First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Monday, May 26, 2025

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 69

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

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Mike Trask

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert

Introductions by Members

Members’ Statements

National AccessAbility Week

Dana Lajeunesse

Kassidy Rutledge and Special Olympics

Kristina Loewen

Celebrate B.C. Event in Coquitlam

Jennifer Blatherwick

Kiwanis Village West Affordable Housing Initiative

Lynne Block

5X Festival and Punjabi Arts and Culture

Jessie Sunner

Anti-Racism Awareness Week

Teresa Wat

Oral Questions

Government Policies on Substance Use and Supportive Housing

John Rustad

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Government Action on Drug Trafficking and Border Security

Elenore Sturko

Hon. Garry Begg

Government Action on Reconciliation and Legislative Commitments

Rob Botterell

Hon. Christine Boyle

Government Consultation with Stakeholders

Rob Botterell

Hon. Christine Boyle

Community Safety and Involuntary Care for Mental Health Issues

Claire Rattée

Hon. Josie Osborne

Education Funding

Lynne Block

Hon. Lisa Beare

Trevor Halford

Peter Milobar

Speaker’s Statement

Petitions

Scott McInnis

Tabling Documents

Labour Relations Board, annual report, 2024

InBC Investment Corp., annual report, 2023-24

Reports from Committees

Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills Committee , Bill M202, Eligibility to Hold Public Office Act

Amna Shah

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 32 — Appointment of Special Committee to Review Provisions of the Human Rights

Code

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Motion 33 — Membership Change to Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills Committee

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Motion 34 — Membership Change to Lobbyists Transparency Act Review Special Committee

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance (continued)

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Peter Milobar

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 15 — Infrastructure Projects Act (continued)

Kiel Giddens

Hon. Bowinn Ma

Misty Van Popta

Rob Botterell

Gavin Dew

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act

Larry Neufeld

Hon. Adrian Dix

Trevor Halford

Á’a:líya Warbus

Sheldon Clare

Jeremy Valeriote

Scott McInnis

Monday, May 26, 2025

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. Ravi Parmar : It was about a year ago that I stood in this House and joined in celebrating Mr.

Highlands’, Bob McMinn’s, 100th birthday. It was an incredible celebration, May 10.

I am pleased to update the House that Bob McMinn is living life in the Highlands.

He didn’t have his licence removed, but he made the decision not to drive anymore.

Anyone who has been out to the Highlands knows that the roads there are a little windy.

He just celebrated his 101st birthday a couple of weeks ago. This guy is beloved in

my community.

I hope the House will join me in wishing him a very happy birthday.

[1:35 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens : Joining us in the gallery today are members of the Electrical Contractors Association

of B.C. I come from a family of electricians, but I was the odd person out, getting

into politics.

These are people that literally power our province. I want to welcome Matt MacInnis,

their president and CEO; their board chair, Derek Fettback, vice-president of Western

Pacific Enterprises; and the treasurer of ECABC, Don Bayda from F&M Installations.

Will the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside : I’m so pleased today to be able to welcome two constituents from my community of New

Westminster to the House.

Laura Kwong is New Westminster’s DPAC chair. She’s here this afternoon with her daughter.

They’re doing a little bit of a deep dive into our democracy, which I think is just

awesome.

I really appreciate the work that Laura does and that the DPAC does to advocate for

education in our community.

Would the House please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Reann Gasper : It is a privilege of mine today to welcome members of my Abbotsford-Mission constituency

staff. I have Candis, Chelsa and Sean Mark.

These are the people who carry the day-to-day weight of public service with grace,

strength and compassion. I am so proud to call them my staff.

Would the House join me in recognizing and welcoming them today.

Hon. Jodie Wickens : Today in the House is one of my absolute favourite constituents. He also happens

to be one of the reasons I’m standing here in this role today.

Fin Donnelly is a beloved leader in our community. He was a fantastic city councillor,

a fantastic Member of Parliament, a fantastic MLA and a testament to lifelong public

service. He’s still working tirelessly for our community, for a better future, for

our environment and for our children.

I am honoured to fill his shoes. It’s a bit of tradesies. I asked him to run; he asked

me to run.

I hear it’s his birthday tomorrow.

Happy birthday, Fin.

I also hear that the staff did a really good job of making sure all of the pencils

were well sharpened in the Legislature today.

Would the whole House please help me in giving Fin Donnelly a very warm welcome.

Gavin Dew : It’s a pleasure to welcome to the House Blair Ireland, the mayor of the district

of Lake Country and vice-chair of the district of Central Okanagan; along with Lake

Country CAO Paul Gipps.

It’s a pleasure to have you guys here today. Good to meet with you. Thank you for

coming.

Hon. Josie Osborne : I’m delighted to have three visitors from my riding of Mid Island–Pacific Rim here

today. Joining us are Alberni District Teachers Union president Ryan Dvorak; vice-president

Wendy Arnett; and then from even a little bit further, out in Ucluelet, Marc Garand,

who is the president of the Ucluelet-Tofino Teachers Union.

I’m just delighted to have them here and have them representing their members’ interests.

I’m so grateful to them for all of their support to our public education system.

Would the House please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Lynne Block : Today at the Legislature, we have the welcomed members of the Telus leadership team

as part of their Kits for Kids initiative, including Jill Schnarr, Juggy Sihota, Dee

Brown, Tyler Mooi and Marissa Nobauer.

Alongside volunteers and board members, they’re helping pack and deliver 930 backpacks

filled with school supplies to families in need across B.C. as part of Telus’s Days

of Giving and their long-standing commitment to community as B.C.’s hometown team.

Thank you, Telus.

Tributes

Mike Trask

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : I rise with some sadness to report to the House the passing of an incredible fossil

hunter here in British Columbia — Mike Trask, up in Courtenay. For those that don’t

know, Mike and his daughter discovered our provincial fossil, which at the time was

identified as an elasmosaur.

[1:40 p.m.]

I’m pleased to share, on behalf of his family, that in fact, it is a new genus. It

is not an elasmosaur; it’s a specific plesiosaur. So his discovery with his daughter

outlives him. In fact, it has been named Traskasaura sandrae, named after Mike Trask

himself because of his incredible contribution to palaeontology in this province.

For those that want to get to know his discovery even better, I’d urge them to go

up to the Courtenay and District Museum and Palaeontology Centre. You’ll probably

get a chance to meet his twin brother, Pat Trask, who is also an incredible fossil

hunter and somebody who has given so much to this province in terms of our knowledge.

Please, Hon. Speaker, if you mind, on behalf of the House, to acknowledge the passing

of Mike Trask and his incredible contribution to this province.

Introductions by Members

Jody Toor : I am honoured to introduce my community staff that works with me at my Langley office,

Isabella Stockfisch and Sean Mark.

Along with them, and I have introduced them earlier as well, three important people

— my husband, Charn Toor; and my two daughters, Nya and Jaya — in the chamber.

Can the House please make them feel welcome.

Harwinder Sandhu : As we know, we’re always excited to welcome guests. But many of us also carry a memory

of loved ones who are no longer with us — for me, my dad and also my late husband,

Sammy, father of my two daughters.

But that said, while this moment is emotional, at the same time, I’m excited to welcome

his parents, Manjit Singh Gill, a millwright who served in Mackenzie sawmill for over

52 years; and his mother, Paramjit Gill. Besides raising three kids, she also worked

at a local Greek restaurant with their daughter, Anoop Gill, Sammy’s only sister.

She was born and raised in Mackenzie, and we shared many cherished memories.

Despite living in B.C. for decades — their ancestors came here over a century ago

— work kept them busy, and life. It is their first time being in the gallery today.

They are also joined by my daughters, Manreet and Jasreen, and my son, Avishaan.

Would the House please give them a big round of applause and make them feel very welcome.

Donegal Wilson : It’s not often that I get the chance to welcome someone from my own riding of Boundary-Similkameen,

but I’m pleased to do so today. In the gallery today, I have Emily Wolbeck from the

Princeton parent advisory council.

I had the pleasure of meeting her, knocking on doors during my campaign. She’s very

passionate about advocating for the students in Princeton. I appreciate that she’s

come today.

I want to thank all the volunteers and parents that are here today at the Legislature

for their rally.

Please make her feel welcome.

Lorne Doerkson : I’m certainly proud to make three introductions from my community.

The first two individuals are from Esk’etemc. That is the incredible First Nation

just southwest of Williams Lake. David DeRose and Calvin Dubray are here. They are

here advocating not only for their community but for parents and children in their

education program.

With them today is George Hobi. He is a member and one of the founding members, I

suppose, of Concerned Parents and Caregivers of Williams Lake.

I welcome them all here today. They are here for the rally as well and here to advocate

on behalf of our parents and children in our communities.

Thank you very much, gentlemen. It’s been a pleasure.

Bruce Banman : I also have three introductions to make.

It is my absolute pleasure to introduce Drs. Chris Vallee and Melissa Carr from the

acupuncturists of British Columbia, here to talk with us about concerns that they

have. We look forward to that conversation.

Also, for those of you that have been around for a long time — Mr. Speaker, like yourself,

in the Legislature since 2008….

Interjection.

Bruce Banman : Thank you, 2005. So it’s even longer than I figured.

We actually have Mur Meadows here, who formerly was in the dining room downstairs,

a resident here and also an all-around actor extraordinaire.

Please, will the House welcome them with warm applause.

[1:45 p.m.]

Ian Paton : I want to welcome my wife, Pam, who’s here today for a couple of days to join me.

We brought along our two really good friends from Tsawwassen, Scott and Michele Harris.

They’re famous for Harris Nursery in Tsawwassen and Ladner, an expert on everything

to do with the nursery business.

I want to thank Pam. She works hard at her full-time job, and then she looks after

our farm when I’m not here, and then she rides her horse every afternoon. I grow hay

to feed her horse.

There are three reasons she married me. I had a farm, I grow hay for horses, and my

brother is a horse veterinarian.

Please make Pam feel welcome.

Bryan Tepper : I’ve got two things today.

One, I would like to welcome Alex Sagert. Every time I go to a Richmond event, I seem

to see him there, a dedicated community advocate. He works on community-focused change:

the drug crisis, housing inequality, environmental concerns and government accountability.

He strives to implement sustainable solutions that enhance the well-being and resilience

of the local communities.

If we could give him a big hand.

Personally, for myself, today is my wedding anniversary. I’m not an overly romantic

fellow. My wife isn’t here today. She’s on the road, but I will say: “It could have

been worse.”

Misty Van Popta : It begs the question for whom.

Today in the House, I’ve got both of my constituency assistants: Leda, who I’ve introduced

here before, and then new to my office is Ashley McDougall. She’s a recent grad from

the University of the Fraser Valley — I believe arts, political science major and

maybe economics? Yup, I got the thumbs up.

Both of them make me look good on a daily basis, and I really appreciate their work.

If the House could just say thanks that they’re here.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I just want to give a shout-out to Telus, who are here on the premises today doing

their Kits for Kids. I was able to go out at lunchtime and stuff some backpacks with

Jill Schnarr and Juggy Sihota.

Telus just does such a great job of engaging the community with their volunteer work.

I really want to congratulate them for that and thank them very much.

Members’ Statements

National AccessAbility Week

Dana Lajeunesse : It’s my pleasure to speak today in recognition of National AccessAbility Week, which

takes place from May 25 to 31. This week is a time to reflect and celebrate and to

acknowledge the work and leadership of people with disabilities, as well as the contributions

of those advancing inclusion in our communities.

Having faced barriers myself, I know there’s still much work to be done to build a

province that works for everyone. This is why our government is committed to advancing

which is led by an incredible group with diverse lived experience.

Our efforts are guided by the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities

and the principle “Nothing about us without us.” This ensures people with disabilities

help shape laws and policies that affect them.

[1:50 p.m.]

Everyone benefits when our communities are accessible, and ensuring inclusion is a

shared responsibility.

Let’s build a province where every child can play, every person can connect, and every

space is open to all.

Kassidy Rutledge

and Special Olympics

Kristina Loewen : Today I rise to honour a special athlete and to highlight the Special Olympics in

B.C. I’m honoured to recognize Kassidy Rutledge, an incredible Special Olympics athlete

whose strength, determination and spirit inspire us all. Kassidy exemplifies the true

meaning of perseverance and sportsmanship, proving that no challenge is too great

when faced with passion and heart.

Kassidy made a mark at the 2025 Canadian Powerlifting Union championships in Moose

Jaw, Saskatchewan. Kassidy completed a perfect nine-for-nine performance, claiming

the national championship title in the 63 kilogram category.

Kassidy competes in both Special Olympics and mainstream competitions. In March, she

won a national title and earned a spot at the International Powerlifting Federation

world championships, which is being held this coming November in Romania. Her dedication

to her sport and her unwavering positivity remind us that ability is limitless when

fuelled by courage and hard work.

Kassidy began her Special Olympics journey at only 11 years old. She started in swimming,

but she has participated since in almost every sport Special Olympics offers. She

also participates in social sports like bocce. Last February she went to the nationals

for snowshoeing.

Next Kassidy will compete in the provincial games in Prince George this July. Her

goal is to represent Canada at the Special Olympics World Games in Santiago, Chile

in 2028.

Here are some quick facts about our Special Olympics programs in Kelowna. Three years

ago our local committee unanimously decided to be the first community to make sport

free for the athletes. At a net programming cost of over $165,000, they have been

able to sustain their free-sports initiative via an aggressive fundraising program

and with the help of some fantastic local philanthropists.

Kelowna hopes that by showing the rest of the country that providing free sport to

our underserved population is achievable, eventually sport will be free for all Special

Olympics athletes nationwide. Currently Kelowna has 221 athletes, 16 sports and over

100 coaches and program volunteers.

I wish I could post a photo on the screens right now of Kassidy, because she is as

adorable as she is strong and tenacious.

Kassidy, you are a shining example of what it means to be a champion, both on and

off the field.

Let’s celebrate Kassidy and all Special Olympic athletes who continue to break barriers

and inspire greatness.

Celebrate B.C. Event in Coquitlam

Jennifer Blatherwick : As British Columbians, there is a great deal that unites us, most notably our collective

commitment to this great province we all call home. On August 4, B.C. Day, the first

annual Celebrate B.C. event will take place in Coquitlam Town Centre Park, on the

traditional territory of the kʷikʷəƛ̓əm First Nation.

The one-day festival will be hosted by the kʷikʷəƛ̓əm and SUCCESS, a multiservice agency that is renowned for assisting newcomers in all

stages of their lives.

We will honour Indigenous and settler histories and will bring together British Columbians

from all regions to celebrate who we are and our shared future through music, art,

a regional showcase and B.C.’s largest salmon barbecue. This vibrant event will be

a tribute to the rich cultural fabric, natural beauty and diverse communities that

define our province.

A heritage walk exhibit will highlight the many cultures that make our province so

unique. Celebrate B.C. will also serve as an expression of our collective aspiration,

the spirit of collaboration, reconciliation and the pride that unites us.

As members of this House know, an event of this magnitude does not come together without

a great deal of collaboration. We would like to acknowledge the kʷikʷəƛ̓əm people, who are helping spearhead this event and are demonstrating the meaning of

the word “partnership.”

On a personal note, I cannot lift up highly enough the members of the kʷikʷəƛ̓əm Nation, who are small in number but enormous in heart, both in their compassion and

dedication to the community and in spreading the teachings of their culture to all

of us who are willing to open our hearts to it.

[1:55 p.m.]

What better time to celebrate who we are as British Columbians. This B.C. Day, you

are invited to join us at Celebrate B.C.

Let’s come together not only in celebration but in recognition of all of those who

have shaped this land and continue to build its future.

Kiwanis Village West

Affordable Housing Initiative

Lynne Block : I rise today to share news of a truly transformative initiative in affordable housing

in West Vancouver, Kiwanis village west.

This project is the latest achievement by the Kiwanis North Shore Housing Society,

a trusted community pillar since 1953. Founded by the Kiwanis Club of West Vancouver,

the society has spent over 70 years providing below-market rental housing for individuals,

families and seniors, fostering inclusive, healthy communities across the north shore.

Starting with their first site between 21st Street and 22nd Street, Kiwanis has grown

that original village and vision into Kiwanis Garden Village. It is now home to 303

rental units and an adult day centre. Across the North Shore, Kiwanis operates 744

apartments in eight buildings, all managed by dedicated volunteers, a board and a

team of caring professionals.

Building on this legacy, construction began in 2023 on Kiwanis village west, a new

156-unit, purpose-built rental project. These modern, affordable homes, ranging from

studios to three bedrooms, will be offered at approximately 75 percent of market rent,

with priority given to our first responders, school staff and municipal workers.

I’m proud to share that although completion was expected in March 2026, the project

is ahead of schedule, with first occupancy now anticipated by December 1 of this year.

More than just housing, Kiwanis village west will include landscape gardens, outdoor

spaces and a community hub, fostering connection and well-being among residents.

This progress is a testament to what’s possible when a committed non-profit works

hand in hand with local government. The partnership with the district of West Vancouver

has been essential to bringing this vision to life.

I want to commend executive director Stefan Baune, the board and the entire Kiwanis

team for their vision, hard work and steadfast dedication to building homes and building

community.

5X Festival and

Punjabi Arts and Culture

Jessie Sunner : I rise today to recognize an organization that has brought extraordinary diversity,

creativity and cultural richness to British Columbia’s art scene for the past 20 years,

5X.

Founded in 2004, and originally named the Vancouver International Bhangra Celebration,

5X has been at the forefront of supporting emerging Punjabi artists, reshaping arts

and culture in British Columbia and making waves across the globe.

I also have a personal connection to 5X, as ten years ago I volunteered with what

was then known as VIBC. Back then, we were organizing community bhangra competitions

and panel events in Vancouver. Today that seed has grown into the 5X Fest, a full-scale

cultural movement that merges music, art, fashion and film. And 5X has become a creative

force that has launched careers, brought Punjabi culture to the international stage

and made Surrey a hub for the South Asian arts.

The impact of 5X goes far beyond culture; it’s economic. In a time when we’re talking

about diversification and taking control of our own economy, we must also talk about

the creative economy. Artists like Inderpal Moga, Intense and my very own constituent

Chani Nattan are all building global music brands from right here in B.C.

Not only are they putting Punjabi music on the world stage. They are generating millions

in economic activity through music production, streaming, tours, merchandise and branding.

This is a homegrown industry, and it is future-facing.

For too long, the arts were seen as either a risk or a luxury, especially in immigrant

households, but 5X has changed that. It’s made culture a career, it’s made Surrey

a creative capital, and it’s shown the world that our language, our sounds and our

stories are not just relevant; they’re in demand.

[2:00 p.m.]

I invite all members in this House to come visit Surrey on June 14 to experience the

5X Fest for themselves and see what a future rooted in culture and driven by youth

truly looks like.

Anti-Racism Awareness Week

Teresa Wat : As a former minister responsible for multiculturalism and as someone who proudly

represents one the most diverse constituencies in B.C., I rise today with both urgency

and hope as we mark Anti-Racism Awareness Week.

This week is not just symbolic. It is the result of years of advocacy, including my

call way back in 2021 for an annual anti-racism education day on May 29. The call

was driven by the heartbreaking rise in racism and hate during the pandemic, particularly

anti-Asian hate, which surged by over 700 percent in Vancouver alone amid the pandemic.

These acts of hatred do not exist in isolation. We have seen increasing incidents

of racism against Indigenous and South Asian communities, and we must not ignore the

surge of antisemitism, what many historians rightly call the oldest and most enduring

form of hate in this world. This historic hatred has taken on new and dangerous forms,

and it must be named, confronted and condemned without hesitation.

Fighting racism isn’t a partisan cause; it’s a human one. It’s about standing shoulder

to shoulder with every British Columbian no matter their faith, their background or

their language, and saying: “You belong, and we will fight for you.”

British Columbians have told us they want action. Over 11,000 people signed our petition,

and over 170 organizations came out to support the proclamation of anti-racism education

day in 2011. They want a province where their children can walk safely, can speak

freely and live without fear of discrimination.

Let’s listen, let’s lead, and let’s commit not just this week but every day to the

work of ending hatred in all forms.

The Speaker : A reminder to all members: when you are making two-minute statements, please follow

the time limit. It is a two-minute statement, not longer than two minutes. Keep it

within the time limit.

Thank you so much.

Oral Questions

Government Policies on

Substance Use and Supportive Housing

John Rustad : A Globe and Mail exposé over the weekend laid bare the devastating reality on Victoria’s Pandora Avenue,

where addiction, death and chaos are spiralling out of control under this NDP government.

Even Victoria police, like Det. Insp. Conor King, a strong supporter of harm reduction,

now admits it’s worse than ever.

The Premier said safe supply and supportive housing would save lives. Instead, he’s

created taxpayer-funded sites where drug use is rampant, crime is routine, and people

have no hope for recovery.

Will this Premier end this failed experiment and replace it with treatment-focused

housing that bans these deadly drugs and restores law and order to communities like

Victoria?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I want to thank the Leader of the Official Opposition for his question.

We know that when communities have challenges and when they face encampments, the

best solution, the best way to address them, is through housing. In the case of Pandora,

the members should be aware that last year we had over 100 people in the encampment

there. Because of the supportive housing that we brought on, because of the fact that

we scaled up so many housing options, we now still have 19 people.

I appreciate that 19 people is still too many. That’s why we’re going to continue

to work with the local government. We’re going to continue to work with our partners.

In fact, after the situation around a paramedic facing violence last year, we put

together a table where police, health officials, Ministry of Housing, local government

officials, all of our not-for-profit partners meet monthly to talk about what we can

do to address the challenges that every individual is facing in that community.

[2:05 p.m.]

We know the supportive housing works. I know the Leader of the Opposition started

his question with some doubt that supportive housing maybe doesn’t work. It works.

It saves lives. It gets a lot of people out of the streets, out of the encampments,

and helps them reconnect with family, helps them reconnect with employment.

We’re going to continue to scale that up to support communities throughout the province.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

John Rustad : Well, an interesting response from the minister, considering that residents are smoking

and injecting fentanyl in taxpayer-funded housing units, and B.C. Housing is confirming

it. Police are constantly called to these buildings for standoffs, trafficking and

weapons. Just last week they seized a kilo of fentanyl, a loaded handgun and $40,000

in cash from one of the Premier’s so-called supportive housing sites. Yet the NDP

still claims, as the minister just did now, that this is helping people and moving

them towards recovery.

Will this NDP government stop destroying lives, be straight up with British Columbians,

admit its policy has failed and shut down these drug dens?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Surely the Leader of the Opposition isn’t talking about closing down supportive housing

throughout the province. Surely he understands that by doing that, you’re putting

people’s lives at risk.

If he needs advice or if he needs some guidance on how important supportive housing

is, he should just turn around and talk to his Housing critic, who, as the mayor of

Surrey, was a strong advocate for more supportive housing. In fact, she told other

mayors about the value that it provides a community.

I praise the critic for Housing for her leadership when she was the mayor of Surrey,

because she understood what supportive housing meant. It made a huge difference in

her community. It’s making a huge difference for people in other communities.

As for the rest, as I said earlier, we have a table where police, our not-for-profit

providers, all of our health officials, everyone sits together. When challenges arise,

we work with our officials to be able to take steps to address that, and that’s what’s

happened in this case. We don’t want to see people that are preying on vulnerable

people in supportive housing, outside of supportive housing, on our streets, and we’ll

continue to work with law enforcement to ensure that doesn’t happen.

Government Action on

Drug Trafficking and

Border Security

Elenore Sturko : This is the side of the House that does believe in housing, but allowing rampant

drug use and setting up situations that are ripe for exploitation by drug traffickers

isn’t supportive.

The government has scoffed at recent warnings from U.S. officials about fentanyl production

in British Columbia, calling it trade war rhetoric. But Canada’s own intelligence

reports confirm that foreign government-backed gangs are using B.C. to traffic drugs

to the U.S. and beyond.

A B.C. man was just charged, exporting enough fentanyl out of Vancouver to kill 750,000

people. Last fall the RCMP pulled 54 kilograms of fentanyl and 390 kilograms of crystal

meth out of a super lab in Falkland. It’s only one of 47 such labs that the NDP have

busted in the last six years under this NDP government.

Organized crime, cross-border smuggling and chemical super labs are a national security

threat. Will the Premier continue to hide behind trade war rhetoric as an excuse for

his inaction, or will he finally admit that the explosion in drug production is also

a provincial security threat?

Hon. Garry Begg : Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

This government is working very hard to fight illegal drug manufacturers, and the

Premier, our Premier, has been leading the charge here and in the nation’s capital.

This is yet another example of the B.C. Conservatives parroting the talking points

of Donald Trump. They don’t apply here.

We’ve been working with provinces across the country…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, Shhh.

Hon. Garry Begg : …to stand up to Trump and his tariffs.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members will come to order.

Members.

Hon. Garry Begg : Meanwhile, B.C. Conservatives continue to ignore the goal of Canada being the 51st

state. We’re not for that.

[2:10 p.m.]

We’ve opposed all of their actions. We’ve matched their tariffs, removed alcohol from

B.C. liquor stores, and some over there even voted…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, the minister has the floor.

Minister, continue.

Hon. Garry Begg : …to not condemn Trump’s tariffs. That’s what we do. We condemn them.

We’re focused on getting people with addictions the treatments that they need.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Elenore Sturko : There we have it again, a prime example of a member of this government conflating

the crisis that we have, the national security threat, with some type of trade war

rhetoric.

But the reality is and this minister should know that the 2024 Criminal Intelligence

Service Canada report shows that the number of crime groups producing fentanyl nearly

doubled in one year between ’23 and ’24 right here in British Columbia. Meanwhile,

the city of Delta confirmed that less than 1 percent of shipping containers at B.C.

ports are ever physically searched. It’s no wonder that the FBI’s director says that

traffickers bypass the U.S. straight for Vancouver.

We campaigned, on this side, to establish a B.C. port police agency and to send the

bill to the federal government.

Will the Premier adopt our proposal or keep misleading British Columbians about the

scale of this national security threat?

Hon. Garry Begg : The FBI director, Kash Patel, is blaming Canada for all of their woes.

The reality is data from the U.S. border and customs authority says….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Garry Begg : These are the facts. You may not be interested in them, but they’re important in

this House: 6.3 kilograms of fentanyl were seized at the Canadian border in April,

nearly 300…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, shhh. Members.

Hon. Garry Begg : …kilograms intercepted from Mexico. Do the math. It’s not coming from Canada.

B.C. Conservatives are again calling for a public inquiry…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Garry Begg : …into decriminalization and for the province to develop a fentanyl strategy.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Minister, hold on.

Hon. Garry Begg : One member opposite has also called for fentanyl trafficking to the U.S. to be declared

a national security scandal; it’s not. Get accustomed to the facts: 6.3 kilograms

of fentanyl from Canada, nearly…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Member for Surrey-Cloverdale.

Hon. Garry Begg : …300 kilograms intercepted from Mexico.

Government Action on

Reconciliation and

Legislative Commitments

Rob Botterell : DRIPA, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, was created to provide

a framework for reconciliation. It ensures better-informed policy-making and helps

address harms from where the government has historically failed to cooperate with

Indigenous governments.

However, the First Nations Leadership Council as well as many other First Nations

and local councils, have shared fundamental concerns regarding this government’s tendency

to repeatedly ignore its DRIPA commitments. DRIPA must be respected at every opportunity,

not simply when it is convenient for this government.

To the Premier: how do you expect First Nations to trust that you are committed to

reconciliation when you continuously fall short of your commitments to DRIPA?

Hon. Christine Boyle : Thank you for the question and the opportunity to talk about what, I agree, is an

incredibly important piece of legislation that was passed unanimously in this House

and that continues to be a focus and priority for this government.

B.C. was the first jurisdiction in Canada to pass legislation to adopt the internationally

recognized standards of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. These

are, as articulated by the UN, the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and

well-being of Indigenous People.

We continue to do work in partnership with First Nations and Indigenous People across

this province, guided by the Declaration Act action plan, an action plan that was

co-developed and that we report out on annually in terms of the progress.

I’m happy to report out on a bit of that progress now, in addition to a report that

will be coming forward to this table soon — a great number of actions that we have

seen improve the lives of Indigenous People and continue to be work we take on.

[2:15 p.m.]

I look forward to outlining more of it.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Government Consultation

with Stakeholders

Rob Botterell : This government has displayed a troubling pattern of neglecting public consultation,

beyond just its failure to consult First Nations. This month alone the UBCM and local

governments have said they were not consulted on significant municipal issues. Environmental

organizations have said they were not consulted on fast-tracked energy projects. It

would seem that the only voices this government cares to listen to are the ones that

agree with them.

To the Premier, how is this government ensuring that all interested stakeholders are

meaningfully consulted, including those who might disagree with them?

Hon. Christine Boyle : Again, I appreciate the question.

Engagement and consultation are important pieces of how we do all of our work here,

because we know that how we get to success is in partnership.

It continues to be a clear commitment of this government that partnership is the way

that we get things done in this province. That includes working with local governments

and my colleague for Housing and Municipal Affairs as well as across government. We

do that work in our local ridings as well as in our ministries.

It is the same that reconciliation work is a cross-government commitment. It not only

falls under my ministry but each ministry of this government doing relational work,

building partnerships to see things move forward that benefit all British Columbians.

That’s work we will continue to be committed to.

Community Safety and Involuntary

Care for Mental Health Issues

Claire Rattée : British Columbians with serious mental illness are being released from involuntary

psychiatric care with no follow-up, oversight or access to psychiatric support. This

government admits that they have no ability to track them or even know how many there

are.

After the Lapu-Lapu Day tragedy, it was revealed that the suspect was one of those

people on extended leave from involuntary psychiatric care. How is this anything but

a catastrophic failure of care and accountability?

When is this government going to put public safety first and stop releasing potentially

dangerous psychiatric patients without proper care?

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

Clearly, this is an issue that everyone in this House takes extremely seriously. We

know that people need supports at every stage of a recovery journey, and that includes

whether it is substance use issues or serious mental illnesses.

One of the questions the member raises is around people who are released from a designated

facility under extended leave, for example, and they are each attached to teams. Health

authorities have the responsibility to ensure that those people continue to receive

those supports from those teams, and they do exactly that. As part of that, they do

track patients who are on extended leave, and I would be happy to tell the member

more about exactly how many there are and for how long and when they are recalled

to involuntary care early.

We are going to continue to build out a seamless system of mental health care and

supports for people experiencing illnesses, experiencing substance use issues, everything

from early intervention to treatment and recovery and aftercare.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Claire Rattée : Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don’t know how that is possible when there was an

article that was published this

weekend stating that the government did say that that is not being tracked. We don’t

know how many people are on extended leave right now from involuntary psychiatric

care, so something is not adding up there. I would be very interested to know what

those numbers are and how you can provide supports to somebody when you’re not tracking

how many there are or who they are, because you can’t fix what you refuse to measure.

Mental health care in B.C. is a broken system that’s been propped up by slogans and

platitudes, and people are being discharged into communities that have no resources

to support them. We are seeing the lowest mental health care worker to population

ratio across all of the provinces, and no solution in sight.

When will this government take responsibility for the risks that they have created,

for the patients that they have abandoned and fix this system before more lives are

lost?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne : Unfortunately, I have to reject the premise that the member is putting forward, because

it is absolutely not true. I’m very happy to correct the record on this issue.

The numbers of people who are released on extended leave do change on a daily basis,

but as I’ve already said, health authorities do track this. I can affirm to the member

and to the rest of this House, for example, that on May 20, 2025, there were 5,915

people on extended leave in B.C. This includes 910 in Island Health, 1,829 in Fraser

Health, 652 in Interior Health, 322 in Northern Health and 2,202 in Vancouver Coastal.

Every single one of these people matters, and getting them the care that they deserve

matters.

That is why those numbers are tracked by health authorities. That is why those people

have teams that are assigned to support them, to ensure that they have access to what

they need, and it’s why we will continue to do everything that we can to support these

people.

Education Funding

Lynne Block : Parents, teachers and support staff from all over B.C. are protesting on the lawns

of the B.C. Legislature today. Some are in the gallery. They want to know why this

government continues to underfund B.C.’s education system. They want to know why,

in 2025, in communities like Surrey, firefighters have to fundraise for printer paper

and paper towels.

Can the Education Minister tell these parents, teachers and support staff who are

here today why it’s acceptable that on her watch, schools have to fundraise for basic

supplies?

Hon. Lisa Beare : I want to begin by thanking all the parents from across the province and any of the

partner organizations who are outside, rallying today. It is absolutely important

to hear voices from all across the province about our education system.

Particularly, we share their goals of having a supportive, inclusive education system

for all.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Lisa Beare : I know that there are some boards across this province that are facing budget challenges

this year — not all, but there are some boards. You know, we have an incredibly difficult

fiscal situation for every single family.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members, please be quiet. Enough.

Minister.

Hon. Lisa Beare : Every single family, every single non-profit, every single level of government, every

single business is facing the challenges of increased inflation and the threats south

of our border.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, how many times does the Chair have to remind members who have asked a question

to let the minister answer? You may not agree with the answer. Just wait for your

turn to ask the next question.

Please, the minister will have the floor.

Hon. Lisa Beare : Thank you, Speaker.

You know what? I wanted to provide a really good answer for the members, but they’re

clearly not interested in hearing. So you know what I will provide? A quote from the

member opposite who just asked the question.

When she was on CBC radio recently, getting interviewed, she was asked repeatedly

if she and the B.C. Conservatives would increase funding to education.

Do you know what the member said? “Well, yes, no. You know what? Not necessarily add

but change how we do education. We’re going to do learning pods. We’re not going to

necessarily have people in the classrooms. We’re going to do it with technology, so

that students…. Not all of them have to be with one teacher, 30 of them in a classroom.”

That’s their solution.

We’re going to continue to provide funding year after year, increase funding for education,

because those are our values.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Member, supplemental.

Lynne Block : Thank you to the member for reminding me of some of the reasons that I got into education

in the first place.

Best practices. Best practices we’re not doing right now. That’s what I would like

to have in the future: best practices from around the world coming here. I would ask,

then, if the minister would like to thank the people in person, perhaps, this afternoon,

because they are here.

[2:25 p.m.]

For supportive, inclusive education, yes, we have seen an increase in inflation, but

we haven’t kept up with inflation. That’s why we are underfunded in education right

now.

One of numerous concerned parents has contacted my office, one from Burnaby just this

week, regarding the Burnaby school district’s $4.2 million budget shortfall, which

is leading to a number of different educational cuts. She said she reached out to

her MLA, the member for Burnaby North, about the elimination of the multi-age cluster

class, a program which has nearly 100 students, four classes specifically for neurodiverse

and highly capable learners who need counselling, language support and much more.

She never heard back from her MLA or the ministry.

Why are the NDP Education Minister and this Premier leaving vulnerable students in

Burnaby and B.C. behind? It’s going to come back and bite us in the future.

Hon. Lisa Beare : I thank the member for the question.

I have met the rally organizers already at lunch today. I got to spend time over the

lunch hour with them. We had a long conversation about the concerns they want to bring

forward and what changes they’d like to see in education. So thank you for that.

I think it’s really important to note that we have continued to increase supports,

especially supports for diverse learners in our classrooms. In fact, we have more

than doubled funding to support kids in need who need that extra support. I met with

the Burnaby school board last week and had a long conversation with them as well —

I spent an hour with them — about the challenges that they are facing in Burnaby.

These are incredibly difficult fiscal times. We are seeing the effects of inflation

all across the globe. In fact, the threats south of the border are significant as

well. We wake up in the morning, and the world is one way. Then with the stroke of

a pen, two hours later the world is completely different.

We as a government are going to continue to increase funding year after year, because

that’s what we believe in.

Trevor Halford : We’re hearing from the minister that the reason Surrey is treated once again like

a second-class city, the reason that she cannot give increased funding is because

of south of the border. That is the line of rhetoric we’re getting from this Education

Minister today, sad and desperate.

Front-line workers — they’re burning out. Programs — they’re getting cut. Buses for

kids with disabilities — gone. Band programs — gone.

What we’re seeing is students moving to shifts now. Hybrid learning, learning centres

— wiped out, all under this NDP government watch, not even to mention the highest

number of portables we’ve ever had in the city of Surrey after this government campaigned

not once, not twice to get rid of them all. We’ve got the highest now ever.

Why does this minister continue to fail the kids in Surrey, the parents in Surrey,

the teachers in Surrey because she just doesn’t understand that she needs to properly

fund Surrey?

Hon. Lisa Beare : I want to make sure that we send a very clear message that we value the education

system. We have increased per-pupil funding from $9,000, when we formed government

in 2017, to over $13,600. Every single student in Surrey receives that per-pupil funding.

Every single student across the province is treated as a priority as we ensure that

we are creating environments where kids can thrive.

I know that Surrey school board is facing a challenging budget this year, and it’s

really unfortunate that….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare : It’s really unfortunate that the members opposite want to bury their heads and pretend

like there isn’t increased inflation globally across the province and that we don’t

have a threat across….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Member for Surrey-Cloverdale.

Hon. Lisa Beare : The official critic was asked if she would give more money, and she said, “No, you

know, I’m going to do things differently. I’m going to increase classroom sizes.”

So no, the B.C. Conservatives don’t have a leg to stand on here.

In fact, the Leader of the Opposition, when he was in government, he fought the teachers

all the way to the Supreme Court. He closed 256 schools, including…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Shhh.

Hon. Lisa Beare : …selling off 21 properties in Surrey. That is not what we do as a government. We

continue to increase student education.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members.

Hon. Lisa Beare : We continue to increase funding. I absolutely will continue to work with districts

like Surrey. I meet regularly with the board chair, meet regularly with parents, with

union partners because we value the public education system. And we’re going to continue

to invest.

Peter Milobar : Talk about a government that is completely out of touch with their own commitments.

It was this Premier that campaigned on education assistance for every K-to-3 classroom.

Let’s look at how that’s going.

In Kamloops, they’ve had to cut 80 support staff positions last week because of funding

shortfalls from this government. Campbell River is having to make cuts. Nanaimo is

having to make cuts. Burnaby is having to make cuts. Surrey is having to make cuts.

The list goes on and on and on.

If this was one district having a financial issue, I could understand the minister

trying to deflect away and blame the President of the United States for funding issues

in education in B.C. But Vancouver is having issues. In fact, Vancouver is no longer

a living-wage-designated employer — their school district. All under this NDP’s watch.

The simple reality is, and the minister can try to spin it any way she wants, that

outcomes are worse. Supports are being cut across this province to the point we now

have firefighters having to fundraise for school districts, and the minister seems

to think that’s acceptable.

When will this government properly listen to the parents that are out on the lawn,

the teachers that are out on the lawn, the school districts that are out on the lawn

and recognize that they have created a fundamental mess within the school districts

from K to 12 in British Columbia and actually start living up to their actual commitments

and deliver what parents are demanding?

Hon. Lisa Beare : I absolutely listen, which is why I just spent the lunch hour with those families,

with those parents, with those partners, because we all have a shared goal of ensuring

that we’re providing the best education system to our kids that we can.

Boards across the province, some of them are facing some difficult financial challenges

and are making those tough decisions at the local level. That is a conversation those

boards are having with their families in their local districts. I think it is so important

to continue to recognize the challenges that we face.

I know the official opposition doesn’t want to accept that, but in a difficult fiscal

time, an incredibly challenging, difficult environment, we protected….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members, let the minister conclude.

Members.

Members, let her conclude please.

Please conclude.

Hon. Lisa Beare : Globally, in fiscally challenging times, we made the very important decision as a

government to protect core funding for education. In fact, our budget increased by

$300 million.

That is our values. We are going to continue to work with our partners. We are going

to continue to support education.

[End of question period.]

Speaker’s Statement

of Cell Phone in the House

The Speaker : Members, before we continue, I just want to clarify some of the concerns raised by

many members during the question period.

One member, from Burnaby East, was holding her phone. She has an issue with hearing,

and she was reading the voice-to-text, so she’s allowed. That’s the only reason she

was holding that phone in front of her, okay? Thank you.

[2:35 p.m.]

Petitions

Scott McInnis : I have a petition to present on behalf of residents and business owners in the town

of Golden.

Tabling Documents

Hon. Niki Sharma : I have the honour to present the annual report of the Labour Relations Board for

the year ending December 31, 2024.

I have the honour to present the InBC Investment Corp.’s annual legislative report

for the year 2023-2024.

Reports from Committees

Private Bills and

Private Members’ Bills Committee

Amna Shah : I rise to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and

Private Members’ Bills on Bill M202 intituled Eligibility to Hold Public Office Act.

The committee reports the bill complete with amendment.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I call Motion 32 on the order paper.

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 32 — Appointment of

Special Committee to Review

Provisions of the Human Rights Code

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I move Motion 32, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper.

[That a Special Committee to Review Provisions of the Human Rights Code be appointed to review sections 47.01 to 47.24 of the Human Rights Code (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210), pursuant to

section 50.1 of the Act.

That the Special Committee have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition

be empowered to:

a. appoint of its number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees

any of the matters referred to the Special Committee and to delegate to the subcommittees

all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;

b. sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation

until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c. conduct consultations by any means the Special Committee considers appropriate;

d. adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and,

e. retain personnel as required to assist the Special Committee.

That the Special Committee report to the House within one year of its appointment,

and that during a period of adjournment, the Special Committee deposit its reports

with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, and upon resumption of the sittings of

the House, or in the next following Session, as the case may be, the Chair present

all reports to the House.

That the Special Committee be composed of the following Members: Jennifer Blatherwick (Convener), Rohini Arora , Dana Lajeunesse , Scott McInnis and Teresa Wat .]

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I call Motion 33 on the order paper.

Motion 33 — Membership Change to

Private Bills and Private

Members’ Bills Committee

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I move Motion 33, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, regarding

one change to the membership of the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and

Private Members’ Bills.

[That Nina Krieger replace Dana Lajeunesse as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’

Bills.]

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I call Motion 34 on the order paper.

Motion 34 — Membership Change to

Lobbyists Transparency Act

Review Special Committee

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I move Motion 34, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, regarding

one change to the membership of the Special Committee to Review the Lobbyists Transparency

Act.

[That Susie Chant replace Paul Choi as a member of the Special Committee to Review the Lobbyists Transparency Act .]

Motion approved.

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

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage on Bill 15.

In the Birch Room,

Section C, I call committee stage on Bill 14.

[2:40 p.m.]

The House in Committee,

Section B.

The committee met at 2:41 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance

(continued)

The Chair : Thank you very much, Members. We’ll call this chamber back to order, and we will

call on the minister to move the vote.

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $426,950,000 (continued) .

Hon. Brenda Bailey : If you’d like me to begin where we left off with the member’s question, or would

the member like to…?

No? Okay. Thank you very much.

I’ll begin by offering good afternoon to the critic opposite and to yourself, Chair,

and to welcome my team who will be supporting me today in estimates.

As we left estimates on the last day of this House, the member had just asked a question

in regards to timing of when we began the work to do efficiencies, and I’ll respond

to that question now.

As the member mentioned, the Premier issued mandate letters to ministers on January

16, 2025. The Minister of Finance’s mandate letter includes the following:

“In order to protect key services that British Columbians rely on, work with your

ministerial colleagues to review all existing government programs and initiatives

to ensure programs remain relevant, are efficient, grow the economy and help keep

costs low for British Columbians. This is important in the context of provincial budget

constraints, proposed American tariffs and other global threats to B.C. families.

“Put B.C. on a clear path to balanced budgets, and maintain the province’s debt-to-GDP

ratio as among the best in Canada.”

This is the work that is underway now. As part of Budget 2025 tabled on March 4, government

is taking initial steps by limiting new spending to critical services, putting a hiring

freeze in place, implementing program reviews and introducing initial expenditure

management targets through administrative and operating efficiencies. The initial

expenditure management target is $300 million in ’25-26, with future targets at $600

million annually in the fiscal plan.

Government is taking a measured approach to expenditure management, starting with

administrative and operational efficiencies and a review of government programs. The

work will take successive budgets, but we are committed to doing the hard and necessary

work to ensure we can protect the critical services that people rely on, while managing

our finances carefully and finding ways to strengthen and grow the economy.

As part of the usual financial reporting process, fiscal updates for the ’24-25 fiscal

year will be shared as part of public accounts later this summer, and updates on the

’25-26 fiscal year will be shared as part of our first quarterly report in September

[2:45 p.m.]

The Chair : Thank you, Minister, for starting us off on the budget estimates of the Ministry

of Finance today.

Peter Milobar : To be clear…. I thank the minister for that answer, but that really didn’t get to

the core of what I was asking.

My last couple of sentences were that surely after five months of looking at non-essentials,

the ministries have reported back as to what they feel they are going to cut in this

fiscal for expenditures. Is there not a dollar figure yet, five months post-mandate-letter,

of non-essential-spending savings that this government has actually found?

The minister, frankly, just repeated the same statement over and over about the $1.5

billion over three years with no clear path, roadmap or understanding of where exactly

any cuts — and they would be cuts — are coming.

I’ll come back to that after we deal with the Crowns, though, because I did commit

to the minister that we would start on Monday with Crowns and with GCPE and work our

way through and then follow that up with lotteries after however long GCPE may take.

First, a fairly general question around GCPE. Could the minister please share with

us her view of the mandate and the role of GCPE in terms of service or provision of

conduct for both the government and the public at large?

The Chair : Just for those joining us in the gallery, what’s happening here is the Finance Minister

is changing out a team of experts to help answer the question that has just been introduced

by the member for Kamloops Centre, who is the critic of the Finance Ministry.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Thank you to the member for waiting while we switched into a different team for this

line of questioning.

The role of GCPE is really to perform the important role of communicating to the public

on issues about programs and services and priorities of government. They do that in

a number of different ways through communication. But they also create content. They

handle media relations, they take care of advertising. They also take care of multi-language

delivery and more.

Peter Milobar : Is it the minister’s view, then, that GCPE should be what would be commonly considered

as non-partisan, non-political, but more information-based, more informative to the

public as to what government is doing without the extra editorialization or what would

be more in line with coming out of a caucus or the political staff side of the equation?

In other words, does she consider GCPE to be political staff or to be more public

servant, public agency, information staff?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : They’re considered part of the public service.

Peter Milobar : I assume that they would also, then, operate and be charged with handling any of

information out. There’s one in particular on X which is called B.C. Government News.

When you scroll through it, it seems to be pushing out information from other government

agencies or government programs, emergency information, those types of things.

Could the minister, then, explain why, on that particular site, it seems that from

time to time, the only actual politician that they ever seem to actually retweet would

be the Premier from his own personal X account, which he uses in elections? He uses

the same account for very much NDP-caucus-related announcements versus just letting

government communications do non-partisan government communications instead.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The Premier, of course, is the head of government, and he is retweeted in that role

as head of government as he makes public appearances, for example.

Peter Milobar : Well, that answer, frankly, doesn’t hold up. There was, in particular, filming with

the NDP caucus around Holi. That video was retweeted by B.C. Government News on X,

directly from the Premier’s account.

Yet interestingly enough, the government communications arm on Instagram used a more

generic government acknowledgement of the celebration, not one of the NDP caucus being

filmed — one would assume, hopefully, by caucus funds and not by GCPE funds, because

that offer certainly wasn’t offered to the opposition to make those types of videos.

Can the minister explain in more certainty, then, how it is that what would be seen

as directly from the Premier’s personal account, picking and choosing, again, the

only politician…?

It would be understandable, frankly, if they retweeted the Minister of Emergency Management

in the time of an emergency, but they haven’t done that. They do it with the Premier

with targeted messages, infrequently, but it still happens.

One would have to assume B.C. Government News, which is run by GCPE with communication

experts, would understand what they are doing, whoever is in charge of that account

with the ability to actually hit “retweet” or “like,” and why that is happening.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : We’re looking into what happened in that particular circumstance. In respect of the

time that we have together, I suggest we move on with questionings. As this information

comes forward, I’ll return to it, if that’s agreeable.

Peter Milobar : Well, if that’s being looked into, perhaps then GCPE can also be looking into whether

or not GCPE filmed the Holi video, had any input into the Holi video and shoot, if

there was any funding there, if there was any help in advising, creating, writing

— I’m trying to cover off everything so there are no loopholes here — and whether

or not it was 100 percent done by the NDP caucus or if, in fact, it was created and

developed and paid for in any way, shape or form by GCPE.

I ask that, I guess, as a simpler follow-up. I appreciate, though, that it will get

answered with the other as well.

Just to make sure we’re 100 percent clear, the former head of GCPE is now the Premier’s

chief of staff. Is that correct?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : That is correct.

Peter Milobar : Just how much involvement has GCPE started to inject themselves in, in terms of being

involved in inquiries coming through to ministries and ministers and in terms of responses

back to MLAs? There seems to be a bit of a reach, a bit of a creep of expanded roles

of GCPE. That’s a little concerning. Has there been a change?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : GCPE’s role is to advise ministers on public-facing statements.

Peter Milobar : Well, that’s interesting. I thought GCPE, based on previous answers by the minister,

was supposed to be non-partisan, non-political. It sounds like advising ministers

on public-facing statements is advising on how best to word policy and direction,

not clean up grammar and punctuation to push out a press release.

It seems that GCPE is now guiding how things will be talked about in the public and

advising the minister on how they should be structuring their statement on ministerial

issues. That seems to me a bit of a reach into the realm of partisan. How does the

minister square that circle of advising ministers on public-facing statements?

Advising is not taking the minister’s statement and creating a communication document

out of it. Advising is advising the minister on what to say. That’s what the word

“advising” would, I think, be broadly understood as in the general public. Can we

get more clarity and certainty around the language that’s being used today?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Of course, the role of all public servants in this place is to provide advice to

government, to provide advice to ministers. What to do with that advice remains the

purview of the minister, as it has always been.

I want to specifically give an example of advice that one might get from GCPE. For

example, if you’re communicating on a particular project, a housing project that might

be opening in an area, GCPE might have particular insight on how to reach the community

that is being targeted by that particular program. It might be an in-language piece

of advice about how to reach people. It might be about how to communicate in a disparate

media landscape. There are many different types of advice that we receive from GCPE.

Peter Milobar : Does GCPE make any determinations whether or not ministers or agencies of the government

should meet with MLAs?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I just want to be very clear of the choice of words that the member opposite has

used. I understand the member to have asked, “Does GCPE determine,” and the answer

is no. Any advice that a minister may receive from any public servant…. The decision,

whatever that might be, rests entirely with the minister.

Peter Milobar : Well, that’s interesting. The reason I’m asking these questions is we have a government

communications arm that was formerly run by the now Premier’s chief of staff. We have

what seems to be an ever-escalating politicization of a group that is supposed to

be non-political.

I’ve asked these questions in advance because in Kamloops, we have a long-standing

issue that’s been going back and I’ve been advocating for now for the better part

of a year and a half. I don’t expect the Finance Minister to weigh in about ophthalmology

services within Kamloops and Interior Health but neither would I expect GCPE.

After the election, on December 10, myself and the Kamloops–North Thompson MLA sent

off a request to meet with the president and CEO of Interior Health to talk about

ophthalmology that is supposed to be covered off by Interior Health — not by the Ministry

of Health but by Interior Health.

It’s back and forth from my office and Interior Health over the course of a couple

of months, trying to set up what appeared to be a meeting. One date fell apart for

various reasons by one party and the other, and then the next one did as well. That

can happen.

[3:15 p.m.]

Then lo and behold, two months later, almost to the day, on February 13 — an auspicious

day; it’s actually my birthday — we got an interesting reply back from Interior Health.

This is from the executive assistant to the president and CEO. It’s not a typo. It’s

not a cut-and-paste error. They didn’t accidentally say minister instead of ministry

or ministry instead of minister as to waiting for the meeting.

It’s very short. This is the whole response: “I appreciate your patience and wanted

to let you know I haven’t forgotten about you. We are just waiting on direction from

GCPE regarding MLA meeting requests.” That’s at an Interior Health level. That’s not

at a minister’s level.

Can the minister explain why GCPE is dipping their toes into things like health authorities

and providing direction as to whether or not meeting requests should happen or not

around health issues going on in opposition MLAs’ ridings?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : MLA requests sometimes come through GCPE, and they’re sorted to a health authority

for casework or advocacy. GCPE essentially acts as a pass-through, and there is no

decision-making power there. Any instruction or decision-making would be flowing through

from the MO, not from GCPE.

With your approval, hon. Chair, I have a response to the previous question the member

asked that we paused on, if I may.

As part of the general supports that GCPE provides, it’s a normal course of action

that their digital team would provide coverage of events attended by the Premier or

other members of cabinet, non-partisan events. They maybe capture things like Holi

and other days of significance that are culturally relevant. It would be possible

and common for GCPE to provide supports that include video and photography for the

Premier as well as for ministers. I will highlight that this was also the case before

Peter Milobar : Well, I always love the chestnut: “This is how other governments did it, so we’re

going to keep doing it.” Right is right, and wrong is wrong.

You know, it’s interesting. I guess we’ll kind of split the two. I’ll come back to

the Holi after, because I don’t want to lose the GCPE and Interior Health.

[3:25 p.m.]

It sounded like the minister is saying that health authorities…. Although GCPE is

supposed to be a non-partisan, non-political communication vehicle, GCPE is fully

within their bounds of operations to dip their toe in and have things flow through

them to advise whether meetings should happen between an Interior Health president

and CEO or other doctors to talk about a very specific thing around ophthalmology

services.

I don’t quite understand how that fits the communication model. That sounds like gatekeeping

for political expediency. I would point out that waiting on direction from GCPE was

February 13. It’s now — what? — May 26. I have not had a meeting.

It doesn’t sound like advising. It sounds like if there was advice, it was, “Don’t

have a meeting to talk about health,” even though that’s your sole mandate as a health

authority. If you try to talk to a minister on something like that, the minister would,

understandably and rightfully so, tell you to go talk to the health authority. So

that’s what we did.

Health authority says: “No, no, we’ve got to check with GCPE, the non-partisan, non-political

communication arm of government, to see if we can meet with you or not.” No wonder

it’s taking forever to get meetings for opposition MLAs, not just with Health but

with every ministry.

I know Interior Health has their own communication arm. Does GCPE manage and oversee

health authorities’ communication departments, or are those communication departments

independent from GCPE?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : In no way would GCPE have been the final decision-maker in the example that the member

has shared but, rather, a pass-through for information.

In regards to the question on health authorities, health authorities have their own

communications team who collaborates with GCPE on supporting the Minister of Health.

Peter Milobar : I’m just trying to understand why GCPE has to get in the middle of any of this and

why the minister feels it’s appropriate and won’t give direction to GCPE to back off.

These are standard meetings that are supposed to happen. This is a government that

keeps talking about trying to fast-track things and move things along quicker and

be more efficient. Yet we have GCPE — my understanding is that most of them are not

bound by the hiring freeze, not exactly efficiency there — being a gatekeeper to MLAs

trying to do their job by just discussing things going on about something as simple

as health care.

Not simple, obviously. Health care is a very complicated issue. But it affects everyone

in my riding. The fact that I’ve been waiting since December, and it’s now end of

May, for a meeting, that the GCPE is in the middle of advising on whether or not it’s

appropriate for a health authority to meet with a local MLA, is ridiculous in the

extreme.

Is the minister prepared, while looking for efficiencies, to look for a restructuring

of GCPE so that we don’t need maybe as many in GCPE creating firewalls? There could

be an efficiency found there in the cost structure of GCPE.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : All of government is engaged in this efficiency review, including GCPE.

[3:35 p.m.]

I did hear the member opposite say that GCPE is not subject to the hiring freeze of

the civil service. That’s not correct. Of course they are. I think we’ll have opportunity

to talk about that further.

Peter Milobar : Well, it’s interesting, because when we’ve questioned orders in council of various

communications staff that have been hired, the minister’s answer was that they’re

exempt from the hiring freeze. Is the minister now saying that those political hires

are no longer exempt, and there is now a hiring freeze on political staff, be it in

communications or other places?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The way that the hiring freeze works is that if there is a request for an exemption

to the hiring freeze, which applies all across the civil service, that exemption goes

to the head of the public service for review, and a determination is made based on

the impact that not hiring that role would have on government.

We’ve been able to make significant reductions on the percentage of hires across government

since bringing in this hiring freeze. I’ll have to get the exact average, but if memory

serves, a 6 to 8 percent increase is kind of what we would have seen in a prior year,

whereas right now it’s 0.3, less than 1 percent, and it’s our determination to get

that to zero or below.

I will share with the member opposite that some of the OICs that the member has seen

in regards to GCPE are because when someone moves across government, that is also

an OIC. It doesn’t always indicate that it is a new hire, so that’s important to note.

[3:40 p.m.]

I will share with the member some numbers. When we look at GCPE refilling positions

that had been left vacant in the lead-up to the election, GCPE’s head count is lower

now than last February. It was 310 at the end of April of this year, compared to 315

of last February.

Peter Milobar : The minister has repeatedly referenced that people left GCPE in the election, which

is actually a savings for government. Is that a normal course of practice leading

into any election, or was this an anomaly?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I apologize to the member that I wasn’t more clear when I made that statement. This

is the correct information. In the lead-up to the last election, GCPE deliberately

held back on hiring, anticipating a reduced communication workload during the writ

period — in other words, not filling positions rather than people leaving. It’s attrition,

really, that we’re talking about — not filling positions that were vacated by people

who left the GCPE permanently, not people on leave.

Following the election, GCPE began the process of refilling required positions.

Peter Milobar : It sounds like they got about 98 percent of the way there.

In terms of GCPE, what is the current budget allotted for this year for polling?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The research budget in this year’s budget is $432,000.

Peter Milobar : What is projected, then, for the following two years in the fiscal plan?

[3:45 p.m.]

Claire Rattée : Could I get leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Claire Rattée : I just wanted to introduce the Centennial Christian School. There are ten grade 12s

here and a few adults and their teacher Joshua. I honestly didn’t think that I would

get the opportunity to introduce a school from my riding, so thank you to them for

making the trip down here. I was quite excited to see that they were coming today.

If everybody could please welcome them to the Legislature.

The Chair : Welcome to everyone joining us today.

Debate Continued

Hon. Brenda Bailey : That $432,000 is consistent throughout the fiscal plan.

Peter Milobar : Is there any additional money for multi-language polling as well?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : No, that’s all contained in the same budget.

Peter Milobar : It’s interesting. In a time of rising costs across the board, this seems to be the

one area — thankfully, I guess — that government is holding the line in, because the

’24-25 budget was $432,000 as well.

What type of polling is intended? Last year I had quite a bit of back-and-forth with

the minister because it was very targeted polling around Surrey policing. It never

was released publicly. In fact, none of the polling ever seems to get released publicly,

despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on it.

How frequently is the polling being done currently?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I’ve just been alerted to an error that I’d like to correct. There, in fact, was

an additional $110,000 planned for multi-language program research this year.

[3:50 p.m. - 3:55 p.m.]

The majority of research is through the quarterly omnibus research. This is really

about the important goal of listening to British Columbians as they tell us their

priorities and their day-to-day challenges, which allows us to work on the programming

to address those challenges.

That is also what the $110,000 in’24-25…. That was research with multi-language markets,

really, on the issues of affordability, housing and health care. I do just want to

clarify that we are using language research which includes not just polling but also

in-person and online focus groups.

Peter Milobar : Is the multi-language polling the same polling as what would be considered the mainstream

that was part of that $432,000 spend, or are they a different subset of questions

diving into different things, that the various ethnic communities would require those

other languages to be properly communicated with?

I don’t take issue with that, of course. You want to communicate with all British

Columbians, and language shouldn’t be the barrier. But are the questions and intention

of the polling the same, or is it microtargeting into specific populations to see

what various populations would think on a topic?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Yes, this is, by and large, the same. The intention of the research is the same,

and there may be some shifts in regards to specific wording.

Peter Milobar : Is the polling done in-house, or is it done by way of outside polling firms?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Public opinion research is an important tool for government to go out and talk to

people across B.C. GCPE uses third-party firms to provide specialized consultation

services to engage British Columbians about changes to policies and programs that

people rely on.

Research conducted by GCPE also helps B.C. Stats to develop an accurate understanding

of people in B.C., including on issues like affordability, where we’ve worked to understand

how much people are spending on major costs like housing, food and child care.

Vendors used by GCPE were selected through a competitive bid process.

[4:00 p.m.]

Peter Milobar : Again, we’re always flying a little blind on these questions as an opposition, and

for the public, because the government never shares any of the polling. They don’t

even want to admit if they’re actually in the field polling. They don’t like to talk

about what the subject area might be. God forbid the public find out what the results

of that poll were in a very clear-to-understand release.

One would think GCPE would be able to issue a release. That’s what their business

is, in communication. Maybe it’s those five missing people that would be doing those

releases. I’m not sure.

The minister has said $432,000 and another $110,000 for multi-language, which will

be polling that is done very similar to the other, if not the same, as the $432,000.

That’s almost $550,000. It’s $542,000.

The minister indicated it would only be quarterly omnibus polling. Is the minister

saying that we’ll be spending upwards of $125,000 a poll for every quarter, or is

there other polling that is actually going to happen for that?

I ask that, maybe just to speed this along a bit, because last year the omnibus polling

for Surrey policing was $24,400, a large population. They did outreach into the various

communities. The minister made it very clear. We went through it step by step because

there are very diverse communities within Surrey, so they wanted to really capture

what people were truly feeling about Surrey policing or not.

I’m not trying to re-litigate the Surrey policing issue at all. I’m talking about

just the sample size of polling. It’s very representative to what it sounds like the

minister is saying. The other polling is going to happen — omnibus, multi-language,

everything else. But the minister has now said it’s only going to be done quarterly,

yet we have the same budget as last year.

Interestingly enough, in a week where there’s a whole bunch of contentious confidence

votes coming up, the government has the same amount of money budgeted for polling

this year, next year and the following year as they typically do in an election year.

I’ve canvassed this a few times, and polling always spikes in an election year — conveniently

enough, but it does.

I’ll save the minister…. I’m sure it used to happen that way too. It doesn’t make

it right, but I’m sure it used to happen that way, as well, in the past, with other

governments.

At any rate, we’ve only heard that there are going to be four routine, regular check-in

omnibus polling — quarterly — to make sure the government is providing the services

people actually need. Yet we have a $542,000 budget, which would be $125,000, $130,000

a quarter.

Is that the only polling that is going to happen? Why so expensive, then, if you can

do the whole of Surrey very comprehensively for $24,400?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The omnibus research that occurs is sort of the largest bulk aspect of the research,

but there are other pieces of research that occur during the year on a number of different

topics, as need requires.

Peter Milobar : I always love the interplay of language between opposition and government. Government

refuses to call it polling, even though that’s what it is. It’s polling companies

phoning people up or contacting them in various ways to get polling. The government

calls it research to somehow make it seem less political, I guess.

[4:05 p.m.]

Has there been, or will there be, any polling…? Has there already been polling scheduled,

done, completed or in the works on Bills 7, 14 or 15?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I first want to respond to the member’s quip about the choice of the word “research.”

The reason we’re using that word is that it’s more comprehensive than the word “polling.”

Research includes polling, but it also includes focus groups, as I previously mentioned.

So nothing cute there, simply trying to be reflective of the work being done.

In regards to the question if there has been polling on Bills 7, 14 and 15, the answer

is no. However, we have done polling on tariff response, and it included gathering

information on questions of strengthening the economy and expediting projects.

Peter Milobar : When was the polling on tariffs completed, then?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : That particular research was in the field March 11 to 16.

Peter Milobar : That’s a couple of months ago now. We must know (

a) what it cost and (

b) if will

it be released to the public.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The cost of that particular research was $30,000, and it’s generally not the practice

of GCPE to release polling while it’s being used to inform cabinet deliberations.

Peter Milobar : Except these are extraordinary times. The government wants us all on the same page.

They want us all pushing together. They don’t want opposition to be obstructionists.

They want us to be part of Team B.C., part of Team Canada. Things need to be acted

on urgently. We need to be moving quickly. We need to have a united front. All that

language.

This was a week after the budget got released. There was polling done about tariff

response, $30,000. Surrey policing was only $24,000 heading into an election to make

sure that the government was doing what they thought would be in the political best

interests of the government at the time.

So $30,000 in polling about an issue that this government has made the centre point.

We heard it today. According to the Education Minister, K to 12 is being underfunded

right now because of the President of the United States and the tariff war.

But we can’t have access to the polling because it’s guiding cabinet decisions — cabinet

decisions that should be urgent and being dealt with quickly. I mean we’re not back

in this place — in three days — for another several months.

One would think, if the government wanted the opposition to be working with them collaboratively,

for the public to get on board with actions needing to be taken by the Finance Minister

and the Premier — that having that level of understanding of what the true public

sentiment is, not public sentiment for political gain but public sentiment for public

good — the polling would be released, especially over two months, almost 2½ months,

after it’s already been done.

Surely cabinet has already made their decisions if they’re trying to act urgently

and expediently on things. I mean, public mood has probably even changed in those

2½ months. We’ve had the election federally. There’s been ever-shifting sands in the

trade war. I don’t quite understand why there’d be a hesitancy to release the polling.

And the minister said that GCPE doesn’t release the polling. Well it’s not GCPE’s

to own; it’s cabinet’s.

Can the minister commit today, given the urgency of the fight against the tariff war

and the urgency to make sure we’re taking decisive action and the urgency to make

sure that we’re all rowing in the same direction, that we’re all in the same team

in this chamber…? Can the minister commit today that that $30,000 worth of polling

that happened 2½ months ago will actually get released — at a minimum, to the opposition,

but certainly, to the public as a whole?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : To the member’s request, no, we’re not going to do that. It’s a long-standing principle

to protect cabinet decision-making that advice and recommendations to executive council

are not generally released. This, again, is to protect cabinet deliberations.

I will share with the member that I was very pleased to hear him say that these are

extraordinary times. He sounded deeply concerned about the threat of tariffs, and

I hoped that he would share that with the rest of his party.

Peter Milobar : Well, we are deeply concerned about tariffs. We’ve never said anything otherwise.

But we’re also deeply concerned about how the government goes about trying to politicize

the issue in terms of partisanship when it comes to any questions we ask in question

period, when it comes to any questions we ask in budget estimates and when it comes

to questions we ask about polling.

[4:20 p.m.]

Did that polling around tariff response back in early March…? Keeping in mind that

we didn’t see anything in terms of legislation for tariff response until Bill 7, which

was shortly after that polling, so it wouldn’t have informed that.

Did the polling, though, help inform Bills 14 and 15 when they finally got brought

forward to this House just a few weeks ago?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : It’s my view that this is a question that is beyond the probing of estimates of GCPE.

GCPE is providing the polling. That’s the work that they do. We’re talking about the

estimates and the expenses and timelines, and everything of that nature is appropriate.

But how the polling is used is beyond the estimates of GCPE, in my view.

Peter Milobar : I was wondering when we’d start getting to “these aren’t relevant questions,” even

though we have a budget book and a STOB 60 that has $432,000 plus another $110,000

in it. Granted, that’s vote 27, and if the minister wants to stick specifically to

vote 26, can she then answer when vote 27, vote 28, vote 46, all the other votes that

the ministry is responsible for, will come forward, or are we only going to be dealing

with vote 26 and just pretend that there are no other responsibilities of the Minister

of Finance?

[4:25 p.m.]

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I’m happy to answer questions related to all of my areas of responsibility related

to the estimates. The votes that the member asked about will be moved at the end of

the week.

Peter Milobar : Has GCPE started, have underway, completed any polling at all, any research from

April 30 to today? If so, what were the topics or the themes of it?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : In regards to the member’s question as to whether there has been any polling underway

from April 30 to today, the answer is no. There has been none in that time frame.

Peter Milobar : In terms of the overall advertising budget of GCPE, what is…? Independent of the

polling/research of $542,000, what is the advertising spend anticipated for this year?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The advertising budget for GCPE for this fiscal is $3.537 million.

Peter Milobar : Thank you. I’ll just assume that’s going to be similar, moving forward.

Previously, there were massive spends during Canucks games, which obviously haven’t

been around for a little while, so no need to worry about that this year.

Given the constraints that the minister is trying to direct every other ministry under,

has there been any direction by the minister to GCPE to change that number? It has

ways to push out, we certainly don’t necessarily need to have maximum saturation during

a hockey game in the playoffs.

[4:35 p.m.]

Has there been any direction by the minister to show that leadership to all the other

ministers and ministries and subsets of those ministries that the Minister of Finance,

through GCPE, has decided that $3.5 million is too high and that, in fact, we’re going

to cut it back to $3 million or $2.8 million? Pick a number. Has there been any direction

whatsoever?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The direction on financial controls applies to GCPE, as they do to other aspects

of government. GCPE is subject to the efficiency review, just as everyone else in

government is.

Peter Milobar : Well, GCPE is almost a $33 million budget. We know that they’re actually staffed

at 98½ percent of what they would have been last year, so there’s been no constraint

there of any shape or form. We know that their polling is at the same dollar value

as it was last year. We now know that their advertising is at around the same dollar

value as it was last year.

This is a department that’s under direct control of the Minister of Finance, who’s

supposed to, by virtue of their mandate letter, be directing all of government to

find efficiencies and cost savings and ways to save money. One would think that there

would be leadership shown within this ministry to demonstrate to the other ministries

that, yes, tough decisions had to be made.

One of the last questions I asked — in fact, the last question, that we started today

off with an answer to — was around non-essential things and core service reviews and

how what one minister might think is essential the Minister of Finance might not and

vice versa, and on and on it goes. So if there’s not a clear delineation by the person

at the top of this review of what should be deemed essential and what’s deemed extra,

it’s going to make it pretty tough to identify any actual savings.

Is the minister saying that GCPE, despite the fact they fall directly under her leadership,

is being left to their own to figure out whether or not they can find cost savings

within their $33 million budget?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : As the member knows, there are spending controls that have been brought in across

government. That includes being applied to GCPE.

The next phase of the work that we are doing in our efficiency review is happening

now. It would be premature for me to surmise what the outcomes of that work are because

it’s ongoing right now. As I have mentioned to the member on previous occasions, we

are going to be reporting back on this. We’ll start to see some information being

shared in Q1.

This is important work that we’re doing very carefully. We’re doing it very precisely,

and we’re doing it with the objective of protecting core services for British Columbians.

Peter Milobar : Can the minister clarify “being shown in Q1” as in sometime between now and the end

of next month or being shown in the Q1 update, which is September 15?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The latter. The Q1 update.

Peter Milobar : Here’s the problem. We’re sure hearing a lot of “just trust us” from this government.

It’s not going so well for the Premier right now.

We’re two months into the first quarter. I’ll get into all of this in more detail

tomorrow, because today is about the Crowns. But we’re two months into the first quarter.

We have a $2 billion hole in revenue blown through the budget that the minister doesn’t

even want to acknowledge and keeps saying: “Well, wait until the Q1 update on September

15. We’ll talk about it then.”

We won’t talk about CleanBC till then. We won’t talk about any efficiencies or cuts

that may or may not have been made — efficiencies and cuts that, by direction of the

mandate letters, should have started well before even the budget was introduced, months

before the budget was introduced. We’re now almost five to six months into ministers

and ministries supposed to be finding efficiencies, and all we hear is that they’re

looking at things.

Can the minister not see why it might be problematic for the public to just trust

the government yet again when, on something as simple as a $3.5 million advertising

budget for an arm of government that is directly under the responsibility of the Minister

of Finance, that’s supposed to be responsible for finding literally billions of dollars

of savings, has not even been given the direction to rein in advertising spending?

Not research and polling so cabinet can make decisions. I’m not even talking about

that. I’m talking about advertising.

How can the minister reasonably expect other ministers to be making any meaningful

decisions on spending within their ministries if she cannot even direct the advertising

arm of the government that she is directly responsible for to make cuts to their budget

on advertising?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Hon. Chair, through you to the member, they are misconstruing the work that is underway.

I think British Columbians understand that when government is reviewing our spending,

we have to do so in a very careful and thoughtful way.

[4:45 p.m.]

That’s what British Columbians will expect from us, and that is exactly what we were

doing. Every single ministry is looking at their programs and their budgets to ensure

that every dollar is being well spent. We’re looking under every rock. It’s being

done very carefully.

I don’t own a magic wand where magically this work can happen. It’s happening through

a thorough process that is occurring in every ministry, my ministry included. My ministry

did not go before the other ministries. We’re all doing this work now. This is deeply

important. It’s deeply important that it’s done carefully and thoughtfully, and that

is exactly what we were doing.

We’re going to be able to report out. Our initial report out will be in the Q1 report,

which will be in September.

Peter Milobar : Will that Q1 report, then, include a very detailed breakdown of the cost savings

and changes to the individual budgets? Q1 reports don’t typically do that.

Will there be a full accounting, given that there’s been such a lack of transparency

and willingness to discuss even the most fundamental and basic things like advertising

budgets and given that we’re going to have to wait until September 15 to get any clarity,

it sounds like?

Is the minister committing today that there will be a full accounting for all those

decisions that were made in this Q1 time frame, highlighted and clearly understood

within the Q1 update in mid-September?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Hon. Chair, may I request a five- or ten-minute bio break?

The Chair : Certainly. The committee will be in recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:47 p.m. to 5 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The Chair : I’ll call the committee back to order. We’re in Committee of Supply estimates continuing

for the Ministry of Finance.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : We left off with a question in regard to the Q1 update, which I’ll answer now. The

Q1 update will reflect initial government decisions on our spending review, and more

will be reflected in Budget ’26.

Peter Milobar : Wow. This is getting to be quite the budget estimates on the actual budget, where

we can’t actually get any answers because we’re going to talk about a snapshot in

time on something that’s completely irrelevant, and we’re being told to wait until

Q1 update. But now we just heard that the Q1 update will be a brief overview and more

detail in next year’s budget. This is a $90-billion-plus operation we’re talking about,

and we can’t get direct answers.

This is supposed to be all about efficiencies and finding efficiencies and finding

things that can be cut that aren’t needed, that are non-essential, because the government

says that they don’t want to cut core services to people. Yet we had parents protesting

today about cuts to education that the minister and the ministry and the government

don’t want to acknowledge is actually happening.

The minister can say there haven’t been cuts. Then she can go and talk to the 80 people

in Kamloops that lost their jobs at the Kamloops school district because of a lack

of funding for that school district. If she thinks that’s not a cut, I don’t know

what is.

But we’re going to protect the GCPE advertising budget at all costs, it sounds like.

Six months — no decision has been made on a $3½ million advertising budget, of all

things. The minister mentioned earlier that GCPE provides oversight and guidance to

things like health authority communication departments. We have health authorities

that have their own large communication departments that interconnect with GCPE.

One would have to assume that the same would hold true for universities; for ICBC;

for B.C. Lotteries which will come up after GCPE today; for any of those agencies.

Has the minister, in conjunction with GCPE, as part of the efficiency reviews that

were supposed to be well underway at this point, taken any look at the overall size

of communication departments across government not just within GCPE but all of those

ones that GCPE interacts with?

Have any decisions started to be made about the overall size of the communication

arms of all things government in British Columbia, be it at a health authority level,

be it at GCPE, which it sounds like the two interconnect? The minister shook her head,

saying no, but when I was asking questions about Interior Health, that was very clearly

what she was saying. It shouldn’t have changed operation with GCPE in the course of

two hours, given that the head of GCPE is here currently.

What efficiencies is the minister looking for within GCPE and their $33 million budget,

or are they hands-off and there will be no cost savings at GCPE? The minister has

indicated they’re going to have the same amount of money to spend next year when it

relates to polling as they have this year. That was the same as last year, so no change

there.

No change in advertising. We must make sure we have a full ad buy on any popular sporting

event, apparently, to tell something that the government is doing, to try to convince

people things aren’t as bad in B.C. as they might be otherwise.

[5:05 p.m.]

What efficiencies within GCPE is the minister looking for? I’m not even asking about

other ministries. I’m asking about Vote 27, which is directly under the control of

the Minister of Finance, 100 percent. The overall efficiency review is supposed to

be overseen by the Minister of Finance for all of government. What leadership is being

shown with the minister through GCPE to the rest of government when it comes to this

efficiency review, or are there going to be no cost savings whatsoever to be found

in GCPE?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The member has chosen to wrongly characterize what is going on in terms of our efficiency

review and how it’s being reflected in the estimates that we’re debating today, so

I will be very clear.

We’re discussing the estimates from the budget, Budget ’25. It includes $300 million

of what we expect to be the initial results of an efficiency review. We are not able

to share with the member decisions made on the efficiency review because they haven’t

been made yet. The work is going on right now across government, including in everything

that I’m responsible for. It’s that simple.

We’re talking about the budget, Budget ’25, and it’s reflected in the budget as $300

million of savings. The work that we’re doing right now is reviewing every single

ministry to look at where we can find savings. We expect to reach that $300 million

mark, and it’s my hope we go further. That work is ongoing. It must happen at some

moment in time. It has to happen at some moment in time, and there will inherently

be time when we don’t have the specific results from it because we’re in the middle

of doing it.

That’s simply where we are. This is important work. It’s being done carefully. It’s

being done thoroughly. It’s being done with prioritizing the core services for British

Columbians, and that’s the work that we’re undergoing.

Peter Milobar : I’m going to need some clarification on that because I think the impression, certainly

through the media, certainly that I’ve had, certainly that the public has had, is

that whenever the minister has talked about $300 million of savings in this year’s

budget, it’s already been accounted for.

Is the minister saying that if they do not find $300 million worth of savings, we

actually have an $11.2 billion deficit, based on the budget that was released on March

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Not at all. The $300 million is the initial savings that we have booked for the work

that we are doing right now that will lead to that number or more. That is the work

that is going on right now.

Peter Milobar : To be clear, then, the minister’s path to a balanced budget goal is to take a $10.9

billion deficit and reduce it to $10.6 billion.

[5:10 p.m. - 5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : To get back to the question of the fiscal review that’s underway, the first lens

that we have applied is one of expenditure controls. Those began in February — things

like salaries, travel, professional services, office supplies, business expenses,

office leases, tenant improvements and more. So that’s the initial sort of lens by

which we began this work of efficiency review.

The part that we’re in now are the program reviews. I’m not going to be pushed into

a situation of presupposing what the outcomes of those reviews are going to be. We’re

doing the reviews right now. It’s important work, and it’s being done with a very

careful lens. I’m very encouraged by the work, and all ministries are deeply involved

in it. They’ve all received specific instruction from the Premier that they must work

with the Minister of Finance on finding efficiencies, and that’s the work that we’re

doing.

I want to make two corrections to the member, who incorrectly stated two things in

his last question. It is not true that GCPE provides oversight. That’s why I shook

my head. They do not provide oversight to, for example, the Ministry of Health communications

team.

Also, Education has not been cut. There was a $370 million increase in the last budget

to Education.

Peter Milobar : This is incredible. I walked the minister through GCPE actually being a roadblock

to me getting a meeting with Interior Health, and the minister said very clearly that

GCPE coordinates with the ministry, Interior Health and all the health authorities

around direction they should or shouldn’t be taking on matters of communication.

We’ll pull the Blues up, and I’m paraphrasing a little, but if the minister wants to really get into parsing

versus what the theme and the context of what she was saying is, it’s going to be

a long few days. Frankly, it took eight minutes to get a non-answer.

The question was about the…. I’m not even asking where the $300 million is coming

from. I’m asking for clarification on the $300 million. There is currently booked

— which we know is a flawed number anyways, but I’ll get into that tomorrow — a $10.9

billion deficit.

The question was: if the $300 million of savings is not found, does that mean we have

an $11.2 billion deficit? The minister said no, so I said that then means you need

to find the $300 million in savings to get us down to a $10.6 billion deficit.

[5:20 p.m.]

Is that the goal of finding $300 million? If not, I don’t understand how the government

math is working these days, with their moments in time on a document that apparently

is completely out-of-date and inaccurate.

The Chair : Just a reminder. Questions and answers through the Chair.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Thank you, hon. Chair. Through you to the member, the $10.9 billion deficit assumes

the $300 million in savings.

I do continue to push back on your choice of language in reflecting my language. I

was very specific when we talked about the GCPE — that it’s a collaborative approach,

that it’s flow-through information from the MO. When you choose to use words that

are different than what I’ve said, I’m going to respond to that. I did not say that

there was a control. That is not correct. I’m not going to have words put in my mouth,

so the correction stands.

Peter Milobar : Direct from IHA: “We are just waiting on direction from GCPE regarding MLA meeting

requests.” The minister can try to spin it any way she wants. GCPE has created roadblocks

for MLAs to try to get meetings with health authorities. Plain and simple. It’s in

writing from a health authority. Surely, they understand the difference between their

own internal communications department and GCPE, because they spelt out the initials

in bold letters. That’s not an autocorrect. That’s not a spell-check. It’s not a cut-and-paste

error.

If I sound agitated about it, it’s because it’s about health care in my riding, and

I’ve been waiting since December for a meeting that GCPE apparently hasn’t approved.

Now, the minister a little while ago, when I asked about the $10.9 billion and if

$300 million is not found, said: “No, no. It wouldn’t go to $11.2 billion, but it

also won’t drop it to $10.6 billion.” That means the $300 million of savings must

have already been accounted for in various line items in this budget.

Why is the minister refusing to say where those $300 million in savings that have

currently been identified in the budget and have already made up the $10.9 billion

deficit are? Why can we not find out from the minister where those $300 million of

efficiencies have already been found in this year’s budget, given that they’re not

going to change what the projected deficit is?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The $300 million in expenditure management is a target that we expect to achieve

in the category of discretionary and administrative spending. It represents half of

a percent of ministry budgets.

[5:30 p.m.]

This is a multi-step play, and it’s a separate thing than the efficiency reviews that

are underway across ministries.

Peter Milobar : Except the minister has indicated that the efficiency reviews are targeting $300

million this year, $600 million next year and $600 million the next year. Is the minister

now saying that that efficiency review will target dollars other than that, and if

so, what is the dollar figure that is being targeted?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I will just refer the member to page 20 of Budget 2025, in the top right corner,

where it really speaks to what we’re talking about right now: the two components of

the expenditure management and program review. The expenditure management targets

total $1.5 billion — $300 million, $600 million and $600 million — to be achieved

through management of administrative and discretionary spending while still protecting

front-line services people rely on. Expenditure management will continue through ’25-26

fiscal year and beyond.

The second component is that the Ministry of Finance will also be working with ministries

to review all existing government programs and initiatives, to optimize resources

by ensuring programs remain relevant, are efficient and sustainable, grow the economy

and help keep costs low for British Columbians. That’s the efficiency review component

that we are involved in now, and that work is underway. As I’ve mentioned and the

member is tired of hearing me say, we’ll have initial results on that in Q1 reporting

and further results shown in Budget ’26.

Peter Milobar : I do not understand, then, how we have a budget document that has already accounted

for $300 million in cost efficiencies. Because the $10.9 billion deficit will not

change, the $300 million needs to have been found, which means the government would

have already had to have budgeted in those various areas to not expend that money,

because that money does not exist in this budget for expenditure.

Can the minister provide us with a reconciliation of where that $300 million was found

in the creation of this fiscal plan? It doesn’t exist in the book. It doesn’t need

to be found; it’s already been found. Yet the minister is unwilling to say where,

other than non-essential travel. Well, which ministries, and how much? Because when

we’ve asked the other ministers, they said we have to wait until Q1. But Q1 is irrelevant

to this. It doesn’t exist in this book.

[5:35 p.m.]

The $300 million has already been removed from spending, according to the minister,

or it would impact the deficit situation, positively or negatively, once it was found.

It’s been found already. It was found before this went to the King’s Printer.

Can the minister provide to this House, as is required for us to properly do our jobs

during budget estimates — otherwise, it is a point of privilege — the accounting of

the $300 million, of where exactly those savings were found and a detailed itemized

list of it?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I think the member is struggling with what a budget is. A budget is a plan. It is

a future-facing document, not a past-facing document. This plan very clearly includes

$300 million in savings that is found through the items that we have already identified

to the member. This is a plan. This is the work that is happening now. That is what

a budget is. It’s the plan for the year. It’s not a past-facing document; it is a

future-facing document.

Peter Milobar : Madam Chair, I am not sure how to proceed. I’m going to need a little advice from

the Clerks’ table here. The minister has very clearly said the $300 million has already

been found and is not in this budget. It will not impact the deficit positively or

negatively.

She’s now saying, no, it’s a work in progress. We’re getting literally two different

answers on the exact same question from this minister repeatedly. Does the minister

want to change her answer, then, as the $300 million relates to the deficit, or not?

I’ve asked very clearly. If the $300 million is not found, will it impact the deficit

and increase it to $11.2 billion? The minister said no. I then asked: if the $300

million is found, does that mean the deficit drops to $10.6 billion? The minister

said, no, it stays at $10.9 because it’s already been found, which means it’s not

in the projections for expenditures in this budget document, which means it had to

have been removed for it to be called savings.

Otherwise it wasn’t savings, because nothing was removed, in which case, the minister

is using completely inappropriate language to describe the $300 million as savings.

If it’s the savings of what was otherwise budgeted, where is the detailed itemized

list of where those $300 million were saved?

It’s pretty straightforward, and for the minister to suggest that I don’t understand

budgeting is, frankly, absurd. It’s even more absurd, given the evasion of the answers

we’re getting on this. It’s a pretty straightforward question.

The minister has made it very clear the $300 million is not part of this budget book

but is savings. If it’s savings, that means it has been removed from our projected

expenditure to make it into the final book. That is what this government has been

touting since budget day — that they found $300 million of savings. It’s actually

0.33 percent of the overall budget, not 0.5.

[5:40 p.m.]

We’re asking where those savings were found. What was cut? What was not approved for

expenditure that otherwise was going to be? That is what is called a savings. It’s

not just pulling a number out of the air and saying, “Oh, we saved $300 million,”

without actually being able to show your work.

I’m not sure how the minister thinks we can keep proceeding with these snapshot-in-time

conversations about forward-looking documents when I’m trying to ask about the creation

of this forward-looking document and the snapshot in time that led her to believe

there was $300 million worth of savings.

Can the minister provide a detailed breakdown of where that $300 million in savings

was found in this year’s fiscal plan?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I’m going to tackle this from a different angle and see if we have more luck.

The budget includes an expenditure management target, a savings line, and that is

the value of the financial controls that we have put in place. That’s what we’ve been

talking about.

The expenditure management controls, for the member, include STOB 50, salaries; STOB

57, travel; STOB 60-61, professional services; STOB 65, office and business expenses;

STOB 66, informational advertising; STOB 68, statutory advertising and publications;

STOB 73, amortization; STOB 75, tenant improvements; STOB 77, transfer grants; and

STOB 80, transfer shared-cost arrangements. Those are the STOBs that are identified

in the expenditure management.

Peter Milobar : I will wait until I have the Blues for tomorrow and come back to this, because the minister very clearly made some very

clear statements about the money already being out of this budget. Frankly, the fact

she lists off STOBs is wonderful. I’m asking for how much money out of each of those

STOBs, and that’s what the minister doesn’t seem to want to answer. So we’ll wait

for that.

There’s really not much point continuing on with GCPE at this point because it appears

those answers aren’t forthcoming either.

[5:45 p.m.]

We might as well move on to BCLC, if the minister has them around. I know we might

need a few minutes to switch out.

I’ve got quite a bit to dive into with BCLC this year, and a lot of it is around the

virtual gaming space. I do recognize that GPEB plays a side to it, so I know there

will be a little bit of crossover on some of my questions, but there is still a financial

mix to all of these themes and questions.

My understanding is that it’s the position of BCLC that they should be the sole provider

of e-gaming in British Columbia and that there should be no outside Bet365s, Bet99s,

those types of things that we see flooded on commercials right before and after GCPE

ads — that we would see those be the only site and not those other out-of-province

operations. Is that still the position of BCLC?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The government has not changed its position. We are the only legal provider of online

gaming. But we do acknowledge that there is a challenge with illegal gaming in the

B.C. market.

BCLC is concerned about player health and continues to advocate for enforcement measures

both provincially and nationally, as well as to promote player education. BCLC also

continues to work with the PSSG’s gaming policy enforcement branch to address illegal

online gambling.

In 2022, BCLC joined with other regulated provincial organizations to create the Canadian

Lottery Coalition to combat illegal online gambling activities through education and

through collective legal action. As part of its actions, the coalition intervened

in the Ontario reference case on international liquidity, emphasizing fraud and money

laundering concerns.

As well, to remain competitive, BCLC is focused on providing excellent player experiences

and advertising campaigns which emphasize the risk of gambling on illegal sites and

the benefits of keeping profits here in British Columbia.

Peter Milobar : So the government has taken those steps.

Is the government taking any steps within B.C. itself to try to protect its overall

revenue streams and any leakage that may be happening to people using sites that are

not regulated within B.C.?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : There have been efforts in B.C. to protect overall revenue streams, including educating

players on the implications and the risks of illegal gambling and the benefits of

gambling within British Columbia on the legal site.

There is an advertising campaign called “What’s played here stays here.” That’s an

example of that work.

Peter Milobar : Has the minister or the Ministry of Finance met with these outside providers in their

desire to be allowed to operate within B.C. and have a series of regulations set up

so that they could operate here?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I am aware of this request being known to government, the desire to open that opportunity.

I have not personally met with any of these folks.

Peter Milobar : So the minister ha