Contents

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Statements

Acwsalcta Thunder
Girls Basketball Championship

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: In British Columbia, we know that British Columbians are very resilient, particularly those ones that live in rural and remote communities such as Bella Coola. But I’m here today to share in a celebration. On Saturday afternoon, the Acwsalcta Thunder from Bella Coola won the 1A girls provincial basketball championship.

I am so proud of all the young women on this team. I just want to send my congratulations to the Nuxalk Nation.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Lynne Block: I am so delighted and honoured. I have my sister in the gallery, Alyx Patterson, who is the most wonderful sister I could possibly have, and her husband, a terrific brother-in-law, Dave Patterson, and their grandson Lincoln, who is carrying on the tradition in that family of football.

I hope everyone can please welcome them.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I might have to have a competition with the member for West Van–Capilano about whose sister is better, because it must be Sister Day in the House today.

I’m so pleased. You know, it’s not often that I get a chance to have family come and visit me on the precinct. My big sister, Nancy Whiteside, is here today, which I’m really, really thrilled about. We got to have lunch in the dining room this afternoon.

After a long career in telecommunications in British Columbia, after retirement, Nancy got to pursue her dream of studying art and is now one of New Westminster’s most renowned artists and is such an incredible, smart and creative talent.

Please welcome my big sister, Nancy, to the House.

Bryan Tepper: Today I have two introductions.

One is Gurmot, Gurjot Cheema, who is one of my good friends, and I can’t say his name correctly. He’s my riding president. He volunteers everywhere throughout the Lower Mainland, well known to everybody.

If we could give him a welcome.

Then we have — I’ll say he’s our celebrity chef — Bob Basi, known as the Bakra Chef. He’s a British Columbia native, and he’s transformed his passion for cooking into the celebrated brand, Bakra Chef, inspired by his mother’s traditional goat curry recipe. What started as a family favourite has become a signature dish at events nationwide, uniting diverse communities through flavourful, authentic cuisine.

With his distinctive logo and iconic championship belt — which, if somebody wants to get photos with him afterwards, will be available…. It has actually inspired somebody to get me my own as well, so if anybody wants photos, we’re ready.

Bakra Chef has grown a strong social media following, especially on Instagram, connecting food lovers across Canada and beyond.

Please welcome him.

Donegal Wilson: I just wanted to do a warm welcome to the members of the B.C. Parks Foundation who joined our Conservative caucus for lunch today. On the precinct today, we have Andy Day, Jennie McCaffrey, Cohen Bradley, Kaaren Lewis and Ashley Aubrey.

I really appreciate the opportunity to learn more about the foundation and what they’re doing for parks in British Columbia.

George Anderson: Today I have the great pleasure of welcoming Jade Buchanan, a fellow lawyer, which means he’s great people, of course.

Thank you for someone actually laughing at that joke.

Also, he is one of the most recognized privacy and technology lawyers in British Columbia. He’s also a board member of Vision Zero Vancouver and a volunteer with Vancouver school streets.

I hope that the entire House would make Jade feel very welcome.

Members’ Statements

Surrey Hospitals Foundation

Amna Shah: I’m pleased to rise today in support of an amazing foundation in our city of Surrey, the Surrey Hospitals Foundation, which recently had a fundraiser titled Journey to Hope to raise funds for the neonatal unit at Surrey Memorial Hospital.

We heard incredible stories from families who have gone through the NICU unit, who have received the support of our amazing doctors and surgeons and nurses who have literally saved the lives of some of our most fragile young babies shortly after they’re born.

[1:40 p.m.]

It was just incredible to see the type of support from community leaders, from community members, from philanthropists and from everyday people just like you and I there for a common cause, and that is to support life, to support love and to support the families who bring amazing little bundles of joy to our communities. This year we saw the Surrey Hospitals Foundation raise over $1.8 million that will go directly into saving the lives of little babies in Surrey.

A point of note. What we found is there are over 6,500 babies that are born at Surrey Memorial every single year. That’s basically the size of a little elementary school. To see the dedicated staff and the employees of the hospital….

I cannot thank them enough, and I hope the House will also join me in thanking them for their incredible work.

Langley Meals on Wheels

Jody Toor: At Langley Meals on Wheels, the mission is simple yet powerful — to ensure that everyone in our community is fed, connected and supported. Serving nutritious meals to those in need, it ensures that no one in our community goes hungry, particularly our seniors and individuals with mobility challenges.

This organization goes beyond food delivery, as it also brings joy, companionship, wellness checks and support to our community members. With the dedication and compassion of the volunteers, they deliver meals while fostering connection and enhancing the overall well-being of the clients.

The service includes meal delivery, assistance for those returning home from the hospital, monthly healthy living bags, the Firehouse Cafe and the outreach program aimed at nurturing the ones most in need in our community, among other offerings.

Whether you seek meal delivery, a volunteering opportunity or a supportive community, Langley Meals on Wheels and the Firehouse Cafe are here to serve Langley.

During my recent shift, I had the privilege of working alongside an extraordinary volunteer, Barb. As a senior herself, Barb is a shining example of selflessness and community spirit, dedicated to ensuring that those who are unable to prepare meals receive the nourishment they need. With each delivery, she warmly interacted with the recipients, taking the time to chat and share a smile. It was clear for many that these visits were not just about food. They were cherished moments of companionship.

Seeing Barb in action reminded me of the profound difference one can make in the lives of others. Her passion and dedication illustrated how simple acts of kindness can transform a community. Langley Meals on Wheels embodies this spirit, not only delivering meals but spreading kindness and joy through the dedication of volunteers.

I’m grateful for the opportunity to experience this vital service firsthand, to give back, even in a small way. Together we can make a meaningful impact.

You are all invited to join us at Langley Meals on Wheels.

Rod Raglin and
The REVUE Community Newspaper

Mable Elmore: I rise today to talk about local news and why it matters. I also wish to talk about Rod Raglin, who lives in Vancouver-Kensington and has been a journalist for many years.

In March 1977, Rod, who was then 28 years old, published volume 1, No. 1, of the South Vancouver Revue. Forty-nine years later, in March this year, the independently owned neighbourhood newspaper lives on simply as the REVUE, and it continues to serve residents of southeast Vancouver.

Nowadays it’s easy to overlook the importance of community newspapers like the REVUE. We live in a time dominated by digital media giants, international headlines and 24-hour news cycles.

Why is local news important? Local news is essential in building tight-knit and strong communities. Through publications like the REVUE, residents get to know what’s happening in their neighbourhoods, from the state of bus service on East 49th Avenue to cultural events, renewal of parks, fresh produce shops, new property developments on Victoria Drive, school updates and unveilings of new public artworks.

Reporting by the REVUE has a direct significance on the lives of many in Vancouver-Kensington and the rest of southeast Vancouver. By focusing on the grassroots level, local news highlights the interesting things that make our community really a delightful place to live in.

Rod Raglin has seen it all. When he started the REVUE at age 28 in 1977, Rod already had two decades of experience in the newspaper business, starting as a delivery boy when he was eight years and later as advertising director for another publication.

[1:45 p.m.]

Born and raised in East Vancouver, Rod is an accomplished author. He has written 14 novels, two plays and short stories. He’s also a poet, and he has taken thousands of photographs as well. Rod has been married to Chandra for 56 years. You can see him at all community events.

Mr. Speaker and dear colleagues, let’s give a great round of applause to writer, editor and publisher Rod Raglin, a real treasure in Vancouver-Kensington.

Meadow Ridge Rotary Club

Lawrence Mok: I rise today to pay tribute to an organization that has quietly and consistently shaped the character of our community for decades, and that is the Meadow Ridge Rotary Club.

In Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge and across the province, service clubs form the backbone of civic life. What sets Meadow Ridge Rotary Club apart is not just what they do; it is how they do it, with humility and dedication and also with an unwavering belief that strong communities are built through service above self.

Rotary’s global motto, “Service above self,” is more than a slogan. It is a lived principle. The members of the Meadow Ridge Rotary have dedicated themselves to countless volunteer hours, to initiatives that strengthen families, support youth and uplift those facing hardship. They are motivated not by recognition but by responsibility.

Over the years, this club has supported local schools, youth leadership programs, food security initiatives and community events that bring neighbours together. They have invested in the next generation, understanding that mentorship and opportunity are among the greatest gifts we can offer to young people. Whether through scholarships, sponsorships or hands-on volunteerism, they have demonstrated a steadfast commitment to building brighter futures.

Rotary brings together business leaders, professionals, retirees and community advocates, all united by a common purpose.

I want to thank the past and present members of the Meadow Ridge Rotary Club for continuing to make Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge a place we are all proud to call home.

Sooke Food Bank

Dana Lajeunesse: Today I wish to recognize an extraordinary group of people who embody the very best of community service in British Columbia: the 59 volunteers of the Sooke Food Bank, led with unwavering dedication by President Kim Metzger.

These volunteers support residents from Port Renfrew and the paaʔčiidʔatx̣ First Nation through to East Sooke and the SC’IȺNEW̱ Nation and all points in between, ensuring that no one is left behind. Each month they provide food hampers to approximately 700 households, families, seniors and individuals who rely on support to get through difficult times.

Additionally, the Sooke Food Bank strengthens many other community programs, such as the Amber Academy’s snack program, Meals on Wheels client support, Vital Vittles Friday lunches, the school fresh fruit program, the Sooke Shelter bag lunch program and the Hummingbird Place rough living food hampers — just to name a few.

Their work helps keep the Juan de Fuca region nourished, supported and connected. They also provide opportunities for collaboration with vital partners — nursing services, including a nurse practitioner; financial outreach workers from the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction; and even Paws at Home Pet Food Bank, which ensures that beloved companion animals are cared for as well.

It is my honour to recognize Kim and her many volunteers, who give their time, heart and energy to the Sooke Food Bank. Their compassion, humility and hard work demonstrate what it truly means to serve community.

[1:50 p.m.]

Bulkley Valley District
Hospital Auxiliary

Sharon Hartwell: June 5, 2020, marked the 100th anniversary of the Bulkley Valley District Hospital auxiliary. This volunteer-run society, which has provided financial and material support to the hospital since its beginning, may well be the oldest service organization in the valley.

When the BVDH Auxiliary was first founded, Smithers didn’t have a hospital. In its early years, the town relied on Dr. Horace Wrinch from Hazelton hospital for medical aid. Spanish flu sufferers were treated in the public school during the 1918 pandemic. Afterwards, support grew for a proper facility in Smithers.

The construction began in 1934 and the addition of a new wing in 1955. The Todd building, located at the southwest corner of King Street and Second Avenue, was selected to serve as the new hospital.

Community support was strong, with financial contributions pouring in from residents as well as from the provincial government. In the midst of all this, a group of Smithers women met at the Methodist Church on June 11 in 1920. They went away having founded the Ladies’ Hospital Auxiliary, which would eventually become BVDH Auxiliary that we know today. The 23 women attending paid a membership fee of $1 for their first meeting.

The initial purpose of the auxiliary was to provide the hospital with necessities such as clothing, linens, towels, utensils and staple foods. By the time the hospital opened on September 1, 1920, auxiliary members had sewn sheets and pillowcases for all its 12 beds. They also donated treats on holidays, provided all the furnishings for the hospital and nurses’ house and helped to pay the nurses’ salaries.

Hospital support work was highly gendered, with the board comprised mostly entirely of men and fundraising and clothes-making being seen as the female domain. On October 6, 1926, it was announced that the Ladies Auxiliary was planning a home nursing class. Local graduate nurses would come and teach the high school girls in basic home nursing over a series of 12 lessons. Interested parties could register for $2.

From the beginning, the auxiliary has relied primarily on community fundraising. The gift shop in the hospital was opened in 1972 and the New to You thrift store in 1988. Once again the community steps in to fill the gaps. Many community members, including my sister, have volunteered there for years.

Some of the funding raised goes to support a free ice cream day at the Bulkley Valley long-term lodge and provides bursaries to high school students entering the medical field.

A 1980 Interior News article celebrating the hospital’s 60th diamond jubilee stated: “It is difficult to estimate just how much the Ladies Auxiliary has donated to hospital functions over the years.”

Oral Questions

Federal Government Recognition
Agreement with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm Nation

Scott McInnis: This weekend we learned that another agreement has been signed with a B.C. First Nation that could potentially have far-reaching implications in British Columbia.

On February 20, the federal government announced an agreement recognizing xʷməθkʷəy̓əm Aboriginal rights, including title, and establishing shared marine and fishing decision-making in and around Metro Vancouver.

In the nearly two weeks since that agreement was signed, we’ve heard nothing from this government. The agreement “recognizes that xʷməθkʷəy̓əm has Aboriginal rights, including title, within their traditional territory.”

Can the Premier please explain to us exactly what this recognition means in the context of our province today?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the member for the question.

I should be clear that the agreement that the member refers to was an agreement signed with the federal government, not the provincial government, so I did not sit at a negotiation table. I have not seen the text of the agreement the member refers to.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: So certainly we have made that request to the federal government for them to share that text of their negotiation with the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm Nation.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Scott McInnis: Baloney.

The Speaker: Member.

Scott McInnis: This is one of the most prominent Indian bands in British Columbia.

The Speaker: Member.

Member, be careful with your language, please.

Scott McInnis: Nonsense. This is one of the most prominent Indian bands in British Columbia, whose traditional territory, yes, includes Metro Vancouver. And this government had no idea this agreement was being signed? Hard to believe.

[1:55 p.m.]

Here we go again. Another major agreement, and this NDP government says nothing, just like the shíshálh foundation agreement in August 2024 when it was signed right before an election. Nobody heard anything for six months. And that agreement included negotiations of Aboriginal title, I might add.

The agreement with the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm was signed 12 days ago and still nothing. This government has promised time and again to be more transparent with regard to reconciliation, yet we can see today this is not the case.

Will the Premier stand up today and tell this House if the province officially recognizes this declaration of Aboriginal title, which includes Metro Vancouver and the surrounding area, yes or no?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Well, there are lots of things that are nonsense about the member’s question.

I would say that, again, if the member wants an agreement tabled, he should take it up with his Member of Parliament. We’ve made the request, as a responsible government would. But in terms of the actual agreement itself, the member should talk to…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: …the federal government, as I’ve made the request as well, to share the text of the agreement. It’s an agreement between….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, let’s hear the answer.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: If the member wants to debate, he can, but I’ll let him have it in his time when he stands to speak. It’s a respectful way of having….

Interjection.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Excuse me, Member?

Would the member like to make the allegation outside here? Would he like to?

The fact of the matter is this is an agreement between the federal government and the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm Nation, so if you’d like them to table the agreement…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: …make that request. Certainly I have.

The Speaker: Members, when the question is asked and the answer is given, let’s hear both sides. No interruptions.

Trevor Halford: Here’s part of the problem that lies within the minister’s answer. He says: “Take it up with the federal government.” We will, but the problem is that nobody is taking anything up with the provincial government because they are so inadequate in terms of response on such an important issue. This is ludicrous.

On such an important issue, we are to believe that, in 12 days, nobody from the provincial government was briefed, was talked to — phone call, email, nothing. We’re supposed to believe that they found out about it just like everybody else did, just like we find out right now that the province is in negotiations with Quw’utsun. No statement, no nothing. What do we get?

Interjection.

Trevor Halford: I didn’t.

What do we get? We got the minister tweeting about time changes. That’s the priority of the day.

My question to the Premier is a simple one. When did the Premier learn about this decision? Did he learn about it 12 days ago? Did he learn about it yesterday, or is he so inadequate that he actually found out about it in the media like everybody else?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The agreement the member refers to is an agreement signed between the federal government and the Musqueam Indian Band. The province was not at the negotiating table, and it was not a signatory of the agreements.

We have made a request for the federal government to share the agreement that they signed on a nation-to-nation basis with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm so that we would understand better…

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: …what was in the agreement. I do not have the agreement in front of me, so I cannot share it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Member, supplemental.

Trevor Halford: There are a lot of tables that this minister and this Premier aren’t at. I don’t know if it’s because they’re not invited, or I don’t know if they just don’t have it in their calendars. What I do know is that British Columbians are all paying the price because of the incompetence of this government — full stop. That can’t be debated.

We’ve got a minister that will go out and say one thing, and the Premier has got to backtrack and clean up that mess the next day. We’ve got a minister and a Premier and an Attorney General that can’t clearly articulate their timelines on how they’ll deal with an issue as important as the Cowichan decision.

[2:00 p.m.]

Now, with this, the minister says: “Not my problem. Take it up with the federal government. Nothing to do with us. Take it up with your MP.” That’s the leadership that we’re seeing on this side on such an important issue.

My question is a simple one. The minister doesn’t want to answer it because he either doesn’t know or can’t figure it out. When did this minister, the Premier or anybody else in government come to light on what was announced with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm? Are we to believe…?

Interjections.

Trevor Halford: Really? Okay, well that might answer the…. If that member wants to stand up and answer, that would be great.

When were they alerted to this decision and this announcement? If we are to believe it’s today, nobody on this side of this House is going to buy that.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Again, I’ll be clear. I do not know what’s in that agreement. I do not have the text of the agreement. I’ve made a request to the federal government.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Shhh, Members.

Shhh. Members will wait for their turn.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The members can shout all they want, but the reality is this is an agreement between the federal government and the Musqueam Indian Band. It’s an agreement that they’ve signed. You can read the text, as best as it has been shared, through the government press release from the federal government.

It’s certainly my expectation that the federal government be clear around what it is that they’ve signed, their agreement and that they release that agreement. They have not done so yet at this stage.

Access to Obstetrics
Care in Hospitals

Jeremy Valeriote: This past weekend Vancouver General Hospital patients more than 20 weeks pregnant were told that within 24 hours the hospital would begin diverting them elsewhere for obstetrical care.

A fundamental benchmark measured by the World Health Organization is maternal and infant mortality, and a VGH medical director says diversion can be a matter of life or death for both mothers and children at risk. This crisis is now adding pressure to surrounding hospitals, which are already at or above capacity.

To the Minister of Health, VGH forecasted this diversion of care 15 months ago. Why wasn’t this resolved in that time? Why were vulnerable patients and front-line clinicians given just 24 hours’ notice? When will this crisis be resolved?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you very much to the member for the question as well.

Vancouver General Hospital provides some of the most excellent care to pregnant women and their babies. In the very, very rare circumstance that a woman who is past 20 weeks of gestation experiences severe trauma and is in requirement of level 1 trauma services, nothing could be more important than the safety of that mother and her baby — which is why there are other facilities, like Royal Columbian Hospital, which provide these services as well.

I urge any person who needs to go to an emergency room or who faces an emergency to call 911, where a reliable and dependable system of emergency patient transport and connection and communication between hospital facilities exists, so that people can get the care that they need at the most urgent time, when they need it.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote: I do not believe that answers the core question. Diversion from VGH can be a matter of life or death.

Aren’t we lucky that this government now offers free contraception? We’re going to need it, because having a baby is less safe than ever. Royal Inland Hospital has a maternity crisis, and now the largest and most specialized hospital in B.C. cannot provide essential obstetrical health care.

What confidence can this government offer that it’s safe to have a baby in British Columbia?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I’m really disappointed to hear the characterization, from the member, of the extraordinary service that physicians, nurses and patient care teams deliver to people in this province each and every day. We have so much to be proud of, in our health care system here in British Columbia, with the level and the quality of service that is delivered to people.

There were about three to six patients, over the past 20 months, who would walk through the emergency room or be delivered to the emergency room, not via an ambulance, and who were in need of the incredible services, of the type that these specialists provide and will continue to be able to provide, at facilities in the Lower Mainland like Royal Columbian Hospital.

[2:05 p.m.]

This government continues to stay focused on building the workforce of specialists, of primary care physicians, of the people who take care of pregnant women and their babies throughout their gestation, throughout their pregnancy, so that we can deliver safe, healthy babies and give that gift of life — working with families across British Columbia, in facilities large and small, every single day.

Availability of Long-Term-Care Beds

Brennan Day: It’s not just obstetrics that is failing British Columbians.

There are 7,400 people on wait-lists for a long-term-care bed in British Columbia. Last year the seniors advocate reported an average of 718 daily unoccupied beds across the province.

With alternative level of care patients now jamming up hospital hallways and jamming up patient flow because they have nowhere appropriate to go, how many long-term-care beds are there empty in British Columbia today?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question.

Long-term-care wait-lists are maintained by health authorities, which work closely with potential clients and their families to ensure that placement happens as quickly as possible. It is normal in the long-term-care sector for there to be turnover and also for beds to be empty for various different reasons — including outbreaks, for example.

Health authorities and long-term-care operators do everything they can to place people as quickly as possible. We know just how important that is, which is why our government has been focused on building out the long-term-care sector, replacing beds and building new beds. It is work that we are going to continue to stay focused on.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Brennan Day: Nice words once again from the minister, but not an actual answer.

We know that there are seven long-term-care beds at a facility in Chilliwack that have been empty for weeks. The hospice society there has requested the beds be used for palliative patients, and they were turned down by the health authorities. We know there are hundreds of vacant beds across the province.

To the Minister of Health, does B.C. have a bed shortage problem or a management problem?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I’m very willing to work with the member for specific questions around that facility that he mentions, or any other facility.

Again, there are a number of reasons why beds may be empty for a short period of time — during turnover, for various outbreaks or illnesses or other reasons, as rooms are upgraded, for example. I’m very willing to work with the member.

Long-Term-Care Projects and Costs

Kiel Giddens: Seniors deserve a choice when it comes to their health care and to live with dignity. This government isn’t giving them that choice, as ALC patients wait.

This budget is an all-out attack on seniors, with both tax increases and health care cuts impacting them. Nearly 1,200 long-term-care beds are being cancelled.

Can the minister please confirm how many long-term-care beds in this budget would have cost the $1.8 million price tag referenced by the Finance Minister?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We’ve heard, countless times, from members of both sides of the House how important it is that we deliver expanded access to long-term-care beds.

Long-term-care beds in British Columbia are so critical to people who need them and to the families that care for them as well. This is why the work that we are doing to put a pause on our long-term-care program is so incredibly important, because we’re starting to see those escalating costs in construction move beyond what is reasonable for British Columbians to be able to pay in order to deliver at the scale that we require.

We have been seeing long-term-care beds come in at estimates of more than $1.8 million per bed. It is not sustainable. That’s why we’re doing this work.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Kiel Giddens: The Minister of Health knows that members of the opposition, myself included, were in the audience at the B.C. Care Awards last week. We were sitting right next to government members. We heard loud and clear that $1.8 million doesn’t need to be the cost per bed if government managed projects better.

[2:10 p.m.]

We also know that the beds we’re talking about don’t cost near that amount. The Delta long-term-care project is set to cost a total of $180 million for the 200-bed facility. That’s $900,000 per bed — half of what the Finance Minister told us in question period last week. Campbell River long-term care is only $875,000 per bed. Cottonwood long-term care is $799,000 per bed. The government is showing its priorities when it comes to B.C.’s seniors.

Again, to the Minister of Infrastructure, why is her government cancelling projects less than half the alleged project cost?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The numbers that the member is citing are the amounts per bed that our government approved projects at, at the concept plan stage. Through the development of the business case and through the design of the actual projects, the estimates coming back from quantity surveyors are far, far higher.

This is why we had to make the difficult choice to put a pause on these projects. It’s because they are coming back to government far higher than what government originally budgeted for them.

Misty Van Popta: All of the long-term-care facilities that have been cancelled are in non-NDP ridings — all of them. One project not cancelled, nor started, yet is the Richmond long-term care in the Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness riding, while Abbotsford and Delta were stopped after millions of dollars were invested.

Could the Minister of Infrastructure please justify her lack of equitable access to long-term care for seniors in Fraser Health, or does a senior need to vote for the NDP to get a bed to sleep in?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Government had to make difficult decisions across the health care sector when it came to investments into capital projects. One perfect example would be the deferral of the Burnaby Hospital phase 2 project, in an area where all members serving the community are members of government.

These decisions are not made lightly. They are not made on a partisan basis. These are incredibly difficult decisions that government has been forced to make in order to ensure that we are able to deliver the projects that communities need in a sustainable manner.

Donegal Wilson: My constituency office is full of families waiting for long-term-care beds. I have a very large region.

Just this week I heard from a woman in Keremeos who has been caring for her husband with dementia at home for more than two years while waiting for placement. He falls frequently and needs full-time supervision, and, unfortunately, she still has to work to make ends meet.

Last month she herself was hospitalized. The drain this is putting on her is coming to roost. So with no caregiver at home, a neighbour found him, after a fall in the middle of the night, on the floor. Only then was he admitted. She had been gone five days in the hospital herself.

Now Interior Health is trying to send him home again, even though his wife is still recovering and cannot care for him. She had to refuse to take him back. He now sits in a bed in another community, isolated from his family and isolated from his wife.

How can this minister delay new long-term-care beds when the facilities we already have are beyond capacity and families in British Columbia are pushed to the breaking point?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The delivery of long-term-care beds has been a priority for our government since 2017. This is why we have completed nearly 16 projects so far, providing over 1,600 beds.

We have an additional six projects underway. Projects like the Creekside Landing in Vernon, providing 96 new beds. Projects like the Stuart Lake Hospital project in Fort St. James — more beds there. Ocean Front Village in Courtenay. We have the project in Aldergrove at Bellevue Park, and, in Kelowna, the Vineyards project.

These projects and many more have been delivered by our government, but over the years, the escalating cost of construction has caused the per-bed cost of long-term-care projects to absolutely skyrocket.

It is absolutely necessary, if we are to continue to build these projects and actually deliver at the scale that communities need these beds at, to take another look and deliver them differently.

[2:15 p.m.]

Macklin McCall: In my riding, we have a constituent who pays $8,500 per month for a private long-term-care bed and received a notice that it is increasing to nearly $10,000 per month.

She has been on a wait-list with Interior Health for a publicly subsidized long-term-care bed, but there is no end in sight. They are feeling the financial strain. The total she is paying per year is nearly $120,000. That’s unacceptable.

How many more seniors in my riding will be forced to drain their life savings before this government builds the long-term-care homes they promised the people of B.C.?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The member is illustrating exactly why it is important for us as a government to be able to build at the scale of the need that communities have. It’s not sufficient for us to be able to build 100 beds here and there at a cost of $1.8 million per bed or more. When taxpayers make investments into these capital programs, they expect their dollars to be used wisely.

That’s why the Ministry of Infrastructure is taking a look at how we actually deliver these beds, while also working with the Ministry of Health to find other programs for delivery of this type of care through the not-for-profit and private sector as well.

Claire Rattée: In November of 2024, this government decided to create a new Ministry of Infrastructure. They moved the long-term-care responsibility out of the Ministry of Health into the Ministry of Infrastructure — the building of them.

Since then, not a single new long-term-care facility has been completed, and nearly 1,200 beds have been cancelled now.

To the Premier, if this new ministry cannot deliver even one completed long-term-care home, can’t provide a single solution to how to get the cost down or a single timeline on when one will be built, why create an entirely new ministry and bureaucracy?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We have multiple long-term-care beds under construction right now. St. Vincent’s Heather is a new long-term-care home that will increase access to care for seniors in the Lower Mainland. The replacement of the Dr. F.W. Green Memorial Home in Cranbrook is also underway. We have two projects in Nanaimo and Colwood that will be breaking ground shortly and much more to come.

Budget Provisions for
Long-Term-Care Projects

Claire Rattée: I appreciate the response. But I said not one has been completed, and not one has. This is the problem. This ministry hasn’t been able to provide a timeline, hasn’t been able to provide any kind of an idea about how we’re going to get those costs down. Under the Ministry of Infrastructure, projects have stalled, costs have apparently skyrocketed, and beds are being cancelled while we have 7,000 seniors on wait-lists.

Seniors don’t need another ministry. They need beds. Instead of being transparent with the public, this minister would have you believe that there were no cuts to health care in this budget either. But the reality is that long-term-care beds are cut from Infrastructure, and mental health supports are cut from the Ministry of Children and Youth. You’ve heard of shell companies. This seems a little bit like it might be a shell ministry, somewhere for the cuts to go and hide.

Isn’t the truth that this government isn’t protecting health care; it’s just moving these cuts to different ministries?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Throughout the last year we have heard from members of the opposition about cost escalations in our capital programs. We’ve heard from members of the opposition, including the future Leader of the Opposition, that we should be cancelling projects like the Pattullo Bridge, which was months away from being completed. We have repeatedly heard from members of the opposition the need to get a handle on these construction projects.

That’s exactly what the Ministry of Infrastructure was created for. Part of the work that is now underway, particularly on the long-term-care file, is to actually take a pause on the way that we’ve been doing things before…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: …in order to be better able to deliver those projects at scale at a reasonable cost to taxpayers.

Bruce Banman: Well, it’s been a stellar day here in question period. Let’s review for a minute.

We got a minister of Indigenous affairs who wasn’t invited to the table with the feds while they were negotiating. It’s been 12 days, almost two weeks — still has no idea what’s going on.

[2:20 p.m.]

While we were rearranging clocks, because that is what British Columbians really, really need…. You know you’re desperate for votes when you talk about clocks and daylight saving time. It’s incredible.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh.

Bruce Banman: I must have hit a nerve because now all of a sudden the minister of Indigenous affairs wants to talk. Now he wants a question. Now he’s got something to say. Wow. You know you’ve hit a nerve when….

The Speaker: Question, Member.

Bruce Banman: The question I have, then…. We hear that if you’re having a child, good luck finding anywhere that’s open. We have a problem with that. Women are left not knowing whether or not, when their time comes to have their baby, they’re actually going to get care.

Then, for a government that says that they care about seniors…. They care about seniors. But here’s NDP math. This morning we had 500 beds. We’re over ten years. Now it’s 1,000. And now we just heard it’s 1,200.

My question to the minister is: do you need a real calculator? The one you’re working doesn’t seem to be working very good.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh.

Bruce Banman: What is the real number?

The Speaker: Members, no cross-talk.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I apologize. The member shouted out a number of numbers, most of which I don’t think I’ve actually used. If the member is asking me to repeat my previous response, I’m happy to do so.

We’ve completed, so far, 16 projects, providing over 1,600 beds. We have an additional six long-term-care projects underway, with more to come. We know that there is more work for us to do on this file, and that is the work that we are doing right now.

Budget Provisions for
Infrastructure Projects

Peter Milobar: Well, here’s the problem with this government. You have a budget document that says the long-term-care homes are TBC. They no longer even want to put a date to when they might be delayed till. They’re just saying the never-ever plan.

In that document, it actually very clearly says that they have been previously approved, yet last week we had a Finance Minister that said: “They’ve never been approved. They weren’t cancelled. They’ve just never been approved.” Then we have an Infrastructure Minister saying, despite the fact that they’re already spending literally millions of dollars on these sites, they’ve decided to pause that site for value proposition, while they’re having other sites that haven’t even started still move ahead in this budget.

That is why there’s no faith that this government actually knows how to manage a capital budget, a government that is 25 percent overspending right now on capital projects and 158 years delayed. That is the problem.

Seniors that were looking forward to those six long-term-care facilities have a very basic question they would like to have answered by this government. Why were these the projects when every other project in that budget just gets extended out by a year? It says 2027 to 2028, and then the next year you say, oh, 2028, 2029.

Why were those six long-term-care facilities, a hospital project and student residences deemed by this government to suddenly be TBC instead of actually just putting another year of completion on them and let the projects continue on?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Our fiscal situation has not been a secret to anybody in these chambers. The need during uncertain and difficult economic times for a government to make difficult decisions, including moderating their capital plan, is known to not just our government but governments right across Canada. These are exceptionally difficult choices being made. These are exceptionally difficult times to operate in.

These times oblige us to take a very hard look at the investments that we are making on behalf of taxpayers and make better choices. Part of the process of making better choices is to put a pause on those projects where we believe we can do a lot better. That is the work that is underway.

[2:25 p.m.]

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 7, the Post-Secondary International Education bill.

In the Douglas Fir Room, Section A, I call Committee of Supply, Ministry of the Deputy Premier and Attorney General.

In Section C, the Birch Room, I call Committee of Supply, Ministry of Infrastructure and, following that, Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Post-Secondary
International Education
(Designated Institutions) Act

Deputy Speaker: Good afternoon, Members. We will call this chamber back to order.

We are going to contemplate Bill 7, Post-Secondary International Education Act of 2026, and I would call on the Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills to introduce the bill.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I move that the bill, the Post-Secondary International Education (Designated Institutions) Act, be read a second time now.

I am proud to rise in the House today as the Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills to speak to Bill 7, the Post-Secondary International Education (Designated Institutions) Act.

Before I begin, I’d like to acknowledge that I’m speaking today from the traditional territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən Peoples, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

I stand before you today not only as the Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills but also as someone who believes deeply in the value that international education brings to our communities, our institutions and our province.

For years, international students have chosen British Columbia, drawn by promises of a high-quality education and a pathway for a better future. For most, that promise holds true. The majority of our institutions deliver excellent education, strong support for students and life-changing opportunity. But not everyone has had that experience.

Students arrive in British Columbia looking forward to support from their school, clear expectations, adequate facilities and a welcoming community. But what they sometimes find instead are promises that aren’t lived up to and conditions that don’t deliver the standards that we all expect from a post-secondary institution in our province. When this happens, the impacts are profound to the individual student, to our communities and to B.C.’s global reputation as a top destination for education and opportunity.

With this proposed legislation, we’re taking decisive action to prevent these experiences from happening to anyone else, and if students have these experiences, government will have the authority and tools to act swiftly and hold bad actors to account. This is our commitment to quality education, the integrity of the sector and enhancing the student experience.

British Columbia’s educational quality assessment program was established in 2009. Currently, EQA operates in policy alongside other existing regulations and statutes governing private and public post-secondary institutions, providing an added layer of quality assurance focused on the international student experience.

EQA is the mechanism B.C. uses to assess if post-secondary institutions meet the criteria established in agreement with the federal government for institutions to enrol international students.

[2:30 p.m.]

Institutions that obtain an EQA designation are placed on the federal designated learning institutions, DLI, list and are eligible to recruit and enrol international students.

Currently roughly 220 institutions — public, private, degree-granting, private training and others — hold an EQA designation. These institutions are subject to existing oversight under different acts, depending on which category they fall into.

In 2024, our government announced its international education framework with measures to strengthen quality standards and protections for international students. Over the past several years, the ministry has implemented these strengthened EQA requirements, and the program has been effective. However, without the legislative foundation, there are limitations on government’s ability to fully enforce standards and conduct formal inspections. This has created a gap that can be exploited by post-secondary and can leave students vulnerable and also put the sector’s reputation at risk.

Bill 7 builds upon and codifies the work under this framework. This new act replaces the existing, policy-based EQA program by formalizing it into legislation, tightening expectations and strengthening enforcement for institutions that host international students.

Let me walk you through the key things that this new act will do.

First, this legislation creates a clear prohibition. Institutions cannot recruit, enrol or deliver programs to international students who require a study permit unless the institution has a valid designation certificate under this act. This means institutions must be designated before advertising programs, offering placements, enrolling or delivering instructions to students who require a permit to study in B.C. This closes gaps that can lead to misleading or deceptive recruitment practices.

Second, this bill establishes clear legal criteria that institutions must meet to obtain and maintain their EQA designation. The criteria includes proving that programs and services are stable; providing clear, accessible information to students; offering strong student supports; maintaining good standing with regulatory bodies; and upholding B.C.’s global reputation for integrity and quality education. These criteria will ensure that international students receive the educational experience they were promised.

Third, this legislation strengthens oversight and enforcement. The act gives government the necessary tools for monitoring and enforcing compliance to hold bad actors to account. This includes the authority to conduct inspections, issue compliance orders and attach terms and conditions to designation certificates. In addition, the act implements a transparent appeals process and sets fees through regulation to support the cost of oversight. This new legal foundation creates a legislative compliance and enforcement framework that gives government the ability to act swiftly where concerns and issues arise.

Fourth, this bill establishes an administrator as the independent statutory decision-maker over the program. It also establishes an appeal officer to review significant decisions.

Finally, it supports flexibility and responsiveness. Key requirements for designation will be set through regulation and administrator rules, allowing the legislative framework to adapt to federal and other regulatory requirements or changes or if the broader sector concerns evolve. This ensures that B.C. can respond quickly to bad actors and reinforce our government’s focus on maintaining a high-quality education system.

These changes reflect our belief that the strength of B.C.’s international education system depends on integrity, transparency and genuine support for students. International students place immense trust in our institutions. Only those institutions that can offer a safe, positive learning environment with the right wraparound supports should have the privilege of welcoming students to B.C.

International education continues to play a valuable role in B.C.’s post-secondary education system and in communities across our province. The sector has grown more complex, and the need for clearer standards and stronger oversight has become increasingly evident. Institutions benefit from the diversity and global connections that international students bring, and students contribute academically, culturally and economically.

[2:35 p.m.]

International students can be uniquely vulnerable as they navigate their educational journey here in B.C. Strengthening the designation framework reinforces student protection, institutional accountability and B.C.’s reputation as a desired destination for international education.

By establishing a stronger foundation for oversight and accountability, this legislation helps ensure that the international education system remains sustainable, student centred and aligned with government values and expectations.

I’m proud to be bringing forward this legislation, which reinforces the integrity and stability of B.C.’s international education system. I’m equally proud of the progress made to date through the international education framework and enhanced standards implemented across the sector over the last several years. This legislation represents meaningful progress, but there is so much more work to do ahead, and we will continue to work every single day to strengthen this sector.

Today I invite each of you in this House to join us and support this bill. Join us in protecting international students and continuing to strengthen the integrity of B.C.’s post-secondary system. Together we can ensure every international student who chooses B.C. receives a positive, safe and meaningful education experience that they deserve.

Korky Neufeld: It’s always a privilege to stand in this House and represent the constituents of Abbotsford West. I’m honoured to speak to this bill, Bill 7, Post-Secondary International Education (Designated Institutions) Act.

Our side of the House absolutely supports efforts that actually create quality degree assurance. I want to repeat that. This side of the House absolutely supports efforts that create quality degree assurance. Those who receive a degree, a certificate and training need to be competent in delivering quality service in their field of training.

In the international student permit cap, the federal government’s intent was to deal with bad actors, schools that did not give quality training to international students receiving degrees, certificates and training. They did not, however, target bad actors. Instead, they have now punished all institutions across Canada and here in B.C.

The needs of our trained workforce in British Columbia are growing. We do not have enough students going to institutions to get the training they need to supply our economy with trained workers. The unintended consequences of the federal cap on student permits in 2024 has had a huge negative impact on all of our institutions across the country and this province.

Now we have Bill 7. During the briefing, I was given some insight. Let me just read to you some background and overview. “Education quality assurance is B.C.’s official designation for post-secondary institutions that meet or exceed provincial standards for quality and student protection.” Couldn’t agree with it more. “Institutions must have EQA designation if they want to enrol international students who have study permits.

In January 2024, the province announced the international education framework, which was already referenced, to improve standards and better protect students. The ministry is planning to introduce new legislation in spring to formally establish the EQA framework into law.

But the question is: is Bill 7 the right next step? What are the possible unintended consequences of Bill 7? Does the language in Bill 7 serve the intent?

Second in this briefing was the purpose of proposed new legislation to establish legal authorities. So we’re moving now from policy to law, which requires scrutiny with every word in this bill. It’s not just policy anymore. It is now legal framework.

Two: “Enable oversight and enforcement. Set clear rules for institutions, make it easier to enforce those rules, and give government better tools to make institutions follow them.”

[2:40 p.m.]

I guess I would have to ask first, at the outset: have all the safeguards been enforced in the policy part of this agreement? In other words, we’ve had policy out there for a number of years. Do we know…? Have they been enforced, the guardrails for that policy? If they haven’t been enforced, now we’re taking a hammer.

Three: “Enables cost recovery. The proposed act will allow government to charge institutions fees to help cover the cost of running the enforced EQA program.” We already know — there are newspaper articles that can stack that high — of institutions who are cash-strapped already.

Four: “Implement international education framework commitments. Complete and put into law the commitment made in the international education framework announced in 2024.” When we move from policy to law, we need to move forward carefully. Why? Because every word matters.

There is ample evidence that higher education in Canada and B.C. and across the West is not adhering to social contract implied by its public funding. Pick your favourite example: limited learning, the excess of DEI, discriminatory hiring, cancelling unpopular viewpoints, antisemitism, extreme left skew in faculty political viewpoints. In spite of claiming to embrace diversity, equity and inclusion, the activists turn it to the university scholarships’ questionable research. Something is seriously wrong with our universities.

Provinces currently fund universities by handing over large sums of money to cover operating costs while giving institutions considerable autonomy on how they spend it. This approach gives universities little incentive to line with public priorities. Here is where I believe the abuse of the international student growth, because of lack of oversight, has manifested itself.

Post-secondary institutions, PSIs, are critical to Canada’s economic growth. Teaching programs improve people’s skills needed for today’s fast-developing economies. Discovery and applied research support a more innovative society. The institutions themselves are significant contributors to the quality of life in the communities they serve, whether in the local area or a business sector ranging from agriculture to health services requiring stabilized skills.

Yet, as obvious as this may be, we overlook it at our own peril. Today’s PSIs are challenged on many fronts with a sharp reduction in full fee-paying international students. Institutions have lost a significant revenue source that helped cover the cost of domestic programs.

And here is the crux of it. Institutions that run their operations correctly take the extra funds from international students, then give domestic students a cut in tuition and allow more domestic students to take courses and degrees and certificates. The most pressing cases are B.C. and Quebec PSIs, which derive almost three-fifths of their revenue from international students, followed by Ontario PSIs, which is 50 percent.

Governments have capped domestic student tuition fees and reduced per-student funding. During this challenging financial squeeze, institutions are facing growing public scrutiny when the principles of freedom of expression, open inquiry and non-discrimination are perceived to be eroding in hiring, admission and teaching practices. We need a wake-up call to fundamentally address governance, funding and the quality of post-secondary education in Canada. Let’s bring it home.

The federal government’s cap on international student visas is translating into staff cuts at least at two major Lower Mainland post-secondary schools. Since Ottawa implemented the cap in 2024 — citing pressures on housing, health care and other services — Kwantlen Polytechnic University is expecting about 2,360 international students this fall, down almost 60 percent from last year.

Foreign students typically pay four to five times more than Canadian students to study at B.C. post-secondary institutions. Schools are now feeling the bite.

[2:45 p.m.]

In a notice to faculty, Kwantlen said it was expecting a $5 million to $10 million drop in revenue in its 2025-2026 budget. The school said that funding gap will translate into loss of 40 to 45 full-time positions. “We anticipate that between early retirements and departments and the dry-up of contract work, this might represent 10 to 20 percent of the entire faculty workforce,” said Mark Diotte, president of the Kwantlen Faculty Association.

Langara College, meanwhile, said it expects to see 2,400 fewer students than two years ago, enough to shrink its overall student body by 20 percent. “As a result of 2,400 less students, we need less courses. There’s less demand for some of the courses that we’re offering in the past,” Langara president Dr. Paula Burns said. “It does mean that we’re looking at reduced revenue, particularly when the decrease is coming from the international student population. As a result of that, we also have to look at expenses across all of our areas of all employee groups.”

Burns said Langara is dealing with a $13 million deficit this year but were yet required to deliver a balanced budget in the next year. The school has already notified 69 staff members that they will see their classes cut next year, and Burns said it was too early to say how many people may ultimately be let go.

President Diotte from Kwantlen said that educators are frustrated, and the provincial government has not stepped in with new funding to bridge the gap left by international student tuition. “We have Ontario’s government that stepped up and offered $1.3 billion in a stabilization fund. The B.C. NDP has $4 million in contingency funding, but it has been silent.”

What we’ve been really seeing is the federal government pointing fingers towards the provincial government and the provincial government pointing fingers at the federal government. What we need to see is all levels of government getting together with faculty, unions, administration and students and finding a sustainable path forward.

Now to Bill 7. On the surface, it claims to protect international students and uphold British Columbia’s reputation. But in reality, it centralizes extraordinary power in the hands of a single administrator while placing sweeping discretionary authority over our post-secondary institutions.

Let’s be clear again. Accountability in international education matters, and I strongly support quality degree assurance when it can be created. But I don’t know if Bill 7 answers that.

British Columbia has built a strong global reputation through institutions established under the College and Institute Act, the University Act, the Royal Roads University Act and the Thompson Rivers University Act. These institutions, including Royal Roads University and Thompson Rivers University, are respected worldwide. But respect is not strengthened by vague authority, by regulatory overreach and diminishing procedural fairness.

We have a good international reputation. It took us a long time to build. I believe Bill 7 is going to hurt that, because it’s easy to lose. This bill requires any institution offering programs to international students to obtain and maintain a designation certificate. Failure to do so results in the inability to advertise. They can’t even advertise. So they’re supposed to apply for this before they have any students. Once they apply, then they can advertise, then they can enrol, then they can contract and then continue instruction.

On its face, that sounds reasonable. But when we examine the structure, the concentration of authority becomes deeply concerning. We’ve seen from this government, in previous bills, that they want more control. They want more power.

Under section 5, the administrator must determine whether an institution is “unlikely to damage the reputation of British Columbia.” That phrase alone should give this House pause. What does that mean? Who defines reputational harm? What objective standards apply?

Reputation is not a measurable metric. It is subjective. It’s fluid and politically vulnerable.

Let me just explain. Reputation is rooted in public trust, admiration and respect, which are emotional and subjective, making them difficult to reduce to a simple number.

[2:50 p.m.]

Companies often rely on a patchwork of social media sentiment and media mentions, which track what is said rather than measuring the actual impact of those words on business value. There is no single industry-wide standard for measuring trust and credibility, leading to proprietary or inconsistent formulas.

Even more troubling is section 5.3, which allows the administrator to consider “any other factors that the administrator considers relevant.” That’s not oversight. That is open-ended discretion.

Under section 8, the administrator may impose, may amend, may remove terms and conditions at any time.

Under section 18, they may cancel designation certificates altogether.

Section 20. They may seek an injunction where the court is directed to give greater weight to enforcement of the act than to the continuing operation of the institution. Let me read that again. Section 20. They may seek an injunction where the court is directed to give greater weight to the enforcement of the act than to continue the operation of the institution.

This is extraordinary language. It tilts the scale of justice before the case is even heard.

And what of appeals? Well, under section 21, filing an appeal does not stay the decision. An institution could lose its designation immediately, suffer reputational and financial damage and only afterward attempt to challenge the decision without suspension of penalty.

How often have we seen on the news where there’s a false accusation on an individual. It gets into the front page of a paper. Everybody reads it, only: “Oops, we made a mistake.” The retraction’s where? Page 14, bottom right-hand corner, in small print. Once the damage is done, it’s irreversible.

We must also examine the inspection powers under section 17. Inspectors may enter premises without a warrant during business hours — just think about that for a second — remove records, make audio or video recordings and question individuals. Boy, that sounds like a socialist state.

While oversight is necessary, such powers must be balanced with safeguards. The legislation provides credentials, yes, but it provides no meaningful threshold for initiating inspections.

Then there’s section 31, “Immunity from legal proceedings.” This one…. I always find they have to put it in almost every bill. The administrator and appeal officer are shielded from damages for actions taken under the act unless, and here’s the quote, “Unless bad faith can be proven.”

“Oops, we made a mistake.” But there’s no way for you to undo all that unless bad faith can be proven. Think about how difficult it would be for an institution to make sure that they get all the things right together to say: “You know what? Bad faith can be proven.” That is so subjective. That’s a very high bar.

Combined with broad discretion and limited appeal protections, this structural sufficiency weakens institutional recourse. We are told, and I heard it again from the minister, this bill will protect students. But let me ask you a question. Does it also risk destabilizing institutions that serve those very students? That’s an honest question that needs answering.

Many of our public institutions already operate under rigorous legislative frameworks. Have we exhausted all of that? Is there a measurable that these things were not working? Where are the findings? Where’s the report? Let us see it.

Private institutions regulated under the Private Training Act already undergo compliance reviews. Institutions authorized under the Degree Authorization Act already face oversight.

[2:55 p.m.]

Why duplicate structures while layering additional administrative authority on top? Why not ensure first that every bit of authority under the policy has been exhausted and there’s a report that clearly says, you know what, it was insufficient; we need laws.

Furthermore, smaller institutions, particularly those not structured as corporations, given the exclusion of sole proprietorship and partnership, may be disproportionately affected. I can just see a small school in the Interior. They don’t have a whole lot of legal beagles running around. So now this is going to put an extra burden on them.

Compliance costs, administrative fees, reporting requirements and potential penalties could discourage innovation and specialization in niche programs that international students seek.

International education is not a marginal sector. It supports communities from Victoria to Kamloops, from the Lower Mainland to the North. It funds research, sustains local economies and enriches our campuses culturally and intellectually. If regulatory unpredictability enters the equation, institutions may hesitate to expand international offerings and students may choose other jurisdictions.

We have seen over the last several years the number of people leaving British Columbia. It’s not the seniors that are leaving. It’s the 25- to 40-year-olds that are leaving. The brain trust, the trained people, the people that need to be working here in British Columbia — they’re leaving our province.

We must also address transparency. The online directory under section 9 allows the publication of information considered “in the public interest,” including personal information.

Well, what defines public interest? The NDP’s public interest? The Conservatives’ public interest? The international students’ public interest? What procedure of safeguards protect against reputational harm from premature disclosure? This legislation, though framed as protective, centralizes authority, broadens discretion, narrows appeal protections and weakens institutional certainty.

We can and should protect international students from bad actors — 100 percent. We know who they are. Why don’t we deal with them? No, no, instead of taking a scalpel and cutting out the sore, we’re going to beat it out with a hammer. And it’s going to impact every institution. We can and should prevent misleading recruitment practices. Absolutely. We can and should ensure education agents operate ethically. Absolutely. But let us not use a hammer, but a scalpel instead. Remove the bad actors instead of potentially harming every institution.

Protection must be balanced with fairness. Oversight must be balanced with accountability of the overseer. Regulations must be precise not open-ended, especially when it’s moving from policy to law.

This bill needs clearer definitions, stronger appeal safeguards, objective standards for decision-making and limits on discretionary power. Without these improvements, we risk replacing confidence with uncertainty and substituting partnership with these institutions with control over these institutions.

British Columbia’s reputation was not built through administrative concentration of power. It was built through excellence, collaboration and institutional integrity. Let us ensure that in seeking to protect that reputation, we do not undermine the very institutions that sustain it.

Hon. Terry Yung: Good afternoon. I’m happy to stand in this House today in support of the Post-Secondary International Education (Designated Institutions) Act.

British Columbia, this province, has long been recognized as one of the most preferred destinations in the world for international education. Students from every corner of the globe choose to come here for the quality of our institutions, also for the communities, for the culture and experience that this province has to offer.

[3:00 p.m.]

We welcome international students to B.C., and we want them to succeed here, to do well academically, socially and professionally. Many return to their home countries to contribute and build their own economies. Some might prefer to stay. If they do, we’d like them to contribute to our economic vision and the communities that will welcome them as newcomers. But that all starts with ensuring that they receive the high quality of education that this province guarantees.

I was once an international student in the state of California. It’s a big decision for anyone to make such a leap, to leave their home country, to have faith in a new system, another country, another institution, to place their faith and trust into a system that they might not even have experienced but read about and researched prior to arriving in a new country — in this case, the province of B.C.

We must ensure institutions meet clear and enforceable standards for people to come and study here. That starts with protecting the integrity of the system they place the trust in, and that’s what this legislation is about. It’s about quality and integrity and, most importantly, it’s about protection of the international students who come here now and in the future.

The international student education landscape has changed over the past several years. As you know, my colleague from the other side just mentioned earlier that the federal government has introduced caps on study permits that affect how many students we can afford to actually enrol in the province of B.C.

Global competition for students also intensified. They do not have to come here. They choose to come here based on the quality, the promise and the trust they place in us. This means B.C. has to continue to commit to attracting top learners, students and delivering an education experience that’s second to none. We also have to be mindful of a small group, a minority of bad actors that mislead students and damaged our reputation internationally. That is just not acceptable.

As a former law enforcement officer, without enforcement, the rules don’t really matter as much. It’s a tough choice for many students. The cost, the relocation…. They’re investing sometimes more than their family’s life savings. They are investing in the future, and for them, they deserve honesty and transparency from us. This means that institutions have to meet clear, enforceable standards, and this legislation will ensure that will happen.

Currently we have the B.C. education quality assurance, the EQA. It sets standards, creates oversight, but it’s not, as I said before, legally binding. It’s nice to know. You should. I should do that. But it lacks the force of enforcement.

So where do we go when we don’t abide by these rules, when we don’t care, when we don’t actually look at the well-being of the students? Policy alone is not enough, is not sufficient to protect our international students.

I also see my fellow colleagues there who are educators. You can understand that it’s important to have standardized guidelines and rules and performance, but you also need to be able to apply them. This creates a legal framework that will establish compliance mechanisms and also create a transparent appeals process if things don’t go smoothly.

The proposed changes. What is this about? The Post-Secondary International Education (Designated Institutions) Act, Bill 7, prohibits institutions without destination from recruiting, enrolling and delivering programs to international students who actually require a federal study permit. It creates legal criteria that these institutions must abide by.

[3:05 p.m.]

It also gives the province authority for inspections. It creates compliance and enforcement tools, the ability to cancel destination certificates if those standards are not met. It also creates a fair and transparent appeals process.

This act does not duplicate the Private Training Act or the Degree Authorization Act, because those statutes serve a different purpose. But it does maintain the high standards of families around the world, as they expect of us when they choose this province to be their place of high learning.

In my riding, in Yaletown in Vancouver, we have private and public institutions for post-secondary education. As I mentioned before, many international students formed their decision prior to arriving here, based on the information they obtained in good faith that the education that they’re about to receive matches the information that was posted and promised to them, so they can make the choice with confidence, without uncertainty.

This legislation is also about protecting good actors, the people who do well, the many outstanding post-secondary institutions, both private and public, in this province. But it does recognize the reality that there are bad actors that risk undermining confidence in our province’s international education system. This is about increasing the oversight to help ensure that we continue to deliver high-quality education in this province while providing a mechanism and tools for the government needed to address situations and standards when these standards are not met.

Also, we need to protect institutional integrity with clear, strong oversight and clear, enforceable rules. This legislation will provide stronger protection for international students and safeguard those high-standard post-secondary education institutions to continue doing the good work they’re doing.

Now, in the context of education here, international education is a shared responsibility. Ottawa determines who requires a study permit, requires the cap to how many we take in and also manages the immigration processes. The provinces — in this case, British Columbia — are responsible for education quality assurance. That’s our job. An institution cannot appear on the federal designated learning institution list unless it holds a provincial designation.

That’s why this legislation will also align our values with the national expectations of this country. We’re enforcing this province’s leadership in accountability and transparency. That’s really important.

In my last position at the police department in Vancouver, I was in charge of the professional standards section. You must have a system that’s transparent, fair and accountable when it comes to enforcement and enforcement of higher standards that everybody should be subjected to. In my own case, it was the people in that organization.

We also recognize the financial pressures facing institutions. With the cap, and in many cases, a decrease in student permits internationally, institutions are facing a tough time making ends meet and actually addressing the cost of delivering a high standard of education.

I want to say it again, as I have said before. This legislation does not hamper the institution of the high standards they’re meeting, set by this province.

Let’s look at what is going to be actionable. What can we do? What does this mean for us? For the first time, government will have the authority to conduct inspections. We can issue compliance orders when institutions are not in compliance. We can impose terms and conditions. And we can cancel, as a last resort, designation certificates when institutions fail or refuse to comply.

[3:10 p.m.]

These tools matter, because without enforcement, standards are just mere suggestions, nice to do, good to know. International students deserve more than suggestions. With the investment they make to come to this country, to this province, they deserve certainty in their future.

Now, we talk about: is it fair? I mean, how do we know this is going to be applied evenly? This act also creates a formal appeal process. An independent appeal officer will be appointed by the minister to review significant decisions. This will ensure transparency, fairness and procedural integrity.

There have to be set procedures and policies in place to make sure this act does what it’s supposed to do. Oversight must be firm, yet it has to be fair. This legislation will do both. It will be fair and also be firm.

At the end of the day, I ask myself: “Why do we do this? Why are we here? Why do we become educators? Why do we work in government? Whom do we look after? Whose interests do we look after — ours, theirs or shared interests?”

International students are not just numbers or people paying fees to come here — often, a lot higher than our domestic students. These are young people with dreams and aspirations. I was one of them when I went to university in the state of California.

They contribute billions to our economy. They actually make our campuses and communities more diverse, better and more interesting. Like I said before, many return home to contribute to their home country’s economy, culture and advancement, and some choose to stay and build their lives here, to make it a better province, a better country that we have come to know and call home. We must ensure that when they choose this province, they’re choosing an educational system grounded in integrity.

This legislation speaks to our commitment in welcoming and looking after international students coming to this province. It creates clarity, not red tape. It does not undermine institutions. It protects students and protects institutions that are operating with integrity and ensures that the small percentage of bad actors cannot jeopardize the legal status, financial security and educational aspirations of students who placed their trust in this province, in us.

We welcome international students, we cherish their contributions with this act, and we want to make sure the promise made to them is a promise kept.

Lynne Block: Listening to the MLAs across the aisle, there’s a lot we can agree on, but there are certain aspects we cannot agree on. That’s why we’re here.

I rise today to speak on Bill 7, the Post-Secondary International Education (Designated Institutions) Act. This legislation, while well intentioned in its pursuit of quality, risks fundamentally undermining one of British Columbia’s greatest economic and cultural assets: our diverse post-secondary landscape. This Bill 7 seeks to create a framework for regulating how we provide instruction to international students.

Let me be very clear at the outset. The objective of maintaining standards, protecting students and safeguarding British Columbia’s reputation is one we can all share — absolutely. No one in this House supports exploitative paper mills or institutions that promise education but deliver little more than a pathway to a study permit. The integrity of our system matters.

Our international education sector is not only an economic engine; it is a statement about who we are as a province — open, innovative and globally connected. However, good intentions do not always guarantee good outcomes. In its current form, I fear this bill risks overcorrecting in a way that could have unintended and deeply damaging consequences.

[3:15 p.m.]

While we can all agree that protecting the integrity of our provincial brand is essential, I fear that in its current form, this bill “throws the baby out with the bathwater.” By attempting to weed out what we call paper mills, those entities that exist solely to facilitate entry into the country without providing real education, the government has created an overly broad and punitive system that threatens legitimate, high-quality institutions.

Before we dive into the technical flaws of the bill, we must recognize what is at stake. British Columbia is home to world-class specialized institutions like — I’ll just give two examples — LaSalle College in Vancouver and Vancouver Institute of Media Arts, and many others. Institutions like these do fall under the category of eligible institutions that provide “programs of instruction” as defined in the act. However, even though designated as such, they will definitely be negatively affected by this legislation.

These schools provide something a traditional university often cannot — highly specialized, industry-focused expertise. They offer programs of instruction, defined by the bill as a course or series of courses that are laser-focused on training students for the modern workforce, something we desperately need in British Columbia.

Students at these institutions aren’t just earning a credential. They are gaining the specific skills required for careers and good-paying jobs in the creative and technical sectors — for example, film, animation, fashion design, game development, interior design, culinary arts, coding and digital marketing, just to name a few. What I found out today was that one of our fellow MLAs on this side actually got their paperwork, their certification, at LaSalle College. They speak very favourably of this place.

These are legitimate educational institutions that have, in many cases, already earned their EQA, their education quality assurance designation, under previous standards. They have invested multi-millions of dollars in facilities, faculty, equipment and industry partnerships. Those partnerships are golden. They contribute to our tech space. They hire British Columbians. They attract students from around the world, who rent apartments, buy groceries, take transit and contribute to our local economies.

Here’s the crux of the matter. Many of these specialized institutions rely heavily, sometimes overwhelmingly, on international enrolment to sustain their operations. Unlike large, public universities — with diversified revenue streams, research grants, alumni endowments and substantial domestic enrolments — smaller, private institutions often operate on thinner margins. A sudden drop in international student numbers, even a moderate one, can destabilize them. A severe drop could close them permanently.

If that happens, we do not simply lose a business; we lose diversity in educational choice. We lose niche expertise and experience. We lose alternative pathways for both domestic and international students.

We are, in this province, already operating in a very fragile economic environment. Federal caps on international study permits have created uncertainty. Families abroad are watching Canada closely. Agents are watching closely.

[3:20 p.m.]

Competing jurisdictions in the world — like Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States — are adjusting their policies strategically. If British Columbia adds another layer of regulatory uncertainty, particularly one that includes subjective decision-making and broad discretionary powers, we risk signalling instability again.

Perception matters. If international students begin to believe that designation is precarious, that programs may be abruptly suspended or that institutions could lose certification midstream, they will simply choose another destination. Education is a global marketplace. Students have options.

For a large public university, a 5 to 10 percent drop in international enrolment is concerning but survivable. For a specialized college with 60 or 70 percent international enrolment, that same drop could mean layoffs, program cuts and even closure.

And once those institutions close, as we can see in the forestry industry, they do not reopen easily. Faculty disperses. Facilities are sold. Industry partnerships dissolve. Those are critical. It is about those relationships. Along with that, our reputation, our B.C. reputation, erodes. We would permanently narrow the post-secondary ecosystem in British Columbia.

What’s the primary issue with this Bill 7? It’s its failure to sufficiently distinguish between centres of excellence and bad actors. By lumping all institutions together under one restrictive, regulatory umbrella, the bill introduces several significant flaws.

I’d like to point them out.

First, subjective and vague criteria for success. That’s huge. The bill gives an appointed “administrator” — oh my goodness, we’ve seen that throughout British Columbia, appointed administrator; friends, family, whomever — the power to grant or deny a designation certificate based on factors that are worryingly subjective. For example, the administrator must determine if an institution is “unlikely to damage the reputation of British Columbia as a jurisdiction that hosts international students.” This is a nebulous standard.

What constitutes reputational damage? Is it student satisfaction metrics? Media coverage? A single high-profile complaint? A change in political winds? A controversy unrelated to academic quality? Reputation is not a fixed metric. It is fluid. It is contextual, and it is often political.

Legitimate institutions deserve objective, transparent — that word keeps coming up — criteria. Let me give you a few examples of clear, objective, transparent criteria that an administrator could look at, which is not subjective. First, graduation rates, employment outcomes, audited financial stability and compliance history. Those would not be an open-ended assessment by an administrator, and these would not vary depending on who occupies the administrator’s chair. So that’s the first flaw.

The second flaw is excessive administrative power. Under section 8, the administrator is granted authority to impose any terms and conditions they consider “appropriate” on a designation certificate. This is extremely broad language. Furthermore, the administrator can cancel the certificate if they decide an institution “no longer meets the criteria.”

[3:25 p.m.]

Let us be clear about what that means in practice. If an institution loses its designation, it can no longer enrol international students. It can no longer do that. For many specialized colleges, that is not a minor administrative setback. It is an existential event. A single administrative decision could effectively shut down a legitimate institution.

Now, I’m not suggesting that oversight should be weak. Absolutely not. But where power is broad, safeguards must be strong. There must be clear thresholds, due process protections, reasonable transition periods and meaningful, meaningful appeal mechanisms. Otherwise, we create regulatory instability.

Third flaw, heavy-handed enforcement. The act grants inspectors the power to enter an institution’s business premises “without a warrant” during business hours to inspect records or observe instruction. Really? Oversight is necessary. Transparency is necessary. But we must ask whether the tone of enforcement matches the target.

Are we regulating respected colleges of art, design, media and technology as though they are suspected criminal enterprises? Established institutions that have operated responsibly for decades deserve oversight, but proportionate oversight. There is a difference between rooting out fraud and presuming guilt. Regulation must build trust, not erode it.

A fourth flaw: the burden of fees. The bill introduces application fees, annual administrative fees, compliance costs and fees to appeal decisions. For a large research university, these costs may be absorbed into a multi-billion-dollar operating budget. But for a small, specialized institution with high equipment costs, 3D labs, production studios, kitchens, design software licences, and so on, these fees are not trivial. They are cumulative. They become effectively a tax on specialization.

And those costs do not disappear. They are passed on to students or absorbed through staff reductions and program cuts, and we’ve seen that in the K-to-12 school boards having to balance their budgets.

The most concerning aspect of this bill is its restrictive approach to collaborations and business practices. Section 11 dictates how designated institutions can collaborate with non-designated partners. Section 24 allows the administrator to set the “minimum proportion of a program” that must be provided directly by the institution.

Modern education, particularly in creative and technical fields, is collaborative by nature. I’ve been on quite a few tours of different colleges and art places. Amazing stuff they’re doing. It absolutely boggles my mind, and I’m in awe of what they do and how they do it.

But colleges partner with production studios. They partner with tech companies. They partner with culinary leaders. They partner with global design firms. Guest instructors oftentimes fly in from abroad, and they are the ones that bring in the students from international places. Online components are integrated with in-person workshops.

[3:30 p.m.]

Rigid, centrally prescribed proportions risk stifling innovation. If institutions cannot adapt quickly to industry needs because every structural change requires regulatory navigation, we risk freezing our post-secondary sector in time. They’re stuck, while the industries that they twin with or work with or collaborate with are moving forward. They’re moving forward and evolving rapidly.

This debate is not only about regulatory frameworks. Most importantly, it’s about people. International students are not abstract policy variables. They are young people who travel thousands of kilometres, invest family savings and place their trust in our institutions in British Columbia. They enrich our classrooms with global perspectives. They form friendships with domestic students. They start businesses, they fill labour shortages and many become permanent residents and contribute to our communities for decades and pay taxes.

If we unintentionally shrink the range of institutions available to them — particularly specialized, career-focused institutions — we limit their options and weaken our appeal.

At the same time, domestic students benefit enormously from the presence of international peers. They gain exposure to global networks and diverse viewpoints. In smaller, specialized colleges, that diversity is often one of the greatest strengths. It really is. They make long-lasting friendships. Oftentimes, what they learn and what they do…. They collaborate with fellow students from around the world. Those work in the future too — with businesses, with connections, with investments.

I’ll repeat. In small and specialized colleges, that diversity is often one of the greatest strengths that we have. If declining international enrolment forces closures, domestic students lose out too. They lose choice and choices.

I can tell you for a fact, now, a lot of students are absolutely thrilled because five or ten years ago, even a few years ago, every parent, they want their child to go to university. Well, now they’re realizing, okay, unless they’re going in for something specific, they get four years, massive debt, a piece of paper, but they can’t get a job. They haven’t got a career. They haven’t got a profession.

So what is happening? These colleges are not only providing a place for students to learn career paths that they wouldn’t have even imagined, but they get jobs from that and they get professions from that and they find purpose.

So if we have these closures, our students who are domestic students lose too. They lose choice. They lose alternative pathways just then of going to the university. They lose access to niche programs. I’ve seen programs I didn’t even know were in existence — so exciting, so innovative, so forward-thinking — that larger universities cannot offer because they are entrenched on certain pathways. And that’s okay. But there’s a diversity of choices with these colleges and these institutions. So I’m calling for nuance here.

In conclusion, we, I, support the goal of eliminating paper mills, absolutely, because they do exploit the system and they have done for a little while. That goal is legitimate. It is necessary. It is responsible governance. However, I cannot support a bill that fails to adequately recognize the distinction between a visa mill and a legitimate college providing high-value expertise.

We must protect international students, foreign nationals who require a study permit and invest their futures in our province. They deserve protection, but they also deserve choices.

[3:35 p.m.]

British Columbian students deserve a post-secondary ecosystem that is broad, that is innovative and resilient. If even a handful of legitimate, specialized institutions close because international enrolment drops below sustainable levels, the damage will be long-lasting.

We will lose diversity. We will lose depth in our post-secondary options. We will narrow opportunity for our students who are already here. We will reduce flexibility in our skills-training pipeline. And that is imperative. We cannot. That is absolutely paramount in this province. We need those skills-training pipelines. So that is not a small consequence.

I urge the MLAs on both sides to look at and reconsider what the unfettered power of that one administrator can do and the damage they can do. I can think of several examples right now where people have been appointed. They have no clue what they’re doing in that role, but they’ve been appointed, and they make decisions that influence and impact a lot of people negatively. So that is a huge issue for me.

I would urge this assembly to reconsider the unfettered power of the administrator and the subjective nature of the designation criteria. Let us together refine Bill 7 so that it clearly targets fraudulent institutions while safeguarding legitimate ones. Let us together build in objective benchmarks, transparent processes, reasonable transition periods and meaningful appeals — together, on both sides of the aisle. Let us together ensure that the path to a designation certificate is clear, fair and based on measurable educational outcomes, not on shifting interpretations of “reputation.”

We must protect all our students, but we must also protect the institutions that actually teach them. Let us fix together what needs fixing without dismantling what works.

Hon. Anne Kang: It’s a privilege to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill 7, the Post-Secondary International Education (Designated Institutions) Act.

As many of us may know in the House, my father came to this province, came to Canada, as an international student, so I am a proud daughter of an immigrant and, also, international student. I am very thankful for the opportunity we have, and that’s why this bill is very important.

Also, as the previous Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills, I want to express my continued passion and support for this sector and that it has been a true honour to have worked with the students, faculty, staff, leadership and stakeholders of this sector. Serving in that role has been one of the greatest honours of my public life.

Post-secondary education sits at the heart of opportunity for British Columbia. It opens doors for all learners, and it equips people with skills to build careers. It also strengthens communities. It is an economic driver, and it connects our province to the world.

We welcome international students in British Columbia. We want them here, and we want them to succeed. We want them to have a life-changing experience when they come to study in our province. Even with the federal government’s recent limits on international student allocations, British Columbia remains committed to attracting top learners and delivering an educational experience that is second to none.

[3:40 p.m.]

International students enrich our campuses and our communities. They bring cultural diversity, global perspectives and lifelong connections to all that they meet here. Many become leaders in their fields. Some stay and contribute to the economy and society for the years to come.

While the vast majority of institutions in British Columbia provide high-quality education and act with integrity, we also have seen a minority of bad actors who have misled students and damaged our province’s reputation. Students have invested their savings, left their families, travelled thousands of kilometres, only to find that the experience they were promised did not match the reality. That is unacceptable.

Protecting students and protecting British Columbia’s reputation has been a central focus of our government, and, in fall 2024, the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills launched the international education framework. It is a comprehensive plan to strengthen B.C.’s international education sector. That framework included policy changes to raise quality standards, protect our reputation as a destination of choice and enhance supports for international students.

The legislation before us today is the next critical step in this work. The Post-Secondary International Education (Designated Institutions) Act will establish a clear legal framework for British Columbia’s education quality assurance program, known as EQA.

Currently the EQA program operates through policy. While that policy guides how the program is managed, it is not legally binding. The EQA policy manual and code of practice are not enforceable in law. Government did not have clear legal authority to require institutions to follow them or to take strong enforcement action when institutions failed to comply.

This legislation changes that. It turns policy into law. Under this proposed act, institutions will be prohibited from recruiting, enrolling or delivering programs to international students who require a study permit unless they hold a valid designation certificate.

The act will set clear legal criteria that institutions must meet to receive and maintain that designation. It will provide government with the authority to conduct inspections. It will establish compliance and enforcement tools, including orders, terms and conditions and, ultimately, cancellation of designation when necessary. It will create a fair and transparent appeals process with an independent appeals officer appointed by the minister.

This legislation does not change the quality of standards themselves, but it gives government the legal tools to ensure that those standards are met. It strengthens governance, it strengthens transparency, and it strengthens protection for students. That is very important.

Let me be clear about what problem we are solving. The EQA program currently operates through policy, not law. That means requirements are not legally binding and enforcement tools are limited. Legislation is needed to ensure that government can fulfil its commitment to stronger oversight and accountability. It is not about adding red tape for the sake of it. It is about ensuring that institutions who benefit from enrolling international students are meeting clear, consistent standards and that students can trust the system that they are entering.

The act defines an international student as one who requires a federal study permit because their program is longer than six months. These longer programs typically involve significant academic and financial commitments. They are precisely the situations where strong oversight matters most. Short-term programs of six months or less are not included because they do not require a study permit or designation and generally involve lower commitments for learners.

The member opposite asks: “Is this duplicative?” Well, it is not. The Degree Authorization Act oversees new degree programs and the use of the term “university.” The Private Training Act regulates career training programs offered by private institutions. This new act establishes the standards that both public and private post-secondary institutions must meet and maintain in order to be eligible to enrol international students on study permits.

[3:45 p.m.]

Each act serves a different purpose, and together they create a coherent oversight framework. Others also have asked whether this is the right time, given financial pressures on institutions. As government, we recognize those pressures. Institutions are facing global inflation, shifting domestic enrolment patterns and federal caps on international student visas.

That is precisely why this legislation matters. When international student allocations are limited, we must ensure that those spaces go to institutions that meet high standards and provide high-quality educational experience. Strengthening oversight reinforces integrity. Integrity reinforces reputation, and reputation is essential for long-term sustainability.

Approximately 220 institutions currently hold EQA designation, both public and private. To minimize disruption, all existing designations will automatically transition when the act comes into force. Institutions will continue their designation status and reapply through their normal renewal cycle. New institutions will be able to apply under the new legal framework once it is in effect.

The legislation also allows for the introduction of application and annual fees to recover the cost of delivering the designation program. These fees will be set through regulation, guided by principles of reasonableness, transparency and sustainability. They are expected to represent only a small portion of the institutional operating budget.

This act also clarifies roles between federal and provincial governments. The federal government oversees immigration, who requires a study permit, caps on intake and who may enter or remain in Canada. British Columbia is responsible for education, for institution quality assurance and student protection. An institution can only be added to the federal designated learning institutions list if it holds British Columbia’s official designation. By strengthening our provincial framework, we reinforce our shared responsibility and demonstrate leadership in oversight and accountability.

Only one other jurisdiction in Canada, which is Manitoba, has dedicated international education legislation. British Columbia is choosing to lead. We are choosing a legally binding framework rather than a policy-only approach. We are choosing transparency over ambiguity. We are choosing strong governance over reactive cleanup. Throughout the development of this legislation, we have engaged with public and private institutions.

We have engaged with Indigenous partners, including the First Nations Education Steering Committee, the Indigenous Adult and Higher Learning Association and Metis Nation British Columbia. Their feedback has helped shape a framework that is firm, fair and forward-looking.

Quality matters. Integrity matters. Reputation matters. When students choose British Columbia, they are choosing more than just a classroom. They are choosing trust. They are choosing safety. They are choosing opportunity. We have a responsibility to honour that trust. This legislation is about protecting students, it is about protecting institutions that do the right thing, and it is about protecting British Columbia’s global reputation for excellence.

We welcome international students, and we value the contribution that they make to our province. We are committed to ensuring that the experience here reflects the very best of who we are, and I am proud of the work the Ministry of Post-Secondary and Future Skills has done to strengthen this sector.

I am confident that this legislation positions British Columbia for a strong, responsible future in international education. I support this bill. Thank you for this opportunity to provide my reflections.

[3:50 p.m.]

Lawrence Mok: I rise today to discuss Bill 7, the Post-Secondary International Education (Designated Institutions) Act.

To begin with, I want to let the House know that I was once an international student, studying at a university in Ontario many years ago.

I have no doubt that this proposed legislation is well intentioned. We can all agree on its goals to protect international students and to protect British Columbia’s long-standing reputation as home to some of the finest post-secondary education institutions in the world.

Here’s my concern with the system for designating institutions that is proposed in Bill 7. To me, the government is going further down the road of central control, where a single person, an administrator, is given lots of authority to make decisions, decisions that amount to life-or-death control over independent post-secondary institutions across our province.

I would like to compare this to the approach taken in provinces like Alberta and Ontario, and also to the approach taken internationally.

Bill 7 creates an administrator, who can designate whether a college, a private university or any other post-secondary institution can recruit, enrol or deliver courses or programs to international students who require a study permit from the federal government. Unless this administrator designates an institution, any college or university is banned, under this act, from even advertising its programs and course offerings to international students, much less accepting them.

This approach — everything under the control of a single administrator, an employee of the provincial government reporting to a provincial minister; the provincial cabinet; and, let’s face it, the Premier of the day — carries with it the potential for abuse, the potential for arbitrary decisions and even the potential for political interference in decisions that should not be political.

Until now, we have been using this government’s education quality assurance framework. Bill 7 will replace this with a statutory designation. At the centre of this new system stands the administrator, appointed by the government, by the minister. The administrator will have power, under the provisions of this bill, to dedicate duties to ministry employees.

The administrator will have broad discretionary powers that touch every aspect of the operations of the affected colleges, universities and training schools that serve international students. The administrator alone will decide on applications to issue or renew a designation certificate. The administrator alone will decide whether a college, university or training school provides clear information to students, ensures a safe and positive experience, promotes well-being and avoids damaging B.C.’s reputation.

I’ll say this again. Bill 7 provides one person, the administrator, with the power to determine that a college or a training school is damaging B.C.’s reputation. One person can put a school out of business with the stroke of a pen. If those criteria do not seem too general and too subjective for you, Bill 7 also gives the administrator the ability to put a school out of business for vague, open-ended reasons like “any other factors the administrator considers relevant.”

[3:55 p.m.]

Now, sure, the administrator needs to provide written reasons, but appeals offer no guarantee of an automatic stay, meaning that schools could face immediate shutdowns while their appeal is being considered. The administrator can impose, amend or remove terms and conditions on certificates at any time without prior notice or consultation. Oversight extends to maintaining a public directory, which could include publishing enforcement actions and even personal information.

Bill 7 grants the administrator authority to impose conditions, order corrective measures, cancel designations outright and even deny a school permission to reapply for up to three years. Imagine an administrator, perhaps swayed by political pressures or personal biases, cancelling a college’s designation mid-semester because they deem its recruitment practices likely to damage B.C.’s reputation. Students could be left in limbo, classes disrupted and visas at risk — all without immediate recourse.

Granting such authority to one administrator enables capricious decisions. Bill 7 grants the administrator the authority to appoint inspectors. These inspectors can enter premises without warrants, seize class records and question staff. These powers more closely resemble those of a police state than the British Columbia that we know.

Bill 7 grants the administrator power to unilaterally make binding rules on everything from student disclosures and instructional methods to collaborations and reporting obligations. Bill 7 grants the administrator the power to seek court injunctions against non-designated operations, with courts instructed to prioritize enforcement over the viability of the school or its students.

Bill 7 grants the administrator the power to suddenly impose conditions, such as costly facility upgrades, at any time, without appeal safeguards. To me, this concentration of power in one unelected official amounts to regulatory overreach, where personal judgment trumps collective wisdom and political directives could silence dissenting voices in academia.

Now, let’s have a look at Alberta’s Campus Alberta Quality Council, a model that provides for balanced, expert-driven governance. Established under Alberta’s Post-secondary Learning Act, CAQC is an independent agency comprising a 15-member council.

This council includes two co-chairs and 13 experts, appointed by the minister based on competencies in higher-education quality assurance, academic leadership and administration. These members bring broad experience from academia, industry and public service. Diverse perspectives inform every decision.

This Alberta agency reviews all new degree program proposals across public universities, colleges, private providers and out-of-province institutions, except religious divinity programs, assessing against standards like academic rigour, societal need and financial viability.

Expert panels conduct peer reviews, site visits and evaluations, leading to collective recommendations to the minister for approval, conditional approval or rejection.

Alberta’s quality council also monitors approved academic programs every five years, ensuring ongoing quality without the abrupt cancellations possible in Bill 7. This board structure reduces the risk of one-person rule. Decisions are debated among peers, fostering transparency and reducing bias.

[4:00 p.m.]

For instance, when Athabasca University proposes innovative online degrees, Alberta’s experts weigh in collectively, balancing innovation with standards — a far cry from the Bill 7 administrator unilaterally imposing rules on delivery methods. Alberta’s approach promotes systemwide coherence in Campus Alberta, enabling seamless transfers while avoiding the dangers of one-person rule.

I warn my colleagues on both sides of this aisle again. By eliminating the possibility of such an oversight board, Bill 7 invites the very abuses Alberta avoids: arbitrary bars on institutions, as in three-year reapplication bans, and unchecked inspections that could harass rather than help.

Now, let’s look at Ontario, where I went to school. Here we see yet another board model in the Postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board, created under the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act, 2000.

The Ontario board is an arm’s-length advisory board with a chair appointed by cabinet, a vice-chair and up to nine members selected by the minister for their expertise in higher education, administration and quality assurance. Members represent a tapestry of academic and governance backgrounds, ensuring decisions are informed by broad experience rather than isolated authority.

The Ontario board’s functions focus on recommending ministerial consent for degree programs from non-public university entities, public colleges, private institutions and out-of-province providers, complementing the self-regulatory Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance for public universities.

Applicants submit proposals against rigorous standards, including faculty qualifications, resources and alignment with degree-level expectations. The Ontario board appoints expert panels for its assessments, site visits and reviews, resulting in collective recommendations, approval with conditions, deferral or denial.

This segmented system protects Ontario’s post-secondary reputation, unlike Bill 7’s administrator who can cancel designations without board input. Ontario’s board model emphasizes evidence-based rigour and collegiality. Decisions are not decreed by one person but forged through deliberations with transparency via published guidelines and decisions.

For example, an Ontario private provider’s application undergoes peer scrutiny, preventing the solo judgments that could lead to Bill 7’s stark injunctions, where courts prioritize shutdowns. Ontario’s approach allows controlled innovation in applied degrees while safeguarding against outreach.

Here in B.C., the Bill 7 administrator could demand any records on a whim, invading privacy without the checks and balances provided in Ontario through a board with oversight. Bill 7 writes into the law the opportunity for political interference, where an administrator is answerable only to the minister, the cabinet and the Premier but targets institutions critical of government policies.

The difference is clear. Alberta and Ontario distribute authority among representative experts, promoting finance, innovation and accountability through peer review and collective wisdom. B.C.’s Bill 7 funnels into one administrator’s hands, echoing authoritarian models that history warns against.

Before I conclude, I would like to consider the experience of my native homeland and compare the approach taken in Singapore to the approach the government is proposing in Bill 7.

[4:05 p.m.]

Singapore shows us that it is possible to have firm oversight, high academic standards and strong protection of students without granting one individual the power to cancel livelihoods, disrupt studies and shut down schools.

Singapore is widely admired for producing universities that consistently rank among the global top 20. Its success is not an accident. This success is built on a deliberate philosophy, strong central direction, tempered with a structured, expert-informed process. Singapore deliberately avoids putting too much power, never mind all the power, in the hands of any single individual.

In Singapore, the Ministry of Education provides strategy oversight and sets clear expectations through frameworks such as the quality assurance framework for universities. When the time comes to evaluate the actual performance of a school, Singapore does not rely on one appointed official making unilateral calls. Instead, Singapore convenes independent external review panels made up of respected local and international academics, senior university leaders, industry representatives and quality assurance specialists. These panels visit campuses, examine evidence, interview stakeholders and produce collective evidence-based judgments.

The committee for university academic quality and the international academic advisory panel operates on the same principle: broad expertise, collective deliberation, transparent reporting.

Putting this much power in the hands of an administrator can lead to abuses — abuses like selective enforcement, cancelling a school’s designation for reputational risk tied to controversial research or political views or imposing conditions that favour politically aligned institutions. We risk turning education oversight into a tool of control, not protection.

In conclusion, Bill 7 seeks noble goals. Its centralized model sends us down a risky path. Let us learn from Alberta and Ontario. Let us learn from international success stories like Singapore.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of this House to examine this legislation carefully. Should it pass second reading, I look forward to a careful, clause-by-clause examination of Bill 7. Our democracy, our educational institutions, our teachers and our students demand no less.

Amna Shah: I’m so pleased to rise in support of Bill 7 today, the Post-Secondary International Education Act.

Really, to me, this signals how important accountability is in our post-secondary education sector, the need for it and the broader effects of this and the protection of international students, the protection of our communities and the protection of a system that we know is currently being misused by certain bad actors.

I just want to start by saying how important international students are to our province, how integral they are — whether it be to the fabric of our society, whether it be to our communities, whether it be to our economy. I’m so pleased to hear that there are other members in this House that have connections, direct connections — whether they were international students themselves or whether they had family that were international students and that’s what they first were when they came to Canada, for example.

I myself am the daughter of two international students, although not to Canada but to another country, and I know that some of their formative years as a new couple were within those incredible experiences that they had as international students.

[4:10 p.m.]

And, oh boy, when I hear the stories, it’s daunting to think about not just the sacrifices that they made but the work that they did in a place completely foreign and yet did it with such incredible outlook on life and such an incredible attitude of wanting to belong, of wanting to contribute, of wanting to help the community in which they were, really, essentially foreign to at the time. I want to extend my utmost respect to those who leave everything behind in their home countries to explore a new life, regardless of the challenges that it may bring.

When I was in university, one of my best friends, who is still one of my best friends, was an international student. I’m not going to lie. It was incredible getting to know her because she brought with her a very different perspective on social issues, on how we tell jokes, on how we tell stories, heritage. We made fun of each other for our differences. We laughed at our differences. We celebrated our differences. We joked about our similarities.

It is something that has directly enriched my own life, quite literally, whether it was through the successes of my parents as a result of the top-tier education that they got or whether it was my own life, with the selection of my friends and relationships that have really endured and are lasting till today.

In case you’re wondering, this dear friend of mine remains here in Canada and contributes to our economy and contributes to public service in our province. To me, she is a success story, and we are absolutely lucky to have someone like her with the character that she has and with the willingness that she has to make our community a better place.

I also have seen and have heard of some of the challenges that international students face in our communities, challenges that they continue to face, things that…. You would sit there, and you would go: “I would never want my child to have to ever go through anything like that.” It’s heartbreaking, but we can’t sit idle. We have to do something about it.

I’ll just give you a little bit of an example on some of the common ways in which this manipulation happens — you know, students being misled, students being taken advantage of. There are recruiters sometimes in programs…. It’s almost like a complex network. There are recruiters within Canada, and then there are agents in another country from which an institution may want to recruit from. They’re all communicating with each other to try and recruit students for these very, at times, highly priced short-term programs.

I’ve heard directly from students who have shared their story about being misled by the type of course that was being offered to them, by the type of program that was being offered to them, coming to Canada and realizing that none of their classes are in person. That’s not what they were sold when their money was taken.

The type of education that they were promised was made to be sold to them in a way in which they would attain financial freedom should they work within the specified line of work related to that degree program, which oftentimes wasn’t really true.

[4:15 p.m.]

I’ve heard stories of recruiters misleading students about what Canada is really like, what the cost of living is like, what housing is like in this province and across the country. Promises of work permits…. As soon as you graduate, you don’t have to blink an eye, and suddenly you get a job. That’s what some of these students are being sold.

Naturally, you can expect the shock and the surprise of these students when they realize that nothing is as it seems. But guess what? They may be $15,000, $20,000 in the hole, and their family had to sell a whole bunch of stuff just to get them here. So what do they do?

We’ve seen some heartbreaking stories. We see some stories in which you will never get these international students back. In the city of Surrey, we have instances where students have taken their lives, their own lives. I’m not attributing it just to this, but to everything total: the impact, the pressure, the isolation, the fear — the fear of failure, even, knowing that there’s somebody thousands of miles across the globe who’s relying on your success.

We can’t be a part of that. We can’t be a part of delivering that misery. We can’t be a part of breaking families apart, which is why accountability is so important, which is why consequences for bad actors are important. And that’s why I’m pleased to stand in support of this act.

Now, we know, and some of the members have spoken about this, that the proposed legislation that’s in front of us is going to turn B.C.’s education quality assurance policy into an enforceable legal framework. In my mind, that’s how you get accountability. Sometimes guidelines are not enough for institutions. Bad actors are bad actors for a reason. They’re called bad actors because they don’t follow guidelines. So sometimes guidelines are not enough.

To protect some of the most vulnerable people in our community, who may not understand the culture, who may not understand the community, who may not understand even some of the basic lingo that we use on a day-to-day basis…. To leave them completely stripped of protections is just not the way forward, which is why I think that this is an exceptional step in the right direction.

Holding public secondary institutions to account to obtain and then retain the highest level and standard of education, in my mind, is really bare minimum. I mean, why wouldn’t a post-secondary institution want to be the best, want to provide the best education? After all, I know countless educators who do their job for that specific reason. It’s to provide the best education for our next generation of professionals, regardless of whether they were born here, whether they were raised here or whether they came from another country.

It is safe to expect that everybody would want that, but the reality is that may not be the case. So when you take guidelines and you turn them into law, it really strengthens the accountability framework in ensuring not only that there is regular enforcement, that there are checks, there are basic standards that are now in place but that there will be consequences for those who do not meet those requirements and that there will be guaranteed protections for those who are being taken advantage of by that type of system.

That gives me comfort, because not only does this protect students, this protects the very communities…. This protects educators. This protects those who work at post-secondary institutions. It protects everybody involved.

[4:20 p.m.]

When we look at the details about what the legislation will do — for example, prohibiting an institution that doesn’t have a designation from recruiting, enrolling or delivering programs to international students who need a study permit — what we’re saying is that, really, we are ensuring that post-secondary institutions have demonstrated that level of excellence in delivering education in order to be able to do that.

For some of your most pressing needs, you don’t go to an unqualified professional. Typically, ideally, you wouldn’t. You would want someone qualified to take care of you, whether you have health issues or maybe you need advice on something to do with insurance. You want to go to a professional.

Just like that, students want to go to accredited instructors and accredited institutions that have excellent track records. One of the things that this does is it helps build some of that track record in the way in which an educational institution demonstrates its excellence by retaining its designation.

The beauty about going from guidelines to requirements and law is that there’s no secret anymore. There’s no confusion around the legal criteria that institutions must abide by so that they can receive and then continue to maintain the designation.

Oftentimes, you may have heard the phrase: “People do what they can get away with.” Really, sometimes when you see someone in trouble, they go, “Ah, well, I wasn’t really sure,” or maybe: “It wasn’t clear to me.” Well, those types of excuses…. I don’t think that you can employ that type of excuse in this scenario once there’s a clear set of legal criteria that you have to abide by and then continue to abide by.

The other thing with this proposed legislation is the creation of the legal authority for government to conduct enforcement actions, inspections when institutions are not meeting the standards that we just talked about, the need for those standards to be there when they’re not meeting that.

When I say that you hear stories of students going through things, I believe them, but we need to know the extent of how deep that runs. This helps us do that. This helps us understand that if it’s one person, chances are another person may be experiencing the same thing. It takes things from an anecdotal realm into one that’s grounded in fact, one that is grounded in documentation, one that is grounded in record. The latter is probably the best form of protection, compared to anecdotal stories about lived experiences in an unfair or inequitable system.

I’ve heard some concerns about the establishment of an administrator. Of course, I think it’s fair for anybody to say: “Well, what are the safeguards?” In this legislation, with the appointment of an administrator, there are options if there is an institution that disagrees with the outcome of any type of disciplinary action.

[4:25 p.m.]

My understanding is that there is a formal appeals process for decisions that have been made to, for example, cancel a designation certificate. For that, there will be an appeals officer, an independent body, an independent individual that will ensure that the administrator is making decisions that are fair.

Having an appeals process and ensuring, of course, that it’s transparent, that it’s timely, that it’s cost effective is important because that applies to all forms of significant decisions.

One of the responsibilities of government is to ensure that there are safeguards in place for those one or two times where there are details that are being contested. Everyone should be afforded that opportunity or that leeway to be able to question, to be able to challenge, especially if they feel that they’ve been treated unfairly.

So really, when we look at the type of burden that this may place, I think that the benefits of this far outweigh the risks. I would not be able to understand opposition to this, at least in principle, which is what we’re supposed to be talking about here today — the principle of this.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

I know, and I truly feel, that every member shares that spirit of well intention and wishes well-being to international students, post-secondary institutions, their community. I don’t think that this is about demonizing certain institutions over others. I really don’t. I think what this does is this really just tightens the system to ensure that bad actors cannot get away with what they’ve been getting away with up until now.

There is quite clearly a need for this, otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about it. We have, at times, as I mentioned, heard the horror stories, but we have also heard the sharing of stories to give us feedback on how we can make it better, stories that signify the hope that we can change things to make things better for our communities and for the international students that are within our communities.

My understanding is that there are currently about 220 institutions that already have an EQA designation. This includes public and private institutions, which is great. I also am aware that, as we get the ball rolling on this and pass this, there will be a transitional process. The ones that currently hold EQA designations will continue to hold them. As a part of the renewal process, just like as they would have to before, they would continue to apply for a renewal under the new rules, which are law and not guidelines anymore.

I don’t want to dwell on the point a lot more. I just think that we have an opportunity here to be excellent at what we do. I think we have an opportunity here to really walk the walk after we’ve talked the talk about how great British Columbia is for international students to come study.

Without a doubt, these international students contribute so much to our communities. In a time like this, where international students, new immigrants are facing an unprecedented level of hatred in our communities, it’s all the more important to protect them in any way that we can.

[4:30 p.m.]

As I mentioned earlier, there are members in this House that have indicated that they were international students. Can you imagine if they were treated in that way? They wouldn’t be sitting here. They wouldn’t be serving the public. They wouldn’t be serving their constituents. They’d be out of here on the first flight out. Forget this. What is Canada about?

We can’t have that reputation. We need to build it back up as a place where you can come to get a world-class, excellent education, and yes, there are opportunities for you to excel in this country. There are opportunities for you to serve. That is what the beauty of this province really is.

I have to say that some of the best educators that we have in our community — whether it be through formal education, whether it be through life education, whether it be through growing our communities — are from international students that came here many, many years ago and have paved the way for excellence in education right here in British Columbia.

With that, I really am so pleased that we’re debating this today, and I just want to remind members that there’s a principle to this that we’re talking about which future international students and cohorts of international students will be thankful for. I think the worst thing that can happen to somebody is being sold a dream that was never attainable, having to suffer through realizing the reality and then thinking that there’s no way out of it. But that is the reality for students in my riding, in Surrey, British Columbia. We cannot continue to see that happen.

I am so pleased to support this act, and I recommend that all members of the House do the same.

Gavin Dew: I rise to speak to Bill 7, the Post-Secondary International Education (Designated Institutions) Act. I find myself sharing some of the sentiments of the member opposite. I am the proud son of two international students who met at UBC, and my Canadian dream is possible because of their Canadian dream, because of international students.

Let me begin with what should be straightforward. We support the principle of protecting international students. We support strong standards, we support transparency, and we support accountability. We support the idea that if an institution in British Columbia wants to advertise, recruit, enrol, contract with and teach international students, it should meet a serious and enforceable standard. That should not be controversial.

International students are not just numbers on a spreadsheet. They’re not just revenue sources for institutions. They are not just abstractions in a briefing note. They are people. They are young people and families who have often made one of the biggest financial and personal decisions of their lives. They come to British Columbia, to Canada, in good faith. They trust what they are told. They trust the institutions that recruit them. They trust the public reputation of this great province. They trust that the system they are entering is real, credible and governed by rules.

When that trust is abused, the damage is not abstract. Behind every application is a human being. Behind every tuition payment is a sacrifice. Behind every promise is a family somewhere in the world hoping that this province will deal honestly with their son or their daughter.

We know from community reports here in British Columbia that some students have paid the ultimate price in a system marked by isolation, exploitation, addiction and mental health crises. In Surrey, community leaders reported dealing with dozens of deaths of international students over a two-year period, including overdoses and suicides.

Yes, government has a legitimate role here, and yes, the province has a legitimate interest in protecting the integrity of international education and the reputation of British Columbia. That is the right starting point.

[4:35 p.m.]

Bill 7 takes the existing education quality assurance framework and puts it into statute. It requires institutions to hold a designated certificate before they can advertise to, enrol, contract with or deliver instructions to international students. It creates a public directory, gives inspection powers, creates enforcement tools, including cancellation and reapplication bans and sets out an appeal process, although one in which an appeal does not automatically stay the decision.

This is not a minor technical bill. It is a real statutory enforcement regime. Because it is real, this House has to treat it seriously, not performatively, not tribally, not as a morality play in which one side clings the mantle of virtue and assumes that anyone asking questions must, therefore, be defending abuse.

That is not serious law-making. Serious law-making begins with a simple principle. In a free society, good intentions are not enough. The state must explain not only what power it wants but also why it wants it, how it will use it, what limits constrain it and what remedies exist when it gets things wrong, as it inevitably will. That is not anti-government. That is the job. It matters, especially in post-secondary education, because institutions matter. They matter as repositories of trust, continuity, standards and civic purpose.

When governments govern institutions badly, they do not simply create inconvenience. They weaken the very structures through which people plan their lives. Students plan their lives around institutions. Families plan around them, communities plan around them, employers plan around them, faculty and staff build careers within them.

When we legislate in this space, we should do so with humility, discipline and a healthy suspicion of ideological impulse and administrative improvisation, because the temptation of modern government is always the same. When a system is drifting, governments reach for spectacle, gesture and motion, announce a review, maybe announce two, launch a framework, re-brand an oversight system, promise a reset. Sometimes that is necessary, but reviews are not a governing philosophy. Process is not a substitute for policy. The appearance of action is not the same thing as institutional stability.

The wider point matters here, because Bill 7 does not arrive in isolation. It lands on top of a sector that is already unstable. In 2024, after consultations with international students and post-secondary partners, the province announced a package of international education measures, including a pause on approvals for new institutions seeking to enrol international students, more inspections, higher standards, minimum language requirements and tuition transparency measures.

Later the province introduced a new EQA code of practice. Then, in late 2025, government launched another independent review of the post-secondary system itself, saying institutions are under severe financial pressure and that many are in a critical position, with widening gaps between revenues and expenses.

So we are not debating this bill against a backdrop of calm and settled confidence. We are debating it in the middle of instability. That should shape how we think, because if government is already intervening, already reviewing, already tightening, already restating and already reorganizing, then this House is entitled, indeed obliged, to ask a very basic question. What exactly is the governing philosophy here? Is it stable? Is it evidence-based? Is it coherent, or are we watching a sequence of reactions layered on top of a system that has been allowed to drift for too long?

The federal context matters too. Canadians and British Columbians were right to be concerned by the explosive growth of what had begun to look in too many places like an international student industrial complex. In too many cases, the system was being exploited, students were being exploited and parts of the labour market were being distorted by a model that had drifted too far from genuine education and too far toward volume, revenue and pathway gaining.

[4:40 p.m.]

Ottawa responded with major changes in 2024 and 2025, including national caps on study permits, provincial attestation letter requirements, new restrictions on post-graduation work permit eligibility for some programs and tighter spousal open work permit rules. For 2025, IRCC set a target of 437,000 study permits, down 10 percent from the 2024 cap. For 2026, it announced a further reduction to 408,000 expected permits.

Now, the problem is that Ottawa responded with a blunt object. It addressed real abuses, but it also punished many good actors along with the bad. That matters in British Columbia because colleges were hit especially hard, including reputable public institutions that were not the rightful source of public frustration in the first place.

Okanagan College, whose main campus sits in the heart of my riding, reported that only about 8 percent of its programs were eligible for postgraduate work permits under the new rules, meaning roughly 92 percent were not. It also reported that new international enrolment was down 40 to 50 percent in fall 2024 compared with fall 2023 and down roughly 70 percent in winter 2025 compared with winter 2024. The college said the changes were already resulting in fewer sections and reduced term faculty positions in some areas.

That is important because Okanagan College is not the caricature of the problem. It is not the cartoon villain in the story that government likes to tell when it wants to justify broad and arbitrary intervention. It is a reputable public institution, serving students and communities in my region and beyond.

When we talk about cleaning up a system, we should remember that blunt policy does not strike only its intended target. It hits real institutions. It hits good actors. It hits people who did not create the mess. It risks overshooting and overreaching.

That same caution applies to good private institutions. There are responsible private post-secondary institutions in British Columbia that provide specialized training, industry-aligned programming and flexible pathways for students. They also have every incentive to want bad actors removed, because disreputable operators poison confidence in the entire sector.

When we build provincial law in response to a real problem, we have to take care not to create a framework or an application of a framework that is biased against legitimacy itself. A serious regulatory regime should be hostile to abuse, not hostile to legitimacy.

That is one reason I approach Bill 7 with both support for its objective and caution about its structure. In institutional life, overcorrection can become its own form of damage. A state that governs by panic is not wiser than a system that drifted into abuse. It is just making different mistakes, with more paperwork.

Now, there are numerous parts of this bill that make sense. It is sensible to require a formal designation certificate in law. It is sensible to create more clarity around who may operate in this space. It is sensible to have standards around continuity of programming, clarity of information to students, student safety and well-being, and institutional integrity. Those criteria are set out in section 5 of the bill, along with operational factors such as facilities, staffing, business practices, education agents and compliance history.

That is all very understandable. Some of it, frankly, is overdue, but the test of a bill like this is not whether the aspiration sounds reasonable. The test is whether the legal architecture is disciplined and clear, whether it distinguishes well and respects due process, and whether it protects students not just in rhetoric but in the consequences that follow from state action. That is where my concerns begin.

The first concern is discretion. Section 5 allows the administrator to consider other factors the administrator considers relevant. Section 8 allows the administrator to impose, amend or remove terms and conditions on a designation certificate at any time. That is where legislators should sit up straighter. Discretion is, indeed, sometimes necessary, but discretion is never self-justifying.

[4:45 p.m.]

The more that the law relies on broad administrative judgment, the more important that clear safeguards become. If the state, the government, is going to say, “Trust us; we need flexibility,” then this House should respond: “Fine. Show us the guardrails. Show us the standards. Show us the thresholds. Show us the service expectations. Show us the reporting. Show us the discipline that prevents flexibility from becoming arbitrariness.”

Bill 7 leans heavily on future discretion. It allows the administrator to make binding rules on substantive matters such as disclosure of student information, instructional delivery, collaboration, reporting obligations, institutional policies and the use of the designation mark. Cabinet is also given broad regulation-making authority over fees, exemptions, education agents, publication requirements and other matters contemplated by the act.

In other words, a substantial part of the true operating regime is not fully in the bill. It is deferred — deferred into rules, deferred into regulations, deferred into future judgment. That matters because the difference between law debated here and rules written elsewhere is not trivial. It is the difference between visible accountability and managed opacity. It is the difference between standards this House can test and standards institutions discover later, often the hard way, at high cost.

My second concern is procedural fairness. Section 18 allows the administrator to impose conditions, order corrective action, cancel designation and bar reapplication for up to three years. Section 21 provides a right of appeal, but it also says “the commencement of an appeal does not operate as a stay” and does not suspend the decision under appeal. That matters. It means the penalty can bite first and be argued about later.

Government will say that speed matters when student protection is at stake. In some cases, that is obviously, self-evidently true, but mature law should be able to distinguish between the rogue operator and the close case, the good actor who makes a mistake. It should be able to distinguish between imminent harm and ordinary non-compliance, between the institution that must be stopped now and the institution that may have grounds for temporary relief while an appeal is heard and issues are resolved constructively in good faith.

Without those distinctions, the right exists on paper while the real-world damage occurs in the meantime in real time. A right of appeal, without a timely process or without any mechanism for meaningful interim relief, can become a cardboard shield. It looks fine from a distance, but it’s less useful when arrows start flying.

An enforcement action does not occur in a vacuum. It affects current students. It affects future students. It affects staff and faculty. It affects local communities. It affects confidence. It affects reputations immediately and often irreversibly. Yes, section 19 says that if a designation certificate is cancelled, the institution must notify enrolled international students and may continue providing the program to those students, subject to administrator rules. That is helpful. But even there, the practical details are still deferred into future rules.

Again, it is reasonable for this House to ask: what happens to the students in real life? What does communication look like? What does continuity look like? What transfer support exists, if needed? What timelines apply? What service standard exists for appeals? If the purpose of this bill is student protection, then student protection must be factored into the consequences of enforcement, not merely invoked in the justification for power.

My third concern is inspection and coercive power. The bill authorizes inspectors to enter business premises during business hours without a warrant, inspect records and other things, remove records for copying and make video or audio recordings, as well as to question individuals.

[4:50 p.m.]

Some inspection power is plainly necessary, but when the state grants itself warrantless inspection powers, legislators should pay close attention. What training will inspectors receive? What limits protect confidentiality? How is student information protected? How long may copied records be retained? What complaint mechanisms exist if powers are used badly or are perceived to be used badly?

Section 30 separately authorizes the collection, use and disclosure of personal information for administering the act. That may indeed be necessary, but necessity is not a magic word that dissolves the obligation to define legal limits carefully.

My fourth concern is reputation and public sanction. The bill requires a public online directory of designated and former designated institutions and allows publication of enforcement information.

Transparency matters. Students deserve to know whether an institution is in good standing. Families deserve to know. The public deserves to know. But reputational sanctions are powerful. Once government places something online, it is not merely informing the public. It is branding the institution in a way that may have consequences far beyond the moment that produced it. That includes consequences for its students and alumni.

So in that instance, that means the criteria for publication matter, the duration matters, and the distinction between serious misconduct and lesser breaches matters. The process for correction matters, and it’s very important that we ensure that if we are sanctioning an institution, we’re doing our utmost to protect students who have, in good faith, proceeded through that institution.

Here again, much of the detail is deferred, so the House is being asked once more to trust future rule-making, to trust future calibration, to trust future administrative judgment. There is a place for trust in government, but trust is not a substitute for careful drafting.

My fifth concern is institutional instability. This bill comes before a sector already reeling from federal policy shifts, financial strain, domestic demographic pressures and another major provincial review on top of one that had to be FOI’d to be released. The province’s own announcement on that review said that public institutions are under significant financial pressure due in part to federal reductions in study permits, inflation and declining domestic enrolment.

So what should a wise legislature do in such a moment? It should be careful. It should resist the impulse to govern primarily through suspicion. It should write law that is clear enough for good institutions to live under with confidence, strict enough for bad institutions to fear and fair enough that students are protected not only from abuse by operators but from disorder created by government itself in its response.

The state can also destabilize. It can destabilize through ambiguity. It can destabilize through delay. It can destabilize through constant policy churn. It can destabilize through the habit of government by press release and then outsourcing the hard parts into rules to be written later.

When that happens, everyone loses. Students lose. Good institutions lose. Public confidence loses. Our brand as a destination for international education loses.

There is a deeper lesson here too. Post-secondary systems are not strengthened by ideological posturing. They are strengthened by durable policy.

British Columbia has seen what happens when governments treat post-secondary education as a stage for symbolic politics rather than as a serious institutional ecosystem that requires long-term discipline.

Across the 1990s and early 2000s, inflation-adjusted per-student funding in B.C. fell sharply from earlier levels, even as institutions were expected to absorb pressures and expand access. An NDP government froze tuition without providing compensatory funding, starving the post-secondary system.

The exact history is more complicated than a bumper sticker, but the lesson is not. Symbolic politics without a durable funding and governance model can leave institutions quietly hollowed out in real terms while government congratulates itself for the gesture.

That is why we have heard repeatedly from student groups who are concerned and who have been asking this government to commit to maintaining the domestic tuition cap of 2 percent imposed 20 years ago. That is why it is somewhat concerning that the Minister of Post-Secondary Education has not affirmed government’s position and was not able to answer that question in an informed way in question period.

[4:55 p.m.]

That ideological lurch is what we must not repeat. We do not need reviews designed to create the illusion of action while the system frays. We do not need a politics that alternates between permissive neglect and sudden overcorrection. We need evidence-based policy. We need institutional seriousness. We need to understand that once trust in a post-secondary system is weakened, rebuilding it is slow, difficult and expensive.

That is why this debate must be bigger than whether everyone in this chamber is against exploitation. Of course we are all against exploitation. The real question is whether this bill is disciplined enough to strengthen the system without deepening instability. That means asking the government some basic questions.

How will the administrator’s discretion be guided and constrained?

What enforcement guidelines will exist, and will they be public?

How will institutions and students know the difference between a technical problem, a serious compliance issue and an imminent risk situation?

What appeal timelines will apply?

Will there be published service standards?

What process, if any, will exist for interim relief in cases where immediate enforcement may cause disproportionate harm?

How will the ministry ensure that enforcement protects students in practice, not just in theory?

How will responsible private institutions be reassured that oversight is aimed at abuse, not at their mere existence?

How will the government ensure that yet another review does not become yet another placeholder for decisions deferred?

These are not obstructionist or hostile questions. These are, I believe, the right questions. They are the questions legislators should ask when the state seeks more power in a fragile environment.

Let me say something directly to the students, who sit, in many ways, at the centre of this issue.

You deserve better than a system in which governments swing from neglect to crackdowns and call that strategy. You deserve better than institutions that treat you as inventory or work in progress. You deserve better than a public debate in which your education, your future, your financial sacrifice and your trust are all reduced to talking points.

You deserve institutions that are stable. You deserve clear information. You deserve honest recruitment. You deserve supports that actually exist. You deserve a legislature willing to ask hard questions before it hands broad tools to the state. That is what seriousness looks like — not slogans, not self-congratulation, not ideological theatre, but serious policy-making.

Now, I want to be constructive, because opposition that merely criticizes without proposing a better standard is just theatrical disappointment. It’s just admiring the problem.

So here is the standard that I would apply. If government wants this bill to command confidence, it should commit to transparent enforcement guidelines. It should publish appeal service standards. It should clarify the protections and communication requirements for currently enrolled students in the event of cancellation.

It should ensure that publication rules for the public directory are proportionate, current and tied to clear thresholds. It should report publicly on inspections, enforcement actions, appeals, reversals and timelines. It should make clear that legitimate private institutions have a role to play in this province and will be judged on standards, not ideology.

Above all, it should understand that governance is not the same thing as movement. To govern well is not merely to be seen doing something — anything. To govern well is to build rules that endure. To govern well is to restrain one’s own convenience. To govern well is to resist both drift and panic. To govern well is to remember that institutions, once destabilized, do not simply snap back because the minister has announced a reset.

Yes, we support the aim of protecting international students. Yes, we support action against bad actors. Yes, we support stronger oversight than a purely administrative framework can provide. But support for the objective does not relieve us of the duty to scrutinize the means. In fact, it heightens that very duty, because the better the objective, the more careful we should be about the power claimed in its name.

That is the work before us. Not to deny the problem, not to romanticize the old system, not to excuse for one moment exploitation, but not either to mistake discretion for wisdom, motion for strategy or toughness for good law.

[5:00 p.m.]

Our duty is to make law that protects students, respects legitimate institutions and restores confidence to a sector that has already absorbed enough instability. That is the standard. Not merely stronger power but better law, a better system and better outcomes for people who work, research, teach and learn in our world-class post-secondary institutions.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: In case there are students that were listening to my colleague’s speech across the way, just a big thanks for all the ways that we’ve been able to work together to build back the post-secondary system.

Our government eliminated interest on student loans, the Christy Clark–Gordon Campbell government having put it in place. We restored grants, not loans, for students, again something that had been cancelled by the previous government. So 71,000 students have benefited from our government returning grants so that people can access education.

I’m so proud that the free tuition waiver, first introduced at Vancouver Island University, the tuition waiver for youth in British Columbia who had formerly been in foster care — 2,300 people have benefited from that. Then also, the old government having cancelled free adult basic education, our government brought it back in — 108,000 people.

I appreciate my colleague across the way for some of his support for the legislation that’s before us today, but I just want to make sure we’re clear about investing in post-secondary education.

We’re debating legislation on increasing the standards and protecting the quality of experience for international students studying in British Columbia. We want international students to be here. We know how they benefit and participate and become part of our communities in many cases. I’ve certainly seen that in Nanaimo. We want to make sure that they have a positive, high-quality experience when they are studying here.

As many other speakers today have noted, there has been…. Because of a real failure of federal regulation, we’ve had some bad actors, a minority of service providers. There’s no question. Some bad actors have really misled students and have really damaged British Columbia’s reputation.

I am encouraged that, starting in fall 2020, the new frameworks to protect the integrity of the international student experience in British Columbia have been underway, and the legislation that is before us today is the next step, following many other steps.

This proposed Post-Secondary International Education (Designated Institutions) Act is intended to establish that clear legal framework in British Columbia for our existing educational quality assurance program. It sits right now in policy, those existing standards, and Bill 7 is designed to set those standards that will make sure private and public institutions meet standards in order that they can receive designation and be eligible to host international students with study permits.

The framework of the proposed legislation: first, to prohibit an institution from recruiting, enrolling or delivering programs to international students who need a study permit unless the institution has a valid designation certificate; second, to set clear legal criteria that institutions must meet in order to become designated, giving them greater transparency and certainty; and then third, to strengthen oversight and enforcement by creating a new legal authority for inspections and enforcement actions with a fair and transparent appeals process.

This is following through on our government’s commitment to raise educational quality and integrity standards and to strengthen protections for international students.

I certainly know this in Nanaimo. In the year ’23-24, there were 1,600 international students from 85 different countries.

[5:05 p.m.]

Our graduation ceremonies are amazing, to hear the variety of voices and variety of languages being spoken, people that would travel from so far and choose our community in Nanaimo to be their home for a couple of years.

The student population is, I believe, closer to 1,000 now. Last year 11 percent of the student body at Vancouver Island University were international students, and they’ve become a major part of our community. They contribute to campus life. They contribute to local businesses and, certainly, the cultural vibrancy of the region.

Other institutions that are designated learning institutions in my community. The Academy of Learning College. It has operations in Kamloops, Kelowna, Nanaimo and Victoria. Discovery Community College, which is right next door to my constituency office and a partner on a lot of training programs across the continuum health care to community outreach workers to licensed practical nurses. There’s so much that they do on our community’s behalf. Granville College, Sprott Shaw College and, again, Vancouver Island University. These are the designated learning institutions in Nanaimo to which this bill will apply.

The new framework will ensure that any private institutions operating in our community must meet the same rigorous standards, preventing any low-quality operators from undermining our region’s reputation or taking advantage of students. In these institutions in my community of Nanaimo, I really see it as protecting their standing as a trusted destination for global learners and supporting long-term enrolment stability.

We know, because of the studies that have been done, the economic and workforce impacts for our region contribute in the area of millions annually, and we recognize students that do stay in Nanaimo after their training have helped fill really critical labour gaps, really strengthening the local talent pipeline. And beyond the local benefits, absolutely seeing the need to protect our province’s reputation as a world-class place to study, to work and to build a future.

So this work is vital, and I’m really glad to see the existing framework being locked into legislation for enforceability and transparency.

I was really pleased to be able to get feedback on the bill from the Vancouver Island University Students Union. I think that this summary…. I’ll put this in quotation marks, but it really does encapsulate the intention of our government and certainly the hope and promise of Bill 7. So from James Bowen, who is executive director of the Vancouver Island University Students Union:

“This bill can help level an uneven playing field. Public institutions like Vancouver Island University invest in student supports, advising and quality programming. They compete for international enrolment against private operators with far less interest in these supports. That competition hollows out enrolments at institutions doing the right thing, which reduces their revenue, which puts pressure on the very services that differentiate them. It’s a negative cycle. By holding all designated institutions to a consistent standard, this legislation should help correct that dynamic, and that’s a good thing for students.”

I did hear from Vancouver Island University Students Union two areas of concern.

One, that costs associated with enhanced compliance don’t have negative impact on students, and I certainly hear that. I’ve talked specifically with the minister about this. It’s understood that there will be a fee structure in place, but it will be fair and it will be applied only to the administration, making sure that Bill 7 gets the outcome that we intend.

Secondly, just to make sure — again, this is a concern raised by the student union — that for students, the implementation process is well understood, clearly communicated, supported with resources to help students understand what changes mean for them.

[5:10 p.m.]

Again, I am in agreement. Very much the intention of Bill 7 and the legislation and regulations that will follow is to have a transparent process, an accessible process, to have students know that what is promised to them will be delivered on to really remove the risk of bad actors in the sector taking advantage of people that are away from their ordinary supports in community.

I will finish by saying that it’s a time of real recognition of the talent pool that we need to be able to train up in our post-secondary institutions, the people that we need to serve and grow the province in a way that builds the economy and that generates revenue for the services that we are determined to provide.

Supporting British Columbia’s reputation as a welcoming, safe and high-quality destination for global learners is a very important part of that mix. With Bill 7, we’re strengthening that oversight, protecting students and safeguarding British Columbia’s reputation as a world-class place to study, work and build a future.

Reann Gasper: British Columbia has built a global reputation as a destination for world-class education. Students travel from every corner of the world to study here, to build futures, to support families back home, to contribute to our communities and to invest in the promise of Canada. International education is not a small program. It is a multi-billion-dollar sector. It supports jobs, it strengthens communities, it enriches classrooms, and it connects British Columbia to the world.

Let us be equally clear. Where there is growth, there must also be accountability. Where there are vulnerable students navigating a foreign system, there must be protection. Where government proposes new regulatory powers, there must be inspection. Bill 7, the Post-Secondary International Education (Designated Institutions) Act, replaces the previous education quality assurance framework work with a designation system.

The government’s stated purpose is to protect international students and safeguard British Columbia’s reputation. That is the goal we support. We support credible oversight, we support removing bad actors, and we support transparency. We support protecting international students from exploitation, but we must examine whether this bill strikes the right balance. While protection is essential, so too is fairness. While oversight is necessary, so too is due process. And while reputation matters, so too does regulatory restraint.

Unlike the previous system, operated as an administrative framework, this bill removes that framework into a statute. This change is not insignificant. When government shifts from policy guidance to legislative enforcement powers, it is not merely procedural; it is structural.

Bill 7 creates a mandatory designation certificate system. Under clause 2, institutions must not advertise, offer, contract with, enrol or deliver programs to international students without a valid designation certificate. This is a significant tightening of authority. It moves beyond recognition. It moves into prohibition. It moves into enforcement backed by inspection, cancellation and reapplication bans.

Legislation of this kind must be examined, not for what it intends to prevent but for how it exercises power. Clause 3 defines eligible institutions. Clause 4 sets out the application process. Clause 5 outlines the criteria and factors for designation. On the surface, these factors appear reasonable: continuity of programs, clear information to students, a safe, positive experience, services that promote well-being, protection of B.C.’s reputation — all commendable goals.

[5:15 p.m.]

When we look closer at clause 5(3), we see: “The administrator may consider any other factors that the administrator considers relevant.” That is extremely broad, and when criteria are open-ended, discretion expands. When discretion expands, predictability diminishes, and when predictability diminishes, institutions and students face uncertainty.

We must ask: what safeguards ensure consistency of decisions? What metrics define reputation risk? What prevents uneven application? The bill does not clearly define these limits.

Clause 8 allows the administrator to impose, amend or remove terms and conditions on a designation certificate at any time — not just at renewal, not just upon proven non-compliance, but at any time. This grants ongoing regulatory controls over institutions, even those acting in good faith.

We must ensure that flexibility does not become unpredictability. Institutions plan years ahead for staffing, facilities, student intake, housing, academic partnerships. If terms can shift at any time without clearly defined thresholds, that creates operational instability. We support accountability, but accountability must be paired with clarity.

Let’s examine enforcement. Clauses 15 through 17 authorize inspections. Inspectors may enter business premises during business hours without a warrant. They may inspect records, remove documents, make audio or video recordings and question individuals, and institutions must not obstruct.

Inspection powers are serious powers. They are justified when addressing genuine misconduct, but we must ensure that they are appropriate. Is there clear guidance on frequency of inspections? Are there protections for confidential academic materials? Are there safeguards against these kinds of expeditions? Oversight is necessary; it must remain targeted but not intrusive by default.

Clause 18 permits cancellation of designation and bars reapplication for up to three years — in a sector built on enrolment cycles, international recruitment timelines and immigration coordination. A three-year ban is not a minor administrative consequence. It can effectively close an institution’s international program.

Now let’s look at the appeals. Clause 21 establishes the appeal process. Appeals must be filed within 30 days, require a prescribed fee and may be based only on limited grounds. Crucially, the commencement of an appeal does not stay the decision. What does that mean? Appeals don’t automatically stay the decision, so an institution’s designation may be cancelled immediately, even while appealing.

That’s not a small detail. This is a fundamental procedural issue. Due process is not just the right to appeal; it is meaningful appeal. If operations collapse before an appeal is heard, what remedies remain? What happens to the students caught in the middle?

Clause 19 allows an institution whose certificate is cancelled to continue providing programs to already enrolled international students — that’s important — but it is subject to the administrator’s rules.

[5:20 p.m.]

Students may face visa complications, uncertainty about credential recognition, loss of confidence from families abroad, housing disruptions, employment impacts. International students are not statistics. They are young people navigating a foreign system. When regulatory actions occur, communication must be immediate, transparent and coordinated with federal immigration authorities. Does this bill mandate that coordination? It does not clearly say so.

Clause 9 requires a public directory of designated and former designated institutions. It allows publication of enforcement actions and, if authorized by regulation, publication of personal information deemed in the public interest. Transparency matters, but reputational damage, especially if decisions are later overturned, is reversible. Is there is a requirement to update directory entries if an appeal succeeds? Is there a clear standard for what personal information may be public? This balance must be handled with precision.

Clause 24 allows the administrator to make binding rules on a wide range of matters — instructional delivery methods, in-class proportions, reporting obligations, student policy requirements, notification requirements, use of designation mark. These rules may establish different classes, adopt external standards and evolve over time. This is a delegated legislative authority. It is powerful, and it exists largely outside of this chamber. We must ensure that rule-making remains transparent and consultative”.

Clause 31. Clause 31 provides immunity from legal proceedings for the administrator and appeal officer acting in good faith.

Clause 32 exempts the act from section 5 of the Offence Act. These may be technical provisions, but technical does not mean trivial. When we grant enforcement authority, inspection power and cancellation power, injunction power and immunity, we must ensure checks exist. Accountability must run both ways.

Let me be clear. We believe in protecting international students. We believe in removing bad actors. We believe British Columbia’s reputation must be upheld. But legislation of this scope demands careful implementation. Power concentrated in a single administrator’s office must be exercised with restraint. Appeal processes must be meaningful. Inspection powers must be transparent. Student welfare must remain central. And the regulatory ambition must not become regulatory overreach.

This chamber must ensure that in protecting students, we do not undermine institutional stability; in safeguarding reputation, we do not sacrifice fairness; in straightening oversight, we do not erode due process.

International students choose British Columbia because they trust our system. Let’s ensure that trust is strengthened and not shaken by the way we implement this act.

There’s another aspect of this legislation that deserves serious attention, and that is the injunction power set out in clause 20. Under this provision, the administrator may apply to the Supreme Court for an injunction if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person has violated or is likely to violate the requirement to hold a designation certificate or prohibit against a false representation.

[5:25 p.m.]

Now, at first glance, that may be straightforward, but subsection 20(3) does something unusual. It directs the court to give greater weight to the enforcement of this act than to continue operation of the institution, and it explicitly states that the administrator need not establish irreparable harm.

This is a significant departure from the traditional balance courts apply in injunction proceedings. Typically, courts weigh irreparable harm and the balance of convenience carefully. Here the statute instructs the court to prioritize enforcement.

Again, I understand the rationale to prevent rogue operators from continuing harmful practices, but we must ask: are we confident that this threshold protects against unintended consequences? Are we confident that legitimate institutions facing complex administrative disputes will not be caught in sweeping enforcement action? Once an injunction is granted, reputational damage is immediate. In international education, reputation is everything.

We must also consider the regulation-making authority in clause 33. This provision gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council broad power to regulate education agents, including vetting, contract and monitoring requirements.

Education agents are a critical part of the international recruitment ecosystem. In many countries, students rely on agents to navigate complex visa and institutional processes. If those agents are poorly regulated, students can be absolutely harmed. If the regulatory burden becomes excessive or unclear, institutions, especially smaller private institutions, may withdraw from international recruitment altogether.

We must ensure that oversight of agents improves integrity without cutting off legitimate access points for students. Regulation must target bad actors, not suffocate responsible operators.

Another area that warrants discussion is personal information. Clause 30 authorized the collection, use and disclosure of personal information for administrating the act. The directory provisions in clause 9 allow publication of information, including personal information, if deemed in the public interest and authorized by regulation.

Transparency is important, but privacy protection is also important. We must ensure that the threshold for publishing personal information is clearly defined, consistently applied. International students already face vulnerability — immigration status, housing insecurity, financial strain. They must not become collateral damage in public enforcement messaging.

Let me return to the first principles. International education is not merely an economic driver. It is a human story. It is a 19-year-old arriving in Vancouver for the first time. It is a family in another country investing their life savings in tuition. It is a graduate who hopes to build a life here and contribute to our economy. We must protect them. This is a non-negotiable.

Protection must be grounded in fairness and clarity. This legislation replaces a policy framework with a statutory system. That shift brings strength, but it also brings responsibility. Once power is written into law, it endures. When we legislate enforcement authority of this magnitude, we must be certain that we have built in the right safeguards.

British Columbia’s reputation depends not only on removing bad actors. It depends on demonstrating we are fair, predictable, transparent and principled. That is the balance we must strike. That is the balance we will continue to insist upon as this bill continues.

[5:30 p.m.]

At its core, this legislation asks us to trust that concentrated authority will always be exercised wisely. It asks institutions to trust that discretion will be always fair. It asks students to trust that enforcement will never destabilize their future.

Trust is important. But in governance, trust must be reinforced by structure, because good intentions do not substitute for safeguards. Strong powers must be matched with strong accountability.

We cannot say to international students, “You are protected,” while building a framework that allows sudden cancellations without interim protection. We cannot say to institutions, “You have the right to appeal,” while ensuring that the consequences take effect immediately and publicly. We cannot say to the world that British Columbia is a stable destination if our regulatory model creates unpredictability. Oversight must inspire confidence, not anxiety.

This is not a debate about whether bad actors should be removed. They should. This is a debate about whether good actors are given clear rules, fair processes and proportionate remedies. The strength of a regulatory system is not measured by how quickly it can be punished. It is measured by how consistently it can apply standards. Consistency requires guardrails.

I have talked through some structural risks, but I do want to just talk through some solutions. I want to propose some safeguards and some balance. I want to propose some improvements that strengthen protection and not weaken it. I want to say again that on this side of the House, we support protecting international students. We support removing bad actors. We support transparency. But we also believe that strong oversight and procedural fairness must exist together. That is the balance.

We can protect students and preserve fairness at the same time. This is not a choice between compassion and accountability. It is about designing a system that achieves both.

First, this legislation should allow for structured interim relief during appeals in the appropriate cases — not automatic stays, not blanket suspensions, but a narrow, criteria-based mechanism allowing the appeal officer to grant temporary relief where students are at risk, public safety is not compromised, and there is credible evidence of procedural error. This would not protect bad actors, but it would protect due process. An appeal should be meaningful and not symbolic.

Second, the online directory must include safeguards. If enforcement actions are published, there must be clear criteria for what is disclosed, immediate updates when decisions are varied or rescinded, defined timelines for how long information remains posted. Transparency builds trust, but permanent, reputable damage from overturned decisions undermines it.

Third, before major administrative rules take effect, especially those affecting instructional delivery models or compliance burdens, there should be a structured consultation. International education is dynamic. Federal immigration policies shift, housing pressures fluctuate, institutions need stability. When rules change, consultation should come first, not after.

This bill has the potential to strengthen British Columbia’s reputation. But reputation is not built through authority alone. It is built through fairness, predictability, independence, transparency.

[5:35 p.m.]

If we incorporate safeguards into this act, we will not only protect students. We will protect trust, and trust is the foundation for international education.

At the heart of this debate are young people. Most of our international students coming from other countries are young people who leave their homes and their families, and they choose British Columbia. They arrive with ambition and hope, and they arrive believing that this province offers opportunity, stability and integrity. We must not forget that.

This legislation is about protecting them, and that is a responsibility we all share. But our protection must be thoughtful and fair. It must be structured in a way that builds confidence and not fear. International education is not just a revenue stream. It is not just enrolment data. It is human lives. It is human future. It’s human trust. When a student chooses British Columbia, they are placing their future in our hands.

When an institution earns designation, it is placing its reputation into our regulatory framework. When this legislation grants enforcement authority, we are placing power into structure, and that structure must be strong. It must also be just. The strength of our system will not be measured on how quickly we can cancel it but how fairly we can govern it.

If we get it right, we will protect students, and we will uphold institutional integrity. If we get it right, we will send a message to the world that British Columbia remains a place where quality, accountability and justice coexist. This is the balance we must strike, this is the responsibility before us, and this is the standard we must meet.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call the Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills to close debate.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Thank you to everyone that spoke to this legislation.

Just to reiterate, the goal of this legislation is not to expand government control but to protect students and uphold B.C.’s reputation for high-quality and ethical international education. For too long, a small number of bad actors have misled students, harmed communities and damaged the credibility of responsible institutions. Stronger oversight is about ensuring fairness, transparency and accountability across the sector.

There have been concerns raised about inspections. Just to note that these inspections under the new act are targeted, reasonable and consistent with what other regulatory frameworks already require across our post-secondary system as well as through systems like our Law Society. These are not intrusive, police-style inspections.

All of that just to say that I look forward to getting further into this legislation at committee stage and making sure that we’re able to implement legislation that brings B.C. in line with national standards and international expectations for student protection.

I will just note that I heard members across the way say that they’re against exploitation. I’m glad to hear that. We are also against student exploitation on this side of the House. But that work takes action, not just words, to address. These are very real concerns that have been raised by students, by community members, over and over again, for a number of months and years across the sector. It’s important that the actions of our members here on this side of the aisle and across the aisle reflect that intention to address exploitation and that those actions are more than merely words in this chamber.

I look forward to doing that work together and getting this legislation passed.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is second reading, Bill 7, Post-Secondary International Education (Designated Institutions) Act.

Motion approved.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I move that the bill be committed to the Committee of the Whole to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: I call second reading on Bill 8.

Bill 8 — Civil Forfeiture
Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Nina Krieger: I move that the bill titled Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2026, now be read for the second time.

It is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill 8, the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2026. The Civil Forfeiture Act is a vital public safety tool. It allows the province to seek forfeiture of property that is the proceeds of instruments of unlawful activity, using civil court processes separate from any criminal charge or conviction. Our goal is to take profit out of unlawful activity, prevent property from being used to cause harm and support victims and crime prevention.

Since its inception, the civil forfeiture office, or CFO, has forfeited more than $221 million in unlawfully acquired assets, returning over $93 million to communities through grants for crime prevention, restorative justice, gender-based violence supports and Indigenous-led healing initiatives. These grants convert illicit proceeds into supports for people and communities.

Organized crime and money-laundering tactics have grown more complex. The Cullen commission called for a more proactive approach to civil forfeiture and highlighted it as a made-in-B.C. tool to disrupt organized crime and money laundering. Government has acted on those recommendations, including introducing unexplained wealth orders in 2023.

But as the civil forfeiture office pursues more complex cases, litigation has revealed procedural gaps that increase costs and delays, and investigative partners have identified obstacles to information-sharing required to tackle transnational money laundering.

The proposed amendments respond to those challenges while strengthening fairness safeguards. The bill introduces practical measures to improve clarity, fairness and efficiency. These changes fall into six key areas, and I’d like to explain how things work now and why changes are needed.

Firstly, the amendments would streamline litigation while preserving fairness. Today, if someone contests forfeiture, they are not always disclosing the nature of their interests in the property. This forces the director to pursue these details through court applications, leading to costs and delays. Similarly, even when no one responds to a claim, the director must still schedule a full hearing before a judge, consuming court time unnecessarily. Litigation discovery rules allow multiple examinations of CFO staff, driving up costs and leading to delays.

The amendments require respondents to fully disclose their interests in the property, including if they held the property for someone else. This would allow for default forfeiture orders without appearing in chambers in uncontested cases, while preserving judicial discretion to require an appearance where fairness requires.

The amendments also limit discovery to one designated CFO representative, unless the court orders otherwise. These changes enhance our use of court time, reduce costs and improve clarity while maintaining fairness and judicial oversight.

The second key purpose of the amendment is to modernize timelines and dispute rules. Currently the act gives the director 30 days to respond to an administrative dispute and law enforcement 30 days to hold property before proceedings start.

These timelines were workable when cases were more straightforward and there were fewer of them. Today’s files are more complex, and there are more of them. The short window forces compression of processes and increases our risk of error.

[5:45 p.m.]

Additionally, an omission was noted in the original legislation from 2011 that precludes someone from making a forfeiture dispute if their dispute is lost in the mail. The proposed amendments extend both timelines to 60 days, aligning B.C. with other provinces. This change allows relief when a dispute notice was mailed on time but delayed or lost, in accordance with the existing provisions. These particular changes improve fairness and reduce procedural challenge, ensuring property is held under lawful authority while giving people a fair chance to respond.

Thirdly, these amendments cut costs and preserve asset value. Currently vehicles subject to forfeiture often sit in storage for months because courts hesitate to authorize early liquidation. This is costly for the civil forfeiture office, and it is money that would be better spent in communities as grants.

The act does not require judges to consider depreciation or storage costs, so that by the time a case concludes, the vehicle’s value may be gone. The proposed amendments create a rebuttal presumption that vehicles depreciate over time, prompting courts to consider early liquidation. This is intended to reduce storage costs and preserve value, ensuring proceeds can be reinvested in community safety.

The fourth priority area is to address an operational barrier on surreptitious credit reports. Currently the act requires credit agencies to notify individuals six months after a surreptitious credit check, but agencies cannot comply due to technical limitations. The amendments shift the notification duty to the director, who will notify individuals after the non-disclosure period expires. This resolves a technical barrier while maintaining transparency and investigative integrity.

Our fifth area of interest is to improve information-sharing with safeguards. Currently the act requires formal agreements for sharing personal information with other agencies. Releasing publicly available records to international law enforcement streamlines our ability to share and receive this information.

The proposed amendments allow controlled sharing of specific public or prescribed information without formal agreements and apply this provision retroactively to the date of the 2023 information-sharing and unexplained wealth order amendments, for consistency. This strengthens collaboration against organized crime while maintaining accountability and privacy safeguards.

Finally, the proposed amendments add fairness safeguards for records-gathering. Section 13 of the act allows the director to apply for court orders to obtain records necessary for forfeiture proceedings. In 2023, the B.C. Supreme Court struck down this provision, but the Court of Appeal reinstated it. The appellate court discussed the importance of notice requirements post-order but did not mandate them.

This bill adds government regulation-making authority for notice and service requirements under section 13. In the future, regulations will be introduced to provide for de facto notice of these orders. This particular change responds to judicial feedback and improves accountability without altering the core structure of section 13.

Together these amendments will reduce litigation costs, improve clarity and strengthen fairness safeguards. They align B.C. with other jurisdictions and reinforce our commitment to disrupting organized crime and money laundering, while ensuring recovered funds continue to support communities and victims across the province.

This bill makes practical improvements to civil forfeiture in British Columbia. It supports the direction set out by the Cullen commission, addresses operational challenges and ensures this program continues to serve communities fairly and effectively.

[5:50 p.m.]

Macklin McCall: I rise today to speak to Bill 8, the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2026.

Civil forfeiture is one of the most consequential enforcement tools available to the province of British Columbia. It is a central mechanism in the fight against organized crime, money laundering and the proceeds of unlawful activity.

From a policing perspective, civil forfeiture serves a purpose that criminal prosecution alone cannot always accomplish. Criminal prosecutions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That standard is high for a good reason. Criminal conviction can result in incarceration. The burden must remain demanding.

Civil forfeiture operates differently. It proceeds on a balance of probabilities. That distinction is deliberate. The proceeding is about property, not liberty. It allows the province to demonstrate that assets are more likely than not derived from unlawful activity, even when a criminal conviction cannot be secured.

In complex investigations, especially those involving organized financial crime, the criminal prosecution may fail for reasons unrelated to innocence. Evidence may span jurisdictions. Witnesses may not cooperate. Ownership structures may be layered and obscured. The money may be clearly tainted, but the criminal standard cannot be met.

Civil forfeiture allows the province to act in those circumstances. It allows the state to disrupt profit. It weakens organized criminal enterprises by targeting their financial incentive. It sends a message that illicit gain will not remain protected simply because prosecution is difficult. This is why civil forfeiture has been used in this province since 2006. It is also why the Cullen commission recommended strengthening investigative tools in response to systemic money laundering.

Budget 2026 proposes expanding the proactive operations of the civil forfeiture office to allow independent investigations and proactive identification of money laundering schemes.

In principle, strengthening that capacity is appropriate. But civil forfeiture carries significant power. It operates without a criminal conviction. It proceeds under a low evidentiary threshold. Because of that, its legitimacy depends on fairness, restraint and transparency.

Bill 8 makes procedural changes. Some of those changes are reasonable. Some modernize inefficiencies. However, expanding authority must be matched by expanding accountability. That balance is what I will address today.

Bill 8 introduces several procedural reforms.

First, section 5 is amended to require that any person filing a response to forfeiture proceedings must provide full particulars of the nature of their claimed interest in the property, including how and when it was acquired and the value of any consideration given.

On its face, this is reasonable. Forfeiture litigation often becomes prolonged because ownership claims are vague or incomplete. Requiring detailed particulars may narrow disputes and reduce unnecessary delay.

However, the application of this requirement must remain fair. Not every respondent is sophisticated. Some may be family members, co-workers or individuals with limited legal knowledge. Courts must ensure that clarity requirements do not become procedural traps that prevent legitimate claims from being heard.

The bill also introduces section 7.1, which allows the court to grant forfeiture orders in default if a party fails to file and serve a response within the prescribed time.

[5:55 p.m.]

Efficiency in litigation is important. Organized criminal actors should not be able to stall proceedings through deliberate non-response.

At the same time, forfeiture without notice is a serious power. Property rights are significant. The court retains discretion to set aside or vary an order, but the burden shifts after forfeiture has occurred. That reinforces the importance of ensuring notice procedures are robust and accessible.

The bill extends certain timelines from 30 days to 60 days. That adjustment appears practical and may reduce procedural disputes.

Section 45.1 limits examination for discovery of the director to one representative. While intended to reduce duplication in cost, discovery serves a fairness function. Respondents must have meaningful opportunity to challenge the basis of forfeiture.

Section 59.1 introduces a presumption that motor vehicles depreciate over time for purposes of interim preservation orders. That is economically sensible.

Section 67.01 expands information-sharing authority across jurisdictions. Given the cross-border nature of organized crime and money laundering, that change is logical.

Taken together, these reforms aim to streamline proceedings and reduce delay. In principle, modernizing procedure is appropriate. But procedural efficiency is only one part of the picture. The larger issue is what happens to forfeited assets once they are recovered.

It is important to ground this discussion in the practical reality of how civil forfeiture cases arise in this province. The vast majority of civil forfeiture files do not begin in an office in Victoria. They begin in the field. They begin with front-line police officers conducting investigations. They begin with intelligence gathered over months or years. They begin with search warrants, financial analysis, interviews, surveillance and coordinated enforcement operations.

Police are the ones who uncover suspicious transactions. They identify properties tied to drug trafficking, fraud, organized crime and money laundering. They gather the evidence. They seize the assets. They prepare the investigative packages. They refer those files to the civil forfeiture office. Civil forfeiture does not function independently of policing. It depends on policing.

When a forfeiture file is successful, it reflects hundreds of hours of investigative work. It reflects risks taken by officers. It reflects coordination across agencies. It reflects intelligence, analysis and evidence-gathering that is often complex and technical. That is why the question of how forfeited funds are reinvested matters so much.

The civil forfeiture grant program annual report 2023-2024 states that 90 percent of forfeited funds go to communities, and 10 percent is made available to police. The language is precise. It does not say 10 percent goes to police. It says 10 percent is made available. There is a difference.

How much of that 10 percent is actually allocated to police agencies? How much is applied for? How much is approved? How much remains unused? Those figures are not clearly set out in this report. If police agencies are responsible for the overwhelming majority of referrals, then the public should be able to see clearly how forfeited funds are strengthening front-line enforcement capacity.

Are those funds being used for specialized investigative equipment? Are they supporting financial crime training? Are they enhancing digital forensic capabilities? Are they strengthening organized crime units? Are they supporting rural detachments that lack resources? Without detailed reporting, those questions remain unanswered.

Civil forfeiture is justified in part on the basis that recovered funds are reinvested into community safety and law enforcement. That justification is stronger when the reinvestment is visible and measurable. If 10 percent is made available to police, then there should be a clear accounting of how much of that 10 percent is actually delivered and where it goes.

[6:00 p.m.]

This is not about diverting funds away from community safety programs. Those programs are important. Crime prevention initiatives matter, and victim support matters, but front-line enforcement capacity also matters.

When officers conduct investigations that result in forfeiture, there should be a transparent connection between that work and the strengthening of enforcement capability. If the connection exists, it should be clearly shown. If it does not, that deserves discussion.

Transparency in this area does not weaken civil forfeiture; it strengthens it. When the public can see clearly that forfeited funds are reinforcing both prevention and enforcement, confidence grows. When reporting leaves gaps, confidence weakens.

Civil forfeiture is an important public safety tool. The work that generates those files is done by police services across the province. The reinvestment of those funds should be equally clear and accountable. That is not a radical proposition; it is a reasonable expectation.

If civil forfeiture is justified as a public safety tool, then the way forfeited funds are distributed must withstand scrutiny. In the 2023-24 Civil Forfeiture Grant Program Annual Report, it states that since inception over $221 million has been generated through civil forfeiture, and $95 million has been awarded through the grant program. Those are significant figures.

However, the report does not clearly state the total amount forfeited in the reporting year in a consolidated, easy, identifiable way. It states that 100 percent of forfeited funds are returned to communities and law enforcement. That is a strong assertion. If that is the case, then there should be a transparent and clearly structured statement that shows total forfeiture revenue in the reporting period and total allocation across categories. That should not require interpretation. It should not require cross-referencing multiple sections. It should be clear.

Civil forfeiture is not a general tax. It is not revenue raised through broad public contribution. It is property that has been forfeited to the Crown because it was determined, on a balance of probabilities, to be connected to unlawful activity. Once forfeited, that property ultimately belongs to the people of British Columbia. That alone requires transparency.

The report includes a breakdown of allocation categories presented in a pie chart. It shows 28 percent allocated to gender-based violence initiatives, 20 percent allocated to crime prevention programs, 18 percent allocated to Indigenous healing initiatives, 15 percent allocated to child and youth advocacy centres, 7 percent allocated to priority projects, 6 percent allocated to domestic violence prevention and intervention programs and 6 percent allocated to restorative justice initiatives.

The categories are clearly written. The presentation is clear. The causes are important. The question is not whether these are legitimate areas for funding; the question is how those percentages are determined.

Is the allocation formula set in legislation? If so, where? Is it prescribed by regulation? If so, which regulation governs it? Is it determined by ministerial discretion? If so, what criteria guide that discretion? Is it influenced by application volume, meaning that percentages fluctuate based on demand? If so, that should be explained. Is there a formal advisory body that recommends distribution percentages? Is there public consultation in determining these categories?

The report does not explain the decision-making framework behind these percentages. It presents them as fixed proportions but does not explain the governance structure behind them. If civil forfeiture revenue is to be defended as a tool that strengthens community safety, then the structure by which it is distributed must be clear. Transparency in allocation is not optional; it is foundational.

Let me turn specifically to the police allocation. The report states that 10 percent of forfeited funds are made available to police. It does not state that the percentage is automatically allocated. It does not state how much of the 10 percent was actually distributed in the reporting year.

On page 25 of the report, under police equipment and training grants, it states that $1.1 million was awarded across 101 projects. Yet only one project is described in detail. There is no comprehensive list of the remaining 100 projects.

[6:05 p.m.]

There is no breakdown of how much each project received. There is no identification of which police agencies benefited. There is no explanation of whether these projects supported major municipal agencies, smaller detachments, specialized units or rural services. If 101 projects were funded, those projects should be listed. If public money derived from forfeited assets is being allocated to police services, then the public should see exactly how.

This is not a criticism of police services. On the contrary, it is an acknowledgement that police agencies are the primary source of forfeiture referrals. They do the investigative work that leads to these assets being seized in the first place. Police agencies generate the work that results in forfeiture revenue. Then it is entirely appropriate for the public to understand how much of that revenue is being reinvested into front-line capacity.

Transparency in this area strengthens civil forfeiture. When reporting leaves unanswered questions, confidence erodes in this process. Civil forfeiture is already subject to criticism because it operates without a criminal conviction. It proceeds on a low evidentiary threshold that makes transparency even more important. If the public cannot clearly see how much was forfeited in a given year, how much was distributed, how allocation percentages were determined and how much actually reached police services, then the legitimacy of the program becomes vulnerable.

Civil forfeiture is a powerful tool. It is justified as a means of ensuring that crime does not pay and that illicit gains are redirected towards strengthening communities. The best way to defend that tool is to make its operation fully visible. Show the total amount forfeited. Show the total amount allocated. Show the breakdown by category. Show how much of the police allocation was actually distributed. Show the criteria that determine the percentages. Show whether allocations are static or responsive to emergency crime trends.

If the system is strong, transparency will confirm that. If adjustments are needed, transparency will reveal that, too. What undermines public confidence is not scrutiny; it is incomplete disclosure. This bill strengthens enforcement tools. It should also strengthen transparency around how forfeited funds are managed.

Bill 8 modernizes procedure. It strengthens investigative capacity. It streamlines litigation. What it does not address is statutory transparency. It does not require a consolidated annual statement, clearly setting out total forfeited revenue and total allocation. It does not require detailed reporting on how much of the 10 percent made available to police is actually distributed. It does not clarify the framework behind allocation percentages. If enforcement authority is expanded, reporting clarity should be strengthened.

This is not an attack on civil forfeiture; it is a defence of its integrity. Civil forfeiture is a powerful enforcement tool. It exists because organized crime is sophisticated, financially driven and adaptive. It exists because criminal networks do not operate in the open and because profit is often the true objective behind complex, unlawful activity.

It operates on a balance of probabilities, for a reason. It allows the province to intervene where a criminal conviction may not have been achievable but where the connection between property and unlawful activity is nonetheless clear. It disrupts profit structures. It removes financial incentives. It weakens the capacity of criminal enterprises to reinvest and expand.

For those reasons, we support modernization that strengthens the province’s ability to pursue illicit assets, but that support is not unconditional. Authority must be matched by accountability. When the province exercises the power to seize property without criminal conviction, it must do so with procedural fairness and with complete transparency in how recovered funds are managed.

Civil forfeiture revenue is not general taxation. It is property forfeited to the Crown because it has been determined to be connected to unlawful conduct. Once forfeited, it becomes property of the people of British Columbia. If that property is redistributed, then the public has a right to clearly see how it is redistributed.

[6:10 p.m.]

They deserve clarity on total forfeiture revenue. They deserve clarity on how allocation percentages are determined. They deserve clarity on how much of the proportion made available to police is actually delivered to the front-line services. They deserve to understand whether the distribution of funds reflects current crime realities and enforcement needs.

Strengthening investigative authority without strengthening reporting standards risks weakening public confidence in the system itself. Civil forfeiture must never be perceived as discretionary. It must be demonstrably structured, transparent and accountable. Criminal enterprises thrive in secrecy. Government cannot afford to operate that way. If criminals are not transparent, government must be.

Bill 8 strengthens the procedural and investigative capacity of the civil forfeiture office. That direction can be supported, but strengthening authority must be accompanied by strengthening transparency. If we want civil forfeiture to remain a legitimate and respected enforcement tool, then its operation must be clear, measurable and open to scrutiny.

This is not a partisan position; it is a principled one. Public safety depends not only on strong tools but on public trust in how those tools are used. This is the balance we must maintain.

Hon. Terry Yung: I’m pleased to rise in the House today in support of Bill 8, the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act.

I also want to thank my colleague and friend over there, the member for West Kelowna–Peachland, for your thoughtful comments.

Before entering the Legislature, I spent many years, like my colleague across the way, in policing and was actually a financial crime investigator for three years. I was a subject-matter expert in financial crime and instructor for financial crime for over 15 years. I saw firsthand how organized crime operated and, through financial systems, decided to hide their profits and proceeds. Like my colleague said, it’s complicated.

Criminal organizations are ultimately motivated not by profile or hitting the news. They’re motivated by profit. That’s the end of the day. And the profits they make don’t go into building hospitals, schools or shopping centres. They go to fund other illegal enterprises such as human trafficking, arms dealing, etc.

When I used to submit Crown counsel reports, some of them over 2,000 pages…. I remember the old days before electronic disclosure. I was having a cart with binders of RTCCs, reports to Crown counsel. They spent millions of dollars. You’re not talking about proceeds of crime for a couple hundred thousand dollars. You’re talking about millions of dollars.

I used to teach the students. I’d say: “You need to follow the money. You need to follow where the money is going.” That’s the only way you can target criminal enterprises that are really profitable. That’s the whole point of being one of them.

This is precisely where civil forfeiture plays an essential part. It allows government to take the profit from unlawful, illegal activities and reinvest that money into community safety initiatives that make us safer as a province. Bill 8 is going to build on that work. This amendment will also improve fairness, clarity and efficiency, also maintaining what’s important, the strong oversight and protections.

Why do we need these amendments? Increasingly, cases are more complex. Organized crime enterprises, they’re involved in transnational money laundering. The UN estimates a huge amount of money every year being laundered around the world.

Also, look at the operational realities. When I was in financial crime, we had dedicated Crown counsel, forensic accountants, not just the police investigators, because we need the tools to go after these complex enterprises. It’s not just a simple fraud of writing a bad cheque. It’s a lot more complicated.

It does not expand civil forfeiture powers. It does not change the legal standard of proof. It does not remove court oversight. What it actually does do is streamline litigation and preserve fairness in the process.

[6:15 p.m.]

It requires a respondent to disclose their claimed interest in property that is subject to forfeiture. For the investigative point of view, it helps because it requires the nominees of layered ownership structures to disclose why you are related to this property in question. It also improves, as I said before, transparency and also reduces the unnecessary litigation cost and time frame. The duration sometimes goes for years.

Also, Bill 8 introduces a streamlined default judgment process for uncontested cases — that will actually save time because they’re uncontested — and also updates timelines. Currently a respondent has a window of 30 days to respond, but now we’re going to extend. With this act, this amendment, Bill 8, we extend the timelines from 30 days to 60 days to improve accuracy and reduce procedural error without delaying justice. This is a fairness measure.

Another part of this amendment is talking about vehicle depreciation. Under the act…. Many vehicles are seized for civil forfeiture, and they sometimes sit in storage for extended periods of time, months, years, while they depreciate and while a substantive amount of money is paid for storage.

This amendment introduces a rebuttable presumption that vehicles depreciate over time, as we all can agree. A vehicle that sits there for four years is not going to be worth the same amount of money when it was seized. This gives court the ability to retain full discretion. Judges now will be able to consider earlier liquidation of the vehicles in question where it’s appropriate.

It also contacts organized crime agencies, many of them in B.C…. Organized Crime Agency of B.C., organized crime investigative units, understand these enterprises. They do not respect transactional orders. Money goes from within different countries, and Bill 8 improves the information-sharing while maintaining privacy safeguards and oversight. This is the response to sophisticated money laundering and support by the Cullen commission on money laundering.

We also have to ask the important question. What happens after the assets are recovered? The proceeds are reinvested directly into crime prevention, community safety and victim support programs across the province. I cite four tangible examples.

One in Vancouver where proceeds are used to fund the Vancouver Frames Film program that supports high-risk Indigenous youth through mentorship, employment and training for job skills.

In South Vancouver, the proceeds are being used to support a youth action project that provides wraparound support for more than 1,000 at-risk and newcomer youth.

I used to be a volunteer for Big Brothers for over ten years. Big Brothers and Big Sisters is being funded by proceeds to provide, in Langley, at-risk youth with caring adult mentors, to help them to make better decisions in life and to better support.

In Nanaimo, the last question is the Nanaimo youth early prevention program by boys and girls clubs also connecting young people with positive mentors and local RCMP officers. This is also being funded by proceeds.

An additional one is the Hell’s Angels clubhouse. In 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a B.C. Appeal Court to say the property in question were, indeed, proceeds of crime and liquidation can actually proceed after a long, lengthy legal due process.

“Why does this matter?” we ask. Civil forfeiture transforms harm into prevention. It converts criminal proceeds into safer neighbourhoods. It also provides fairness and oversight and safeguards. It also maintains and improves procedural fairness through notice provisions, clear timelines and litigation safeguards.

Efficiency and fairness are not mutually exclusive. This legislation advances both.

[6:20 p.m.]

In conclusion, as somebody who has spent years in financial crime looking at numbers — I think I still have a pocket calculator in my pocket at times — it’s more than an arrest alone when you have to target organized crime. You have to take away and remove the financial incentives that sustain those criminal activities.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Bill 8 ensures the civil forfeiture office can continue to do that — take the profit out of unlawful activity, prevent property from being used to cause harm and support victims and crime prevention across this province. These amendments are practical, measured and ensure our system remains fair, effective and responsive to challenges.

I’m proud to support this legislation and encourage all members of this House to do the same.

I move to adjourn the debate.

Hon. Terry Yung moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: The Committee of Supply A reports progress on the estimates of Ministry of Attorney General and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Sunita Dhir: Committee of Supply, Section C, reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Infrastructure and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Josie Osborne moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:21 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:31 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Attorney General
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We’re meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of the Attorney General.

On Vote 14: ministry operations, $742,545,000 (continued).

Steve Kooner: First of all, thank you again to the Attorney General staff and the Attorney General for being here to discuss the estimates.

We were discussing different types of Crown counsel last time. We had gone through, generally, Crown counsel. We had gone through front-line Crown counsel. We were getting through ad hoc Crown counsel and special prosecutors.

We know that we have 527 Crown prosecutors in this province. In addition to that, we must have more Crown prosecutors, because we do have categories of ad hoc and special Crown prosecutors.

So adding to the 527, what is the total number of Crown prosecutors at a given time when you include the ad hoc and the special Crown prosecutors?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I have updated numbers from the prosecution service that will help guide this answer.

The total number of FTEs, that is going to include ReVOII, so the repeat violent offenders initiative, is 1,094, which is 568 Crown and 526 non-Crown professional staff. Those are, again, the highest staffing levels ever for the B.C. prosecution service.

I think we had a conversation about how all of them are considered to be front-line, but the member asked a question about special prosecutors compared to ad hoc Crown.

In terms of what would be a full-time-equivalent Crown, of the number of ad hoc, it’s not very big. About 4.94 is the FTE equivalent of ad hoc Crown. So that’s less than 1 percent of the Crown workforce for ad hoc.

Special prosecutors, as I mentioned, are appointed very rarely, in sensitive cases, to address concerns about a conflict of interest. They don’t take on regular cases of Crown counsel.

[2:35 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Okay, so we have a number here. The original number was 527 Crown counsel. Now we have a number that’s updated — 568 Crown counsel.

How many of these Crown counsel were hired between September and now?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We also have an update from the question last time about the number of Crown hired between September and now, which was the member’s question. That’s nine Crown counsel.

Steve Kooner: In terms of the nine Crown counsels, through the Chair, how many of these are front-line Crown counsels?

Hon. Niki Sharma: As we talked about before, all Crown are considered front-line Crown.

Steve Kooner: Is there a requirement that all Crown have a certain degree of front-line work?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s expected, like we talked before, that all Crown have the ability to take on files.

Steve Kooner: If, for example, all of these Crown counsel are front line, do all of them do managerial work as well?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No.

Steve Kooner: Out of all of these Crown counsels, which we now know are 568, how many of them do managerial work?

Hon. Niki Sharma: All Crown, as I mentioned before, are expected to take on files. So the distinction between front line and not is just not a helpful way to describe it.

I’m told by the head of the prosecution service that of the 564, about 50 to 60 are administrative Crown. They’re also members of the Crown association, so not excluded, and would also take on files.

There are about 35 managers that are not members of the association, but some also are taking on files, including very complicated ones like murder cases.

Steve Kooner: Also, last time the ReVOII program was discussed, and, I believe, the funding that was allocated or discussed in regards to ReVOII was $8.5 million. Is that correct?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to confirm what the member said, it’s $8.5 million.

Steve Kooner: As a follow-up question to the $8.59 million, how many of the 564 Crown prosecutors are allocated to ReVOII?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Approximately 20.

Steve Kooner: How many regional centres are these Crown prosecutors that are working for ReVOII located at?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Twelve hubs.

Steve Kooner: If there are 12 hubs, could the districts be explained, for the record? Where are these hubs?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The hubs are located in Vancouver, Surrey, Cranbrook, Prince George, Kelowna, Kamloops, Williams Lake, Victoria, Nanaimo, Abbotsford, New Westminster and Terrace.

Steve Kooner: I did not recall hearing Nanaimo. Is there a reason why Nanaimo wasn’t mentioned?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I did mention Nanaimo, but just to restate that Nanaimo was on the list.

Steve Kooner: In regards to these 12 hubs, is it fair to say that at a certain number of these hubs, there are at least two Crown, and that at most of the hubs, there’s only one Crown? Is that accurate?

Hon. Niki Sharma: How the program works is that there is an identified group of people that fit this criteria of being a repeat violent offender in the system, and the hubs are allocated in the cities across the province.

I explain that to say that each hub has a different volume, understandably. A Surrey ReVOII hub or a Vancouver ReVOII hub is going to be different than Terrace in terms of numbers, so Crown counsel are allocated accordingly. There’s at least one Crown counsel in each of the hubs of the cities, but some with a higher volume would have more than that.

Steve Kooner: We currently have 12 hubs. When did it grow from, say, 11 to 12 hubs?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There were always 12 hubs when we announced it, so that number has stayed consistent since the program was launched.

Steve Kooner: How would the minister describe the success rate of these hubs?

The Chair: If I can remind all members of the committee to take charge of their electronic devices so that they don’t add to the committee’s discussions, that would be appreciated. Thanks so much. And members of the people that are watching. Thank you.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Very happy to talk about the success of ReVOII and what an important intervention program that’s been for the criminal justice system.

[2:50 p.m.]

I’ll just start by explaining a little bit what the repeat violent offender initiative is, for those that are listening. There are 12 hubs across the province, and it’s a collaborative intervention between corrections officers, RCMP and Crown counsel.

What it does is circle around over 400 of the most prolific violent offenders in our province. Those interventions of just the system working together to solve for that person have resulted in a lot of success. It goes in multiple ways. Success with respect to impacts on the community — it has lessened the impact these individuals have had on the community. It also has led to increased incidence of holding that person or detaining that person in the system if they were leading to violence.

I’ll just go through some of the stats, because I think they’re important to illustrate a little bit deeper what I’m talking about, in response to the member’s question. The most recent report that was done on how that program is going was released in December 2025. So we have pretty fresh statistics on it. That was led by corrections services, as an examination of the program.

In the two-year report on ReVOII data, which is most relevant to the prosecution service end, these stats are compared to a non-ReVOII control group. Detentions sought by Crown were 84 percent versus 67 percent if they were in the ReVOII program. Accused detained before trial or remanded, 75 percent, versus the control group of 56 percent. ReVOII also resulted in longer time in provincial custody.

The other thing that we’ve noticed with the impacts and results of the success of ReVOII was that police interactions for all offences involving individuals dropped significantly, by nearly 1,500, in the 18 months after being designated for ReVOII. That’s 50 percent, with violent offence interactions declining even further, by 480, so 56 percent in that same period. Just really remarkable results.

ReVOII cases were approved faster and, in appropriate cases, sought detention more frequently — I mentioned the rates before — and secured higher remand rates. Individuals spent more time in custody, as I mentioned before, with greater supervision and stronger accountability. Those who willingly engage with ReVOII stay charge-free longer, and they reduce the risk to communities. So it’s been a very successful program.

It’s one of the reasons why you’ve seen, in this budget, an expansion of that program through C-POII, which is not for the category of violent offenders but for the category of prolific offenders that don’t have an element of violence but that are showing up — I hear that from communities — in petty crime repeatedly. We’re hoping to transfer the success of the ReVOII program to this population.

Steve Kooner: If this program is so successful, how come it’s not being expanded beyond the 12 hubs that we currently have?

Hon. Niki Sharma: In fact, we are, through C-POII, expanding this program to a different population. Instead of the repeat violent offenders, as I mentioned, it’ll be the chronic property offenders.

This is something that mayors from all over the province have spoken to me about multiple times. They’re happy with the success of the ReVOII program, and they would like there to be a similar program with respect to property offending. That is an expansion of the program for a different population.

Steve Kooner: In terms of the 12 hubs that we currently have and how they are serving British Columbians, is it the perspective of the Attorney General that we have achieved maximum success with these 12 hubs and that there is no need to expand these hubs for further access because we’ve achieved maximum success? Is that the interpretation coming from the Attorney General’s department?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I appreciate the question, and I think it’s hard when you’re running a program to ever say that you’ve achieved maximum success, because, of course, there’s still more work to do in different ways. But I’d like to think that the program was very successful.

Just to understand how it shows up…. It’s dynamic. We think of those hubs and the system identifying people. For example, the system identified 586 prioritized individuals, and 445 of them are currently prioritized. Then 141 have been removed from the program, and these removals are kind of based on death, extended period of inactivity, federal custody, moving out of the province, the risk being mitigated or successful completion of the program. That number that’s in the hubs is always changing.

We think that we’re meeting an important need with the resources we put in and that it’ll keep on delivering through that dynamic process.

Steve Kooner: I know we were discussing the C-POII program. We were starting to discuss that.

Before we move into that, is it fair to say there might be expansion of the hubs for ReVOII, or is it not in the plans to expand it?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think we talked about how what I heard from a lot of mayors and leaders was that they were interested in expansion, in a sense, but focused on a different population. That’s what we committed to in this budget. We would use the same model for the prolific offenders, as I mentioned before.

I mean, I think the success of the program has shown through the data that’s been collected independently. In the future, there may be a need or an interest in expanding ReVOII, but our next step, based on the feedback we got, was to expand it in the sense of focusing on a different population.

[3:00 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: There are 20 Crown prosecutors allocated to these 12 hubs. In regard to the 20 Crown prosecutors, are they specifically assigned only to these hubs? Are they dedicated specifically just for these hubs, or are these Crown prosecutors floating around? They go to these hubs, but then also they’re in the general stream of Crown prosecutors as well?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There are 21 Crown and 21 professional staff that support the Crown, so that’s the team on the Crown side related to that. They are dedicated to ReVOII.

Steve Kooner: We’ve discussed the ReVOII program. Now I’d like to discuss the C-POII program.

Earlier on we were discussing some numbers. We discussed that there was $8.5 million allocated to the ReVOII program, and I believe what was mentioned in terms of the C-POII program was $4.9 million. Perhaps I can get a confirmation on that.

I’ll follow it up with another question that can be answered. How many C-POII hubs are there in the province?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The answer to that question is: to be determined. We’ll move, after the budget allocation, to implementation program plan phase. That will determine exactly where the hubs are or how it interacts with the existing ReVOII hubs and the resources that are in place there.

Steve Kooner: So just to confirm, there is $4.9 million allocated to the C-POII program currently, correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just important to remember the overall budget item. Obviously, we’re here to talk about my ministry’s budget. That budget allocation for the C-POII program is $4.9 million, but it doesn’t capture the entire government investment into the program, because that is held under other ministries. It’s $16 million, I think, in total.

But yes, just to confirm the member’s question, $4.9 million is in 2026-27 budget for our portion of it.

Steve Kooner: So $16 million is currently allocated, but there are no particular hubs at the current time. How is that money being spent when there are no hubs currently?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: As with the budget processes, the money would be available April 1 to be spent. That’s allocated in this budget. There’s time for the program design and allocation and understanding of where it goes.

Steve Kooner: With the ReVOII program, we have 12 hubs. Is there a plan to have another 12 hubs for the C-POII program?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, to my previous answers, to be determined.

Steve Kooner: In regards to the…. We just touched on the answer to the hubs. The follow-up question is: how many Crown prosecutors would be allocated to the C-POII program?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Also, again, to be determined.

The Chair: If I could ask the member to recognize the train that’s happening here, that would be great. Thank you.

Steve Kooner: We’ve talked about the hubs. We’ve talked about the Crown prosecutors. Just to follow up on the Crown prosecutors, would these Crown prosecutors also be specified, dedicated Crown prosecutors only working in the C-POII program, or are they going to be floating around amongst different programs?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s another element that will be determined.

I think that the program design will have to focus on something a little bit different than the ReVOII program, with the chronic offender street disorder category of these offenders. I think there will be different resources and different planning that are needed for the C-POII program. So that’s another to be determined.

Steve Kooner: So far, we have touched upon the ReVOII program, and we’ve touched upon the soon-to-be C-POII program. We’ve touched upon specifically dedicated Crown prosecutors.

Are there any other programs, other than the ReVOII program and the C-POII program, that have specifically dedicated Crown prosecutors to work in certain programs?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There are definitely different categories of Crown. There’s general Crown. Of course, that is a Crown that would work on any file that comes that way.

There are multiple types of specialization that Crown can do. So for example, Crown that focuses on sexual assault cases, Crown that focuses on…. You could think of any number of things that they’ve specialized in.

So there’s a specialized Crown, there are major cases, and then there’s appellate.

Steve Kooner: Recently we’ve been dealing with the extortion crisis. I did ask a question once in question period about dedicated Crown prosecutors.

[3:10 p.m.]

I would like to know if we have specifically assigned, dedicated Crown prosecutors, say working in Surrey, just to deal with this B.C. extortion crisis, just like we have in ReVOII and soon to be in the C-POII program.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, there are Crown counsel that are assigned specifically. It’s a major public safety concern for our government and the justice system in general. So, yes, the B.C. prosecution service has assigned Crown counsel to deal with the extortion crisis, as the member has requested.

Steve Kooner: Are these Crown counsel specifically only working on extortion?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes. There are Crown counsel that…. Their priority is the extortion files, as the reports to Crown counsel come in. I’m told by the prosecution service, as we’ve talked about this for the last few — more than — months, that the Crown counsel that are located in Surrey work really well with the task force and the police services. So they can work in a prioritized way to get these files moving.

Steve Kooner: Since May of 2025, the extortion crisis in B.C. has taken a vertical leap in this province. How many extra Crown prosecutors have been specifically assigned just to deal with the extortion crisis since May of 2025?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s a really hard number to pin down, one exact number, and I’ll give you the reason for it. As you know, Crown are responsive to RCCs and the work that they do with the police and investigations. So as I mentioned before, Crown has prioritized this as a top priority in terms of when cases come in.

In the Surrey office, for example, there are 60 Crown that sit there. In Abbotsford, there are 15 Crown that are there. Depending on the files or RCCs that are coming in, the files will be allocated to the Crown that are there.

What’s more important about the number…. Instead of the number of Crown, more important is how it’s prioritized. Our Crown counsel, our prosecution service have prioritized the Surrey extortion cases in those hot spots. So the number of Crown will fluctuate as those cases come in, but that prioritization assures that we have as many resources as we need to tackle the problem.

Steve Kooner: What I’ve heard so far is that there are 60 Crown in Surrey, and there are 15 Crown in Abbotsford.

But my question was: since May of 2025, what has been the increase in numbers of Crown prosecutors? Has the number of 60 been increased, to get to the number 60? Has the number of 15 been increased, to get to the number 15, or have these Crown levels remained stable since May of 2025?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s a very difficult question to answer because of the way the prosecution service allocates resources when they’re needed.

If we just look at the number of Crown that are hired in Surrey, what that doesn’t represent is all the resources that come in when there are major cases or serious issues — or for ReVOII or C-POII that come into that Crown cohort — to add to the crime. If we’re looking at crime in Surrey and how Crown resources respond to it, it’s much bigger than just the complement in Surrey, because there could be allocations provincewide or in different hubs that go into it.

[3:25 p.m.]

We’re unable to come up with a specific number of how it’s increased because of the way that the B.C. prosecution service operates to address…. You know, you have to think of it in a way that Crown is always going to be there. If there’s a report to Crown counsel, somebody has to answer to that report to Crown counsel and show up. So the prosecutor service provincewide will allocate resources where they’re needed.

Steve Kooner: I just want to clarify a point. I understand that the prosecution service might allocate resources as they’re needed in different municipalities, but what I’m trying to get at is whether there was an increase in Crown counsel people, personnel.

I’m just looking to get an actual quantity. I’m not looking for an in-depth quality of service. I’m just looking at a quantity number, whether it has been increased or not. I think we can leave the part of the discussion where we’re talking about the quality and how we move and the type of service around…. We can leave that for another question.

My question is in regards to how many people — actual bodies of people — in terms of Crown prosecutors exist and whether the quantities have actually been increased. So if it was, let’s say, 60 as of May 2025, did that remain still at 60 to this day, or did that go up to 65, or did that fall down to 55, or did that just remain steady at 60?

I get the point about the quality of service. I get the point that Crown can move around. But I just would like to know whether the amount of Crown, the quantity of Crown, was actually increased in either Surrey or Abbotsford. It’s just a simple question: whether it went up by one or two or five or it remained steady or it decreased.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Okay, so the reason that…. If the member is talking about how many Crown resources in terms of personnel are dedicated to the crime of Surrey, it would not show up as the 60 FTE that I mentioned.

I already talked about the number of bodies that are in Surrey. But we can’t answer the number of Crown resources that are targeted in Surrey because, as I talked about before, it’s much bigger than just the…. It’s the ReVOII, which added Crown counsel there, and it freed up files for the C-POII that’s coming in this budget. That would also add resources to that unit. And it’s the ones that come in, or are more provincial-wide, that address crime where it’s needed.

So it’s a complicated question to answer, based on the complex nature of criminal cases.

The Chair: At this time, I’m going to call a recess, for the committee, of seven minutes. I have 3:28 on my phone. I expect everybody back here at 3:35, please. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 3:28 p.m. to 3:37 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General.

Steve Kooner: I totally get it that there’s the ReVOII program. There are many programs across the province. There may be the city of Surrey that has Crown prosecutors as well. Just for a moment, let’s put away ReVOII and the provincial programs across the province. Let’s just focus on the city of Surrey.

The city of Surrey has a Crown prosecutor office. In that office, of the Crown prosecutors that actually sit there, did that number increase from the date of May 2025 to now, since the extortion crisis took off?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Since May 2025, the answer is no. It has stayed at 60. But as I mentioned before, it doesn’t account for all the Crown resources that are going to address crime in Surrey because of all the various ways that that happens and that I mentioned in my previous answer.

Steve Kooner: Thank you to the Attorney General for answering that question.

A second question. Abbotsford, 15 Crown counsel. Did that number increase since May of 2025? Putting aside what’s in the ReVOII program, provincial programs, let’s just look at the Crown counsel office in Abbotsford. Did that number of 15 Crown prosecutors increase since May of 2025?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s the same answer as I gave before. There are 15, since May 2025, that are in Abbotsford, but that doesn’t account for all Crown resources that may or may not be allocated to crime that has happened in Abbotsford.

Steve Kooner: In a different line of questioning but still related to the Crown prosecutors, we know the extortion crisis took off, as of May 2025, on a vertical level.

[3:40 p.m.]

Since May 2025, the Crown prosecutors that have been handling the extortion crisis…. Has their practice specifically been limited to only extortion offences since May 2025 to now?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s a question that also is very hard to answer down to the Crown. I said before that extortion is a priority. Every extortion file that comes into Crown counsel is assigned and dealt with.

I couldn’t give an answer on, since May 2025, whether or not that particular Crown only did that file or those several files, if they were related to extortion. That’s not how files work, and that’s not how lawyers carry files. There could be other matters going on that that lawyer is also responsible for.

Steve Kooner: In question period, the Attorney General once mentioned that there are dedicated Crown prosecutors working on the extortion crisis. Yet the number of Crown prosecutors has not been increased, since May of 2025, in either the Surrey office or in the Abbotsford office, and there has been no confirmation, also, that practice has been limited just to extortion files.

How do we have specifically assigned, dedicated Crown prosecutors working only on extortion files?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ve answered this one a couple of times, about how files are assigned and that, yes, there are dedicated Crown, in that office or in other places, that are focusing on extortion on a priority basis. I think the question that the member asked is: is it exclusively, only, that file?

As I mentioned — I know he’s a lawyer, so he probably understands that from his caseload — lawyers may have other cases. I can’t say that every single one of those Crowns doesn’t have any other matter that they’re dealing with, when it comes to criminal matters, because that’s not how lawyers carry files. Sometimes files take multiple years to conclude. That is the nature of the work.

That’s just to say that one thing that I’d want to know, and I’m grateful to the work of the prosecution service, is that the RCMP has stated publicly that the task force is also coordinating closely with the B.C. prosecution service, which is actively briefed on evidentiary gains and file status as the team works towards reports to Crown counsel. It just talks about the integration that Crown counsel have had with the extortion task force. Really, they’ve been working really well together in terms of getting these cases going forward.

The Chair: May I remind members of this committee that when the minister or the member is speaking, I would prefer that the committee members are not. Thank you so very much.

[3:45 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: We have a B.C. extortion task force. Are there any Crown prosecutors working on the B.C. extortion task force?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think understanding the different roles of the task force with the independence of the Crown counsel is that you would…. There is a separation there for a reason, but it doesn’t mean that they don’t work closely together. I’ll just read the quote again. “The RCMP have stated publicly that the task force is also coordinating closely with the B.C. prosecution service, which is actively briefed on evidentiary gains and file status as the team works towards reports to Crown counsel.”

Harman Bhangu: Just a thing about how to track and maybe some preventative measures that we can take in extortion, as when temporary foreign workers come, people come on student visa permits or whatever it is. Is there a mechanism to actually get them to get a provincialized ID, where we can track their identification with a facial recognition program that happens through the DMVs, which is well known?

A little short story on that. You know, way back in the day, kids liked to go in, grab their older brother’s ID, run into the DMV, get a picture taken, and they could have an ID. What happened years later is that the police officers actually went and investigated those, and they found out facial recognition features. Is there any mechanism that this…?

Has the Attorney General thought of implementing a provincialized ID system? The reason why it would be key is that if you come with foreign IDs, a lot of the police officers on the ground do not know other countries’ IDs off the top of their head. You can have people coming in with five IDs with five different names, and that creates a nightmare for the police officers.

Has there been any type of conversation of implementing a system like this here in British Columbia?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: We were discussing the question that the member asked. It’s interesting to think about how that might be an investigative tool or policy tool, but I think it’s better asked of the Public Safety and Solicitor General Ministry, because most of the tools that he mentioned would be investigative.

On the ICBC aspect of that, they don’t have the same powers or tools that the police would have. Also, nothing in our budget line item would tie to this, so I would say that PSSG might be the better ministry to ask.

Steve Kooner: What is the total budget for extortion-related prosecutions provincewide?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is different than other items in the budget. We would spend what was needed for extortion cases as they come in and the Crown is assigned to them. Whatever is needed to bring a case to the end of its process, then we would spend that money. It’s not budgeted.

Steve Kooner: Is there a maximum upper limit that can be spent on extortion-related prosecutions in this province?

Hon. Niki Sharma: In terms of there being an upper limit, it doesn’t exist. The way that the finances are managed is through budget and contingency. Contingency allocations are sought when there are cases that go above, or need to go further than, the resources provided in the budget.

Steve Kooner: How many extortion files are currently before the courts in Surrey?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The only items that I’m able to confirm publicly are the ones that are currently charged and before the courts. Those are eight matters that are involving 16 accused.

Steve Kooner: Those eight matters — are those in Surrey alone or throughout the province?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, they’re not only in Surrey.

Steve Kooner: In addition to these eight matters, there are other municipalities that are dealing with extortion, specifically Abbotsford and many surrounding areas that are adjacent to Surrey.

What’s the total number of matters before the courts? We’ve heard there are eight in Surrey, but if you include Surrey and other areas, what’s the total number?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ve been really happy to answer these questions, but they’re mostly policy and/or other questions and not budgetary questions. So I answered this question already. There are eight matters involving 16 accused, and that’s provincewide.

I would just ask the member to draw to the budget. As these are estimates, I’m happy to answer questions related to the budget.

Steve Kooner: For those eight matters that are currently before the court, how much of a budget is allocated to those eight matters?

Hon. Niki Sharma: As mentioned before, there is no budget allocated per file. That’s not how the system works.

Steve Kooner: What has been the total amount spent on extortion files so far since May 2025?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s also not separately tallied. It’s all the resources that are needed.

Actually, it’s interesting to point out why you would never allocate a budget for a case, because if you had a case that you were bringing forward and you needed more money, you’d have to drop it if you had run out of budget. If we had a system that allocated budget per case, it wouldn’t make sense. Instead, it’s what resources are needed to bring the case to its conclusion.

Steve Kooner: Is there a number that has been spent, as a total number that can be calculated, on extortion files prosecution so far?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, those kinds of numbers are not tracked.

[4:00 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Just changing the line of questioning a little bit, I’m also concerned about the process and whether there are any sort of budgetary constraints related to process. I want to know how the process works and then, specifically related to budget, what’s being allocated to it.

We have a charge approval process in this province, charge approval to trial. What’s the average time from charge approval to trial for these extortion offences?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just talking about the charge approval process. B.C. prosecution service releases their data, and 37 percent of charge assessments are completed within one day. By 30 days, 76 percent of charge assessments have been completed, and those are disclosed annually.

The member asked a question that I can just give outward limits on, because the core process doesn’t have the same…. We have an absolute timeline in every court post. Those are the Jordan timelines that are for court criminal procedures. It’s 18 months in Provincial Court and 30 months at the Supreme Court. Those are our time-to-trial timelines that are set out by the court.

Steve Kooner: The number of 37 percent for charge assessment…. When does the Crown actually begin working on a file? Do they work with the police right from the outset, once police go to investigate a scene, or is Crown still coming a little bit later on, once the RCC is created?

Just trying to get a gist, because things are a little different with the vertical spike of the extortion cases since May of 2025.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The answer to that is that it depends. But I think I mentioned before that with the extortion, which I think the member was asking about, the task force is working with the prosecution service, and they’re actively being briefed on evidentiary gains and file status. That’s pre the report to Crown counsel. They’re working really closely together to get to the report to Crown counsel and then the charge assessment.

Steve Kooner: Is that a new development specifically related to extortion — where pre–charge approval, pre-RCC, the Crown is now working with the police to see developments of evidence?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, it’s not uncommon for the Crown to work, pre the report to Crown counsel, with police. Obviously, depending on the matter, sometimes things might just come to their desk through an RCC, depending on the crime and what it’s about and how fast it went.

In particular for the extortion cases, it’s such a public safety issue and priority for us as a government that Crown is working on the crisis of the extortion very closely with that task force to make it a priority.

Steve Kooner: How many extortion files have been stayed due to delay or disclosure issues?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m not aware of any.

Madam Chair, just again, I think this is steering away from budgetary conversations and more about policy questions. I’m always happy to answer them. We have many forums to do that. This one, I think, for estimates, should focus on the budget.

Harman Bhangu: With the rising number of cases going on, there have been convictions and deportations called for. Has there been any constructive work with the federal government on this, as more and more cases are being processed? Is there allocated budget to get some of these deportations done on time and in an adequate amount?

A lot of the people in a lot of the ridings are living in fear. This has been something that a lot of people want to know. How fast is this happening? Is there any coordination with the federal government to provide funding or anything of that such?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, there’s been federal coordination on a few fronts.

Again, I think the question is better asked, in terms of federal budget allocation, to our Solicitor General. She would have the numbers and the interaction with the federal government in terms of resources. Deportations are federally dealt with, so they wouldn’t fall under our provincial prosecution service.

One of the, I think, key success stories that we’ve had under our ministry is advocating for Criminal Code change from the federal government. I wrote a letter October 2, 2025, to Minister Fraser that asked for a reverse onus position on bail for extortion and removing the possibility of conditional sentence orders for anyone convicted of extortion, so tougher punishments.

That bill just passed. It made it into the Criminal Code changes, which I’m grateful for the federal government for listening to us. That bill is, I think, in the Senate right now, so we’re hopeful that the Criminal Code law changes that we asked for from our ministry come into force soon.

[4:10 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: There have been a lot of victims in regards to the extortion crisis. What victim support Crown resources are dedicated to supporting extortion victims through trial?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Oftentimes, the PSSG works with the AG in different ways, works together — I mean, in terms of the systems that are under those ministries. In this instance, all of the victim services components sit under PSSG. If you’re a victim of crime in British Columbia, you have access to victim support services, but those budget items sit at PSSG and not with the AG.

Harman Bhangu: Due to the high case volumes of the extortion situations, and talking to several police officers, there’s a real lack of space, of actual holding cells. Have there been any talks about funding towards creating more space, for actually having the capability of a lot of violent offenders and everything, as such, to have a space for them?

One reason I hear about for why there’s such a quick turnaround in the release processes is that there’s nowhere to keep them. Is there anything in the budget to address this concern?

Hon. Niki Sharma: An important question and one, again, better answered by the Solicitor General, because the budgets for the holding cells and that component of the system are held under that budget.

Steve Kooner: Just to change the topic a little bit, I’d like to talk about religious institutions and protections for religious institutions. What funding has been allocated within the ministry to support the prosecution of hate-motivated crimes targeting religious institutions?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I had the same question about the budget allocation as I did before, in terms of how things come in and get responded to. There’s no budget line item specifically for prosecuting hate crimes, but I am happy to take the opportunity to talk about the really strong leadership role that the B.C. prosecution service has held nationwide when it comes to prosecution of hate crimes.

First of all, they made significant changes to the hate crime policy and major advances in identifying and tracking hate crimes. They train internally and refine new procedures all the time, and the BCPS takes a leadership role in advancing how hate crimes are prosecuted in 2023. Right from our prosecution service in B.C., they founded a Canada-wide network of hate crime prosecutors who meet virtually and share best practices related to hate crime prosecutions.

Since 2024, the B.C. prosecution service has been a member of what is now the national hate crime working group, co-chaired by the RCMP and the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, and the new federal-provincial-territorial coordinating committee of senior officials working group on hate crimes, studying proposed changes to the Criminal Code that might be needed. They’ve really taken a leadership role when it comes to prosecuting hate crimes.

Steve Kooner: How much funding is being directed towards specialized Crown training related to hate crimes?

[4:20 p.m.]

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Okay. I have a few answers for you.

First of all, with respect to training for hate prosecutions, the federal government gave the prosecution service over $300,000 over two years, including $75,000 for knowledge-gathering.

[4:25 p.m.]

Then the prosecution service spends about $800,000…. You asked for a budget item. About $800,000 is allocated for the expenses related to training, generally, but that doesn’t include any staff time that might be allocated to that training. That’s kind of where the budget items sit with respect to training for Crown counsel.

Steve Kooner: That $800,000 number that was just mentioned, was that over two years, like the $300,000 number from the feds, or is that $800,000 per year?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The $800,000 was a yearly allocation by the prosecution service.

Steve Kooner: Does the budget provide for Crown counsel to be designated as religious community liaison prosecutors?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There are no specific titles that go from the prosecution service to Crown, but there are Crown that have specialized knowledge and expertise in prosecuting hate crimes.

Steve Kooner: How does the Ministry of Attorney General measure success in protecting access to places of worship as outlined in the minister’s mandate letter?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That would be a very expansive question to answer. It would take me a long time to answer that, because the question, I think, was how we measure success in keeping places of worship safe, according to my mandate letter.

We’ve done a whole series of initiatives that are there to combat hate and to keep places of worship and people that are using them safe. I could talk about a few of them.

In one of them, they’re advocating to the federal government for changes to the Criminal Code, which are happening right now related to criminal charges for places of worship.

[4:30 p.m.]

We launched the racist incident helpline, and after a year of that one being in operation, we released a series. I can provide the member with data on how it was working and how it was responding. Most of the numbers…. I don’t have the stat on me right now, but I think it was 92 percent that said that their needs were met through that. Of course, they’re calling that line because they’ve experienced some form of racism and need resources in the community.

We’ve invested in the Resilience B.C. Network every year, so that’s a whole bunch of organizations across the province that respond to people that have experienced hate and build work against racism and hate in their communities. That has shown many levels of success.

We’ve also done work to make sure that, provincially, K-to-12 anti-racism education is in schools. That will help increase understanding, reduce ignorance in communities and reduce the harms that are done to places like places of worship.

PSSG — I think it would be in their budget item — had a program to help increase the security of places of worship. So if there were security needs that needed to be invested in, there was money provided to institutions to help support that.

It’s actually a whole bunch of things that we’re doing to target reduction in hate and racism in the province.

Steve Kooner: Switching the line of questioning, going back to front-line Crown prosecutors, how many front-line Crown prosecutor positions are currently vacant across the province?

Hon. Niki Sharma: If we take the period of time that the member asked about, since September, there were 15 Crown that left in that period by appointments to the bench, retirements, resignations, those kinds of things. Of those 15, I think five were hired right off the bat and nine are in the process. So out of 568 positions, there are about nine right now that are vacant, but they’re in the process of being hired.

In three of those positions, the competitive process has been completed and offers have been made. In three of those positions, a staffing request has been submitted. In two of those positions, a staff request will be submitted soon. In one of those positions, the employee will return from leave, so there’s no hiring process needed. So each of them is in the process of being filled.

Steve Kooner: Okay. This might be covered by the answer that was supplied, but I think it’s more detailed, this question. Of the new funding allocated to the B.C. prosecution service, the new funding that we’re talking about, how many net new full-time-equivalent Crown prosecutors will be hired in 2026-2027?

I know there’s a need for nine that we’ve got to fill, and we’re in the process of filling those nine vacant positions, but there’s extra funding here. If you look at the line item of the B.C. prosecution service, there’s an increase of $10 million for the estimates that we’re talking about.

[4:35 p.m.]

So for this coming year, as a result of the increase, how many more full-time-equivalent Crown prosecutors will be hired, in addition to filling up the nine?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The $10 million that’s been talked about by the member is mostly salary increases with that budget. The added resources of the net new, which there will be in 2026-27, will be as a result of C-POII, and the numbers in that allocation, as we talked about earlier, are to be determined.

Steve Kooner: All right. So going back to Crown prosecutors, front-line Crown prosecutors, we’ve spoken about Surrey, and there are other areas as well. We’ve talked a little bit about the average caseload. I don’t think we have a clear answer yet in terms of how much of a caseload each Crown prosecutor has. Perhaps the Attorney General could give us an answer on that.

We want to make sure that the budget is being spent fairly and equitably so we can make sure that our Crown prosecutors are not overworked and they’re still very efficient. So perhaps we can get an answer on that. What is the average caseload per front-line Crown prosecutor?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: There is no set target like: “If you’re a Crown, you must have this caseload.” Because of the nature of cases, you could be doing remand and have 20 cases in a morning, or you could be doing a big murder case that could take two years of your time.

The system that has been developed and partly negotiated by the Crown Counsel Association, through collective bargaining, is that to understand allocation, the admin Crown or the deputy would assign the major cases, but the admin Crown would help do the assignments for the region or the group that they’re administrating.

I’m told that in the collective bargaining agreement, there’s a little bit of a measure of workload. For every three days in court, there would be two days of prep time. Through that, whoever is assigning cases can understand the caseload of everybody and assign it accordingly.

Steve Kooner: Just to add, to that answer, another question. We talked a little bit — in the answer, it was spoken — about supervising how much of a workload is given. This question goes to that point. Has the Ministry of Attorney General conducted a workload assessment to determine the optimal Crown-to-file ratio? If so, will the minister table it?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, such a study hasn’t been done, but I’m told that every day, the B.C. prosecution service and admin are always assessing workload and assignments of cases as they flow through.

Steve Kooner: Earlier we were discussing different types of Crown counsel. It was mentioned that all Crown counsel are front line but that there are some differences in terms of the work that they do. There could be some general Crown counsel, managerial Crown counsel and admin Crown counsel.

Along that line, my next question is: what percentage of Crown counsel time is currently spent on administrative disclosure and file management rather than on in-court prosecution?

When I’m asking this question, maybe we can refer to those three categories — the general Crown prosecutors, the management Crown prosecutors and then the admin Crown prosecutors. Those are the three categories that were provided earlier. Perhaps for all three of those categories, what percentage of Crown counsel time is currently being spent on administrative disclosure and file management, rather than in-court prosecution?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: As disclosure is an ongoing process in criminal matters, it’s something that doesn’t stop in a criminal process. So I would go back to those ratios, because I think those are examples of a collective bargaining process that’s set aside.

For every three days of court, there’s two days prep time, and then it’s one to one when it comes to the Supreme Court.

Steve Kooner: Back to that line item where there’s a $10 million increase in terms of the B.C. prosecution service. How much of that $10 million is going to be dedicated specifically to hiring prosecutors versus hiring paralegals, legal assistants, versus a digital disclosure system? So the breakdown.

Hon. Niki Sharma: As I mentioned before, that $10 million is largely salary increases.

Steve Kooner: What is the attrition rate for Crown prosecutors over the last three fiscal years?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I have overall attrition rates. These are not just Crown; they are all staff at the B.C. prosecution service. In 2023, the attrition rate was 10 percent. In 2024, it was 8.2 percent. In 2025, it was 8 percent.

I’m told that the attrition rate for Crown is very low. Just to give you a sense, based on the question that was asked earlier, as of last September, 15 Crown have left, and most of them were leaving not for resignations. Four Crown were appointed to the bench, eight were retirements, three were resignations, and one auxiliary ended when a Crown returned to work. Those were the ones that left over that period of time. They have a very low attrition rate.

Steve Kooner: Are the salary levels competitive with other provinces such as Alberta and Ontario, for Crown prosecutors in this province?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah, the salaries for our Crown are one of the best in the country.

Steve Kooner: In this past fiscal year, how many files were reassigned due to Crown workload pressures?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think that delves a lot into an HR question that I wouldn’t be able to answer here, nor do I think it’s relevant to estimates. I would ask for us to have a different question.

Steve Kooner: How many serious criminal cases were stayed in 2025 due to delay concerns connected to the Jordan framework?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: We have currently 25,000 active cases at any given moment, and in 2025, there were 11 stays in B.C. prosecution cases.

I just want to make it clear that every single stay is a problem. So 11 is too many, but we’ve compared… I think we might be one of the best-performing provinces, if not the best-performing province, on stays. Quebec gets about 60 to 90 per year. If you factor in caseload and population size, that’s way more than we do. Ontario has 127 to 175 per year. Again, if you factor in population size and cases, it’s much, much more than B.C.

To date in 2026, we’ve had zero Jordan stays.

Steve Kooner: Moving on to a little bit of a different topic, the line item that deals with legal services — in particular, legal aid. We’ve seen press releases from the provincial government talking about legal aid for immigration and refugee services. My question in regard to that: what is the budget for legal aid and legal aid for refugee claimants?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: In the 2026-27 budget for immigration and refugee tariff, it’s approximately $7 million.

Steve Kooner: Involving the issue of extortion, can the Attorney General tell us how many foreign nationals that were charged with extortion crimes, applying for refugee status, applied for legal aid?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, I don’t have that data.

Steve Kooner: Now switching gears into a different topic, we’ll be switching into private property rights.

The first question is: how much has the ministry spent on defending the province in litigation arising from the Cowichan Tribes court decision so far?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Information regarding the cost of litigation is generally privileged and cannot be disclosed. If an exception is to be made, it can only be done after litigation is concluded, and any other privilege that attaches must be considered.

[5:05 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Does that privilege still apply to the actual trial that has already concluded?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It applies to any ongoing court matter, including that.

Steve Kooner: Is the minister able to tell us what the projected legal exposure or contingency reserve relating to litigation is, in general, related to land claims in this province?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There would be nothing in our budget that fits the description that the member asked about.

Steve Kooner: Has the Ministry of Attorney General allocated any funds for potential compensation claims from private property owners affected by land claims in this province?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think we were trying to figure out how to piece through that question, and at this stage, there are no claims from private property owners.

The other thing that I would say or draw the member’s attention to is a statement that was released today. It was a joint statement between the Quw’utsun and the province that talked about the negotiations that are underway and that there will be…. Both the province and the Quw’utsun, through their discussion processes, have made it clear that people’s private property is not part of those negotiations.

Steve Kooner: Going back to the previous question, I asked: what is the projected legal exposure or contingency reserve relating to the litigation involving land claims? I was told that at this time, there’s no allocation for that. Moving forward, is this forecasted in a subsequent budget? Is this in the forecast, to allocate something into the future?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s not how the budgeting would work, and I can’t speak for a future decision, for a future potential accrual of liability that doesn’t exist right now.

Steve Kooner: What budget has been set aside to provide legal clarity or support to private property owners impacted?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The Premier, I think, has been pretty public about saying that we would develop a program to help any impacted or potentially impacted landowners. That is being dealt with by the Ministry of Finance, so I think that would be the best place to ask those questions.

Steve Kooner: I represent the riding of Richmond-Queensborough, and in that riding is the affected area. The Premier had somebody knocking on doors in my riding. What was the cost for knocking on the doors and to have aid in my riding?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That was an expense that, I think, was through the Premier’s office, so that would be the place to ask that question.

Steve Kooner: Has the Ministry of Attorney General commissioned any sort of legal risk assessments or broader impacts to land title certainty in British Columbia?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think the member is asking for us to disclose legal advice or talk about legal advice. In any situation, in any category, no matter what the topic, that’s something that is under privilege, so I can’t answer that question.

Steve Kooner: Is the Attorney General able to provide us any elaboration on what the cost has been in terms of litigation of land claims in this province?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ve answered that question.

Steve Kooner: Through the Attorney General’s department, how many ministry lawyers are currently assigned to files connected to land claims litigation in this province?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The legal services branch has an Indigenous litigation team that has 17 lawyers. They handle any litigation, any lawsuits related to Indigenous people. That is out of a total of 330 lawyers.

Steve Kooner: What’s the rate of pay per hour for those lawyers on that team? What’s the range?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That litigation team doesn’t have billable hours. Their salaries are not based on a billing of hours, like in a law firm.

Steve Kooner: That might be in-house counsel. What about external counsel? In addition to the in-house counsel, does that team involve external counsel as well?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The rates that are paid for external counsel are privileged, just like other litigation costs that I mentioned before.

Just to clarify, on the LSB lawyers, they track their hourly rates, but their salary is not based on that.

Steve Kooner: In regards to the lawyers that are in-house, how much has been spent on the in-house lawyers in the last five years?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Same answer with this line of questioning — that litigation costs are privileged.

Steve Kooner: Has there been any increase in the land title office dispute litigation costs as a result of land claim litigation for the province?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just if we could ask for some clarity on that question. We’re having some trouble understanding the question.

Steve Kooner: I’m trying to keep the question a little general, because if I get more specific, then the answer would most likely be that it’s legally privileged. I’m trying to, rather than, say, talk about the Quw’utsun case in Richmond, talk about land claims in general.

I guess to make the question easier to understand, what we could probably do is say that in the last five years…. So if we look at the last five-year period and I ask the question again: has there been increase in land title office dispute litigation costs as a result of land claims in the last five years?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, I think we’re having a little bit of trouble understanding the land titles office resources and the relevance to the litigation costs. I’ll just say the reason that litigation costs are privileged is because it might reveal litigation strategies that were also part of the privileged conduct of any legal work. So maybe if the member could try one more time.

Steve Kooner: Is there any way for taxpayers to have some sort of accountability? The costs are actually pretty significant in terms of this type of litigation — say, for example, the Quw’utsun case or just general land claim litigation. There are a lot of people, taxpayers, that are interested to know how their money is being spent.

Is there any answer that can be provided to explain to taxpayers how much is being spent on litigation costs by the provincial government in regards to land claim litigation? We can probably, say, set the period for the last two years or five years.

[5:30 p.m. - 5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The member asked a good question about how the public can understand exactly what’s spent on legal services, in a way, so I just wanted to spend some time to break down the different ways that the public can have insight into expenses on legal services or litigation issues.

First of all, for the LSB budget, the legal services branch and that team of 330 lawyers, their salaries are public, so you can see the salaries and the amount there. The yearly budget for the legal services branch is about $51 million.

There’s an important component of this: the net of recovery. These are the ’25-26 numbers. The $51 million is a net of recoveries of $121 million. It’s a bill-back system from other ministries. Each ministry will have a line item that says how much they spent on legal services. That gives you an idea, from that ministry, of what was spent for legal services. That’s one way of doing it.

Public Accounts comes out at the end of August. In Public Accounts, it lists exactly where the public money went, related to…. If it was an external firm or a law firm, it would be listed there.

The other way that is, I think, an important mechanism of public accountability is the Crown Proceedings Act. Yearly, by the Crown Proceedings Act, a report is tabled, and it talks about the settlements that were in that year or whatever, to report them out. Those are just ways that the public can have a line of sight into the legal work of government.

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for that answer.

The next question I have here. Currently how many court-filed land claims are there in British Columbia?

Hon. Niki Sharma: As the question that has just been asked is not a budget question, we didn’t come prepared to answer that question. Obviously, it’s a question that would require research and work. Maybe MIRR would hold some of that information, but, as it’s not budget-related, we don’t have an answer.

[5:40 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: It is a budget question, because as soon as you have a land claim filed, it costs money through our court system. It’s imperative that that knowledge be shared so that we can figure out what the cost is. Every time there’s a land claim filed in court, it costs money. That was the angle that I was asking that question from.

Is it fair to say there’s no answer today in regard to that question?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think, just to be clear, it isn’t actually a budget item. People can file things in court, or there could be claims, but it actually doesn’t impact the budget or how we would budget in the future. There could be inactive claims. There could be….

I guess if we’re thinking about how we structure a budget for the Attorney General, how we would do it is in the ways that we talked about, including LSB resourcing, Crown resourcing, all of the resourcing of the system. That’s just to say that we don’t have an answer for that through this budget process.

Harman Bhangu: I was just wondering. Now, with the total claims, you must have an approximate average of what the cost has been for the amount of claims right now. I’m just trying to work out: what’s the average, approximately, for each one?

You can take the total amount of resources and budget that you’ve put into it and how many claims are going on and come up with an average. Could you maybe provide that information?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think we’ve now exhausted this conversation with the many questions that I’ve had. Litigation costs are privileged.

Also, in terms of the question, if I’m to understand it…. That we would do a budgeting process that adds up all the claims and averages them is just not how we would budget resources to our ministry.

I would just say that I think I’ve answered these questions already.

Interjection.

The Chair: Let me recognize you first, Member.

Proceed.

Harman Bhangu: Thank you, Chair.

What I was going to say is that it’s actually something that you can find out budgetarily, because you would know how many claims are going on and what the spend is on that. You can come up with an average and kind of give a number.

I know you might not have it on hand, but I would love to hear that maybe in writing, if you can get back to me on that, so we can get an idea of what’s been going on.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, I think I’ve answered this question. Litigation costs for each particular claim are privileged. It actually wouldn’t tell anything to get 330 lawyers…. The work that it would take to get all the litigation that government faces and figure out what the liabilities are for all of them and then average it out over time would tell you nothing about the state of our litigation.

Harman Bhangu: Has there been any kind of cost analysis? Just, say, the homes in Cowichan that are affected. If there was a situation where homeowners would lose their properties, has there been any kind of consultation, any kind of talk on what that would entail?

Would the homeowners…? When I talk to them directly on the ground, as my colleague has talked to them, they have a lot of concerns. They’ve paid property taxes, utility bills, upkeep on the farms and properties. Would that be included in some of the compensation?

Have there been any kinds of talks that have discussed this issue and that it could be resolved, maybe, in the future? Any money put aside that has been discussed, that could be a total cost?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think I mentioned — also, I answered this earlier — that we would only show up on any of the budget items if…. In a contemplation of that, if we have zero legal claims from private property landowners…. Legal claims is the only step in which it comes into my ministry.

What I would say is that the Premier and, I think, the Minister of Indigenous Relations have talked a lot about the work that we’re doing with the private property owners in the Cowichan area. There was somebody that would have been in the Premier’s office, which I mentioned, that went door to door to talk to the private property owners to understand any of the impacts.

Today there was a release, the joint statement from the Quw’utsun and the province, to talk about the work of the negotiation tables that we’re having and that private property is not on the table.

[5:45 p.m.]

There’s a lot of work going on, but right now we’re dealing with how we budget for the Ministry of the Attorney General, which is a different line of questioning.

I think I’ve answered all these questions at this point.

Steve Kooner: There are a lot of homeowners in Richmond, the affected area, that are concerned about the trial decision in the Quw’utsun case, because that decision actually provided a declaration of Aboriginal title on many homes located in Richmond. Now, as the Attorney General is mentioning, there have been some discussions in terms of negotiations with the Quw’utsun and the provincial government.

If there is a negotiated agreement reached, how would that deal with the Aboriginal title that’s currently declared in terms of the Quw’utsun trial decision?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think there will probably be other forums where I could talk through the legal situation and what the consequences are. Obviously, if you look at the decision, the court directed certain things. Also, we are appealing and seeking a stay in that decision.

I don’t think this is a budget question, Chair. I think this is a litigation strategy question, which I’m happy to answer, just not in this forum.

The Chair: Before I proceed, I would like to remind all members of the Committee of Supply that debate should be relevant to the current vote under consideration and should avoid repetitious lines of questions. We’ve given considerable latitude to the scope of debate to date. I would encourage members to ensure that these questions are relevant to the vote under consideration.

As Chair, it is my duty to intervene in the debate should I feel the committee has strayed from a relevant discussion or if the debate becomes repetitious in nature.

Steve Kooner: There are actual people that are very concerned about the budget, in Richmond, because they feel that their property values are being affected as a result of Aboriginal title on that. I don’t want to say hypotheticals, but there might be potential claims that might be brought forward, and that could affect the ministry’s budget.

It’s imperative to go back to look at: has the province looked at this? Is the province forecasting for the future a reserve to deal with this so we have it in the budget?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ve answered this already — about the process of how we allocate money in our budget and why it would or wouldn’t show up. I’ve talked about the litigation privilege in terms of the costs.

I’ve talked about asking the Ministry of Finance, because the loan guarantee and all those other programs wouldn’t be in this budget. It would be in other budgets.

I’ve talked about the comments that the Premier has made about supporting landowners and how we’re doing that.

So I think I’ve answered this question.

Steve Kooner: I’ll switch the questioning up a little bit so it’s more focused on budget.

Does the province have enough money to deal with these land claims that are coming up? Does the Ministry of Attorney General have enough money, in terms of the ministry’s perspective, looking forward?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Chair, I’m going to be honest. I’m having a real hard time, with my team, trying to figure out how to answer that question. It’s speculative and seems to, I think, misunderstand the understanding of liability and what we would do or think. I talked about the litigation costs.

I guess I would say if there’s another question that the member could ask that would be more answerable, then I’d be happy to do that.

Harman Bhangu: Well, there is a budget for the ministry yearly. Why this question by my colleague, I feel, is important…. There’s a certain amount of money that’s allocated to a ministry, and then you’re having more and more claims pop up. Does that ministry actually have the money allocated to deal with it? It is a fair question, because we’re seeing this more and more.

Just the other day more information has come out now. It is actually in the best interest of the public to know, with all the land claims going on throughout the province, if we do have the resources to deal with it as it comes in.

Steve Kooner: Let’s switch the gears a little bit here.

It was recently reported that there’s an agreement that the federal government had with the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm in regard to Aboriginal title. That announcement came out on Friday.

Did the Attorney General know about that agreement prior to the announcement that happened on Friday?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This was a question that came up in question period and came up again. I think that’s the right forum for it. I’m not sure how this question is budget related.

Steve Kooner: With all due respect, this has come up. We’re in estimates debate, and now there’s this agreement. The province is responsible for the land here, the property in this province. As a result of having this agreement, the province will also have to do something for British Columbians in regard to what the private property rights are in this province.

It will have a toll on the provincial budget. That’s why it’s relevant. This is a new development, and we’re talking in estimates debate about what we’re forecasting for 2026-2027. It’s a new development. The provincial government will have to get involved because it does involve private property or property here in British Columbia, and it’s the Attorney General’s department to deal with this subject matter.

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think the Premier said today, and the Minister of Indigenous Relations mentioned it, that we’re waiting to be briefed on the agreement. I would just say that it wouldn’t be my ministry.

Just to the member, as to how it was explained, if the question were relevant, it would be MIRR that would be the ministry responsible for those kind of agreements, or responding to it or understanding what the federal agreement was. It wouldn’t be my ministry.

The Chair: Members, questions must pertain to the estimates for the Ministry of Attorney General for the 2026 fiscal year. I ask that the questions pertain to these estimates as transmitted to the Legislative Assembly. It appears that the questioning may be better directed to another ministry, as the Attorney General has pointed out.

Steve Kooner: Through the Chair, all due respect.

Going back to this estimates debate with the Attorney General, the 2026-2027 budget, is the Attorney General saying there will be nothing allocated to deal with this new development of this xʷməθkʷəy̓əm agreement with the federal government in regard to property in this province?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I can tell the member how this shows up in our budget. We talked about the LSB, legal services branch. They have a budget of $51 million and its recoveries, I mentioned, of $121 million. If there are any ministries that have something that comes to their portfolio or attention where they need legal advice, then we have a team of lawyers that are ready to provide that legal advice to that ministry.

Again, the agreement between the federal government and the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm is not litigation; it’s an agreement. So the ministry that it would be most relevant to would be MIRR. If they need legal advice, then we have a team that’s budgeted for in our ministry to provide that legal advice.

Steve Kooner: Although this is an agreement with the federal government and the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, it does concern property in this province. This agreement, I believe, came into force back on February 20, so it’s a very new development.

On the other side, we’ve seen, in a lot of cases in this province, particularly in Richmond, that there are private landowners involved, and then they have issues with the provincial government.

This problem is going to need some money to deal with this issue. It’s important to know whether the province has money allocated to actually deal with this problem.

I will just ask that question once more.

The Chair: Member, that was asked and answered.

Steve Kooner: To change the line of questioning here, we’ve seen some issues related to section 8.1 of the Interpretation Act. It has had effects on laws. We’ve seen DRIPA have effects on laws and regulatory systems.

[6:00 p.m.]

My question now for the Attorney General: is there an amount of money set aside to deal with implications on our legal systems, as well as our regulatory systems and laws, if certain changes are having to be made as a result of, say, DRIPA or section 8.1 of the Interpretation Act? Is there money set aside to actually deal with these consequences?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think I answered this question previously. The legal services branch has a budget allocation. That’s a team of approximately 330 lawyers that are there to provide legal advice and a whole bunch of services that are related to issues that might come before government.

Steve Kooner: It seems like there’s no real money set aside to actually deal with these issues, which is a very significant issue. So I’ll go on to ask my next question.

We’ve discussed a little bit about what’s happening in Richmond and about the litigation. I was told that there’s litigation privilege and that nothing can be discussed in terms of costs that are being allocated to actually deal with the issue that’s happening in Richmond.

Is there anything else that the Attorney General can provide, specific to what’s happening with the Cowichan case in Richmond, that does not have litigation privilege in terms of costs? Is there any other information that the Attorney General can provide?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Chair, I think I’ve canvassed this item very thoroughly at this stage.

Steve Kooner: I’ll ask a specific question. The Premier a few months ago spoke about backstopping mortgages in Richmond. The number that was floated around was $150 million. There were subsequent reports by experts that said that the land value is actually about $1.4 billion in Richmond. To backstop $1.4 billion would be a mortgage equivalent of $1 billion. The people of Richmond are wondering what the difference was there in terms of the $150,000 and the $1 billion.

Is there anything else that the Attorney General’s office can provide as information to the people of Richmond so they can understand the budget and can understand what consequences they may see, as a result of this budget, that involve the Attorney General?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I want to assure any private land owners in the affected area that may be listening that the government — the Premier has announced it publicly — will be developing a loan guarantee program for those residents for any impact. I think I talked about it before.

[6:05 p.m.]

It would not show up in my budget as Attorney General. That’s why I have no numbers that would show it. It would be the Ministry of Finance, most likely. Those program details will be announced at some point.

Steve Kooner: The Attorney General’s department would be involved, I guess, because it’s a justice issue. It involves private property rights. That brings it into the realm of the Attorney General. It’s actually a fiscal issue as well. So it involves budget.

The concern with a lot of people living in Richmond is that $150 million doesn’t seem to be enough. It seems that the response that we’re getting is that it’s $150 million, and there’s nothing more there. That’s a little bit concerning. That’s one aspect that is important to touch upon.

The other aspect is that I have heard from people living in Richmond that some people have asked about this. They’ve asked about having access to this mortgage backstop, but it doesn’t seem to be activated yet. So that seems to be a concern with people living in Richmond that actually try to get access to this.

I bring up this concern again because it’s the Attorney General’s department that is dealing with that litigation and is dealing with the concerns of the affected Richmond residents. It is a financial issue, and it does involve budget.

So I’ll just ask one more question related to that. Is there anything that the Attorney General can provide further, other than saying that it’s going to be the Finance department that’s going to be dealing with this concern?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to the member’s comment, I would encourage any individuals that are reaching out to the member to connect with our government.

Connect with us in terms of what you’re experiencing or dealing with on the ground.

I would just offer to the member that if he is hearing these things from individuals, to provide their connection with us to understand what was happening on the ground.

I mentioned many times the legal steps we’re taking and also that the dealing of this in terms of the content would be a Ministry of Finance project.

Steve Kooner: I believe we’re hitting our limit of time, so I have no further questions for this estimates debate. Actually, that’s my part, but to my colleagues…. I believe there’s a segment on anti-racism and multiculturalism and ICBC, and those colleagues will be coming back to do their time. But as far as my time, it goes till 6:10, I believe.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Thank you to my critic for the questions and the time we spent on estimates and my team for supporting us through that.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

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

The committee rose at 6:09 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 2:34 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Infrastructure
(continued)

The Chair: Good morning, Members.

I call the Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Infrastructure.

On Vote 37: ministry operations, $420,514,000 (continued).

Misty Van Popta: I actually think we left the week, into the weekend, waiting for an answer, so I’ll sit back down.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Fortunately, the team does remember the question. Thank you very much.

The question was around pre-works on the Delta long-term-care project. Water and sewer have been brought to site and capped and are ready to support future development. There are no other obligations related to this.

Misty Van Popta: I drove by it. We’ve got cranes on site. We’ve got a whole trailer compound there. We’ve got ESC systems and detention tanks and detention ponds. I think there might’ve even been a wheel wash, but I was having a hard time getting access to see all of the works that are there. It’s a significant job site. We’re not talking just a couple of shrubs being removed here. This speaks to mobilization and demobilization costs if this project is going to be stopped. Obviously, there is a contract manager.

On this project, you could see “built by.” I’m not going to publicly recognize the contractor. Renderings of “long-term care” on all of the dust screens on the fencing, rendering the name of the facility, “built by X construction,” which does speak to the fact that somebody has obviously been engaged. There are at least seven trailers on site, bathroom trailers.

Could the minister please talk about which carrying costs will be applied to this project, moving forward, as it’s delayed, or will we be completely demobilizing and then remobilizing the site when the project’s approved?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I’m not sure about…. I don’t know if the member saw cranes on site. It may have been the compaction and the site-loading equipment, and that is work that we acknowledged last week had been underway. It’s work that would be required to support any future development.

We do understand that there will be costs associated with the deferral of this project. We’ll be working with Fraser Health to understand them in further detail beyond that.

Misty Van Popta: We’ve heard repeatedly from the Finance Minister and the Infrastructure Minister over the past weeks about a $1.8 million price tag on projects coming in. Will the minister please say which ones are listed as $1.8 million a bed? Were they tendered?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The member will know that we have publicly released the estimates for each of the deferred projects. Based on our conversation last week, they would have been reported based on class C estimates.

Over the last five years, the trend on all of our projects is that as the project costs are refreshed with class B and class A prices, the estimates go up, not down. Even among those class C projects that were publicly released, it shows that Hilltop long-term care replacement in Squamish and the project in Fort St. John both far exceeded $1.8 million per bed.

I can confirm that, for all of the deferred projects, the cost refreshes that have been coming back to government have far exceeded the publicly reported numbers.

Misty Van Popta: Did the minister tell Fraser Health that if they did not get their pricing down to some value which hasn’t been identified yet, all Fraser Health long-term-care projects would be stopped?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The Ministry of Infrastructure has staff members that form a part of the Fraser Health project board. The Fraser Health project board basically provides high-level oversight over all of the major capital projects being delivered by Fraser Health.

The three long-term-care projects within Fraser Health were brought up repeatedly at the Fraser Health project board, and extensive discussions were had about how the project costs were unsustainable for government and the cost per bed needed to come down.

Misty Van Popta: Understanding that value engineering has occurred, maybe not to the minister’s expectation, were they explicitly told that all of their projects would stop?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Those specific instructions would not have been delivered at the Fraser Health project board level because those decisions are the prerogative of government, released on budget day.

Misty Van Popta: Understanding that two of the projects are considered in the $1.8 million region, but the other, I believe, five have not been identified by the minister…. What I’ve been hearing is that Delta was closer in the $1.5 million range and could easily be modified to even less. Site preload actually started today and needs to sit there for around six months.

Will the minister commit to getting a new design done in that time and then fund the project in the 2026 budget year, so that no time is lost on that project?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Those kinds of decisions are the prerogative of government and would be released with Budget 2027.

Misty Van Popta: If they could easily modify the design to have it come in when we’ve already, according to page 68, funded long-term care in the $1.6 million range and the $1.3 million range…. Delta is estimated to come in in between those two numbers and is still being denied being built, even though you’ve committed to other projects being built higher than that.

So what I want to know is: in the six months that this soil is being compacted, if a design could be come up with that would be more amenable to the government, would you carry on and start construction in 2026?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: As I said…. I won’t repeat my response from the previous attempt at the question because it clearly wasn’t helpful for the member.

It is not possible for me to speculate about the future budgetary decisions of government based on a hypothetical scenario. What we will be doing is that we will be working with Fraser Health and all other health authorities to drive down the per-bed cost of long-term-care facilities, and we will be doing this by exploring a number of approaches, including standardized designs as well as modular construction technologies.

As the member has already noted, the private sector is capable of delivering beds at a significantly lower cost than our health authorities have been in recent years, so we believe that there is a lot of room for us to be able to improve on the per-bed costs at this point.

Misty Van Popta: I’ve heard a few times the analogy that there are only two paths forward. One is that we stop and re-evaluate and standardize and bring our costs down, and the other is just to barrel ahead.

But I actually believe that there’s a third path, and the third path is that you can’t stop projects this far gone. Some of them you have to just let through.

[2:55 p.m.]

The one in Delta is not in the $1.8 million. To use that as a point, almost as an excuse, to not move forward is unacceptable to this community; $18 million of private donor funds have been raised for this project. Naming rights have gone out. Everything. The community is literally watching what they thought was happening, underway right now. It was a long-term-care project, being promised from 2023, coming out of the ground right now.

I think that the path forward is a third option. Yes, we standardize. Yes, the ministry comes back and figures out how to build things less and closer to the non-profit private sector. But that doesn’t mean that we create a lag in the system. We have to still keep moving forward with some of the projects. You can’t stop them all, because that is unfair to the seniors that are waiting for beds now.

Going on to the Abbotsford project. It’s had a construction manager in place since the spring of 2024 — that’s two years — and has spent $25 million already. How much will be spent on contract penalties, demob, remobilization of the site when it’s ready, or will there be monthly recurring costs associated to this site while it’s inactive as well?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: To be clear, we are not stopping or deferring all long-term-care projects. Six additional long-term-care projects will continue to be underway.

To the member’s question regarding the Abbotsford project, we understand that there will be costs associated with the deferral of this project, and we will be working with Fraser Health to understand them in further detail.

Misty Van Popta: If we’ve identified that there will be costs associated to having an inactive site for however long it takes, we have not even guaranteed that it will start up in the 2027 budget.

We all know, and we’ve admitted here, and the minister herself has admitted here, that construction costs are not going down. So what’s to say that value-engineering these projects is going to not be eaten up by the amount of costs being associated with running a site for this long in that absence of construction?

If you need me to rephrase that, let me know.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The member is correct that there have been enormous cost escalations in the construction market, particularly between 2020 and 2024, or 2019 to 2024.

That being said, over the last year or so, we’ve seen substantial moderation in construction costs, with bids coming back lower than they previously were. This moderation in the construction market is giving us the time and the space to do the work that we need to do.

Misty Van Popta: Actually, my research has shown that it has stabilized since 2023, which means that a lot of the pricing that we’re seeing could be actually used to our advantage in that it’s stabilized now.

Given the urgency of the long-term-care program and the lag in delivery that this stoppage will create further on down the line, has the minister funded any more projects to get into the design phase — say, for instance, Langley, which was announced as a project in 2024 — given that we can’t see expenditures under $50 million?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: No.

Misty Van Popta: Can I ask why we haven’t started just the next phase to allow design to happen during this time of stoppage? It’s so that when these six projects get reactivated, we’re not starting from scratch with other long-term care just coming online with design at that point. It’s so that there’s a continuous cycle of projects that are approved, projects that are in design.

With this stoppage, and not having other ones just at least go to the design phase so that that work is happening in tandem, lessening the amount of lag that’s created in a few years from now….

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Our intention around pausing these long-term-care projects is so that we can approach them differently, including through the use of standardized design. Approving new projects to proceed to design on their own outside of this process is not technically more fiscally responsible.

Misty Van Popta: Could the minister please tell us when the standardization process will be complete?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The work is already underway.

Misty Van Popta: Through the Chair, is that saying that you don’t have a completed date for this work? What if it goes into 2027? Does that mean that those six projects are still going to be delayed again because there’s no standardization in place?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We know that we need to involve our partners, including health authorities who have just learned about government’s decision on these projects a couple of weeks ago. Part of our work, our next steps, is to work with health authorities and work with our partners to set out an achievable timeline for the development of standardized designs.

It is also important to note that standardization and that work is only part of the puzzle. The other piece of the puzzle is the province’s fiscal situation.

Misty Van Popta: My understanding from Thursday is that it was recognized in well beyond 2024 that we had a cost escalation problem, which is part of the justification for creating the Infrastructure Ministry. Now I’m hearing that you’re only just starting the standardization process now without a commitment….

The Chair: I’m sorry. Can I ask you to make sure that you’re directing your comments and questions through the Chair?

Misty Van Popta: Sorry. Through the Chair to the minister, now I’m hearing that this work is only just starting, which doesn’t give seniors in this province a lot of hope that there are going to be any new facilities opened anytime soon. And there’s no guarantee that this minister is willing to put on record that this standardization process will be completed within the 2026 calendar year so that projects get reactivated in the 2027 budget. That is a huge problem.

I would like to understand, of the current…. With the stoppage of the 1,200 beds, how many net new beds are currently funded for construction, net new?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: To correct, for the record, work has been underway on reducing the costs for long-term-care projects since the beginning of the ministry. We’ve been working with health authorities to reduce cost per bed of long-term-care projects since we were created.

We’ve also been conducting a fulsome analysis and cross-jurisdictional review to better understand how our projects compare with projects delivered across the country, to better understand how we can deliver more efficiently.

Now, this work has led to some successes, including the projects in Lantzville and Western Communities, which are among those projects that are now proceeding. For other projects where those efforts were not successful, a new approach is required, which is what is currently underway.

Over the last year, 699 net new health authority–owned and –operated beds have been approved to proceed to construction. This number does not include all of the net new beds that are created through funding from the Ministry of Health in the for-profit and not-for-profit sector.

Long-term-care beds are produced through three avenues, effectively, or two categories. One is direct construction by health authority. Those are on health authority land. They’re owned and operated by health authorities. There are also those long-term-care beds that are delivered through operational funding agreements, through the Ministry of Health, with the private sector.

[3:15 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: Has the Richmond long-term-care project gone to tender?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: There is a construction manager in place.

Misty Van Popta: That is not admitting that the project has gone to tender.

I’m going to assume that the $178 million price tag in this year’s budget is actually not the true cost. When was it identified? If this project is moving ahead, you would’ve done the analysis of the estimate, so if you’re going to proceed, why has this number not been adjusted in this year’s budget?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The project has not been approved to proceed to construction at this time.

Misty Van Popta: I’m going to take that note that we’re expecting a price adjustment in the 2027 budget, then, which is interesting because other projects also would’ve had to have had a price adjustment yet were cancelled or delayed indefinitely.

In the past 15 months, has the minister established a targeted year-over-year capital plan to ensure that the 7,000-bed deficit by 2030 doesn’t grow wider with this stoppage?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: To correct the record and for greater clarity, project price adjustments are released within 30 days of approval, through the $50 million table. We don’t wait for the next budget to update those tables. By law, we are required to release updates within 30 days of approval by government.

To the member’s question, that is a decision of government and a question best directed at the Minister of Finance.

Misty Van Popta: Well, I can give other examples in the budget where it identifies…. I believe it is on the Massey Tunnel project where it identifies that a price adjustment is forthcoming. So I would expect, if this project is going to be funded, that it should also be identified that price adjustment would be forthcoming.

[3:20 p.m.]

Moving on. The Kelowna Cottonwoods replacement will only net 13 new beds. Will this delay ensure more beds for Kelowna?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I cannot at this time presuppose the outcome of the work ahead.

Misty Van Popta: I know we’re all pulling a lot of hours here. Did I ask about, in the past 15 months, if the minister has established a targeted, year-over-year capital plan to ensure the 7,000-bed deficit by 2030 doesn’t grow wider?

The Chair: Yes.

Misty Van Popta: Okay, sorry. I did ask that, but I don’t recall getting an answer because it looped back to when the funding happens within 30 days. So I’d like to re-ask that question, please.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I had responded that that is a decision of government and a question best directed to the Minister of Finance.

Misty Van Popta: So does the Infrastructure Ministry not do planning for infrastructure projects in this province, now that it has been created to do such things? Does the work of how we are going to attain 7,000 beds by 2030 not fall within the Infrastructure Ministry but to the Finance Minister?

I would think that a plan would be created by the Infrastructure Ministry on how to attain that. Whether the Finance Ministry takes those recommendations is a separate conversation that we can have, but clearly the work of the Infrastructure Ministry should be to plan out how capital infrastructure is built in this province.

So I would like to loop back to that. Is the minister admitting that there is no plan that will identify how to meet the 2030 target?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Perhaps it would help if the member restated her question or rephrased it.

My understanding of her previous question was that she was asking about the size of the capital plan. The Ministry of Infrastructure does not in itself on its own set the size of the government’s capital plan. That is a collective decision of government, and the Ministry of Infrastructure is not the only capital ministry. That’s what I’m saying.

[3:25 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: Okay, let me rephrase it then.

What I’m trying to get at is: have we looked at the long-term-care program within the Infrastructure Ministry to try and understand what would need to be built per year in order to achieve the 2030 target?

Whether it gets funded is a different conversation, I understand, but clearly there needs to be a plan identified on how to achieve building the 7,000-bed deficit by 2030. So I’m asking the minister if a plan has been worked on, some sort of work plan, some sort of long-term-care capital plan. Maybe not using that phrase within the terms of how the government looks at it, being worded under the Finance Ministry, but what is the plan for long-term care in order to achieve the 7,000-bed deficit by 2030?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Yes, that work has been underway, and we’ve talked about some of that work that’s been done over the last 15 months in my response to previous questions.

Misty Van Popta: Will the minister, for the record, please identify or at least email me a copy of what the projected bed per year would be or the plan to achieve those 7,000 beds by 2030?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Every year the Ministry of Infrastructure works with health authorities on their priorities across all of their health care capital needs, from hospitals to urgent care, ER upgrades or long-term care. We work with them on an annual basis to understand those priorities, as we do with other sectors — school districts on their capital requests, post-secondary institutions on their capital requests, and other core government projects. All of those capital requests are then prioritized across government and across the province.

On an annual basis, this plan is approved by government and then released through the budget process on budget day. That is what can be made publicly available.

Misty Van Popta: I surmise that maybe that is the challenge that we are identifying in inconsistent equitable access to long-term care in certain regions — that we’re not looking holistically across the province at our long-term care. We’re looking at it region by region, which almost is lobbying of certain health authorities over others, on who’s going to get more attention. I would like to acknowledge that perhaps we should target the 7,000 beds that will be in deficit by 2030 and come up with a more cohesive plan.

I’m going to move on to one final question, depending on the answer. I assume that the minister has spoken with the fine folks at B.C. Care Providers at some point. Lots of talk has happened over the last couple of days about the work and the advocacy that they’ve done, and they’ve provided us all with a lot of information.

I would like to pull one of the concepts that they have, which is a year-round RFP process that would allow for innovation, enable faster responses to emerging demand, and better align capital investment with real-time community needs. I’d like to ask the minister: will she commit to explore a more balanced RFP model and to utilize the capacity of the affiliate and non-profit care sector to accelerate delivery?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Yes, the Ministry of Infrastructure has met with the B.C. Care Providers, and our staff have ongoing conversations with them.

To the member’s specific question, those RFP processes would be funded through operating dollars provided through the Ministry of Health. So that would be a question for the Minister of Health.

Misty Van Popta: To the minister, I’m moving on to schools. I don’t know if you want to switch teams. Do you want to take a five-minute recess while you switch teams?

The Chair: All right. We will take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:37 p.m. to 3:44 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section C, back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Infrastructure.

Misty Van Popta: Moving on to schools. I know we talked and canvassed a lot last year about schools, so I’m going to be a little bit more pointed in my questions this year.

[3:45 p.m.]

I’ve been doing some analysis, and currently Cedar Hill, Montgomery Middle School and Smith middle school are ranging from $94,000 a seat to $145,000 a seat.

Langley has recently almost finished an independent school called Langley Christian School. A brand-new school, a brand-new middle school specifically, so it’s a good comparison to the other three projects that I’ve just listed. Their costs are $64,000 a seat for a fully tendered, comparable school to ones that the province is currently building.

Could the minister confirm that school costs have also gotten away from this government and indicate what the Infrastructure Ministry has done in the past 15 months to bring down the cost of schools?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I am not able to comment on the private school project that the member raised because I don’t know anything about the project or any of the conditions that regularly cause variation in construction costs for projects, like geotechnical conditions. I have no idea what the soil conditions are. I have no idea what the land costs, no idea of any environmental conditions that might have existed on that site. These are conditions that regularly cause variation amongst our school projects as well.

Decanting requirements. A lot of our school projects are on existing land sites or existing school sites where students are already studying, and costs may be incurred in order to decant students from one place to another in order to make the project work.

Municipal requirements can vary amongst projects. For instance, if a school triggers a sewer upgrade. Different sites may require that. Different sites might have different traffic- and transportation-related changes required.

Our projects also incorporate an analysis around GHG reduction, as well as the incorporation of child care on site, neighbourhood learning centres. A lot of private projects will not. I have no idea about what the site access requirements for this private school project are or the classroom sizes, so there’s lots of variation.

I’ll also note that the cost per seat or cost per classroom that the member will see in the disclosure table will be inclusive of contingencies and reserves, and assume often that the entire contingency and reserve is used up, but many of our projects don’t actually fully use those reserves.

Our costs for school projects are primarily driven by area standards, but I will say that the member is right that costs have been going up, generally, over the years, primarily driven by market forces. Similar to other sectors, that period between 2019 or 2020, in particular in 2023-24, we saw an enormous escalation in cost escalations driven by market conditions. However, over the last year or so, we have seen that moderate significantly.

[3:55 p.m.]

In terms of how we have been trying to manage costs within the K-to-12 school sector, we implemented simplified design standards and standardized design guidelines. They exist to help ensure high-quality learning spaces while also keeping costs down. We also encourage school districts to use repeat designs. Langley school district is an excellent example of this.

We’ve been utilizing modular and prefabricated construction technology. We’ve delivered, so far, 318 modular classroom additions using this approach. Ministry staff also review all design drawings to identify opportunities for cost efficiency. If a particular school district is proposing a school with very elaborate glazing designs, for instance, we will intervene and correct course.

Misty Van Popta: We just spent a significant amount of time on the long-term-care file, talking about the rise in construction costs, which would equally affect the non-profit sector and the public sector. We identified, earlier in the conversations, that the only real difference would be regulatory differences.

We can’t say institutional costs on the private sector are cheaper for long-term care and not apply that same logic to schools. The private sector, the non-profit sector would be in the same position to deliver infrastructure considerably cheaper than the province, which is why you can see, regardless of variations, we’re talking a huge span, between $64,000 a seat and $145,000 a seat.

Now, I’ve toured this school. It is the second school on the same location of the property. Kids were still having to be educated on site. Again, we have standards for education for independent schools to get their Dogwood certificate. So this isn’t going to be a school that’s arguably any less standard of quality than what we have that’s provincially funded.

I have a hard time understanding that we identify the non-profit sector can build long-term care cheaper and not then also admit that non-profit educational systems can also build infrastructure cheaper.

Where I’m going with that is that it seems to have been acceptable to stop long-term-care projects while we find efficiencies in our costing and standardize the process. We don’t know how long standardization is going to even take. Yet when it comes to schools, we’re still barrelling ahead with really expensive schools and looking at them on a case-by-case basis.

We had the opportunity to do that also with long-term care — look at them on a case-by-case basis instead of just taking a brush and stopping all of those projects. We could’ve just said: “Peel this back. Peel this back, let’s get the pricing down.” We’ve afforded schools to have that opportunity to peel back, to bring the cost down, yet we didn’t do it with the long-term-care sector. That makes me wonder why seniors have been targeted with stopped projects, but we’re still building exceptionally more expensive schools and still going ahead with that program.

That speaks to the fact that education and schools are important. We have to keep building them while we get the costs down. But why are we not doing that in the long-term-care sector? Why are we not still building — finding efficiencies and getting it better now, but still moving ahead? We cannot stop building for seniors, neither can we stop building for students. Yet we’ve allowed it in one sector and not in the other.

I would like the minister to please address if she plans on halting school delivery because the construction costs are too high.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: When it comes to the delivery of new seats in K-to-12 schools, we typically see costs range between $70,000 to $150,000 per seat. If the construction cost estimates that we were receiving for schools were coming back at upwards of $1.8 million per seat, the way that we are seeing in the long-term-care sector, we would also likely be putting a pause on schools to re-evaluate how we are delivering those.

Misty Van Popta: That just means that you’ve allowed for a larger envelope of cost escalation to schools than you have to long-term care.

Schools have been long funded and exceptionally expensive. The designs have gotten out of control, which you’ve identified, in terms of some of the features on some of these schools. I think that was one of our first or second questions at the very beginning.

It would appear that in the school portfolio, we’ve just allowed for a larger spread in the cost per seat. The $70,000, I’m going to assume, is maybe on the elementary side. I’m just using comparatives to recently completed middle school projects. The lowest was $94,000 a seat. Again, not trying to rein in those costs, when the private non-profit sector is delivering seats exceptionally cheaper, doesn’t speak to trying to be more efficient with the taxpayers’ dollars.

You’ve got a really wide range. Why are we not bringing down that ceiling? Simultaneously you’ve admitted that you’re going case by case, looking at schools to see if there are things that you can peel back.

The Chair: Sorry, I really have to remind the member that you have to not use pronouns when referring to the minister or not.

Misty Van Popta: Okay. Thank you. Yes.

The Chair: Thank you.

Misty Van Popta: The minister has identified that when a school district presents a school that’s got fancy features or exceptionally expensive glazing, those projects are being asked to be kind of value-engineered, if you will. But I still surmise that that opportunity was lost in the long-term-care sector, that projects were being looked at…. If I look at the Delta, I could just see the design and see that if we take off that piece, we’ve saved $10 million.

I just want it on record that there seems to be a disparity between how we’ve treated seniors and how we’re treating students — both equally important in our province and that deserve new schools, deserve long-term care, but only one is being penalized for cost escalations.

I’m going to move on to Rutland Middle School, which last year the estimates notes noted was a priority. Whether it’s an addition or a replacement has well been documented on the school district’s long-term plan since at least 2021, noting a target date of 2025. I know this question was canvassed quite a bit last year, so I’d like an update on where that school is now, and when they can plan for a school.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I want to restate for the member, in regards to her comments regarding long-term-care projects, that extensive efforts were made to work with health authorities to try to reduce per-bed costs. There were some successes that led to projects moving ahead, but in many other projects, those efforts were not successful. Government had to make the difficult decision to take a different approach, and that was the decision that was released as part of Budget 2026.

In regards to Rutland Middle School and the current status of that project, the school district continues to identify it as their top priority, but the request is for an addition and renovation of the existing Rutland Middle School project, and we will continue to work with them on that.

Misty Van Popta: That’s what I’ve identified as well in the commentary. It is a priority, and it was a priority for this government last year as identified in the estimates notes. The question is: where is it now? I’m going to presume that it’s still waiting as the top priority for the school district, year after year.

It’s becoming unacceptable that some of these replacement schools and really aging schools, which I’m going to touch on a little bit later, are being left out in the dust here.

Sooke and Langley have comparable growth rates. Sooke only has 53 portables, yet Langley has over 150 portables. Sooke and Langley are both getting new middle and high schools, so recent announcements kind of negate the current investments into each community.

[4:10 p.m.]

Could the minister please justify the inequity between different school districts, not just Sooke and Langley but as a general approach? How does the ministry prioritize who gets funding and who doesn’t?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: On an annual basis, the Ministry of Infrastructure receives what previously, since we’ve only existed 15 months, would have gone to the Ministry of Education. Government receives annual capital plans from every single school district across the province. They are assessed against enrolment pressures, growth and other projections and need, and so forth. Then they’re assessed across the province, and government makes their decisions that way.

The member referenced, for instance, Sooke and Langley both being very fast-growing communities, similar growth rates.

In Sooke, we have invested so far $515 million to create 4,600 new seats and 50 seismically safe seats.

In Langley, we have invested so far about $600 million to create 4,985 new seats and 1,500 seismically safe seats, so very similar investments into two communities that are experiencing similar growth pressures.

[4:15 p.m.]

To the member’s comments about the Central Okanagan school district, I should also note that substantial investments have been made into that school district since 2017 as well. Government has approved over $400 million and purchased two sites to construct four new schools and five additions to create 4,395 new student seats. So a significant amount of work has been done in that school district as well, and more to do.

Misty Van Popta: Understanding that there has been equal investment, one of those school districts, between Sooke and Langley, is further behind. It’s great that Sooke is seeing a good investment, but Langley is way further behind. It speaks to the need to build even more. Same with the Central Okanagan area.

I’m going to move on to Surrey. Surrey had only one business case, an addition approved by the treasury — Clayton. Why did Kwantlen Park and Forsyth Road and centre city, which were already in design development, get bypassed?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Perhaps the member could rephrase her question? I’m not sure what she means by “bypassed.” Those projects are currently in design development.

Misty Van Popta: They were in design development last year as well, if I look at the 2025 estimate notes. I’m wondering why they didn’t get moved ahead and only Clayton was approved by the treasury.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: It may benefit members that…. I think the member may be a little bit…. I’m trying to find a word that isn’t “confused.”

For greater clarity, Clayton Heights Secondary recently received business case approval to move into design development. Fleetwood Park and Forsyth Road Elementary were previously approved to move into design development. Their next stage is actually construction, so they’re ahead of Clayton Heights.

Misty Van Popta: That’s correct. That’s what I was understanding as well, but it doesn’t look like those three schools have moved to the next stage in this year’s budget. They’re still in design development, which is where they were last year.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: For greater clarity, the budget holds the funding to deliver these projects, and the time at which those projects will move into construction is when their design development is complete. The school district has not completed the design development on those projects yet.

Misty Van Popta: How long does design development take?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The timelines for design development are project-dependent, but that work is led by the school district.

Misty Van Popta: So if I look at last year’s fiscal plan and this year’s, I’m only seeing one new school for Surrey identified. Could the minister confirm that?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Since 2017, government has approved about $1 billion in capital infrastructure investments to Surrey to deliver almost 16,500 new seats, as well as over 4,200 seismically safe seats and six site acquisitions for future schools. And 37 of these projects are now complete and open.

The district currently has 11 projects underway, including three projects in design and eight under construction, which will deliver 5,040 new seats, and more work underway.

Misty Van Popta: The question was…. I’ve only identified one new project in this year’s budget. Given that we’ve created a brand-new parliamentary secretary position for Surrey infrastructure specifically, would one new school being announced in this budget be adequate to fulfil a role like that and to fulfil the advocacy that he’s supposed to be doing on behalf of Surrey’s infrastructure?

[4:25 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.]

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The Parliamentary Secretary for Surrey Infrastructure is an incredibly strong advocate for the community of Surrey. His work for the community of Surrey is not limited to his time as parliamentary secretary. It extends back to when he was first elected, in 2017, as MLA for Surrey-Guildford. In that time, our government has made record investments into infrastructure in Surrey, in large part due to his advocacy.

[4:35 p.m.]

These investments include a new school at Salish Secondary. An expansion at Woodward Hill Elementary School. An expansion at Panorama Park Elementary School. A new school at Maddaugh Elementary. An expansion at Sullivan Elementary School. A new school at Grandview Heights Secondary. A new school at Regent Road Elementary.

A site acquisition for the Sunnyside area elementary. A site acquisition for the South Newton area elementary. A site acquisition for the Redwoods Heights area elementary school. A site acquisition for the Darts Hill elementary school. A site acquisition for the Anniedale/Tynehead elementary site. A site acquisition for a second Grandview secondary school.

A seismic upgrade at Mary Jane Shannon Elementary School. A seismic upgrade at Bear Creek Elementary School. A seismic upgrade at Queen Elizabeth Secondary School. A seismic upgrade at Prince Charles Elementary School. A seismic upgrade at Holly Elementary School. A seismic upgrade at George Greenaway Elementary School.

An expansion to the Pacific Heights Elementary School. A new school at Edgewood Elementary School. A new school at Douglas Elementary School. An expansion at Coyote Creek Elementary. An expansion at Frost Road Elementary. An expansion at Sullivan Heights Secondary. An expansion at Sunnyside Elementary. A new school, Ta’talu Elementary School.

An expansion at White Rock Elementary. An expansion at K.B. Woodward Elementary. An expansion at Morgan Elementary. An expansion at Lena Shaw Elementary School. An expansion at Walnut Road Elementary. An expansion at Semiahmoo Trail Elementary. An expansion at South Meridian Elementary School. An expansion at Woodland Park Elementary School. A renovation to Theresa Clarke Elementary School. A new school known as Snokomish Elementary.

An expansion currently underway at Martha Currie Elementary. Another expansion currently underway at Old Yale Elementary. An expansion currently underway at Latimer Road Elementary. An expansion currently underway at William Watson Elementary. An expansion currently underway at George Greenaway Elementary. An expansion currently underway at Kwantlen Park Secondary School. An expansion currently underway at Guildford Park Secondary School. An expansion currently underway at Tamanawis Secondary School.

And of course, the projects we noted earlier that are under design and development: Fleetwood Park Secondary, Forsyth Road Elementary, Clayton Heights Secondary.

We have the commitment that we made or the work underway on the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain project, the Pattullo Bridge replacement project.

We have the first student housing project ever in Surrey at KPU, Kwantlen Polytechnic University. The new SFU medical school, the first medical school in western Canada in nearly 60 years.

We have, thanks to his advocacy and the advocacy of other MLAs serving in Surrey, completed or added a mobile MRI to Surrey’s health care system. We’ve upgraded operating rooms. We’ve upgraded the pediatric emergency waiting room. We’ve provided upgrades to the maternity and NICU health care facilities.

We have still projects underway actively. Of course, there’s a new Surrey hospital and B.C. cancer centre that is still under construction. A hemodialysis renal unit that is under construction at the Surrey Memorial Hospital. A cardiac and CT scanner project at the Surrey Memorial Hospital. MRI department improvements — a chiller, coolers and expansions. We have a new renal hemodialysis building, an MRI expansion at the Surrey Memorial Hospital, two new cardiac catheterization suites, two new interventional radiology suites and many more.

[4:40 p.m.]

I think I’ve gone on long enough here. An enormous amount of capital investment into the community of Surrey, thanks, in large part, to the advocacy of the MLA for Surrey-Guildford, who is now serving as the Parliamentary Secretary for Surrey Infrastructure.

Misty Van Popta: Perhaps there was a miscommunication. I was never questioning the advocacy of the new parliamentary secretary. Most of what just happened in the past ten minutes was talking about work that he did outside of that seat. My question had nothing to do with the work and the advocacy that he has done on behalf of his community. My question has to be about the fact that last year’s fiscal plan and this year’s fiscal plan only have a one-school difference.

It’s easy to take this white book versus this blue book and see that there’s only one new school listed in it. So my point is that much of what you just went on about for the last ten minutes were projects previously invested in Surrey. This isn’t about what this government has invested into Surrey on every single platform and portfolio. I’m talking about a brand-new school, a community that clearly has a lot of needs.

There is only one difference between last year’s book and this year’s book, and that’s all I was confirming.

I have one last question on schools before we dismiss to a break — actually, sorry, two. One’s really quick. Could the minister please email me a list of all the schools with seismic ratings of H2 and H1?

The Chair: Member has a point of order?

Misty Van Popta: Yes, thank you. I’m just asking a yes or no question on if I can get an email with information in it.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: It’s on our website, and we’ll provide you with the link.

Misty Van Popta: Last year we canvassed a lot of conversation and talked a lot about Cedar Elementary School. There was a lot of conversation that it was bumped due to the gym fire at Carihi Secondary.

Cedar’s hallways are six feet wide. I’ve toured this school. It’s a school that runs its food program from a gym change room, and the only handicapped bathroom is behind a plastic accordion door in a storage room. Yet again, the school is not on the list, and I was wondering when this government is going to commit to replacing it.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Any further expansions to the capital plan would be a future decision of government released through a future budget.

The Chair: Member, do you have any further questions?

Misty Van Popta: You had indicated that you wanted to take a recess.

The Chair: Yes. The committee will now take a ten-minute recess, and we will come back at 4:52. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 4:45 p.m. to 4:54 p.m.

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section C, back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Infrastructure.

Misty Van Popta: The East Kootenay oncology has been reported as $59 million, with a completion date of 2028. How is this project price going to be guaranteed if it hasn’t yet started, and is it under contract?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Yes. The $59 million price tag or project cost for the East Kootenay Regional Hospital oncology and renal expansion project is the currently approved project value. It was also what we had announced on January 13, 2025, when we were sharing the news that the project was approved and ready to go.

We then received a request from the East Kootenay regional hospital district to pull the project back and rescope it for a third floor. So that project did not go ahead to tender as originally planned. I understand that Interior Health has recently presented a revised project budget to the regional hospital district.

Misty Van Popta: So can we expect a price adjustment in next year’s budget?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: A price adjustment on the project would be released publicly within 30 days of government approval of a new budget.

Misty Van Popta: Not bolded in this year’s fiscal plan are two projects with significant price differences, one being Royal Inland Hospital tower. Direct procurement — it rose by $53 million. On the P3, budget was the budget, but on the direct procurement, the price went up. Could the minister please account for the cost overrun?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I was hoping the member might be able to restate her question. She mentioned something about a P3 and maybe a direct-award contract. I perhaps misheard or misunderstood.

The Chair: Member, would you please repeat the question?

Misty Van Popta: For the Royal Inland Hospital’s Phil and Jennie Gaglardi Tower, there is a direct-procurement line item and a P3 contract line item. Only one of the line items has a cost increase, and that’s the direct procurement.

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I think I have what the member is looking at on page 62 of this document.

What this table is showing is the estimated cost to complete. It’s a cash flow ledger. The P3 contract relates to phase 1 of the project, which, as you’ll see in the table, was completed in 2022. It shows that the project cost to December 31, 2025, is $288 million, and the estimated cost to complete is nil because it was completed back in 2022.

The direct-procurement line refers to phase 2 of the project, which is not going to be complete until year 2027. What this table is showing is that the project cost to December 31, 2025, what has been expended so far, is $143 million, and there is $59 million remaining in the project. But the total anticipated cost of that line item, $202 million, has not changed between Budget 2025 to ’26, as far as we know.

The member is looking at me funny. Maybe we can have the document passed over, and we can try to figure out what’s going on.

Member, thank you so much for providing this. I think we figured out what’s going on.

The price refresh would have occurred in Q4 of fiscal year ’24-25. Because of a lag in reporting or availability of that price refresh for the purposes of developing Budget 2025, it showed up in 2025, as opposed to an update of Budget 2024. I apologize.

The reason why we said there hasn’t been a change is because we were measuring from different timelines, but the budgets are a little bit lagged sometimes. That price refresh would have happened in the previous year’s budget, the materials for which we do not have currently available because we prepare primarily for the difference between ’25 and ’26. If the member will allow, we’ll follow up with the response in writing.

[5:10 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: Another project that wasn’t bolded is St. Paul’s clinical support and research centre. It has risen by $152 million in one year. Again, could the minister please account for this cost overrun?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The change in budget represents the difference between the class B and the class C estimate. Previously, it was based on a class C estimate. It was refreshed based on the class B estimate, and the difference is shown.

I’ll also share something that I just learned as well, in terms of the bolding in the documents. The bolding is based on changes in comparison to the last quarterly update as opposed to the last full fiscal year. That might help explain why some items are bolded and not. It’s because they’re comparing with the last quarterly update, not one year ago.

Misty Van Popta: Thanks for that explanation. Actually, that’s good information to have for next year’s estimates. Take a little bit. Don’t just look at the bold items.

We’re still having a bit of discrepancy on time remaining, so I’m going to just skip around a bit here.

Royal Columbian got pushed out three years for a new completion date of 2029. The budget also increased by $615 million. The cost to date between 2024 and 2025 is $977 million, which is…. Sorry. I’m really fried. The difference between last year’s cost to date and this year’s cost to date is a difference of about $200 million, so a three-year extension has added approximately $200 million a year to the cost of the project.

Time really is money. What is this government doing to mitigate these types of extreme delays and the cost associated with them?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: In this case, the member has asked about the Royal Columbian Hospital redevelopment project. The additional budget increase is not due to cost escalations or delay. I’ll walk through it, because it’s a bit of a complicated project.

This project is so massive that it was apparent to government that it would take many, many years to actually deliver the full expected scope of the project, well over ten years. So in order to chunk up the project into deliverable projects, the government broke out the scope of works into multiple phases.

Now, the way that our reporting mechanisms work, based on legislation, is that every time we increase the budget to a project, we must report out within 30 days on the $50-million-plus table. In this case, the budget increases every time we approve the next phase of work. So the numbers that the member read out, amounting to a difference of about $200 million…. In the table, that’s actually the additional spend over the last year.

The actual budget increase that the table shows is about $615 million, and all of that represents the approval of an additional scope of work. So an additional phase of work for this project has now been properly approved to proceed to construction.

Misty Van Popta: Isn’t that how all projects work, though? Would you not have to declare the estimation on all the phases of the project? The budget envelope should include the total anticipated cost, should have all the phases.

Right now we’re seeing an increase to the anticipated. So I don’t quite understand how this project is different than other projects.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: In the case of this project, each phase was set out to be a distinct scope of work that could exist in and of itself as an independent project. Government knew that because the project was so complicated and would take so many years, extending well beyond the three-year or five-year plan….

It made the decision to intentionally chunk out the full contemplated scope of work into those deliverable phases so that every addition of a phase of scope of work in the case of this project would be a future decision of government at that time.

Misty Van Popta: Maybe we’ll take that comment offline, because I still don’t quite understand where the original reporting of each chunk was.

[5:25 p.m.]

I’m going to move on to Burnaby phase 2. Last year’s estimates indicated that the project was to be awarded in 2025. Can the minister confirm if the contract was awarded in 2025? If so, what was the completion date used in the contract? What was the anticipated new date? Have any permits been issued?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Chair, I realize that we are likely short on time on the member’s remaining questions. I’m happy to receive those questions on the record, to be responded to in writing or on the order paper in order to just help the House Leader and all the different House Leaders move things along according to the pre-agreed schedule.

Misty Van Popta: I have till 5:50, as confirmed also with the Greens. Our House Leaders are telling us 5:50. So if you could….

Hon. Bowinn Ma: My apologies, Chair. With that clarification, if the member could just repeat her last question very quickly.

Misty Van Popta: Last year’s estimates notes show that the Burnaby phase 2 would have a signed contract awarded in 2025. So if the minister can indicate if that did happen.

And if it did, what was the completion date on the contract? What was the anticipated new date for this project?

Third question: are there any permits that have been issued prior to being halted?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: There is an alliance agreement in place on the project. It is only approved for the development phase of work. There is no construction term to the contract yet.

In terms of the second question, the project team’s plan came in several hundred million dollars over budget, so we’ll be working with the health authority and the project team to get those costs down. There is work to do ahead of a future decision of government on the project.

In terms of permits, we’re aware of tree-clearing permits that have been issued in order to proceed with site works. We will also follow up with the team and provide further response if we find other permits have already been issued.

Misty Van Popta: I believe it’s $45 million of work that has already commenced on that project, so that’s definitely more than tree clearing. Let me just pull that up. Yeah, $45 million of work has already happened on this phase of the project, so it’d be great to understand what kind of works have been occurring.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The vast majority of those costs are actually in the design development. It’s a $2 billion project.

Misty Van Popta: Switching gears. Let’s focus on the Simon Fraser medical school. Will the interim space be open on time in August of 2026?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Yes.

Misty Van Popta: Can the minister confirm what labour model is going to be used in the construction of this project?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: There’s no labour model on the interim project. It’s quite a small project, $34 million.

Misty Van Popta: Sorry, I should have clarified. On the actual medical school that should be starting.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: On the main SFU medical school project, labour goals will be achieved through procurement contract terms. So, PCT.

Misty Van Popta: Will the actual construction of it be an alliance model again?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: It will be a CM.

Misty Van Popta: Seeing the $521 million anticipated cost and understanding that there is a shared agreement between the province and SFU, can the minister please clarify what exact amount of money is put forward by the province, or is this $521 million including SFU’s portion?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The $521 million includes the SFU portion.

Misty Van Popta: Could the minister please clarify what is the province’s portion and what is SFU’s portion?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: So $496.4 million is provincial funding, with a $25 million contribution from SFU.

Misty Van Popta: That adds a different line of questions for me, then.

So the permanent building is 12 stories tall, eight floors of which are for the medical school. Can the minister explain what are the four remaining floors to be used for?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: This project is a very innovative, collaborative project. It’s a joint venture with the city of Surrey. So the remaining four stories are being used by the city of Surrey.

Misty Van Popta: If the city of Surrey is collaborating on this project, what is the equitable cost-sharing of those four floors with the city of Surrey?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: For the record, technically it’s the Surrey City Development Corp. That’s the legal entity that the joint venture is with. They own the building. They own the land. We are purchasing air parcels from them, and the contribution that we are making, collaboratively with SFU, is proportionate to our share of the total building.

Misty Van Popta: Does that mean that the city of Surrey is building the project and is in control of the project build? If so, what happens with cost overruns if they’re only on the hook for a third of this building, whereas the province would be on the hook for two-thirds of the building?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: It’s a JV, and there is an accompanying joint venture agreement on how the project is managed and on the organizational structure of the governance that provides oversight for the project. The Ministry of Infrastructure has a seat, as part of the steering committee, with SFU as well as the development corporation.

Like any other project involved in a JV, when there are cost overruns, there are conversations and negotiations through a table. The JV will outline how that happens. Any future additions to the budget on the government side will be brought forward to government for decision at that point.

Misty Van Popta: In construction, we all know, risks happen; things happen. If it’s a cost overrun attributed to, say, site conditions or otherwise, is it going to be a two-thirds, one-third split on overruns or budget increases required on the general scope of the building? It’s not necessarily on medical school–specific items, but to the completion of the project in general.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The advantage of being a part of the steering committee, being a part of the joint venture agreement, is that we are able to collaboratively work with partners to identify risks to the project before they become actual cost escalations. That’s one advantage.

If an issue does arise on the project that does result in cost escalations, then yes, we would likely have to bear at least a portion of those costs. It’s difficult to speculate based on hypotheticals. I think it’s really dependent on what is driving the cost escalation. It would be on a case-by-case basis, as it would be on any project.

Misty Van Popta: Understanding that contracts can’t necessarily be disclosed publicly, is there some sort of accounting for this joint venture and what the framework would look like?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Could the member further elaborate on what she means by accounting of the JV?

The Chair: Member, would you like to explain?

Misty Van Popta: Is there some sort of public information in regard to what a joint venture would look like?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We’re happy to follow up with the member to provide an overview of the JV model, if that helps.

Misty Van Popta: What I’m trying to establish is how the residents of British Columbia and the taxpayers can be assured that it’s an equitable joint venture between the province and the city of Surrey.

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I can confirm on the record now, which, of course, is public, that the JV costs for the project are allocated based on square foot, much like a strata. I mean, it’s not quite stratified, but something similar like that.

Misty Van Popta: I will ask one final question, just on Vancouver Community College. It was mentioned in the Infrastructure 2025 estimate notes that this project is the first phase of a larger led plan by VCC. Can the minister please disclose what other projects the ministry may be involved in at VCC?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: At this point, there are none.

Misty Van Popta: I would like to say thank you to the minister and to the deputy minister and to all the staff that are here.

I will now turn over to the member for the Greens.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you to the minister for the availability.

I just want to start out in striving for fairness and expressing appreciation for the $66 million in the service plan for École La Vallée in Pemberton and $48 million for Capilano student housing, both with completion in 2027 and 2028.

This brings me to Hilltop House long-term-care facility. Seems to be the subject of the day. Replacement of Hilltop House was announced in September 2024 with a completion date of 2030. It now has the status of deferred major capital project, with the service plan adjusting the timeline from 2030 to TBC.

This is all in the face of Hilltop House remaining a cost-effective project for seniors who wish to age in place within my riding of West Van–Sea to Sky, replacing 90 beds currently at Hilltop House while adding 58 long-term-care beds.

Unfortunately for residents in Squamish and the Sea to Sky, Hilltop House seems to be not alone. We’ve discussed the seven long-term-care facilities at length.

My question. This is a capital project of $286 million. Given the importance of the project for seniors in my community and their families, can the minister concretely speak to how projects such as the replacement of Hilltop House came to have their timelines adjusted under Budget 2026? And can the minister confirm that this project is, in fact, going ahead despite the shifting completion date?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The member will know from the budget documents and the publicly disclosed approved costs for the Hilltop long-term-care project that the previously approved budget, based on a class C estimate for this project in 2024, came out to be $1.881 million per bed.

[5:55 p.m.]

Given the challenging fiscal constraints that government is currently operating under, it was determined that $1.881 million per bed was not a cost-effective solution for delivering long-term-care beds for communities. I will also note that $1.881 million would have been based on a class C estimate, with a significant plus or minus range to that estimate. In our experience, moving from a class C to a class B to a class A almost always results in an increase of costs, not decrease.

Hilltop project was already the most costly project being contemplated by government at the time, and government needed to make the difficult decision, in the current fiscal context, to defer the project. That being said, it is not cancelled. It is our intention to continue to deliver this project, but it may not be delivered in the current format that exists now.

We have work to do with the health authorities to drive down the cost per bed for long-term-care projects not just in Squamish but across the province, because we know that we need to deliver at the scale that communities need these beds at.

Jeremy Valeriote: My time is limited, so I’ll leave long-term care alone for now.

I want to describe for the minister, possibly for the first time…. The Minister of Health visited in January, and it was discussed then, the initial stages of planning for a new hospital in Squamish, which will be…. It’s one of the fastest-growing communities in B.C., so it will be needed.

I’ll acknowledge that the current hospital replacements in the service plan are Terrace, built in 1959; Fort St. James, built in 1972; and Cowichan, built in 1967. Squamish hospital was built in the late ’80s, so it’s obviously newer than these other ones. However, the rate of growth in Squamish far outpaces most of those, so the planning for it needs to start on the expectation that it will take time.

Since 2023, a group of highly qualified individuals have come forward in Squamish to gather support for a new Sea to Sky regional hospital and health precinct, a project I’ve expressed support for, along with other federal and municipal politicians. Squamish General Hospital continues to provide critical services for local residents, but current facilities simply can’t meet the rapidly growing needs, and there are quite a few beds occupied by people who should be in long-term care.

Additionally, representatives from the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nation have expressed their desire to feel reflected within the health facilities serving members of their community and the services being provided at those facilities.

Lastly, given significant lack of investment by Vancouver Coastal Health for about three decades, this project is long overdue. The time to act is now, partly because there’s an opportune parcel of land identified for the project, but its acquisition is time-limited and time-sensitive.

Given the lead time required to design and construct a new hospital in Squamish and given the minister’s stated intent to expedite the approval and construction of capital expenditure projects just within the service plan, my question and request is: can the minister commit to getting the ball rolling on the creation of a new hospital in Squamish by inviting Vancouver Coastal Health to submit a concept plan?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I want to acknowledge the member’s advocacy for his community. It’s an incredibly important role that MLAs play for their communities, and this member has always been excellent at raising the concerns and the needs of the people that he serves.

The project that the member refers to is not currently in the government’s capital plan. But we will be requesting and inviting health authorities, including Vancouver Coastal Health, to submit their five-year capital plans this year, and we will work with them on the priorities that they identify.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you to the minister. This is somewhat new territory, so I appreciate that clarity.

On a general level, as I continue to advocate for a regional hospital…. I won’t get into too many details, but Squamish General has always been sort of a satellite to Lions Gate. I think there’s a real need to make it more of a regional hospital.

I would like to understand, given the recent creation of the minister’s Ministry of Infrastructure: how does the Ministry of Infrastructure interact with the Ministry of Health for planning and execution of capital projects like new hospitals? Which ministry holds the ultimate authority at different stages of the process?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The Ministry of Health works very, very closely with the ministries that operate the buildings that the Ministry of Health builds for them because, of course, the capital investment only creates the structure and the building. The ongoing operating funds will come from our partner ministries, the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education, post-secondary institutions, and so forth.

In terms of process, the Ministry of Infrastructure will receive the capital plans from the health authorities, and those capital plans will be assessed for prioritization across the province. In doing so, there will be many, many, I guess, workshops or conversations and discussions with the Ministry of Health on what they perceive as the priorities from a service delivery perspective and from an operating, because, of course, the operating funds come from the Ministry of Health.

Collectively we produce prioritization amongst all of the capital requests, and that is then submitted to government for decision.

Jeremy Valeriote: How much funding or staffing resources have been allocated under this budget for the Ministry of Infrastructure to liaise and coordinate with the regional health authorities to plan this construction of new hospitals over the current budget year? Does the minister consider that…? I don’t know what that funding is, but is it sufficient, given the growing need for facilities that are needed for care in the province?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We do have a dedicated health capital team. It consists of about 14 FTEs. I do want to acknowledge that the Ministry of Infrastructure is a very lean ministry when it comes to the size of the ministry in comparison to the quantum of capital investments that we are delivering, but we were also designed and created to be lean.

Part of the work that is ongoing within the ministry is finding ways to maximize the resources that are available to government around capital. It’s part of the reason why the real property division from Citizens’ Services was brought into the Ministry of Infrastructure. That transition is relatively new. Part of the work that is ongoing and that will go forward as well is taking a look at the resources in that real property division and reorganizing the ministry to create a much more effective organization.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you for that.

The member for Langley–Walnut Grove canvassed Bill 15 pretty extensively, so I’ll skip the preamble to my question. The minister noted last week that there’s currently work underway within the environmental assessment office and the Ministry of Environment around development of an expedited EA process in relation to Bill 15.

Can the minister provide some clarification, regarding the ministry’s tentative ideal outcomes with this work, on what an expedited EA process might look like in practice? Is there any other information on detailed consultation and oversight involved in this expedited process?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: At a high level, the hope and intention for an expedited EA process is that it would provide an EA process that results in a decision in a specific, predictable time frame for those projects that may be suited for it. It won’t work for all projects, but there may be projects that are suited for it. It is not intended to negatively impact environmental standards. It’s more about predictability of timeline for a decision to be made.

I can share also that the plan is for the EAO to release a discussion paper on this in the weeks ahead, following which there will be focused engagement on it.

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

Hon. Bowinn Ma: With that, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

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

The committee rose at 6:14 p.m.