Contents

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Korky Neufeld.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. Kelly Greene: It’s my honour to welcome the delegation from school district 38; that is, Richmond. We are joined today by our trustees. We have trustee and board chair Ken Hamaguchi, trustee and vice-chair Heather Larson, superintendent Christopher Usih and secretary-treasurer Cindy Wang.

If you can all join me in making them very welcome.

Sheldon Clare: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two visitors from Prince George. We have in the gallery Brent Lukoni, who worked at CN Rail and B.C. Rail since the 1980s, and Shawn Bortolon, who was a CUPE executive member and Indigenous education worker with school district 57.

I hope that the House will make my friends most welcome.

Amna Shah: I’m so pleased to welcome some very special guests in the gallery here today. We are joined by the delegates of the NCCM, the National Council of Canadian Muslims.

These are not just members of the National Council of Canadian Muslims; these are advocates in our communities here in British Columbia and across the country. They are here to speak with members about matters that are pertinent to the Muslim community all across this country.

Now, I don’t want to mention names because we’ll be here all day, but would the House join me in making them feel so welcome here today.

Bryan Tepper: I would like to join in, in welcoming the NCCM, the National Council of Canadian Muslims. It is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to protecting human rights and civil liberties in Canada. Founded in 2000, the NCCM has grown into the country’s largest Muslim advocacy organization, with a nationwide network of supporters across Canada.

I would like to thank, actually, our candidate from Surrey Centre as well, which was part of our last speaker there, for bringing Zeeshan Wahla, being part of the organization and helping organize this.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I am pleased to have two introductions today.

I’ll start with the first one. A dear friend is visiting that I went to law school with, who is an engineer and a lawyer — what a combo. So if everybody could make my friend Robert Joseph feel very welcome.

I also have a class visiting from Van Tech, which is a pretty awesome school in my riding. They have a great teacher named Chris Moon, who is very passionate about teaching that generation about democracy and governance. I had a chance to meet with them not only in Van Tech but also just a few minutes ago in my office.

I don’t know if they’re here. I can’t see them, but please make them feel welcome.

Anna Kindy: I have the pleasure of introducing my two CAs, Charlotte Roth and Louanne Menser. I can say truthfully, from the heart, that I am in really good hands.

Thank you for being here today from Campbell River.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I’m pleased to recognize leaders today from the University of Victoria, which is a university that provides made-in-B.C. solutions to priorities that are facing our province.

Today joining us in the gallery, we have President Robina Thomas, along with her colleagues, who are strengthening our health care capacity, our clean energy and the responsible use of artificial intelligence throughout our province while advancing B.C.’s capabilities in aerospace, in space systems, to support economic growth and public interest.

Under President Thomas’s leadership, who is the acting interim president and will be with the university until the end of June, UVic has advanced a strong model of Indigenous-engaged research and education, grounded in partnership and shared priorities, and a tangible community benefit. UVic is expanding access to education while positioning B.C. to compete and collaborate internationally, in line with our province’s Look West strategy.

So if everyone would just join me in please welcoming Dr. Thomas, as well as her leadership team from UVic, here today.

[1:40 p.m.]

Rohini Arora: I also wanted to join some of my colleagues in expressing my gratitude for meeting with the NCCM, many of the advocates in leadership.

I just happened to see a dear friend up in the gallery, Kabir Qurban, who I initially met in 2015 working on a campaign for Surrey Centre federally. He has gone on to run on campaigns, bravely put his name forward as a candidate, and I see him to be a shining star.

Please join me in welcoming Kabir Qurban to the Legislature today.

Steve Kooner: I have a couple of friends in the gallery, Amrit Dhot and Srikanth Mogulala from C Face. They do great work in putting on folk and culture events.

Can the House please welcome them.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Today I rise to recognize members of the C Face Society and 2Cents Care Foundation who are in the gallery today on this side and, of course, some of them on this side.

From organizing the cultural stage at Surrey Vaisakhi Nagar Kirtan to planning Canada’s first Bhajan Clubbing concert, these organizations work hard at promoting cultural unity and engagement across B.C. They do everything to make this province a better place for everyone.

In the gallery today, I’m pleased to introduce…. We have Srikanth Mogulala; Bhupender Ladhar; Amrit Pal Singh Dhot, who is also a constituent of my friend the Minister of Jobs and Economy; Inderjeet Ladhar; Manikanta Reddy Lankireddy; Kanav Sadawarti; Mukul Seth; and Vaibhav Seth.

I would like to ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

Korky Neufeld: We had a great meeting with members from the Fairleigh Dickinson University of Vancouver here today. They met with both sides of the aisle. Tonight there’s a reception at the Union Club at seven o’clock.

I’d just like to make them feel welcome here today.

Stephanie Higginson: Joining us in the House today are members of the team from Hope Air.

We got to meet with you this morning. We have the chief Hope officer, Mark Rubinstein. We have the vice-president of patient experience, Stephanie Aldridge.

Thank you for the time today. Thank you for everything you do to help make health care for British Columbians more accessible and equitable. We are so pleased to partner with you in the critical work that you do and provide to British Columbians.

Would the House help me make them feel very welcome and thank them for the work they do.

Heather Maahs: Well, April is an action-packed month in my family, so today I would like to wish my son-in-law Kyle a happy birthday, my mom a happy birthday and my granddaughter Georgia a happy birthday.

Sunita Dhir: Today we have a group of representatives from Fairleigh Dickinson University, Vancouver campus. They’re extremely excited to announce their new campus coming to the Oakridge centre mall in Vancouver this year. They’re also meeting with all members to introduce the humanics program in health care, which combines data and technology with empathy, creativity, critical thinking, and so on.

Please welcome Michael Avotroni, Benjamin Rifkin, Mark Chiarello, Lester de Guzman, Ramin Shadmehr and Seth Li. Let’s give them a warm welcome in the House.

Bryan Tepper: I think they’ve all been mentioned by name, so I’ll be very quick. I recognize the leadership of C Face Society, my good friends. I’ve got lots of friends here today. I’m pretty happy about that. We have Srikanth, Bhupender, Amrit Pal and Inderjeet.

Also, it was not mentioned…. I think the Seths were mentioned however. They are part of the 2Cents Care Foundation and their team.

Thank you for all that you all do.

[1:45 p.m.]

Statements

Nanaimo Clippers

George Anderson: I rise today to congratulate the Nanaimo Clippers on an outstanding championship season. In game 7, the only thing louder than the crowd in Nanaimo was the sound of pucks hitting the back of the net.

To my colleague from Cowichan Valley, I say this respectfully: there’s always next year. We’ll even save you a seat at the game, just maybe not in the winners section.

All jokes aside, to the players of both teams: you’ve made your communities proud, and you’ve given young people something to look up to.

I hope that the whole House will join me in congratulating the Nanaimo Clippers.

Members’ Statements

Farmers Markets and
Support for Agriculture

Harwinder Sandhu: Every year in our beautiful province, there is a quiet moment when you can feel the season shifting. The days stretch a little longer, and trees begin to bud. Our communities gently move into a new rhythm.

For me, one of the clearest signs of spring is the return of our local farmers markets. Vernon Farmers Market opened on April 16. There is something truly special about that day back — the sound of familiar voices, smell of fresh baking and neighbours reconnecting after the season.

I was born and raised in a farming family, and those roots stay with me. In farming families, we learn the value of hard work, caring for the land and the importance of supporting those who feed our communities.

As Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture and food, I also want to recognize that our farmers markets and our local food systems are strengthened through strong partnerships. Through programs that support local food production, market developments and initiatives like Buy B.C., we are helping connect farmers, producers and families and strengthening our local food economy across the province.

Every week I see that connection in action: farmers bringing their harvest early in the morning, artisans sharing their craft and families teaching their children where their food comes from. Those are simple moments, but they are what hold our communities together.

In the weeks ahead, the spirit continues to grow. The Lumby farmers market returns over Mother’s Day weekend, and Davison Orchards opens again on May 1 — places where traditions are built and memories are made.

As spring turns to summer, the Polson Night Market will once again fill our evenings with the music, laughter and energy that makes this region so special. These places matter. They remind us that behind every table, there is a person, a family, a story — all connecting us to the land, to one another and to the hearts of our communities.

I encourage everyone to visit your local market, support our farmers and small businesses and take a moment to simply enjoy being part of your beautiful communities that we all have the honour to represent.

Experience as Cancer Survivor

Brent Chapman: About a year ago, I realized the growth on my neck wasn’t going away on its own. I really didn’t think it was cancer. It was MLA Dr. Kindy who told me in no uncertain terms that I had to get it checked. I did. I had cancer in my tongue, and it was presenting on the right side of my neck. A further PET scan confirmed the cancer was confined to my neck and tongue area.

Admittedly, I was trying alternatives — keto, an array of supplements and visits to a highly regarded naturopath who specialized in cancer. Nothing slowed the growth. Actually, it was the naturopath that said: “Brent, it’s time to bring in the big guns.” So off to Surrey hospital I went.

At the B.C. Cancer clinic at Surrey hospital, Dr. Jaswal was in charge of my radiation. Oncologist Dr. Yu supervised the chemotherapy. Both were absolutely perfect in tone and instruction — nothing sugar-coated, yet they understood the emotions I would be dealing with.

My cancer is treated by an internationally recognized protocol: 35 rounds of radiation and seven rounds of chemo. Seven weeks — you count down the days. They use as strong a radiation as possible, and the chemotherapy is meant to sensitize the tumour to the radiation. They try to avoid surgery, and so far, they avoided doing surgery on me.

During treatment, I lost about 45 pounds, and apparently, radiation burns 4,200 calories a day. That’s a lot of elliptical. It was critical that I didn’t lose too much weight, as there is a risk of altering the depth of the radiation. Also, I had to be strong enough to keep the treatment going, and I got through.

There’s more, but it all brings me to here — this place, standing in front of all of you as a cancer survivor. I would like to thank all the people here in this building who found a way to let me know…. This is on both sides. I can’t tell you how much that meant to me every day I was trying to get through the steps I needed to take.

[1:50 p.m.]

I know there are years to go, but as of right now, I have been deemed cancer-free. A lot of people ask me if I asked: “Why me?” I tell you sincerely that my response was: “Why not me?” There are little kids with knitted caps on their heads facing radiation and chemo before they even get to go to school. If they can persevere, then I have to.

I’m not sure how this will sound, but when I ponder the two wonderful women across the way and all they’re fighting so hard for, that is when I actually find myself asking: “Why me?”

I don’t have an answer for that, but all I can say is, Joan and Grace, I am pulling and praying for you as much as I can.

[Applause.]

Burnaby South Secondary School
STEM Team and National Competition

Paul Choi: I rise today to recognize and congratulate an outstanding group of students from Burnaby South Secondary School in my riding, Burnaby South–Metrotown. Burnaby South Secondary has been selected as a finalist in Samsung Canada’s 2026 Solve for Tomorrow competition, a national STEM competition that invites students from grades 6 to 12 to develop innovative solutions to real-world problems.

This is a tremendous achievement. Through this competition, students are not simply learning science, technology, engineering and math in the classroom. They’re reapplying and learning through the challenges they see around them. They’re being asked to think critically, work collaboratively and imagine practical ways to improve their community and their future. This is exactly the kind of learning we need to encourage.

STEM education is not only about technology. It’s about curiosity. It’s about problem-solving. It’s about giving young people the confidence to ask, “How can we make things better?” and then giving them the tools to act on that question.

I want to recognize the students for their creativity and dedication and perseverance. Reaching the national final is something that they should be very proud of. I also want to thank the teachers, staff and families who supported them along the way.

Today, right now as we speak, these students will have the opportunity to present their ideas at Samsung Canada’s headquarters alongside other national finalists. Regardless of the final results, they have already represented Burnaby and British Columbia with excellence.

To the Burnaby South Secondary STEM team, congratulations. Your work shows the power of youth innovation, and you are helping to inspire the next generation of leaders, problem-solvers and change-makers.

Edison Motors

Scott McInnis: It’s a real point of pride for us in Columbia River–Revelstoke to be home to one of the most innovative and exciting businesses in British Columbia, Edison Motors, right in Donald, B.C. Edison is proving that world-class innovation doesn’t have to come from big cities. It can come from small, determined communities with big ideas.

One of the best examples of this is their youth EV challenge, where students are encouraged to get hands-on with real engineering, problem-solving and teamwork. We were especially proud last year when local students from Golden Secondary School took home the win. Even better, those winning students didn’t just walk away with a trophy. They earned jobs at Edison Motors, turning classroom learning into real careers right here at home.

Edison also has a bold vision to become an innovation hub for the province, a place where cutting-edge businesses can set up shop, collaborate and grow, all while having access to affordable, functional space. That kind of ecosystem is exactly what rural and small communities need to attract the next generation of makers, builders and entrepreneurs.

Anyone who’s been out to the site knows Edison doesn’t take itself too seriously either. Some of my favourite moments have been the tours that Chase and Eric have taken me on in a convertible Jeep, sometimes after it’s been left out in the rain the night before, hitting jumps and always reminding me that innovation can still be a ton of fun.

None of this would be possible without clear, commonsense regulatory processes. Edison is quick to say how straightforward and easy it is to navigate approvals with the Columbia Shuswap regional district. That certainty makes a real difference for businesses trying to move fast and do things right.

[1:55 p.m.]

Finally, it wouldn’t be Edison without seeing their work on the road, including their plow truck they built for Emcon, showing how innovation can provide safety, efficiency, sustainability in real-world applications.

Edison, we couldn’t be prouder of you. Thank you so much for calling Columbia River–Revelstoke your new home.

Tod and Jocelyn Maffin and
Nanaimo Infusion 2026

Stephanie Higginson: This past weekend hundreds of Americans crossed the border to attend the second annual Nanaimo Infusion, a gathering organized by Nanaimo residents Tod and Jocelyn Maffin. Tod used his broad social media influence to invite our American neighbours to show up for Canadians, and show up they did.

This event has morphed into what is known as the health care infusion. So among the crowd were health care workers from the U.S. who came to Nanaimo not just to show solidarity but to explore what it might look like to build a life and a career here in B.C.

After the event, we visited the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, where the Premier and the Minister of Health got to hear directly from some relocated health care workers about their experiences living and working in B.C. And let me tell you that these folks absolutely gushed about working in the B.C. health care system.

They expressed the joy that they get from the collaborative culture that exists amongst all the staff, no matter what the job. They talked about experiencing community, both in their workplace and in the broader community, in a way that did not exist for them in the U.S.

The doctors talked about the relief they feel at being able to offer the best course of treatment to their patients and know it is available to them and not restricted by the insurance their patients have. And those with school-aged children gushed about the B.C. school system, one new recruit saying her son describes the B.C. school system as making sense in the way that’s organized and structured.

Island Health says that as a result of these international recruitment efforts and the influx of new health care workers, overtime hours at NRGH have dropped by 24 percent and dependence on external contractors has declined 23 percent. All the while, patient care hours have increased.

This event, and the messages delivered to us by the relocated health care workers, was a powerful reminder of what we’re building together and why it matters to people far beyond our borders.

Thank you, Tod and Jocelyn.

And to all our American recruits: welcome home.

Port Truckers and Truck Tag System

Harman Bhangu: I rise today to speak about the men and women who keep our ports moving, our shelves stocked and our economy running: our port truckers. These are hard-working people who have been through a lot. Governments pushed a rolling truck age program, asking them to invest in newer lower-emission trucks. Many stepped up. They took on debt. They modernized their fleets. Then the program was paused.

Now they’re dealing with another layer of uncertainty, the port truck tag system. Right now those tags are issued for just two years. But the reality on the ground — these trucks are not small purchases. Most operators finance over five years, sometimes longer. They are making real commitments based on expectations of stable work. A two-year truck tag does not match a five-year loan.

Even a three-year truck tag that has been discussed will still not solve the problem. What happens if a trucker invests, builds up a small fleet and then loses tags just after a few years? They’re left with trucks they still owe money on but without the ability to earn. That is not just bad policy; that is a direct hit to small business operators trying to do the right thing.

A four- or five-year tag would bring alignment. It would give truckers a fair runway, it would allow them to get close to paying down their equipment before facing a level of risk, and it would provide the stability this sector desperately needs.

If we want a reliable supply chain, if we want a strong truck port system, we need to treat port truckers like partners, not placeholders. Give them certainty, match policy to reality, and let them do what they do best.

Question of Privilege
(Speaker’s Ruling)

The Speaker: Hon. Members, the Chair is prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the Member for Vancouver-Quilchena on Monday, April 27, which was taken under advisement.

The Chair thanks the member for Vancouver-Quilchena for following the correct procedure, for raising a question of privilege and for her submission on the matter. The member’s allegations are serious and require careful examination.

[2:00 p.m.]

In her submission, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena outlined that the Vancouver school board obstructed the member’s ability to perform her core constituency duty by cancelling, at the last minute, a confirmed booking for a public town hall in a school facility.

The member submitted that the decision of an administrative body blocked her access to constituents and, therefore, interfered with parliamentary functions and amounts to breach of privilege. The Chair understands the importance of a member’s representative duties and the frustration that may arise when arrangements or engagements with constituents are disrupted.

At the heart of the question of privilege raised by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena is the freedom from obstruction that extends to this House and its members. The scope and application of this privilege have limitations. The Chair must examine whether this privilege applies to the circumstances at hand.

As noted in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, fifth edition on page 384: “Parliamentary privilege is primarily, but not solely, exercised in the context of parliamentary proceedings.” Fundamentally, privilege is essential to enabling members to carry out their parliamentary business as outlined on page 392 of our procedural authority.

Parliamentary Immunity in Canada, by Joseph Maingot, is regarded as one of the pre-eminent authorities on the application of parliamentary privilege in our country. On pages 223 to 224, Maingot outlines that to be constituted as a breach, an obstruction must be connected to a member’s parliamentary work — that is to say, connected with their duty to participate in parliamentary proceedings.

Maingot also notes that while members can experience interference with their ability to carry out their duties and responsibilities unattached to the work that happens in this House or a committee thereof, “such situations do not constitute a question of privilege because they do not relate to the member’s parliamentary work but, rather, to his or her constituency work or other work in his or her official capacity as a member.”

The Chair appreciates that the circumstances are unfortunate. However, upon careful review of the submission of the member for Vancouver-Quilchena and the procedural authorities, the Chair concludes that the scope of the freedom from obstruction as a privilege attached to this House and its members does not extend to the circumstances at hand. It is therefore the ruling of the Chair that a prima facie breach of privilege has not occurred.

Oral Questions

Burnaby Hospital Expansion
Project and Cancer Care Centre

Misty Van Popta: The Finance Minister stood in this House and assured British Columbians that Burnaby Hospital redevelopment, phase 2, and other long-term-care projects “weren’t cancelled.”

In the past 48 hours, the staff and doctors at Burnaby Hospital received a letter from their own executive director, with Fraser Health branding, that confirms in writing that the alliance contract for the Burnaby Hospital redevelopment has been cancelled — cancelled, not re-paced. Cancelled — not delayed; cancelled.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Misty Van Popta: Now with no contractors, no architects, no consultants, this puts this project back to square one and on the shelf with the other broken promises.

Will this minister stand up today and admit that her budget has effectively cancelled these projects?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We know how important….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, let her start first, please. Hold on to your comments. The minister has the floor.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We know how important this project is to people in Burnaby, the patients, the families and the staff in the community. Like other governments across Canada, we are facing fiscal pressures that require careful choices to protect the services that people rely on.

[2:05 p.m.]

The Burnaby Hospital phase 2 project was re-paced, and, as a result, the alliance contract is being cancelled. But although the construction contract has been cancelled, planning work will continue by the Fraser Health Authority and the province.

We are, further, currently considering 25 recommendations from the independent review panel and will be working towards refreshing plans to ensure that the project continues to be delivered and meets the needs of the community.

The Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

Misty Van Popta: It wasn’t just the contractors that were cancelled; it was the architects as well. The minister can call this re-pacing, but Fraser Health has called it cancelled. The thousands of construction workers who just lost their contracts call it cancelled. The patients waiting for cancer care at Burnaby call it a broken promise. It has been confirmed that all Fraser Health projects were cancelled this week.

Will this minister confirm if contracts for Kelowna, Campbell River, Fort St. John and Squamish are now also cancelled?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Fraser Health is making the necessary administrative decisions that flow from the decision to re-pace several projects in the health authority. However, the Fraser Health Authority’s primary project team continues to be in place. They will continue to work with the ministry and the province to get these projects ready to go.

Long-Term-Care Facility
Project in Delta

Ian Paton: The people of Delta rolled up their sleeves and raised nearly $20 million to build a long-term-care facility for their community. This was a government-approved project.

Apparently, getting approval from this government is no longer credible. Today the contracts to build that facility have been cancelled. This is not re-pacing.

Will the minister stand in this House today and tell the families of Delta when this cancelled project will start again?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We understand that it is disappointing to hear that a project that your community has been looking forward to has been re-paced.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: But the reality is that we have been seeing cost escalations across the province on projects, oftentimes exceeding what is reasonable for taxpayers to expect to be delivered from their investment. Long-term-care projects that were re-paced were coming back with cost estimates of up to $1.8 million per bed.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The project at Delta will continue, but we do have to do the work with Fraser Health Authority and other health authorities across the province to get those costs per bed down, and that work is underway.

The Speaker: Delta South, supplemental.

Ian Paton: It was a short two years ago when I stood on the lawn of Delta Hospital with the former Minister of Health and the Minister of Jobs in this province as they gloated about the fact that they were announcing the new extended care ward at my Delta Hospital.

The Minister of Infrastructure said: “To be clear, this project is not cancelled.” Tell that to the seniors in my riding who will no longer have access to long-term care. Tell that to my community who fundraised $20 million for this project. This project is cancelled. This isn’t re-pacing. It’s betrayal.

Why did this government promise long-term care to nearly 125,000 people in Delta only to walk it back and abandon the seniors who trusted them?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We need to be able to deliver long-term-care beds throughout the province at the scale and the volume that they are required. At $1.8 million per bed, we are unable to do that.

[2:10 p.m.]

So in order to actually respond to the true needs of communities, in order to respond to the real needs of communities, we need to do the work to be able to deliver these projects sustainably. That is the work that is underway now.

Regional Transit Services
for Sea to Sky Corridor

Jeremy Valeriote: I stand up today to shine a light on the urgent need for regional public transit between communities in the Sea to Sky Corridor and connected to the Lower Mainland.

I won’t go into all the reasons why this is a public policy and public service silver bullet. The minister is well aware. I will say that affordability, equity, economic development and safety are at the top of the list.

Now, I think I’ve been polite and patient for 16 months. I’ve received repeated assurances from the Premier and the Minister of Transportation and Transit, but this is moving at a snail’s pace. I’m not sure how much longer I can hold off the impatience of my constituents, local governments and First Nations, who are all aligned on this need and willing to help pay for it.

When the government makes a commitment in black and white in a 2025 cooperation agreement, and two ministers of the Crown look you in the eye, multiple times, and say they know the service is needed and are committed to implementing it, I may be naïve, but on a human level, that has to mean something.

Will this minister commit in this House to finally pushing the service across the line, instructing B.C. Transit to order buses and set a date for this service to begin?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. You’ll get no disagreement from me on the importance of transit along the Sea to Sky Corridor. I know the member would like to see buses being ordered, but in order to do that, one of the things that has to be put in place is an understanding and agreement with the communities along there on how the system is going to be governed, and that’s what we’ve been working on.

We’ve made it clear that right now in the province there are two models that have been in place. We’ve been looking at Nanaimo and Victoria in terms of how transit is governed and, just as importantly, as to how they’re funded.

That’s been a particular bit of a challenge, because there is a point of view on how that should be that is quite different. I’ve recently met with the mayor of Whistler, for example. What I have said is that we’re willing to look at: is there another alternative that could be put in place that would meet the requirements that we must have in terms of governance and how something is funded but also recognizes that there are some unique issues when it comes to the Sea to Sky Highway and some unique opportunities?

We are continuing to do that work. But to suggest that what we need to do is be ordering buses…. I understand the desire for that. The reality is we’re working to make sure that what’s put in place is right for the communities and right for the province.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ve been involved and followed this closely for 18 months now. What I have heard is a laundry list of abstract obstacles, excuses and what I would consider delay tactics.

When this government wants to do something in a week, it can, but they seem to be holding this in their back pocket. This is not a rocket launch. It is ten buses, a motor fuel tax, establishing governance and $3 million a year in public money that will pay for itself many times over. We know it’s not if but when. Meanwhile, real lives are affected by this political strategy.

When will the minister finally make this happen and get over the governance hurdles and get the buses running?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Again, I thank the member for the question.

I will outline again, shorter this time, that we are working on just how to do that. The member mentions things such as a gas tax, property tax — all kinds of things. We are working with the communities on what is in place, trying to get an agreement in terms of how something can move forward. We’re doing that work.

I’d like to remind the member it wasn’t us that walked away from the CARGA agreement.

FIFA World Cup
Security Provisions and Costs

Macklin McCall: In 43 days, British Columbia hosts one of the largest events in its history, the FIFA World Cup.

Now, how is this government going to keep hundreds of thousands of attendees safe? A family in Burnaby taking their kids to the Fan Festival doesn’t know the plan. A small business owner in downtown Vancouver doesn’t know the plan. British Columbians deserve to know this government’s plan for safety and security.

Will the minister stand up today and explain how the government plans to keep hundreds of thousands of attendees safe?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: My thanks to the member opposite for the question.

British Columbia is very excited to welcome hundreds of thousands of visitors for the FIFA World Cup and to realize the profound economic benefits to the region. As Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, ensuring the safety of all visitors, athletes, all participants, fans and residents and communities is a top priority for the province, for the host city and for all our partners.

The Vancouver police department is the police of jurisdiction, and they are working closely with the integrated safety and security branch, the B.C. RCMP and the policing and security branch of my ministry. The federal commissioner of the RCMP has also indicated their full support and engagement in ensuring that our games here in B.C. are safe and successful.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Macklin McCall: If the minister does prioritize public safety and there is a plan for FIFA, then where is the transparency?

It is beyond concerning that this government still refuses to release any details about the costs or security plan for an event that starts in just six weeks.

Will the minister release the safety plan and costs for FIFA today?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for the follow-up question. Ensuring a safe, secure and successful games requires the partnership of multiple levels of government and multiple police agencies. The province was pleased today with the announcement from the federal government that they are contributing up to $100 million towards safety and security costs of the games here in B.C.

We await further details about that contribution, and the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport will be, in the coming weeks, providing an update about costs, revenues and the economic opportunities of these games.

FIFA World Cup Hosting Costs
and Role of Federal Government

Lorne Doerkson: On April 1, the Premier said, and I quote: “It is our international reputation on the line, which is why the federal government has committed to being our partner in this work, but they haven’t cut the cheque, and we can’t pay the rent with promises.”

As the minister just confirmed, the federal government has cut the cheque. It’s $100 million for Vancouver to cover the security costs.

My question today is: how much money is the provincial government committing to this, and where in the budget can we find it?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you very much for the question. I’ll reiterate my answer that the province is pleased by this contribution of $100 million towards the safety and security costs, specifically of the games. My colleague the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport will be providing an update about the full costs, revenues and economic opportunities of these games in the coming weeks.

Teresa Wat: Does this government even apply for major event status with the federal government for FIFA? A simple yes or no.

Hon. Nina Krieger: Sorry, if I can just ask for a repeat of the question?

The Speaker: Member, please repeat the question.

Teresa Wat: Sure, Mr. Speaker.

Does this government even apply for major event status with the federal government for FIFA? It’s just a simple yes or no.

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you very much for the question. We have been in continued discussions with the federal government about designating this a major event and also about the various ways that both levels of government can work together in partnership to ensure a safe games.

Those discussions have been productive and led to the announcement today that the federal government is contributing $100 million towards safety and security for our games here in B.C. This is a…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Nina Krieger: …significant investment, a significant partnership that speaks to our shared commitment to host a successful and safe games for the province and for the country more broadly.

We’ll continue to do this work in coordination with all partners.

The Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

[2:20 p.m.]

Teresa Wat: It’s very obvious that we have learned from this government that you have failed to communicate with the federal government to secure this major event status, a designation that would have brought tens of millions of federal dollars to British Columbia and taken the burden off B.C. taxpayers.

The biggest tournament in the world, four years to prepare, and the minister couldn’t get it done.

Why did this minister drop the ball? Why are British Columbians now paying the bill for her negligence?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I have to say, hearing the member and the question, I understand why, when she was kicking the soccer ball the other day, she missed the goal. This opposition has missed the goal when it comes to FIFA every single time.

Since the very beginning, we have been in contact with the federal government that this is a key, critical event for not only British Columbia and Vancouver but also Canada. The federal government has stepped up in terms of saying they’ll be contributing $100 million in terms of the security costs.

At the same time, we’ve worked closely with the city of Vancouver to ensure that B.C. Place is ready when those games start. We have already heard that Vancouver is far and away the best-prepared city in the entire North America FIFA tournament.

Vancouver will be ready to greet the world. British Columbia will be ready to greet the world. Canada will be ready to greet the world. This side of the House will be greeting the world. That side of the House will be missing the goal.

Police Services and Staffing in
Communities During FIFA World Cup

Bryan Tepper: This government has not added a single provincial RCMP officer since 2012, 14 years.

We know officers policing FIFA are coming from all over B.C. Will the Solicitor General tell this House today how many officers in total are being redeployed from B.C. detachments to the Lower Mainland for FIFA and which communities are losing them?

Hon. Nina Krieger: I’m a bit confused by the starting point of the member’s question.

We are proud of the truly historic investment that the province has made in policing, over $230 million to hire 256 RCMP officers.

On municipal policing, we have added significant training capacity to the Justice Institute of B.C. and added two satellite campuses, a truly historic milestone, for Vancouver and for here on Vancouver Island.

In a previous answer, I noted that for FIFA, this is hosted in Vancouver. The Vancouver police department is the police of jurisdiction, but they are not alone in the task of keeping games safe. Our ministry is deeply involved. The integrated safety and security branch is coordinating all efforts, and the B.C. RCMP and federal RCMP all have an active role in ensuring that these games are safe.

There will be decisions made at the provincial and national levels about the deployment of officers in advance of and during the games, and I’m very proud to work with police leaders and agencies across the country and across the province to do that.

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Bryan Tepper: I’m not even mad at that answer, just extremely disappointed.

They’ve spent more money and filled vacancies that were there, not adding one new position, and they’re bragging about that. At the same time, the detachments that we’ve had are facing pressures of their own, with summer tourist surges and wildfire seasons. Fewer officers, more pressures and no new resources since 2012.

I ask the minister directly. Does she have a plan to keep communities safe across B.C. when their officers are policing a soccer tournament in Vancouver?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Not only have we made the largest historic investment in RCMP officers, but we’ve also contributed significantly to integrated units that are doing important work in communities across our province — work in major crimes, work in the emergency response team, work in bodies such as the B.C. extortion task force and the broader task force to combat gun and gang violence.

Policing involves partnership. That is what we are committed to doing, to working in partnership to ensure the safety and security of our communities and to ensure that resources are deployed appropriately to ensure the safety of visitors, of communities and also of the general population in British Columbia. We are committed to doing that work.

Scott McInnis: The city of Revelstoke is hosting a public watch party for FIFA. Thousands of people will be descending on this small mountain town that has one RCMP detachment. Revelstoke resources are already stretched very thin.

My constituents deserve to know: what is this government’s plan to keep Revelstoke safe while their officers are in Vancouver during FIFA?

Hon. Nina Krieger: We kept the city and the province safe during the 2010 games, and we are committed to that same thing with FIFA 2026.

An event of this scale….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, take your seat, please.

You want to continue? Carry on.

Solicitor General.

Hon. Nina Krieger: As I’ve noted before, an event of this scale requires close collaboration and partnership between every level of government and every level of policing. Resourcing decisions will be made, overseen, by the policing and security branch of my ministry and the integrated safety and security unit to ensure the safety of the games and of communities across the province.

My ministry is involved in ongoing active superintendence of policing levels in every community of this province. It’s that superintendence that has informed our historic investment in policing and the continued work that we do with partners at all levels to ensure safe communities.

Kristina Loewen: Kelowna is hosting free public watch parties at Waterfront Park on June 24 and July 2 — thousands of fans, outdoor crowds, in the heart of tourism season.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh.

Kristina Loewen: When Kelowna officers are deployed to Vancouver and resources are already underfunded, Kelowna families and businesses are still here. Crime is ongoing. We may have wildfires.

Is government going to pull police officers from my community to police Vancouver during the World Cup?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the interest from colleagues around the World Cup, and I appreciate that everyone wants to make sure their communities are safe when we welcome the entire world.

I also appreciate the members standing up, one by one, talking about the viewing parties that they’ll be having in their communities — that we, by the way, are funding, on this side of the House.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Just hold it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Abbotsford West.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, no argument. Control yourself, please.

The minister has the floor.

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I hope the members are well over there, Mr. Speaker.

I’m glad the members are highlighting the funding that’s been provided by the province, by the way, which that member, all these members, voted against. They have no problem now showing up at those events, kicking soccer balls, celebrating the games. But in here, they come and are critical of these investments.

We are going to be inviting the world to British Columbia. We are going to see tourists coming from all over the province. We are going to be trying to move people not only to Vancouver but to Kelowna, to Revelstoke, to enjoy the beauty of this British Columbia. It’s good for the economy….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member, if you want to make noise from the opposition side, continue. We will stop the minister from answering. It’s your time. Welcome what you want to do. Let me know.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We are going to welcome the world. I welcome the members on the other side to pull out your red mittens and celebrate this opportunity for British Columbia. We’re excited about the opportunity. We’re going to see huge economic returns from it.

If the members want to encourage more activation in their communities and encourage more communities to participate, we welcome that.

FIFA World Cup
Security Costs and Tickets

Trevor Halford: The premier-to-be said to pull out the red mittens, and let’s just say this. I remember in 2010, and I remember what a great time that Olympics was. I remember in 2010.

I also remember that in 2010, it was the now Premier of the province that was following around protesters and criminals, passing out his business card to make sure they got free legal advice. That was what the Premier was doing in 2010.

We are 45 days out from inviting the world. The government is right on that. But what they haven’t been clear on is how they’re going to execute that. What they haven’t been clear on is how much it’s going to cost to keep British Columbians safe at a time when this government can’t even do that on its best day.

What they haven’t disclosed is who on that side is getting a ticket. They won’t talk about that. They say plans are coming in the coming weeks. The games will be here in the coming weeks.

My question to the minister….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Trevor Halford: I know the Minister of Transportation is getting ready to go, so I’ll be quick here.

My question to anybody on that side of the House is: where is the plan, who is getting the tickets, and what is the cost going to be to keep people safe in this province?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member opposite. I’ll start, too, with a little bit of history for that member. I remember sitting around the cabinet table — not this cabinet table but another cabinet….

Interjection.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Yeah, I am, and you need to remember it.

That was this side of the House. It was the government that I was a part of that voted to have the 2010 Olympics here in British Columbia. It was a former Premier of this province from our party…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: …who led the delegation that won the Olympics in 2010 here in British Columbia. And it’s this side of the House that got the FIFA World Cup here in Vancouver.

There’s one thing I know. When we put on an international event in this province and in this country…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: …all provinces work together. So when it comes to safety…. I see that’s what they seem to be concerned about, that at the community events….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Safety is a top priority. That’s why we work with the federal government. That’s why we work with RCMP, VPD, police agencies right across the country to ensure that we’ve got the resources here to keep our communities safe.

But what’s really disappointing is that we have an opposition that doesn’t want to join with British Columbians, that doesn’t want to join with marginalized kids that won’t ever get to see a soccer game but will get to see a soccer game because of the policies on this side of the House. They’ll be the ones getting the tickets.

I know they seem very concerned whether they’re going to get tickets or not. What we will be delivering is a world-class event in a world-class city in a world-class province from a world-class government, and we’ve got a terrible opposition.

[2:35 p.m.]

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Rob Botterell: I seek leave to move motion M211, standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave not granted.

The Speaker: Sorry, Member. The House is not ready for that.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Health.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage on Bill 16, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health
(continued)

The Chair: Members, we are going to have a very brief recess while we wait for our teams to get in place for the estimates of the Ministry of Health.

The committee recessed from 2:37 p.m. to 2:41 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, we’ll call the chamber back to order, where we’re going to contemplate the Ministry of Health estimates.

On Vote 32: ministry operations, $35,968,875,000 (continued).

Brennan Day: Yesterday in estimates, we asked for some pretty specific numbers, and what we got, after some very long explanations and repeated attempts, were a few admissions that should concern every British Columbian.

The minister confirmed that more than 15,000 funded health care positions are currently vacant, including 7,200 nursing positions. The minister confirmed 8,645 hours of ER closures in 2024, despite an FOI from her ministry confirming 10,360. Then the minister confirmed those numbers did not include planned overnight or weekend closures. That’s not stabilization in the province of B.C.

On primary care, after several attempts, the minister finally confirmed that there are more than 1.3 million British Columbians that remain unattached to a primary care provider, up from 821,000 in 2016. The minister claims the methodology for measuring has changed and the new system is far superior but will not offer up any clarity as to the presumed baseline that this government started at.

The government’s latest headline claim of 600,000 new attachments since 2023 is getting a lot of press. But the minister confirmed that numbers include…. People who moved communities or changed providers are included in that total. It’s a gross number presented as progress without any clear accounting. Based on the minister’s own numbers, that claim is overrepresented by at least 33 percent with the year-to-year data that the minister provided yesterday.

We asked for a net number. Neither was provided. We asked how many of the 581 U.S. recruits with accepted job offers are actually practising in British Columbia today. The number was not provided. We asked how long it takes to go from application to practice. That number was not provided. It wasn’t tracked or it wasn’t convenient. We asked for maximum wait times for people on the health connect registry. That was not disclosed.

That is the pattern we see here before us: announcements instead of outcomes, gross numbers instead of net results, inputs rather than outputs.

Now I’m going to move into seniors health, where the consequences are even more severe. The seniors advocate has reported thousands of seniors waiting for long-term care in B.C. — 7,000 in his most recent report.

We know seniors are stuck in hospital beds because the right level of care is not available. We know British Columbia is already short thousands of long-term-care beds and that the predicted shortfall grows dramatically in the years ahead, compounded by the fact that six long-term-care facilities across British Columbia were cancelled or re-paced in the most recent budget.

So today we will be asking a simple question on behalf of seniors and families, and we will be making sure we get accurate numbers.

I will begin by asking the minister…. Noting that last year 6,464 seniors were waiting for a long-term-care bed in estimates at this time and the seniors advocate’s most recent report has now estimated 7,000 people waiting on the long-term-care list, an increase of 2,000 percent since this government took power, could the minister please confirm how many seniors are currently waiting for a long-term-care bed in the province of British Columbia today? What are the median and maximum wait times, broken down by health authority?

[2:45 p.m. - 2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Welcome back to the member for Courtenay-Comox.

The member started off with a little bit of a recap of the discussions we had yesterday. I’ll offer my recap as well, which is to say I think it was a good discussion about a variety of different statistics and data and, frankly, the progress government has made in attracting new physicians and health care workers to the province; in attaching people to primary care providers; in the seats we’ve added to the system to train more nurses, nurse practitioners, allied health care workers; opening a new medical school; talking about vacancies in the health care system and all the work that’s being done to address those vacancies at a time of just simply phenomenal population growth.

Much of what we talked about yesterday was how, in the progress that government is making, we are outpacing population growth when it comes to much of this work, particularly around patient attachment to primary care providers and in adding physicians and health care workers to our workforce here in British Columbia.

I know the member looks for precision in certain things that I think he understands just simply isn’t possible. When health care workers move to our province and accept a job offer, it is a very individual experience — and to know how long it takes people when you’re relocating a family and going through immigration processes as well as through the job security process and moving your family.

The point is, and as we heard from the member for Ladysmith-Oceanside earlier today, that people are making the choice to move to this province because of what we offer here in our public universal health care system.

I also just want to briefly address the discrepancy that the member is pointing out with how his records, obtained through FOI, on emergency department unplanned closures don’t reconcile with the numbers that I read into the record yesterday.

I’d be happy to talk to the member more afterwards, but what we have learned by looking at the same FOI result — I believe it’s the same one that he has in his hands — is that his includes certain types of facilities that are not truly classified as emergency departments.

I want to be very clear that the numbers yesterday I spoke about were emergency departments and, further, just make the point that we are again making progress in bringing down the number of hours that emergency departments are closed in the province.

Let me turn now to the question at hand here. I’m really pleased to be able to take some time today and talk about seniors care and just how important that is.

As we know, seniors comprise a large proportion of British Columbia’s population. It’s no wonder. It’s a beautiful place to live. People make the choice to retire here and to move here. In 2025, seniors represented 20.5 of B.C.’s population, and that proportion is projected to rise to 23.4 in ten years, in 2035.

That’s why it is so important to ensure that this growing and aging population has the supports that they need and that we’re able to invest in the full continuum of care, of what seniors need to access in terms of health care — whether it’s primary care and then stepping up into more intense forms of care and sometimes, for some, in the form of assisted living or in long-term care.

I know that the member and I are going to have a discussion over the next few hours about this and talking about how that care is being provided.

I just want to take a moment to set the stage and remind everybody that when this government came into power in 2017, we walked into a situation where there was an incredible amount of work to do in order to catch up with the lack of investment in seniors care previously and in order to invest particularly, if we’re going to talk about long-term care, in the facilities that are required to accommodate this growing proportion of seniors — and, as well, to be able to meet the standards of care that all seniors deserve to have, and the dignity and respect with which they need to be able to live as well as to be cared for.

[3:00 p.m.]

In the Gordon Campbell years…. I don’t need to re-canvass too much what happened there. But there were terrible things that happened with respect to contracting out of care for seniors. When we arrived at the point of the COVID-19 pandemic, we really saw the impact of some of those changes in those years and the cutbacks and the privatization of care in a way, again, that just renews our commitment to having to invest in this system.

One of the early actions that was undertaken by the former Minister of Health was to look forward and say: “How do we develop a plan?” How do we make sure that as people age, they can age in a way that is as healthy as possible, that they can stay home as long as possible and that we increase not just lifespan but health span, the ability of a person to thrive and to be able to live their best lives as they grow older?

The age-forward plan, British Columbia’s 50-plus health strategy and three-year action plan, brought this together in a way that really outlines the commitment to improving quality of life for older adults. Of course, as I was just saying, it’s so important that as the population ages, we support people to thrive and to continue contributing to their communities.

That means that health care services need to adapt. They need to meet evolving needs. They need to really emphasize that proactive, personalized and culturally safe care, as well as investing in upstream approaches. Those are early interventions that are needed to help detect health issues, to help prevent health issues — again, about expanding the health span and undertaking initiatives to reduce frailties and preventable falls, some of the situations that older adults find themselves in when they must, in some cases, move into assisted living or into long-term care.

Part of this work, too, in promoting an increase in health span, is around supporting seniors to be able to live in their homes independently for as long as possible. That’s why the work that we have done and the investments that we have made in the Better at Home program, for example, the partnership with United Way…. Our investments into community care, I have to point out, have more than doubled now, compared to what they were when we entered government.

That community care and home-based care is an incredibly important part of supporting people, those community-based senior services that deliver non-medical home support services. They deliver light housekeeping, some visiting information and referral supports, transportation to appointments, but then also the work that health authorities do in being able to provide more supports for clients, for residents who are living at home, with clinical services like nursing, allied health, home support and respite.

These are all an important component of community care. Over the course from when we formed government to just one year ago, those service levels have increased by over a quarter, by over 28 percent. We continue to uphold that in our budget and to deliver these services for people.

There are also adult day services, short-term respite stays for seniors in long-term-care homes to give their caregivers a little bit of extra support, meeting not only the clients’ needs that they have but also giving caregivers a break and being able to help them as they continue to care for their loved ones in their families. That, too, helps to extend again the ability of an older adult to be able to stay at home.

Let me turn now to long-term care and note, too, that in the continuum of care and services that are provided for adults, we, understandably, focus a lot of our time on long-term care. It does serve a small portion of older adults, and it’s incredibly important that those services are there.

Again, just coming back to the fact that upon entering government in 2017, there’s been an incredible amount of work to do to invest in British Columbia’s long-term-care system. Investing in the renewal and the expansion of health authority long-term-care facilities has been a priority in improving the existing aging infrastructure at the same time as building new long-term-care homes.

I know this was canvassed partly in the estimates with the Minister of Infrastructure, but it bears repeating that since 2017 there have been 37 projects that have been approved.

[3:05 p.m.]

Using both the operating and capital funding, that incorporates over 2,000 replacement beds, at net new — I know that the member likes to hear “net new” — 3,397 beds that have been approved. That’s a combination of private long-term-care beds. If you add the 177 net new private long-term-care beds, that brings us to a total of 5,572 long-term-care beds.

As our population increases, there is absolutely no doubt — it’s very clear — that there will be an increase in the number of seniors who will want to plan for or who will find themselves in the need of having to enter into long-term care. I think this is where the member’s interests lie with respect to wait-lists.

He mentions the work of the office of the seniors advocate, and I want to say that I really appreciate the work that Dan Levitt is doing, and prior to him, Isobel Mackenzie. The service they provide in raising the voices that need to be heard by government and working with us to identify gaps and places to improve the system, as well as where the system is working well, is part of a really valuable relationship.

I also want to express gratitude for the Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors’ Services and Long-Term Care, the MLA for North Vancouver–Seymour, who has a particular focus on this work and is also of great help for me in delivering around this part of government’s commitment.

I’m going to move to the specific data that the member has been asking for around long-term-care clients wait-listed. I’ll read these numbers out. The member has asked for median and maximum. I can give average and maximum, and I will break it out by health authority.

In the Interior Health Authority, the average days waiting is 150, and the maximum wait is 1,211 days. In Fraser Health Authority, the average is 270, with a maximum of 1,284. In Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, the average is 315 and maximum 2,825. In Vancouver Island Health Authority, the average is 345 days, with a maximum of 1,861. In Northern Health Authority, it is 376 days on average and a maximum of 1,609.

I also want to reflect, though, that as health authorities manage these wait-lists, it’s not strictly first come, first served but that there is the level of acuity, that a person’s experiences will impact the amount of time that they may wait for.

I also want to say…. I know the member will make the point that there’s more work to do, and that’s absolutely right. There’s more work to do.

That includes continuing to invest in the community services; in in-home services; in partnerships with organizations like United Way, all of the not-for-profits, community service providers that do absolutely incredible work in serving seniors and in continuing to build out the long-term-care system here in British Columbia — one that is as high a quality as can be expected and should be expected, with workers who are paid fairly, who are treated fairly and who have the kind of workplace conditions that they need to be able to support the seniors that they truly love working with and working for and caring for.

Brennan Day: It took 25 minutes to not answer the question of how many seniors in British Columbia are currently on a wait-list for a long-term-care home.

Interjections.

[3:10 p.m.]

The Chair: Members, we’ll just keep a little order in the chamber right now.

Hon. Josie Osborne: I may have misheard the question. My apologies for that.

So 7,829 clients were wait-listed — sorry, just let me check the date here — as of Q2, ’25-26.

Brennan Day: Thank you, Minister.

I heard another trip down memory lane, in terms of the state of the system that you inherited. But I’ll just read a few things onto the record so that we can provide a baseline, because this government has been in power now for nearly a decade.

There has been a 200 percent increase in the wait-list in the last six years, and the average wait times over the same period have increased from 144 days to 287. Based on the figures that you just gave me, we should be adding probably another 30 percent onto the wait-list. The average days, and I’ll do the math quickly here, have also increased. Wait times of 2,825 days — that person likely will not see a long-term-care bed. Obviously, they are required in serious cases.

I’ll just go from the seniors advocate’s report here to set the baseline. From middle of last year, there were 7,029 clients waiting for a publicly subsidized long-term-care bed, a 9 percent increase from last year and nearly 200 percent more than six years ago. The average wait time has grown from 144 to 287. Straight from the seniors advocate’s report.

Now the minister is telling us that the wait-list has grown another 800 people over the last 12 months. I certainly would not call that progress.

The minister went on for nearly 15 minutes about inputs and announcements on programs in response to a simple question. This government constantly relies on inputs and announcements and is not good at measuring the output. The output and the performance of this government is that the wait-list has grown by an additional 800 people over the last 12 months under this minister’s watch.

Last year it was confirmed that seniors accounted for 83 percent of alternative-level-of-care hospital days. What percentage of hospital beds today are being taken up by alternative-level-of-care patients, and how many beds total in the system, currently tracked by the ministry?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: All right, alternate level of care. I’m just going to take a little bit of time to describe the definition of alternate level of care so that as I relay the numbers, I can put them into that context too.

The standard provincial alternate-level-of-care, or ALC, definition states that ALC is the designation that is used to identify a patient who meets all three of these following conditions.

One, they’re occupying a bed in a hospital that’s designated under the Hospital Act.

Two, they have completed the acute care phase of their treatment.

And three, they are waiting to be transferred to a more appropriate care setting. That’s an important point because some — many, in fact — are discharged to community settings and not all are waiting for a long-term-care placement.

For example, in the 2025 calendar year, 15.4 percent of all inpatient census days were designated as ALC. Again, these are people who no longer have acute medical needs but they’re unable to be safely transitioned to another service, be it long-term care or home or some other setting.

That reflects an average daily total in British Columbia of 1,659 ALC patients who are pending discharge from hospital, but only 611 of those were awaiting long-term care, and the rest — another community service, or they hadn’t completed the review process yet for accessing long-term care. So I think that’s an important definition to provide.

The member asked around some specific data, and I’m sure he’ll repeat his question if I don’t get this quite right as to what he was looking for.

I also just want to say that we don’t measure ALC in terms of beds. We measure in terms of patients, just knowing that a bed does not necessarily mean it will be occupied by a person who is classified or designated as ALC. Just as yesterday, in speaking with the member for Skeena, it’s a mental-health-designated bed, not the patient, that…. The clinical judgment on the patient’s status is done differently. So we measure patients.

[3:20 p.m.]

In 2025, as I said, there were 611 long-term-care patients out of a total of 1,659 patients. So what I can do now is cite some figures into the record around ALC days as a percentage of inpatient days by health authority, as the member asked, again remembering that these are not all people waiting for long-term care. These are all ALC patients in total.

So for the 2024-2025 fiscal: Interior Health Authority, 18.6 percent; Fraser Health Authority, 14.5 percent; Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, 10.9 percent; Vancouver Island Health Authority, 18.5 percent; Northern Health Authority, 27.8 percent; for a British Columbia overall percentage of 15.6 days.

I just also want to note that there are a number of policies that support the management and the reduction of ALC rates. I recognize just how important it is to drive down the rates of ALC because, of course, having a hospital bed occupied by a person who is waiting to be discharged into another setting or back home is an expensive proposition. It’s not the kindest or best proposition for those patients. Clearly, they will be better supported in other settings where they can be back with family or be in a setting where they have the appropriate levels of care. That always is the intention.

We, in this chamber, talk quite a bit about hospital crowding and impacts there, and ALC is part of that. So being able to discharge people into the appropriate setting is incredibly important.

That’s why there is a specific policy, the management of alternate-level-of-care rates, improving access to acute care services by improving patient care experiences and outcomes policy. It formalizes some of the aspects of acute care screening, assessment and discharge planning — for example, to reduce the risk of frail patients who are experiencing inappropriate extended lengths of stay in the hospital.

This policy also establishes a provincial framework for delivering community-based transitional care services so that medically stable ALC patients can receive those services in the appropriate community care settings. This is part of the work to improve access to acute care hospitals for other patients, as I was just talking about — to the flow and being able to have people move through.

As well, there’s another policy I think the member might be interested to know about, the emergency department admissions avoidance teams policy. This establishes minimum requirements for the composition and scheduling of teams that connect patients who come into the emergency department and don’t require inpatient care. They connect those people to the appropriate community-based health care setting, again to avoid the need for admission which can result in a person staying in hospital for ALC.

Just as a final note, I wanted to let the member know that I had a really important and heartfelt experience in Comox Valley hospital, in his riding, where I met two inpatients who were in ALC. They were a married couple who were waiting for placement to long-term care. I was able to have a really good and long conversation with one of their children, adult children, who was able to explain to me more about the experience that their parents had gone through.

It is always so incredibly helpful to have that personalized, to have it contextualized. I’m sure the member has spoken with other family members, too, of people who are, effectively, living in a hospital and in ALC status and the important work that we need to do to continue to shorten those stays and to get more people out into the appropriate settings.

So thank you for the question.

Brennan Day: I know there’s a lot of pressure on hospitals to discharge people that are tying up those ALC beds. We’ve had hundreds of case files just in my riding on the pressures that the hospitals are putting on to discharge elderly patients that would do better in either assisted living or a long-term-care facility that just can’t be managed by the families.

[3:25 p.m.]

It is approaching a crisis level in the province of British Columbia. Certainly, if I’m hearing it, I know all of the other MLAs in this room are hearing it as well.

My next question is…. Long-term-care providers across British Columbia have warned that recent funding changes and labour restructuring could put approximately 690 long-term-care beds and 140 assisted-living beds at risk of closure. How many long-term-care beds does the ministry currently project could close as a result of these policy changes?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: The member has raised the questions around some of the changes that have been made in the long-term-care sector in the last months, year or so. I will just set the context for those changes. I’m going to answer his question directly.

First, referring to the temporary wage levelling program that was in place, as well as the funding for overtime and agency staffing, both were programs that came into place in whole because of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. As we saw, obviously, the disruption that the pandemic wreaked amongst the health care system, saw the impacts on the long-term-care sector, we understood that these had serious impacts on the operators.

I do want to take a moment here just to express, I think, the gratitude that everybody has for the work that operators of long-term-care facilities do — be they publicly funded, health authority–owned facilities or private facilities, non-profit, charitable affiliate, the affiliate sector. I’ve had the opportunity to meet with a lot of different operators and a lot of different workers, people who work in these facilities, and it’s absolutely incredible what they do.

Coming back to these programs, as temporary stabilization programs during the pandemic, it’s understood that programs like that, policies like that, will change. We have worked with the sector as those changes have rolled out; followed the terms of agreements, where they exist, with those operators, too, on providing notice; and are continuing to support them by having operators work very, very closely with health authorities where they have publicly funded beds.

I do want to address, as well, the really important changes that have then come into place around bringing more long-term-care and assisted-living facilities and operators into the Health Employers Association of British Columbia. Of course, the announcements that we made that all facilities that meet specific eligibility criteria will become HEABC members by September 30, 2028….

[3:35 p.m.]

This is really about the stabilization of a workforce, the fair treatment and payment of these workers and being able to re-establish a workforce in a collective agreement in a way that provides those workers with the better conditions and ability to be able to keep their jobs, to stay in those jobs and to provide this care for seniors that they are so dedicated to and that is so required.

The government has committed to fund the cost of the transition — and fully fund. Again, this is about the stabilization that is much needed in the sector, particularly after coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic and also the changes that were made by a previous government in the contracting out of workers.

It’s important to make that point, because the commitment of government to meeting the standards of care; to providing excellent working conditions; to training more care aides, LPNs, RNs, the people who work in the long-term care system is part of that.

As I said, we’ve also committed, through the health authorities, to work very closely, and have been working very closely, with operators as they adjust and make these changes.

When it comes to fully funding the costs of HEABC collective agreements and the benefits that flow to workers, the full cost of this expansion initiative is estimated to be up to $250 million annually.

Again, I want to say that is a permanent change. That is a permanent commitment of government. It’s not a temporary stabilization program, like the wage levelling and like the overtime and agency funding was. This is a permanent change.

Now, in working with health authorities and working directly with the operators, as of January 21, 2026, the long-term-care status report, which includes all of the health authority updates as of January 15, 2026, and all of the ALC information that we have as of January 21, 2026, two beds were closed due to staffing shortages at one long-term-care home. Overall, there were other bed closures, 75, that were primarily due to repairs and maintenance. It was not due to the funding situation.

Again, I think it’s important to note that the health authorities will continue to work with operators, as they come forward, to understand and help do everything we can to mitigate the impacts of the OT agency funding cessation and helping those operators develop mitigation plans, where it has been appropriate, and assisting them on not only the mitigation plans but also recruitment efforts and working with them to understand the issues.

None of these beds have been closed permanently. As I said, two closed to staffing shortages, the others closed to repairs and maintenance, but these are all temporary closures. These are not permanent closures of beds.

I hope that helps to answer the member’s question.

Brennan Day: Could I get some clarification? So $250 million annually for the HEABC transition — that will be fully funded by government on an ongoing, continuous basis. If you could just clarify that for the record.

Then the next question is: in the last year…? How many licensed long-term-care beds exist in British Columbia today, and how many of those beds are actually operational and available to patients?

[3:40 p.m.]

I’m concerned that there are bed closures. There are facilities that have closed due to age. I’m wondering if we’re actually getting ahead this year in the bed count or falling further behind.

Hon. Josie Osborne: First, yes, I want to confirm and clarify the government commitment to funding the cost of the transition. As the member knows, the transition will take place over the next few years because our commitment is that this transition happens by September 30, 2028.

There’ll be two phases. The first phase will start this fall and take a year. The target is including 50 percent of operators. Then the second phase will take place the following year, October 2027 to September 2028, for the remainder of those facilities that have not been transitioned in but who do meet HEABC membership criteria.

The estimated net new incremental cost of this is up to $72 million, but that won’t be achieved until the full transition takes place. That number may change slightly, but that’s the estimate right now — that it is $72 million to fund the collective agreement benefits for the additional workers that are coming in under the agreement.

That means, and I’ll now contextualize the number I gave before, that the full cost of HEABC membership and the expansion initiative is estimated at up to $250 million annually. That includes wages and largely replacing the current expenditure on wage levelling. That’s the full cost. The bottom line here is that government will fund the full cost of the transition into the HEABC employment.

The member asked about numbers of beds. I take the point. I think we all want to make sure that long-term-care operators are able to provide the beds they have to the maximum extent that they can. Now, we know that there are always reasons why beds may be closed temporarily, as I was talking about before, for repairs or maintenance or renovation.

Sometimes as clients change, there’s a gap period, as well as if there’s an infection outbreak and there are needs to close certain beds to manage that. There isn’t a precise number that I can give the member because these things are shifting on a day-by-day basis.

However, there are 310 public long-term-care sites with 29,207 beds as of December 2025. Private for-profit and private not-for-profit contracted sites with publicly funded beds represent 195 long-term-care sites with 19,998 beds.

I think that gets it, but I’m sure the member will let us know if there’s more information required on this.

Brennan Day: Of the 29,207 public beds in the province of British Columbia, how many of those beds are currently operational?

A ballpark is fine, but realistically, that’s a gross number. If half of the beds are empty or unstaffed, the number is inaccurate. If you could, please qualify any major shutdowns. But an aggregate number would be appreciated.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you for the question.

The short-term closure of long-term-care beds has happened due to staffing shortages, and it has been an issue in the system. We have been closely monitoring this since October 2022 to support access and flow into long-term care and to support acute care in order to reduce the number of ALC residents or patients, as we were talking about in a previous question.

Now, as of August 2022, there were approximately 420 long-term-care beds that were closed due to staffing shortages. But the work that we have done in training more staff, in adding staff, has resulted in real progress, and by spring 2025, the closed beds were effectively zero.

That reflects, again, some of the medication strategies that health authorities have employed, monitoring of those closed beds and a really concerted effort to ensure that every bed is staffed, that facilities are fully staffed, in a way that beds do not have to be closed due to staffing shortages.

Now, once again, I want to point out that I can’t give a precise estimate of how many beds might be closed today because of changing out of residence or because of temporary renovations or upgrading, repairs or maintenance. But I want the member to be assured that our publicly funded system, with just about 30,000 beds, has an extremely low vacancy rate.

Brennan Day: Zero is a very interesting number. I know for a fact of at least four facilities, just that I am aware of, that have beds closed. I’ll certainly be getting back to the minister for some more details on that question.

What is the current occupancy rate of long-term-care beds across B.C., and at what occupancy level does the ministry consider the system to be effectively full?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Just to note again that when I reported that by spring 2025 the closed beds were effectively zero, that was spring 2025, not today.

Let me talk a little bit about the way we receive reporting through the health authorities about bed closures in publicly funded facilities. Monitoring this, of course, is really important. The member makes the point, and it’s well taken. Particularly because of the changes in overtime and agency funding and stopping that temporary stabilization program that came out of the COVID-19 pandemic, being able to understand very carefully what the impacts of changes like that might be is important.

[3:50 p.m.]

Data is submitted by health authorities four days following data collection on the first and the 15th of each month. Data collected as of April 15, 2026 indicates there are three bed closures due to staffing shortages. Those are located in Fraser Health. The total number of long-term-care bed closures for all reasons is 62, and that’s a decrease by one from the previous reporting period. Approximately 80 percent of those beds are closed due to repairs and renovations.

I can give a little bit more information. Again, looking at the number of publicly funded beds, I indicated that it was Fraser Health, as of April 15, that had reported three beds closed due to staffing shortages.

In all health authorities, there were no beds that were closed due to primary care provider attachment. There were three beds that were closed due to an outbreak in Interior Health.

And then all other reasons. There were 21 closed in Interior Health, 19 in Fraser Health, one in Vancouver Coastal, 15 in Vancouver Island and none in Northern Health. Again, that is mostly due to repairs and maintenance and renovations.

Brennan Day: Thank you, Minister.

What is the current occupancy rate of long-term-care beds across British Columbia, and at what level does the ministry consider the system to be effectively full?

Hon. Josie Osborne: The current occupancy rate is 99.998 percent.

In terms of expectations, it’s our expectation that all beds are used to the full extent, the full capacity that they can be, always. Now, accounting for the fact that there is a need for repairs and maintenance and renovation and that there are the occasional outbreaks, for example, we recognize that 100 percent isn’t an achievable goal. But with the current 99.998 percent, I think we’re doing very well.

Brennan Day: Okay. So the system is considered full, then, at 100 percent. I understand that in a hotel system, anything over 90 percent would be considered full because you have turnover and things of that nature. I don’t understand how it could actually be 99.98 percent full unless you’re literally turning the bed over that day, which is pretty grim to think about.

[3:55 p.m.]

Could you just confirm that 99.98 percent capacity is the number and what the ministry considers the system full at, what percentage?

Hon. Josie Osborne: We consider the system full at 98.5 percent.

To the member’s point, just like in a hotel, there’s the changeover that’s required, but, literally, there is same-day turnover in some cases. It is actually achievable.

With just about 30,000 beds in the system, even when, as I just pointed out, there are 62 beds as of the last reporting period, 62 beds out of that almost 30,000, that are closed for all reasons — be it three for staffing shortages and then several for outbreak and renovations, repairs and maintenance — again, I think that’s a good sign that the system is doing everything that it can to make sure that those beds are available.

Brennan Day: Thank you, Minister.

Last year there were 6,464 seniors waiting for long-term care. How many net new long-term-care beds were added to the system capacity in the last year, including replacement beds?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I will take that on notice. I don’t have the number in front of me. This is actually Ministry of Infrastructure estimates, getting their…. We’re trying to get the information from them.

Brennan Day: Thank you, Minister.

Long-term-care operators report that some licensed beds remain closed not because infrastructure is unavailable but because physician coverage cannot be secured for the facilities.

How many licensed long-term-care beds in B.C. today are closed specifically because physician coverage cannot be secured?

[4:00 p.m.]

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

I definitely want to acknowledge that the shortage of family physicians and primary care providers has had an impact on long-term care and the seniors health sector, as well, and that long-term-care homes can be challenged with shortages of physicians to provide that care to seniors.

[4:05 p.m.]

Ensuring that seniors who enter into long-term-care facilities are attached is important and is actually one of the reasons why there can be a delay for entry for a senior that is awaiting admission to long-term care.

I also want to just reference back the answer that I provided previously, the most recent reporting period for publicly funded beds. There are currently zero beds that are vacant because of lack of attachment to a primary care provider.

I know the member asked specifically about licensed beds, and I am just talking about publicly funded beds. That is the data that I have at my fingertips here. But I want to address the issue more generally too, because, as I said, attachment or the ability to access primary care is incredibly important in long-term care, obviously.

The work that is being done between the ministry and Doctors of B.C. through the Family Practice Services Committee is worth mentioning. It’s well understood by this committee that this is an area that’s really important to tackle so that we can ensure there is sufficient coverage and that there are primary care providers, family physicians who are able to provide that.

We’re also exploring other models and ways of incorporating nurse practitioners into teams to make sure that primary care access is available. The work that we’re doing to establish minimum nurse-to-patient ratios, which will eventually apply to long-term-care settings…. Those ratios are in development right now.

Brennan Day: Thank you, Minister. I’ll just skip ahead here, I guess, since you did mention care hours.

Last year care averaged 3.61 hours per resident per day, which is below the national recommended minimum of 4.1 hours per day per resident.

What is the current average care hour per resident per day in British Columbia?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: When we formed government in 2017, the standard of care at that time was 3.11 hours per resident day. A residential care staffing report that was completed in 2017 concluded that a minimum of 3.36 hours per resident day, or HPRD, on average, was required for that safe, quality care. It comprises three hours of direct nursing care, including health care assistance, and then 0.36 hours of direct allied health care like physiotherapy, occupational therapy, social work and recreation.

To be clear, too, HPRD is measured in two different ways. There’s funded HPRD, and then there’s actual HPRD.

Funded refers to the funding calculation that determines the funding for long-term-care operators for direct care staffing to achieve those targets. That calculation is based on 100 percent bed occupancy. This is related to the conversation we’ve been having around occupancy. So funded HPRD — ensuring that there’s sufficient direct funding for a long-term-care operator that is operating at 100 percent occupancy, when the facility is fully occupied. Now, as we were just canvassing, we are slightly below 100 percent.

That’s why the second way of measuring is around actual HPRD. Actual HPRD calculates the amount of direct care that’s provided based on the beds that are actually occupied. It’s a more accurate reflection, really, of the amount of care that residents are receiving.

As of Q2 in ’24-25, all health authorities met or exceeded the 3.36 HPRD target. That was for the fourth year in a row, with a forecast provincial average of 3.61. That is where we are today. The member was just speaking to this.

[4:15 p.m.]

I want to talk a little bit, too, about the fact that by maximizing our occupancy and approaching almost 100 percent, as we have done, and by increasing the HPRD from 3.11 to 3.36, we have been able to get ahead of some of the staffing issues that have really beleaguered this sector for far too long.

That has been through one of government’s key initiatives in the health career access program, as well as some of the wage-levelling work that’s been done and the enhanced supports for physicians who work in long-term care. This is important to point out, because by investing directly in the workforce, by doing the work to bring in eligible operators under the HEABC, again, this is about stabilizing workforce.

This is about fair pay, fair working conditions that will help us overcome some of the issues that we were facing when we formed government. That became all too clear during the pandemic when workers who were being paid less than what they previously were, because of the contracting out and because they were putting together a job by working in multiple facilities, left, very sadly. There were some very poor outcomes and devastating outcomes for families.

That is why we have worked so hard to do the training, the building up of staffing, being able to exceed that HPRD standard of 3.36. There’s more work to do, and I will always acknowledge that, because it’s important to exceed those targets and then to keep looking forward to what the standard of care is that is required for the seniors of our province.

Brennan Day: That doesn’t seem like much of an improvement year over year since the hours remained flat.

I guess the follow-up question to that would then be: is there any goal by this government to increase the hours per day to the national recommended minimum of 4.1 hours, or are we just going to continue to strive for mediocrity?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: I think probably one of the biggest challenges for both myself and the member for Courtenay-Comox is that neither of us were in government or elected as MLAs, casting our minds back to ten years ago, to understand just what state the long-term-care sector was in.

And I really want to focus on the incredible amount of work that has been done over the past eight, nine years in investing in the sector, in catching up in the sector, in building out the facilities — the beds, the renovations, the new beds — and, most importantly, in investing in the workforce.

So I object to the characterization of mediocrity when what we are striving for here is excellence. In order to do that, it has taken hundreds of millions of dollars to invest directly into that workforce in order to raise and then meet the standards of care that seniors deserve if they are living in long-term-care facilities.

I just want to talk about the health career access program that has enabled us to provide the staffing that is truly required to meet these standards of care and that it’s not just about having a person in the job doing the job. It is about the quality of care that that person provides and, again, striving for that quality of care.

[4:25 p.m.]

In 2018, there were 33,506 registrants with the B.C. care aide and community health care worker registry and, in 2024, 56,223 registrants — absolutely an incredible amount of adding positions and being able to ensure that those care aides, community health workers who are working with licensed practical nurses, with RNs, with the physicians and all of the other workers that make a long-term-care facility operate….

We are always going to strive to do better, and I’m well aware of the work that the member refers to. Now we have been able to do so much in stabilizing the workforce; in being able to provide those good working conditions, the pay that is required and that people truly deserve in this; and in being able to continue to make improvements in the system; and to continue striving for excellence in terms of that quality of care that we are providing for seniors in long-term care.

At the same time, and I won’t canvass it all over again, I’ll just reference back to all the work the government has done to help people avoid or to delay admission into long-term care by enabling and supporting seniors in being able to live at home for as long as possible.

Brennan Day: Thank you, Minister.

I guess the answer, then, is no. We are not looking to meet the national recommended minimum of 4.1 hours in B.C., despite many provinces across this country meeting that number.

The other thing I would like to mention is that the minister loves to hide behind percentage increase numbers. That’s what she did yesterday to justify 1.3 million British Columbians without a doctor. But I will just refer again — since we’re in the way-back machine, looking back near a decade — to the way you inherited the system.

I’ll read again from the seniors advocate’s report. Last year there were 7,029 clients waiting for a publicly subsidized long-term-care bed. This year the minister has confirmed there are now 7,829 clients on that list. That is a major increase over the last six years — seven now. The average wait time for people to get on the wait-list has also grown from 144 days to 287 days over the same period.

That is on this government, not the previous government. I’ll just make that clear.

We’ll go back to another question that we canvassed last year. It seems we’re right back there again. At that time, the Minister of Health assured this House that the ministry was committed to developing a fair and sustainable long-term-care funding model to support the sector. She also vowed to provide additional funding for agency and overtime costs to relieve cost pressures on operators and support them in the meantime. I have the quotes from last year’s estimates if the minister would like me to read them in.

On the long-term-care funding model specifically, the ministry committed that phase 1, direct care funding envelope, was expected to be completed by 2024-25, Q2. Phase 2, capital funding envelope, was supposed to be completed by fall 2024, and phase 3 was slated to be completed by spring 2025. The minister recommitted last year at this time in estimates, and those deadlines have now all been missed.

Will this Health Minister provide this House with an update on the progress being made on this work and a revised timeline of when this funding model should be deployed, or can we assume that the Ministry of Health has abandoned the long-term-care funding model work, as there have been no further updates or funding dedicated to it in this budget?

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

[4:30 p.m. - 4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. I know that the member understands the importance of focusing on outcomes and not always on a specific model or specific solution but, rather, on what approach we can take to help resolve issues and to provide solutions.

Again, that is why government, in the long-term-care sector, has been very focused on outcomes. We have canvassed issues around bed numbers, around occupancy rates, around standards of care, around staffing levels, around fair pay and working conditions. These are all components of the work that leads to the outcome we all desire, which is the best care possible for seniors and people who are in long-term-care homes.

The way that we’re approaching this work, again, to reflect the nuances and challenges of a sector that has multiple different types of operators, from health authority–funded facilities to public funding in privately owned or non-profit-run centres and facilities, needs to be accounted in this. There isn’t a single formulaic approach that’s going to be able to help us achieve this.

That’s why focusing on more consistency across the sector, the work that we are doing to bring in eligible operators under the HEABC, and the work that we’ve been doing to standardize and, again, achieve more consistency in financial reporting is a very important part of this so that we can understand the reality of each operator and then be able to work with them on the public funding and the public funding of beds.

The long-term-care financial reporting tool is something that has enabled us to — and it was developed, really, in response to recommendations that came from the Ombudsperson and the office of the seniors advocate, again — improve ministry oversight of funding. That oversight is very important. The accountability that is built into the system for publicly funded beds and the accountability of how those public funds are used to meet standards of care, to meet staffing levels that are required and to provide that high-quality care, really comprise the approach to funding in the long-term-care sector.

I’m just going to jump back to a previous question that the member had. He had asked a question about net new publicly funded beds in the system that have been approved to proceed to construction over the last year.

I’m just going to take a direct quote from the Minister of Infrastructure’s estimates from a few days ago. “Over the last year, 699 net new health authority–owned and –operated beds have been approved to proceed to construction. This number does not include all of the net new beds that are created through funding from the Ministry of Health in the for-profit and not-for-profit sector.”

Brennan Day: It sounds like the ministry will not be pursuing further discussions on a comprehensive long-term-care funding model as she committed to last year. So we’ll just add that to the list of promises from last year’s estimates that things were going to get better.

We have exactly the same amount of care hours per residents per day this year as we did last year. We have 800 more people on a wait-list this year than we did last year. And the days people are waiting for long-term-care beds have also increased, so I would not say we are winning on the health care file.

I’m going to read a few questions into the record now because we’re taking 25 minutes a question, so I won’t be able to get through my binder. I have not even scratched rural health, and I’ll pass it over to my colleague. I did want to read one in full into the record, because I think it’s an extremely important case study in where this government specifically is failing the long-term-care sector.

Three Links Care Centre is a long-standing community-based non-profit seniors care provider serving vulnerable seniors in Vancouver. It operates on thin margins and reinvests every dollar back into care delivery. This care home is located in the riding of the previous Health Minister, a senior member in this government.

[4:40 p.m.]

Like many non-profit care providers, Three Links has already been destabilized by previous ministry decisions. We canvassed this fairly thoroughly in question period last year, including the decision to defund overtime and agency staffing costs, safe resident business capital and equipment purchases. Now with the withdrawal of wage-levelling funding pending, the Three Links Care Centre is facing a substantial financial cliff.

Like many HEABC members, Three Links has been systemically underfunded for years against the cost of these HEABC-negotiated collective agreements. This is because the true cost of putting a registered nurse or a care aide on a floor for an eight-hour shift is more than the funding provided by the government, particularly when one factors in things like extra sick time, special levels, education leaves and other costly requirements of this agreement.

The organization has been clear that it cannot absorb these additional structural costs and is at serious risk of being forced to reduce services or, worse, cease operations entirely. The closure or destabilization of a non-profit care home is not an abstract policy issue. It has real consequences for seniors, families and front-line workers, and it increases pressure on an already overstretched system.

They have requested that I ask these questions, Minister.

Is the minister aware that Three Links Care Centre, a non-profit seniors care provider in Vancouver, is now at serious risk of closure as a direct result of the HEABC decision, combined with earlier funding cuts to overtime and agency staffing?

What analysis did the ministry undertake to assess the cumulative impact of these decisions on small and mid-sized non-profit care operators before mandating them into the HEABC framework?

Can the minister explain how forcing financially fragile non-profit providers to absorb additional HEABC-related costs without guaranteed sustainable funding aligns with this government’s commitment to stability in seniors care? Without additional funding, a small non-profit organization like Three Links will not be able to survive until fiscal ’28-29. Does the minister understand the serious repercussions that this budget will have on small operators?

I have a stack like that, but I’ll just read the rest of my questions into the record, and then I’ll close.

Minister, how many long-term-care beds does the ministry project will be required by 2030, and how many beds are currently planned to be built by that date? We know, in this budget, six long-term-care facilities were re-paced, cancelled, so we’re falling further behind.

I’d also love to know from the minister how many beds we are behind now. We’ve added 1,250 into the delay pipeline. We were over 2,400 beds short last year. I presume, and the seniors advocate has confirmed this in several interviews, that we’re expected to be short over 3,000 currently. The wait-list certainly reflects that.

Based on current projections, what is the expected long-term-care-bed shortfall in British Columbia by 2030?

How many publicly funded assisted-living units in British Columbia today compared to the same date five years ago?

How many long-term-care operators has the ministry assessed may reduce services or beds as a result of these increased costs?

How many seniors in British Columbia today are currently waiting in hospital more than six months for long-term-care placement? Based on the ALC figures the minister cited earlier, we know that that number is growing.

How many senior British Columbians died last year waiting for long-term-care placements with placements up to 2,800 or 1,800 days? We can presume that list is fairly lengthy this year as well.

How many seniors were waiting for long-term-care placement five years ago, and how many are waiting today?

How many long-term-care beds have been permanently closed in British Columbia in the past three years, and how many of those beds were replaced?

I’ll move on now to rural physician access failure. The ministry tracks physician vacancy rates across health authorities. What percentage of rural physician positions are currently vacant in British Columbia?

Rural emergency department closures have occurred repeatedly due to staffing shortages. The ministry tracks those closure hours. What was the total number of hours rural emergency departments were closed in British Columbia last year?

Ambulance. EHS tracks ambulance response times across the province. What is the current average ambulance response time in British Columbia? I would like that broken down by rural and urban, because we know that the gaps are widening.

EHS tracks staffing levels and unfilled shifts. How many ambulance shifts went unfilled last year due to staffing shortages in British Columbia? Again, I would like that broken down by region.

Minister, the ministry tracks patient transport times between facilities. What is the average time required to transport rural patients to hospitals capable of providing necessary medical care? Quite concerning, given the ER closures in rural British Columbia.

[4:45 p.m.]

On nursing, the ministry tracks nurse staffing levels and vacancies across all health authorities — 7,200 is the number you gave me yesterday.

EDRD. I’ll just talk about this for a second, because I had the unfortunate experience of attending the MedAccess forum along with one of your deputy ministers. My understanding from the deputy minister’s speech at the MedAccess forum was that the EDRD review has not been concluded and there is no expected timeline for delivery of that report. That is obviously concerning given the amount of case files that are coming through my office and offices of my colleagues in regards to expensive drugs for rare diseases.

I would like the minister to provide a timeline of when the EDRD review is going to come out. I would also request, in the spirit of transparency, that the entirety of the 2021 report with recommendations to the EDRD be publicly tabled. It’s already been partially leaked to the press, but I believe that would give us a good start in reviewing and being able to benchmark the upcoming report against what the minister already had in her hands in 2021.

Last year provincial data showed that patients admitted through emergency departments wait a median of 19.8 hours, with up to 64.7 hours in the worst cases. What is the current admission wait time in ERs across the province?

Executive compensation. Administrative spending accounts for approximately $3.8 billion annually, or roughly 11 percent of the total health care spend. How much of the health care budget is currently allocated to executive compensation? As well, it would be great to know the number of executives working in the health care system that are making over $300,000.

Specialist vacancies are also a problem across British Columbia, including vacant anaesthesiology, radiology and psychiatry positions. How many specialist vacancies exist today, broken down by specialty?

One other thing I will mention that I feel needs to be addressed by this government and should be put out there for the public is the fact that everybody here has a story about the wait to get to see a specialist. For my son, it was 18 months for a simple tubal ligation. In that time, he was in the ER four times and he had his eardrum ruptured. He was four years old at the time. Obviously, you know, as a father — absolutely ridiculous.

The cost to the system for that delay was in the order of magnitude of ten to 15 times higher than the 30-second outpatient procedure that it required to fix it. These delays are costing this health care system money, and the government doesn’t track specialist wait times.

We know that that’s a concern across the system. That has been brought to us by the Consultant Specialists of B.C. They’ve canvassed it heavily. I know the government is aware, so it would be great if the government could pay more attention to that.

Again, I’ll go back to the premise of my private member’s bill and many of the points I’ve made today. You can’t fix what you don’t measure, and if we’re not even measuring wait-lists, we certainly have no ability to fix them.

I think I’m going to leave it there today and hand it off to my colleague Scott, who I know had a couple of questions, but I do want to thank the minister for her time.

I’m disappointed we didn’t get through considerably more, despite the fact that…. And I will see it in the estimates binder once it’s reviewed.

I know some of those questions were at the fingertips, but I get that this is time management on government’s time, and it’s very unfortunate British Columbians don’t get to get a better snapshot of what is actually going on inside the Ministry of Health. There is a transparency problem there that needs to be fixed, and I will certainly keep pushing to fix it.

Thank you, Minister, and thanks to all the ministry staff.

Scott McInnis: I really appreciate my colleagues from Skeena, North Island and Courtenay-Comox just for allowing me to ask a couple of quick questions here today on behalf of my constituents.

[4:50 p.m.]

First of all, there has been some progress made as far as health care is concerned in our little corner of the province. I do appreciate the minister providing some additional funding for Angel Flight East Kootenay — very much needed to continue that service, moving forward — as well as the surgical procedures agreement with the province of Alberta, a positive step in the right direction.

Just to note, Minister, that hopefully, I can get a briefing on that from your office as soon as possible, just because I do have a lot of questions from constituents that, at this moment, I’m unable to provide details on. So I do appreciate that in advance.

The minister and I have canvassed this several times over the past 18 months or so, and I’m here on behalf of the health care workers in specifically the southern part of my riding, Kimberley and Cranbrook, in order to address, again, the provincial rural retention incentive. I’ve had the opportunity to discuss this issue several times with local health care workers. There is a growing frustration as to their exclusion from that program.

I’m going to front-load my question heavily. I would appreciate…. I know the minister will refer to ongoing evaluation. I understand that. But I’m really hoping, from this question today, that I will be able to be provided with some answers so I can share that with these extremely important and hard-working health care workers in Columbia River–Revelstoke.

I think the long “maybe” or the unsurety around whether they are able to acquire this funding is becoming quite frustrating. I am friends with a lot of these people, and I know some of them are considering moving to other regions of the riding where the provincial rural retention incentive is available to them.

Two questions packed into one here. If the minister can please provide me with a concrete breakdown of what the criteria specifically is for communities that receive the provincial rural retention incentive, whether it’s geographic location, size of the population — anything that can be helpful to pass along.

In Budget 2026-27, will health care professionals from Kimberley or Cranbrook be receiving the provincial rural retention incentive in this year’s budget? If it’s just a simple yes or no, that would be great for them to understand that.

Thank you to the minister.

Hon. Josie Osborne: We will come back to your question, Member.

But I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 4:52 p.m.

The House resumed at 4:53 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Mable Elmore: Committee of Supply, Section B, reports progress of the estimates of the Ministry of Health and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

George Anderson: Section A reports Bill 16 complete without amendment.

The Speaker: Members, the question is third reading of Bill 16, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2026.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Bill 16, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2026, has been read a third time and has passed.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I now call the estimates for the Ministry of Health.

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Mines.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 4:56 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health
(continued)

On Vote 32: ministry operations, $35,968,875,000 (continued).

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Welcome.

[5:00 p.m.]

Thanks for the question and for the conversations that we’ve had over the past 18 months or so around the provincial rural retention incentive program. I appreciate the advocacy that he’s doing for health care workers living in his region — asking good questions.

When the program was initially launched, the key sites and professions were identified through health authorities. The criteria used to determine those sites were based on a combination of rurality, like geography, size and distance to other locations; HR resource risk, really looking at difficult-to-fill vacancies; and the impact that it could have on surrounding areas. At the time, around 80 communities were participating in the program.

The program has expanded over time and, as the member indicated, the ministry has undertaken work to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. That work is going to help us guide the next iteration of what this program might look like. Right now I want to be very clear that the program is extended to September 2026, and then it is anticipated to end.

What we need to do — as we’ve collected data over the past few years around vacancies, around in-demand positions, again, looking at some of the challenges that rural areas in particular are experiencing in filling persistent and consistent shortages — is to develop a far more strategic and targeted program that truly results in effective outcomes, rather than being spread far and wide, to a point where any potential impact is effectively masked because it is such a broad program. It’s to come back with something, like I said, that is far more targeted and strategic.

I want to be clear, too, that this may not include all communities that are participating right now, and it may not include all professions. But I think it behooves us as government to constantly be monitoring and evaluating programs like this to ensure that the outcomes we are seeking are truly the outcomes that we are getting, and that it is the best value for the investments that are being made.

We know broadly across B.C. that rural communities in particular really are struggling to fill some very critical positions. In some situations…. I’m thinking of a particular acute care site that I visited last year where it is literally the presence of one particular position, the medical lab assistants, that can effectively undermine the ability of an entire site to be able to operate, because it’s such a critical shortage. That is the kind of targeted and strategic approach we need to take in order to ensure that any kind of recruitment incentive is working the way that it ought to.

I also just want to take a moment to talk about another important component of recruitment and retention incentive work, which is not just what the province is doing but also what local communities are doing.

I really want to applaud and commend those communities that have stepped into this space as part of a real team-B.C. approach, if you will, around recruitment and retention. Different communities are pursuing different ways of doing this, and also to note that it’s not only or sometimes even required for a worker to have that financial incentive in their pay packet so much as it is to have access to child care, to have access to affordable housing.

Seeing communities like Oliver, for example, standing up health care worker housing, the community on Saltspring Island doing the same…. There are many others, and I know I won’t be able to list them all right now. To see what they are doing to help increase the attractiveness of living and working in rural communities has been an important part of this program as well.

Anna Kindy: To the Health Minister, I’m just going to start with a little preamble and go into my first question.

The biggest problem this government needs to address now is the access people have to health care. We’re seeing the access — be it primary care, specialty care, emergency care, hospital beds, long-term care — trending down.

We have to look at value for money to make sure, with what we have, that we’re actually spending in the right direction. We have to make sure, as well, that health care remains sustainable, as opposed to losing access and waiting for care. It also has to remain universal.

[5:05 p.m.]

So misallocation of spending…. Where should the money go? There are issues with the physical resources, supply gaps. Hospitals are running over-census. They’re running over budget. There’s operational underutilization, and because hospitals are running over budget, sometimes they’re not using their ORs, for example, or other things that they could be doing. Also, demand growth, meaning that there’s an aging population demographic. The B.C. demographic is growing, and it’s aging.

You can’t fix the funding model without understanding where the money is going. Without proper, transparent data collection and, most importantly, accountability to that data, you can’t fix the access issue. I think, ultimately, if we think of health care being patient-centred, it means setting meaningful wait-time guarantees in all aspects of health care and having the capacity to meet those wait times.

In the minister’s accountability statement, she stated: “There are ongoing fiscal pressures. It means that all parts of government must continue to do their part to maximize efficiencies and make sure every dollar counts.” If we’re looking at the fiscal pressures, we’ve doubled our debt in B.C., and we’re on our way to tripling it. We’ve got a deficit this year of over $13.3 billion, with interest payments of over $6 billion. So that puts pressure on being able to manage increasing the health care expenditure.

Again, to remind the minister that to maximize efficiency, you need proper data collection, that data needs to be transparent, and people need to be accountable to that data. Ultimately, health care is about the patient’s — I’ll repeat it: the patient’s — ability to access care in a timely way.

I, unfortunately, only have a few hours here, and I’ve got a huge binder, so for some of the questions, I’ll be asking for answers in writing. For my first question, I’ll start off with the health authorities.

In 2025, the ministry went through a health authority review to try to find savings on an almost $39 billion budget. There was $60 million in savings that was found recently, with $200 million to be redirected for next year. That’s about 1.5 percent of the health care budget.

On top of that, last year the ministry reported a corporate service expense ratio, which is CSER, of 3.5 percent. For people who don’t know what CSER is, CSER is a measure of administrative cost over total health care costs. CSER can be low, depending on what data is left out of the numerator of that fraction.

The Canadian Institute for Health Information claimed approximately $400 million spent on B.C.’s health care administration annually in their CSER calculation for 2024. An independent review of financial statements obtained through FOI data suggests or reveals that the total administration cost was over $3.8 billion. That’s a large discrepancy.

This means that there is an administrative bloat or bureaucratic inefficiency, and it has been noted to exist in B.C.’s health care and health authority systems, especially if you compare our health care system to OECD countries. For example, we’ve got probably ten times the number of health bureaucrats that Germany does.

An example from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business reports that between 2019 and 2023, labour costs for management and union-exempt positions — that really means senior executives — in health care increased by 52 percent and added $1.2 billion annually to expense. It is also reported that our health care system has reached a ratio of one manager for every four other employees.

This next question I’m going to be asking in writing. Actually, I’ll ask it. In terms of health authorities review — this is where it’s important to have an accountability measure for health authority review — which health authorities right now are being reviewed? What is the time frame for the review, and what kind of savings are we looking at?

[5:10 p.m.]

Again, there’s an accountability measure. I imagine if you’re doing a review.… How much do you want to save per health authority, including the five regional health authorities, the PHSA and the First Nations Health Authority?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Welcome to the member for North Island.

Nice to see you.

Okay. I’m really glad to be able to talk about some of this work that government has been engaged in around administration and reducing redundancies, inefficiencies. I want the member to know that I listened very carefully to all the words that she spoke there and talked about the importance of finding those efficiencies. And the way we do that is through a system that is accurately reporting and collecting those data so that we can examine them very closely.

I’ll get into the health authority review in a moment, but I do want to talk a little bit about the administrative ratio and the administrative expenditures of the health authorities. She correctly, of course, talked about the metric of the corporate services expense ratio. CSER, we’ll call it. That provides a measure comparable amongst provinces and territories across Canada — what they’re spending on administrative departments, like finance and human resources, as a percentage of total health operating costs.

In fiscal ’22-23, B.C.’s CSER was 3.5 percent compared to a Canadian average of 4.4 percent. B.C., actually, comparatively has the second-lowest corporate services expense ratio in the country, behind Alberta.

I also want to point out that our corporate services expense ratio has stayed very stable over the past five or so fiscals. I’d be very happy to get the data to the member.

I heard in her comments and her question, the key question, too: what is it that’s being measured and counted as administration? What is the definition of that?

I think it’s important to note that administration and support, as is quantified and characterized in health authority financial statements, also includes IMIT, information management and information technology, which is not accounted for in the CSER. That, of course, is incredibly important. Those are the frameworks, the systems that we use not only to be able to share medical records, for example, but also to undertake the financial reporting that’s needed.

In order to measure the very statistics and metrics that we need…. Yesterday I spent a lot of time canvassing with the member for Courtenay-Comox around the provincial attachment system. The expense of running the provincial attachment system that provides us with the most accurate data we can have on primary care attachment would be an example of one of those IMIT expenses.

To some of the figures the member cited, in 2024-2025, the administrative services comprised almost $3.4 billion. Again, it is important to understand what is being counted in that figure.

Nonetheless, even being second-best in the country with our administrative expense ratios, that doesn’t mean that we don’t have a priority and an obligation to drive down administrative bloat or redundancies, inefficiencies as much as we possibly can, because an efficient health care system needs to provide as much funding as it can to the front lines and strive for the very best outcomes with the expenditure of those dollars.

[5:20 p.m.]

That’s why, last spring, we launched a comprehensive review of the Provincial Health Services Authority and the regional health authorities to do exactly that — improving efficiencies, being able to focus those resources on patient care by minimizing administrative costs.

Now the health system review of the PHSA, of the regional health authorities and within the ministry itself has begun to provide some very important findings. What was also very important in this review work was the incorporation and the involvement and engagement of front-line workers themselves. Approximately 20,000 staff members from across the health authorities participated in the engagement, and over 15,000 people completed surveys to help support the review.

It helped us, in combination with the people we were working with to undertake the review, to identify some very specific areas where bottlenecks and redundancies across the system could be found, to identify where there is some inefficient use of funding and that we could re-profile that to do a better job of optimizing service delivery.

Where we are right now with the review is actioning some of the very early findings. I’m sure the member has heard and knows about the work that’s been done to stand up a stand-alone, shared-services organization that is bringing together the administrative and corporate services across regional health authorities and the PHSA into a single entity. That will include finance, supply chain, human resources, digital and data services.

Although we’ll be reporting out on this more formally later this spring, the work has already resulted in some of these changes. The new shared-services organization has already started as of April 1.

What the health system review has enabled us to identify, as the member cited…. There is a savings of $60 million, and that has been purely through leaving vacant or eliminating 1,100 different positions — not front-line positions but administrative and executive positions.

The initial estimates of what the shared-services organization and rolling everything into a more centralized approach to these different functions…. The estimated savings are in the hundreds of millions of dollars. We’re working to refine that estimate so that when we’re able to talk publicly more about the final results of all of the review, we’ll be able to identify that number more precisely.

Further to that, just to talk about some of the cost management exercises that the ministry has already undertaken, those have resulted in annual savings of $200 million.

The $60 million from the positions, the $200 million from the ministry, together with the anticipated savings that will be found through the shared-services organization, are going to be significant. Again, it’s incredibly important at this time, because we know that we need to do everything we can in being able to hire the nurses and employ the physicians and all of the different front-line workers in our system that are required for care for British Columbians every day.

Anna Kindy: I’m going to ask for this next question in writing, and then I’ll pass it on to my colleague from Langley–Walnut Grove.

Reading Securing B.C.’s Future, page 11, can you provide us, in writing, an account of where you found the $60 million in savings? Meaning: how many jobs were actually filled, and of those jobs that were eliminated, how many were not filled or filled with people working already in those jobs?

As well, the $200 million per year, moving forward, or 0.56 percent of the budget. Where are you going to reallocate that money, moving forward yearly, to improve the efficiency of the health care system?

I will request that one in writing, and then I’ll pass the question to my friend.

[5:25 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: I want to thank my colleague for allowing me a little bit of time here to dig into kind of a pet project I’ve had over the past year in trying to identify why my local hospital has been what I thought was uniquely under pressure until I got into this role and started doing some work and realized it’s actually a Fraser Health issue across our region.

I’m going to read a couple stats. Fraser Health contains 40 percent of the population, which is 2¼ million people, but is only receiving 22 percent of the provincial budget. For comparison, Vancouver Coastal, with Providence, is 24 percent and 24 percent of the funding. Island Health is 16 percent of the population, 14 percent of the funding. Interior Health is 15 percent with 13 percent of the funding, and Northern Health is 5 and 5. So we’ve got a fairly significant deficit in Fraser Health, where 40 percent of the population is — but only receiving about half of the funding.

Fraser Health is also the fastest-growing region in the entire province. I’m going to read some more stats in relation to that. The total health care dollars spent per person in Vancouver Coastal is just about $5,600 per person; Interior Health, $4,800 per person; Northern Health, just over $5,500 per person; Island Health, just over $5,000 per person; and in Fraser Health, that is just over $3,000 per person.

If we look at the beds per 1,000, for reference, the OECD has an average of about 4.2 beds per 1,000. Vancouver Coastal is about 2.02. Interior Health is 1.81. Island Health is 2.19. Northern Health is 1.89. And Fraser Health is 1.27. Now, for a comparison, we’re just above Mexico. The Canadian average is 2.6.

Now, even with Surrey Cloverdale coming online and Burnaby, except for now with today’s announcement that that’s actually been cancelled, if those both come online in about 2030, the number in Fraser Health only increases to 1.32. So we’re barely scratching the surface of needs in Fraser Health.

Then even within Fraser Health, we have further inequitable spending in that there are three sub-regions within Fraser Health. We have Fraser South. That’s at 1.02 beds per thousand, and that’s Peace Arch, Delta, Surrey, Langley. For reference, Delta is the worst in the province with 0.48 beds per thousand. Fraser East is 1.41, which is Mission, Hope, Chilliwack and Abbotsford. Fraser North is 1.54, which is Burnaby, Eagle Ridge, Royal Columbian and Maple Ridge.

For reference, the country of Colombia has 1.8 beds.

By 2040, Fraser Health, where the bulk of the provincial density is projected, will be at 0.95 beds. If we don’t start investing and planning now, today’s health care delivery crisis in Fraser Health will actually look like child’s play in 2040.

Fraser Health has zero reproductive cancer surgeons. Langley Memorial has no cardiologists. Surrey has shared maternity wards. Ridge Meadows had 13 maternity diversions in April alone. Peace Arch had 15 maternity diversions in April alone. Mission had 30 ER closures in April alone. One-third of Burnaby Hospital are actually patients from Vancouver, for which they don’t get funding. The system is collapsing in Fraser Health without adequate funding.

So the question to the minister. It has been known for over a decade that the health authority funding allocation model for this province is broken. Members in Langley were told last year that the funding model was under review. After nine years in government, can this minister please indicate when the funding model for health authorities will be corrected and proportionately reflect the reality of population in Fraser Health?

[5:30 p.m.]

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

I just want to start off by saying that I know there were a lot of statistics that were cited in the member’s preamble to the question, and I want to talk a little bit about how the funding model works and the work that we’re doing to refresh and change that. I also want to acknowledge that Fraser Health…. South of the Fraser is the fastest-growing part of British Columbia, and the needs of this population absolutely have to be met.

I think looking at this government’s record of investing in Surrey and into Fraser Health really does speak for itself in terms of the investments that are required to really catch up to what I would characterize as an underfunded system that was left by a previous government. When looking at over $3 billion of projects that are going into Fraser Health area around the new hospital in Surrey, a new medical school coming to Surrey, improvements at the Surrey Memorial…. I won’t list them all off, because I know the member understands that.

Of course, Fraser Health is bigger than just Surrey.

It is important to note that it takes time to realize the benefits from those investments as well, and it is just as important that people who are living there have access to the health care that they need.

[5:35 p.m.]

I want to talk about the way the system works. It would be inaccurate to characterize or to compare based purely, for example, on funding per person, on a per-capita system, because that is not the way the health authority funding model is set up.

It is a population needs-based model. That means looking at the demography of an area. So knowing what the age groups are. Are there a lot of children? Are there a lot of elderly? Comparing that between health authorities. Looking at sex. Looking at health status. The complexity of a population.

Looking at some of the social determinants of health and how those impact the health care costs, delivering health care to individuals. Looking at unmet needs. Looking at those populations that have persistent health gaps. That includes Indigenous populations. That includes unhoused individuals.

Also looking at some of the racial and cultural differences in health care, and understanding, for example, that certain chronic diseases are more prevalent in certain populations. Being able to account for that in health care costs.

Looking at the rurality, again, of communities.

Then, as importantly, because the member talked about…. The health authorities…. The line between Vancouver and Burnaby is a line, and people do move back and forth. The model does incorporate interregional flows. It’s not just a catchment of exactly who is living inside the borders of a single health authority, but it is the actual catchment area, the way people travel.

We know that as the province has developed and grown over time, a lot of specialized services are sited in Vancouver Coastal Health and that there are people from all over British Columbia who use those specialized services. So that is taken into account, for example, and may account for some of the differences that the member is speaking about.

As I said, the model is undergoing a refresh right now to help achieve exactly what she is talking about — a fair funding model that properly accounts for the health care needs of a certain population. We are doing that work directly with the health authorities, so they are partners at the table as the model is being refreshed.

Although the work is still in process, it has been a very important focus of the ministry, moving forward, so that we are able to work better and more accurately with Treasury Board, for example, in ensuring that the health care costs of the region are met.

I’ll just wrap up, coming back to some of those initial comments I made around acknowledging the fast growth and the need for investment in Fraser Health and just express my continued commitment to do just that.

Jody Toor: I want to thank my colleague for allowing me to ask a question.

Within the Fraser Health system, there are sub-regions experiencing unfair funding and access to services. Langley Memorial Hospital serves a population of over 200,000 people, but it only has 1.04 beds per 1,000 residents and faces an ICU overflow rate seven times higher than other hospitals in the region. Langley Memorial Hospital’s second CT scanner is located off-site, leading to delays in diagnostic services for patients already admitted.

Most notable, there is a lack of subspecialty availability, including neurology, stroke care, pediatrics and many other subspecialties. As a result, many patients, around 200,000, are referred outside their community for necessary care.

Furthermore, regarding the second CT scanner, it’s important to clarify that this is a regional scanner and not actually a second scanner for Langley Memorial Hospital.

Also, the new hospital that I know we mention quite often — it’s close; it’s in Surrey — will not solve the imaging problem or the subspecialty care that Langley needs, because some of the subspecialties that I mentioned will not be serving out of that hospital as well.

My question to the minister is: when will the province take action to provide Langley Memorial with the essential services and subspecialty coverage that it desperately needs?

[5:40 p.m. - 5:45 p.m.]

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

I’ll just start off by saying that I’d be pleased to receive a little more information from her, if she wants to provide it for me. Some of the numbers…. We’re just checking against some of the statistics that were cited that we have different records for. Just to begin with, looking at the ICU, we see a 96 percent occupancy rate for the six ICU beds at the hospital, and the member was speaking to overflow rates. So we can sort that out later.

Let me just first start tackling this by talking about the fact that acute care sites, particularly across the Lower Mainland, as they have developed, do operate at different levels of care, and they do deliver certain types of subspecialties that not all sites do.

One of the approaches that the Ministry of Health takes and is considering more action in, because we recognize the way people need to move around and look at the proximity to care…. We can’t deliver all types of care at each and every single site, and I think the member would understand that, knowing that there are other sites like Royal Columbian Hospital that are in relatively close proximity to Langley, particularly when we think of comparing to the more rural parts of British Columbia and the massive distances that people need to travel for certain kinds of specialties.

A strategic approach would be to place subspecialties in different acute care sites in a way that matches the needs of the population, that is broader than just what you might consider the catchment area of a single hospital.

But looking at how regional coverage can be provided for certain services is part of the work that the ministry is doing with health authorities. So for example, looking at how we can better map privileges for a physician across several sites in order to be able to have that person deliver those types of care to patients in that area can be a more fair and strategic way of using the sites that are there.

I won’t repeat some of what I was speaking about previously in the last answer, around the population needs-based funding model and really understanding the better way and more equitable distribution of funding to make sure that the needs of people are accounted for, and that work is there.

But I will take a moment to speak about imaging. The member mentioned about a second CT scanner coming to Langley. I want to…. You know, as everybody understands, access to imaging and scanning is really an increasingly important part of health care. It’s an absolutely essential tool for diagnostic services and to help physicians and other health care providers make better decisions and deliver the best care for people.

Part of the work that we have done since forming government has been an intense focus on increasing the number of scanners as well as increasing, in certain cases, the number of operating hours of a scanner. We see now that people routinely, in certain areas, can get appointments for a CT scan that’s in the middle of the night. A single scanner costs an enormous amount of money. Being able to use it 24 hours, or close to it, around the clock, is the most efficient use possible of those machines.

Since 2017, the number of MRI scanners here in British Columbia has increased from 25 to 45. That’s 80 percent. The number of CT scanners has increased from 63 to 76. That’s an increase of 21 percent. That results in more scans being able to be undertaken and provided for people. Setting a record for that has been an intensive purpose of government in this work. MRI exams have increased 104 percent. CT exams have increased by 53 percent. And we’ll continue in this strategy.

[5:50 p.m.]

Health authorities, as they look at their capital plans for expanding access to diagnostic machines, are always looking, again, at need and capacity and making the most efficient use.

I’m happy that Langley Memorial had an increased MRI capacity with a new machine that was open to patients in 2020, and then, as the member refers to, a CT scanner that was provided in Langley in 2025 at the UPCC.

I want to take a moment to just emphasize how handy and how important it is to have that kind of outpatient access in a UPCC for scanning equipment but also for providers who are there on site. There isn’t always the space to be able to put a new scanner in a hospital. Making decisions about still providing that care and access to that equipment out in community still means that people in the community get that access, and that’s what’s most important.

I’m happy to talk with the member a little bit more about some of the questions that were raised. I hope that helps to answer some of the questions that she had. I would point her, perhaps, to the Ministry of Infrastructure to talk more about some of those infrastructure investments specific to Langley Memorial and also in the surrounding area, just to get a better understanding of where capacity and access are being increased in different ways.

Anna Kindy: Thank you for your answer, Minister.

Just to go back to equitable health care dollars distribution, I’m going to read a few things, and I’ll put it through questions that I’ll be asking in writing.

In terms of Ministry of Health contributions, as of 2025, Vancouver Coastal Health, per 100,000 people, had $423.9 million, it looks like here; and Fraser Health, $257.9 million per 100,000. To me, that seems like quite a difference in contribution per 100,000. I think the Ministry of Health needs to look at seriously redistributing that money in a fair way.

If infrastructure needs to be built or if expenditures need to be made in certain health authorities for timely access to care, it should be more evenly distributed. Fraser Health here seems to…. Within all the health authorities, it’s the lowest by far per 100,000.

This next question is in writing. We have a total of seven health authorities, each with an executive and administrative arm. Could you supply me, in writing, the head-count number of senior managers and executives, as well as non-union employees, in each of the health authorities and their total wages by health authority? I don’t need it today.

The Minister of Health also mentioned the Doctors of B.C. Health Authority Engagement Survey. This was done in 2025. The last one was in 2023. What this survey does is looks at topics — for example, physical and psychological health of physicians, how well they’re balancing work and personal life, transparency from senior leadership, overall workplace satisfaction.

If you looked at the engagement average of the six health authorities, the average in 2023 was low, at 33 percent, and the average in 2025 was 32 percent. Over two years, it actually went down. What the front lines are describing is that there’s increasing violence. The physicians feel that their voices are not being heard, and they feel that the health authorities function like ivory towers with no transparency and accountability.

I think there’s going to be a lot of that repeated through my questions, about transparency and accountability.

My question to the minister is…. Here we are talking about retention and recruitment of front lines, but if the engagement survey is saying that the doctors don’t feel heard and this is still trending down as opposed to trending up, I’m wondering.

[5:55 p.m.]

How will the minister hold these leaders accountable for delivering on the mandates that the Premier has placed on her ministry of reducing the cost of administration, focusing resources on the front lines and the reason their jobs exist in the first place, which is to provide reasonable access to services mandated in the Medicare Protection Act?

What I’m saying here…. If a physician feels like they can’t provide the service and they’re not being heard, how are you keeping the people in the health authority accountable? Wages aren’t decreasing. People are not losing their jobs when their job is not being done. It’s basically that the engagement survey is showing there’s a dissatisfaction there with the health authorities across the board.

[6:00 p.m.]

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

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

I want to start off by emphasizing just how important the relationship is between the ministry, health authorities and physicians. I want to initially focus my comments on physicians and then get into some of the other areas that the member raised.

I certainly don’t need to tell the member — she is a medical doctor herself — that physicians occupy a unique place in our health care system as autonomous and independent contractors, essentially, with the privileges and the rights to practise within the scope of medicine that they are trained to, and the ability to make those independent clinical decisions and practise as autonomous practitioners because of the virtue of the licence and the privileges that they hold.

The relationship between physicians and the rest of the health care system is of incredible importance. Understanding that physicians work within a health authority structure in this way, as partners delivering health care together with a team of typically mostly health authority–employed other clinicians, be they nurses or nurse practitioners or other types of allied health care workers, the relationship between physicians and the health authorities is incredibly important.

I will acknowledge, too, that there has historically been tension there and that, likely, that will always exist, as it does in workplaces. There are — I know the member understands this — several different structures that have been designed collaboratively with Doctors of B.C. to help facilitate engagement between physicians and health authorities, for example the joint collaborative committees that, for decades, have been set up to enable that engagement.

[6:05 p.m.]

The member is very familiar with the facilities engagement process, for example. The physician main agreement has $18 million of funding applied to it to enable medical staff associations — the medical staff associations being the physicians working in a site — to have that relationship with the health authority, as well as other structures where physicians are able to inform and provide feedback to health authority leadership.

The member touched on the surveys, the engagement work that is done, citing that 33 and then 32 percent participation rate — about the same as municipal election participation rates. It’s low, and that is disappointing in the sense that it’s important for everybody to have the opportunity to have their voice heard and to be able to participate in that. But I think it still provides results that are important, even at a participation rate of one-third, for health authorities and for the ministry to listen to and to listen to keenly.

After the 2022 physician master agreement, as it was called then, was undertaken, the adoption of that agreement led to some changes in a very important area, occupational health and safety. The member specifically raises issues around violence and around psychological health and safety as well. I want to take a moment to address that.

After the PMA was adopted in 2022, the changes in physician OHS resulted in a physician-specific-issues working group that would continue as the Provincial Physician Health and Safety Working Group. It serves as the engagement and consultation forum for health and safety issues at a provincial level. This is really important work that is undertaken there. Funds that are shared to this group into regional working groups allow for the opportunity to discuss and to implement different provincial priorities and regional initiatives there.

Violence prevention training for medical staff specifically is being updated through SWITCH BC in partnership with the Ministry of Health, with health authorities, the Providence Health Care and Doctors of B.C. The curriculum refresh project that is being undertaken, providing e-learning for physicians, launched in September 2025, just last year, and that’s being refreshed for all medical staff for 2026.

I’ll take a moment now just to turn to the relationship that the ministry has and that I as the minister have with Doctors of B.C. This is a topic that we talk about as well — the relationship between physicians and health authorities, how to improve the dialogue and the way that these two groups engage together and ensure that workplace conditions are being actively discussed and that needs are being met.

Outside of these formal structures, this is an important relationship for me. The work that I’ve been able to do with Doctors of B.C., actively engaging in dialogue around physician health and safety, although we’re in PMA negotiations right now, so that sort of puts a little bit of a pause on our ability to be able to meet regularly…. I know once the agreement is ratified and underway, we’re going to be able to pick up that work, and it’s incredibly important work to continue.

Further to physicians, of course, is the work that government has been doing around workplace violence prevention. We hear a lot about it specifically with nurses, but, of course, it relates to all staff who are working, say, in acute care settings, for example.

The province’s program around the relational security initiative, bringing in staff who are specifically trained in trauma-informed practices, in the ability to verbally de-escalate and, where required, use other tools, as well, to de-escalate situations that could result in violence, identify them and having those relational security officers really work together with clinical teams to help provide the best care as safely as possible for patients…. It’s so important for patients and for health care workers themselves.

[6:10 p.m.]

We know by looking at those sites where relational security officers are working that the number of incidents of violence have come down. As well, the workplace hours lost for nurses in particular has come down. There’s more work to do there. There’s no doubt about it.

Altogether, just to come back, I think, to the intent of the member’s question, which is around relationship and accountability between health care workers and health authority employers, I know health authorities themselves….

Obviously, I meet regularly with board chairs, for example, and I’m always making clear my expectations for what listening and engaging with front-line workers and with physicians looks like and eagerly discussing what opportunities we have to improve that engagement, because the voices of front-line workers are absolutely essential in any kind of evaluation, in any kind of improvements in both patient care and quality of care as well as workplace conditions.

We need healthy workers to provide health care to British Columbians. That is an absolutely essential part of it.

Anna Kindy: So what we’re seeing around the province is poor engagement. And then what happens with poor engagement? We see things like ob-gyn closures in tertiary hospitals in Kamloops. We see Vernon psychiatric departments quitting. We see diversions. This doesn’t happen overnight. This happens because the doctors on the ground are crying wolf and are saying, “We don’t have adequate staff to cover,” and they burn out.

If we look at, for example, ob-gyn, and I’m going to relate that a bit later, part of it is because primary care aren’t doing as much of the deliveries as they were, and a lot of the easy primary care deliveries are falling on ob-gyn, and nobody can keep up. Everything’s attached.

If you’re looking at why we’re failing, where we’re failing, again, it’s from primary care access. What happens if you fail in primary care access? You get people going into emergency departments. Because the wait times are so long, that’s why the violence…. Part of the violence is people waiting, getting frustrated, people with illnesses, psychiatric illnesses not being addressed quickly.

I’m going to come back. I want the minister to understand that it becomes empty words when you say: “Well, we’re going to have the front-line health care worker take another course for violence prevention.” I know people that have taken the course two or three times, and the premise of the course was always: “It’s my fault. How can I prevent this?” But it’s the system that’s causing the violence. We have to start looking at that. Again, empty words are empty words when you’re being punched in the face or being assaulted.

Coming back, I’m going to divert again. Again, for efficiency of time…. I’m realizing that five hours is a ridiculously small amount of time to go through all of health care, so a lot of the questions I’ll be asking again in writing.

My colleague from Courtenay-Comox covered quite well the emergency closures, so I’m not going to cover them, except for some extra comments in terms of that 30 percent of hospitals experience ER closures. There are diversions with those ER closures. Diversion means a lack of timely care. A lack of timely care results in a poor outcome and sometimes death. That’s what it means. So we have to look at that.

Part of what the minister said yesterday was that you’re applying virtual care now in certain emergency departments. I’ve talked to those nurses that have virtual care, and that is not comparable to having a physician by your side or somebody with a higher competence to be able to do things. For example, if you’re bleeding out, you need timely care. Even obstetrical emergencies sometimes need timely care. You don’t have the 30 minutes to divert to a different hospital.

Virtual care. We are talking emergency care here — emergency care. We’re not talking virtual care for a GP primary care visit. We’re talking for emergency care. That puts a lot of stress on the nurse. If you’re thinking about retention and preventing burnout, that nurse will eventually burn out. I can guarantee you that. It takes one or two bad outcomes to say: “I don’t want to do this anymore.” That’s the reality.

[6:15 p.m.]

Coming back to, again, retention and recruitment, because in terms of emergency…. We look at emergency departments as being the canary in a coal mine, right? So if the emergency department…. When an ER is not functioning well, we need to look elsewhere for the pathology of the system.

Attachment loses its relevance when patients do not have timely access to the gatekeepers and primary caregivers in our system. If you don’t have access to primary care, you go to emergency. Funding and staffing of the ER is essential, but so is the ability to off-load patients to beds in hospitals and long-term-care facilities.

Hospital over-census, for example, causes emergency blocks. What we’re seeing in emergency right now is over-census. For example, in certain tertiary care emergency departments, you have 14-hour waits with stretchers in the hallways. Part of the reason for that is the hospital is over-census, and you can’t move the patient.

If we look at statistics, 57 of 80 hospitals in B.C. are routinely over-census. That means it takes a while to be able to be moved to a hospital ward, and when you’re admitted, you can spend days in a stretcher.

In 2025, Canadian Institute for Health Information: 90 percent of patients admitted are spending an average of 114.9 hours in ER, and the numbers are trending up. It was 87.2 percent in 2019.

I’m going to ask this question in writing for efficiency of time. What is the average time spent in the ER, by health authority but broken down by hospital? What are the trends? I would like the five-year, to see what the trends are. And what is the forecast?

This will be a question. I’m not sure if I want a question because it might take quite a few minutes to answer that one. I’m going to ask that one in writing as well, actually.

How is the government going to address this issue of ER block? Again, we’re looking at no primary or difficult primary care access. I’m going to go through primary care. After going through hospital census, I’ll be talking about primary care access.

There still is a problem; 1.2 million people in B.C. don’t have adequate primary care access. Attachment does not mean timely access as well. Sometimes you are attached, but you have an emergency and you cannot get in to see your primary care provider. That is a reality. I just want to put that down as a question. I’m just wondering how the government is planning to address this issue.

I think everything is correlated as well. I mentioned that, and I want to re-emphasize that in terms of when we’re addressing safety issues. Part of the safety issue is the over-census and the ER block.

In terms of ER block, some of these patients are actually admitted and left in emergency departments and are what’s called “unattached.” There are not enough doctors, meaning hospitalists or physicians, to actually become the MRP, the most responsible physician.

This relates back to the engagement survey, because doctors on the ground are doing the best they can with what they have. When these patients…. Every physician has a different capacity for being able to address different complexities of patients.

For example, there are some new graduates working in a hospital setting as hospitalists, but they might not have the same ability to have the volume of somebody who’s been working for longer. So we have to look at the whole strategy of making sure that the patient is safe and adequately taken care of.

[6:20 p.m.]

In my riding, there’s a big problem of over-census, meaning we ran, in January, at 160 percent capacity. That means that a lot of the patients were stuck in emergency. Unfortunately, because we don’t have enough primary care providers to actually look after all of the patients, they came up with what’s called a bridging program. The most complex patients were taken care of by internal medicine.

So every day the docs would meet and decide what was the best strategy to keep these patients safe. What happened with that is that the nurses liked it, because they felt the patients were taken care of. The GPs liked it, so did the internal medicine.

Now, in terms of contract issues, I’m hearing that through the province, contract issues are very slow. So we’re talking recruitment, retention. Sometimes you wait a year, and you still haven’t heard about a contract. You’re trying to recruit and retain, and it’s not happening on the ground.

Again, that engagement survey — people asking for it, and then it’s not going to the top. I’m not sure if the contract issue is a…. I actually emailed the minister about that, just wondering, because there are multiple contract issues across the province, different health authorities.

Who does the contracts, and how can we advocate for the front line so that the contracts are done, so they can start recruiting and retaining and taking care of their patients?

[6:25 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the questions. There was a lot in there, so we can parse through Hansard later to see what gets missed. I won’t be able to address everything in my response.

What I will do is talk, maybe, specifically about maternity care. The member mentioned issues that we are facing in the province around maternity care. Then I want to talk specifically to her final question that she left me with around contracting and advocating for physicians in the work we do.

First of all, I want to say that the area of obstetrics and maternity care is of great interest to me personally in this role as the Minister of Health. Over the last 18 months, what I have seen and learned in terms of access to maternity care and the work that needs to be done to stabilize these services across B.C….

If there’s one thing we know, it’s that when a person is expecting a child, you cannot schedule that like you can a surgery. You cannot always anticipate where that birth will happen depending on where the person giving birth is.

What we do know is that we need that care to be there for people and that people living in rural communities in particular face even greater challenges. The centralization of maternity services over the years out of smaller communities, rural communities, and coming into larger centres has created a lot of strain.

I also want to acknowledge, in my own conversations talking with maternity care providers about it, the incredible value of that particular specialty and the need for the entire system, including the peers of those physicians and people working in maternity care, to truly value it for what it is and what it provides us. Maternal health, infant health, early childhood health are some of the most important investments that we can make in our system.

So I want to talk a little bit about some of the workforce initiatives that we’ve undertaken to address the reduced capacity for local maternity care that we’ve seen here in British Columbia — particularly, again, in rural and remote communities, and that has led to some of the diversions and the closures and the other disruptions.

These are challenges that are partly part of wider system pressures, but there is targeted action that we are undertaking to help stabilize maternity care. Now, some of that includes rural, remote and Indigenous initiatives around real-time virtual supports. I heard the member’s comments around virtual care, but I won’t get into that right now.

Public health initiatives in communities. Major capital improvements in certain sites: East Kootenay Hospital, Royal Columbian Hospital, Royal Inland Hospital, St. Paul’s Hospital. Providing more professional guidance and support. For example, the perinatal and newborn health hub is a one-stop portal for perinatal and newborn health information, resources, education and alerts.

Then, most importantly, the work to increase the workforce — the midwives, the family physicians who provide maternity care — and improve compensation models. For example, the work that has been done in primary care space around the longitudinal family physician payment model and then APP contracts, or alternate payment programs, that we have.

By improving compensation models and agreements, this is one of the places we can do some of the work that is needed to help stabilize care. I heard the member’s point around the need for a quicker resolution of contracts, and I want to take a moment now to talk about contracting and some of the models that the health care system uses.

As the member knows, there are different payment models that are used for physicians in different situations — for example, service contracts that are developed for physicians at rural sites, where a fee-for-service model simply wouldn’t be appropriate because you would never see the volume of work that would enable you to have a minimum income that you would expect for the type of physician that you are.

[6:35 p.m.]

We have seen the use of APPs in particular, alternative payment programs, that are used to provide permanent funding for clinical programs and use contract and salary arrangements to secure physician services.

Now, historically, they’ve been used, again, for programs that don’t generate significant fee-for-service income to retain physicians to stay in those areas, but they have been much more broadly adopted across B.C. in recent years. For example, almost half of all registrants in B.C., over 8,300 physicians, in the last fiscal received some payment through a contractual arrangement of some kind for clinical services.

The increase in the number of alternative payment programs is something that we’re paying close attention to, and I want to talk a little bit about the way the contracting and the negotiations happen and how contracts are finalized.

We have a provincial contract coordination framework. It sets out the roles of the ministry, the health authority and the Health Employers Association of B.C. When a need is identified locally, that is elevated. For example, there might be a group of physicians that has an arrangement, but they need more physicians, and there’s a recruitment issue there. Or there can be a situation where a group of physicians are working in a clinical service area, and they don’t have an arrangement and want to bring that forward.

They work with the health authorities, identifying the service that’s required, the plans for that service, looking at the data. The health authority takes a close look at this and agrees, next step, that there’s a need for a contract. So there’s a mutual agreement that there’s a need for a contract.

Health authorities and physicians then need to sit down and negotiate some of the nuances of that agreement. While there are principles that are encompassed in the physician master agreement — or physician main agreement, as it is now going to be known as — there is the local nuance that needs to be accounted for in the contract.

If the health authority and the physicians are on the same page, if they generally agree, this process can happen quite quickly. But in the case where there is not a quick agreement there, the Health Employers Association of B.C. can step in to help assist in that work. So there is a process, and with the rapid increase in the volume of APPs that have come forward to health authorities and to the ministry, maintaining pace with that volume has been a challenge.

I want to talk a little bit about the physician contract budget growth that we have seen here. It’s an area of interest. It’s an area that I think further dialogue needs to take place. The growth of these contracts — for example, from 2018-2019 fiscal of $820 million up to fiscal ’25-26 of $2.4 billion — again, I think, merits good attention and a close look at how contracts are working, ensuring of course that the patient care needs are met and that there is value for money in that system as well.

Thinking back to 2014, there was an Auditor General report that really looked at that, around value for money in physician contracting, and came up with important insights that have become part of the system. Again, I think we’re in a place where it’s important to do that, to continue doing that work.

So whilst the member makes the point around the need for advocacy for physicians in that contracting work, what I want to demonstrate is that there is a process, that it is laid out, that we do need to go through that process. But with the rapid increase in volume of APP contracts, that, of course, places a strain on the system in terms of its capacity and ability to be able to deal with that volume.

That’s one of the reasons why this is an area of interest and something that…. I’m certain that conversations will continue.

[6:40 p.m.]

Anna Kindy: Thank you for that answer.

I’m going into physician supply. You mentioned about attachment. Again, I think the number came out that close to 1.2 million are still not attached. One thing…. We’re always trying in British Columbia to work with numbers that are difficult to work with, and we tend to compare to other provinces that are having the similar difficulties.

I want to state that, because even, let’s say for example, if we’re doing relatively well with primary care numbers — they’re trending up compared to other provinces — the attachment rate is still not acceptable.

We need to start looking at other countries and numbers. And we have to remember we cannot access health care without primary care. We can’t see a specialist without having a primary care provider.

In OECD countries, the number of doctors has increased more rapidly than the population size over the past decade, and we’ve done the opposite. With Canadian statistics, we’re near the…. I’m saying Canadian, because we tend to compare B.C. to other provinces, but overall, Canada’s not doing well. I just want to put it out there. We need to start looking maybe outside. If access is better elsewhere, why is that?

We’re trying to work with numbers that are very difficult and causing a lot of burnout in the front lines because there’s not enough to provide the care, and patients are obviously not accessing and falling through the cracks. Canadian statistics are near the bottom of the list.

To give you an example, Canada has 2.7 per 1,000. I’ll just give you a couple here. Australia has 4.2; Austria has 5.5 per 1,000. When we, again, compare to the provinces, that doesn’t give us the idea of why people are doing better outside Canada. A full third of practising physicians have graduated from medical school and are practising presently in British Columbia.

The other thing that we have to look at, physician count, conceals three major distortions. There’s urban concentration. It’s sometimes easier to access in urban areas. And this is really important to address. There’s been a scope shift away from full-service family practice, so the numbers don’t necessarily reflect attachment because some primary care providers have decided to do addiction medicine, or others have decided to do skin cancers. So there are fewer doctors doing sort of the full-on primary care services.

Also, there’s productivity compression. How many patients are being seen by primary care providers? Some of it is due to the burden of administration, EMR inefficiencies. Patients are becoming more complex, and there’s a burnout leading to work reduction.

Having said that, this is, I think, something interesting to put out there. We’re always looking at goals of the ministry to see: what are we aiming for, and are we getting there? This is the Ministry of Health service plan. It’s ’26-27–28-29 and performance planning measures, so performance measures. This is for primary and community care services, for primary care.

This is percentage of British Columbians attached to a family physician or nurse practitioner. This is, again, government data. Performance measures: ’24-25 baseline was 75.2 percent; ’25-26 was 77 percent; ’26-27 is forecasted at 78 percent; and ’27-28 is forecasted at 79 percent. The target for ’28-29 is 80 percent.

[6:45 p.m.]

We’re not going to be improving attachment very much. That’s the reality, looking at what the…. This is the government’s own data. As much as we’d like to say we’re bringing X number of doctors from the U.S., it’s looking at the net attachment and what the forecast is. Obviously, doctors, as you attach, some doctors retire, and you detach as well. It’s about net, and also, I’m looking at why we’re not aiming for higher.

This is a preamble here to my question. By the ministry’s health service plan, the number of British Columbians attached to family doctors or nurse practitioners is 77 percent. Many people in B.C. have no family doctor and have limited access to health care. Obviously, the goal would be 100 percent. I see a performance measure that you are only expecting to get 80 percent in ’28-29. I understand that we have never had 100 percent attachment in B.C.

Historically, you could say — anecdotal, in my case — when I started practicing, it was extremely easy to attach to a family physician. If you didn’t like your family physician, you attached to a different family physician. Family physicians were competing for patients, and that’s why they were opening walk-in clinics, to try to have a higher population base and see more patients. That’s where I came from.

Obviously, many years have passed, but now we’re at the point where, even if you’re attached, when you call, often you can’t get to see your primary care provider.

In terms of UPCC, if, for example, a specialist needs a referral, we’ll say phone…. Somebody says phone the UPCC for an appointment. Well, if you don’t phone within the first…. That’s not every UPCC, but if you don’t phone within the first half hour, you don’t get to be seen that day. So that’s the change we’re seeing.

We’ve changed a model of payment. Two questions to this. Can you tell me why your expectations are so low for attachment? LFP, or longitudinal family payment model, is a great carrot, and you would expect a higher attachment with having instituted the LFPs, relatively. My question is: why are you targeting so low?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:49 p.m.

The House resumed at 6:50 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Lorne Doerkson: The Committee of Supply, Section B, reports progress of the estimates of the Ministry of Health and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

George Anderson: Section A reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Before anyone freaks out, it’s all good. I’m going to move a motion that I have talked about with the Opposition House Leader and the Third Party House Leader. So just because I’m holding a file…. You people can chill.

Motions Without Notice

Deferral of Divisions

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Anyway, I move:

[That, pursuant to Standing Order 16 (4), any division called in Section A, Section B or Section C during the morning sitting on Thursday, April 30, 2026, be deferred until the start of Orders of the Day for the afternoon sitting on Thursday, April 30, 2026.]

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:51 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:47 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 16 — Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act, 2026
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 16, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2026, to order. We are on clause 28.

On clause 28 (continued).

Macklin McCall: Just looking at my notes and backtracking a second to kind of get recalibrated from continuing from yesterday. The last questions I was asking were with respect to medical practitioners in the corrections facility and how they play a role in the force actually being applied by the corrections officers.

The next question I had after the minister’s response at the end of the day yesterday was…. We discussed how the officers don’t just get to use discretion and proactively use force, that it was guided and directed by a health care team in the facility.

I just want to be clear. Is it ordered by a doctor to the sense of where a doctor might order an X-ray, and it’s part of the care plan? Is that something that would be directly ordered — to administer the treatment under the doctor’s direction specifically?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for the question.

I’ll recap some of my response yesterday and perhaps outline the process of admitting somebody for involuntary care, involuntary treatment and use of force in a correctional centre.

First, the patient is identified by health care staff as needing mental health treatment. The patient is certified under the Mental Health Act by two physicians.

[2:50 p.m.]

Health care staff then inform corrections that the person will be transferred to the mental health unit at the Surrey Pretrial Services Centre. The health care team then develops a treatment plan. Voluntary care is offered, and if involuntary care is needed, the health care team leads the planning for the treatment.

Conversations between health care and corrections staff take place to plan that treatment. Corrections staff follow the health care team’s direction and will intervene only as necessary, with the least amount of force, according to their training in use of force and in trauma-informed practices.

Macklin McCall: Thank you for that, Minister. That really clarifies a few things now.

You did just mention there that…. Let me just try to recall what you said there. I didn’t make a note of it. But it was about…. You know what? I forgot it. I’ll move on. It was a very minor question. But I appreciate the explanation you just provided there.

Will the use of force in this change to the Correction Act be subject to review by the investigation and standards office, this specific force used for involuntary care?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for the question. Maybe I will, in answering it, also recap some of my responses to yesterday, just about the reporting.

A correction officer on site must submit a use-of-force report at the end of their shift. This is reviewed by the manager on call, and this review is conducted for all use-of-force incidents.

If necessary, a secondary review is conducted by a deputy warden and is reviewed by use-of-force specialists that are external to the centre. Then a further operational review of critical incident, or critical incident review, may be ordered. In the event of any complaint about a use of force, that is reviewed by the standards office.

Macklin McCall: Thank you for that, Minister. The way I understand what you’ve explained, the investigation and standards office would be involved in a use-of-force complaint. They wouldn’t be the ones investigating or reviewing or whatever. As you’ve described, there are steps that go forward, but the ISO is involved if a complaint is lodged about excessive force, let’s say.

Hon. Nina Krieger: Correct. There is the reporting and an oversight process that I outlined for any use of force. Then the ISO is involved in the event of a complaint.

[2:55 p.m.]

Further, on the health side of things, those who are under the Mental Health Act are able to submit a complaint under the Independent Rights Advice Service. So that avenue also exists.

Macklin McCall: Now, going back and focusing on the officers on site, I just want to ask what…. For a corrections officer that’s at this facility or any facility — I assume it’s all the same — can you please indicate if it is the same in terms of the tools they have?

I just want to know. What use-of-force options do corrections officers have across the standard, across the board? Is there any difference between this new facility and how they’ll be operating and use-of-force options everywhere else in corrections?

Hon. Nina Krieger: In response to the question, it is the same across all centres in the province. There is a continuum of engagement that starts with verbal direction and can progressively advance to use of force. There is comprehensive training in this area, and it is consistent in correctional centres across the province.

Macklin McCall: Thank you for that, Minister.

I just want to expand a bit on that in terms of: what tools does a correction officer have? For example, obviously, there’s verbal communication. There’s, you know…. Maybe I’ll use the RCMP’s words just for illustrative purposes.

“Physical control — soft” is like holding people down, takedowns, those types of things. “Physical control — hard” is kicking and punching, those types of things. Then you get into weapons — intermediate weapons, conducted energy weapons, less lethal weapons, those types of things. Then you get into death or grievous bodily harm, lethal force, those types of stuff.

Can you speak as to what tools, essentially, in terms of options that are used, are potential for corrections officers?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: The continuum of options in the use-of-force model employed by B.C. Corrections begins with officer presence, then verbal communication and then advances to gestures; physical control techniques; and, if necessary, OC spray.

Macklin McCall: Is it fair to say that the highest level of force that can be utilized by corrections officers. or perhaps the tool — we’ll talk about the tools at the time — is just OC spray? There are no batons? There are no Tasers or conducted energy weapons or something higher?

Hon. Nina Krieger: The use of OC spray would be potentially used in extreme circumstances. I think it’s important, though, to underscore that what we are discussing today is use of force related to providing involuntary care safely to patients for their own safety and well-being.

[3:05 p.m.]

The most that would be envisioned of the options would be, perhaps, soft control techniques. But, again, any interventions by the correctional officer will be at the direction and under the supervision of a health care team.

Macklin McCall: I appreciate the answer. I just want to make sure this is correct. What I’ve seen is that it’s authorizing physical force to be used for involuntary treatment, and I just want to be certain of what the potential is, what the capability is for corrections. That’s why I asked that question.

If I understand you correctly, OC spray is the.… With respect to tools, there’s not a more potentially damaging.… Police officers have firearms. They have other tools and all this. I just want to be clear. There’s no higher tool that could be used in a physical situation at all, in corrections, other than OC spray? Am I understanding it correctly?

Hon. Nina Krieger: In terms of administering use of force, broadly, in correction centres, there may be the option of using a baton, but in the case of the administration of treatment, as per the direction of a health officer, the highest level of use of force that would be envisioned would be soft physical contact and, again, would begin with verbal direction and presence.

Just to be very clear, the purpose of this legislation and this amendment, clause 28, which I believe we’re discussing, is to ensure that the correctional officers who are trained in the use of involuntary care and are under the direction of a health care team can safely assist in administering medical treatment.

Macklin McCall: For clarity — this is actually really great; I appreciate that answer — there are more use-of-force options and tools, and so on, in the general correction system, as you said, with other tools.

[3:10 p.m.]

For the purposes of physical force being used for involuntary treatment, is it fair to say, then, if I’m understanding you correctly, that for someone that is a corrections officer that, as per the doctor’s directions to do that and use the force, the only force that would be permitted is verbal communication, as you said, the lower level, and physical control — soft, but nothing higher? Is that accurate?

Hon. Nina Krieger: That is accurate, but as I mentioned previously, there would be the potential, in more extreme need, to use OC spray. But again, the corrections officer would not be able to take that step without the direction and the plan of a health practitioner, and I could say that would be very unlikely because the goal here is to administer medication safely as per the doctor’s direction.

Macklin McCall: Thank you for the clarity on that, Minister.

You may have already covered this, but I want to ask, just to be 100 percent certain as well. What non-physical options are being used or considered to reduce the need for any physical force to be used?

Hon. Nina Krieger: It does touch on some of the steps I outlined earlier. The treatment plan is developed by the health care team. There is a therapeutic relationship between the health care team and the inmate, and voluntary care is offered. If involuntary care is needed, then the health care team plans that treatment and administers that plan between health care and corrections staff.

Macklin McCall: I’m just curious to know…. Just one other question. I’m sure there was a lot of research and stakeholders, and so on, that are probably involved with this decision. I’m just wondering. How does this amendment and this force being used for involuntary treatment in corrections facilities in B.C. compare across Canada? Are there any other examples in the country that do this, other provinces?

Also, how does this authority compare to how Riverview was run, for example? Has this ever existed in B.C. before?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Correctional Service Canada does use correctional officers to support involuntary treatment. The amendments proposed as part of this bill are consistent with that process and also consistent with practices at forensic psychiatric hospitals.

Macklin McCall: Thank you for the answer there, Minister.

I’m just curious to know: has B.C. ever had something like this? Did Riverview ever operate in such a fashion? I know you said other jurisdictions in the country.

The Chair: Member, just as a reminder, questions are through the Chair.

Macklin McCall: Yeah, okay.

Hon. Nina Krieger: This proposal is the first such proposal in British Columbia, but it is consistent with practices at other mental health facilities and also with Corrections Canada.

Macklin McCall: My question for the minister is: is the government planning further investments in mental health services inside correctional facilities in the future?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Currently B.C. Corrections and the Provincial Health Services Authority are discussing options to potentially expand involuntary care, particularly for clients who can’t currently access services at the Surrey Pretrial Services Centre, such as women.

These discussions are underway, but no decisions have been made about a potential expansion, and both partners are monitoring the pilot of the ten beds at the Surrey Pretrial Centre to identify outcomes and lessons learned to inform possible expansion.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ve got a number of questions on clause 28, and thanks to the minister for the answers so far.

On the surface, this clause appears simple and administrative. But digging deeper, we also believe we can see government moving to catalyze increased involuntary treatment in the province.

As we all know, those experiencing involuntary treatment are placed in very vulnerable positions, compounded within carceral institutions and on inmates whose choices and liberties have already been reduced. The pattern of policing and incarcerating those who have concurrent struggles with mental health, substance use and poverty is already well established, as is the policing and over-incarceration of Indigenous Peoples.

For example, in 2021, 51 percent of incarcerated people had a diagnosed mental illness, 59 percent had a substance use disorder, and 41 percent had both. Nearly one-third of incarcerated people in 2021 had co-occurring mental illness, substance use disorder and either received income assistance or had no fixed address.

Mr. Chair, if you’ll indulge the preamble for a little bit longer.

Indigenous adults are incarcerated at a rate ten times higher than non-Indigenous adults in B.C., and in the Surrey Pretrial Centre, the institution most acutely affected by this legislation, 28 percent of the population is Indigenous.

By amalgamating incarceration and involuntary treatment, particularly for those who haven’t been sentenced yet, the government runs the risk of presenting the process through which people find themselves in custody — namely, policing, arresting and courts — as a pathway to treatment or even care. In this way, the pipeline to prison for those who experience concurrent issues like mental health struggles, substance use, acquired brain injuries and poverty runs the risk of becoming even more efficient.

My question is: considering that there are multiple ministries involved in the decision of who works at the intersection of corrections, health and law, what work is the minister’s office doing to ensure that this amalgamation doesn’t compound the pre-existing problem of over-incarceration and significant capacity pressures?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thanks to the member opposite for the question and the introductory comments. I want to acknowledge the systemic issues that he raises. That is something that our ministry — and other ministries, but specifically in our ministry, B.C. Corrections — is engaged in, in improving the care for people in corrections.

Perhaps we’ll have more of an opportunity to dig into some of those systemic issues in our response when we are in estimates. But I just would love to focus on this particular piece of legislation and really, I think, begin to answer the question that has been raised.

The pilot that is underway at the Surrey Pretrial Services Centre is really intended to provide timely and clinically governed psychiatric interventions to reduce harms from untreated mental health crises. This approach is fundamentally intended to improve health and safety for people who are unable to seek help on their own and is broadly intended to improve public safety by interrupting the cycle that the member references of mental health crisis, crime and re-incarceration.

This enhanced health care model, with 24-7 access to nurses, psychiatrists, psychologists and other supports required for providing stability and support, will help transition the person to the community for the continuity of care.

It’s important to keep in mind the people that we are talking about have been ordered into custody on a criminal matter and then are certified under the Mental Health Act. The program underway at the Surrey Pretrial Centre provides that opportunity to transition to the community for the continuity of care.

[3:25 p.m.]

When they’re in the Surrey Pretrial Centre, people have access to the supports of an Indigenous cultural liaison, for instance. In terms of Indigenous populations broadly, the Provincial Health Services Authority has a funded Indigenous care position to support the program. So there are teams in the centre and community transition teams that are in place to address the dynamics that the member refers to.

There is a keen interest that I have observed by both the teams at B.C. Corrections and PHSA to work with Indigenous partners to build on this program and to work together to provide meaningful care for this population and ensure their success in community.

The Chair: Just a reminder to members, there’s no eating in the chamber.

Jeremy Valeriote: Clause 28 adds a subsection (e) to section 12 of the Correction Act so that it reads, “officers and employees appointed under this act may use a reasonable degree and means of force for any of the following purposes,” under which (e) is: “to assist a treatment provider to give treatment to an inmate.”

Use of force in the context of corrections, which has been canvassed — for example, for the purpose of maintaining custody and control of an inmate as authorized in the Correction Act — seems fundamentally different from the purpose and culture of health care. The merging of these two systems is deeply concerning, and this bill seems to be part of that.

On September 16, 2024, an order in council numbered 590 was put forward by the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. Through that order in council, the “area known as living unit G on level 4 of the correctional centre known as the Surrey Pretrial Services Centre was discontinued as a correctional facility.”

On March 2, 2025, the Minister of Health put forward a ministerial order that designated that same area as a provincial mental health facility, which I believe the minister referred to as a pilot.

Considering that unit G on level 4 of the Surrey Pretrial Centre is not…. Well, actually, I’m going to confirm this.

Am I correct to understand that unit G on level 4 of the Surrey Pretrial Centre is not, in fact, a correctional institution but a mental health institution, despite the minister’s mention of people in there being ordered into criminal custody?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: In the Surrey Pretrial Services Centre, there were two spaces within the centre designated as a mental health facility under the Mental Health Act, living unit X and living unit G. Living unit X is the pilot that we are referring to with the ten beds.

The work on living unit G, in terms of renovations and program development, was paused because of the promising outcomes that both the Provincial Health Authority and B.C. Corrections saw in living unit X. So our focus is on that as a pilot and learning from the successes to inform any possible expansion that could take place in the future.

Jeremy Valeriote: Okay, thanks. I’m just trying to understand. If a pilot is running and results are promising, why would there be a pause in the broader application of what’s being piloted?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Just to be clear, there was not a pause in the program. That program is taking place in living unit X.

In living unit G, there was a pause on the renovations. It is a separate site within the facility, and the decision was to focus the program activities in a single unit — at this time, living unit X.

Jeremy Valeriote: What I hear is that the minister has confirmed that this unit X is not a correctional institution but a mental health institution. So can the minister explain why this legislation puts use-of-force authority for its patients in the hands of correctional staff?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Just to clarify, living unit X is co-designated as a mental health facility and a correction centre, so allowing both functions to take place in that facility.

Jeremy Valeriote: Assuming that unit G renovation proceeds, is the intention for that also to be co-designated?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Currently, living unit G, which all work is paused on and contains nobody living there or staying there, is designated solely as a mental health facility.

I just would like to redirect, I think, our focus on the question at hand, which is not about the administration of involuntary care generally but specifically about the administration of voluntary care in a correctional centre and empowering correctional officers to support that work under the supervision of health. That discussion relates specifically to living unit X but not to living unit G.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll move back to the language of the clause. In subsection (a), what does “assist a treatment provider” mean in practice?

I’ll add a couple of other questions. Does it have to be temporarily and physically proximal to the administration of treatment? For example, can force be used to transport someone to a location where treatment is provided?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: B.C. Corrections, at present, has the ability to transfer inmates to forensic psychiatric hospitals for treatment. That power exists independently of the legislation we are discussing today.

What we are discussing today is enabling correctional officers to support the administration of involuntary care plans overseen by a health care team within the correction centre specifically. So it is very targeted to any measures related to medical treatment within the correctional centre context.

Jeremy Valeriote: Is the use of force authorized under this bill, via the Correction Act, different than the use of force security guards have been applying under the Mental Health Act, and if so, how is it different?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Yes, the authority is different and is governed under the Correction Act. That is, in fact, the rationale for bringing these amendments to the Correction Act forward — to enable correction officers to support the medical treatment of inmates under the supervision of a health care team. Currently they do have different authorities than the contract security guards who currently administer that treatment.

Our hope with this legislation is to ensure that these highly trained individuals with trauma-informed practices and with relationships with the inmate can support the health care team in this safe administration of involuntary care.

Jeremy Valeriote: What minimum reporting processes or review triggers will be in place to ensure that there is accountability and legislative review on this significant change in authority?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: B.C. Corrections and the Provincial Health Services Authority are jointly evaluating the pilot underway at living unit X and the Surrey Pretrial Services Centre. If passed, these amendments, that will authorize the use of force by correctional officers to support the health care teams administering voluntary care, will be considered as part of that broader evaluation process.

I’m not sure if you’re also asking about the accountability mechanisms that exist in terms of use of force and the reports and oversight and the ability of inmates to also make a complaint to the investigation and standards office. I did speak to that process of accountability yesterday, but in terms of the review of the legislation, it will take place in that joint corrections and health review of the pilot that is now underway.

Jeremy Valeriote: Governments have stated that any interventions in a correctional setting designated as a mental health unit will be health-led. How is the minister embedding health primacy into the statute so that it’s clear that a corrections officer’s use of force is only at the request and direction of the treating clinician; for the sole purpose of treatment, not punishment; and that officers will be using minimum necessary force after all de-escalation measures have been taken?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Maybe I’ll just speak to the definition of “treatment” that is contained within this clause. This means treatment within, specifically, the meaning of the Mental Health Act, and also that is authorized by the director under the act to be given to an inmate, including treatment described in a consent-to-treatment form signed under section 8(a) of the act.

“Treatment provider,” in this clause, specifically means a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner or other person who is authorized to provide treatment.

Jeremy Valeriote: The inspections section of the Correction Act expressly says inspectors cannot see medical records. With these amendments, will use of force be within that and, therefore, not open to inspection and/or freedom-of-information requests?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Use-of-force files specifically are within the scope of investigations conducted by the investigation and standards office, but not medical records.

Medical records are under the authority of the health system, and the route for any questions or queries about those records is directed through the patient care quality office and the Independent Rights Advice Service.

Jeremy Valeriote: This question is still pertinent. Will the minister or a person conducting an inspection at any time be able to inspect use-of-force records, including those related to the administration of treatment under section 12(1)(e)?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Yes, they can review all records related to use of force but not medical records.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll just skip back a little bit to…. The minister specified language in clause 28. As far as I can tell, there’s no clarification in the Correction Act itself, without referencing the Mental Health Act, that the treatment in question is in fact involuntary. So is there any voluntary treatment that these correction officers will be assisting medical professionals with?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Any voluntary treatment, which, as I’ve noted, is offered to inmates, is administered by health care teams solely, without the involvement of corrections.

What we’re referring to now is specifically the administration of involuntary care, which correction officers would be authorized to assist with as per the proposed amendments.

Jeremy Valeriote: I also have a question in regard to the addition of the definition of “treatment provider” within the Correction Act. The proposed definition reads as: “a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner or other person who is authorized to provide treatment.” Those receiving involuntary treatment within a carceral institution are in a unique situation, particularly in the context of compounded loss of liberty and potential histories of harm and institutionalization.

[3:55 p.m.]

Concerning these factors, it’s imperative that those who are engaging with them are well qualified and equipped. Who, other than medical and nurse practitioners, is authorized to provide medical treatment to those in remand or incarcerated in provincial corrections?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Just to clarify, and I think I’ve tried to make this point on a number of occasions, the administration of health care is under the direction of the health authority. It’s the director of the mental health facility who can authorize treatment.

And then the treatment providers are as outlined.

Jeremy Valeriote: I do have an amendment to bring in that regard, but I’ll get through a couple other questions first.

The minister touched on this a little bit in terms of resources available, but given the potential disproportionate impact on Indigenous populations, what are the consultation requirements, cultural safety obligations and disaggregated public reporting measures to ensure appropriate intervention?

Hon. Nina Krieger: B.C. Corrections has disaggregated data that is posted publicly on an annual basis. Research teams consisting of representatives from the B.C. Corrections and the health authority review that disaggregated data as part of their evaluations.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll just repeat a little bit of second reading words. The use of force, whether it’s carried out by private security correction staff, runs the risk of situating “treatment within a framework of control rather than care. It blurs the line between health care and punishment and places carceral logics at the centre of clinical decision-making.”

[4:00 p.m.]

For this reason, I will put forward the following amendment in the interest of increased specificity and clarity. This is done with the intention of ensuring that both correctional staff and those receiving involuntary treatment have the most robust understanding of these processes as possible.

The first adds language to make it clear that those assisting a treatment provider are using force against someone who is detained for involuntary treatment specifically.

The second is to add surety within legislation that any treatment provider is a regulated health professional. I believe I understood the minister to say that this can only be ordered under the director of a health authority or the director of mental health. The inclusion of “other person” seems to be out of line with that and extremely broad.

I would like to move this amendment and then I can…. Well, actually, I’ll explain the amendment, and then it will be distributed.

[CLAUSE 28, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

28 Section 12 of the Correction Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 46, is amended

(a) in subsection (1) by adding the following paragraph:

(e) to assist a treatment provider to give treatment to an inmatea person detained in or through a designated facility under section 22, 28, 29, 30 or 42 of the Mental Health Act. , and

(b) by adding the following subsection:

(3) In subsection (1) (e):

“treatment” means treatment

(a) within the meaning of the Mental Health Act, and

(b) that is authorized by the director under that Act to be given to an inmate, including treatment described in a consent to treatment form signed under section 8 (a) of that Act;

“treatment provider” means a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner or other personregulated health professional who is authorized to provide treatment.]

The Chair: We will take a brief recess and return at 4:10.

The committee recessed from 4:01 p.m. to 4:12 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 16, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2026, back to order. We’re on the amendment, which is in order.

On the amendment.

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you to the member opposite for the proposed amendment that I cannot support, and I’ll walk you through those reasons.

Firstly, the proposed change from “an inmate” to “a person” and everything that follows is not possible because the language of the amendment must align with the language of the Correction Act, which refers to “an inmate” specifically. So that alignment with the broader Correction Act is necessary. Also, I think it’s important to note that this specific language keeps the focus narrow and specific as well.

Then, in terms of the second proposed amendment, I do not believe the proposed change is necessary. I think the operative words in the clause as it stands are “who is authorized” and who it is authorized by. As I’ve noted, that authorization would have to happen under the Mental Health Act and be done by the director of mental health specifically. So there would be nothing beyond the scope of somebody that would be trained and skilled to be able to provide that treatment. That reference to “authorized” is the safeguard that I believe the member is looking for.

[4:15 p.m.]

Again, we’ll just reiterate that the intention of the amendments to the Correction Act that we’re bringing forward are really, fundamentally about ensuring that qualified, trained, trauma-informed and culturally sensitive staff are able to assist in the administration of involuntary care that is being administered currently in the living unit X correctional centre by contract security personnel. This is really about ensuring better care and better outcomes and safe outcomes for inmates who are receiving medical treatment.

Jeremy Valeriote: I just have a clarifying question for the minister on the amendment.

I appreciate that it’s not just “other person.” I mean, that would obviously be strange if it could be any other person.

But for the “other person who is authorized to provide treatment,” can I just get clarification or confirmation from the minister that that person cannot be a corrections officer, that the authorization by the director under the Mental Health Act cannot be anybody else than, as the minister described, a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner directed by the health authority?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Yes, that is correct. Confirmed.

The Chair: We’re on the amendment on clause 28. Seeing no further questions, I’ll call the question.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 28 approved.

On clause 29.

Macklin McCall: Now, can the minister explain why she feels it necessary to add the new section 26.1 at this time?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: This particular change does not alter the authority of the ISO but is really a housekeeping measure and a new section that identifies the ISO as the oversight body for both investigations and inspections, and it bumps that wording up so that everything that follows is aligned. So no new authority but a housekeeping measure in the context of this legislation.

Macklin McCall: And 26.1(1) says: “The minister must maintain the investigation and standards office.” Can the minister just explain what that means, specifically, in practice, in reality, please?

Hon. Nina Krieger: The ISO is the investigation and standards office. It is the oversight body that’s responsible for conducting independent external investigations of correctional centres and also conducting investigations relating to the administration of the act. It investigates complaints about the administration of the act from inmates or other affected people.

Macklin McCall: My question is: how independent is the investigation and standards office from management through Corrections and also from the minister’s office?

Hon. Nina Krieger: The ISO is a completely independent office under the oversight of the Attorney General, the Ministry of Attorney General, so with no specific relationship to PSSG or to Corrections.

Macklin McCall: In subsection (2), it refers to a director’s powers and duties. I have a couple of questions on that, but first I’m just wondering if the minister can explain. What are the powers and duties of the director for the investigation and standards office that can be…?

Yeah, we’ll just leave it at that for now.

Interjection.

Macklin McCall: Yes, I can repeat the question. Specifically, what I’m looking for is: what are the powers and duties of the director for the investigation and standards office?

Then, specifically…. I’ll just put it on the same question. Subsection (2) says: “The director may delegate in writing one or more of the director’s powers and duties to an employee of the investigation and standards office.” How can those powers and duties be delegated to the staff?

If the minister can just speak to those.

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: The specific functions of the ISO are to investigate complaints made by individuals in custody and under community supervision, to conduct reviews of disciplinary hearings, to investigate serious incidents in correctional centres and to conduct inspection of provincial correctional centres. Any of those duties are able to be delegated by the director to a staff of the ISO in writing.

Macklin McCall: Thank you, Minister, for that explanation.

How does this structural change in 26.1 support the new use-of-force authority for involuntary treatment?

Hon. Nina Krieger: This clause and other clauses related to the ISO are solely for housekeeping purposes and to clarify that we are talking about investigations and inspections. They are really unrelated to the substance of these amendments that are contained within clause 28 specifically as it pertains to the administration or involuntary care.

The real connection, and it does not change the authority of the ISO, is that in the event of a complaint of somebody receiving involuntary care, that would be received by and reviewed by the ISO.

Macklin McCall: Can the minister explain how the ISO compares to similar offices in other jurisdictions?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: In B.C., we are proud of the work that is leading other provinces in terms of accountability and oversight. This office, though not in place necessarily in all jurisdictions…. The independence of the office and its functions align with the Office of the Correctional Investigator that exists federally.

The Chair: Members, I’d ask that you just keep your comments down.

Clause 29 approved.

On clause 30.

Macklin McCall: My question. Why is the government transferring inspection authority from the minister to the director of investigation and standards office? What problems with the previous-led approach does this address?

Hon. Nina Krieger: B.C. Corrections itself has its own internal process for inspections. This is really about clarifying the role of the ISO as the independent body in the province that is charged with inspections and investigations.

It is the minister’s responsibility to maintain that independent office that then does the work of investigations and inspections, and this clarifies the authority of that independent body.

Macklin McCall: Can the minister explain: will the director of the investigation and standards office be truly at arm’s length from the day-to-day operations of the minister in charge?

This was previously covered where there was the Attorney General. Just wanting to understand more the arm’s length of day-to-day operations.

Hon. Nina Krieger: I can confirm that it is indeed. The ISO operates independently and at arm’s length within the justice services branch of the Ministry of Attorney General.

[4:35 p.m.]

The ISO is mandated by the Correction Act to provide that independent oversight to B.C. Corrections within the ministry but separate from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Macklin McCall: My question for the minister: what criteria will the director use to determine when inspections are appropriate and also the frequency of inspections?

Hon. Nina Krieger: The ISO maintains an inspection schedule and conducts inspections over a two-year cycle. Five centres a year are inspected. The director also has the authority to conduct unscheduled inspections as required.

Macklin McCall: Can the minister explain the new subsection (4), requiring reports to the minister and the public? Will these reports be posted online? What will be the time frame of these reports?

Hon. Nina Krieger: The inspection reports are made publicly available on the ISO website.

Macklin McCall: My question. Is there a time frame for these reports, like a requirement that they have to be released at a certain time? Can the minister also speak to how detailed the inspection reports will be? What’s contained in them? Just a summary would be great.

Hon. Nina Krieger: The reports are made publicly available on the ISO website as soon as practically possible, and report findings and any recommendations made to the centre.

Macklin McCall: Can the minister explain just how the government will balance public reporting with security, privacy and safety?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: The legal services branch supports the ISO in reviewing the reports for safety and potential harms, ensuring that that balance is maintained around access to information and also ensuring that any information does not compromise safety.

Clause 30 approved.

On clause 31.

Macklin McCall: My question to the minister. Why is the government changing the ISO director’s obligation from “must” investigate to “may” investigate?

Hon. Nina Krieger: This change adopts similar language to what is contained in section 13 of the Ombudsperson Act and seeks to provide a more efficient and fair process. All complaints will be investigated. It gives the director more discretion, potentially, about when those investigations take place.

Macklin McCall: How does making complaint investigations discretionary affect inmate trust in the oversight system and overall accountability in correctional centres?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: The ISO is fundamentally guided by the principles of administrative and procedural fairness, and all complaints received will be considered.

If there’s a case, for instance, when the correctional centre has already completed a review process that meets the commitment to that administrative and procedural fairness, this provision allows the ISO to concur with that existing review rather than conduct an additional review. But to be clear, all complaints are reviewed, and those principles of procedural and administrative fairness are very important to ensure that there is that public trust.

In the event of a complaint or a concern around the fairness of the process, individuals have different options in terms of recourse — whether that’s judicial review, the Office of the Ombudsperson or the Human Rights Tribunal.

Macklin McCall: Why remove the requirement for written complaints?

Hon. Nina Krieger: This addresses possible concerns with accessibility and allows complaints to also be made not only just in writing but also verbally by phone, for instance.

Macklin McCall: My question for the minister is: how will the director of ISO reliably document and process verbal and informal complaints?

Hon. Nina Krieger: The ISO already uses a robust tracking system and case management system. Any verbal complaints will be documented within that system by the inspector.

Jeremy Valeriote: Subsection (b) changing “must” to “may,” from our point of view, seems to remove some accountability for the director in conducting investigations.

Can the minister describe the reasoning for this change and what measures are being taken to ensure accountability for the director in responding to and conducting investigations?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Asked and answered.

Clauses 31 to 33 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Nina Krieger: I would like to thank my colleagues for their questions and the discussion of their proposed amendments.

I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 4:50 p.m.

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 4:58 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Mining and Critical Minerals

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals.

On Vote 40: ministry operations, $57,304,000.

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

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Yes, I do. Once again, thank you, hon. Chair. Thanks to, of course, my critic and other members who are going to listen to this whole debate.

[5:00 p.m.]

I would like to start by acknowledging that we are all here today on the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking People, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

I’m joined today by staff from the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals, my dedicated team, whose expertise and hard work have been crucial in navigating important and difficult decisions that are vital to our goal of ensuring that British Columbia has a thriving mining sector. Please join me in welcoming.

With me is Nate Amann-Blake, deputy minister here, and I have Kendra Johnston, assistant deputy minister, mines competitiveness and authorization division. We have Derek Hughson, executive director, mines health, safety and enforcement division. I have Tania Demchuk, on this side, assistant deputy minister, strategic and Indigenous partnership division; and Ranbir Parmar, executive financial officer and assistant deputy minister.

I want to say thanks to them, to begin with, for their exceptional work in the mining sector to move the major mining projects forward and, of course, streamlining the permitting process to make this province the best place to invest in the country.

Since becoming Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals, I have met with many mining companies, unions, workers and First Nations leaders. From these conversations, four core priorities have consistently emerged as essential to the success of British Columbia’s mineral exploration and mining sector: economic opportunity and certainty, environmental sustainability, a safe and healthy work environment on minesites and reconciliation with First Nations. These priorities are interconnected and guide our work and our vision for the future of this sector.

My message has always been clear. I want the ministry to be a strong regulator and a constructive partner to the industry — helping it grow, innovate and thrive as a key contributor to our economy, in collaboration with First Nations and Indigenous Peoples across the province.

Reflecting on my first year as Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals, I have seen the vital role this sector plays in shaping the path ahead for our province. On the world stage, we’ve shown that Canada and B.C. have so much to offer, not only through our valuable resources but also through our unity, our respect for the land and our ability to build meaningful and lasting relationships.

In 2025, B.C. saw mineral exploration expenditures totalling an estimated historic high of $750.9 million. This is the highest in the province ever. We saw copper exploration expenditures outpace gold, and we saw a near-doubling of the exploration dollars spent on the hunt for critical minerals.

In addition, we also projected a mineral production value of $16.6 billion for 2025. The proposed Anglo Teck merger and its headquarters relocation to Vancouver, and Coeur Mining’s acquisition of New Gold, signal global confidence in the B.C. mining sector. When I attended a leading investment conference in Beaver Creek, Colorado, last year, B.C. was consistently described as a tier 1 jurisdiction, a recognition earned through years of steady progress.

Looking ahead, we will continue to listen, collaborate and work hard to secure B.C.’s position as one of the world’s leading mining jurisdictions while building a strong, more resilient future for all British Columbians.

I also want to take a moment to say how proud I am that the mining industry continues to be one of the safest heavy industries in B.C. It owes its success to the cooperative efforts of mine employers, employees, associations, unions and regulators.

[5:05 p.m.]

Our ministry’s regulatory approach helps to protect workers’ health and safety and provides for the protection and reclamation of land and watercourses affected by mines. We will build upon this crucial work by continually improving regulatory practices and ensuring that the sector operates with the utmost safety, ethics and environmental responsibility.

I know that many people deeply committed to mining sector have consistently raised concerns regarding permitting timelines. If there’s one thing I have heard from the sector for a long time, that is the stability and certainty in the permitting timelines.

I’m pleased to say that our ministry is implementing robust solutions to those concerns. British Columbia is the first jurisdiction in Canada to establish fixed permitting timelines for the mineral exploration sector. Beginning this month, on April 1, exploration permits will be processed within 40 to 140 days. That’s the limit, depending on the complexity of the proposed activity.

We also committed an additional $3 million budget for resources to support the permitting authorization and continued improvements of mineral claims consultation framework.

Mineral explorers play a critical role in enabling new mines and new opportunities. It is exploration work that finds, proves and develops projects of the future. Every major mine starts with exploration, and that’s why it’s important for us to continue refining our regulatory framework, ensuring we provide a clear, efficient path for industry to grow and thrive.

It has been one year since my last estimates speech. During that time, we have made significant progress and delivered positive announcements, highlighting key milestones in the mining sector. We successfully approved permits for six major mining projects, three of which were identified as priority projects in 2024 by the Premier. These numbers speak for themselves. Our industry is growing and thriving, bringing with it more jobs, greater stability, increased benefits for local communities and strong investor confidence.

These are the mining projects helping shape British Columbia’s future.

The Highland Valley Copper mine expansion. This is the biggest mine we have in the country that produces copper. One of our priority projects, it received its environmental assessment certificate and all required permits to expand. Subsequently, Teck Resources, the company, approved an investment of up to $2.3 billion to extend the mine’s life by nearly 18 years, creating 2,900 construction jobs and maintaining the operation workforce of 1,500.

The Mount Milligan copper-gold mine extension near Fort St. James is another priority project we have. The mine expansion will bring a projected capital expenditure of $400 million and will support the existing 1,000 jobs, extending the life of the mine operation to 2045. This project was permitted in just nine months, under the same robust regulations that apply to all mining projects.

The Eskay Creek mine, reopening a historical underground as a new open-pit gold-silver mine near Stewart, B.C. It is anticipated that the project will create approximately 950 construction jobs and more than 770 jobs during operation. The mine involves a projected capital expenditure of $713 million, as estimated during the environmental assessment, and is expected to generate approximately $1.1 billion in provincial revenues.

[5:10 p.m.]

The Copper Mountain mine New Ingerbelle expansion near Princeton will extend the life of the operation by 12 years, supporting approximately 770 jobs, with most workers living in the local community. Project review includes engagement with First Nations, local government and technical regulators.

The Mount Polley mine expansion falls within the existing mine boundaries and includes a deepening pit and expanding within the mine area. Mount Polley currently supports about 340 direct jobs and 370 indirect jobs and contributes about $170 million annually to B.C.’s GDP.

The Quintette mine, a seal-making coal mine near Tumbler Ridge, owned by Conuma Resources, is approved for a full restart of operations. Conuma is a major employer in Tumbler Ridge in the northeast, an area in need of predictable and well-paying jobs. At full operational capacity, the Quintette mine is expected to employ 400 workers.

Additionally, the inclusion of the Red Chris mine expansion and the critical mineral and conservation corridor initiative on the federal priority project list is an important recognition of the significance of B.C.’s critical mineral sector to Canada’s and British Columbia’s future.

I believe that these successes serve as clear evidence that when this government sets a goal, we remain determined to achieve those objectives.

I also want to speak about the importance of working together with First Nations. I want to make it absolutely clear. We believe that true success lies in partnership, and we acknowledge the crucial role that First Nations have in B.C.’s mineral exploration mining sector and its contributions.

The mining industry in British Columbia is a leader in working collaboratively with First Nations partners. Partnership with the First Nations helps strengthen projects and supports ongoing commitments to safety, sustainability and responsible practice. The province supports partnership frameworks between nations and companies like those between the Tāłtān and Skeena Resources, Eskay Creek, Newmont and Red Chris mine.

B.C. has signed two consent-based agreements with the Tāłtān central government under section 7 of the Declaration Act for the environmental assessment of the Eskay Creek mine and the Red Chris mine.

The province and Simpcw First Nation have started negotiations on a consent-based decision-making agreement for coordinated and efficient assessment of the proposed Yellowhead copper mine project in Simpcw territory.

Additionally, last year our government provided $5 million to the Tāłtān and Nisga’a nations in their move to buy the Stewart Bulk Terminals. This is economic revitalization and reconciliation at work.

These partnerships are common at mines and projects across B.C., and they are proof that reconciliation and resource development can advance together, creating prosperity that is shared, stable and sustainable.

Now more than ever our economy needs to adapt to new realities through expedited permitting, to make sure that our natural resource sector is competitive. On that front, we have already reduced permitting timelines for the major mine application review process by 35 percent.

Investment dollars in mineral resource development are up 50 percent over the ten-year average and are the second highest in ten years.

[5:15 p.m.]

Mining provides well-paying, family-supporting jobs with an average annual salary of $130,000 and careers like heavy-equipment operator, geological engineer, health and safety specialist and more.

Total mineral export value has increased by 27 percent, from around $12 billion in 2017 to around $15 billion in 2025. That is something that everyone in British Columbia can be extremely proud of as we turn to face the challenges of the future.

The Chair: I now recognize the member for Prince George–Mackenzie.

Would you like to make any opening remarks?

Kiel Giddens: Yes. Thank you very much for the opportunity, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the minister for his opening remarks.

I will be fulfilling some of the duties of debate on the estimates for the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals in place of the Mining critic. We’re all praying for his good health as he’s recovering. He’s an important member of our team, and we look forward to having him back in this chair doing this very work very soon.

Today I’ll do my best to cover this, along with the member for Kelowna-Mission. The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke will be asking some questions, and, I believe, the member for Prince George–North Cariboo as well.

I come from a mining family though. My mom was actually born in Cassiar, so a long history, certainly. My grandpa was a heavy-duty mechanic up there. He worked at Endako, spent some time in the Elk Valley working there in the coal mines and then eventually ended up at Similco, now Copper Mountain, in Princeton. So moved around with mining.

I, myself, worked in the industry as well. Early in my career, I worked at Highland Valley Copper. My brother works there to this day, as well as two of my cousins. Appreciate the minister’s comments on the importance of that largest operating mine, actually, in North America. The expansion of that is important for B.C.’s economy as a whole.

This ministry is absolutely critical for B.C.’s overall GDP. When we look at the provincial budget, the projected mining revenue was at $191 million this year, with a forecast of growing that to $314 million by ’28-29. It’s important from a provincial revenue perspective, but it’s also the jobs that come along with that, so it is critical that we get this right. I think we can move beyond that from a revenue perspective and beyond that from a growth perspective if we can get the conditions right for certainty in this province.

All of this is in the context of a provincial budget with an over $13 billion deficit this year, so the work of this ministry…. If we’re ever going to get out of a structural deficit in this province, we need B.C.’s mining resources to be a part of that equation to get back to balance, to get back to really leading in Canada.

As the minister said, the tier 1 resources that we have here, the tier 1 sector…. We should be, absolutely, leading the country in so many areas, because we are blessed with the natural resources that we have here — critical minerals. Whether that’s in the northwest, whether it’s the coal mines in the southeast and the northeast of the province, whether it’s everything in between…. It’s very important.

I have, in my riding of Prince George–Mackenzie, workers that go every day up to Tumbler Ridge to work at Conuma. I have people that go every day to Mount Milligan. And I have several projects proposed in my riding, greenfield, that if we could get to an actual operating mine, I think there are significant opportunities. There’s a lot at stake here.

What we’ve seen, I think, a lot in this province is a discussion around certainty. We will be getting into some of those questions about the section 7 agreements and also about the DRIPA framework overall and what it means for certainty for the mining sector.

[5:20 p.m.]

We will be asking questions about permitting and what we’re seeing. Obviously, we want to see those set permit timelines, but I think the actual results are what matter.

We have a number of questions on the mineral claims consultation framework and where the government plans to go with the Mineral Tenure Act, as well as the importance of making sure that we have a safe industry for both those workers that are there and, of course, the public as well.

With that, I will get into just opening up the questions.

The minister provided quite a detailed summary in his opening remarks. But I’m wondering if, just to start out, a basic question…. Could the minister begin by outlining the ministry’s total voted budget that has just been asked for and compare it to the previous year’s budget, with any statutory spending?

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for Prince George–Mackenzie. I also would like to probably add to the words about the critic from Kootenay-Rockies. I have had the opportunity to speak to him, and I wish him well and a fast recovery. My best wishes for him to come back to this House.

The question about the changes. The changes we have made in this budget, the significant changes…. One is that we have a $2.901 million savings due to expenditure management, so that’s the saving fees.

Then on the expenditure side, we have a $1.978 million, so roughly about $2 million, increase to support resources for the mineral claims consultation framework. We have also a $989,000, so around $1 million, increase to support the regional permitting process.

[5:25 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister for the well wishes for the member for Kootenay-Rockies.

Thank you for the answers. Given that mining’s position in the government’s Look West economic strategy…. There was certainly, within that, less of a focus on forestry, and that’s something that’s in a serious decline right now. Mining really does need to pick up a lot of that within the strategy. But really, the estimates do reflect an overall reduction of the ministry’s budget, approximately $13 million.

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

Can the minister explain how the ministry is expected to streamline approvals and grow the mining sector while operating on a reduced fiscal envelope compared to the previous year?

Hon. Jagrup Brar: I want to say that we are deeply committed when it comes to providing that certainty and stability to the industry when it comes to the permitting process. As I said in my opening remarks, if there’s one thing the industry has been asking for, for a long time, that is the stability and certainty of the permitting process to provide that certainty to bring more investment to the province.

So first of all, I want to say that the $3 million, which I said is committed, is new resources for streamlining the permitting process. That is what we call one of the fixed timelines for the notice of work.

The $1 million will go to the regional permitting process to make sure we implement that fixed timeline, which we announced at the roundup in January. So that’s $1 million.

And $2 million will be…. That money is allocated for the improvements when it comes to the mineral claims consultation framework. That’s the first step in the mining sector where people go out and actually do the exploration work.

[5:30 p.m.]

The budget…. As the member said, I just want to clarify. Last year’s budget was $57.5 million, and this year’s budget is $57.3 million. That is not a difference of $13 million. So last year’s budget was $57.5 million; this year is $57.3 million.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister. So essentially, the budget is flat. I understand, certainly, the $3 million. I was at the AME Roundup when the Premier did announce the funding for mineral exploration permitting there.

Just within that, I appreciate that the minister broke down the $1 million and the $2 million. I think that was quite helpful to understand.

Since there’s a hiring freeze right now, I’m wondering how those specific positions are being filled. What are the requirements for these specific positions to make sure that that work is carried out effectively? Did they require experience in the field, or are they open to all of government, regardless of the experience that they might have in the field? Just seeing what the staffing makeup is going to look like there.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: As I said earlier, Member, we have $2.9 million savings within the budget from other parts.

We are investing that money to hire new people to streamline the permitting process for two things. One is the mineral claims consultation framework, which is the first step. The second one is the notice of work.

We worked very closely with the Association for Mineral Exploration team. It was their demand that, of course, they would like to see more resources for the permitting process. Working with them, we were able to find $3 million. And $2 million out of that will go to streamline the mineral claims consultation framework, and $1 million will go to the regional permitting process to improve the notice of work.

All together, I can tell the member that there will be 17 new staff members to support the mineral claims consultation framework, and there will be seven new staff members to support the regional permitting process, which we call the notice-of-work permit. That will be done in that way.

We are right now hiring the staff members as we speak to make sure we start this work as quickly as possible.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate that breakdown from the minister, the 17 for the MCCF and seven for the regional.

I think, maybe, it would be helpful to know a little bit more about the experience and qualifications for that, given that it is a specialized work to be effective. Obviously, you want a competitive process and merit-based hiring in here, but we want that to be the right skill set — people with that field experience, especially for some of that MCCF work in particular. I think that is really needed to make sure that they’re maximizing this $2 million here.

With that, maybe if the minister has any comments, I would appreciate that.

Also, if the minister could break down where the $2.9 million of savings is coming from, I guess. Obviously, that was something that the ministry worked hard on — to try to find that. So where is that coming from? Are some of the savings there going…? They’re obviously going directly to where we found this $3 million for what we’re talking about.

Anyway, if the minister could answer that, that would be appreciated.

[5:40 p.m. - 5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: The first thing, the question the member raised…. I would like to say, when it comes to savings, most of the savings in the ministry came from travel, contracts and office expenses. That’s where most of the savings come from, and that’s almost to $1.818 million. And then we also review every vacancy that becomes vacant. If that is non-critical, we look at that and if there’s any saving on that one.

The second thing I want to clarify…. We have had hiring restrictions in place for non-critical positions for over one year. Not for everything — non-critical. But this one…. We agree with the AME, and AME agreed to support the hiring before we made the decision.

When it comes to experience, we are building a team with experience in consultation, statutory decision–making and mineral exploration and natural resources management. Those are the key skills. Of course, there are others, but those are the key skills that we look at when we hire new people to make sure these new hires are up to speed as soon as they come and join the job, because this is a very important job.

We are deeply committed to making sure the permitting process that we promised, which is the fixed timelines — we achieve that as quickly as possible.

Kiel Giddens: Appreciate the answer.

I think it is important to make sure that those positions do have the skills that the minister mentioned, particularly on the statutory decision–makers. I think from a governance perspective and how those positions are filled, empowering those individuals, making sure that they’re qualified to do the work and actually empowering them to make those decisions, is very important. I know that the ministry knows that well.

Just maybe another follow-up question. We’ve been talking about a specific set of workforce as well as the savings, but maybe if the minister could just provide an update on the total approved FTE complement within the ministry compared to last year.

Also, since we’re talking about it, to just note how many positions are currently vacant.

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Last year’s head count was 383, and this year’s head count, to date, is 371. Now there’s a reduction of 12.

[5:55 p.m.]

The reasons for that. One, we’re not hiring non-critical positions because there’s a hiring freeze.

Am I correct? We are only hiring critical positions.

The second one is that job action for last year influenced the number — because of a job action.

Gavin Dew: Budget 2026 reduces funding for responsible mining and competitiveness by about $1.6 million. Can the minister elaborate on how this reduction aligns with the stated goal of attracting new mining investment and tell us about what impacts, if any, this will have in terms of investment attraction, regulatory support or project advancement?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: The budget for the responsible mining and competitive division is the biggest one. It’s $30.4 million. It’s more than half of the ministry. So this is the biggest division we have. The biggest saving, when we were looking for savings, came from this department, particularly related to travel, contracts, office expenses and not hiring non-critical positions.

I want to reiterate that we are deeply committed when it comes to streamlining the permitting process. As I said earlier, the MCCF is a new system, and it came as a result of the B.C. Supreme Court ruling. This is a completely new system, and we are now committed to make it work, working with AME.

We have committed resources — that’s about $2 million — and hired 17 new people. Similarly, we announced last January at the roundup that we will have fixed permitting timelines for the notice of work, and we now have additional resources of $1 million to hire seven more people.

So we are deeply committed when it comes to streamlining the permitting process and implementing the fixed timelines.

Gavin Dew: We hear constantly from the mineral exploration sector about the “valley of death” between exploration and mine development. A company may have a promising and proven deposit, but before it can become a mine, it has to raise enormous amounts of capital for feasibility work, engineering, environmental studies, consultation, permitting and project design. That, of course, is exactly where projects can stall out.

Across Canada, the sector has called for a better alignment between exploration incentives and the realities of bringing a project through that difficult middle stage. So at a federal level, obviously, the CEE would be the primary aspect there.

Obviously, it’s not enough just to discover resources. We need a policy and tax framework that helps serious projects to move from discovery to development. Why, then, has this government gone against the advice and advocacy of industry and not aligned the mineral exploration tax credit to close the gap between exploration and mine development?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question. B.C. offers the mining exploration tax credit and the mining flow-through share tax credit programs, which are among the largest tax credits for mineral exploration in Canada.

B.C.’s mineral exploration incentive program includes the B.C. mining flow-through share tax credit and the B.C. mining exploration tax credit. Both programs are designed to encourage investment in mineral exploration, which is a critical part of discovering new mineral deposits that can lead to the development of new mines throughout the province.

The cost of these incentives to government is a fraction of the mineral exploration investment dollars driven by these programs, and this investment is an important economic driver in rural B.C.

The mining flow-through share tax credit and the mining exploration tax credit program are highly competitive nationally and were made permanent in 2019, as recommended by the Mining Jobs Task Force.

We also have a critical minerals office. The office is dedicated to supporting the advancement of basic critical mineral projects across the value chain. The critical minerals office delivers tailored services to select advanced-stage projects to accelerate readiness for environmental assessment and other regulatory processes through early coordination.

All these efforts we are making, all the programs we have put in place…. The outcome of these program is very clear. Last year, in 2025, we had the highest mineral expenditure in the history of this province — $751 million. Highest we were able to….

The people want to invest in B.C. because we have created conditions when it comes to the permitting process. We are developing a responsible, sustainable and globally competitive mining sector.

[6:10 p.m.]

We have introduced fixed timelines for the notice of work, which we are going to start implementing next week. We are the only province to do that.

We are hiring 17 new people for the mineral claims consultation framework to make sure we deliver the permits on that one on time.

We have reduced the major mine application permitting timeline by 35 percent by eliminating what we call the duplication and also introducing a single application process.

That’s why B.C. is very competitive, and that’s why we were able to approve six major mining projects from last December to this January. Every second month a new project was approved. These projects will bring in over $5 billion investment, and that will, of course, create thousands of jobs during the construction phase and thousands of long-term jobs in the mining sector.

Gavin Dew: The minister has now delivered the stock messaging, and I can assume we don’t need to hear that on every answer. But there was not an answer to the question that I asked. The question that I asked was about the mineral exploration tax credit.

The minister rightly pointed out that as it relates to the METC and the cost to government on the exploration phase of things being a fraction of the investment triggered….

The question that I am asking, again, is…. Industry is looking to see the METC expanded to cover more of mine development. Specifically, we have instances like the Seabridge Gold case, a ruling for which came down in March of 2025 and ruled that economic viability work could be construed as being covered by the METC. I’ll just circle back on the question again, and, hopefully, I can get an actual answer to the question, respectfully.

Can the minister elaborate on what, if any, work the ministry has done in response to the Seabridge ruling of March 2025, and can he elaborate on any conversations, any planning, any consideration that is underway to expand the scope of the METC to further along the development process of mines?

As he has pointed out in his previous answer, his message was that the cost to government of the METC is comparatively small relative to the quantum of investment triggered by or with the support of the METC. What I’m really looking for is a concrete, specific, non-generic, non-messaging answer about what the state of the conversation is around expanding what the METC covers to move further along the mine development process.

[6:15 p.m. - 6:20 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question. Alignment with the federal government, which has set the eligibility criteria for the mineral exploration tax credit, is important. We have engaged with AME, and we continue to discuss with Canada on the eligibility criteria.

In the end, I want to inform the member that the tax policy is the responsibility of the Finance Minister, both federally and provincially.

[6:25 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: Let’s talk about the strategic investment fund.

During budget debate, the Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals stated that he was “excited to work with the Minister of Jobs and Economic Growth and the mining sector to see this money grow the sector and benefit the province.”

Is the minister going to be involved with where money from the strategic investment fund is allocated, or are those dollars allocated at the sole discretion of the Minister of Jobs and Economic Growth?

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Interesting questions.

I’m directly engaged with the minister responsible, and my staff is working with the staff of the Ministry of Jobs and Economic Growth to design the program at this stage. My interest, of course, is that the strategic investment fund should benefit the mining sector.

The Chair: Member for Kelowna-Mission.

Gavin Dew: Thank you, and welcome to the chair. It feels like hours since you were last in the chair of a meeting I was at.

Okay, let’s go back to tax policy. Recently in the budget, the government brought in a significant expansion of the scope of PST. It was surprising to many in the industry to see a budget that highlights the significant importance of mining and mineral exploration to the future of our province, only to suddenly see the imposition of PST on geoscience, engineering and bookkeeping services. There was, to my knowledge, no engagement whatsoever with the industry about that change and about the implications that it would create.

I want to just read into the record a couple of key stakeholder quotes on this.

From Todd Stone, the CEO of AME:

“The government has been consistent and clear in saying all the right things about the mining and mineral exploration sectors, and you have to start there. I mean, they are definitely saying a lot of the right things, but what really matters at the end of the day is the action that backs up those lofty words.

“Now, we at AME are actively engaged with government on eight or nine major files, from permitting land access issues and a range of other challenges and obstacles.

“And on some of those files, you know, we are making a bit of progress, which is why it was very, very perplexing, against the backdrop of a tremendous amount of conversation and engagement that we’ve had with government for many, many, many months leading up to the provincial budget, that there was never a single mention of a potential expansion of PST costs that would impact service providers that are required to move an exploration project forward.

“Small exploration companies really matter. They employ thousands of British Columbians in communities all over British Columbia. When you impose, with no warning, a brand-new tax, this PST expansion, onto services that are predominantly relied upon by small-cap junior mining companies, that is going to hammer their bottom line. These, again, are companies that don’t often have cash flow. It’s the nature of the business.”

Another quote, from Darcy Vis, who is the president of Tripoint Geological Services Ltd.

“Mineral exploration is a costly endeavour without any guarantee of success. As a small geoscience consulting business owner, I can see that the proposed PST changes will increase overall exploration costs not only through the tax itself but also through increased administrative overheads. With the proposed PST tax expansion, we would be forced to do less work for the same cost.

“It would also signal to the global investment community that British Columbia is not a place to receive value for investment dollar. While that may or may not be true, in an age where perception often outweighs reality, it is not what is currently needed.”

To get into the specifics of the implications of PST for the mining and mineral exploration sector, let’s get into the costs.

On a $2.5 million drill program, the geoscience cost would be about $400,000, or $8,500 in extra PST. If, and this is not clear, the definition includes drillers, that will bring costs to $1.4 million and PST of $30,000.

For a field-based exploration program of $120,000, where the costs are mostly geoscience, that’s $90,000, and PST would be about $1,900.

Two questions.

One, a very simple question. Can the minister clarify whether drillers are included in the PST expansion?

Second, what the heck was the government thinking? Why was there no consultation? Why has government allowed this to be imposed with no consultation, no warning and seemingly no engagement with a sector that it is running victory laps on, trying to prop up, while simultaneously killing the early-stage mining companies, in particular, that will be most actively hit by this?

This is an absolutely dramatic blow to small-cap junior mining companies at a time when they can ill afford it.

[6:35 p.m.]

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Can the minister clarify whether he believes that this will drive away investment or dampen investment or dampen the ability of companies to move forward?

Just to make sure that the answer is not “talk to the Minister of Finance,” can the minister clarify whether his ministry has done any work whatsoever to model the impact of this PST change on the investability of B.C., on the investment actually happening in B.C., whether they’re hearing from companies about this change, whether they’re hearing from companies that are now going to not invest in British Columbia because of this sudden dramatic and unexpected change? What has the minister done to cushion the blow of this significant impact, particularly on small-cap junior miners?

[6:40 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Budget 2026 extends the provincial sales tax to include several professional services, including engineers and geoscience, effective October 1, 2026 — I just want to make it absolutely clear to the member — with the tax applied at a rate of 30 percent of the 7 percent PST on the value of those services, resulting in an effective rate of 2.1 percent rather than the full 7 percent.

These measures reflect the government’s position that our PST base has historically been narrower than most other provinces. Broadening the base helps align B.C. with common tax practices across Canada. The expansion is also part of the province’s fiscal strategy, with the PST base expansion expected to generate additional revenue to support public services and maintain fiscal stability.

The partial inclusion rule for engineers and geoscience services was specifically designed to reduce cost impacts on capital-intensive sectors, including mining, by avoiding application of the full PST rate to these inputs. That’s the PST.

I would like to reiterate that when it comes to the mining sector…. I met with a lot of junior companies recently and, of course, the mining companies, the prospectors and all that. The one thing they have been asking for, for a long time, is stability and certainty in the permitting process, including under the previous administration, including under the B.C. Liberals. But the reality is there was no action taken for 16 years.

We are taking actions to provide that certainty and stability. That’s what brings the investment in the mining sector. We have taken actions, as I said many, many times before. We have taken actions to implement fixed permitting timelines for notice of work — the only province in the country to do that, the only province in the country to do that. And we are hiring people for that.

We have also reduced the permitting timelines for the major mines application process by 35 percent and introduced a single application process — the first province to do that. By doing all that, we see the outcome very clearly: our six major mining projects approved in roughly about 13 months. I would like to know how many projects were approved during the 16 years.

So B.C. is now the best jurisdiction in Canada and in the world to invest money. I said to you earlier that B.C. last year, in 2025, had the highest exploration expenses in the history of this province — the highest exploration expenses. That’s happening because we are creating conditions for the mining sector that nobody else could do. We have done that in the province of British Columbia.

I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:45 p.m.