Second Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Monday, March 2, 2026

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 129

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Routine Business

Statements

Acwsalcta Thunder Girls Basketball Championship

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson

Introductions by Members

Members’ Statements

Surrey Hospitals Foundation

Amna Shah

Langley Meals on Wheels

Jody Toor

Rod Raglin and The REVUE Community Newspaper

Mable Elmore

Meadow Ridge Rotary Club

Lawrence Mok

Sooke Food Bank

Dana Lajeunesse

Bulkley Valley District Hospital Auxiliary

Sharon Hartwell

Oral Questions

Federal Government Recognition Agreement with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm Nation

Scott McInnis

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert

Trevor Halford

Access to Obstetrics Care in Hospitals

Jeremy Valeriote

Hon. Josie Osborne

Availability of Long-Term-Care Beds

Brennan Day

Hon. Josie Osborne

Long-Term-Care Projects and Costs

Kiel Giddens

Hon. Bowinn Ma

Misty Van Popta

Donegal Wilson

Macklin McCall

Claire Rattée

Budget Provisions for Long-Term-Care Projects

Claire Rattée

Hon. Bowinn Ma

Bruce Banman

Budget Provisions for Infrastructure Projects

Peter Milobar

Hon. Bowinn Ma

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

Hon. Jessie Sunner

Korky Neufeld

Hon. Terry Yung

Lynne Block

Hon. Anne Kang

Lawrence Mok

Amna Shah

Gavin Dew

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson

Reann Gasper

Hon. Jessie Sunner

Bill 8 — Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Nina Krieger

Macklin McCall

Hon. Terry Yung

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General (continued)

Steve Kooner

Hon. Niki Sharma

Harman Bhangu

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Infrastructure (continued)

Misty Van Popta

Hon. Bowinn Ma

Jeremy Valeriote

Monday, March 2, 2026

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Statements

Acwsalcta Thunder

Girls Basketball Championship

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson : In British Columbia, we know that British Columbians are very resilient, particularly

those ones that live in rural and remote communities such as Bella Coola. But I’m

here today to share in a celebration. On Saturday afternoon, the Acwsalcta Thunder

from Bella Coola won the 1A girls provincial basketball championship.

I am so proud of all the young women on this team. I just want to send my congratulations

to the Nuxalk Nation.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Lynne Block : I am so delighted and honoured. I have my sister in the gallery, Alyx Patterson,

who is the most wonderful sister I could possibly have, and her husband, a terrific

brother-in-law, Dave Patterson, and their grandson Lincoln, who is carrying on the

tradition in that family of football.

I hope everyone can please welcome them.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside : I might have to have a competition with the member for West Van–Capilano about whose

sister is better, because it must be Sister Day in the House today.

I’m so pleased. You know, it’s not often that I get a chance to have family come and

visit me on the precinct. My big sister, Nancy Whiteside, is here today, which I’m

really, really thrilled about. We got to have lunch in the dining room this afternoon.

After a long career in telecommunications in British Columbia, after retirement, Nancy

got to pursue her dream of studying art and is now one of New Westminster’s most renowned

artists and is such an incredible, smart and creative talent.

Please welcome my big sister, Nancy, to the House.

Bryan Tepper : Today I have two introductions.

One is Gurmot, Gurjot Cheema, who is one of my good friends, and I can’t say his name

correctly. He’s my riding president. He volunteers everywhere throughout the Lower

Mainland, well known to everybody.

If we could give him a welcome.

Then we have — I’ll say he’s our celebrity chef — Bob Basi, known as the Bakra Chef.

He’s a British Columbia native, and he’s transformed his passion for cooking into

the celebrated brand, Bakra Chef, inspired by his mother’s traditional goat curry

recipe. What started as a family favourite has become a signature dish at events nationwide,

uniting diverse communities through flavourful, authentic cuisine.

With his distinctive logo and iconic championship belt — which, if somebody wants

to get photos with him afterwards, will be available…. It has actually inspired somebody

to get me my own as well, so if anybody wants photos, we’re ready.

food lovers across Canada and beyond.

Please welcome him.

Donegal Wilson : I just wanted to do a warm welcome to the members of the B.C. Parks Foundation who

joined our Conservative caucus for lunch today. On the precinct today, we have Andy

Day, Jennie McCaffrey, Cohen Bradley, Kaaren Lewis and Ashley Aubrey.

I really appreciate the opportunity to learn more about the foundation and what they’re

doing for parks in British Columbia.

George Anderson : Today I have the great pleasure of welcoming Jade Buchanan, a fellow lawyer, which

means he’s great people, of course.

Thank you for someone actually laughing at that joke.

Also, he is one of the most recognized privacy and technology lawyers in British Columbia.

He’s also a board member of Vision Zero Vancouver and a volunteer with Vancouver school

streets.

I hope that the entire House would make Jade feel very welcome.

Members’ Statements

Surrey Hospitals Foundation

Amna Shah : I’m pleased to rise today in support of an amazing foundation in our city of Surrey,

the Surrey Hospitals Foundation, which recently had a fundraiser titled Journey to

Hope to raise funds for the neonatal unit at Surrey Memorial Hospital.

We heard incredible stories from families who have gone through the NICU unit, who

have received the support of our amazing doctors and surgeons and nurses who have

literally saved the lives of some of our most fragile young babies shortly after they’re

born.

[1:40 p.m.]

It was just incredible to see the type of support from community leaders, from community

members, from philanthropists and from everyday people just like you and I there for

a common cause, and that is to support life, to support love and to support the families

who bring amazing little bundles of joy to our communities. This year we saw the Surrey

Hospitals Foundation raise over $1.8 million that will go directly into saving the

lives of little babies in Surrey.

A point of note. What we found is there are over 6,500 babies that are born at Surrey

Memorial every single year. That’s basically the size of a little elementary school.

To see the dedicated staff and the employees of the hospital….

I cannot thank them enough, and I hope the House will also join me in thanking them

for their incredible work.

Langley Meals on Wheels

Jody Toor : At Langley Meals on Wheels, the mission is simple yet powerful — to ensure that everyone

in our community is fed, connected and supported. Serving nutritious meals to those

in need, it ensures that no one in our community goes hungry, particularly our seniors

and individuals with mobility challenges.

This organization goes beyond food delivery, as it also brings joy, companionship,

wellness checks and support to our community members. With the dedication and compassion

of the volunteers, they deliver meals while fostering connection and enhancing the

overall well-being of the clients.

The service includes meal delivery, assistance for those returning home from the hospital,

monthly healthy living bags, the Firehouse Cafe and the outreach program aimed at

nurturing the ones most in need in our community, among other offerings.

Whether you seek meal delivery, a volunteering opportunity or a supportive community,

Langley Meals on Wheels and the Firehouse Cafe are here to serve Langley.

During my recent shift, I had the privilege of working alongside an extraordinary

volunteer, Barb. As a senior herself, Barb is a shining example of selflessness and

community spirit, dedicated to ensuring that those who are unable to prepare meals

receive the nourishment they need. With each delivery, she warmly interacted with

the recipients, taking the time to chat and share a smile. It was clear for many that

these visits were not just about food. They were cherished moments of companionship.

Seeing Barb in action reminded me of the profound difference one can make in the lives

of others. Her passion and dedication illustrated how simple acts of kindness can

transform a community. Langley Meals on Wheels embodies this spirit, not only delivering

meals but spreading kindness and joy through the dedication of volunteers.

I’m grateful for the opportunity to experience this vital service firsthand, to give

back, even in a small way. Together we can make a meaningful impact.

You are all invited to join us at Langley Meals on Wheels.

Rod Raglin and

The REVUE Community Newspaper

Mable Elmore : I rise today to talk about local news and why it matters. I also wish to talk about

Rod Raglin, who lives in Vancouver-Kensington and has been a journalist for many years.

In March 1977, Rod, who was then 28 years old, published volume 1, No. 1, of the South Vancouver Revue . Forty-nine years later, in March this year, the independently owned neighbourhood

newspaper lives on simply as the REVUE , and it continues to serve residents of southeast Vancouver.

Nowadays it’s easy to overlook the importance of community newspapers like the REVUE . We live in a time dominated by digital media giants, international headlines and

24-hour news cycles.

Why is local news important? Local news is essential in building tight-knit and strong

communities. Through publications like the REVUE , residents get to know what’s happening in their neighbourhoods, from the state of

bus service on East 49th Avenue to cultural events, renewal of parks, fresh produce

shops, new property developments on Victoria Drive, school updates and unveilings

of new public artworks.

Reporting by the REVUE has a direct significance on the lives of many in Vancouver-Kensington and the rest

of southeast Vancouver. By focusing on the grassroots level, local news highlights

the interesting things that make our community really a delightful place to live in.

Rod Raglin has seen it all. When he started the REVUE at age 28 in 1977, Rod already had two decades of experience in the newspaper business,

starting as a delivery boy when he was eight years and later as advertising director

for another publication.

[1:45 p.m.]

Born and raised in East Vancouver, Rod is an accomplished author. He has written 14

novels, two plays and short stories. He’s also a poet, and he has taken thousands

of photographs as well. Rod has been married to Chandra for 56 years. You can see

him at all community events.

Mr. Speaker and dear colleagues, let’s give a great round of applause to writer, editor

and publisher Rod Raglin, a real treasure in Vancouver-Kensington.

Meadow Ridge Rotary Club

Lawrence Mok : I rise today to pay tribute to an organization that has quietly and consistently

shaped the character of our community for decades, and that is the Meadow Ridge Rotary

Club.

In Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge and across the province, service clubs form the backbone

of civic life. What sets Meadow Ridge Rotary Club apart is not just what they do;

it is how they do it, with humility and dedication and also with an unwavering belief

that strong communities are built through service above self.

Rotary’s global motto, “Service above self,” is more than a slogan. It is a lived

principle. The members of the Meadow Ridge Rotary have dedicated themselves to countless

volunteer hours, to initiatives that strengthen families, support youth and uplift

those facing hardship. They are motivated not by recognition but by responsibility.

Over the years, this club has supported local schools, youth leadership programs,

food security initiatives and community events that bring neighbours together. They

have invested in the next generation, understanding that mentorship and opportunity

are among the greatest gifts we can offer to young people. Whether through scholarships,

sponsorships or hands-on volunteerism, they have demonstrated a steadfast commitment

to building brighter futures.

Rotary brings together business leaders, professionals, retirees and community advocates,

all united by a common purpose.

I want to thank the past and present members of the Meadow Ridge Rotary Club for continuing

to make Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge a place we are all proud to call home.

Sooke Food Bank

Dana Lajeunesse : Today I wish to recognize an extraordinary group of people who embody the very best

of community service in British Columbia: the 59 volunteers of the Sooke Food Bank,

led with unwavering dedication by President Kim Metzger.

These volunteers support residents from Port Renfrew and the paaʔčiidʔatx̣ First Nation through to East Sooke and the SC’IȺNEW̱ Nation and all points in between, ensuring that no one is left behind. Each month

they provide food hampers to approximately 700 households, families, seniors and individuals

who rely on support to get through difficult times.

Additionally, the Sooke Food Bank strengthens many other community programs, such

as the Amber Academy’s snack program, Meals on Wheels client support, Vital Vittles

Friday lunches, the school fresh fruit program, the Sooke Shelter bag lunch program

and the Hummingbird Place rough living food hampers — just to name a few.

Their work helps keep the Juan de Fuca region nourished, supported and connected.

They also provide opportunities for collaboration with vital partners — nursing services,

including a nurse practitioner; financial outreach workers from the Ministry of Social

Development and Poverty Reduction; and even Paws at Home Pet Food Bank, which ensures

that beloved companion animals are cared for as well.

It is my honour to recognize Kim and her many volunteers, who give their time, heart

and energy to the Sooke Food Bank. Their compassion, humility and hard work demonstrate

what it truly means to serve community.

[1:50 p.m.]

Bulkley Valley District

Hospital Auxiliary

Sharon Hartwell : June 5, 2020, marked the 100th anniversary of the Bulkley Valley District Hospital

auxiliary. This volunteer-run society, which has provided financial and material support

to the hospital since its beginning, may well be the oldest service organization in

the valley.

When the BVDH Auxiliary was first founded, Smithers didn’t have a hospital. In its

early years, the town relied on Dr. Horace Wrinch from Hazelton hospital for medical

aid. Spanish flu sufferers were treated in the public school during the 1918 pandemic.

Afterwards, support grew for a proper facility in Smithers.

The construction began in 1934 and the addition of a new wing in 1955. The Todd building,

located at the southwest corner of King Street and Second Avenue, was selected to

serve as the new hospital.

Community support was strong, with financial contributions pouring in from residents

as well as from the provincial government. In the midst of all this, a group of Smithers

women met at the Methodist Church on June 11 in 1920. They went away having founded

the Ladies’ Hospital Auxiliary, which would eventually become BVDH Auxiliary that

we know today. The 23 women attending paid a membership fee of $1 for their first

meeting.

The initial purpose of the auxiliary was to provide the hospital with necessities

such as clothing, linens, towels, utensils and staple foods. By the time the hospital

opened on September 1, 1920, auxiliary members had sewn sheets and pillowcases for

all its 12 beds. They also donated treats on holidays, provided all the furnishings

for the hospital and nurses’ house and helped to pay the nurses’ salaries.

Hospital support work was highly gendered, with the board comprised mostly entirely

of men and fundraising and clothes-making being seen as the female domain. On October

6, 1926, it was announced that the Ladies Auxiliary was planning a home nursing class.

Local graduate nurses would come and teach the high school girls in basic home nursing

over a series of 12 lessons. Interested parties could register for $2.

From the beginning, the auxiliary has relied primarily on community fundraising. The

gift shop in the hospital was opened in 1972 and the New to You thrift store in 1988.

Once again the community steps in to fill the gaps. Many community members, including

my sister, have volunteered there for years.

Some of the funding raised goes to support a free ice cream day at the Bulkley Valley

long-term lodge and provides bursaries to high school students entering the medical

field.

A 1980 Interior News

article celebrating the hospital’s 60th diamond jubilee stated: “It is difficult

to estimate just how much the Ladies Auxiliary has donated to hospital functions over

the years.”

Oral Questions

Federal Government Recognition

Agreement with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm Nation

Scott McInnis : This weekend we learned that another agreement has been signed with a B.C. First

Nation that could potentially have far-reaching implications in British Columbia.

On February 20, the federal government announced an agreement recognizing xʷməθkʷəy̓əm Aboriginal rights, including title, and establishing shared marine and fishing decision-making

in and around Metro Vancouver.

In the nearly two weeks since that agreement was signed, we’ve heard nothing from

this government. The agreement “recognizes that xʷməθkʷəy̓əm has Aboriginal rights, including title, within their traditional territory.”

Can the Premier please explain to us exactly what this recognition means in the context

of our province today?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : Thank you to the member for the question.

I should be clear that the agreement that the member refers to was an agreement signed

with the federal government, not the provincial government, so I did not sit at a

negotiation table. I have not seen the text of the agreement the member refers to.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : So certainly we have made that request to the federal government for them to share

that text of their negotiation with the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm Nation.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Scott McInnis : Baloney.

The Speaker : Member.

Scott McInnis : This is one of the most prominent Indian bands in British Columbia.

The Speaker : Member.

Member, be careful with your language, please.

Scott McInnis : Nonsense. This is one of the most prominent Indian bands in British Columbia, whose

traditional territory, yes, includes Metro Vancouver. And this government had no idea

this agreement was being signed? Hard to believe.

[1:55 p.m.]

Here we go again. Another major agreement, and this NDP government says nothing, just

like the shíshálh foundation agreement in August 2024 when it was signed right before

an election. Nobody heard anything for six months. And that agreement included negotiations

of Aboriginal title, I might add.

The agreement with the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm was signed 12 days ago and still nothing. This government has promised time and again

to be more transparent with regard to reconciliation, yet we can see today this is

not the case.

Will the Premier stand up today and tell this House if the province officially recognizes

this declaration of Aboriginal title, which includes Metro Vancouver and the surrounding

area, yes or no?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : Well, there are lots of things that are nonsense about the member’s question.

I would say that, again, if the member wants an agreement tabled, he should take it

up with his Member of Parliament. We’ve made the request, as a responsible government

would. But in terms of the actual agreement itself, the member should talk to…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : …the federal government, as I’ve made the request as well, to share the text of the

agreement. It’s an agreement between….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members, let’s hear the answer.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : If the member wants to debate, he can, but I’ll let him have it in his time when

he stands to speak. It’s a respectful way of having….

Interjection.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : Excuse me, Member?

Would the member like to make the allegation outside here? Would he like to?

The fact of the matter is this is an agreement between the federal government and

the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm Nation, so if you’d like them to table the agreement…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, shhh.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : …make that request. Certainly I have.

The Speaker : Members, when the question is asked and the answer is given, let’s hear both sides.

No interruptions.

Trevor Halford : Here’s part of the problem that lies within the minister’s answer. He says: “Take

it up with the federal government.” We will, but the problem is that nobody is taking

anything up with the provincial government because they are so inadequate in terms

of response on such an important issue. This is ludicrous.

On such an important issue, we are to believe that, in 12 days, nobody from the provincial

government was briefed, was talked to — phone call, email, nothing. We’re supposed

to believe that they found out about it just like everybody else did, just like we

find out right now that the province is in negotiations with Quw’utsun. No statement,

no nothing. What do we get?

Interjection.

Trevor Halford : I didn’t.

What do we get? We got the minister tweeting about time changes. That’s the priority

of the day.

My question to the Premier is a simple one. When did the Premier learn about this

decision? Did he learn about it 12 days ago? Did he learn about it yesterday, or is

he so inadequate that he actually found out about it in the media like everybody else?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : The agreement the member refers to is an agreement signed between the federal government

and the Musqueam Indian Band. The province was not at the negotiating table, and it

was not a signatory of the agreements.

We have made a request for the federal government to share the agreement that they

signed on a nation-to-nation basis with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm so that we would understand better…

Interjection.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : …what was in the agreement. I do not have the agreement in front of me, so I cannot

share it.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Member, supplemental.

Trevor Halford : There are a lot of tables that this minister and this Premier aren’t at. I don’t

know if it’s because they’re not invited, or I don’t know if they just don’t have

it in their calendars. What I do know is that British Columbians are all paying the

price because of the incompetence of this government — full stop. That can’t be debated.

We’ve got a minister that will go out and say one thing, and the Premier has got to

backtrack and clean up that mess the next day. We’ve got a minister and a Premier

and an Attorney General that can’t clearly articulate their timelines on how they’ll

deal with an issue as important as the Cowichan decision.

[2:00 p.m.]

Now, with this, the minister says: “Not my problem. Take it up with the federal government.

Nothing to do with us. Take it up with your MP.” That’s the leadership that we’re

seeing on this side on such an important issue.

My question is a simple one. The minister doesn’t want to answer it because he either

doesn’t know or can’t figure it out. When did this minister, the Premier or anybody

else in government come to light on what was announced with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm? Are we to believe…?

Interjections.

Trevor Halford : Really? Okay, well that might answer the…. If that member wants to stand up and answer,

that would be great.

When were they alerted to this decision and this announcement? If we are to believe

it’s today, nobody on this side of this House is going to buy that.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : Again, I’ll be clear. I do not know what’s in that agreement. I do not have the text

of the agreement. I’ve made a request to the federal government.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Shhh, Members.

Shhh. Members will wait for their turn.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : The members can shout all they want, but the reality is this is an agreement between

the federal government and the Musqueam Indian Band. It’s an agreement that they’ve

signed. You can read the text, as best as it has been shared, through the government

press release from the federal government.

It’s certainly my expectation that the federal government be clear around what it

is that they’ve signed, their agreement and that they release that agreement. They

have not done so yet at this stage.

Access to Obstetrics

Care in Hospitals

Jeremy Valeriote : This past weekend Vancouver General Hospital patients more than 20 weeks pregnant

were told that within 24 hours the hospital would begin diverting them elsewhere for

obstetrical care.

A fundamental benchmark measured by the World Health Organization is maternal and

infant mortality, and a VGH medical director says diversion can be a matter of life

or death for both mothers and children at risk. This crisis is now adding pressure

to surrounding hospitals, which are already at or above capacity.

To the Minister of Health, VGH forecasted this diversion of care 15 months ago. Why

wasn’t this resolved in that time? Why were vulnerable patients and front-line clinicians

given just 24 hours’ notice? When will this crisis be resolved?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you very much to the member for the question as well.

Vancouver General Hospital provides some of the most excellent care to pregnant women

and their babies. In the very, very rare circumstance that a woman who is past 20

weeks of gestation experiences severe trauma and is in requirement of level 1 trauma

services, nothing could be more important than the safety of that mother and her baby

— which is why there are other facilities, like Royal Columbian Hospital, which provide

these services as well.

I urge any person who needs to go to an emergency room or who faces an emergency to

call 911, where a reliable and dependable system of emergency patient transport and

connection and communication between hospital facilities exists, so that people can

get the care that they need at the most urgent time, when they need it.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote : I do not believe that answers the core question. Diversion from VGH can be a matter

of life or death.

Aren’t we lucky that this government now offers free contraception? We’re going to

need it, because having a baby is less safe than ever. Royal Inland Hospital has a

maternity crisis, and now the largest and most specialized hospital in B.C. cannot

provide essential obstetrical health care.

What confidence can this government offer that it’s safe to have a baby in British

Columbia?

Hon. Josie Osborne : I’m really disappointed to hear the characterization, from the member, of the extraordinary

service that physicians, nurses and patient care teams deliver to people in this province

each and every day. We have so much to be proud of, in our health care system here

in British Columbia, with the level and the quality of service that is delivered to

people.

There were about three to six patients, over the past 20 months, who would walk through

the emergency room or be delivered to the emergency room, not via an ambulance, and

who were in need of the incredible services, of the type that these specialists provide

and will continue to be able to provide, at facilities in the Lower Mainland like

Royal Columbian Hospital.

[2:05 p.m.]

This government continues to stay focused on building the workforce of specialists,

of primary care physicians, of the people who take care of pregnant women and their

babies throughout their gestation, throughout their pregnancy, so that we can deliver

safe, healthy babies and give that gift of life — working with families across British

Columbia, in facilities large and small, every single day.

Availability of Long-Term-Care Beds

Brennan Day : It’s not just obstetrics that is failing British Columbians.

There are 7,400 people on wait-lists for a long-term-care bed in British Columbia.

Last year the seniors advocate reported an average of 718 daily unoccupied beds across

the province.

With alternative level of care patients now jamming up hospital hallways and jamming

up patient flow because they have nowhere appropriate to go, how many long-term-care

beds are there empty in British Columbia today?

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

Long-term-care wait-lists are maintained by health authorities, which work closely

with potential clients and their families to ensure that placement happens as quickly

as possible. It is normal in the long-term-care sector for there to be turnover and

also for beds to be empty for various different reasons — including outbreaks, for

example.

Health authorities and long-term-care operators do everything they can to place people

as quickly as possible. We know just how important that is, which is why our government

has been focused on building out the long-term-care sector, replacing beds and building

new beds. It is work that we are going to continue to stay focused on.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Brennan Day : Nice words once again from the minister, but not an actual answer.

We know that there are seven long-term-care beds at a facility in Chilliwack that

have been empty for weeks. The hospice society there has requested the beds be used

for palliative patients, and they were turned down by the health authorities. We know

there are hundreds of vacant beds across the province.

To the Minister of Health, does B.C. have a bed shortage problem or a management problem?

Hon. Josie Osborne : I’m very willing to work with the member for specific questions around that facility

that he mentions, or any other facility.

Again, there are a number of reasons why beds may be empty for a short period of time

— during turnover, for various outbreaks or illnesses or other reasons, as rooms are

upgraded, for example. I’m very willing to work with the member.

Long-Term-Care Projects and Costs

Kiel Giddens : Seniors deserve a choice when it comes to their health care and to live with dignity.

This government isn’t giving them that choice, as ALC patients wait.

This budget is an all-out attack on seniors, with both tax increases and health care

cuts impacting them. Nearly 1,200 long-term-care beds are being cancelled.

Can the minister please confirm how many long-term-care beds in this budget would

have cost the $1.8 million price tag referenced by the Finance Minister?

Hon. Bowinn Ma : We’ve heard, countless times, from members of both sides of the House how important

it is that we deliver expanded access to long-term-care beds.

Long-term-care beds in British Columbia are so critical to people who need them and

to the families that care for them as well. This is why the work that we are doing

to put a pause on our long-term-care program is so incredibly important, because we’re

starting to see those escalating costs in construction move beyond what is reasonable

for British Columbians to be able to pay in order to deliver at the scale that we

require.

We have been seeing long-term-care beds come in at estimates of more than $1.8 million

per bed. It is not sustainable. That’s why we’re doing this work.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Kiel Giddens : The Minister of Health knows that members of the opposition, myself included, were

in the audience at the B.C. Care Awards last week. We were sitting right next to government

members. We heard loud and clear that $1.8 million doesn’t need to be the cost per

bed if government managed projects better.

[2:10 p.m.]

We also know that the beds we’re talking about don’t cost near that amount. The Delta

long-term-care project is set to cost a total of $180 million for the 200-bed facility.

That’s $900,000 per bed — half of what the Finance Minister told us in question period

last week. Campbell River long-term care is only $875,000 per bed. Cottonwood long-term

care is $799,000 per bed. The government is showing its priorities when it comes to

B.C.’s seniors.

Again, to the Minister of Infrastructure, why is her government cancelling projects

less than half the alleged project cost?

Hon. Bowinn Ma : The numbers that the member is citing are the amounts per bed that our government

approved projects at, at the concept plan stage. Through the development of the business

case and through the design of the actual projects, the estimates coming back from

quantity surveyors are far, far higher.

This is why we had to make the difficult choice to put a pause on these projects.

It’s because they are coming back to government far higher than what government originally

budgeted for them.

Misty Van Popta : All of the long-term-care facilities that have been cancelled are in non-NDP ridings

— all of them. One project not cancelled, nor started, yet is the Richmond long-term

care in the Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness riding, while Abbotsford

and Delta were stopped after millions of dollars were invested.

Could the Minister of Infrastructure please justify her lack of equitable access to

long-term care for seniors in Fraser Health, or does a senior need to vote for the

NDP to get a bed to sleep in?

Hon. Bowinn Ma : Government had to make difficult decisions across the health care sector when it

came to investments into capital projects. One perfect example would be the deferral

of the Burnaby Hospital phase 2 project, in an area where all members serving the

community are members of government.

These decisions are not made lightly. They are not made on a partisan basis. These

are incredibly difficult decisions that government has been forced to make in order

to ensure that we are able to deliver the projects that communities need in a sustainable

manner.

Donegal Wilson : My constituency office is full of families waiting for long-term-care beds. I have

a very large region.

Just this week I heard from a woman in Keremeos who has been caring for her husband

with dementia at home for more than two years while waiting for placement. He falls

frequently and needs full-time supervision, and, unfortunately, she still has to work

to make ends meet.

Last month she herself was hospitalized. The drain this is putting on her is coming

to roost. So with no caregiver at home, a neighbour found him, after a fall in the

middle of the night, on the floor. Only then was he admitted. She had been gone five

days in the hospital herself.

Now Interior Health is trying to send him home again, even though his wife is still

recovering and cannot care for him. She had to refuse to take him back. He now sits

in a bed in another community, isolated from his family and isolated from his wife.

How can this minister delay new long-term-care beds when the facilities we already

have are beyond capacity and families in British Columbia are pushed to the breaking

point?

Hon. Bowinn Ma : The delivery of long-term-care beds has been a priority for our government since

2017. This is why we have completed nearly 16 projects so far, providing over 1,600

beds.

We have an additional six projects underway. Projects like the Creekside Landing in

Vernon, providing 96 new beds. Projects like the Stuart Lake Hospital project in Fort

St. James — more beds there. Ocean Front Village in Courtenay. We have the project

in Aldergrove at Bellevue Park, and, in Kelowna, the Vineyards project.

These projects and many more have been delivered by our government, but over the years,

the escalating cost of construction has caused the per-bed cost of long-term-care

projects to absolutely skyrocket.

It is absolutely necessary, if we are to continue to build these projects and actually

deliver at the scale that communities need these beds at, to take another look and

deliver them differently.

[2:15 p.m.]

Macklin McCall : In my riding, we have a constituent who pays $8,500 per month for a private long-term-care

bed and received a notice that it is increasing to nearly $10,000 per month.

She has been on a wait-list with Interior Health for a publicly subsidized long-term-care

bed, but there is no end in sight. They are feeling the financial strain. The total

she is paying per year is nearly $120,000. That’s unacceptable.

How many more seniors in my riding will be forced to drain their life savings before

this government builds the long-term-care homes they promised the people of B.C.?

Hon. Bowinn Ma : The member is illustrating exactly why it is important for us as a government to

be able to build at the scale of the need that communities have. It’s not sufficient

for us to be able to build 100 beds here and there at a cost of $1.8 million per bed

or more. When taxpayers make investments into these capital programs, they expect

their dollars to be used wisely.

That’s why the Ministry of Infrastructure is taking a look at how we actually deliver

these beds, while also working with the Ministry of Health to find other programs

for delivery of this type of care through the not-for-profit and private sector as

well.

Claire Rattée : In November of 2024, this government decided to create a new Ministry of Infrastructure.

They moved the long-term-care responsibility out of the Ministry of Health into the

Ministry of Infrastructure — the building of them.

Since then, not a single new long-term-care facility has been completed, and nearly

1,200 beds have been cancelled now.

To the Premier, if this new ministry cannot deliver even one completed long-term-care

home, can’t provide a single solution to how to get the cost down or a single timeline

on when one will be built, why create an entirely new ministry and bureaucracy?

Hon. Bowinn Ma : We have multiple long-term-care beds under construction right now. St. Vincent’s

Heather is a new long-term-care home that will increase access to care for seniors

in the Lower Mainland. The replacement of the Dr. F.W. Green Memorial Home in Cranbrook

is also underway. We have two projects in Nanaimo and Colwood that will be breaking

ground shortly and much more to come.

Budget Provisions for

Long-Term-Care Projects

Claire Rattée : I appreciate the response. But I said not one has been completed, and not one has.

This is the problem. This ministry hasn’t been able to provide a timeline, hasn’t

been able to provide any kind of an idea about how we’re going to get those costs

down. Under the Ministry of Infrastructure, projects have stalled, costs have apparently

skyrocketed, and beds are being cancelled while we have 7,000 seniors on wait-lists.

Seniors don’t need another ministry. They need beds. Instead of being transparent

with the public, this minister would have you believe that there were no cuts to health

care in this budget either. But the reality is that long-term-care beds are cut from

Infrastructure, and mental health supports are cut from the Ministry of Children and

Youth. You’ve heard of shell companies. This seems a little bit like it might be a

shell ministry, somewhere for the cuts to go and hide.

Isn’t the truth that this government isn’t protecting health care; it’s just moving

these cuts to different ministries?

Hon. Bowinn Ma : Throughout the last year we have heard from members of the opposition about cost

escalations in our capital programs. We’ve heard from members of the opposition, including

the future Leader of the Opposition, that we should be cancelling projects like the

Pattullo Bridge, which was months away from being completed. We have repeatedly heard

from members of the opposition the need to get a handle on these construction projects.

That’s exactly what the Ministry of Infrastructure was created for. Part of the work

that is now underway, particularly on the long-term-care file, is to actually take

a pause on the way that we’ve been doing things before…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Bowinn Ma : …in order to be better able to deliver those projects at scale at a reasonable cost

to taxpayers.

Bruce Banman : Well, it’s been a stellar day here in question period. Let’s review for a minute.

We got a minister of Indigenous affairs who wasn’t invited to the table with the feds

while they were negotiating. It’s been 12 days, almost two weeks — still has no idea

what’s going on.

[2:20 p.m.]

While we were rearranging clocks, because that is what British Columbians really,

really need…. You know you’re desperate for votes when you talk about clocks and daylight

saving time. It’s incredible.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, shhh.

Bruce Banman : I must have hit a nerve because now all of a sudden the minister of Indigenous affairs

wants to talk. Now he wants a question. Now he’s got something to say. Wow. You know

you’ve hit a nerve when….

The Speaker : Question, Member.

Bruce Banman : The question I have, then…. We hear that if you’re having a child, good luck finding

anywhere that’s open. We have a problem with that. Women are left not knowing whether

or not, when their time comes to have their baby, they’re actually going to get care.

Then, for a government that says that they care about seniors…. They care about seniors.

But here’s NDP math. This morning we had 500 beds. We’re over ten years. Now it’s

1,000. And now we just heard it’s 1,200.

My question to the minister is: do you need a real calculator? The one you’re working

doesn’t seem to be working very good.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, shhh.

Bruce Banman : What is the real number?

The Speaker : Members, no cross-talk.

Hon. Bowinn Ma : I apologize. The member shouted out a number of numbers, most of which I don’t think

I’ve actually used. If the member is asking me to repeat my previous response, I’m

happy to do so.

We’ve completed, so far, 16 projects, providing over 1,600 beds. We have an additional

six long-term-care projects underway, with more to come. We know that there is more

work for us to do on this file, and that is the work that we are doing right now.

Budget Provisions for

Infrastructure Projects

Peter Milobar : Well, here’s the problem with this government. You have a budget document that says

the long-term-care homes are TBC. They no longer even want to put a date to when they

might be delayed till. They’re just saying the never-ever plan.

In that document, it actually very clearly says that they have been previously approved,

yet last week we had a Finance Minister that said: “They’ve never been approved. They

weren’t cancelled. They’ve just never been approved.” Then we have an Infrastructure

Minister saying, despite the fact that they’re already spending literally millions

of dollars on these sites, they’ve decided to pause that site for value proposition,

while they’re having other sites that haven’t even started still move ahead in this

budget.

That is why there’s no faith that this government actually knows how to manage a capital

budget, a government that is 25 percent overspending right now on capital projects

and 158 years delayed. That is the problem.

Seniors that were looking forward to those six long-term-care facilities have a very

basic question they would like to have answered by this government. Why were these

the projects when every other project in that budget just gets extended out by a year?

It says 2027 to 2028, and then the next year you say, oh, 2028, 2029.

Why were those six long-term-care facilities, a hospital project and student residences

deemed by this government to suddenly be TBC instead of actually just putting another

year of completion on them and let the projects continue on?

Hon. Bowinn Ma : Our fiscal situation has not been a secret to anybody in these chambers. The need

during uncertain and difficult economic times for a government to make difficult decisions,

including moderating their capital plan, is known to not just our government but governments

right across Canada. These are exceptionally difficult choices being made. These are

exceptionally difficult times to operate in.

These times oblige us to take a very hard look at the investments that we are making

on behalf of taxpayers and make better choices. Part of the process of making better

choices is to put a pause on those projects where we believe we can do a lot better.

That is the work that is underway.

[2:25 p.m.]

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 7, the Post-Secondary International

Education bill.

In the Douglas Fir Room,

Section A, I call Committee of Supply, Ministry of the Deputy

Premier and Attorney General.

In

Section C, the Birch Room, I call Committee of Supply, Ministry of Infrastructure

and, following that, Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Post-Secondary

International Education

(Designated Institutions) Act

Deputy Speaker : Good afternoon, Members. We will call this chamber back to order.

We are going to contemplate Bill 7, Post-Secondary International Education Act of

2026, and I would call on the Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills

to introduce the bill.

Hon. Jessie Sunner : I move that the bill, the Post-Secondary International Education (Designated Institutions)

Act, be read a second time now.

I am proud to rise in the House today as the Minister of Post-Secondary Education

and Future Skills to speak to Bill 7, the Post-Secondary International Education (Designated

Institutions) Act.

Before I begin, I’d like to acknowledge that I’m speaking today from the traditional

territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən Peoples, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

I stand before you today not only as the Minister of Post-Secondary Education and

Future Skills but also as someone who believes deeply in the value that international

education brings to our communities, our institutions and our province.

For years, international students have chosen British Columbia, drawn by promises

of a high-quality education and a pathway for a better future. For most, that promise

holds true. The majority of our institutions deliver excellent education, strong support

for students and life-changing opportunity. But not everyone has had that experience.

Students arrive in British Columbia looking forward to support from their school,

clear expectations, adequate facilities and a welcoming community. But what they sometimes

find instead are promises that aren’t lived up to and conditions that don’t deliver

the standards that we all expect from a post-secondary institution in our province.

When this happens, the impacts are profound to the individual student, to our communities

and to B.C.’s global reputation as a top destination for education and opportunity.

With this proposed legislation, we’re taking decisive action to prevent these experiences

from happening to anyone else, and if students have these experiences, government

will have the authority and tools to act swiftly and hold bad actors to account. This

is our commitment to quality education, the integrity of the sector and enhancing

the student experience.

British Columbia’s educational quality assessment program was established in 2009.

Currently, EQA operates in policy alongside other existing regulations and statutes

governing private and public post-secondary institutions, providing an added layer

of quality assurance focused on the international student experience.

EQA is the mechanism B.C. uses to assess if post-secondary institutions meet the criteria

established in agreement with the federal government for institutions to enrol international

students.

[2:30 p.m.]

Institutions that obtain an EQA designation are placed on the federal designated learning

institutions, DLI, list and are eligible to recruit and enrol international students.

Currently roughly 220 institutions — public, private, degree-granting, private training

and others — hold an EQA designation. These institutions are subject to existing oversight

under different acts, depending on which category they fall into.

In 2024, our government announced its international education framework with measures

to strengthen quality standards and protections for international students. Over the

past several years, the ministry has implemented these strengthened EQA requirements,

and the program has been effective. However, without the legislative foundation, there

are limitations on government’s ability to fully enforce standards and conduct formal

inspections. This has created a gap that can be exploited by post-secondary and can

leave students vulnerable and also put the sector’s reputation at risk.

Bill 7 builds upon and codifies the work under this framework. This new act replaces

the existing, policy-based EQA program by formalizing it into legislation, tightening

expectations and strengthening enforcement for institutions that host international

students.

Let me walk you through the key things that this new act will do.

First, this legislation creates a clear prohibition. Institutions cannot recruit,

enrol or deliver programs to international students who require a study permit unless

the institution has a valid designation certificate under this act. This means institutions

must be designated before advertising programs, offering placements, enrolling or

delivering instructions to students who require a permit to study in B.C. This closes

gaps that can lead to misleading or deceptive recruitment practices.

Second, this bill establishes clear legal criteria that institutions must meet to

obtain and maintain their EQA designation. The criteria includes proving that programs

and services are stable; providing clear, accessible information to students; offering

strong student supports; maintaining good standing with regulatory bodies; and upholding

B.C.’s global reputation for integrity and quality education. These criteria will

ensure that international students receive the educational experience they were promised.

Third, this legislation strengthens oversight and enforcement. The act gives government

the necessary tools for monitoring and enforcing compliance to hold bad actors to

account. This includes the authority to conduct inspections, issue compliance orders

implements a transparent appeals process and sets fees through regulation to support

the cost of oversight. This new legal foundation creates a legislative compliance

and enforcement framework that gives government the ability to act swiftly where concerns

and issues arise.

Fourth, this bill establishes an administrator as the independent statutory decision-maker

over the program. It also establishes an appeal officer to review significant decisions.

Finally, it supports flexibility and responsiveness. Key requirements for designation

will be set through regulation and administrator rules, allowing the legislative framework

to adapt to federal and other regulatory requirements or changes or if the broader

sector concerns evolve. This ensures that B.C. can respond quickly to bad actors and

reinforce our government’s focus on maintaining a high-quality education system.

These changes reflect our belief that the strength of B.C.’s international education

system depends on integrity, transparency and genuine support for students. International

students place immense trust in our institutions. Only those institutions that can

offer a safe, positive learning environment with the right wraparound supports should

have the privilege of welcoming students to B.C.

International education continues to play a valuable role in B.C.’s post-secondary

education system and in communities across our province. The sector has grown more

complex, and the need for clearer standards and stronger oversight has become increasingly

evident. Institutions benefit from the diversity and global connections that international

students bring, and students contribute academically, culturally and economically.

[2:35 p.m.]

International students can be uniquely vulnerable as they navigate their educational

journey here in B.C. Strengthening the designation framework reinforces student protection,

institutional accountability and B.C.’s reputation as a desired destination for international

education.

By establishing a stronger foundation for oversight and accountability, this legislation

helps ensure that the international education system remains sustainable, student

centred and aligned with government values and expectations.

I’m proud to be bringing forward this legislation, which reinforces the integrity

and stability of B.C.’s international education system. I’m equally proud of the progress

made to date through the international education framework and enhanced standards

implemented across the sector over the last several years. This legislation represents

meaningful progress, but there is so much more work to do ahead, and we will continue

to work every single day to strengthen this sector.

Today I invite each of you in this House to join us and support this bill. Join us

in protecting international students and continuing to strengthen the integrity of

B.C.’s post-secondary system. Together we can ensure every international student who

chooses B.C. receives a positive, safe and meaningful education experience that they

deserve.

Korky Neufeld : It’s always a privilege to stand in this House and represent the constituents of

Abbotsford West. I’m honoured to speak to this bill, Bill 7, Post-Secondary International

Education (Designated Institutions) Act.

Our side of the House absolutely supports efforts that actually create quality degree

assurance. I want to repeat that. This side of the House absolutely supports efforts

that create quality degree assurance. Those who receive a degree, a certificate and

training need to be competent in delivering quality service in their field of training.

In the international student permit cap, the federal government’s intent was to deal

with bad actors, schools that did not give quality training to international students

receiving degrees, certificates and training. They did not, however, target bad actors.

Instead, they have now punished all institutions across Canada and here in B.C.

The needs of our trained workforce in British Columbia are growing. We do not have

enough students going to institutions to get the training they need to supply our

economy with trained workers. The unintended consequences of the federal cap on student

permits in 2024 has had a huge negative impact on all of our institutions across the

country and this province.

Now we have Bill 7. During the briefing, I was given some insight. Let me just read

to you some background and overview. “Education quality assurance is B.C.’s official

designation for post-secondary institutions that meet or exceed provincial standards

for quality and student protection.” Couldn’t agree with it more. “Institutions must

have EQA designation if they want to enrol international students who have study permits.

In January 2024, the province announced the international education framework, which

was already referenced, to improve standards and better protect students. The ministry

is planning to introduce new legislation in spring to formally establish the EQA framework

into law.

But the question is: is Bill 7 the right next step? What are the possible unintended

consequences of Bill 7? Does the language in Bill 7 serve the intent?

Second in this briefing was the purpose of proposed new legislation to establish legal

authorities. So we’re moving now from policy to law, which requires scrutiny with

every word in this bill. It’s not just policy anymore. It is now legal framework.

Two: “Enable oversight and enforcement. Set clear rules for institutions, make it

easier to enforce those rules, and give government better tools to make institutions

follow them.”

[2:40 p.m.]

I guess I would have to ask first, at the outset: have all the safeguards been enforced

in the policy part of this agreement? In other words, we’ve had policy out there for

a number of years. Do we know…? Have they been enforced, the guardrails for that policy?

If they haven’t been enforced, now we’re taking a hammer.

Three: “Enables cost recovery. The proposed act will allow government to charge institutions

fees to help cover the cost of running the enforced EQA program.” We already know

— there are newspaper articles that can stack that high — of institutions who are

cash-strapped already.

Four: “Implement international education framework commitments. Complete and put into

law the commitment made in the international education framework announced in 2024.”

When we move from policy to law, we need to move forward carefully. Why? Because every

word matters.

There is ample evidence that higher education in Canada and B.C. and across the West

is not adhering to social contract implied by its public funding. Pick your favourite

example: limited learning, the excess of DEI, discriminatory hiring, cancelling unpopular

viewpoints, antisemitism, extreme left skew in faculty political viewpoints. In spite

of claiming to embrace diversity, equity and inclusion, the activists turn it to the

university scholarships’ questionable research. Something is seriously wrong with

our universities.

Provinces currently fund universities by handing over large sums of money to cover

operating costs while giving institutions considerable autonomy on how they spend

it. This approach gives universities little incentive to line with public priorities.

Here is where I believe the abuse of the international student growth, because of

lack of oversight, has manifested itself.

Post-secondary institutions, PSIs, are critical to Canada’s economic growth. Teaching

programs improve people’s skills needed for today’s fast-developing economies. Discovery

and applied research support a more innovative society. The institutions themselves

are significant contributors to the quality of life in the communities they serve,

whether in the local area or a business sector ranging from agriculture to health

services requiring stabilized skills.

Yet, as obvious as this may be, we overlook it at our own peril. Today’s PSIs are

challenged on many fronts with a sharp reduction in full fee-paying international

students. Institutions have lost a significant revenue source that helped cover the

cost of domestic programs.

And here is the crux of it. Institutions that run their operations correctly take

the extra funds from international students, then give domestic students a cut in

tuition and allow more domestic students to take courses and degrees and certificates.

The most pressing cases are B.C. and Quebec PSIs, which derive almost three-fifths

of their revenue from international students, followed by Ontario PSIs, which is 50

percent.

Governments have capped domestic student tuition fees and reduced per-student funding.

During this challenging financial squeeze, institutions are facing growing public

scrutiny when the principles of freedom of expression, open inquiry and non-discrimination

are perceived to be eroding in hiring, admission and teaching practices. We need a

wake-up call to fundamentally address governance, funding and the quality of post-secondary

education in Canada. Let’s bring it home.

The federal government’s cap on international student visas is translating into staff

cuts at least at two major Lower Mainland post-secondary schools. Since Ottawa implemented

the cap in 2024 — citing pressures on housing, health care and other services — Kwantlen

Polytechnic University is expecting about 2,360 international students this fall,

down almost 60 percent from last year.

Foreign students typically pay four to five times more than Canadian students to study

at B.C. post-secondary institutions. Schools are now feeling the bite.

[2:45 p.m.]

In a notice to faculty, Kwantlen said it was expecting a $5 million to $10 million

drop in revenue in its 2025-2026 budget. The school said that funding gap will translate

into loss of 40 to 45 full-time positions. “We anticipate that between early retirements

and departments and the dry-up of contract work, this might represent 10 to 20 percent

of the entire faculty workforce,” said Mark Diotte, president of the Kwantlen Faculty

Association.

Langara College, meanwhile, said it expects to see 2,400 fewer students than two years

ago, enough to shrink its overall student body by 20 percent. “As a result of 2,400

less students, we need less courses. There’s less demand for some of the courses that

we’re offering in the past,” Langara president Dr. Paula Burns said. “It does mean

that we’re looking at reduced revenue, particularly when the decrease is coming from

the international student population. As a result of that, we also have to look at

expenses across all of our areas of all employee groups.”

Burns said Langara is dealing with a $13 million deficit this year but were yet required

to deliver a balanced budget in the next year. The school has already notified 69

staff members that they will see their classes cut next year, and Burns said it was

too early to say how many people may ultimately be let go.

President Diotte from Kwantlen said that educators are frustrated, and the provincial

government has not stepped in with new funding to bridge the gap left by international

student tuition. “We have Ontario’s government that stepped up and offered $1.3 billion

in a stabilization fund. The B.C. NDP has $4 million in contingency funding, but it

has been silent.”

What we’ve been really seeing is the federal government pointing fingers towards the

provincial government and the provincial government pointing fingers at the federal

government. What we need to see is all levels of government getting together with

faculty, unions, administration and students and finding a sustainable path forward.

Now to Bill 7. On the surface, it claims to protect international students and uphold

British Columbia’s reputation. But in reality, it centralizes extraordinary power

in the hands of a single administrator while placing sweeping discretionary authority

over our post-secondary institutions.

Let’s be clear again. Accountability in international education matters, and I strongly

support quality degree assurance when it can be created. But I don’t know if Bill

7 answers that.

British Columbia has built a strong global reputation through institutions established

under the College and Institute Act, the University Act, the Royal Roads University

Act and the Thompson Rivers University Act. These institutions, including Royal Roads

University and Thompson Rivers University, are respected worldwide. But respect is

not strengthened by vague authority, by regulatory overreach and diminishing procedural

fairness.

We have a good international reputation. It took us a long time to build. I believe

Bill 7 is going to hurt that, because it’s easy to lose. This bill requires any institution

offering programs to international students to obtain and maintain a designation certificate.

Failure to do so results in the inability to advertise. They can’t even advertise.

So they’re supposed to apply for this before they have any students. Once they apply,

then they can advertise, then they can enrol, then they can contract and then continue

instruction.

On its face, that sounds reasonable. But when we examine the structure, the concentration

of authority becomes deeply concerning. We’ve seen from this government, in previous

bills, that they want more control. They want more power.

Under

section 5, the administrator must determine whether an institution is “unlikely

to damage the reputation of British Columbia.” That phrase alone should give this

House pause. What does that mean? Who defines reputational harm? What objective standards

apply?

Reputation is not a measurable metric. It is subjective. It’s fluid and politically

vulnerable.

Let me just explain. Reputation is rooted in public trust, admiration and respect,

which are emotional and subjective, making them difficult to reduce to a simple number.

[2:50 p.m.]

which track what is said rather than measuring the actual impact of those words on

business value. There is no single industry-wide standard for measuring trust and

credibility, leading to proprietary or inconsistent formulas.

Even more troubling is

section 5.3, which allows the administrator to consider “any

other factors that the administrator considers relevant.” That’s not oversight. That

is open-ended discretion.

at any time.

Under

section 18, they may cancel designation certificates altogether.

Section 20. They may seek an injunction where the court is directed to give greater

weight to enforcement of the act than to the continuing operation of the institution.

Let me read that again.

Section 20. They may seek an injunction where the court is

directed to give greater weight to the enforcement of the act than to continue the

operation of the institution.

This is extraordinary language. It tilts the scale of justice before the case is even

heard.

And what of appeals? Well, under

section 21, filing an appeal does not stay the decision.

An institution could lose its designation immediately, suffer reputational and financial

damage and only afterward attempt to challenge the decision without suspension of

penalty.

How often have we seen on the news where there’s a false accusation on an individual.

It gets into the front page of a paper. Everybody reads it, only: “Oops, we made a

mistake.” The retraction’s where? Page 14, bottom right-hand corner, in small print.

Once the damage is done, it’s irreversible.

We must also examine the inspection powers under

section 17. Inspectors may enter

premises without a warrant during business hours — just think about that for a second

— remove records, make audio or video recordings and question individuals. Boy, that

sounds like a socialist state.

While oversight is necessary, such powers must be balanced with safeguards. The legislation

provides credentials, yes, but it provides no meaningful threshold for initiating

inspections.

Then there’s

section 31, “Immunity from legal proceedings.” This one…. I always find

they have to put it in almost every bill. The administrator and appeal officer are

shielded from damages for actions taken under the act unless, and here’s the quote,

“Unless bad faith can be proven.”

“Oops, we made a mistake.” But there’s no way for you to undo all that unless bad

faith can be proven. Think about how difficult it would be for an institution to make

sure that they get all the things right together to say: “You know what? Bad faith

can be proven.” That is so subjective. That’s a very high bar.

Combined with broad discretion and limited appeal protections, this structural sufficiency

weakens institutional recourse. We are told, and I heard it again from the minister,

this bill will protect students. But let me ask you a question. Does it also risk

destabilizing institutions that serve those very students? That’s an honest question

that needs answering.

Many of our public institutions already operate under rigorous legislative frameworks.

Have we exhausted all of that? Is there a measurable that these things were not working?

Where are the findings? Where’s the report? Let us see it.

Private institutions regulated under the Private Training Act already undergo compliance

reviews. Institutions authorized under the Degree Authorization Act already face oversight.

[2:55 p.m.]

Why duplicate structures while layering additional administrative authority on top?

Why not ensure first that every bit of authority under the policy has been exhausted

and there’s a report that clearly says, you know what, it was insufficient; we need

laws.

Furthermore, smaller institutions, particularly those not structured as corporations,

given the exclusion of sole proprietorship and partnership, may be disproportionately

affected. I can just see a small school in the Interior. They don’t have a whole lot

of legal beagles running around. So now this is going to put an extra burden on them.

Compliance costs, administrative fees, reporting requirements and potential penalties

could discourage innovation and specialization in niche programs that international

students seek.

International education is not a marginal sector. It supports communities from Victoria

to Kamloops, from the Lower Mainland to the North. It funds research, sustains local

economies and enriches our campuses culturally and intellectually. If regulatory unpredictability

enters the equation, institutions may hesitate to expand international offerings and

students may choose other jurisdictions.

We have seen over the last several years the number of people leaving British Columbia.

It’s not the seniors that are leaving. It’s the 25- to 40-year-olds that are leaving.

The brain trust, the trained people, the people that need to be working here in British

Columbia — they’re leaving our province.

We must also address transparency. The online directory under

section 9 allows the

publication of information considered “in the public interest,” including personal

information.

Well, what defines public interest? The NDP’s public interest? The Conservatives’

public interest? The international students’ public interest? What procedure of safeguards

protect against reputational harm from premature disclosure? This legislation, though

framed as protective, centralizes authority, broadens discretion, narrows appeal protections

and weakens institutional certainty.

We can and should protect international students from bad actors — 100 percent. We

know who they are. Why don’t we deal with them? No, no, instead of taking a scalpel

and cutting out the sore, we’re going to beat it out with a hammer. And it’s going

to impact every institution. We can and should prevent misleading recruitment practices.

Absolutely. We can and should ensure education agents operate ethically. Absolutely.

But let us not use a hammer, but a scalpel instead. Remove the bad actors instead

of potentially harming every institution.

Protection must be balanced with fairness. Oversight must be balanced with accountability

of the overseer. Regulations must be precise not open-ended, especially when it’s

moving from policy to law.

This bill needs clearer

definitions, stronger appeal safeguards, objective standards

for decision-making and limits on discretionary power. Without these improvements,

we risk replacing confidence with uncertainty and substituting partnership with these

institutions with control over these institutions.

British Columbia’s reputation was not built through administrative concentration of

power. It was built through excellence, collaboration and institutional integrity.

Let us ensure that in seeking to protect that reputation, we do not undermine the

very institutions that sustain it.

Hon. Terry Yung : Good afternoon. I’m happy to stand in this House today in support of the Post-Secondary

International Education (Designated Institutions) Act.

British Columbia, this province, has long been recognized as one of the most preferred

destinations in the world for international education. Students from every corner

of the globe choose to come here for the quality of our institutions, also for the

communities, for the culture and experience that this province has to offer.

[3:00 p.m.]

We welcome international students to B.C., and we want them to succeed here, to do

well academically, socially and professionally. Many return to their home countries

to contribute and build their own economies. Some might prefer to stay. If they do,

we’d like them to contribute to our economic vision and the communities that will

welcome them as newcomers. But that all starts with ensuring that they receive the

high quality of education that this province guarantees.

I was once an international student in the state of California. It’s a big decision

for anyone to make such a leap, to leave their home country, to have faith in a new

system, another country, another institution, to place their faith and trust into

a system that they might not even have experienced but read about and researched prior

to arriving in a new country — in this case, the province of B.C.

We must ensure institutions meet clear and enforceable standards for people to come

and study here. That starts with protecting the integrity of the system they place

the trust in, and that’s what this legislation is about. It’s about quality and integrity

and, most importantly, it’s about protection of the international students who come

here now and in the future.

The international student education landscape has changed over the past several years.

As you know, my colleague from the other side just mentioned earlier that the federal

government has introduced caps on study permits that affect how many students we can

afford to actually enrol in the province of B.C.

Global competition for students also intensified. They do not have to come here. They

choose to come here based on the quality, the promise and the trust they place in

us. This means B.C. has to continue to commit to attracting top learners, students

and delivering an education experience that’s second to none. We also have to be mindful

of a small group, a minority of bad actors that mislead students and damaged our reputation

internationally. That is just not acceptable.

As a former law enforcement officer, without enforcement, the rules don’t really matter

as much. It’s a tough choice for many students. The cost, the relocation…. They’re

investing sometimes more than their family’s life savings. They are investing in the

future, and for them, they deserve honesty and transparency from us. This means that

institutions have to meet clear, enforceable standards, and this legislation will

ensure that will happen.

Currently we have the B.C. education quality assurance, the EQA. It sets standards,

creates oversight, but it’s not, as I said before, legally binding. It’s nice to know.

You should. I should do that. But it lacks the force of enforcement.

So where do we go when we don’t abide by these rules, when we don’t care, when we

don’t actually look at the well-being of the students? Policy alone is not enough,

is not sufficient to protect our international students.

I also see my fellow colleagues there who are educators. You can understand that it’s

important to have standardized guidelines and rules and performance, but you also

need to be able to apply them. This creates a legal framework that will establish

compliance mechanisms and also create a transparent appeals process if things don’t

go smoothly.

The proposed changes. What is this about? The Post-Secondary International Education

(Designated Institutions) Act, Bill 7, prohibits institutions without destination

from recruiting, enrolling and delivering programs to international students who actually

require a federal study permit. It creates legal criteria that these institutions

must abide by.

[3:05 p.m.]

It also gives the province authority for inspections. It creates compliance and enforcement

tools, the ability to cancel destination certificates if those standards are not met.

It also creates a fair and transparent appeals process.

This act does not duplicate the Private Training Act or the Degree Authorization Act,

because those statutes serve a different purpose. But it does maintain the high standards

of families around the world, as they expect of us when they choose this province

to be their place of high learning.

In my riding, in Yaletown in Vancouver, we have private and public institutions for

post-secondary education. As I mentioned before, many international students formed

their decision prior to arriving here, based on the information they obtained in good

faith that the education that they’re about to receive matches the information that

was posted and promised to them, so they can make the choice with confidence, without

uncertainty.

This legislation is also about protecting good actors, the people who do well, the

many outstanding post-secondary institutions, both private and public, in this province.

But it does recognize the reality that there are bad actors that risk undermining

confidence in our province’s international education system. This is about increasing

the oversight to help ensure that we continue to deliver high-quality education in

this province while providing a mechanism and tools for the government needed to address

situations and standards when these standards are not met.

Also, we need to protect institutional integrity with clear, strong oversight and

clear, enforceable rules. This legislation will provide stronger protection for international

students and safeguard those high-standard post-secondary education institutions to

continue doing the good work they’re doing.

Now, in the context of education here, international education is a shared responsibility.

Ottawa determines who requires a study permit, requires the cap to how many we take

in and also manages the immigration processes. The provinces — in this case, British

Columbia — are responsible for education quality assurance. That’s our job. An institution

cannot appear on the federal designated learning institution list unless it holds

a provincial designation.

That’s why this legislation will also align our values with the national expectations

of this country. We’re enforcing this province’s leadership in accountability and

transparency. That’s really important.

In my last position at the police department in Vancouver, I was in charge of the

professional standards section. You must have a system that’s transparent, fair and

accountable when it comes to enforcement and enforcement of higher standards that

everybody should be subjected to. In my own case, it was the people in that organization.

We also recognize the financial pressures facing institutions. With the cap, and in

many cases, a decrease in student permits internationally, institutions are facing

a tough time making ends meet and actually addressing the cost of delivering a high

standard of education.

I want to say it again, as I have said before. This legislation does not hamper the

institution of the high standards they’re meeting, set by this province.

Let’s look at what is going to be actionable. What can we do? What does this mean

for us? For the first time, government will have the authority to conduct inspections.

We can issue compliance orders when institutions are not in compliance. We can impose

when institutions fail or refuse to comply.

[3:10 p.m.]

These tools matter, because without enforcement, standards are just mere suggestions,

nice to do, good to know. International students deserve more than suggestions. With

the investment they make to come to this country, to this province, they deserve certainty

in their future.

Now, we talk about: is it fair? I mean, how do we know this is going to be applied

evenly? This act also creates a formal appeal process. An independent appeal officer

will be appointed by the minister to review significant decisions. This will ensure

transparency, fairness and procedural integrity.

There have to be set procedures and policies in place to make sure this act does what

it’s supposed to do. Oversight must be firm, yet it has to be fair. This legislation

will do both. It will be fair and also be firm.

At the end of the day, I ask myself: “Why do we do this? Why are we here? Why do we

become educators? Why do we work in government? Whom do we look after? Whose interests

do we look after — ours, theirs or shared interests?”

International students are not just numbers or people paying fees to come here — often,

a lot higher than our domestic students. These are young people with dreams and aspirations.

I was one of them when I went to university in the state of California.

They contribute billions to our economy. They actually make our campuses and communities

more diverse, better and more interesting. Like I said before, many return home to

contribute to their home country’s economy, culture and advancement, and some choose

to stay and build their lives here, to make it a better province, a better country

that we have come to know and call home. We must ensure that when they choose this

province, they’re choosing an educational system grounded in integrity.

This legislation speaks to our commitment in welcoming and looking after international

students coming to this province. It creates clarity, not red tape. It does not undermine

institutions. It protects students and protects institutions that are operating with

integrity and ensures that the small percentage of bad actors cannot jeopardize the

legal status, financial security and educational aspirations of students who placed

their trust in this province, in us.

We welcome international students, we cherish their contributions with this act, and

we want to make sure the promise made to them is a promise kept.

Lynne Block : Listening to the MLAs across the aisle, there’s a lot we can agree on, but there

are certain aspects we cannot agree on. That’s why we’re here.

I rise today to speak on Bill 7, the Post-Secondary International Education (Designated

Institutions) Act. This legislation, while well intentioned in its pursuit of quality,

risks fundamentally undermining one of British Columbia’s greatest economic and cultural

assets: our diverse post-secondary landscape. This Bill 7 seeks to create a framework

for regulating how we provide instruction to international students.

Let me be very clear at the outset. The objective of maintaining standards, protecting

students and safeguarding British Columbia’s reputation is one we can all share —

absolutely. No one in this House supports exploitative paper mills or institutions

that promise education but deliver little more than a pathway to a study permit. The

integrity of our system matters.

Our international education sector is not only an economic engine; it is a statement

about who we are as a province — open, innovative and globally connected. However,

good intentions do not always guarantee good outcomes. In its current form, I fear

this bill risks overcorrecting in a way that could have unintended and deeply damaging

consequences.

[3:15 p.m.]

While we can all agree that protecting the integrity of our provincial brand is essential,

I fear that in its current form, this bill “throws the baby out with the bathwater.”

By attempting to weed out what we call paper mills, those entities that exist solely

to facilitate entry into the country without providing real education, the government

has created an overly broad and punitive system that threatens legitimate, high-quality

institutions.

Before we dive into the technical flaws of the bill, we must recognize what is at

stake. British Columbia is home to world-class specialized institutions like — I’ll

just give two examples — LaSalle College in Vancouver and Vancouver Institute of Media

Arts, and many others. Institutions like these do fall under the category of eligible

institutions that provide “programs of instruction” as defined in the act. However,

even though designated as such, they will definitely be negatively affected by this

legislation.

These schools provide something a traditional university often cannot — highly specialized,

industry-focused expertise. They offer programs of instruction, defined by the bill

as a course or series of courses that are laser-focused on training students for the

modern workforce, something we desperately need in British Columbia.

Students at these institutions aren’t just earning a credential. They are gaining

the specific skills required for careers and good-paying jobs in the creative and

technical sectors — for example, film, animation, fashion design, game development,

interior design, culinary arts, coding and digital marketing, just to name a few.

What I found out today was that one of our fellow MLAs on this side actually got their

paperwork, their certification, at LaSalle College. They speak very favourably of

this place.

These are legitimate educational institutions that have, in many cases, already earned

their EQA, their education quality assurance designation, under previous standards.

They have invested multi-millions of dollars in facilities, faculty, equipment and

industry partnerships. Those partnerships are golden. They contribute to our tech

space. They hire British Columbians. They attract students from around the world,

who rent apartments, buy groceries, take transit and contribute to our local economies.

Here’s the crux of the matter. Many of these specialized institutions rely heavily,

sometimes overwhelmingly, on international enrolment to sustain their operations.

Unlike large, public universities — with diversified revenue streams, research grants,

alumni endowments and substantial domestic enrolments — smaller, private institutions

often operate on thinner margins. A sudden drop in international student numbers,

even a moderate one, can destabilize them. A severe drop could close them permanently.

If that happens, we do not simply lose a business; we lose diversity in educational

choice. We lose niche expertise and experience. We lose alternative pathways for both

domestic and international students.

We are, in this province, already operating in a very fragile economic environment.

Federal caps on international study permits have created uncertainty. Families abroad

are watching Canada closely. Agents are watching closely.

[3:20 p.m.]

Competing jurisdictions in the world — like Australia, the United Kingdom and the

United States — are adjusting their policies strategically. If British Columbia adds

another layer of regulatory uncertainty, particularly one that includes subjective

decision-making and broad discretionary powers, we risk signalling instability again.

Perception matters. If international students begin to believe that designation is

precarious, that programs may be abruptly suspended or that institutions could lose

certification midstream, they will simply choose another destination. Education is

a global marketplace. Students have options.

For a large public university, a 5 to 10 percent drop in international enrolment is

concerning but survivable. For a specialized college with 60 or 70 percent international

enrolment, that same drop could mean layoffs, program cuts and even closure.

And once those institutions close, as we can see in the forestry industry, they do

not reopen easily. Faculty disperses. Facilities are sold. Industry partnerships dissolve.

Those are critical. It is about those relationships. Along with that, our reputation,

our B.C. reputation, erodes. We would permanently narrow the post-secondary ecosystem

in British Columbia.

What’s the primary issue with this Bill 7? It’s its failure to sufficiently distinguish

between centres of excellence and bad actors. By lumping all institutions together

under one restrictive, regulatory umbrella, the bill introduces several significant

flaws.

I’d like to point them out.

First, subjective and vague criteria for success. That’s huge. The bill gives an appointed

“administrator” — oh my goodness, we’ve seen that throughout British Columbia, appointed

administrator; friends, family, whomever — the power to grant or deny a designation

certificate based on factors that are worryingly subjective. For example, the administrator

must determine if an institution is “unlikely to damage the reputation of British

Columbia as a jurisdiction that hosts international students.” This is a nebulous

standard.

What constitutes reputational damage? Is it student satisfaction metrics? Media coverage?

A single high-profile complaint? A change in political winds? A controversy unrelated

to academic quality? Reputation is not a fixed metric. It is fluid. It is contextual,

and it is often political.

Legitimate institutions deserve objective, transparent — that word keeps coming up

— criteria. Let me give you a few examples of clear, objective, transparent criteria

that an administrator could look at, which is not subjective. First, graduation rates,

employment outcomes, audited financial stability and compliance history. Those would

not be an open-ended assessment by an administrator, and these would not vary depending

on who occupies the administrator’s chair. So that’s the first flaw.

The second flaw is excessive administrative power. Under

section 8, the administrator

on a designation certificate. This is extremely broad language. Furthermore, the administrator

can cancel the certificate if they decide an institution “no longer meets the criteria.”

[3:25 p.m.]

Let us be clear about what that means in practice. If an institution loses its designation,

it can no longer enrol international students. It can no longer do that. For many

specialized colleges, that is not a minor administrative setback. It is an existential

event. A single administrative decision could effectively shut down a legitimate institution.

Now, I’m not suggesting that oversight should be weak. Absolutely not. But where power

is broad, safeguards must be strong. There must be clear thresholds, due process protections,

reasonable transition periods and meaningful, meaningful appeal mechanisms. Otherwise,

we create regulatory instability.

Third flaw, heavy-handed enforcement. The act grants inspectors the power to enter

an institution’s business premises “without a warrant” during business hours to inspect

records or observe instruction. Really? Oversight is necessary. Transparency is necessary.

But we must ask whether the tone of enforcement matches the target.

Are we regulating respected colleges of art, design, media and technology as though

they are suspected criminal enterprises? Established institutions that have operated

responsibly for decades deserve oversight, but proportionate oversight. There is a

difference between rooting out fraud and presuming guilt. Regulation must build trust,

not erode it.

A fourth flaw: the burden of fees. The bill introduces application fees, annual administrative

fees, compliance costs and fees to appeal decisions. For a large research university,

these costs may be absorbed into a multi-billion-dollar operating budget. But for

a small, specialized institution with high equipment costs, 3D labs, production studios,

kitchens, design software licences, and so on, these fees are not trivial. They are

cumulative. They become effectively a tax on specialization.

And those costs do not disappear. They are passed on to students or absorbed through

staff reductions and program cuts, and we’ve seen that in the K-to-12 school boards

having to balance their budgets.

The most concerning aspect of this bill is its restrictive approach to collaborations

and business practices.

Section 11 dictates how designated institutions can collaborate

with non-designated partners.

Section 24 allows the administrator to set the “minimum

proportion of a program” that must be provided directly by the institution.

Modern education, particularly in creative and technical fields, is collaborative

by nature. I’ve been on quite a few tours of different colleges and art places. Amazing

stuff they’re doing. It absolutely boggles my mind, and I’m in awe of what they do

and how they do it.

But colleges partner with production studios. They partner with tech companies. They

partner with culinary leaders. They partner with global design firms. Guest instructors

oftentimes fly in from abroad, and they are the ones that bring in the students from

international places. Online components are integrated with in-person workshops.

[3:30 p.m.]

Rigid, centrally prescribed proportions risk stifling innovation. If institutions

cannot adapt quickly to industry needs because every structural change requires regulatory

navigation, we risk freezing our post-secondary sector in time. They’re stuck, while

the industries that they twin with or work with or collaborate with are moving forward.

They’re moving forward and evolving rapidly.

This debate is not only about regulatory frameworks. Most importantly, it’s about

people. International students are not abstract policy variables. They are young people

who travel thousands of kilometres, invest family savings and place their trust in

our institutions in British Columbia. They enrich our classrooms with global perspectives.

They form friendships with domestic students. They start businesses, they fill labour

shortages and many become permanent residents and contribute to our communities for

decades and pay taxes.

If we unintentionally shrink the range of institutions available to them — particularly

specialized, career-focused institutions — we limit their options and weaken our appeal.

At the same time, domestic students benefit enormously from the presence of international

peers. They gain exposure to global networks and diverse viewpoints. In smaller, specialized

colleges, that diversity is often one of the greatest strengths. It really is. They

make long-lasting friendships. Oftentimes, what they learn and what they do…. They

collaborate with fellow students from around the world. Those work in the future too

— with businesses, with connections, with investments.

I’ll repeat. In small and specialized colleges, that diversity is often one of the

greatest strengths that we have. If declining international enrolment forces closures,

domestic students lose out too. They lose choice and choices.

I can tell you for a fact, now, a lot of students are absolutely thrilled because

five or ten years ago, even a few years ago, every parent, they want their child to

go to university. Well, now they’re realizing, okay, unless they’re going in for something

specific, they get four years, massive debt, a piece of paper, but they can’t get

a job. They haven’t got a career. They haven’t got a profession.

So what is happening? These colleges are not only providing a place for students to

learn career paths that they wouldn’t have even imagined, but they get jobs from that

and they get professions from that and they find purpose.

So if we have these closures, our students who are domestic students lose too. They

lose choice. They lose alternative pathways just then of going to the university.

They lose access to niche programs. I’ve seen programs I didn’t even know were in

existence — so exciting, so innovative, so forward-thinking — that larger universities

cannot offer because they are entrenched on certain pathways. And that’s okay. But

there’s a diversity of choices with these colleges and these institutions. So I’m

calling for nuance here.

In conclusion, we, I, support the goal of eliminating paper mills, absolutely, because

they do exploit the system and they have done for a little while. That goal is legitimate.

It is necessary. It is responsible governance. However, I cannot support a bill that

fails to adequately recognize the distinction between a visa mill and a legitimate

college providing high-value expertise.

We must protect international students, foreign nationals who require a study permit

and invest their futures in our province. They deserve protection, but they also deserve

choices.

[3:35 p.m.]

British Columbian students deserve a post-secondary ecosystem that is broad, that

is innovative and resilient. If even a handful of legitimate, specialized institutions

close because international enrolment drops below sustainable levels, the damage will

be long-lasting.

We will lose diversity. We will lose depth in our post-secondary options. We will

narrow opportunity for our students who are already here. We will reduce flexibility

in our skills-training pipeline. And that is imperative. We cannot. That is absolutely

paramount in this province. We need those skills-training pipelines. So that is not

a small consequence.

I urge the MLAs on both sides to look at and reconsider what the unfettered power

of that one administrator can do and the damage they can do. I can think of several

examples right now where people have been appointed. They have no clue what they’re

doing in that role, but they’ve been appointed, and they make decisions that influence

and impact a lot of people negatively. So that is a huge issue for me.

I would urge this assembly to reconsider the unfettered power of the administrator

and the subjective nature of the designation criteria. Let us together refine Bill

7 so that it clearly targets fraudulent institutions while safeguarding legitimate

ones. Let us together build in objective benchmarks, transparent processes, reasonable

transition periods and meaningful appeals — together, on both sides of the aisle.

Let us together ensure that the path to a designation certificate is clear, fair and

based on measurable educational outcomes, not on shifting

interpretations of “reputation.”

We must protect all our students, but we must also protect the institutions that actually

teach them. Let us fix together what needs fixing without dismantling what works.

Hon. Anne Kang : It’s a privilege to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill 7, the Post-Secondary

International Education (Designated Institutions) Act.

As many of us may know in the House, my father came to this province, came to Canada,

as an international student, so I am a proud daughter of an immigrant and, also, international

student. I am very thankful for the opportunity we have, and that’s why this bill

is very important.

Also, as the previous Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills, I want

to express my continued passion and support for this sector and that it has been a

true honour to have worked with the students, faculty, staff, leadership and stakeholders

of this sector. Serving in that role has been one of the greatest honours of my public

life.

Post-secondary education sits at the heart of opportunity for British Columbia. It

opens doors for all learners, and it equips people with skills to build careers. It

also strengthens communities. It is an economic driver, and it connects our province

to the world.

We welcome international students in British Columbia. We want them here, and we want

them to succeed. We want them to have a life-changing experience when they come to

study in our province. Even with the federal government’s recent limits on international

student allocations, British Columbia remains committed to attracting top learners

and delivering an educational experience that is second to none.

[3:40 p.m.]

International students enrich our campuses and our communities. They bring cultural

diversity, global perspectives and lifelong connections to all that they meet here.

Many become leaders in their fields. Some stay and contribute to the economy and society

for the years to come.

While the vast majority of institutions in British Columbia provide high-quality education

and act with integrity, we also have seen a minority of bad actors who have misled

students and damaged our province’s reputation. Students have invested their savings,

left their families, travelled thousands of kilometres, only to find that the experience

they were promised did not match the reality. That is unacceptable.

Protecting students and protecting British Columbia’s reputation has been a central

focus of our government, and, in fall 2024, the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education

and Future Skills launched the international education framework. It is a comprehensive

plan to strengthen B.C.’s international education sector. That framework included

policy changes to raise quality standards, protect our reputation as a destination

of choice and enhance supports for international students.

The legislation before us today is the next critical step in this work. The Post-Secondary

International Education (Designated Institutions) Act will establish a clear legal

framework for British Columbia’s education quality assurance program, known as EQA.

Currently the EQA program operates through policy. While that policy guides how the

program is managed, it is not legally binding. The EQA policy manual and code of practice

are not enforceable in law. Government did not have clear legal authority to require

institutions to follow them or to take strong enforcement action when institutions

failed to comply.

This legislation changes that. It turns policy into law. Under this proposed act,

institutions will be prohibited from recruiting, enrolling or delivering programs

to international students who require a study permit unless they hold a valid designation

certificate.

The act will set clear legal criteria that institutions must meet to receive and maintain

that designation. It will provide government with the authority to conduct inspections.

and, ultimately, cancellation of designation when necessary. It will create a fair

and transparent appeals process with an independent appeals officer appointed by the

minister.

This legislation does not change the quality of standards themselves, but it gives

government the legal tools to ensure that those standards are met. It strengthens

governance, it strengthens transparency, and it strengthens protection for students.

That is very important.

Let me be clear about what problem we are solving. The EQA program currently operates

through policy, not law. That means requirements are not legally binding and enforcement

tools are limited. Legislation is needed to ensure that government can fulfil its

commitment to stronger oversight and accountability. It is not about adding red tape

for the sake of it. It is about ensuring that institutions who benefit from enrolling

international students are meeting clear, consistent standards and that students can

trust the system that they are entering.

The act defines an international student as one who requires a federal study permit

because their program is longer than six months. These longer programs typically involve

significant academic and financial commitments. They are precisely the situations

where strong oversight matters most. Short-term programs of six months or less are

not included because they do not require a study permit or designation and generally

involve lower commitments for learners.

The member opposite asks: “Is this duplicative?” Well, it is not. The Degree Authorization

Act oversees new degree programs and the use of the term “university.” The Private

Training Act regulates career training programs offered by private institutions. This

new act establishes the standards that both public and private post-secondary institutions

must meet and maintain in order to be eligible to enrol international students on

study permits.

[3:45 p.m.]

Each act serves a different purpose, and together they create a coherent oversight

framework. Others also have asked whether this is the right time, given financial

pressures on institutions. As government, we recognize those pressures. Institutions

are facing global inflation, shifting domestic enrolment patterns and federal caps

on international student visas.

That is precisely why this legislation matters. When international student allocations

are limited, we must ensure that those spaces go to institutions that meet high standards

and provide high-quality educational experience. Strengthening oversight reinforces

integrity. Integrity reinforces reputation, and reputation is essential for long-term

sustainability.

Approximately 220 institutions currently hold EQA designation, both public and private.

To minimize disruption, all existing designations will automatically transition when

the act comes into force. Institutions will continue their designation status and

reapply through their normal renewal cycle. New institutions will be able to apply

under the new legal framework once it is in effect.

The legislation also allows for the introduction of application and annual fees to

recover the cost of delivering the designation program. These fees will be set through

regulation, guided by principles of reasonableness, transparency and sustainability.

They are expected to represent only a small portion of the institutional operating

budget.

This act also clarifies roles between federal and provincial governments. The federal

government oversees immigration, who requires a study permit, caps on intake and who

may enter or remain in Canada. British Columbia is responsible for education, for

institution quality assurance and student protection. An institution can only be added

to the federal designated learning institutions list if it holds British Columbia’s

official designation. By strengthening our provincial framework, we reinforce our

shared responsibility and demonstrate leadership in oversight and accountability.

Only one other jurisdiction in Canada, which is Manitoba, has dedicated international

education legislation. British Columbia is choosing to lead. We are choosing a legally

binding framework rather than a policy-only approach. We are choosing transparency

over ambiguity. We are choosing strong governance over reactive cleanup. Throughout

the development of this legislation, we have engaged with public and private institutions.

We have engaged with Indigenous partners, including the First Nations Education Steering

Committee, the Indigenous Adult and Higher Learning Association and Metis Nation British

Columbia. Their feedback has helped shape a framework that is firm, fair and forward-looking.

Quality matters. Integrity matters. Reputation matters. When students choose British

Columbia, they are choosing more than just a classroom. They are choosing trust. They

are choosing safety. They are choosing opportunity. We have a responsibility to honour

that trust. This legislation is about protecting students, it is about protecting

institutions that do the right thing, and it is about protecting British Columbia’s

global reputation for excellence.

We welcome international students, and we value the contribution that they make to

our province. We are committed to ensuring that the experience here reflects the very

best of who we are, and I am proud of the work the Ministry of Post-Secondary and

Future Skills has done to strengthen this sector.

I am confident that this legislation positions British Columbia for a strong, responsible

future in international education. I support this bill. Thank you for this opportunity

to provide my reflections.

[3:50 p.m.]

Lawrence Mok : I rise today to discuss Bill 7, the Post-Secondary International Education (Designated

Institutions) Act.

To begin with, I want to let the House know that I was once an international student,

studying at a university in Ontario many years ago.

I have no doubt that this proposed legislation is well intentioned. We can all agree

on its goals to protect international students and to protect British Columbia’s long-standing

reputation as home to some of the finest post-secondary education institutions in

the world.

Here’s my concern with the system for designating institutions that is proposed in

Bill 7. To me, the government is going further down the road of central control, where

a single person, an administrator, is given lots of authority to make decisions, decisions

that amount to life-or-death control over independent post-secondary institutions

across our province.

I would like to compare this to the approach taken in provinces like Alberta and Ontario,

and also to the approach taken internationally.

Bill 7 creates an administrator, who can designate whether a college, a private university

or any other post-secondary institution can recruit, enrol or deliver courses or programs

to international students who require a study permit from the federal government.

Unless this administrator designates an institution, any college or university is

banned, under this act, from even advertising its programs and course offerings to

international students, much less accepting them.

This approach — everything under the control of a single administrator, an employee

of the provincial government reporting to a provincial minister; the provincial cabinet;

and, let’s face it, the Premier of the day — carries with it the potential for abuse,

the potential for arbitrary decisions and even the potential for political interference

in decisions that should not be political.

Until now, we have been using this government’s education quality assurance framework.

Bill 7 will replace this with a statutory designation. At the centre of this new system

stands the administrator, appointed by the government, by the minister. The administrator

will have power, under the provisions of this bill, to dedicate duties to ministry

employees.

The administrator will have broad discretionary powers that touch every aspect of

the operations of the affected colleges, universities and training schools that serve

international students. The administrator alone will decide on applications to issue

or renew a designation certificate. The administrator alone will decide whether a

college, university or training school provides clear information to students, ensures

a safe and positive experience, promotes well-being and avoids damaging B.C.’s reputation.

I’ll say this again. Bill 7 provides one person, the administrator, with the power

to determine that a college or a training school is damaging B.C.’s reputation. One

person can put a school out of business with the stroke of a pen. If those criteria

do not seem too general and too subjective for you, Bill 7 also gives the administrator

the ability to put a school out of business for vague, open-ended reasons like “any

other factors the administrator considers relevant.”

[3:55 p.m.]

Now, sure, the administrator needs to provide written reasons, but appeals offer no

guarantee of an automatic stay, meaning that schools could face immediate shutdowns

while their appeal is being considered. The administrator can impose, amend or remove

Oversight extends to maintaining a public directory, which could include publishing

enforcement actions and even personal information.

Bill 7 grants the administrator authority to impose conditions, order corrective measures,

cancel designations outright and even deny a school permission to reapply for up to

three years. Imagine an administrator, perhaps swayed by political pressures or personal

biases, cancelling a college’s designation mid-semester because they deem its recruitment

practices likely to damage B.C.’s reputation. Students could be left in limbo, classes

disrupted and visas at risk — all without immediate recourse.

Granting such authority to one administrator enables capricious decisions. Bill 7

grants the administrator the authority to appoint inspectors. These inspectors can

enter premises without warrants, seize class records and question staff. These powers

more closely resemble those of a police state than the British Columbia that we know.

Bill 7 grants the administrator power to unilaterally make binding rules on everything

from student disclosures and instructional methods to collaborations and reporting

obligations. Bill 7 grants the administrator the power to seek court injunctions against

non-designated operations, with courts instructed to prioritize enforcement over the

viability of the school or its students.

Bill 7 grants the administrator the power to suddenly impose conditions, such as costly

facility upgrades, at any time, without appeal safeguards. To me, this concentration

of power in one unelected official amounts to regulatory overreach, where personal

judgment trumps collective wisdom and political directives could silence dissenting

voices in academia.

Now, let’s have a look at Alberta’s Campus Alberta Quality Council, a model that provides

for balanced, expert-driven governance. Established under Alberta’s Post-secondary

Learning Act, CAQC is an independent agency comprising a 15-member council.

This council includes two co-chairs and 13 experts, appointed by the minister based

on competencies in higher-education quality assurance, academic leadership and administration.

These members bring broad experience from academia, industry and public service. Diverse

perspectives inform every decision.

This Alberta agency reviews all new degree program proposals across public universities,

colleges, private providers and out-of-province institutions, except religious divinity

programs, assessing against standards like academic rigour, societal need and financial

viability.

Expert panels conduct peer reviews, site visits and evaluations, leading to collective

recommendations to the minister for approval, conditional approval or rejection.

Alberta’s quality council also monitors approved academic programs every five years,

ensuring ongoing quality without the abrupt cancellations possible in Bill 7. This

board structure reduces the risk of one-person rule. Decisions are debated among peers,

fostering transparency and reducing bias.

[4:00 p.m.]

For instance, when Athabasca University proposes innovative online degrees, Alberta’s

experts weigh in collectively, balancing innovation with standards — a far cry from

the Bill 7 administrator unilaterally imposing rules on delivery methods. Alberta’s

approach promotes systemwide coherence in Campus Alberta, enabling seamless transfers

while avoiding the dangers of one-person rule.

I warn my colleagues on both sides of this aisle again. By eliminating the possibility

of such an oversight board, Bill 7 invites the very abuses Alberta avoids: arbitrary

bars on institutions, as in three-year reapplication bans, and unchecked inspections

that could harass rather than help.

Now, let’s look at Ontario, where I went to school. Here we see yet another board

model in the Postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board, created under the Post-secondary

Education Choice and Excellence Act, 2000.

The Ontario board is an arm’s-length advisory board with a chair appointed by cabinet,

a vice-chair and up to nine members selected by the minister for their expertise in

higher education, administration and quality assurance. Members represent a tapestry

of academic and governance backgrounds, ensuring decisions are informed by broad experience

rather than isolated authority.

The Ontario board’s functions focus on recommending ministerial consent for degree

programs from non-public university entities, public colleges, private institutions

and out-of-province providers, complementing the self-regulatory Ontario Universities

Council on Quality Assurance for public universities.

Applicants submit proposals against rigorous standards, including faculty qualifications,

resources and alignment with degree-level expectations. The Ontario board appoints

expert panels for its assessments, site visits and reviews, resulting in collective

recommendations, approval with conditions, deferral or denial.

This segmented system protects Ontario’s post-secondary reputation, unlike Bill 7’s

administrator who can cancel designations without board input. Ontario’s board model

emphasizes evidence-based rigour and collegiality. Decisions are not decreed by one

person but forged through deliberations with transparency via published guidelines

and decisions.

For example, an Ontario private provider’s application undergoes peer scrutiny, preventing

the solo judgments that could lead to Bill 7’s stark injunctions, where courts prioritize

shutdowns. Ontario’s approach allows controlled innovation in applied degrees while

safeguarding against outreach.

Here in B.C., the Bill 7 administrator could demand any records on a whim, invading

privacy without the checks and balances provided in Ontario through a board with oversight.

Bill 7 writes into the law the opportunity for political interference, where an administrator

is answerable only to the minister, the cabinet and the Premier but targets institutions

critical of government policies.

The difference is clear. Alberta and Ontario distribute authority among representative

experts, promoting finance, innovation and accountability through peer review and

collective wisdom. B.C.’s Bill 7 funnels into one administrator’s hands, echoing authoritarian

models that history warns against.

Before I conclude, I would like to consider the experience of my native homeland and

compare the approach taken in Singapore to the approach the government is proposing

in Bill 7.

[4:05 p.m.]

Singapore shows us that it is possible to have firm oversight, high academic standards

and strong protection of students without granting one individual the power to cancel

livelihoods, disrupt studies and shut down schools.

Singapore is widely admired for producing universities that consistently rank among

the global top 20. Its success is not an accident. This success is built on a deliberate

philosophy, strong central direction, tempered with a structured, expert-informed

process. Singapore deliberately avoids putting too much power, never mind all the

power, in the hands of any single individual.

In Singapore, the Ministry of Education provides strategy oversight and sets clear

expectations through frameworks such as the quality assurance framework for universities.

When the time comes to evaluate the actual performance of a school, Singapore does

not rely on one appointed official making unilateral calls. Instead, Singapore convenes

independent external review panels made up of respected local and international academics,

senior university leaders, industry representatives and quality assurance specialists.

These panels visit campuses, examine evidence, interview stakeholders and produce

collective evidence-based judgments.

The committee for university academic quality and the international academic advisory

panel operates on the same principle: broad expertise, collective deliberation, transparent

reporting.

Putting this much power in the hands of an administrator can lead to abuses — abuses

like selective enforcemen