborhoods, taking short-term leases, or moving in with strangers to make rent. With constant roommate changes and unstable landlords, privacy and safety become harder to maintain. Longer commutes add new risks. Late buses, empty SkyTrain stations, and dark walks home are part of the hidden cost of being priced out of central Vancouver. The housing crisis isn’t only about money; it’s about how secure you feel living in your own city. What to Watch For in Vancouver’s Housing Debate Policy change can feel distant, but small shifts matter. The Concordia study points to one fix that could help: building more homes faster. Streamlining permits and expanding zoning for purpose-built rentals could open safer, longer-term housing options. As new projects appear, look for signs of change that actually improve safety: secure building access, better lighting, and mixed-use neighborhoods that stay active at night. These are small but measurable steps toward making high-density living safer for everyone. Staying Safe When Housing Options Are Limited Even if affordability doesn’t improve soon, there are ways to protect yourself. Before signing a lease, confirm the unit is legally registered and ask for written terms about locks, access, and repairs. In shared spaces, set boundaries early and keep a trusted contact updated on where you live. If you ever feel unsafe or need advice, reach out to BC Housing, the Tenant Resource and Advisory Centre (TRAC), or VictimLinkBC. They provide free help on tenancy disputes, rental rights, and safety planning across British Columbia. The Bottom Line The Vancouver housing forecast isn’t just a statistic; it’s a sign of where the city is heading if nothing changes. The affordability crisis is now inseparable from its safety challenges. Until more homes are built and policies shift, young women will keep navigating a Vancouver where financial stress and personal safety are closely linked. Knowing the facts is the first step toward changing that story.

A Surrey Police Service patch is seen on an officer's uniform in Surrey, B.C., on Friday, November 29, 2024. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck A man is recovering in hospital after being shot during a confrontation at Bear Creek Park in Surrey on Saturday night. Surrey Police say the victim, who was driven to hospital by friends, suffered serious but non-life-threatening injuries. The shooting happened around 9 p.m. in the parking lot near 88th Avenue and 138A Street, following an altercation between two groups of people. Investigators say the suspect fled the scene in a grey sedan and are asking anyone with dashcam or security footage to come forward. What Happened at Bear Creek Park The Surrey Police Service (SPS) responded to reports of gunfire shortly after 9 p.m. on September 13, 2025. Officers arrived at the Bear Creek Park parking lot to find that a man had already been transported to hospital by friends. According to police, the shooting began after an altercation between two groups of individuals in the area. The victim remains in hospital with serious injuries, but they are not considered life-threatening. Suspect Description Police have released a description of the suspect: South Asian adult male Short beard Wearing a black turban Dressed in dark-coloured clothing Last seen leaving the area in a grey sedan Police Statement Staff Sgt. Lindsey Houghton confirmed that investigators do not believe the shooting is linked to extortion cases or the ongoing B.C. gang conflict. The SPS is urging anyone with information, including video from nearby security cameras or dashcams, to contact investigators. Witnesses are asked to call 604-599-0502 and reference file 2025-79990 (SP). Surrey Shooting: Bear Creek Park and Community Safety Bear Creek Park is one of Surrey’s largest and busiest public spaces, home to sports fields, walking trails, gardens, and cultural events. While it is typically a family-friendly destination, this shooting adds to growing community concerns over violent incidents across Surrey in recent years. Police emphasize that while there is no indication of a broader threat to the public, residents should remain vigilant and report any suspicious activity. Stay safe.

If you live in Metro Vancouver, you’ve probably felt the squeeze of rising costs. But according to a new MoneySense report, one city in the region stands out as especially tough for residents trying to maintain a “comfortable” lifestyle. The findings show just how much income you’d need each year to cover rent, groceries, transportation, and everyday expenses — and the number may surprise you. What the MoneySense Report Found About Metro Vancouver City MoneySense analyzed what it takes for a single renter to live comfortably in cities across Canada with populations over 50,000. The calculations included: Rent, utilities, transportation, food, clothing, and leisure costs Income taxes (20%–25% of gross income for middle earners) Savings targets of 10%–15% An added 10%–20% “comfort margin” for unexpected expenses The results paint a clear picture of just how high the bar is set — with one city in particular ranking among the worst in the country. Coquitlam, BC Coquitlam Tops the List in Metro Vancouver If you call Coquitlam home, you’ll need one of the highest incomes in the country just to live comfortably. According to MoneySense, a single renter in Coquitlam must earn $104,928 per year to maintain a reasonable standard of living. That works out to an average of $4,372 per month just to cover the basics and a small margin for savings. What does that mean for you? Coquitlam ranks as the most expensive city in Metro Vancouver for a comfortable life, even edging out Vancouver, North Vancouver, and Burnaby in MoneySense’s national list. Even though Coquitlam isn’t usually the first city people think of when it comes to high living costs, the numbers show that residents here face some of the toughest financial pressures in the region. North Vancouver, BC North Vancouver’s High Cost of Rent and Living North Vancouver comes in just behind Coquitlam, making it the second least comfortable city in Metro Vancouver and the fifth worst in Canada. To live comfortably here, MoneySense estimates you’d need an annual income of $103,512. That translates to about $4,313 per month in living costs. If you’re renting in North Vancouver, the numbers won’t surprise you. North Vancouver has also been identified by Rentals.ca as one of the most expensive rental markets in Canada. For residents, that means even a six-figure income may not go as far as you expect once rent, groceries, transportation, and taxes are accounted for. Burnaby, BC Vancouver vs Burnaby – Nearly Identical Living Costs If you live in Vancouver itself, MoneySense estimates you’ll need an annual income of $102,576, or about $4,274 per month, to live comfortably. Just across the border in Burnaby, the number barely changes — residents need $102,312 per year, or roughly $4,263 per month. For you, that means whether you’re renting in Vancouver or Burnaby, the day-to-day costs are almost the same. The difference between the two cities is just $11 per month, making them essentially tied when it comes to affordability. No matter which side of Boundary Road you’re on, maintaining a comfortable life still requires a six-figure income. Prince George, BC Prince George: The Most Affordable City in BC Not every city in BC demands a six-figure income. If you’re living in Prince George, the cost of comfort looks very different. MoneySense found that a single renter there needs about $80,664 per year, or $3,361 per month, to cover expenses and maintain a comfortable lifestyle. For those living outside Metro Vancouver, that gap is striking. More than $20,000 less in annual income compared to Coquitlam or North Vancouver. The difference shows just how dramatically location can shape what “comfortable” really means, even within the same province. Toronto, Ontario Ontario Cities Rank as the Least Comfortable in Canada Across Canada, the very top of MoneySense’s list is dominated by Ontario. The report shows that Whitby, Milton, and Richmond Hill are the three least affordable cities in the country when it comes to maintaining a comfortable lifestyle. Right behind them is Coquitlam, making it the fourth least comfortable city in Canada and the highest ranked in BC. The financial strain of a six-figure income requirement isn’t unique to Metro Vancouver. Major Ontario suburbs face the same reality, with living costs pushing the “comfortable” threshold well over $100,000 a year. Worried about more than just the cost of living? Check out our guide to the Most Dangerous Cities in Vancouver  and learn which areas locals say you should be cautious in.

A protester waves a flag banned in parts of Europe. In Canada, that same image could soon be illegal. The Combatting Hate Act (Bill C-9) aims to shield communities from hate symbols and intimidation. Yet as Parliament debates its reach, critics warn it could test the limits of Bill C-9 Canada free speech, a right protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The question dividing lawmakers and civil-liberties groups is simple: how far can a democracy go to silence hate before it begins to silence dissent? What Bill C-9 Means for Free Speech in Canada Introduced in September 2025, Bill C-9 proposes new criminal offences targeting hate symbols and hate-motivated crimes. It also makes it illegal to block or intimidate people entering cultural or religious spaces. A key change removes the long-standing rule that required the Attorney General’s consent before launching hate-propaganda prosecutions. Supporters say this streamlines justice. Opponents argue it strips away a vital check on power that prevented overreach in expressive cases. “Silencing hate should never mean silencing dissent.” How Canada’s Combatting Hate Act Changes Existing Law Canada already criminalizes the wilful promotion of hatred under section 319 of the Criminal Code, a section that has stood for decades. Bill C-9 expands that framework by criminalizing the public display of hate or terrorism symbols and by creating a new hate-motivated offence. For example, publicly displaying flags or logos tied to terrorist groups could become a stand-alone crime. The government says this closes loopholes. Legal experts counter that overlapping offences risk double-counting hate motives and confusing prosecutors when applying penalties. Free Expression and the Charter: Where Courts Draw the Line Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of expression. But that freedom has limits when speech promotes hatred against identifiable groups. The Supreme Court of Canada’s landmark Whatcott (2013) decision confirmed that only speech reaching the level of detestation or vilification can be restricted. Offense or harsh criticism alone remain protected. Bill C-9 will be tested against this same benchmark if passed. Civil Liberties Concerns Over Bill C-9 The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and other advocacy groups warn that vague wording could criminalize legitimate expression. Their open letter to Parliament argues that without precise definitions, “hate or terrorism symbols” could capture peaceful protest, satire, or educational use. They also highlight enforcement risks. Without the Attorney General’s oversight, prosecutors may advance more borderline cases. Some experts worry that marginalized communities—already subject to uneven policing—could face increased scrutiny under the new law. “When the law’s reach is uncertain, caution turns into silence.” Why Court Precedent Still Matters Canadian courts have repeatedly protected free speech when the law overreaches. Cases like Keegstra and Whatcott show that hate-speech limits must be narrow and justified under section 1 of the Charter. The government’s Charter Statement for Bill C-9 argues that the proposed offences meet this standard. It claims the law targets only deliberate promotion of hatred and leaves room for debate, art, religion, and journalism. Civil-rights experts remain cautious, noting that courts, not legislatures, decide what counts as “reasonable limits.” How Bill C-9 Could Affect Online Speech in Canada One of the bill’s most complex questions is what counts as a “public display.” A swastika spray-painted on a school is clearly public, but what about a meme on social media or an image in a digital news article? Online platforms blur the line between private and public space. If a meme or emoji depicting a banned symbol is considered a “display,” Canadians could face charges for content shared in political or educational contexts. The government has not yet clarified how digital enforcement would work. Quick Guide: What Counts as Hate Propaganda in Canada Section 319(1):  Public incitement of hatred likely to lead to a breach of peace Section 319(2):  Wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group Section 319(2.1):  Wilful promotion of antisemitism (added 2023) Defences:  Truth, religious opinion expressed in good faith, and public interest discussion What This Means for You If Bill C-9 passes, Canadians may see new restrictions on how hate-related symbols appear in public and online. Protesters, educators, and journalists will need to understand when context offers protection—and when it might not. The outcome will shape how far Canada’s justice system can go in limiting hate speech without infringing on the right to free expression. It’s a test of how a democracy enforces respect while preserving liberty. The Policy Debate Ahead Parliamentary committees are expected to refine the bill’s definitions before a final vote. Lawmakers will debate whether to include contextual exemptions and whether to restore oversight for expressive offences. Civil-liberties groups urge stronger safeguards and clearer language. Others argue the Combatting Hate Act simply updates Canada’s laws to reflect modern forms of extremism. The final version of the bill will reveal which vision wins. “Bill C-9 could redefine what ‘public’ means in the digital age.” Canada stands at a crossroads between protecting communities and preserving the freedom to speak. Bill C-9 may become one of the most consequential legal tests of expression in recent years. Whether it achieves balance—or oversteps—will depend on how Parliament and the courts interpret its reach. Also Read : Combatting Hate Act: Canada’s Bill C-9 Explained Questions About Bill C-9 and Free Speech in Canada What is Bill C-9 in Canada? Bill C-9, known as the Combatting Hate Act, is proposed legislation that would make it illegal to publicly display hate or terrorism symbols, add a hate-motivated offence, and prohibit intimidation at religious or cultural spaces. Does Bill C-9 limit free speech in Canada? The government says it does not, but critics argue vague definitions could restrict lawful protest, satire, or artistic expression protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When will Bill C-9 become law? As of late 2025, the bill is in early stages of debate. It must still pass committee review, third reading, and Senate approval before becoming law.

A Coquitlam teacher faced public discipline for something most people would consider private: taking a quick vape in a staff washroom. The Coquitlam teacher vaping incident, according to the BC Commissioner for Teacher Regulation, resulted in a three-day suspension without pay and a public reprimand. The backlash was divided between “rules are rules” and “who cares.” The case has stirred debate about what really matters in schools: protecting student health, preserving professional standards, or policing adult choices. Beneath it all lies a question that affects anyone working in a rule-heavy environment. When does policy protect, and when does it overreach? What Happened To The Coquitlam Teacher Vaping In School In 2024, a Grade 1 teacher in School District 43 (Coquitlam) was disciplined after vaping in a staff washroom attached to her classroom, according to the regulator’s published summary. The teacher did not vape directly in front of students, but the behavior still violated both district and provincial policies. The BC Commissioner for Teacher Regulation found that her actions breached professional conduct standards. The teacher accepted the findings, received a three-day suspension without pay, and a public reprimand was issued. The case quickly became a talking point online about whether the punishment matched the act. What The Law Says In BC Schools BC’s Tobacco and Vapour Products Control Act prohibits using or holding an activated e-cigarette in or on school property. The ban applies to everyone: students, staff, and visitors, and covers buildings, parking lots, and even vehicles on site. The law also holds school boards and administrators responsible if vaping occurs under their supervision unless they can show they took reasonable steps to prevent it. School District 43’s Administrative Procedure 171 enforces the same rule. All district property, vehicles, and events are smoke and vape-free zones. The rule leaves little room for discretion. But is it always fair to treat a quiet vape the same way as lighting a cigarette in class? The Science vs the Stigma Around Vaping Vaping is not harmless, but it also is not the same as smoking, and that is where public opinion splits. Authoritative reviews from the U.S. National Academies and summaries from the CDC report that e-cigarette aerosol generally contains fewer toxic chemicals than cigarette smoke, yet can include fine particles, nicotine, and trace carbonyls. Indoors, those particles can build up temporarily before dissipating. For most adults, this level of exposure is unlikely to cause harm, but for children or people with asthma, even small irritants matter. To date, there is no evidence that passive vaping causes nicotine addiction, but health agencies advise precaution in shared indoor air. How It Compares To Cigarette Smoke And City Air Cigarette smoke lingers. It coats walls, fills lungs, and contains thousands of carcinogens. Vape aerosol disperses faster and carries far fewer toxins, but it still adds measurable particles to indoor air. Traffic emissions in Vancouver can raise PM2.5 and nitrogen dioxide near busy roads above typical indoor background levels, depending on location and time. The difference is scale. Traffic pollution is chronic and largely unavoidable, while indoor vaping is brief and entirely preventable. Why Schools Choose Zero Use Indoors Schools apply a simple rule: if it adds pollutants to shared indoor air, it does not belong inside. The safest way to protect students and staff is to remove the source. Provincial law leaves no gray area. Vaping on school grounds, at any time, by anyone, is prohibited. There is also the matter of example. Teachers are expected to model lawful and health-conscious behavior. Even if students never see it, vaping at work can erode the idea that everyone follows the same rules. For districts, consistency is key to maintaining trust. The Bigger Question – Health Rule Or Optics? For some, the Coquitlam case feels excessive. After all, most people breathe worse air standing beside a bus stop than from a faint puff in a staff washroom. But schools run on optics as much as safety. They are designed to model what is healthy, responsible, and legal. Secondhand vape aerosol may not be deadly, but it still conflicts with that message. In the end, this case is not about whether vaping itself is dangerous. It is about how institutions balance personal freedom with public accountability and whether those rules, however strict, are worth defending. What To Know If You See Vaping On School Grounds In BC, vaping anywhere on school property is prohibited under the Tobacco and Vapour Products Control Act. The rule applies 24 hours a day and covers staff, students, visitors, and contractors. Reports can be made directly to the principal or the school district office. Enforcement can include administrative penalties or workplace discipline. The simplest takeaway: vape anywhere off campus, but never on school grounds at any time of day. Sources: BC Tobacco and Vapour Products Control Act; School District 43 Administrative Procedure 171; BC Commissioner for Teacher Regulation; CDC and U.S. National Academies reviews on e-cigarette aerosol. Disclaimer:  This article is for general information only and is not legal advice.

Canada has seen some of the most horrific mass school shootings in modern history. With tragic events such as the École Polytechnique massacre in 1989, the Dawson College shooting in 2006, and the La Loche Community School shooting in 2016, there is an urgent need to protect the lives of students and staff within school premises. As the frequency of school shootings continues to be a pressing concern worldwide, we're going to examine the incidence and impact of Canada's mass school shootings to understand how to keep schools safe. Quick Answers: École Polytechnique massacre (1989) Dawson College shooting (2006) La Loche Community School shooting (2016) How common are school shootings in Canada? Canadian School Shootings: What's Being Done to Prevent Them? A List Of Canada's Mass School Shootings La Loche Community School Shooting (2016) Randan Fontaine, Source: CBC The last school shooting in Canada happened on January 22, 2016, in La Loche, Saskatchewan. Randan Dakota Fontaine, 17, killed four people, including his two brothers at a home and two teachers at the school. Seven others were injured. He had cognitive, social and developmental issues. Fontaine was charged with four counts of first-degree murder and seven counts of attempted murder. École Polytechnique massacre (1989) On December 6, 1989, 25-year-old Marc Lépine entered École Polytechnique in Montreal armed with a rifle. He opened fire on the student and staff and killed 14 women and injured 14 others before taking his own life. He specifically targeted women in his attack, and his actions were motivated by his hatred of feminists. According to The Conversation , he allegedly walked into a classroom and ordered the men to leave. He declared, “I hate feminists,” before opening fire. Dawson College shooting (2006) Source: Ian Barrett and Global News On September 13, 2006, 25-year-old Kimveer Gill opened fire at Dawson College in Montreal. Gill killed one person and injured 19 others, Gill shot himself soon after being shot in the arm by police. Gill wrote on a goth forum that he wished to die either "like Romeo and Juliet - or in a hail of gunfire". The incident highlighted the need for better emergency response plans and improved mental health services for students. How Common Are School Shootings in Canada? From 1885 to 2018, Global News reported 29 confirmed cases of school shootings in Canada, resulting in the deaths of 40 people and injuring 68 others. On average, this indicates that 0.4 school shootings occurred each year. In comparison, in the United States from 2013 to 2021, there was an average of 87 school shootings per year, as per Everytown Research. This resulted in an annual average of 28.4 fatalities and 59.6 injuries. Between 2009 and 2018, CNN reported a lower number of school shootings in the United States, with a total of 288 incidents identified using more stringent criteria. You can view the CNN graph below. Canadian School Shootings: What's Being Done to Prevent Them? In the aftermath of the tragic La Loche school shooting in 2016, Canada was forced to confront its history of school shootings and take proactive steps towards preventing future incidents. Passing Bill C-71 One notable step in 2019 was the passage of Bill C-71 by the federal government, which introduced stricter gun control laws and made it more difficult for individuals with a history of violence to obtain firearms. Schools Tightened Their Security Additionally, many schools have established emergency response plans and protocols for communicating with parents during a crisis. They've implemented lockdown drills and other preparedness measures to protect both students and staff in the event of a potential threat. Mental Health Services Furthermore, mental health services are being made available to students and teachers to identify and address warning signs of violence. While Canada has seen some of the deadliest mass school shootings in history, the overall incidence of such incidents in the country has been relatively low. Nonetheless, t he scars left behind by these events have had a lasting impact. There remains a pressing need for ongoing vigilance and protective measures to ensure the safety of students and staff within the school environment.