Contents

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Teresa Wat.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’d like to welcome to the Legislative Assembly today members of the Vietnamese-Canadian community who are here to join us in commemoration of Journey to Freedom Day. We’ll be holding an event at noon in the Hall of Honour, and I welcome all members of the House to join us for that event.

[10:05 a.m.]

Journey to Freedom Day marks, I think, one of the greatest moments in Canadian history of my lifetime: the welcoming to Canada of Vietnamese, now Canadian, refugees in the hundreds of thousands. A decision made by the government of Canada, but supported by churches and synagogues and mosques and temples and community groups who sponsored a majority of the refugees who came. It was a great moment in Canadian history, and the contribution that those refugees have made as Canadians cannot be measured.

We are honoured to be joined by Quyn Lê, who will be speaking at the ceremony, a powerful voice of resilience, a TEDx speaker, a health care worker whose life story reflects the journey of so many Vietnamese refugees who rebuilt their lives in Canada.

We welcome everyone to join us at noon, and welcome our guests to the Legislative Assembly.

Heather Maahs: It is my pleasure today to introduce my friends Richard and Tera Procee. They are wonderful philanthropists in Chilliwack. Richard is my former colleague on the school board. Tera is currently the treasurer of the Chilliwack North riding association. They are owners of Hofstede’s Country Barn, and I am so happy and honoured to have them here.

Would the House please make them welcome.

Harwinder Sandhu: I would like to take a moment to recognize some very special guests at the precinct today from Vernon-Lumby, who are here in Victoria attending the CUPE convention.

Joining us today is my dear friend Sherry Kineshanko, who served both as an educational assistant with school district 22, and she is a councillor with the village of Lumby. She’s accompanied by Tracy Best, vice-president of CUPE, and Michelle Skillnik, president of CUPE Local 5523.

School district 22 employs dedicated educational assistants Kim Carlson, Lisa Klammer and Barb Nerling. In addition to their work supporting students, several of them also take an important role in coordinating meal programs in their schools, helping students feel supported both inside and outside the classroom. These individuals play a very important, vital role to support students and families and our communities. I want to take a moment to thank them for the work they do.

Please join me in making them feel very welcomed. They’ll be joining here later.

Rosalyn Bird: Since 1949 the National Newspaper Awards have recognized excellence in newspaper and online journalism. And for the second time in history, the Prince George Citizen, the work of one of our own, was judged to be the best by the NNA panel.

Please would the House welcome and congratulate Citizen’s managing editor, Kennedy Gordon, as he has won the Claude Ryan Award for Editorial Writing for his work in 2025.

Hon. Diana Gibson: Today in the House, we have with us Better Transit YYJ, a group that’s working to advance improved and expanded public transit across the Victoria region. The group focuses on promoting accessible, reliable, effective transit options for community members. We have Samuel Holland, Matt Lockshin, Jack Sandor and Isaiah Renaud.

These individuals aren’t just passionate about transit; they’re very well informed. They can get deep into issues of transit funding models, of transit planning, of route density. They are very informed and continuing to work across the region.

Also, Public Transit Alliance of B.C. recently launched, April 28, a coalition provincewide to work on ensuring that public transportation works for everyone across the North, the Islands, urban centres, small towns, rural and remote Indigenous communities, because transit is something we need across all of our communities.

Thank you for your work.

Kristina Loewen: It’s a pleasure to welcome my friend Nihaal Khera to the chamber this morning. He’s an incredible member of the community and quite involved in politics.

Would the House please help me make him feel welcome.

[10:10 a.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: It is absolutely my pleasure to introduce to the House this morning members of the recently re-elected Saulteau First Nation, so Chief Rudy Paquette; Coun. Ashley Barrett, who is only three days on the job but doing a spectacular one; and James Hickley.

I’m hoping the House will help me give them a very warm welcome.

Members’ Statements

Contributions of Restaurateurs
Dave and Rhonda Lindsay

Kristina Loewen: Today I rise to honour an amazing couple — two entrepreneurs, restaurant owners in my community — Dave and Rhonda Lindsay. These two have opened their doors time and time again for community events, meetings, gatherings. Whether in the name of business or fun, they consistently show up, providing two incredible venues and incredible food.

There’s more. What makes Dave and Rhonda so special and different from your average restaurateur is that they create family in their everyday work. Many of their staff, as you would imagine, are young adults and college students. On any given evening, you can pop into Train Station Pub or Mid-Town Station and see Rhonda and Dave fostering conversation, community and genuine care with their staff and customers. What I have witnessed is true and authentic mentoring and community.

Out of this environment come team members who embrace the bigger picture and often volunteer, stay late for fundraisers and go out of their way to create a space of belonging. In their own words, Station Hospitality Group was built on the belief that a restaurant should be more than a place to eat or drink. It should be a place where people gather, celebrate, feel welcome and feel connected.

On that note, I was very sad to miss the The Office trivia night this week. I’m sure my 17-year-old daughter would have won it for our table.

Dave and Rhonda are incredible advocates for their community. During the pandemic, when hospitality faced its hardest years, they found a way to give generously. They hosted a Day of Giving for health care workers, providing complimentary meals and a place to take a breath, feel appreciated and to connect with each other, knowing the community supported them.

They’re going to continue with that same spirit of giving with the Kelowna General Hospital Foundation Day of Giving campaign, where one dollar from every meal on Mondays, May to October, will be donated.

This is their quote: “Small businesses often work quietly in the background, but every day they create jobs, train young people, sponsor teams, donate to causes, host celebrations and step up when communities need support. We are proud to be part of that fabric in Kelowna.” That quote is exactly why they have the impact they do.

Guy Black Journey of Remembrance
for Korean War Veterans

Jennifer Blatherwick: I would like to talk today about Guy Black and a journey of remembrance he is making for all of us, for those who cannot walk beside him and for those who never came home.

On April 20, he left Canada for South Korea. A military historian and former reservist, he spent months preparing for this moment, training on long hills and distances for a single purpose — to ensure the sacrifices of the past are not forgotten. Over the course of a month, he will walk 625 kilometres, a distance chosen with care, echoing June 25, 1950, the day the Korean War began.

His journey will take him from Seoul to Gapyeong, then south along roads and trails to the United Nations military cemetery in Busan. He will carry only what he needs, sleeping where he can, pushing through injury and exhaustion, determined to finish what he began.

But he won’t be alone. Before he left, Guy connected with officials from the Canadian and British embassies in Seoul and a non-profit group called the United Nations Korean War Allies Association, which will help provide him with maps and materials. As he walks, he is also heard. He will receive support from city officials, Olympians and the military while he’s there in Korea.

The Battle of Kapyong remains one of the most defining moments of the Korean War. In April 1951, Australian and Canadian soldiers faced overwhelming odds. Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, just 700 strong, held a vital hill against nearly 5,000 Chinese troops. Cut off and surrounded, they endured relentless assault and brutal close combat. At one point, they even called in artillery on their own position.

Still, they held, and their stand helped save Seoul. Ten Canadians fell, including Cpl. Gerald Robert Evans, who was one of B.C.’s own. They were among the 516 Canadians who gave their lives.

Guy Black walks so we will remember, and we will never forget.

[10:15 a.m.]

Billy Barker Days

Sheldon Clare: It’s my pleasure to invite the members of this House, their friends, families, British Columbians and — why not? — the rest of the world to come visit Quesnel in the riding of Prince George–North Cariboo to celebrate the 50th annual Billy Barker Days from July 16 to 19, 2026.

For half a century, Billy Barker Days has brought residents and visitors together to celebrate the rich gold rush heritage that helped shape this region and our province. Named after the legendary prospector Billy Barker, whose strike on Williams Creek sparked prosperity across the Cariboo and spurred the formation of British Columbia, this festival has grown into one of British Columbia’s most cherished community events.

The parade in Quesnel on Saturday, July 18, at 10 a.m. will include floats, bands, vintage cars, dignitaries and local royalty as they pass through the streets of Quesnel.

LeBourdais Park will be the site of stage entertainment and carnival midway rides. The free Gloria Lazarrin Seniors Ferris Wheel Ride will form part of the fun.

Another great feature of Billy Barker Days is that this will also be the 57th annual Quesnel Rodeo, with all the Cariboo fun and hospitality that roping and racing can bring.

And if motors are more to your liking, there are also both stock car racing and Crash to Pass until one car is left.

I would like to commend the countless volunteers, organizers, local businesses and sponsors who make this event possible year after year. Their dedication ensures that traditions are preserved and that the community continues to thrive.

To commemorate the 50th anniversary of Billy Barker Days, an alumni dinner will be hosted by the society president, Shane Rawling, to celebrate all those who have made this festival such a success. I wish to acknowledge founder and first president Jess Ketchum and the founder and current mayor of Quesnel, Ron Paull, for their continued support.

Congratulations, Billy Barker Days Society in Quesnel. Here’s to 50 more years of celebrations. Yee-haw.

Car Accident and Life-Saving
Actions by Pat Curley

Janet Routledge: I would like to share the story of a local hero. Pat Curley is a lifelong Burnaby resident and a retired firefighter. He retired from the Coquitlam fire department in 2021, and ever since, he’s been enjoying a quiet life in Burnaby North.

On October 5, 2025, Pat was busy watching baseball on TV when he heard a loud noise. He went out to see what was going on. A small crowd was gathered around a car that had crashed into a large tree. Inside, behind the driver’s wheel, was a woman. She appeared elderly. She appeared unconscious. Had she lost control of the car while driving down Dundas Street? Pat could see that the airbags had deployed. The car had caught on fire, and the fire was already spreading to the tree.

The crowd of bystanders remained a safe distance away and seemed paralyzed, except for the one person who was filming what was going on. Pat quickly understood that the woman was trapped inside the car and kicked into action. Equipped with only a garden hose and without hesitating, Pat tried to rescue the motionless woman from her burning car. He soon discovered that the driver’s side door was crushed and not accessible. He was able to gain access through the passenger door, which had been pushed open from the impact of the massive tree.

Pat climbed into the smoky car, unbuckled the driver’s seatbelt and dragged her out. A bystander grabbed hold of her legs, and together they carried her to safety. The Burnaby fire department, station No. 5, soon arrived as did the RCMP and the paramedics who took the driver to hospital.

Please join me in thanking Pat Curley for his fast thinking and commitment to the preservation of human life. Once a firefighter, always a firefighter. Even in retirement, his instincts are to run towards a fire so that others can escape it.

[10:20 a.m.]

Day of Mourning for Workers
and Workplace Health and Safety

Rob Botterell: April 28 was the National Day of Mourning for workers killed or injured on the job. I want to add my thoughts to those of the member for Esquimalt-Colwood and the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, who have spoken so well in the House.

We stand with the families who have lost a loved one and co-workers who have lost a workmate due to workplace hazards. We also stand with workers who have suffered a workplace injury or disease from hazards or harmful exposures at work.

So 138 workers died in B.C. in 2025 from workplace injuries and diseases. This grim toll is unacceptable. B.C. saw 36 asbestos exposure deaths in 2025. There have been seven crane-related deaths in B.C. in the last five years. B.C. has seen growing incidents of psychological injuries from workplace violence, bullying and harassment.

We’ve also seen the concerning prevalence of illegal claim suppression. The National Day of Mourning is a reminder that we can do better. We urge this government to implement the proposed crane licensing and permitting requirements before the end of the year, and the government must fully and fairly implement the Workers Compensation Act to fight claim suppression.

While this government, I acknowledge, has taken steps to safely contain and control hazardous asbestos, more needs to be done.

We must all work together, and this government must deliver on its promise to recognize workplace health and safety as a fundamental right. Every worker has a right to refuse unsafe work. Every worker deserves to feel protected during their shift and come home safe.

Impact and Use of
Artificial Intelligence

Rohini Arora: I’m not going to start this speech by telling you what artificial intelligence is, because you already know, or at least you think you do. AI is the voice finishing your sentences, the map predicting your turns, the feed deciding what you see before you even know you want to see it. It is invisible until it isn’t.

Let’s be honest. AI is impressive. It can diagnose diseases faster than doctors in some cases, translate languages in real time and solve problems that would take humans years, sometimes centuries. It doesn’t get tired, it doesn’t forget, and it doesn’t need coffee breaks. That’s the promise.

But every promise has a shadow, because the same system that helps a doctor detect cancer can also decide whether you get hired or rejected without explanation. The same intelligence that connects the world can quietly divide it, feeding each of us a slightly different version of reality until truth becomes negotiable.

Then there’s the uncomfortable question: if AI can do what we do — only faster, cheaper and at scale — where does that leave us? Not obsolete, but not unchanged. Jobs will shift. Skills will evolve. And some doors will close before we even realize they existed.

But here’s the part we don’t talk about enough. AI doesn’t have ambition. It doesn’t have ethics. It doesn’t have a sense of meaning. Those things still belong to us. So maybe the real question isn’t: is AI good or bad? Maybe the question is: what do we choose to do with something this powerful? Because AI is not the author of our future; it’s the amplifier. Whatever we do — curious or careless, fair or biased, thoughtful or reactive — AI will make us more of it.

If you’re looking for a conclusion, here it is. The story of AI is not really about machines becoming intelligent. It’s about humans deciding what kind of intelligence we value and whether we’re ready to live with the answer.

Oral Questions

Availability of Beds at Kelowna
General Hospital

Gavin Dew: Interior Health is downplaying the number of hallway beds at Kelowna General Hospital in the media, and the Minister of Health has, so far, refused to just give us a straight answer. Multiple front-line workers tell me they’ve counted up to 50 hallway bed positions with their own two eyes.

Since we already know the numbers, will the minister stop dodging and put it on the record today? What is the peak number of hallway beds at KGH in the past year?

[10:25 a.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. I certainly will be the first to acknowledge that there are pressures throughout the health care system that have resulted in decisions where hallways and other spaces in hospitals are being used to deliver the care that British Columbians depend on.

Looking at the flow and access in hospitals and doing everything we can to move people quickly out of emergency, to move people appropriately from acute care beds into other settings is a focus of Interior Health and, indeed, all health authorities across the system.

We are working to reduce the pressure on emergency rooms by adding staff; by providing alternative pathways for people to reach care — through UPCCs, for example; by encouraging people to be able to access other forms of care, like expanded scope of practice in pharmacy; as well as doing everything we can to build the primary care workforce to do the things that keep people out of emergency rooms, that help keep people out of hospitals.

We’re going to continue with the investments that we’re making through the Ministry of Infrastructure into health care facilities across British Columbia to continue to reduce that pressure, reduce the need for hallway medicine and make sure that British Columbians get the care that they need.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Gavin Dew: The minister has the numbers, but she won’t just say them. And the spin doesn’t stop with hallway beds.

Interior Health is also trying to fudge the numbers by telling media that the unused space on the fifth and sixth floors of Centennial tower represents only 3 percent of the entire Kelowna General Hospital campus. The unused space sitting behind lock and key is 33,000 square feet. That’s almost 10 percent of Centennial tower. It’s enough space for 55 beds.

Why won’t this minister just be honest with the public? Tell people how many hallway beds there are, how much space is sitting empty and when she’s finally going to do something about it.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Again, the Interior Health and other health authorities are always looking at their capital planning processes, working closely with the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Ministry of Health to understand what the needs are and where the pressures are. That includes investing billions of dollars in new hospitals, in renovated hospitals — in communities across British Columbia, including Dawson Creek, Fort St. James, Terrace, Prince George — and a brand-new hospital in Surrey, where the needs are also acute.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Interior Health will continue with their capital planning processes. Interior Health will continue to build out diagnostic capacity, new surgical suites and expanding where they can and where it is necessary. That focus is not going to change while we continue to add more health care workers to our system — more primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, nurses, allied health professionals, all of the people that our entire system needs to be strong, to be resilient and to take care of British Columbians.

Long-Term-Care Waiting Times
for Seniors

Brennan Day: I note the minister did not talk about Burnaby in that statement. Yesterday it took the minister over 25 minutes and two attempts to answer a basic question, so we’ll try again.

To the minister: how many British Columbians are on the long-term wait-list today in British Columbia?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Yesterday we took a lot of time in estimates to canvass different topics, and I know the member understands there’s a routine to the way estimates work. Question period is a little bit different, as the member knows.

We understand there is a growing need amongst seniors to ensure that long-term care, assisted living and other forms of care are there for them. It’s incredibly vital that we do that because we know the proportion of seniors is growing in our province, as our population not only grows in size but also in age.

That’s why our government is investing in the full continuum of seniors care, from programs that help people stay at home, like our $304 million investment with United Way to provide Better at Home programs, providing the kinds of assistance that seniors need, as well as continued investments in community care, providing the clinical needs that residents have, that seniors have, to ensure that they are there.

We are going to continue building out our long-term-care capacity. We have canvassed this many times in this House…

Interjection.

[10:30 a.m.]

The Speaker: Shhh, Member. Member for Delta South.

Hon. Josie Osborne: …because we know just how important it is. Health authorities will continue to work with clients, with groups, with people, with families to ensure that seniors can be placed in long-term care when it’s needed.

The Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

Brennan Day: Still no answers out of this ministry. Just spin.

The minister finally acknowledged yesterday that 7,829 seniors are now on a long-term-care wait-list in British Columbia. At the same time, this government has closed or cancelled six long-term-care projects across this province. Average wait times, according to the minister yesterday, now exceed a year. In Vancouver Coastal Health, the maximum wait time? It’s 2,800 days — almost eight years. Seniors are not going to live long enough to seek care under this NDP government.

Does the minister believe it is acceptable to British Columbian seniors to wait eight years for a long-term-care space in this province?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Of course it’s not acceptable for anybody to have to wait that long. That is why we work with urgency on seniors care. That is why we are doing the work…

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member.

Hon. Josie Osborne: …through the Ministry of Infrastructure to bring down the cost of long-term care, to be able to expand services in homes for seniors and to do everything we can to bring down those wait-lists.

We had a choice when we put this year’s budget together, and the member knows we are protecting services. We are doing the work that is needed to avoid the deep cuts to health care, to seniors care that we know members on the other side would make if they had the chance.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Come to order.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Seniors need more health services, not less. When the opposition was in power, they fired health care workers.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: We brought them back, and we have restored wages. We have taken extraordinary steps to stabilize the workforce, to grow the workforce in seniors care, in long-term care particularly. We are not going to stop, because we know that’s what seniors deserve.

Call for Ban on Algorithmic Pricing

Rob Botterell: Manitoba’s NDP government has introduced legislation to ban algorithmic pricing, where companies charge different people different prices for the same product. Here in British Columbia, there are no clear rules preventing this kind of predatory individualized pricing.

We’ve seen this story play out before — companies or corporations quietly extracting more from consumers or taxpayers while governments bend the knee or fail to act fast enough.

My question to the Premier: will this government commit to banning algorithmic pricing, yes or no?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I want to thank the member for the question. We have more in common than just our green ties today. We, too, have concerns around this type of technology being used in negative ways.

I can assure the member and the members of this House that we have met with federal government officials as well as Manitoba officials that are leading this work to both understand what work they’re doing and where we can learn from the work and also to do it from a national scale.

It’s critically important that, as the federal government right now is looking at regulations around AI and protecting the public, we have one system across the country. We can’t have a system where on one side we’re trying to cut red tape and streamline and create efficiencies and remove interprovincial trade barriers and on the other side create one rule in one province and create different rules in other provinces. If we want to have a strong economy and a strong country and protect our citizens, we have to do it together. That’s the work we’re committed to.

I want to assure the member. If we don’t get action from the federal government, we are prepared to take action here in British Columbia.

The Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

Oil and Gas Industry
Profits and Taxation

Rob Botterell: At a time when people in British Columbia are struggling with costs, corporations are pushing regular British Columbians into a cycle of poverty. Just look at oil and gas profits. Global LNG prices have surged 80 percent since the Iran war started, and despite our feeble effort at keeping gas prices low, British Columbians are still paying more.

[10:35 a.m.]

While our Premier courts big oil and gas, other jurisdictions are acting. The United Kingdom has a windfall tax on oil and gas companies, generating billions in public revenue.

My question to the Premier: will this government implement a windfall tax, yes or no?

Hon. Adrian Dix: That was a very, I think, admirable supplementary question to the first question on AI.

The impact of gasoline prices on consumers here is profound, and the impact of the war between Israel and the United States and Iran on the world is profound. Every jurisdiction. You see this across jurisdictions in the world. There are jurisdictions that have had to declare a national holiday on Wednesday because of the lack of supply. There are other jurisdictions that have had to reduce the school week. These are significant circumstances around the world.

Our focus here…. And you see this in the way we’ve managed B.C. Hydro, in the effort we’re making to give people options here in British Columbia with respect to the legislation that has passed the House with respect to EVs. We continue to take action to ensure that British Columbians have insulation, reducing their costs, and we’re going to continue to do that.

As well, these circumstances show why it is important not to be just selling our natural gas in the United States and in Canada but seeking markets around the world that will increase its value, increase the royalties paid here, increase the support we have for health and education, and we’re going to continue to do that while continuing to act to protect affordability here in B.C.

The Speaker: Member. Just a general caution to all members. When the first question is asked…. The supplemental question should be related to the main question, not entirely a new question.

Violent Incidents and Call for
Special Committee to Review
Mental Health Care System

Elenore Sturko: In a ten-month period, 19 innocent people were murdered. Eleven people murdered at the Lapu-Lapu Day street festival last April. Eight murdered in Tumbler Ridge in February.

The suspects in both horrific events had a history of involvement with B.C.’s mental health system. Mental health industry experts say systemwide changes are needed to respond to the structural gaps revealed by these cases and to prevent future tragedies. CMHA CEO Jonny Morris said: “I think those tragic incidents can illuminate, within the mental health system and also within mental health law, critical areas for investigation, review and improvement.”

Will the Premier commit to a review of B.C.’s mental health care system today?

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

What took place, both after the Lapu-Lapu festival and in Tumbler Ridge, were absolutely tragic events. I know the hearts of every member of this House go out to those people who have been impacted, their families, their friends, their communities. It’s shaken everybody.

It’s vitally important that we get the answers to the questions that families have, and we have made that commitment, with investigations underway. For example, in Tumbler Ridge, if there’s a need after the coroner’s inquest and those investigations are completed, a public inquiry takes place to get those answers for families.

We know there is work to do in building out our mental health care system, and that is the work that this government is focused on through every aspect of care, from education and early intervention, prevention, to helping people through the problems that they face.

It’s why we’ve made record investments in a mental health system. It’s why we’ve also committed to review the Mental Health Act to understand how it can be modernized and improved to improve care for people and to help their families too.

Our government remains committed to this work. We’re going to continue to do it.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

[10:40 a.m.]

Elenore Sturko: It’s not just our Mental Health Act. It is our system that we need to examine.

In April of 2025, sources told Postmedia that a family member had contacted a hospital psychiatric ward just hours before the Lapu-Lapu attack because of Adam Lo’s deteriorating mental health. He was believed to be suffering from delusions and paranoia, and it’s not known what, if any, action was taken.

This government has never made it clear to British Columbians if an internal review was conducted. So far, there is no evidence that this government has critically reflected on where improvement is needed in the mental health care system.

My question is: will the Premier commit today to convening a special legislative committee on mental health care to do a review of the system and make critical recommendations?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I appreciate the member’s question. I know just how committed she is to this and how passionate she is about this cause, and with good reason. We need to continually monitor, evaluate and improve our health care system, and that includes the mental health care system.

When we formed government, we had many gaps. We had a system that didn’t work together. We had a system that didn’t provide continuous care for people. That is what we have been focused on building. From establishing….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: From bringing multiple services together where youth can safely access services, like the Foundry, and building this system out throughout British Columbia; by identifying children and youth at risk in the school system and providing wraparound care through integrated child and youth teams; by introducing the early psychosis intervention program, a program that helps clinicians identify those very, very first stages where intervention can make all the difference — these are the programs that our government is building, is investing in.

We are going to continue to monitor them, evaluate their success and continue to fill those gaps in so that we can do everything to prevent tragedies like the ones we speak of today from ever happening again.

Government Policy on Federal
Firearms Compensation Program

Tara Armstrong: Mark Carney’s plan to confiscate guns from Canadian citizens is now entering its second phase. He has asked the provinces to donate their own police resources to help him disarm innocent farmers, hunters and sportsmen. It’s an outrageous request. That’s why Premiers from Ontario, the Yukon, Newfoundland, Saskatchewan and Alberta all said no. Even Manitoba’s NDP Premier said no.

But our Premier said yes. He wants to help disarm innocent Canadians rather than locking up criminals, and the people of our province deserve to know why.

My question is this. Will the Premier announce today that British Columbia will terminate all support for Mark Carney’s authoritarian plan to disarm innocent Canadians?

Hon. Nina Krieger: The assault-style firearms compensation program is a federal initiative which is designed, funded and administered by Public Safety Canada. Since the announcement of the program, my ministry has worked continuously with Public Safety Canada and been advised by the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police to promote consistent delivery across the province in a manner that does not interfere with our front-line policing and public safety priorities in any way.

We have shared the concerns of our policing partners, specifically the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, with Public Safety Canada. Now the program’s administration has been streamlined significantly. We have left it up to independent police departments to determine whether or how they participate in that program for compensation by the federal government.

The RCMP will continue to support the administration of the program and oversee the collection of firearms in the province they are responsible for.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Tara Armstrong: Mark Carney’s scheme to disarm our own people isn’t just an ominous act of un-Canadian tyranny. It’s also an absurd waste of money. The estimated cost of the program is up to $6 billion, at an average cost of about $20,000 for each firearm taken.

[10:45 a.m.]

Provincial cooperation could cost taxpayers $200 million to $300 million. How many Surrey gangsters could $200 million deport? Surrey could be safe again.

My question for the Premier: why would he rather disarm innocent Canadians than rid Surrey streets of murderous gangsters?

Hon. Nina Krieger: I don’t know quite where to start with that question. But to reiterate, police departments are independent in their decisions, whether or if and how they participate in the federal buyback program.

We’ve made it clear that there is to be no risk to front-line policing or public safety in general. I think the member knows about our commitment to safety across British Columbia, and in Surrey particularly, through our work of the B.C. extortion task force, our anti-gang initiatives.

I’m pleased to talk about that in another moment, in another question, but I’m not quite sure what the member is getting at with this line of thought.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh, Member. Wait for your turn.

Government Handling of Process for
Ksi Lisims LNG Project

Claire Rattée: The Ksi Lisims LNG project has been called a nation-building opportunity that will transform Canada’s energy future — billions in investment, thousands of jobs, a generational opportunity for the North, co-owned by the Nisg̱a’a Nation. But today this project is tied up in court, not because of the project itself but because this government failed to do its job again. We are now hearing that the province refused to properly consult, and after more than a decade, they still cannot get it right.

Why is this NDP government putting a project like this and the future of the North at risk through its own incompetence?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I guess the member can have her own argument, but not her own facts. The Ksi Lisims LNG project, which has not yet reached final investment decision — it received environmental assessment approval last year — had an agreement with B.C. Hydro on electricity. The substantial start on the Prince Rupert transmission line was assessed by the environmental assessment office and deemed to have occurred.

Yes, issues are taken to court, and yes, we can’t comment on those issues that are before the courts. But the position of the government has been clear on this matter. That we’re advancing projects necessary to British Columbia is clear, and the record is clear.

The comparison between our government, where right now there are six LNG projects either operating, under construction or approaching final investment decisions, and zero before, indicates the outstanding work done by the environmental assessment office, the outstanding work done by the B.C. Energy Regulator, the outstanding work done by the government in cooperation with First Nations and in cooperation with business. I think we’re making significant progress.

I realize the opposition doesn’t want to recognize or celebrate when B.C. succeeds. They’d rather talk about politics, but we’d rather talk about action and getting things done for British Columbians.

Claire Rattée: The minister also does not get to have it both ways, because this is a project that was on their major projects list. But now, apparently, it hasn’t reached final investment decisions, so we’re acting like this isn’t a big deal.

Instead of delivering a process that could stand up in court, this government cut corners, and now everything is at risk. Court submissions that were filed by the Gitxsan in March say: “The province’s consistent refusal to meet with the petitioners is dishonourable” and “to sideline and silence the legitimate concerns of the rights-holding collective….”

Years of work, billions in investment, jobs for northern families all at risk because this government failed to meet its most basic responsibility.

My question for the minister is really simple. Did the government fail to properly consult, or does he think that the Gitxsan are lying? It’s a simple question. There are really only two answers.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the position of the government is clear in this matter. Of course, it would not be in any way appropriate to discuss matters before the courts, but the Ksi Lisims project has made major advancement. It has received environmental assessment approval. It is the outstanding work of the environmental assessment office under my colleague the Minister of Environment.

[10:50 a.m.]

It has received an electricity agreement with B.C. Hydro, and like another major project, LNG Canada 2, it’s approaching final investment decision.

You know, I think it’s disappointing. I understand the need to ask questions in this House, but on this side of the House, we cheer for British Columbia. We don’t seek…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Adrian Dix: …every moment to try and talk down our province. On this side of the House, we believe in action to improve the economy of this province, and that is what we’re seeing.

Interjection.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Zero success? Six projects under construction approaching FID or operating.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Adrian Dix: This is a major new industry in our province. It’s happened under this government. It’s succeeded at every step of the way. We have the lowest-emission LNG in the world, and it’s succeeding for British Columbians, as in the Ksi Lisims contract, in cooperation with First Nations — like, in this case, the Nisg̱a’a First Nation.

Home Care Services for Seniors

Donegal Wilson: My office is working with a family whose mother recently broke her femur. This is her third fall and fourth hospitalization in a single year. She cannot stand without a walker. She cannot cook for herself, and she cannot bathe herself. Yet this government has decided that she is eligible six weeks from now for one shower per week, and it’s going to be two years before a care home is available for her.

Does this minister think that’s acceptable, that a senior can only get one shower per week?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I’d be happy to follow up with the member for the particular piece of casework that she’s brought up.

Being able to provide those community care resources in homes is an integral part of helping seniors stay at home and remain independent for as long as possible. That’s why our government continues to invest in home care services, in partnerships with the United Way, to ensure that seniors get the assistance that they need. It’s an important part of that continuum of care for seniors.

Again, I’ll be happy to talk to the member more about the particular case and her constituency.

Provincial Park Signage

Sheldon Clare: This week it has been widely reported that the province has been removing the term “provincial” from B.C. provincial park signs at a cost of over $10,000 for each sign.

A simple question to the minister responsible for B.C.’s provincial parks: can the minister confirm that this NDP government has a policy to remove and replace signs that say “provincial” at B.C.’s provincial parks?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I think that the members opposite have been reading too many conspiracy theories. Our parks are provincial, and we’re proud of it. Our parks are part of the reason why people come and visit. Thousands of visitors come to B.C. every year.

There is absolutely no initiative to remove “provincial” from park names or signs. The Cypress Park sign was replaced because it was over 50 years old and was rotting through. The new sign includes a B.C. Parks logo to make clear that the park is provincial.

We are going to continue to make sure that our B.C. parks have access for everyone and that everyone is proud of the work that we put into these parks.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Á’a:líya Warbus: I seek leave to table a letter regarding committees.

Leave granted.

Á’a:líya Warbus: I’d like to present this letter from the official opposition speaking to the parliamentary practice in British Columbia that committees reflect the makeup of the House.

[10:55 a.m.]

Reports from Committees

Human Rights Code Provisions
Review Committee

Mable Elmore: I am pleased to present the report of the Special Committee to Review Provisions of the Human Rights Code of the 43rd parliament titled Review of Sections 47.01 to 47.24 of the Human Rights Code. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

I ask the leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

The Speaker: Members, the member is seeking leave to table the report.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Proceed now.

Mable Elmore: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I would like to make a few brief comments.

At least once every five years, a special committee of the Legislative Assembly is required to conduct a review of provisions of the human rights code governing the appointment, mandate and powers of the Human Rights Commissioner. Ours is the first special committee to undertake the review.

To inform its work, the committee heard from the Ministry of Attorney General and the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner and also held a public consultation. The committee extends its sincere appreciation to everyone who contributed their insights and expertise to support this review of the code.

The committee concluded that the sections of the code related to the commissioner’s mandate are appropriate and that existing provisions to empower the commissioner to carry out their responsibilities and fulfil this mandate are generally working well. As such, the committee made only a few recommendations designed to clarify information access, strengthen protections for inquiry participants and ensure that any future human rights advisory council represents the full range of backgrounds, perspectives and lived experiences across B.C.

I wish to express appreciation to all committee members for their commitment and contributions throughout this review. I would especially like to acknowledge the Deputy Chair, the member for Richmond-Bridgeport, for her support to the committee, as well as the former Chair, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville.

On behalf of the committee, I wish to extend our sincere gratitude to the staff of the Parliamentary Committees Office for their assistance throughout our review. I would also like to thank the Hansard Services team for their support in documenting our proceedings.

Teresa Wat: I would like to also acknowledge and express my gratitude to all members of the committee for their contributions, as well as to both the previous Chair, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, and the current Chair, the member for Vancouver-Kensington, for advancing our work throughout this process.

In addition, I would like to echo the acknowledgement of everyone who shared their perspectives on ways to strengthen the provisions of the human rights code. During our review, committee members heard about the valuable role that the Human Rights Commissioner plays within B.C.’s human rights system. On behalf of the committee, I would like to extend our gratitude to the commissioner for the important work to promote and protect human rights in B.C.

In closing, I wish to also express my appreciation to the staff of the Parliamentary Committees Office and Hansard Services for the support they provided for our work.

The Speaker: Members, the question is that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Members, the Chair will put the question on the motion that the report be taken as read and received, which we didn’t deal with earlier.

Motion approved.

Elenore Sturko: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

Elenore Sturko: I just want to take a moment to make this House aware of over 100 students from Hazelgrove Elementary, from my community — over 100 students — with their teacher AJ Dhaliwal.

I would ask this House to please make them feel most welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued committee stage estimates debate on the Ministry of Health.

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

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 10:59 a.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health
(continued)

The Chair: Members, we’ll have a brief recess while we wait for our teams to come for the Ministry of Health.

The committee recessed from 11:00 a.m. to 11:03 a.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We’ll call the House back to order.

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

Anna Kindy: The all-party Select Standing Committee on Health is one of the permanent committees in the Legislative Assembly of B.C. The last sitting of the standing committee was in 2017, when they issued their report. In view that there is a health care crisis, is the minister planning to start a select standing committee as soon as possible to deal with this health crisis?

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. Yesterday, when we left estimates last night, the member had asked a specific question that I also want to respond to, so I’m going to combine that into this answer.

We ended up with a question around attachment, why the ministry service plan uses rates and why the targets are set as they are, from the 2024-2025 baseline of 75.2 percent, growing to 80 percent in ’28-29. The member asked specifically: “Why are the rates set so low?”

The premise of the question from the member is very understandable, but I think it rests on a misinterpretation of what the targets represent and what it is that is being measured, how attachment is being measured. This was a subject that was canvassed with the member for Courtenay-Comox as well.

I want to take some time to explain this because I think this is extremely fundamental to the shifts that we are seeing in the health care system and the way the ministry is addressing some of these challenges, particularly when it comes to primary care.

First of all, to be clear, the shift from absolute numbers to attachment rates is purposeful. It’s intentional, and it’s important. The raw number of people being attached can rise simply because our population is growing, but a rate tells us whether we are keeping pace with that rate of population growth.

Again, this is what I attempted to explain to the member for Courtenay-Comox yesterday, about how using rates is a more rigorous and a more system-level measure of performance that we can use to accurately describe how British Columbians are able to be attached to a primary care provider.

I would also say, second, in response to this, that the targets themselves are not low ambition, as the member had characterized. Rather, they are realistic net system forecasts that really account for the full dynamics of the workforce and our patient population. The member noted that attachment is not a one-way flow. Every year, there are new patients who are attached, but others become detached because physicians retire or they are on parental leave, say, or people relocate in the province.

Note, too, that population growth occurs at different rates in different pockets of the province. When we have fast-growing regions like we do in Surrey, for example, right now, that adds more demand to the system.

The 75 percent to 80 percent trajectory in the targets, as they’re set, reflects net attachment. It’s not gross gains. Underneath that, the system is attaching a lot more people than the net figure would suggest.

The member, in the way she phrased her question, I think, accurately points to a structural issue, and that is that attachment itself is fundamentally constrained by the provider, the supply of providers and the capacity of those providers to take on a panel of patients. It’s not just about incentives. That’s exactly where the ministry has focused significant efforts over the past few years.

There are a number of shifts that are underway to support higher attachment. The first, which the member spoke to in her question, as well, was transforming the family practice model and introducing the longitudinal family physician payment model, something that is reversing a decades-long trend that we have seen away from a full-service family practice.

The results of the LFP model show that physicians are returning to longitudinal care, to community-based practices; that they are increasing their panel sizes; and that new graduates from medical school are choosing community-based family practice.

[11:10 a.m.]

The model also addresses another issue that the member brought forward, and that is around the issue of administrative burden that physicians face. The LFP payment model isn’t just about increasing compensation. It’s designed to much better reflect the nature of work in family practice. That includes administration. That includes direct patient care, for example.

Under the previous fee-for-service model that many family physicians used, physicians were only paid for that direct in-person encounter. This meant that a lot of the other essential work in delivering family physician care and running a practice — reviewing lab results or managing very complex patient panels, being able to coordinate care, being able to coordinate and complete forms, following up with patients, running the actual business itself, taking care of the administration and overhead, the HR and everything that’s involved with that — was really contributing to burnout. We saw that, and it pushed many physicians away from that community-based, full-service longitudinal care.

The new model changes that by compensating time spent, not just visits; recognizing patient complexity, which requires more non-visit care; and, really, accounting for that indirect care and administrative work that I was just speaking of. This has had two really direct impacts on attachment.

First, it makes the practice of family medicine more sustainable. It’s already leading to physicians choosing to return to full-service practice, and it helps to improve retention and really stabilize the existing support to those patient panels because physicians are better supported for the workload that they truly have.

So while attachment rates in this case don’t jump overnight, the LFP model is really helping us to address one of these core structural barriers that we experience, and that is the mismatch between what family doctors are asked to do and then how they are compensated for doing it.

In other words, it really is a foundational reform that is leading to durable changes and increases in attachment over time. It’s not an emphasis of just short-term gains by simply adding more providers. I think that addresses the scope shift that the member spoke to in her question yesterday.

A second major area of work that the ministry has been focusing on is the rapid expansion of the workforce. I have spoken many times in this House around the record investments that we have been making in increasing training seats — seeing UBC expand seats and expand around the province so that more people living in rural and other areas of the province have easier access to medical school seats, building a new medical school at Surrey with SFU. This is really working to build for the medium to long term that workforce of family care providers that we need.

At the same time, we’re working to go beyond that and to accelerate growth in the physician workforce, indeed across the entire health care workforce, by recruiting and attracting internationally trained health care workers from other jurisdictions.

That’s the work around streamlining pathways for internationally educated physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners and other workers by the active recruitment work that we are doing — going into the U.S. to actually market and advertise; seeing, as well, a very purposeful decision to expand nurse practitioners in the primary care system; and seeing significant growth, a tripling of the number of nurse practitioners who are working in our health care system.

Speaking of nurse practitioners, a third way that we have been working to address this is around team-based care and expanding the concept of team-based care. By establishing and expanding primary care networks, building and staffing urgent and primary care centres…. These are centres that are critical.

The member also spoke about this gap that people experience. They may be attached to a primary care provider, but that doesn’t mean that they’re getting the access that they need or want.

That’s where UPCCs really come in. By being able to address episodic care needs of a person who, maybe within 12 to 24 to 48 hours, really does need to urgently see a primary care physician or nurse practitioner but cannot get an appointment with their family doctor in enough time, the UPCC helps fill that gap. It also helps fill the gap for those people who are not attached to a primary care provider, as they are waiting for that opportunity.

[11:15 a.m.]

Together, rather than resorting to going to an emergency room, which places more strain, especially for those lower-urgency needs, it is helping to reduce the burden and strain there and to ensure that people can get the care that they need. Now when it comes to building out team-based care, attachment, we are seeing increasingly as being attached to a team and not just an individual physician. That is helping to improve the capacity and resilience in the system.

It’s a model that allows providers to manage more complex patients without reducing patient access overall and having a team of health care workers who each work within their expertise, their particular scope of practice, who can support a patient and their needs at the right time, being able to do that in a team-based environment where they can provide that warm handoff — for example, a physician to a clinical counsellor or to a dietitian or to a social worker. Again, the patient is getting the type of care that they need at the right time.

What we’re seeing here, with more providers working in teams, is that patients can have their care provided for in a more appropriate and a safe manner, and that attachment is more stable over time.

We’ve spoken in this House too…. In fact, the Minister of Labour brought forward a bill to reduce the unnecessary use of sick notes as one of the measures to reduce administrative burden. That remains the focus of a working group, led in part by the Doctors of B.C. and working to really find places and ways to use digital tools, to use technology to be able to reduce that administrative burden on physicians as a way of improving productivity and enabling…. They can spend as much time as possible delivering care.

Finally, the work that we are doing to stabilize rural and underserved areas. We spoke yesterday around some of the targeted incentives that have been in place. We talked about virtual supports and looking at new models of care to ensure that people living in rural areas have access to health care in a way that works for them.

On the expectation question, we could set a target like 95 or 100 percent, but it’s not realistic. It’s not credible. Without the workforce capacity to deliver it, it would be, I think, aspirational at best and misleading at worst.

We will continue the work to maximize attachment because it does improve outcomes for people. It improves continuity. It improves system efficiency. But planning for 100 percent attachment as a static and one-size-fits-all endpoint doesn’t reflect what we see in the real world.

We know that there’s a portion of people who, for various reasons, may not be seeking attachment. That’s why we always say we want everybody who wants a primary care provider to have one, to be attached to one. But there is always a portion of the population that is transient. They are younger or lower acuity. They are choosing episodic and on-demand models.

The behaviour that we are seeing supports that as well. Some people will use, primarily, UPCC-type episodic service. There are some who are attached to a provider who do not even see that provider on a regular basis. We are doing everything we can to help the way that health care is delivered to adopt and adapt to those patient preferences as well.

People are increasingly looking for same-day or rapid access. People are looking for virtual first interactions on occasion. More and more people are looking for that team-based care rather than single, long-term provider relationships. It doesn’t, in any way, eliminate the importance of attachment but it does mean that the model of attachment is changing in the way that primary care is being delivered.

The current targets reflect the time that it takes to train and recruit providers. They reflect the transition to new models of care. They reflect the need to stabilize our existing workforce so that it can deliver that care.

The direction has been very clear. We are increasing attachment. The workforce is growing. The model of care is changing and improving. Being able to rebuild primary care capacity after years of structural pressure is no small thing. It is a multi-year effort. It is something that we will continue to do.

[11:20 a.m.]

I want the member to be clear that the targets, as they are, are not a ceiling on ambition in any way. But they are very grounded, and they are an evidence-based trajectory that, I think, reflects both the scale of the challenge and the significant work that’s already been underway to address it.

On the member’s question around the committee, I think the member understands that that is the purview of the Legislative Assembly. There is a process in place for those committees to be called. I’d be happy to get her access to the information that she needs to understand how that process works, and I’m happy to talk to her more about it.

Elenore Sturko: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Chair: Carry on.

Introductions by Members

Elenore Sturko: I’d like to make this House aware of students visiting from Hazelgrove Elementary which is in Clayton Heights, a part of the Surrey-Cloverdale riding.

I’m really excited to see the students here and very enthusiastically learning about our provincial government. For the students’ information up there, we’re learning about the budget for the Ministry of Health with our Health Minister — I’m not allowed to say her name; I’m going to do it anyway — Josie Osborne, and we have members of the opposition who are asking her questions about that.

So will this House please make the students from Hazelgrove Elementary very welcome.

The Chair: Welcome to everyone in our chamber. And students, we do not use names of our members in this House, but I won’t correct your member today.

Recognizing North Island for more questions on the health budget.

Debate Continued

Anna Kindy: To the minister: I will follow up, because I think it’s important to have an all-party select standing committee. We need input from everyone to be able to address this health care crisis, so I will follow up with that.

Thank you for the answer regarding access to primary care. I’ll come back to that again. Again, I think we need to focus on access when and where you need it, which is not happening for a lot of British Columbians, and, as well, cost, value for money. So we have to look at that very carefully.

I’m going to come back to hospital care. We mentioned that hospitals are running over capacity, many hospitals in B.C., and when you’re running at overcapacity…. These are statistics from the National Institute of Health. When a hospital runs 100 percent over capacity, there’s a 20 to 28 percent chance of having at least one serious adverse event. That means either death, life-threatening injury, disability or incapacity. So we’re talking 20 to 28 percent when a hospital is run over capacity.

I’m wondering. To the minister, is she tracking serious adverse events per hospital and per health authority? Please, end a trend.

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: The short answer to the member’s question is yes. Adverse events are tracked, and there is a provincial patient safety learning system that is in place.

The work that we do with Health Quality B.C. is of primary importance here in being able to work with them in the quality improvement processes that all health authorities have, to ensure that events are followed up on and events are learned from.

I want to also take the opportunity to set some context and address some of the concerns that the member, very understandably, raises around hospital capacity and the impact that has. Of course, maintaining hospital capacity is something that’s imperative to ensuring that patients have access to care that they need, especially during those times of increased pressure, like the respiratory-illness season that we see every fall and winter.

Understanding hospital capacity is critical for effective provincial health planning and for site planning as well. It’s critical for emergency response. It’s something that helps decision-makers allocate resources in the appropriate way to manage patient flow inside sites and, again, respond to those surges in a way that doesn’t overwhelm the system, because, of course, that’s a goal. Not overwhelming the system helps to maintain that timely access to care.

Now, since COVID-19, since 2020, the ministry has been tracking patient census and base beds at all acute facilities across B.C. with the help of the Provincial Health Services Authority data analytics reporting and evaluation team. It is through the work of this team that surge plans can be developed and continue to focus on those effective patient transitions.

[11:30 a.m.]

Yesterday we canvassed, quite a bit, alternate levels of care and being able to discharge patients in a timely and safe way to the appropriate place. That is part of maintaining flow and capacity inside any acute care facility.

In November 2023, we undertook an extensive re-count of base beds across the system and developed what we call the 10,000 bed plan. It was announced at the time that the province would be adding about 727 acute care beds across the province to increase the total bed count from 9,202 to 9,929 by funding some of the regularly used clinical spaces that are available and through that work and by managing inpatient services, that health authorities are able to reshape, to renovate, to change the spaces where they provide acute services.

Those will result in some small changes to acute bed bases from time to time so we have a range of experiences across the health authorities when it comes to volume increases. The work to continue to renovate, to expand and to build out beds is an important part of managing that flow.

As well, the ministry has undertaken an innovative program to deliver hospital care at homes through the hospital at home program, and it provides patients who are eligible, and for whom it is appropriate and safe, to receive hospital-level acute care in their home instead of in the hospital.

In this case, patients receive daily in-person care from a multidisciplinary team. They are supported and supplemented by virtual visits and remote patient monitoring as well. Since we launched that program in 2020, more than 7,300 patients have received care through that program.

The hospital at home services are available to clinically stable patients who are 17 or older across a range of different clinical populations, and that includes surgical recovery, psychiatry, medicine and addictions. It happens at eight different sites across the province. It’s a program that is helping to reduce pressure on inpatient hospital beds. It’s helping to decrease the overcrowding that we are speaking of by really helping to optimize patient flow and improving the overall capacity of the health system.

We are continuing to explore this in terms of what the definition of “home” is. If we can expand the eligibility and broaden that definition of “home,” it’s possible that even more patients will be able to benefit from the model so that they can have the services of acute care in a hospital but have that delivered at home as much as possible.

These are some of the programs just taken together around expanding and renovating, modernizing, updating acute care sites, as well as providing alternatives that can help support people, as one way of helping to manage the very issue that the member raises around flow, access and occupancy inside hospitals.

Anna Kindy: The reality of the statistics is that B.C. has 1.9 beds per 1,000 residents. Canadian national average is 2.5 to 2.6 beds per 1,000, so we’re not even close to the average in Canada. When we look at OECD — these are 31 countries from Europe, Australia, New Zealand — we’re 25th out of 30. For example, I mentioned Japan has 7.6 beds per 1,000; Germany has 5.9 beds.

The reality is, again, for example, Nicola Valley Hospital running at 134 percent capacity. That’s average capacity. My own hospital was running at 160 percent capacity. When you’re saying building out beds, I mean, what we’re doing is we’re putting beds in cupboards.

I was just talking recently to somebody who was in emergency and because they couldn’t be admitted, they had to do an examination of pregnant women in a cupboard with the husband holding the cell phone to light the area. I mean, that is what we’re coming to here.

So I’m going to ask a specific question, because I think it’s important to play catch-up here. I know there are fiscal constraints with our budget.

You mentioned the aim, but what is the actual aim per health authority in terms of number? And I’m talking about number of beds, not expanding to making single rooms double rooms, because that’s what I’m seeing.

[11:35 a.m.]

What is the plan this minister has of at least reaching the Canadian national average for beds per health authority, please?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. I’m going to answer this in a broad way and recognize that this is shared action between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Infrastructure.

[11:40 a.m.]

The member is asking about plans to increase the number of acute care beds. That question is actually best directed to the Ministry of Infrastructure that does build out and undertake those renovation projects, those new builds.

But I will say that despite the absolutely phenomenal population growth — if I remember correctly, about 17 percent between 2017 and in 2023, which places a lot of pressure on our health care system, including an aging demographic, which places additional pressure on our health care system — our government has been making record investments in new hospitals and in building acute care beds.

That is just one way of addressing the need for acute care beds, and simply measuring the number of beds per capita or per 1,000 people in the population doesn’t capture everything. So as part of that multi-pronged approach, this includes work to reduce the length of stay in hospitals wherever possible. With the changes and modernizations and growing learnings in health care and medicine delivery, it is possible now.

For example, I think cardiac care is a good example, where procedures can be undertaken in a day and do not require overnight stays anymore — one way of reducing the pressure and need for acute care beds. Adopting other technological innovations and other ways of keeping people out of acute care beds…. I just spoke at length around the hospital at home program.

Then, again, this really points to…. When we’re talking about access and flow, we’ve been talking a lot about how people would leave or be discharged from hospital. But about the work to prevent them from requiring this type of care and doing the work to build out a primary care system…. That means that health problems can be identified early, before they become worse and require hospital stay, that actually the attachment and the access to primary care providers is there.

I have spoken at length throughout estimates about the work our government is doing to build out that primary care system, to fill in that gap for those who need urgent care but do not need to go to an emergency room.

Then, as well, finally, just to end on the work to continue to increase awareness amongst British Columbians about all the different access pathways to care that exist — be it seeing a pharmacist for minor ailments to seeing a UPCC for something that requires an urgent need, like perhaps stitches, and then when it is appropriate to use an emergency room.

All of this work together is part of that multi-pronged approach to ensure that the required level of acute care beds is there in the system but that people are able to access the right care at the right time, in a way that places less burden on our acute care facilities here in B.C.

Elenore Sturko: I seek leave to make an introduction, please.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Elenore Sturko: I’m really excited once again to introduce students from my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale who are from Hazelgrove Elementary in Clayton Heights, which is an area that I’ve actually represented since 2022 very proudly. We have a group here of grades 5 and 6 students who are happy to be learning about our provincial government.

For the students’ information, you’re sitting in a debate on the Ministry of Health’s budget, which is a pretty important one. I think we all can agree that we need health care here in B.C.

Will this House please make these students from Hazelgrove Elementary feel very welcome.

The Chair: Welcome to everyone in our chamber today.

Debate Continued

Anna Kindy: I think it’s disturbing when you don’t have numbers of beds planned. You can’t push it back to Infrastructure, because we’re talking about hospital beds, and hospital beds are fundamental in health care.

I think that number…. I shouldn’t have to go ask the Ministry of Infrastructure for that, and I think the minister needs a plan for a number of beds.

The other thing that we talked about was the blockage that not having hospital beds causes in emergency. At this point in B.C., people don’t show up in emergency with minor ailments. Nobody is going to wait 14 hours to see a doctor in an emergency department. So we have to assume that people showing up are truly ill and people admitted are truly ill, except for the ALC patients waiting for long-term-care beds.

[11:45 a.m.]

Having said that, we talked about global budgets for hospitals and efficiency in hospitals. My question to the minister is….

Knowing that many hospitals go over budget, there’s a slowdown in the hospital. For example, there will be MRIs — people that have appointments to get MRIs for cancers, for example, from the community that are waiting an unbelievably long time for that appointment when we know that the MRIs are not used to full capacity. They’ve got the magnet, they’ve got the techs, they’ve got the radiologist, but they’re slowing down because they want to stay within budget. We’re talking cancer patients here.

There are also slowdowns, often, in surgeries because of global budgeting. They don’t want to go over budget.

So my question again will be: how many hospitals and also…? Per health authority, global budgets, how many are going over budget?

The second question to that is: are you considering maybe a mixing of global budgeting with activity-based budgeting, which would increase efficiency of hospitals?

[11:50 a.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. I’m just going to touch on a few different things, but I will make my answer relatively short because I do note the time.

First of all, I just want to speak about the health authority budgeting, the funding model that we use. The ministry works very closely with the health authorities to support the work that they do and that they are responsible for, when it comes to financial planning and forecasting and the operation of acute care facilities, hospitals, as the member is talking about. I do want to be clear. That is the responsibility of health authorities.

The Ministry of Health, of course, is carefully managing our provincially led programs and working to support health authorities so that where financial pressures are identified throughout the year, we do everything we can to support them as they make decisions about where cost savings have been identified and where funds can be reallocated or used to ease those pressures.

As the member knows, and as we have talked about here in the chamber, extensive work has been underway through the health authority review, through the cost management exercises that government has undertaken, to ensure that every dollar is used as efficiently and effectively as possible to deliver front-line care for people in a way that minimizes duplication, that minimizes inefficiencies, that minimizes waste.

Yesterday I spoke about the establishment of the B.C. shared health services organization as one of our ways to do that. We know and have already begun the detailed work in forecasting the savings that can be reallocated, and that will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

I also want to be clear that health authority budget figures, as they are published, represent accurate year-end fiscal positions as a whole, and the member will see when she sees those that there is variation. Some health authorities will have small surpluses. Some will have small deficits. But globally, the fiscal position that she will see is showing a balanced budget.

Yesterday I canvassed quite a bit the way that we provide funding to the health authorities through the population needs-based model. This is important to note because, again, it is not accurate or representational to simply compare per-capita figures. We must take into account the age, sex, health status, the social determinants of health, unique and vulnerable populations, rurality and look at the inter–health authority flow of patients — not just looking strictly at the boundaries of the health authority but where people live and where they access services.

This model takes this into account, and we are undergoing an exercise to update and improve the model to ensure that it best reflects the needs of British Columbians so that when health authorities receive their funding amounts, they most accurately reflect what is needed in acute care facilities and all of the other services that health authorities provide.

With that, 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 11:55 a.m.

The House resumed at 11:55 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Lorne Doerkson: Committee of Supply, Section B, reports progress of the estimates of the Ministry of Health and asks for 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. Brenda Bailey moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 11:03 a.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Mining and Critical Minerals
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals.

On Vote 40: ministry operations, $57,304,000 (continued).

[11:05 a.m.]

Kiel Giddens: Welcome back, everyone, to the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals estimates debate. We’ll continue our conversation from yesterday.

The minister did reference, several times, the $751 million in exploration spend, and I want to put that in some context a little bit. What we’re seeing overall is an industry in a cyclical period, and it’s important that we hit that cycle and make sure that we’re capitalizing on it to make sure we’re getting that investment attraction in British Columbia.

We’re seeing record prices in precious metals. We’re seeing that in critical minerals. We’re seeing strong metal prices. So we should be attracting higher investment numbers. I fully agree with the minister on that.

But a lot of that investment that we’ve tended to attract in that exploration expenditure was concentrated in very well-capitalized, large projects, much of those in the northern triangle and in northwest B.C., a lot of that being brownfield projects as well.

The Ernst and Young report that the ministry collaborated on showed that investment in these later-stage projects dominated last year, representing 73 percent of total spending, and four core projects accounted for 80 percent of copper exploration in the north central region.

I think, to put that in some context, it is important to know that what we’re seeing is, obviously, brownfield projects that are already well capitalized. Obviously, this is a chance for them to open up. Also, exploration on their site, so punching holes in existing sites — we’re seeing that with some major operations from major players.

We also need to make sure that we’re focusing on greenfield development as well. I think that’s something that we need to have a serious conversation on when it comes to the types of risks that this industry is facing.

In Canada, we should be leading the entire country in attraction of mining exploration investment. But right now, because of the high prices we’re seeing across Canada, Ontario is much higher than B.C. We’re seeing Quebec higher, and actually, we’ve been surpassed by Saskatchewan. So we’ve moved to fourth place in terms of investment attraction.

I think we should be number one. We have the best critical minerals. We have the best precious metal deposits and rare earth metal deposits in the world. We should be leading the entire country, no doubt.

A big part of that is some of the challenges on permitting, and we’re going to get into some questions on permitting in this stage of the debate. Overall, the minister, in the opening statement and in subsequent statements, has talked about the government’s fixed timeline. With all due respect, mining permits are not being fast-tracked from a full potential that they could be. The timelines that are being set are certainly shorter, but the MCCF review clearly showed that the vast majority of permits continued to be over the ministry’s set fixed timelines.

The minister may recall that the Fraser Institute released their 2025 annual survey of mining companies. One of the findings showed that 33 percent of companies could get permits completed in Ontario in less than two months, but in B.C., that percentage fell to 17 percent. Ontario, I think, has room to improve, but B.C. is much behind where they’re at in Ontario. That’s why they’re seeing higher investment attraction. To make matters worse, 67 percent of respondents said that the time to have their permits approved had lengthened.

With that in mind, what is the ministry intending to do to finally get permits completed within the established timelines that the minister’s mandate letter requires in order to get us on par with other parts of the country?

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question. There was a lot there in the question the member asked, so I will try my best to give a response to each of the points of the question the member has raised.

First, I’ll deal with the permitting process. The member mentioned MCCF. I want to make it absolutely clear that MCCF is a new process. It’s a brand-new process that was implemented in response to a B.C. Supreme Court ruling. The court gave us 18 months to implement this new permitting process. During those 18 months, we worked very closely with AME, which represents the junior mining companies, and also First Nations at the same time. We were able to incorporate several of the recommendations made by AME in the new system.

We also conducted, which we agreed with AME, a six-month review of this system. We know — I’ve said that many times — that this is a new system and it needs improvements. That’s why we worked with AME. I appreciate the advocacy of AME on this one. Todd Stone did an extremely good job in this one — met with me, met with the Premier.

We worked out that we need to have more resources. So in this budget, we have $3 million additional money, and $2 million of that money is specifically dedicated to MCCF. We are going to hire 17 new staff members to make sure the MCCF is working within the timelines we have given to the industry, and that will be fixed.

[11:15 a.m.]

The second piece, when we talk about the mining permitting, is the notice of work. That’s the second piece. On the notice of work, again, working with AME, we announced at the roundup last January what we call the “fixed permitting timelines.”

We are the first province to do that in the country. No other province has done that. So we are the leader when it comes to the notice of work, introducing fixed timelines. Those timelines are from 40 days to 140 days, depending on the complexity and size of the application.

Now, in order to implement that system, we have also a $1 million new budget in this Budget 2026. We are going to hire seven new people. That’s the notice of work. We will deliver the permits within the given time, as I said, between 40 to 140 days, and we are the first province to do it.

Now, our third department, so that the member is very clear about that, is what we call the major mining application permitting process. In this province, since we took over in 2017, particularly the last couple of years, we have reduced the major mining permitting timeline review process by 35 percent by eliminating duplication.

Also, we have introduced what we call the “single application combined process.” This is the only province to introduce that one. By doing that, we have reduced the review timelines of the major mining application process, in some cases 60 percent. Mount Milligan, the latest mine we have given the permit to, was given the permit in roughly about ten months. That was a 60 percent reduction of the time.

That’s all about the permitting process. We are deeply committed to doing that. As said earlier, if there was one thing the industry has been asking for, including under the previous administration, that is stability and certainty of the permitting process. The reality is that for 16 years, there was no action taken. We are taking action on every file every day, and we also see the results.

We have approved six major mining projects just from last December to this January. Every second month, a new mining project was approved. It’s made history. It’s a historic record. It never happened in this province before, and no other province has done that. So we are the most attractive province when it comes to investment for the mining sector.

I also want to put on the record…. This is a report prepared by AME, not by me. This is a report prepared by AME working with, of course, the government. AME is part of that. The government of British Columbia is part of that.

The first paragraph of this report — I’m going to read that to you. That is the executive summary. The very first line says: “British Columbia’s mineral and coal exploration sector delivered a record-breaking performance in 2025, with total exploration and evaluation spending valued at $751 million” — which I have said before — “representing a 36 percent increase year over year and the highest level recorded since provincial tracking began.”

This is the AME, not me. This is the AME report. It goes on to say: “This strong performance stands in contrast to declining exploration investment nationally” — this is what it says, “nationally” — “and a flat global exploration budget, underscoring British Columbia’s unique geological wealth and strategic relevance in securing a robust mineral supply chain that meets the needs of an evolving global resource landscape.”

[11:20 a.m.]

It goes on to say: “This rebound was broad-based, with junior companies increasing both the number of active projects and investment across all stages of the exploration lifecycle, particularly in grassroots and mine evaluation.”

It’s not members saying it to me. It’s not me saying it. It is AME saying that this is the highest investment of what you call the exploration expenses — last year, that’s $751 million — in the history of this province. We are all on the same page on this.

Kiel Giddens: I think we are on the same page that $751 million is an important number. But in the context of global mining investment…. It’s attracting capital around the world right now. I mentioned the other provinces. We have to put it in context of what is going on globally and, certainly, within Canada. What matters are the results on our permitting within this jurisdiction so that we can continue to lead.

As I said earlier on in the debate, we need to move major mines forward. We need to get greenfields, new mines, eventually into operation if we actually want to affect this massive $189 billion taxpayer-supported debt that we’re going to get to in the next three years. The results on permits are going to matter to get there. And we’re not fully seeing….

Minister, I can appreciate that the MCCF is new, but performance on this is going to matter, and it does matter now.

The ministry has its own reporting that says that the ministry is not meeting the service standards set out at 90 to 120 days. I suspect that, based on conversations with some who have been waiting for over a half a year for claims, this is going to be even higher.

I think we’re seeing that in some of the ministry’s other reporting. Less people are staking mineral claims in B.C. In fact, 29 percent less claims were staked and 60 percent less area by hectares in the first three months, compared to an average of seven years prior. I think the minister would see this.

Obviously, I respect the fact that the MCCF is new, but performance is going to matter. So I’d like it if the minister could provide information on how long it takes on average to get an exploration permit in this province and how that varies by region.

I mentioned earlier that the northwest is seeing a lot of that overall investment spend, but if I look at the southeast from the same report that the minister just mentioned, we’re actually seeing quite a decline in permitting challenges out of that office in particular.

Again, can the minister tell us how long it takes to get an exploration permit and how long that varies by region?

[11:25 a.m. - 11:30 a.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member once again.

I completely understand that the permitting process in the mining sector is a bit complex. It’s not one permit; it’s different levels of permits. So I would like to try my best to make it as simple as possible.

The first permit now is what we call the MCCF, mineral claims consultation framework. This is a process when a junior mining company goes in the field and tries to claim a stake. That’s what happens. Before the MCCF, it was an online process.

That’s why the court gave us the order, because there was no consultation with First Nations. The court gave us the order to consult with First Nations and put in place a new framework so that we start consulting First Nations. It’s a new thing. It’s a new process, and we started doing it.

We have also conducted a six-month review. After the six-month review, working with AME, we have now reached a place where we have $2 million extra to hire 17 more people to make sure we deliver these permits within the given timelines.

It is not within the given timelines right now because it’s a new system, but we will fix it, and it will be delivered within the given timelines. With the 17 new people…. All of the hiring system is already in place, and we are hiring new people as we speak, at this point in time.

The notice of work is the second place where the company goes out and drills and does more, deeper samples and tests and all that kind of stuff to find out how much or how big the deposit is. In that situation, we actually issued last year 34 percent more notice-of-work permits in 2025 as compared to the previous year. We have done that, but on top of that, what we have done, again, working with AME….

We have now announced fixed timelines. I agree with the member. There are cases that probably are taking way more time. Now the fixed timelines are 40 days to 140 days, depending on the complexity and the size of the application. We are hiring seven new people to fix that. Again, that will be fixed.

We are the first province to introduce that, and we will fix that. At this point in time, yes, there are files taking more time. That’s why we have introduced this one.

A major mine application, as I said to you before, is a different thing. With that one, we have reduced the time by 35 percent by eliminating duplication, by introducing a single application combined process and by also opening a new critical minerals office now that actually helps the proponent to put together the best application. We have taken a number of steps to do that, and we reduced the time, on average, by 35 percent.

The latest mine…. As I said earlier, we gave the permit to Mount Milligan, which got its permit in ten months. That was almost 60 percent less time than it used to take before.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you for the response from the minister.

I do think that monitoring performance in this is going to matter, certainly. We say it in health care all the time as well. “You can’t fix what you don’t measure.” These timelines are something to keep a very, very close eye on, and I think it would help with some more transparency on it.

Can the minister commit to publishing monthly performance data, including median decision time backlog and the share of applications processed within the service standard, so the public can see whether the system is actually improving?

[11:35 a.m. - 11:40 a.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: I agree with the member that transparency is very important. Whatever we do, it’s very important. I fully agree with the member.

We’ve already published statistics of MCCF on the website. Lots of work. It’s a completely new system when it comes to the timelines. We’re actually going to start tomorrow on implementing that — on May 1, if I’m correct. As we move forward, we will start publishing data, moving forward on lots of work as well.

Gavin Dew: Starting tomorrow is great, but there’s a backlog today. The AME Purple Rock report states:

“Beyond the operational consequences, delayed claim applications also incur direct costs to explorers. Because application fees are collected at the time an application is submitted, explorers can end up with capital locked behind claim applications.

“The total area of pending mineral applications is 655,610 hectares and 72,000 hectares for placer applications. At an application cost of $1.75 per hectare and $5 per hectare respectively, this corresponds to more than $1.5 million in capital directly sequestered by pending claim applications, excluding tax.”

Given all of the commitment to meeting targets, what is the minister doing to return or credit that capital to applicants whose files have breached the 120-day target?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question. As I said earlier, quite a few times, MCCF is a new permitting system. It’s a new permitting system, and it’s not perfect. It is not, of course, meeting its service standards at this point in time, and that’s why we have been working with stakeholders, which are First Nations, and at the same time AME. Working with them, we have now a very clear action plan to fix this.

The ministry completed a six-month review of the framework, gathering input from free-miner’s certificate holders, users of the mineral title system and First Nations. The report was published in January 2026 and set out actions the ministry is taking to improve the process.

Those actions include adding staff to deliver the program. As I said earlier many times, we are hiring 17 new staff members to fix this, and this is supported in Budget 2026.

Two, using system enhancement and technology to support the high-volume process. This includes automation for record management and timeline tracking.

Three, increasing transparency for applications. Regarding the status of their application, more frequent updates and biweekly online reporting of decision timelines.

That’s what we’re going to do.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.