Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:40 p.m.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Education and Child Care
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Education and Child Care.

On Vote 20: ministry operations, $9,788,522,000 (continued).

Lynne Block: Thank you, Minister Beare, your colleagues and staff, for your time and interest today in these estimate proceedings.

Nelson Mandela once said: “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” And that, I hope, is what we do. At this critical moment in our world, nothing is more vital than ensuring our children receive the education they need not just to thrive but to lead, to heal and to shape a better future for us all.

First and foremost, I want to extend my heartfelt thanks to every individual working within B.C.’s K-to-12 education system: teachers, education assistants, clerical staff, bus drivers, custodians, maintenance teams, administrators and trustees. Your dedication shapes the future of our province.

I also want to thank the parents and guardians for their trust and my constituents in West Vancouver–Capilano for their continued support. As a lifelong educator and now Education critic, I remain deeply committed to advocating for every student in B.C. and to building a strong, inclusive education system that serves all.

I have received numerous thoughtful and significant questions from fellow MLAs, parents, teachers, school staff, boards and community members. These individuals are deeply committed to the success of our education system, and I appreciate your willingness to address their concerns.

This afternoon, I wish to place a series of questions on the record. I propose the following approach. While my questions are detailed and may require time to craft comprehensive answers, I trust that you will provide written responses as soon as possible afterwards.

Although time constraints prevent me from addressing all my questions today, it is important to have them on the public record. I am confident that the minister and their staff will work diligently to provide the requested responses in writing. Thank you for your engagement and commitment to these important matters.

Budget. On page 59 of the estimates, it states that the voted appropriation for ministry operations in ’25-26 is estimated to be $9,788,522,000 and that operating expenses for 2025-26 are estimated to be $9,827,605,000. Is this correct?

Interjection.

Lynne Block: She was supposed to be here, but something must have come up.

Hon. Lisa Beare: Happy to answer the question in the meantime while the member’s colleague arrives for child care.

Yes, that is correct. That is the number in the book.

[2:45 p.m.]

Lynne Block: Thank you, Minister.

As we all know, many school districts have had to cut programs, services, busing, learning centres, etc. to balance their budgets. On April 1, the government changed the budget document with which we are dealing. The removal of the consumer carbon tax will remove approximately $3 billion in tax revenue from the March 4 budget.

Here are my questions. Will this revenue loss be added to the record $11 billion deficit, or will this revenue loss be reflected in any budget cuts to the Ministry of Education and Child Care? In turn, will these revenue losses be reflected in further budgetary issues and cuts for school districts? To put it another way: will the $9 billion amount for each of the ministry’s operations and operating expenses remain the same, or will these amounts be changed moving forward because of the removal of the $3 billion in tax revenue?

Hon. Lisa Beare: I’m happy to provide the member an answer to that question, but I do see that the colleague for child care has arrived. I do have my child care team up here. I’m wondering if we want to do the child care questions, and then I’ll come back to the question for the member.

Lynne Block: Thank you. That’s very thoughtful. She’s got a few minutes. If that’s okay, I’ll just keep this and keep going.

These $9 billion amounts are totals for the whole Ministry of Education and Child Care. Now there is the new Ministry of Infrastructure, with Minister Ma, which, as I understand it, takes the vertical infrastructure of schools and prefabs, etc., out of the Ministry of Education and Child Care’s purview and is its own entity.

My question is: how will the minister allocate the ministry operations of the $9 billion for operating expenses and the $9 billion plus between Education and Child Care? How fluid is the allocation process, with specific amounts to different categories? Is it a concrete, prescribed process for each?

Are any funds coming from the Ministry of Education and Child Care for this new Ministry of Infrastructure, which is now responsible for educational infrastructure? If so, how much? If this new ministry is being funded separately, where is this funding coming from and how much is it, please?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: That move has already happened. The numbers in our blue book are reflective of that change, so our budget remains our budget.

Lynne Block: To the Chair, may I please let my colleague now speak?

Reann Gasper: Chair, I rise today to continue my line of questioning from day one of estimates and to do so with greater urgency.

What we are examining today is not a simple matter of bureaucratic detail or internal government planning. It is fundamentally about transparency, accountability and whether the government has honoured its commitments to British Columbian families and our federal partners.

We are now eight years into a ten-year universal child care plan, and the public deserves clear, honest and straightforward answers. We stand at a defining moment. British Columbia has received billions in federal funding and has spent $8 billion combined in provincial and federal child care investments since 2018-19. Yet we are still debating basic questions. Who actually has access? How many spaces exist? And, critically, what happens if federal funding is no longer available?

We cannot overlook what is at stake. With the federal election underway, British Columbia’s approach to delivering on its $10-a-day child care commitments will once again come under national scrutiny. That is why it’s our duty in this House to rigorously examine how this government built its system and what it has chosen to conceal and how far we still must go.

Let’s revisit the government’s flagship affordability initiative, the $10-a-day child care centres. We’re currently in the eighth year of the universal child care plan, which is targeted federal funding flowing into British Columbia since 2017-18. According to page 94 of the ministry’s 2024 transition binder, the government is now allocating $772 million — $644 million federal and $128 million provincial — exclusively into these centres over fiscal years of 2024-25 through 2026-27.

Yet despite seven full years of substantial public investment and now entering year eight, the government has delivered only 3,000 $10-a-day child care centre infant-toddler spaces out of the small total of 16,000 spaces created.

Although the ministry publishes the name and space composition of each individual centre on its website, it notably refuses to summarize the total breakdown by age group. When specifically asked on Thursday, the minister declined to provide the infant-toddler space count, forcing our research team to manually review the listing of all 334 centres individually in order to come up with the breakdown I asked the minister for.

To further contextualize the current annual cost of the $10-a-day program, it is approximately $284 million in combined federal and provincial spending. Yet out of the 16,000 funded spaces, only 3,000 serve infant-and-toddler, the age group with the greatest need. That raises serious questions about cost-effectiveness.

In practical terms, we’re spending nearly $100,000 per infant-toddler space per year. Because for every one infant-toddler space delivered, the government has had to create more than four spaces for older age groups just to keep the program financially afloat. Even worse, we’ve had no clarity on whether the families who most urgently need infant-toddler care are gaining access at all.

[2:55 p.m.]

There remains no means tests, no prioritized access for parents returning to work or school, no reliable way to verify that subsidized spaces are actually benefiting the families they are intended to serve.

Meanwhile, the other 134 licensed child care spaces across the sector must share just $124 million per year in base operating support through the child care operating fund program, a fraction of the funding directed to the $10-a-day initiative, which only serves 16,000 spaces.

After seven years and close to $8 billion spent, it’s clear that this government’s priority isn’t building a comprehensive or equitable system. It is preserving a political luxury brand that’s never lived up to its promise, a brand built on simplistic messaging, mass appeal and one-size-fits-all promises designed for headlines and not hard realities. Perhaps that is why the minister refused to release the annual Canada-wide early learning and child care progress report, choosing political optics over public transparency and timing over truth.

I return for a second day of estimates debate with the Minister of Education and Child Care, and I do so on behalf of families across British Columbia still searching for answers, families that are relying on us in this House to ask the hard questions and to demand accountability for the billions invested into child care by this government since 2018.

On Thursday, we heard the minister repeatedly cite unprecedented growth in child care. But when pressed for basic space coverage benchmarks, performance evaluations or even clear definitions, the answers were evasive at best and contradictory at worst.

Let’s take a closer look at the minister’s assertion of unprecedented growth. According to the Ministry of Children and Family Development report, from 2010 to 2011 British Columbia had over 6,500 government-funded infant-toddler spaces, 23,800 spaces for three-to five-year-olds and 700 school-age spaces. That would be 30 months.

So when we hear that the infant-toddler spaces have almost doubled, from 11,386 in 2017-2018 to 22,932 today, we must be clear. Much of that growth has been incremental, not transformational, and certainly not unprecedented. The minister’s refusal to provide year-by-year growth data on day one only underscores that reality.

I know this is politically uncomfortable for the government, but hiding the numbers or deflecting the questions only erodes public trust further, and the problem doesn’t stop there. The $10-a-day system is based on a foundation that this government knows has cracks from the start.

In January 2020, the ministry responsible for child care received a preliminary review report evaluating its 53 prototype sites. This was not a draft. This was a deliverable from Malatest and Associates, part of the $2.8 million government contract to do so, and it was explicitly designed to inform the next phase of expansion.

Several concerns raised in this report were notably absent, only briefly mentioned in the final public version. Section 5.2.2 of the preliminary report revealed that over the course of the prototype testing, many executive directors and site supervisors believed the $10-a-day fee was too low to sustain operations. Nearly half said the fee should be income-tested. Suggested alternatives range from $15 a day to $25 a day and even a proposed sliding scale from zero to $50, based on income.

These were not small technicalities. These were front-line insights whether the model was financially sustainable, but the details of these concerns were left out of the final evaluation.

Section 5.3.3 of the prelim report highlighted another critical concern. Several executive directors, supervisors and a number of supported child development and Aboriginal support child development staff and nearly all the licensing officers surveyed emphasized that accountability and monitoring must be prioritized if the government genuinely intends to deliver universal care effectively across the province.

[3:00 p.m.]

These accountability concerns were reinforced two months ago by the Auditor General’s highly critical report released on February 27, 2025, which explicitly flagged inadequate oversight, weak coordination by the Ministry of Education and Child Care with its Health partners and insufficient accountability measures as critical flaws, undermining the government’s universal child care implementation. Once again, these critical issues were either minimized or omitted entirely from the final public version of the earlier report.

Then there is the section about the hoarding behaviour. The initial report explicitly warned that the $10-a-day fee was causing families to hold onto spaces they didn’t need. Some were claiming full-time spots while only needing part-time, others were keeping children in care during the summer and reserving spots for siblings not in care.

The report stated plainly it would be prudent to re-examine the current fee structure to increase effective utilization of subsidized spaces. That statement was removed from the final version. I am asking why. Because, shortly after receiving the initial report in January of 2020, the government made a political choice. According to an internal evaluation timeline, three decision options were presented: wind down, hold steady or expand. The government chose to expand, likely before receiving the final evaluation report.

On Thursday, the minister dismissed the prelim report as merely a staff-level draft, yet an internal government document explicitly identifies it as an official deliverable, describing it as “focused on early results and financial implications to inform future rollouts.” The timing raises serious questions.

The $10-a-day model has been a marquee election promise since 2017. But by the fall of 2020, former Premier John Horgan had called an early election, and the final report from Malatest, the Evaluation and Analysis of Childcare B.C. Universal Prototype Sites, wasn’t posted online until after that election had already taken place. Does that sound familiar?

Fast forward to 2025. During the estimate debate last Thursday, the minister was directly asked why the 2023-2024 Canada-wide early learning and child care annual report required under the federal provincial funding agreement still hadn’t been publicly posted despite being overdue since January of 2025. The minister’s response: the report will be publicly posted after the federal election.

To make matters worse, when I pressed further about whether the 2023-24 CW-ELCC annual report had been posted, as explicitly required by the federal-provincial agreement, the minister again responded evasively. She claimed the report had been submitted to Ottawa on October 31, 2024, but inserted there was no January posting requirement. Yet, page 63 of the minister’s own November 2024 transition binder directly contradicts this claim, clearly stating under the terms of B.C. agreements with the government of Canada, the ministry is responsible for posting ELCC and CW-ELCC reports on the ministry website by January 2025.

Why is the minister insisting that British Columbians wait until after the federal government for the report they have already paid for? Information obtained from the B.C. Open Information website reveals taxpayers paid the consulting firm MNP $33,000 to produce this costly and now overdue report. And yet of today, April 7, 2025, the government still hasn’t made it public.

With the federal election currently underway, transparency and accountability from this government has never been more critical. And once again, we see critical information withheld in the middle of an election campaign, and once again, it is happening with child care.

It gets worse. In 2018 and 2020, prototype pilot was entirely federally funded through the original ELCC agreement. The cost was $30 million a year and yet there was no confirmation that the structural concerns raised in the first report were ever shared with the federal government before they launched their $30 billion national plan based on B.C.’s fundamentally flawed model.

[3:05 p.m.]

When I asked the minister directly if British Columbia had fully disclosed the critical concerns outlined in the preliminary report before becoming the very first province to sign the 2021 child care agreement, she brushed off the accountability, replying: “That’s a question for the federal government.”

British Columbians deserve far better than evasive deflections, especially when transparency and accountability are essential to ensuring the responsible use of the $30 billion in taxpayer dollars. If I was sitting in Ottawa right now, I would interpret that response as evidence that B.C. either withheld crucial information from its federal partners or simply isn’t taking its accountability obligations seriously. Neither scenario inspires confidence or trust.

The Chair: Member, noting the time, please frame a question.

Reann Gasper: I asked two, so I’ll go back.

My first one would be: why was the statement removed from the final version of the report? The statement would have been the current fee structure to increase effective utilization of subsidized spaces.

The Chair: Member, could you clarify the second question?

Reann Gasper: Chair, is it okay if I just read off a bunch of questions?

The Chair: You’ve noted two questions that you have. Should we start with those?

Reann Gasper: We’ll start with the one because I don’t want to waste time digging through for the other ones. I’ll just go through and read these ones.

The minister stated in this chamber that the report would be published after the federal election. Was this delay a direction from the Premier’s office, cabinet or a political staffer?

Does the minister believe it is appropriate to withhold a publicly funded report that evaluates the use of federal dollars during a federal election campaign?

Is the minister aware of any precedent or directive from the federal government advising provinces to delay the publications of CW-ELCC reports during elections?

Was the federal government informed that B.C. was delaying the release of the CW-ELCC annual report until after the election? If so, what was their response?

The report was produced at a cost of $33,000 to taxpayers by MNP. Why has the deliverable not been shared publicly if it is complete?

What specific content in the 2023-24 CW-ELCC report is so politically sensitive that it necessitates withholding it from the public during an election?

Will the minister commit to immediately releasing the 2023-24 CW-ELCC annual report and tabling it in this House regardless of the federal election timeline?

[3:10 p.m-3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: There was a whole, whole, whole lot in that 15 minutes from the member.

I want to begin by saying a couple of things. First off, I really find the member’s entire 15 minutes very regrettable and that line of thought and that line of questioning in this House right now.

I spent all Thursday afternoon with the member, happily answering the questions transparently. We brought the Hansard down to read back the numbers.

I know the member’s concerned about time, so I’m actually not going to do what I was going to do and read back all the areas where the member said I didn’t provide information, where I did, and where I didn’t provide the numbers, where I did.

What most concerned me was the member’s continued assertion and accusations that somehow information was being deliberately withheld, being deliberately withheld from the public, being deliberately withheld from this House right now during estimates, being deliberately withheld during a federal election.

This is entirely regrettable and dangerous, in fact, Member. It is dangerous for the member to make those kind of assertions in this House.

I’m going to provide the member some information. I completely answered the member’s questions in good faith on Thursday, and I’m going to continue to do that today. I went as far back as 2020 in answering questions about this year’s budget for the member. I will continue to do that, because I’m happy to provide the information for the member.

I just want to caution the member, because I know she is new in this House, to be very cautious with her words. This is a place for the people, and I know she knows that.

[3:35 p.m.]

Where to start. Okay, I’m going to start with this one.

As I said last week, included in the final Malatest report from August 2020 all the key findings from the January preliminary report that the member was concerned about — space hoarding, was concerned about things like sustainability, higher price point. All of those findings were included in the report. It has been fully transparent. It is publicly available. Nothing is being withheld, as the member is asserting. This report will be and is available to the public and continues to be.

For the MNP, we procure this independent audit of our financials in accordance with the Canada-wide early learning agreement, which requires audited financials as part of its annual report. It’s to inform the audited financials. It’s not to generate report back. It’s to audit the actual financials.

For the Canada-wide early learning report, as well, for ’23-24, we submitted, as I said last week, to the federal government on October 1, 2024. We’ve been working with Canada since then to finalize the report, to answer any questions that they had and to share information.

To clarify again to the member, within the agreement, there is no January 31 date. Absolutely nothing is being withheld. Absolutely nothing is being hidden, as the member asserts. Nothing is being not publicly produced. There is no January 31.

From the agreement, to clarify for the member, it actually says that we are required under the agreement to publicly release within 365 days of the end of each fiscal year. That means on March 31, 2025, for ’23-24. We go back and forth with the feds throughout this entire process, from October till now, to ensure that there is complete transparency. Again, the member’s assertions are both dangerous and incorrect.

I can let the member know that this report has not yet come up to me for final approval. Generally, with these kinds of reports, when we release them publicly — because they’re not just my report; it’s with the federal government as well — we have a standing practice, if you will, that we both give the nod. You know, everyone’s ready: “Yep, we’re ready to go.” We release the document.

The federal government is in interregnum right now, so we can’t do that standing protocol with the federal government — just give them the heads up, the document’s going out, and we’re all ready, ministers on both sides, to answer the question.

But again, I’m so absolutely dismayed and concerned with the member’s completely false accusations that I’m happy to provide the member a copy of the report, once it’s come to me and I’ve had a chance to approve it, immediately, so that the member can see the findings. Again, everything is made public. Everything is transparent. Everything is available to be looked at by both the member and the public.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister and her team for the answers. I look forward to engaging with you all on making it as transparent…. I wouldn’t be doing my job when I get letters from mayors of Kamloops, Smithers, Langley, asking about things that I’ve talked about.

There is no disrespect to the role you play, Minister. I know this is difficult work, and I know we need to come up with solutions.

I look forward to engaging more on getting solutions for British Columbians.

Lynne Block: On page 60, the estimates, fiscal year ending March 31, 2026, there are several titles that pique my interest. I will just give a quick run-through to save precious time and to ensure that they are in the record. I would appreciate if, at a later date, you’d put the answers in writing. It’s just because I wanted to just get a bit more full picture of what each was.

[3:40 p.m.]

First of all, transfers, for my records — transfers to other partners, which has a brief explanation. But could you please clarify the net amount of $63.527 million as to who these partners are and the precise services or initiatives being funded through these transfers so that they demonstrate clear value for us.

Just so I’m clear, the amount given on the financial summary for this title is different. It is $66,923,000, a difference of $3,396,000. I’m not sure which one is the final and the accurate one, please.

Another title is B.C. training and education savings program special account. Again, Minister, would you please clarify the net amount of $30,001,000, what it entails? And it has a slightly different title with no amount on the financial overview. I don’t know if that means it didn’t change, or something else.

Also, the Teachers Act special account, page 63, states that it is for $9,082,000. As I understand it, it is slated for increasing expenditure over the service plan period. But on the financial overview, the amount stated is $8,014,000, a difference of $1,068,000. Again, please let me know which table is the latest or most accurate one. Given that the Teachers Act primarily concerns the mandate of the B.C. Teachers Council in setting and upholding professional standards, I’d just like to know kind of what it covers.

The last one is what exactly is the $30 million allocated for British Columbia training and education savings program special account on page 63. If you could just detail the purpose of it and how it affects training and education, that would be terrific.

Hon. Lisa Beare: I think we need a little bit of clarification before we start generating our answers here. That’s twice now the member has somehow indicated that she expects me to both provide an answer verbally right now during estimates, which I always do, and then to re-provide it written, which is not the process.

Absolutely, there’s questions during estimates when I don’t have the information, that I can happily let the member know when I need to provide a written response. Or if we start getting low on time, and the member’s like: “I want to read out five, six questions. Can you provide me the answers after estimates?” Happy to do that as well, but I just wanted to get a sense from the member.

Maybe I misunderstood her, because absolutely, during the estimates, I provide a verbal answer, and then when I indicate that I can’t, we’ll provide a written answer, or if the member asks for it at a later date, but that’s…. Estimates are a verbal process during here right now. So just wanted to clarify.

Lynne Block: No, for the question of time, I wanted to know a little bit more about those categories, that’s all. If you could just let me know in writing on a later date, rather than today, otherwise I won’t get through all the stuff I want to get through. That was why.

The numbers are different, and I don’t quite know why. I want to just keep moving on though.

Hon. Lisa Beare: I know the member is new, and this is the first estimates process. It’s great that we’re getting to have a chance to lay that….

The numbers are different, you don’t know why, which is why you ask the question and I provide an answer, and that’s fantastic. We go through our time and if we run out of time at the end or if I can’t provide an answer, absolutely, the members can ask for a series of questions to be responded to at a later date for sure.

Lynne Block: Details on the $370 million budget boosts — according to this Budget 2025, the government of B.C. has allocated an additional $370 million over three years to support the K-to-12 education sector. As I understand, this funding aims to hire additional teachers, including special education teachers, psychologists and counselors to support the growing number of students with special needs.

In addition, the Premier promised an education assistant K to 3 in every classroom. This $370 million also includes, I believe, $17 million for students attending First Nations schools and $30 million in funding for independent schools under the Independent School Act regulations. Is this correct?

[3:45-3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: The member asked about some of the titles and what they entail, so the vote-appropriate descriptions. This is a subvote that provides for funding to support K-to-12 education; early learning and literacy; post-secondary and career transition programs, including scholarships and awards; and the official languages and education protocol.

There was also the executive support and services, which is mainly staff. It’s my ministry office and the deputy minister — the ministry in general, deputy minister and office and team.

The B.C. training and education savings grant, which is…. The B.C. training and education savings grant helps parents and guardians plan and save early for their child’s post-secondary education by providing a one-time grant of $1,200. I have more details about that if the member wants to ask.

Then we have the teacher special account. The teacher regulation in British Columbia has been established to deliver on a cost-recovery basis. The Teachers Act Special Account was created as a mechanism through which the application and the annual practice fees paid by teachers would fund all operating costs associated with the regulatory structure of the teaching profession.

Then the question about the increase this year. We have $322.9 million in funding under the classroom enhancement fund, the $17 million to fund caseload pressure for First Nations reciprocal tuition funding and $44.9 million for independent schools to fund enrolment.

We have a wage lift of $230.3 million to fund public school wage lifts related to the 2022 shared recovery mandate and for the cost-of-living adjustment and management-excluded compensation approved in the school year 2024-25.

We have associated increases related to the 2022 SMR costs for public schools. That’s $14.5 million. And we have $4.1 million to fund ministry administration; K to 12; child care; Teacher Act Special Account; and salary and benefit costs related to the 2022 shared recovery mandate, COLA and management-excluded compensation approved in the fiscal year of 2024-2025.

Lynne Block: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that. That’s really helpful. I did ask about the $370 million over the three years to support the K-to-12 education sector. What I wanted to….

[3:55 p.m.]

As a follow up on that, how many psychologists, how many counsellors and how many EAs do we have working in the provincial education system at present?

Hon. Lisa Beare: I know the member comes from the system, so I know the member understands that we fund districts based on their estimated enrolment, so for their class size and for their composition, and that includes a consideration of support needs. We fund according to those projected enrolment numbers, and then districts make decisions at the local level on their hiring, on what they need based on local agreements and based on what they have going on in their classroom.

I know the member knows that, but I wanted to lay that out here that we do have the co-governance model in K to 12. Districts make the hiring decisions within themselves.

I do have some numbers for the member. These are as of Q2, so December 31, 2024. I’ll read out what I do have. I’ll just put them all on record for the member, and she can continue after that. For teachers, I have 40,398; for EAs, I have 16,240; TTOCs, 14,697; counsellors, 1,046; and psychologists, we have 169.

Lynne Block: Thank you, Minister.

Interestingly, I wasn’t going to bring up the 1701, but that was a good point. The 1701, just for clarification, is when a school district adds up the number of students and their needs, etc., and they get funded accordingly.

[4:00 p.m.]

The biggest issue for some of the fast-growing districts like Surrey is that a lot of students come after the 1701, and they don’t have the funding. For example, in Surrey, they have approximately 100 new students per month. So the 1701…. Their funding is based on the end of September, so they have to find the funding from somewhere else — programs and things like that. That’s been the biggest difficulty. I would love to see another 1701 in January or maybe three times a year rather than just once a year. That’s coming from some secretary-treasurers who would like to have that.

Anyway, the other thing is I would love to…. I did some calculations, and I based it on 2022-2023 numbers. I’ve got huge information here, but I’ll boil it down that if we gave every single designated student in 2022-2023 the full $370 million, which is $123 million per year, and it was spent on each of, at that time, 86,596 diverse-needs students, it would work out to be approximately $1,420.39 per student. And it would be per student, not per class, because one-on-one with diverse-needs is the best way for education for them.

If that’s the case, it doesn’t seem to be enough. It’s a lot of money — $370 million is a lot of money. But is it enough to help diverse-needs students that we have now, because there are more psychologists, more counsellors and more EAs for those diverse-needs students?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: For the 1701…. I thank the member, actually, for bringing that up and for the question, and I hear the member’s concern. I know the member knows there’s the second count that is done in February, and students with diverse needs and disabilities are fully funded with that second count. I think that was important to get on the record.

For the $370 million, I did provide that breakdown in the previous answer I gave: $322.9 million going to CEF, $17 million to First Nations reciprocal tuition, $44.9 million for independent schools for enrolment, $203 million to fund public school wage lifts and the shared cost recovery mandate, $14.5 million for the SRM cost for public schools, and $4.1 million for the ministry K-to-12 child care, Teachers Act special account salary benefit, costs related to the shared recovery mandate, COLA, management excluded. That’s the breakdown of the $370 million.

Lynne Block: The $370 million…. I’d like to go back to the EAs. We were assured that there was the intention for the government to ensure that there’s an education assistant in every kindergarten-to-grade-3 classroom across the province. So is that a part of the $370 million, and is it separate?

According to the BCTF, it would mean the need to recruit and train approximately 2,200 new education assistants to complement the ones already working. Do we have additional? Are they being trained right now, or how is that going to work?

I don’t know how much that is of the budget of the $370 million for the EAs for K to 3.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: We have outlined where the $370 million is for the member, but I see that the member is trying to delve into the commitment we have, and my mandate letter commitment, to put an EA in every classroom. I’ll focus on that, then, because that’s what the member is asking.

The member will know, of course, that this is complex, multiministry work. We’re working with our partners across government, including the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education. When we look at the training side of the equation, there’s everything from the training, recruitment, retention — work we all need to do together, and we are doing that. This is now one of the key priorities at the K-to-12 workforce plan table, which involves our education partners, including CUPE and the TF, as we all come together and build out a plan on how we are going to meet that commitment of having an EA in every classroom.

That work is already underway, and we’re going to keep working with our partners. We have to continue to work with our districts, as well, to identify where the gaps are, where we do have areas that don’t have an EA in every classroom. It’s a lot of collaborative work that we’ve already begun.

Lynne Block: I thank you for that response. It’s exciting to see here that that’s going to go through. I like that.

Thank you for the clarification for the 1701. You’re right. We do have the second count. It’s just the in-between time that’s the difficulty.

I’d like to turn to the early intervention and literacy screening. I believe it was last year — please correct me if I’m wrong — that there was $30 million allocated for early screening being spent. How much remains?

It was for over three years, or $10 million a year, for literacy and early intervention. I just wanted to know if that’s still continuing, how much remains? What specific guidelines have been provided to the school districts? How many children have been screened to date? How many are still awaiting screening? And what supports have been put in place for those identified through the process, including the EAs?

Once the $30 million is fully spent…. It’s set for three years. What is the government’s plan for screening future students? Is there a commitment to ongoing funding for this program beyond the initial three years? And can that be found in this budget?

Hon. Lisa Beare: My team can’t keep track and answer 15 questions at once. It’s hard for us. I hear a general theme of where the member is going, and I can provide that theme answer. But if the member has specific questions, the member needs to ask the question, and then let me respond to the question, or else we’re going to lose on giving out the important information that the member is trying to get.

I take the theme. I’ll answer the theme and as many of the questions as we were able to copy down in that rapid fire. Then if the member would like to follow up with further questions, it would be very useful for the team. Typically, estimates is ask a question, and we provide the answer.

[4:15 p.m.]

I want to thank the member for the question.

I know, as an educator, she must feel how I do, how it is so important to support children who are struggling with, whether it be reading or writing, everything that we can do as a system — to support them and prop them up and set them up for success, which is why we do invest $30 million over three years to improve literacy levels for students. This includes supports for students with a number of learning differences.

This funding, the $30 million, supports school districts to scale up early literacy screening for kindergarten-to-grade-3 students and expands the provincial outreach programs to teams to provide new screening and literacy intervention supports.

[4:20 p.m.]

The member asked about the breakdown over the years — where the money goes. The $30 million is broken down basically into about three buckets: literacy screening, intervention and professional learning.

There was a question about the breakdown of the three years. Year 1 was $19.672 million. We’re in year 2. That’s $5.238 million. Year 3 is $5.138 million. Government does operate in three-year budget cycles, as the member knows, so we’re in year two. We now get the chance to begin evaluating the impacts of this initiative and how it’s benefiting students as we go through our budget cycles over the years for a three-year cycle.

Lynne Block: Thank you, Minister.

I know it’s second year, and you’re going to review to see…. I would like to inform you that parents and teachers really like the program. So if there’s any possibility of it continuing and not stopping, because early intervention is the best way rather than a down the river sort of thing, finding out later on in grades 5 or 6 they have it…. I would really encourage that to be continued.

I’m looking at now the autism, severe disability or complex health care needs and supports background. Budget 2025 provides $172 million more over the fiscal plan to support more children and youth with autism diagnoses as well as families accessing medical benefits for children and youth with severe disability or complex care needs.

A good friend of mine…. Her daughter was the most complex care person who went through one of my school districts and as an adult now is still…. Tremendous issues for the family. It was an uphill battle all the time from the start. So her concern is that other parents and teachers get the support that they need. It does sound like a great deal of extra money. I don’t know what the pot was that you’re adding it to. But it would be really nice to know that children who really need the help will get it and the families and the things.

I’ve got a whole bunch of questions about that, but I won’t…. I would just say that I will be asking you in another, informal, meeting about how that’s going. I’d really appreciate that.

Hon. Lisa Beare: Much of what the member said actually is housed in MCFD. So the member may get a chance to ask that question further on in the estimates calendar with the Ministry for Children and Families.

Lynne Block: I love knowing where to find the information. That’s lovely. Thank you.

Mental health of children and youth. I’m just going to go…. According to the ministry, about 75 percent of serious mental health issues emerge before the age of 25. The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected children and youth, especially those who were already struggling. About 12 percent of children between the ages of four and 18 are affected by mental health disorders.

According to a 2023 survey of nearly 15,000 B.C. teens aged 15 to 17…. It found that 50 percent rated their mental health as fair or poor, with 38 percent screening positive for depression and 39 percent for generalized anxiety. Additionally, 36 percent needed but did not seek professional mental health care in those past six months.

The 2023 B.C. adolescent health survey reported that youth were less likely to engage in sexual activity but experienced poorer mental health, increased self-harm, reduced school safety and diminished hope for the future compared to previous years.

To the minister: is it still your intention to provide each public school with a dedicated mental health counsellor to support student well-being and address mental health challenges? And if that’s a yes, which I hope it is, of the $370 million over three years to support the K-to-12 section, how is that going to be earmarked for mental health counsellors, psych-ed assessments or school psychologists? So that’s the theme: mental health.

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: Thank you to the member for the question, because supporting mental health and the well-being of students and adults in our system is a key part of fostering safe and caring schools, which we are trying to build out all across our communities.

We do have the ministry’s mental health in schools strategy in alignment with Pathways to Hope, providing a pathway and a vision for embedding mental health and well-being into all aspects of our school system.

In our ministry, in partnership with the ministries of Health and Children and Family Development, we continue to support the operation and implementation of 39 integrated child and youth teams across 20 school district communities.

We provide children and youth with multidisciplinary wraparound mental health and substance use care when they need it and where they need it, at schools and in the community.

I have to say, Chair, my community was the first to put their hand up and get one of the ICYM teams. We know how valuable this type of service is. I’m so happy that our government was able to launch it about seven years ago in communities like ours. Because we know what a difference it makes to meet kids where they’re at, to take a child and their family and be able to provide all the services in one location where they’re providing information just to one team, so they don’t have to go through the trauma of retelling their stories again and again and telling it to different service providers all across the community. We’re providing that service right in community.

There are a number of trainings that we’ve offered as well. We have six free online sessions for families and children and youth and mental health, substance use. Those have been offered over the last two years with a total of 2,470 participants. We also have hosted four mental health in schools conferences with over 2,000 attendees. These are amazing conferences that continue to provide the backbone of that support in our community and in our schools.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

We support compassionate systems leadership training of approximately 4,500 school staff across 56 districts. As we build out our mental health in schools strategy and the actions we’re doing…. I think there are a number of key highlights that the member needs to know, before we continue to talk about mental health in schools, of the actions we’ve done and what we’ve been able to accomplish.

We put in place compassionate systems leadership training, provided to the 4,500 participants as we talked about. We released MindUp for Educators to promote well-being and to build resilience through self-care and mindful teaching. When we talk about integrated compassionate systems leadership into strengthening early years in kindergarten transitions, we’ve implemented the ICYM teams, as I talked about.

We’re building capacity by allocating $27 million in mental health in school grants to all 60 districts and to FISA BC to support mental health and substance use initiatives.

[4:30 p.m.]

We’ve developed a mental health dashboard for school districts to enhance data literacy. We’ve hosted the conferences, as we talked about, and provided a mental health leadership network with representatives from all 60 districts and FISA as well.

We’re building mental health in the classroom by releasing a decision-making toolkit to support educators in selecting age-appropriate, effective mental health and substance use resources, and we developed mental health and substance use language guides for educators and families to promote mental health literacy.

We’ve offered virtual sessions of mental health promotion and substance use prevention for parents, guardians and caregivers, and we’ve supported a refresh of the iMinds resource to support substance use education, because we know all these tools are vitally important for both the educators, the staff in schools, and for the youth themselves.

We have, as a government, made the commitment to get a counsellor in every school. This is a big commitment. And it’s very similar to the work we’re doing with the EAs and the answer that I gave before on how we need to work across ministries and across the entire system in cooperation with our partners.

So we have that K-to-12 workforce plan table, as I mentioned with the EAs. This is another one of those key pillars that we’ve brought to this table to build out.

When we look at the training that we’re going to have to do in the post-secondary system, when we look at ways — the system and the district — that we can all work together for recruitment and retention of school counsellors, we need to be keeping the counsellors we have in the system within the system. And we need to bring on new counsellors, as well, into the system. There’s a lot of work to do there.

But this is vitally important work that is already underway.

Chair, can I request a five-minute bio break?

The Chair: Absolutely. This committee is in recess for five minutes. I have 4:31 on my watch. I would like everybody back in their seats by 4:36, please.

The committee recessed from 4:32 p.m. to 4:37 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Education and Child Care.

I now recognize the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.

Lynne Block: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the response.

According to the BCTF, it stated that to meet the proposed staffing levels we would need an additional 450 school counsellors — just to handle what is happening right now.

I’m glad you brought up Pathway to Hope. It has a good program, and it serves a lot of needs in the communities. It serves a lot of people: First Nations–operated schools, independent francophone, alternative schools or not-attending schools. So it really is including clinical counsellors, youth substance use and mental health clinicians, Indigenous Elders and workers supporting Indigenous children and youth.

Now, I understand it’s already in certain districts, and it was going to be in seven more in 2023. It is planning this year to have 20 more school districts. I wanted to bring up Pathway to Hope. If that is…. Obviously, it’s working. How many more do we need to fan out over the province?

Also, I wanted to bring up Foundry facilities, because they are very similar — different approach, but very similar. How many more Foundry facilities will we be able to put into the province?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: Thank you to the member for the question.

Yes, these are questions, actually, that the member will be asking the Minister of Health, who is in estimates for another few more days. The member will be able to ask both the ICY teams and the Foundry. Those are both funded through Health.

Lynne Block: Thank you, Minister. So Minister of Health…. Is the teachers’ mental health a part of that ministry as well, or is that appropriate to ask in this session?

Hon. Lisa Beare: We do address mental health in classrooms, which includes teachers, in our mental health in schools action strategy, which I did talk a little bit about earlier. So absolutely, the member is good to ask questions about that mental health in schools strategy here, during these estimates.

Lynne Block: As we all know, the major expenditure of every school district are the wages of staff. The rising mental health challenges among teachers and education staff is placing increased pressure on school districts across B.C. Burnout, anxiety and workload-related stress are frequently cited as reasons for absenteeism, early retirements and declining interest in the profession.

In fact, the BCTF has estimated that over 20,000 teachers will struggle with mental health issues before the age of 40, and hundreds leave the profession, actually, annually due to stress, burnout and poor work-life balance. These challenges directly affect classroom stability, student outcomes and district budgets, particularly given the growing need for substitute coverage and recruitment spending.

I know you’ve got some programs to get more people in to become teachers. I’m just wondering: are there any designated programs or policies that you want to put into effect to deal with that, because it’s more increased stress for teachers and educators?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: We know retention of teachers and all staff in the K-to-12 system is vitally important to ensure that we keep our students supported.

We are providing more resources for teachers right out of the gate so that these teachers who are early on in their careers are able to feel more supported and not feel the weight that they have so that we can continue to build out that development piece.

We do have a specific component in that K-to-12 workforce table that we’ve been talking about, as well, around supporting teachers and retention and what we can do in the system as a whole. In fact, we just released, a week or two ago, in conjunction with the BCTF, a new teacher mentorship program. We’ve brought that back so that educators are able to connect with their peers and with mentors to be able to help lighten the load.

We do have some very exciting initiatives that we’ve done as well over the past years to really support teachers, to support staff in schools, to ensure that they do have that mental health training, that support, that work we can all do together to support them in the system.

We talked about the compassionate systems leadership training. That’s 4,500 school staff over 56 school districts. That’s a large number of our districts going through and ensuring that they’re getting that information, getting that training, getting that support.

We’ve built compassionate systems leadership, which is an intentional approach to provide school staff training on tools and practices to take care of their well-being and to build that resilience that we’ve talked about. This is a whole-system approach that considers the interconnectedness — getting very much into the mental health space here — of self to others and the underlying structures and cultures that enable and prohibit systems change that leads to student success.

This is big transformative work being done. We do have our ERASE mental health and substance use tool and webpage, which provides students, school staff and families with mental health and substance use information and resources, including educator resources, to support mental health literacy, to support decision-making for mental health resource selection and ways to embed mental health into their learning environments so they can feel confident they have the tools in the classroom.

On May 5 and 6 this year, we’re hosting, as I mentioned earlier, the mental health in schools conferences. We’re hosting our fifth one this year to bring together K-to-12 early learning representatives and partners to learn, to network, to engage in supporting mental health and well-being in school communities. This conference, on average, brings together about 350 to 450 participants.

We convene a mental health leadership network, which includes representatives from all 60 school districts and the Federation of Independent School Associations, every six weeks from October to May. The network meets, it shares resources, and it co-designs programs to work collectively within the sector and across the sector to foster mental health and substance use supports and resources for students, for educators, for administrators, for staff, for families.

This is just a small portion of the work we’re doing in the system, because we know how important it is to support everyone in the K-to-12 system around their mental health and well-being.

[4:50 p.m.]

Lynne Block: Thank you, Minister.

It’s interesting. I’ve had a whole list of all the issues that teachers have with the system right now — workload, burnout, stress. One of them is MyEdBC, which I had when I was teaching. It was awful, and it’s still awful. It’s probably even worse now. Just a thought: with this new technology and AI, something could be done better.

For example, one poor teacher had to report on nine separate learning areas for 28 students, providing positive descriptive feedback, including current strengths and next steps for each subject. This totals 280 comments, takes an additional 40 hours of work over three to four weeks, often resulting in burnout, illness and absenteeism, which costs money to the school district. Perhaps that’s something.

The other things they are frustrated with are the learning updates — I have some questions that they wanted me to ask; I’ll put them in writing and send them to you, because they wanted to know what your responses would be — and the communication guidelines.

Let’s go to the letter grades. This has been quite the subject for many parents, and teachers have expressed their deep frustration and concern to me about the changing of the provincial grading policy. In British Columbia, the approach to student assessment varies by grade level, kindergarten to grade 9, with traditional letter grades having been replaced with a proficiency scale: “emerging,” “developing,” “proficient” and “extending.”

Now, I know that the system was aimed to provide more specific and descriptive feedback on a student’s progress, focusing on their learning journey rather than just a letter grade, but it really is a failing grade. I’ve got lots of questions about that, about pilot programs or how it came about.

There was an education committee. The last time it met was in 2006. I would love to start meeting again; I think it’s really important. I don’t know what decisions have been made in the last 19 years. They’ve had huge impacts on education in British Columbia.

What were some of the weaknesses, and why the descriptor terms? This is from an objective observer, looking at the descriptive terms and why people are struggling, both teachers and parents:

“Lack of familiarity for parents and students, transition confusion, uncertainty in expectation, subjectivity and inconsistency, interpretation variability, teacher bias, lack of clear academic ranking, difficulty in comparisons, limited focus on final achievement, focus on process over outcome, ambiguity in communication, limited detail, confusion in planning.”

That takes me to the assessments, PISA and FSA. With the decision to shift away from letter grades to descriptors, this brings me to the topic of prescribed learning outcomes and assessments. I like the prescribed learning outcomes. They are helpful for parents and teachers to have clear, transparent and consistent benchmarks across the province as to what a student should know at each grade level and, if a student is ahead or behind, to ensure that there are supports and resources available.

To the minister: I’m not sure if they are updated, still in use, if they are still standardized or not.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: For the member, the old curriculum had prescribed learning outcomes, as the member outlined. The new curriculum has learning standards.

We did hear feedback, from the teacher community, that the PLOs were too prescriptive. There was too much content for teachers to be able to cover meaningfully. So in the new curriculum, there are fewer prescribed topics that all teachers must cover, and teachers have more autonomy to choose the areas of focus, depending on their expertise and the interests of their students.

The learning standards of the curriculum are easily accessible on the ministry website, alleviating some of the concerns that the member mentioned earlier in her question.

Lynne Block: Thank you, Minister.

Well, that brings me to PISA and FSAs. For those who don’t know, PISA is the program for international student assessment. It’s an international one that measures 15-year-old students’ knowledge and skills in the areas of math, science and reading. PISA has been administered every three years in the official language of the jurisdiction, and starting this year, 2025, it will switch to a four-year cycle.

In 2022, B.C. students scored well above the OECD average in science. Reading — females outdid males in the reading. Math — while B.C. students scored above the OECD average in math, there was a noted decline in performance compared to previous assessments.

Let’s turn to FSAs, foundational skills assessments. As you’re likely aware, Minister, there are schools, teachers and organizations that actively discourage participation in these assessments. A primary concern they raise is that FSA results can misrepresent the effectiveness of a teacher or school, especially when strong educators working in challenging contexts receive poor results. That said, FSAs can serve a valuable purpose. When interpreted thoughtfully, they provide insight into where resources are needed or where they might be reallocated to better support student learning across the province.

Let’s take a look. According to the data of ’23-24 FSA results, 72 percent of grade 4 students and 71 percent of grade 7 students are classified as “on track” or “extending” in literacy. While some might view these numbers as encouraging, I don’t. For me, a minimum of 80 percent of the students should be “on track” or “extending” in literacy.

The concern deepens with numeracy. Only 63 percent of grade 4 students and 56 percent of grade 7 students meet the same benchmarks. These results are alarming. In some parts of the world, students are tackling advanced concepts like calculus as early as grade 3.

Looking further into the 2022-23 graduation assessment results, just 45 percent of Grade 10 students met expectations in numeracy. Meanwhile, 73 percent of Grade 10 and 77 percent of Grade 12 students were “proficient” or “extending” in literacy.

[5:00 p.m.]

Does the minister see any correlation between the lower numeracy or literacy scores with the change and replacement of letter grades with descriptors?

Hon. Lisa Beare: Thank you to the member for the question because, absolutely, I share the member's concerns in seeing a dip in our numeracy and our literacy rates across the system. We do need to recognize that British Columbia remains a global leader. There's a lot to be proud of, but we need to be concerned when we see these dips.

I think it's important to say that this is a trend we are seeing all across North America. So I think there's something we all need to dig into there when we take a look at a significant continent-wide trend like that.

No, I do not see a correlation between letter grades and the scores. Those are entirely two different topics. In fact, K to 3 has never had letter grades, and the FSAs delivered in grade 4 would be with students who had never actually had a letter grade prior.

It's important, when we talk about literacy and numeracy, that we all work together to take a look at the results and the trends.

[5:05 p.m.]

My ministry staff are digging into this and looking for the potential reasons for declines.

We do have more students participating in assessments than we ever had before, which is positive. We are seeing the number of participants in the FSAs on the rise, but as our data gets more robust, we are seeing gaps in results. And we need to address that, absolutely. I agree with the member. It is a concern for me.

That is why, over the past two school years, we've worked with teachers to develop new resources to support classroom teachers to teach literacy and numeracy. We have the $30 million that we discussed earlier, over three years, to support our students — to achieve those proficiencies and provide those supports.

I think it's important the member should know that we are providing support in a number of ways. We're putting in professional learning grants for districts. We're funding provincial resource programs to hire more literacy specialists. We're developing new literacy and numeracy resources for teachers in K-to-4 literacy and numeracy.

And we're paying attention, as a government, to other factors that affect children's ability to learn as well. We put in place a cell phone ban in schools so that kids can continue to focus.

We are providing school food programs that didn't exist before, because we know a child cannot do their best, and they cannot learn, if they arrive at school with an empty stomach. So we're providing those hot meals and that support, which hadn't happened before as well. We are providing, and we covered it extensively, mental health supports in schools.

We're taking a look at the whole child, supporting the whole child in the system, while also taking a look at that literacy and numeracy drop, which I'm concerned about, and putting very targeted resources into those areas, as well, so that we can support all our learners in being successful.

Lynne Block: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that.

Let's bring up a lovely topic, SOGI, sexual orientation and gender identity, which was originally introduced as an anti-bullying resource to support LGBTQ students.

But many parents and community members have expressed concerns. They want SOGI-related materials in schools to be clearly age-appropriate and focused on anti-bullying, not on content they feel belongs more appropriately in sex education. Specifically, they've raised concerns that some resources do not seem to centre on inclusivity or anti-bullying or safety but instead include explicit content.

I've got a list of books, and they're all under SOGI, but they're all about sex. I won’t even say the terms right now, because it's in public, and I would be very embarrassed to come back on that.

But anyway, they believe that materials containing such references should be reserved for formal sex education with appropriate age guidelines.

Now, I understand…. And this is a quote: “Under current legislation and policy, the ministry is not able to prohibit the use of resources that have been approved by school districts.”

However, “parents are able to challenge the use of resources in their local school district if they feel a particular resource is not age-appropriate,” and should contact their school district's resource approval process if they wish to do so.

During question period on March 11, 2025, you made a comment in response to my colleague asking about age-appropriate resources specifically regarding SOGI education. You stated: “I absolutely agree with the member that any materials that are provided in school need to be age-appropriate. I am committed to making sure that students get the best education possible in an age-appropriate way, that schools have access to resources that they need and that kids have access to the resources and the information that they're looking for in an age-appropriate manner.”

I won't tell you what my kindergarten grandson came home talking about from supposedly anti-bullying. It was not appropriate at that age at all, nor the topic.

You also stated: “I've directed the ministry to work towards a provincial framework that includes a specific criteria assuring that age-appropriate materials are in schools, and I thank the member for the question.”

Can you provide details about the criteria in this provincial framework to ensure that the SOGI resources are age-appropriate and only focused on anti-bullying topics? Also, could you give us a timeline for implementing it, please?

[5:10 p.m.-5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: For the member, I want to let the member know that our schools need to be a safe place, no matter how you look, no matter what you wear, no matter where you come from or what your background is.

How do we make kids safe? How do we do that? We teach kids that it’s not okay to bully. We teach kids that it’s okay to have two moms or two dads, that it’s okay to dress differently, it’s okay to wear a turban or hijab, it’s okay to be queer, and it’s okay to be yourself. It is not okay to bully. It is not okay to call each other names. That is exactly what our anti-bullying framework does.

SOGI is one piece of our broader anti-bullying framework. I think it’s very important that we put that stage here down when we have these questions. We know how important it is to ensure that we are supporting all students in our system. We need to make sure that our schools are safe and inclusive and caring, and we do that through our broader anti-bullying framework.

Now, directly to the member’s question…. I think it’s also important that when we talk about resources in schools and library resources, this is not SOGI-specific. Ensuring that we have age-appropriate resources in schools is about all resources. We want to make sure that kids are able to access the information they need about a number of questions in age-appropriate ways.

We know all too well that too many students have a cell phone in their pocket and can access materials from all around the world. I’m a parent of a nine-year-old who has her iPad, and these are things I worry about every single day. We need to make sure that we’re supporting our youth, and we do this by ensuring that we have that strong, inclusive framework within the schools.

I did commit to ensuring that library resources are age-appropriate for schools. I do believe that’s important. I made that commitment to ensure that we in the ministry are creating relevant and current guidance for K-to-12 educators to promote safe and inclusive learning environments for all students.

We’re creating policy guidance for boards of education to have policies and procedures for selecting library books, accompanied by a set of guiding criteria for districts to ensure that library books are age- and developmentally appropriate and reflect the diversity within a school community.

That is work we’re doing right now. I’ll have more information about that at a further date for the member. This is a guideline that we have committed to have in place for September so that we can ensure that everyone across the province is doing the same thing.

I do think it’s very important to also put on the record that the work we are doing with our anti-bullying framework, our safe and inclusive schools, and SOGI is working. We are seeing a decline in bullying within our districts, and where we’re seeing the biggest impact is on young boys. I think that’s very significant to know — that the work we’re doing with our entire anti-bullying framework is having effect.

Lynne Block: Thank you, Minister. Talking about student safety in the schools and school police liaison officers…. Victoria, I believe, was not the only one that did not have school police liaison officers. I’m not sure if they have them now, but New Westminster and Gulf Islands, at that point, didn’t.

[5:20 p.m.]

The topic of school safety and the role of SPLOs has become a wee bit contentious in B.C. Many school districts continue to see value in SPLOs for fostering mentorship, safety and positive relationships between students and law enforcement. Sometimes, though, concerns are being raised about systemic inequities, student well-being and a perceived erosion of trust between marginalized communities and the school system. The debate reflects broader questions about how best to support safe, inclusive learning environments.

The 2023-2024 student learning survey data reveals some concerning trends around student well-being and connectedness in B.C. schools. Adult support. When students are asked if they feel there’s an adult that they can trust and is supportive of them, at the grade 4 to 7 level, only 62 percent of the students said yes. Of grade 10 to 12, only 64 percent, meaning over a third of students don’t feel supported by adults in their schools.

Sense of belonging is even lower — 60 percent for grades 4 and 7 and just 53 percent of grade 10s and 12s, highlighting a troubling disconnect, particularly among older students. While safety is higher, at 77 percent for both groups, that still leaves nearly one in four students who do not feel safe at school, a critical issue that warrants attention.

These results suggest that many students, especially in high school, feel disconnected, unsupported and potentially unsafe, all factors that negatively impact learning, mental health and long-term academic success.

Is the ministry developing a consistent provincial framework to support school safety, well-being and inclusion across all districts, besides the anti-bullying? Will this framework include clear guidelines, policies, restorative practices, etc., regarding the role of School Police Liaison Officers?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: For the member, I want to make sure I put on record that student safety is my number one priority. It is absolutely vital that our students show up at school, that they feel safe, feel included, feel part of a community. So I welcome any questions on this, because absolutely that is work that every single person in the K-to-12 system is working hard to ensure every single day — that we are connecting with kids in our schools to make sure that we're providing that safe, inclusive environment.

I've got some details I want to get into for the member, but these are changes that are happening at every single level in a district. They can be anything small. Instead of a warning bell at 8:25, it's a welcoming bell now. Training has gone in with the bus drivers to ensure that they're working with kids to provide that safe, inclusive environment as well. They are the first point of contact for many students in a day.

Every single person in the system recognizes this and wants to make improvements. I think of the…. We talked a little bit about the feeding futures program and the work that we're doing to keep kids fed so that they can be their best selves at school. Well, these are called “breakfast clubs” in most schools. Kids get to come. Some schools have 80 percent participation rate of their students, depending on the school and in the district. They get to go to breakfast club with a group of adults who serve them a warm breakfast, have a conversation with them every single morning. And they get to do this with their peers and feel connected as part of a group of students as well.

My daughter Brinley loves to go to her breakfast program at school, which her dad was really upset about at the time because he was like: “It's not for us. She doesn't need this.” And I said: “No, no. This is exactly what we want to see. We want to make sure that students are feeling connected in their school, that they're a part. They feel like they can access any program, any time, any place.”

She's so excited to go see Tracy in the morning. That's her first point of contact. She might be obsessed with the frozen yogurt tube that is provided as well. That might be the reason why she goes mainly. But she says that it's to go visit Tracy in the morning, who provides the breakfast. These are important connections, and this is the culture that is being switched in schools every single day.

We have the ERASE program in schools, which is expect respect and a safe education. That strategy focuses on fostering safe and caring and inclusive schools. Every school district, as well as independent schools, have dedicated safe schools coordinators, who are responsible for district-wide school safety initiatives. Through the ERASE website, students and families and school staff can have access to free online training to help students stay safe, in person or online, and help stay connected.

[5:30 p.m.]

We have over 116,000 students and families and educators and community partners that have taken part in this training since 2012. In the 2023-24 school year, over 1,300 educators and community partners participated, and 31,000 students and 5,600 families participated in these trainings.

We did refresh the website in 2024 to include a mobile design for mobile devices so that students and adults can access all the resources they want about diversity, inclusion, mental health, substance use, and also have access to an easy Report It tool.

Now, I was talking about the training. This is really important, a bunch of the training that we’re offering. When we look at sessions for students, we have everything from consent, gender-based violence, online and in-person training and relationship-based training.

We have safe and caring respectful digital communities training where we discuss the use of social media and digital and cyber security, cyberbullying.

We have safe and caring and respectful digital communities which talks about the use of technology at home and in the community and focuses on online safety risks. We have family practices for safeguarding against cyberbullying and sextortion.

We have trauma-informed practices for mental health and learning in schools. We have foundations such as school safety, which discusses the building blocks of creating safe and caring inclusive schools and the threat and risk assessments, as well as providing information on the ERASE strategy.

I mean, I’ve got pages of the training that we’re doing here. I’ll just read some of those into the record so that the member knows that every single person in the ministry…. I know every single person, and the member, comes from schools, from the system, and how important this is to every single adult in our system to ensure that we are connecting with students, ensuring they feel safe, ensuring they feel included.

Lynne Block: Thank you, Minister. My apologies for being a little bit discombobulated there. I will absolutely review every word you’ve said. Anyway, thank you so much.

I would like to say a couple of things. I was going to do the budget contingencies. Now because of the less money, because of the carbon tax being removed, it looks like about a billion dollars in the contingency rather than four. Regardless, according to the quote of what the contingency can be used for, I’m hoping that if there are any issues and we need more money in education and/or health, that we can take it from there.

But anyway, for the record, there was once a standing education committee. However, it is my understanding that it has not convened since 2006. Over the past 19 years, numerous significant decisions have been made in education, many perhaps without the input of opposition MLAs, constituents or other key stakeholders.

As an educator, I believe informed decisions require diverse perspectives, authentic research and meaningful data. I sincerely hope this committee is reinstated, and I’d like to be a part of it, so that members from all sides can collaborate to ensure every child and youth in our province receives the education they truly need and deserve. So I’d like to reestablish it, and I’d love to be on it.

I’m going to conclude, but I’ve got…. Can I conclude and then have my colleagues…. Because they’ve each got a question? Is that all right? Thank you.

Thank you, Minister, for your time, attention and thoughtful responses during these estimates. Thank you, Chair and Clerk, for your patience and expertise. I also want to extend my gratitude to the Minister’s staff, the whole team everywhere, the Ministry team and everyone who contributes to supporting education in our province.

[5:35 p.m.]

While there are still challenges ahead, I remain hopeful that through open dialogue, collaboration and a shared commitment to students, we can build a system that is meaningfully inclusive, equitable and forward-thinking. I look forward to continuing this important work together for the future of all our children and youth.

Scott McInnis: Thank you so much, Chair. Thank you to my fellow member, and thank you to the minister for following up on a couple of questions which are really important to me.

Just circling back to the education assistants in classrooms. The promise of fulfilling an EA in every K-to-3 classroom in B.C. — does that just include public schools, or would that also be in independent schools as well?

Hon. Lisa Beare: I am loving this panel. This is going to be interesting.

The commitment was for public schools, but we work really closely with FISA, the Federation of Independent Schools. And in fact, the member wasn’t here earlier when I answered the question. They are at the K-to-12 workforce plan table, and so these are conversations we’re having right now as we build out that commitment, and there’ll be more information about it coming in the future. But thank the member for the question.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

I heard the answer given about some post-secondary recruitment thing for educational assistants.

When does the ministry hope to have their fully implemented K-to-3 EAs finished in British Columbia?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: For the member, it sounds like he heard my earlier answer, which is great because it is quite similar. That is work that we’re doing right now, building out that plan with our education partners and taking a look at what that commitment looks like and how we build that out. I don’t yet have an answer for the member on that, but more information to come, absolutely.

This is complex multi-ministry work when we take a look at training. For example, I’m working with post-secondary. When you unnest retention, and recruitment as well, there are a number of pieces that have cross-ministry and cross-partner work there. We need to continue to work with districts to identify where the gaps are.

And then our schools are dynamic. They change every single year. This is work that’s going to be iterative and ongoing as well, because every year we have a different group of kids who show up in our schools and what their needs are. So it’s all hands on deck, and we’re doing the work now.

Scott McInnis: Just to be clear for teachers who are counting on EAs in their classrooms that they teach K to 3, there is no set date at this point for EAs to be in K-to-3 classrooms across the province?

Hon. Lisa Beare: I think it’s important that the member knows that the BCTF is at the K-to-12 workforce table. We’re doing that work with teachers. Also, I think it’s important that the member knows that 78 percent of K-to-3 classrooms already have some support from education assistants for a total of 6,700 classrooms across the province.

So it’s not like…. There are a number of classrooms that already have support in them. What we’re doing together as a group with our partners is looking at where are the gaps, what are the problems, what do we need to fill those gaps, and what does that look like building out those resources for the future?

It’s ongoing work, and it’s work we’ve started and that we’re committed to.

Scott McInnis: Just to be clear, it sounds like there is no set date to when teachers in K-to-3 classrooms in British Columbia will have some sort of EA support in their classroom. I just want to be clear that there is no date set when that promise will be fulfilled.

Hon. Lisa Beare: We’re working on the plan now.

Scott McInnis: Thank you, Minister.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, Member.

Scott McInnis: Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Minister, for that answer.

I totally understand there are a lot of logistical challenges around training for educational assistants across British Columbia, especially in rural B.C. In order to fulfil the promise of having EAs in K-to-3 classrooms in British Columbia, will the ministry be pulling EA resources from 4 to 12 in order to fill those spots in K to 3?

Hon. Lisa Beare: Districts are responsible for deploying resources and staffing in their classrooms. But absolutely no, that’s not the intent.

[5:45 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Question for the Education Minister. Currently, the provincial government funds a school bus service which transfers Queensborough students to and from New Westminster Secondary School. This provincial government school bus funding was put in place till 2026. However, in the 2024 provincial election campaign, the B.C. NDP promised to make the school bus service permanent and for free.

Can the Minister of Education confirm that this NDP provincial government is going to honour their election promise and that they will make the school bus service, which transfers Queensborough students to and from New Westminster Secondary School, permanent and for free?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: Thank you to the member. Sorry for the delay. I actually had to get briefed up on that. I needed to get a little bit more background information because that was a commitment made at the local level, which is great. I appreciate that and just had to get a little bit more information. I apologize.

I want to begin by recognizing how unique this situation is in your district for having those students cross over the bridge, so I appreciate the question.

The funding is in place for the next two years. We’re working with the school district and TransLink to work through a sustainable model to ensure that we continue to be able to provide supports for those students. Thank you for the question.

Hon Chan: I just wanted to talk about Richmond Centre. It’s also kind of close to Richmond. Richmond Centre has been missing two elementary schools for quite some time. I understand that the school board SD 38 has submitted their annual capital plan, the five-year plan, many years ago, and they also talked to the Ministry of Infrastructure as well.

Right now, there are about 600 students that are actually crammed into modular portables. All of those 600 students only get about 40 minutes of gym time per week, which is significantly lower than any other average students in B.C.

Given that I see one of your ministers from Richmond as well is here, she can confirm that Richmond Centre area, there’s tons of developments going to complete very soon. So that would just add up to that situation.

Right now, I know that SD 38 actually has temporarily secured half of the funding for those two sites. This opportunity is going to cease; it would just go. So I just want to know if your ministry is working with the Ministry of Infrastructure to make sure Richmond Centre is going to get two schools either this year or in the next coming years.

Hon. Lisa Beare: For the member, thank you for the advocacy on behalf of his community. It’s always important.

I know the member knows that school capital now sits in the Ministry of Infrastructure, so it’s actually specifically a question for Infrastructure on capital projects.

[5:55 p.m.]

I’ll take the spirit of the question for the member and say I did just meet with the Richmond school district. They did present their capital plan and the need for new schools in their community.

Those schools remain at the top of their priority list, which is always taken into account when government is looking at our priority list on building out new infrastructure, but specific questions for the member for the future can go through the Ministry of Infrastructure for that, and I really enjoyed meeting the member’s board and the work they’re doing in Richmond.

Gavin Dew: Rutland Middle School is a 75-year-old school, with 11 portables and wooden lockers, hosting 300 students. For the last 20 years or so, the Central Okanagan school district board has identified and lobbied successive provincial governments to replace Rutland Middle School.

Unfortunately, those requests have been rejected. The latest rejection came in 2019 when the current government decided that Rutland did not meet their priorities for replacement. I have asked this question of the Minister of Infrastructure. I have flagged the fact that this school was built more than 75 years ago and contains decades of obsolete construction practices, and that discussions around renovating it may be safety issues….

I did not receive, in my view, a satisfactory answer from the Minister of Infrastructure as to what timeline I should tell my constituents in Rutland they should expect to see some movement on Rutland Middle School.

So could the minister provide some kind of a definitive timeline as to when we might expect to see some movement around Rutland Middle School?

Hon. Lisa Beare: Thank you to the member for his advocacy — I know it’s important — on behalf of his community as well.

The member actually answered his own question in the question. These are questions for the Ministry of Infrastructure. They now hold all the capital planning.

But I absolutely take the spirit of the question for the member. It remains a priority for the community of Kelowna. And those are taken into account when priorities are being made around infrastructure projects across the province. Thank you to the member for the question.

Gavin Dew: Given the likelihood of intensifying fiscal pressure and probable cuts as a result of eliminating the carbon tax and taking on greater debt-servicing costs, can the minister expand on the current funding status of the playground equipment program?

Hon. Lisa Beare: That is also within the Ministry of Infrastructure.

Gavin Dew: Can the minister confirm that? It appeared to be under the Ministry of Education as of the last media release that I saw. I could be mistaken.

Hon. Lisa Beare: I’ve got my finance guy here. It’s within Infrastructure.

Gavin Dew: My last….

The Chair: Through the Chair.

Gavin Dew: Sorry. One question that definitely should be under the Ministry of Education…. Thank you. It was a surprise to me to discover that playgrounds were under Infrastructure.

One of the key issues that we’ve heard from our colleagues in the post-secondary sector, which obviously from an admission perspective and from a course selection process is driven heavily by what’s happening in the educational sector, are challenges around the parity of esteem between college education and university education.

That issue has been exacerbated by recent federal policy changes around postgraduate work permits that have tilted heavily against the college system in terms of postgraduate work permits.

I have some concern, based on my own history in the post-secondary sector, around ensuring that we are equipping graduates for success and that we’re making sure we provide the right folks with the right fit in the labour market.

[6:00 p.m.]

I’m wondering if the minister could expand on any programming efforts or initiatives that are being undertaken in her ministry to help ensure that students are making good and well-informed decisions around post-secondary program selection.

Hon. Lisa Beare: Absolutely, it’s important that we are providing our students the greatest chance of success moving into what will be the future labour market, which shifts significantly over generations. We know where the needs are now.

As part of the StrongerBC future-ready action plan, the Ministry of Education and Child Care implemented a comprehensive career- and skill-development strategy to expand dual credits and other career education opportunities for students. Dual-credit programs are key to this. They are so fantastic in our schools. If we can be giving our kids coming out of K to 12 that leg up and those extra credits towards a post-secondary or a skills-training education, we absolutely need to be doing that.

Over the past two years, the dual-credit program expansion of the strategy provided grants to grow regional programs connected to health care and other in-demand jobs, allowing students to get a head start on their post-sec journey by taking courses that count towards both their high school and their post-secondary graduation credits.

The K-to-12 career connections component has enhanced career exploration and foundational skill development for students in K to 8 and expanded career sampler programs and work-experience opportunities for high school students, which is super cool, when you get that opportunity to do…. We’ve invested money over these past two years to the initiative to help increase high school graduation rates, transition rates to post-secondary education and employment in in-demand occupations.

We also work really closely with SkilledTradesBC. The ministry following myself, actually, is the ministry of post-secondary and skilled trades. I know the member will have some great questions for that minister, as well, because we work closely with SkilledTradesBC to continue to provide students with trades training and skill development programs in courses that feature hands-on work and experience so that we can support a successful transition program into the post-sec world and into work.

Donegal Wilson: I appreciate the opportunity to ask the question. I’m going to lean in a little bit on the statement that was made by the minister around the safety of our children and how important that is.

I am taking part in a community meeting that’s upcoming next month, specifically with some parents that are very concerned about bussing in the Princeton region. They currently have a policy within the school board that within five kilometres of the school, they must walk to school and are not able to take the bus. For some members of the community, that means 4.8 kilometres of walking down a highway with no sidewalks, 80 kilometres an hour with snow banks.

It’s not okay for these kids to be walking on the highway. I think they’re some of the few kids that will be able to say that they walked uphill both ways in a snowstorm, because they have to walk all the way down into town and up the other side to school, both ways. I would invite the minister to come for a walk if she wanted to try it. They invited me, and I declined, because it’s a pretty good walk.

The issue that I’m hearing with the school board is it’s a school board decision on how they allocate their funding. The issue is the school board has not enough money, so they are making cuts where they need to make them, but we need to have the busing in rural B.C. protected in funding to ensure that our kids can get to school safely.

[6:05 p.m.]

Is there an opportunity or any money that is being earmarked specifically for school busing in rural B.C.?

Hon. Lisa Beare: I thank the member for the advocacy from her community. The member did give the answer within her question as well. These are decisions that are made at the local level, at the school district level.

But I think it’s really important for the member to know that districts like hers do receive a unique district factor funding bump when we take a look at criteria like small community sparseness. There are a number of criteria listed that factor into the community receiving more money and the district receiving more money to address challenges that districts may have around distance or sparseness — things like that.

I know the member’s going to be a fantastic advocate in her community as well and have those conversations at the district level. It’s always important to listen to parents, and it’s always important to have that conversation at the district. I thank the member for sharing.

Ward Stamer: I may have a two-part question, but I’ll ask the first part, if I may, to the minister. When she was mentioning earlier about EAs and some of the challenges that we have in our school districts with staffing levels…. School district 73 touches five MLAs: Doerkson, Bird, Milobar, Luck and myself.

[6:10 p.m.]

The Chair: A reminder, Member. If you can use their ridings rather than their names, I would appreciate it.

Ward Stamer: Sorry. Thank you for that. I’ll retract that.

Having said that, on any given day, 30 percent of the CAs are not available to work. That is putting tremendous pressure on the administration staff. It’s putting tremendous pressure on the teachers.

Of course, all school districts have limited budgets for increases to labour costs. There was a request for volunteers to be able to come in to the schools, and because it’s a contract year, CUPE declined.

My question to the minister is: if the ministry is not going to be able to add additional funds available for maintaining the CA levels to where they’re supposed to be, and the ministry is under the mandate to increase wages by 3 percent under the negotiated agreement, will the minister add those funds available to keep those staffing levels to where they should be?

Hon. Lisa Beare: Thank you to the member for the question.

[6:15 p.m.]

We have talked a lot about EAs over this afternoon, so rather than repeat everything I said, because I know there are a couple other members who want to get some questions in, as well, about how we’re building out a new workforce and what we’re doing together, I will take a moment on retention, because I actually think it’s vitally important that we’re supporting the EAs that we have in the system.

Interjection.

Hon. Lisa Beare: EAs. I said EAs.

The Chair: One moment, please. If you wouldn’t….

Interjection.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

You’re speaking about EAs at this time.

Hon. Lisa Beare: Correct. About EAs in the classroom.

We’re providing that retention support in a number of ways, whether it be…. We spent a lot of time on the mental health supports we’re putting in for workers. We’re talking about the training we put in for workers, mentorship programs, all these things.

This does sound like a very specific local issue. Potentially, there are some challenges within the district. I’ve asked my team to reach out to the district following, and happy to have a conversation with your…. The team will have a conversation with the superintendent there and see if there are any challenges that we need to be aware of.

David Williams: My question is…. A short time ago there was a public outcry regarding transgender bathrooms in the Armstrong high school. The whole school only had transgender bathrooms, and there were a lot of people that really weren’t happy about that.

I was told at that time that the bathroom design and the school design is made at the provincial level. Can you please clarify if that’s true or not?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: I very much regret the framing of the question from the member. I want to back up a couple moments here first and say a few things.

Schools need to be a safe place for all students. They need to be safe and inclusive for every student who shows up at the school, no matter where they’re from, how they present, how they dress, their orientation. Any of the things the students need, we need to make sure that schools are a safe environment.

With that in mind, I want the member to realize that there is a guiding document that ensures that every student has right to access washrooms and change rooms to make sure that they are in a safe and harassment-free environment.

This includes making sure that students with accessibility needs, diverse needs or diverse genders that require privacy have a washroom or a change room where they feel safe and comfortable. This is universal design. Every school needs to have a universal design washroom to ensure that students feel safe. Not all washrooms, but safe spaces for students.

I know the member will want to make sure that students have a safe place in their schools.

While I regret the framing of the question by the member, I know the member will join me in making sure that we are supporting students with diverse needs all across the system to ensure they have a safe place within the school.

David Williams: My question to the minister is: going forward, will all new schools or schools being renovated have boys, girls and transgender bathrooms?

Hon. Lisa Beare: I was hoping the member would correct himself on this second question after me expressing my concerns about the framing around the first question.

There is no such thing as a transgender washroom. I believe the member was getting some education from his colleagues on the other side of the House. What we do have is a universal washroom, which is a non-gendered, single-stall washroom that can be used for students for a number of reasons.

[6:25 p.m.]

We are providing universal access to washrooms, whether it be, as I said, physical access, diverse abilities or gender and feeling safe. There are a number of reasons why we would have a single-stall washroom in schools.

As I said earlier, the guideline document is making sure that we provide those safe spaces for students, but not all washrooms.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

And really, this is a question — when we start getting into school design — that actually should be with the Ministry of Infrastructure as well. So, if we want to get deep into it, we’ve got to go over on that side as well. But for a number of reasons, we need to make sure we’re providing safe spaces for all kids in schools.

Misty Van Popta: Child care advocates have referred to Langley as a child care desert. It has one child care space for every five children under the age of 12. And with housing mandates being imposed on local governments, this will undoubtedly grow.

While the province demands municipalities to do their part, they are failing on their own. In 2023, staff from the Ministry of Education and Child Care met with staff from the township of Langley and strongly encouraged the municipality to pursue funding through the new spaces fund. They were told Langley was a high priority for the province and that there was ample funding available. “Provide the land and the child care spaces will come,” they said to the township staff.

The township subsequently prepared four applications for nearly 300 spaces in every corner of the community. The process cost township taxpayers $126,000 and considerable staff time and resources. Last Thursday township of Langley was rejected by the Ministry of Education and Child Care for every single application. This past Thursday, the minister confirmed that denials of applications were most likely due to the types of spaces requested. In the case of Langley township, all spaces requested were infant, toddler and three-to-five.

Can the minister answer why a municipality with no funded spaces was denied all four applications in the most-needed age brackets? Why collaborate with municipalities who are willing to partner with the province who have zero funded spaces in their municipality of 155,000 people if the province is going to waste years and thousands of taxpayers’ dollars just to reject 100 percent of their funding requests?

Hon. Lisa Beare: I thank the member for the question.

I live just across the bridge from the member. I know both our communities are thriving and growing with many new families in them, and I know how important child care is in that. As I said on Thursday — I believe the member was probably listening when we were having this conversation — this intake we saw an unprecedented number of applications come into it.

[6:30 p.m.]

It was three or four times the demand of what the intake could actually hold, which was very significant and not something we’ve seen in the past. We work closely with communities as they build out their applications and, of course, are always encouraging communities to apply to the programs so that we can assess their applications alongside applications all across this province.

This is work that we continue to do. I know we’re going to continue to work with Langley, moving forward, to address child care needs in their district.

But I understand the member’s frustration, and I thank the member for raising the question, because it is important to ensure that we’re building out child care, which we are across the province. We have 138,000 families now with spaces, supporting kids all across this province to ensure that we’re providing safe, affordable, reliable child care, and so I thank the member.

Korky Neufeld: I know the minister and this government believe strongly in equity and public education. I’ve heard that many, many times. But the classroom enhancement fund is a disadvantage to many school districts.

I’ll give you an example. Abbotsford has about 20,000 students. We get less than $20 million through the class enhancement fund. Richmond has 23,000-plus students. They get over $50 million. Langley has 26,000-plus students. They get over $50 million. So they, Richmond and Langley, can actually hire 250 to 300 more teachers than Abbotsford can.

Why is there this blatant inequity in the allocation of the classroom enhancement fund?

Hon. Lisa Beare: Thank you to the member.

The classroom enhancement fund exists to support school districts to meet their collective agreement language. It was introduced in the 2017-18 school year to fund the implementation of the memorandum of agreement, the MOA, with the BCTF in restoration of the class-size and composition language from 2002 to BCTF collective agreements.

School districts have different collective agreements all across this province, and so the CEF provides allocations directly to school districts to implement the restored language for the particular school year. That’s how the CEF is allocated.

So it has three components: its staffing, overhead and remedies. For the member, it’s a very simple answer. It’s directed by the collective agreement, and that’s how it’s allocated.

Gavin Dew: I’ll turn to a couple of questions, with the remaining couple of minutes, around child care.

Private child care operators who have historically provided the majority of quality regulated child care spaces in B.C. have reported an increase in bureaucracy, a reduction in their access to things like start-up funding and a general feeling that their existence is unwelcome under this government.

Can the minister confirm whether it is her government’s policy or political goal to eliminate private operators from the child care sector?

[6:35 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: Absolutely not. That’s nonsense. We support child care operators all across the province: private, public, not-for-profit, First Nations, municipally led. Absolutely, we support providers all across this province.

Gavin Dew: I’m sure I know a few child care operators who would love to hear that said out loud.

With regard to the child care programming branded as $10 a day, can the minister please provide an estimate of the typically fully loaded daily cost of providing that child care, the share paid by parents taking advantage of the program and the share paid by taxpayers at large?

Can she further clarify whether the ministry has undertaken an integrated cost accounting of the various different capital assets and funding streams going into paying for what is functionally a transposition of child care out of the private sector and into a government system of care?

If that work has not been undertaken, can the minister please commit to do so?

Hon. Lisa Beare: The child care sector is very diverse. It varies, whether we’re talking about child care being operated on school grounds or in the private sector. Throughout the province, it varies.

When we take a look at the $10-a-day sites, it also varies within the site when we take a look at the number of children, the type of care that’s being offered — infant-toddler, for example, or three to five. It varies from operator to operator, as well, the monthly expenses. We have some sites that are operating in a world where they have a lease for a dollar for a year for their site, and others are paying full market rental.

When we take a look at all these factors, it’s diverse and it varies, so there isn’t one clear factor that I can point the member to.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the exposition of the complexity, but the question is a little more fundamental than that.

[6:40 p.m.]

It’s that there has been a narrative or a branding out there around the cost of child care being $10 a day, which I think has been tremendously frustrating to many child care operators for whom the assumption that parents have arrived at is that child care can somehow be provided at a cost of $10 per day versus a sticker price of $10 per day.

There is an underlying set of costs and prices and fees that are being paid in order for the sticker price of child care to be $10 a day, and there is a lack of clarity as it relates to the stack of different capital and operating costs that contribute to the overall superficial sticker price of $10-a-day child care being $10.

What I am hoping the minister can illuminate, or can commit to commissioning a report on, is a more fulsome understanding of what that stack of different capital costs and operating costs are that are the iceberg beneath the surface underneath that sticker price of $10 a day.

I hope that that provides a little bit more clarity to the minister. I don’t expect the minister to do magic math on the fly, but I do hope that she will commit to undertaking and making available a report that outlines that overall set of costs.

Hon. Lisa Beare: Thank you to the member for clarifying and explaining a little bit more. It’s well-noted. I’ll take it away. Thank you, Member, for explaining.

Interjection.

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. Lisa Beare: I said noted, and I will take it away for consideration.

Lynne Block: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Minister and staff. I believe that that is my time, and I’m so delighted, actually, because I had a lot of questions that I was supposed to submit and get written answers for my colleagues, fellow MLAs, and what was lovely is they had the opportunity to ask those questions. I appreciate that.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I ask the minister if they would like to make any closing remarks.

Hon. Lisa Beare: Thank you, Chair. Just a very big thank you to the entire Education and Child Care team that we have here. It is a mighty team, very much appreciated, the support.

And a thank you to the members across the way for their questions as well. I know we all want to support children. I now have the amazing privilege of supporting kids from birth to graduation, which is a fantastic honour for me to be able to do.

So with that, I believe, do I need to…. No? Yeah.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister and all members. Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

Vote 20: ministry operations, $9,788,522,000 — approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We will take a short recess for the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills staff to arrive. Thank you. The committee stands recessed.

The committee recessed from 6:44 p.m. to 6:51 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Estimates: Ministry of
Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills

The Chair: I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates for the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills.

On Vote 41: ministry operations, $3,515,868,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. Anne Kang: Yes. Thank you so much, Chair, and good afternoon, everyone.

I would like to start by acknowledging with gratitude that we’re gathered today, in the chambers, on the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən peoples, the Songhees and SXIMEȽEȽ Nations.

I also would like to welcome members across the way, my critic and the deputy critic there.

Thank you so much for working with us to make post-secondary education a valued education here in British Columbia, recognizing that they are the future workers. I really do appreciate the collegiality that we’ve had so far. I’m very lucky to be working with you.

I’d also like to recognize the staff and the amazing team that I have behind me who represent our ministry and will be supporting me through our estimate proceedings. There are some with me in this room and there are some behind in another room in the chambers, but I do want to thank them as well.

With me is my deputy minister, Trevor Hughes; EFO and assistant deputy minister of finance, Kim Horn — she has a long title, and she’s also the technology and management service division — Chris Rathbone, assistant deputy minister of post-secondary policy and programs division; Joanna White, assistant deputy minister, labour market development division; Rachel Holmes, assistant deputy minister, immigration services and strategic planning division, Tony Loughran, assistant deputy minister of governance, legislation and engagement division; as well, Shelley Gray, CEO of SkilledTradesBC.

Since returning as Minister for Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills, I’ve had the opportunity to visit several post-secondary institutions and really appreciated the opportunity to meet with so many educators and learners. I’m very grateful for the recent opportunities I’ve had to connect with trainers, with employers and with industry leaders from around the province.

While we are facing challenging and uncertain times, our government continues to invest in post-secondary training programs to support a strong economy in our province. We continue to make education and training more accessible, affordable and relevant so that British Columbians can gain the skills they need for good-paying and high-demand jobs. We remain committed to working with Indigenous partners to ensure that Indigenous learners can achieve their higher education goals.

[6:55 p.m.]

Our province-led immigration policy and program delivery ensures newcomers are welcome to British Columbia, and we are making the credential recognition process faster and easier for professionals with credentials issued in other jurisdictions.

I also would like to make a special shout-out to my colleague, the member for Vancouver-Langara, also the Parliamentary Secretary for International Credentials. She has been meeting with stakeholders, people who are finding challenges in international credentials to make sure that their skills are valued here in British Columbia.

We are helping to address workforce gaps and continuing our commitments to workers, economic development and service delivery in key sectors, including health, trade and technology.

I am proud of the work of my ministry and the many positive impacts that all of our collective efforts have been for the lives of British Columbians. I look forward to discussing these important issues and the programs that the ministry supports with colleagues in here today and across the way.

With that, I will take my place.

Korky Neufeld: I just wanted to also mention that the member for Maple Ridge East is with me here and will be taking some of the questions throughout the time allotted.

Thank you to the Minister and the staff. I know all of our time is important.

Having been in public education for a long time, I really love education. There’s a saying that we use, that education is a bridge to everywhere, which means destinations that have already been discovered. But what I think is education should also be a bridge to anywhere, to destinations yet to be discovered.

Our students entering into grade 8 and grade 9 today will work in jobs and careers that have not yet been created or invented, which is staggering to think. So it’s hard for us to forecast where these students of ours will be heading and what they’ll be learning and what jobs they’ll be doing, what innovations they’ll be creating.

That is how fast our society and our economy and the global economy is changing. The B.C. education system needs to keep pace with that.

Bridging the gap between traditional education and the demands of a technology-driven economy will need to be crucial for B.C. to maintain its global competitive edge.

With that, if I heard the minister correctly, could you confirm that the budget for 2025 estimates is $3.515 billion and some-odd-thousand dollars for this next three years? Is that correct?

Hon. Anne Kang: The member is correct. For the next three years until 2027-28, our budget is $3,515,868,000.

Korky Neufeld: Is there any forecasted increase in investments for post-secondary in this budget?

[7:00 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: Budget 2025 has incremental investments of $112 million more than last year.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you, Minister, for that answer.

Budget 2025 forecasts an increase in revenue from post-secondary education fees of $2.733 billion in this year, $2.76 billion in ‘26-27 and $2.827 billion in 2027-28. Why is there not a similar increase in investments for post-secondary despite your projected rise in revenue from education fees in this budget?

Hon. Anne Kang: I was wondering if you could clarify the numbers and where you got that from, perhaps a reference in the blue book, so we could get the appropriate answers to you.

Korky Neufeld: When I read this budget and I compared it to the projections for revenue coming forward, there’s over $200 million in revenue increase from education fees, but there’s only $112 million allocated. So I guess the question I have is: where will this additional funds be spent? Will it be spent on post-secondary education, or will it be going to general funds for the government?

[7:05-7:10 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: We believe that the member is referring to the material assumption table.

The revenues collected by post-secondary institutions are tuition and other ancillary fees. This does not refer to any fees being collected by the ministry. The fees collected are spent by the post-secondary institutions on educational programs and services, so none comes back to the ministry or government.

Korky Neufeld: So sorry about that. I thought…. I misunderstood, then, I guess.

Back in 2021, when the minister was also the Minister of Post-Secondary…. You mentioned back at that time that your government spent $40 million in student housing since 2019. So that’s $40 million between 2019 and 2021.

How many housing units for students have been built since 2021? That’s 2021 to 2024.

[7:15 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: Thank you so much to the member across for this question. We took a while because this question is actually for the Ministry of Infrastructure, but we are also very proud of the work that the post-secondary institutions are doing in partnering with government in building student beds.

We do have 12 new student housing already open — not 12 beds but with 12 different post-secondary institutions. Namely, the examples…. September 2024, with Okanagan Campus in Vernon, we opened 101 beds; with Salmon Arm, 60 beds; and Kelowna, 216 beds. Another example in 2024 is 333 beds at Capilano University in Squamish. Also September 2024, Selkirk College in Castlegar, with 114 beds, and Nelson 36 beds.

There are ten more underway, so ten more post-secondary institutions that are collaborating with us — namely, in the members riding, University of the Fraser Valley in Abbotsford.

Interjection.

Hon. Anne Kang: Yeah, just about 400, so 398 beds.

We’re very proud of the work that they’re doing, and we will continue to support them. But this would be…. For more detailed answers, it would be more for Infrastructure to answer.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you very much to the minister.

I’ll get to affordability later, but if we do not build them on campus…. Students can’t afford off-campus rentals. So if we do not partner with Infrastructure, as a post-secondary, to build these houses, we’re basically saying to students who live in…. They can’t go to school outside their own community is basically what we’re saying, because if they can’t have on-campus housing, they can’t afford school.

Changing gears. In 2021, you also mentioned your government’s goal of filling one million jobs through training over the next ten years. I believe, if I have my years correct, that would be 2017 to 2027. How many of those one million jobs have been filled by post-secondary training?

[7:20 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: Thank you so much to the member for that question.

I believe the member is referring to the labour market outlook. The labour market outlook projects how many jobs that we will have in the future, the next ten years. It is updated annually, but it doesn’t take track of how many people are in certain fields.

However, our post-secondary institutions do use it as a tool of programming to make sure that we are up to date with our programming, making sure that our post-secondary institutions are providing the relevant education that is needed for our future workforce.

The current outlook does project that 75 percent of jobs do require post-secondary education, and our post-secondary institutions and their programming are preparing people for these jobs.

The 2024 labour market outlook was developed prior to the changes in federal immigration targets and the uncertainty around the tariffs. Work is underway on the next edition of the labour market outlook, which will include the new immigration targets and consideration around potential new tariffs.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you very much, Minister, for your answer.

I guess is there a mechanism for the ministry to make sure that the post-secondary institutions are communicating with chambers of commerce, with people in our economy, so that we have a connection between what the needs of our economy are to who is getting educated and being trained in what fields?

Hon. Anne Kang: Absolutely, to the member across, our public post-secondary institutions and our privates as well are constantly communicating with industry, communicating with chambers.

[7:25 p.m.]

In fact, when we have chamber of commerce events, I do see many of them show up, being part of the round table, the panels or the presenters as well. Our post-secondary institution sector is communicating with industry, with chambers, with the sectors, and they’re absolutely part of the community. We seek to be able to respond to the ever-changing economy that we have here and make sure that our post-secondary institutions and our programs are relevant to our future workers.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you to the minister. Post-secondary institution spending is projected to rise from $8.39 billion in 2024 to $9.23 billion in 2026-27. That’s an $845 million increase, primarily due to higher staffing requirements for a growing student base related to operation costs.

Despite the call or provincial budget constraints, the government provides institutions with a block grant that allows the university to spend the lump sum with autonomy. The post-secondary institutions enjoy autonomy for where the grant money they receive is spent. However, institutions argue that operating grants have not kept pace with rising costs and that more funding is needed.

While universities are provided with block grants to spend autonomously, institutions argue that operating grants have not kept pace with rising costs. How does the ministry plan to address the funding shortfall, and will there be any adjustments to the funding model to better support institutions?

[7:30 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: The overall budget for Post-Secondary Education has increased by $1.45 billion since 2017, and that means we’ve seen increases in operating budgets across all programming fields, including a $126 million increase in funding for health training programs since 2019.

Another example is a $31 million increase in annual investment in operations for the SFU medical school, a $70 million increase in expanding tech education since 2020 and other investments that we have put in to make sure that we are ready for the future.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you, Minister, for your answer.

Why does the budget not include any clear mechanism or requirements for institutions to report on how they are cutting waste or improving efficiencies with the money that is allocated to them from the government?

[7:35 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: I do recall the member opposite did mention that he recognizes they are autonomous.

Post-secondary institutions are independent entities with authority to manage their own budgets. Our ministry does work with them to make sure they deliver quality programs that meet the needs of students and their communities. And I know that they have been working hard to reduce costs and maximize revenues, including working with each other to avoid duplications and coordinate to be as efficient as possible.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you, Minister, for that answer.

I guess I want to understand. When we’re funding post-secondary institutions…. I remember from being on the school board that when the ministry would give us targeted funding, a lot of times it tied our hands. Out of the amount that you give to the post-secondary schools, how much of that is block or targeted funding and how much of that is operating funding that they can have discretion on how they use?

[7:40 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: The vast majority of our block funding does go to operating grants, and it is the discretion of the post-secondary institutions on how they will use it to meet their commitments and their communities’ needs.

We do, in some limited circumstances, provide targeted funding for specific government initiatives and priorities. And on a previous answer, I have read some of our commitments and priority funding.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you to the minister for that.

How much of the targeted funding for post-secondary is coming from the federal government through the labour market agreements with the province? I guess this would be the block funding that goes to the Crown around the skilled trades.

[7:45 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: The member mentioned quite a few things. Federally, provincially, they were a bit mixed up together. I’ll just give a brief explanation of who’s funding what.

The targeted funding is for seats in high-priority programs like Allied Health, health care seats. The province provides that funding.

The second one is the labour market transfer agreement. This is federal funding to provinces and territories for a variety of labour market programming and employment supports. We use that funding with SDPR. So this is not part of any block funding to the post-secondary institutions.

The third thing that the member did mention is SkilledTradesBC. SkilledTradesBC is a provincial Crown agency, and so we provide trades training to SkilledTradesBC.

[7:50 p.m.]

Korky Neufeld: Thank you, Minister.

I don’t know if that…. I guess I’m trying to get to a number here. We all know the needs in our economy. We also know the needs for skilled training.

Maybe I’ll ask it this way: have skilled trades programs in British Columbia seen an increase in funding and FTEs?

Hon. Anne Kang: We invested $107 million through SkilledTradesBC for trades, education and support deliveries, delivering 28,300 training seats in every region in the province.

SkilledTradesBC’s core budget is about $107 million for service delivery and program management. That’s an increase of 11 percent or $10.6 million from 2016-2017, which was $96.4 million.

B.C. is seeing a record number of apprentices, with nearly 50,000 registrations, the highest in the province’s history, and we’re very proud of that work.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

You mentioned targeted funds for high priorities. What are the high-priority areas that this government has determined this coming year for targeted funds? You mentioned health care. What else is on the table?

[7:55 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: The member across the way did mention health care, and that definitely is a part of our government’s priorities. Other priorities are expanding tech education since 2020 — we invested $17 million in that — and also an increase in $900,000 for Indigenous law programs since 2019.

A lot of our work is work in collaboration with other ministries. We understand that there’s a need for more teachers in British Columbia, so we invested in teacher education.

Since 2017, government has added 430 new one-time teacher education program seats. Examples of new seats include new hybrid rural and remote teacher education program spaces in community in Nelson. That’s with UBC.

With VIU, Indigenous teacher education spaces in Cowichan Valley. With UNBC, Bachelor of Education spaces in Skidegate. With SFU, French-language professional development program spaces in Burnaby. And with UVic, special and inclusive education diploma spaces in Victoria.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

There are targets that institutions must meet with FTEs. How many of our public post-secondary institutions in British Columbia are meeting their FTE targets as set out by this government?

[8:00 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: At the consolidated systemwide level, the overall FTE target has been met or substantially achieved each year.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all the post-secondary institutions for doing that and really thinking about how they could be programming, attracting, attaining, but supporting the success of our students here in B.C.

Korky Neufeld: I guess I just want to confirm. So you’re saying that all of the institutions have met their FTE targets. Is that what I’m hearing?

[8:05 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: Thank you so much to the member for the follow-up question.

Our public post-secondary institutions work very hard collectively as a whole, and my answer there was as a collective answer.

We do have an accountability framework. It includes consideration of capacity, access, quality, efficiency and relevance of the education here in B.C., and all public post-secondary institutions are working very hard to deliver all these elements.

When we think about this, we think about how we use the labour market outlook to make sure that our programming is very relevant. We make sure that students have the support that they need to make sure that they have a high success rate of graduation and transferring and transitioning into the labour market.

Once again, we have a very robust public post-secondary system with an accountability framework of capacity, access, quality, efficiency and relevance.

Korky Neufeld: Regarding smaller and rural colleges that have been struggling financially for years, additional costs and, I guess…. From region to region, it’s completely different, including additional costs like snow removal, extra heating costs, inflationary costs, etc. Rural and small communities have greater cost structure right now today. Is there any additional funding for smaller and rural colleges in this budget?

[George Anderson in the chair.]

[8:10 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: Thank you so much to the member for that question.

I am very proud of the work that our rural community colleges are doing. They all have their unique circumstances in their institutions, and that's why this year’s operating grants have increased in all of our post-secondary institutions. That includes our rural colleges as well.

They have the autonomy to be able to manage their budget according to what they need, and they're doing an absolutely amazing job.

Korky Neufeld: I guess I just want to emphasize that a dollar here on the coast won't go as far as a dollar up North, just because of the heating costs, snow removal, etc., that some of the small and rural colleges have. I'm wondering: will this minister consider creating a rural adjustment fund, like many other provinces have?

We have it in public education where we realize that different regions have different issues and need additional supports. Creating a rural adjustment fund would alleviate some of that and make it an equal playing field for everybody, dollar to dollar, that the government gives.

Hon. Anne Kang: Thank you so much for your creative suggestion. We will take that under advisement.

We do work very closely with our rural colleges to identify the unique needs that they have, so we will continue to work very closely with them and support them.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you, Minister, for that, because I think we can all appreciate the support that the rural and smaller communities need.

When students can go to school in their local community, they're more likely to stay. So the more that we can support those smaller and rural communities, the more that will take place.

We can't afford for other provinces to recruit our students because we don't have sufficient supports in place. Once we lose them, let's say to Alberta — which is not happening, is it? — we never get them back. It's important for students to have the opportunity to train in regions they live in, so they're most likely to stay.

[8:15 p.m.]

Does the minister know how many people in the northern medical program currently are actually from the North?

Hon. Anne Kang: Thank you so much to the member for that question. I do agree with him that when students study in their community, they fall in love with the community, they stay within the community.

To his question, 42 percent of the students in the northern medical program were from the northern community. I have been travelling and visiting different post-secondary institutions. I understand anecdotally from faculty professors and students themselves that when they train in the community and do the practicum in the community, they tend to stay in the community.

These numbers are from last year.

Korky Neufeld: I think it’s important for us to realize that…. I'm hoping that the priorities of the seats available will be for those from the North and not be filled by others. I don't know how you can answer that, but I'm just hoping that the ministry would be able to follow up with that, to make sure that the seats that are available there will be filled first by people locally and not from outsiders and then it will only be infilling once there are empty seats available.

[8:20 p.m.]

Moving on to seats in post-secondary institutions. What does the minister think is the biggest barrier to resolving the doctor shortage? I know we train…. Just basically, what is your anecdotal…? Or you can have details. What does the minister think is the biggest barrier to resolving the doctor shortage in British Columbia?

Hon. Anne Kang: Thank you so much to the member across for that very important question.

My role, and our ministry, is to make sure that we have our future workers trained, and that also means working very closely with the Ministry of Health to get more doctors trained. Our ministry is working in partnership with the Ministry of Health and also with the Ministry of Infrastructure to support the development of the second medical school in B.C., at SFU, which is adjacent to its Surrey campus.

[8:25 p.m.]

SFU anticipates welcoming 48 medical students by summer 2026, growing to 120 seats by 2036. Family medicine residents will begin training in 2027, with new family doctors graduating and entering practice by 2029.

This new medical school is one of the key actions in B.C.’s health human resources strategy that works to optimize the health system by expanding training and improving recruitment and retention of health care workers in the province. The School of Medicine at SFU will complement UBC’s distributed undergraduate medical education program sites.

The School of Medicine at SFU will be the first new medical school in western Canada in over 55 years.

Korky Neufeld: Could you just repeat the numbers? I’m trying to write them down, and I missed a few of them. If you could just repeat that, and then I’ll get to my next question. Thank you so much.

Hon. Anne Kang: We could do this in two ways. I could write them down for you… Or just SFU?

SFU anticipates welcoming 48 medical students by summer of 2026, growing to 120 seats by 2036.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you to the minister for indulging me.

I’m going to share a personal story. I know someone who is a B.C. resident who lived, actually, in Victoria. From childhood on, always wanted to be a pediatrician. Applied for medical school, but her application wouldn’t be looked at for another seven years.

So she applied to New York City where she took her training. Then did her practicum in Children’s Hospital in Las Vegas. And now has been practising as a pediatrician for the last six years in Washington state.

But she’s been navigating the system for over a year to try to get back in because she’s got a young family, a five-year-old and a two-year-old. Before that five-year-old gets into public school, they’d like to return. She’s willing to go to the Interior, willing to go to some of those places, because that’s what she’d prefer — a slower lifestyle. Yet she’s been navigating the system.

So I guess the question is: what barriers are being removed to allow B.C. residents who have studied outside of B.C. to come back to serve in British Columbia?

The Chair: Members, I’d just like to remind individuals that their cell phones should be muted or silenced. Thank you.

Hon. Anne Kang: Thank you so much for sharing that story with us. It is certainly a story we’ve heard time and time again, that we have our British Columbians here who would like to practice here and are trying to find their way back here. That’s why we have the international credentials recognition system.

[8:30 p.m.]

My ministry is supporting all professions other than doctors and health care workers. So this question would be most appropriately asked to the Ministry of Health. They are responsible for credential recognitions for health care professionals.

Korky Neufeld: What you’re saying is that all other credentialing falls under your purview. The only credentialing under the Ministry of Health is for doctors.

Maybe I’ll ask a broader question. Every other province in Canada has a re-entry pathway for training outside the country except for British Columbia. Why do we not have that re-entry pathway if it would be a tool to help attract and retain all kinds of trained individuals into our province?

[8:35 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: When we’re talking about credential recognition, we’re talking about the pathway that one takes. Credential recognition allows individuals trained in other jurisdictions to transfer their credentials and obtain a licence to practise their profession in B.C.

The International Credentials Recognition Act that we passed last year applies to 18 B.C. professional regulatory authorities responsible for 29 occupations as in the scope of the act. The act does not cover health professions, which are separately governed by the Ministry of Health under the Health Professions Act.

B.C. continues to support professional regulatory bodies to make improvements to the credential recognition process for internationally trained professionals through the credential assessment improvement fund, and regulators are required to assess international credentials in the same way as domestic applicants.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you to the minister. I think time and money is the thing I’m getting to, because when individuals are trained somewhere else, they come here, and they may have to do minimal training. That saves us a lot of time, and time is money.

Moving on, how many training seats are available to physicians each year in British Columbia? Since one million people in B.C. are still without a family physician, and it continues to go year after year, how many training seats are available to physicians each year in British Columbia?

[8:40 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: There are 328 physician training seats in B.C. each year, and the new SFU medical school will add 48 seats by summer of 2026 and will continue to grow until it's fully operational.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you for that answer.

I guess one real quick question is: who decides how many training seats are available in British Columbia?

Hon. Anne Kang: Thank you so much for that question. It's not as simple as who it is. It's a complex conversation. My ministry works very closely with the Health Ministry to determine the needs of the community and funding and the capacity in both our ministries. As well, we work with post-secondary institutions and the health authority.

It's a complex question, and this is the simplest answer that I can give you.

The Chair: I ask the minister to move the motion.

Hon. Anne Kang: I move that the committee, rise report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Education and Child Care and report progress on the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 8:43 p.m.