Second Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Wednesday, February 18, 2026

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 118

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

Victor Joseph Stocker

Gavin Dew

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Trade Recognition Act

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Members’ Statements

Community Response to Shootings in Tumbler Ridge

Susie Chant

Lunar New Year

Hon Chan

Black History Month

Dana Lajeunesse

Reann Gasper

Ramadan and Community

Amna Shah

Lunar New Year and Korean Community

Misty Van Popta

Oral Questions

Service Model for Children with Support Needs and Funding for Services

Trevor Halford

Hon. Jodie Wickens

Merit Commissioner and Public Service Accountability

Trevor Halford

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Budget Provisions for Child and Youth Mental Health Services

Claire Rattée

Hon. Jodie Wickens

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Proposed Changes to DRIPA and Role of Courts and First Nations

Rob Botterell

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert

Sage Mesa Community Water System

Amelia Boultbee

Hon. Randene Neill

Budget Priorities and Impact on Workers

Kiel Giddens

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Expansion of Provincial Sales Tax to Services

Gavin Dew

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Budget Provisions for Long-Term-Care Projects

Brennan Day

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Government Action on Affordability Issues

Á’a:líya Warbus

Hon. Brenda Baile y

Forest Industry Conditions and Government Action on Issues

Lorne Doerkson

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Property Tax Deferment Program

Peter Milobar

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Reports from Committees

Finance and Government Services Committee , annual budget review, statutory offices, December 2025

Paul Choi

Donegal Wilson

Public Interest Disclosure Act Review Committee , statutory review, February 2026

Darlene Rotchford

Bruce Banman

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate (continued)

Peter Milobar

Rob Botterell

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Kiel Giddens

Hon. Jodie Wickens

Korky Neufeld

Wednesday, February 18, 2026

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. Bowinn Ma.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Macklin McCall : I wish to introduce to the House three guests who are joining us in the gallery today:

Jeremy Welder, Sarah Mackinnon and Katie Davies Jorgensen. They are involved with

the Upstream Kelowna program in school district 23.

Established in 2021, this is a school-based, innovative focus on the early identification

and support of grade 8 students who may be facing challenges such as bullying, anxiety,

family conflict or housing instability. Through a student-needs assessment, the program

helps identify young people who might otherwise fly under the radar and connects them

with supports before issues escalate. This preventative approach strengthens resilience,

promotes safety and supports families in their communities.

I ask all members to join me in making our guests most welcome in the Legislative

Assembly.

Hon. Christine Boyle : In the gallery today are my deputy minister Teri Collins; her mom, Jeanette Malcolm;

and my former ADM and executive financial officer Tracy Campbell, accompanied by her

husband, Jim Campbell.

I would like to take a moment to recognize and thank Tracy Campbell for her 20 years

of dedicated public service here in B.C. She entered retirement just at the beginning

of this year. Tracy served as a member of government’s corporate executive for the

Ministries of Housing and Municipal Affairs; Tourism, Arts and Culture; Attorney General;

Public Safety and Solicitor General; and many others along the way.

What truly set Tracy apart was not just her skill and her dedication but her quick

wit, her passion and her ability to get things done. Tracy reminds us that public

service, while serious in purpose, can be carried out with humour and humanity and

a smile. Through her sharp mind and free, fun spirit, she built bridges across departments,

forged friendships that will last beyond these walls and created a network of colleagues

who are better connected and better public servants for her work.

We can expect Tracy back watching QP, I’m told.

In the meantime, I would ask the House to join me in thanking her for all of her service.

Hon Chan : Today in the House we are pleased to have members of the Insurance Brokers Association

of B.C. joining us. We are honoured to welcome their team this morning, including

President Amrit Sidhu, Vice-President Amanda McPhee and Chair Rosy Puri-Manhas, along

with their 20-plus members and delegates in the precinct today.

I would like to thank them for their work in expanding access to insurance, advocating

for fair regulations and strengthening consumer protections. I look forward to working

with them in the near future.

Would the House please join me in welcoming them here.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : It’s that time of year again when caucuses on both sides of the aisle in this House

get to meet and work with a brand-new crop of interns. These are young people from

all over the province who assist us, do amazing work and get incredible experience

about how this place functions and works.

It’s my pleasure today to introduce the five interns who will be working with the

government caucus over the next number of months. They are Keira Emes, a bachelor

of arts in political science from the University of Northern British Columbia; Lauren

Onderwater, who has a bachelor of arts in political science from the University of

the Fraser Valley; Abedah Siddiqui, a bachelor of arts in political science also from

the University of British Columbia; Adanna Nduagu, who has a bachelor in arts and

political science from Simon Fraser University; and Bethany Shymko, who has a bachelor

of arts in political science from the University of Victoria.

[1:40 p.m.]

Our universities in this province are clearly well represented.

Would the House please make these incredibly talented young people very welcome.

Kristina Loewen : I know the Insurance Brokers of B.C. have been welcomed this morning, but I want

to point out that one of them is my good friend and neighbour. He actually lives three

doors down from me, and we have the dubious distinction of serving on the same strata

council together. He’s got a beautiful wife and family. He also has a pool, and I

have not been invited over for a swim yet.

Please help me in welcoming my good friend Peter Balazsy today.

Sunita Dhir : Today I have the pleasure of welcoming my volunteer and constituent Dayakar Rayapureddy.

He came to B.C. as an international student. He’s working as a chef. He’s very interested

in B.C. politics, and he is exploring opportunities to work in this sector in our

beautiful province.

Let’s make Daya feel very welcome to the Legislature.

Peter Milobar : In the fall, I introduced my son Ethan, who was down here for the first time. At

that time, his wife, Cassidy, was expecting their first child. Just shortly before

the House started sitting, they welcomed to this world my fourth granddaughter under

four years of age, Noa Mary.

Will the House please make her welcome.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson : Would the House please welcome a former MLA that was part of my riding. Jennifer

Rice is here in the House today.

Would everyone please make her feel welcome.

Steve Kooner : We have some municipal politicians here from New Westminster. We have Councillor

Daniel Fontaine, Paul Minhas. I believe we have Mayor Patrick Johnstone here as well.

I’d like to welcome them.

Hon. Anne Kang : Today I would like to welcome the representatives of Heritage B.C. who are joining

us in the House today: Board Chair Keri Briggs, Director Gavin Chamberlain, Executive

Director Kirstin Clausen and Communications Specialist Katie Varney.

Heritage B.C. plays a vital role in preserving and promoting the richness and diversity

of history of our communities across our province. Through their leadership, their

advocacy and support for local heritage organizations, they help ensure that British

Columbia’s stories, places and traditions are protected for future generations. We

thank them for their dedication and the important work that they do across British

Columbia.

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

Rob Botterell : I would also like to welcome Jenna and Kaden, the interns joining the Green caucus

this session. Every year interns join our caucuses to learn and contribute to the

work we do in this House.

Jenna completed her bachelor of arts in political science with a minor in business

and her thesis on the impact of emotions and effect in the creation of flood resilience

policies.

Kaden recently completed his bachelor of arts with honours in political science, and

his thesis examined the conditions that influence the policy stability of supervised

consumption sites across Canada.

They both bring an invaluable wealth of knowledge to our team, and we are very happy

to have them.

May the House please join me in making them feel welcome.

Reann Gasper : Today is my son’s birthday. I am away from him, and that feels really funny. He turns

15 today. He loves basketball, and he’s over six feet, so he’s towering over me.

Would the House please help me wish him a happy birthday.

Misty Van Popta : In the House is a friend and great Conservative, Blaine Badiuk. Always open to having

meaningful conversations, Blaine comes to us from our great neighbours to the east,

Alberta.

Will the House please make Blaine feel welcome.

[1:45 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens : The Leader of the Official Opposition is looking like he’s fashionably late for his

first time in this chair for QP, so he’s asked me to introduce his mom, Patti Halford.

Welcome to Patti. She can give him a stern talking-to later, as I’m sure you will

as well, Mr. Speaker.

I also want to introduce his aunt and uncle Jane and Terry Bailey, who are visiting

from the great city of Surrey.

Will the House please make them all feel very welcome.

Tributes

Victor Joseph Stocker

Gavin Dew : I would like to acknowledge the passing of Victor Joseph Stocker of Kelowna.

Victor was a devoted husband, father and grandfather, a true salt-of-the-earth Saskatchewan

farmer, who later built a life of service in Kelowna, and a man of deep Catholic faith

and generosity.

Our thoughts are with his wife, Leona, his son Jarrod, who runs my constituency office,

and the entire Stocker family.

Introductions by Members

Sheldon Clare : It’s not my youngest daughter’s birthday today, but it was very recent, and I just

wanted to wish her a very happy 20th birthday.

She enjoys skiing in the southern part of British Columbia, something that I would

really love to be doing myself with her right now.

Please join me in wishing her a happy birthday.

Jeremy Valeriote : We’re in full onboarding mode in the Third Party caucus, so I’m delighted to welcome

our new caucus policy adviser, Leif Douglass.

Leif is an Action Canada Fellow who just submitted his master’s thesis on the public

fiscal implications of decarbonization in B.C., including a tool to drive government

decision-making. A Kamloops native with experience in student politics and on the

board of IPAC Victoria, Leif will have a huge impact on our wee Green caucus.

Would the House please make him feel welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Trade Recognition Act

Hon. Ravi Kahlon presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill

intituled Trade Recognition Act.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I’m pleased to introduce the Trade Recognition Act. This bill represents a major step

forward in modernizing British Columbia’s internal trade framework. It advances our

long-standing commitment to reducing unnecessary barriers, improving regulatory clarity

and supporting the competitiveness of B.C. businesses and workers.

This legislation provides a clear and principled set of rules that recognizes goods

and services from across Canada. Under this act, if a good may be sold or used in

another province, it may be sold or used here in British Columbia. If a service may

be supplied in another province, it may be supplied here in British Columbia, unless

a specific exception applies. These reforms will help lower costs for consumers, simplify

business operations and support economic growth in every region of this province.

The act also protects what needs protecting. It ensures that B.C. may continue to

apply rules on how a product may be used or how the service must be delivered, protecting

high standards of health, safety, consumers and environment protection. It also preserves

B.C.’s ability to maintain rules relating to Indigenous Peoples and maintenance of

monopolies.

The act includes flexible regulation-making powers that allow cabinet to exempt specific

goods and services, provinces or regulatory measures when appropriate. This negative-list

approach provides transparency for businesses and ensures that the exceptions are

clear and targeted.

The legislation also repeals

part 1 of the Economic Stabilization Act, replacing it

with a permanent, modernized recognition framework.

I want to highlight that British Columbia is not only acting in isolation. Across

the country, other provinces and the federal government have adopted their own trade

recognition legislation. As others modernize their frameworks, B.C. businesses are

gaining clearer, more predictable access to markets right across Canada.

Finally, the act will come into force via regulation.

This legislation strengthens our internal trade system, reduces red tape and creates

new opportunities for businesses and workers across this province, and it does so

while safeguarding the core public protections that British Columbians rely on.

The Speaker : Members, the question is the first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

[1:50 p.m.]

Members’ Statements

Community Response to Shootings

in Tumbler Ridge

Susie Chant : Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this House on a topic that

is difficult.

First, allow me to acknowledge that I’m speaking on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, those of the Songhees and Esquimalt. These are the people who have stewarded

the land, sea and sky from time immemorial, and I’m grateful for the care and wisdom

that is always present in our work together.

As I walked to the Legislature over the past week, I noticed the Canadian flag and

others lowered to half-mast. A half-masted flag is never done lightly. It signals

that something significant has happened, something that touches not only a community

but all of us. Often it marks the passing of a national figure. On this occasion,

it marks something different: our collective grief for the people of Tumbler Ridge.

I spoke to a friend of mine last Thursday. He and his wife live in Tumbler Ridge,

and he’s a teacher at both the elementary school and the high school. He spent that

Tuesday afternoon in lockdown with 14 grade 3 students and some of their parents,

sheltering in place from nearby violence, trying to ensure that everybody felt safe

in an unknown situation.

I asked what might help. He said: “Tumbler Ridge is a functional town. We need to

do functional things.” Then he spoke about maybe starting some version of a community

memorial garden where the kids could grow vegetables, share food and rebuild connections.

No one knows clearly what the path forward is in Tumbler Ridge, but it is the many

steps taken by all that will recreate strength and stability, safety and trust.

Lunar New Year

Hon Chan : Lunar new year is one of the most widely celebrated holidays in the world, observed

across many countries and regions across Asia and by communities around the globe.

This year we welcome the Year of the Horse — a symbol of strength, perseverance and

forward momentum towards success.

Across our province and throughout Canada, we’re fortunate to live in a society where

cultural traditions are not only respected but also joyfully shared. Nowhere is this

more evident than in Richmond.

Once again the annual midnight countdown and the flower market at Aberdeen Centre

brought thousands together to welcome the lunar new year. The atmosphere was electric,

with cheering crowds and a powerful sense of togetherness, making it one of the largest

lunar new year celebrations in North America.

What was especially touching was that while people are celebrating this festive season,

their thoughts were with the people and victims in Tumbler Ridge. This is truly a

testament to the compassion, care and strength of being one province.

Yesterday, on New Year’s Day, throughout the city, dragon and lion dances filled malls

and community spaces, including the Yaohan Centre and the Aberdeen Centre. The thunder

of the drums, the rhythm of the cymbals and the vibrant colours created moments of

joy and excitement for children and families alike, symbolizing good fortune and prosperity

for the year ahead.

For many, lunar new year is also a deeply meaningful, spiritual time. Worshippers

visited Lingyen Mountain Temple, the International Buddhist Temple and the Fo Guang

Shan Temple, with some arriving just before midnight to light the incense as the new

year began, offering prayers for health, peace and blessings.

The celebrations are far from over. Festivities will continue at Lansdowne Centre,

and many are looking forward to the Chinatown Parade, a cherished tradition that brings

together communities from across all regions. Multiculturalism is not simply a concept.

It is a gift we must never take for granted.

Last but not least, I wish everyone a healthy, prosperous and joyful Year of the Horse.

龍馬精神, 馬到成功 .

Black History Month

Dana Lajeunesse : Today I wish to recognize the significance of Black History Month to British Columbia,

a time dedicated to celebrating the remarkable contributions of Black Canadians to

our province and to our country. This month is not only an opportunity to reflect

on the achievements of Black individuals throughout history but also a call to acknowledge

the ongoing journey toward equality and inclusion.

[1:55 p.m.]

British Columbia has been shaped by the resilience, creativity and leadership of Black

communities. Our province’s story is richer thanks to the ingenuity and spirit of

Black Canadians in fields such as business, education, arts and public service. From

teachers and entrepreneurs to artists and activists, Black British Columbians have

contributed to the advancement of social justice, the promotion of cultural expression

and the fostering of inclusive communities.

Let us not forget the remarkable legacy of the early Black immigrants who settled

on Vancouver Island in the 1850s. Answering the invitation to Governor James Douglas,

many Black families journeyed from California to Victoria, seeking dignity and opportunity.

They established churches, founded businesses and helped build schools, all while

facing adversity and discrimination. Their resilience created lasting foundations

in communities like Victoria and Saanich, and their descendants continue to enrich

our province today.

As we celebrate Black History Month, let us recognize the significance of this occasion

for all British Columbians. It is a chance to learn, to listen and to ensure that

our actions reflect our values of respect, justice and opportunity. May this month

inspire us to build a province where everyone’s history is honoured and every voice

is heard.

Reann Gasper : When we reflect on Black History Month, we’re not talking about a separate category

of stories. We’re recognizing contribution. This year’s theme is: “Honouring Black

brilliance across generations, from nation builders to tomorrow’s visionaries.”

Black history in Canada is a part of our shared story. It is woven into the building

of communities and strengthening of families, the growth of businesses and the shaping

of the values we hold together. This month isn’t about elevating one group above another.

It’s about seeing the full picture, recognizing the many people whose contributions

have helped shape our country. When we honour Black history, we aren’t dividing the

table; we are simply acknowledging everyone who helped build it.

Black History Month is also a time to reflect on legacy. The quiet ways of courage,

faith, perseverance and vision are passed from one generation to the next. Legacy

lives not only in historic milestones but in everyday acts of leadership, in families

who nurture hope and in communities that choose to build, even when the path forward

isn’t clear. It reminds us that what we inherit is not only history but responsibility,

to carry forward what is good, to learn from the past and to leave something stronger

for those who will come after us.

One of the most meaningful moments in life is when a young person sees someone who

reflects their story in a place of leadership. Because of that, they grow in their

confidence, integrity and purpose.

As we reflect this month, may we continue to listen and learn and to appreciate the

stories that shape our communities, because understanding one another strengthens

the foundation we all stand on. Today we honour those who came before us, and we commit

to building a future worthy of their legacy.

Ramadan and Community

Amna Shah : Community is more than just a place. It is the quiet understanding that we belong

to something larger than ourselves and that we are responsible for building and protecting

it together. Community is the listening when we disagree. It is the tears we shed

when our neighbour hurts. It is the happiness for someone else’s success. It is a

shared spirit, a shared strength, a shared responsibility.

As Muslims like me observe the sacred month of Ramadan, the month in which the Quran

was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad — peace be upon him — we are reminded of devotion

to our community. We are reminded that generosity multiplies when shared and that

caring for others is essential. Each fast we break at sunset is a reminder that we

are accountable to God and to one another.

[2:00 p.m.]

As we reflect, our hearts are with the families of Tumbler Ridge, who are carrying

an unimaginable grief. In moments like this, words feel small, but presence is not,

compassion is not and standing together is not.

Islam reminds us that no one is meant to endure sorrow alone. It reminds us that community

is presence. It is choosing to reach out, to hold space for grief, to ensure that

even in darkness, no one feels abandoned.

I pray that this holy month may bring moments of peace amid overwhelming pain. May

it strengthen the bonds of community that grief has tested but not broken, and may

it inspire acts of compassion that echo far beyond these days. May all who are mourning

feel surrounded not only by prayers but by the warmth of people who care, standing

together in grief, in hope and in a shared determination to build and to protect our

community.

Ramadan Mubarak.

Lunar New Year and Korean Community

Misty Van Popta : Many of us in this chamber will be wishing lunar new year greetings to our constituents

this week, but I would like to take my time here today to give a little special extra

greeting to my riding’s largest minority community — Koreans.

It wasn’t until after I got elected that I fully understood and appreciated the size

and long-standing impact of this community within north Langley, so many fantastic

small business owners and families that always smile at me when I’m knocking on their

door.

It is their quiet but meaningful contribution to local life that makes them stand

out as neighbours. I have been frequently gifted tasty treats from friends, which

has always expanded my horizons as someone with an admittedly limited palate. But

honestly, I have found their deep humility and hospitality my favourite quality.

Lunar new year, to my friends and neighbours, passes tradition down through families,

reinforcing strong values, respect and resilience. When I have asked about specific

traditions on lunar new year, for my Korean friends, it was highlighted that much

of the time is spent with family and honouring their elders.

Celebrations like Seollal are opportunities not just to honour culture but to also

bring people together across communities. I felt that this past weekend as I was enthusiastically

dressed in beautiful hanboks to record a message with my constituent Yun. The pride

in sharing not only his culture but sharing their traditional dressings — it was palpable.

As I close out my time here, I’d like to give the following message: saehae bog manh-i

bad-euseyo.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Speaker : Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : Mr. Speaker, 22 students from Vancouver Island University have joined us in the gallery,

along with their teacher Lauren Touchant. My connection is through my friend and neighbour

Lauchlan Benton.

Will the chamber please welcome Erika, Kate, Henry, Rosalie, Mia, Sam, Terek, Zoe,

Mikayla, Grace, Brandi, Saige, Alyaa, Carlos, Sho, Victoria, Jordan, Kai, Jäger and

Russel.

Welcome, friends.

Oral Questions

Service Model for

Children with Support Needs

and Funding for Services

Trevor Halford : It wasn’t just seniors that this NDP government attacked in yesterday’s budget. It

was also, sadly, children with disabilities. This is an NDP government that has consistently

overpromised and underdelivered when it comes to this province’s most vulnerable.

[2:05 p.m.]

When the Premier first took office in 2022, he told autistic children they would keep

their direct funding. He said: “Every child in B.C. should have the supports they

need to thrive.”

Four years later, the Premier strips those families of the individualized funding

they fought so hard to keep. That means over 5,000 children will have their funding

wiped out entirely, only to see themselves placed on wait-lists that this government

cannot keep up on. By the time they reach that spot, they will be aged out.

How can the Premier look these families in the eyes, after he committed to step up

and keep their individualized funding, and strip these kids of the money they deserve?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : All children in our province deserve access to the supports and services they need

to be their best selves. I want to make it very clear that this is a $475 million

investment into vulnerable children in our province that has never been made before.

Thousands more children are going to receive access to direct funding supports. We

are making investments in highly specialized, community-based child development centres.

We will be working with families over the next year, alongside them, to make sure

that they know what supports and services are available for them.

I understand that any time there are changes in a system, that can be challenging.

As a mom, I understand that. We will work alongside families, with them every step

of the way.

The Speaker : Opposition leader, supplemental.

Merit Commissioner and

Public Service Accountability

Trevor Halford : Only an NDP government like this could actually get up and applaud the fact that

they have now stripped families, in some cases over 5,000 families, of funding when

it comes to their autistic children. That is not something to applaud. That is absolutely

shameful.

But it’s also shameful that this Premier seems to be allergic to accountability. How

have they done that? They’ve eliminated another layer of government accountability

by quietly scrapping the independent Office of the Merit Commissioner. The minister’s

justification? Government hires already based on merit.

Well, the only merit that this government hires based on is if you are a friend or

an insider of the Premier of this province. We’ve seen that firsthand. That is the

Premier’s merit. We’ve seen that with Michael Bryant. We’ve seen that with others.

Let’s be clear. This Premier has changed laws when it comes to the FOI. They’ve eliminated

the local auditor general. They’ve introduced Bill 14. So what does this Premier do

every chance he can get? He bypasses any measure when it comes to accountability on

himself or this NDP government.

When will this Premier stop gutting the last bit of merit left in this government?

Will he keep this commission, yes or no?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : It’s important to understand the role of the Merit Commissioner. This is an office

that was overseeing the PSA on questions of merit.

Merit has become such a part of our PSA culture. In fact, last year alone, when the

Merit Commissioner reviewed 276 audits of hirings and appointments in the public service,

they found “no evidence of patronage in any appointments.”

Budget Provisions for Child and

Youth Mental Health Services

Claire Rattée : According to the Canadian Mental Health Association, there are 84,000 children and

youth in this province that are suffering from mental health challenges and 58,000

of them are not receiving the treatment that they need. While northern and rural communities

still haven’t even received access to these supports, the ministry for children and

youth has cut $3 million from child and youth mental health services in this budget.

How does the minister justify taking services away from the very children who need

them most?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens : Our children and our youth are the most important things in our province. We are

doing everything in this budget to protect core services, particularly for children

and youth.

There are no cuts to services for children and youth experiencing mental health challenges.

We have expanded Foundries across the province. In my community, we’re opening a brand

new Foundry in just a few weeks. Hundreds of children will have access to primary

care, to peer support, to mental health support.

There is always more work to be done. I’m committed to making those investments at

this crucial time.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Claire Rattée : I can appreciate that that’s good for the minister’s community, but the children

in my community up north and other communities up north don’t have access to services.

And the minister might want to check her budget documents again because page 49 of

the estimates says there’s $3 million that’s being cut from children and youth mental

health services.

Every one of the scarce few mandatory care facilities that is referenced in this year’s

budget was already announced last year: Surrey Pretrial, Alouette and Prince George.

There’s nothing new here.

So I have to ask. Can the minister please point me to the page in the budget where

there are new announcements to fill the glaring gap in this government’s approach

to mental health care, or does the government just plan to continue their trend of

recycling old press releases?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : We continue to make these key investments — for example, continuing to build hospitals

that have psychiatric units. We are building in Prince George, a riding held by the

other side for years, and this investment was not made. It’s been made by us.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh. Shhh, Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Also in this budget, we are making additional investments in schools. We are helping

teachers. We’re doing things like bringing in more….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members, please.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I can see why they would be upset about it. We know their history with teachers.

We are making investments in school counsellors, school psychologists, additional

special education teachers to help children get the care they need right at their

school.

Proposed Changes to DRIPA and

Role of Courts and First Nations

Rob Botterell : Last spring this government brought forward Bill 15. It became a fiasco when First

Nations raised serious concerns about lack of consultation. This government then proceeded

to pass the legislation without the support of First Nations. Trust has been eroded.

Now this government is planning to amend DRIPA.

To the Premier: will you ensure you have the full support of First Nations before

proceeding with proposed changes to DRIPA?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : Thank you to the House Leader of the Third Party for the question.

No question, reconciliation is the journey that we must walk on together with British

Columbians, with First Nations in this province, and that means listening to each

other. That means working together and listening to each other when we don’t always

agree with each other. So there’s no question that there’s work we have ahead.

But I do want to focus that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

has led to some great success recently. I think of our work with the Tāłtān Nation

and a day of great pride when we stood together to announce a major new mine approved

together in their territory, with incredible benefits for the region, for jobs, for

our country of Canada.

I want to keep doing that work with nations as we use the Declaration on the Rights

of Indigenous Peoples Act to raise us all up and, more specifically, to respect the

rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Rob Botterell : DRIPA was passed so First Nations wouldn’t have to rely on the courts except as a

last resort because government would finally work with them up front to build consensus.

Now this government is proposing changes that would weaken that framework by limiting

access to the courts when consensus cannot be reached.

The government often tells the public to trust the courts, except when those court

decisions affirm First Nations rights and title. The Premier is making the same mistake

with reconciliation that so many of his predecessors have made before.

[2:15 p.m.]

To the Premier, why is the Premier creating one standard of court review for Indigenous

rights and another for everyone else?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : I respect the role of the court, and I respect the role that First Nations can use

that court. As you’ll know, there was a time when our House and the federal parliament

banned the use of courts. So I want to make sure we’re clear that that right will

always exist and that we will work hard to make sure that people still can use the

courts when needed.

That being said, I think it’s better when we find a way to get to agreement by listening

to each other, working together, spending the time that’s required to do that work.

That’s how we do get more durable projects. That’s how we get more durable relationships.

I’m leaning into that work in my role here, and I think we need to lower the tone

here, listen to each other a little bit more and find that path that we all want to

greater prosperity and respect for each other as neighbours.

Sage Mesa Community Water System

Amelia Boultbee : My question is to the Premier. In my community, there are 242 homes whose water infrastructure

has collapsed, which is on provincial land and is provincially controlled, and they

do not have access to clean drinking water.

My question is whether or not this government is going to download the $1,200-a-month

cost onto these seniors and small families or whether the government will step up

and make a meaningful financial contribution.

Hon. Randene Neill : I thank the member opposite for the question. I can’t imagine how stressful this

is for the residents of Sage Mesa community. There have been long-standing water servicing

challenges in that community.

Our understanding is that the regional district of the Okanagan-Similkameen is in

active conversation with the residents and community there and with the utility to

acquire it and apply for grant funding. This is work that we all need to do together.

Residents are aware of that. The regional district is also aware of that, and hopefully

we can reach a good, long-term, sustainable, safe solution for the entire community

very soon.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Amelia Boultbee : I thank the minister for that.

I speak on behalf of the regional district and all these constituents when I say that

we do not agree that this cost should be downloaded, and we’ve been asking this government

for many years to meet this $33 million financial obligation. We should not rely on

this speculative $7 million grant, which may or may not occur.

Is this minister aware that if the reservoir bursts, it’s going to cost significantly

more than $33 million to fix and this government is going to have to fix it at that

time?

Hon. Randene Neill : Thank you for the follow-up question from the member opposite.

This is something that we take very seriously. Our infrastructure is what powers our

province, and the responsibility of water systems on individual communities is always

up to the utility that created that service in the first place. We’ve learned over

the years with different improvement districts that as those systems age, the residents

that use that water aren’t always able to pay to be able to sustain it to the expectation

that was set out to them from the province in the first place.

Again, this is something that we care about incredibly deeply. We’re working with

the community and the regional district to find a really good, safe, sustainable solution

for the future.

Budget Priorities and

Impact on Workers

Kiel Giddens : There’s no question that workers in my riding have struggled. They’ve faced curtailments

and layoffs this winter at mills. Now working families in the North will be out another

$200 after this government’s cut to the northern and rural homeowner benefit. It’s

clear that the party with so-called labour roots has lost its way.

This Premier and this Finance Minister are also planning to cut the budget for the

employment standards branch, which is in place to help the most vulnerable workers

in the province. Hermender Singh Kailley, from the B.C. Federation of Labour, called

it “an unacceptable reduction in much-needed support for B.C.’s most vulnerable workers.”

[2:20 p.m.]

It’s no wonder the Premier doesn’t want to defend his budget.

At a time when working families are struggling, why is this government turning its

back on workers who are simply trying to protect their paycheques in the middle of

an affordability crisis?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Thank you to the member opposite for the question. The rural homeowner grant was

really designed to offset the increased costs from the carbon tax. We recognized that

the carbon tax did not land evenly on everyone, that some rural communities people

were transiting further in their vehicles, so when the carbon tax was removed, so

too did we remove that.

It’s really important to note that this budget continues to protect the advances that

we have made on affordability for families, things like…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : …the family benefit, reducing costs for ICBC, the incredible advances that we have

made in child care — by the way, something that that side of the aisle stood against.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, please.

Expansion of Provincial

Sales Tax to Services

Gavin Dew : The Finance Minister played to the crowd at the board of trade economic summit by

saying: “One cannot distribute wealth if there isn’t any wealth.” She went on to say

she had to remind her colleagues of that quite regularly.

A $500-million-a-year expansion of the PST on services like accounting, bookkeeping,

engineers and architects will drive professional services jobs out of B.C., and it

will pass on costs on every single housing project and every single business in this

province.

Since the minister evidently spends a lot of time explaining basic economics, can

she explain exactly how kicking small business when they’re down is going to produce

more affordable housing, wealth or jobs for British Columbians?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : We have been working diligently to improve opportunities in British Columbia. You

have seen us land four of the ten projects of national significance that the federal

government has focused on. These are so important to continue to grow our economy.

We know that last year we saw our economy grow by 32,000 jobs. We’ve been continuing

to double down on this work.

The member opposite refers to comments I made at the board of trade. It is true that

I remind some people in this chamber that we have to have wealth to distribute it.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members.

Interjections.

The Speaker : The minister has the floor.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I’ll remind the members opposite that it was us who actually reduced the small business

tax from 2.5 to 2.

But it is true that we have had to take some tough measures, to be frank, in this

budget. We have done that for the following reason: to protect the services that are

so important to British Columbians. We are determined to continue to invest in health

care. Not everyone has been attached to a family doctor yet. We are doing that work.

We are hiring more nurses. We are hiring more teachers. We are protecting those services.

We know what the other side would do. We know what the other side would do, because

you told us. Just yesterday, a member from the other side….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Order, Members.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Order, Members. Shhh.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Well, of course you wouldn’t defend it, because you wouldn’t make the choices that

we’re making to ensure that we’re protecting services.

Interjections.

[The Speaker rose.]

The Speaker : Members. Members will come to order now.

[The Speaker resumed their seat.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : A member on the other side, from Chilcotin, said that in fact if the two biggest

ministries are Health and Education, then obviously they would have to feel the brunt

of these budget cuts. Unbelievable that that’s the choice that side would make right

when people need those supports most.

Budget Provisions for

Long-Term-Care Projects

Brennan Day : It’s truly amazing to see this government defend a budget that is backfilling for

eight years of disastrous budgets.

It’s clear in this budget that this government has completely abandoned seniors. Yesterday

this NDP government cancelled long-term-care projects in Abbotsford, Campbell River,

Chilliwack, Kelowna, Delta, Fort St. John and Squamish, where wait times are already

measured in years. We need 16,000 additional long-term-care beds by 2036, and this

government doesn’t have a plan.

[2:25 p.m.]

To the minister: in what decade will the beds you cancelled actually be delivered?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : We haven’t cancelled these projects. I want to explain what’s happening here. It’s

very important. There are members who claim to be business people. You’ll understand

this clearly.

There are proposals that are coming across my desk right now for long-term-care facilities

where the cost per bed is $1.8 million — per bed. We are not approving them. We’re

going back to the drawing board because we cannot afford to spend that kind of money

on long-term care. We need to deliver long-term care for people.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : We need to take that money and make it go further than $1.8 million per bed. We can

bring that number down. That’s the work that we are doing right now. That’s the work

that we are doing.

How do you do it? Maybe you would like to spend $1.8 million per bed. We wouldn’t.

We’re going to bring that cost down.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : We did not approve them, and we’re going to bring that cost down.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member for Kamloops Centre.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Read the numbers, Member.

There are a number of things we can do to get these costs down, and that’s the work

we’re doing. We can look at having standardized builds. We can look at using prefabricated,

and we can look at the specs that we’re building to. Are we building more spec than

we need to, or can we bring it down?

These can help us bring down these costs, because we will be able to build more as

a result, more efficiently and faster. That’s the work we’re doing.

The Speaker : Member has a supplemental?

Brennan Day : I don’t believe you. These have been in the budget since 2023 — going on three years.

Not a seniors home in Campbell River. Nothing started in the other projects. It’s

shameful. We need 16,000 beds by 2036. We need to build 2,000 beds a year.

What’s the plan to get us there? Because it’s clear this government doesn’t have one.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I’ve shared the plan to get us there. We’re doing the work to come up with a way

of bringing down these costs so we can accelerate building more long-term care.

To the member opposite who spoke, in fact, the Vancouver Island health region has

been helping us with this, in the example of Colwood, for example.

We are able to do this work. We can work together to bring down costs in long-term

care so we can deliver more, because that’s what British Columbians need.

Government Action on

Affordability Issues

Á’a :líya Warbus : The Minister of Finance yesterday said: “We know families are struggling. The cost

of everyday life keeps going up, especially at the grocery store.”

I can tell you that in my community, it’s not the cost of grocery store prices that

people are privileged enough to struggle from. It is the growing lineups at food banks

that have them concerned in an affordability crisis. Instead of families receiving

their $1,000 grocery rebate that they were promised, this government instead gave

them a 12 percent increase on their income tax.

My question is: how can this Premier look into the eyes of families who voted, who

are struggling to maintain the very basics and strap them with additional costs instead

of relief?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : It’s true that many people are struggling, and that’s why we’ve protected the affordability

measures that we’ve made over the last number of years in this budget.

But I want to point out to the member opposite some numbers. First and foremost, 40

percent of British Columbians, those of us who are the lowest wage earners, will pay

less because of the tax changes that we made.

I want to point out some contrasts. For a family that makes $100,000, in 2016, under

the previous government, they would have paid net provincial tax of $7,473. In 2026,

they’ll pay $4,600. A family with a $30,000 net income in 2016 still paid taxes, $177.

Under our government, they get $1,623 back.

[2:30 p.m.]

Forest Industry Conditions

and Government Action on Issues

Lorne Doerkson : Forestry is in crisis. We didn’t hear that word in the budget speech yesterday. Mills

are closing. Thousands of jobs have been lost, hundreds in my own riding. Food bank

usage is at an all-time high.

COFI says: “The sector’s immediate survival depends on the increase of harvest level

through predictable and economic access to wood.” We’ve heard only empty words from

this government which promised, in 2022, 30,000 jobs. In fact, it’s quite the opposite.

We’ve seen a loss of 15,000 forestry positions in this province.

Why has this government turned its back on the forest industry in this province?

Hon. Ravi Parmar : In 2023, we had the worst wildfire season on record in our province’s history.

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : The member says: “So what?” We lost 20 years’ worth of harvestable fibre in that

year alone.

Interjections.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Donald Trump arrived.

Interjections.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Clearly the Seattle Seahawks got the memo, but the members opposite haven’t. The

biggest champions for Donald Trump sit on that side of the House.

Donald Trump has attacked our forest sector — 45 percent duties and tariffs. For communities

like 100 Mile, the loss of their mill, specifically, goes back to the impact of wildfires

and the attack of Donald Trump on our forest sector.

On this side of the House, in Budget 2026, we are rolling out a stumpage payment deferral

program that is ensuring there is more money in the pockets of our forestry workers,

making sure that we’re keeping the lights on as we deal with this horrible attack

that Donald Trump has taken on our forest sector.

On this side of the House, we are going to stand up for workers. We’re going to stand

up for communities like 100 Mile. We’re going to ensure that we’re going to fight

like hell for those workers in every part of this province.

Property Tax Deferment Program

Peter Milobar : I was in 100 Mile recently and met with a millworker whose last day after 33 years

was the day before. He doesn’t feel this Forests Minister is standing up for him.

In fact, those tariffs, the extra duties, were put in place by Joe Biden and Kamala

Harris. Last I checked, I believe our Finance Minister was campaigning for Kamala

Harris with her proud T-shirt during the federal election. I didn’t post the picture;

the Finance Minister did.

We are short over 16,000 long-term-care-home beds in this province. We have a budget

that, despite the minister saying these projects weren’t announced in long-term care,

makes it very clear on page 64. It says: “Approved projects with adjusted timelines.”

In fact, $100 million has already been spent on said projects that the minister says

haven’t even been approved. That’s interesting math by the government. That’s long-term-care

beds.

We have seniors that can’t get into a long-term-care home, so they are having to stay

at home. They are living in their own homes that they bought years ago, and they can’t

afford it in any other way than the property tax deferment program. This budget, this

mean-spirited attack budget on seniors by this NDP government, has decided to take

that interest rate from 2.9 percent to 6.9 percent.

They have also decided to make the interest compounding, which makes it even worse

for seniors trying to stay in their own homes. They don’t have a long-term-care home

to go to. They have to stay in their own home, and this government decides to pick

their pocket and try to actually take more money out of it.

Why, with fewer care beds available, would the government think it’s the right thing

to do, in a budget like this, to attack seniors and the equity in their homes and

actually have almost usury-level interest rates as well as changing the compounding

nature of the interest all in one year and slough it off yesterday as this is a nothing…?

[2:35 p.m.]

In fact, the minister said that this was a good change to the property tax deferment

program.

How can the minister look seniors in the face and say this is a good change and they

should be thanking this government for it?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I’ve explained the reason for this change. When we made this program available, it

was designed to support seniors staying in their homes. What happened instead, because

the rate was prime minus 2, is folks who didn’t need it accessed it and took that

cheap funding and invested it to make money.

That is not what taxpayers want to use their dollars for. It was not seniors…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : …using it to stay in their home. That’s why it’s been designed. That’s why we have

the program.

At prime plus 2….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : For people over 55, this program was available. At prime plus 2, it remains a reasonable

amount for seniors to be able to access and young families to be able to access.

Now, to be clear, how the program works is that they put off paying their taxes and

it gains this small amount of interest. It does not affect one’s monthly spending.

But I want to talk about the overall theme of this budget, because we are focused

on protecting what is important for seniors.

First and foremost, health care. We know that seniors are the people that use health

care the most.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : We continue to invest in it, unlike the other side. We know what they would do.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, take it easy.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : We heard the member for Fraser Nicola….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Just yesterday the member for Fraser Nicola said — in fact, a direct quote: “If education

and health care are the two biggest line items on the budget, then they’re the ones

that are going to have to take the brunt.” That’s not the decision that this side

will make.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

Finance and Government

Services Committee

Paul Choi : I am pleased to present the third report of the select Standing Committee on Finance

and Government Services for the first session of the 43rd parliament, titled Annual Review of the Budgets of Statutory Offices, 2026-27 to 2028-29 .

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Paul Choi : I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt this report.

Leave granted.

The Speaker : Please proceed.

Paul Choi : In moving adoption of the report, I would like to make some brief comments.

The Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services is responsible for

exercising general oversight of the province’s nine statutory officers, which includes

reviewing and recommending their office budgets.

This report summarizes the committee’s discussions with the statutory officers regarding

their 2026-27 to 2028-29 budget requests and contains the committee’s recommendation

regarding those requests. The report also outlines the committee’s decisions regarding

the appointment of the independent auditor to audit the Office of the Auditor General

for the fiscal year of 2024-25 to 2027-28.

Prior to receiving budget requests from statutory offices, the committee conveyed

its expectation that, consistent with the broader public sector, offices limit their

requests to maintaining current operations while actively seeking opportunities for

savings and greater efficiency. Members were also appreciative of officers that continued

to display fiscal prudence, including finding savings to offset cost pressures.

In our deliberations, the committee agreed to recommend limited additional funding,

prioritizing front-line services and emerging issues faced by some offices, particularly

those that provide critical services to British Columbians.

On behalf of the committee and all members of the Legislative Assembly, I wish to

express our appreciation to those statutory officers and their staff for their important

work. In particular, I would like to recognize the four officers whose terms have

recently concluded for their dedicated years of service. The committee welcomes their

newly appointed successors and looks forward to working collaboratively with them

in the years ahead as they undertake their important work in support of members of

the Legislative Assembly and British Columbians.

I would also like to acknowledge and extend our appreciation to staff in the Parliamentary

Committees Office for their continued support.

[2:40 p.m.]

Lastly, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all committee members for their

dedication and valued contribution throughout the committee’s deliberations.

Donegal Wilson : I would also like to acknowledge and thank all members of the committee for the work

that went into this report, including the member for Burnaby South–Metrotown.

As a committee, we take seriously our responsibility to ensure strong oversight and

responsible stewardship of public funds. In reviewing the budget requests from the

statutory offices, we carefully examined both fixed costs, such as leases and office

space, and more flexible expenditures, including grant funding, to ensure that resources

are being used effectively and thoughtfully.

Our role is not simply to approve budgets but to ask the right questions and encourage

continuous improvement. We continue to urge all offices to look for opportunities

to operate efficiently and identify cost savings where appropriate while still fulfilling

their important mandates for the province.

I want to thank committee members for their collaboration and diligence throughout

the process.

As was noted by the member for Burnaby South–Metrotown, we recognize the significant

work that statutory offices undertake on behalf of British Columbians. We look forward

to meeting with them this spring, including several new statutory officers, to hear

updates on their operations and ongoing priorities.

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

Motion approved.

Public Interest Disclosure Act

Review Committee

Darlene Rotchford : I am pleased to present the report of the Special Committee to Review the Public

Interest Disclosure Act, titled Review of the Public Interest Disclosure Act , a copy of which has been deposited with the Office of the Clerk.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

The Speaker : The question is that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Darlene Rotchford : I move the report be adopted, and in doing so, I would like to make some brief comments.

As the House will recall, the Public Interest Disclosure Act provides a framework

for the public sector employees to report certain types of wrongdoing with protection

from reprisal. The act requires a special committee to review the act once every five

years.

This was the first review of the act since it has come into force. Our committee’s

work included receiving input from key stakeholders and the public.

The Speaker : Member, just a second. The member has to ask for leave to continue.

Leave granted.

Darlene Rotchford : Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our committee concluded receiving input from key stakeholders and the public. On behalf

of the committee, I would like to express our sincere appreciation to the organizations

and individuals that took the time to participate.

I would also like to acknowledge the work of all the public sector organizations and

employees as well as Jay Chalke, the former Ombudsperson and the staff of the Ombudsperson

for their work operationalizing the act over the last few years.

In the course of our review, the committee highlighted the act’s essential role in

promoting a culture of reporting and upholding integrity and accountability within

the public sector.

While the act is functioning well overall, we identified opportunities to strengthen

both the act itself and the public interest disclosure process. Our committee makes

30 recommendations to enhance the clarity and efficiency of the act, strengthen privacy

and confidentiality protections and further build trust and confidence in the public

interest disclosure process. We also underscore the need for strong protections for

disclosers and consistent ongoing education and training across the public service.

I would like to extend my serious thanks to all committee members for their dedication

and meaningful discussions during the review. In particular, I would like to thank

the Deputy Chair, the member for Abbotsford South, for support throughout our work;

as well as the previous Deputy Chair, the member for Prince George–Valemount, for

their thoughtful contributions and hard work on the committee.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to express my appreciation to the staff at

the Parliamentary Committees Office who support our work, including Karan Riarh, Natalie

Beaton, Hanna Kim, Alexa Neufeld and Kayla Wilson.

Thank you as well to the staff at Hansard for their support.

Bruce Banman : I would also like to extend my sincere appreciation to all committee members — particularly

the Chair, the member for Esquimalt-Colwood; and the previous Deputy Chair, the member

for Prince George–Valemount — for their dedication and the work they’ve undertaken

on this review over the past year.

[2:45 p.m.]

While I was late to the game on this one, being appointed through this, I think it

is important to thank, in particular, the Chair and the Deputy Chair for the extreme

amount of work that they did to get us this far.

I’d like to also recognize everyone who contributed their perspectives and provided

thoughtful input on how the Public Interest Disclosure Act can be improved.

It would please this House to know that we worked collaboratively to consider that

input, to come up with our recommendations. In particular, committee members recognize

the importance of ensuring accountability in the public sector and fostering a culture

in which individuals feel safe reporting wrongdoing. To that end, we highlight opportunities

to enhance confidentiality and privacy protections for the disclosers and witnesses

as well as the opportunities to improve protections against reprisals.

Finally, I would like to extend my thanks to the staff of the Parliamentary Committees

Office and Hansard Services for the support they provided throughout our work. They

really do help make this House a better place. Thank you.

Darlene Rotchford : I move adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I call continued debate on the budget.

Budget Debate

(continued)

Peter Milobar : I’ll pick up my comments from yesterday and do a little light reading out of the

budget book, because in question period the minister indicated that long-term-care-home

beds were not actually approved yet, which we were talking about.

I thought I would read directly from the budget, on page 64, which very clearly says:

“Approved projects with adjusted timelines: Abbotsford long-term care, TBC.” Originally

the year of completion was 2027. One would think, given it’s 2026, that it was in

construction. It would have been approved. In fact, project costs to December 31,

2025, of $25 million, with an estimated cost to complete of $211 million. Seems fairly

detailed for a project the minister says wasn’t even approved.

Campbell River long-term care, TBC. Originally 2027. Now this one, of course, would

have been behind

schedule because they only spent $1 million last year, with a $134

million total project cost. In fact, they even say “internal borrowing of $80 million,

other contributions $54 million” — a fair amount of detail actually provided for a

project that the minister, half an hour ago, said hadn’t even been approved.

Chilliwack long-term care, TBC. Originally a 2029 completion; $8 million spent last

year. A $274 million total project, $246 million of internal borrowing and $28 million

from outside sources. Again, half an hour ago, the minister said that project had

never been approved.

Cottonwood’s long-term care replacement, TBC; 2029 was the original date, and $2 million

spent last year to December 31, 2025. A $187 million project, $112 million of internal

borrowing and $75 million from other.

Delta long-term care, TBC; 2027 was the date for that project that supposedly had

never been approved, even though it’s under a heading that says “Approved Projects

with Adjusted Timelines.” Apparently, TBC and adjusted timelines we’re just supposed

to shrug about. Now, the interesting part about this was that Delta was $15 million

last year, $180 million overall budget.

Squamish Hilltop long-term care, TBC. That was a 2030 project. No money spent last

year at all, but a $286 million project.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Now, one would think that if this government was actually managing capital projects,

they would realize that almost everything is over budget and delayed in this budget

book to begin with, so I don’t take fault that they’re trying to actually rein things

in a little bit.

[2:50 p.m.]

But I find it interesting that they’ve decided to pretty much exclusively focus in

on seniors housing. Seniors housing and long-term care with a slight health care component

to it, obviously, so seniors can age safely, with dignity, in safety — all removed

in this budget and replaced with a home property tax deferment program that actually

sees this interest rate skyrocket and changes how they calculate the interest, just

so they can squeeze some more out.

Now, I don’t have this number confirmed. I would have to run it through a modulator.

But somebody had indicated that what they originally had thought was going to cost

them $45,000 of interest, over the 20 years they were hoping to still be able to live

in their home and use the deferral program, will go from $45,000 worth of interest

to $220,000 worth of interest. I have to confirm those numbers, but it seems about

right with the compounding nature of what has happened with this change.

My point being, this government has had no problem extending deadlines on other projects.

So why, when it comes to long-term care, did the government not simply say, instead

of 2027, 2028 or 2029?

We know they’ve extended the SkyTrain from Surrey to Langley by a couple of years.

We know they’ve extended lots of other hospital projects by a couple of years. They’ve

extended schools by several years. Substation upgrades have been extended by years.

You name it. Agassiz-Rosedale Bridge repair project — it’s been extended to 2029,

and it has gone up in budget as well.

So when the minister says: “Oh, but we can’t afford the investment in long-term care….”

Well, who has been government for the last eight or nine years, watching the cost

of long-term-care beds skyrocket? It’s been this government.

It’s kind of like the 15,000 employees, and I’ll get to that in a minute, that are

mythically…. I say mythically because I have no belief that the government is actually

going to cut those.

The government is talking today in this budget like they had no clue that long-term-care

beds were more expensive in B.C. than anywhere else. They’ve been warned. They’ve

been warned for years that, in fact, private sector long-term-care beds are much more

cost-effective. But ideologically this government is opposed to that.

So then go all in. If you’re ideologically opposed, defend the extra cost based on

that ideology. Don’t punish the senior that is trying to get a long-term-care bed.

But that’s exactly what this government is doing. On the one hand, they’re so hell-bent

on their ideologies, they literally don’t care who gets harmed by it — in this case,

seniors looking for long-term-care beds.

There is a direct ripple effect. We have hospitals that are overcrowded in most of

these areas that are listed. There are seniors waiting in an acute care bed for a

long-term-care bed. That pushes people into the hallway.

We have overcrowded hospitals. We have seniors getting inappropriate care. They don’t

require an acute care setting, so it’s not a great way for them to be spending their

days. And we have seniors desperate to just stay in their own home.

This government keeps saying: “Stay at home. It’s the best option.” The only way they

can afford that is by deferring their property taxes while they live on a fixed pension,

likely under the $50,000 threshold.

This government’s response to those seniors is to delay indefinitely all the seniors

long-term-care-home projects in the budget. Turn around and play with the numbers

on the property tax deferment program. Take away, if you live anywhere outside of

the 604, the $200 homeowner grant. Hit their pension income with an increase in taxation,

and tell everybody it’s no big deal even though it’s going to bring in half a billion

dollars.

For the odd senior that might like to still sew or knit, we’re going to tax those

materials as well with PST, because it doesn’t exist yet. For the senior trying to

save a few dollars, who doesn’t have a cell phone and isn’t worried about having 85

channels on TV because they just have basic cable, this government is going to go

and tax that as well. They’re going to add the PST.

How proud must those NDP members be with this budget. I look forward to their budget

speeches where they proudly stand up and explain to the seniors why this is actually

good for them. How proud they must feel.

[2:55 p.m.]

I know that probably went through their heads when they campaigned a year and a half

ago for the NDP: “I want to form government so that I can increase taxes to seniors,

so that I can slow down construction on long-term-care beds.” I bet you that went

through every single NDP member’s head.

We won’t hear any of that, of course. No, no. They won’t want to run offside, especially

if they’re on the back bench, with the Premier’s office. The cabinet members are going

to want to make sure they don’t run offside with the Premier, to be subject to a cabinet

shuffle. So they’ll stand up and defend the indefinite delay, the cancellation. “TBC”

is cancelled, to be cancelled.

They actually have the ability, as the government, to put a different year in, if

this was truly just a one-year delay in these projects to get a handle on pricing.

They have spent significant dollars.

The most shocking one is that they’ve done the same treatment to the Burnaby Hospital

redevelopment phase 2 and the B.C. Cancer centre there. Believe me, when I saw that,

I flipped straight through to see if the Kamloops cancer centre…. Although it’s been

designed poorly and is going to be the only one like this — not in a good way — in

North America, at least that one wasn’t put on hold quite yet.

The minister stood up in question period and took shots at this side, talking about

this riding and that riding had been represented for so many years…. Well, it’s interesting.

Last I checked, Burnaby has been represented by the NDP for a long time. Talk about

taking an area of this province for granted.

If you live in Burnaby, you should feel like you’ve been taken advantage of and taken

for granted. They didn’t just delay your hospital by a year. It was supposed to be

open in 2029, three years from now. We all know that is way too fast for a hospital

project that would just be getting underway. But they didn’t say 2030, 2031. No, they’ve

said “indefinite.”

It’s okay that other hospital projects, if you’re in Burnaby, have gone over budget,

have been delayed and can continue to proceed along. But if you live in Burnaby, if

you’re the NDP, they’re going to take your vote for granted. They’re going to assume

that you’ll tolerate this, that you’ll shrug it off, that you’ll re-elect NDP candidates

in that riding even though they’ve paused a $1.8 billion hospital phase 2 change,

in the same grouping that this minister says those projects have never been approved.

All I can take from that is that this minister thinks they haven’t actually approved

projects on page 64 with the bolded heading “Approved Projects with Adjusted Timelines.”

Now, we’re told we have to take what the government says…. The ministers of the Crown

would never mislead this House, so I will take that at face value — that the minister

was not misleading this House, which means these projects are not approved.

She has the audacity to stand up and, out of context, quote a member from our side

talking about the pretty obvious thing, about health and education spending in a budget,

when a government says that budgets are under strain.

I know the member. I know exactly what he meant. The minister knows exactly what he

meant too. She’ll try to torque it for political gain. That’s fine. That’s what we

do. But I would point out to the minister, the member from our side….

First off, she got the riding wrong. If you’re going to quote somebody, at least get

the riding correct.

Secondly, if we want to talk accuracy, last I checked — no disrespect to the member;

his riding is right next door to my riding — he’s not on Treasury Board. They are.

He’s not sitting at the cabinet table. They are. He wasn’t consulted on what should

or shouldn’t be in the budget. They were.

Last I checked…. I get asked this question doing the media circuit right now around

the budget, thinking that the opposition has some miracle solution to nine years of

NDP fiscal mismanagement and that we’re going to walk in, in government, and be able

to provide everybody the “what would you do instead” answer, and everything would

be solved in the first fiscal year of us forming government.

[3:00 p.m.]

It’s not going to happen. It’s going to take years to unwind this mess. It’s going

to take years to actually re-engage and get the private sector economy firing like

it should be. How underutilized it has been by this government, because all they want

to do is stack costs on.

But the minister decided to try to deflect by taking out of context what a member

on our side that quite literally has absolutely nothing to do with the budget creation

or implementation or development…. Somehow that absolves her, while she has literally

signed off on a document that, on page 64, has removed health care facilities out

of the budget — be it long-term care or be it the Burnaby Hospital redevelopment.

There’s also student housing that they have removed, as well, from UVic. We haven’t

even touched on that yet. All in the same area. So to the NDP, I say shame on all

of them for agreeing to a budget like this. Shame on all of them for trying to deflect

away by taking out of context what everybody knows — that health and education account

for a large percentage of the budget and thinking that that’s going to somehow turn

the tide of public opinion.

I don’t know if the members on the other side actually have seen the headlines and

what people are saying, but it’s not good. It’s not good at all. In fact, they “definitely

seem to manage to piss off everybody.” Not my words. That’s Marc Lee from that right-wing

think tank, the Centre for Policy Alternatives. That was his assessment. Business

groups have slammed it. Everybody has slammed it.

Seniors. After the first 20, 25 minutes of my speech yesterday — half an hour, whatever

it happened to be — the amount of messages I was receiving from people I’ve never

met, thanking me and our caucus for bringing a voice to the pressure that seniors

are feeling and how deserted they feel by this government, even before the budget

but even more so after this budget. The messages I’ve received from working families

that are offended by how this minister and this government have brushed off their

concerns about affordability with this budget.

The small business owner that has reached out to me and others in our caucus wondering

just how the heck they’re supposed to, essentially, pay an extra 7 percent for their

security guards now — security guards they’ve had to hire because this government

has created nothing but chaos on our streets and in our business districts. The government’s

solution to that is to tax them 7 percent on everything they’re spending on security.

Because this government loves to make tax forms even more complicated for small business,

when you go and hire a bookkeeper, we’re going to charge you 7 percent on that as

well. Then, when you take your bookkeeper’s work to the accountant so you can file

your year-end tax statements, we’re going to charge you 7 percent on that. If your

small business happens to be that you’re a homebuilder, guess what. When you go and

hire an architect, you’re going to pay 7 percent on that. If you need to do geotech

on the lot you’re building on, 7 percent on that.

Sure sounds like a government trying to tackle the affordability crisis in housing,

the same government that just cancelled student housing at UVic — once again, I would

suggest, taking the voters in that area of the province for granted. You know, the

last time the NDP government took all the voters for granted in this province, they

wound up with two seats in this House — two seats, including in Burnaby, including

where UVic is. Reading this budget, I can understand why they lost those seats.

[3:05 p.m.]

That’s the problem. We have a record deficit, record debt. We have a Finance Minister

that presented a budget yesterday, trying to paint a very rosy picture. None of it

actually lines up. I mentioned the 15,000 jobs that are supposedly going to be lost.

The reason I say “supposedly” is that the deficit in this year’s budget, based on

the government’s own projections this time last year, was supposed to be $10 billion.

Last year they said they were going to be on a road to fiscal responsibility, a road

to a balanced budget and a road to fiscal sustainability. That was last year’s budget,

talking about looking forward. None of that has come to pass.

Instead of a $10 billion deficit, which would still be bad but at least would be trending

downwards, they actually had the audacity to deliver a $13½ billion budget yesterday,

showing…. Guess what. Guess what’s going to happen next year, folks. Oh, the deficit

is going to drop to $10 billion. Have we ever heard that before from this government?

I’m not going to put a lot of faith in that projection.

They talk a good game about cutting 15,000 jobs out of this budget over three years,

the key word being “over three years,” because they won’t tell us what they’re going

to do in year 1. Apparently, they’ve developed a whole budget document of 174 pages,

with complex charts and data in the back and assumptions, all sorts of things, to

calculate out how to get to their expenditures and their revenue projections.

They’ve accomplished all of that, and there’s no targeted timeline for the 15,000

employees. They won’t tell us how many in any given year. They won’t tell us if they

have budgeted for it to be buyouts, if it’s going to be attrition or if it’s going

to be a combination. They say all the right stuff. They say it’s going to be that,

but they don’t actually say what the fiscal plan actually has been built into it for.

The Premier and the Finance Minister talk as if they don’t know where these 15,000

employees came from. Now, I don’t take issue with any of the employees, but the Premier

is talking like somehow the opposition hacked into the government’s Indeed work-share

account and did 15,000 job postings that the government was unaware of, and they went

ahead and filled these 15,000 positions. Then the Premier woke up right before the

budget and said: “Wow, where did all these people come from?”

But that’s not the case. The Premier had the password to the Indeed account, and they

kept hiring and hiring. I stood in this place in 2021, as the last speaker to the

budget that year for the opposition, and highlighted that the public sector was growing

too fast, and it was brushed aside by government. The Premier was the Attorney General

at the time. Every year after that, we have been shining a light. Member after member

in this place has been talking about the unsustainable growth.

It was just last year that BCGEU was warned about the unsustainability and what may

or may not happen, going into contract negotiations. Then this spring the same has

happened again. It’s not by the opposition, finally, but top-level bureaucracy is

now saying that this is not sustainable.

The Premier’s response has been one of shock and surprise, as if he hasn’t been there

this whole time, creating this mess in the first place. So when I get asked what I

would do differently, first off, I wouldn’t have created the mess that they’re in.

That’s a big first step, but now we do have a big mess to clean up, and there’s just

simply no way to do it quickly.

You have a government so desperate to try to change the channel that they want to

take something a colleague says out of context to make it sound like we’re shutting

down hospitals everywhere. It’s not just the Finance Minister that does that. I’ve

seen the Forests Minister do that in tweets, saying he’s out door-knocking and it’d

better be the NDP, or the B.C. Conservatives will start closing hospitals.

[3:10 p.m.]

How ridiculous of a statement is that? How ridiculous of a statement is it for a minister

of the Crown to try to say, with a straight face, to people at the door, to fearmonger

at the door, that we will be the ones closing hospitals when they are the ones closing

emergency rooms on a regular basis.

How ridiculous is it for a minister of the Crown to be saying that when, on page 64

of his own budget document, they’ve removed a whole hospital expansion in Burnaby

that the minister just said today was never approved, despite already spending $45

million on it?

Perhaps the NDP should worry a little bit more at their lack of performance than trying

to torque things to suit a narrative that is just false. The simple fact of the matter

is this budget fails to deliver. It doesn’t deliver for working families. It certainly

doesn’t deliver for seniors. It doesn’t deliver for small business. It doesn’t deliver

for the health care sector. It certainly doesn’t have any accountability around fiscal

management.

Here’s another one. “It’s another fiscal disaster for British Columbians.” That’s

from Tegan Hill, acting director of B.C. policy studies, Business in Vancouver . They also say: “The B.C. government’s disastrous fiscal position has led to higher

taxes, the last thing British Columbians need.”

Bridgitte Anderson, from the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade: “The cost alone to

service the debt is at $9 billion. How on earth is any credit-rating agency going

to look at this and not do another downgrade to British Columbia?” That’s $9 billion

if this government actually sticks to the three-year plan that they haven’t been able

to stick to all the way along. That means in a couple of years, it’s not $9 billion.

It’s going to literally be in double digits, debt-servicing, which leads to decisions

like cancelling long-term-care beds.

News flash for the other side. That’s closing health care facilities. Not doing the

Burnaby redevelopment phase 2 and the B.C. Cancer centre that goes with it? I guess

this government wants to get back to sending people to for-profit hospitals down in

the United States for cancer treatment like they had to do, while accusing us of two-tiered,

American-style health care.

Again, they never want to be judged on their own actions. They literally try to mirror

their actions back on us, as if we’re the ones doing it. We agreed that people should

get cancer care as fast as possible, and if it had to be down in the United States,

we agreed with the government when they had to do it. But it was the government that

created the situation for that to have to happen in the first place. It wasn’t the

opposition; it was the government.

Riding after riding in this budget the NDP are taking for granted. It’s interesting.

I get asked that at home a lot: “Maybe if you weren’t in opposition, would Kamloops

get more or not?” They’re actually laying the boots to their own ridings as well,

but not in a good way, because they can’t manage a budget.

Let’s look at spending decisions. We have a $1.8 billion Burnaby Hospital redevelopment

phase 2. If you go to transportation and if you check things like, I don’t know, the

Surrey-to-Langley SkyTrain station and project, which everyone agrees is needed and

we want, that’s behind schedule. It’s also $2 billion over budget.

Now, I often say: “Well, if they only managed that capital project properly, how many

schools could you build in Surrey and Langley for that $2 billion, that are desperately

needed? How many extra construction sites of employment does that create, while still

creating a public good?”

In this case, you can draw a direct line. That $2 billion would’ve enabled the Burnaby

Hospital to continue. But we have a government pointing their fingers back at the

opposition, as if we somehow had something to do with them not managing capital projects

properly. It’s laughable in the extreme.

[3:15 p.m.]

I see my good friend and colleague from Delta South here. It’s laughable in the extreme

that we have a budget that is cancelling long-term-care beds and a hospital, because

they just don’t want to own the fact that it’s delayed and over budget, but somehow,

magically, the Massey Tunnel is still slated for its original completion date and

still at $4 billion. They haven’t even adjusted the construction costs to that.

How exactly is the Massey Tunnel, given that we are already two months, almost three

months, into 2026, going to magically be built by 2030 for $4 billion when they don’t

even have the environmental assessment done?

Remember that environmental assessment that they need to make sure they get Indigenous

sign-off on? And under DRIPA…. I do hope that they ask all the way up the Fraser,

that all those nations that rely on salmon get asked what they think about dredging

and a tunnel being dropped in where the salmon swim right past. Or is it just within

50 kilometres? Is that what they consider adequate? We don’t know because they won’t

tell us.

That’s the problem with this budget. Unfilled promises and a full-on attack on seniors,

working families and small businesses.

Talk about accountability and the fiscal mismanagement in this. Just think that this

is a government that now is wanting to change not only the Merit Commissioner being

removed, under the guise of saying: “Well, they’ve never found an issue with our hiring,

so we’re good. We don’t need them….” Oh, yeah. That’ll keep things on the straight

and narrow then.

It is ridiculous to say that because the oversight the office actually created to

make sure there’s proper oversight is working. Maybe it’s because it’s something that’s

actually working properly in government. They’re not sure what to do about that, so

the easiest way for them is just to remove it.

The bigger…. Well, not bigger. They’re both big. The other transparency piece that’s

a big concern is…. They laughed yesterday. The government, especially their back bench,

was chuckling away when I pointed out that on page 64….

For the viewers at home, in the budget book, when you look at a project and it’s either

over budget or delayed or both, you read it, and not only does the name of it get

put in bold but if the year of completion is changing that gets put in bold, either

faster or slower. Let’s be honest though. Everything is slower with this government,

not faster. Then the project cost gets put in bold as well, if it’s changing.

When I highlighted that the approved projects with adjusted timelines…. None of them

are bolded. These are all the long-term care in the hospital that has been essentially

cancelled by this government. The year of completion has changed to be from 2027 to

TBC, but that’s not bolded. None of the costs that might change have been bolded.

None of it was bolded because the government actually didn’t want anyone to really

notice this. They wanted us just to skip past it. Why that’s important is because

in this budget, they also want to change the Budget Transparency and Accountability

Act. The pages I’m reading from right now are all projects valued at $50 million or

more, and the government finds it too onerous to have that transparency, where they

print a list of their projects with the completion dates and the cost listed.

Apparently, they would prefer this budget book be 170 pages instead of 174. What they’re

proposing to do with the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act change is that

any project that is under $100 million would not be in this book.

[3:20 p.m.]

They say: “Well, the $50 million was picked in the year 2000. It’s no longer a relevant

number. We’re going to do it, but we’re going to do it based on inflationary pressures

since the year 2000. We don’t actually want to put a dollar figure in the legislation.

We’ll leave that to regulation,” even though a very quick google calculation will

tell you that it’s approximately $100 million — anywhere from $94 million to $101

million.

This is why it matters. If you’re a parent with Burke Mountain secondary students

going there and your school was supposed to be open in 2025 or 2026, would you not

want to know that it’s now highlighted in bold for 2027 and if it’s a new build that

it’s now 2030 and $73 million? Under the new rules, you wouldn’t even know what the

timeline of that school is.

How do you plan, if you’re having a family and you have young kids already, which

neighbourhood you want to move into if you’re not even sure what year the school is

going to open or reopen?

Most schools are under the $100 million. Secondary schools aren’t for the most part,

but a lot of them are. Centennial Secondary was done in 2017, granted. It’s still

in this book for some reason. New West Secondary was $107 million.

This is the thing. If they want to clean up the process, why hide? Why focus on a

year talking about cuts having to come, make your legislation about getting rid of

a Merit Commissioner, with a Premier whose office is stacked with patronage appointments

and consultants? It makes one wonder what the cabinet actually does with the number

of consultants that are advising him outside of cabinet. Not wanting to shine a light

on the fact that a project might be delayed ties into even more lack of transparency

in this budget.

Then you have the $5 billion contingency fund, which last year was $4 billion. The

government won’t tell us what it gets used for. They’ll use very general terms. They’ll

say for fire, flood, emergencies. Legislatively, they could get that money whether

they had the contingency fund or not for fires and floods. But fine, they want a bit

of a placeholder, just to make sure.

It used to be around $1 billion. Then COVID hit. They identified $3.2 billion or $3.5

billion for COVID. COVID ended. They just got rid of the descriptor. Now, year after

year, they have a $4 billion or $5 billion slush fund. No accountability. No transparency.

They can spend it after the budget is passed and go around and make announcements

on projects.

For the ones over $50 million, they at least have to update us on the first- and second-quarter

updates, but not if it’s something under $50 million and not if it’s not capital,

if it’s just a grant or operational. So even less transparency there and a continuation

of budgeting literally billions of dollars because they just don’t want to be held

to what they said they were going to do. The Premier’s office wants the flexibility

to run around and hand out goodies.

There’s even more, folks. There’s even more. This budget in a time of supposed fiscal

restraint…. Remember, last year this government was hard-pressed to tell us where

they were going to find $300 million worth of savings on a $95 billion budget. This

budget has decided that now would be the great time, despite having a $5 billion contingency

slush fund, to create another $400 million slush fund.

This one is a pure, unadulterated slush fund. There is no other way to put it. It’s

$400 million controlled by the Treasury Board — i.e., the Premier’s office — to do

with it whatever they want.

[3:25 p.m.]

They can do low-interest loans, not to seniors that want to stay in their home on

deferred property taxes, apparently. They need to pay prime plus 2 percent. But if

you’re a friend and an insider to the Premier, you can get yourself a low-interest

loan out of this $400 million slush fund.

If you don’t even want to have it as a loan, you don’t want to pay it back despite

nominal interest being on it, you can just sweet-talk the cabinet and the Treasury

Board and the Premier’s office, and under this provision, they can just give you a

grant.

They can just give you a grant, because there are apparently not enough ways for government

to funnel money into pet projects out there. We need to create a whole new system

with a whole new pot of money, almost the same amount of money going into this pot

that they are taxing seniors with the income tax changes.

I’m sure the seniors are thrilled to know that actually what they’re funding with

the extra tax on their fixed-income pensions is a slush fund for the Premier to ramp

up for an election. I’m sure that’ll make the seniors feel really well.

But it’s at Treasury Board’s discretion. And here’s the irony. When John Horgan was

the Premier, guess who got fired from Treasury Board? The current Premier. The current

Premier was removed from Treasury Board by Premier John Horgan. That current Premier

is now setting up a $400 million slush fund that will be administered by Treasury

Board. Like, you can’t make this stuff up.

Oh, and they also changed, under the guise of COVID, that it was too onerous to get

full Treasury Board approval for things. So the chair or the vice-chair could just

sign off and then just inform Treasury Board at a later date of the decisions that

were made.

It’ll be interesting as we dive into that to find out if those rules still stand in

place or not. I remember questioning Selina Robinson at length about that — before

she was fired by this Premier — about the provisions and the extra powers that was

conferring on Treasury Board.

So there’s a lot that’s happening around Treasury Board in this. It’s bad enough they

have the $500 million InBC high-risk-investment scheme that they’re hard-pressed to

show any investments in. It’s had a lot of administrative costs paid out but hard-pressed

to show any real success out of that.

If they really wanted to have something around grants and boosting low-interest loans

for innovation and things, they already had an investment vehicle. They could have

put the money in there. But no, no, they need to create a stand-alone, brand-new $400

million slush fund for the Premier to play with as he tries to find an election window.

And let’s be clear. That’s exactly what this is.

So if you’re a senior at home, while you’re contemplating paying more tax — PST on

your basic cable, having to now pay PST on your land line, on any material you buy

to sew clothing or on any yarn you go to buy to knit clothing for your grandkids or

kids or just as a hobby to pass the time in your home that you’ve owned for 40 or

50 years that you thought would help you retire comfortably and safely, as the government

is always telling seniors to stay at home as long as possible….

You’re now finding out that the tax deferment plan you had for your property is now

going to have compounded interest and interest rates that went up by 4 percent overnight

without any warning or discussion. If you’re a senior that lives outside of the 604,

you’re going to be paying an extra $200 in property tax because the government has

removed a $200 property tax homeowner grant from you in this budget.

If you’re living on your fixed-pension income, you’re going to pay the brunt of the

half a billion dollars extra that they’re going to collect off of this tax change.

If you happen to be slightly above $51,000, they’re not even bumping that up so you

stay in the lowest tax bracket. You can pay extra on that because they froze the tax

brackets this year to collect an extra $600 million.

[3:30 p.m.]

If you’re one of those seniors, to you I say, if you ask why they need the money and

where it’s going, phone or email the Premier. It’s going to his slush fund of $400

million that him and Treasury Board will be able to give out in the form of low-interest

loans and grants.

If anyone thinks that it’s not all for grants, I have a bridge to sell you. But we

tried selling this government a bridge, and they rejected it for a tunnel. That bridge

actually was going to be $2.9 billion instead of the $3.5 billion in the budget. Fixed-price

contract, ready to sign. This government could’ve signed it when they took office.

Instead, they cancelled it. That was 2017. A ten-lane bridge with room for high-speed

transit on it and $600 million under budget.

What do we have instead? We have six long-term-care homes and a hospital being cancelled

in this budget, because they say they don’t know how to actually spend capital dollars

wisely or effectively. There’s your contrast between how these two sides of the House

do things.

Would’ve been open, but this government’s response instead was actually to spend money

on the Steveston overpass. Despite warnings, they forged ahead to do it. Yes, those

improvements are needed, but the improvements they’re doing right now are being done

at such an elevation it makes a bridge impossible without ripping that whole interchange

out again. They did that knowingly.

If you’re going to make that decision, get on with the tunnel already. If you were

going to do that Steveston interchange and lock it in, that design and the tunnel,

just get on with it. You’re the government. Waive the environmental assessment at

that point. You’ve committed yourself to a tunnel, and all you’ve done is created

gridlock.

Now, arguably the new tunnel would have the same lanes for rush hour heading in one

direction that the current tunnel does, so I’m not sure how much it’s going to ease

traffic. Kind of like when they just opened the Pattullo Bridge and replaced an 80-year-old,

four-lane bridge to account for 80 years’ worth of growth and any future growth in

the Lower Mainland over, I’m assuming, the next 80 years. You would hope that bridge

lasts that long. Their answer was to replace the four-lane bridge with a four-lane

bridge.

Oh, and by the way — and I have a former mayor of Surrey sitting behind me — they

also said to Surrey: “Oh, and any of those interchanges and on-ramps and everything

you wanted on your side of the river that was in the original plan, you’re now on

the hook for it. Surrey taxpayers can pay for that if they want it. We’ll just span

the river, and that’s it. You’re left on your own.”

When the minister says that this is a budget that is about refocusing and making efficient

infrastructure decisions and infrastructure spending, first off, what took them so

long? Secondly, why did you pick health care, of all things, and seniors health care

in particular?

I thought it was bad enough earlier in the year. Again, it wasn’t our side closing

maternity wards down in B.C. It was the NDP. Emergency rooms, maternity wards, pediatric

wards shutting down under the NDP, and they have the audacity to go knock on doors

and tell people we’re the ones that are going to be closing whole hospitals down.

I thought it was a bad enough full-on attack on women’s health over the summer and

into the fall as we saw the crisis unfold with ob-gyn services across B.C. Again,

that’s not just to do with giving birth, with maternity. That’s about a wide range

of women’s health issues when you’re talking about an ob-gyn. In fact, the vast majority

of women, the least interaction they’ll have with an ob-gyn in their life is while

they’re pregnant. It’s all the other medical needs that women have.

I thought it was bad enough that this government had turned their back on women’s

health as badly as they had. They’re now apparently turning their back on seniors

care and seniors housing and seniors affordability. The government that’s supposed

to understand how pensions work seems to think that seniors are living the life of

Riley with their fixed-pension incomes and they can pay some more. As the minister

said, it’s minor. Well, it’s enough money to fund the Premier’s slush fund.

[3:35 p.m.]

The mental health budget, $3 million cut from that, again, from a government that

will turn around and try to lecture this side of the House on what we would or wouldn’t

cut. I’ll tell you, if we didn’t need to find the $400 million slush fund for the

Premier, you could fund a whole lot of these cuts that I’m talking about right now.

You could fund $3 million for mental health that’s being cut. You could help small

businesses with their crime and safety. You could do all of that. That’s about making

a decision of prioritization of scarce tax dollars.

“This budget’s tax increases make B.C. a less competitive place to do business,” says

Ryan Mitton, CFIB’s director of legislative affairs for B.C. “Small businesses are

telling us it’s simply too costly to grow right now, and new taxes, like adding PST

to professional services, do not help. Nearly two-thirds of B.C. business owners tell

us they would not recommend starting a business today.” That’s the business environment

that’s been created by this government. They have completely ignored the pleas from

small business with this budget.

Again, if we just focus in on the $400 million slush fund that the Premier demanded

be in this budget…. You could do a lot of good with $400 million in all of these smaller

pockets of money that are going to feel real pain, that are helping real people in

their communities. But that wasn’t the decision and the choice of this government.

They turned around, and the Premier’s office said: “I need a $400 million slush fund.

And by the way, I want to make sure there’s no oversight of people I hire, so let’s

get rid of the Merit Commissioner as well. I don’t want to be encumbered, heading

into an election season, on who I hire for what purpose and who I give money to for

what reason.”

Crime and public safety — 250 police were promised in 2023. Government dines out on

that a lot. We’re hard-pressed to find them anywhere. They don’t show up on any of

the rolls. The numbers haven’t changed. The Public Safety budget sees a $4 million

cut this year.

Again, if the Premier could have only made do with a $396 million slush fund, we would

have had the Public Safety Ministry not need a cut. But I guess he doesn’t do well

with $396 million to help friends and insiders. He needs $400 million.

It’s wonderful language around bringing forward more resources on the extortion file

— desperately needed, fully supported on this side. Again, we asked what took them

so long. But it’s desperately needed and welcomed.

But are there any extra resources in this budget going to that? If there are, again,

that’s supported. But then in the interest of transparency, tell these other communities

what resources and what priorities are being walked back. If you haven’t increased

the budget and you’re trying to expand into the extortion in a meaningful way, in

a real way, something has got to give.

Imagine if the Premier, instead of asking for a $400 million slush fund for his friends

and insiders, had stood up in Surrey with this budget and said: “We have $400 million

to fight the extortion crisis.” Imagine if he had done that. It’s all about choices.

Maybe he’ll have a friend, an insider, that gets to his ear and that’s how it turns

out to be after all. Or maybe he could just take some of the $5 billion contingency

slush fund and push it into that.

[3:40 p.m.]

This government is trying to make it sound like they are the bastions of wise capital

decisions and wise capital spending and that’s why they’ve cancelled six long-term-care

homes, a hospital and a student residence at UVic. That’s what they want you to believe.

Let’s just look at the numbers since 2017, shall we? Since 2017, they are over budget

by $17.3 billion on $80 billion worth of projects. It’s a 25 percent cost overrun.

They are also behind schedule. When I first saw this number, I thought it was days

behind schedule. I thought: “Oh, maybe it’s just days behind

schedule on average.”

Because that would work out to be that most projects are about a half a year behind

schedule. So I thought: “Okay, well, that seems reasonable.” Then I had to recheck

with staff and recheck with staff.

No, the construction delays on those projects…. Remember, this is in the backdrop

of a government saying they have cancelled these long-term-care housing projects because

they’re going to reshape how they deliver capital projects now. Those delays are 158

years — 158 years.

This is a government that had to pass legislation recently saying they’re going to

fast-track schools. They still haven’t come up with the regulations on the fast-tracking

legislation. They can’t point to one school project that has been started under those

bills’ provisions.

They said they needed Bill 15 to fast-track major projects, but they still haven’t

got the regulations for those in place eight months later.

They said they needed Bill 7, to run roughshod over everything and actually override

every law of the land. Let’s not forget that in Bill 7, this government, under the

guise of the threat of the United States, wanted to change the legislation that they

said could override every law, including what we’re doing right now. They would not

have to present a budget. That’s what they said they needed to fight the tariff war.

They had to back off from that.

When we talk about lack of transparency and power grab and concern about things like

$400 million slush funds and $5 billion contingency slush funds and getting rid of

a Merit Commissioner, all within the same budget, that’s on a backdrop of saying:

“Don’t worry about it, the tax changes really aren’t that significant….”

Oh, by the way, in question period, despite the fact that page 64 says these projects

have been approved and have been in previous years’ budgets, we have a Finance Minister

that stands up and says: “Those projects haven’t been approved. We haven’t spent that

$100 million on those projects already.” The opposition is making it up, apparently.

We’re just making this all up. Every time we read from their budget book we’re making

things up.

I can remember asking for three years for them to point to the page number that the

Surrey hospital was in — three years. They couldn’t, because it wasn’t in the budget.

It’s a simple request: is it in the budget, or is it not in the budget?

Now, the Surrey hospital would have been over the $50 million threshold, so at least

that would have had to show up. But it wasn’t in the budget, not for three years.

It eventually made it in the budget.

That’s the other piece of transparency — the fact that they want to remove the threshold

to actually report what’s going on in their own budget.

We have borrowing out of control. We have a systemic operational deficit that is unsustainable.

Not by my words, although I have said that for years; by their own head of the public

service.

Again, these are government documents and government voices saying this. This isn’t

the opposition. This is the Centre for Policy Alternatives, which is a well-known

and respected — you may not agree with them, but they are respected — policy think

tank, the Centre for Policy Alternatives.

There’s a Fraser Institute on the right side of the equation. There’s the Centre for

Policy Alternatives on the left side of the equation. Each has a set of economists

and policy people that have a slant on life, absolutely, but they’re good at what

they do. They know their stuff. They’re qualified.

Their own senior economists — I’ll paraphrase this part — say that no one’s happy

with this budget. It’s junk. It’s a junk budget.

[3:45 p.m.]

We hear about all the great and wonderful things this government is going to do in

education. I don’t know if we should say they’re being proficient or what the new

language is. I can never remember. My kids are out of school right now, so I didn’t

have to deal with the “proficient,” “meeting” or “exceeding” or whatever all that

language is. I came through on letter grades. Most parents I know would like to see

a letter grade, actually know what’s going on in the school a little bit.

Let’s see. In the election, in 2024, every K-to-3 class was going to have a teacher

assistant. That was the Premier’s commitment that he walked away from immediately.

Then, last year, there was supposedly new money coming into the school system to help

support for kids.

This year the language is very similar, and the dollar figures are very similar, so

we’re a little unsure whether this is all new money or just a repeat of the existing

program because they’ve actually failed to staff and provide those supports.

In the backdrop of that, we have numeracy levels dropping. We have literacy levels

dropping. We have more and more kids going undiagnosed and struggling in classes,

which is not fair to that child, and it’s certainly not fair to the rest of the class

and other young kids in those classes, because they can’t get access to get a proper

diagnosis and proper treatment in place to help them.

The time for those words has long since passed from this government. Those words do

not provide solace to the parents.

Then, in the backdrop of all of that — kids struggling, parents struggling to try

to even get a diagnosis — this government has the bright idea to cut funding in this

budget to kids with autism. Not all of them. It’s good that they’re expanding which

kids can actually access help and support — kids with FASD and other neurodivergent

issues. I support those kids getting help, absolutely, and their families. But give

them the help they need. Don’t take it away from someone else that’s already getting

it.

That’s what this government’s solution is in this budget. Take away from one set of

kids to give to a different set of kids. Put the whole system into chaos again with

a cohort of kids that can least tolerate that type of change in their lives, that

can least tolerate a different care worker coming to help them instead of the one

they’ve bonded with.

We all know this. I know the NDP knows this, yet they’ve agreed to do the exact opposite

in their budget.

Imagine if the Premier would loosen up his $400 million slush fund and give that to

kids with autism and other neurodivergent challenges and their families. They always

say: “Well, where would you find the money?” Well, that’s where I’d find the money.

I wouldn’t have a $400 million…. I don’t think anyone on this side of the House would

have a $400 million slush fund with a budget like this, let alone ever. It just wouldn’t

happen.

We have people in this chamber right now that were former mayors — Abbotsford South,

Surrey. I’m probably missing one or two. We didn’t have slush funds as mayors. We

still managed to run our cities.

The Premier doesn’t seem to know how to get ready for an election when he’s in government

without a slush fund. It’s just wrong. It’s a large enough number that it’s wrong

on so many fronts.

If they just kept the contingency slush fund to $4 billion, just $4 billion, like

they did last year, they would have another billion dollars. There’s $1.4 billion

right now — found.

Even if you didn’t do anything with those other programs I’ve just suggested, you

would be down to a $12 billion deficit. Down to. That would still, by the way, be

a record deficit — $12 billion.

[3:50 p.m.]

When the minister stands up and admonishes us and the Premier stands up and admonishes

us and says that they made hard decisions and the hard choices and that this is a

serious budget and they’re doing the hard work….

Really? Are you really doing the hard work? Do you want a victory lap that the Premier’s

office for once had a budget cut in it of $1 million?

Last year they said they needed $4 billion because they needed to solve all the public

sector contracts. Fair enough. That’s how it gets done. You don’t want to show your

hand in negotiations.

They also said: “All of that $4 billion slush fund will be spent in this fiscal year.”

We’re not sure where, because they never give a proper accounting of it until it’s

long since been spent. But because they haven’t actually solved the public sector

job issue, they’re now using the same language in this year’s contingency funds to

solve the rest of the contracts.

Last year they needed $4 billion to fight forest fires and floods and to complete

negotiations with the whole public service. Despite having very few contracts in place,

they say: “All that money has gone now, and we need another $5 billion to solve fires,

floods and the public service.” Again, choices.

If you’re a mayor in a small community or a large community with a lot of interface,

you’re not very happy these days. It’s dry. There’s not much snow. There might be

snow up in the alpine. Certainly, when I drive through the highways, there’s snow

up higher in a lot of areas. Not a lot of snow down by where people are living in

this province right now. It’s dry. It has the potential to be a very bad fire year.

Logan Lake. Again, the member who was miscontextualized by the Finance Minister —

that’s in his riding. It got praised for its FireSmart, got praised for how it dealt

to save all those homes in advance of a fire that we all knew one day would rip towards

Logan Lake.

The government was all too happy to stand with the mayor of Logan Lake, in all the

photo ops they possibly could, to talk about the value of FireSmart.

I used FireSmart when I was the mayor of Kamloops. We thinned out neighbourhoods that

were in the interface. It’s effective. Communities have used it all over. West Kelowna

could desperately use FireSmart.

What’s this government’s priority? A $400 million slush fund for the Premier or fund

FireSmart? I know that those viewing at home probably think: “Well, of course they

would fund FireSmart. It’s only $25 million a year or somewhere in that range.” Nope.

Despite a forest sector in decline, despite people that fell trees and remove trees

desperate for work and communities desperate for fire protection in advance of a fire

hitting their community, this government’s priority was to make sure the Premier had

a slush fund, and communities can just figure it out on their own.

But don’t worry. Once the fire starts to encroach on that community and threatens

people’s livelihoods and threatens people’s livestock and threatens people’s homes,

this government will use their $5 billion contingency fund to throw literally buckets

of money into the flames of the fire to fight it then.

Then they’ll turn around and they’ll blame a bad fire season on why they have such

a deficit. They do that every year. Every time there’s a quarterly update, they blame

the fire season for why they have a deficit. It doesn’t matter that they’d already

budgeted for that deficit. They just blame it on that. It doesn’t matter that taxes

are lower, that the economy is softening, that millworkers are out of work. None of

that matters. Blame it on Mother Nature, and don’t take any responsibility for not

doing any preparations whatsoever.

I’ll touch on one last area before I finish up here, because it is a concern. Coming

from Kamloops, we have an economy that is very focused on natural resource development

still. We have the largest spend for the mining industry of any community in the province

by far. We have all of the big service groups — the Finnings, the Brandts, all of

those.

[3:55 p.m.]

Kal Tire has the big tire retread plant there, so they get those massive haul truck

tires done in Kamloops. We have a lot of spinoff for mining. Eighty percent, probably,

of Highland Valley Copper employees live in Kamloops. We have New Gold, although there

were some job losses there recently. We have the Kruger pulp mill. We have the Tolko

plywood mill. We have a mill in Savona.

The Kruger pulp mill helps Interfor at Adams Lake go. It’s not as many mills, because

there are not as many mills open anymore, but it helps a large region of mills stay

in business, because they take what would otherwise be a cost item to that mill —

the chips, the hog and the sawdust — and they use it.

We are a very resource-dependent community, despite our size, but we also have a thriving

tech sector, life sciences, a university, government jobs and courthouses — all of

that which goes with being a hub city but not a lot of population within 45 minutes

of us. It draws a lot of that in. We kind of straddle both worlds in Kamloops in terms

of that.

What I see in this budget, from a government that has completely walked away from

the forest sector, is shocking to me. Absolutely disgusting, frankly — the lack of

action in this budget. Again, these are all this government’s actions.

The Forests Minister wanted to try to say in question period that it was all Donald

Trump’s fault. Those duties have been known for years as coming our way. It was John

Horgan in 2017 that said he was going to Washington to solve the softwood dispute.

Instead, he came back and we ceded the chair of the softwood panel to one of the maritime

provinces.

That’s the NDP’s history on this file, starting from when they took office. I’m not

saying it could have necessarily been solved, but that was the big promise. That was

the commitment.

In 2022, we were still collecting $1.8 million off of the forest sector. This government,

in their three-year fiscal plan that year, showed the next year was going to be $800

million and the next year was going to be $800 million. They’d already planned for

a $1 billion drop, back in 2022, of revenues from the forest sector.

In that same year, they had the audacity to promise people that they would add 30,000

jobs to the forest sector. Staring at a budget that showed a drop of $1 billion of

revenue coming in from forestry, this government made the commitment and the promise

that 30,000 new jobs would be created in forestry. One would think that meant that

they were going to take significant and meaningful action, over that fiscal year,

to change that drop in revenues.

The next year, the only number in the natural resource lines of income that did not

change was forestry. It stayed at $800 million, and it did for the subsequent year

as well. Everything else moved around — global markets, you name it. Everything else

moved up a bit or down a bit. They kept forestry at $800 million while still promising

30,000 new jobs. And then again. Then it was $600 million.

Now it’s $500 million in this budget, and we’ve lost 15,000 forest sector jobs in

the same time frame that they promised to add 30,000 private sector jobs in the forest

sector. That’s this government’s track record, just from 2022, just from when this

Premier became the Premier — big promises, nothing in the financial plan to back it

up and trying to point the fingers back to something that may or may not have happened

in 2002.

[4:00 p.m.]

That’s the track record of this government, of this minister, when it comes to the

forestry file, in this budget. This government has walked away from forestry so badly,

while they talk about ramping up our natural resource sector to try to grow our economy.

They did not say the word “forestry” once in the speech yesterday — not on