The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
Ten o’clock a.m.
Prayers and Reflections by Jessie Sunner.
The Hon. Mike Farnworth rose on a point of order regarding the admissibility of Bill (No. M 209) intituled Tax Relief and Tariff Defence Act with respect to Standing Order 76.
Peter Milobar made representations.
Dallas Brodie made representations.
Jeremy Valeriote made representations.
The Speaker stated that he would take the matter under advisement.
The House proceeded to “Orders of the Day.”
Order called for “Private Members’ Statements.”
The Speaker delivered his reserved decision as follows:
Honourable Members:
Earlier this morning, the Government House Leader raised a point of order regarding the admissibility of Bill (No. M 209) intituled Tax Relief and Tariff Defence Act standing in the name of the Member for Vancouver-Quilchena. The Chair thanks the Government House Leader, the Member for Kamloops Centre, the Member for Vancouver-Quilchena, and the Leader of the Third Party for their submissions and for seeking clarity on the application of Standing Order 76. The Chair has examined the submissions, the bill, and prior Speakers’ rulings on the application of Standing Order 76 and is now prepared to rule on the point of order.
Standing Order 76 provides, “Any Bill affecting the Constitution must be introduced by a Member of the Government or with the sanction of the Government.”
In our House, previous Speakers have ruled Private Members’ bills out of order on the grounds that they offend Standing Order 76 by affecting provisions in the provincial Constitution Act. It is the view of the Chair that Standing Order 76 also applies if a Private Member’s bill touches upon the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867 or the Constitution Act, 1982, being Canada’s Constitution.
It has also been held in previous Speakers’ rulings that Private Members’ bills cannot touch upon the prerogatives of the Crown, with bills being ruled out of order on such grounds. Royal Prerogatives are powers and privileges accorded by common law to the Crown, exercised on the advice of the executive. Specific to the matter at hand, these prerogatives include treaty-making with First Nations.
Clause 13 of Bill (No. M 209) directly pertains to the aboriginal and treaty rights recognized under section 35 (1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. This clause and other provisions of the bill offend Standing Order 76, touch upon the prerogatives of the Crown, and conflict with section 8.1 (2) of the provincial Interpretation Act, which provides, “For certainty, every enactment must be construed as upholding and not abrogating or derogating from the aboriginal and treaty rights of Indigenous peoples as recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”
In consideration of the above, it is the ruling of the Chair that Bill (No. M 209) is not in order — as such, the bill will not be permitted to proceed.
The Chair has consulted the Report of the Special Committee to Review Private Members’ Business, which serves as the basis of Standing Order amendments for how business is undertaken during Private Members’ Time. Based on the report, the departure from guidance provided by Speaker Barisoff is justified. The Chair accepts the submission of the Government House Leader that, once a bill is ruled out of order by the Chair, it will be removed from the Order Paper. The bill therefore dies and there is no basis of debate.
Pursuant to Standing Order 27A (5), the Member for Vancouver-Quilchena is moved to the bottom of the list of precedence for consideration of Private Members’ business.
HON. RAJ CHOUHAN, Speaker
The House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill (No. M 208) intituled Emergency and Disaster Management Amendment Act, 2025.
Pursuant to Standing Order 25, division on the motion for second reading of Bill (No. M 208) was deferred until 30 minutes prior to the ordinary time fixed for adjournment.
And then the House adjourned at 11.56 a.m.
One-thirty o’clock p.m.
The Hon. Niki Sharma (Attorney General and Deputy Premier) presented to the Speaker a Message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor, which read as follows:
Wendy Cocchia
Lieutenant Governor
The Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith Bill (No. 10) intituled Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly.
Government House,
April 14, 2025.
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Bill Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.
Order called for “Members’ Statements.”
Order called for “Oral Questions by Members.”
Elenore Sturko reserved her right to raise a question of privilege regarding comments made by the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General during Oral Question Period.
The Hon. Garry Begg (Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General) tabled the Insurance (Vehicle) Act Report, Part 7 Accident Benefits Review: Recommendations, March 31, 2025.
The House proceeded to “Orders of the Day.”
Order called for Committee of Supply.
Pursuant to Sessional Order, order called for Section A of Committee of Supply.
18 The Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson moved —
That this House:
1. Acknowledges the findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls that cultural genocide occurred in Canada.
2. Recognizes this cultural genocide was born out of the Canadian government’s multifaceted attempts to separate Indigenous people from their land, culture, and languages and that residential schools were a key pillar of this strategy.
3. Recognizes that the remains of 4,000 Indigenous children remain buried in marked and unmarked graves at residential school sites across the country.
4. Recognizes that decades of legal precedent in Canada and British Columbia have affirmed the existence of Indigenous rights and title, which places an obligation on government to acknowledge, respect, and uphold these rights and title.
5. Accepts that the voices of residential school survivors, intergenerational survivors, their families, and communities must be at the centre of all discussions on the real and ongoing impacts of this tragic chapter of Canadian history.
A debate arose.
The debate continued.
On the motion of Rohini Arora, the debate was adjourned to later today.
(In Committee — Section A)
40. Resolved, That a sum not exceeding $61,012,000 be granted to His Majesty to defray the expenses of Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals, Ministry Operations, to 31st March, 2026.
Section A of Committee of Supply reported the Resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals.
Report to be considered at the next sitting.
Committee to sit again at the next sitting.
Pursuant to Sessional Order, order called for Section A of Committee of the Whole.
18 The House resumed the adjourned debate on Motion 18 regarding acknowledging the findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, recognizing the government’s role in the intergenerational impact of residential schools, and affirming Indigenous rights and title.
A debate arose.
The House divided.
Motion agreed to nemine contradicente on the following division:
| Yeas — 92 | |||
| Lore G. Anderson Blatherwick Elmore Sunner Toporowski B. Anderson Neill Osborne Brar Davidson Kahlon Parmar Gibson Beare Chandra Herbert Wickens Kang Morissette Sandhu Krieger Chant Lajeunesse |
Choi Rotchford Higginson Routledge Popham Dix Sharma Farnworth Eby Bailey Begg Greene Whiteside Boyle Ma Yung Malcolmson Chow Glumac Arora Shah Phillip Dhir |
Sturko Kindy Milobar Warbus Rustad Banman Wat Kooner Halford Hartwell L. Neufeld Van Popta Dew Gasper K. Neufeld Day Block Bhangu Paton Boultbee Chan Toor Hepner |
Giddens Rattée Davis McInnis Bird Luck Stamer Maahs Tepper Mok Clare Wilson Williams Loewen Dhaliwal Doerkson Chapman McCall Valeriote Botterell Kealy Armstrong Brodie |
On the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 5) intituled Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025, a debate arose.
The debate continued.
On the motion of Sharon Hartwell, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.
(In Committee — Section A)
Bill (No. 7) intituled Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act was committed.
Clause 1 of Bill (No. 7) passed.
On clause 2 of Bill (No. 7).
Section A of Committee of the Whole reported progress on Bill (No. 7) intituled Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act and asked leave to sit again.
Bill to be considered at the next sitting.
Committee to sit again at the next sitting.
Pursuant to Standing Order 25, in consideration of second reading of Bill (No. M 208) intituled Emergency and Disaster Management Amendment Act, 2025, the House divided.
Motion negatived on the following division:
| Nays — 46 | |||
| Lore G. Anderson Blatherwick Elmore Sunner Toporowski B. Anderson Neill Osborne Brar Davidson Kahlon |
Parmar Gibson Beare Chandra Herbert Wickens Kang Morissette Sandhu Krieger Chant Lajeunesse Choi |
Rotchford Higginson Routledge Popham Dix Sharma Farnworth Eby Bailey Begg Greene |
Whiteside Boyle Ma Yung Malcolmson Chow Glumac Arora Shah Phillip Dhir |
| Yeas — 45 | |||
| Sturko Kindy Milobar Warbus Rustad Banman Wat Kooner Halford Hartwell L. Neufeld Van Popta |
Dew Gasper K. Neufeld Day Block Bhangu Paton Boultbee Chan Toor Hepner |
Giddens Rattée Davis McInnis Bird Luck Stamer Maahs Tepper Mok Clare |
Wilson Williams Loewen Dhaliwal Doerkson Chapman McCall Valeriote Botterell Kealy Armstrong |
The Hon. Brenda Bailey reserved her right to raise a question of privilege.
1 Reply to Reann Gasper from the Hon. Minister of Education and Child Care in response to written questions on notice: —
1. Were any concerns identified in the Ministry’s Preliminary Review Report on the $10-a-Day Prototype Sites shared with federal officials prior to the 2021 signing of the Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care (CW‑ELCC) agreement?
Response:
Provincial staff and federal staff have regular communication through the process of developing programs and reports. Highlights from the Preliminary report were included in the 2019/20 Annual Report as part of the Early Learning and Child Care Agreement. A link to the final evaluation was included in the 2020/21 ELCC Agreement Annual Report — which is the initial child care agreement signed with federal government.
2. If any concerns from the Preliminary Review Report were shared with the federal government before the 2021 agreement was finalized, which concerns were communicated and through what method or documentation?
Response:
Provincial staff and federal staff have regular communication through the process of developing programs and reports. Highlights from the Preliminary report were included in the 2019/20 Annual Report as part of the Early Learning and Child Care Agreement. A link to the final evaluation was included in the 2020/21 ELCC Agreement Annual Report — which is the initial child care agreement signed with federal government.
3. With respect to the administration of federal child care funds, has the Ministry submitted any reports to the federal government explaining delays in spending of the need to carry forward unspent funding?
Response:
In order to accommodate a strategic and phased implementation approach, there is an ability to carry forward a portion of the yearly allocation under our agreement. This ability is consistent across other provincial agreements. All amendments made to the CW‑ELCC Agreement regarding extending carry over provisions were approved via OIC:
4. What amount of federal child care funding carried over from each fiscal year between 2021–22 and 2024–25 remains unspent as of April 2025?
Response:
The total forecasted 2024/25 carry-forward for CW‑ELCC is $214,052,914 and the forecasted 2024/25 ELCC carry forward is $522,007.
5. Has the federal government placed any specific restrictions, deadlines, or conditions on how B.C. is to use federal child care funds that were carried forward from previous fiscal years?
Response:
Under s.4.6 of the CW‑ELCC, BC must utilize amounts carried forward in the following year on “eligible areas of investment” as defined under s.2.2.
6. Has the Ministry received any formal notice, correspondence, or comment from the federal government regarding B.C.’s performance or compliance under the CW‑ELCC agreement?
Response:
All program reports have been approved by the federal government. The Ministry has remained in compliance with the deliverables under the CW‑ELCC.
7. Has the Ministry been asked by the federal government to return or reallocate any portion of unspent federal child care funding between the fiscal years 2021–22 and 2024–25?
Response:
No.
8. Has the Ministry reprofiled any federal or provincial child care funding carried into future years for program areas that were not originally budgeted for in the prior year?
Response:
All funding is being allocated in accordance with the approved Action Plan.
9. How much federal child care funding received under the CW‑ELCC agreement was carried forward from one fiscal year to the next, beginning with 2021–22?
Response:
| 2021/22 | 2022/23 | 2023/24 | Forecast 2024/25* |
|
| CW‑ELCC | 310,758,740 | 474,783,814 | 338,068,987 | 214,052,914 |
| ELCC | 2,063,106 | 6,819,890 | 5,306,026 | 522,007 |
| Workforce Funding | 1,301,920 | — | ||
| Infrastructure Fund | 7,810,264 | — |
*2024/25 forecast subject to year end adjustment.
10. Has the federal government provided any communication or guidance to the Ministry regarding the timing or release of the 2023–24 CW‑ELCC annual report?
Response:
On March 19, 2025, Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) advised the Ministry of Education and Child Care (ECC) that they had completed their review and approval of the 2023–24 ELCC bilateral report and the 2023–24 CW‑ELCC report. ECC then initiated an internal approval process.
The report has been released: Canada-B.C. Canada-wide ELCC Agreement: Report on Progress and Results Achieved in 2023–24
11. Has the federal government provided any direction or informal guidance to the Ministry about releasing CW‑ELCC reports during an election period?
Response:
It is customary to pause proactive communication on items involving another government during their election period. However, the report has been released: Canada-B.C. Canada-wide ELCC Agreement: Report on Progress and Results Achieved in 2023–24
12. How many draft versions of the 2023–24 CW‑ELCC annual report were produced prior to the final version submitted to the federal government?
Response:
The first draft of the 2023–24 CW‑ELCC Annual Report was sent to ESDC on October 1, 2024. Submitting drafts and editing versions is standard practice for all federal reporting.
13. What deliverables were included in the Ministry’s contract with MNP for support on the 2023–24 CW‑ELCC annual report, and on what date was the final deliverable provided?
Response:
The contract with MNP was to conduct an audit on the financial statements the Province is required to submit to the Government of Canada for the separate ELCC and CW‑ELCC reports. The deliverable is an independent auditor’s report on the Financial Statements for the ELCC and CW‑ELCC agreements with a due date of August 31, 2024.
14. What rationale, if any, is documented in ministry records for not releasing the Preliminary Review Report on the $10-a-Day Prototype Sites to the public?
Response:
The Preliminary Report was for internal use and contained no recommendations; therefore, the Ministry did not release it to the public. After submitting the Preliminary Report, Malatest continued to be “in the field” collecting data — which is included in the final report.
15. Was the Preliminary Review Report shared internally with the Premier’s office, Cabinet Policy and Priorities Secretariat, or the Ministry of Finance before the decision to expand the $10-a-Day program?
Response:
The Preliminary Report was for internal use; therefore, ministry staff did not share the report. Submissions to cabinet are confidential, pursuant to Section 12 of FOIPPA.
16. What internal briefing notes, memos, or decision documents were produced by the Ministry in response to the Preliminary Review Report on the $10-a-Day Prototype Sites?
Response:
The Ministry developed a Briefing note for former Minister of Children and Family Development Katrine Conroy and former Minister of State for Child Care Katrina Chen on the findings of the Preliminary Report.
17. How many policy options or alternative fee models did the Ministry consider between January 2020 and August 2020 in response to concerns about the $10-a-Day flat fee’s financial sustainability?
Response:
The Ministry did not consider changes to the $10-a-day model during January 2020 and August 2020.
18. What policy or operational changes, if any, did the Ministry make in response to concerns raised in the Preliminary Review Report before or during the expansion of the $10-a-Day program?
Response:
The Preliminary Report did not include recommendations for policy change.
19. On what date did the Ministry receive the internal evaluation timeline from Malatest & Associates that outlined decision options such as “Wind Down”, “Hold Steady”, or “Expand” for the $10-a-Day Prototype Sites, and which of those options was selected?
Response:
Malatest did not produce an evaluation timeline. Policy considerations are withheld pursuant to Section 12 of FOIPPA.
20. How many prototype sites were associated with each decision pathway in the Malatest evaluation (“Wind Down”, “Hold Steady’’, “Expand”), and what were the estimated costs tied to each?
Response:
Policy considerations are withheld pursuant to Section 12 of FOIPPA.
21. What factors were cited in Ministry records as justification for proceeding with the “Expand” decision prior to the release of the Final Evaluation Report?
Response:
Policy considerations are withheld pursuant to Section 12 of FOIPPA.
22. On what date did Cabinet and/or Treasury Board approve the expansion of the $10-a-Day program beyond the original 53 prototype sites?
Response:
Cabinet information is withheld pursuant to Section 12 of FOIPPA.
23. Has the Ministry conducted any financial modelling or risk analysis assessing the sustainability of the $10-a-Day program in the event of reduced or withdrawn federal funding?
Response:
No.
24. Of the $772 million in federal and provincial funding allocated to $10-a-Day ChildCareBC Centres between 2024–25 and 2026–27, what portion is designated for operating existing centres versus creating new spaces?
Response:
100% of the funding is used to operate existing centres. $10-A-Day program funding is not used for space creation.
25. Of the infant-toddler spaces currently participating in the $10-a-Day program, how many were newly created and how many were converted from existing spaces?
Response:
100% of the funding is used to operate existing centres.
26. What internal benchmarks or indicators does the Ministry use to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of $10-a-Day child care spaces by age group?
Response:
The Ministry has an approved list of eligible expenses that organizations can claim. The Ministry reviews the reasonability of these expenses by looking at the average cost per space throughout the province and additional factors such as the type of spaces.
27. What accountability measures are in place to ensure that $10-a-Day spaces are reaching families with the greatest need for affordable child care?
Response:
$10-a-day program funding is directed towards projects that align with ChildCareBC priorities. The Affordable Child Care Benefit (ACCB) provides up to $1,250 per month, per child, to reduce child care bills for eligible low- and middle-income families, supporting over 34,900 children on average, each month.
28. What measures has the Ministry implemented to prevent situations where families occupy $10-a-Day spaces on a part-time basis while receiving full-time subsidies (sometimes referred to as “space hoarding”)?
Response:
$10-a-day centres determine their own enrollment policies as part of their day-to-day operations. $10-a-day centres may share a space between two or more enrolled children or offer part-time child care spaces to families.
29. How many $10-a-Day ChildCareBC Centres have exited or withdrawn from the program since it began?
Response:
Since the inception of the $10-a-Day ChildCareBC program in 2018, only one facility elected to return to a non-$10-a-Day funding program.
30. On what dates did the Ministry submit its Action Plans to the federal government under the CW‑ELCC agreement for the fiscal years 2021–22 through 2025–26?
Response:
There have been two Action Plans developed under the CW‑ELCC Agreement. The 2021–2022 to 2022–2023 Action Plan was included as an annex to the CW‑ELCC Agreement, which was signed in July 2021. B.C. received Canada’s approval of the 2023–24 to 2025–26 CW ELCC Action Plan on Nov. 29, 2023.
31. What supporting documents or data were included with the Ministry’s CW‑ELCC Action Plan submissions to the federal government?
Response:
The development of Action Plans under the CW‑ELCC Agreement are a result of an extensive negotiation between B.C. and Canada and that information is withheld pursuant to Section 21 of FOIPPA.
32. Has the Ministry received formal approval from the federal government for each CW‑ELCC Action Plan it submitted between 2021–22 and 2025–26?
Response:
Yes.
33. Has the Ministry proposed any amendments to its previously approved CW‑ELCC Action Plans, and if so, on what dates were those amendments submitted?
Response:
No.
34. What child care space creation targets were included in each CW‑ELCC Action Plan submitted by the Ministry since 2021?
Response:
The overall space creation objectives under the CW‑ELCC Agreement are found in section 2.1.1 of the Agreement: creating a total of 30,000 new regulated spaces for children under age 6 by fiscal year 2025 to 2026; and creating 40,000 new regulated spaces for children under age 6 by fiscal year 2027 to 2028.
The space creation target under the 2021–2022 to 2022–2023 Action Plan was up to 5,900 new birth-five CW‑ELCC funded spaces by 2022–23.
The space creation target under the 2023–24 to 2025–26 Action Plan is 30,000 new spaces by 2025–26 (baseline of 94,500 birth — five spaces at the end of 2020–21).
And then the House adjourned at 8.43 p.m.
HON. RAJ CHOUHAN, Speaker
Wednesday, April 16
John Rustad to introduce a Bill intituled Income Tax (Grocery Rebate Accountability) Amendment Act, 2025.
Tuesday, April 15
2 Macklin McCall to ask the Hon. Minister of Forests the following questions: —
Wildfire Preparedness and Response
1. Given that wildfires since 2016 have burned an area larger than Vancouver Island, devastating timber supplies and ecosystems, why does Budget 2025 allocate only a modest $8 million increase for wildfire management? What is the Ministry’s plan to bridge this gap given the record-breaking costs of wildfires (over $1 billion spent in 2023)?
2. How will the Ministry ensure robust wildfire pre-season planning when Budget 2025 funds focus predominantly on reactive firefighting measures? Specifically, what proactive strategies (e.g., fire breaks, equipment, training) are being funded to prevent megafires rather than merely respond to them?
3. With B.C. having spent a record $1.1 billion on fire management in 2023 (exceeding the budget by $401 million), what safeguards does the Ministry propose to avoid such under-budgeting in 2025? Does the Ministry anticipate relying on the $10-billion contingency fund for wildfire costs, or will core budgets be adjusted to reflect true firefighting expenditures?
4. Budget 2025 shows the Forests Ministry’s spending falling from $1.4 billion to $891 million, partly due to lower forecast wildfire expenses. How can the Ministry justify this reduction after 2023’s worst wildfire season, and what risk assessments support the assumption of significantly lower firefighting costs in 2025–26?
5. In light of year-round wildfire threats, how is BC Wildfire Service’s staffing and training being enhanced? Specifically, given record recruitment interest (1,700 applicants for ~200 crew jobs in 2025), will Budget 2025 accommodate more full-time positions or training programs to leverage this surge and improve wildfire response capacity?
Controlled Burns and Wildfire Mitigation
6. Experts note B.C. must “revolutionize forest practices” by reinstating preventive burns and forest thinning. What dedicated funding in Budget 2025 (beyond the $20 million/year noted for prevention) is earmarked for controlled burns, fuel management, and cultural burning initiatives, especially near high-risk communities?
7. The Tyee highlighted that New Jersey, with <1% of B.C.’s area, conducts more preventive burns than B.C. How does the Ministry intend to “up its fire mitigation game” in 2025? Are there new targets or inter-jurisdictional partnerships planned to scale up prescribed burns and firebreak projects to match best practices in regions like Australia and the U.S.?
8. Given that each $1 invested in wildfire mitigation can yield $7 in benefits (especially by protecting watersheds and communities), why does Budget 2025 continue under-investing in prevention relative to suppression? How will the Ministry measure the cost-effectiveness of any FireSmart and Crown Land Wildfire Risk Reduction (CLWRR) projects funded this year?
9. After the catastrophic 2023 fire season, many communities have millions of dollars in unmet wildfire prevention needs. How is the Ministry addressing the funding shortfall, for local mitigation projects (e.g., fuel removal, prescribed burns)? Will Budget 2025 increase Community Resiliency Investment grants, given one fire chief’s comment that current funding covers only “one-fifth” of needed work?
10. Cultural burns are a proven tool to reduce wildfire risk and involve Indigenous expertise. What progress will Budget 2025 enable for the Cultural and Prescribed Fire Program, and how many hectares are expected to be treated through cultural burns in 2025? Are any First Nations partnerships or training programs expanding to integrate these traditional practices more broadly?
Timber Loss and Supply
11. As major wildfires sterilize soils and increase erosion, reforestation becomes more urgent and complex. What earmarked funding or programs in Budget 2025 will tackle post-wildfire replanting, land rehabilitation, and erosion control in severely burned areas? Please detail any specific allocations (or the lack thereof) for such recovery work in response to the 2023 wildfires in places like the Okanagan (Westside complex).
Water Quality in Wildfire Zones
12. Experts warn that burned watersheds lead to debris torrents and sediment in drinking water. In Budget 2025, what resources are allocated to protect water quality after wildfires? Is there funding for catchment rehabilitation (e.g., reseeding ground cover, installing silt traps) in areas like the Shuswap or Cariboo where community water systems were affected by 2023 fires?
13. Given that smaller communities and First Nations without big filtration plants are “starting to see boil water advisories” post-fires, how will the Ministry work with Emergency Management and Health to address these risks? Are there inter-ministerial funds or programs in 2025 to assist in upgrading water infrastructure or providing interim clean water supplies in wildfire-affected areas?
14. The Forests Ministry’s mandate includes land-based recovery. Does Budget 2025 fund any wildfire land-based recovery program pilots aimed at maintaining or restoring water quality (for instance, replanting stream buffers, stabilizing slopes to prevent ash runoff)? If yes, please detail; if not, why was this critical aspect overlooked despite known wildfire impacts on fisheries and drinking water?
15. In 2024, a one-time recovery uplift of $100,000 was offered to six local governments for post-wildfire debris clearing and rebuilding. Will this Recovery Uplift Program continue or expand in 2025, and will its scope include measures to specifically safeguard water sources (like removing charred debris around reservoirs or repairing damaged water intakes)?
Staffing, Permitting and Bureaucracy
16. With extensive staff demands from wildfire seasons (hundreds of BC Wildfire Service personnel and support staff in emergency operations) and simultaneous needs to advance policy (old-growth deferrals, landscape planning), is the Ministry properly resourced in terms of staffing levels? Did Budget 2025 authorize any increase in full-time equivalents (FTEs) for the Ministry of Forests or the BC Wildfire Service to manage these dual pressures? If not, how will the Ministry avoid burnout and ensure both emergency response and strategic planning mandates are met?
17. In summary, does the Minister believe the 2025 NDP Budget failed the forestry portfolio? Please address how this budget “shortchanges” the Ministry’s ability to prepare for climate impacts (wildfires, floods) and to support an industry in crisis. What commitments can the Ministry of Forests make to British Columbians that, despite the limited new funding, it will innovatively leverage every tool available to protect communities, sustain our forests, and preserve jobs in the year ahead?
3 Korky Neufeld to ask the Hon. Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills the following questions: —
1. Is there a loan forgiveness program for physicians from rural British Columbia studying at UNBC that decide to remain to serve in that community?
2. Does a nurse who is studying at the College of New Caledonia, the University of Northern British Columbia or the North Cariboo Community Campus receive loan forgiveness?
3. Would the medical students from a smaller interior community that are studying at these local institutions receive loan forgiveness?
4. In light of the federal international student policy changes, what impacts does the Minister believe they will have on B.C. institutions?
5. How many institutions will file a deficit with the government in 2025?
6. What is the approximate dollar amount of the total shortfall?
7. What controls does the Minister have over the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators of B.C.?
8. Does the Minister know how many programs will no longer be offered to students across this province?
9. Will the Minister give assurances that programs and degrees that are employment-ready will not be dropped?
10. Is the Ministry tracking the negative impact of the federal government’s international student policy changes on B.C. institutions?
11. Back in 2021, the Minister mentioned that the government was working on the “International Education Framework,” has that Framework been completed?
12. If so, has that Framework been made public?
13. Can the Minister give an update on how the Framework will support institutions today?
14. What was the total amount collected by institutions from international student tuition in the school year 2023–2024?
15. Now that many institutions will have financial shortfalls, how will this government assure British Columbians that our post-secondary institutions will remain fiscally viable (specially the smaller, interior institutions)?
16. How many institutions have submitted debt mitigation letters through treasury?
17. How many of those institutions have submitted letters through treasury three years in a row?
18. Has this Minister looked at what all these layoffs will do to institutions’ FTE targets?
19. Does the Minister have a plan about the direction she is providing to post-secondary institutions?
20. How is the Minister tracking the total negative impact across the province?
21. How will we meet the job market targets set by this government when our institutions are not fiscally viable?
22. Regarding Don Wright’s “Funding Formula Review,” has this report been released to the participants and the public by this government?
23. In your understanding, what are the factors why post-secondary education costs for students have become less affordable in the past eight years?
24. What is the Minister doing to work with the federal government for additional student support for B.C. students?
25. Students are being used for translation work in many of our institutions without any compensation. Can the Minister work with B.C. institutions to guarantee students are receiving applicable compensation for their work?
26. How much funding for student service programs is in this year’s budget?
27. B.C. students have been calling for increased action by this government to address sexualized violence at post-secondary institutions. How much money in this year’s budget is going to be allocated towards ending sexualized violence on post-secondary campuses?
28. What is this government doing to address the threats of sexualized violence, harassment and misogyny directed at individuals at our post-secondary campuses via electronic means?
29. Why would a woman or individual want to step forward and put themselves in a position when they are going to receive the level of absolute disregard that some of our young women have been subjected to in our post-secondary institutions?
30. B.C.’s Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act requires that all public secondary institutions establish sexual violence and misconduct policies and procedures with a focus on prevention and response. Can the Minister confirm this work has been completed?
31. What has the Minister done to ensure that the guidelines are being properly implemented?
32. Mental well-being for students and staff is crucial; what can the Minister share about any programs that this government funds?
33. What measurements, if any, can the Minister share of their positive impact on students and staff?
34. Where does the government stand on racism, bullying and harassment?
35. Is there funding in this year’s budget to support institutions to help address antisemitism on our B.C. campuses?
36. What specific interventions have been put in place for Jewish students on our B.C. campuses?
37. Has the Minister visited and discussed antisemitism concerns with the Hillel House on the UBC campus?
38. Does the Minister believe it is okay for a university staff member to publicly condemn and harass Jewish students by leading anti-Jewish rallies on B.C. campuses?
39. Has the Minister met with Canada’s Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism, Deborah Lyons, to address antisemitism on B.C. post-secondary campuses?
40. Is there money in this year’s budget to address the significant concerns students have for their safety on B.C. campuses?
41. Will the Minister follow up with the Premier and the Minister of Finance regarding the student unions’ egregious concerns at both Kwantlen Polytechnic University and Langara College and advocate for the recommendations below?
[Recommendations available from the Office of the Clerk.]
Wednesday, April 16
4 Lynne Block to ask the Hon. Minister of Education and Child Care the following questions: —
1. Transfers: Could you please provide a written breakdown of the $63,527 million in transfers, specifying each partner organization and the initiatives or services they are funding?
2. B.C. training and education savings program special account: Regarding the $30,001,000 allocated to the B.C. training and education savings program special account, can you please provide a detailed breakdown of what this funding covers and how it impacts training and education?
3. Teachers Act special account: Could you please confirm the accurate net amount for the Teachers Act special account and clarify the reason for the difference between the figures presented on page 63 and the financial overview?
4. EAs for K to 3: Of the $370 million allocated to support K-to-12 education, could you specify the amount earmarked for the commitment of an education assistant in every kindergarten-to-grade-3 classroom, and can you please provide a projected timeline for full implementation across the province?
5. Early intervention and literacy screening: Could you please provide data on the number of children screened to date under the $30 million early intervention program, the number still awaiting screening, and details regarding the government’s commitment to ongoing funding for this program beyond the initial three years? What metrics will be used to evaluate the program’s success over the three-year period to inform decisions about future funding?
6. SOGI resources age-appropriateness: Could you please provide specific details regarding the criteria being developed within the provincial framework to ensure SOGI resources in schools are age-appropriate and focused solely on anti-bullying, and what is the anticipated timeline for the implementation of this SOGI-specific guidance? What will be the consultation process involved in developing this framework and which stakeholders will be involved?
7. The allocation of the $9 billion between Education and Child Care: Could you please provide specific breakdowns of the $9 billion (both for operating expenses and ministry operations) between the Education and Child Care branches in the current budget? How “fluid” is this allocation process and what is the specific criteria used to determine the amounts for different categories?
8. School districts’ budget cuts: As the Minister stated that the budget remained the same, please outline projected impacts the Education Ministry anticipates with the removal of the carbon tax revenue and school districts' future financial stability.
9. Shift away from letter grades: Has the Ministry collected any data or feedback from parents, teachers, and/or students regarding their understanding and perception of the proficiency scale compared to traditional letter grades? Are there any plans to re-evaluate the effectiveness of the current grading policy?
10. PISA and FSA results: The PISA and FSA results show dips in numeracy and literacy. As the Minister acknowledged these concerns, is the Ministry looking at any specific strategies or interventions that the Ministry may plan to implement to address these declining scores, beyond the existing literacy and numeracy funding?
11. Mental health of children and youth: As the government has committed to a counsellor in every school, please provide a more concrete timeline or targets for achieving this goal. How will the Ministry measure the impact of increased mental health supports on student well-being?
12. Mental health of teachers: Could the Ministry provide specific data regarding teacher burnout and retention, and how the effectiveness of any initiatives in addressing these issues, will be evaluated?
13. MyEdBC: Does the Ministry have any plans for upgrades or improvements to the system to address the ongoing frustrations reported by teachers?
14. Select Standing Committee on Education: Will the Minister support the reinstatement of the standing education committee, which has not met since 2006? If so, what steps would need to be taken to make this happen?
Copyright © King’s Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada