The House met at 1:01 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Tributes

Rob Joyce

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : I rise to notify the House of the passing of an incredible leader in the human rights

struggle for gay and lesbian people in British Columbia, a man who I got to know well

as the MLA for the West End, but indeed just out and about in the community because

he was always interested in helping young people make their dreams come true. I’ve

known him for over 20 years: Rob Joyce.

Rob was born September 23, 1948, in a small outport of Newfoundland. He arrived in

Vancouver in the ’70s with another friend, Don Hann, and others welcoming him. But

he stood up from those early ages for equality.

He was kissing his boyfriend at Humphrey’s in the Denman Inn in Vancouver when he

was kicked out for kissing, for being in love. He took that through what then existed

of the human rights process, and it did not succeed because sexual orientation was

not protected.

Later, he served as a social worker, serving our province, working with youth. Unfortunately,

at the time, homophobia was used against him to force him from his job. He took the

government of the day to court again and again, but because employment protections

for his sexual orientation, for being gay, did not exist at the time, he was not able

to achieve justice.

But what he did do was that he helped galvanize a community that got bigger and bigger

to stand up for human rights, to stand up for love, to stand up for equality in employment,

in services, in the human rights code. He achieved that success in the long run that

he was not able to achieve for himself. He kept fighting for everyone else.

He passed away May 7. He was an out, proud realtor. Anyone that bought a condo in

the West End would have known of him because he served so well as a realtor, as a

community builder, as a human rights advocate.

I just want to send my love out to everyone who knew him, everyone whose lives have

been improved because of him.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M246 — Small Farms Act

David Williams presented a bill intituled Small Farms Act.

David Williams : I move that the bill intituled Small Farms Act, of which notice has been given in

my name on the order paper, be introduced and read for the first time now.

I rise today to introduce the Small Farms Act. Across British Columbia, small farms

are family livelihoods, local food producers, community anchors and an important part

of our food security. Too often, the rules governing agricultural land do not reflect

the realities facing small producers.

[1:05 p.m.]

This bill gives small farms and small farming cooperatives clearer, practical tools

to remain viable while keeping the primary use of agricultural land focused on farming.

The bill defines a small farm as one with annual growth revenues not exceeding $750,000,

derived from primary production or on-site processing. It also recognizes small farming

cooperatives, allowing small producers to work together on production, processing

and marketing.

A key purpose of this bill is to support value-added agriculture. Many small farms cannot survive on primary production alone. They need

the ability to make jam from berries, cheese from milk, cider from apples or other

farm-based products that help them earn a sustainable income.

The bill also recognizes limited agritourism as a permitted use, providing that primary use remains farming and the activity is

directly connected to the farm’s products or practices. That means farm tours, educational visits, tastings, workshops and similar activities

that help connect British Columbians with the people who grow their food.

At the same time, the bill protects agricultural land. For farms, agritourism accommodation

would be restricted to three sleeping units and limited for seasonal or short-term use. The intent is farm support, not turning agricultural land into commercial accommodations.

Finally, the bill requires the minister to publish an annual food production report outlining progress towards increasing B.C.-grown food and strategies to strengthen provincial food production capacity.

This bill is about practical support for small farms, stronger local food systems and responsible stewardship of agricultural land. It gives farmers the room to innovate

while keeping farming at the centre.

I look forward to the consideration of this bill by the House.

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

Motion approved.

David Williams : I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Sunita Dhir : I seek a leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Sunita Dhir : Today we have a very special group in the House. They just hosted us a beautiful lunch,

an all-party lunch. And today I’m delighted to welcome Theresa McCurry, CEO; Brian Davies, board chair; Randy Meszaros, director; and Shona Lawson, registrar; and their colleagues. They’re from Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of British Columbia.

ASTTBC plays such an important role in supporting applied science and engineering technology

professionals across British Columbia while helping uphold strong professional standards

across the sector. Their work also helps internationally trained professionals navigate

pathways to meaningful careers and contribute their skills and expertise to communities

across our province.

Thank you for your leadership and for the important work you do across British Columbia.

Please join in welcoming Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of British

Columbia aboard.

Orders of the Day

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

In the Douglas Fir Room,

Section A, I call continued committee stage on Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

And in the Birch Room,

Section C, I call continued committee stage on Bill 20, the K'ómoks Treaty.

[1:10 p.m.]

The House in Committee,

Section B.

The committee met at 1:11 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance

(continued)

The Chair : I call the committee to order. We are continuing estimates for the Ministry of Finance.

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $381,863,000 (continued) .

Peter Milobar : Does the minister feel that this year’s three-year fiscal plan lays out the start

of a pathway to a balanced budget? How confident is she, if that’s the case?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Could I just ask the member to state the last part of the question? I heard “Does

the minister feel that this three-year fiscal plan starts us on the way to balance?”

but I didn’t catch the next part.

Peter Milobar : If the minister feels that this three-year fiscal plan is her pathway to a balanced

budget, how confident is she in this plan, if that is the case?

Hon. Brittny Anderson : May I seek leave to make an introduction, please?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Brittny Anderson : Today, I have the incredible opportunity to introduce to this House Michelle Mungall,

of course, the former Minister of Energy and Mines and the former Minister of Jobs.

She is here today as we’re celebrating the naming of Site C as the John Horgan dam.

Michelle had that file. She had the very difficult decision to make, alongside Premier

John Horgan, at that time to continue on with that dam. It just demonstrates how sometimes

we have to make really difficult decisions in government to do the right thing for

British Columbians.

Will this House please make Michelle Mungall feel most welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Thank you to the member for the question. This three-year fiscal plan does get us

moving in the correct direction towards a pathway. In fact, it is a pathway to balance.

The reality is that to move more aggressively to reaching a non-deficit circumstance

would require very significant cuts that would impact the core services for British

Columbians.

[1:15 p.m.]

What Budget 2026 does is balance two things, do two things at once. It approaches

the difficult circumstance of reducing deficit gradually by reducing the public service

by 15,000 people. It also makes moderate changes to our tax system to increase revenues.

And there’s $3.5 billion in efficiency savings across the three-year plan.

On one hand, we’re doing that work. On the other hand, we’re ensuring that we’re protecting

services for British Columbians by continuing to invest in our health care, continuing

to invest in education. You see very specific investments in helping grow the economy

— $400 million for a strategic investment fund; $283 million specifically for skills

training.

What we know is that in order to address the challenge of debt and the deficit circumstance

that we and governments across Canada and across the world, frankly, because of the

circumstances of this trade war and deteriorating economic circumstances…. We know

that we must also grow the economy. That is why you see our government being so incredibly

focused on ensuring that we are building out major projects. In fact, of the first

major projects identified by the federal government to move forward to the major projects

office, 40 percent of them are from British Columbia.

In

summary, we are taking measures to bring down the deficit over time in a way that

will not destroy our valued public health care system, that will protect education.

We’re also making changes to ensure that we’re stepping the deficit down. And deeply,

deeply importantly, we’re devoted on growing our economy.

Peter Milobar : The minister has presented three budgets to this House, I believe. What fundamentally….

I believe it was the ’24-25 budget, but maybe I’m incorrect on that. Two? All right.

What fundamentally has changed in the creation of this budget document, this three-year

fiscal plan, to give the minister such confidence that this is now the pathway to

a balanced budget as opposed to previous three-year fiscal plans? Has there been a

structural change in how things are calculated? Has there been a structural change

on projections? Has there been new modelling done that wasn’t previously done?

What exactly leads the minister to have such confidence that this year, this three-year

fiscal plan is the plan that the public can take faith that the government has a path

to get to a balanced budget?

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Budget ’26-27 is really my first budget as Finance Minister. What I mean by that is

that I did do a prior budget. I was put in position at the end of November, and the

budget got close to lockdown about six to eight weeks later. It was a very truncated

timeline on which to make my mark on a budget. This year we had more time to consider

how we can accept and deliver on the Premier’s guidance that we need to focus deeply

on deficit reduction.

Just to share some numbers with the member, on average, generally, year over year,

ministry spending had been growing at about 7 percent. The Premier provided instruction

letters to all ministers that they were to work closely with the Minister of Finance

on finding efficiencies and bringing down their spending. I’ll share that as opposed

to the 7 percent, in 2026 we have budgeted for a 4.1 percent increase, instead of

that 7 percent. In ’27, it’s 1.4 percent, and in ’28, it’s 1.8 percent.

We need to continue to do the efficiency work, and that work is ongoing. It’s important

to note that by making careful choices and reinvesting savings into protecting core

services, new funding in Budget 2026 is at levels more comparable to pre-pandemic

Budget 2020.

Peter Milobar : The question, though, was: what structural changes were made in the development of

the budget, compared to previous budgets? Has there been a new way of modelling? Has

there been a new way to come with revenue projections, expense projections, risk assessment?

What, fundamentally, has changed in this year’s budget creation?

I can appreciate the minister maybe wasn’t there, front and centre, with the creation

of others, but certainly, the staff — if not in the room, watching on TV and providing

answers back into this room — were.

What exactly has changed to provide such confidence for the minister that this year’s

three-year fiscal plan is actually an accurate projection of not just this year but

of the following two years in this fiscal plan, compared to previous years?

[1:25 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The member is asking specifically about structural changes. The structural changes

in Budget 2026 are a reduction of 15,000 people in the workforce over the fiscal,

as well as moderate tax changes, which are structured in for year after year, and,

importantly, the investments and growth that we’re devoted to in the economy, which

is reflected in some of the investments that we’re making in Budget 2026.

Peter Milobar : Well, no, I wasn’t asking about specific plans or structural. I was asking about the

specifics of how calculations are done, projections are done, revenue projections

are created, risk is calculated, and it doesn’t sound like any of that has changed.

It’s not the minister that’s making any of those calculations. It survives from minister

to minister because it’s the ministry doing those risk calculations around natural

gas royalties, housing starts, expense projections of the cost of the public service,

expense projections on capital projects. That sounds like it has not changed.

Why it matters is that this is supposed to be a three-year plan for the public, and

the government wraps themselves in. Every time, the government wraps themselves in.

When they want to, they talk about some project or some spending, and they use the

three-year window in the plan, even though the spending is not until year 3. They

make it sound like it’s happening in the here and the now for people.

Then they talk about: “This is our pathway to deficit reduction.” The minister wants

us to believe that we’re going to go from $13.3 billion to $12.1 billion to $11.4

billion deficits over the course of this three-year plan. To the average person, that

sounds like deficit reduction.

Here’s the problem with that. Plan ’24-25 — the ’26-27 deficit projected for this

year was $6.288 billion. Now, revenues projected that year were $86 billion; this

year, $85 billion. Revenue hasn’t actually changed that significantly. Spending share

has. It has gone from $92 billion projected to $98 billion projected, and we get a

$13.3 billion deficit.

Maybe it got caught up in Budget ’25-26 instead. What does this say? Oh, this year

we should have seen a deficit of $10.2 billion. So the government had already overshot

the runway by $4 billion. The very next year, in their projection: revenues, $85.715

billion. This year’s budget, $85.523 billion. Revenue doesn’t seem to be the problem

for government. They seem to actually estimate that pretty darn accurately.

Let’s look at the expenditure, shall we? So $95.918 billion in the previous projection

for this current fiscal. Instead, this government is saying how they’re really finding

efficiencies in spending and discipline. They are now spending $98.8 billion in the

year that they told us we’re finding efficiencies.

They haven’t stuck to their own plan, and instead of a $10.2 billion deficit, we now

see a $13.3 billion deficit. Why that matters is that even next year, on last year’s

fiscal plan, we should be projecting a $9.8 billion deficit, but this government is

already saying it’s going to be $12.1 billion.

Year after year, this government has not been able to contain its spending. The minister

is trying to tell us that this is the year that they have magically done that, even

though they’ve increased spending by over $3 billion from what they projected just

last year, this same time last year. It has resulted in a deficit $3 billion higher.

What a shock. Spending is up $3 billion, and so is the deficit.

[1:30 p.m.]

How can the government claim any certainty or any confidence in next year’s deficit

and the following year’s deficit when just two years ago, it was supposed to be $6.288

billion this year, not doubling at $13.3 billion?

Can the minister explain why the projections of spending over the last three fiscal

plans have been so wildly off that when we get to this current fiscal plan, it is

literally $6 billion more than they were projecting just two years ago?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Thanks to the member for the question.

A couple of things I want to say. The first is that I’m committed to not re-baselining

the numbers in Budget 2026 and the fiscal plan. The measures that we have taken, the

structural changes that we have taken: a reduction by 15,000 of our workforce, moderate

changes to our taxation, the changing of timelines or re-pacing of some of our capital

plan and $3.5 billion of efficiency, more efficiency work underway.

[1:35 p.m.]

I do feel confident that the numbers expressed in the fiscal plan ’26 and the following

two years will, in fact, be a good representation of where we are going and the numbers

we expect to see.

There have been very, very significant pressures on government here in British Columbia

but truly across Canada and around the world, not only from the pandemic, the supply

chain challenges that happened at that time but the impact of that. The increase in

inflation and interest rates had an impact that has driven up costs to build, and

one of the places in Canada where the most building is occurring is here in British

Columbia.

We continue to provide the services that British Columbians expect from us. We have

expanded health care facilities, for example. And yes, those costs have come in higher

because of the circumstances that I’ve described.

We did see growth outside of the fiscal plan, but the structural changes that we’ve

made in Budget 2026 and the work that we’re doing with every ministry to reduce spending

will be reflected in the fiscal plan, as planned.

Peter Milobar : I cannot believe that we’re standing here debating fiscal plan ’26-27, asking where

things have gone off the rails from ’24-25 to ’25-26, leading into ’26-27, and the

minister’s deflection answer is COVID. That is shocking to me.

Can the minister, then, explain just how much of the expense line item on page 1 of

the

summary, budget and fiscal plan ’26-27 to ’28-29, based on that last answer, is

tied directly to the cost of project overruns and not operational costs instead?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The member opposite asked a question, whether on page 1 we can see a breakdown of

expense growth by operation and capital. That’s not expressed on page 1. I think the

member knows that. But on page 166, to use an example, there’s a fairly comprehensive

chart that shows the growth that we’re experiencing in some key areas.

I’ll highlight Health. If you look back to actuals in 2020, total Health was at $25.6

billion,

whereas moving forward to today we’re at $40 billion, average growth at 6.7

percent. This really does reflect some of the challenges that we’re experiencing,

Health being the largest pressure on us.

That’s by and large due to an aging population with increased health demands, as well

as a growing population, both of which have added to our challenge of ensuring that

we provide quality health services to all British Columbians.

Peter Milobar : My point being the minister was blaming this deficit, this record deficit, this doubling

of a deficit from projections just two years ago on the increased costs of capital

spending. That’s not what it is. It’s operational expense.

When we look at the fiscal plan for this year and we have $85 billion of revenue coming

in, and last year we projected $85 billion of revenue coming in, it’s the expense

side that the government has a problem with. It’s the spending side that the government

has a problem with.

The minister insists that in this year’s fiscal plan, they’ve got their spending under

control. They’ve reigned everything in. Can the minister explain how going from $95

billion, almost $96 billion, projected last year to almost $99 billion this year is

a reining in of spending?

I won’t even go back to the previous plan that should have only been $92.5 billion

in this fiscal year. Was the government unaware of contractual obligations last year

in their three-year fiscal plan? Were they unaware of what they might have to have

for wage settlements and contract settlements as they were projecting forward? How

exactly did the government get caught surprised by operational expenses in the span

of about a ten-month period from when the budget would have presented last year and

they were developing the next year’s budget?

It’s suddenly a $3 billion cost escalation on what they ought to have known would

have been contractual operational commitments for government that they had already

made. How was that possible in that short of a time frame to have that big of a discrepancy

of what you were projecting to be spending versus what you then budget for spending?

Let’s remember. We are now standing here in May. This budget would have been created

January at the latest, which means these projections were January, and by the following

January they were completely out of whack.

The minister’s response is to blame COVID. I would point out to the minister that

coming out of COVID, this government had a $6 billion surplus until a certain Premier

took over in office. So we might want to try different reasoning for why, five years

post-COVID, we are running record deficits.

Again, I’m trying to ascertain, and this whole line of questioning has been around,

what has fundamentally changed in the modelling the government is using so that their

expenditures never match to what they project. Their revenues actually reasonably

come close year after year. It’s the expenditures that keep going up faster than they

project them to be.

Only the government is in control of those contracts. Only the government is in control

of posting jobs and opening up full-time positions and everything else that would

grow the cost of operations of government. Is it that the government truly wasn’t

paying attention to how many people they were hiring and the operational costs and

what contract costs were going to cost them as they’re modelling out future years?

[1:45 p.m.]

It seems to me the only thing this government is not good at projecting, which should

be the easiest thing to project in a budget, is what your own expenditures are going

to be. What confidence can the public have that next year, when for the first time

ever we go to $100 billion of expenditures, that that’s actually an accurate number?

We seem to be exceeding projections every single year, so what has fundamentally changed

in the development of projecting expenditures for this government in this three-year

fiscal plan that didn’t previously exist in the last two fiscal plans?

Bryan Tepper : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Bryan Tepper : I’d just like to welcome Boundary Park Elementary School, one of the nicest little

schools in the entire province, certainly in Surrey. Some of my favourite kids are

up there. I know they don’t get to see me, except on camera, right now, because they

are up behind me. But I will come and see them again afterwards.

I hope they enjoy the experience here. As I explained to them just a little earlier,

we have our Finance critic asking questions of the Minister of Finance over the budget

right now.

If we could all just give them a warm welcome.

[1:50 p.m.-1:55 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The member is asking questions in regards to the pressure on spending and the pressure

that creates in budget. I will share with the member that on average over ten years,

the increase, budget over budget, on the expense side has been 6.8 percent.

In Budget 2026, the work that we’ve done to really focus on bringing down spending

within government is reflected in that we’re seeing a growth of 4.1 percent. We have further to go, and I’m the first to acknowledge

that. We’re leading that work. You’ll see in Budget ’27-28 that the expected growth

rate is 1.4.

We’ve been doing a tremendous amount of work with every ministry, looking at ways

to reduce their spending. At the same time, we have to continue to make investments

in the priorities of British Columbians, what we refer to as the core services, things

that we know matter the most to them.

So even while we’re doing this work, working with every single ministry on reducing

their expenditures, we’re still making key investments for British Columbians in areas

like $2.3 billion to increase capacity in our health care system; $131 million to

support mental health and addictions treatment; $185 million to strengthen seniors

care; and $102 million in Budget ’26, for in vitro fertilization, a long-promised

and important feature for families who struggle with getting pregnant.

It’s important to do both. We’re devoted to reducing costs but also to continuing

to provide these key services for British Columbians.

I will also mention to the member that we are extremely aware that our work here is

not finished. We have more to do. There’s work underway in two particular areas: reviews

in the health care sector, which are not reflected in this budget — any findings from

those reviews — and also in the post-secondary. Those two major reviews are designed to help mitigate the demand

and pressures that we experience.

To be clear: where are these pressures coming from? They’re coming from the fact that

we have a growing population. We saw more than 500,000 people move into the province

within, I think it was, an 18-month period. Just extraordinary pressure on services.

And we’re seeing caseload pressure continue as well as the reality that we have an

aging population, which provides a lot of pressure onto our health care system.

We continue to do this work. We’ve got more work that will be reflected in future

budgets. I remain committed to ensuring that the numbers reflected in Budget 2026

are, in fact, actionable.

Peter Milobar : Well, the problem that the minister doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge isn’t what

they put down in the current fiscal plan and the expense growth they’re projecting

to be in the subsequent years. It’s that when we get to the next year’s fiscal plan,

that projection is completely blown out of the water. That’s fundamentally, I think,

why we’ve seen five credit downgrades over the last little while and repeated warnings

by the bond-rating agencies that this government has headed things in the wrong direction.

Is the minister suggesting that the bond-rating agencies do not understand or properly

know how to evaluate the expenditures and the projected expenditures and the lack

of fiscal restraint shown by this government and that they just simply do not understand

how to read fiscal plans? I get that she may not think that I do, but does she believe

that with the bond-rating agencies that have repeatedly downgraded our credit rating

based on these budgetary documents?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Thanks to the member for the question. In regards to the credit rating agencies,

the first thing I would mention is that we work quite closely with the credit rating

agencies. I hold them in high regard and certainly don’t question their expertise

in any way.

It’s important to note that as Minister of Finance, I am beholden to a number of different

stakeholders — first and foremost, the people of British Columbia. We know that it

would be possible for us to get our deficit down very quickly should we decide to

make massive cuts to the social services that the people of British Columbia rely

on. We’ve decided not to do that.

We are doing this work gradually. I’ve said from the beginning that it is going to

take sequential budgets to get us back to balance.

I do want to highlight that the credit rating agencies, despite the credit downgrades,

have praised B.C.’s diversified economy and recognized our resilience to U.S. trade

shocks and our skilled workforce and that they have noted our extremely strong access to domestic and international capital

markets.

These are important things because our work is deeply focused on taking advantage

of the position that British Columbia has in the world, being the west coast of North America, and our access to markets. You see us expanding the Prince Rupert port, for example, and doing work to ensure that we’re bringing British Columbia products

to market and products from across Canada to market.

This is deeply important work. We have a list of major projects that we are prioritizing,

the timelines that we are prioritizing in order to continue to grow our economy, the

economy that the rating agencies have correctly referred to as being diversified and

resilient. We’ll continue to do that work.

[2:05 p.m.]

Peter Milobar : When I read through — and the minister touched on this reduction of the B.C. Public

Service and the FTEs — it makes it sound as if the government refuses to make cuts

because of a bloating of government that happened, an expansion of government that

happened, by some other government, and they have now taken over the reins of government.

So can the minister very clearly outline who exactly grew the public service over the

last four or five years? Was it this current NDP government, or was it based on some

other previous government’s hirings?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Thank you to the member opposite for the question in regards to growth that we’ve

seen in our direct public service here in British Columbia. I want to highlight a

couple of important things. The public service workers include folks like wildfire

fighters, corrections officers, social workers and sheriffs, who are doing deeply, deeply important work for the people in British Columbia. As we

experienced population growth, so too did we experience demand on these critical services.

I do also want to highlight that the pressures on wildfire fighters have been growing,

unfortunately, due to the nature of fire season being often ongoing with things like

zombie fires. I understand that the fire service has moved many people into full-time

positions from part-time positions, which is expressed in growth in that area as well.

I do want to highlight for the member that the work that we’re doing in regards to

the public service is really about reducing the size of the public service by focusing

on protecting those front-line workers and reducing the size of administrative public

service workers, to ensure that we’re putting our dollars really to the front line

where people most interface with people.

[2:10 p.m.]

I’ll share with folks that the actual number for ’24-25 was 39,036,

whereas the forecast

for ’25-26 is 37,500. We are starting to see those reductions, expressed in the numbers

now, from the work that we’re doing, and we’ll continue that work.

Peter Milobar : Last year when we talked about contingencies and the need for a $4 billion contingency,

a lot of the answers were wrapped around the need to be able to use that for settlement

for the mandate of collective agreements. Were all collective agreements finished

off and met under that $4 billion amount? If not, how many are still outstanding,

for this current fiscal year, for negotiations?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : To the member opposite, it’s a fairly complicated answer to this question, but I’ll

give it my best shot here for you. You asked about 25 contingencies, the $4 billion.

The reality is that there are 182 unions that are in negotiations or have ratified,

and some will be reflected in ’25 and some in ’26-27. So it spreads across. It’s not

just in one particular fiscal year.

Essentially, the way that it stands right now is if we looked at the entire head count

of everyone who has been in negotiation, there is 28 percent of overall head count

that is still outstanding, that is in negotiation or close to a deal to move forward.

In regards to how that shows up, the wage mandate is held in contingencies and moved

over into each one of the ministries it’s reflected in after that ratification has

occurred.

Peter Milobar : How many were ratified and moved over before this year’s budget? In other words, how

many have already been accounted for and moved over out of last year’s contingencies

holding account into this year’s ministerial budget so they wouldn’t need to be accounted for in this year’s contingencies?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I understand that there were so few, in fact, that there were none that were moved

over into base funding in time for last budget. So what you’ll see reflected is that

this is work that’s happening now, and it will show up in Budget 2027, in base budget.

[2:20 p.m.]

Peter Milobar : Can the minister explain why just two budgets ago the projection for contingencies

was $1.7 billion for this fiscal year, then the projection for contingencies jumped

up to $3.3 billion in last year’s budget, and now it’s at $5 billion?

Why the ever-increasing contingency fund escalation in the government’s own budget documents? To go from $1.7 billion and

add $3.3 billion to it — which is, ironically enough, about the extra spending that

we’re seeing in the budget this year over what was projected…. Why the need to keep

hiding everything in contingencies when spending is going up?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I don’t see the numbers that the member is reflecting in his question, but I’ll share

with the member what I have. Contingencies in Budget 2021 were $4.25 billion; in Budget

2022, $4.848 billion; in Budget 2023, $5.5 billion; in Budget 2024, $3.885 billion;

in Budget ’25, $4 billion; and in Budget ’26, $5 billion.

[2:25 p.m.]

Contingencies reflect a number of different things, as the member is aware. Included

in contingencies is making sure there’s room to address risk. Some of the risk areas

in the contingencies that we see reflected in ’25-26 are specific risks around trade

and the volatility of the current trade war, specifically captured in some of the

contingencies this year.

Also, of course, caseload pressures. We’ve seen pressures due to increased population,

and we’ve been able to address that through contingencies. Risks for wildfire and

flooding are contained in contingencies. Also, as we’ve been discussing, the wage

mandate is held in contingencies. It’s important to make sure that people know that

the spending for contingencies are clearly accounted for, and they are expressed in

the accounts following their spend.

Peter Milobar : Well, they’re fully accounted for. On page 124, it says that the $4 billion is expected

to be fully expended from last year, so I have no other expectation than to expect

the $5 billion this year to be fully expended.

I’m not sure how the minister doesn’t know which numbers I’m referring to. Maybe she

doesn’t have the previous year’s budget documents in front of her, and that’s fair

enough. I’m talking about the projections. The minister recited what each individual

budget year’s contingencies were. I’m talking about what the three-year fiscal plan

said that this fiscal plan’s contingencies would be, which was supposed to be $1.7

billion. Then it was supposed to be $4 billion. Now it’s $5 billion.

Last year we were told we needed the jump to account for the mandate, which makes

sense. The government would know mandates are coming up and needing renewal and negotiation,

so you would expect the government to actually budget for a larger contingency in

a mandate year, a negotiation year.

But I think we kind of assumed last year that we would be done with the mandate this

coming year when the government said: “Oh, it’s only going to be $4 billion this coming

year.” Now it’s $5 billion. Last year they said four and four. This year they’re saying

five, five and five. Kind of trending in the wrong direction.

The minister can say they’re fully accounted for in contingencies after the fact.

Budget estimates are the opposition’s and the public’s chance to understand the spending

priorities of government during real time and to scrutinize what it is they’re actually

spending — not what is accounting for 5 percent of the budget in a fund that has just

said: “Well, for other things. Don’t worry about it. We’ll account for it in the year-end

financials.” This is actually a little more than 5 percent of the expenditures. On

$98 billion worth of spending, $5 billion is actually more than 5 percent.

It’s not an insignificant number on the overall scheme for a government that continues

to spend more money every single year than they projected the previous year that they

were going to spend. They can’t even contain contingency spending to what they projected

it was going to be. So is the increase from $4 billion to $5 billion because the government

is expecting higher costs of the mandate because of me-too clauses as negotiations

wrap up with these final units?

Why is there an extra $1 billion added to contingencies this year that wasn’t needed

11 months ago?

[2:30 p.m.]

Ian Paton : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Chair : Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Ian Paton : In the gallery this afternoon, I have some friends from Ladner and Tsawwassen area.

They’re members of the McKee House Seniors Society and they came over on the ferry

this morning from Tsawwassen. They’re called the Day Trippers. They had a lovely lunch,

hopefully, in the dining room. They had a good tour, I think, just in the last hour,

of the Legislature. They’ll be heading home tonight, maybe on the same ferry as myself.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

I also want to make sure they get on the Hansard . I want to introduce Patricia Castle, Judith Gerbrandt, Lynda Hudon, Betty-Lou Reid,

Robert Hudon, Ellen Pearsons and Molly Hicks.

Debate Continued

Hon. Brenda Bailey : In response to the member’s question, it is true that the negotiations took longer

than expected and that the cost of the mandate did go up. That is captured in the

increase in the contingency fund.

Peter Milobar : Can the minister understand the public confusion with statements of tightening our

belts, fiscal control, reining in the cost of government, and then the mandates costing

us more than we expected and our spending is still outpacing our revenue growth?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I do just want to point out to the member, of course, that over the three-year fiscal

plan, spending is not outstripped by revenue growth. In fact, we see a declining deficit,

and that’s what’s reflected. Importantly, we continue to make investments into economic

growth. That’s a huge component of how we’re going to tackle the debt challenge that

we find ourselves in.

Peter Milobar : I don’t mean to be openly laughing, but we started this whole estimates pointing out

that the government’s projections for their deficit in three previous fiscal three-year

plans — well, two previous ones and this one — never actually match up anyways.

Yet here’s the government now trying to say, with certainty, that this fiscal plan

is the one to be trusted, not the one from two years ago that showed that this year

should’ve had a $6 billion deficit, not the one from one year ago that showed that

this one should’ve had a $10 billion deficit.

No, no. This year, this one is the one you can believe, that three years from now

we’ll actually save a whopping $2 billion on the deficit and actually see spending

stay under control even through that whole same time frame I’ve just talked about.

The only line item that has been going up has been spending in that same time frame.

It’s like the minister didn’t pay attention to anything that’s been happening in the

last several hours in this chamber.

Revenue projections over those three fiscal plans that I referenced have been pretty

much where the government projected they were going to be. What has changed is spending.

It keeps going up higher and higher every year than what the government previously

projected, and as a result, the deficit keeps growing higher and higher. These are

the government’s documents, and the minister is talking as if they don’t exist.

She’s established and agreed that there’s been no fundamental structural change to

how things are calculated, how risk is assessed, how numbers are collated in the budgets.

But now we’re supposed to magically understand and just accept that ’27-28 and ’28-29

plans are accurate and that the government will magically make it all come together

and happen at a time when the minister has just acknowledged that from last year to

this year, they haven’t even been able to keep the cost of the public sector agreements

under control because they’re higher than expected.

[2:40 p.m.]

The minister’s answers, not my assumptions, are that the collective agreements are

coming in more expensive than the government was projecting them to be.

Was the 15,000 FTE change predicated on the assumption of what the costs of the public

service agreements were going to be or what they’re actually going to be now, with

that new, recognized, increased cost to the public service agreements? In other words,

should it be 15,000, the target, or should it actually be 20,000? Has that been recalculated

to account for the ever-increasing cost to the public sector agreements that this

government is negotiating at a higher rate than they first anticipated, while saying

they’re keeping spending and cost pressure contained and under control?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I just want to be very clear to the member opposite. The member has said that I have

stated that there are no new structural changes. I in fact have stated we are making

structural changes to respond to a structural deficit. The structural changes that

we are making are significant — a reduction of our public service by 15,000 people

and modest tax changes and timeline changes in our capital plan. These are structural

changes that will have effect year after year.

I’ll let the member know that in my meetings with investors who buy Canadian debt

and British Columbia debt, I have committed to no re-baselining, and I’ll make that

same commitment here to the people of British Columbia and to the member opposite.

Peter Milobar : Well, the risk profile, the expenditure profile, how things get calculated is what

I’ve been asking, not if the government’s doing different policies. The minister has

indicated that that has now changed, because she won’t acknowledge it, the point being

that the minister says all these changes have been made and they’re finding efficiencies.

She literally just said that the public sector agreements are coming in at a higher

cost than they were projecting even just last year at this same time when we were

talking about the $4 billion contingencies. At that time, the government repeatedly

said it was needed for the mandate.

The minister has now just acknowledged, as I’ve been asking about $5 billion worth

of contingencies in this year, that in fact the public service agreements are coming

in at a higher cost than the government just last year was expecting them to come

in at. Well done on that negotiation.

Is the 15,000 FTE target in this budget predicated on last year’s assumption of what

the public service agreement was going to cost? Or has that now been predicated on

a more expensive public service agreement that this government has now acknowledged

is well underway as they finalize these bargaining units?

[2:45 p.m.]

Bryan Tepper : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Chair : Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Bryan Tepper : I would like to welcome the second group from Boundary Park Elementary School, a great school in our riding, one of the best little schools in the province,

I think. A bunch of my friends are there. It was great to see so many of them come in that I

could recognize.

Thank you all for being here, and hopefully, we’ll get to see you when you’re done.

Right now we have the Finance Minister answering questions from the critic, our Finance

critic as well, just so you know.

I will take it there and sit down because it looks like she’s ready to answer.

So please welcome our Boundary Park Elementary.

Debate Continued

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Hon. Chair, I request that we take a 45-minute recess, please.

The Chair : Okay. We’ll be taking a recess. We will be back at 3:30.

The committee recessed from 2:46 p.m. to 3:32 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair : Thank you, Members. We will bring the chamber back to order now. We are contemplating

Vote 26,

be it resolved that a sum not exceeding $381,863,000 be granted to His Majesty

to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Finance.

We are, I think, anticipating an answer from the ministry.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : We did work in the public service to do an efficiency review and to bring those numbers

down over time. It was always our intention that we would roll that out into the broader

public sector, and that’s the work that we’ve been doing.

We know that that sector has grown by 80,000 people since 2020. There are many reasons

for that, but through the work that we’re doing, we do think that a reduction of 15,000

people, particularly targeting administrative roles, will help us bring down expenses

and still make sure that we’re deeply focused on providing front-line services.

Peter Milobar : What is the dollar value in savings with the 15,000 FTEs?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I’ll direct the hon. member opposite to page 27, table 1. The member will see there

that estimated savings in ’26-27 are $1.15 million, ’27-28 are $2.04 million, ’28-29 are $3.17 million. Those are the workforce reduction savings, for a total of $6.36 million.

Peter Milobar : The minister said that the public sector agreements are actually more expensive than

the government was anticipating. Does this account for the increased costs that the

government was not anticipating, or is that increased cost over and above these savings?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Just to be clear about the way that the work has been going, the expenditure management

review, which really has guided us in moving forward with reductions of staff…. That

work has been underway for some time and has informed the work that’s now rolling

out through the public sector, kind of parallel with what has been going on in wage

mandate. They’re not particularly linked. They’re two pieces of work that exist in

parallel.

I do want to just provide a correction. When I responded to the prior question, the

numbers that I shared, the $1.1 million, the $2.0 million and the $3.1 million…. That was total estimated savings that included the workforce reduction

targets, not was isolating the workforce reduction targets. It was expenditure management

savings and workforce reduction.

For the record, I’ll just read out the correct amounts for workforce reduction targets:

$200 million, $800 million, $1.85 billion, for a total of $2.85 billion.

Peter Milobar : I’m just trying to wrap my head around the accounting on 27. I’m glad that the minister

corrected, because that would have been my next follow-up — that, in fact, staff savings

appear to be a fraction, under half, of what the government is talking about in savings.

Again, is the minister saying that the cumulative savings of the 15,000 members in

full implementation is $1.85 billion?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Yes, that’s correct.

Peter Milobar : It’s interesting. We’ve established there’s a spending problem, because the revenues

seem to be tracking the same with yearly projections, moving forward, of what the

government has projected, but expenditures keep exceeding that.

On that same chart, we have expenditure management savings, so the government touting

their savings of $950 million. Can the minister give more clarity to what expenditure

management savings means? Workforce reduction targets is a pretty self-explanatory

description. That would mean the wages of the workforce, I’m assuming. What exactly

is the expenditure management savings?

Just two lines below that, we’re now re-spending half of that money. Instead of just

showing the net savings, it’s like: “Well, we saved it. But look at that. We’re spending

it again.” So look at this bolded number that makes us look really, really good in

expenditure management, and don’t look at the number slightly below it that is actually

going to expend $525 million of $950 million.

Now, the one you say is funding reinvested back into core services. That sounds meaningful.

I would assume just about everything government does could be considered a core service,

especially at $950 million or $1.24 billion or $1.32 billion, which is expenditure

management savings.

What exactly is comprising the $950 million in expenditure management savings?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Savings in ’26-27 — a number of different areas, but I’ll highlight a couple — really

focus on consolidation, consolidating, including the creation of Connected Services

B.C. and the human resource integration that we’re doing throughout ministries, as

well as the discretionary spending reductions in things like travel, offices, business

expenses, conferences and events.

[3:45 p.m.]

In regard to the comment about reinvesting, I just wanted to share an example of that.

We want to make sure that while we’re reducing areas that we can without having a

negative impact on direct services to people, we also want to make sure that we’re

investing in economic growth for the province. We know how deeply important that is,

and it’s a huge priority for this government.

As an example, in the natural resource sector, when they did their work to find expenditure

management savings, we took 40 million of those dollars and reinvested them into permitting

because we know that the backlog in permitting has slowed down investment into British

Columbia. That would be an example of finding efficiencies but pulling some of that

money forward to put it into government priority services.

Peter Milobar : Has there been any change or formal guidance given to members of the executive council,

to cabinet, as to the expectation of their discretionary spending, their travel spending,

any of that, and if so, what does that look like?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I apologize for the delay. We thought we would quickly print off one of the minister’s

letters. The reason that we would do that is that every minister’s letter this year,

their mandate letter, included very clear directions that they must participate actively

in our efficiency management work. This includes reviewing all of their expenditures

on programs and also expenditures on things like office use and travel and the type

of expenditure management that we’ve described here today.

I think it, perhaps, is the first time that all ministers have been directed in this

way. We’ve been happy that each ministry has deeply involved themselves in this important

work.

I’ll wait for the next question.

Peter Milobar : Recognizing the time — and I do want to turn it over to my colleague to get on to

rural infrastructure — I guess what I’d ask, then, is…. We’ve heard from the Minister of Citizens’ Services, the great pride in this government during the FOI bill debate towards my questions

the other day about proactive disclosure.

I would ask if the minister could get me a copy of that. We come back again on Monday

and Tuesday. I would love to see a direct copy, not about ministerial savings. I want

to be clear on this. This is about direction given to the ministers themselves on

personal changes they are expected to adhere to on travel, on vehicle use, on all

of that, on what exactly the ministers themselves have been directed in writing to

change to show restraint on their part, as they are asking ministerial staff and others

within their charge to take those types of directions.

That’s actually what I am looking for, not ministerial efficiencies and changes to

policy, but to the ministers themselves. I recognize we can’t get that today, and

I am fine with waiting until next week to get that answer.

Then I’ll turn it over to my colleague on her questions as well.

Sharon Hartwell : Thank you for the opportunity to be able to discuss rural infrastructure and rural

development in the House today with estimates. I’d like to make a few opening comments

if I may, and I’ll get into some questions.

[3:55 p.m.]

It is my pleasure to speak today on behalf of the people of the Bulkley Valley–Stikine and rural British Columbians across this province. I appreciate the minister and

their team who are here to assist in helping address some difficult questions regarding

this budget as they relate to the rural infrastructure and development in our vast

province.

I would be remiss by not stating at the outset that there are many rural British Columbians

who are increasingly frustrated that they continue to be treated as an afterthought

by this NDP government. Budget 2026 asks rural British Columbians to accept another

massive deficit, another dramatic increase in provincial debt and another series of

broad promises about future growth and resilience. Yet when rural communities look

for concrete investments in highways, bridges, broadband, emergency infrastructure,

transportation corridors, resource roads and economic-enabling projects, far too often

they find omissions, delays, deferrals and vague language instead of actual delivery.

I did a little bit of research this morning. It was interesting because I wanted to find out. In our rural area,

Bulkley Valley–Stikine district…. It is 20 percent of the total land mass of this province, that district.

It remains in Bulkley Valley–Stikine. So 20 percent of the area of the province is in Bulkley Valley–Stikine. There’s an awful lot of roads. There’s an awful lot of infrastructure to take into

account, and I understand that.

The government speaks frequently about reconciliation, economic development, climate

resilience, public safety, affordability and securing British Columbia’s future. But

none of those goals can be achieved if rural British Columbians are left behind. The

people I represent do not measure infrastructure in press releases. They measure it

in whether ambulances can get through during winter storms. They measure it in whether

highways remain open during wildfire evacuations. They measure it in whether bridges

are safe for school buses and heavy trucks. We talked a lot about bridges today.

They measure it in whether businesses can move goods efficiently, whether workers

can travel safely, whether internet service is reliable enough to run a business or

access health care, and whether communities can realistically grow and attract investment.

Just thinking about the internet, it wasn’t that long ago, two or three weeks ago,

that my colleague from Skeena…. We were very concerned because I think from Burns

Lake down, somebody had cut the cable, and there was no internet service. That means

no food, no gas, no calling for an ambulance. Nothing. So that is a grave concern

about connectivity. That is the reality of rural British Columbia.

Instead, what we continue to see in Budget 2026 is an increasingly urban-centric infrastructure

strategy. Billions are allocated toward major metropolitan transit systems and large

urban capital projects, while many rural transportation corridors remain underfunded,

aging and vulnerable.

One of the clearest examples is Highway 37, which is going to be the gateway to our

prosperity in looking west. For years, northern residents, Indigenous communities,

industry leaders, local governments and economic development organizations have called

for substantial improvements to Highway 37 as well as other rural roads. This corridor

is not merely a regional highway. It’s a strategic economic artery supporting mining,

tourism, forestry, Indigenous economic participation, trade, emergency response and

northern development opportunities.

This budget also fails to provide sufficient clarity regarding bridge replacement

priorities across northern and rural British Columbia. Critical bridges are aging,

deteriorating and increasingly vulnerable to climate-related impacts. Communities

deserve transparency about what structures are at risk, which projects have been delayed

and whether fiscal pressures inside government are quietly pushing vital infrastructure

further into the future.

The same concerns apply to broadband infrastructure. Government members often speak

as though the connectivity challenge has already been solved. But many rural residents

continue struggling with unreliable internet service, cellular dead zones and inadequate

telecommunications infrastructure that limit economic opportunity, public safety,

health care access and education. For rural communities, broadband is no longer optional

infrastructure. It’s essential infrastructure.

We’re also seeing growing concerns regarding emergency preparedness. Recent wildfire

seasons demonstrated the vulnerability of many rural communities that rely on single

transportation corridors with limited evacuation capacity. Yet this budget provides

insufficient detail regarding evacuation route improvements, flood mitigation investment,

slope stabilization work or climate resilience upgrades in vulnerable northern regions.

At the same time, the government continues to increase borrowing dramatically. British

Columbians are being asked to carry unprecedented debt obligations, yet many rural

taxpayers legitimately question where the benefits are flowing. Are they being equally

distributed?

[4:00 p.m.]

Rural British Columbia contributes enormously to this province’s prosperity. Northern

and rural communities generate revenues through forestry, mining, energy, agriculture,

tourism and transportation corridors that support the provincial economy. Rural workers

and industries help fund the service and infrastructure enjoyed throughout British

Columbia.

The expectation of those communities is not special treatment. The expectation is

fairness. Fairness means recognizing that rural infrastructure is not a luxury. Indeed,

it is the backbone of economic development, public safety and provincial prosperity.

Over the course of these estimates, I will be asking detailed and serious questions

about the government’s infrastructure priorities, project delays, regional inequities,

deferred maintenance pressures, capital plan omissions and the long-term consequences

of failing to invest adequately in rural British Columbia. These are not abstract

policy debates. These are real concerns affecting real people in communities that

deserve to know whether this government has a credible plan for their future.

Rural British Columbians are hard-working, resilient and resourceful people. They

do not ask for applause from government, but they do expect competence, transparency

and meaningful investment in the infrastructure that keeps their communities functioning

and their economies alive. I look forward to examining those questions in detail today.

I will now proceed with my questions for these estimates.

Budget 2026 projects taxpayer-supported debt rising towards $189 billion over the

fiscal plan, yet many rural highway projects remain absent from the capital plan.

Why is this government dramatically increasing debt while failing to identify major

rural highway upgrades in northern British Columbia? Can the minister provide a complete

list of rural highway expansion projects funded in Budget 2026?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Government is investing billions to build infrastructure in rural communities throughout

British Columbia. Our government has advanced new hospitals in Terrace, in Stuart

Lake, in Williams Lake, in Dawson Creek as well as acute care in Prince George.

Specific to the member’s question in regards to highways, we continue to support the

Cariboo Road recovery program with projects at Quesnel-Hixon Road, Blackwater Road,

at Knickerbocker Road, Durrell Road and Highway 97 at Cottonwood Hill.

We also continue to support projects to expand capacity on Highway 1 between Kamloops

and the Alberta border with projects in Chase, Salmon Arm, Sicamous and upgrades between

Revelstoke and Golden. These are in addition to completed projects like Kicking Horse

Canyon, phase 4, and Quartz Creek Bridge.

Sharon Hartwell : I appreciate all that. That’s great, but we’re still talking about rural British Columbia

and for me right now, Bulkley Valley–Stikine.

[4:05 p.m.]

I didn’t hear anything about Highway 37 and when we’re thinking about all the mining

development going up in that area…. It was said last year in estimates that there was going to be investing on Highway 37.

They were going to do widening. They were going to do some shouldering and some ditching

and some brushing. I see none of that in the budget. I would like further clarification

on that, please.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I understand that there is $195 million actually designated in this budget for Highway

37. That represents $120 million from the province and $75 million contributed from

the federal government.

This is specifically recognizing what the member has rightly identified — that this

is such an important corridor for economic development for British Columbia. I think

that Transportation and Transit would have more details for the member, but I understand that engineering and procurement

is progressing. Were she to reach out to Transportation, she could get more details

on that.

Sharon Hartwell : How much new highway resurfacing funding is specifically directed toward northern

highways in 2026?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : That level of detail is better directed towards Transportation and Transit.

We’re more sort of the rollup numbers and have broad-level numbers that we’d be happy

to provide to the member.

Sharon Hartwell: Thank you for the answer.

I guess my other question is: how can mining investments succeed when supporting transportation

infrastructure remains underfunded?

You said $175 million, part of that, came from the federal government, but you said some of that was underway

with engineering. When are we going to have a number — like, what year? My understanding

was some of that was going to be started this year, but it’s not.

The only thing I saw in the budget was the finishing of Hanna bridge, which has been

ongoing for some time. But I didn’t see anything else identified, if we’re going to

progress to extracting minerals and getting the economy going. I didn’t see any kind

of information in the budget that’s leading us to that direction at this time.

So is there a timeline to continue with that work? And where would I find that?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : There is $175 million in this budget specifically for the project we’re discussing.

In terms of where the status of it is, the information that we have is that engineering

and procurement are underway. But I do refer the member to the ministry, where she

can get an update on timelines and specifics.

Sharon Hartwell : In the budget, can the minister identify which rural infrastructure projects were

specifically delayed due to fiscal pressures? In my area, closer to home rather than

Highway 37, I know that there are a couple. Stewart is having difficulty, and so is

the village of Telkwa. I think Smithers is as well.

Which rural infrastructure projects were specifically delayed due to fiscal pressures,

if you can provide that information?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Two things. First, in follow-up to the last question, I’ve just heard from my colleagues

in Transportation that they’re preparing a note for the member.

[4:15 p.m.]

In regard to the question as to whether there has been rural infrastructure, roads

and bridges, etc., that has been re-paced. What we mean by that is changing the timeline

to account for fiscal changes. I’ll refer the member to page 64 of the budget, table

No. 1.8, capital expenditure projects greater than $50 million. It has a list of those

that are experiencing adjusted timelines. In looking at that list, I do not see any

rural transportation projects.

Sharon Hartwell : The government is talking about climate change and climate preparedness. The government highlights emergency preparedness. I know

that in my area, this has happened twice in the last, well, maybe 12 months, but half

of one season and half of the other.

There are evacuation roads that connect communities. I think they’re probably old

forestry roads or access roads. Why are they not being maintained so that if there’s

going to be an evacuation route, that we have something that’s in a decent enough state so communities can be evacuated?

I know there’s one in Hazelton, there’s one in Babine, and there’s one in Telkwa. There are a few of them all over the place, but some

of them have connecting roads, rural roads, to different areas of the community. So

if one is washed out — which is what happened, and that road was shut down for 30

days — there has to be another access route because people live in some of these remote

areas.

I don’t know how the budgets are for our district offices. If that’s something that

has to be considered, then we need to re-evaluate that because it has been an ongoing concern.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I’m sorry to share this answer with the member, because I really hear the member’s

deep concern for their community and I appreciate their advocacy. I certainly don’t

mean to, in any way, not be responsive to this member, but the truth is that this

is really a question for the Minister of Forests. I would be happy to direct this

question to them so that the member can get the answer they’re looking for.

Sharon Hartwell : Northern communities continue operating with aging water and sewer systems. Again,

this is a demonstrative double standard. On one hand, we have the North Shore wastewater treatment and then all that cost overrun.

How much direct implementation dollars for rural utility infrastructure funding is contained in the 2026 budget?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I’ll just comment. The member mentioned the North Vancouver sewer and water treatment

system. That’s a municipal program, not a provincial program.

The member is asking about rural utility funding, specifically water. It’s a bit of

a complicated scenario, which I’ll attempt to explain.

The funding for this program…. It’s a program called ICIP, which is a federal program,

and the role of the province is really to be kind of a facilitator of the program

to the municipalities. So the granting is sort of a flow-through program, but the

program is, in fact, federal.

I will share with the member that it has been an area of strong advocacy from multiple members of our government,

myself included, to see an increase of investment into infrastructure, rural infrastructure

and urban infrastructure. Both are in great need, and we’ll continue that advocacy

work.

Sharon Hartwell : I thank the minister for the answer.

Back in my time in local government, if we were going to apply for a grant, it was

a third, a third and a third, basically — a third from the province, a third from

the feds and a third from the municipality. So am I to understand that this particular

program we’re talking about for water or wastewater is 100 percent funded through

the federal government, passed down to the province and then set out? So that means

that there’s no responsibility for the municipalities to put their share in as well?

I was a little confused by the answer. If I could clarify that, that would be helpful.

[4:25 p.m.]

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I’m going to answer this question but also direct the member to the ministry, because

at Finance we don’t really have the sort of detailed information on the programs.

We’re really just communicating directly to the ministries. I think it would probably

be beneficial for the member to have that connection to the ministry directly.

I will share, in regards to the question on the one-third, one-third, one-third model

that the member mentioned being familiar with from the member’s time in local government….

I have heard from the ministry that the cost share varies in this program. Sometimes

it’s 90 percent, sometimes 100 percent.

I have heard from the ministry. They’d be happy to address the questions with this

degree of specificity at the ministry.

Sharon Hartwell : The rural economic diversification and infrastructure program is largely a grant-based

program. Then that’s where the competitive piece comes in. So if it was actually a

designated rural program for funding, that would be a lot more beneficial to rural

communities. I guess that’s more of a comment than a question, because I can see where

probably you’re not going to be able to comment on that.

Broadband expansion remains incomplete across portions of rural B.C., and it’s a huge

gap with ongoing concerns. You spoke a little bit about that, especially going up

to remote areas. We’re talking up to Babine Lake. We’re talking up to Highway 37,

where there are communities, and there are significant gaps. It seems to me that there

was a commitment made to increase the broadband coverage up there and the internet

on Highway 37.

Can the minister please let us know how many rural households still lack reliable

high-speed internet or how far along maybe the plan is to increase high-speed internet

up in these rural areas?

I guess bearing in mind and reminding that still a lot of First Nations up there have

moderate access to health care, which I’m hearing about in my office quite a bit….

Part of that connectivity is very important to be able to keep the rural health care

pieces and virtual ones together. So if you could please comment on that.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I have some numbers I can share with the member in regards to connectivity.

[4:30 p.m.]

Investments in connectivity are unlocking new opportunities for rural and First Nations

communities, supporting economic development, education and health services. As of

January 2026, 97 percent of homes across the province have access to high-speed internet,

with coverage expected to rise to 99 percent once all approved projects are completed.

Within that, approximately 80 percent of rural homes and over 87 percent of homes

on First Nations reserves are currently connected, and those figures are projected

to rise to 93 percent and 96 percent, respectively.

To put it in context, this compares to 57 percent of rural homes and 66 percent of

homes in First Nations communities in 2017. Said another way, in 2017, there were

57 percent of rural homes connected, and now the percentage of rural homes is 80.

In 2017, there were 66 percent of First Nations homes connected, and today there are

87 percent of First Nations homes. You can see that there is important progress made

here.

I will share with the member that I, too, think it’s deeply, deeply important that

this work continue. I can tell you that in my connections to the technology sector,

there are extraordinary health solutions that can be beneficial, particularly to rural

and Indigenous communities that require connectedness.

It’s something that the member has said is important, and certainly on our side of

the House we agree it’s deeply important, and this work will continue.

Sharon Hartwell : A lot of rural communities rely on transit systems and transportation systems, within

short areas — a lot for people that are disabled or for seniors to get around, go

to appointments and things like that.

It says: “Reports indicate that plans were shelved for several B.C. communities.”

I know that part of that has to do with…. There’s a funding model in some of those

communities at home. The municipalities also contribute to those functions as well.

Were any rural transit projects reduced during this year’s budget process to minimize

those opportunities for these individuals?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : It’ll just take a moment for us to get that information from the Ministry of Transportation,

if they would like to go to the next question.

Sharon Hartwell : To the minister, can she identify or tell me if the budget for our regional district

office has been increased this year, and by how much?

As I mentioned earlier in my comments, the Bulkley-Stikine area, which takes in a

little bit more than my riding, is 20 percent of the landmass that staff has to monitor,

upgrade, fix, look after, snow plow and sand and the rest of it in the riding. Has

that budget been increased this year, and if so, by how much? Is there going to be

an ongoing opportunity for them to increase their budget, should that be required

in emergencies?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I just have a clarifying question for the member. When the member refers to “district

office,” are they referring to a district transportation office or a regional district

office, please?

Sharon Hartwell : I’m sorry. Regional district office, MoTT. Thank you.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : We will go ahead and refer these two questions, this one and the prior one, to the

minister responsible and make sure that the member does get an answer.

Sharon Hartwell : During the budget process, how are rural programs and projects identified and evaluated

for the coming season, bearing in mind that we have a very short construction season

in parts of the North? How is that identified?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I can really just speak about the capital planning process from the Finance perspective, which is that government implements a capital planning process that

ensures the delivery of capital needs in a manner that considers the highest priority

areas of need, assesses value and different strategies to achieve the intended outcomes

and identifies and mitigates risk.

Treasury Board only typically considers new projects as part of the capital planning

process, which starts with the ministry’s budget submission. Prior to the inclusion

of a project into a government’s ten-year capital plan, service delivery agencies

— T and T, program areas, school districts — identify the highest priorities as part

of a submission to the responsible ministry. Once a ministry has received its annual

capital plan invitation, it uses this information to determine how to align service

delivery agency, ministry and broader cabinet priorities in the form of a budget request.

Sharon Hartwell : Typically, how long would a project be considered or re-evaluated in a coming season

or two seasons? How would that be determined — by season, by importance or by emergency?

What would determine those projects moving forward if they’ve been in the queue for

quite some time?

A lot of northern communities and rural communities — on the Island as well, not just

northern…. I know that from being from a small community. We’ve waited years and years

to have infrastructure projects identified for communities.

I guess I’d like to know how those projects are evaluated, rather than just large

projects but community…. Is it by emergency? Is it by size of community? What determines

those things so that the community is going to actually plan and start to develop

their portion of those funds that might be required to finish those projects?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I regret that the member hasn’t had the opportunity or wasn’t available to meet with

the ministry responsible during their estimates, because many of these questions are

really for T and T. My understanding is that Transportation does have a highway preservation

program as well as a road and bridge program. That ministry is best suited to answer

these questions.

Sharon Hartwell : Is there a list of rural infrastructure priority projects that are ongoing in the

ministry’s office, or do those go through individual ministry offices? I guess what

I’m trying to find out is if rural infrastructure needs to be identified in a budget,

are we going to take it to the ministry?

At the end of the day, when we’re going to approve or not approve the budget, I’d

like to know where the North fits into this — how many projects are going to be approved,

where they are and in what timeline. I guess that’s what I’m trying to determine in

these questions.

Maybe it’s a little bit backwards by what you’re…. You’re telling me you’re going

to refer these all to the ministries, but this is the only opportunity that I have

to do that.

Going forward, I’m not sure how to identify the information that I’m asking for in

the budget, to find out how much money is going to be expended on large projects and

road upgrades, how much money is going to be identified for municipal communities

so that they can carry on. That’s the intent of my questioning today. If there’s anything

you can elaborate on that, I would appreciate it.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I’m going to point to a couple of different spots where we’ve got some of these projects

listed that the member can refer to.

The first is within the budget itself on page 64. These are projects that are capital

expenditure projects greater than $50 million, what we refer to as our $50 million

table. The member can refer to the many number of projects there.

Also in the budget on page 54, table 1.7, is the provincial transportation investments

table, which lists out projects there.

[4:50 p.m.]

Neither of those list the projects by rural location. I think that was part of the

question that the member had asked. But I have heard from my colleagues that, were

one to go to the website for the Ministry of Transportation, they do categorize things

by region, and the member might find that helpful as well.

Sharon Hartwell : I appreciate your time today.

I’ll conclude my remarks at this point. I think that I’m maybe not articulating the

questions that I want clearly enough, but I do want to thank the minister for her

time and respectful answers to the questions that I was posing for the northern areas

and small communities in British Columbia — and staff for all the help that they gave

and also our position caucus staff for their exemplary contributions in helping me

understand some of this.

I think they could have been worded differently. In hindsight, I see that. But I think

the result that I was trying to find out is: how much is this government going to

be spending on infrastructure in the North to help communities, to help businesses

grow and also to help communities get started?

Thinking about looking west, we’re looking west. We want to have these $8 billion

worth of projects that the Premier keeps talking about unfold. We need infrastructure

upgrades. We need it done. I’m trying to find timelines and amounts, and I have some

information, but I was wanting to hear that clearly in this House and on the record.

I want to thank the minister and her staff very much for the time they gave me today,

which was a lot more than I got last year, so I really appreciate that. Sincerely,

I do.

I will conclude my remarks for the day.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Thank you for the questions today. There were a number which didn’t specifically show

up in our budget because of the way that Finance is really a roll-up space, but these

are very reasonable questions that we’d like to answer for the member, and we will

have follow-up from the direct ministry.

Peter Milobar : Thank you to my colleague for those questions, because, yes, rural infrastructure

and the like are critically important, especially around the connectivity and the

safety that comes with connectivity or the lack of safety that comes with the lack

of connectivity.

Recognizing that we’ll probably be stopping shortly for the royal assent, I’ll just

do a couple of other questions to follow up with the minister.

There seems to be a fair amount of unpaid stumpage. This is going to sound like a

very…. But since we were on rural, I thought: “Why not?”

There seems to be a lot of unpaid stumpage on the books over the last three years.

What mechanisms are there to recover the money? There’s one group, the San Group —

their piece of property has already been sold. Has the money been recovered? What

are the mechanisms, going forward, to be able to recover things like unpaid stumpage?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Mechanisms for recovery of stumpage debt. When licensed entities fail to pay their

stumpage fees, the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Finance each have actions

that they can take to remedy the situation.

Forests can take the following actions: suspend licences of clients that are deemed

not to be at arm’s length; deny export, based on overdue debts; or deny new licences

or permits, based on overdue debts. Stumpage is tied to licence holders and others

who deal in timber, as determined by Forests. Once licences are issued by Forests,

companies engage in logging as permitted.

Finance does not have authority to suspend licences. Finance communicates information

to Forests when licence holders are delinquent, and Forests determines the status

of the licence. When stumpage debt is not paid, Finance may take the following collection

actions.

We can notify clients in writing of the amount owed and government’s intention to

take collection action and recover the balance. We can make calls to clients to discuss

their outstanding debts, to encourage full payment or establish a payment plan. Payment

arrangements may be considered. If the debt remains unpaid, escalated collection actions

may include issuing bank demands, third-party demands and/or wage demands for individuals

and, lastly, registering a charge with Land Title and Survey, LTSA, against real property

owned by the client.

Peter Milobar : We have unpaid stumpage amounts out there. We have, based on the ministry’s own internal

audit of speculation and vacancy tax, I believe — now, we’re going back a couple of

years of what they looked at — 300-some-million dollars of unpaid speculation and

vacancy tax in arrears.

What is currently the dollar figure for arrears overall, unpaid taxes that the government

is currently carrying on its books?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The amount, rolling up overdue taxes from all sources, is $1,473,992,424.

[5:05 p.m.]

Peter Milobar : In the audit around speculation and vacancy tax, it indicated that that would be the

largest sum of any outstanding arrears. Is that still the case?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Yes, it is.

Peter Milobar : A lot of PST changes in this year’s budget, particularly those around construction

services, engineering services, design, geotech, all of that. Did the government exempt

themselves from those construction-related PST costs, or will those be added to the

cost of all public projects, moving forward?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : We did not.

Peter Milobar : If you did not exempt the government from those, and government projects are the

ones that are typically in the billions and hundreds of millions of dollars, and design

services are usually a percentage of the overall cost of a project, how much of the

anticipated PST revenue from those construction-related PST revenue sources that we

see on the books will be attributable to government capital spending?

In other words, if you’re projecting to collect $50 million off of construction-related

PST, how much of that number will actually be attributed to government contracts for

government projects?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The question was on how much revenue will be attributable to government capital spending

in regard to the PST changes, specifically on design services.

A couple of things I’d like to share with the member on this. First of all, the way

that the PST is calculated on design services, it’s on 30 percent of a design service

bill — PST at 7 — and so once that calculation is made, it’s about a 2 percent increase.

I will also share with the member that PST collected by government taxpayer-supported

provincial capital…. That category, government taxpayer-supported provincial capital,

is about 9 percent of total investment in a given year. That’s the amount, and so

that’s what you would expect to see PST charged on at the rate that I described prior.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair : We stand adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:14 p.m.

The House resumed at 5:18 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Mable Elmore : Committee of Supply,

Section B, reports progress of the estimates of the Ministry of Finance and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Jennifer Blatherwick :

Section A reports progress on Bill 9 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Susie Chant :

Section C reports progress on Bill 20 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

The Speaker : Hon. Members, the Hon. Administrator is in the precinct. Please remain seated while we

await her arrival.

[5:20 p.m.]

Her Honour the Administrator requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber

and took her place in the chair.

Royal Assent to Bills

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly :

Forest Statutes Amendment Act, 2026

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2026

Veterans and First Responders Month Act

In His Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Administrator doth assent to these acts.

Her Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.

[5:25 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Point of Order

(continued)

The Speaker: Government House Leader.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : Thank you, hon. Speaker. Before I move the adjournment, I also rise to respond to

the point of order made by the member for Skeena. I know that you are going to be considering that ruling.

I have had a chance to review the Blues regarding the point of order that the MLA for Skeena raised when she said: “The Premier of British Columbia stood and told this House

that members on this side of the House oppose LNG.”

However, the Premier did not do that. Instead, he pointed out that opposition MLAs

had been silent in terms of celebrating the progress of LNG Canada.

I also think that it is relevant, now that the point has been raised on this issue,

to point out that the House Leader for the opposition has, in the past, expressed

opposition to the project, back in 2020. I genuinely believe, though, that members’

positions change and evolve, and I would accept that her position has changed similarly

with MLAs on our side of the House.

However, the claim that the member for Skeena made that “the Premier knowingly misled the House” is simply not true. He made comments

based on information accessible to the public.

Hon. Speaker, I would ask you to take those remarks under advisement when you make

your ruling.

The Speaker : Thank you, Member. The Chair will take that under advisement and provide my ruling

next week.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker : This House stands adjourned until ten o’clock Monday, May 25.

The House adjourned at 5:27 p.m.