Contents

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Lynne Block: Yesterday when I came into the House to get organized, I was pleased to see so many young people being escorted and having a tour of the Legislature. It was our interns from both sides of the aisle.

I’d like to introduce — and I’d love them to stand — all the interns from Washington state who are here to observe how we do business.

Please stand.

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s with great pleasure that I introduce what is called a wisdom of faith leaders — when you have a lot of faith leaders together, it’s called a wisdom; we learned that today — who are joining us in the House. I’m so grateful for them being here.

We have Congregation Emanu-El, Victoria Hindu temple, Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at, Khalsa Diwan Society of Vancouver and Victoria, Victoria multifaith council, Chabad of Vancouver Island — if Rabbi Kaplan is somewhere up there, it’s his birthday today, so we can all wish him a happy birthday while we’re welcoming him — the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Christ Church Cathedral, Victoria masjid and B.C. Muslim Association, and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

Thank you so much for joining us here today and all the work that you do every day.

[1:35 p.m.]

Statements

Similkameen Sparks Basketball Team
Provincial Championship

Donegal Wilson: On Saturday, the Similkameen Sparks from the Keremeos elementary secondary school defeated the St. John’s School Eagles 75-63 at the Langley Events Centre, winning their first provincial championship since 2001.

They defeated the top seed champion for the gold-medal game, capturing the fourth provincial title in program history.

I’m very thankful and very proud of them. Go, Sparks!

Introductions by Members

Hon. Kelly Greene: I’d like to introduce two of my constituents today, Lisa and Patrick Fisher.

Lisa and Patrick — I met them back in 2015, when together we were parents fighting to keep schools open in Richmond. Since then, they’ve been dedicated volunteers for me over a number of political campaigns. The most important thing that everybody needs to know is that they are my dear friends, and I am so honoured to have their friendship.

Will the House please honour them and welcome them today.

Statements

Kalle Eriksson Achievements
at Milano Cortina Paralympic Games

Scott McInnis: What a start to the Paralympic Games for Team Canada in Milano and Cortina.

Special shout-out. Our first medal was won by Kimberley’s Kalle Eriksson, in the visually impaired men’s downhill, as a silver. I also just learned, messaging with Kalle, that this morning he also won a bronze medal in the visually impaired super-G.

Kalle has been a real story of resilience. He only started to lose his vision a couple of years ago. And on top of that, with a major knee surgery….

I’m just so proud of him — he’s a former student of mine — and so happy for his family.

Would the House please congratulate Kalle and all the Paralympic athletes.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Diana Gibson: I want to take the time today to welcome the Victoria Bengali Cultural Society.

They’re dedicated to preserving and celebrating the rich heritage of Bengali culture. We have today Shaibal Datta, Tapati Datta, Rajib Das, Shobnam Sultana, Arjun Banik and Anirban Mandal.

I can speak from personal experience about the incredible richness of the cultural events that they host — the cultural teachings and learnings, the dance, the music and the sharing of history that makes our region so rich and diverse. So thank you.

Claire Rattée: I don’t get the opportunity very often to introduce people — my riding is pretty far away — but I’m really, really happy that today I have some family here in the audience.

I’ve got my sister and my brother-in-law, Tessa and Gabriele Desantis. They’re leaving, and they are moving to Italy very soon, so I’m really glad that they got the opportunity to come here and see me speak before they leave.

I also have my cousins Jamie and Matthew Rattée as well as Kate, Matthew’s girlfriend, and they’re here all the way from the U.K.

It’s really nice to have them in the audience today, and I appreciate them making the trip out here and wanting to come and see me speak. So I promise I’ll be on somewhat of my best behaviour today.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Will the House please join me in wishing former MLA and Cabinet Minister Jan Pullinger a very happy birthday.

She’s the first woman ever elected provincially to represent Nanaimo. She held cabinet positions, including small business, cooperatives and volunteers, social development and economic something. From 1989 to 2001, she represented both in cabinet and representing Nanaimo.

Will the House please wish her a very happy birthday.

Steve Kooner: Today we have staff members from 1200 AM Radio Swift — Jinny Sims, host, as well as Kulwant Dhesi, the owner of the radio station — in the House.

Can you please give them a welcome.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Today in the gallery we have guests from the Canadian Home Builders Association. CHBABC is here in Victoria to advocate on behalf of members to reduce the cost to build more homes, reduce barriers to more housing choices and streamline approvals.

I gather there are about 25 folks in the room, so rather than reading all the names, maybe I’ll ask folks to stand up.

[1:40 p.m.]

In particular, I want to mention the government relations chair, Tom Calne. This is his last big advocacy event before he steps down after nearly three years serving in the role.

Thank you, Tom.

Please will the House join me in making folks feel welcome.

Linda Hepner: I want to, as well, welcome the Canadian Home Builders Association. I had a chance this morning to have a conversation and then a longer conversation with the fireside chat.

I do appreciate the association coming here on their advocacy days, and I hope that this side of the House will also give a very warm welcome.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I want to build off of my colleague from Richmond-Queensborough’s introduction and introduce someone who I don’t think really needs an introduction. She’s a former Member of Parliament and, prior to that, former president of the B.C. Teachers Federation and former MLA from Surrey and Minister of Citizens’ Services.

She was my first boss when I started in this place. It’s just so fitting the day after International Women’s Day for me to be able to welcome to the House someone who I hold in the highest regard, someone who has broken so many glass ceilings and now is a famous radio host from Surrey. She’s done it all.

Please join me in welcoming Jinny Sims on the floor here.

Á’a:líya Warbus: It is a very momentous month in our household and in our family. In March, we have my brother Lewis Point’s birthday; my daughter Starling Warbus, who turned six on International Women’s Day; my late nephew Geoffrey Point, who we love and miss dearly; my sister Christine Seymour; and my mom, Gwen Point.

They all decided that March was going to be their month. They’re all very special to me. They keep me grounded and remind me every single day why I wanted to be elected. I come here to share the voice of my community and those very important perspectives.

To all of you, thank you for everything, for always being by my side, and happy birthday. Exciting month.

Darlene Rotchford: I have some constituents in the House today, so I would like everyone to help them feel welcome. I have David and Judy McCoy here today as well as their grandson Liam Waters.

Hopefully we can all make them feel welcome.

Gavin Dew: I rise to acknowledge my constituent Raghwa Gopal, his wife, Sarita, and their entire team for another successful Bollywood Gala in Kelowna this Saturday. Through the Gopal Foundation, they have now helped raise more than $1 million for charitable causes across British Columbia, and this year’s gala supported the Central Okanagan Food Bank.

Saturday’s event also helped lay the cornerstone for the $5.5 million food rescue transformation centre, an innovative long-term solution to food insecurity in our region.

I thank everyone involved for their generosity, leadership and service, and I hope that, in due course, government will step up to support this worthy food security initiative.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I understand that there are also guests in the House from the B.C. Real Estate Association.

I had notes that they were coming tomorrow, but I think we have quite a few guests today and tomorrow. I was honoured to join them for lunch today.

Will the House join me in making them feel welcome.

Korky Neufeld: It’s always nice when your spouse comes to spend the week here in Victoria.

I’d like everybody to welcome my wife, Cynthia, to the House, please.

Also, I heard through the rumblings that it’s Fraser-Nicola’s birthday, the member for Fraser-Nicola. We’re not sure what age he is, but he’s looking younger every day.

Wish him a happy birthday.

Mable Elmore: I have the pleasure of introducing 32 Washington state legislative interns who are visiting from Olympia today.

They are here as part of an annual exchange between our two internship programs in Washington state and British Columbia. And we’re so happy that this tradition continues. This is their 21st visit to our parliament.

[1:45 p.m.]

As part of the Washington state internship program, their interns work for members of the House of Representatives or senators while earning academic credit from colleges and universities around the state, whereas B.C.’s legislative interns have already graduated from a Canadian university.

This morning they met with several Members of the Legislative Assembly to learn about our parliamentary system and discuss issues of importance to both of our jurisdictions.

They are accompanied by Louis Lindstrom, the deputy civic education director, and Ady Schafer, the assistant civic education coordinator for the Washington state Senate.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m going to tag along on the Canadian Home Builders Association and introduce my friend and constituent Alex Tavuchis, who can only be properly introduced in this accent, intended most respectfully.

George Anderson: In the gallery today, we have Dr. Daegan Sit, a radiation oncologist at B.C. Cancer. He completed his radiation oncology fellowship at Stanford.

His research includes stereotactic body radiotherapy, immunotherapy and usage of artificial intelligence in clinical settings. He has had 30 publications and has been cited 503 times. Wow.

On that note, I also get to say he’s a good friend of mine. Very happy to have him in the House today.

I hope the entire House will make Dr. Sit feel very welcome.

Ian Paton: My wife, Pam, is here today. She doesn’t make it over that often. She’s not actually in the gallery, but she’s enjoying watching QP from my office television.

Pam’s a very motivated and busy person in the riding of Delta South. She’s the past chair of the Delta Hospital Foundation, among other things — looking after our farm, looking after her horses.

I actually forgot to mention, what a Christmas present…. Over Christmas, on December 17 and 21, we had two new grandbaby boys born, and that brings us to seven grandchildren.

Please make Pam welcome.

Hon. Diana Gibson: We have some young people with us today in the House. We’ve got St. Patrick’s Elementary School grade 5s and their teacher Lauren Crisp.

Would the House give them a very warm welcome.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I would like to acknowledge the members of the Ribbon Community, who came to visit us here on the precinct today.

They were formerly AIDS Vancouver, and for decades they have been advocating for people living with HIV in British Columbia and continuing to fight for better access to testing and education throughout British Columbia. Their work is incredibly difficult, and their stories that they shared with us today were powerful.

Thank you so much for spending time with us today. And I raise, especially, in my heart Daphne, who shared her personal journey.

Hon. Anne Kang: I’d like to welcome to the House today Sarah Chown, executive director of Ribbon Community; and Daphne Harry, committee member; and Wayne Campbell of GIPA and MEPA, the program coordinator with Ribbon Community.

They are here in connection with In My Day, a powerful play by Victoria playwright Rick Waines that tells the story of the first 15 years of the HIV/AIDS pandemic in British Columbia. Inspired by a community-based University of Victoria research project, it brings to life true stories of long-term survivors living with HIV and their caregivers, highlighting the experiences of diverse voices and honouring the resilience of communities during a time marked by loss, fear and stigma.

Showing begins March 12 to 21, 2026, at UVic’s Phoenix Theatre here in Victoria.

Will the House please join me in welcoming Sarah, Daphne and Wayne to the Legislature.

[1:50 p.m.]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Safe Access to Schools
Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Niki Sharma presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill intituled Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act, 2026.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I’m pleased to introduce the Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act, 2026. This bill effectively extends the act from its current repeal date of July 1, 2026, to July 1, 2028. The purpose of this legislation is to preserve safe access to education by protecting students and staff from harmful and disruptive behaviours at or around K-to-12 schools.

It allows the Lieutenant Governor in Council to establish access zones around K-to-12 schools through regulation. Within an access zone, certain forms of harmful and disruptive prohibited behaviour.… These prohibitions are designed to protect students and staff from the negative impacts of protests that regrettably became an increasing problem at our K-to-12 schools before this act was first passed.

While the number of disruptive incidents has decreased since this legislation was first enacted, the need for protection of schools, students and educators continues. I’m pleased to say that the act is having a meaningful deterrent effect. By clearly defining unacceptable behaviours and establishing consequences for engaging in them, it discourages individuals and groups from bringing harmful disruptions to school environments in the first place.

The presence of access zones signals that harassment, intimidation and obstruction will not be tolerated around schools. This is helping to prevent incidents before they arise and contributing to overall confidence in school safety.

Keeping the act in place for two more years will preserve an important deterrent that helps prevent harmful disruptions before they occur. This extension upholds our commitment to safe learning environments and will ensure that students, staff and families can continue to access educational programs free from obstruction, intimidation or harm.

The Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill 13 — Safe Access to Places
of Public Worship Act

Hon. Niki Sharma presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill intituled Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I’m pleased to introduce the Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act. The purpose of this bill is to ensure safe and unobstructed access to places of worship by protecting people from harmful or disruptive behaviours around those spaces.

This legislation would allow qualifying places of worship that want to take advantage of these protections in the legislation to post required signage, ensuring the public has clear notice of where restrictions apply. Within these zones, specific disruptive or harmful behaviours are prohibited. These measures respond to the growing issue of disruptions directed at places of worship and people attempting to access those places of worship.

People in our province — whether they attend a gurdwara, church, synagogue, mosque or temple — deserve to access their place of worship without fear. These are spaces that offer connection, comfort and belonging. Disruptions in these places do more than disturb activities. They erode people’s sense of safety and community.

To ensure that this legislation remains focused and proportionate, it includes a four-year sunset clause, allowing the Legislature to reassess the need for these measures over time.

Most British Columbians respect the importance of allowing others to access their place of worship without fear. The increasing frequency and intensity of disruptive behaviour makes it clear that additional measures are needed. This bill provides responsible, balanced and time-limited responses to protect the safety and well-being of people attending their chosen place of worship.

The Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill M236 — Health Professions and
Occupations Repeal Act

Anna Kindy presented a bill intituled Health Professions and Occupations Repeal Act.

Anna Kindy: I move that a bill intituled Health Professions and Occupations Repeal Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

[1:55 p.m.]

I am pleased to introduce the Health Professions and Occupations Repeal Act. Health care is the single-biggest expense in the B.C. budget. Despite this, reports of long wait times due to lack of health care workers and insufficient facilities lowers the public’s confidence in health care.

The NDP government is implementing the HPOA act. Most professionals and the public are not aware of this. This act will not bring more doctors or nurses or any of our much-needed front-line health care providers to B.C. and will not decrease wait times. Instead, this act will control our front line to practise more defensively and bring greater distrust between health care providers and patients.

This act removes the self-regulation of health colleges, as the government will appoint all college board members. More bureaucracy will be created by adding an office of discipline and a superintendent’s office to control the colleges and their members. This added bureaucracy is all appointed and will only increase costs.

The new regulatory framework grants power to enter a health care provider’s premises to inspect, search or copy any personal or confidential information. This will erode public trust and privacy. Health care providers who breach regulations face potential fines and/or jail time. This will mean statutory immunity for regulatory colleges but no review or appeal for health care workers.

In addition, there will be no protection from frivolous complaints, as registrants will be considered guilty until proven innocent. Why would any doctor or nurse come to B.C. knowing that this act does not occur anywhere else in Canada? Some will retire early, change their practice or leave B.C.

We cannot afford to lose any more health care workers. That is why I am proposing to repeal the Health Professions and Occupations Act as is written.

The Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Anna Kindy: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill M237 — Insurance (Vehicle)
Amendment Act, 2026

Sheldon Clare presented a bill intituled Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2026.

Sheldon Clare: I move that a bill intituled Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2026, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

On April 25, 2023, Chantelle Sutton was in a motorcycle accident which cost her a leg at the hip. Most people would recognize this as a catastrophic injury. It occurred on Highway 97, just south of the Quesnel River Bridge, which you’ve heard me sing about in this House.

The bill is a simple one. It’s not complex. I would hope that this House would provide broad support for it.

In clause 1, it would extend the time period within which an individual can make a claim for benefits in respect of a catastrophic injury. In clause 2 — this is the key part of the bill — it would reduce the number of amputations for an insured to sustain a catastrophic injury, from two to one or more.

That is my bill, and I hope that it will receive broad support. It is simple. I think it’s elegant. I thank the Clerk’s office for their assistance in composing this. That is my bill, and that is all I have to say at this time. Thank you, and I so move.

The Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Sheldon Clare: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Members’ Statements

International Women’s Day and
Support for Vulnerable Women

Amshen / Joan Phillip: I rise today to celebrate International Women’s Day and the amazing women and femmes in my constituency and beyond — women like my constituency adviser Sylvia Wu, who is a strong advocate for our constituents and a trusted contact for many within the Chinese community — thank you, Sylvia — and women like Alice Kendall, the executive director of the Downtown Eastside Women’s Centre. For over 30 years, Alice has been a tireless champion for women’s rights and safety across Vancouver and the Downtown Eastside.

[2:00 p.m.]

Nearly half of women in British Columbia face or will face intimate-partner violence. The women’s centre offers vital supports for these vulnerable women. By providing meals, safe washrooms and skills development, they are key to our community. Alice recently organized the women’s centre Herstory fundraising gala, raising more than $180,000 to support vulnerable women.

Housing is the number one concern that we hear about from women in the community. That’s why we continue to push to create more quality, affordable places for families to live. Our government created the women’s transition housing fund so that women and their children have safe places to go when leaving abuse.

We know there’s much more to do, and we won’t stop until everyone is safely housed and has a place to call home. Huy ch q’u siem.

Networks Ministries

Larry Neufeld: Over the Christmas break, my wife and I had the opportunity, in my beautiful riding of Peace River South, to do some volunteer work at a very important organization, a not-for-profit organization in Dawson Creek. That organization is named Networks Ministries.

For more than three decades, Networks Ministries has been a place where both compassion and community come together. What began as a small, local effort has grown into a vital organization that provides food, clothing and essential household items to individuals and families facing difficult circumstances.

In a community like Dawson Creek, we understand the importance of neighbours helping neighbours. At Networks Ministries, that spirit is visible every single day. Dedicated staff and volunteers work tirelessly to ensure that anyone who walks through their doors is welcomed with dignity, respect and kindness.

For someone facing financial hardship, an unexpected setback or simply a difficult season in life, the support they provide can make a real and immediate difference. Beyond meeting practical needs, Networks Ministries also helps restore a sense of stability and hope for people working to get back to their feet.

Their work is made possible by the generosity of the community. Volunteers give their time. Local businesses offer support. Residents step forward to help ensure help is available when it is most needed.

I ask all members of this House to join me in recognizing the staff, volunteers, donors and community partners who make the work of Networks Ministries possible, because organizations like Networks Ministries remind us of something important: the true strength of a community is measured not only by what we build but by how we care for one another.

Public Libraries
in Kootenay-Monashee

Steve Morissette: I’m pleased to rise today to speak about some valuable community assets in my riding and, indeed, in every riding.

I recently had the opportunity to visit four of our libraries in Kootenay-Monashee as well as to visit the Cherryville Library last summer. I was struck by just how vibrant, welcoming and well used they are. These libraries do so much more than lending books. They’re inclusive community spaces where people of all ages can learn, connect and feel a true sense of belonging.

For our youngest residents, these libraries spark a lifelong love of reading through storytimes, early literacy programs and family activities that bring parents and children together. For students and teens, they provide quiet study spaces, homework support, digital resources and programming that encourages curiosity, creativity and confidence.

[2:05 p.m.]

Adults and seniors also benefit enormously. From author talks and book clubs to technology training, online access to social programs, language learning and lifelong learning opportunities, these libraries help people stay engaged and connected in a rapidly changing world. They’re also trusted places where neighbours meet. Community information is shared there, and people can simply enjoy a welcoming public space.

What truly stands out is the dedication of staff and volunteers who make these libraries such vibrant hubs. These libraries demonstrate the very best of what public libraries can be: inclusive, innovative and deeply rooted in their communities. They strengthen social connections, support learning at every stage of life and enrich quality of life across Kootenay-Monashee. I thank everyone involved for the invaluable work they do every single day.

Cameryn’s Cause for Kids Society

Anna Kindy: I am honoured to recognize an extraordinary organization in the community of Campbell River, British Columbia — Cameryn’s Cause. Cameryn’s Cause provides financial assistance to families facing one of life’s most unimaginable challenges: when a child is suffering from a life-threatening illness or a serious injury, or when a family is grieving the heartbreaking loss of a child.

The organization was founded in honour of Cameryn Harris, a bright and beloved three-year-old who tragically passed away from a brain tumour. Since its founding in 2007, Cameryn’s Cause has provided more than $600,000 in direct support to over 400 families in Campbell River. The organization has also helped fund important medical equipment at the local hospital and strengthened care for families across the region. Beyond the numbers, what Cameryn’s Cause truly provides is dignity, relief and support at the moment when families need it most.

One family who received support after the loss of their daughter shared these words: “The generous gift from Cameryn’s Cause extended far beyond financial assistance. It gave us the dignity and grace to make those heartbreaking decisions about our daughter’s final arrangements without having to ask how much something costs.” Cameryn’s Cause reminds us that even in the face of profound loss, communities can come together to support families when they need it most.

I ask all members of this House to join me in recognizing the volunteers, supporters and the Harris family for their incredible work and lasting legacy in Campbell River.

Pacific Gateway
and National Economy

Paul Choi: In today’s world, economic security is national security. Across the globe, we are witnessing a period of profound economic change. Supply chains are shifting, geopolitical tensions are rising, and countries are increasingly recognizing that economic resilience is essential to long-term prosperity.

In that changing landscape, B.C. holds a unique and strategic position. Our province sits at the gateway between North America and the Indo-Pacific, the fastest-growing economic region in the world right now. Through our ports, our energy sector, our agricultural producers and our innovative technology companies, B.C. helps connect Canada to global markets.

Economic leadership is not just about geography; it’s about people, the workers, entrepreneurs, the industries that power our economy every day. As Parliamentary Secretary for Trade, I’ve had the opportunity to meet with businesses and industry leaders across our province. They consistently tell me that B.C. has the talent, the resources and the entrepreneurial spirit needed to compete and succeed in a rapidly changing global economy.

Our role as legislators is to ensure that B.C. remains competitive, resilient and forward-looking, strengthening trade partnerships, supporting key industries and ensuring that our province continues to serve as Canada’s Pacific Gateway.

If Canada is to succeed in the Pacific century, B.C. will play a leading role. Our province has the ports, the industries and the innovators needed to compete globally. The task before us now is to ensure that B.C. turns those advantages into long-term economic leadership. When B.C. leads in trade, innovation and economic strength, Canada succeeds. With the hard work of British Columbians, I am confident that our province will help shape Canada’s economic future.

[2:10 p.m.]

Process for First Reading of Bills

Bruce Banman: Here in the British Columbia Legislature, the first vote — as demonstrated four times this very afternoon — on a motion or bill is normally, traditionally, a yes vote. This reflects an important democratic principle: that ideas should be examined before they’re judged.

At first stage of the legislative process, members are not deciding whether they fully support the proposal. Instead, they are deciding to move the idea forward to be read, to debate, to scrutinize — and possible amendment. A yes vote allows legislators to read and study the proposal more carefully, hear from experts and the public and consider improvements before making a final decision.

This approach protects the deliberative nature of parliamentary democracy. If proposals were rejected immediately at the first stage, many ideas, some of which might become better laws through debate and amendments, would never receive serious consideration.

In fact, some jurisdictions go even further by automatically approving bills at first reading. For example, in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, first reading is largely ceremonial and usually happens without debate or a vote. The purpose is to simply introduce the bill and schedule future debate. Similarly, in the Parliament of Canada, first reading is mostly procedural, allowing a bill to be printed and distributed so members and the public can review it before discussion begins.

These systems exist for a clear reason. They separate introduction from evaluation. By ensuring every proposal can at least be presented and studied, legislatures promote transparency, informed debate and fairness. Voting yes at the first reading does not mean supporting the bill itself. Instead, it means supporting the democratic process, giving ideas, good or bad, the opportunity to be read, debated, scrutinized and improved before the final decision is made.

Oral Questions

Affordable Housing and
Community Housing Fund

Trevor Halford: We’ve recently learned that the NDP cut $1.4 billion from the community housing fund. Now, the centre for belonging has already invested over $2 million to provide housing for adults living with developmental disabilities. That funding is gone, leaving vulnerable people in limbo.

Geoffrey Ewart, CEO of the Garth Homer Society, says: “We are now on the hook for the entire project.”

How does the minister justify sticking this non-profit with the bill?

Hon. Christine Boyle: This government takes housing seriously, as I’ve been proud to stand and say numerous times in this House.

The community housing fund is one of a number of historic investments that we have made as a government in affordable and non-market housing. The community housing fund is a $3.3 billion fund. There have been multiple rounds of intakes. There are thousands of units, more than 4,600 homes actively under construction, more than 3,000 in early stages of development.

I absolutely understand the frustration from project proponents who applied to the round of the community housing fund last fall who were frustrated that that round of the funding was cancelled. I hear that frustration. I know those are good community partners trying to build important and badly needed community housing.

We are continuing with the historic investments that we have made in the past, protecting the housing that we have built that is providing good, stable homes to people in communities across this province. We will continue to invest in housing because we on this side of the House know how much it matters.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Trevor Halford: I would call $1.4 billion a historic cut. That’s historic, and that’s the record of this NDP government. We’re talking about a non-profit that raised $2 million of their own money to house adults with developmental disabilities.

[2:15 p.m.]

Valerie Mains represents just one of the dozens of families who have been working towards bringing Garth Homer Society’s centre for belonging to life. She said: “I have been working for housing solutions for over 15 years, and now I’m going back to ground zero.” She’s not alone in her frustration.

My question is a direct one to the minister. What does the minister say to Valerie and her family who were depending, who were fundraising to get this going, and now the government has pulled the rug out from under them?

Hon. Christine Boyle: We as a government have committed $19 billion in funding for non-profit housing. That’s funding across the community housing fund, the women’s transition housing fund, the Indigenous housing fund, the supportive housing fund. Those are important dollars working in partnership with local governments and community housing providers to deliver housing.

I find it rich to stand here in the House and defend this, standing across from a government who has made it clear they would cut funding to housing, who have opposed supportive and transitional housing.

Interjections.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Nine long years is right. We have delivered….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Hon. Christine Boyle: We have, since forming government, invested historic amounts. We have delivered 95,000 homes across this province. We are making up for the skyrocketing cost of housing and rent that we saw when members opposite were in government.

We have more work to do, absolutely. We will continue to do that work in partnership with…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Christine Boyle: …the community housing sector, who we have worked well with in the years that we have been making these investments and who we understand is an important player.

Management of B.C. Housing Units

Claire Rattée: This minister will do anything to get out of having to admit that this is a cut. I don’t care if the community housing fund intake was paused. It’s a cut. That’s just the reality here, and people are suffering because of it. This is a file that I can’t even begin to get into in one question period.

But I’m going to tell you a story about a single mother of six. Her name is Erin. She’s trying to raise her family in B.C. Housing. When she first moved in, she had to deal with a bedbug infestation that was so bad that she developed sepsis from the bites. For three years now, she has been begging this ministry to fix a leak above her unit that has rotted the ceiling and rendered her only washroom completely unusable.

After years of neglect, the repairs are so bad now that B.C. Housing is evicting the family from the unit. Their solution is to intimidate Erin into accepting a unit next to the cockroach- and mice-infested unit that my colleague raised back in November, which still hasn’t been addressed.

So why does B.C.’s top slumlord punish, rather than help, single mothers who simply want safe, affordable housing for their families?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I appreciate the member opposite raising this question. This is a terrible situation that this family is in, absolutely horrific for those children and the mother. That’s why B.C. Housing has been working with the family. The repairs needed are extensive and, as such, require that the family move out while renovations are happening.

B.C. Housing has been working with the family to find a suitable alternate location so that those repairs can be done. It’s important work, and I’m happy to work on it with the member opposite if she’s interested.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Claire Rattée: I appreciate that, but the reality is that for three months, she has been trying to get this fixed, and it wasn’t. So that’s why it got so bad. There’s no way of dancing around that.

The reality is that, just last week in this House, the minister admitted that she “understands that single-room-occupancy housing is not a good, safe long-term solution.” Yet every time, she tries to bully and shame anyone that opposes her government building more of these slums that she knows are neither good nor safe.

Clearly, this minister has never had to comfort distraught children while cockroaches are crawling on their sleeping bodies. Can you blame this woman for not wanting to move into another unit with a bug problem?

We want more supportive housing, but what we have in this province right now isn’t supportive. It’s degrading and inhumane.

[2:20 p.m.]

Three years ago, British Columbians were promised a solution to this nightmare, and we still haven’t seen the report that was allegedly done.

So maybe I’ll try asking the future leader of the NDP if he can table the report today, since he’s the one that actually allegedly had it done.

Hon. Christine Boyle: As members opposite know, I can’t get into the personal details of an individual family situation but absolutely understand how challenging it is. B.C. Housing has been working with the family to try to find a good solution.

I just want to be clear on the record because we as a government have been working hard to replace old single-room-occupancy homes with new self-contained, dignified supportive housing in the Downtown Eastside and more broadly.

I have heard in this House the opposition complain about the old housing — which, yes, we recognize needs to be renewed — but continuing to oppose the new housing that we are trying to build to replace that old housing. You can’t be against homelessness and against old housing and against new housing. We on this side are working…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh.

Shhh, Members. Members.

Hon. Christine Boyle: …to deliver good-quality, dignified housing in the Downtown Eastside and in communities beyond; to replace old, aging stock; and to provide good, stable options for our neighbours who deserve it.

Permitting Process
for Local Projects

Jeremy Valeriote: How long is a reasonable wait for a permit from the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship? A few months, maybe a year. Despite the government’s recent and welcome interest in investing in tourism, adventure tourism operator Squamish Enduro has been waiting ten years.

The Sea to Sky corridor sees a huge demand, for example, for new campgrounds and film productions, but permit delays are holding back the local economy. This government has demonstrated it can fast-track approvals for multinational corporations, but small businesses, community groups and homeowners wait years for simple permits.

My question to the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship: with 15,000 public service workers about to be laid off, what is the plan to fix the permitting backlog that is stifling local economies in the Sea to Sky and across B.C.?

Hon. Randene Neill: I thank the member opposite for the question. I can certainly meet with the member after this to discuss this particular permit in question. I don’t have a list of all the permits before me, but I’m happy to look into it and get you the answers and solutions after this question period.

But I do want to mention, as part of your second question, we are working in partnership to move forward with permitting, making it more efficient, more streamlined and maintaining really strong environmental standards. We’ve cleared 100 percent of the provincial permits backlog for building housing, for example. We’ve reduced the average number of days to process a housing application by 40 percent. We’ve reduced water licence approval times for transportation projects from 24 months to less than one month.

We’ve also recently introduced, last month, our permitting regulations based on public input, so rebuilding homes after disasters should not take years of waiting for permits. We’ve added flexibility for developments in low-risk riparian areas to proceed along streamlined processes.

Those are some of the things that we’re doing to improve permitting times as part of our Look West strategy as well, and it’s something we’ll continue to do.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote: We know this ministry can streamline approval processes and cut red tape when it wants to, as the minister has described. Two weeks ago the ministry announced regulatory amendments to speed up permitting for rebuilding homes after wildfire, new home construction and ecosystem restoration. The permit in question is merely an example of a systemic failure. It’s only been moved because my constituency office started asking hard questions.

Elderly constituents in my riding have been waiting over three years for a permit to replace a bridge so they can access their home safely. They were recently told they’re still in the permit queue. After our inquiries, that moved from another one to three years from promised to be delivered this summer. In the meantime, they have to travel on a forestry road, forestry bridge, a CN Rail crossing and over private property to get to the home they have lived in for 37 years.

[2:25 p.m.]

Some homeowners get routine permits fast-tracked. Others spend years in permit purgatory. Does the recent fast-tracking announcement for some applications mean the rest will take even longer?

Hon. Randene Neill: I am familiar with that second application that we discussed previously, and I can confirm that it is actively being processed and is in the final stages of decision-making now and happy to discuss this with you further. The land authorizations branch is actively engaged with the proponent’s agent on the status of that application as well.

As you mentioned though, Member — and I appreciate it — those four amendments we put forward with the Water Sustainability Act will speed up and streamline permitting. We know that the waits are too long for anybody, and we know that delays the economy, so this is our number one priority. Water, Land and Resource Stewardship is getting funded to ensure that we have additional staff on to do the permitting we need to do.

Another example of the success. Though we’re reducing mine permit timelines by 35 percent from exploration drilling to mine permits, the Cariboo Gold mine, for example, was approved in just 13 months, after a rigorous technical review conducted by a team of experts, in collaboration and in partnership with First Nations. And we’ve reduced cutting permits in the forestry sector from 40 days to just 25 days.

It’s not perfect. We’re working on it, and we’re working hard on it. It’s a big priority for us.

Provincial Sales Tax
and Support for Small Business

Gavin Dew: In Rutland and all over B.C., small businesses are already paying for the NDP’s public safety failures through theft, vandalism, lost revenue and soaring insurance and private security costs.

Business improvement associations of B.C. say that 90 percent of members report impacts from non-violent repeat crime. Forty percent are losing more than $5,000 a year. Many are losing far more. They’re losing hope.

Slapping 7 percent PST on security services is not a tax on growth. It’s a tax on safety. Will the government cancel their tone-deaf PST tax grab, yes or no?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate finally getting a chance to answer a question in question period. I appreciate the member raising the concern.

I understand how hard it is to have a family business have to deal with windows being broken, have to deal with people leaving garbage in front of it. My family ran a business not far from here, and I remember having to come to the restaurant in the mornings with my mom and having to deal with this very same thing.

Now, that was 20 years ago, and the challenge then is just as real as it is today. We know how important it is to address this. That’s why in this budget there’s $16 million to create a chronic property-offending intervention team to help small businesses deal with that very issue that the member highlighted. We know how important this is.

My colleague has been travelling the province, meeting with local governments, meeting with small business organizations, to come up with strategies to be able to address this. We’ve got money in the budget to do the very thing that businesses have been asking us to do.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Gavin Dew: I wasn’t aware there was a cabinet shuffle and we had a new Minister of Finance. Next thing, he’ll be Premier. Just wait.

The Speaker: Member.

Crime in Communities and
Action on Community Safety

Gavin Dew: On Friday, I visited Roxanne, a Rutland resident living every day with the consequences of the NDP’s drug decriminalization experiment and under-investment in keeping streets safe and helping people off drugs. Roxanne has administered Narcan more than 50 times.

The day I visited her, after she asked someone using drugs in her front yard at 5 a.m. to leave, she found a ten-inch knife stuck in the fence outside her front door. That was not her first or her worst death threat.

Why has this government forced Rutland residents like Roxanne to become their own first responders just to live in their own neighbourhood?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Any time we hear about somebody like Roxanne, I know this is deeply frustrating for residents and communities.

[2:30 p.m.]

Our priority is ensuring the safety of all residents and all businesses in communities. That’s why we have set up programs that provide tools and resources to police to tackle repeat violent offenders and repeat property crime offenders as well.

However, an aspect of the member’s question speaks to, also, the health challenges that we know first responders are often called to respond to — instances where there is a mental health crisis or somebody tackling addiction issues. That is why our government has bolstered support for addiction services and care for people that are experiencing substance use disorders and mental health challenges as well.

We will not stop standing up those supports and ensuring that police, where appropriate, have the tools that they need to support safe communities.

Provincial Sales Tax
and Support for Small Business

Reann Gasper: Mary Lou Newbold, owner of Mayfair Optometric Clinic, is just one business owner in B.C. who will be impacted by the PST expansion. She said: “It’s another hit, and they just keep coming.” She already pays $1,000 a month in security costs, and now this government wants to add another $1,000 every year in PST on top of that.

Why does this minister think it’s acceptable to tax business owners like Mary, just trying to keep their businesses and customers safe?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: There are a number of things in the budget that are very supportive for business. I’ll start first by identifying the $400 million strategic investment fund that allows us to draw investments into British Columbia and unlock those opportunities…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: …for British Columbia. We also have a manufacturing tax credit that is going to help the manufacturing sector. We know that there are 22,000 manufacturing companies right here in British Columbia that’ll benefit from that.

We know that expanding the PST is one way to assist us in making sure that we protect the services that are so important to British Columbians. That benefits British Columbians. It also benefits businesses that are looking to hire people and have people be successful here in British Columbia. This supports them as well.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Reann Gasper: British Columbians are watching. It is dismissive. Small business is the backbone of B.C. It is unacceptable in question period that we’re not getting answers for small business.

Christina Clarke, chair of Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce, said, “All businesses are facing death by a thousand cuts,” yet this government says their goal with this budget is to grow the economy and stabilize provincial finances.

When will this government listen to small businesses and scrap the PST expansion, yes or no?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Since coming into power, this side of the House has listened to small businesses. We’ve reduced the small business tax credit.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We’ve reduced the small business tax credit from 2.5 percent to 2 percent. That tax credit was possible because of the revenue that came from the carbon tax. The logical thing to do would be to change that and go back to a higher tax for small businesses. We absolutely did not make that decision, because small businesses are so important to us.

Last year, as well, we were able to raise the EHT threshold — again, to support small businesses. We all know how important small businesses are in the community, and that’s why we’ll continue to do this work.

Kristina Loewen: Small businesses are not feeling the love.

Cheryl Brown, owner of Kelowna Yarn and Needlecrafts, is warning that this government’s decision to apply a new 7 percent PST to yarn and fabric will hurt her business and her customers — many of them seniors and people on fixed incomes. Knitting is not a luxury. It’s how a mother makes a blanket for a new baby or how seniors stay connected and fight isolation.

When British Columbians are already stretched to the breaking point, why is this government nickel-and-diming them for the simple things that bring people together?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member rightly says that affordability remains a challenge for many people in British Columbia.

We understand that on this side of the House, and that’s why we continue to protect the gains that we have made, protecting low-cost child care in Budget 2026, keeping lower-cost auto insurance. We’ve been focusing on reducing the cost of rent for people. We know that focusing on housing — it is the most expensive thing for most families — assists them across the board.

We’ve continued with free prescription birth control. We’ve got zero-interest student loans and the B.C. access grant for post-secondary and protecting the B.C. family benefit, which provides more than 276,000 families support.

We understand that there’s more to do to support families who are dealing with affordability, and we’ll continue that work.

Hon Chan: Well, it’s okay for the minister to stand up and not listen to us, but can they at least listen to the small businesses? The Canadian Federation for Independent Business says that over 70 percent of the businesses will have no choice but to pass these new costs on to customers. I am hearing this from businesses all across Richmond.

In fact, I just talked to one who has been open for 30 years and said they are ready to pack up and leave because it’s so expensive to do business in Richmond and across British Columbia. I am sure the member for Richmond-Steveston is hearing the same story as well. But the difference is she is doing nothing about this.

I would like to ask this question. Does the Minister for Emergency Management from Richmond continue to do nothing when the small businesses in Richmond continue to shut down permanently?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the line of questioning from members, because small businesses are important to members on this side of the House as well.

The Minister of Finance highlighted that when we formed government, one of the first things we did was reduce the small business tax burden by 25 percent. We right now have one of the lowest small business tax rates in the entire country.

We heard from small businesses that permitting times were taking too long. We invested $40 million to reduce permitting backlogs.

We heard from businesses that we wanted to attract bigger businesses because they help when small businesses can form around them — so $400 million to make investments into attracting large investors and businesses in our communities.

We heard that skills training was the biggest challenge they’re facing. They can’t find the people with the skills to be able to take the jobs that they have. We are doubling the amount of money for skilled-trades training across British Columbia.

We have heard from businesses that they want us to remove interprovincial trade barriers so they have a bigger market to access. We are chairing and leading that work across the country, leading to our first agreement and many more to come.

Since 2017, B.C. has led the country in GDP growth. We’re going to continue that into the future.

Bruce Banman: According to the CFIB, 80 percent of businesses oppose the PST expansion by this government. It would be nice if we had a government that would take their concerns around the PST expansion seriously. Instead, we have an NDP government who said: “If the PST on the accounting bill is sufficient to move you to another province, I don’t know what to say.” Wow, talk about being totally out of touch. Professional services aren’t optional extras. They are crucial to the overall operation of small business.

My question to this out-of-touch NDP government: why are they dismissing the concerns of businesses across this province instead of addressing the real cost pressures that this government has created?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We are not dismissing the very important concerns of small businesses. In fact, I met with the CFIB this very morning. Since the PST’s introduction, B.C.’s economy has shifted significantly towards services.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, do you want the answer to the question or not?

The minister has the floor.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’ll be frank. Updating the PST means that we can continue hiring doctors. It means that we can continue hiring nurses and teachers.

[2:40 p.m.]

We’re not out of step with other provinces. The PST changes that we’ve brought in have aligned us with the other PST provinces.

We continue to make important investments for small businesses and important investments for businesses across the board in Budget 2026. But we know the other side has said — the member for Fraser-Nicola has been clear — that for them, the priority would be seeing cuts in education, seeing cuts in health care.

That is not the decision that we are making. We are protecting these services and taking care of businesses at the same time.

Budget Priorities and
Expansion of Provincial Sales Tax

Peter Milobar: I think we’ve discovered why this government has problems with their budget. We’ve heard that they care about seniors and affordability and the overall affordability for working families. So their solution is to slap hundreds of millions of dollars of extra taxation on those very people in this budget.

They hear from small businesses that they need help with all of the mounting cost pressures and the death by a thousand cuts. And their solution…. The minister said it earlier today. They actually put the extra PST costs on for the businesses’ own good this year. That’s why they’re getting all these extra taxes layered on them.

Here’s the reality in this budget. We see cuts on social spending in terms of social housing projects. We see six long-term-care facilities cut. We see the Burnaby Hospital cut. We see UVic student housing cut. We see fees and charges and taxes increased to seniors on fixed incomes as well as hard-working families. And we see PST added to services on small businesses, like security and accounting services — all crucial to their operations right now.

Instead of cutting all those other things, will this government finally show a little bit of leadership, actually listen to the small business community and actually make a cut to those PST changes that are in this budget, yes or no?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I hear from my colleague across the way. My nickname for him is the minister of misinformation. Here we go again, saying things that aren’t accurate.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh.

Shhh, Members. Members.

The minister will be careful in her comments, please. Also, withdraw the “concerted” word. Withdraw what you said. “Concerted effort.” Did I hear that?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: On your advice, I withdraw, hon. Speaker.

I think it’s important to understand that this budget does a number of things at the same time.

Speaking specifically about the business community, we hear from the business community that they need to remain competitive. The choices that we’ve made in this budget are very careful. They’re very gradual. We hear from the business community that their workers need to rely on the services that we all rely upon. That is part of Budget 2026. It takes action on both.

The choices that we are making mean that we can continue to ensure that we can provide health services for British Columbians and ensure that we can continue to provide services for the business sector, like the manufacturing credit, like the $400 million fund.

These are important investments that need to be made, like the decrease that we’re doing — 35 percent decrease in timing for a mining permit. These things are very important.

In Budget 2026, we do two things at the same time. We protect our business sector and drive forward…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: …on economic growth. And we protect the services that everyone, including the business community, relies on.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act.

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage on Bill 7.

And in Section C, the Birch Room, I call Committee of Supply, estimates, the Ministry of Education and Child Care.

[2:45 p.m.]

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Budget Measures
Implementation Act, 2026
(continued)

Deputy Speaker: Members, we are going to continue our debate in this chamber on Bill 2.

Sheldon Clare: I rise today to speak against the implementation of Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

In starting my remarks, I would like to relate a story. I am a historian. Stories are part of my nature. Many years ago when my sister was an emergency nurse working at Vancouver General Hospital, management decided that since there were no significant incidents happening in the emergency department, they would get rid of the security guard. Clearly, the security guard was not needed because there were no incidents.

Now, when I was hearing this story for the first time, it occurred to me right away that the reason there were no incidents was because there was a security guard. And sure enough, as was related to me, as soon as they got rid of the security guard, they started to have many incidents. They started to have all kinds of problems. They started to have violence. They had difficulty. It was pandemonium. They were ultimately forced to return the security guard because there were so many problems.

Well, when I heard that this NDP government wanted to get rid of the Office of the Merit Commissioner, that story popped into my mind right away. According to the 2010-11 report of the Merit Commissioner: “Merit has been the foundation of staffing in the B.C. Public Service for 100 years.”

The Merit Commissioner was established in 2001. Section 8 of the Public Service Act requires all appointments to the public service to be based on merit and as the result of a process “designed to appraise the knowledge, skills and abilities of eligible applicants.”

The act also provides for appointments reflecting education, skills, knowledge, experience, past work performance and seniority, as well as external recruitment and internal advancement. In addition, the act provides for employment equity, career development and focus on particular groups, position levels or organizational unit or geographical areas.

The Office of the Merit Commissioner became independent in 2005. Before that, it was a deputy minister. In 2018, the responsibility for dismissal reviews was added to the Merit Commissioner’s portfolio.

Decisions for merit transcend decisions made for other reasons. So what, then, is merit? Well, there are many words related to merit. A key feature is that it is earned. Virtue, excellence, quality, skill, ability, integrity, value, worth, talent, stature, capability, credibility and so on are all words that describe the essence of what makes merit. These are all characteristics that are commendable.

Merit is intended to prevent dominance of social class, wealth or other unfair considerations in hiring practices. In short, it avoids entitlement. It avoids favouritism.

[2:50 p.m.]

Merit and advantage are not the same thing. Merit is about the qualities of a particular individual. Advantage is usually used in the context of comparison with a particular condition, circumstance — a hand up, if you like — or other characteristic that aids in one’s success, regardless of whether or not that success was, in fact, earned.

Advantages are given. Merit is earned. Merit is achievement, while advantage is more related to favourable circumstances unrelated to having been earned. For example, skills and experience would be merit. A personal relationship with the human resources manager might be an advantage.

With an emphasis on identifying the most qualified and capable person, the danger is lessened of favouritism based on a range of factors unrelated to observable skills and qualifications.

A well-crafted, merit-based hiring process is objective, with emphasis on job-related characteristics. Merit hiring removes the effect of personal bias, favouritism or other characteristics unrelated to the specific role. Merit emphasizes fairness, and it emphasizes equality of opportunity. All candidates are measured on their potential and the position requirements rather than irrelevant criteria or connections.

When merit is the criteria, it avoids stigmatizing people and creating impressions that anyone was hired because of their friends, relations or to fill a quota. Morale can be damaged if hiring is not based on merit and performance. A fair and clear emphasis on excellence is clear and well understood by everyone.

The danger of not relying on merit is that one hires the wrong person, who is thus set up to fail. It mustn’t be the case that the government believes that members of prescribed or identifiable groups are not capable of being hired on their merits. It simply can’t be the case. I’d be shocked if that was true.

Why, then, would the government eliminate the Office of the Merit Commissioner, an office intended to ensure that those appointed to government jobs are duly qualified for the work that they aspire to do for the public service?

The Merit Commissioner is an essential independent officer of the Legislature. This office is one that ensures that hiring practices for taxpayer-funded positions are based on skills, competence and qualification rather than favouritism, patronage or identity politics.

The Merit Commissioner has several important roles which protect the interests of the taxpayer and the integrity of a non-partisan public service. For example, the Merit Commissioner conducts audits of hiring appointments to ensure that recruitment and selection procedures were fairly applied and that those selected were actually qualified for the work they aspire to do.

The role provides the opportunity for unsuccessful applicants to request a final and binding review if they believe that the hiring process wasn’t fair — that is, that it was not, in fact, based upon merit.

The Merit Commissioner reports directly to the Legislative Assembly and, in so doing, holds government ministries and organizations accountable for their hiring practices. The Merit Commissioner provides a significant check that ensures fairness and transparency in evaluating process vis-à-vis principles of fairness when examining hiring practices.

Another important role of the Merit Commissioner is to provide oversight of the process for just cause dismissals to ensure that they meet established standards and policies. Thus, the Merit Commissioner is all about preventing hiring abuses.

This role is an important one that helps to maintain public confidence — a public confidence that has been sorely, sorely tested for a very long time. It ensures that those who serve the public are the most qualified and capable. The position is a clear check against political patronage and other interference.

Again, why would this government be opposed to keeping such an important position with such critical roles? That is a most vexing and important question indeed.

[2:55 p.m.]

This is of concern for many on this side of the House, as to why the Merit Commissioner position would be eliminated. This cannot, clearly, simply be a cost-saving measure. There must be more to it than that.

Is this something about making sure that merit is not measured? Is it about making sure that people are able to conduct these abuses which I have enumerated? Is that what this is about? I would certainly hope not. Is this, in fact, about making sure that patronage can be exploited and used in the hiring of the public service? I certainly hope that that’s not the case as well.

But the fact that this particular independent office has been targeted for elimination just a few months after the commissioner found that more and more appointments did not have merit for the positions for which they were appointed is indeed somewhat concerning. Even the head of the B.C. Public Service is opposed to this change, and stakeholders have characterized this as rolling out the trough for the swine to devour. British Columbia needs quality, hard-working public sector workers, not friends and insiders soaking taxpayers for every last dollar.

The Merit Commissioner service plan of October 2025 said: “It is notable that since 2022-2023, there has been an increase in ‘merit not applied’ findings and a decrease in their ‘merit’ findings.” That’s shocking. It’s really a demonstration of why this particular role is so important.

There is a real need to make sure that the Office of the Merit Commissioner is maintained, that it is kept in place and that it is allowed to continue to do the valuable work that does, in fact, protect the interests of the public at large.

But Bill 2 does much more than just target the Merit Commissioner — a significant problem on its own. This particular bill is what puts in place everything around all of the tax hikes and all of the expansions that the NDP has given us. This is what they talked about in the budget, which we’ve been looking at.

Why is it that we are seeing a budget that targets so many people? We heard in question period how this goes after small businesses — 7 percent PST on so many new things. When you’re supposed to be helping people, why would you go after them in such a fashion? Why would you not take different measures that would actually make a difference, look at the waste and any kinds of areas where there are inefficiencies and deal with those rather than looking at taxing an already overtaxed public?

British Columbians are in dire straits. People are wondering about whether or not they can pay their electric bills, pay their rent, pay for their utilities, yet here we are having people given extra taxes.

Most direly affected by all of this are seniors. Our seniors, particularly rural seniors, who do not have the supports available to many in larger centres, are very much under attack by this budget. It shocks me. I couldn’t believe this budget when I read it. To see these measures being implemented, as cold and as hard as they are, I don’t think that they’re going to help. I think they’re going to cause harm.

Just like the story that I related to you at the start about the unintended consequence of getting rid of a security guard, there are many unintended consequences — like what would happen if we get rid of a merit commissioner, for example, and the extra costs that we’re going to be seeing in the public service because of that mistake.

This Budget Implementation Act is full of potential unintended consequences. This application of the PST and getting rid of the exemptions that keep goods and services affordable is a mistake.

[3:00 p.m.]

I think of my own cousin, who himself is a cobbler running a successful business, and the cobbler that I encountered in my riding in Quesnel, who repaired my well-worn boots after a year and a half of heavy campaigning and door-knocking — in which I learned a great deal about what is costing people money.

I thought to myself: “How is it that this cobbler, who is working hard to make a decent living in his very small business, is going to be subjected to having to raise all of his prices on not only his work but all of the products he’s selling in his store related to his business?” This is not okay.

The other side of this, not just limited to the 7 percent, is what’s happening with income tax. In effect, the amount of income tax that people will pay has been increased for the first time since, I think, 2008. This, effectively, is a 10 percent increase in income tax. This is one of the largest in British Columbia’s history.

Yes, British Columbia has a massive debt, and yes, it needs to be dealt with in a very dire and effective way, with drastic measures. But this little snipping at things, which are hurting real people in a substantive way, is not how you get this done.

Exemptions on cable, land lines. In the North, we use land lines. I have a land line in my house. You know why I have this land line? Well, I’ll tell you. I have this land line because when the power is out, the phone works. When the power is out, you can’t charge your cell phone. When it’s dark at night because of the way the time change is going to be, you won’t be able to use anything solar to get power to charge your phone if it’s out. You’re going to rely on a land line.

Many seniors in rural areas where they don’t have cell phone coverage still rely on those land lines, yet those are going to be more expensive. This hurts a particular demographic. It hurts those older folks who know and trust the technology they’re familiar with.

Fixing your clothes and fixing your shoes. You can’t afford new clothes, so what do you do? You fix the old one. You get your old sweater and you get your knitting needles out. You have to go to the store and buy some yarn. Oh, what? You’re busy looking in your pin box to see if you have enough pennies. Oh, you can’t take pennies anywhere because dollars aren’t worth anything.

You’re looking for enough coins to see if you can actually buy the yarn, and then you find out when you get to the store that yarn is 7 percent more expensive too. So you can’t even knit something or fix something that’s broken, and you can’t afford the new thing in the first place. This is crazy.

Then if you’re a small business, you’re having to look at your boarded-up business with its windows and doors shuttered because, once again, someone started a fire that’s caused your business a problem or they put a rock through a window.

I come from a family of small business. My dad owned a hardware store. We used to get those calls in the middle of the night where somebody had kicked in a door or smashed a window. We’d go down and we’d slap up the plywood, maybe after doing a quick screening of the store to make sure there was nobody inside.

You can do that once in a while, but after a while, insurance says no. So what do you do? You hire a security guard. You get that security guard, and that security guard is there with their job. They’re there to make sure they have presence so that someone sees that if they break a window, someone’s going to be able to take a picture of them or they’re going to identify them or they have an increased likelihood of being caught. And now security guards are going to be more expensive? What’s going on here?

It’s like every aspect of everything that one needs to do to fix things is being stymied. It doesn’t make any sense.

If you’re a landlord and you’re trying to look after housing for people and provide rental housing that works, that becomes more expensive too. Why would anyone be involved in renting houses or apartments or condos or anything like that? It doesn’t make sense. All of a sudden, you’re getting more and more of this tax. Strata fees — they’ve even increased.

[3:05 p.m.]

How is it that we can expect small business and our business community to be able to continue this way? This was described earlier by one of my colleagues as death by a thousand cuts. It’s insidious. It’s painful. And it does cause people to bleed out. It’s causing business to bleed out, and that’s hurting.

I’ll give you an example. I have some friends, and the mother in the family operated a used-woollen store. This is in Prince George. It’s a small business. She would buy used clothing; recondition, refurbish and sell this clothing. Her business kept getting the doors kicked in. People would try to bring a rope or a string and they’d put it through the mailbox and try to pull things through the mailbox to steal them.

After having the windows broken, after having the door kicked in, after having products stolen so many times, she couldn’t get insurance anymore. Why would you even make a claim? It’s not worth it. Your insurance premiums go up. The cost of insurance isn’t returned by the sales in your business, and that business had to close.

Now those folks are looking at being evicted from their home because they can’t keep their home anymore. The son who has been funding things got an injury. Disability has run out. He can’t return to his job driving truck. So what are they going to do? It’s all government policy that has driven this particular agenda, and this Budget Measures Implementation Act is just continuing the whole process and making it worse for average people.

This really is an attack on working families. It really is an attack on seniors. When we see $400 million, what’s been characterized as a slush fund going to the Premier’s office, to maybe put who knows where, it’s just crazy to me. All of this in the backdrop of getting rid of the Merit Commissioner.

We’re going to make it less likely that we find problems in public service sector hiring. We’re going to make it more expensive for working families. We’re going to make it more expensive for small businesses. This is not where this province needs to be heading in order to solve the debt and deficit problem with which we are faced.

These problems are solvable, but this Budget Measures Implementation Act will not solve those problems. I would argue that it makes them worse. It drives us down and is not even a delay of the inevitable collapse that this is going to provide.

When we consider Bill 2, I think we must consider it in the light not of the good that it pretends that it will do but in the harm that it will actually present to the people of British Columbia.

Those are my remarks, and I hope that this House will vote down Bill 2 and cause it to die the death that it rightly deserves.

Hon. Randene Neill: I’m so thrilled and honoured to be able to speak to Budget 2026: Securing B.C.’s Future and Bill 2.

As we’ve heard the Finance Minister say many times, this is a tough budget for tough times. I just want to start with a tiny little anecdote in my 20-plus years working as a journalist through different news organizations. We knew we had done a good job on a story when all of the interviews and the interviewees we had spoken to were equally dissatisfied with the outcome of the story. This is certainly the case, I think, with this budget in many cases.

It’s a tough budget. These are tough times that we’re in, and we have to make really tough decisions. We’ve made the right decisions in this case.

I want to go through a little bit about what Bill 2 is talking about and a little bit about what this budget is going to bring to all of us.

[3:10 p.m.]

First of all, though, I do want to just acknowledge that I’m incredibly grateful to be on lək̓ʷəŋən territory, otherwise known as the Esquimalt and Songhees Nations as well.

Talking a little bit about Budget 2026, it still protects what matters most to people, while securing B.C.’s future. I know we’ve been focusing on building a strong foundation for the province, and we’re delivering those things that are incredibly important to every single British Columbian. When you talk to them in the grocery store, at their front door, at church, at the community centre or in the middle of nature on a hike, they are worried about health care, housing and affordability.

We’re tackling all those things. We’re delivering hospitals, schools, roads, transit, housing and clean energy. We’ve made these investments while experiencing extraordinary challenges, including a global pandemic, major floods, devastating wildfires — not even just in the summer but now year-round — and attacks on our economy and our sovereignty.

Our investments are delivering real results for real people.

We’re creating major projects that are moving forward.

We’re bringing in more family doctors and nurses in communities than ever before. I was a recent recipient of one.

For the first time ever, I have a family doctor, as of about six months ago. I’m actually going to meet him for the first time next week, when we’re on break week. He’s an American doctor who came up as part of several thousand fleeing what’s happening in the United States right now. I’m incredibly grateful for the work that our Health Ministry has done here, and I’m incredibly grateful to meet my new Dr. Williams next week, for the first time.

Rents are coming down.

We are initiating free HRT, hormone replacement therapy, and diabetes medication and free birth control for so many folks here in B.C., which is critically, critically important.

Everyday costs are being eased through the B.C. family benefit, affordable child care and lower car insurance rates.

Budget 2026 defends all of those gains as well, also recognizing that we face a tough reality right now. Global uncertainty is slowing growth everywhere. Recent, unexpected wars are increasing costs in some areas, creating volatile commodity prices and putting unexpected pressures on finances. Budget 2026 makes choices to protect what matters most to every single British Columbian. That includes supporting core services like health care and education and reducing the deficit responsibly over time.

We’re taking three key steps, as well, in this budget. We’re making the public sector more efficient. We’re pacing infrastructure projects to control costs. And we’re generating new revenue while growing the economy and advancing major projects.

We’re doubling trades training. We’re supporting major projects. We’re speeding up permitting and making it more efficient. We’re protecting services. We’re keeping taxes low. And we’re strengthening B.C. for the long term.

Part of my role here is as Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, and I want to talk about a couple of specific highlights that WLRS, as we’re affectionately known, is doing in terms of Bill 2, in the budget.

We are playing a critical role in supporting people, in strengthening communities and in helping to make B.C. a better place to live. Budget 2026 is investing $238 million in this ministry over three years to accelerate economic growth. A strong economy means more jobs, better wages and greater capacity to meet today’s challenges.

My ministry is leading work to reduce permitting times and move projects forward. We are removing barriers and duplications. We are simplifying processes across the government. In fact, it’s such a priority for this government to reduce permitting wait times that we are increasing our budget by $7.5 million for WLRS to support permitting improvements. These changes will get shovels in the ground faster, and we’re improving certainty for businesses while maintaining high environmental standards.

[3:15 p.m.]

Permitting improvements are already delivering results. Over the past two years, we’ve applied a one-window approach in housing and connectivity, and housing permitting backlogs have been absolutely eliminated. Connectivity application turnaround times have been reduced by more than 60 percent since 2023. We’re expanding delegated decision-making to improve efficiency and stewardship.

For example, a specialized team within the Ministry of Transportation and Transit is approving water licences for transportation projects. By delegating that responsibility, approval times have dropped, from 12 to 24 months, to just one month.

In land use planning…. We all know and understand that this is an incredibly key tool to support economic growth and reconciliation as well. It is transparent. It is inclusive. And it is partnership-based.

For example, the Gwa’ni land use planning project, which we just announced earlier in January — myself and the Minister of Forests — will protect biodiversity. It will support cultural values and provide operational certainty for the forest industry. It will also unlock areas of forests for timber and timber companies that have not been able to be unlocked before because of conflicts over the land base. That land use plan has brought clarity to that.

Land use planning also provides certainty for industry, protection for cultural and ecological values and reduces legal risk and delays. We’re also able to unlock major resource opportunities across northern B.C., support reconciliation and conserve wildlife and ecosystems.

In terms of wildlife, we need to work hard to combat threats that we can’t control — threats like invasive species that are coming into our province. Chronic wasting disease is a deadly disease that attacks cervids in B.C. — our deer, our elk, our moose populations. Since its detection in 2024, we have responded quickly with enhanced surveillance, mandatory testing and targeted management.

Right now these costs aren’t extraordinarily high, but if we don’t continue to keep the number of cases really incredibly low, we’re going to look at reactive pricing, which is always going to be much, much higher.

Part of the proactivity that we’re doing…. We allowed a recent deer hunt in January, a general open hunt where we asked hunters to go out and tag a deer. We received 226 samples from deer that were harvested from hunters during that one-month period within the chronic-wasting-disease test area.

What we discovered was not a single sample came back positive. That means what we’re doing is working. We’re containing the spread. We’re protecting our wildlife populations. We’re supporting communities for the long term, and we’re doing that in a proactive way, and that is something we have not stopped doing in Budget 2026.

We also want to thank, critically, all the hunters and trappers that participated in that January hunt. Their partnership in all of this is absolutely critical.

I just have a couple of minutes left, so I also want to talk about my constituency. I am the MLA for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, an absolutely magical slice of geography in British Columbia, and I want to talk about some of the investments that this budget has made in my riding in the past several years.

Most recently, a couple of Saturdays ago, I believe, I joined a group of school kids and their moms and dads at a new pedestrian crossing at a popular trailer park, called Poplars trailer park, and a traffic signal at another nearby park called Woodcreek Park.

I would talk to moms who would have to run their elementary-age children across the highway, the 80-kilometre-an-hour highway, in the mornings to get to school and do the same thing in the afternoon because there was no crosswalk. So this new pedestrian traffic signal was widely applauded. People are incredibly happy, and this, absolutely, will prevent tragic accidents in the future.

I also want to talk about our coastal hazard preparedness. This is a big one for the Sunshine Coast, where we’re pretty much surrounded by water everywhere you look. In the last year, the shíshálh Nation received $150,000 for coastal erosion hazard mitigation, and the ɬəʔamɛn Nation up in qathet received coastal flood protection and seawall extension planning as well.

[3:20 p.m.]

Community emergency preparedness fund investments include qathet regional district volunteer fire department — yay, our volunteer fire departments everywhere — Sechelt fire protection district, Pender Harbour fire protection district and the ɬəʔamɛn Nation fire equipment funding. Together they received close to $400,000 in funding for all of our incredibly important volunteer fire departments, who, just five years ago, actually saved my husband from an almost fatal allergic reaction. I literally owe these volunteer firefighters my husband’s life.

In education and child care, a $16 million investment for a five-classroom addition at Edgehill Elementary. In Madeira Park, very close to the community where I live, we converted 13 child care spaces at Serendipity Child Development to $10-a-day spaces. This is going to be an absolute game-changer for 13 families in my already tiny community. This means that their moms or their dads who are looking after their kids full-time are going to be able to return back into the workforce for the first time. As we know, that brings, overall, billions of dollars back into our economy when parents can go back to work.

The manufacturing jobs fund, supporting our local forestry and manufacturing. I’m so pleased that Tla’amin Timber Products received almost $40,000 and HomeD modular building technologies received up to $50,000. These are just a taste of the things that our budget is doing every day for the people not only in my community but all across British Columbia.

Again, this is a difficult budget for a difficult time, but I am so proud of this budget and the work we are going to do to bring down costs, increase affordability and continue to work on improving our health care and our child care spaces for our kids.

I want to thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to Budget 2026 and Bill 2.

Rosalyn Bird: I rise today to speak to Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2026, the legislation that gives legal effect to the tax changes, structural changes and policy decisions contained in this year’s provincial budget.

As members know, second reading debate is not simply about the technical clauses of legislation. It is about the principle of the bill. It is about what direction the government is choosing for the province, what priorities it is setting and what the consequences of those decisions will be for British Columbians.

When we look carefully at Bill 2, what we see is deeply troubling. This legislation does three things at once.

First, it implements significant tax increases on British Columbians, including increases to personal income tax and the expansion of provincial sales tax to new goods and services.

Second, it quietly makes structural changes to transparency and accountability laws that weaken oversight.

Third, perhaps the most concerning, it eliminates the independent office of the Merit Commissioner, a watchdog responsible for ensuring that hiring in the B.C. Public Service is based on merit rather than political favour.

Taken together, this bill reflects a government that is asking British Columbians to pay more while, at the same time, reducing the transparency and oversight that taxpayers deserve.

Let me begin with the tax changes embedded in this legislation. Bill 2 implements an increase to the lowest provincial income tax bracket, raising the rate from 5.06 percent to 5.6 percent. That means the very first dollars British Columbians earn will now be taxed at a higher rate. This is significant for two reasons.

First, this affects every taxpayer in British Columbia, not just those at higher incomes. Second, this is the first increase to the lowest provincial income tax rate since 2008.

At a time when families are already facing rising costs for housing, groceries and energy, this government has chosen to increase the taxes people pay on the very first dollars they earn, and the impact does not stop there.

The government is also freezing income tax bracket adjustments, which means that inflation pushes wages upward. British Columbians will gradually be pushed into higher effective tax burdens. In other words, even if someone’s pay increase simply reflects inflation, they will still end up paying more tax. That is what economists often refer to as bracket creep, and it quietly increases the tax burden year after year.

[3:25 p.m.]

The government may present this as a small change, but over time, it becomes a significant and growing tax increase on the working people.

Bill 2 also enables the expansion of the provincial sales tax into new sectors of the economy.

Professional services such as accounting, engineering, architecture and bookkeeping will now face additional taxation. Businesses that rely on these services will see their costs increase, and those costs will not simply disappear. They will be passed on to customers; homeowners; small businesses; and, ultimately, working families.

For example, businesses that hire private security services will now have to pay 7 percent more. That matters in communities like Prince George where businesses are already struggling with rising crime and street disorder in the downtown core.

Shop owners are already paying thousands of dollars each month just to keep their doors open safely. Many have had to hire private security guards, install surveillance systems or shorten their hours simply to deal with theft, vandalism and safety concerns. Now this government is telling those businesses that the very security services that they rely on to protect their employees and their customers will cost 7 percent more.

Condominium owners may see higher strata fees as management services become more expensive. Again, this is not theoretical. In Prince George, there are many seniors living in strata housing or modest condominium units, often on fixed incomes. Their budgets are already stretched by rising grocery costs, higher heating bills during the long northern winters and increasing property taxes. When strata management costs go up, those increases are passed directly on to seniors who are already struggling to make ends meet.

In northern communities like Prince George, those costs land at a particularly difficult moment. Many families are already facing economic uncertainty as a result of forestry curtailments and mill closures across northern British Columbia.

We have seen mills shut down, shifts reduced and forestry workers forced to travel farther and farther from home to find work. These are families who have built their lives around the forestry sector for generations. When those jobs disappear, it affects entire communities. It affects local contractors, truck drivers, restaurants, equipment suppliers and small businesses that depend on forestry workers spending money in the local economy.

So when this government increases costs on professional services that those businesses rely on, it is adding pressure at exactly the moment when northern communities are already under strain.

As costs rise across these sectors, we should expect those costs to ripple across the entire economy. The reality is that when government raises costs on those businesses that provide services, those costs inevitably show up in the bills that ordinary people must pay every single month. That is how tax increases spread through the economy. They rarely remain where they are first applied.

The bill also makes changes to the homeowner grant, the structure of removing distinctions that previously recognized the realities of northern and rural communities. Those distinctions existed for a reason. Families living in places like Prince George, McBride and Valemount face higher costs simply because of where they live. They drive longer distances to work, travel farther to access services, and they face higher heating costs during long northern winters.

[3:30 p.m.]

For many seniors, including my father-in-law, in Prince George and other areas of our region, their home is the one piece of stability they have after decades of hard work. Reducing supports that help them stay in those homes sends the wrong message to the communities that help drive the provincial economy.

Northern British Columbia produces the natural resources, forestry products and energy that help sustain prosperity across this province. The people who live and work in those communities deserve policies that recognize their realities, not policies that make life more expensive. That matters deeply for communities across northern British Columbia — Prince George, Valemount, McBride and Blue River — where residents already face higher costs simply because of geography and distance. These communities are not asking for special treatment, but they do expect government policy to recognize the realities that they face.

Bill 2 also makes changes to the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, including changes to reporting thresholds and financial disclosure requirements. For example, the threshold at which government must present detailed cost information to the Legislature for capital projects has been increased from $50 million to $125 million. That is not a small adjustment. It is a 2½-times increase. The practical effect is simple. Fewer projects will require detailed disclosure in the Legislature.

The question is: what information may or may not be given to the Legislature in regards to those projects? Do they still have to give disclosure on cost overruns, labour challenges, project delays? We’re not sure.

At a time when major infrastructure projects across Canada are experiencing escalating costs, one would think that the government would be strengthening oversight. Instead, this legislation moves in the opposite direction. Transparency should not be viewed as a burden. It should be viewed as a fundamental responsibility.

However, perhaps the most concerning part of Bill 2 is the elimination of the independent Office of the Merit Commissioner. This office was created in 2001 to ensure that appointments in the B.C. Public Service are based on merit, qualifications and fairness. It serves as an independent watchdog that audits hiring practices and ensures that political considerations do not influence who is hired for public service positions.

Under Bill 2, that office is dissolved, and its responsibilities are transferred into the government itself. The legislation repeals multiple sections of the Public Service Act that established the independent commissioner and allowed for oversight in hiring practices. Instead of an independent officer of the Legislature, the role will effectively be carried out internally within the government. That fundamentally changes the nature of oversight. Instead of independent oversight, we now have government overseeing itself.

The importance of independent oversight becomes even clearer when we look at recent findings from the Merit Commissioner. Recent reports have shown an increase in hiring processes where merit was not properly applied. In fact, in the most recent audit, approximately 10 percent of all appointments reviewed found that merit had not been applied properly. That is precisely why this office exists. When problems are identified, the response should be to strengthen oversight, not eliminate it.

The Merit Commissioner himself recently warned that the cost of losing independent oversight may, ultimately, far exceed the savings from eliminating a small oversight body. The office operates with a budget of roughly $1.7 million. In the context of a provincial budget measured in tens of billions of dollars, that is a very small cost to ensure integrity in the public service. Yet the government has decided that even this modest level of independent oversight is too much.

It is not only members of the opposition who have raised concerns. Stakeholders have also spoken out. The president of the BCGEU has publicly stated that the union was not consulted and opposes the decision to eliminate the office. He warned that the change effectively removes the audit function over public service hiring.

[3:35 p.m.]

Others have expressed concern that removing the independent oversight opens the door to political influence over hiring decisions. Public trust in the public service depends on one key principle: that positions are awarded based on competence and qualifications, not political connections. When oversight disappears, the trust begins to erode.

The public service is one of the most important institutions in our province. The people who work within it manage essential programs. They deliver services to citizens. They ensure that government policies are implemented effectively. They deserve a hiring system that is transparent, fair and beyond political influence.

Taxpayers deserve confidence that the public service is staffed by the best and most qualified individuals available. Independent oversight is essential to maintaining that confidence. Without it, the system becomes vulnerable to perceptions of favouritism and political patronage. Even if those perceptions are not always accurate, the loss of public trust can be damaging in itself.

Hiring within the public service must be based on qualifications, fairness and transparency, not political relationships. That principle matters even more when we look at some of the recent controversies surrounding government appointments and contracts. For example, last year the government faced significant criticism after awarding a six-month consulting contract worth approximately $150,000 to a former executive to advise on policy related to Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.

What raised eyebrows was not simply the value of the contract; it was the circumstances surrounding it. The individual had recently left another publicly funded organization under unclear circumstances, and the terms of the new contract, including the scope of work and reporting requirements, were not immediately clear to the public. The controversy grew to the point that the government ultimately cancelled the contract after significant public backlash.

That episode illustrates why transparency and oversight matter. When large public contracts are issued without clear explanations, British Columbians begin to ask reasonable questions. Who was considered for the work? Was there a competitive process? Were other qualified candidates evaluated, or was the contract just simply handed to someone with connections? Those are precisely the kinds of questions an independent oversight framework is designed to protect against.

There are also growing concerns about a number of political advisers and consultant contracts being issued by the government now. Media reports have noted that the government has faced scrutiny over multiple advisory contracts awarded to individuals connected to government or political networks.

In one case, questions were raised after a communications contract reportedly worth $140,000 annually was awarded to a political insider. In another instance, a former NDP cabinet minister was hired as a special adviser on public sector bargaining, again raising questions about how these appointments were made and whether other qualified candidates were considered.

Now, I want to be very clear. The issue here is not about the individuals themselves. Many of these individuals have experience and public service credentials. The issue is about process and accountability. When governments appoint advisers, consultants or public officials without clear and transparent processes, public confidence erodes.

This is exactly why the Merit Commissioner matters. When an independent officer reviews hiring practices, audits appointment processes and reports publicly on whether merit was applied, British Columbians can have the confidence that the system is working as intended. But when that oversight disappears, the system begins to rely entirely on the government’s own assurances.

As one political analyst recently noted in response to the government’s decision to eliminate the Merit Commissioner, the move comes at the very moment when questions about government contracts and insider appointments are increasing. In other words, the government is removing the referee at the same time the game is becoming more controversial.

[3:40 p.m.]

Independent oversight exists not because we assume wrongdoing. It exists because public confidence requires transparency. British Columbians should never have to wonder whether government jobs or contracts are being awarded based on merit or political proximity. And when the government chooses to eliminate the very office responsible for ensuring that merit principle is upheld, those questions will inevitably grow louder. That is why this provision of Bill 2 raises significant concerns.

When we look at Bill 2 as a whole, a pattern begins to emerge. Taxes are increasing. Transparency thresholds are being raised. Independent oversight is being eliminated. Each of these decisions on its own raises questions, but taken together, they tell a much broader story. They suggest a government that is increasingly comfortable asking British Columbians to pay more while providing less accountability in return.

Second reading is about the principle of a bill, and the principle at stake here is straightforward. Should government be more accountable or less accountable? Should taxpayers expect greater transparency or less transparency? Should oversight of public service hiring be independent or controlled by the government itself? Bill 2 answers those questions in a way many British Columbians will find deeply concerning.

British Columbians work hard. They expect their government to spend their tax dollars responsibly. They expect hiring of the public service to be fair and based on merit. And they expect transparency and oversight when billions of public dollars are being spent.

Bill 2 moves the province in the wrong direction on each of these fronts. It increases the tax burden on working families. It reduces transparency around major government spending. And it eliminates an independent watchdog that helps ensure fairness and integrity in public service hiring. For those reasons, members of this House have serious concerns about the principle of this legislation, and I will not be supporting this legislation at second reading.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I’m honoured to rise here in the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking People, the Songhees and xʷsepsəm Peoples to speak to Bill 2.

I also raise my hands to Chief Wyse and the Snuneymuxw People where I’m elected and live — Snuneymuxw territory. I’m grateful for the grounding of that territory and the wisdom of chief and council. I’m grateful for all of you.

We are in such a time. British Columbia is a great place to live, but global market uncertainty and the impact of tariffs are slowing down domestic economic growth. They’re putting huge pressure on families.

More than ever, this is a time for our government to protect core services — social supports, health care, child care, education — strengthening that skilled workforce that we need to meet the economic opportunities now, the demand of tomorrow and to generate that wealth so that we are able, then, to spend on those vital public services; making careful choices to strengthen B.C.’s long-term finances; building a stronger economy through trades training and major projects; delivering hospitals, schools, housing through a sustainable capital plan; and supporting safer, more resilient communities where people feel safe and do well.

Respectfully, the opposition can’t have it both ways. They say at the same time: “Spend more” and “Cut more.” They say at the same time, “We’re spending too much,” and that we’re also not spending enough.

I’m going to speak to some of the ways that I am encouraged and why I support Bill 2, about the ways that we are supporting people — core services like mental health and addictions. This budget commits another $131 million for mental health and addictions treatment.

People at home will remember when we formed government in 2017, there were zero addiction treatment beds in Nanaimo that you could access with your health card. Now there are more than 50.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hi to Lucy and Kirstin. Thank you for your amazing work.

Right across the road from my constituency office, the supervised consumption site is being deeply renovated by Island Health to build the first wellness centre that we’ll have, where people have better connections to primary health care and addiction treatment. It’s really just such an encouraging expansion.

But what I’m really going to focus on is the $2.3 billion in this year’s budget to increase health system capacity. In particular, the Nanaimo hospital tower long needed this. Our hospital, NRGH, is consistently over census.

My girlfriend Adrienne, my best friend since grade 10, is a social worker in the emergency room. She tells me every time we get together how much more space is needed and how the demands for the whole region just put on so much pressure.

I’m so grateful for the incredibly talented and patient staff that make that hospital work, but I know the working conditions are hard.

We all want expansion of acute care and cardiac services in the central Island region. And I’m so pleased that this budget indicates we’re moving forward with a concept plan for a new patient tower at Nanaimo Regional Hospital.

There was a plan in place. We’ve built out many parts of it though. We went from eight bad acute care beds….

You’ll remember in 2017 it was revealed, when we formed government, that the B.C. Liberals had been sitting on a 2013 report saying that Nanaimo’s intensive care unit was the most dangerous in the country, but they hadn’t done anything about it. It became an election issue, a commitment when I was elected in a by-election in 2019.

Those eight amazing intensive care beds are now built, and while we were at it, we added another eight high-acuity beds. In fact, actually, the total count is now 24 acute care beds, and they are state of the art. We want the whole hospital to look like that.

We are also now building a cancer centre in Nanaimo. Because some of the pieces of the old concept plan have moved ahead, we have now committed to a new concept plan that will accommodate, also, the question about where cardiac care sits.

We are very grateful for the very constructive partnership of the Nanaimo Regional Hospital District board for their very forward-looking vision and partnership. Because of their leadership and their early commitment of funds, we’re going to be able to move forward now, and I’m just so grateful we’re able to do that.

More broadly on health care, throughout this budget and across every corner of the province, we’re expanding health care services. We’re building 30 new and expanded hospitals, including a second Surrey hospital, and we’re opening urgent primary care centres and community health clinics across B.C. We already have two in Nanaimo — again, under our government.

Members in the B.C. Liberal and Conservative parties did not prioritize the health care needs of people when they sold off land for hospitals and refused to replace aging hospitals. We are still digging the province out of that hole, and we’re going to continue to do that work.

Also, more broadly on the health care side, this budget plan secures $447 million in federal funding for seniors health services and $653 million to expand public coverage for diabetes medications and menopausal hormone therapy.

A shout-out to my amazing group of women friends on Gabriola Island who spent three hours yesterday talking about exactly this free access. This is the first place in the country that that is available.

Child care is another deep investment in this budget — another $330 million over three years to maintain lower fees and support spaces and operators while the system is modernized.

Also, in the education field, K to 12 is receiving $634 million over three years, including $167 million for the classroom enhancement fund to add teachers and supports for inclusive learning.

Altogether this budget is protecting these core services. In contrast, B.C. Conservative members who were former Liberal government reps froze the school capital budget for eight straight years. They closed 267 schools.

Our government, though, on the other hand, is ensuring that more school construction would be built with this year’s budget to make up for those lost years.

[3:50 p.m.]

The B.C. Liberals slashed social housing by 75 percent in just one year alone. In contrast, just in my community alone, we’ve already opened 134 completed affordable housing projects. We have another 419 proceeding.

The mayor of Nanaimo will say those numbers don’t quite add up. He’s quite right because the MLA for Nanaimo-Lantzville represents the north part of Nanaimo. I’m just the south part and Gabriola Island. But the Nanaimo complex care centre is proceeding. Parkedge Manor, which is next to Sunfield Manor….

So it’s really neat, actually. There was one apartment building of old housing. B.C. Housing, together with the Woodgrove Senior Citizens Society, built a new unit, 62 units, next door. People from the original unit were able to move in. Then the old unit was torn down, and it’s now being built up. Another great example of our government investing in community organizations. Hand raised to the amazing seniors committee that just managed this whole construction under really challenging circumstances.

We’re building formerly homelessness housing on Nicol Street with the partnership of Snuneymuxw First Nation. Te’tuxwtun redevelopment — 199 units — is going ahead. Terminal supportive housing, going ahead.

On Gabriola Island, where I live, for the very first time we are building affordable housing. Paisley Place, 24 units. The Gabriola affordable housing society has led this, working together with M’akola Housing, who are helping with some of the management. I’m just so proud and impressed by them.

Again, this has been a very long road. People can apply right now through the housing society for tenancy there. All of these things…. We just need to continue to invest more deeply in our communities, and we’re doing this work in partnership.

In another category…. I’m speaking now about the ministry that I lead, Social Development and Poverty Reduction.

First, just the hugest thanks to the good BCGEU workers, everybody that works on the front line. This is challenging, committed, vital work. When I visit offices, I expect people to be tired or exhausted by the real intensity of the work, but you just consistently say how much you are committed to serving, but also how much you support each other as workers.

These folks really deserve our government’s appreciation.

We are committed to a strong front line, and so much of the work in this budget is protecting that. I really want to credit also…. With growing caseload…. More people because of the cost of living are turning to income assistance.

Call volumes and everything are up, but our public service has really innovated in a lot of ways, including a callback feature so that nobody needs to get stuck on the phone. Seventy percent of all clients are using this callback feature so that they get a phone call back within an hour. It’s kind of amazing.

During the postal strike, our folks just pulled out the stops. All ministry service and service channels remained available. There was no interruption in welfare cheque delivery, against all odds, even though the federal government’s commitment to still deliver income assistance cheques to people, even in a postal strike, could not be honoured. They couldn’t do it, but our folks just made sure it worked. When the Ombudsperson investigated whether we had done our job right, he issued a report that was titled Stamp of Approval and really credited the teams for doing the work well.

In this year’s budget, we have a $121 million lift for income assistance and disability assistance to respond to caseload pressures and the fact that people need more help.

We also eliminated the spousal clawback for support allowance, so couples on disability assistance can each keep their full support allowance. This has been long called for by self-advocates in the sector. Now your support allowance won’t be reduced just because you are in a relationship.

Also, couples where one person is receiving disability assistance will also benefit from an increased annual earnings exemption. If you’re on disability assistance or income assistance, you’re also allowed to earn additional income to create a fuller income. You were protected if both couples were on disability assistance around the earnings exemption. But we had also been told by self-advocates that it was unfair where you had one couple on income assistance and one not….

[3:55 p.m.]

Those changes were made in November and December. They were automatic. People do not need to apply for it, but they’re costed in this budget. People are receiving at least $110 more every month — significantly more, again, depending on their income assistance level.

I loved when we announced this at the office of Nanaimo Association for Community Living. Julie and James came to speak at our media advisory, and they really described in such a compelling way, Julie especially, how they had delayed marriage because their disability benefits would have been reduced. Julie says she can now live like a normal person. It was really wonderful.

So that’s 6,500 families that are benefiting from that change, and that’s a $52 million investment in this year’s budget.

In the Ministry of Children and Family Development, but certainly related to a similar client base to have…. Children with support needs have almost an extra half a billion dollars to attend to support needs across a much broader spectrum — folks with Down syndrome, for example.

Don’t believe when the Conservatives say that we are cutting supports. We’re not. A half a billion dollars more is a lift.

Because everybody deserves dignity, inclusion and the chance to participate fully in community life, Community Living B.C. was formed by families and self-advocates to fund inclusion supports for people with developmental disabilities in community. It really gives people a voice in how they want to live and be supported. So 29,000 or 30,000 adults are funded every year, and this budget adds $84 million for Community Living B.C., bringing its total funding to $1.9 billion.

It’s an independent Crown, but it’s under my ministry, and we work very closely together. We’ll, of course, continue working closely with Community Living B.C. and the service providers to make sure people get the supports that they need in their communities.

I want to also just give a special thanks to outgoing CEO Ross Chilton. He will be retiring in January 2027, but we are glad we have time to get used to him not being at the helm. He’s just been such a strong presence.

I had this note from someone who was served by Community Living B.C., Phoebe, who said: “Independence means everything to me. I feel like I’ve grown as a person now that I’ve been here a few months. Living on my own has been both an emotional and physical adjustment, but my home share feels like my new home. My parents’ house is now more like my second home.” That’s what we want to be able to have — people to be able to live their fullest life.

I’m going to talk a little bit more on the training side, building that stronger economy through trades training, to have the Look West investment of $283 million over the next three years — including $241 million to double funding for SkilledTradesBC — and also the $400 million B.C. strategic investment special account.

Both of these are really designed both to help leverage federal spending and private capital for job-creating opportunities. Also, just knowing how much this is tied together…. If we build the North Coast transmission line, if we invest in partnership with First Nations, this is all unlocking revenue that then funds the social services that I’ve just been describing in the first half of my speech.

But within Social Development and Poverty Reduction sits a whole employment training division, of which WorkBC is the most visible piece. I hear people say to me that they feel better, plus they’re better off, when they have a job that means something to them, that makes them more connected with their community and gives them a sense of purpose. So we really focus on reducing barriers to people getting into the workplace and then, of course, continuing to support those who can’t.

We have 102 WorkBC Centres that have helped over 99,000 people last year. Supports include things like counselling, life skills and career readiness, credentialing and language interpretation services, skills training, work placement experience, wage subsidies, on-the-job coaching. Often someone will get a job and then we have got someone to be there with them to make sure that they retain that job and don’t repeat old patterns.

[4:00 p.m.]

We now have over 130,000 people in British Columbia getting connected to skills training and good jobs every year.

One example of the kind of ways that we are spending — and, fortunately, this is mostly federal money that we get to spend, that I get to decide how it’s going to be spent — is funding through the federal EI program. To its credit, Ottawa recognizes that it’s better to spend that money in the provinces and territories than to spend it out of Ottawa.

We don’t ever take that for granted, so thank you to the feds for continuing to fund that work.

One example is a project-based labour market training program. When I met with the Quatsino First Nation leadership at First Nations Leadership Gathering this fall, they described 16 youth who had just graduated from bulldozer operator training that, again, our ministry had funded. The Quatsino First Nation had come to us and said: “We want to train our young people close to home. We don’t want them to go to the big city. We know that these jobs are coming up in our region.”

That’s just an example of point-in-time funding. We get the people with the right micro-credentials to be able to do this work, and then they’re on their way.

For people that have faced deeper barriers, we’ve got a new community-based employment services program providing wraparound, trauma-informed supports for people facing really complex barriers, like unstable housing, mental health or substance use challenges. We’ve been piloting this in Victoria, Downtown Eastside, Surrey, Prince George, Kelowna, Nanaimo. The goal is to break that poverty cycle through supported pathways to employment.

That’s a whole stream. If anybody wants to get connected with that — either as a participant, an employer or a partner — you can be part of the solution. It’s really inspiring work, again, to get people out of that cycle of poverty and into meaningful work.

We’ve also got another round of work experience opportunities grants — $7.7 million over two years — to create paid work experience for people facing significant barriers. It’s thanks to the United Way, who’s administering this program for us. Not-for-profit organizations can apply, and then we pay for the wage for someone to work with them.

A woman named Rachel, who is a program participant, said: “It’s empowering for me. This training helps me a lot. This program gave me information and boosted my confidence. Every single time you make something, it’s valuable.” Up to 1,200 people are supported through this. Again, it’s federally funded but delivered out of my ministry.

Oh, I’ve got so many programs to describe here and not enough time. I’ll say maybe just that Foundry, which we talk about so often, is that one-stop shop for…. I think there are 23 Foundry centres now across British Columbia. Look it up if you’re not familiar.

My ministry has been funding a work and education program within the Foundry model, and $14 million has been invested since 2021. It has supported over 2,200 youth, helping them gain confidence, training, guidance. It helps them succeed in school and life, but this is, again, particularly focused on work.

The peer model, especially for young people that are suspicious of government institutions or are dealing with trauma…. To have them walk along this journey hand in hand with some of the incredible youth peer workers at Foundry…. They’re just so inspiring.

We’re also funding, in relation to how under strain the forestry sector is, a lot of different programs for workers, families and whole communities who are feeling the impact of market volatility, fibre shortages and tariffs.

We have a $3 million build-your-own-future program, which is helping displaced workers retrain. We have a $5 million rural and remote employment fund that’s supporting northern and remote communities with labour market studies and business advisory services so that they can identify what their community needs. Local governments can apply for that.

Direct WorkBC training supports connecting forestry workers to short-term training, skills upgrading, re-skilling and job matching. Again, that wage subsidy is there, so if you’re an employer, you can have 75 percent of the wage paid by us while you’re test-driving a new employee.

[4:05 p.m.]

For example, WorkBC teams in 100 Mile House and in Duncan are working weekends. They’ve got longer hours. They’re proactively reaching out to the EI list to connect people with supports. If someone is not on EI — anybody, whether you’re tariff-impacted or not — please kick the tires on our WorkBC Centres. They are the gateway into some of the other programs that I’ve described.

All these new workers are helping us build a better B.C. Nearly 130,000 jobs are expected to be supported by projects during our three-year capital plan, and for us to be training up that next wave of workers is really important for the work we want to do.

I’m going to spend just a couple of minutes talking about some of the actions in that capital plan. Altogether the capital plan in this budget totals $37.7 billion over three years, including $11 billion for health facilities, $4 billion for schools and $4.4 billion for post-secondary and student housing.

In Nanaimo at Vancouver Island University, a 266-bed student housing is being built right now. If you’re driving through Nanaimo, you can see it rising up, storey by storey. It’s also going to include dining halls and study rooms. Construction began in fall 2024, and it’ll be complete by 2027. It’s the kind of thing that not only makes life more affordable and that connects students more directly to the campus but it also takes pressure off rental housing within Nanaimo itself. It really is a win-win for us.

I can’t stand up without talking about supporting safer, more resilient communities and speaking to our continued public safety investments — another $139 million over three years for justice and public safety, including initiatives targeting repeat violent offenders and chronic property crime. Hands raised to my colleague the Minister of Public Safety, leading this work.

We’re seeing impacts of the investment over the last couple of years already. Violent offence police interactions for people in the repeat violent offending intervention initiative, ReVOII, dropped by 56 percent over 18 months. Overall police interactions for those in ReVOII decreased by 50 percent in the same period. More offenders are being held in custody, with remand rates rising from 56 percent to 75 percent under ReVOII. These are programs in Nanaimo.

Also, the CSTEP program is about repeat offending for property crimes. We’ve also got that pilot in Nanaimo.

Nanaimo had one of the five largest decreases in crime for all metropolitan areas in the country, down 16 percent. I’m really encouraged that we, funding the work on the ground, are seeing reductions in crime and in violent crime. We know we’ve got more work to do, and we’re going to do that together.

What else am I going to talk about? Oh, another ministry investment that’s making a real difference — the community integration specialists, who work within my Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, are fantastic. In 2025, we had almost 200 of them across the province in every corner. In 2025, they had over 37,000 unique client interactions across the province.

They work outside bricks-and-mortar offices. They connect with people in communities where they are. They go to food banks. They go to Aboriginal friendship centres, libraries, encampments on the street. They build relationships. They’ll get somebody on a B.C. Housing list. They can help them fill out their PWD application.

As a line ministry, I can get daily reports. When there’s something like a wildfire happening, I can get daily reports about people that are on our client list. I just can’t say enough about the community integration specialists. They’re doing extraordinary work, advocating for people.

I will close by summarizing. This budget is about protecting key services that people depend on. We are working hard, making careful choices about managing our spending, but we are making choices not to make deep cuts to the services British Columbians rely on. It’s not the time for that; it’s time to protect them with careful choices. I’ve described so many of the supports that I don’t think anybody could argue that we don’t need more of them.

[4:10 p.m.]

We know the opposition’s choices. We’ve heard a lot about it during these debates — tax breaks for people who don’t need them, cuts to schools and hospitals, hiking costs on people. They’ve done it before, and they’ll do it again. Through this budget, our government is putting people first and supporting people in tough times, in uncertain times, in all times.

I know that people in British Columbia are resilient. They are strong. They are brilliant. We look after each other, and we lift each other up. Continuing in that spirit, we can better support more people working together. That means healthier, more inclusive and stronger communities.

For all these reasons, I support Budget 2026 and Bill 2, and I thank you for the opportunity to say so.

Brennan Day: I’ll just start by responding to the Minister of SDPR’s comments. I think there are a few things that need to be pointed out, because what I didn’t hear were outcomes. And this government is extremely good at announcements. Do not get me wrong. Glossy press releases are this government’s hallmarks. But measuring where that money is going and who it is affecting is poor at best.

In this budget, six long-term-care homes were cancelled, specifically in ridings held by the opposition members. One hospital was cancelled. In this minister’s own riding, I did not hear any claim about a catheterization lab serving the largest unserved population in the developed world. Half a million people live north of the Malahat.

The funding has also remained flat for health care — a $2.7 billion increase, but with inflation and the collective agreement costs, it is effectively flat across the board. We will see no increase in health care spending under this budget in real terms, and that needs to be underscored.

I’ll go back to the announcements of all of these projects. In this budget, these projects are hundreds of years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget. Most of what the minister stated in her speech were reannouncements of things we’ve seen in previous budgets, even those in her own riding, because they’re over budget and they’re behind schedule.

And 1.4 million British Columbians currently do not have a primary care provider. The headlines in the glossy releases that were driven by the CARGA agreement, the primary care report…. It was 750,000 British Columbians who were attached to a doctor since 2017. The province has grown, since 2017, by 750,000 people. It was not a net number. That was new attachments. It didn’t count people that were taken off of that list or doctors who retired. This government is extremely good at cherry-picking facts and has struggles with the truth.

I would also like to point out that under this minister’s ministry, disability rates are still below the poverty line every year. Now, I will agree with this minister that the spousal changes to benefits are absolutely required. It is a huge stumbling block. People were not getting married because they were concerned they were going to lose their benefits, so I thank the minister for making this extremely important change.

We also mentioned CLBC. Something I would like to point out, since I have the opportunity here to do so, is that I still do not see a plan for transitioning persons with diverse abilities from CLBC into long-term care. We have no strategy in this province of what we are going to do with persons with diverse abilities who already have significant care needs when they age out of care.

We heard the same thing from the AIDS group today. They have no plan to deal with people that are now aging into care who struggle with AIDS and need additional support. These are major problems in this province that need to be looked at.

I also heard much talk about affordable housing and housing in this province. Since 2017, the average age of a first-time homebuyer in this province has risen by ten years. It is now 46 years old for a first-time homebuyer — five years older than I am today sitting in this House, ten years above the national average. If this is this government’s improvement on housing affordability, I would hate to see what failure looked like.

I’ll talk now about Bill 2 and what really popped out for me in this budget, because it is a devastating budget for British Columbians across the board — for seniors, small businesses and the like.

[4:15 p.m.]

What really struck me was removing the oversight. This government is doing a terrible job being transparent with British Columbians.

The B.C. Public Service is one of the largest institutions in this province. It is enormous in scale. It is enormous in influence. It is enormous in consequence. It has tens of thousands of employees. It spends billions of dollars in programming, as the minister before me outlined. It deals with decisions that touch the lives of British Columbians every single day — health care, education, transportation, housing, income supports, emergency management, services for families, services for seniors, services for people living with disabilities, services for people who are struggling with the hardest moments of their lives.

When people hear the phrase “public service,” they sometimes picture an office tower. They picture desks and paperwork and bureaucracy and, of that, this government has expanded dramatically. But that’s not what the public service really is.

The public service is the machinery through which government actually functions, where the rubber meets the road. It’s where legislation becomes policy. It’s where policy becomes administration. It is where administration becomes a lived reality for British Columbians across this province. It is where a decision made in this chamber — eventually and extremely slowly, in the case of this government — becomes a service delivered or denied in the lives of British Columbians. And that’s why it matters.

That is why merit matters, because when an institution of that size makes hiring decisions, these are not abstract. Those are decisions about who will shape programs, who will manage public dollars, who will interpret policies, who will administer benefits and who will set priorities.

So when hiring in institutions that large is not fair, the consequences are serious. They are not minor. They are not theoretical. They spill outward. They affect competence. They affect morale. And they affect fairness. And ultimately, they affect whether citizens believe government is working for them or for itself. And with this government, we clearly see it has become extremely self-serving.

That is why public service jobs should go to the most qualified people — not the best connected, not the person that cut the biggest campaign donation cheque, not the most politically convenient, not the friend of the friend of the friend, but the most qualified people. That principle should not be controversial. It should not be partisan. It shouldn’t be ideological. And because it is basic, it requires protection and not just good intentions and vibes, not just statements from government that everything will be fine — actual mandated protections. That protection is called independent oversight.

That is why the Office of the Merit Commissioner existed until just recently under this budget. It existed because British Columbians understood something very important. Government should not simply be trusted to police itself. Government should be accountable to independent review.

The office did not exist to create headaches for ministers. Certainly, they’ve managed to find ways around it already. It didn’t exist to obstruct government, and it did not exist to score political points. It existed to ask a single, simple question: was merit applied? Were the hiring practices fair?

In their most recent report, 10 percent of all hires violated the rules and were flagged. Was the system functioning? Yes, because it caught those. That independence is everything, because without independence, oversight becomes internal review, and internal review is not the same thing. If government hires internally, reviews itself internally, reports itself internally and assures the public internally that everything is fine, that is certainly not accountability by my definition of the word. That is management, it’s self-insurance, and that is government marking its own homework. That should be unacceptable for British Columbians.

The reason the independent office exists is precisely because public confidence requires far more than that, and trust in government is at all-time lows in British Columbia. These offices require distance. They require objectivity. It requires a mechanism that is not beholden to political convenience.

What is so troubling about Bill 2 is not just that it eliminates the Office of the Merit Commissioner. It is when it does so, how it does so and what is happening around it, because this office is not being eliminated at a moment when oversight had become unnecessary. It’s being concerned at the very time concerns have been identified about the very reason this office is in existence at all. That matters.

[4:20 p.m.]

It should matter a great deal to British Columbians, because when independent watchdogs start identifying more problems, the public expects government to address these problems and increase their budgets to ensure they catch more cases and make things more transparent.

That is the sequence here that should trouble every member of this House. The office existed to examine whether merit was applied. The office reported an increase in problematic findings. And the government’s answer is not to strengthen the system; it’s to gut it.

So the independent office disappears, the independent officer disappears, the independent structure disappears, and the public is told to be satisfied with internal review. That is not a reform that builds trust in this institution. That is a change that weakens it dramatically. Once you begin weakening public trust in institutions, the damage travels far beyond just this single office, because trust is cumulative. Confidence in government is cumulative.

People do not evaluate these decisions in isolation. They look at the whole picture. They ask themselves whether government is becoming more open or less open, more accountable or less accountable, more transparent or less transparent.

When they see an independent oversight body eliminated, they draw conclusions — reasonable conclusions. They conclude that scrutiny is being reduced. They conclude that uncomfortable review is being moved in-house, out of the prying eyes of the public. They conclude that government prefers fewer independent eyes on its conduct. It is hard to blame them for reaching that conclusion because that is exactly what Bill 2 does.

This matters for everybody, but especially people who depend on government systems the most. That includes seniors, because seniors rely heavily on public institutions, not in an abstract way but in a very, very direct, practical way. They rely on health care. They rely on home support. They rely on long-term care. They rely on public income supports and housing and tax programs. They rely on decisions made by ministries, agencies and departments staffed by a transparent public service.

When those systems are competent, seniors are supported. When those systems are fair, seniors are treated with dignity. When those systems are transparent, seniors can navigate them. When those systems fail, though — and they do — they carry those consequences very quietly. That is the hard truth. They wait longer. They pay more. They fill out more paperwork. They sit on hold longer. They get told to call back later.

For seniors, good government is not a slogan. It is not an abstract principle discussed in political science class. That’s where Bill 2 becomes so serious, because it does not exist in some neat little compartment labelled “administration.” This bill also hits affordability, and that hits seniors directly. It’s making their life more expensive. That’s where the pattern becomes impossible to ignore, because at the same time that government is reducing independent oversight, it is also increasing the cost burden on British Columbia.

This bill raises the lowest provincial income tax rate from 5.06 percent to 5.6 percent. That isn’t a line on a tax table. That is a decision — a decision to take more from working people at a time when they are already stretched, a decision to deepen pressure in an affordability crisis, a decision to ask families and seniors to give more while government asks to be scrutinized less and delivers far less for the $13.3 billion deficit that this budget represents.

This bill also expands PST to a broad range of services that people in businesses rely on every single day — services like bookkeeping, accounting, private security, property management and condominium management.

Now, government may treat these as technical challenges but people do not live technical lives. People live monthly lives. They live paycheque to paycheque. Fifty percent of British Columbians are $300 away from insolvency. People live invoice to invoice and bill to bill.

These taxes land hard in the real world, outside of this room, where we’re not insulated by government pensions and benefits. They land in the cost of running a small business. They land in the cost of maintaining buildings. They land in the cost of managing a strata. They land in the cost of keeping a property secure from rising crime rates and petty crime rates across the province. They land in the cost of getting professional help to stay compliant, stay organized and stay afloat in a wave of increasingly complex and hard-to-navigate tax arrangements.

These costs do not vanish. They do not remain politely contained inside a government backgrounder. They’re passed along. They’ll be passed along to renters, to homeowners, to consumers and to seniors — especially seniors.

[4:25 p.m.]

Many seniors in British Columbia live in strata buildings. That is just a fact of modern housing in this province — condominiums, townhouse complexes, age-friendly developments. They rely on bookkeeping. They rely on accounting. And sometimes, unfortunately, they have to rely on private security. When you apply PST to those services, the cost base of building goes up. When the cost base goes up, strata fees go up. When strata fees go up, seniors living on fixed income feel it immediately.

I’ll go back. So 50 percent of British Columbians are only $300 away from not being able to make it at the end of the month. A senior living on CPP or on OAS and, perhaps, a modest pension does not have endless flexibility in their budget. They have a fixed amount. That’s why it’s called a fixed income. It’s not just clever phrasing.

Every time government adds another cost to the chain, that senior has to absorb it somewhere. Maybe it’s in groceries. Maybe it’s in prescriptions. I’ve heard many speak of that problem. Maybe it’s in the utilities. Cable and a home phone are now PST non-exempt. Maybe it’s in cutting back on travel to visit family. Maybe it is delaying a dental appointment. That is what these technical changes mean in the real world, outside of the doors of this House.

When we come to what may be the most troubling issue for seniors in this bill, and the broader budget measures around it, the changes to the seniors property tax deferral program, this House should take it very seriously.

For many seniors, property tax deferral is not a convenience. It is not a luxury. It is not, as the Minister of Finance stated, something being abused by seniors in this province. It’s not some optional financial trick. It’s the tool that allows them to remain in the home they spent decades paying for. It’s the tool that allows them to age in place — something this government, in the last budget, said that they were pushing for and that in this budget, they completely gutted at the same time that they cut long-term-care capacity. Absolutely unbelievable.

You cannot have it both ways, as the minister before me stated. I fully agree with that statement. This is the tool that allows them to age in place. It’s the tool that keeps them rooted in their community. British Columbians are often house-rich and cash-poor. That’s why this program was started in the first place.

That is especially true for many seniors, certainly many in my riding, where a standard house is now going for in excess of $850,000. Their home may have appreciated dramatically in value. I think about everybody in Vancouver, because the housing market around them has gone absolutely insane. That does not mean they are flush with cash — quite the opposite. Many have extremely modest fixed incomes. Many are retired. Many have limited ability to increase earnings. Many are living carefully and cautiously with what they have.

The property tax deferral program recognized that reality. It recognized that forcing a senior on a fixed income to come up with a large and growing property tax bill every year could drive them out of their home. So the province allowed them to defer that bill. It was a practical program, a stabilizing program. It acknowledged the difference between wealth on paper and cash in hand, but now the cost of that program is being driven up dramatically.

The interest applied on the program is being increased by 4 percent. That’s serious enough, but more concerning, and probably most concerning, is the switch to monthly compounding interest from simple interest. That, over an extended period of time — as people age in place longer and we keep them home longer to keep them out of the non-existent long-term-care beds that are being built in this budget — can add thousands and thousands of dollars to the ultimate bill and interest costs for seniors.

That means their debt is going to grow faster. It means every month adds another layer of that debt. It means interest is charged on interest again and again. We all learned this in school, hopefully. It means that time becomes more expensive. Staying in your home longer becomes more expensive. For a senior who relies on the program over a number of years, the cumulative effect can be extremely significant.

This is not just some tiny bookkeeping adjustment at the bottom end of a budget. This changes the financial trajectory of the program as a whole. It changes what seniors will owe. It changes what’s left in the estate. It changes what security feels like. It changes the decision-making of families who have relied on this now for decades.

Everybody says seniors should be able to remain in their homes. This government said so last year. Everybody says we should honour the people who built this province. But policy is where we find out whether those are convictions or just convenient talking points in a glossy government mailer.

[4:30 p.m.]

When you increase the carrying cost of a seniors deferral program by raising the interest and shifting to monthly compounding, you are not making aging in place easier. You are making it more expensive, less secure and creating a larger debt burden over time. You are doing it at the exact same moment seniors are already being hit from every other angle, including others in this budget. Hydro bills, food bills, insurance, strata fees, maintenance, prescription costs — everything is going up.

Again, 50 percent of British Columbians are $300 away from insolvency.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

I want members to think for a moment about a widow in her late 70s. She owns the home that her husband bought decades ago. The market has gone crazy around her. She is not living extravagantly. She is living very frugally. She uses property tax deferral because otherwise the annual tax bill would bite too hard into her ability to buy the basics.

At the same time, her strata fees are going up, and general affordability keeps squeezing her. We all know inflation is an extremely large problem over the last several years. Given what’s going on overseas, that is not likely to change this year.

Seniors are not just another demographic slice to be referenced in a talking point. They worked in our mills. They built this province. That is why oversight and affordability are not separate conversations. They are deeply connected.

When government asks people to pay more, government must also be willing to be scrutinized more. That should be the trade. If we are paying more, we should get more. That is the social contract. If taxpayers are carrying a heavier burden, then transparency should strengthen. If seniors are being asked to absorb new costs, then that accountability should strengthen. If public confidence is being tested, then oversight should strengthen.

This bill, Bill 2, does the opposite. Taxes go up, PST expands, the seniors deferral program becomes more expensive, and the Merit Commissioner disappears. That is the pattern, and British Columbians can see it.

Some in government will say these are all separate files. A tax measure here, an administrative reform there, a transparency issue somewhere else. Just technical tweaks. But that is not how the public experiences government. The public experiences the cumulative weight of it. And the weight of the failure of this government is crushing British Columbians.

A senior does not say to herself: “Well, this month my strata fee went up because of one bill, and my long-term tax exposure changed because of another bill, and the government transparency was reduced by a third bill, so I’m going to evaluate each one independently.”

No. They’re going to go to the store to buy their groceries, realize they have less money than they had last month, and they’re going to choose not to put food on their table. Or they will go to the pharmacy and choose to skip this week’s prescription because they cannot afford the cost.

British Columbians notice when access to information is made more difficult. There is another bill in front of this House that I am not permitted to discuss, which seeks to gut FOI protections, allowing the veneer of transparency that this government currently has to be further reduced.

This government prefers comfort over accountability and control over transparency. We must do better. This government must do better. It is shameful the way we are treated here in British Columbia as taxpayers. We deserve better from our government. We need more honest conversations and better access to data because we cannot make decisions, going forward, based on half-truths and press releases.

Good governments do not weaken transparency while increasing burdens on the public. They do the opposite. They say: “If we are asking more of you, we will show you more.” They say: “If you are making difficult choices, we will do so in the open.” They say: “If we are responsible for administering billions of dollars in vital services, we will accept some independent oversight.”

That is strength. That is maturity. And that is responsible government. Bill 2 does not communicate that confidence. It communicates something else entirely.

That matters for democracy, but it also matters for day-to-day life — for the senior deciding whether to defer taxes another year; for the strata council wondering why administrative costs have jumped yet again and then trying to justify it to their residents; and for the taxpayer who expects that when public money is spent and public systems are run, somebody independent is looking.

These are not small concerns. They are central and core to what this government exemplifies. And that is why this section of the bill matters so much, because legislation comes into this House with loud headlines.

[4:35 p.m.]

This is not one of those bills. This is one of those bills where the deeper danger is in the architecture — the architecture of accountability, the architecture of transparency and the architecture of fairness for all British Columbians. And when you start pulling beans out of that, you may not hear the collapse immediately. It’s a slow crumble. It’s been eight years of slow crumble.

A province cannot tax its way into affordability. It cannot burden seniors into security. It cannot remove oversight and call that accountability. It can’t reduce transparency and call it public confidence. Those contradictions are becoming too obvious to ignore.

British Columbians are not fools. They know when the story being told does not match the reality they are living. They know when government says one thing and legislates another. They know when supporting seniors translates into more interest, faster compounding and greater long-term debt. They know when administrative modernization translates into eliminating independent scrutiny. And they know when technical tax changes translate into higher monthly bills again, despite what the headlines on the budget would lead you to believe.

That is why oversight matters deeply. It matters because public trust matters. It matters because when a government grows large, expensive and powerful, they need independent review that doesn’t shrink or, as in this case, isn’t eliminated entirely.

Bill 2 asks for more and offers less — more taxes, more cost pressure, more debt burden for seniors using deferral, more compounding interest, more PST on essential basic services in this province. All of that sandwiched between less transparency and less independent oversight.

That is why the government is rightly concerned. I have not yet read one article praising this budget, because it failed everywhere — not just in one place, everywhere. British Columbians are being asked to pay more, they are getting less, and we are gutting the institutions by doing it. They claim increases, but what this government is, is flat across the board.

British Columbians deserve a government that understands that transparency and oversight are not optional accessories to democracy. They are load-bearing walls. And once you start weakening the load-bearing walls, the whole structure becomes less stable. That is why this budget fails to deliver and why I will not be supporting Bill 2.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thank you to my colleagues. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to briefly speak about this Bill 2 here.

I want to start by acknowledging that I’m on the traditional territory of lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking People, the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.

I didn’t get a chance to speak to the throne speech because it was a short one this year. I hope my colleagues across the way will indulge me in a few minutes to talk about the amazing people in my community and what an honour it is to serve them.

Of course, the Minister of Finance in her opening statement started off with talking about Tumbler Ridge. My heart goes out to all the families and all the friends of the people who are no longer with us, but not only them but everyone that’s impacted in the community.

I want to thank my friend across the way, the MLA for Peace River, for being strong in the face of these challenges. We all know as elected officials that our job can be pretty hard in communities, especially when there’s a tragedy. For him to be able to keep his head cool and be there for people, I think it’s a pretty remarkable thing. I want to recognize him, and I want to recognize my colleagues that have been working around the clock to support the families and people in the community that are impacted.

Now, it’s important to note that this budget comes at a time where global uncertainty is at one of its highest, certainly in my adult life. I would say that every day people wake up and read the news and see the changes that are happening around the world and wonder if it can get worse, only to wake up the next day to read an article that reminds them that, yes, it can get worse.

We’ve, of course, been following what’s happening in the Middle East right now and, with that, the prices of oil going through the roof and countries scrambling to try to figure out how they keep the lights on in their communities.

[4:40 p.m.]

Certainly, as the minister responsible for trade, I’ve been fielding phone calls from high commissioners from around the world trying to figure out what happens and how B.C. can play an important role as we go forward.

I heard the Prime Minister’s speech that he delivered in Davos, and one of the things that struck me in his speech was when he said that Canada has what the world needs. He mentioned that we have the critical minerals, we have the energy the world needs, and we have the educated population that’s innovative and creating new technologies.

I thought to myself that he’s talking about British Columbia, because all those things are what we have in British Columbia. That’s what we have to offer the world. Of course, it’s understood that B.C. will be a leader in the Canadian economy. Of course, it’s understood that B.C. is going to have to play a more important role now than we’ve ever had in the past, given where the world is, given what we have available to us and the opportunities that are in front of us.

Now, in the opening speeches, of course, we talked about a lot of things. I won’t spend too much time talking about housing, but we are seeing rents come down across this province. Every single community is seeing rents come down.

Not only did we see a significant increase in housing supply — of course, some challenges right now — but we also saw a record number of affordable housing projects coming online, whether that’s student housing, which was not being built for decades; whether that’s supportive housing for people who are the most vulnerable; affordable housing units. That construction is going to continue. In fact, we’ve got units that are under construction that are coming online as we speak.

This budget also has one of the largest expansions of brand-new hospitals in the history of this province. We’re going to continue to make investments, because we know that health care is needed. We need to upgrade our facilities.

Of course, in our region in Surrey, there’s the new hospital that’s under construction. I know the Premier was just there, visiting and touring with some of my colleagues, and I got to see the pictures. It’s real. It looks great. It’s going to not only have a brand-new hospital; it’s also going to have a cancer centre, which is critically important.

As I say that, I reflect on just what’s happening in Surrey with the SkyTrain expansion. You drive through Surrey, you drive down Fraser Highway, and you realize it’s real. SkyTrain is coming to the Fraser Valley. It’s coming to Surrey in a big way. You can see it on the drive in. It was one thing to talk about it before, but when you see the construction happening, you see all the people working there, it’s a reminder that it’s real.

That’s what this budget enables. It now enables the type of growth that we’re seeing in the region.

There are a whole host of things that, I think, are important that I wanted to touch on in this. Now, I want to touch on the strategic investment fund for a moment. We know that the federal government has put up billions of dollars to strategically invest in key sectors that we’re going to need. Whether that’s through a sovereignty lens or whether it’s through a national defence lens, we’re going to need to make sure we have investments.

I can’t start to express how grateful I am to the Minister of Finance for having the vision for laying out money for this type of fund. This has been something we’ve been talking about for a long time.

In fact, other provinces have created similar funds since 2017. Ontario has had one. Quebec has had one. The federal government has had one.

For us to be able to have a fund that can partner alongside our federal government, to be able to land some important investments here…. Not only that but expand the tools and allow us to have different types of structured deals where we’re able to perhaps, in cases, provide loans and, in some cases, even take equity so that when companies see success, British Columbians get a chance to see some of the benefit of that success….

It’s not unique to the world. We see the United States administration, President Trump, roll out similar types of funds, roll out similar types of structured arrangements with businesses so that their population can see the benefits. We’re competing against the world. We’re competing against China, which does this. We’re competing against India, which does this. We’re competing against Indonesia, which is doing this very thing.

It’s important for us to have the tools that other jurisdictions around the world have. And this $400 million fund and the new tools will be not only critically important for us in key areas that we’ve highlighted, whether that’s critical minerals, whether that’s in the AI and quantum space, whether that’s the fast-emerging life science sector…. Huge opportunities.

[4:45 p.m.]

These are key things that we highlighted in our Look West economic strategy. What we did with the strategy and the reason why it was so important for us as a government was that we acknowledge the time we’re in. We acknowledge the critical role that British Columbia is going to have to play not only for the success of our people but the success of our country.

What I think is remarkable is that when we look at economic growth for the country, all the jurisdictions around the country are going to be dependent on us. If the federal government puts an ambitious goal to double trade away from U.S. partners, double trade to non-U.S. partners, well, guess what. That trade is coming through British Columbia. Those goods are coming through British Columbia.

Part of our Look West strategy was not only looking at major projects, not only looking at the natural gas opportunities that we have coming and the export terminals that we have, the construction that we have coming online very soon, but it also looks at the critical minerals — the minerals that the world is going to need. To see the projects come online, the FIDs come online, the partnership with their Indigenous partners, the work around reconciliation and how important that is to unlock the opportunities of this economic development in our communities….

By the way, sometimes people in Metro Vancouver see these economic development opportunities and they think it’s far away. What they don’t sometimes realize is that all the component parts for those projects are coming from Metro Vancouver. A lot of these companies have footprints in Metro Vancouver. It’s a connection between rural B.C. and downtown Vancouver and downtown Victoria. The prosperity we see in rural communities is directly linked to the prosperity we want to see in Metro Vancouver and our larger city centres.

Now, of course, in the Look West strategy, which is central to Bill 2, we’ve got billions of dollars not only to be able to track investment but also…. I think, fundamentally, the most important thing is training our people to make sure that they have the opportunity to work when these investments have landed. Nothing is more frustrating for people than to see an economic development opportunity and not have access, feel like they don’t have agency and access to that. And to see the doubling of skills training — that’s what it does. It’s generational.

Just take a moment to think of doubling the dollars for skills training, meaning more people will have the skills-and-trades training to be able to take those economic opportunities that we’re seeing here in British Columbia. It is massive.

It’s not only in natural gas, not only critical minerals. If you look at the opportunity we have in the maritime sector, that’s what Bill 2 speaks to here — the ability for us to build our country, ensure that we have our national defence as a priority, ensure that sovereignty is a key feature for us as we move forward and to be able to expand the maritime industry in a way that not only creates good-paying jobs but allows us to reimagine what economic development in communities looks like.

Part of our strategy and part of the key parts of Bill 2 allow us to work to build up our infrastructure not only to expand our marine sector so that we can service submarines that the federal government wants to purchase but also to position us to be able to build some of the ships that we know are going to be critically important for us, going forward. But not only there — going further and looking at the opportunity for even recycling some of the old vessels that we have…. Right now there’s not that potential in the country, but B.C. has the opportunity.

I want to give the federal government some credit here. When we met with the Minister of Transportation, he understood the opportunity for British Columbia, and I appreciate their commitment to work with us to make that a reality.

I talked about the major projects, and part of our strategy is to try to attract $200 billion of investment to British Columbia over the next ten years. I know I’ve heard from people who say that’s ambitious. That’s a tough task, given the history of 40, 50 years of investment in British Columbia, but I believe it’s doable. We have $40 billion of FID decisions just this year that are being looked at. So it’s going to be key for us to see some of those investments across the line.

The NCTL, which is part of this bill too, is key. The ability to be able to expand our energy capacity and bring it to projects to bring a lot of these mining projects to life — literally, bring them to life. If they don’t have access to this energy, many of them will not be able to proceed.

Of course, I talked about renewable energy. We still have a significant opportunity around hydrogen, and we’ve got some of the leading researchers when it comes to hydrogen right now.

[4:50 p.m.]

In fact, when I was on a trade mission to India recently, we signed an agreement between the Indian Hydrogen Association and the B.C. Hydrogen Association, and that was a recognition around not only the research but also the companies that we have and what they’re doing to advance hydrogen.

Other countries are not sitting around. They’re thinking about the same things we are. They’re thinking about what that transition looks like. Certainly, the challenges we’re seeing around the world are a reminder that although this is a moment for us to supply the world with critical energy, we also have to pivot and think about where the world is going. As Wayne Gretzky said: “We have to think where the puck is going, not where it is.” That’s important for us in our planning.

Now, part of the work in Bill 2, also, is a recognition that we can attract different types of investment. I’m grateful for the partners in the business community for partnering with us to try to land the defence, security and resilience bank here in British Columbia. We know that it’s going to be a challenge. We know that it’s not just other provinces and other cities that we’re competing with. We are competing against the world.

This concept, this idea, of having a bank that will help unlock economic opportunities, unlock innovation — every jurisdiction is going to want that. We had the new consul general of Luxembourg, who was just here and who said: “I came to meet with you because I wanted to tell you we want the defence bank in our country.” Then when you meet with U.K. officials, they say: “We came to meet with you because we want to tell you that we want it in London.”

So everybody wants this bank, but I think the proposition that we put together with the business community, shoulder to shoulder, sets us apart. We have what they need. We have a livable province. One of the top things that they wanted was to make sure that livability was at a high score, because they wanted to attract the talent to be able to work at this bank. That was their number one ask.

They also asked about available locations for it. We have available locations. They asked about skills, talent and development. We have all that. They wanted an open economy that understands that immigration is vitally important, that people from all over the world are welcomed. These are the things that we offer and, I think, set us apart from many jurisdictions around the world.

Part of Bill 2 and the work on the Look West strategy is making sure that we’re not only able to be successful here but that we can unlock and enable economic development across the country. That’s why we’re working in close partnership with all our jurisdictions.

What’s key for us is in three parts. One, we need to attract investments to British Columbia, which we’re making some progress on. Second, we need to shake hands and build relationships with partners around the world — more so now than ever. I’ll touch on that in a moment. Third, we need to reduce barriers for interprovincial trade.

Key in Bill 2 are all of these pieces. The dollars in this budget allow us to continue to expand and build those relationships with other jurisdictions.

Before I got elected, I never had a true understanding of what trade missions were, why you’d go on trade missions and why it’s important. When I got into that role originally, it was during COVID and I didn’t get a chance to do much of that. As we came out of COVID, I got to go on a few trade missions.

Then my eyes opened up to the huge economic opportunities that are connected with building those relationships, by taking our research partners over to another jurisdiction, so that we’re not spinning our wheels or wasting money on research that someone else has already done but collaborating, and how that grows both economies together. It’s about taking B.C. companies and building relationships with other jurisdictions not only so we can sell our products to them but so that they can bring our innovation to us.

The Premier has certainly been doing some travelling, I’ve been doing some travelling, and my colleagues have been doing some travelling. What we hear is consistent. Everyone understands that we’re in a unique time in history. Everyone understands that the relationships that we have are more important now than ever.

Also, everyone recognizes that British Columbia has something unique to offer to the world. That’s why we’re so bullish. That’s why we feel so confident about the future. It’s because every jurisdiction that we meet with tells us the same thing. It reinforces our belief that we are truly lucky where we live right now.

Now, key parts of Bill 2, of course, are aligned with our Look West economic strategy. There are key issues that we are able to advance in the tech sector. We have made a commitment to double the size of our tech sector. That’s significant.

[4:55 p.m.]

We have huge opportunities with companies that are attracting investment. Every single day you can pick up the paper and hear about a new company that’s attracting investment. Some days you pick up the paper and you might not even know what that company was, because you’re like: “Where’d they come from? They came out of nowhere.” But they’ve been growing and building here.

The investments you’re seeing in them are a reflection of their work but a reflection on our system — our education system, our university system — where we’re making historic investments, growing the space, creating the space for them to be able to innovate and come forward with new opportunities, whether that’s in AI, in quantum — huge opportunities that I’m certainly proud of.

Part of Bill 2 also enables us to be able to do important work in the space of ease of business. We’ve been doing a lot of engagement with the business community to identify where those bottlenecks are, where those pieces are that we need to address so that they can be able to operate their businesses in a more effective way.

Whether that’s permitting issues — there’s $40 million to be able to address where those gaps are — or it’s to be able to support our ecosystems. Because all of them are telling us the same thing: “If we can find the talent, we will hire more people. We need you to continue to invest in the skills of our people, because that’s why people are coming.” They realize and recognize that we have amazing research. We have amazing talent coming through here.

It’s a product of our education system. It’s a product of the investments we’re making in our people, and we have to continue to do that.

We had, just recently here, the Quantum Algorithms Institute, and I was actually really happy to see members from all the parties that were there interested, asking good questions, engaged about what this is. After we just finished learning the ones and zeros, here we are learning about something totally different. Mind-blowing. Absolutely mind-blowing.

But to think that DARPA, which is a major defence contest in the U.S. where they’re, right now, trying to use quantum to communicate in different ways, had a contest and asked companies from around the world to participate…. To see that the final ten companies have three companies from Canada and two from British Columbia is a recognition, I think, for British Columbia that we’ve got something special.

To see dollars in Bill 2 to be able to expand that opportunity, to be able to push and continue to hold our leadership opportunity, I think, is fantastic.

Now, there are a lot of things that I wanted to touch on, but there are a couple things I’ll just maybe end with.

One of the things is the recent trade mission to India. We had meetings with states and provinces. We had meetings with companies. What I think it highlighted for us is that we have a unique opportunity not only with India, not only with Indonesia, not only with Mexico, not only with Vietnam but with our European partners. We have huge opportunities. The Philippines.

All of them are in touch with us, and there was a time when you had to chip away and chip away and build those relationships, but now everyone’s calling us. The reason why they’re calling us is because we’ve got some of these opportunities right now that are super exciting.

As I said in the beginning of my comments, and perhaps that’s where I’ll close, we are all fielding phone calls right now. With the global uncertainty we’re seeing around the world, we are fielding phone calls at a level that I certainly haven’t had to do in the seven years since I’ve been here.

Every jurisdiction is saying: “Can you help us? We need LPG. We need LNG. We need critical minerals. We need a safe, reliable partner to do business with.” All of a sudden, jurisdictions that can be reliable, that believe in the rule of law, that believe in diversity, that believe that we are one society and we’re all the same…. That is more important right now than anything else. That’s what British Columbia continues to offer.

[5:00 p.m.]

I just want to touch on one other thing for Bill 2 and why the investments that have been made are so important. I bring it to my community. I am so lucky to represent North Delta. What a fantastic community. It’s an honour to serve that community, to see the investments in this budget and what they mean for people in my community.

In our area, we’re fortunate that we’ve got a lot of hospitals within proximity. We’ve got the New West hospital, which is expanding. We’ve got the Surrey Memorial Hospital, which is expanding. We’ve got the work happening at the brand-new hospital, which is about 16 minutes away. We’ve got Delta Hospital.

The investments we’re seeing here, not only in this but in UPCCs, are critically important. I hear that from the people in my community. They want to see that continue.

The investment in our facilities is remarkable. I’ve been fortunate.

Since my time when I first ran, I’ve said my goal is to get a track built in my community. At North Delta, we had kids running on a clay track, and even I used to run on that. I remember, at one point, not thinking I’d make it to the Olympics for the second time. I had just had rolled my ankle on this clay track. I thought to myself: “How am I going to be able to compete in this?”

To see the investments we’ve been able to make — not only a new track there, a new clubhouse there, new pickleball courts, but as part of the funding, we have now a second track happening in our community at Seaquam high school. To see that almost across the finish line, so to speak, and being a few months away is vitally important.

A new soccer pitch at Sands has completely transformed that park. There used to be one field. It was dark. It was dim. People would go there and play, and that was it. To see the investments coming…. Now when you go there, it is packed. People are walking, kids are playing, and people are socializing.

I highlight this because that’s what I think is important about investments in Bill 2. That’s what I think the importance of investments in this type of infrastructure is about, and that’s what government is about. It’s about being able to create the environment where we’re strengthening the fibre of our communities. The investments we’ve been seeing from our Minister of Finance, from government, from Bill 2, will continue to allow us to do that in a positive way.

I know that there are others that want to speak, but I certainly am speaking in favour of this and urge my colleagues to speak in favour as well.

Peter Milobar: I’m glad to rise and take my place in this bill to debate the Budget Measures Implementation debate.

You know, 47, in this Legislature, is a very interesting number. Forty-seven is the number of seats the government requires to be able to break the tie votes and make sure that they can hang on to government. And 47 is also the number of people in British Columbia that seem to think that this is a good budget. I can’t find anyone else other than the 47 government members that seem to agree with this budget.

I think if we actually asked them in private what they truly thought — if they thought this is what they campaigned for, if they thought this is what they fought for in their various aspects before they came to this place as MLAs — there might not even be 47 people that actually think this is a good budget.

The business community certainly doesn’t think this is a good budget. In fact, they gave it a D. The Premier’s response to that was a shrug and a: “Well, I don’t really care. It depends what the other provinces are.” The problem is, the people in those other provinces live in other provinces.

The seniors in British Columbia care about a D grade on this budget. The small businesses in British Columbia care about the D grade on this budget. The hard-working families that are being punished by this budget care about a D grade on this budget. They have a Premier and a government that doesn’t care, and that’s reflected all through this budget.

I’ll walk through a great many of the changes that are in this budget. But it really is concerning when you have a Premier that doesn’t care about a D grade, doesn’t care that the business community is raising concerns about the extra PST being levied on professional services and shrugs that off, basically daring them to move to another province when we’ve already lost 70,000 of our best and our brightest out of province, when we already see businesses leaving B.C. for other jurisdictions, predominantly Alberta.

The Premier’s response to the business community pointing out the obvious — that this is a punitive, cost-increase budget to them — is to shrug and basically say: “I dare you to leave.”

[5:05 p.m.]

That doesn’t really line up with what we just heard from the previous minister, saying how they’re chasing investment and how they’re trying to encourage people to come here, when you have the leader of the government saying the exact opposite, when you have a budget doing the exact opposite.

They’ll talk about the $400 million slush fund that’s in this budget that has no oversight, no regulation yet and will be at the whim of Treasury Board. That $400 million is coming on the backs of senior citizens and hard-working families who earn $50,000 or less.

The minister doesn’t like that point being made. But the minister might want to look…. The data I have is a couple years old but the number of tax returns that come in that are $50,000 or less in British Columbia is a large percentage. It’s around half.

That’s the working poor. That’s the people living on fixed pension incomes. This minister and this Premier have shrugged off their concerns about a tax change that is going to bring in half a billion dollars while trying to tout a $400 million slush fund.

We heard in question period that they were trying to make the $400 million slush fund sound like it was going to be good for small businesses — on questions about small business — because that’s what they want. Maybe if they’re a friend and an insider of the Premier, they can just pick up the phone and get a grant out of the $400 million slush fund, because that’s enabled with that slush fund.

Maybe a senior citizen can. Maybe a senior citizen can pick up the phone and just phone the Premier’s office and say: “Hey, you just created this $400 million slush fund with no guardrails that you can distribute at your own discretion. You can give grants to people with it. I need a little help, because you’ve changed the property tax deferral rate, so I can actually stay in my own home. You’ve changed that in this budget from prime less 2 percent to prime plus 2 percent, a 4 percent swing in the interest rate, and you decided to make the interest compounded monthly.”

Maybe a senior citizen should pick up the phone and ask the Premier for some of that $400 million slush fund that’s built on the backs of that pension income and that deferred property tax.

Deferred? They are still owing it. This government’s solution is to increase the percentage paid, the interest paid, on that as well as change how it’s calculated — to compounded monthly — so they can claw away at more and more seniors’ equity in their homes.

This puts seniors in a tough spot. Do they allow their equity to be eroded with interest payments to this government because this government is so desperate for money because of their own fiscal mismanagement over the last several years, or do they sell now and hope that they have enough money to pay for a long-term-care bed and facility?

Oh, but wait. This government has just constricted supply on long-term-care facilities in this budget as well. They’ve cancelled six long-term-care facility projects. They will say they are — what is the term they are using now? — “re-pacing.” They’re re-pacing. Not cancelling, re-pacing, except they’re the only projects in this budget that don’t have a new completion date on them, don’t have a revised budget on them — just re-paced. “We won’t tell you when. We don’t know when, if at all, they’ll ever get started.”

The minister said, at one point in this chamber, that they had never even been approved. Shocking, given her own budget document very clearly says they were approved. In fact, money had already been spent on them. Planning, design, some earthworks — all sorts of things on those lists of projects that were supposedly not even approved previously.

I don’t know how something goes through Treasury Board and has a business plan and gets approved and winds up in a budget and then can have a minister say it was never approved. How does that magically wind up in a budget document from previous years? Then this year we’re told it never was approved.

[5:10 p.m.]

It makes you wonder. Is everything in that budget not approved? Is there some other thing that we’re unaware of that for the last two years has shown up in budget documents but wasn’t actually approved? A minister or a bureaucrat was able to just slide in extra projects and no one noticed. That’s how ridiculous the storyline from this government has been on this budget.

When I say 47 people in this province actually think this is a good budget, I’m willing to bet, in the days and the weeks ahead, we’re going to see verification of that. We’re going to see verification that it is only 47 people that think that this is a good budget. We’re going to see verification that the public is very unhappy with this government as it relates to this budget.

Now, here’s the interesting thing. Based on the tax changes in this document, I can understand why. But it also means this government doesn’t have a lot of latitude to actually throw the money around like they normally would to try to get themselves out of the hole. They’ve already tried the whole time-change trick. That didn’t really work for any length of time.

That’s the problem. We have a government that has completely lost the plot line. We have a government that today in question period was trying to defend that despite carbon tax being removed, there was a certain program that was staying in place. The minister didn’t want to mention, though, that with carbon tax removed, this government decided to remove a $200 homeowner grant to everybody that lives out of the 604 area code in this same budget.

It’s interesting how they want to wrap themselves in their magnanimous gestures around carbon tax removal or not or just pretend it didn’t happen.

Coming from local government — I know there are a great many of us on both sides of this House — you just have to think back. What it would be, as a mayor or a city councillor, to tell people that you were going to increase their property taxes by $200 in that year, over and above everything else? Not for any new service, not for anything — we’re just going to tack an extra $200 on your property tax bill.

That’s literally what this government has done to everyone in B.C. that pays property taxes that doesn’t live in the Lower Mainland. They’ve added $200 to your property tax bill. And they shrug, and they say it’s no big deal.

Let’s see. You’re a senior on fixed-pension income — pick any town in the Interior — living in Williams Lake, living in 100 Mile where mills are closing around you, and you have a massive property tax problem because of dropping assessed values with the mills closing and people being laid off from their jobs.

You’re that senior living in 100 Mile, maybe lived there their whole life. You moved there, grew up there. You raised your family there because it was an affordable way to live. You decided you couldn’t afford quite yet to go into assisted living or a long-term-care facility — any of that type of housing.

So you’re trying to live as long as you can in 100 Mile with the limited health resources they have in this community of that size. This obviously doesn’t have the same size of hospital — but it has a hospital — as a Kamloops or even a Williams Lake has. So you’re trying to just hang on. You’re that senior that’s just hanging on, your $40,000-a-year pension coming in.

This government, who says they have your back in this budget, has raised your income taxes, has decided the land line you need because cell service in the area is horrible at best…. It has decided you should pay 7 percent more for your land line every month. You’re, of course, trying to watch your budget so you just have a basic cable package so you can watch some news and stay up to date. This government has decided you’re going to pay 7 percent more on that, because they’re going to add PST on that.

You like to knit for your grandkids. This government has decided you should probably pay 7 percent on all of your sewing yarn so that when you knit your granddaughter or great-granddaughter or grandson a sweater or a blanket, you can pay that 7 percent more.

[5:15 p.m.]

If you want to get your boots repaired, which is quite common with good-quality work boots or cowboy boots, you can pay 7 percent more for that, because you’re going to put tax on that.

You’re going to pay $200 a year more on your property tax because we’ve just decided we’re going to repeal the property tax hike or homeowner grant in Bill 2.

Oh, and by the way, if you want to defer those property taxes because your pension income is $40,000 a year, that’s going to be taxed more than everything else. If you want to defer your property taxes…. Maybe you hadn’t done it before, but with all those extra cost pressures, you’re thinking that maybe the time is now that we start deferring our property taxes a little bit. The government wants a bigger cut too. The government is unilaterally jacking up your interest rate by 4 percent and changing to compound monthly interest on it.

That is supposedly a government that cares for senior citizens. And then they’ve gone ahead…. And maybe you’re that senior, and you were thinking: “Oh, well. They’re creating these new long-term-care facilities in various communities around the province. The one in Campbell River…. I’ve got family that lives in Campbell River. It’d be nice to move into a long-term-care facility in Campbell River and sell my house in 100 Mile in a year or two and move over to where my kids and my grandkids that I was knitting that sweater for live. Oh, they’ve just cancelled the Campbell River long-term-care facility.”

That’s the problem with Bill 2. It is impact after impact. It is cut after cut. It is increased tax after increased tax. On February 15, the Finance Minister said no big cuts, no big increase to taxes. Two days later she introduced a budget that cut out six long-term-care facilities; a whole phase 2 of the Burnaby Hospital, which appeared to have taken the Speaker by surprise who represents that area of Burnaby as well; and student housing at UVic.

Then you dig in a little bit further, and there’s supportive housing cuts. There’s B.C. Housing running around cancelling contracts all over the place. And why? Because other projects are over budget and delayed.

This government has been warned for years about the impact of being over budget and delayed on projects. So instead of reining in projects over the last nine long years and getting the spending under control and actually getting proper tendering done and proper pricing in place and proper timeline and project management in place, this government is 25 percent over budget on capital spending since they formed government and 158 years behind schedule.

They are so over budget and so behind schedule, they have now had to resort to cancelling housing projects on a wide variety of housing, a hospital project. And they have to try to come up with some creative language around what that is. So they’re re-paced, because they don’t want to call it cancelled. Oh, don’t use the word “re-paced” in the budget document. They just say TBC. Confirmed, continued, cancelled — take your pick.

Why this is a problem is because in their zeal to find dollars to pay for the Premier’s $400 million slush fund, they’ve had to try to find some efficiencies and some cuts, they say.

When you read into Bill 2, what you find is what they feel is the most inefficient thing in government is the Merit Commissioner — the Merit Commissioner that has found problematic dealings with this government over the last while. Instead of acknowledging they have an issue with how they’re dealing with staff, at a time when you have staff worried because this government talks about getting rid of 15,000 public sector employees with no actual details on how they’re going to accomplish that, their answer is to get rid of the Merit Commissioner that will actually have a much bigger role to play as those 15,000 people get pink slips.

[5:20 p.m.]

But that’s what Bill 2 does, because the government is worried about the $2 million that the Merit Commissioner was costing, not all the patronage hires that the Premier does; not all the friends and family contracts that happen or friends and insider contracts that happen; not the shadow cabinet of advisers that operates in the Premier’s office with zero public oversight, zero public scrutiny.

The media never have access to these advisers to ask them what they’re advising the Premier on and the direction we’re headed as a province. The opposition never gets to question all of these advisers. It makes one wonder why we need 23 — or however many it is — ministers when it seems to be a very tight-knit group of hand-picked insiders in the Premier’s office, all hired on contracts to advise the Premier on things that the ministers are supposed to be advising him on. It must not feel great to be a minister, I must admit, in that type of environment.

Again, I’m very confident that over the next short while it will become abundantly clear to this government that the public is validating that they are the only 47 people in this province that think this is a good budget.

When you talk to families with children with autism that are faced with cuts yet again by the very Premier that reversed the first attempt of this government to make those cuts, apparently lessons weren’t learned. Those families are going to have to re-engage and go through the stress of fighting again, and these are parents that have to fight every single day for resources and advocacy for their children. This government has needlessly added on to that dogpile of things that they have to fight and advocate for their children on a daily basis for.

I want to be 100 percent clear. This side has never said to not support those other children that are now going to be supported. We’ve always said: “Why are you taking away from some children to support the other children?” Support them all.

But that’s not what this government is doing, because government knows best, according to the NDP — not a parent, not the child who has a bond with their case worker, their care provider, their educator, their support staff, whatever person it is in that child’s life. We all know it’s much harder for them to make those bonds.

This government’s solution is to take that decision-making out of the hands of those families because they know best. They know what’s best for a child they’ve never met. It’s disgusting that it’s happening yet again. It shouldn’t be happening again, yet here we are.

If they had just not funded the Premier’s $400 million slush fund in this budget, they wouldn’t have had to attack the families with children with autism. The children could have been funded properly. A budget is about a government’s decisions and choices and priorities. This government has very clearly decided that the Premier’s slush fund is more important than families with children with autism. It’s more important than seniors being able to afford to live in their own homes. It’s more important than long-term-care facilities advancing.

Those are decisions made by this government, which I am confident will reflect in public sentiment. I have no doubt that they’re seeing it in their emails already.

Small businesses are on the brink. Small businesses have been pleading for help from this government from all the extra costs that have been layered on by this government. It’s like they don’t even pay attention to those pleadings. They dismiss them out of hand.

[5:25 p.m.]

Then they turn around on Bill 2, and they add PST to security forces in stores — an extra 7 percent.

Now, let’s just assume someone makes 20 bucks an hour, just for easy quick math. Right. That’s — what? — 800 bucks a week? That’s an extra $56 a week that store is now paying for that one security officer — one. Most stores have more than even one on shift at a time, let alone throughout the course of a day.

This government shrugs that an extra few hundred dollars a week to a small business is not a big deal, that the cost of the bookkeeper that just went up 7 percent to that small business is not a big deal, that the cost of the accountant to that small business is not a big deal. Not only is it not a big deal but the Premier is openly daring them to leave the province if they don’t like it.

It’s unacceptable. It’s not leadership. It’s the Premier in full damage control because he was desperate to try to find money for a $400 million slush fund that he controls. He’ll say: “No, no, it’s Treasury Board that controls it.” It’s Treasury Board that he was fired from, by the way, when he was a minister. That’s how responsible he, apparently, was on Treasury Board with his decision-making ideas.

We don’t know why he was fired because, oh, they never talk about what happens in Treasury Board, which is the other problem with this slush fund. It’s going to be Treasury Board that decides everything. Currently it would be the Finance Minister and the Attorney General or the chair and the vice-chair of Treasury Board. But make no mistake about it, the marching orders on this $400 million slush fund will come from the Premier’s office, just as everything has been coming.

Seniors deserve better. The public deserves better. Now, when you look at some of the other issues in this budget document, these changes, it’s interesting. I don’t even know why they bother. Every year clause 1 amends section 2.2 of the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, changes of fiscal years and when a deficit is allowed to be in the forecast main estimates. It’s now changing it from 2027 to 2028, to 2028 to 2029.

I would strongly suggest to the government that if any date in this document should have had a TBC on it, it might have been the deficit. It is ridiculous in the extreme to think that the government, on clause 1, is going to magically be out of deficit by ’28-29. But that they will put a future date on, just not the six long-term-care facilities we are supposed to believe they haven’t cancelled or the Burnaby Hospital phase 2 and the cancer centre, UVic student housing.

I do not want to sound like we are trying to take away from a different community, but in Kamloops, we have a cancer centre that will not have a PET-CT scanner because this government refuses to put it into the building. It’ll be the only cancer centre in B.C. without one. At least that project is still being constructed right now, albeit not to the standard it should be. It’s going to be in two separate sites, partly run by B.C. Cancer, partly run by Interior Health. The only one in the province — in North America, actually — operating that way, with information systems that don’t talk to each other and no PET-CT scanner.

Here’s a thought. Since you’ve cancelled the Burnaby cancer centre that was supposed to get a PET-CT scanner, how about you just ship that one on up to Kamloops? We’ll use it.

This is a budget that the minister said, “No big cuts. No tax hikes,” two days before it was going to be presented. Was the minister unaware of what was in her budget? I don’t think so. She likes to say I like to mislead or misinform the House. I’m not doing that. These were her quotes. It’s her budget. Why was she saying that on February 15 about her budget?

[5:30 p.m.]

If you’re a senior, six long-term-care facilities being cut is a big cut. If you’re a small business, 7 percent more on all of your security and finance costs is a big tax hike. If you’re a senior and you’re having your income taxed more, 10 percent — closer to 12, actually — that’s a big tax hike. If you’re a senior that’s going to see a tax, a 7 percent increase on your cable and your land line, that’s a big tax hike. That’s what Bill 2 is purporting to be — a no-cut, no-tax-hike bill.

I would suggest that the government has a lot to answer for. We’re certainly going to look forward to committee stage to delve into this — assuming it passes second reading, I should point out, because this is simply a budget that only 47 people in this province actually agree with. Mark my words. The NDP are going to not like the number 47.

The public does not like this budget. The opposition does not support this budget. This budget is punitive, in the worst ways, to seniors, to hard-working British Columbian families and to small businesses.

It is shocking to me that the so-called social justice warriors of the NDP MLA ranks would actually support a budget like this — shocking. Talk about clinging to power for the sake of clinging to power. They might as well just admit that they have lost their way. They no longer know what guides them, and they no longer know what resonates with British Columbians. Residents of B.C. are going to make that message loud and clear to this government over the next short while. That I am sure of.

Thank you for the time on Bill 2.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister for Jobs and Economic Growth.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I move second reading.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2026.

Division has been called.

[5:35 p.m. - 5:40 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2026.

[5:45 p.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 46
Lore	Blatherwick	Dhir
Routledge	Elmore	Toporowski
B. Anderson	Neill	Osborne
Brar	Krieger	Davidson
Parmar	Sunner	Beare
Greene	Wickens	Kang
Begg	Arora	Higginson
Sandhu	Lajeunesse	Choi
Rotchford	Chant	Phillip
Popham	Dix	Sharma
Farnworth	Eby	Bailey
Kahlon	Chandra Herbert	Whiteside
Boyle	Ma	Yung
Malcolmson	Gibson	Glumac
Shah	G. Anderson	Chow
	Morissette
NAYS — 45
Loewen	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Halford	Rattée
Wat	Kooner	Banman
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	Clare	K. Neufeld
Rustad	McInnis	Valeriote
Botterell	Bhangu	Paton
Day	Chan	Toor
Hepner	Giddens	Dhaliwal
McCall	Wilson	Maahs
Block	Stamer	Gasper
Mok	Davis	Armstrong
Kealy	Brodie	Boultbee
Williams	Chapman	Bird
Doerkson	Luck	Tepper

Sunita Dhir: Committee of Supply, Section C, reports resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Education and Child Care and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: In the main chamber, we call second reading on Bill 10.

In the Douglas Fir Room, we call continued Committee of the Whole on Bill 7.

Then in Section C, Birch Room, we call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

[5:50 p.m.]

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Bill 10 — Labour Statutes
Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Bill 10 amends the Employment Standards Act and the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act to improve service efficiency in the complaint process at the employment standards branch.

Together, the two acts provide more than two million workers in British Columbia with critical rights and protections when it comes to employment, including specific protections for foreign workers working in B.C.

These acts set the standards for workers in B.C. They establish the floor for wages, for terms and conditions of work. They promote open communication, and they promote, especially, fair treatment for employees.

Workers who believe they have not received the rights and protections that they are entitled to under the Employment Standards Act or the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act may file a complaint with the employment standards branch. The complaint process at the branch offers valuable support to vulnerable workers as well as providing advice and counsel to employers. Workers often lack the power to advocate for themselves when employers or when foreign worker recruiters do not meet their obligations under these two acts.

A typical complaint received by the employment standards branch is along the lines of an employer who maybe hasn’t paid all of the wages that they owe to an employee. Another common complaint is an employee who has not received an entitlement, such as paid sick leave or overtime pay.

We know that workers across our province rely on timely payment of wages to ensure that their basic needs are met, so that they can pay for their rent, they can put food on their table, they can take care of their families. Because of this, it’s imperative that the branch’s complaint process is structured in a way that offers workers a quick resolution of their complaints.

We know, as well, that employers also benefit from the certainty that timely and efficient complaint resolution provides.

Between 2018 and 2025, the number of Employment Standards Act complaints received annually at the branch increased by 95 percent. That is, complaints almost doubled, from just under 5,000 to more than 9,600 complaints a year.

I think it is important at this juncture to pause for a moment to reflect on the evolution of the Employment Standards Act in British Columbia and administrative justice for workers, to really understand why there is such an increased amount of traffic at the branch.

I have to say, when I reflect on the opportunities that workers have to stand up for their rights, I think about a time when, while many members across the way were either elected or were working for the B.C. Liberals, they introduced massive cuts to the employment standards branch that hurt working people and that denied access to justice for vulnerable workers.

In just one year, they closed 47 percent of branch offices across the province, reducing access, particularly in more rural and remote communities, for workers to access a dispute resolution process.

There was a massive reduction of employment standards branch officers, up to 51 percent by the time all of the cuts rolled through. They eliminated the requirement for investigating complaints. And in a particularly Orwellian move, they introduced a self-help kit.

[5:55 p.m.]

Because there weren’t enough staff left at the branch to actually help workers navigate the complaint process, they introduced a self-help kit that required workers to go through this process online by themselves in order to initiate a complaint with the branch. They absolutely left workers on their own, in the cold, unable to pursue basic administrative justice.

The perverse effect of these cuts meant that the number of workplace investigations and audits were significantly reduced. The branch used to have a very proactive investigation process to really stand up for workers’ rights, to really investigate the few numbers of employers who were repeat bad offenders in this sense. That was completely eliminated. The employment standards branch was essentially kneecapped when it came to being able to perform their basic functions, their basic obligations under the act.

Within four years, as we saw the number of investigations and audits reduced, there was a dramatic decline in the complaints accepted by the branch. We saw a reduction by over 8,000 cases. At a time even while the number of working people were increasing in the province, when the number of establishments covered by the employment standards branch was increasing, we saw these draconian moves dramatically reduce the access of working people to basic administrative justice. It meant that the Employment Standards Act fell far behind the changes that were needed for workers and workplaces in our province.

Prior to 2019 and the amendments that our government brought in, the act had not been significantly updated for 15 years. What that meant — the impact on real people — was that fewer and fewer workers were provided with the important basic protections around wage and working conditions, and more and more of them, including children as young as 12, were put at greater risk of exploitation and serious injury at work.

I just have to pause on this point for a moment with respect to how the act defined who could work, because in this period, our province had the absolutely shameful reputation for having the youngest work-start age in North America at 12 years old. In fact, the Workers Compensation Board had to report on injuries for 12-year-olds. Because children were permitted to work only with a note from their parent, there was very little in the way of investigation or regulation of this.

In 2007, there were 126 WorkSafe claims filed for 15-year-old workers. There were 35 filed for those workers who were 14 and younger. The highest injury categories were cuts, strains, dislocations, fractures.

I think we have to understand that this wasn’t just kids working in fast food and retail. I mean, I worked at McDonald’s when I was a kid in high school, so I get that work. That’s not the kind of work we’re talking about here. We’re talking about work in construction, agriculture — situations that put youth genuinely at risk.

I think there are many moments that I’m very proud of with respect to the work that our government has done to stand up for working people. Certainly, one of them was in 2021, when our government amended the Employment Standards Act and raised the working age from 12 to 16.

Our government has worked hard in the past eight years to bring back basic rights and protections that were gutted by the previous government. We worked hard to restore the ability of the employment standards branch to uphold minimum employment standards in our province and protect workers from exploitation.

[6:00 p.m.]

We eliminated the self-help kit. We increased the budget. We increased the number of officers. We eliminated the suppression of rights of workers that went with the changes that were made.

There’s no question that in recent years, the branch has undergone significant transformation to provide workers with easier access to its services, because in addition to eliminating the self-help kit, our government has made other efforts at modernization, such as extending the period for which the branch can recover wages for an employee, from six months to one year.

We also, in 2019, introduced the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act. Now, this act was implemented specifically to ensure protections for the many migrant workers who come from different parts of the world to British Columbia to work.

In 2024, additional legislative and regulatory changes were made to provide employment standards for those workers in a growing part of our economy where there is a lot of precarious work, where workers mediate their employment relations through applications on their smartphone — that which we colloquially call the gig economy. We brought in the first regulations in the country to provide protections, including health and safety protections, for workers in this growing and very precarious part of our economy.

All of these changes, when taken together — along with increasing worker awareness about their employment entitlements and supports available for workers and employers through the employment standards branch — of course, have led to an increase in the number of complaints submitted to the branch and the demands on its services.

In addition to resolving complaints, the branch oversees the licensing and registration of foreign worker recruiters and employers under the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act. The addition of this important protection for foreign workers in B.C. is another factor contributing to the significant increase in demand for the branch’s services in recent years.

Despite the significant increases, we increased the budget of the branch by almost 50 percent in our first mandate. We have seen a significant increase in the number of employees at the employment standards branch, to properly support workers and employers to navigate their rights and obligations under the act. We know that there are, notwithstanding our efforts, more people facing longer wait times than we would like them to be facing to have their complaints addressed at the branch.

That’s why we have been taking action since forming government to ensure proper access to the administrative justice that is provided by the employment standards branch. We’ve added staffing resources to address the increase in requests. We’ve developed new, streamlined intake and triage processes to provide better outcomes for workers. We’ve made some technological improvements along with enhancements to information-gathering to support more effective and efficient investigations.

We certainly are making progress, and we know, notwithstanding that, that we have more to do. As part of the ongoing efforts to improve efficiency, we are also proposing, here in Bill 10, legislative changes that will help streamline operations at the branch while maintaining the rights and protections that workers rely on. There are five key amendments that I would like to highlight.

The first will provide the branch clearer discretion to require worker and employer participation in complaint resolution meetings, as appropriate. This, of course, will help to resolve more complaints quickly and effectively. The branch currently offers parties the opportunity to participate in complaint resolution on a voluntary basis. But the work that the branch has been doing and the pilot they have run on this alternative dispute resolution mechanism has shown really impressive results.

[6:05 p.m.]

Eighty percent of all resolution meetings through this process have resulted in voluntary resolution of the dispute within 45 days of the file being assigned to a branch officer. In contrast to that, complaints that proceed through a full investigation typically take around four months to resolve.

Resolution meetings are particularly helpful for straightforward complaints where there is an opportunity to resolve disputes in a manner that is fair to both the worker and the employer. I think even where resolution meetings don’t result in a settlement, they still add value to the complaint process.

Meetings allow the parties to gain a better understanding of each other’s position and a better understanding of the evidence that is being put forward. These meetings also give the parties an opportunity to be educated on employment standards and the complaint process itself — including, for example, what evidence would be required to support their claims in a full investigation.

Many parties decline the offer to participate in these complaint resolution meetings simply because they may not wish to speak with the other party or engage with the other party or they don’t believe that their dispute could be resolved in this way. But I think that by providing better legislative incentives to ensure participation in early resolution meetings, this will enhance timeliness and efficiency in the complaint process.

I recognize that this process is not appropriate in every complaint. In assessing whether a resolution meeting is appropriate, the branch will take into account the complexity of the issue, the number of parties involved, the scope and amount of evidence that’s required along with any language barriers or other capacity issues that may impact the parties’ ability to participate.

The branch also considers whether the relationship between the parties will allow them to work together in this way to get to a resolution. Should this bill pass, going forward, the parties may be excused from participating in a complaint resolution meeting if they provide a satisfactory reason for not doing so. In those cases, the branch would proceed with a full investigation of the complaint.

If a party fails to participate without being excused, the branch has two options. They can investigate the complaint, if the branch considers that the appropriate next step. Or they could make a final determination of the complaint without further investigation or submissions from the party — for example, if one of the parties failed to participate in the process.

I think it’s worth noting that this is not an unusual process to have in an employment standards act. Ontario’s employment standards complaint process includes similar provisions. And I would note that in British Columbia, in other administrative tribunals, we also have processes that require the parties to a dispute to attempt mediation before going to a hearing.

For example, under the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, all claims go through a case management phase. A case manager will assist the parties in reaching resolution by agreement through a facilitated settlement. If a party does not participate in facilitation, there is the ability for that claim to be dismissed.

Participation in settlement conferences can also be required under both B.C.’s small claims rules and the Residential Tenancy Act. Enhancing the branch’s ability to require worker and employer participation in complaint resolution meetings will enhance its ability to meaningfully address more complaints sooner. This will help to reduce the existing backlog of complaints more expeditiously.

The second key amendment is removing the requirement for a formal written report to be served to the parties after every investigation but before the final determination. Removing this requirement will help to resolve complaints more quickly and effectively. Just note that the branch is currently required to provide the parties with a final written determination at the conclusion of every complaint, and that requirement will not change.

[6:10 p.m.]

The branch will still be able to provide parties with written investigation reports when appropriate — for example, in particularly complex files when written reports are the best option; the kinds of cases that involve multiple allegations or a high volume of evidence or high-dollar claims; multiple complainants where there are multiple witnesses or multiple employers.

This amendment means that where appropriate in less complex cases, the branch can communicate their investigative findings through alternate means. They can make a phone call or send an email or arrange a virtual meeting in order to communicate with the complainant what has been found during the course of the investigation. This is expected to reduce the length of the complaint process by as much as five weeks in appropriate cases.

The circumstances where this might apply would be, potentially, lower-complexity files where there is maybe a single allegation, where there is very little evidence that needs to be investigated or considered, where there are low-dollar claims and where it’s a one-to-one — one employee and one employer.

I want to just stress that eliminating the requirement to issue a written investigation report in all cases does not eliminate the requirement to ensure that the parties know the evidence and have an opportunity to respond to it before a complaint is determined. This means that even if the branch decides that a written report is not required in a particular complaint, the parties will still be provided with an opportunity to know the issue in dispute, present their evidence and exchange evidence with the other party.

These processes are fundamental to administrative justice. Administrative justice underpins the Employment Standards Act and will continue to underpin the work of the employment standards branch.

Many workers and employers may, in fact, find informal and direct methods of communication more accessible than receiving a formal and lengthy written report. It may be vulnerable workers who don’t have English as a first language and may find it challenging to understand a written report in English. I think providing the flexibility to tailor communication to fit the particular needs of each complainant will serve both the complainants and the respondents better and reduce unnecessary delays in the complaint process.

The third key amendment will assist with matching workers with their unclaimed wages more quickly through the B.C. Unclaimed Property Society, known as B.C. Unclaimed. This is another way that we think we will be able to better serve workers, while using employment standards branch resources more efficiently.

At times, in a situation where perhaps a worker quits or otherwise has had their employment terminated and the employers are unable to locate the worker to pay the wages that are owing, that’s when this situation would be in effect.

What happens now is that in that case, the employer must provide the unpaid wages to the branch. The employment standards branch holds the funds while they attempt to locate the employee. If that employee has not been located after one year, the branch must then transfer the funds to B.C. Unclaimed.

Just for clarity here, B.C. Unclaimed is a not-for-profit society dedicated to quickly connecting British Columbians with their unclaimed money left behind in courts, insurance payments, credit union accounts and other types of accounts. They are the best place to do the important work of uniting employees with their unclaimed wages.

This proposed amendment will remove the requirement for the branch to hold the unpaid wages for a year while they are unable to locate the worker. Enabling the branch to transfer the unclaimed wages to B.C. Unclaimed sooner better supports the efficient and timely matching of unclaimed wages with their rightful owners and frees up those employment standards branch resources to continue on with casework and to address other complaints that are in the queue.

[6:15 p.m.]

The fourth amendment I’d like to highlight involves ensuring that the branch can close a complaint when all parties agree that there are no wages owing. This, again, is designed to try to free up branch staff to focus their attention on other complaints that are in the queue.

What happens is that sometimes when a worker files a complaint seeking unpaid wages, the employer may pay the amount they owe before the branch begins an investigation, in some cases. When this happens, the branch then considers the complaint resolved, and the file is usually closed with the consent of both parties.

Currently the Employment Standards Act also provides that the branch may refuse to investigate a complaint in certain circumstances, including when the branch is satisfied that the complaint has been resolved. However, there is some confusion in the wording, particularly around complainants, about what it means for a complaint to be resolved.

These amendments will clarify that the branch’s authority to close complaints when they are resolved includes when unclaimed wages claimed by a complainant have, in fact, been paid. This will improve the clarity and the understanding of the legislation and reduce disputes about the mechanics of the complaint process in these situations.

Finally, the final amendment will require employers to deposit any wages that are owed before appealing a decision with the Employment Standards Tribunal. Ultimately, what this means is that more workers will receive the wages owed to them and fewer branch resources will be required to enforce wage payment orders.

Employers are already required to comply with orders made by the branch in the determination of a complaint, regardless of whether they appeal the determination. In other words, there is currently no legal avenue for employers to avoid paying wages or other amounts owed to workers while they appeal a determination. However, on occasion, some employers simply choose to remain non-compliant while their appeal proceeds.

The collections process is, frankly, very resource-intensive, and the branch needs to dedicate significant resources to prioritizing these non-compliant employers while the appeal is in process.

One example I can give you is that the employment standards branch issued a determination awarding a worker over $100,000 in unpaid wages plus accrued interest. The employer appealed this decision shortly after, and the appeal was dismissed.

Now, in this case, the employer’s decision to remain non-compliant with the original order and to appeal the determination added another six months onto the process. We are now six months down the road, and the worker is still waiting for their former employer to pay the wages that are rightfully owed to them.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I do want to stress that this is not something that is widespread, necessarily. But the actions of a few employers create significant unfairness and significant harm, as you can see in the case I just referred to. The actions of these employers disproportionately take up resources of the branch, to the detriment of the workers and to the majority of the employers in the province who do abide by the law.

To address this, the proposed changes adjust the appeal process so that the employers must pay to the branch the money that they owe to employees before their appeal can proceed. Most other Canadian jurisdictions require employers to make such a deposit in employment standards appeals. The money will be held in….

Interjection.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Introducing the pre-appeal deposit requirement will reduce the level of effort required by branch staff to recover wages from non-compliant employers.

The bill proposes parallel changes to the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act regarding the deposit of money owing as a condition of appealing a determination under that act and will ensure that foreign workers in B.C. receive any money owed to them under the act by employers and foreign worker recruiters in a timely and efficient manner if the appeal is in the worker’s favour.

I look forward to the opportunity to debate the bill with the critic in committee.

With that, noting the hour, I move adjournment of the debate.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Section A reports progress on Bill 7 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

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

Leave granted.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:20 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:53 p.m.

[Rohini Arora in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 7, the Post-Secondary International Education (Designated Institutions) Act, to order.

On clause 1.

Korky Neufeld: I just want to make a comment and then start my questions, if I could.

I think we want to be clear at the outset that accountability in international education matters, so we’re not arguing that point at all. It matters to Canada, and it matters to British Columbia, especially for its reputation abroad. It also matters to the reputation of institutions, and it matters to students. So we all agree that the main goal of this is the protection of students, both international and the unintended consequences for domestic students with this bill, which is why this step in the process is so very important.

Fundamentally, this bill is about bad-actor institutions and not to unintentionally punish reputable institutions. That is why we cannot afford arbitrary solutions and we need to be clear about language and safeguards with this bill. Yes, we need flexibility with this bill, but we cannot give opportunity for unreasonableness.

[2:55 p.m.]

Under part 1, “Definitions,” can the minister explain why the definition of “administrative fee” under section 1 only references section 12 and not the broader cost of implications for institutions?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Before we begin, I would like to introduce my team and thank them for their work on this piece of legislation as well. With me, I have Chris Rathbone, Tony Loughran, Chad Hoskins, Cassandra Dey and Nico Lohmann. I thank them for all the work that they’ve done and that we will do together at this committee stage.

I thank my critic for the work up to this point and the work we’ll do together to make sure that we are passing legislation that will help ensure that students are protected, not just international students but all students, by way of making stronger frameworks for our international legislation and education framework.

On that, with regard to your question on the administrative fee. This is specific to the definition that is used in section 12, referring to the specific fee that institutions would have to pay as a part of implementing this legislative framework and for them to be in the overall framework of this legislation.

It’s not broader than that. It just is to show what we’re talking about in section 12, when we get there, in terms of that specific fee.

Korky Neufeld: Well, since introductions have been made, I’d like to introduce also the Maple Ridge East MLA, who’s going to be also sharing questions with this Bill 7 as well. I’m the MLA for Abbotsford West.

How does the definition of “administrator” in section 1 ensure accountability for decisions affecting international students?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The administrator is designated by the minister, and this is a civil servant who is going to oversee the day-to-day management of the program. They’re given authority to set the rules, to make determinations on whether or not to issue, deny or cancel or impose terms or conditions on those designation certificates that institutions are given.

Korky Neufeld: Obviously, the size of the school matters when it comes to costs, because the cost to a larger institution would be minimal to a similar cost to a smaller institution. Does the term “appeal fee” under section 1 adequately consider the financial burden on smaller institutions seeking review?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The appeal fees themselves will be outlined in the regulations, but they are designed to be modest and not to be a barrier to appeal. They are designed to cover the cost of processing the appeal and the administration that goes with that, but it’s not meant to be a burdensome barrier to appeal.

Korky Neufeld: Maybe I’ll ask the question a different way. Will the appeal fee amount consider the size of the institution, or is there one standard appeal fee for all appeals?

If you’re saying that it’s not going to hinder the appeal process, how modest is that? Do you know the amount so that we can consider some smaller institution that may not have the financial backing like larger institutions do?

The Chair: Members, just a reminder to keep your phones off.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Thank you for your question.

Right now the regulations are being developed, and the size of the institution is something that we will be taking into consideration as we develop the final regulations. But I can assure the member that we’re not talking about thousands of dollars in fees. This is very much a modest amount that is far less than that. So this isn’t meant to, as I said, be any kind of barrier to any institution, whether it’s small or large, to filing an appeal.

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

Continued on definitions, page 3. How will the compliance record defined in section 1(1) be shared with prospective students or the public?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: We’ll get into it when we get into section 9, which talks about the online directory of designated institutions. But that talks about elements of the compliance record that will be made public online in a directory, where students, potential students are able to look at infractions, revocations and such, of institutions.

Many of these elements under the compliance record are already made public under the current education quality assurance framework, including injunctions against institutions, whether or not an institution holds a designation certificate under the PTA and whether it’s in conviction of an institution.

So there are many elements already here, but this is all within purview of the administrator to include in the online directory that we’ll talk about when we get to section 9.

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

To help me to understand, because I’m trying to wrap my head around this: what’s the rationale with the compliance record to exclude certain decisions as outlined in section 1(2)? What’s the rationale for that?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Certain records are excluded from the compliance record under section 1(2), specifically records of decisions that are made under this act and the Private Training Act that are not final, where a reconsideration or appeal is still available or pending and decisions that were rescinded under those acts.

Korky Neufeld: What safeguards are in place to prevent misuse of the designation mark defined in section 1? In other words, what parameters are put on there for that? What safeguards are in place to prevent misuse of the designation mark defined in section 1?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The designation mark is defined to be a mark registered under the Trademarks Act or subject of an application of registration under the Trademarks Act, and it’s specified in the administrator’s rules. A designated institution may use the mark only in accordance with the administrator’s rules that are set out in section 14 of this act, and they’re meant for institutions to demonstrate their status as a designated institution to the public and prospective international students.

So if an institution was to use this in a misleading or false way…. Under section 27, I outline some of those parameters. If they were to do that, we would be able to apply to the Supreme Court to seek an injunction, and if they were to continue to do so, they could be found in contempt of court for using a designation mark without proper authorization.

Korky Neufeld: How is an eligible institution defined in a way that does not unfairly exclude smaller or newer post-secondary institutions?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: To be an eligible institution, an institution must follow three criteria under section 3, which are…. One, be one of the following types of institutions: a public institution, a private institution operating under the Degree Authorization Act or Private Training Act or a prescribed institution. Second, they must have been providing programs of instruction for a minimum period of time, which is going to be set out in regulation. Third is to not be a sole proprietor or partnership.

So long as an institution meets those three criteria, there’s nothing to preclude them based on their size — whether they’re small, medium or large — from being an eligible institution under the definition.

The Chair: Members, we’re just going to take a five-minute recess. It is 3:23. If we can be here promptly at 3:28.

The committee recessed from 3:23 p.m. to 3:27 p.m.

[Rohini Arora in the chair.]

The Chair: I’m calling this meeting back to order.

Korky Neufeld: To the minister, you just answered my previous question about eligible institutions with three criteria. The second one was a period of time which has not been designated. When do we hope to know that period of time so that the public can know and institutions can know that period of time?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The regulations are being developed as quickly as possible, and we will have those as soon as we can.

But currently under the education quality assessment framework that we have…. That’s been in place since 2014. This is guiding much of watching this policy be formed into this legislation. Currently under there for private training institutions, the requirement is providing programming of instruction for a minimum period of two years in order to show a demonstrated track record and continuous viable operation prior to meeting that threshold.

Korky Neufeld: Maybe to clarify, then, is that going to be the baseline? Are you going to increase that or decrease that? Do we know that? What can the institution expect?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Regulations are currently under development, so we can’t confirm anything. But we don’t anticipate any significant changes from the current framework.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you, Minister, for that clarification. I appreciate it, and so do the institutions.

Seeking clarity, not just for myself but also for institutions, how do the definitions of “foreign national” and “international student” under section 1 interact with the federal immigration law?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: In this definition of “foreign national,” it’s defined as individuals who are not Canadian citizens and not permanent residents of Canada. It’s used as the basis for when we define international students later in the definitions and to prohibit specific unauthorized advertising towards foreign students.

This definition is meant to stand on its own. It can have similar definitions to the federal government’s definitions. But this is meant to stand on its own to ensure that whatever changes they were to have federally, we have the intention captured in our mind of who is and is not a foreign national. Therefore, when we’re looking at an international student, it’s who would be permitted to be an international student under our specific legislation.

Korky Neufeld: The question I have to ask is: why have different definitions? Isn’t that going to confuse other countries looking at…? They might not get to your website first. They might get to the federal website first, look at a definition there and think they understand it. When they get to the provincial one, it’s a different definition.

My question, I guess, would be to the minister: why would you use different definitions than Canada’s immigration laws?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Just to confirm, our definition is not in conflict with any definitions that the federal government has. It’s just not, per se, verbatim what they’ve said.

Really, the intention of our definition of “foreign national” going to “international student” is to make sure we’re not capturing folks outside the scope. We really are only trying to capture foreign nationals who are here on a study permit. We don’t want “international student” to catch a wider net, say someone that might not require a study permit and is studying here. They’re not the ones that are intended under this legislation. It’s meant for foreign nationals who are permitted to be here, or for institutions to advertise for, that would require a study permit to study here in B.C.

Korky Neufeld: Moving on, what processes ensure the accuracy of PTA, which is the Private Training Act, compliance records referenced in section 1?

[3:40 p.m.]

The Chair: We’re going to take a recess for two minutes. We will be back at 3:44 p.m.

The committee recessed from 3:42 p.m. to 3:43 p.m.

[Rohini Arora in the chair.]

The Chair: Calling this committee back to order.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: With the private training, the PTA compliance record…. This is just something for the member’s awareness. This framework has been in place since 2016, and it allows the registrar to maintain records of all infractions and compliance under the act. The administrator also has audit and investigative and validative powers here.

This PTA compliance record forms a part of the institution’s compliance record, which ensures that relevant decisions made by the institution under the PTA are taken into account by the administrator when they’re evaluating whether or not to grant, renew or cancel a designation certificate.

This is also why, to your earlier question about certain elements that wouldn’t be included in a compliance record, decisions that are still pending or open to appeal or reconsideration wouldn’t be included, to ensure that the information that’s in there is not going to change and that it is validated information.

[3:45 p.m.]

Korky Neufeld: You said it has the opportunity to be audited. So my question is: is that correct?

Interjection.

Korky Neufeld: So maybe the question is…. Previously there were not opportunities to get audits. So I wanted to ask: when is the last time it’s been audited?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Just to clarify, the legislation we’re looking at as a whole right now is bringing in, from framework to legislation, much of what’s already happening with EQA and PTA — so the Private Training Act compliance record and what we’re talking about.

The framework itself is not audited, but they have audit powers under the PTA. The registrar under the PTA has audit powers to ensure enforcement of all of these things when private training institutions are applying to get their EQA designation and to regulate it under this framework.

So it was just to clarify that all of these powers of audit and compliance have existed under frameworks. But with this legislation, it is simply making it so that we have the legislative tools to have enforcement and to have the fee structure and the framework structure to make sure we have enough resources to do that enforcement and compliance, as a lot of it has already been done, but to really amplify that in a way that we’re making sure that the protection of students is happening.

Korky Neufeld: I guess I’m trying to understand…. When we move from policy to legislation, it becomes a legal framework, right? So I guess my question would be: have all the checks and balances in the policy stage been enforced or been used in order to make sure that the PTA compliance records are accurate, or is it because they haven’t been accurately followed up on, been enforced, that we’re moving now to legislation so we can do that?

I guess I’m trying to clarify — from policy to legislation.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The PTA is a strong framework that has appeal and reconsideration mechanisms before any decisions are finalized. This is a framework that’s been in place since 2016. It’s been tested since that time, and institutions that are regulated by the PTA also understand the system and respect the system.

This legislation simply allows us to bring that framework into legislation in order to have stronger mechanisms to continue that enforcement in addition to the other elements of the EQA designation.

Korky Neufeld: I’m sure the ministry and the minister have thought about, when moving from policy to legislation, how frequently you will be auditing, just to make sure that the PTA has accurate records and is keeping accurate records. Is it going to be once a year, once every two years, three years, four years, five years? If you can get some sort of timeline…. I’m sure you’ve thought about it.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I’ll just clarify, as well, that the PTA framework that we’re talking about here, the compliance record as well as the EQA framework that’s currently in place…. These are frameworks that work together, and they’re administered by the ministry itself. There’s regular review of the procedures to ensure administrative fairness is happening through the process.

Also, for external validation, any kinds of appeals…. They have appeal mechanisms built in, and any kinds of appeals would also provide that kind of review function and administrative fairness piece.

Overall, everything works together. We’re taking those frameworks. We’re moving them into legislation to have those strong reinforcement powers. But there are regular reviews of these processes that happen, because this is administered within our ministry — all these frameworks.

Korky Neufeld: The reason why I asked three or four questions around the same piece in here is because I think it’s important. You can have checks and balances in there, but if you don’t enforce them, if you don’t review them, if you don’t hold them accountable, they’re just…. You know what it is. It’s just writing on a piece of paper. So I’m hoping that bringing this from policy to legislation, there’ll be more of this so that we can ensure that everything is accurate.

Moving on, how is “study permit” defined to ensure institutions do not inadvertently enrol ineligible students?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: This definition that is utilized establishes that “study permit” refers to a study permit issued under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act of Canada. This is a federally issued document which permits foreign nationals to study in Canada at a designated learning institution for periods of time that are typically greater than six months.

This definition, as well as the definitions of “international student,” “foreign national,” “program of instruction,” all work together to ensure that the act is focused on regulating institutions that intend to enrol international students who require a study permit to study in Canada.

Korky Neufeld: Let’s say a student is ineligible. Who decides that? Is it the federal government that decides that or the provincial government that decides when someone is an ineligible student?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: It’s the federal government that issues the study permit, so they would be the ones determining whether a student is eligible or ineligible.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

[4:00 p.m.]

Lawrence Mok: I have four or five questions, and they all have to do with designation certificates under section 2.

My first question. Section 2(a) prohibits advertising without a designation certificate. If this is the case, how will enforcement be monitored?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: If you’re not a designated institution under this act, you wouldn’t be able to do all of the things that are in (a) to (e). If it was to come to our attention that an institution that’s not designated was advertising abroad, for example, we would be able to issue an injunction against the institution, which is later in this act under section 20.

Korky Neufeld: I guess the question…. Does this show later on who oversees the enforcement or monitoring of the designation certificate?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The enforcement piece of this would be done by the ministry, as the framework that’s set up by this legislation. There would be a body that would be set up to ensure that the enforcement is being done. But it would be the administrator under this act that would have…. Section 20 would authorize the administrator to apply for an injunction in scenarios where an institution wasn’t meeting the specified legislative requirements.

That would include if they were contravening anything in section 2 that you’re asking about but also anything in section 27, which is about the prohibition on false or misleading representation by an institution that’s not designated under this act.

Lawrence Mok: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

Can the minister also tell us how section 2(b) will prevent an institution from providing programs of instruction to international students without a certificate? How will section 2(b) prevent an institution from providing programs to international students without a certificate?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The federal government doesn’t issue student study permits or allow students to come here unless they are currently on our list of EQA designation and they have our designation. So they would have to have this in order to even have the international students here.

If, somehow, they were operating without that, that would mean that the students got here illegally and that the institution itself was operating illegally. If, for some reason, that happened, we would be able to have injunctions, but that would be a lot of ifs to even get them here.

Korky Neufeld: I guess this is to prevent bad actors. Is that the whole point of this part — of the prevention part? Is that so that you guys can make sure that there are no bad actors out there and you can pinpoint them? You would probably be able to find them, because they probably wouldn’t have gone through the proper channels. Is that…?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Yes, that’s correct.

Lawrence Mok: Thanks, Minister, for the answer.

My next question is: would there be any penalty if an institution were to enter into a contract in breach of section 2(c)?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Whether it’s specifically section 2(c) or (a) through (e), it just lists all actions that…. If you’re not designated under this act, you wouldn’t be able to do any of those things. If you did do those things, we would be able to seek an injunction against institutions that did so. So it really just outlines all of the prohibited activities, a list of the prohibited activities, if you do not have a designation certificate and are trying to still skirt around that and enrol international students or attract them.

Lawrence Mok: Thanks, Minister, for the answer.

Section 2(d) has to do with enrolling international students. How will section 2(d) ensure compliance when enrolling international students?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Just as the previous few answers there, you’re not able to enrol an international student in a program of instruction if you haven’t gotten a study permit, and you’re not able to get a study permit if you’re not on the EQA list. So that’s how we would prevent them from doing so.

Korky Neufeld: Knowing a little bit about AI and how it’s progressing, it wouldn’t be too far for us to imagine someone creating false documents. So what measures do you have set in place that would ensure that you would not be receiving forged or duplicated AI documents as far as permits are concerned?

A person could easily go on the federal website, find a document or maybe have a document from a previous student. It’s very simple now to manufacture a false document. So I’m wondering. Is there anything in place to ensure that the documents you are receiving are legitimately from the federal government and not something that’s been fabricated through AI?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: So on the question about…. I think fraudulent study permits is what you’re saying. Those are administered by the federal government. So there are checks and balances in place by the federal government to ensure, because you wouldn’t be able to get the study permit…. They wouldn’t issue a study permit unless we the provincial government had that institution on our designated institutions list.

[4:15 p.m.]

Basically, there are checks and balances between the federal government — when they’re coming in — and our provincial government to work at verifying the documentation and what comes in.

I think the other element of this, just largely speaking, is that for an institution to create a fraudulent document like that would mean a student is travelling on a fraudulent document. That has its own complexities, many of which would be caught by the federal government’s scheme here.

Just to confirm that we work closely with the federal government in terms of the checks and balances that they have in place and that we have in place to mitigate any of these risks every step of the way.

Lawrence Mok: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

My last question to you for section 2 is…. Section 2(e) has to do with collaborations with other institutions and cancellations of certificate. My question is: under this section, how are exceptions for collaborations and certificate cancellations operationalized?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The prohibition on providing a program under 2(e) is subject to two exceptions. The first is the collaboration under section 11(2), as you mentioned. This is to ensure that where collaborations between a designated and a non-designated institution are permitted under section 11, in those cases, the non-designated institution is allowed to deliver part of the program in accordance with section 11. We can talk a bit more of that in detail when we get to section 11.

The second is training out current students following certificate cancellation under 19(1)(b). This provision allows institutions to continue to teach international students who were enrolled at the institution when the institution’s certificate was cancelled, which is consistent with federal regulations which permit students to continue to study at such an institution until the expiry of their current study permit.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

Korky Neufeld: What criteria are used to determine if an institution under section 3(a)(i) meets the designation requirements?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The acts that are outlined under section 3(a)(i) outline acts that regulate public post-secondary institutions — colleges, universities and institutes — and the specific regulations around that. So to fit under that section, you’d have to be a public post-secondary institution.

Korky Neufeld: How will institutions authorized under the Degree Authorization Act be assessed for eligibility?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Institutions that are authorized under the Degree Authorization Act are private institutions that would apply to our ministry for degree-granting ability. These would be reviewed by the Degree Quality Assessment Board, the DQAB, and then finally reviewed by the minister. So any private institution that wants to issue degrees would be able to apply under this act in order to do so.

Korky Neufeld: Section 3(b) mentions a prescribed minimum period. How is this period determined?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: As we canvassed in the definitions section, a prescribed institution…. It will be outlined in the regulations, but currently, for example, private institutions are required to provide programming for a period of two years prior to being able to be an eligible institution. We don’t anticipate any severe deviation from that in the regulations, but that will be specifically outlined in the regulations.

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

How does section 3(c) prevent sole proprietorships or partnerships from circumventing regulations?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: This 3(c) would preclude the sole proprietorship or partnership from becoming an eligible institution, which thereby would ensure that they wouldn’t end up on the designated learning institutions list from the federal government. So they wouldn’t be able to enrol international students. So by not being an eligible institution, that’s how it would prevent it.

Korky Neufeld: In order to keep bad actors at bay, under section 3(d), what oversight ensures that institutions barred from reapplying are identified? Are you going to keep a list? Is there going to be an ongoing list so that they’re easy to identify?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The records of this would be maintained on the online directory. The administrator would establish and maintain a publicly available website, a directory of all designated institutions as well as former designated institutions, that includes this prescribed information.

The administrator would keep records. The ministry would have records of this. So it would be well documented for the public as well as internally.

Korky Neufeld: Is there a designated time where, let’s say, an institution that’s been barred…? Are they indefinitely barred, or is there a period of time where, if they get some of their stuff together — credentialing, whatever it may be — they could reapply at a different time, or is this an indefinite bar?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: For an institution that has their designation certificate cancelled, it would be cancelled for a period of up to three years, and it would be outlined in the administrator’s decision. This is outlined in section 18(2)(d) as well, so we can talk about it when we get there. They’ll be able to reapply after that, and the specific amount of time for their specific decision would be outlined in the administrator’s decision. It would be a period of up to three years.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

Lawrence Mok: My next few questions have to do with clause 4. What guidance is provided to institutions on the form and manner of applications under section 4(2)(a)?

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The administrator will have the authority to set the requirements for the form in the manner of how the application is to be submitted. This will be outlined by the administrator’s rules. These requirements will be fair, transparent, public-facing and amended with the appropriate lead time when necessary.

Also, they may feature application templates. I’ll just note that this is something that currently…. Under the current framework, there are forms, and some of them include application templates so that we can ensure consistency between applications and that we have all the information that the ministry and the administrator need to make decisions.

Lawrence Mok: Can the minister tell us how the administrator verifies the information and records required under section 4(2)(b)?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Through the ministry, we’re able to have an extensive verification process to ensure that the information provided by institutions is accurate. This can include verifying their legal status, their business registration and records. This can include having site visits at institutions and coordinating with other regulators to make sure the information they are providing us aligns.

Again, much of this is processes and abilities that we have under existing EQA frameworks in order to verify before they get that EQA designation, even right now.

Lawrence Mok: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

Can the minister also tell us how the prescribed application fee under section 4(2)(c) is being determined?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The specifics of the fee will be outlined in the regulations that will be coming out shortly. But I would just clarify that the prescribed fee that would be charged is to account for the time and resources that are associated with the application that is being submitted and the different types of reviews that are required for that.

[4:40 p.m.]

Because this model is a cost recovery model, it would be going to make sure that we are able to cost-recover the timing and resources to administer the type of reviews that are necessary in getting to the designation certification.

Korky Neufeld: Just a quick question to the minister then. Is it just to recoup the costs that it’s going to cause? Above that, are there going to be some finances that the ministry will make off of this, or is this cost recovery?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The entire framework under this act is cost recovery. This would be as well.

Lawrence Mok: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

My question to the minister is: what deadlines under section 4(2)(d) apply, and are there provisions for extensions?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The regulations can prescribe deadlines for when the applications are to be received, and this ability to set the renewal application deadline could be used to manage an influx of applications throughout the year. Different institution classes could be assigned different deadlines for applications, not just to stagger the submissions but also to align with institutional fiscal year-ends or recertification cycles under other regulatory authorities.

If it were an institution that was applying for a recertification process, their certification would be maintained until this process ended. It’s a bit flexible on that, to ensure that there’s enough time for the administrator to review the application.

Korky Neufeld: The second part of that question was: were there any provisions for extensions?

Did you answer that? I must have missed it.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Institutions would have a deadline by which to apply. They would need to apply by that deadline. Otherwise, their certification would lapse until the renewal happened. But if they applied by the deadline and then this process took a bit longer and their certification was set to expire in that time, that would be extended. It wouldn’t expire. So they would be able to continue that until that process was complete.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

Korky Neufeld: How does section 5(1)(a) define “continuity in the provision of programs”?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I’m just going to lay out a bit about section 5. I’m sure there are questions on the specific subpoints, but section 5 lays out the legal test for suitability that an institution has to meet in order to become EQA-designated.

[4:50 p.m.]

The core elements of this include continuity of programming and services, clear and accessible information, student safety, capacity to offer a safe and positive educational experience and student services that promote well-being.

Those elements that I’ve outlined here are part of the consideration of a holistic look that the administrator is doing. So there isn’t a set definition of what the continuity of the provision of programs and instructions would be in every case. It would be one of the many factors outlined that an administrator would look at to determine whether the application should be successful or not.

That being said, I can understand that institutions would want a bit more clarity on this, so it is anticipated that the administrator will publish interpretive guidance material that communicates to the sector in more detail about how each factor that’s outlined here will be considered in the process of the legal test.

Korky Neufeld: To the minister: I appreciate you want to give kind of a sweeping answer for the whole section, but I think it’s important for me to outline independent questions for clarification.

What standards exist under section 5(1)(b) for providing clear and accessible information to students? Is there a criteria? Is there a list of things that are there so that students get properly informed?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: My answer to this one is similar to the last. The administrator’s interpretive guidance material that will be published will help institutions to have a better understanding of the specifics of how each factor will be considered. These are also considerations that institutions are aware of right now under the current framework. These are factors that come into consideration.

It’s also important that this is not as prescriptive as saying “this is exactly what it is,” because we want to ensure that the administrator has that flexibility to recognize that some institutions are bigger and have more resources than others. We want to maintain that ability for the administrator to make that final call and to clearly articulate to institutions what it is that is needed of them.

Korky Neufeld: The whole purpose of Bill 7 is about protecting international students from being taken advantage of, right? Also, to eliminate bad actors so that doesn’t happen. I realize that a lot is being put on the administrator.

The challenge that I have here now is that I’m asking clarifying questions about certain areas, and we have no defining parameters to say: “This is how the administrator is going to do it.” So this is something that’s going to be done sometime in the future and we’re supposed to say: “Well, okay. That’s good.” Instead, I would prefer if you would give us the best-case answer that you have about what direction the ministry is going to go on these.

My next question is: how is the safety of international students assessed under section 5(1)(c)?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I understand the clarity that you’re seeking here, but what’s really important is that when there’s a legal test that’s set out in here that the administrator is looking at, the administrator has the ability to apply that legal test and to look at the factors that are pertinent to that specific application.

If this was to be far more prescriptive than it is, it would actually limit the ability of the administrator to see what the specific nuances are in cases. Also, to ensure that as things develop and change…. Whether we’re looking at clear and accessible information or a safe and positive educational experience, we wouldn’t be able to grow to capture all of those elements.

In no way is the intention here to take institutions by surprise. That’s why the interpretive guidance materials will be published, to make sure that they know generally how each factor is going to be looked at. Each factor isn’t just a check box. It’s a holistic look at ensuring that institutions meet the criteria.

Although I understand what you’re saying, it is really important that that fluidity and that holistic nature of how the administrator is able to apply the test remains, and that is why it’s outlined as it is in the legislation.

Korky Neufeld: I’ll try a different question along the same lines. Under section 5(1)(e), what measures prevent institutions from harming B.C.’s reputation?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Section 5 sets out the overall criteria that institutions have to meet to receive and maintain their designation. This includes not engaging in activities that can damage the reputation of B.C. as a jurisdiction that hosts international students.

In order to grant designation, the administrator has to be satisfied that the institution meets all of the factors outlined in 5(1). Also, to make that determination, the administrator has to consider the factors that are listed in 5(2).

I think 5(2) provides a bit more of those specifics that you’re seeking, as well, and that guidance that the administrator can provide. Some of those factors that are directly linked to reputation include the business practices of an institution, including advertising; recruitment and enrolment practices; the use of education agents; and the compliance record of the institution.

If no action is taken against institutions that engage in deceptive marketing practices or have a history of non-compliance under the act or other regulatory regimes, the overall reputation of the post-secondary system here in B.C. suffers, and students may choose to go to other destinations instead.

The Chair: I would like to tell the members here that we’re going to have a five-minute recess, and we will be back at 5:05.

The committee recessed from 5:00 p.m. to 5:07 p.m.

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call this Committee of the Whole for Bill 7 back to order.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you, Minister, for pointing us to 5(2). That’s where I was going next anyway.

How will corporate structure and standing under section 5(2)(a) be verified?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The requirement to consider the standing of an institution with the registrar of companies who oversee the B.C. corporate registry is to ensure institutions are in compliance with the B.C. corporations act, if applicable, and that the corporation remains in good standing. So that’s what the administrator would be looking at.

[5:10 p.m.]

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

How is program type, under section 5(2)(b), evaluated for quality? In other words, how will it be evaluated, who will be evaluating that, and what are the measures, actually, for quality?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The types of programs of instruction that the institution offers are assessed to ensure that they meet the minimum IRCC requirements for students enrolled in that program to hold a study permit — which is six months — and that the institution’s overall program mix reflects a significant enough emphasis on provincially approved educational programming rather than predominantly non-educational offerings.

Korky Neufeld: What methods of delivery standards are expected under section 5(2)(c)? There have to be, obviously, some metrics of what they’re expected to deliver for education. So what methods of delivery standards are expected under section 5(2)(c)?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The method of delivery must be assessed to confirm that institutions are not enrolling international students in solely online programs, aligned with the IRCC restriction that requires that programs be at least 50 percent in person. Study permits cannot be issued for those that are just doing online programs.

Korky Neufeld: Who collects that data? Is it the institutions that send you that data? Is there some way to collect that data so we make sure that these ratios are actually being adhered to?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The institutions are required to report directly into our ministry on a regular basis, and it’s a part of our annual review process as well.

Korky Neufeld: In section 5(2)(d), it talks about student enrolment in programs. Is there anything — any ratios, any way to know a ratio of students per instructor? Is there a limit, or is it open-ended? Can they have…? Like you said, 50 percent online. Is there a number for that? The 50 percent in person — is there a number for that, or is it open-ended?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: This isn’t a hard number there. It’s a consideration to allow, especially where there are niche programs…. There might be different needs. Really, the number of students enrolled in the program of instruction that’s offered by the institution…. It concerns the robustness of the learning experience that we’re looking at, at the institution, depending on the number of students that are enrolled.

Where a full cohort of both domestic and international students are there, it creates a more robust experience for both groups. So that’s a consideration. The number of students enrolled also contributes to the institution’s operational stability and ability to provide consistent resources and supports to international students.

Those are the elements that are looked at. It’s not a hard-and-fast rule, and we want to make sure we maintain that flexibility for the administrator. Certain programs might be small and niche and require specifics.

Korky Neufeld: My next question, then, follows with that one. If there’s not a hard-and-fast rule, what metrics measure student progress under section 5(2)(e)? If they can have X number of students online, X number of students in person, there must be a way for us to measure: are they getting the instruction they need? Is it because it’s expanded so far that they have no way of tracking?

What metrics measure student progress under section 5(2)(e)?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The progress of students through the programs of instruction offered by the institutions concerns whether students are being properly supported academically to make progress in their program. That’s a lot of program. With that, there is regular reporting into our ministry, as well, on information, such as how students are progressing through different programs, what their graduation rates are. That sort of information is all gathered by our ministry to help on the progress-of-students piece.

Korky Neufeld: How will operational history and ownership history under section 5(2)(f) affect eligibility? In other words, operational history…. Are there student surveys that are taken? How do we know how the operator is functioning? Are the students getting what they deserve? How do we do those checks and balances?

Then, also, ownership history, the longevity of a certain school and its operations. Does that come into effect when it’s eligible? Is that considered?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The operational history and ownership of the institution doesn’t so much relate to the students piece. It’s more being reviewed because in certain classes of institutions, we see that there’s a high turnover in employment and ownership and many individuals are involved with multiple institutions. So reviewing the ownership history is done to ensure operational and program continuity when there are ownership changes that occur and also to limit the disruption that that would mean to the student experience.

Korky Neufeld: Wouldn’t it be helpful, though, to find out how the students are feeling about all these changes and if they’re getting what they deserve? Would there be an opportunity then to maybe do some surveys on occasion to make sure that it reflects to the students what’s happening through these many changes?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: As part of the annual review process, the audit process, our ministry does meet with students on campus as well, to see what their experience is like. So I think that is captured through those processes.

In this one, it’s just more specific as one of the factors to look at how the specific ownership changes might have an impact on students in other ways.

Korky Neufeld: Having visited a considerable number of schools…. Not every course and every program is equal. The amount of investment that some of these institutions have made in order to offer certain programs….

I could give you an example. The aerospace program is $100,000 per student. If you get into health care there, you’ve got imaging at BCIT. The amount of money is in the hundreds of millions of dollars in some of these institutions for facilities and offering certain things.

What inspection or verification occurs for facilities under section 5(2)(g) that they actually have the required infrastructure to meet the programs and courses that they’re offering?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Overall, when we’re looking at programs generally, what this is looking at is that the facilities that the institution is using to provide programming and instruction are safe and adequate and appropriate spaces for learning.

I think that there are cases we’ve all heard of where that’s not the case of what’s happening. But to go to the specifics of specialized programs that you’re talking about, we do have third-party validators that go in to ensure that the facilities are adequate to meet those specific needs and work with other regulators, as well, to make sure that in those specific, very niche areas, those specific needs are met as well.

Korky Neufeld: Being 16 years in Abbotsford at the school district as a trustee…. I remember one year we had an influx of about 375 international students at one time, right in October. We didn’t meet the September 30 deadline, so the cost was on us. I think for the first time I realized that not each international student that comes to us has the same needs, depending on which country they come from, depending on what they’ve experienced as a family.

My next question here is: how will section 5(2)(h) ensure adequate staff and resources for international students? They come from such varied backgrounds. They may have part of the language; they may not have all of the language. And then also, probably some cultural things. So I just wanted to ask that question.

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I just want to say I agree. I think the needs of the students, not just international students but all students — in this case, international students — are diverse, and they vary from student to student.

I think that’s why this factor allows that flexibility for administrators to ensure that the services and resources that students need, including staff to resource and provide these wraparound supports for students, are there. Whether it’s in the area of academic, mental health, housing or personal life, that these supports are there.

So currently these are elements that are a part of the framework. Inspectors are to engage with students, make sure that their needs are being met and highlight what those specific needs are. Also, this is a mechanism to be able to hold institutions accountable for meeting those needs.

This is a key reason we wanted to bring forward this legislation and why it’s so important — making sure that when the students come here that have been promised this great education, that that’s what they’re getting. It’s hard enough to come and move across the world and have a whole new world thrust upon you in that way. Then to not get what you need out of your school, I think, is exactly what we want to prevent. That’s why this work is here.

Part of the work that’s currently in the framework and will be in here is also institutions having to have an anti-racism policy and a sexual violence policy, to ensure that that framework exists as well.

This is a really important section, and we will continue to ensure that whatever the specific supports that international students have, institutions are meeting their needs and providing that safe and positive learning environment to students.

Korky Neufeld: That leads right into the next one. In the day when school districts were allowed to have international businesses and offer courses across…. I was part of that board for many, many years. We vetted our agents very carefully. We had a short leash on them to make sure that they were representing us accurately and fairly.

So my next question is: how is compliance with business practices and education-agent use monitored under section 5(2)(i)?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The business practices of an institution, including the advertising, recruitment and use of educational agents, concerns any potential problematic behaviour which could mislead international students or put them at risk of non-compliance with their study permit.

Through our audit process with institutions, we will be able to see how many business agents there are, who they are, where they’re operating, how heavily institutions are relying on them and be able to speak to students to say: what are the experiences they’ve had with educational agents? Is what they were told what they are receiving?

That is a big thing that we’ve heard and seen, not just anecdotally. For example, if there’s a situation where an institution is advertising to students to come to Canada on a visitor visa and then apply for a study permit from inside the country, implying that it would be easier or more successful, those are the kinds of things that we want to make sure aren’t happening and that we aren’t misleading students.

This is another key concern that we want to tackle. These are things I’ve seen firsthand in other countries, when I’ve travelled, of the dream that is being sold. I think in itself, we need to make sure that students are being realistically represented with what it is like to go to school here and what they are getting. That’s a study permit to study here. Nothing beyond that.

I think, for a long time, that’s been exploited by bad actors, and that’s the piece that we really want to tackle here. These are some of the abilities that the administrator will have, to look at those factors.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you, Minister, for that. We actually know of bribes being taken by agents to do certain things, so we want to make sure we avoid that. That’s why that question is so important — that we make sure that we have reputable people representing institutions here in B.C.

Next question. How will the administrator evaluate corrective actions under section 5(2)(l)?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The administrator will be looking at the corrective actions that an institution has taken in relation to any concerns that have been raised by the administrator.

In practice, when issues are present in institutions, we would be looking at: what is their response? What’s their ability to take accountability, or the lack thereof that’s occurred? How have they been able to and have they rectified the issues, or is this something that’s indicative of an organizational capacity and commitment to meeting the requirements?

Again, this can come up in many ways, as institutions would also be looking for recertification. So we’d be able to look at previous things that have come up and how quickly they have been and are willing to take those corrective actions.

Korky Neufeld: Under 5(2)(m), it states: “the prescribed factors, if any.” What is the process for considering prescribed factors under section 5(2)(m)?

The Chair: This committee will go to recess.

The committee recessed from 5:34 p.m. to 5:51 p.m.

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

The Chair: Hello, Members. I call this Committee of the Whole on Bill 7 back to order.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Under 5(2)(m), the prescribed factors are included to allow for the ability to prescribe additional factors by regulation, if needed, without reopening the act. This is to ensure flexibility to respond to any kind of emerging trends or changing contexts that we’re seeing.

In the ministry, if something comes up that we’re seeing would need to be widely regulated across the different institutions as part of the determination, we would want to be able to make those changes without reopening the act.

Korky Neufeld: I guess this question is kind of similar in a way. How will the administrator define “any other relevant factors,” under section 5(3), without creating arbitrary decisions?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Section 5(3) is intended to allow the administrator to consider any exceptional circumstances that affect an institution’s ability to meet their designation criteria that is set out in section 5(1).

The administrator does not have unlimited ability to consider other factors. They must be related to the designation criteria that is listed under section 5(1). This power is intended to be used in limited circumstances where issues arise that could not be anticipated and the administrator determines that those circumstances are relevant to determining whether the institution meets the criteria that is set out in section 5(1).

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

Lawrence Mok: Under section 6, what constitutes meeting of criteria under section 6(1)(a) for the issuance of a designation certificate?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Section 6 creates the express legal requirement for the administrator to issue a designation certificate if an institution meets the legal test that’s set out in section 5(1), which we’ve just canvassed, or to refuse to issue a designation certificate if the institution does not meet the legal test. This section provides administrative clarity to institutions by making the application process transparent and predictable.

Although the administrator has considerable discretion in evaluating the factors that they must consider in section 5(2) and may consider other relevant factors, if an institution has met this test in section 5(1), then the administrator is required to issue a designation certificate. On the other side, if the institution does not meet the test under 5(1), then the administrator is required to refuse to issue one.

Lawrence Mok: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

How will the written reasons for refusal under section 6(2)(a) be communicated clearly to institutions?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The written reasons will be also given to the institutions in writing. The ministry and the institutions are in communication as they’re going through this process, so we have ample ways to communicate with the institution.

Lawrence Mok: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

How does section 6(2)(b) ensure that institutions are informed about their right to appeal?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: As a part of the letter that they receive with the written reasons for the decision, it would outline what that process is, should they wish to appeal the decision.

Korky Neufeld: Is there a timeline where the institution can give an appeal, and would there be a timeline when you would say they can’t appeal anymore? Are there parameters?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: If an institution wishes to appeal, they must file an appeal with the appeal officer within 30 days of receipt of the decision under appeal. This is under section 21.

Korky Neufeld: Is there any way to determine that they’ve actually received the non-designation? So you issue it. Is there a way for you to say: “Okay. On this and this date, they received it, and now they have 30 days”? Is it when you sent it or when they receive it? Is there a way to say that they’ve received it and now there’s 30 days?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The notice that applies to delivery of documents is under section 29 of this act, which we can go through at that point. At 29(2), it does say that if it’s sent by ordinary or registered mail, it’s deemed to be received on the date that is the fifth business day after it’s mailed. If it’s sent by email, it’s on the date that is the first business day after it’s emailed, and if sent by fax, on the date that is the first business day after it is faxed.

Lawrence Mok: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

Can the minister tell us: why is a destination certificate non-transferable under section 6(3)?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: This clause ensures that the designation certificate is not transferable or assignable, to ensure the integrity of the designation system. Institutions that are transferring a certificate to a different institution or allowing…. That would allow it to evade the application and assessment process that we are trying to implement here, so that would undermine the entire purpose of the legislation.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

Korky Neufeld: How is the prescribed term determined under section 7(1)?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Section 7 authorizes through regulation for the terms to be set here, for the validity of the designation certificate. If different term-limit rules are applied or if that’s being used when a renewal for an institution comes up, the act also allows for the existing designation certificate to remain valid until a decision is made on the renewal application, which is something we talked about. It doesn’t lapse in between, as long as you’ve applied on time.

There are no limitations on the length of the term in the act. A potential term of the designation certificate could be one year. However, the regulation-making power is flexible and allows for different term lengths based on, for example, institution class. That just gives a bit of flexibility, based on specific factors, to the institution.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you, Minister, for answering that. I was going to ask about different types of terms and why and so on and so forth. I appreciate that very much.

What protections exist for institutions applying for renewal under section 7(2)?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: So 7(2) in itself is a protection for the institution. What that means is that an institution that’s applying for recertification would be able to continue their designation certificate from their first one. Even if the one year comes and the process is still going on to renew, they wouldn’t have a lapse in their certification in between. It’s actually to protect them in this process.

[6:05 p.m.]

Korky Neufeld: What you’re saying, then, is even if they don’t have a response back, they just continue on performing and teaching until that has been…. There is no penalty for that. There’s no way for retroactive penalties or anything like that. They’re basically operating without an up-to-date certificate. Would it be or not?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: They would have applied by the deadline for the renewal. It just wouldn’t be done yet. It would be caught in the system of…. You’ve applied. We’re going through the process of getting you to renewal, recognizing that.

It’s not like their application is somewhere on the internet, but it’s made its way here. We recognize: “Okay, we’re in the process. We know that you can continue to operate.” So it’s a recognition by the ministry that you can continue to operate.

We will do the process, and then, at the end of that, if it continues, great. If not, then that decision will be issued. But you’re good to go until that decision is issued.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

Lawrence Mok: Moving on to clause 8.

How does the administrator decide which terms and conditions are appropriate under section 8(a)?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Under this section, the power to impose terms and conditions on certificates provides the administrator with an additional tool to ensure that institutions are compliant with the regulatory requirements.

Terms and conditions allow the administrator to work with institutions to resolve issues before they lose certification. In such cases, the administrator can use the power to impose terms and conditions to provide clarity to institutions regarding what they must do or cease to do to abate the administrator’s concerns and maintain suitability with respect to any kind of identified issue.

Examples of this might include requiring the institution to implement a multi-year improvement plan with progress reporting; requiring an institution to ensure certain enrolment levels or upkeep of facilities; or restricting enrolment of international students in a specific program that’s being offered by an institution pending regulatory approval, for example.

Korky Neufeld: Is there a period of grace, let’s say, offered to the institutions if that is in doubt, or is it a hard-and-fast rule for…? If they don’t meet the terms and conditions, do they have an appropriate time to meet the terms and conditions? Who decides that, and is there a timeline of any kind?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: So it’s with the administrator, but really, the purpose of this is to kind of fix the issue before we get to the point where a certificate wouldn’t be renewed again. The power to impose these terms and conditions is intentionally broad to allow the administrator to add, amend and remove them at any time.

Once they’re met, you can remove them to ensure that oversight can remain responsive to any kind of emerging risks or changing circumstances that the administrator sees.

Lawrence Mok: What process exists for amending or removing conditions under section 8(b)?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: This is just like 8(a). It really allows the ability of the administrator to impose terms and conditions before they get to the point where a designation certificate wouldn’t be renewed to ensure that compliance. It’s to also ensure that the administrator has the ability to add terms but also amend them and remove them as the institution fixes the concerns that the administrator has.

[6:10 p.m.]

So we’re not in a place where they’re up for renewal and now, all of a sudden, there’s a whole list of concerns that only comes out at that point. It’s really meant to be working with the institution.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you, Minister, for that. I think what I would hope is…. Not every institution has the ability with staffing and so on and so forth to be on top of things. I’m glad you’re saying that you’ll be working with institutions before problems occur, before certificates are cancelled and so forth. Give them every opportunity to succeed rather than looking for ways for them to trip up and fall. I really appreciate that.

No more questions for this.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

Korky Neufeld: Section 5. How is transparency ensured in the online directory under section 9(1)?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Publishing this information in the online directory is actually what helps to create that additional level of public transparency and enhanced public trust in B.C.’s post-secondary education system, because this will be a public-facing directory of designated and formerly designated institutions. That will be beneficial for the public here but also for foreign nationals as they are looking at institutions to apply to, to ensure that the institutions they are considering are designated.

Korky Neufeld: What additional information may be published under section 9(2), and how is privacy protected?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The act does not expressly limit what information could be prescribed, and some information could help with student protections. For example, publishing former operating names of institutions could help ensure that institutions can’t obscure or sidestep their compliance history through rebranding, which would help increase and improve transparency and protect prospective students.

Personal information of students and otherwise non-blameworthy parties would not be disclosed as part of this information that’s disclosed.

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

Lawrence Mok: Moving on to clause 10. How will compliance with terms, orders and rules under section 10 be monitored?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Under 10(b), we would be able to ensure compliance through regular engagement with the institutions through the annual review process. Also, under section 13, we’re able to gather any information we need from an institution. So we would be able to have that and have the regular engagement with institutions to ensure their compliance with this section.

Clause 10 approved.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee is adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:16 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 2:51 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Education and Child Care
(continued)

The Chair: I call the Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We are meeting today in consideration of the budget estimates for the Ministry of Education and Child Care.

On Vote 20: ministry operations, $10,029,589,000 (continued).

Heather Maahs: I’m going to continue along the line of questions that I was asking on Thursday.

My first question today is: can the minister provide the projected 2026-27 spending for the $10-a-day ChildCareBC centres program — broken down by the provincial contribution, Canada-wide early learning and child care funding and the early learning and child care bilateral federal funding — as well as the ’25-26 forecast spending for each of those funding streams within the program?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: For the $10-a-day provincial program, the forecast for ’25-26 — $46.2 million. For our estimates for today for the budget, it’s $42.6 million for ’26-27. For the $10-a-day, the Canada-wide and the ELCC, it was $217.2 million forecast for ’25-26-27. And for ’26-27, it is $258.6 million. If the member does want it broken down even further, we can do that.

Heather Maahs: Sorry, did I miss the bilateral federal funding as well? Did you mention that?

Hon. Lisa Beare: We did give you the number, but it was combined. We’ll break it out for you. Federal bilateral is $40.933 million, and the federal Canada-wide, $217.68 million.

Heather Maahs: Thank you very much. All about numbers.

Would the minister provide the projected 2026-27 spending for both the affordable child care benefit and the child care operating fund program as well as the ’25-26 forecast for each program and indicate whether any federal funding contributes to either of these programs and, if so, the amount.

Hon. Lisa Beare: Both of these programs are entirely provincially funded. For the ACCB provincial contribution, $142.2 million for ’25-26, and for ’26-27, $190.5 million. For the CCOF provincial contribution, $171.4 million for ’25-26, and for ’26-27, $146.5 million.

Heather Maahs: Thank you so much. I have only two more of these.

[3:00 p.m.]

Would the minister provide the total projected spending for the ’26-27 early childhood educator wage enhancement program as well as the ’25-26 forecast and indicate whether any federal funding contributes to this program and, if so, the amount.

Hon. Lisa Beare: The wage enhancement program provincial contribution ’25-26, $144.7 million; for ’26-27, $152.3 million. For the wage enhancement through the Canada-wide, so fed contribution, $70.0 million for ’25-26, and for ’26-27, $80.1 million.

Heather Maahs: Thank you kindly for these numbers.

This is the last of this category. Records released through the B.C. Open Information website show that a briefing note titled “Operating Fund Model Wage Grid Background,” dated May 8, 2025, was prepared for the ministry. Early childhood educator wage grids have been advocated for, for many years by organizations such as the Coalition of Child Care Advocates of British Columbia, including its spokesperson Sharon Gregson.

Nearly a decade after the government first promised major reforms to the child care system, can the minister explain what work the ministry has undertaken toward developing an ECE wage grid, what progress has been made since the briefing note was prepared and whether any timelines have been established for implementing such a structure.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: We know that our early childhood educators are the backbone of our child care system. It’s so important to encourage them to not only enter the field but to stay in the field, which is why we introduced the wage enhancement program to ensure that we are compensating those educators who are taking care of our most valuable assets, our children.

The wage enhancement of up to $6 an hour for early childhood educators and the specialized certificate grant continue to provide financial wage support for our ECEs. We’ve also expanded training opportunities and bursaries for new students and those upgrading their education so that we can further support our ECEs.

The province has developed the first iteration of a wage grid and compensation standard for early childhood educators and other members of the child care workforce. A wage grid and compensation standard is being tested as part of the operation funding model test, and it includes funding for wages, benefits, paid time off and professional learning.

The work is complex and must take into consideration wage rates, funding mechanisms and interactions with other related initiatives such as the ECE wage enhancement initiative which we’re doing.

Heather Maahs: Thank you to the minister for that detailed answer.

I’m going to switch gears here a little bit. The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision concerning Quebec’s subsidized daycare system found that excluding refugee claimants from access to publicly funded child care violated equality rights under the Charter.

Given that British Columbia operates similar publicly funded child care programs, that ruling raises questions about whether eligibility rules for the affordable child care benefit could face similar challenges. With that in mind, I would like to ask the minister a few questions about whether the government has reviewed the implications of that decision for British Columbia.

My first question is: following the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision concerning Quebec’s subsidized daycare system, will the ministry undertake any legal review to determine whether eligibility requirements under British Columbia’s affordable child care benefit could face similar Charter challenges?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: I believe the member said she has a number of questions on the subject, but I just want to let the member know that, obviously, the ruling just came out on Friday afternoon. It is Monday today. It’s been all of five business hours since the ruling has come out. We need time to review the ruling to understand any implications to our programs here in B.C.

I don’t want the member to waste her precious time that she has on estimates here, when I won’t have answers for the member yet, but happy to follow up with the member following estimates once we’ve had time to do the review.

Heather Maahs: I thank you for that answer.

Perhaps what I will do, then, is I will put these aside for now. I had three other questions. I don’t know if you want to entertain them or not, or I could put them aside and you could answer them later.

Hon. Lisa Beare: The member is free to read the questions into the record, and we can provide a follow-up following estimates.

Heather Maahs: Perfect. Great solution.

Can the minister confirm the current eligibility requirements for the affordable child care benefit with respect to citizenship, permanent residency or immigration status for parents applying for the program?

I’ll keep going. Is the ministry assessing how changes to these eligibility requirements, whether resulting from a court decision or a policy change, could affect the number of families eligible for affordable child care benefit and the associated program costs?

Is that not something that the minister feels is answerable at this time?

Interjection.

Heather Maahs: Okay. If British Columbia were faced with a similar Charter challenge regarding eligibility under the affordable child care benefit, would the government consider the use of the notwithstanding clause under section 33 of the Charter?

Hon. Lisa Beare: Thank you to the member for reading those into the record. When we’ve had time to review the ruling, we will happily provide answers to the member.

Heather Maahs: Okay. I’m going to move to a different topic now.

Budget 2026 states that during this stabilization period, the province will work to bring more equity into the system, while also noting that the provinces and territories are negotiating with the federal government to drive greater flexibility and resilience across the Canada-wide early learning and child care system. At the same time, the Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act states that federal investments should enable families of all income levels to benefit from affordable early learning and child care programs and services.

Given those federal principles and the government’s stated intention to bring more equity into the system, it will be important to ensure that any changes British Columbia is considering can proceed in a way that continues to secure federal funding under the Canada-wide framework.

This question is particularly relevant if the province is considering changes to the structure of fee reductions, such as introducing income testing or adjusting the level of support provided to families at different income levels.

With that in mind, I would like to ask the minister a few questions about what steps the province is taking in its discussions with the federal government to ensure that the flexibility it is seeking will be permitted under the Canada-wide early learning and child care agreement.

My first question is: when Budget 2026 states that the province intends to bring more equity into the system, can the minister explain what specific policy changes the government is considering to achieve that objective within ChildCareBC programs?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: We just had a very exciting federal-provincial-territorial meeting at the end of January, with the federal government and all our provincial and territorial partners. We were unanimous in our provincial-territorial ask to the federal government that we have more flexibility in our Canada-wide system.

An example of that, for the member, would be the growth targets set by the federal government. To date, those haven’t taken into consideration local contexts, stuff we might be seeing here on the ground in British Columbia — where there are child care deserts, where we need to really specifically target growth, certain age categories where we need to target growth. These are the sort of things, when we talk about flexibility at the provincial level, that we are all unanimously agreed on.

The federal minister was very receptive to hear this conversation, understanding that we’re all driving towards providing an affordable, equitable system of child care in each of our provinces and that we may need that flexibility. The minister was very receptive to that.

Of course, in anything we do, we work in strong partnership with the federal government as we sign those agreements, to ensure that we do get our federal funding. B.C. continues to lead the way and continues to be one of, if not the Canadian government’s strongest partner in child care. We started this initiative alongside them so, of course, we’ll work with them as we develop our action plans and set what future flexibility looks like.

Heather Maahs: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I’m just wondering, though, what policy changes the ministry is considering making to achieve these objectives.

Hon. Lisa Beare: That is the ongoing conversation with the federal government right now. I gave the member an example of the targets and the need for greater flexibility within the targets. Those are the kinds of things that we are talking to the federal government about now as we build that out.

As those negotiations develop, we’ll have more information to share on what’s being agreed to at the table. We do this in partnership with the federal government and with our provincial and territorial partners.

[3:20 p.m.]

Heather Maahs: I was looking more for specific policies around equity, which doesn’t necessarily involve the federal government, but of course, it’s something that you would want to show them in order to partner with them on the ChildCareBC programs.

Is there nothing that you can specifically think of, in terms of a policy for equity in the system, that you would be looking at?

Hon. Lisa Beare: The example I gave is a perfect example of equity — equity of access across our system. If we see child care deserts or if we see an underserved age group, for example, those are the types of flexibilities we need to meet that equity question, to provide child care for every family who wants it across the province.

Heather Maahs: All right. I guess I’ll move to my next question.

The budget also states that provinces and territories are negotiating with the federal government to drive flexibility across the system, which we’ve just heard about. Can the minister outline what specific forms of flexibility British Columbia is seeking from the federal government in those negotiations?

Hon. Lisa Beare: The member asked for specific forms of flexibility. My previous answer still stands. That’s a perfect example of the conversations we’re having with the federal government about the need for British Columbia to be able to target in specific regions or specific age groups, which brings me to another example, for the member, of school-age care.

Currently our federal agreement is only birth to age five. In B.C., we know that school-age care is something parents have said that they need, and it’s our lowest-served child care initiative at the moment because it’s not part of the Canada-wide agreement.

Another example, in addition to the targets that I mentioned, would be the ability to fund child care from zero to 12 instead of zero to five, using the federal agreement where we need it, targeted to promote greater equity across the province.

Heather Maahs: Thank you for that answer.

Is the government considering changes to the child care fee reduction initiative that would introduce income testing or otherwise adjust the level of fee reduction provided to families at different income levels?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: These are the conversations that are happening with the federal government. All solutions, all opportunities to ensure that we’re providing child care to as many families as who want it is something that every province and territory is talking about with the federal government.

We all agree that changes need to happen in the system to ensure that we’re using our child care dollars in a way that benefits the most families. Those are ongoing negotiations and ongoing conversations. There have been no decisions made yet at any level. We need to work with our provincial and federal partners and territorial partners to come with those solutions on what the next iteration of child care looks like and how we can use it to benefit as many families as possible.

I do want to tell the member, though, that income testing actually already exists in our system. The affordable child care benefit uses income testing to drive additional subsidies to families who need it most. Some families pay zero dollars a day in child care for those who most need it.

So that kind of tool already exists in our child care system, and we’re going to work with our FPT partners to develop a system that works for all of us to ensure that we’re spending our child care dollars wisely and benefiting as many families as possible.

Heather Maahs: I was actually specifically referring to child care fee reduction initiative that would see fee reductions regarding income levels. I appreciate the answer.

My next question is: if the province were to introduce an income-tested model for fee reductions under the child care fee reduction initiative, has the federal government indicated whether such an approach would be permitted under the Canada-wide early learning and child care agreement, section 7(1)(b) of the Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: Thank you to the member. As I said in my previous answer, we are looking at all opportunities and ways to ensure that our child care funding reaches as many families as possible. That includes the CCFRI program. As I mentioned, no decisions have been made. We are continuing to have those conversations with the federal government.

They don’t prescribe one way or another within the agreement on income testing or not, but we’re having those conversations with our provincial, territorial and federal partners on the best models and the best way to move forward with child care so that the most amount of families can benefit from it.

Heather Maahs: If the federal government does not permit that type of flexibility the province is seeking under the Canada-wide early learning and child care agreement, what actions or options would British Columbia consider to ensure that the equity objectives outlined in Budget 2026 can still be achieved?

Hon. Lisa Beare: As I said in my previous response, the federal government already supports income testing. It’s already in our system.

[3:35 p.m.]

We expect to find a common solution with our partners, with our federal-provincial-territorial partners, so any other scenario is kind of speculative at this point. We have said there’s no decision. We can’t walk through every potential scenario that we will negotiate over these coming months with our federal government.

What I can tell the member is that we continue to negotiate in good faith. We have the support of the other provinces and the territories to all do this work together, and we have a supportive federal government that wants to ensure that provinces and territories are best set up for success so that we all can use our very precious child care dollars to go to as many families as possible to benefit from it.

Heather Maahs: Thank you for the answer.

Has the province discussed with the federal government the possibility of using Canada-wide early learning and child care funding to support the expansion of school-age child care, and if so, has the federal government indicated whether such an approach would be permitted under the current agreement?

Hon. Lisa Beare: For the member, I did answer this question in my earlier responses. Yes, we use this as an example of some of the flexibility that we could potentially be seeking, and we’re having those conversations with the federal government.

We’re aligned with many of the provinces and territories who are also seeking this sort of flexibility in the system. We want to ensure that we’re providing as much child care as possible to families who need it. That includes kids from zero to 12 in the school-age system.

Heather Maahs: Can the minister indicate how many action plans British Columbia has submitted to the federal government under the Canada-wide early learning and child care agreements, how many of those plans have been approved and whether the province is currently developing a new action plan or a recently completed one?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: We have submitted two action plans, which were both submitted and approved. They’re both available on our website. We are currently underway, in negotiations now, for our next agreement.

Heather Maahs: Will the province commit to publicly releasing the action plans developed under the Canada-wide early learning and child care agreement, given that only one such plan has been publicly released since the agreement was first signed in 2021?

Hon. Lisa Beare: I just want to correct the record for the member. Both action plans are available online and public. Of course, our future action plan that we’re negotiating right now will be made publicly available as well.

Heather Maahs: Okay, thank you. I will look for those both.

Upon reflection, I’m just re-reading these questions that had to do with the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision, and I think that, actually, these are answerable. I don’t think that these…. I’m going to ask them again, and I would ask for an answer. I’ll read the whole preamble and the questions again, but I would really like the minister to answer these.

The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision concerning Quebec’s subsidized daycare system found that excluding refugee claimants from access to publicly funded child care violated equality rights under the Charter. Given that British Columbia operates similar publicly funded child care programs, the ruling raises questions about whether eligibility rules for the affordable child care benefit could face similar potential challenges.

With that in mind, I would like to ask the minister a few questions about whether the government has reviewed the implications of that decision for British Columbia.

[3:45 p.m.]

Following the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision concerning Quebec’s subsidized daycare system, will the ministry undertake any legal review to determine whether eligibility requirements under British Columbia’s affordable child care benefit could face similar Charter challenges?

Hon. Lisa Beare: I did already provide the member an answer for this question. The ruling came out on Friday afternoon. This is Monday. The ruling has barely been out five business hours, as I said earlier. The member has read her questions into the record, and we have committed to providing the member a response once we’ve had a chance to review the ruling.

Heather Maahs: However, this is a circumstance that I’m sure the ministry has considered, even previous to this decision. We must have some kind of policies around these things, regardless of this decision.

I would like to know whether eligibility requirements under British Columbia’s affordable act could face similar Charter challenges.

The Chair: Member, I believe that the minister has given the answer to this question. If you want to pursue a line of questioning with your time, that would probably be more productive.

Heather Maahs: Okay. Thank you, Chair.

This question is not to do with the case. This next question simply asks the question: can the minister confirm the current eligibility requirements for the affordable child care benefit with respect to citizenship, permanent residency or immigration status for parents applying for the program?

Hon. Lisa Beare: The terms of eligibility are publicly available on the website. I’m sure the member, actually, has probably already checked them out. Benefits are income-tested, on a sliding scale based on income, family size, number and age of children, support needs, type of care and number of days in care.

[3:50 p.m.]

Applicants must be Canadian citizens, permanent residents, convention refugees or persons in need of protection and resident in B.C.

Heather Maahs: Thank you for that answer, Minister.

I’m going to change direction a little bit here, just to mix it up a little bit. I’m going to go on the early learning piece of this role. In the PISA testing of 2022, reading skills of 15-year-olds had declined by 24 points in B.C. That equates to a whole year behind.

I understand the province is taking early phonetic screening for students at risk for learning disabilities. That is indeed good news and a step in the right direction. However, screening is just the beginning. It’s the training that comes after identification of at-risk.

Much research shows that if a child is identified early, proper foundational teaching will mitigate potential difficulties. What are the next steps, once the assessments have taken place?

Hon. Lisa Beare: We’re going to need to switch to K-to-12 staff, so it’s going to take a few minutes to get our answer.

The Chair: We will just call a five-minute recess.

Interjection.

The Chair: The minister and their staff are very speedy.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: Thank you to the member. We did cover screening at length with her co-critic on Thursday.

In the 2024 year, we provided $30 million for literacy, which was an incredible investment. We know how important it is to support our earliest learners.

I’m very excited about the announcement we did for mandatory screening in the K-to-3 classrooms. The member said if we’re able to identify those who are experiencing challenges early, we can further better their outcomes. I’m so excited that as a system and as a government, we’ve moved into this space in really supporting this work being done on literacy — absolutely.

The member mentioned a drop in scores. That is not what we want to see here in the province. We remain leaders across Canada and other jurisdictions. Our scores do remain in the highest, if not the highest, but we are seeing a drop, and that’s exactly what we are trying to combat here.

We put in $30 million for literacy supports in 2024, introduced the mandatory screening, announced that we’re building a made-in-B.C. screener, which is going to be available in the coming years to ensure that we’re supporting not only the kids in ensuring that they are identified and are getting supports early but support the teachers as well with a model that works for B.C. students.

And $15 million of that $30 million went to districts to support exactly the question the member is asking. We’re supporting teacher capacity-building, supporting students. We’re building capacity in the system and resilience for not only the kids themselves but for the teachers as well.

As we build out that made-in-B.C. model, that will also come with training and resources to be available to support teachers and kids in their interventions and as we roll this out. This is a really exciting space.

The member’s co-critic and I were both very passionate about this space and really excited about the work that’s happening. It’s something we should all be proud of here in British Columbia.

Heather Maahs: I totally appreciate that the conversation took place with my colleague. However, I’m looking at it from a lens of early learning, and of course, we know that early intervention is what we want and what is necessary in order to catch any kinds of potential disabilities before they get going.

[4:00 p.m.]

I appreciate the amount of money that’s going to this, but when I asked the question, “What are the next steps?” what I was really asking was…. We’ve had a system that has used methodology that has not garnered the results we had hoped for in the schools. There are huge bodies of research that show a methodology that works. I was kind of hoping that I would hear that we were looking at a new method of teaching reading that was encompassing foundational skills that we know all students will learn to read by.

In terms of next steps, I would hope that that money would be going towards giving the teachers the tools that they need in order to be able to retrain to use researched methodology for teaching.

Having said that, I will ask my next question, which is: how early is the ministry directing school districts to be screening to achieve early intervention?

Hon. Lisa Beare: The member probably knows from our announcement that the mandatory screening is in kindergarten this year and that it will be done twice for students throughout the year. Starting next year, the mandatory screening is for K through grade 3, so all the grades of kindergarten, 1, 2 and 3 will all receive mandatory screening.

Heather Maahs: Is this screening being considered in terms of early learning within the child care in the schools, in that sphere, and would that be a possibility?

Hon. Lisa Beare: If the member could clarify what she’s asking. The screening happens in K to 3, so if the member could be a little more clear.

Heather Maahs: Certainly. We have a number of child care facilities that are now being run by school districts, so my question was focused around the fact that those children will be in the schools. It looks to me like a perfect opportunity to assess them — why is everyone looking at me with brows knitted? — because the earlier the better. If we’ve got four-year-olds in child care in our schools, then, to me, that seems like a perfect opportunity to do some assessments.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: I thank the member for the question because, absolutely, we want to make sure kids get supports all throughout their lives and as early as possible.

We have the early learning framework, which was created by early learning educators and teachers, and that’s the provincial standard that guides early learning programs in schools, in child care centres.

[4:10 p.m.]

It’s aimed at birth to age 12, with research-based pedagogy. It applies to all learning environments, including StrongStart B.C., child care settings, preschools, child development centres. It supports child development and encourages all that work being done with families on child development and professional development for ECEs.

I’m happy to go into much more detail on the early learning framework if the member would like to spend more time on this one.

Heather Maahs: I think I’m just going to carry on with what I have here. And if you’ll grant me a tiny bit of latitude, I’m going to go into the education realm. Since you’ve got your staff there, we’re good to go.

In the last year that I was on the school board, our final report said the district had the highest grad rates historically that they’d ever had, including the Aboriginal graduation rates, which were above the provincial average. That’s a great thing. I noted, also, at the time that while the grad rates were historically high, never had the reading and math scores been so low. That is very concerning.

My question is: is the ministry concerned about this trajectory that tells us we are graduating students without the necessary skill sets? And to that end, is the ministry considering directing school districts to put letter grades back into elementary and middle schools? And is the ministry considering putting provincial exams back into high school?

Hon. Lisa Beare: Both of those questions were heavily canvassed on Thursday with the member’s co-critic, so I won’t really repeat what was said then. We did discuss with the co-critic that there isn’t a correlation between letter grades and scores and that letter grades remain from grades 10 through 12, and the importance of understanding the reasons behind the decline.

For the member, I think it’s really important to say that B.C. remains a global leader in math, in reading and in science scores. Of course, when we see any dip in those scores, it’s concerning, and we take that very seriously. But we want to understand the reasons behind the dips in scores.

[4:15 p.m.]

We need to understand that this is not happening in a vacuum here in B.C. This is happening across Canada. This is happening globally.

Students are showing up to classrooms with a very complex world around them, which is why we’ve modernized our education curriculum to ensure that we are really meeting students where they’re at in the face of these complexities. Kids are struggling for a number of reasons. We have unchecked cell phone and iPad use potentially at home. We have a reliance on AI. We had a global pandemic, all of which has significantly impacted how kids are learning today.

That’s why we need to make sure that the resources and the learning strategies we’re using are flexible enough to meet our kids and our students where they’re at, which is exactly what our core competency curriculum does. We know that a one-style-fits-all approach does not meet the needs of every student. That’s not how every student learns. We have our pathways to learning, which has that flexibility for teachers to plan, teach and assess students where they’re at, and I think that’s absolutely vital.

I can tell you that, Member, I have a ten-year-old. I get to do the reading with her, and I get to do the math problems with her. The learning is happening in schools, and it’s our job to continue to understand the reasons behind it.

We’re going to continue to work with our educators and experts to make sure we have the proper guidance, the proper resources for teachers and students to set everyone up for success.

Heather Maahs: Thank you Minister, for that answer. I’m going to ask one more question around this topic.

I’m sure my colleague also touched on the C.D. Howe Institute study that was done that showed that we were behind 42 points in math or that there was a 42-point decline in math since 2003, which equates to two years of schooling. Students performing at the lowest levels in math have doubled, while the share of students performing at the highest levels of math has halved.

I’m quoting Anna Stokke, the expert from Winnipeg. “Generally speaking, if you look at the research on problem-solving, students have to have a really strong foundation in math to be good problem-solvers.” Stokke said that some of the factors leading to a decline in math literacy in B.C. include the math curriculum, which has vague outcomes for mathematics. This is a curriculum issue which, as we know, falls at the feet of the ministry, not teachers who are doing the very best with the tools they are provided with.

Stokke said that kids need to learn fractions, addition, subtraction, multiplication and division by grade 5 or 6 because it’s important for algebra later on. And actually, what I heard Anna Stokke say in her interview with Mike Smyth on CKNW was that if addition, subtraction, multiplication skills are known with automaticity, that frees up the brain to focus on higher math skills with more efficiency. She recommends something as simple as a mandatory multiplication skills test by the end of grade 4 — low cost, high impact.

My question is: will this ministry amend the curriculum in order to ensure that teachers are provided with the tools they need in order for children to be provided with the foundational skills they need early in elementary school to remedy this decline in math skills? And will this government — sorry, two parts — apply more appointed standardized testing, as laid out in the recommendations of this report, in order to ascertain if the students are obtaining the skills they need?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: I think the member and I might fundamentally disagree on the value of the core competencies. That’s okay.

We at the Ministry of Education and Child Care designed the B.C. maths curriculum to align with best practices in national and international numeracy education. This work was done in collaboration with a number of B.C. mathematics teachers and in consultation with academic experts and stakeholders in the education sector, such as the B.C. Teachers Federation, the First Nations Education Steering Committee, the Federation of Independent School Associations, the British Columbia School Superintendents Association, British Columbia Principals and Vice-Principals Association and the B.C. public post-secondary institutions.

B.C.’s math curriculum was designed to align with the Western and Northern Canadian Protocol curriculum, which is a joint initiative among western and northern provinces and territories in Canada — including Alberta, B.C., Manitoba, Nunavut, Northwest Territories and the Yukon — to develop a common curriculum framework for English language arts and mathematics.

Some of the key aspects of the curriculum framework include emphasis on doing mathematics through mathematical processes; the use of a concept-based approach, combining content, competencies and big ideas; and the use of core competencies and curricular competencies to connect numeracy learning to the real world. The curricular competencies for all mathematics courses are organized around problem-solving processes adapted from the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, which supports inquiry, the development of thinking of strategies and the explanation and justification of mathematics ideas.

As I said earlier, I can tell the member that I have a grade 5, and it’s absolutely incorrect to say that addition, subtraction, fractions and multiplication are not being taught. Of course they are being taught. I’m doing that homework every single day with my child.

Absolutely, we need to continue to support our kids to increase our numbers in both literacy and numeracy. We are going to continue to do that work through our expert educators and through our expert curriculum, which really is world-leading.

With that, Chair, I’m going to request a ten-minute recess.

The Chair: The Chair is calling a ten-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:24 to 4:36 p.m.

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

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

Heather Maahs: The last questions I asked were around changing the curriculum and providing teachers with tools for foundation skills to deal with the decline in math skills and if there was consideration for more standardized testing. I’m going to assume that your answer was no in all of that. You had said that you already had adequate…. You had partner groups that had provided curriculum and research and whatnot, so I’m just going to take those as a no.

I’m going to move on now to child care again. I have just a few questions and then a wrap-up. What is the current vacancy rate in B.C. licensed centres and licensed home daycares?

Hon. Lisa Beare: The member will know, in reviewing last year’s estimates, that we don’t track availability in spaces. That’s held at the local level with individual providers.

Heather Maahs: How many funded spaces in 2024-25 were not operating at maximum capacity?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: We fund based on enrolment levels. We don’t track vacancies.

Heather Maahs: My next question was how many $10-a-day spaces were vacant as of January 2026. I’m not sure if the minister doesn’t track those, as well, or if you have that answer.

Hon. Lisa Beare: It’s the same answer.

Heather Maahs: There are three parts to this question. I’ll just loop it all in one. Of the new spaces announced since 2021, how many are fully operational; staffed but not at capacity; funded but not yet built?

Hon. Lisa Beare: So 2020 to 2021, funded new spaces, 21,470, operational new spaces, 7,619; 2021 to 2022, funded new spaces, 25,710, operational new spaces, 12,380; 2022-23, new spaces, 30,483, operational, 16,224; 2023-24, new spaces, 37,114, and operational, 21,631; 2024-25, new spaces, 40,714, and operational, 26,718.

Heather Maahs: Thank you for that answer. What is the per-space capital cost in Budget 2026?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: We don’t have capital. We have operating grants in our ministry. There is no capital allocation per space in this budget, but what I can tell the member is that since 2018, the province, with federal support, has funded over 42,400 new licensed child care spaces, of which over 29,000 are already operational and open to families.

Heather Maahs: I’m going to conclude. That’s the end of my questions.

Oh, sorry. I have one more. Now, this is a subjective question. It would be in the minister’s opinion. I’m going to ask this question once again. It’s concerning the notwithstanding clause that I asked before, so I’m going to ask this question again, because I do think that it doesn’t have anything to do with the Supreme Court case and not being familiar with all of the rulings.

If British Columbia were faced with a similar Charter challenge regarding eligibility under the affordable child care benefit, would the government consider the use of the notwithstanding clause under section 33 of the Charter?

Hon. Lisa Beare: This question’s been asked and answered, and I don’t speculate in hypothetical.

Heather Maahs: With due respect, it actually hasn’t been answered, but that’s fine.

I have a close that I’m going to share with you.

[4:50 p.m.]

Over the course of these estimates, we’ve discussed billions of dollars in public spending on child care programs, including the $10-a-day initiative and the rapid expansion of institutionalized daycare spaces across the province. What has become clear is that this policy direction is not simply about helping families. It reflects a deeper ideology assumption about what child care should be and who should provide it.

The current system privileges one model of care above all others — licensed institutional daycare — and channels the overwhelming majority of public funding toward that model. Yet most families in British Columbia continue to rely on other forms of care: parental care, care by relatives, flexible arrangements and community-based support. When government structures funding in a way that excludes most families from support, it sends a message about what choices are valued and which are not.

The evidence cited by organizations like Kids First Parent Association highlights an uncomfortable reality. Despite massive public spending, the majority of children are not enrolled in licensed daycare, and many families receive little or no direct benefit from these programs. Meanwhile, taxpayers are committing billions of dollars to expand a system that still faces shortages, vacancies in some areas, staffing challenges and rising costs.

This raises fundamental questions about fairness. Why should public funding flow almost entirely to one form of care when every family, regardless of their circumstances, is providing child care in one form or another? Why should some families receive thousands of dollars in subsidies while others receive nothing simply because their preferred form of care is not one favoured by government policy?

Public policy should not be driven by ideology. It should be guided by evidence, fairness and respect for diverse realities of families. Parents are not simply consumers of government programs. They are primary caregivers and the most important support in a child’s life. Any child care policy should recognize and respect that reality rather than attempt to reshape it.

As we look ahead to future budgets, government must be willing to ask some difficult questions. Are we measuring success in terms of children’s well-being and family stability or simply in terms of numbers of daycare spaces created? Are we supporting families, or are we trying to steer them toward a particular model of care?

Parents are not secondary participants in their children’s lives. They are primary caregivers. They are the foundation of healthy families and healthy communities. Public policy should support families in all their diversity, not attempt to steer them toward a single government-preferred model of care.

The question before us is not whether child care matters. Of course it does. Every child needs care every day of their life. The question is whether this government’s approach, spending billions to expand one system while ignoring the reality of most families, is the best way to support children in this province.

These estimates have shown us that the government still has not answered these questions, and until it does, British Columbians will continue to ask why their tax dollars are being used to build a system that serves some families very well while leaving many others far behind.

I will leave you with a quote from Margaret Thatcher. She says: “And you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through the people.”

The Chair: Thank you, Member, for the closing statement.

Jeremy Valeriote: I only have half an hour, so I’ll go straight to the point. Service plan goal 3 promises affordable, high-quality, inclusive early learning and child care; highlights affordability and before- and after-school programs delivered in partnership with school districts — I recall the legislation last fall, and I was proud to support that; and strengthening of the child care workforce and provider capacity to deliver high-quality care, which I’m sure we’re all in favour of.

In West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, some of the child care centres are experiencing operational difficulties. I’ll just outline a couple. The second one, the minister and I have spoken about, and I appreciate the effort on that one.

Squamish’s Discovery Kids Childcare was one of the first $10-a-day centres in the area. It, unfortunately, now has a years-long wait-list, requiring parents to get on a wait-list before a child is born — I guess I won’t speculate how that’s possible — and a licensing ratio that doesn’t provide the quality of care needed.

[4:55 p.m.]

Pemberton Childrens Centre has expanded the child care spaces to better meet the demand in a fast-growing community but, in its expansion, has run into some bureaucratic obstacles to remain at $10 a day, creating a whole bunch of challenges for that not-for-profit.

I fully understand that matching the unique child care needs of every community is challenging. And as we know, access to before- and after-school child care is essential for parents, along with all the societal benefits.

How is the ministry resolving this problem for parents who need an immediate increased supply? I’ll double-barrel it by saying, since the legislation was introduced, can the minister speak to collaboration with each school district in the province to help increase the supply of before- and aftercare?

Hon. Lisa Beare: Thank you to the member for the question. There’s actually a lot of good and exciting work happening in this space. But first, to go back to the local issues the member is having.

[5:00 p.m.]

I briefly spoke with the member that…. We’re actively working on, essentially, the casework with the member. We’re going to have some detailed responses for the member soon, but we’re actively working on….

There were a few providers that the member raised to me. I’ll provide the member with some very thorough responses. We’re actively working, because we want to see those spaces as well, so the member has my assurance that we’re working with the operator to ensure that we’re able to provide those spaces for families.

For the child care on school grounds, a lot of good work. Obviously, in the budget, we had the $20 million plus the $5 million in capital for expansion on school grounds for child care. That was significant. We’ve been aligning statutory frameworks to support expansion. That was the amendments we did last year.

We have also recently changed our policy for board-operated child care. We have extended our ELCC leads, so our early learning and child care leads, for school districts through ’26-27.

We’re working on licensing and requirements and licensing standards of practice. This has been a direct ask from school districts around some of the challenges that they were facing, so we did it. We’ve streamlined licensing practices that were inconsistent among licensing officers which caused confusion, delays and costly upgrades.

We’ve worked with the Ministry of Health, which issued a director of licensing standard of practice which clarifies expectations and supports consistent application across the province, and we’ve removed unnecessary requirements such as partnerships agreements that were required before. This will reduce timelines for opening and expanding school-age care on school grounds.

We’ve also worked with our partners at the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs around the building and fire codes which triggered some costly requirements when adding school-age care — even when the same children are using the same space from nine to two, whether it’s like seven to five during the same school day.

HMA worked with the office of the fire commissioner to draft a bulletin supporting consistent interpretation and application across the B.C. codes. It clarifies that when a space changes from educational activities to school-age child care, no change of use actually occurs and no changes are required to the physical space. This will enable faster, more cost-effective school-age space creation.

A lot of really good work in the short amount of time since October that we embarked on this.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I just want to mention that myself and my constituents really appreciate the attention to the individual centres.

I know you’ve got many across the province, so hopefully some of these minor issues are resolvable. All the intentions are good, especially with some of the community non-profits.

As I understand, the province is pausing intake and expansion of the $10-a-day program for three years, so no new enrolment and no more expansion. And as I believe the minister has stated, the existing system acted as a lottery with some inequity. I’m open to being corrected on either of those. That’s the information I’m working with.

As we know, parents need affordable access. I heard the reply on tracking vacancies. I’m wondering if the ministry has data on the number of British Columbians that are currently in need of affordable child care that aren’t able to access it.

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: On the first half of the question, just one clarification for the member. It’s not a three-year pause. What we’re doing is taking a stability pause this year while we’re working with our federal partners, our provincial and territorial partners to address the challenges that we were seeing in the current system. We hope for that to be…. That work is ongoing right now with our federal partners. It’s not a three-year pause, just to get that.

Then, for the member, when we embarked on our child care journey and the survey and the work that was done at the time, it’s understood that around 60 percent coverage would be what would be needed to support families who want child care. For all the families in the province, if 60 percent of them had child care available, that would cover the need that is within the system. Other families do other things, with the other 40 percent.

With that knowledge, on the driving towards 59, 60 percent, in 2025-26, for ages five and under, we have a coverage of 52 percent. For school-age care, the six to 12, we have 11 percent, which is why we took those significant actions to address school-age care and the need to really bolster up that system. When you combine the two, the overall coverage for 12 and under is 28 percent when you do the combination, but for the five and under, we’re at 52 percent right now.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll ask this one. So $330 million over the next three years. What steps are being taken to make sure it’s not a lottery and doesn’t have inequity and that it’s more of a needs-based and means-tested approach to the money that’s being spent?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: For the member, the $330 million is in addition to the existing budget we have. Our overall budget for child care in the next three years is $2.9 billion. When you combine that with our federal partner investment, it becomes $6.5 billion.

Absolutely, the member is right. We need to make sure we are using these precious child care dollars wisely. We want to make sure that we’re supporting as many families as possible with these funds, which is why we’re doing this intentional stabilization year, to make sure we’re getting it right.

We have heard from families, from providers, from advocates that we need to address the structural challenges that we have in the current funding model. We know about inequities in access and specific gaps — for example, in before- and after-school care being a gap. We have child care deserts, not-targeted regions — those sorts of things.

We’re modernizing our system throughout this year. Our goal is to modernize the system by designing one inclusive, affordable, high-quality child care system that meets the needs of families and providers. That’s the intent of the work we’re doing right now. That is ongoing.

Jeremy Valeriote: I want to talk briefly about educational assistants and counsellors. As we know, they’re critical for child development, and this government recognized that. They promised in 2024 to expand access to EAs and counsellors. We know what the commitment was on K to 3.

It seems from the service plan that this promise might have disappeared. A BCTF report last year showed that about 80 percent of members teaching in K-to-3 classrooms said they didn’t have an EA assigned. One in six teachers said their school had no mental health counsellor. I might ask about that discrepancy if I have time, but I’ll just mention it for now. I understand the ministry says that 80 percent of classrooms have EAs, so there’s some conflicting information there that I’d love to understand.

As we know, these education supports are crucial for children with diverse needs, including those with autism. I’ve heard from some quarters that the changes in IEPs and autism are positive, so I commend and congratulate the minister on that. I know it’s difficult to make some of these changes. It does, however, leave some parents concerned that their child may not ever receive the proper care they need, resulting from the change.

We know funding for the Ministry of Education and Child Care has increased, which is a positive. Inside the ministry, funding allocated for public schools and child care has increased. Hopefully, we can get an idea of what funding and resources in this budget, given the increases, work towards the 2024 promise to have an EA in every K-to-3 classroom and a mental health counsellor in every public school.

Apologies if this is repeated from previous work.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: For the member — I know he wasn’t here — we did do a big bit on this, so I won’t spend a lot of time on it. I know the member will probably go review what was done. But there are a couple of new pieces, because we do have the K-to-12 collective agreement out, which has some new information that wasn’t available on Thursday. We’ll talk about that.

I do want the member to know that this is work we continue to do. It’s ongoing, this commitment. We have our K-to-12 workforce table, where this is a top discussion every time. We work with our colleagues at Post-Secondary and Future Skills to ensure that we’re increasing the number of training seats for both EAs and counsellors so that we’re able to get more people into the system.

We’re doing work on recruitment and retention, ensuring that we’re addressing certification — for example, shortening the certification time so that we can welcome people from other jurisdictions to do this work — and then retention work as well, including restoring mentorship programs that had existed in the past and had disappeared. We brought those back to ensure that we’re not losing these valuable workers — in those years 1 to 5, for example — from burnout. So we’re doing that sort of stuff.

The new stuff, since this conversation on Thursday, is that we now have a ratified teachers’ collective agreement. It is going to provide investments that will improve learning conditions for students, enhance teachers’ working conditions and address the workload pressures that we’re talking about.

Last year we had had approximately 100 new counsellors in the system. With this new collective agreement, that’s going to add an additional 200. We’ve increased the ratio of counsellors per student, resulting in what will be about 200 more counsellors. This is a significant improvement that is going to support students across the province, in addition to the 100 that we’d had last year.

We also increased the ratios for learning assistant teachers as well as special education resource teachers, which will result in about 40 additional full-time learning assistants and 45 special education resource teachers. We’ve done a $10 million investment to train and recruit additional counsellors, learning assistants and special education resource teachers to meet those reduced ratios.

So a lot of work is being done. While I appreciate the member…. Until you can check the box and say, “Achieved,” it takes a lot of work to get there. We’re doing it year by year. We are increasing and increasing every year, and we want to make sure that that work continues.

[5:20 p.m.]

Jeremy Valeriote: Can I just follow up on…? If I can get some clarity on…. Ministry says 80 percent of classrooms have an EA, and then the BCTF says 80 percent of teachers, as responding to a survey, don’t.

Can I just ask for a bit of better understanding of the discrepancy in those numbers?

Hon. Lisa Beare: Our commitment was for K-to-3 classrooms, and that 80 percent is in the K-to-3 classrooms.

Jeremy Valeriote: I don’t see any independents. I’m just about at time, but I’ve got one more question, and then I’ll leave it.

I’ve spoken to a number of teachers about this, and I don’t relish coming here with anecdotes, but it’s enough of an on-the-ground look that I think it’s worth just asking about. I’ve been told by teachers that they’re graduating a staggering number of kids out of grade 3 that don’t have basic literacy, and I’ve heard quite strongly about the need to invest and how that pays off down the line not just in school but in society in general.

On a broad level, I’m curious about the minister’s idea of, or the minister’s impressions of, investing disproportionately in literacy K to 3 because it does pay off, and if so, how that might work.

Hon. Lisa Beare: We heavily canvassed this, but I’m really happy to answer again because this is a very big passion area.

In 2024, we invested an additional $30 million in K to 12 into the system to really focus on literacy. At the same time, this past year we’ve introduced mandatory screening as well, to help support learners and identify them early, find anyone who’s potentially fallen through the gaps. That has started this year, and they’re getting to screenings this year.

In addition to that, it’s going to expand to K-to-3 mandatory screening starting next year. Every child will be screened in each of the grades, all through their K-to-3 journey, ensuring we’re really focusing and finding anyone who potentially needs that extra support. With that $30 million investment, we’re able to do that.

In addition to that, what we’re doing is building a made-in-B.C. screener, so that B.C. will be using one screener provincewide in the coming years. That is being co-created with educators, experts — I read a whole list out last week — so that we’re able to really focus on the unique needs of B.C. students and support them in their journey.

Lots of really good work going on in this system because, absolutely, we want to ensure that we increase our numbers in literacy and numeracy. While B.C. remains a top jurisdiction — not only here in Canada but globally, we still remain among the highest — we have seen a drop, and nobody wants to see that. I don’t want to see that. We want to make sure that we’re continuing to invest, provide those supports. And these new investments and the new mandatory screening are really going to help do that.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll just finish off. I will commit to going back to Hansard to review some of the previous answers.

I only asked for 30 minutes since, to some degree, it’s a reflection of confidence in this minister, but I also believe that this is probably the most important ministry in terms of return on investment for down the road. That’s the way we’re trying to look at things. Twenty years down the road, will this pay off?

I really appreciate the quick replies, and sorry there’s not more time, but also thank you for your work.

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

Hon. Lisa Beare: I just want to, first off, thank the members opposite who have asked a number of really thoughtful questions.

I can tell on all sides of the House, education and child care are passion areas for people. We all want to make sure we’re supporting our kids to the best of our ability. I know that’s what I get up to do every day, and this fabulous team that’s surrounded me.

A big thank-you to the team that’s behind me and the many, many more that are in my office down the hall right now supporting us as well. A big thank-you to all of them for this work.

Thank you.

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

Vote 20: ministry operations, $10,029,589,000 — approved.

Hon. Lisa Beare: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report resolution and completion and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

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

The committee rose at 5:25 p.m.

[5:30 p.m. – 5:50 p.m.]

The committee met at 5:53 p.m.

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

Estimates: Ministry of
Housing and Municipal Affairs

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

I now recognize the minister to move the vote.

On Vote 33: ministry operations, $1,683,425,000.

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

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes. We have a strong team here in Housing to answer questions. I look forward to a good, informed and thoughtful discussion about the important work that the Ministry of Housing is doing with partners in local government, with partners in the community housing sector, with partners in industry to deliver homes that people need in communities all across this province.

The Chair: I now recognize the member for Surrey–Serpentine River.

Would you like to make any opening remarks, Member?

Linda Hepner: I would, Madam Chair. Thank you.

I appreciate the opportunity to stand before you and represent the people of Surrey–Serpentine River as well as all British Columbians across this province who are struggling with something that used to be a basic expectation in British Columbia, and that is the ability to find a home they can afford.

[5:55 p.m.]

We are now seeing the steepest decline in housing affordability in the province’s history. Every measure shows the same trend. The result is that it costs more to rent, it costs more to buy, it costs more to build, and it costs more to hold onto a home. The government has no clear, affordable target that we can see, nor any timeline for restoring balance.

I’m hoping, through this session, that we can carefully review the housing program delivery, the funding allocations, the contractor reliance and the performance measures. It is my expectation throughout my time here in estimates to explore gaps in the housing development and the rental supply and whatever oversight mechanisms exist to hold the government accountable for these public investments.

My goal is to ensure that the budgeted funds produce measurable housing outcomes for people and that the front-line capacity is prioritized and the ministry delivers on its commitments in a transparent and accountable manner.

The Chair: Thank you, Member. Does the member have any questions for the minister?

Linda Hepner: We can start questions now? Okay.

Budget 2026 forecasts approximately 44,210 housing starts in B.C. In talking to other associations, particularly the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, their members predict 34,000 starts.

My question to the minister is: can the minister explain why taxpayers should trust the government’s housing starts forecast of 44,210 units when industry association members who actually swing the hammers project fully 10,000 fewer units? I’m looking specifically at what data points the ministry relies on or that the people who build homes are somehow missing.

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The Homes for People action plan has helped speed up the pace of housing starts. Despite two years of decline from the peak in 2023, housing starts in B.C. remained strong in 2025 at 44,193 units.

As the member is likely aware, economic modelling has projected that up to 300,000 additional net new homes could be built across B.C. over ten years through zoning for small-scale multi-unit housing in transit-oriented areas.

Purpose-built rental registrations continued to be strong in 2025, rising to 25,855 units and exceeding registrations of strata units for the first time since data collection started in 2002, signalling a strong interest in continuing to build.

I’ll also note that while housing starts activity in B.C. continues to be at a relatively historic high, home prices have plateaued and rental costs continue to decline, echoing the general market uncertainties and echoing a slowdown on pressures and improvements in affordability, as the member mentioned as a concern in the beginning.

We’re certainly seeing and hearing from renters and in month-after-month rental data, an increase in affordability, with of course much more work still to be done.

Linda Hepner: A recent survey shows that only one in ten homebuilders expects 2026 to be any improvement over 2025. I am concerned about that number and what the ministry is relying on.

Will the minister commit to tabling the ministry’s detailed housing starts model, including the assumptions on presale absorption rates, financing conditions and population growth that underpins that 44,210 figure?

If I could get a commitment from the minister to provide that at some future point.

Hon. Christine Boyle: That number is based on economic modelling done by the Ministry of Finance, so those questions are best directed to the Ministry of Finance.

In Housing and Municipal Affairs, we have worked closely with local governments and through our own legislative changes to create conditions which will support and enable the continued delivery of badly needed homes.

Linda Hepner: I don’t accept that as an answer. You cannot be delivering…. If you have an expectation of 44,210 housing units to be built this year, you can’t now say in deference: “Oh, by the way, that number was devised by the ministry, through Finance.” It has to be within your budget line that you expect those housing units to happen.

[6:05 p.m.]

I am saying that what I’m hearing from the various housing agencies with whom I’ve consulted, 61 percent of the presales have diminished. Fifty percent of condominiums are no longer being constructed. Twenty-three percent of contractors surveyed are already thinking of losing staff.

If your number that you felt was able to be achieved…. Then the modelling has to have been done within your ministry. It would not have been done within Finance. I’m asking you for that modelling determinant, through the Chair.

The Chair: Member, just a reminder that comments should be made through the Chair.

Linda Hepner: Yes, thank you. I’m asking the minister, through the Chair: how, within that modelling, were those assumptions…? What were the presale absorption rates, which would not have been a Finance consideration but clearly a Housing consideration, and what were the financing conditions that you were relying on for that number?

Hon. Christine Boyle: There are a number of pieces of work that go into this economic modelling, including CMHC, which has a starts-and-completions report. The economic modelling done in Budget 2026 that resulted in the number the member quoted is economic modelling compiled by the Ministry of Finance. As I said, a big piece of the work that we do in Housing and Municipal Affairs is working with industry and homebuilders to create the conditions to build these homes.

Linda Hepner: If the housing start is more in line with what the industry is saying may happen at 34,000 start, what would be the impact on the ministry’s budget on their housing-dependent revenue line?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Changes in housing starts affect provincial revenues overall, through the Ministry of Finance budget but not the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs budget directly.

I think the member is getting at the property transfer tax and other impacts to changes in housing starts. Those tax-related questions are also best directed to the Minister of Finance.

Linda Hepner: So there is no analysis for if you come under that number. Has the ministry consulted, for instance, the Urban Development Institute, ICBA or the Home Builders Association for their forecast?

I’m now going to guess that the minister doesn’t consult; it would be the director of finance consulting for that number. Am I to assume that? And that they agreed to the 44,210?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, the economic modelling is done through the Ministry of Finance. We in Housing and Municipal Affairs engage regularly with stakeholders and receive feedback and discuss possibilities around regulatory and legislative amendments with groups the member has named already — the UDI, the ICBA, the Home Builders Association and many more.

Those are important partnerships for us in the ministry, and they deeply inform the work that we do to create the conditions under which badly needed homes are built in communities across B.C. Those are important relationships to us. We’re in regular conversation, but again, the economic modelling is led by the Ministry of Finance.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:14 p.m.