Contents

The House met at 1:02 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

Lawrence Joiner

Lorne Doerkson: I rise today to recognize one of my constituents, an amazing person. His name is Lawrence Joiner. And I do rise to recognize his remarkable achievements. This is a man whose life absolutely reflects the very spirit of British Columbia.

He was raised in Chilliwack. Lawrence was a cowboy from the very beginning. He grew up surrounded by family, hard work and wide-open fields that shaped his character. From his days riding horses near Sardis Elementary and racing with the Chilliwack Riding Club, the cowboy way of life was never just something he did. It was truly who he was.

Lawrence carried that spirit with him throughout his life. Together with his wife, Joan, and family, he built a life grounded in honesty and determination and quiet strength. He raiwsed four boys, teaching them the lessons about hard work, laughter, resilience and pride in a job well done.

His true calling was on the ranch, and that ranch was the OK Ranch — 16,000 acres at Big Bar. There Lawrence built not just a livelihood but a legacy. The K brand became known far and wide, and the ranch became a place where stories were shared, memories were made and the work of each day was faced with determination.

Life on the ranch was never easy. There were always fences to mend, machines to fix and, of course, miles of work still ahead. But Lawrence approached it all with a grin and a simple philosophy — that he was blessed to do the work he loved. To him, ranching was never just labour; it was a life well lived.

Those who knew Lawrence would remember a man who was steady and strong and deeply kind, a man with a cowboy’s heart who loved every moment of the ride. In remembering him today, we recognize something special: the kind of man you don’t often find but one whose legacy will live on in the land, the family he raised and the community that knew and loved him so much.

He was an amazing man. May he rest in peace.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Brittny Anderson: In this House, I call Committee of Supply with the Ministry of Health.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of Supply with the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals, followed by Labour.

[1:05 p.m.]

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 1:06 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health
(continued)

The Chair: I’ll call the committee to order.

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

Kristina Loewen: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Chair: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Kristina Loewen: Thank you. Today I just want to introduce some very special people to me. Travelling with Abbotsford Christian School are my nephew Samuel Clark and his concert and jazz band. They aren’t here today. Unfortunately, they’re coming tomorrow, and we won’t be here. But I do have to give a shout-out to them.

Also, my niece — I can’t leave her out, because she’s his twin. She was here a month ago, and we weren’t here at that time either. They’re travelling today with their teacher Mr. Bill Workman. His wife, Rachel Workman, is a chaperone. My sister Coreen Clark is a chaperone. Jack Boersma is the bus driver. They’re amazing. They’re doing a great job. They did a whole tour of the Island.

Anyhow, would the House just please join me and MLA Gasper in welcoming the kids and their teachers today.

Debate Continued

Anna Kindy: I didn’t quite hear the answer regarding hospitals staying within budget within a health authority. I understand it’s the health authority that is actually doing the budgeting, but I think that as the Minister of Health, you get the numbers.

I’m going to ask that you provide it in writing — the hospitals in British Columbia, what their annual budgets were. Did they stay within the budgets or not? And if we could get it for the last five years and the projections as well. I imagine there are projections.

Second, as well, I mentioned about maybe considering activity-based funding for hospital budgeting. When we’re looking at value for money, we want to look at efficiencies. Hospitals without efficiencies actually cost more. Should the money follow the patients, keeping the quality of the care while we do this? I think I’m just going to drop it there.

My next question. I’ll be going to primary care again. What is the mean and median panel of patients per family doctor in B.C. in terms of a longitudinal family payment model and fee-for-service? From that, how many more family doctors do we need?

[1:10 p.m. - 1:20 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: To address this question around panel size of physicians under different payment models, I’m going to start off just to recap a little bit of what I talked about earlier around the longitudinal family physician payment model, the model that we brought in three years ago in collaboration with the Doctors of B.C. and B.C. Family Doctors.

It recognizes that there is a complexity of patients in a panel in long-term patient care. The model compensates family doctors for their time that is not direct patient care but is still part of the work that they have to do, and it accounts for the complexity of their panel as well as their panel size and the number of interactions they have with patients in their practice.

The longitudinal family physician model. The expectation for a panel of average complexity is 1,250 patients, but it bears noting that there are different situations where that panel size can be smaller.

For example, for family physicians working in rural areas who are also doing shifts in the emergency department of the local hospital, their panel size may be adjusted downwards to be smaller to reflect that other commitment to the types of work and settings that they’re working in. For example, it might be 1,000, or it might be 800.

Further, for a family physician working in a community health clinic serving more vulnerable populations typically of higher complexity or very specialized needs, those panels can be even less. Being able to serve 800 patients, for example, or 600 patients is not abnormal.

I say all of this just to provide context for what I can talk about with the longitudinal family physician model that we currently have 3,497 family physicians on right now. The average panel size, actually, as of today is 1,026. I do not have the median, so I’m just going to be reporting means or averages.

[1:25 p.m.]

There are physicians in different payment models — for example, contracted physicians, of which there are 311. Their average panel size is 776. Again, just taking into account while there isn’t…. I don’t have a number to report strictly for fee-for-service.

One of the reasons why the longitudinal family physician payment model has been so helpful for government is we actually, for the first time, do have direct insight into the panel size of family physicians. That, together with the provincial attachment system that I have been speaking about, provides us with that enumeration so that we know which patient is attached to which provider, and that panel size is very helpful information to be able to have.

We know, too, that attachment and panel size are not everything. The member has also acknowledged that access is very important, knowing that patients can visit a place where primary care is delivered. I want to take a moment just to talk about some of the progress that’s being made in different settings where primary care is delivered and the increased number of visits that we are seeing.

For example, in urgent and primary care centres, year over year, from fiscal ’25-26 compared to fiscal ’24-25, we’ve seen a 21 percent increase in visits. In community health centres, we’ve seen a 46 percent increase in visits. In family practice settings, we’ve seen a 2 percent increase in visits. In pharmacy settings, for minor ailments and contraception services, we’ve seen an increase of 1.4 percent over the same, comparing ’25-26 to ’24-25.

Again, that tells a story of access for patients who are in a UPCC, for example, getting that same-day primary care service for urgent and non-life-threatening illnesses or injuries, for the attached and unattached; and through community health centres, access to both longitudinal and episodic primary care service, with a focus, really, on reaching those priority populations in a community.

In addition, First Nations primary care centres, which are stood up to meet the needs in a particular way for the Indigenous patients that they serve, blending both Western and traditional approaches; nurse practitioner–led primary care centres, again, offering a nurse practitioner–led model of care; and patient medical homes, which are sometimes referred to as family practice, supporting the team-based care.

I do want to pause on team-based care again, too, to note the interaction between panel size of a primary care provider, access that the patient has to primary care services and visits that a patient makes to the family physician. In a team-based setting, a patient can come in and receive care from any one of a number of members of the team, which may actually not include the family physician that day. So despite the fact they are on the panel, they aren’t making a visit to that family physician, but they are still receiving very valuable primary care.

The member also asked about how many more family physicians, therefore, we need. The math in this…. If we look at the attachment rate of people in British Columbia to a primary care provider, we need to make some assumptions for the number or percentage of people who are not seeking a primary care provider at this time. Then we’d have to take into account this complexity of different panel sizes depending on the patient population and the type of care or the type of attachment that they have — community health centre versus a family practice, for example, or a First Nations primary care centre.

It’s not possible to take the variability and that complexity and come up with a simple answer to say: “This is how many more family physicians we need.” I think it’s fair to say, however, we need more family physicians. We know that. We want every single person in British Columbia that wants a family physician or nurse practitioner for that longitudinal primary care to have one.

[1:30 p.m.]

That’s why there has been so much work focused on increasing the number of family physicians and nurse practitioners here in British Columbia, expanding medical school at UBC, building a new medical school at SFU in Surrey and the work to streamline credentials and make it easier to attract internationally trained or internationally based physicians and nurse practitioners to move to British Columbia to provide that opportunity for British Columbians to seek attachment.

In addition to that, the evolution of team-based care provides the type of care that people are looking for in a way where they have access to a physician who has a greater ability to focus on their scope of practice and the particular expertise that they have and for that patient to be able to access the expertise or scope of practice of other providers in that health care team.

Anna Kindy: Thank you for that answer. Again, looking at value for money, I think it’s very important in these times of fiscal constraints.

If we’re looking at…. What is the average cost of, let’s say, a billing code of 0100 in a private care setting, a walk-in clinic versus a UPCC and also versus a 15-minute LFP?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. I appreciate the premise or the intention behind the question about value for money.

I want to start with an overarching comment that part of the drive for value for money, while producing excellent patient outcomes and delivering excellent health care, is about helping people access primary care as soon as it is needed and as quickly as possible so that it prevents issues from worsening, conditions from worsening, diseases and other situations being undetected. This causes, as we know, a great burden on the health care system and its costs.

Everything from preventative health care to regular diagnostics and scanning when needed, to those regular check-ins and appointments with a family physician or a nurse practitioner to be able to discuss ongoing health conditions and receive advice from the primary care provider or from a member of a team about good health care decisions, moving forward, is incredibly important. That’s why, through the primary care strategy and through the work that we are doing to lessen the gaps that people are experiencing in the primary care system…. Part of that really is an overall drive in value for money.

It’s not directly, therefore, an apples-to-apples comparison to look at the fees that a physician is paid in different settings because, in part, we have different models — the longitudinal family physician model, which accounts for some of the indirect patient care costs, versus fee-for-service, which does not. The health care settings…. Again, some of these settings — community health centres, urgent and primary care centres, community family practices — are fundamentally different models in their design, but they’re complementary. They work together.

For example, a person, if they’re attached to a family physician, can go and visit, talk about a single issue they’re experiencing. They’ve got regular access to the family physician. They’re able to deal with these issues, and this is reflected in fee codes if a family physician is fee-for-service. But increasingly we’re seeing that’s not what family physicians want. New graduates from medical school are not interested in that model and are preferentially adopting the longitudinal family physician payment model.

UPCCs, by their very design, to help those who are attached or unattached to be able to access that urgent care that’s needed…. Again, we need to fill that gap because that stops people from having to use an emergency room, much more expensive than a visit to a UPCC.

[1:40 p.m.]

Looking at that value-for-money frame, doing everything we can to keep people out of an emergency department who do not need to be there is a positive benefit for the system overall.

In a community health centre, because many community health centres really are purposely designed to target the more vulnerable populations, people with complex health issues and comorbidities that need to have the time and attention of the primary care providers in that setting, it’s going to be a longer visit. There’ll be more to that visit, and that, understandably, is reflected in the cost of a visit.

Comparing costs per visit to individual fee codes provides numbers, it provides some information. What it doesn’t do, I think, is truly reflect the intention behind it — the overarching need to ensure people get the best care possible at the right time, from the right provider — and the work that we have to continue to do to build out this system, to make sure that those opportunities are there for people.

It’s why we’ve established urgent and primary care centres. It’s why we have now 48 up and running across the province, together with 15 community health centres and, eventually, more along the way.

Anna Kindy: Thank you for that answer.

If you’re looking at UPCCs across the province, they’re run differently. Some seem to be more efficient at seeing patients and, overall, costing less. There are patients now, to this day, calling in the morning, trying to get access to a physician or to a primary care provider and not being seen within a 24-hour period. So they do end up going to emergency. Other UPCCs seem to be more accommodating and seem to be able to see more volume. I think that needs to be addressed.

Having said that, I’m just going to ask a question related to international graduates in B.C. So 30 percent of doctors in B.C. are international graduates. In some communities, they represent 75 percent of physician cohorts. You’re increasing medical school enrolment and residency positions, but overall, you’re doing it slowly. It takes five years to graduate a family doctor.

We’re looking at one-third of doctors that we’re — I hate to use the word — poaching from other countries. Some of them are Third World countries. My question. Since we are poaching doctors — because there’s a global shortage, worldwide — is there a way you could speed up the process of increasing medical school seats in this province to start remedying the global physician shortage?

I know you’re going to come up with the numbers starting at SFU and all that, but I want to have statistics to show us that with the 30 percent that we’re actually poaching, are we going to be producing enough in five years to stop poaching from other countries?

[1:45 p.m.]

Lynne Block: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Chair: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Lynne Block: I’d like to welcome to the chamber today Frost Road Elementary, our first group. Their MLA, Hepner, is not here today, so I’m doing the honours here.

I’d like to say thank you to teacher Marissa Olson. There are 27 grades 5 to 7 students.

I would love for the people in the chamber to make them feel very, very welcome.

[1:50 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Hon. Josie Osborne: All right. An opportunity to address the questions around international medical graduates and their presence here in British Columbia, their contributions to the health care system and our plans here in B.C. to grow the physician workforce with B.C. programs.

First of all, I want to talk a little bit about postgraduate medical education. Of course, training more doctors to deliver services for people who live here in B.C. is absolutely a top priority. We know that when physicians train in B.C., over 90 percent make the decision to stay here in British Columbia, and that is a very good thing.

That’s why we continue to invest in recruitment, in retention and in medical education. We know that it’s making a real difference to our physician workforce, and we see that because the number of physicians here in British Columbia continues to grow.

To address this critical need…. I have to say that the work done in the past eight, nine years to really expand undergraduate medical education is unprecedented in B.C.’s history. Seats have been added over time at UBC’s excellent medical school program.

Understanding the pressures of a growing population, an aging population and the changing nature of the delivery, particularly in family medicine, where physicians are looking for work-life balance…. They are looking to be — and are, through the longitudinal family physician payment model — compensated for the indirect care hours that they provide for people.

We know that as physicians retire, we need to replace them with more than one physician. It’s not a one-for-one replacement anymore, which gives even more impetus to be able to grow the physician workforce here.

[1:55 p.m.]

To help address that critical need for physicians in B.C., 88 new medical school seats have been added, bringing B.C.’s total provincial undergraduate medical education intake from 288 to 376 seats, a 31 percent increase even just since 2022.

Not only have those seats been expanded in number, but they’ve been expanded in the locations in British Columbia where they are offered. With UBC’s distributed-education model — with centres in Victoria, the Okanagan and Prince George — this increases the ability and access for people living in other areas of the province to be able to undertake medical education and become a doctor to practise here in B.C.

Understanding, too, that there’s a need to continue to grow the pool of family physicians, we have taken the initiative to build, together with SFU and our partners at Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills Ministry, a brand-new medical school in Surrey that will open this fall. It’s been in the planning for quite a while, but 48 students will be entering their medical education program at SFU this August.

It’s an extremely exciting opportunity for the city of Surrey, which is host to the medical school, for SFU to open its first medical school and for here in British Columbia to have this second school.

Its particular focus, as well, on family medicine and primary care, in working with clinics that right from day one help embed students in team-based care, learning those skills, working with providers of other professions — nurses, nurse practitioners, all the allied health professions — will really help prepare these students for their future in family medicine in these new and changing and evolving ways that family medicine is being delivered.

That school, SFU, will grow; 48 students entering this fall but growing to 120 students by 2036. Again, part of the plan to increase the number of undergraduate medical seats here.

That means, with the addition of the new school in 2026 later this year, we’ll have a total intake of up to 617 medical residents. That will include — now we’re talking about postgraduate medical education — 205 in family medicine, 220 first-year specialty, 94 subspecialty, 88 enhanced skills and ten re-entry with return-of-service positions.

Again, we really know that these actions are working because we see that our increasing supply of physician…. Not only is it outpacing population growth, but we are exceeding the rates of growth in other jurisdictions.

As I know the member knows, UBC has the largest single family medicine residency intake in all of Canada, and for more than a decade, they have consistently maintained one of the highest resident match rates nationally, which is a testament to the excellent education that UBC offers. And since 2022, that means, all together, these actions with expansions in postgraduate medical positions have led to more opportunities.

Now, the postgraduate medical positions are also expanding in time. Between 2022 and 2028, over 160 new postgraduate medical education positions will be added. That includes 31 new family medicine positions, 12 of which were allocated in 2023, 18 in 2024, one in 2025.

And this is expanded out to sites like Vancouver Coastal Health, Lions Gate and Sunshine Coast, St. Paul’s, Surrey South, Vancouver-Fraser, Abbotsford-Mission, Chilliwack, Kamloops, Kelowna, Kootenay-Boundary — I mean, all across the province — and adding new sites in Cowichan, Vernon and rural, northern and Indigenous communities.

Fifty-five new specialty positions were allocated in 2023 — so 25 in 2023, 21 in 2024, eight in 2025 and an additional one in 2026. This includes re-entry into postgraduate medical education for licensed physicians to help them retrain in some high-priority specialties. Additionally, 20 new enhanced skills seats for family doctors within key training areas between 2022 and 2026. And 60 more positions are planned beyond 2026. That’s 36 in family medicine, 24 specialties.

[2:00 p.m.]

Again, knowing that when people train in B.C., they stay in B.C., the expansion of undergraduate and postgraduate medical education — and the need to keep ahead of our population growth and continue to add to that base so that we can meet the needs of British Columbians — is a primary goal here.

But I do want to take some time and speak to the international physicians and health care workers who make the choice to come to British Columbia. They are a very valued part of our health care system. We know the incredible impact they have simply by their presence and being part of the team.

It is why we continue to make steps to streamline their credentialing and licensing so that when a physician has been trained in a jurisdiction with comparable education to what one would receive in Canada, has the experience, has the competency and can demonstrate that through their application into our regulatory colleges here in Canada and B.C., adding them to health care teams has made an enormous difference.

Particularly, I want to emphasize the difference it makes in some of our smaller, more rural communities, where adding just one or two practice-ready-assessment physicians has meant the difference between keeping an emergency department open 24-7 or not.

I also know from the work that we’ve been doing to recruit physicians coming up from the U.S. that there is a variety of push-pull factors and decisions that people are contemplating when they’re making the choice to move to British Columbia. So I refrain from characterizing this as poaching, because I understand that people make decisions to move for various reasons. Some of them are geopolitical tensions that are being experienced in other countries. Some of them are decisions that other administrations or other governments are making about the health care system.

Two of the places where we have seen this particularly…. Of course, one is in the U.S., where physicians who are moving to British Columbia tell me that they feel even more pushed out than they felt pulled to British Columbia. We opened the doorway for them when we made credentialing and licensing easier for them to come. But they feel pushed out because of the conditions in the U.S. right now, the state of the health care system, and knowing that they went into health care to give back to people, to serve people.

Working in a system — a private-pay system, predominantly, where people had to prove their insurance or ask very difficult questions of physicians about whether they could afford the health care options that were being presented before them — left many people in a state of moral distress.

Knowing that British Columbia has a public, universal health care system, where people do not need to pull out their wallet, do not need to pull out their insurance card to prove that they’ve got the coverage but instead are funded through our Medical Services Plan; knowing that they can access health care when they walk through the doors, has given incredible peace of mind for those physicians who have spoken to me about their decisions to move to B.C.

Similarly, changes to the National Health system in the U.K. have created conditions where we are seeing a high number of U.K. physicians moving here to British Columbia as well. As these physicians reach back out into their communities, reach back out into the hospitals or clinics where they’ve worked, and they tell their former colleagues about their experience working here in B.C.’s health care system, that is pulling even more people towards British Columbia.

We’re happy to take them. We need them. We welcome them. We are thrilled to see them become part of our communities. I’ve had Canadian health care workers explain to me how refreshing it is to work with people from different places and who have different experiences, and how the diversity in not just their workplace but in their communities is really welcomed.

That’s why we’ll continue to welcome internationally trained physicians and why that includes, too, of course, Canadians who have made the decision, for various reasons, to train internationally but want to return home.

[2:05 p.m.]

This is all part of building out a healthy and a resilient physician workforce so that we have the numbers, the people, available to provide health care for people here in B.C. I could speak even longer about nursing and other allied health professions that are also making the decision to move to B.C.

We welcome this diversity in our workforce, and we’ll continue to work with the medical schools to ensure that we’re doing everything we can, working with communities to help settle people, to welcome people and to ensure that we help them find the best match for the type of work and type of lifestyle that they are seeking when they make the decision to move to British Columbia and serve in our communities.

Anna Kindy: What I’m hearing is we’re not going to be producing enough to stop importing — I’ll stop using the word “poaching” — doctors from other jurisdictions. To the minister’s point, 90 percent of people that are trained here stay here. I’m not sure what the exact numbers are, but thousands — I think 2,000 or 3,000 applicants every year — are rejected that would make excellent physicians or front-line health care workers.

I think we need to rethink what we’re doing and, rather than looking at providing the numbers we need from other countries, I think we should be training them here. We have the capacity.

The other thing to remember as well…. I think you’ve mentioned that it takes probably two or three new graduate family doctors when they inherit a panel of retiring doctors, just because of a different work-life balance and other reasons. We have to look at that as part of the data as well.

If we’re looking at numbers of doctors, 16 percent now are over 65, and 31 percent are over 60. I’m hoping the government is taking that into account. Again, when I’m seeing the numbers, I’m not seeing that we will have enough, and we’ll still need to be getting doctors from other jurisdictions.

My question here is related to UPCCs, and that will be my last question on that. As of January 2025, UPCCs provided over 600,000 patient visits, in data collected for ’24-25. Of these visits, approximately 15 percent were provided to patients attached to the UPCC, 54 percent were provided to unattached patients, and 31 percent were provided to patients attached outside of the UPCC. The idea of having UPCCs is to offload emergency departments, like we mentioned, which are overloaded.

I’m just wondering. Why is the government, at this point, limiting LFP physicians, limiting the amount to 30 percent of non-attached patients? What will happen to locum physicians who are employed at these UPCCs? Will that limit the effectiveness of UPCCs to off-load emergency departments?

What we have to remember, as well, is that unattached patients include young people who don’t bother getting a primary care provider, but they do get ill, and they do get trauma. They sometimes need to see a physician acutely and don’t necessarily need to go to an emergency physician. I think that is a mistake, but I’ll leave it up to you.

What are your plans for that 30 percent?

[2:10 p.m. - 2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. To begin with, I want to come back to the LFP model and the rationale, the principles behind it.

We know that people in British Columbia are seeking longitudinal primary care. They are seeking a relationship with their primary care provider, and that is almost always of benefit, health benefit, to people to have that relationship. Better health outcomes and a desire to create a more flexible payment model for family physicians that accommodated things like panel size, complexity of patients, the indirect cost of delivering health care, all of the paperwork behind the scenes that has to be undertaken….

As part of the negotiations with the Doctors of B.C., it was agreed that there would be some metric that would be used to ensure that that intention is met, that physicians choosing the LFP model are there primarily to serve a panel of patients with whom they have that relationship. So the decision was taken to limit the opportunity for physicians to see unattached patients to 30 percent. We’ll call it the 30-70 rule, if you will.

That seems — and again, was an agreed-to metric as a reasonable way to allow for flexibility — to allow for a family physician to be able to see people episodically, people who are not attached to them or their clinic, but primarily to focus on their panel.

There was a pretty healthy runway that was given to family physicians who signed up for the LFP model, almost three years, in order to work with their panel and accommodate it such that they could come to meet that. And during this transition time, notice was given to physicians as we approached the end of that period so that they would understand where they stood.

Many of those physicians who did receive those letters and had that identified, of a little additional work they needed to do to meet that, have done so. And the remaining number of physicians who have not been able to meet that rule…. It is my understanding that is a very small number of people.

Again, it’s about flexibility but not at the cost of the principle of the longitudinal family physician payment model. Choosing to adopt this model did provide a significant pay increase for many family doctors. Again, it seems a reasonable and fair approach and one that was negotiated and agreed upon by the ministry and Doctors of B.C.

At a UPCC, as the member indicated…. There’s a mix of attachment status amongst the patients who visit the UPCCs. That does vary, of course, from location to location, but some are attached to primary care providers who work out of that UPCC, the primary care part of Urgent and Primary Care Centre.

The majority are unattached. They are people who need that episodic urgent care but don’t have a regular family physician or primary care provider to seek it. And there are those who are attached but not to that UPCC. They, for various reasons, can’t get in to see their primary care provider as quickly as they need to. Perhaps they’re travelling in B.C., and something happens while they’re visiting another location, and they need to seek medical help.

Typically, the primary care providers working at UPCCs are on service contracts, not on LFP.

I might just ask the member again. I didn’t quite understand or hear correctly the question around locum physicians at UPCCs. I might just ask if the member could try that again so we can answer her question.

Anna Kindy: Sorry. I missed your last statement, Minister.

Hon. Josie Osborne: The member had a question about locum physicians, what will happen to locum physicians at UPCCs. I didn’t quite catch the context, and maybe the member could ask again.

[2:20 p.m.]

Anna Kindy: Doctors do take holidays, and they get locums to replace them when they’re on holidays. What happens is that often your attached panel waits for the physician that they normally see to come back before booking a visit. So part of what happens is that the productivity of the locum goes down, and they’re able to see more unattached patients.

My question is…. With the limit of 30 percent unattached patients, to me, it makes no sense overall. Until we have 100 percent access when and where you need it, which we do not in urban or rural settings, we should not be doing that, because then we’re not off-loading from emergency departments.

When there’s a locum, like I mentioned, locums often…. People on the panel will wait for their own physician to come back, so that will create an inefficiency in the system.

So I was wondering if a locum is exempt from that 30 percent.

Lynne Block: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Chair: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Lynne Block: We have our second group of students from Frost Road Elementary, and they are grades 5 and 6 with their teacher Michelle Sarrazin.

Could we please make them feel very, very welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. Josie Osborne: Yes. To the member’s question, it’s my understanding there is an exemption for locums, understanding, the way the member described it, that a locum should be able to come in and substitute, effectively, while a doctor is, say, on leave or on vacation, taking a break, and that the rule would not apply.

Anna Kindy: Thank you, Minister, for that answer.

I’m just going to transition to specialty care. I want to ask the minister…. Does the minister track and make public the wait times for track 1 and track 2 — track 1 being the time between a specialty consult from the GP or the primary care to the specialty and then track 2 being from the specialty to the care? Is that data public?

[2:25 p.m.]

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

I want to discuss, specifically, both wait 1 and wait 2. As the member outlined, wait 1 is that wait that a person experiences after seeing a family physician and then being referred to a specialist, and then wait 2, once seeing the specialist, is the wait time to care, which might be, for example, surgery.

[2:30 p.m.]

As the member knows, the referral from a family physician to a specialist is something that is happening in one physician office to another physician office. Physicians as, typically, independent contractors aren’t part of the public system to the same way that has enabled us to have the line of sight into that information.

As the member knows, wait 1 is not regularly tracked for most specialties, but for surgical specialists, the province does track both wait 1 and wait 2. Urgent surgical cases generally meet those wait-time targets that have been set, but we do have cases where non-urgent surgeries experience longer delays. This is a really frustrating issue for everybody, most particularly for those patients, people who are waiting for care.

To go and see your family physician, have a referral to a specialist and then not know how long it will take to be able to see that specialist can create incredible anxiety in people. Like I said, it’s incredibly frustrating, and it’s something that is a high priority, not only for the ministry but, I also know, for the Doctors of B.C., to do everything we can to establish using the right information technology and solutions, DRO, or what’s referred to as digital referrals and orders.

It’s a system that is patient-centred and that enables us to have good evidence, a good line of sight into those wait times so that we can all be more transparent about what those are and understand where some of the blocks in the system are and how we can tackle those gaps.

I want the member to understand that seeking this and focusing on an improved technological solution here is a focus of the ministry. There is money, funding that is allocated in the budget, to do this work. We are actively on this right now. Again, just to emphasize, I know that this is a priority, also, for the Doctors of B.C. So for all physicians and all patients out there who know just how important this is, I understand and agree.

Anna Kindy: To the Minister of Health: thank you for that answer.

It kind of surprises me that there is no data on track 1 for non-surgical referrals. If you look at…. I’ll just pick one out of the air — let’s say you have Parkinson’s, but you haven’t been diagnosed yet with Parkinson’s. I know that it’s sometimes up to two years to see a neurologist, and sometimes they’re not responsive to what the primary care provider is doing. Therefore, there’s a referral to confirm a diagnosis and treatment — two years’ wait to see a neurologist.

I think track 1 is very, very important to track, because of resourcing. How do we know how many specialists we need unless we track what the wait times are with different specialties? I think it’s extremely important to do that. Maybe when I ask you next year, there’ll be some data. I’m hoping that part of the moneys being spent for health care will be to track that.

If you are tracking surgical specialties, can you give me the numbers for wait times, for track 1 and track 2, for all of the surgical specialties?

[2:35 p.m. - 2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you for the patience as we tracked down some of this information.

I can speak about wait 2 timelines, and that’s what I’m going to talk about. As the member knows, we look at scheduled surgeries that are non-urgent and urgent.

I do want to go back to one of her closing comments and just express my complete agreement with the member that a better understanding of surgical wait-lists means the ability to better plan in the system and to understand, again, where we need to target investments into team-based care, into education and training, into the residency spots, into the clinic supports — all of the things that are needed to understand, as the member said, how a person can access the right care at the right time.

When it comes to…. I’m going to talk about two things. One is I’m going to talk about surgical wait-list size, but I’m also going to talk about percentage of cases that are over benchmarks.

To just explain that by measuring wait times in British Columbia as the percentage, tracking the percentage of cases that are over benchmarks, it provides us with a better reflection of the system. If we were to report wait times themselves, what we don’t want is a situation where shorter-term surgeries are preferentially picked because it helps to keep the average wait time down. What we’re looking for is to ensure that patients who are seeking, or who need, surgeries of all kinds…. We’re doing everything we can to make sure we’re meeting those clinical benchmarks.

I’m going to talk about two years, back to fiscal 2019-2020 and then today, or not today but most recent data, fiscal ’24-25.

In 2019-2020, the size of the wait-list for non-urgent surgeries was 86,552. Five years later, in 2024-2025, that had grown slightly to 90,070.

The wait-list size for urgent surgeries was 6,748 in 2019-2020. Five years later, that had come down to 5,469, a 19 percent decrease which clearly is progress in the right direction. But with non-urgent surgeries, we can see, with a slight increase, there still continues to be work there.

[2:45 p.m.]

Then I was just referring to the percentage of cases over benchmarks, clinical benchmarks. In 2019-2020 — and this is for both urgent and non-urgent taken together; that’s what I have before me — 44.3 percent of cases were over the clinical benchmark. Five years later that had decreased to 41.1 percent, so that’s a 7.3 percent improvement — again, trending in the right direction but clearly more work to do.

It’s because of knowing that we need to undertake these kinds of investments that we have placed so much focus on surgical access and taking action to reduce surgical wait times and to include procedures to look at those instances where there’s high demand or where there are extended delays.

We have a commitment to surgical renewal, and through that commitment we’ve made significant investments to improve access across all of B.C.’s health authorities, including adding more operating room time where staffing allows, improving booking and scheduling and better coordination so that all available surgical capacity is used as efficiently as possible.

Health authorities have increased their OR hours and their surgical volumes, and this has resulted in an increase in surgical capacity across the province. In ’25-26, period 10, year to date there, OR hours have increased by 14 percent, 60,886 hours compared to the same period six years prior in 2019-2020. That’s the equivalent of approximately 37 additional operating rooms.

There’s also been an improvement in access to some long-waiting surgeries. For example, again as of period 10 in ’25-26, 55 percent of spine surgeries have been completed within the benchmark, compared to 41 percent in the fiscal year 2019-20, the same period.

For this most recent fiscal year, as of period 10, 68.3 percent of urgent cases have been completed within four weeks, and that’s 1 percent more than last year. We continue to work to expand our surgical workforce, to expand the infrastructure that’s required to improve access to care.

As part of that, in the surgical renewal commitment, 346 nurses completed training in ’24-25. That’s a total of 1,920 that have trained since 2020. The number of neurosurgeons increased by 13 percent, orthopaedic surgeons by 6 percent. UBC has also doubled its anaesthesiology residency seats, the Royal College anaesthesiology residencies, from ten in 2017 to 20, a doubling, by 2022, and putting it up to 100 residents training by 2026. That’s an incredibly important part of the surgical system. As the member knows, limitations in anaesthesiology can create real issues in surgeries.

Through this, I hope I’ve shown some of these data the member is asking for around surgical wait times, around surgical wait-lists. Again, I just want to express our commitment to continuing to expand the workforce, to expand the infrastructure, the access to operating rooms and the commitment to developing the information technology that’s required to adequately track surgical wait times, wait 1 and wait 2, so that we have that insight into the system and from that are able to make targeted investments and plan for the future in a much more strategic way while bringing down surgical wait times for people who are waiting.

Anna Kindy: Thank you, Minister, for that answer.

You’re giving me global numbers. For example, X number of people were done within a benchmark, and overall it’s improving. But you’re not breaking it down by specialty or surgery. I’m going to ask for it in writing, this one in writing, if we could get the data that you gave me broken down by specialty. So when you’re saying that there’s, for example, 5,400 something — you mentioned urgent cases waiting — I would like to know by specialty, surgical specialty, all data by surgical specialty.

The concerning number to me which stood out was 68 percent of urgent cases were done within benchmark, and we’re talking urgent cases.

[2:50 p.m.]

The other thing, as well, is…. These are statistics according to Consultant Specialists of B.C. In terms of urgent cases, right now the wait time is four weeks; semi-urgent cases, ten weeks; and non-urgent cases, ten months. From their data, there are about 1.2 million people waiting for access to specialty care.

Going to that, I’m just wondering. There is going to be a $2.77 billion increase in expenditure in health care this year. I’m wondering, of that increased expenditure, how much will be for primary care versus specialty care, stratified by physician payment versus all other payments.

Lynne Block: I seek leave to make a further introduction, please.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Lynne Block: I am privileged to introduce the last group of students from Frost Road Elementary, grades 5 and 7, and their teacher again is Michelle Sarrazin.

So please make them feel very, very welcome.

[2:55 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.]

Debate Continued

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. She has asked for a level of granularity of the budget that I do not have at my fingertips.

What I do, though, want to do is address a little more detail around some of the questions that she has been asking around surgical volumes, surgery wait-lists and access to surgeries. I’ve pulled a little bit more information, and she’d asked specifically around surgical access by specialty.

What I can report, and I can break this down…. I’ll do this as quickly as possible. Surgical volume by specialty is something that is tracked. Looking at changes in that surgical volume by specialty from the period 2019-2020 to five years later, 2024-2025, that five-year period….

Cardiac surgery is the one specialty where we’ve seen a small decrease in surgical volumes, a decrease of 6.6 percent. Dental surgery, up by 12.1 percent. General surgery, up by 8.9 percent. Gynecological surgery, up by 17.6 percent. Neurosurgery, up by 10.7 percent. Ophthalmology surgery, up by 26.7 percent. Orthopedic, 9.4 percent. Otolaryngology, 13.8 percent. Plastic surgery, 10.5 percent. Urology, 7.7 percent. Vascular, 12.7 percent. Thoracic, 8.1 percent. Then all other surgical specialties, up by 48.8 percent.

Again, speaking to the ability to accommodate more surgical volume by both the increase in capacity in terms of building new operating suites, operating them for longer and then staffing them…. I think it’s a really important point that looking at staffing at a time of a global workforce challenge in health care and, really, in British Columbia, a time of unprecedented population growth over the last few years and recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic….

Of course, we have caught up to those surgeries from the pandemic. That was a time that was especially challenging for the health care sector. Again, just showing that the application of investment and effort is showing off and that there is progress.

I know the member will be the first to point out that there’s further to go, and I completely agree, which is why the health care budget in the province of British Columbia continues to rise and continues to be put towards those types of investments.

I think it’s also worth pointing out that the type of infrastructure investment that has been put into new hospitals and expanded surgical suites will continue as we continue to invest in new sites. There are plans in the capital plan right now for where surgical suites will be renovated and updated and renewed.

For example, right now phase 2 of Vancouver General Hospital’s operating room renewal is scheduled to be completed in 2029; the work that’s being done in Surrey, just completed at Surrey Memorial, with the interventional cardiology and interventional radiology suites. These are the examples of the kind of investment that is needed.

I do think it’s really important to reflect on the work that has to be done to train and recruit more specialists. These things, obviously, go hand in hand as part of that commitment to surgical renewal. That is the work we have been focused on, again so we can increase access for British Columbians and, at a time of a growing population, ensure that people are waiting within the clinical benchmarks. Clearly, that is the north star here to strive for, to ensure that people are receiving urgent and non-urgent scheduled surgeries within those clinical benchmark times.

[3:05 p.m.]

Anna Kindy: Thank you, Minister, for that answer.

It still concerns me, and it comes back to my head, that track 1 for non-surgical specialty wait times is not being tracked. It needs to be tracked. You can’t recruit if you don’t know what you need to recruit. I think that needs to be addressed immediately.

In terms of looking at out-of-country treatment, when we’re looking at…. Over 25,600 people left B.C. for surgical care, and most of those were urgent care. You’re telling me that only 68 percent of urgent care was addressed in British Columbia, and that includes cancer. So we’ve got a lot to pick up.

I mentioned before about global budgeting for hospitals. If you want to increase capacity, global versus activity-based funding…. If you’re going to increase capacity, the hospital needs the money and they need to become more efficient. Just a thought there that needs to be addressed.

The Consultant Specialists of B.C. came up with strategies to deal with the wait times to see a specialist. Two of the strategies were to build a database of wait-lists as well as a wait-list management mechanism. That mechanism would not be very expensive. We’re looking at less than 0.5 percent of B.C.’s budget.

Can the minister commit? They’ve worked together with the minister to come up with this strategy. Can the minister commit to go forward on these two strategies?

[3:10 p.m.]

The Chair: Members, I would seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

The Chair: Well, thank you very much. I’m going to make an introduction on behalf of the Leader of the Third Party, who is in another room.

We are welcoming Coast Mountain Academy here today. They are high school youth, and their teacher is Evan Sharp.

On behalf of your MLA, we are happy to welcome you to our chamber, where we are contemplating the estimates, or the budget, of the Ministry of Health.

Welcome to everyone in the chamber, but please welcome these students from the Leader of the Third Party’s riding.

Welcome, everybody.

Debate Continued

Hon. Josie Osborne: Just going back to the conversation we were having before, here in estimates, around wait-lists for track 1 and track 2 and particularly that of track 1 — family physicians referring to specialists and people experiencing frustrating times waiting to get that care.

I will reiterate how important it is to have that data in order to better plan in the system and also reiterate that we are talking about data that is stored inside physicians’ offices. This data exists.

The family physician and a specialist physician both operating as independent businesses or independent contractors — this has been one of the challenges in the health system, which is to integrate the flow of information and to provide a framework or a database, a way to be able to consistently view, see, share, track and use that information in order to have a system that is as efficient as possible, that’s integrated and secure, of course, at the same time.

[3:15 p.m.]

Now, we remain committed to doing this work. As I mentioned in a previous answer, there is funding set aside in the budget to continue the work that’s required to develop the information technology to provide all physicians and the health care system with this data.

I want to talk about the digital referrals and orders program specifically. This program is a key enabler of our digital health strategy in the B.C. Ministry of Health to really advance that vision for a connected and an efficient, patient-centred health system to provide a secure and standardized platform that enables clinicians across B.C. to electronically submit and receive and track referrals and diagnostic orders.

The work to modernize those core clinical workflows will really help reduce administrative burden for providers, at the same time, and supports much more coordinated and timely and efficient care for patients, and that absolutely is the intention.

The discussions, the work, the collaboration that is underway between the Ministry of Health and the Doctors of B.C. is an incredibly important part of that. We need to work with all of our partners across the health sector on the digital referrals and order program.

The expertise of including the physicians as well as other partners in the system is absolutely integral to the work that has to be done to introduce digital tools that are going to strengthen care delivery, that are going to provide that line of insight.

We are going to continue doing this work. It’s important to be able to, as we develop this, identify risks early and then be in a place where we can support very smooth implementation of this.

I’ll just close by reiterating how important this work is and how important it is that we do it collaboratively with physicians, and I offer my commitment to that.

Anna Kindy: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

The Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia, operating under WorkSafeBC, buys benefits and services for workers that have been injured at work. Employers pay for that insurance. What that means is that those workers can access private diagnostics and treatments in B.C.

For example, if you’ve had a knee injury and you’re covered by WCB, you can access private care, and often you do because the wait times are much shorter. The reason you access care more quickly is because you’re back to work more quickly, and the business saves money. So it’s timely care, and everybody saves money.

Unfortunately, when you have cancer in British Columbia, you often wait for an MRI or a CT scan, especially MRIs, from the community for a long time. Some people decide to pay for their MRI to go to a private facility to get the diagnosis of cancer to be able to see the oncologist.

Would the minister consider reimbursing diagnostics access through private channels for cancer care?

[3:20 p.m. - 3:25 p.m.]

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

I just want to start off by saying that we, as a province, are committed to maintaining the integrity of our public health care system and that we are going to continue every effort to build a robust public system where the services are comprehensive and they are free of charge at the point of care and that patients are not liable for extra billing.

It is a fundamental tenet of our public universal health care system that people have access to those medically necessary procedures and medically necessary care without having to pay for them.

We changed the Medicare Protection Act in 2018 to bring in new protections for patients to ensure that they wouldn’t be liable for extra billing, and we clarified the rules around extra billing for medical practitioners. The Medical Services Commission here in B.C. routinely reviews entities that are brought to their attention. They take appropriate action if they are billing patients or their employers for services that are in contravention of the Medicare Protection Act.

To demonstrate our ongoing commitment to uphold the principles of the Canada Health Act and to eliminate extra billing, we have taken several steps, several actions, including contracting private surgical clinics to bring private surgical services back into the public system, reducing wait times, increasing access.

As a result of work like this…. These are corrective actions that eliminate extra billing and user fees, and in March 2025, Health Canada actually issued B.C. a total reimbursement in that year in an amount of over $20.98 million. That is important work. Seeing that kind of reimbursement into our system to be able to protect this service, to ensure that people are getting their care when they need it while we build out the system, is an incredibly important part of it.

As the member likely knows, I’m sure, on April 1, 2020, the federal diagnostic services policy came into effect. This is a policy similar to the federal services policy that was the result of a Canada Health Act interpretation letter that we received that aims to ensure that patients do not face charges for medically necessary diagnostic services such as, but not limited to, MRI and CT scans. That’s regardless of the location where the services are provided, whether it’s in a hospital, whether it’s in a community care setting.

This approach is the approach that we are going to continue to take. I won’t repeat the information I’ve already shared about the investments into MRI and CT scanning, into expanding the hours of access, into the staffing that is necessary. I know how important these scans are for people who are waiting for diagnoses and to receive their appropriate plan of care from their care providers.

We firmly believe that these services should be open to access for everybody and that nobody should be able to jump the line because they have more money than somebody else.

[3:30 p.m.]

Anna Kindy: What are, from community, the wait times for MRIs, CT scans, PET scans and PET scans not for cancer — broken down into cancer and not for cancer?

I’m just going to break it down by health authority as well.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Sorry for the delay there. I had the MRI information but not the CT scan information on hand.

First of all, let me start by saying that since 2016-2017, the province has increased the number of MRI units here in British Columbia from 25 to 45. That’s 20 net new units, and that’s to increase capacity and improve geographic access. In fact, when we came into government, for example, there was only one MRI machine in all of northern British Columbia, and that has changed since then.

We’ve also significantly increased the number of exams. In 2025-2026, although we haven’t closed out that fiscal and have all the data confirmed, health authorities were expected to provide 358,981 MRI exams. That is a 104 percent increase compared to when we came into office in 2017.

The imaging wait times are things that shift in response to system pressures. We are always going to be working to support access there.

When it comes to…. The member has asked for information around MRI wait times. What I am going to read into the record is…. I do not have this broken down by cancer and non-cancer MRI, but I do have, taken together, the 50th and 90th percentiles of MRI wait times by health authority, as asked.

[3:40 p.m.]

In Interior Health, the 50th and 90th percentile wait times are 90 and 193 days; in Fraser Health, 102 and 249 days; in Vancouver Coastal, 109 and 204 days; in Island Health, 79 and 225 days; in the Northern Health Authority, 36 and 103 days; and in Provincial Health Services Authority, 40 and 324 days.

Again, those are the 50th and 90th percentiles. For the period of April 1 to September 30, 2024, this means that B.C. ranked second out of seven reporting provinces at 211 days on average for the 90th percentile, compared to 198 days across Canada.

When it comes to CT scans, we have made similar increases in the number of pieces of equipment that are accessible to people, increasing from 63 to 76, which is a net new addition of 13 CT units to increase capacity and, again, improve that geographic access. Since 2016-2017, health authorities, like with MRI, have significantly increased access to exams. In 2025-26, expected to provide 1,066,672 exams, which is a 53 percent increase over 2016-2017.

Now, once again, with the CT wait times in 50th and 90th percentiles by health authority, this is for the year ’24-25: in Interior Health, 22 and 126; in Fraser Health Authority, 35 and 260; in Vancouver Coastal, 33 and 240; in Island Health, 20 and 231; in the Northern Health Authority, 8 and 37; and in the Provincial Health Services Authority, 42 and 180.

I know that the member also asked for information around PET scanning. I don’t have that. If I can get that, I will get that to the member.

Anna Kindy: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Yes, if I could get it in writing.

As well, I’d like to have a…. I’m not sure if you broke it down from community as opposed to hospital-based MRI, hospital-based CT scans. I do want to break it down, as well, for community-based potential cancer. So I want that for CT and MRI. Thank you very much.

I’m just going to switch over to nursing supply right now. Improving nursing ratios is making a difference. Hospitals’ standardized patient mortality is affected by poor staffing. B.C. is doing better than other provinces in terms of keeping young nurses in the workforce, but still 27 percent of nurses in B.C. leave nursing by the age of 35. A survey showed one in five to one in three of all nurses are considering leaving their present position or leaving their nursing position altogether.

They’re leaving because they’re burnt out. They’re dissatisfied. We talked about hospitals being over-census and stretchers in the hallway and violence. I mean, that is ongoing.

Two questions here.

What other incentives and changes is the ministry using to keep nurses working in our hospitals? That’s besides ratio, which I think has been a good thing.

The other question is: how many nursing, LPN and care aide training positions are there in B.C., and are they filled in each intake?

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

Hon. Josie Osborne: First of all, thank you for the question around nursing. I really appreciate that. It’s always a pleasure to have the opportunity to talk about the work we’re doing to help address the nursing supply-and-demand challenges that we’re seeing here in the province and the work that we’re doing to make B.C. an attractive place to work — with fair pay, with excellent working conditions, with modernized workforce models — and really reducing the barriers for internationally trained nurses also to come and be a part of our workforce here.

We are seeing the impacts of this work. I’m going to speak to the increases in nursing training seats, as the member has asked, but we have consistently seen that our increase in nursing workforce has outpaced population growth since 2018. As of December 1, 2025, there are 76,594 nurses registered with the college, and these registrations have grown by 29 percent since 2018, again outpacing population growth, in the same period, of about 17 percent.

The nursing full-time-equivalents have also grown by 16 percent. So it’s not just the number of individuals but the full-time-equivalents that are practising nursing. As the member alluded to, our nursing turnover rate is very low. It’s estimated at 4.6 percent, which is the second lowest in the country.

The member spoke about the age of our nurses here in British Columbia, and 75 percent of our nurses are actually aged 49 or younger. So we do have many nurses coming into the workforce. For example, just between the 25-to-35 category, we’ve got over 30 percent nurses in that age range, and that’s a good sign — new nurses who need the mentoring, the training, the time to develop their expertise. It bodes well for the future of our nursing workforce.

Retention really is the key point here. I think that’s the point that the member is making. Now, despite the fact that we do have the highest retention here of any province in the country, we have to stay focused on those workplace conditions, on ensuring that nurses are well supported so that they stay in this career.

To that end, I know the member spoke briefly about minimum nurse-to-patient ratio, but I just want to share very briefly some of the success that we’ve seen. Of course, we are the first jurisdiction in Canada to implement minimum nurse-to-patient ratios. We’re also the first jurisdiction in the world to implement these ratios in certain particular health care settings.

The ratios that we have already set have been set for about two-thirds of the hospital sector. We’re doing this work in a phased way, and the phase 1 hospital sector ratios have been implemented in over 60 percent of the sites. Now, this work…. Here’s where I want to share some of the results, which I think really do speak for themselves. From 2017 to 2023 — this is prior to minimum nurse-to-patient ratios — we saw an increase in productive hours of 2.6 percent.

[3:55 p.m.]

In 2024, after we began implementing minimum nurse-to-patient ratios, that jumped to 6.6 percent and in 2025, another 6.2 percent. That means that in 2024 and 2025, we saw an increase in productive work hours 2.5 times greater than what we had seen before those ratios. That is significant, and that is a significant retention strategy, which shows it is working. And 81.2 percent is where we’re at in terms of the activation rate for phase 1. We will continue this work as we move into the next phases of minimum nurse-to-patient ratio.

I’ve had the opportunity to travel to many different sites in B.C. I’ve spoken to nurses on the front line and heard firsthand their stories, their experiences of what it’s like to work in a setting where minimum nurse-to-patient ratios are being met.

This is particularly important for those small, rural sites where again, the difference of just one or two nurses can be everything between a sustainable worksite and workplace conditions and having less concern or less risk of the kind of strain and burden that it places on nurses when even just one is unable to come in for a shift.

Now, continuing to train nurses and health care assistants, as the member mentioned as well, is a priority. The work to actually establish the sites is done through the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills, but clearly they are training nurses who are going to work in our health care workforce.

I’m just going to read the increases in health care assistant seats from 2019-2020, when there were 980. That has now jumped to 2,148 for fiscal ’25-26.

For nursing — these, together, are registered nurses, registered psychiatric nurses and licensed practical nurses — I don’t have this broken down, but we have gone from 2,201 seats about six years ago to 2,863 seats today.

For specialty nurses and the postgraduate — we’ve retained the seats there — it’s 1,000.

For nurse practitioners, we have made big expansions in the geographic location of where a person can be trained as a nurse practitioner, as well as in the number of seats, going from 75 to 165, and midwives from 28 to 48.

These are major seat increases and are incredibly important as we continue to build out the workforce for nursing.

The member asked as well about other strategies for retention. I will take a moment to speak briefly about the relational security initiative and the commitment we made and met, adding 320 net new relational security officers as part of a security model, moving from contracted security presence in sites to relational security officers.

These are health authority employees who have received specific training in how to de-escalate situations, to identify and de-escalate — using verbal strategies but also, where required, others — in receiving that trauma-informed practice and the types of tools that are specifically required in a health care setting.

We have seen the number of work hours lost go down in those sites. We have seen the number of incidents of violence go down on those sites. I’ve had the opportunity to talk to many different relational security officers around the province and to every one, they say the difference of being those who were on contract before to coming in and feeling part of the health care team, working closely with clinicians, has made an incredible difference.

They feel very much part of that team, and they feel that they are doing a service that really improves the quality of health care and the experience that people and their families are having when they seek care in B.C.’s hospitals.

That program is something that we dialogue regularly with, with the Nurses Union, as well as other strategies and tactics to help to decrease the number of incidents of violence, to report them and to be able to track that so that we know where further investments are needed and how we can adopt and try new strategies like at St. Paul’s Hospital, where a voluntary weapons program is in place for people to be able to secure things that they should not have in hospitals.

It’s incredibly important that we do everything we can to keep nurses safe. That helps keep patients and their families safe as well. This government has made a commitment to do that work and will continue to do that.

Hon. Chair, with that, I would request a short recess for a break to make it through the rest of the afternoon, please.

The Chair: We will recess for seven minutes.

How does that sound, Minister?

I believe that we will be going to online participants here in a moment.

The committee recessed from 4:00 p.m. to 4:08 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We’re going to call this chamber back to order, where we’re contemplating the estimates of the Ministry of Health.

We’re going to recognize an online member.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you to the minister and her team. I understand you’re 15 hours in, and it’s a Thursday afternoon. My understanding is I have 90 minutes, so, unfortunately, this will go into Monday. Just a request, if we can, to leave a significant amount of time for Monday so that we’re not crammed into five minutes. We’ll see how it goes.

Apologies for being remote. I’ve been attending the Lower Mainland Local Government Association. I would lament being virtual except, given where our seats are in the chamber, I think I’m actually, if only virtually, closer in this format.

I’ll get started. I’ll start with youth mental health funding. Actually, I’ll just preface this by expressing gratitude for the minister’s intervention, I guess, and visit in the winter around the Pemberton Foundry. The question is broadly based on that.

[4:10 p.m.]

We’ve spoken at length about the Mental Health Act needing a fulsome review. In the meantime, the province has appointed a chief scientific officer to issue guidance documents which centre on the Mental Health Act and involuntary care. These measures largely focus on responding to an adult population that experiences concurrent issues, mental health crises, substance use acquired brain injury and others. This is all taking place while we know that investing in youth mental health can prevent issues down the road, not only for the youth but families, communities and governments around them.

We’ve identified in particular, as well as the Foundry programs, the Take a Hike Foundation, which supports youth in grades 10 through 12 in their academic and social lives, known to provide a port in the storm and also prevent expensive and invasive measures in the future. The minister will recall that when we had the Foundry announcement, there was a discussion from an Indigenous participant about this being like a storm, and I really appreciate that analogy.

My question for the minister is: what investment is taking place to ensure that youth mental health programs like Take a Hike are properly resourced and able to provide the support the youth of British Columbia need? Can the minister point to specific items in the 2026 budget?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Great to see the Leader of the Third Party up on the screen.

I can vouch you are closer to me than you would be if you were here in the House.

I’m really glad to hear that the hon. member is at the Lower Mainland Local Government Association. I know I share his passion for local government, and it’s really important to be able to be out and hear from community leaders and understand what their priorities are.

[4:15 p.m.]

Certainly, as I’ve been meeting with local governments and attending some of the association conventions myself, the topic of youth mental health has been a big subject. Something I know that all leaders are keenly aware of is the need for increased supports for youth, particularly in this time, I think, coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic, also just seeing the increased pressures youth are facing and with this discourse that’s taking place right now, too, around social media and the contemplation of actions that governments can take to better regulate the industry as well as protect children and youth from harms.

It’s very appropriate, I think, that we have this conversation today, and I’m happy to have it.

I know the member understands that this government is deeply committed to the work of building a seamless system of care for children and youth, one that includes the prevention and early intervention, the education that is required, as he said, to provide that port in a storm for children and youth — and to be able to provide the early intervention that does prevent problems from getting worse.

When I was up in Pemberton, it was really wonderful to hear directly from a youth who spoke to her personal experience of being able to access supports from adults and peers that helped her feel more welcome, helped her reduce some of the stigma and fear that people have in reaching out for help. She herself had an interest in pursuing a career in this, and she was grateful for the way she had been welcomed and received. That, of course, was in the Foundry, as we were announcing the expansion of Foundry satellite services.

I want to talk specifically now to the member’s question around the different programs and the budget allocations that are in this year’s budget, but taking in mind that this year’s budget includes not just new funding that is added to the Health budget but actually sees the implementation of commitments made in previous budgets that are activated in this year.

We fund several different mental health and substance use services and supports for children, again with that focus on education, early intervention and prevention. That includes the Foundry program PreVenture. It’s a school-based intervention program that uses personality-targeted screening and workshops to help reduce adolescent alcohol and other substance use amongst high-risk youth, particularly those grades 6 to 10, aged 12 to 18. Foundry receives $2 million annually in base funding from our ministry to provide this program in schools.

A program in our relationship with the Canadian Mental Health Association, the B.C. chapter, is Confident Parents, Thriving Kids. This supports parents with children aged three to 12, so even younger, who are experiencing behavioural or anxiety challenges.

There is an Indigenous-specific component to this program called We Are Indigenous: Big Worries. The ministry provides $6.818 million in funding to the Canadian Mental Health Association through the federal-provincial bilateral fund that we have to provide this program.

Feelings first, which is led by Child Health B.C. and the B.C. Healthy Child Development Alliance and funded by the Ministry of Health, provides social and emotional development in early years through social media, through free training modules for caregivers and by working with educators in partnership with select StrongStart centres.

I know the member is familiar with StrongStart. The ministry provides $235,000 in annual funding, again through the bilateral agreement that we have. This is done through the Provincial Health Services Authority.

Earlier today I was speaking about early psychosis intervention, which provides rapid, comprehensive treatment for youth and young adults aged 13 to 30 who are experiencing early signs of psychosis. Again, this is about early intervention to do everything we can to stop problems from becoming worse.

[4:20 p.m.]

The ministry invested $53 million in the early psychosis intervention expansion through Budget 2021 and increased the funding in $75 million for ongoing funding there to enable approximately 100 new FTEs and to increase staff capacity at all of the sites where this program is offered.

We are currently undertaking work in the development of a youth suicide risk reduction framework. It’s work that’s being done in collaboration with youth, families, clinical experts and Indigenous Peoples with the goal of promoting mental wellness and establishing youth-friendly responses to suicide risk.

Now, there are situations that move from mental health challenges that are not just mild but moving into more moderate and severe challenges that children and youth are facing. We’ve been working to strengthen access to integrated services that provide supports for young people and their families. They’re designed to meet children and youth where they are at; whether they’re at school; they’re in community; or virtually, accessing services online.

One of those, of course, as the member knows well, is the expansion of Foundry, the one-stop shop that offers people aged 12 to 24 and their families integrated mental health, physical and sexual health, peer support, work, education, community services and substance use health all in one place.

In Budget 2023, we provided $74.9 million over three years to enhance Foundry services, and now we’re at a point where there are 20 Foundry centres open, 15 more that are in development, as well as five satellite locations that have been announced and, for those communities where Foundry is not physically located, access online to Foundry services. And we will sustain the operation of these centres.

Integrated child and youth teams are a joint initiative through the Ministries of Health, Education and Child Care, and Children and Family Development. They are multidisciplinary teams that provide wraparound support, helping to identify those youth most at risk, with the mental health and substance use services that they need.

While they’re focused on children and youth aged zero to 19, they do have flexibility to continue care up to the age of 21. The province has committed $131.5 million over three years to implement these teams in 20 school districts around B.C.

We have youth concurrent disorder clinicians, people who specialize in providing supports to young people with concurrent mental health and substance use challenges between the ages of 13 and 24. These are services that are delivered by the regional health authorities. They provide prioritized access for youth who are transitioning from government care, but most clinicians do have the capacity to serve all youth.

Through Budget 2021, we invested $2.612 million to hire an additional 19 full-time-equivalent youth concurrent disorder clinicians throughout regional health authorities. Those positions are included and continue to this day.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Moving into more severe crisis response, severe mental illness issues and substance use issues that youth face, Budget 2021 provided $50.55 million over three years to support 123 new youth substance use beds and to enhance the provincially accessible specialized beds that we have. So now, as of January 2026, there are 210 publicly funded community-based youth substance beds here in B.C. That’s 115 that have opened since 2017, and more to come.

Budget 2023 provided $161.52 million in funding over three years to increase services for young people, including youth substance crisis supports, culturally safe wraparound services, enhanced transition services, improved emergency room hospital-based care and discharge planning. These are investments that are strengthening provincewide responses for young people who experience severe substance use emergencies, by expanding non-bed-based services.

In Fraser Health, just a couple more examples. We have the Fraser Health Authority transition teams that help families and patients after a hospital stay for a substance use emergency. They help through the discharge process by following up, helping to avoid these youth falling through the cracks by connecting them to community-based care and support. We have three transition teams operating in Fraser Health Authority right now, and they are serving clients.

[4:25 p.m.]

In Island Health, a similar approach, but it’s called the Youth Short Term Assessment and Response, or Y-STAR. These are teams that provide wraparound, brief but solution-focused intervention and systems navigation, helping youth to navigate the system so they do not have to do this on their own and helping connect them to community-based crisis stabilization supports, for those youth particularly who have severe substance use or co-occurring mental health and substance use challenges.

These teams, which are in Port Hardy, Campbell River, Port Alberni, Nanaimo and Cowichan, have been expanded. The youth intensive case management and the Y-STAR teams in Victoria here have recently relocated into a really positive, youth-friendly space.

In Northern Health, Y-STAR teams as well, much similar to Island Health.

In Interior Health, youth substance use connections supports transitions between services by expanding the youth substance use connections workers who are in hospital and in community where the demand exceeds capacity, so it adds into the system there. The clinician in this program responds to individuals, youth who are in hospital or community, within 72 hours of referral. As of January 2025, it’s an expanded service that is now fully operational.

In Vancouver Coastal Health, where the member is currently at the LMLGA, the youth intensive case management expansion in Sea to Sky offers case consultation, treatment planning and crisis support, both in hospitals and in the community, and has had the addition of allied health clinicians so that the team can provide a broader range of services that include case management, resource navigation, assessment and counselling for individuals and families. As of February of this year, this is a service that is at 100 percent operating capacity.

Provincial Health Services Authority has the substance use response and facilitation, or SURF, expansion, again, targeting young people, particularly those who are experiencing problematic opioid use, and helping them with accessing evidence-based treatments that reduce mortalities and really improve outcomes for people. It has recently undergone an expansion that enables out-patient services with extended operating hours. That includes evening on-call coverage, and it is operating at 100 percent capacity as well.

The work that must be done and must continue to focus on Indigenous youth is also an important part of the ministry’s work. This is where our partnership with the First Nations Health Authority is so key, working with them, with youth wellness liaisons, people who help to design, implement and oversee community-based health and wellness programs that are aimed particularly at supporting First Nations youth.

These liaisons engage with First Nations communities, with local health care providers, with other stakeholders and take a very holistic and integrated approach to youth mental health and wellness. As of April 2026, the service is at 80 percent operating capacity, so room to continue to grow so that they can reach 100 percent capacity as well.

I will close there. This, I hope, has been a pretty comprehensive insight into many of the different programs that the ministry offers. Again, I appreciate the member’s focus and attention to child and youth mental health and wellness and the supports that the Ministry of Health provides.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thanks to the minister for a very thorough answer.

I’ll move to a different topic — involuntary treatment, obviously a known area of disagreement between our parties. I’m really not trying to have a debate, just interested in the budget implications.

As mentioned, increase in governmental support of involuntary treatment has the effect of creating an avenue through which to fast-track people who live on the street into these institutions. The fact of the matter is that it’s not a one-way street. These issues don’t just lead to people living on the street but are also mechanisms for survival, responses to trauma and results of having to live on the street in the first place.

[4:30 p.m.]

I’m drawing attention to this because the rules for involuntary treatment are not governed by the Criminal Code nor the Correction Act but by the Mental Health Act. We’ve just been through a fairly thorough committee on Bill 16.

The ministry is investing, as we understand, $131 million for intensive mental health and addictions treatment, including increasing spaces for those who need involuntary treatment. My question to the minister is: is this sum that I specified or another sum being put toward involuntary treatment facilities that are located within provincial correctional institutions?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for this area of questions. I want to begin by just noting the seriousness of this subject. It’s one that, while I would agree with the member that we don’t see completely eye to eye on approaches here, I know we have a shared interest in — in ensuring that people can access care that they need, particularly people experiencing severe mental illness, people with severe addiction issues.

We have spoken about — through bill debates; through last year’s estimates, for example — the small but very important proportion of our population in British Columbia of people who have the triad of concurrent mental illness and substance use disorders with acquired brain injury.

We have spoken many times in this House about our responsibility to provide care for people when they are not in a position to actively seek or voluntarily seek care for themselves and the balance that we must grapple with around ensuring that people are respected for their decision-making autonomy.

[4:35 p.m.]

For people who the living conditions in which they find themselves…. They need increased dignity, increased respect and the ability to find those services, balancing that, too, with the impacts that we see in neighbourhoods and in communities.

These are challenging conversations we have. As the member points out, the Mental Health Act is our framework under which, when the criteria are met and the assessments are undertaken by clinicians, a person can be administered psychiatric treatment, for example, involuntarily.

The work that Dr. Vigo has been doing with the Ministry of Health to provide advice to identify the gaps in our system of care for individuals has resulted in decisions to build facilities where involuntary care can be provided. But this is also on top of services that British Columbia already had — for example, the Red Fish Healing Centre in Coquitlam that helps to provide that care, again, for concurrent disorders and, in some situations, the care that is provided involuntarily.

I want to be very clear. There is no intention, there is no plan, there is no program to take people off of the streets and put them into facilities. This is a very considered and careful approach that has to be taken when balancing the rights of an individual. Again, there are strict criteria under the Mental Health Act, as the member and I have canvassed, and his colleague the member for Saanich North and the Islands. This has to be done with the care and attention that is due.

Budget 2026 includes $131 million, as the member pointed out, in new funding for mental health and addictions treatment. The past year has seen the establishment of approved homes, now called Spiritwood Homes, at Alouette, which are adjacent but not part of a correctional facility, and the establishment of ten beds at the Surrey Pretrial Centre, which is a correctional facility, to provide the space for the provision of psychiatric treatment and addressing the issues, high-risk behaviours, that are seen in people and require that ongoing care and attention and treatment.

The Surrey Pretrial Centre. The ten beds that are provided there are for inmates, people who are being held in custody, awaiting trial, who require access to this kind of support.

I again want to be clear that when these beds are built and established, they are in addition to several thousand mental-health-designated beds that already exist in the B.C. system across 77 facilities in B.C., and that the designation of a bed as a mental health bed — whether it’s acute or tertiary or quaternary, in the case of some facilities — is about the designation of the bed. The assessment of a person and the clinical assessment as to whether treatment might be applied involuntarily is separate from the designation of the bed.

When we describe facilities as involuntary care facilities, it’s not entirely accurate. They are facilities where care can be administered involuntarily, absolutely. They are also facilities where care can be administered voluntarily. And Surrey Pretrial is a good example, I think, of how this can work.

I want to tell the member a little bit more about the results that we have seen there, and then I can talk a little bit more about intentions for expansion.

It’s been approximately one year since PHSA and the B.C. Mental Health and Substance Use centre, along with B.C. Corrections, opened this ten-bed, secure facility. It is part of the corrections system. It is a designated mental health treatment unit in living unit X, or LUX, at Surrey Pretrial.

Since then, we have seen more than 50 incarcerated clients from across the province receive treatment there. Some of the key results from the preliminary impact evaluation that we’ve undertaken at the end of the year have provided some early indications that the model is successful at providing more timely mental health care to incarcerated people who meet the criteria for certification under the Mental Health Act.

[4:40 p.m.]

First of all, access to care has improved. The proportion of people who are waiting for treatment, following the double certification that is required for involuntary administration of treatment, who ultimately receive mental health care either at the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital or within the Surrey Pretrial unit, the LUX unit — increased significantly following the opening of the LUX unit, in fact, 64 percent post-implementation versus 40 percent pre-implementation.

That’s an increase in the access to care. Wait times for treatment have improved, dropping provincially from 24.7 to 20.5 days. Wait times for treatment amongst the individuals wait-listed at Surrey Pretrial demonstrated the greatest reduction, and at that site, they have declined from 27.3 days to 4.7 days. That means an individual incarcerated at Surrey Pretrial who is in need of treatment is able to access that now in less than five days, a significant improvement from what it was before.

This also means a reduction in incidents requiring intervention. Following the addition of the Surrey Pretrial mental health unit, there have been fewer incidents requiring correctional staff intervention attributed to, in part, the stability of clients, of patients. The patients themselves are experiencing positive outcomes. This includes improvements in insight or judgment; in eating, sleeping and overall mood and demeanor; and an improved awareness of their mental health condition.

Individuals who are receiving involuntary treatment are experiencing this with minimal use of force. I know this is a big concern for many people. Use of force was rarely required amongst those being treated involuntarily under the Mental Health Act. Most care interactions with individuals being treated in the Surrey Pretrial Centre were compliant at 89 percent. Successful but non-compliant interactions were uncommon, at 7 percent, and failed treatment attempts were quite rare, at 4 percent.

Importantly, as well, the staff feelings of safety have improved, and correctional staff themselves are reporting improvements to the general atmosphere and the feeling of safety. The increased presence of clinicians provides quicker response to client needs, real-time mental health assessments and has contributed to a calmer environment with fewer disruptions and much more stability amongst clients.

Seeing these kinds of results is encouraging. The province is now looking at the establishment of other units, but no decisions have been taken. As we look at the success of the Redfish Healing Centre, we look at the success of approved homes like the 18 homes at Alouette, now called Spiritwood Homes….

As the member knows, and it has been announced, we are expanding services in Prince George and in Surrey and, in time, looking out, as well, to Interior Health and the Island in order to provide more regional opportunities for care and to really look at integrating a bit of a hub-and-spoke model with the Redfish Healing Centre.

Again, at a facility somewhere in Surrey or a facility in Prince George — wherever it is — these beds are designated under the Mental Health Act. They can be used for patients who are receiving care involuntarily after certification under the Mental Health Act. They can also and will also be used for voluntary care.

Just in closing, I point the member to Hansard from Monday when the member for Skeena and I canvassed quite a bit about mental health beds and discussions on both Monday and Tuesday about the Mental Health Act. I think that’ll provide a little bit more information and context too, so we can move on to other subjects should the member like to.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thanks for the answer.

Yes, there is always an inherent apology. I have been following some of these, but not all, so I missed that and will go back and review that discussion. I will move on. Thank you.

[4:45 p.m.]

Freedom of information and health. The Minister of Health is aware and has met with my constituency team about a tragedy that occurred on Bowen Island a couple of years ago when a teenager took her own life after receiving her medical records through an FOI request. We met about this, and I appreciate the original interim solution was some language included with the FOI request cautioning — I’m sorry, I’m paraphrasing here — about the risks of receiving that information.

Since then, we were updated that protocols are being strengthened to ensure that when an applicant has mental-health-related records, health information management and FOI teams within the health authority coordinate with one another directly to assess whether consultation with the evaluating physician is necessary prior to releasing records.

This is a positive step, and we appreciate the ministry’s responsiveness on this. I’m hoping to learn more about these protocols and safeguards to ensure individuals are supported when receiving their records.

So the question to the minister is: by what mechanisms will these protocols be strengthened to ensure there’s dialogue between health information management teams and treating physicians, and when can we receive progress updates about this change?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. I’m going to largely take this on notice. We’re just trying to get an update about the specifics, and I can’t get it in time. I don’t want to waste the member’s time. I know his time is limited, so I’ll be happy to have somebody from my team meet with him and provide that update.

I will make a general comment, though, that part of the work the Ministry of Health is doing in establishing B.C. Health Shared Services…. Part of the work that will come into this new entity are freedom-of-information requests. One of the advantages in this, not only just to reduce duplicative processes, is also to provide a more consistent approach across health authorities.

I recognize that the member is speaking about a specific case within Vancouver Coastal Health, but it’s important that we apply the learnings from this across all health authorities. By being able to do that through the new shared-services entity, we will see, as I said, a more consistent approach to this so that we can pay the attention that’s needed to something as serious as this.

I thank the member for the question.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll move on to prescribed safe supply supervision changes. As we understand, in March 2023, the use of the government’s prescribed safe supply program peaked at just over 5,000 patients per month. In that same peak year, only 0.3 percent of the drugs seized by the Vancouver police department was hydromorphone, which, as we know, is the opioid that makes up the vast majority of prescribed safe supply.

Despite this, last year the government changed the rules of the safe supply program, now requiring all uses to be under the supervision of a health professional, resulting in a large decrease in use. However, there are still a large number of overdose deaths each year, so we believe these changes will result in a decrease of use of prescribed safe supply.

People who use drugs have jobs, commitments, personal lives and simply cannot reasonably only use substances under supervision. Then it will result in an increased use of the toxic drug supply and, therefore, preventable overdoses.

With the most recent number of prescribed safe supply clients being under 3,500, at least 1,500 less than the peak years ago, does the ministry have any concern regarding the lack of access to prescribed safe supply?

I’ll add a question. We see the number of clients using the prescribed safe supply decreasing, but, as mentioned, over 100 British Columbians still overdose and die each month. Does the ministry have any other plans to reduce people’s reliance on the toxic drug supply and connect them to regulated alternatives?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the set of questions around the province’s prescribed alternatives program.

I’m going to start by acknowledging how important these interventions are in separating people from the toxic drug supply, a supply that continues to devastate families and friends, as well as communities, and that British Columbia, of course, is no exception to what is taking place.

We understand that a person experiencing an addiction disorder, or a person who is an occasional user of drugs, faces the risk that they face with this ever-changing and evolving toxic drug supply. One of the best ways to separate people from that risk of overdose is to provide alternatives to the unregulated, the illicit, the toxic drug supply.

[5:00 p.m.]

I’ll just speak briefly to one of the member’s questions around other interventions, around the provision of overdose prevention services, the establishment of other harm reduction services like drug checking, like the take-home-naloxone program, like the LifeguardConnect app, all things designed to help separate people or keep them safe, keep them alive so that we have the opportunity to connect people to care.

The evidence that we have showing that the prescribed alternatives program has helped to separate people from the unregulated drug supply to help manage their substance use and withdrawal symptoms with regulated medications…. I do think it’s very important to characterize this for what it is, and this is medication — prescribed alternatives. Again, helping to enhance those connections to voluntary health and social supports that are needed, like substance use treatment….

It’s still one part of the work that we’re doing. We’re going to continue the work with health system partners to expand access to opioid agonist treatment. That is the first line, evidenced-based medical treatment for opioid use disorder. We know that it significantly reduces the risk of overdose death.

For those clients who are prescribed alternatives to the toxic drug supply, the work that clinicians do to help them, sometimes together with OAT, sometimes a transition to OAT, is an important part of the continuum of treatment and recovery.

At the same time, as the member knows, there are real risks of diversion of prescribed alternatives, and we will always want to ensure that these substances, these medications, are being used by the person for whom they are intended. That’s why we took the decision to move to a witnessed program. This new prescribed alternatives policy was released in December 2025, as the member knows, with a four-week timeline to transition clients to witnessed dosing.

Again, the research is clear that it not only saves lives, but it improves people’s quality of life. The member spoke directly to that. We know also that physicians and nurse practitioners have a duty to help keep their patients safe. Because of this, we did carve out some specific exemptions to witnessing in the prescribed alternatives policy to do our best to ensure that people do not unfairly lose access to this life-saving medication.

Just because somebody lives in a remote or rural area, for example, and doesn’t have access to a pharmacy seven days a week doesn’t mean that they have to lose their access to prescribed alternatives. And just because somebody has a job doesn’t mean they have to choose between taking medication that helps keep them well or having and keeping their job.

When somebody starts on opioid agonist treatment — which is the gold treatment, again, for opioid use disorder treatment — they can access after-hours medications that help them manage their withdrawal symptoms during the initial titration period to help get them to a dose that works for them.

We know, too, that there are many people who will not fall into those exemption categories. And for some of those people, witnessed dosing multiple times a day isn’t realistic because it is just simply too disruptive to their daily life.

In some cases, we know that physicians and nurse practitioners are making clinical choices to transition their patients more slowly than we called for, but they are slowly tapering them off medications that require the witnessed daily dosing and increasing other medications, like the traditional OAT I spoke of or fentanyl patches that are less burdensome but still help clients meet their needs.

We know that the policy is working. We know that prescribers and patients are working together to find medications that work best for them while continuing to reduce the risk of diversion. We have seen a huge increase in the witnessed doses of prescribed alternative medications.

At the same time, as the member notes, we have seen a decrease in the number of patients on prescribed alternatives. And yes, it has come down from a high, a peak in March 2023 when 5,189 people were dispensed any form of prescribed alternative.

[5:05 p.m.]

The month before we made the announcement, 3,869 people were being dispensed any form of prescribed alternatives. By December 2025, we also know that 2,345 people received dispensations of OAT and an opioid prescribed alternative in the same month, speaking to this group that I’m talking about who are titrating from prescribed alternatives to OAT, for example. So 75 percent of people who received an opioid prescribed alternative in December 2025.

I just want to return to the subject of diversion and, again, the need to ensure that prescribed alternatives remain in the hands of those for whom they are intended. We know that at the same time there have been what we’ll call bad actor pharmacies and that it is our responsibility to investigate any pharmacy where allegations are made. We have a special investigations unit here in the Ministry of Health that is undertaking that work.

I can confirm that there are dozens and dozens of investigations underway. Of course, I can’t provide specific details on those, but it is just to underscore the point that there are allegations; that they are being investigated; and that, at the same time, the College of Pharmacists has its own procedures that it uses to determine and to discipline where necessary. I would encourage the member to visit the College of Pharmacists website where more information can be found about what is taking place in terms of their investigations.

You can tell it’s getting to the end of the day. I think I’ll leave it there, and I think there will be time for the member to ask. We can do another exchange, and we’ll keep going.

Jeremy Valeriote: Long-term care. As the minister knows, it’s been talked about quite a bit. I’m sure it was a difficult budget decision. The aging Hilltop House facility in Squamish was slated to add an extra 58 long-term-care and four hospice beds, initially scheduled to complete construction in 2030. Vancouver Coastal Health has very recently announced a small care home interim solution, which are six to ten beds expected to be operational by summer or…. Sorry. Yeah, anyway, six to ten beds.

Just wondering if the minister can speak to the interim nature of this and how it impacts the larger 152-bed Hilltop House long-term-care facility. I recognize that many of these questions are for Infrastructure, but I’m also hoping that within this context the minister can specify the target cost per bed because the cost per bed of $1.8 million has been discussed at length. I’m trying to understand if this small care home fits into it under a different cost target and what that would look like. So both the interim impact of this on the overall need, as well as cost.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: I will take this question on notice to direct to Infrastructure and do my best to work with that ministry to get more answers for the member. Just pointing out that all the capital questions really do lie within the Ministry of Infrastructure, so we’re limited in how much detail we can provide.

Sorry, but thank you.

Jeremy Valeriote: I understand that cost-related questions may be better directed to Infrastructure. But since it is Vancouver Coastal Health making these decisions on an overall service level, I’m hoping that the Minister of Health, and maybe it needs to be also on notice, can give an idea of how these six to ten interim beds will be staged and play into the original 2030 goal of 58 extra beds. That is something I’m hoping isn’t an infrastructure question.

Hon. Josie Osborne: I can confirm Vancouver Coastal Health’s intentions are to build 200 such beds by 2029.

Overall, part of the planning…. While the Ministry of Infrastructure leads the overall provincial side of capital planning for long-term-care homes, of course they do that in partnership with the Ministry of Health and with health authorities directly themselves.

Each health authority maintains the ability to undertake that process, and they are informed by needs and wait-lists in their communities and the type of care that’s needed, but working primarily with the Ministry of Infrastructure, of course, to ensure that for those publicly funded beds that are being built, the capital funding is there, and working with the Ministry of Health on the operational side of the funding.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ve got one more here. In my caucus colleague’s riding of Saanich North and the Islands, Shoreline health currently operates two clinics providing essential medical services, continuity of care to the Saanich Peninsula. What is less known is that beyond the cost of the physicians, the clinics, the counsellors and all of the youth programs are entirely funded by donations and grants.

[5:15 p.m.]

Staff and members of the Shoreline Medical Society are worried every single year that services could be cut if a grant is not awarded or fundraising numbers aren’t met.

My question to the minister is: is the Ministry of Health aware of these funding models that require community donations to fund the health clinics, and does this budget for any future plans allocate resources to bridge this funding gap and have the government ensure British Columbians, and particularly the patients of Shoreline Health, the health care that they need?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you so much to the member for the question. I had the opportunity to visit Shoreline myself. It is an incredibly inspiring example of the tenacity and commitment of physicians who understand and really believe in team-based care and how that can deliver care to the residents of Sidney and North Saanich and that area. I am thrilled because I know of their plans and intentions and hopes to continue to expand that care.

I’m just going to speak a little more generally about the role of community-led clinics in the primary care space. As we’ve been canvassing throughout estimates, I’ve talked with other members quite a bit about the changing nature of the way primary care is being delivered.

We see the expansion of team-based care that helps to provide the appropriate type and care to a patient at the time when they need it. We see more involvement of municipalities and other local governments, of non-profits in this space who understand the community members whom they serve. The development of community health centres specifically focusing on some of the more vulnerable populations — higher needs, higher complexity — and the importance of enabling that work.

I’m also, at the same time, very aware of the fact that it is challenging in any non-profit space to be cobbling together multiple funding streams, whether it’s through primary care networks from the health authorities, through the Ministry of Health, through donations and philanthropy.

These places like Shoreline, like Whistler 360, like STEPS in Kamloops, like Cool Aid here in Victoria are doing everything they can to ensure the continuity of care, the reliability of care and the appropriate care for the patients that they serve.

I want to acknowledge that because it’s an area of great interest to me, and I know the member knows, from under our former agreement, the CARGA agreement, that we were doing work on the community health centres and looking at better ways to support them. That work continues in the ministry.

I’ll also point the member to the community playbook and toolkit developed by the ministry in collaboration and, really, with the impetus, the instigation of south Island and former mayor of Colwood, Dave Saunders, and how incredibly helpful that is for those local governments that are interested in getting engaged in the primary care space.

I’ll just close by indicating to the member that I am aware not of the details about Shoreline but of the bigger picture there. I’ll continue my conversations with the member from Saanich North and the Islands to do everything that we can to support this clinic and the really valuable work that they’re doing in the community.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:23 p.m.

The House resumed at 5:23 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

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

Leave granted.

Dana Lajeunesse: Committee of Supply, Section A, reports resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals and reports progress on the Ministry of Labour and asks to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 5:24 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:05 p.m.

[Stephanie Higginson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Mining and Critical Minerals
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, everyone. I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We’re meeting today to continue consideration of the budget estimates on the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals.

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

Sheldon Clare: I have a number of questions for the minister and limited time so, if it please the Chair, what I propose to do is provide a written copy of the questions to the minister after reading through them so that you have them on the record and you’re able to respond to them in a timely way. I appreciate the efforts of yourself and your staff in being here to respond to our questions. Thank you very much.

I will begin. With regards to ministry operating expense reporting for fiscal year 2025-2026, Budget 2026 states the total operating expenses for the ministry for 2025-2026 were $57.457 million. However, when one looks at the first quarterly update, published in September 2025, it was reported that, year to date, to June 30, expenses for the ministry were $103 million and the second quarterly update, published in November 2025, that year to date, to September 30, expenses for the ministry were $124 million. I wonder if the minister could clarify those discrepancies in ministry expense reporting.

With regards to placer mining, how many placer operations in the province have shut down, downsized or walked away in the last three years? Does the ministry track those results?

Next, what is the average time frame for permitting for placer? What is the average time for permitting for mineral? How are they different?

Third, a ministry official has told placer miners that, “Placer is a lower-priority sector. Longer wait times should be expected. I don’t see an ability to permit for this field season.” Is this the minister’s position? If not, has the ministry corrected this communication to industry? If so, what are the factors in calculating the priorities of permit applications across both placer and mineral?

Next, AME data shows only 14.8 percent of claim applications are processed within 120 days. Does your ministry dispute that number? How many total claim applications are currently submitted, in consultation and awaiting decision? What percentage of claim applications are still pending beyond six months? How many claim applications have already been effectively abandoned by proponents due to delays?

In the Cariboo, miners report waiting two to three years for routine authorizations. What is the total number of outstanding notices of work in the province, and what is the longest outstanding notice of work currently on file? What is the current total backlog of placer-related permits provincewide and, specifically, in the Cariboo?

How many full-time ministry staff are assigned to process placer permits today versus five years ago? Are there inspector-of-mines positions vacant today? If so, how many, and in which ministry offices? And I understand that training takes up people from roles where they would be processing permits. So when you have new people, processing is eaten up when you’re training new people.

With regards to First Nations and placer mining, First Nations leaders themselves are telling MLAs that they lack capacity to process applications. Has the ministry allocated funding or staffing to address these capacity issues? If so, could you please provide the numbers? How many applications are currently delayed due to capacity constraints on the consultation side? Is the ministry tracking how long files sit waiting for consultation input from individual First Nations? How often does consultation input exceed the ministry’s 30-day target?

With regards to the MCCF, DRIPA and placer mining, the MCCF replaced a same-day claim-staking system with a multi-step application, consultation and decision process. Did your ministry model the economic impact of that shift before implementation?

[1:10 p.m.]

Placer miners have received communications from First Nations indicating placer miners require consent to conduct their operations — communications the minister and senior staff have been provided by my office.

The said communication from the Tŝilhqot’in National Government in mid-2025 states: “The Tŝilhqot’in expect the Crown and industry to work towards securing the free, prior and fully informed consent of the Tŝilhqot’in community nation before any authorizations are granted for proposed work. We request that the proponent and applicants work together to ensure rights and title are not being infringed upon by the proposed work,” and that these requests are based on agreements that “it is there for us. There will be no mining activity without Tŝilhqot’in Nation’s free, prior and informed consent.”

Does the minister support these requests to placer miners by First Nations? If not, what actions is the ministry taking to communicate this to First Nations and clarify that these requests are not required by proponents?

Lastly, I have questions about Record Ridge magnesium mine in Rossland in the West Kootenays. Would a Record Ridge magnesium mine expansion beyond 75,000 tonnes per year trigger a full environmental assessment? Are there other proposals for new mines or expansions that are taking a similar path to Record Ridge and Gibraltar to avoid full environmental reviews? And what is the threshold for a full environmental assessment to be triggered?

To that end, I submit these questions to you in writing for your consideration and response. I look forward to receiving a written response to these, Minister.

I thank you, again, and your staff for all the hard work you’re doing.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the questions. If I start questioning all those questions, I don’t think any other member will be able to ask any other questions.

I really appreciate your work on this, and we will be providing you a comprehensive response in the coming days. I really appreciate you working with me very closely on various issues in your area. I appreciate your activism in your riding. I’m always happy to work with you and to support you in your area. I think our interests are pretty common.

We will provide you a comprehensive response to these questions, moving forward.

Gavin Dew: I think the minister will find this, hopefully, an easy one, because I am aware that a table exists that will answer my exact question, probably in his briefing binder.

One of the primary talking points of government has been about the total quantum of investment in major mining projects. There is a table that has been provided during a technical briefing in advance of these estimates breaking out the investment numbers on the following projects: Highland Valley Copper, Eskay Creek, Mount Milligan, Copper Mountain, Quintette mine, Mount Polley and Red Chris.

There is one column in the table which shows the estimated investment. There is, I believe, a version of that table that exists which shows how much capital has actually been deployed by each project.

[1:15 p.m.]

Can the minister read into the record or provide that table with, again, the amount of capital actually deployed on the following projects: Highland Valley Copper, Eskay Creek, Mount Milligan, Copper Mountain, Quintette mine, Mount Polley and Red Chris?

Hon. Jagrup Brar: B.C. has prioritized 18 projects, including four mining projects, as I’ve said many times before, for faster decision-making. Several major mines have been permitted in the last 13 months, including three designated as a priority.

This list the member has mentioned — I’m going to read the list. Highland Valley Copper, approved; the capital cost is $2.4 billion. Eskay Creek, approved; the capital cost is $713 million. Mount Milligan gold and copper mine, approved; the capital cost is $400 million. Copper Mountain copper and gold mine, approved; the capital cost is $285 million. Quintette mine metallurgical coal, the capital cost is $500 million. The Mount Polley copper and gold expansion, the capital cost has not been disclosed yet. Red Chris has not been approved yet, but its proposed capital cost is $2.6 billion.

Gavin Dew: I will just clarify that that was not an answer to the question. The question was: how much capital has actually been allocated, spent on each of those projects?

I would like an answer. During technical briefing, ministerial staff did indicate there was a version of the table that includes the dollars actually spent, so I would like those numbers.

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: I just want to say to the member that each of these projects is under construction as we speak. The amounts given, which I listed already, are companies’ projections, their projections, and I don’t have details of spending on these projects as we speak.

[1:25 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: That’s certainly very concerning, because, in technical briefing, ministerial staff told me that there was a table available with the actual amount that had been spent so far. So if the minister is declining to reveal that information, that’s very concerning, particularly in conjunction with this government actually shutting down the major projects inventory.

What we’re seeing is a lot of posturing about big capital spending and an end to transparency. Combined with Bill 9 and the death of FOI in this province, I’m very concerned that there are big claims being made but no substantiation. It is extremely alarming that, again, in a technical briefing, ministerial staff were specific in saying that there was a version of this table available that included the amount of capital actually spent. The minister is now declining to provide that information.

This is a ministry in the same government that has now killed the major projects inventory and is not disclosing information. This is the same government that is raising the threshold for disclosure of capital spending in the budget, and I find this extremely alarming.

Let’s talk about something else, because I’m obviously not going to get an answer on this.

Let’s talk about sand and gravel. I met recently with producers who told me that they were waiting for four or even five years to get basic permits processed for aggregate mining and, in fact, in some instances, told me that they were receiving direction from government staff to continue operating without permits because the government was incapable of processing permits on a timely basis. So you literally have significant blasting operations happening without permits at the direction of government staff. That’s extraordinarily concerning.

Can the minister please talk about whether the current permitting timelines for sand and gravel pits are constraining housing and infrastructure delivery and driving up costs in high-growth regions? Can he talk about what steps are being taken to balance faster aggregate approvals with environmental review, Indigenous consultation and reclamation requirements? Can he talk about how the ministry is coordinating with municipalities and regional districts to manage issues around the kinds of aggregate mining that are necessary to produce concrete that is necessary to build all of the housing we want, all the infrastructure we want, and so forth?

Again, I have heard from industry a tremendous level of concern. I’m hearing about four- to five-year delays in order to process basic permitting simply to expand existing operations, and I’m hearing about operations that are perched on the brink of being non-compliant because there is not timely permitting being undertaken.

So can the minister please provide an update and tell us how he’s going to fix this very, very problematic situation for standing gravel?

[1:30 p.m. - 1:35 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: I would like to properly respond to the first part. The member raised a question about, particularly, the capital expenses. I have checked with the staff members who provided the briefing, and we did not collect any information about the capital spending of a particular mine. I just want to be very clear about that.

Coming to the second part of the question, in 2025, the average turnaround time was 189 days, and 95 sand and gravel permits were actually issued. So the average of turnaround days was 189, and a total of 95 permits were issued, when we talk about the sand and gravel. We continue to work with the B.C. Stone, Sand and Gravel Association to improve the situation.

I also want to say that the overall aggregates permitting backlog went down 30 percent — 30 percent.

Gavin Dew: I must be confused, because my notes from the technical briefing were me asking, “Looking at this table here, is there a version of this table that includes the capital actually deployed?” and staff responding: “Yes.” Evidently, there must be some confusion in the ministry if that table now does not exist.

I sure wish that the minister would simply disclose that information, because it is salient to the public and relevant. I hope that in his next answer, he will change his mind and decide that the table that staff told me existed less than a week ago does exist, and that he will provide that information.

If not, I’d like to know why he won’t provide that information. I think it’s a basic level of disclosure that would be only appropriate. If this government is going to continue to do victory laps on mining and claim great success, then they should be unafraid to disclose the actual amount of dollars spent, just as they should be unafraid to disclose what’s happening with the major projects inventory that, I would reiterate, they have now shut down.

The lack of transparency from this government is absolutely electrifying. I’m very, very concerned about this trend. I’m very, very concerned that this minister continues to stonewall on basic information about projects that are under his jurisdiction.

Let’s talk about another area that has people very concerned. The minister’s estimates notes from last year state: “The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Action Plan commits the ministry to working in consultation and cooperation with First Nations and First Nations organizations to modernize the MTA.”

[1:40 p.m.]

I’d like to hear more about what progress has been made on those consultations. In particular, I’d like to hear what is being done to ensure that consultations with stakeholders in the mining industry are significantly stronger than past consultations to avoid a repeat of the Heritage Conservation Act.

I’d like to understand specifically how the timeline for Mineral Tenure Act reform has been affected by the amendments that are supposed to be coming forward to DRIPA — or were supposed to be coming forward, with the Premier’s six different positions on DRIPA in two weeks.

I would like to understand specifically whether the ministry has modelled potential compensation liability if existing mineral tenures are materially altered.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: I will respond to the MTA reform later on, but I want to respond to the member’s first part, the commentary the member made about his concerns.

I’m really…. We have started these estimates this morning, and I have tried my best to give the best available information, and I’ve been very transparent at each and every question they’ve asked me. I’m very, very concerned about the level of language and the level of complaint and concerns and accusations that are being made by the member, which are absolutely not true.

I just want to say to the member that the mining sector under the B.C. NDP is not only growing; it is the best in the country. It’s the best in the country.

When we took over from the previous administration that was there for 16 years…. For 16 long years, they were there, and let me tell you, in that situation, there was no transparency when we talk about the notice of work. There was nothing about the major mining application process, no transparency there.

We have introduced…. We are changing the system. Every industry I’ve spoken to during the last year, they are asking for one thing, including under the B.C. Liberals. They ask for stability. They ask for certainty. They ask for transparency. But the difference is this. The previous administration failed to provide any of these for 16 years. Nothing was done. They left behind a mess, if you want to ask me. We are fixing that mess.

What we are doing…. The first thing, on the major mines application process, we have reduced the timing, the major mines application process time, by 35 percent. We have also introduced a single application process that was not available under the B.C. Liberals. And we are now approving the major mine applicant process in a time that’s 60 percent less than it was under the Liberals. We have also introduced the fixed timelines, 40 days to 160 days, for the notice of work.

It’s very transparent. Nothing more can be transparent. It is transparent. And we have done that work with AME, by the way. Also, we have introduced this, and we have $3 million additional budget in the Budget 2026 for this one. We are serious about that thing.

We are hiring 17 people to fix the MCCF. We are hiring seven people to fix the notice of work. We have, my friend, Member, approved six major mining projects. I have to check yet how many projects the B.C. Liberals approved, actually, in 16 years. I’ve checked that. Six major mining projects in 13 months. Every second month a new project was approved.

This is over $5 billion investment. This is about thousands of jobs during construction time. This is about thousands of jobs during the mine’s life. This is about billions of dollars of revenue to the province for the education and health care. This is all very transparent.

The mining sector — at this point in time, people are investing money. Even in what you call the exploration sector, last year we had $751 million in exploration expenditure, which is the highest in the history of this province. Nothing…. If I give you the figure of 2024…. When Liberals were there, it was close to $200 million. It is $751 million now.

[1:45 p.m.]

So I don’t take that language saying that this is not transparent, and so on. We have been very transparent. We have been very responsible. We have provided that certainty which the previous administration failed to provide. We have provided those fixed timelines which the previous administration failed to provide.

We will continue to do more. We announced yesterday ten more mining projects. Ten more mining projects on the priority list. We will continue to open more jobs, to bring in more money altogether, Member. Only in the mining sector, there are $40 billion in investments that will come to this province. Those projects are in process, and we will continue working on them.

As far as the MTA is concerned, modernizing the Mineral Tenure Act is a long-standing priority for First Nations and First Nation organizations and is also a commitment in the Declaration Act action plan.

In 2024 and early 2025, the ministry’s focus was on developing the court-ordered mineral claims consultation framework, which required reallocation of some staff resources from the Mineral Tenure Act reform project. Progress was further impacted by a job action in fall 2025.

It’s important that the industry is engaged and their perspectives are heard to ensure that potential amendments to the Mineral Tenure Act support a viable and competitive exploration and mining industry.

As the work advances, we anticipate a variety of venues to share information and obtain feedback on important topics, including one-on-one meetings with industry representatives and workshops to come together to test ideas and hear feedback.

Last but not least, my mandate letter from the Premier outlines his expectation that I make progress on updating the Mineral Tenure Act in a manner that engages directly with and is respectful of First Nations rights and interests and also protects mineral resource development opportunities to deliver prosperity for all British Columbians.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate the minister and staff taking a couple of questions from me this afternoon.

Looking at land use planning in northern B.C., I have a couple of questions I’d like to get into here before I move on to some other business. Last year the Premier announced four land use plans in northwestern B.C., with the objective of unlocking mining for our province and setting an ambitious timeline of one year. Is the minister on track to meet that one-year goal?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question. I just want to start by saying this is important work, land use planning. It’s led by WLRS and MCM together.

[1:55 p.m.]

The northwest strategy provides the framework to unlock multigenerational economic opportunities; advance reconciliation; and align provincial and federal efforts, including the northwest critical minerals conservation corridor to support both critical mineral development and globally significant conservation outcomes.

Land use planning work is central to the northwest strategy and is intended to bring predictability, clarity and efficiency to future investments and regulatory processes by establishing clear land use direction up front.

Draft land plans for the four planning areas the member referred to will be completed and released for engagement throughout spring and summer 2026. A referral for statutory decision–making on the Red Chris mine expansion is anticipated in late spring 2026. The conclusion of this regulatory process will mean that all four of the mining projects named to the Premier’s list of priority projects in 2025 will be completed.

The second part I want to say to you is that the Kaska, Taku River Tlingit, Tāłtān, Gitanyow and Nisg̱a’a Nations are working in partnership in this with the province on cabinet mandate land use plans in northwest and north central B.C.

The four planning projects are in the plan development stage. This is the stage when information is collected and analyzed to inform alternative planning scenarios. There is ongoing engagement with stakeholders, including multi-stakeholders, and bilateral sessions to support a transparent process.

Next step, including sharing draft plans…. We will take the time needed to make sure we get it right, but final plans are expected during 2026.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate the minister’s update on that.

For the four land use planning agreements that are coming late spring, early summer, will those result in joint consent or exclusive decision-making arrangements with the local nations?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: The land use planning — in partnership with the nations and ensuring the process with stakeholders and communities is transparent, inclusive and meaningful — will ensure plans reflect the diversity of interest and promote land use certainty. And this is not a consent agreement.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate the minister clarifying that for me.

There are 501 mineral tenures in the areas that we are discussing here this afternoon. Will the plans allow these claims to continue? If not, is your government really ready to shovel out millions of dollars to expropriate these tenures with a really overstretched budget as it is?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: The land use planning process is ongoing at this stage. We would not presuppose the outcome of the land use planning. One of our government’s goals is to minimize the impact on existing mineral tenures. That’s one of our goals.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that. I think we will leave the land use plan for now, just in the interest of time.

I know the minister is aware of the growing concern with action from U.S. tribes that’s happening not only in the southeast of our province; it’s also happening in the northwest. I’m going to delineate the two here for a second, but this is a very serious storm cloud on the horizon for our province.

I brought up in question period the other day with the Attorney General an injunction that has been filed against the magnesium mine just outside of Rossland, where the Sn̓ʕaýckstx Confederacy is now actively involved in that litigation.

Now, they were granted status as a respondent in that litigation, and the Attorney General’s office consented to allow that to happen. That was not mandatory. She allowed it to happen in her ministry.

My question to the minister. Has the Attorney General communicated with your ministry as to why she made that decision to allow the sn̓ʕaýckstx into litigation when she did not have to do that?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: I can’t discuss the matter before the court. Secondly, litigation strategy is a matter for the Attorney General, in this case. Therefore, I’m unable to comment on this case.

Scott McInnis: I understand. No, I totally get that the minister can’t comment on litigation nor can the Attorney General. My question was simply: was there communication between the two ministries as to why the Attorney General would allow a U.S. tribe to be involved in litigation when it wasn’t mandatory?

Again, I know that U.S. tribes, to a certain degree, have Aboriginal rights. They are required to be consulted in various circumstances on different things, but that’s not this issue. My question was about the communication. Did the minister know the reason why the Attorney General did that? But, I guess, we’ll leave that for now.

I understand, and I’m sure that within the minister’s ministry, this is a very important topic for discussion, because this is very serious. The fact that we have U.S. tribes not leveraging, per se, exclusively, their recognized Aboriginal rights under the constitution…. But they are filing litigation and leveraging the Declaration Act and the Interpretation Act amendments as a reason why they should be gaining a greater foothold into our province and being involved in the mineral resource extraction industries of our province.

This is very serious. It risks our sovereignty as a province. It puts investors on very uncertain ground when they’re looking at, according to the Premier, $50 billion or $80 billion worth of final investment on the table. This is a very serious crisis.

I know that the ministry agrees with me on this. I’m not saying that the government is trying to hide this, but it’s not easy to ascertain this information. I have been able to.

In November of 2025, the Southeast Alaska Indigenous Transboundary Commission filed a judicial review because, in its view, there was a failure to consult them on mining projects being constructed on Canadian soil in northern B.C., specifically Eskay Creek.

Again, I want to highlight that this is a very, very serious, concerning case before the court. I wouldn’t ask the minister to comment on the case specifically, because he’s not able to do that. But this is very serious, and this is just in addition to the Lummi Nation’s court action looking at the Fraser River tunnel project. These issues are coming at us from all fronts in our province.

Since then, obviously, as the minister knows — I’m speaking, again, about the Alaskan tribes filing that injunction — we’ve had the Gitxaała decision from December of 2025, which has really changed the nature of these proceedings and how the court will view the nations leveraging DRIPA and the Interpretation Act, as far as the level of their involvement on Canadian soil and with Canadian resource projects.

[2:15 p.m.]

So my question to the minister is: did the Attorney General notify his ministry, the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals, about a notice of amendment by the Alaskan tribes to reflect the outcome of the Gitxaała decision? Did the minister know about that? Has there been a notice filed of an amendment from Gitxaała to the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals?

Hon. Jagrup Brar: We are aware of the southeast Alaska tribes’ judicial review of the Eskay environmental assessment certificate and their notice to amend the judicial review in relation to the decision. Our ministry is working with a cross-government team to support the response, noting that the AG is the lead in this case.

[2:20 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: I recognize that, Minister, and I appreciate that.

I’m just hoping that the conversations that are happening at the cabinet table around our sole ownership of our resources and the necessity to do something, whether it’s amendments or repeal or suspension of DRIPA — that that’s happening, because this is extremely important.

I have a number of cases on my desk right now, some of which will go to trial this summer, which is before the negotiated agreement on DRIPA is supposed to happen in the fall. So Minister, I’m hoping you can advocate, on behalf of our resources in our province, that something gets done with the Declaration Act to reduce its justiciability. Otherwise, I have to say, that’s a complete and utter failure of government, and it really undermines our sovereignty as a province.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: I thank the member for his comments and questions. I really appreciate that.

Kiel Giddens: We are starting to run low on time. We had a bunch on the critical minerals office, but we’re not going to have time to get to all of it. I do want to make some comments about it.

Certainly, the critical minerals office has been set up with some lofty goals to ensure we are advancing a critical minerals strategy in this province. Yet with B.C…. In this time of a critical minerals crisis, we have this global demand for this. B.C. currently has just three non-gold mines in the entire environmental assessment pipeline, and not one of them is actually moving through an expedited or fast-track process.

[Steve Morissette in the chair.]

With that, I do understand that there are projects designated under the critical minerals office. As I understand, if I have it correct, it’s four projects, one of which is in my riding, actually — the Defense Metals Wicheeda project, a rare earth metals project that I think absolutely needs to be fast-tracked. In a time when we’re talking about tariff pressures, in a time that we’re talking about, obviously, Canada standing on its own two feet, we absolutely have to be advancing projects like this.

I’ll give the minister some benefit that the critical mineral strategy has been a work-in-progress, but over the last five years, zero new critical minerals mines have opened and no new greenfield critical minerals mines have been approved. We’ve talked a lot about brownfield-site mines, and that’s important, but we’re talking about the critical minerals strategy being implemented and seeing some major results from that.

With that, I’m going to follow up to some of the questions from the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke here, just something that I think is very important right now. If we are going to advance B.C.’s critical mineral strategy, making sure that we reduce the uncertainty that DRIPA has created is a major component of that.

Obviously, the province committed to advancing the DRIPA amendments and alignment measures this spring. Now that has been taken away. Because the critical mineral strategy is so important to be implemented — it’s very important for mines in my constituency and in areas around the province as well — what mechanisms are now in place to restore confidence following the decision to delay these amendments, and particularly given industry’s concerns overall with growing regulatory uncertainty?

[2:25 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question. The mining sector is a strong partner with First Nations. We agree that supporting new critical minerals projects is important. That’s why we have created the critical minerals office. The role of this office is to support early coordination between project proponents, government agencies and First Nations as projects prepare for entry into the environmental assessment and permitting process.

Since the inception, the critical minerals office has engaged on more than 20 B.C. critical mineral projects to highlight B.C. opportunities, encourage investment, facilitate relationships and advance projects.

The good news for the member is that three new projects have been added to the office just recently. That includes Northisle Copper and Gold’s north island project and Surge Copper’s Berg project. Defense Metals’ Wicheeda project is also part of that. We have recently assigned it to this office. Now they will de-risk these projects to move them forward in a more streamlined way. That’s what they will do.

In terms of when we talk about the stability, we have, as I said earlier, taken a lot of actions within the ministry to make sure all the investors — outside, local and global investors — see that there’s a clear path in the mining sector and that there are fixed timelines for the permitting process.

We have a stand-alone critical minerals office to support early-stage projects. All those steps we have been taking, working with First Nations, are important steps to make sure international investors see that this is a stable jurisdiction, and that’s why we are getting lots of investment here. That’s why we are getting lots of projects. We have, right now, 25 projects in the process, and that is altogether maybe over $44 billion.

Gavin Dew: Chair, I see my colleague for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky waiting online. I’m conscious that he has got some time allocated at the end of this.

I just wanted to let him know that we have just two questions to complete, and then we’re right over to you.

Just so you’re aware, Member.

For the minister, an issue that has been brought to my attention is the challenges of the domestic milling industry. I recently received some correspondence — I believe the minister may also have received similar correspondence — to the effect that a significant mining player, as a direct consequence of a material reduction in available mill feed, has been compelled to initiate significant workforce reductions, including the layoff of about half of their operating staff.

According to their narrative, there has been a significant shift in which there is a continued migration of economic activity, employment and value-added processing to foreign jurisdictions, principally China and Taiwan, that implies that high-paying milling jobs may be moved offshore permanently.

While the province of British Columbia has consistently articulated its support for the mining sector, they say the current regulatory and economic framework appears to incentivize the offshore shipment of ore for processing rather than the utilization of domestic milling infrastructure. According to them, this dynamic has resulted in tangible job losses and reduced milling activity within the province.

[2:35 p.m.]

According to this letter, they have had discussions with the ministry, and the ministry has acknowledged the complexity of B.C.’s regulations, which, in practice, encourage small miners in the province to ship all ore offshore.

Can the minister explain how this government is properly growing the mining sector when companies are being forced or incentivized to move ore milling to other countries, directly having a negative impact on other mining companies, who are now having to lay off workers? Again, what is the strategy to retain ore milling in British Columbia in order to protect jobs and grow a full-scale domestic mining industry?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: We are aware of the specific letter of April 24 that the member is referencing. We are following up to offer a meeting with the company. That’s happening and in place. We are proud of and want to grow our domestic milling and smelting capacity. We have actually recently worked with Canada on a request for information on this topic. It’s in process.

The Chair: I recognize that there are two members seeking the floor. We’ll allow one more question from the member for Prince George–Mackenzie to finish the questioning.

Kiel Giddens: I’ll be very quick. I just want to say thank you to the minister and to the staff for answering the questions.

We did have a lot more but, in the interest of time, we will yield the rest of our time to the Leader of the Third Party.

Thank you to the Chair and thank you, everyone, for their time today.

Jeremy Valeriote: Apologies for doing this remotely. I’ve been at the Lower Mainland Local Government Association today.

I’ll get right into it. I’ve been listening for the last half hour but apologies, as always, for any repetition.

I’ll start in with the Mineral Tenure Act, which, I believe, you’ve discussed at some length. The Gitxaała decision, December 2025, created an outcome in which the courts required the ministry to ensure that the province’s mineral claims regime is realigned in recognition of Indigenous rights and title. This includes ensuring that the Mineral Tenure Act is restructured in accordance with the duty to consult, as established in the Haida Nation 2004 test, along with section 3 of the Declaration Act.

Notwithstanding the outcomes of the Gitxaała decision, the province has also previously stated their intent, under both the Declaration Act action plan and the ministry’s critical minerals strategy, to review and realign the act in consultation and collaboration with First Nations. However, concrete updates regarding the government’s effort to modernize the Mineral Tenure Act have yet to come forth, creating grounds for uncertainty and misinformation, often at the expense of Indigenous communities.

What work has been undertaken thus far in order to realign and modernize the Mineral Tenure Act in accordance with the duty to consult, the Declaration Act and the principles outlined within UNDRIP? How much funding or ministerial resources, under Budget 2026, have been allocated to support this work?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the members opposite for the estimates debate. I really respect the members. They were fully prepared. I hope it went well. Of course, there’s never enough time to have all the questions answered, so we will stay in touch.

Thank you, Member, for the question.

First of all, I would like to say to you, if you can hear me clearly there, that my mandate letter, Member, from the Premier outlines his expectation that I make progress on updating the Mineral Tenure Act “in a manner that engages directly with and is respectful of First Nations rights and interests and also protects mineral resource development opportunities to deliver prosperity for all British Columbians.”

That’s my letter, but what we have done so far on this one…. Modernizing the Mineral Tenure Act is a long-standing priority for First Nations and First Nations organizations and is also a commitment in the Declaration Act action plan.

In 2024 and early 2025, the ministry’s focus was on developing the court-ordered mineral claims consultation framework, which required allocation of some staff resources from the Mineral Tenure Act reform project. Progress was further impacted by job action in fall 2025. Since then, five staff members have been dedicated to Mineral Tenure Act reform.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you for that clear answer.

I have a question about the mineral claims consultation framework. Through this framework, the ministry has established an implementation timeline for consultation associated with amending the mineral and placer claims processes. The implementation timeline for the framework notes that it was to be in place and fully implemented by March 2025. But we have little information as to whether or not it is now being used to support the realignment of the Mineral Tenure Act.

Is this consultation framework for mineral and/or placer claims now in place? How will the framework ensure that mineral claims applications are processed in a manner that recognizes and affirms Indigenous rights and title in the future?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: The MCCF, as we call it, the mineral claims consultation framework, was introduced in March 2025, as you said. It was done in response to a B.C. Supreme Court ruling. The court gave us 18 months to develop a new framework to consult with First Nations.

We did that in consultation with the Association for Mineral Exploration and also with First Nations. We incorporated a lot of recommendations made by the AME in this one and, of course, with getting input from the First Nations. Then it was implemented.

We also committed to a six-month review to make sure we can see how it’s going. So we have conducted a six-month review, and, subsequently, we found we need to improve it. We got feedback from the industry. We got feedback from First Nations. In this budget, Budget 2026, we have committed $2 million specifically to hire more staff members to streamline and to also provide the mineral claim certification within the given time we have projected in the MCCF.

We are in the process of hiring those 17 members as we speak right now. So it is fully implemented.

We are moving to the next level. We’re hiring new staff members to make sure that we deliver the permits within the given time we have already set with them. And the time is…. What is the target time? From 90 days to 120 days. That’s the target time for the MCCF.

Jeremy Valeriote: Under the MCCF, if an initial response from any affected First Nation is requested within 30 days by a project proponent, if one or more affected nations do not respond to the request, the ministry can then go right ahead into developing a decision package. As a result, the ministry potentially has the power to unilaterally approve a mineral and/or a placer claim without acquiring First Nations consent with the ministry, then retroactively informing the affected communities.

First Nations expressed their concerns with this during the initial engagement and consultation process for the MCCF, noting financial and capacity constraints. What was the decision behind integrating this mechanism into the MCCF, and does the minister believe that 30 days is sufficient for consultation, given the resource constraints and administrative burdens faced by various First Nations?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

Member, the MCCF is a kind of interim system. So I just want to properly inform you, respectfully, that before the MCCF, this was an online process. For the last century, almost…. Then people could just go online and register whatever claim area they wanted. It was online. You could have done that in five minutes.

After consultation with First Nations and the industry, we have tried our best to maintain a balance. It is 90 days, with 90 days and 100 days. Of course, when we send the package to the First Nations, if they don’t respond in 30 days, then we do proceed with the decision, because industry has to move on, on their work.

This is a temporary solution right now. The real solution will be when we do the MTA reform. That will be fully.… That’s where the real work will take place. Then of course we will consider from both sides what the requests are and then do accordingly.

Jeremy Valeriote: Just one quick follow-up for that, for clarification. I believe I heard the minister say MTF forum. Is that the 17-seat round table that he referred to earlier? This is a decision-making round table?

Hon. Jagrup Brar: I said two things, Member. One is the MCCF, the mineral claims consultation framework, which is a temporary process for mineral claims. The second piece is the act, which is MTA, the Mineral Tenure Act.

What I’m saying is that the MCCF is a temporary system we had to put in place in response to a B.C. Supreme Court ruling. The MTA reform is the real work — a difficult, complex work — moving forward. This piece will be also, actually, taken care of under the MTA reform when we go there.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you for that clarification. That’s a bit of sound lost. “A” sounds a lot like “F” from this vantage. Thanks for clarifying.

The polluter-pays principle. According to the Vancouver Island Water Watch Coalition, the government has partially closed some of the liability gaps within the mining sector when it comes to ensuring that corporations are held accountable after spills and other mining disasters. But to quote an article from the Tyee, the province still has no fund to compensate taxpayers for cleanup costs.

This is amidst British Columbians overwhelmingly supporting the polluter-pays principle, a principle that could be upheld by initiatives like the Ministry of Environment and Parks’ proposed public interest bonding strategy. Nevertheless, efforts to make further progress on this issue, particularly in relation to long-term ecological damage at the sites of decommissioned and closed mines, continue to be on hold.

How much resourcing is devoted under Budget 2026 to ensure that industrial actors ultimately shoulder the cost of environmental pollution and remediation and closure of mines — whether operational, closed or abandoned mines — in B.C.?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: The good news for the member is that the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals has made great strides over the past decade to close the liability gap for major mines. Today that gap is 2.5 percent compared to 60 percent in 2016 and 26 percent in 2022. In other words, in 2017…. Now we hold 97.5 percent of the known liability compared to only 40 percent held in 2016.

If you look at the total number, Member, MCM, the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals, has secured approximately $7.21 billion of the $7.37 billion of known liability for major mines as of March 31, 2025. And these are the mines we are talking about, which right now we have in the province of British Columbia.

Jeremy Valeriote: As future demand for our critical minerals will ultimately be influenced by innovation within the space, can the minister explain if the ministry is fostering connections between government agencies, private sector, academic institutions and other research bodies to further innovate within the critical mineral space — including in clean technologies, zero-emission vehicles, wind turbines, solar panels, hydrogen fuel cells and information and communication technology like semiconductors? Where does innovation stand as a ministerial priority in the next year?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thank you, Member, for the question.

I just want to begin by saying to the member that we are deeply committed to developing a responsible, sustainable and globally competitive mining sector. We do have the cleanest mining sector in the world in B.C. We use clean energy for that one and for the mines.

I have visited, Member, many mines. I can share a few of the things with you. We have a B.C. company. It’s called MineSense. They have developed a sensor which they put on the loader. When the loader loads what you call the ore into the truck, the sensor has the capacity to find out whether it’s the right grade or not. So by doing that, they eliminate 30 percent of the ore that does not go through the processing facility, and that saves a lot of energy, a lot of processing in that situation. We have that in B.C., and it’s a B.C. company. We work with them very closely.

We have also, now, seen companies using electric trolleys to attach the trucks, the big trucks, and they actually go on electricity. They don’t use diesel in that situation. We have that.

We also have, in B.C., companies, particularly the drilling companies…. Right now the historic drilling, if you look at the mining sector…. One drill goes in, and it gives you information on that spot only. But, moving forward, we have the drilling company…. If you drill inside, they can probably give you the map of the deposit equivalent to a football ground, going that way and that way.

[3:10 p.m.]

There’s a lot of new technology coming, which can save a lot of energy, and a lot of other activities. We not only work with them; the Ministry of Jobs works with them very closely. We actually help the new start-ups to grow those kinds of companies.

Basically, the mining sector right now and, of course, moving forward, provides good jobs to people. At the same time, it provides minerals critical to the low-carbon economy. We produce the highest amount of copper in the country; molybdenum, which is very important for the low-carbon economy; nickel; and all that. That’s very important, actually, whether we are building EVs or wind turbines and all that kind of economy. That’s what we provide in the mining sector.

Jeremy Valeriote: I believe I’m running up close to my time, so if the Chair will indulge me, I’ve got one more. I’ll be quick. It’s quite specific to my constituency. We sent some information in advance.

Within West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, the village of Lions Bay currently faces constraints to housing construction due to topography and a number of other limitations and boundaries. The village council identified that the strategic acquisition and redevelopment of a gravel pit site could support provincial housing objectives.

In a recent council meeting that I attended, council members stated the gravel pit they were wanting to acquire was classified as a mine, despite it not being used for that purpose in many years. As such, it’s possible they would need to go through Mines and Critical Minerals to acquire it. The village is having trouble with this, hampering their ability to provide more housing.

Could the minister clarify whether this gravel pit is under the purview of the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals? Is it potentially available for the village of Lions Bay to construct additional housing and parking for community members, and would the ministry be willing to be in touch with the village to provide it assistance?

Hon. Jagrup Brar: I just want to say to the member that the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals does regulate and provide permitting to the quarries or mines or many other things, but we don’t own that land.

[3:15 p.m.]

We don’t have the details about this issue, but I will be happy to sit with you and talk to you to find a way and see what we can do. My staff will contact your office if that’s okay with you. Let’s set up a meeting, figure out all the information and then go from there.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you to the minister for that offer.

Thank you, Chair. Those are all my questions.

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

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks, of course, to my critics and the member from the Third Party for their questions.

At the end of the day, we are all here to serve the people of British Columbia. I am always open and accessible, too, if you have any questions and need advice. That will be helpful, because in a democratic institution, we have the government and the opposition, and that’s how we become the collective body. So I would love to work with you on this file.

As I said to you, many of my mines are actually in the areas of the opposition’s constituencies, so it’s a good thing, in a way. I’m working very hard to open mines in the areas where the majority of the MLAs of the opposition come from.

It was a good debate, good discussion. If there are any further questions, please feel free to reach out to us. We will try our best to give you the best answer and provide the best response to that. If there’s any other issue in your riding, I am always open to find out what’s available, what we can do about that issue or project.

I want to say, also, thank you to my staff members. These are the people who actually worked days and nights for many months to get ready for these five hours.

Thank you very much for your exceptional work and for the exceptional work you do to move the mining department forward, open new mines for people. Thank you.

Thank you to you, Chair, for chairing the meeting, and of course the members here. Thank you, everyone.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, and thanks to all members that have asked questions.

Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

Vote 40: ministry operations, $57,304,000 — approved.

The Chair: We’ll now take a ten-minute recess while we prepare for the Ministry of Labour.

The committee recessed from 3:18 p.m. to 3:32 p.m.

[Dana Lajeunesse in the chair.]

Estimates: Ministry of Labour

The Chair: Good afternoon, everyone. I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We’re meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Labour.

On Vote 39: ministry operations, $23,672,000.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I just wanted to start by introducing, firstly, the staff who will be supporting us through this process of budget estimates.

Lorie Hrycuik is the Deputy Minister of Labour. We have Rachel Holmes, the assistant deputy minister; Steve Ward, the executive financial officer. Michael Tanner is the executive director of labour policy and legislation; Mary Walsh, the executive director of the employment standards branch; and Carla Merkel, the director of financial planning and reporting.

We, of course, are also joined by staff from WorkSafe: Kevin La Freniere, who is the head of government relations and corporate communications; Andrew Montgomerie, the corporate controller; Tanya Houghton, the senior director of claims and rehabilitation services; and Mary Lovelace, the senior director of prevention services.

Before we get into our dialogue, I just wanted to take a moment to express my deep gratitude to all of the staff in the ministry, and also across the whole organization: the staff in the employment standards branch, the staff who also work at the Labour Relations Board — we are also responsible, as you know, for the labour code — and the staff at WCB.

[3:35 p.m.]

The work that we do in the Ministry of Labour touches on the fundamental aspects of the lives of British Columbians — whether it is ensuring that we have appropriate standards that are enforced; ensuring that people have a place to go to ensure that their rights are defended; or, importantly, to ensure that workers are safe at work.

Those are important activities that, I know, staff across our entire labour relations and employment standards system take very, very seriously, and I’m deeply grateful for the work that they do. With that, I will turn it over to my friend across the way.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

I now recognize the member for Prince George–Mackenzie for his opening remarks.

Kiel Giddens: I very much appreciate being here today. It’s a privilege to rise as the official opposition critic for Labour in the budget estimates for this year.

I want to thank the minister for her work throughout the past year. I want to thank all of the staff as well, join the minister in thanking across…. Whether it’s WCB, the employment standards branch or in the ministry itself, I really appreciate all of the effort to keep our workplaces safe, healthy and fair for workers across this province.

This ministry budget itself is not one of the larger ones across government, but this ministry plays a critical role in ensuring that British Columbians have safe, fair and productive workplaces. That includes, of course, as the minister said, protecting workers, especially vulnerable workers. It also is important for ensuring that employers can create jobs, grow businesses and invest in our province. So it’s important to have that balance, and it plays a critical role in both the economy and the justice, I think, in our province. It’s an important ministry in that regard.

I also want to just begin by thanking the minister for her remarks on Tuesday at the National Day of Mourning on the front steps of the Legislature. It was very moving to hear from some deeply personal stories from individuals who have had their lives and the lives of their loved ones impacted by a death in the workplace.

I think we can all agree that we can continue the mission to improve workplace safety in British Columbia. And I would say that workers and employers are taking great strides, and we need to commend them for those efforts, but there’s always more work to do to make sure that everyone gets home safe at the end of each day.

As some may recall, I worked on one of the largest private sector projects in our country’s history, the pipeline that I worked on. It was statistically expected that the project would have fatalities, actually. But workers and employers and the project owner worked extremely hard to build a safe workplace culture, and I think it’s important that we build a culture of safety for our entire province.

We also want protection for workers and their families who have faced workplace injuries. And we’ll get a chance to talk about our workers compensation regime, probably on Monday, but for today I want to get into some of the ministry discussions.

Last year in estimates, I did focus on the importance of maintaining a balanced labour system, one that supports both workers and employers, and on ensuring that core functions like the employment standards branch are working efficiently and effectively. So I think we’ll try to build on some of those discussions we’ve had. We’ve had the chance to have these topics several times, and employment standards legislation has been before the House as well, so I’ve appreciated the dialogue so far.

There are some concerns, I would say, on rising costs, regulation across government, not just in this ministry but for the regulatory environment overall. Then within the ministry, I think, performance and outcomes are something that we have had as part of those discussions throughout legislation so far.

[3:40 p.m.]

At the same time, this budget in this year is in the context of slower economic growth, significant fiscal pressures with the $13 billion deficit and increasing challenges for private sector job creation. So I think it’s an important time to dig into the ministry’s effectiveness and whether it’s supporting a labour environment and an environment that allows our economy to grow — an economy that we want to provide good jobs for working families in British Columbia.

I’ll start off with budget and performance to get into a little bit of employment standards and then a few themes on the broader impact of labour policy. Then on Monday, we’ll get to discussions on the WCB.

With that, maybe just some general questions that I’ll start with on the ministry’s budget. In Budget 2026, the Ministry of Labour’s operational costs were cut by $529,000 from last year’s total budget of $24.201 million. Obviously, the new total as per the vote…. I’m wondering if the minister can explain how the ministry managed to cut the $529,000 in operating costs this year, and what services, if any, are being directly affected by the cut?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: The reductions in the ministry’s budget are attributed to…. A large chunk of them, $230,000, have to do with capital that was being amortized in the budget that has now completed that schedule and is no longer on the books; $174,000 is due to, essentially, a transfer of staffing costs for the Labour Relations Board that came out of the ESB and have now been transferred to the Attorney General; and $42,000 is from the ESB for a decrease in discretionary travel.

[3:45 p.m.]

Some office expenses curtailed — a $25,000 reduction in the minister’s office budget because we no longer have a parliamentary secretary. And a general $100,000 reduction in administrative and operating costs across the ministry as part of the efficiency review.

There have been no FTE reductions in any of the services through the ministry nor any cuts to front-line staff.

Kiel Giddens: Okay. Actually, I think that was quite a fulsome answer. I appreciate that from the minister.

I had counted $199,000 of salaries and benefits, but I think a good portion of that would be the transfer that was mentioned. The minister could maybe correct me if I’m wrong on that.

With that, just to confirm, in 2024-25, there were 408 FTEs in the ministry? With the hiring freeze, this number should be the same, but maybe the minister could provide an updated number of FTEs total and then how many of those would be vacancies as well.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: The average number of FTEs in the ministry is 407. That average has been consistent over last year and this year, and I can report that the employment standards branch is fully staffed at the moment.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the answer. Yeah, obviously kept very much the same.

Out of those 407, I guess, how many positions would be vacant? That was the other portion of the question I had.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: With respect to the number of vacancies, I want to be clear that in our expenditure management process, we have been very careful and have worked with the Ministry of Finance to ensure that we don’t have impacts on front-line services as a result of the work that we are doing across government to manage the current fiscal environment.

We are in a position to actually, when a vacancy arises, go out and get and replace that vacancy, which is why we, in the employment standards branch, for example, which represents about 178 FTEs, were able to maintain and keep that operation fully staffed.

There would be a handful of vacancies in other parts of the ministry, but again, those are vacancies that we’re moving to fill very quickly. If you want the precise number, we could get that number for you. We don’t have it at our fingertips right now.

Kiel Giddens: Okay. I appreciate that response from the minister.

Maybe with those vacancies, if there are…. I guess if the number is available, sure. Afterwards, it would be good to be aware of, just for the future, I suppose. Obviously, I appreciate that front line, particularly the ESB, is not being impacted by that, so that’s good.

Within those other however many vacancies there may be, I’m just wondering if there have been any outside consultants to provide services in lieu of any of those services, and if so, what those contract costs could be if there was anything contracted in lieu of those services normally covered by the full-time employees.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: The short answer to the member is that no, there are no contracts for work that’s done in the employment standards branch. All of our work is done in-house.

Kiel Giddens: In the minister’s last mandate letter, there was a parliamentary secretary associated with the ministry, and that’s no longer the case. In that mandate, it said: “to support development and maintenance of relationships with organized labour to ensure their feedback is considered in policy development.”

I guess, without that role in place…. If the minister could describe, perhaps, the reason for removing the Parliamentary Secretary for Labour, for one.

Then a second part to that. I’m wondering what that parliamentary secretary in that position accomplished. In last year’s estimates, we had a bit of a discussion on the fact, and the duties were yet to be determined. So I’m wondering if they were ever determined, and if there was anything that came out of that role.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: For the time that the parliamentary secretary was working out of the Ministry of Labour, we certainly used her vast experience and knowledge and connections with the labour movement and with unions to do outreach, to do engagement on the priorities of our ministry.

Also, due to the member’s connection to the military and her role in advocating for the military, that part of the job really grew. Now my colleague the Minister of Jobs and Economic Growth is the beneficiary of that, because we understand that part of our economic growth strategy is to really work with the priorities of the federal government on opportunities that we have here to expand, particularly, work in the defence sector.

The work of that parliamentary secretary, with respect to those activities, has become quite crucial to that plan, and, therefore, that secretary has moved to a different ministry. We continue just to do the work internally of consulting with all parties on the priorities of the ministry.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the parliamentary secretary’s role in that discussion with the military as well. That’s very important work.

In terms of the outcomes for the relations with organized labour, it sounds like it was very much a relationship-based piece to it. I think we…. I’m not going to get too much into it. I think there was a little bit of concern I raised last year on the fact that it was very much focused on organized labour but without any reciprocal kind of extra engagement with employers.

Leaving that aside, I’m going to get, maybe, to another point from the minister’s mandate letter. One of the…. The top-line first mandate actually says the following:

“In order to protect key services that British Columbians rely on, work with the Minister of Finance to review all existing Ministry of Labour programs and initiatives to ensure our programs remain relevant, are efficient, protect employees and their families, grow the economy and keep costs low for British Columbians. This is important in the context of current provincial budget constraints; the realities faced by provincial employers in relation to access to capital, global inflation and interest rates; and the threat of American tariffs.”

I’m just wondering if the minister can confirm whether or not this review was concluded and what the results were.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Well, as you know, because we’ve had lots of opportunity to canvass many different aspects of the ministry’s work through both legislation and our previous estimates, it is a small but mighty ministry. I am really proud of the work that our team was able to do, under the instructions from the Finance Ministry, to look at every possible opportunity to refine our work processes to find efficiencies.

Yes, that work was done. It was concluded. It largely resulted in the work that you saw reflected in Bill 10, which will implement a number of changes to and enhancements of work processes that we hope will streamline the work of the employment standards branch in particular.

I think it’s important to note that while we’re in this period of searching for financial discipline, we’ve also been able to recognize through that process that front-line services are really critical, particularly for the vulnerable population, predominantly, that the employment standards branch is providing services to.

Kiel Giddens: With that, would it be fair to say that the review is now completed and that work is done? How does that work, with the Ministry of Finance, moving forward? Obviously, we are still in a period where, it says, the realities faced by provincial employers in relation to access to capital, global inflation and interest rates and the threat of American tariffs….

All of that still exists, so I’m wondering if, from a regulatory standpoint…. Out of that review, were there regulations that were removed, cut, as a direct result of that work that was done? I think the Bill 10 example is quite useful. But if that can be framed in a way that is helping the overall efficiency and economic competitiveness of the province, for business competitiveness, for example…. If that can be described at all, I think that would be useful.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I would say that we…. I think it’s understood that we’re in a process of sort of continuous improvement with respect to looking for opportunities to streamline how we do our work, improve business processes. I think we’ll see what the opportunities are for AI, for example, to help with some of the work that, in particular, the employment standards branch is responsible for.

I would say, though, that Bill 10 was very much about not only providing efficiencies, but it was also meant to…. The changes in the work process, particularly with the alternate dispute process…. It was designed to benefit both employers and workers. Everybody benefits from quicker, more efficient approaches to dispute resolution. That’s sort of the bread and butter of what the employment standards branch does, so the more effectively we can engage in that work, the better for everybody.

[4:05 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate that continuous improvement is essential here. I think, overall, kind of where I’m getting at here is the fact that the minister’s mandate does include making sure that Ministry of Labour programs and initiatives grow the economy.

B.C. has had weak private sector job growth and, actually, the lowest private sector job growth in Canada since 2019. This is quite concerning, especially at a time when we do have a $13.3 billion deficit. We have taxpayer-supported debt expected to reach $189 billion within this fiscal plan, and B.C. has received a consecutive credit rating downgrade, so our cost of borrowing is going up.

Within this overall work, because the ministry does have a role in making sure that we are supporting the growth of our economy, I’m wondering what analysis the ministry has done to understand and to look at the impacts of hiring, investment and competitiveness in the province and, particularly, the impact on small and medium-sized businesses.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I think what I would say is that by any measure, when we look at where British Columbia is positioned — along with other provincial jurisdictions — in the context of a trade war that we didn’t ask for, with global instability, with the emphasis that all levels of government are putting on job creation and on growing the parts of our economy where we are particularly well positioned….

I mean, we have a strategy through the Look West strategy that is leveraging all of the talent and resource in British Columbia to address not just the present circumstances that we are in but to build a future for British Columbians.

British Columbia had the majority of projects on the federal government’s initial major project list. We have 35 major projects that are on the docket.

[4:10 p.m.]

We have $88 billion of investment currently under FID, looking to build that towards the commitment that we have made of $200 billion of investment by 2030. We are investing in clean energy. We are investing in mining.

I know that my colleague the Minister of Mines was just in this seat working through the estimates for mining, and there was a thorough canvassing of the improvements that we have made with respect to permitting times, for example. All of the focus of our government is on growing the economy and leveraging both the natural resources and the human resources that we have in this province.

The role of the Labour Ministry in that regard is to continue to support a strong foundation for stable employee and employer relations. We do that through a number of mechanisms. We have an employment standards branch where the floor is set with respect to standards for workers. That supports both workers and employers. We do that through the work of the Labour Relations Board and, importantly, through WorkSafe, because we know that safe workplaces are productive workplaces.

That is our contribution to this important work that our government is engaged in.

Kiel Giddens: I certainly understand the discussions on projects that are potential. I had canvassed that with the Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals as I supported the questioning in that estimates debate as well. Even though we have a record pricing for mining in precious metals and critical minerals right now, B.C. is actually…. It is a record spend on exploration, but we’ve actually fallen below other provinces — behind Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan — in terms of overall exploration spend.

There are things we can do to improve our competitiveness. We have to do that work because taxpayer-supported debt-to-GDP, a key measure of our fiscal health, is projected to rise all the way to over 37 percent by ’28-29. We can’t ignore that because it is critical that we are going to have the ability to pay for public services that the public depends on while also growing our economy.

Families are certainly impacted by all of this, so that strong foundation for employee-employer relations is critical.

Different regions of the province also experience some of these trade-related challenges differently. Obviously, we didn’t ask for tariffs on our country. But we have to do things within our own means to make sure that we are setting the table, to make sure that we can have our economy look after itself as much as possible to be self-reliant. While provincial unemployment averages may appear stable, many regions continue to experience significantly higher unemployment. I come from a part of the province that has experienced a lot of forestry job losses, for example.

I’m wondering if the Ministry of Labour itself does track which regions of B.C. currently have unemployment rates above the provincial average and if there are any targeted actions that the ministry does in conjunction with the Ministry of Jobs and Economic Growth, for example.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Could the member just repeat the last part of that question for me, please?

Kiel Giddens: Which regions of British Columbia currently have high unemployment rates above the provincial average, and what targeted actions is the ministry taking in those areas in conjunction with other ministries?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I would defer those questions to my colleagues in Post-Secondary and Future Skills and/or the Jobs and Economic Growth Ministry. They track unemployment rates and things of that nature.

[4:15 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: I will just check on this. Likely the same answer, but I’m wondering if the ministry has any additional areas where it’s supporting workers in communities where major employers have downsized or closed, and if there are any alternative supports that are available from the Ministry of Labour.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Again, I would defer to my colleagues in the Jobs and Economic Growth Ministry. The community transition teams are generally centred in that ministry to support communities and industries that are experiencing pressures and downsizing.

Likewise, SDPR also has a responsibility for the WorkBC supports that are, at times, connected with that work.

Kiel Giddens: Does the employment standards branch track complaints related to reduced hours, unpaid wages or layoffs that are linked to specific outcomes such as tariff-driven restructuring or the forest industry, for example?

Is there anything where complaints are categorized in terms of what is happening in our economy, and is that information shared across those ministries so that their planning can be more effective, knowing the impacts that workers are facing right now?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Again, what I would say is that what the employment standards branch is able to track is information that workers provide on the information form that they fill out when they are submitting a complaint through the branch.

In that sense, there is a notional capturing of the…. If they’ve provided information about the sector that they’re in, then that’s captured. Of course, if there’s information that comes to our attention that is helpful to our colleagues in addressing larger-scale economic impacts, then, of course, we share and are happy to be at those tables.

I think it’s important to understand that our government has built robust systems in, as I mentioned, JEG and SDPR in order to be able to respond to the kinds of economic shocks, I think, that the member is speaking of. If there’s something large-scale happening in forestry, then there is a response.

Part of that response is in conjunction with the federal government, as we saw a few months ago with the advocacy for federal dollars to support tariff-impacted forestry operations. So that work is really done out of the Ministry of Jobs and Economic Growth and SDPR.

[4:20 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: We have had quite a chance to speak about employment standards already this session and over the past year. Certainly, in Bill 10, we spent probably a good four or five hours in committee having a robust conversation.

I think in that context, we’re looking for the results that will come from, hopefully, efficiencies that are seen there and the work that the branch will be doing. But just to make sure that there’s transparency so we can measure that, I want to make sure that we are getting a good picture of what’s going on right now to baseline things.

Last year we learned that only 32 percent of complaints were resolved within 180 days. This, I believe, was a declining level of service from 39 percent in 2022 and 35 percent in 2023. Can the minister provide an update on how many complaints were received last year and how many were resolved?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Indeed, we do have some good news. The branch is tracking number of complaints received and time to resolve. What I can report is that in 2025, there were 9,654 complaints received and 9,985 resolved, representing 1,605 more complaints than were resolved in 2024. And I would note that this is the same budget, same number of resources. So we’ve increased the percentage of complaints being resolved within 180 days from date of receipt up to 43 percent now.

I think that what you’re seeing here…. Now that we’ve just had a few months to look at the data from 2025, we’re seeing some of the impact of, particularly, the alternate dispute resolution process. We’ve had a chance to really look at the impact of that in 2025. I think it bodes well for what we’ll be able to demonstrate this time next year when we’re looking back at the 2026 data.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate that update. I think that is helpful to keep tracking this, obviously. It’s in the service plan. This is something that the branch is working on very closely and something to keep monitoring to make sure that the effectiveness is there.

[4:25 p.m.]

I do think that we want to get as close to that 80 percent target and actually exceed it, because even six months is a long time for issues to not be resolved, particularly if they’re wages owed.

This can also leave a cloud in workplaces. We don’t want to have these disputes hanging on between employers and employees. So I think this is something that we’ll continue to monitor.

With that, obviously, we had these discussions on Bill 10 about how this will be a part of the branch’s plans, moving forward. I’m wondering if the minister could update the chambers on the consultation for Bill 10 or anything, implementation-wise, that has started to date and if there’s anything that can be said about that process so far.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: The work is underway to develop the implementation plans, on the part of the branch, to accommodate the changes that were passed in Bill 10.

[4:30 p.m.]

There is an engagement process that will be undertaken within the next couple of weeks with our usual list of stakeholders and partners to talk with the employer community and the worker advocate community about these changes and how, from their perspective, would there be…. What are their needs in terms of how we work towards the implementation?

We’ve been in touch with B.C. Unclaimed with respect to the provision that we’ll be sending deposits from employers to them sooner in the process. We’ve been in touch with the Employment Standards Tribunal, who have a role to play. We are expecting that we are on track to have all of those plans in place and then bring in the regulation to bring the act into force, hopefully, this summer.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate that update. We’ll stay in touch on that one, certainly.

Maybe one that we worked on last year. I’m wondering if the minister can update the House on the Bill 11, 2025, regulations on — of course, for the public — the sick notes changes that were made last year to employment standards.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: As the member will recall, we passed that legislation in the spring 2025 session. We consulted with the sector over the course of the summer, and those regulations were brought into force in November. They are reasonably straightforward. They mirror what was in the bill.

Kiel Giddens: I think one of the things that we did talk about quite extensively in regards to those regulations and in regards to…. I think we tried to seek an amendment to the bill just to make it more clear on making sure that there weren’t any patterns of abuse so that there still was that available.

I think I understand the need for removing the sick note requirement. Even my own family doctor just actually informed us this week that we will no longer be part of the practice, and then the new purchaser didn’t fit us into their criteria, so our family won’t have a family doctor anymore. So it is very difficult to get sick notes these days. I understand that.

[4:35 p.m.]

With Bill 11 removing that ability for employers to request sick notes in most circumstances…. I think we talked a lot about guardrails on that, and a lot of small businesses have been reporting that sick days have been being taken on Fridays and Mondays, suggesting that pattern of abuse.

I’m wondering. Within the regulations and what has been implemented, what safeguards are in place to protect small businesses from repeated or patterned absenteeism that may not be illness-related?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Just to remind the member how we structured the approach to this. In response to balancing the call from the medical profession to relieve them of the administrative burden of unnecessary sick notes and the concern that employers had with respect to how this was going to work in practice, if you will recall, we limited the restriction on asking for a sick note to two instances in a year.

In the case of a concern that an employer has with respect to a pattern, if you had somebody taking a Friday off once a month in the same week over five months…. If the employer thought that that was a pattern, they would have the ability to deny the sick leave and the employee would then have recourse to go to the branch to make a complaint. So there is an inherent sort of check and balance in the way that that provision works with respect to the limit on the number of instances.

Kiel Giddens: Yeah, I think we’ll continue to monitor that one. But I appreciate the updates on the Bill 11, 2025, implementation.

I would say that overall, whenever I go to a chamber of commerce event, when I ask small businesses what one of their challenges is in terms of employment standards policy, they do reference paid sick days quite often, actually, just given that it’s a higher payroll expense for small business owners. I think for larger businesses, it’s actually typically in policy. It’s a little bit more simple.

But small employers…. I grew up in a small family business environment. It is much harder. That workload gets put onto the business owners, a lot of it. They have to work many, many more hours in a day or just have those added costs of bringing on another added staff or overtime that day or what have you.

Since January of 2022 — I believe that is when five paid sick days came into effect — every employee, of course, was entitled to that starting from their first day on the job. Other provinces took a different approach where sick days accumulate gradually. So B.C.’s rules mean businesses end up covering, really, the costs up front, and I think that’s something that I have heard from businesses in some of these discussions.

I’ve even heard the idea that these current sick day rules act as a hidden tax on new hires, and I think particularly for youth employment in the province that’s something to keep in mind. We are at very high youth unemployment rates. That’s something that has come up in other discussions such as temporary foreign worker discussions across the province.

This is something that I think is valid. We’re at, I believe, over 17 percent youth unemployment. So that hidden tax on new hires or forcing small businesses to delay or cancel some of their hiring plans is something to think about in terms of competitiveness.

I’m wondering if the ministry has assessed whether mandatory sick days are discouraging job creation among small businesses. If so, if there’s any analysis, could that be released publicly?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Just to read from the statute and correct what I think is a misunderstanding on the part of the member, under part 6, section 49.1, “Illness or injury leave:” “after 90 consecutive days of employment with an employer, an employee, for personal illness or injury, is entitled, in each calendar year, to (a) paid leave for up to the number of days prescribed, and (b) unpaid leave for up to three days,” and, of course, the prescribed leave is five days. So there is a 90-day period after which that entitlement comes in.

I would just remind the member that, of course, this discussion came about in the context of the COVID public health emergency — COVID being a novel virus for which, in the early days, there was no vaccine. There was considerable, I think, concern and public discourse about the need to protect workplaces, protect workers from the spread of illness, and that is the context in which these provisions came forward.

I would just note that we all have a responsibility to share in protecting each other from illness. Illness is also very expensive. If you have an outbreak of flu; COVID; which is still with us; or RSV at a workplace, that gets very expensive.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the clarification on the 90 days. I think that was helpful to have. I think the story that I recall from a specific business owner on this one was the owner of a local plant nursery. The story was sort of seasonal, an employee who came on full-time but they — it must have been after a 90-day period — took all five sick days in a row and then quit the next day.

That type of thing is…. The employer in that case paid all of this out but paid wages for another employee. So that was where the concern that I heard was coming from. I think they were asking about accrual within a calendar year. So rather than five sick days after the 90-day period, could that be accrued over the calendar year so that it prevents some of those actions?

Obviously, we want to make sure people are not coming to work sick or anything like that, but that was the context of the question that I got from a specific small business owner.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Thanks for sharing that story. I guess I would say that, I mean, 90 days of employment is three months. That’s generally not, I would say…. That covers a lot of seasonal short-term work in the province.

Generally, if somebody is going to get COVID or flu or something that is transmissible and poses a health hazard to someone else, they’re likely to need to be off for more than one day. The incentive we’re trying to produce here is for people to stay home when they’re sick.

[4:50 p.m.]

We heard that from Dr. Henry consistently throughout the pandemic. It continues to be sound health advice. I get that advice from my doctor: “Stay home if you’re sick.” We don’t want to put workers, particularly workers who may be working in lower-waged or in vulnerable work environments…. We don’t want to incent them to, in fact, bring their illness to work and share it, which is why it’s important to be realistic and to listen to what physicians have told us about the nature of the kinds of illnesses they found themselves routinely writing unnecessary notes for, in terms of our previous discussions.

I think that we’ve really tried to strike a balance here that protects workers, that protects public health in the general health context that we’re in. I’ll leave it there.

Kiel Giddens: I’ll move on to a different topic, I think.

As far as I can tell, there are over 30,000 registered temporary foreign worker employers in the province through the provincial registry. Some reports have shown lengthy application backlogs. I’ve heard approximately six weeks and then some reports of up to nine weeks for processing.

I’m wondering if the minister could provide a status update. Has this improved, and how does the minister ensure that labour demands are not compromised by these delays?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Can I just clarify? The question is with respect to employers applying under the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act for the certification letter to apply for the LMIA?

Okay, thank you.

Just to note, we had 35,032 active temporary foreign worker employer registrations under the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act as of December 31, 2025.

I can report that, through the good work of the branch, the wait time for the certification is now down to about four to five weeks. There certainly was a period where the wait time was excessive, up around 15 weeks, in part due to an initial surge through COVID and in the immediate post-COVID period, when we had many thousands of employers submitting requests for certification, a high number of applications.

[4:55 p.m.]

What we’ve seen through the changes that the federal government has brought in is that that number is modulating. The backlog has, obviously, been long-addressed, so now we’re, I think, seeing where, for at least the time being, the number will settle out to.

I want to note, as well, that this is an area that’s obviously very sensitive to the economic priorities of the province, so the agriculture programs are prioritized.

I want to assure the member that where there are businesses that may find themselves in a circumstance where they either have not heard back on their application or there is some urgency with respect to the particular sector and circumstances that they’re in, we do a fair bit of casework out of my office to work with the branch to try and make sure that employers are not at any sort of a risk of not having labour that they need.

Kiel Giddens: I know this program has had a lot of discussion across the country and, in recent weeks and months, in B.C. as well. The Premier has widely critiqued the federal temporary foreign worker program.

There has been a recent decision. I know B.C. will opt in to the proposed variants allowing rural employers to retain existing low-wage temporary foreign workers within the current 10 percent cap. I believe the government also said that B.C. will not opt in to the proposed increase of the low-wage stream cap to 15 percent.

I’m wondering if the Ministry of Labour has had any role in this decision. In the next year, what will the ministry be doing to work with the Ministry of Post-Secondary and Future Skills to come up with a longer-term solution?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I want to start by just centring us on the role of the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act and what it does. Its purpose is to provide a sort of a first step of rigour and protection for workers.

Employers who want to apply for a labour market impact assessment approval from the federal government to recruit a temporary foreign worker are required to register with the province and receive a letter of certification. That allows us to ensure that those employers are employers for whom we don’t have any reason not to provide a letter. If we are aware that an employer has not been compliant previously with the Employment Standards Act, then they likely won’t receive a certification.

I think that we have cause in this province to be concerned about predatory employers who are engaging in the temporary foreign worker program with the intention to exploit workers, and that is the outcome that we are seeking to avoid through all of the decisions that our government is taking.

I’d note that we have a higher percentage of complaints from individuals who self-identify as being here on the temporary foreign worker program than that group represents in the labour force in the province.

Having said that, it is really the responsibility of the Post-Secondary and Future Skills Ministry with respect to decisions around the engagement with the federal government and the structure of that program. But certainly, with regard to our responsibility through the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, we have staff in the ministry working across ministry to ensure that we’re bringing that lens of employment standards to these discussions.

Kiel Giddens: It’s certainly a discussion to still be had in the province, I think. Obviously, especially being a rural MLA, I hear, whether it’s in Vanderhoof or Mackenzie or places like that, that rural employers in particular are having a tough time to fill certain roles.

At the same time, we want to make sure that no temporary foreign workers are exploited in any way, shape or form. I think most employers that I talk to about this program have been legitimate employers who do not want to actually use the program, because these actually are the most expensive workers for them to hire, in that case. But they’re having a hard time fulfilling….

For example, some of them maybe do hire a lot of youth and actually are better employers, but they can’t…. When a young person is at school or for a graveyard shift or something like that at a fast-food restaurant, those are actually very difficult, especially in Fort St. John or Vanderhoof or wherever. So a conversation is still to be had, certainly, around that.

[5:05 p.m.]

The minister raised an important point about preventing exploitation. With that, I’m wondering about what additional proactive inspections and policies are planned to prevent that exploitation of temporary foreign workers, particularly with a focus on agriculture, construction and food services, as those can be areas where this program is used more frequently and also can be areas where that may occur, in some cases, if not checked.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: With respect to the approach around trying to get at the prevention of exploitation in this sector and the specific sectors that the member pointed to, with regard to agriculture…. What I can say about agriculture is that, of course, we have very long-standing programs in agriculture. The employment standards branch has teams that specifically go to and work with employers in that sector. They will go out and inspect, will go out and talk to workers who are working in the agriculture sector.

With respect to how information comes in that there may be a problem that we need to respond to, the branch will respond to third-party information that comes in — third-party complaints, complaints regarding recruiters, for example. Of course, we work cross-ministry and with the federal government on issues such as housing standards, for example. I’d say there’s always more work to do in these areas, but we have some robust pathways in that sector.

With respect to the other sectors the member identified…. If we take construction, for example, that is an area where we, to some degree, would rely on other stakeholders and partners to flag issues.

I recall a very, very difficult situation where a group of workers, very high-skilled tunnel borers, were recruited from Colombia to work on the Canada Line a number of years ago. It was discovered by one of the unions that had a contract for other work on that site that those workers were being paid $4 an hour. That required a human rights complaint and a long and arduous process to address that particular episode of the misuse of temporary foreign workers.

I would say there is an obligation on all of us to have eyes open in these situations.

I think when it comes to food services and retail, that’s obviously an area of terrific concern, where those are smaller employers, more isolated. We have less line of sight into that part of the economy. I think it’s where we have a real concern that there is a real inappropriate use of temporary foreign workers happening in that sector.

Workers, of course, can file a complaint under the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act. They can bring forward concerns around issues like an employer keeping their passport. If an employer has not provided the terms and conditions that were spelled out in the LMIA, that can be the subject of a complaint under the act.

I would just say overall that, of course, there is more work to do. My colleagues, particularly in Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills, are working with the federal government to land in the right spot.

Overall, when it comes to temporary foreign workers, I would say that if people are good enough to come and work here, they are good enough to live here. We want to build pathways to citizenship for people that we invite and who we need to come and help build a prosperous economy in British Columbia.

The Chair: Noting the hour, I would ask the minister to move the motion.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: With that, I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals and progress on the Ministry of Labour and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:15 p.m.