The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I call committee stage on Bill 9.

The House in Committee,

Section B.

The committee met at 1:34 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 9 — Freedom of Information

and Protection of Privacy

Amendment Act, 2026

(continued)

The Chair : Thank you, Members. This morning a division was requested on the amendment by the

Minister of Citizens’ Services to clause 13 of Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act of 2026. Pursuant to the motion adopted on May 19, 2026, with respect to the Standing Order 16(4), the division will now take place.

[1:35 p.m. - 1:45 p.m.]

The Chair : Thank you, Members. I’d like to remind members to have a seat, please.

I would like to remind members that are participating remotely to have your videos

on, please.

The question this afternoon is the amendment, by the Minister of Citizens’ Services,

to clause 13 of Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment

Act, 2026.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 48

Lore

Blatherwick

Dhir

Routledge

Chant

Toporowski

B. Anderson

Neill

Osborne

Brar

Krieger

Davidson

Parmar

Sunner

Beare

Greene

Wickens

Kang

Begg

Arora

Higginson

Sandhu

Lajeunesse

Choi

Rotchford

Elmore

Phillip

Popham

Dix

Sharma

Farnworth

Eby

Bailey

Kahlon

Chandra Herbert

Whiteside

Boyle

Yung

Malcolmson

Gibson

Glumac

Shah

G. Anderson

Chow

Morissette

Boultbee

Sturko

NAYS — 41

Loewen

Kindy

Milobar

Halford

Rattée

Wat

Kooner

Banman

Hartwell

L. Neufeld

Van Popta

Dew

Clare

K. Neufeld

Rustad

Wilson

Valeriote

Botterell

McInnis

Paton

Day

Bhangu

Toor

Hepner

Giddens

Dhaliwal

McCall

Maahs

Block

Stamer

Gasper

Mok

Chan

Brodie

Armstrong

Kealy

Williams

Chapman

Bird

Luck

Tepper

Hon. Diana Gibson : I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair : This committee sits adjourned.

The committee rose at 1:48 p.m.

The House resumed at 1:49 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Lorne Doerkson : The committee on Bill 9 reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

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

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued committee stage on Bill 9, the

FOI bill.

In the Birch Room,

Section C, I call continued committee stage on Bill 20, K’ómoks treaty.

The House in Committee,

Section B.

The committee met at 1:49 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

[1:50 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance

(continued)

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

The Chair : Thank you for moving the vote.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Chair : Carry on, Minister.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I understand that we’re joined in the gallery today by some very special students

that are visiting us from Vancouver.

My colleague the minister and MLA from your riding asked me to welcome you.

These are students from the Vancouver Talmud Torah Elementary. They’re joined by their teacher, Shalon Sims. It’s a pleasure to have

you in the House.

Would the House please join me in welcoming these students.

Debate Continued

Kiel Giddens : Thank you to the Finance critic for allowing me to enter the debate in the Ministry

of Finance estimates to ask a brief question.

I want to ask a question about data centres in the province and how B.C. Assessment

treats data centres. The ministry staff may recall that during UBCM last year, the

district of Mackenzie met with staff from both B.C. Assessment and the Ministry of

Finance to seek a change in how data centres are classified within B.C. Assessment’s

classifications.

Last week at NCLGA, they passed a resolution on this, and I’ll just read the resolution

into the record. “Therefore

be it resolved that NCLGA and UBCM request the province

of British Columbia and B.C. Assessment include high-energy digital infrastructure,

including but not limited to AI compute centres, high-performance computing data centres

and bitcoin and cryptocurrency mining facilities in utilities or class 5 light industry.”

The reason this is important that the district of Mackenzie has been bringing this

forward…. They actually have a bitcoin operation within the district’s boundaries.

They have ambitions and will be converting much of that to AI computing as well. They

have no problem with that. I think there is broad support in the community. It has

been a very good corporate partner that is there.

The issue is that the classification for assessment is class 6, which is used for

office, retail, hotels and warehousing. There was a significant amount of power used,

obviously, with this facility. We’re basically taxing, at the same rate that we’re

taxing a coffee shop in Mackenzie, a data centre that is taking up power that could

be used for other industrial purposes in other higher-value tax classifications.

[1:55 p.m.]

I was wondering if the ministry has any update from B.C. Assessment on that request

from the district of Mackenzie and if the ministry has a position on this. If not,

would they consider taking this forward to review at this time?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Thank you to the member representing the community of Mackenzie on this issue.

We did have an opportunity to meet with them last year on this topic. A couple of

things I’d like to share with the member. We shared this advice with the town of Mackenzie

as well. In regards to their needs for electricity, it’s a direct conversation with

B.C. Hydro, really, to identify the community’s power needs. In regards to B.C. Assessment

and any change in policy that may come, we do look at tax structure every budget cycle,

so those are opportunities to look there.

But I want to just take a moment to describe the competing challenges that we’re dealing

with in regards to AI and the use of our clean energy. Of course, British Columbia

has some of the lowest cost clean energy in the world, and as such, it would be a target, an area where people would like to come and set up many, many, many

of these types of companies. We saw that in the rush to set up bitcoin, which we had

to limit, and now AI data centres.

At the same time, it’s really important to support innovative industries that do need

access to data centres. That’s work that really essentially has been led by ECS, the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions.

[2:05 p.m.]

I’ll share with you the decision made in that regard. Clean energy is, of course,

essential to B.C.’s economic success, and demand is growing very quickly. By managing

demand carefully and directing power to projects that deliver the greatest long-term

benefits, including jobs, we will build our province while protecting affordability

and reliability for British Columbians.

At the same time, we’re creating a clear path for emerging industries like AI to quickly

and effectively get the power that they need, positioning British Columbia as a leader

in innovation and data sovereignty.

Through Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, and a new regulation, there’s

now a requirement for prospective AI and data centre projects to take

part in a competitive

selection process to access clean energy. B.C. Hydro is implementing this legislation

through 2026 in the call for demand for emerging industries. The allocation targets

for these projects are for as much as 400 megawatts for the first two years.

Peter Milobar : Thursday when I was questioning around contingencies, the minister said that 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. The contingency fund last year was projected to be $4 billion this

year. It is now $5 billion moving forward and last year was projected to be $4 billion,

not just this year but the subsequent year.

Can the minister confirm, then, by her answer that means that the mandate, the negotiations

with the public sector, has been $1 billion more than the government expected?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : As the member is aware, the mandate did go up. It was higher than we had originally

planned for.

I’m not able to share with the member the precise number. There are still tables in

negotiation, and the number is captured in the contingency fund. Those tables are

still at the table negotiating.

Of course, in the contingency fund, there are a number of components that add to the

increase. Every year, we look at what the contingencies are expected to be. It includes

things like wildfires, increases in statutory caseload demands and emerging risks

as well as the wage mandate.

Peter Milobar : All those other things are captured every year. Historically, if there is not a negotiating

year, contingencies are $1.5 to $2 billion. It went to $4 billion last year and has

now jumped up to $5 billion.

[2:10 p.m.]

I think it is reasonable, given the minister’s unwillingness to reveal if the extra

$1 billion is 100 percent attributable to a cost overrun within the mandate at a time

when the government is touting cost-efficiency and finding every dollar and being

very efficient with the public service. I think it’s a valid question to be asking

and deserves an actual answer.

If you consider that a portion of contingencies is required for things, as the minister

just said — wildfire and other areas — that means a very large percentage of cost

overrun to the mandate. If the $1 billion…. That means the government…. It’s by a magnitude of anywhere from 25 percent to 40 percent more expensive of a mandate that they are negotiating right now than they

were expecting, or they wouldn’t have needed to put $1 billion into the contingencies. They could have put a half a billion dollars or $300 million.

They don’t just throw $1 billion at a time into contingencies. All you have to do

is look at the historical tracking of contingencies to see that it’s not just a round

number exercise from the ministry. The minister confirmed on Thursday, as well, that

the process to establish these numbers hasn’t really changed. The ministers have,

but the machine behind the minister that churns out projections and cost estimates

calculates things in the same manner.

So that is why we’re asking. Can the minister shine a light, then, on the $13½ billion deficit? How much of that $13½ billion would be considered operating and/or structural deficit? In other words,

it’s ingrained in. It’s not a one-time phenomenon within the budget; it is an ongoing

cost to government. They are not meeting their obligations and essentially needing

to use the credit card to pay the bills.

[2:15 p.m. - 2:20 p.m.]

Korky Neufeld : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Korky Neufeld : On behalf of the MLA for Delta, who’s not in the House, I’d like to just welcome Beach

Grove Elementary and teacher Dale Cotter, who’s here with 37 people — 25 grade 5 students

and 12 adults.

Welcome them to the House, please.

Debate Continued

Hon. Brenda Bailey : It would not be accurate to say that all things are remaining the same and the only

pressure increasing on the contingency fund is the mandate. That would not be accurate.

It is true that we see caseload pressures continue to push forward, primarily from

health but also from social services, and they change year to year. That’s largely

managed within the contingency vote, as is much of the wildfire and flood, as well,

and other areas where contingencies are used for residual risk. But it is also true

that the majority of the increase is pressure from the mandate.

I’ll mention to the member that there is a lot going on in the contingencies area.

We use it in multiple ways. We hold risk in the contingencies. As we have described,

we hang on to funds that may come into play as a result of negotiations. There is

still that work going on. Not all of the 172 tables have settled.

We also manage statutory pressures within contingencies, and we move programming funding

from contingencies into regular programming should a program be continuing and originally

funded out of contingencies. So that’s some work that happens as well.

I’ll mention to the member that the efficiencies work that we do, that we have been

leading in the last year and a half…. We use the contingencies as a way to help manage

down as well, so that we can ensure that we are reducing spending where available.

So there are a lot of different puts and takes that happen in contingencies. It’s

not a simple representation of just one or even five things. It’s many things at play.

[2:25 p.m.]

Peter Milobar : I’m sorry. I’m 25 minutes in. I’m two questions in.

The question was actually: how much of the $13½ billion deficit would be considered

structural or operational? In other words, you’re using a credit card to pay the deficit.

That took 15 minutes to get a non-answer on an answer that should be relatively quick

and easy at the tip — I would hope, running record deficits — from the Finance Ministry.

So I’ll ask that question yet again, and yes, I’ll ask two questions at once, because

it seems to be the only way to maybe get one of the two questions answered.

If we can’t talk about dollar figures with the mandate, what is the percentage of

the increase? In other words, if the minister and the government were expecting a

$2 billion settlement package, was it 25 percent higher than expected, 50 percent

higher than expected? I’m not using $2 billion and expecting the minister to acknowledge

the $2 billion. I’m just using it as a representative example. I don’t need the dollar

figures.

What is the percentage increase to the mandate that was unexpected by this government

that they are now settling these contracts with that cost increase at?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The member asked two questions. The first one was: how much of the $13.3 billion…?

How much of that is structural and how much of that is operational? That was the question.

Of course, the member recognizes that that $13.3 billion is simply the math between

revenue and expenses and includes both operational and capital.

The member will have heard me acknowledge that we have a structural deficit, and that

is why we are doing the work to make structural change. That’s how we need to tackle

it. We’re reducing the size of the public service by 15,000 people over the next three

years. We’ve made moderate changes to the tax structure, and we’re doing significant

work in regards to expenditure management, including a $3.5 billion reduction across

this plan.

It’s also important to recognize that you can’t simply cut your way out of a structural

deficit. You must also continue to build, and we have a very, very aggressive plan

to build our economy. We’re moving forward with major projects in many, many different

ways.

There’s more than $80 billion of potential investment coming into the province. When

the federal government identified their projects of national significance, half of

them were in British Columbia. Our Premier today is meeting with the other Premiers

and the Prime Minister, again, deeply focused on economic growth for British Columbia.

That’s definitely part of the solution and work that’s very important to us.

Peter Milobar : Well, let’s try this for a third time, shall we?

The deficit is $13.3 billion. For the third time, how much, in dollars, of the $13.3

billion is the structural deficit? It shouldn’t be that hard of a number to provide.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I believe that I’ve answered this question, so I would say asked and answered.

When I stood up last, though, I didn’t answer the second question. My apologies. The

member had asked specifically for a breakdown in the difference between our initial

negotiating mandate and the mandate that has been settled with some of the unions.

I’m not able to provide that, because there are still negotiations occurring, a number

of tables still in negotiations, and it would prejudice those negotiations.

Peter Milobar : So let’s see. We have a Finance Minister that refuses to give even a percentage of

cost overrun of public sector mandate negotiations — a percentage, not a dollar figure

attached to anything, not a baseline starting…. What the percentage is — won’t give

us that.

And despite the minister’s spin on her answer of talking about what she feels she

is or isn’t doing in the budget, there was no dollar figure on what the structural

deficit is. You cannot talk about it being capital and operating and structural and

then talk about a $13.3 billion, in dollars, deficit and not know what the structural

deficit is in the province.

I find it incredible that we have the whole Ministry of Finance staff in the room

and watching on TV, and not one person can tell us what the structural deficit in

dollars is of the $13.3 billion. That is not an unreasonable question on behalf of

the public of British Columbia.

What is the dollar figure of the structural deficit in this year’s budget that comprises

the $13.3 billion deficit?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : We believe we’ve answered this question, so I would ask the member for clarification

if he thinks that’s not the case.

Peter Milobar : That is not the case. The question has very clearly been, repeatedly, for the dollar

figure — the dollar figure that comprises the $13.3 billion total deficit in this

budget. How much of that $13.3 billion figure is comprised of a structural deficit

in the province?

The minister has talked all around it but has not given an actual dollar figure. It

is simply impossible for the government to compile a budget that shows a $13.3 billion

deficit without knowing how they calculated the dollars to get there. Certainly, some

of the dollars had to be capital; the rest would be operating and structural. That

is what the question is.

If they don’t want to tell us what the structural is, then just tell me what the capital

deficit is, and I’ll subtract the two off. But it is simply impossible to believe

that you could create a budget document…. You can have the heads of the public service repeatedly meeting with the BCGEU last year, talking about a structural deficit and the tough times the government

has and having a dollar figure attached to that. And then this year suddenly it’s impossible

to tell, in dollars, what the structural deficit is.

I’m asking for the dollar figure. I don’t know how much clearer I can make it but

I can keep trying if that’s not clear enough.

[2:40 p.m. - 2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Kelly Greene : It’s very exciting to look up and see some young, excited faces to be here today.

From Vancouver Talmud Torah, we have teacher Shalon Sims with 27 folks altogether.

We’ve got 24 students plus three adults visiting us today.

Right now, we are doing estimates for Finance. There are questions from opposition

to our Finance Minister. Our Finance Minister responds with answers to opposition.

I hope you enjoy your time here. Welcome to the seat of democracy in British Columbia.

The Chair : Welcome to everyone joining us in our gallery today.

Debate Continued

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I think where we’re having difficulty currently is that there are different ways of

defining what the member is after here in regards to deficit. Obviously, what’s reported

on page 1 is our overall revenue and expenses, leading to the $13.3 billion. I believe

the member is looking for a percentage of what is structural deficit.

Why we’re not able to give the member a percentage is that the member is using — I

understand, if I’m correct — operating and structural as one, and capital separate.

In the way that the budget for the province works, our representation includes amortization,

including capital spending, so it’s not able to be broken out in the way that the

member seems to be wishing that it were.

What I would say to the member, however, is that the way that I understand the question

of structural deficit is, is it sticky? Is it not changing? Is it ongoing expenses

versus expenses that are one-time expenses? You can see very clearly in the budget

and in the fiscal plan that we have continued deficits. This is structural deficit.

That is why we are making structural changes. You have to address structure with structure.

The structural change of reducing 15,000 public service is a structural change to

address the deficit. The question of a moderate raise of tax is a structural change

in that year over year it will have impact on the deficit, bringing it down over time.

These are structural changes in order to respond to a structural deficit.

[2:50 p.m.]

Peter Milobar : Well, I’m trying to use it in the same way that the head of the public service used

it when they talked with the BCGEU before the mandate negotiations and talked about,

I believe, a $10.9 billion structural deficit, operating deficit. It was used to try

to soften up the unions, to say that there’s no more money, that the cupboards are

bare. I’m no lip reader. I’m pretty sure I saw one person mouth $11½ billion about

20 minutes ago, half an hour ago. That’s how long we’ve been trying to get an answer

on this.

The government has come up with a number when it suits them. What was the result of

that, sharing it with the BCGEU? Well, we’ve just heard that we actually have mandates

that are more expensive than the government expected.

So the government went in, tried softening up the public sector by saying that we’re

running a structural deficit. There’s no money, that the cupboards are bare, and gave a dollar figure then. Here we are a year

and a half, two years later. Not only can we not get a dollar figure, other than acknowledging

it’s more expensive than they expected, they can’t even tell us a percentage that

it’s more expensive than they expected.

It’s around and around we go. I’m just looking for a dollar figure. It is impossible,

to me, to believe that the government doesn’t understand what dollar figure I’m looking

for. But it doesn’t seem to be forthcoming, and we’ve wasted now almost an hour going around with a bunch of non-answers. Ten to 12 minutes to turn around and give a non-answer.

If it’s going to be a non-answer….

Now I understand what projects feel like in this province, waiting for an answer from

this government. Just turn around and give a non-answer, and then I’ll go on to my

next questions. I don’t need to wait 12 or 15 minutes to be told a non-answer so I

can re-ask the question again and again. But I don’t know how the public, the bond

rating agencies, the public service, anyone is supposed to have confidence in this

government if they can’t answer basic questions on how they structured and created

their budget.

A three-year budget means they should know what is ongoing and carrying forward to

the next year, as the minister just acknowledged. But they don’t want to put a dollar

figure to it, and I accept that the minister’s answer is that it’s not a linear line.

You can’t just simply take it to the next year or the next year. That’s why I’m trying

to find out how much of it is ongoing.

For some reason, the government doesn’t want to give that answer up. I think the public

deserves to have that number. I think the public should know just how much of a mess

has been created by this government and how hard it’s going to be to retract it out,

because there will be an election sometime in the life of this fiscal plan.

We’re going to have a government running around making promises again, just like we

did last election when they ought to have known the true fiscal state of the books

as they were making promises around $1,000 grocery rebates, around teacher assistants

in every K-to-3 school, every classroom.

The list goes on and on. Seniors bus passes. None of them costed properly. None of

them could have reasonably gone into the fiscal plan because the government ought

to have known but, apparently, maybe not.

Maybe that’s the scary part. Maybe we’re running a record deficit and no one in the

Ministry of Finance actually knows what’s happening with the books. I don’t, personally,

believe the staff don’t know what’s going on with the books. I think the minister

is unwilling to give us the actual straight answer on what’s going on with the books.

I’ll move on because it is ridiculous in the extreme. On page 64, we have TBC, a new

phrase for capital projects. This is where the infamous re-pacing suddenly, magically

appeared. Now we have the Burnaby Hospital. If you go in the wayback machine and look

at last year’s budget, three-year fiscal plan, that Burnaby Hospital would’ve shown

you that it actually was slated to be completed in 2029. I should say “and Cancer

Centre” was slated to be completed in 2029.

[2:55 p.m.]

Is it still the minister’s contention that that project is, in fact, still proceeding

and not just simply being cancelled?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Yes.

Peter Milobar : Well, that’s interesting, because if you jump forward just one page turn, to page

67, we have chart 2, “Major health care projects currently under construction.” It

goes with a

schedule of completion from 2026, all the way to 2033. Now, keep in mind

that the Burnaby Hospital and Cancer expansion was on the books to be completed in

2029, and now it’s being re-paced.

So what do we have? St. Paul’s Hospital, Cowichan Hospital, 2027; Centre for children

and youth living, 2028; Kamloops cancer centre, 2028; Royal Columbian Hospital, phases

2 and 3, 2029.

Okay, we’re getting into the range of that Burnaby Hospital. Nanaimo cancer centre,

2029; clinical research and support centre, 2029; new Surrey hospital, 2029; Vancouver

General Hospital operating rooms, 2029; Cariboo Memorial Hospital, 2029.

All have been on the books for a few years, all well underway, as was the Burnaby

Hospital when it suddenly, magically came up with TBC. In fact, it came up with TBC….

I forgot to point this out. Costs to December 31, 2025, $45 million. We’d actually

invested $45 million already up to the end of 2025 on the Burnaby Hospital and B.C.

Cancer Centre redevelopment, phase 2, which was originally scheduled for 2029, now

TBC.

Cariboo Memorial Hospital, 2029. Surely, it must be next on this graph. I’m sure the

people at home are on pins and needles wondering about this. What’s the next project?

Oh, the University Hospital of Northern B.C. redevelopment, 2031. Okay, well, re-pacing

— 2029, 2031. It must be in that time frame, surely. No.

We jump to Richmond Hospital redevelopment, all the way out to 2033. Seems to be the

end of the graph. Look at that. It hasn’t been cancelled, according to this minister.

It’s been re-paced. It’s at least been re-paced, apparently, according to page 67,

by more than four years. No actual timeline, no 2034, 2035, 2036 — nothing. Just $45

million invested to December 31, 2025 and a cancellation.

What year is the Burnaby Hospital, phase 2, if it has not been cancelled, projected

to be completed?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : In the face of fiscal pressure, trade instability, high material and labour costs,

we need to make careful choices with our fiscal plan. Government has reviewed its

capital plan as part of efforts to maintain the province’s debt-to-GDP ratio, among

the best in Canada. A sustainable capital plan is required to ensure that we can support

our investments over the long term.

A key component to this approach is to strategically sequence major projects and,

where possible, redesign projects at a lower cost. The province continues to build

the schools, the roads, the transit, the hospitals and the health facilities that

people need.

Specifically in regards to Burnaby Hospital phase 2, we know how important this project

is to patients, to families, to staff and to our Burnaby community. And I want to

be clear that phase 2 of the Burnaby Hospital project will move forward. We understand

the need for more health care and cancer care capability in the Lower Mainland and

remain committed to this project.

While the new tower opened to patients recently, there have been delays to the project’s

full completion, which provided the opportunity to reassess the overall pacing and

redevelopment of the hospital campus. Further work is needed to ensure the scope meets

the needs of the community and can be delivered with the approved budget. The work

that’s undergoing right now will lead to us having a timeline, which we’ll release

soon.

Peter Milobar : Well, that was an interesting answer, considering I hadn’t asked the question previously,

to have a two-page well-typed-out briefing note to speak from directly and read from

directly instead of addressing the actual question, which was why it’s no longer still

on the graph on page 67.

That means it’s a project that has no discernible timeline period, because 2033 is

the deadline on that — seven years from now and still nothing. So $45 million invested

in that project up to December 31, 2025, cancelled, and the project designers and

everyone associated with the project let go of their contracts just recently, so another

six months’ worth of work, pretty much.

[3:05 p.m.]

Most design teams on projects of this size, scale and magnitude work on a percentage

basis of the overall value of the project — all the large engineering firms, design

firms. Hospitals are very complicated to design, with all the systems needed in place.

Every hospital is a little different, depending on what specialties are going to be

accommodated for or not and the mix of acute care beds versus ICU versus everything

else.

If I were talking about Surrey, I wouldn’t even have to mention maternity, because

they’re not putting that into the new Surrey hospital. Why would you do that in the

fastest-growing part of the province? But I digress.

Point being, there were a lot of costs still being incurred by the government between

now and when the contracts were cancelled. How much was paid out to cancel the contracts?

How much was expended on Burnaby Hospital phase 2 from when the $45 million declared

of the project costs being expended by December 31, 2025, on page 64, to when it was

cancelled?

How much of those are actual penalty costs by the design teams and the various professionals

that have now been relieved of what they thought were their contractual obligations

to design and build a hospital for the residents of Burnaby and the surrounding area?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Our understanding is that there are not break fees or cancellation fees associated

with this. We do not have detailed accounting available for the member and the public

yet. It’ll be part of public accounts. Q4 is not yet closed.

Peter Milobar : Q4 is not yet closed, but this was cancelled, officially, publicly cancelled after

Q4. Is the minister saying the decision to cancel and terminate all contracts was

approved by the government before the end of Q4?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The re-pacing was communicated to the health authorities on budget day. We expect the majority of impact to be captured in Q4, which will be part of public accounts.

The member is correct. There may be trailing amounts that will be in Q1, which will

be in September of this year, and then, going forward, on our major projects list

after that.

Peter Milobar : To make sure I’m interpreting the accounting on page 64 correctly, this all gets rolled

up to $3.42 billion of capital projects. Total approved projects with adjusted timelines is part of total taxpayer-supported debt. I’m assuming that relates to taxpayer-supported debt, on page 1, of $142.897 billion.

Is this $3.4 billion included in the $142 billion? Has it already been removed?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The question is whether the $3.42 billion for this capital project is part of the

$142 billion — a.k.a. is it rolled up into that $142 billion? The answer is no, with

the exception of the cost to date, which is included in that $142 billion. The rest

is captured later in the ten-year capital plan.

Peter Milobar : Sorry. So is any, then, of the $61.881 billion part of that $142 billion?

[3:20 p.m.]

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I’m responding to a question that was…. The $61 billion on page 64 — is it part of the $142 billion? It is a bit apples to oranges, this comparison. Essentially,

the $61 billion represents the lifetime cost of those particular projects, their whole

life into the future,

whereas the $142 billion is capturing cash flow of capital projects

over time that are experiencing cash flow during that particular year. So all of the

projects’, pages 60 to 64, cash flow rolled up is the $142 billion.

Misty Van Popta : Thank you to my colleague for an opportunity to ask a couple of questions here.

[3:25 p.m.]

During question period today, the minister talked a lot about 1,100 new long-term

care projects coming online. Now, this is at a time when we have 7,800 seniors on

a waiting list. The seven cancelled long-term cares account for around 900 net new

beds, now indefinitely on hold and creating a future lag in the delivery system roughly

two to three years from now.

The NDP government promised 32 new or upgraded facilities in 2024, but to date, we

have only seen Richmond approved to proceed while seven got the axe. The NDP also

promised to deliver 5,000 new beds by 2030. Given construction timelines, projects

would need to have shovels in the ground by 2028, with design work starting in 2026.

My question to the minister is: what is the targeted, year-over-year capital plan

to address the lag that re-pacing of the seven long-term-care projects will create?

Can the minister confirm that her ministry will green-light an additional 4,000 beds

in next year’s budget in order to hit the 5,000 beds target by 2030?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : To the member for Langley–Walnut Grove’s question in regards to long-term care, the first thing I want to make sure people

understand is how important long-term care is to the people of British Columbia. I

think the member who asked this question certainly knows that. Certainly, we know

that as well. That is why we are building 1,142 long-term-care beds in Nanaimo, in

Colwood, in Vancouver, in Richmond, in Cranbrook. These are important steps towards

addressing the province’s long-term-care needs.

We were seeing extraordinary cost increases to some of the projects. They were coming

in at $1.8 million per bed and higher. I mean, imagine that — $1.8 million per bed.

You could buy a condo in downtown Yaletown for $1.8 million per bed. These are extraordinarily

high numbers. It’s just not possible for government to keep spending at that rate.

It would make it…. The way that I think about it is building Rolls-Royces when we

need to be creating many, many Toyotas.

So it’s important that we look at how to do this differently, and that is the work

that’s underway. How can we ensure that we’re providing dignified, high-quality long-term-care

beds that meet the needs of British Columbians but are not so wildly expensive?

The Ministry of Infrastructure is leading this work, and they’re looking at questions like: do they all need to

have this highest level of acute care facility, for example? Is it possible that there

are different levels of long-term care? Is it possible that we could use some of the

modular design and builds that we’ve seen coming online?

I’ll share with the member opposite that I have visited schools that have been built

using modular school additions, and you wouldn’t even know it was a modular build.

They’re very high quality. They’re twice as fast and half the cost. A solution like

that will enable us to be able to provide more long-term care at lower prices so that

we can continue to meet this significant demand.

[3:30 p.m.]

It is about meeting the demand that has us pull back on the long-term-care projects

that have been pulled back on. It’s so important that we get this work done, that

we can provide more long-term care, and that’s the work that the Ministry of Infrastructure

is leading.

Misty Van Popta : I will get to the $1.8 million figure, perhaps, in my next question.

But the question on the floor was: what is the targeted, year-over-year capital plan

to address the impending lag that’s going to be in the delivery system in about two

years from now? How will we be making up to meet the 5,000-bed target by 2030?

Based on the minister’s own answer, the Minister of Infrastructure has indicated that

we’re going through a design review, so realistically, in the construction world,

that should be understood, well under a year. So we should know by next year what

the design guidelines will be for moving forward to get the costs down.

What is the work that’s happening in the Finance Ministry now to make sure that in

next year’s 2027 budget we have a plan in place to not only make up for this lag in

the delivery system but to also keep hitting targets?

I will re-ask the question to the Finance Minister. What is the anticipated target,

year-over-year capital plan, to address the lag of re-pacing these seven projects

and to make sure that we hit the “5,000 beds by 2030” target?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : We will be working closely with the Minister of Infrastructure when they provide the

results of their very extensive work on this and coming up with the plan to drive

this forward.

I think it’s important to recognize that every budget provides an opportunity to assess

what is needed in our capital requirements going forward. It’s important also, I think,

to note that this funding is being held. It’s still in our ten-year capital plan,

and we’ll be rolling forward with a new plan once we see the results from this work

being led by the Ministry of Infrastructure.

Misty Van Popta : If the minister could just re-clarify. The funding that’s being held, is that for

the seven that were re-paced or for the additional 25 promised long-term-care facilities

that haven’t even been announced yet?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I’m requesting a five-minute bio break.

The Chair : We will take a short recess.

The committee recessed from 3:34 p.m. to 3:39 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The Chair : I’ll call the committee back into session.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Chair : Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I believe that we have some students here visiting us from Vancouver.

Is that right? Yes, great. Welcome. Welcome very much to the chamber.

We have students from Vancouver’s Talmud Torah Elementary here in the chamber, with their teacher Shalon Sims.

[3:40 p.m.]

I’m hoping that the members will please join me in making them very welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The funding is being held for the projects that have been re-paced.

Misty Van Popta : That doesn’t add reassurance that within the next ten years, or at any particular

timeframe, we’re going to get those seven re-paced, let alone the additional 25 that

were promised.

The exercise of re-pacing is said to address a fictitious $1.8-million-per-bed dollar

value. However, those costs can be directly attributed to the design guidelines put

forth by this government that they now seem to be reworking because they understand

how expensive their designs are.

My understanding, and hearing the confirmation from the minister, is that this period

of review to bring those costs down is happening now. I did solicit that during estimates

with the Infrastructure Minister and that work is well underway, and the reality is that that work should be completed

this year. That signals to me that the next batch of long-term-care homes that were

promised in 2023 and 2024 should be using those new guidelines and shouldn’t also

be hitting costing concerns, because they’ll be using the new design guidelines.

Assuming that those work to get the cost down or finished by the next budget cycle,

will the minister please confirm her intent to fund the seven long-term cares and

also the next batch that were promised in 2023 and 2024?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Any decisions of that nature will be part of the budgeting process.

A couple other small points I wanted to share with the member in regards to this file.

One is that in addition to the work that is underway in regards to long-term care….

We continue to build a lot of long-term care, not only the capital projects through

the health authorities but some long-term care that’s also included as part of their

operational funding — for example, 200 beds that are opening in Prince George.

But there is also really important work underway in the Ministry of Health to help

people age at home. So it is not going to be a blanket solution for everyone, having opportunities both to access high-quality long-term care that meets people’s

needs but also really improving and creating really good opportunities for people

to age in place as well.

In answer to the member’s question, decisions in regards to the next steps will be

part of the budget process.

[3:45 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta : That wasn’t overly clear which budget process. The minister had previously said that

she was working with the Infrastructure Ministry, but when I had talked to that minister,

she had said my questions are a decision of the government and a question best directed

to the Finance Minister.

So when it comes to the budget process, I’m asking you specifically. Can we be assured

that in the budget cycle of 2027, the next coming budget, we will see these seven

long-term care reactivated and an overarching capital plan to fund the next batch

of long-term care projects? The 25, we’re not talking the age…. Funding and operations

for aging in place…. That’s not what the campaign promises were. The campaign promises

were to deliver 32 long-term-care facilities, whether renovated or new facilities.

I would like to get an answer on the record what that plan looks like. If this minister

is in charge of when those dollars are spent…. Although she will defer to the Minister

of Infrastructure, the purse strings are in this ministry. I would like to get on

record what the targeted capital plan is year over year to hit our 2030 targets and

if she will guarantee in 2027 that we will see these seven long-term cares reactivated

as well as new announcements made.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : As I described, the Minister of Infrastructure as leading the work on the redesign

and will bring forward that work to the Minister of Finance. The Ministry of Finance

will do our work in regards to what will be included in the budget, and that’s what’s

coming our way.

Peter Milobar : It wouldn’t be NDP government if there weren’t fingers pointing back and forth as

to someone else’s fault. So the Minister of Infrastructure says it’s ultimately the

Minister of Finance responsible, and the Minister of Finance says, “Well, no, go back and talk to the Minister of Infrastructure,” and all that results in is seniors

not getting long-term-care homes built at a time when they’re finding harder and harder

to stay in their own homes.

Switching gears a little bit and kicking over to FIFA. I’m assuming FIFA is part of

contingencies. It was not that long ago, with a predecessor Finance Minister, where

FIFA was actually referenced in the contingency description, and the minister insisted

that FIFA would not cost a billion dollars and that that was ludicrous and ridiculous.

There’s no way that would ever get to that dollar figure.

Here we are at $624 million and climbing, with the Minister of Sport saying that that’s

an old number from 2025, and of course there are going to be inflationary pressures

and other situations with the dollars.

Does the Minister of Finance have a handle on how much of contingencies will be needed

for FIFA this year? How much of that $5 billion will ultimately be required for FIFA?

What is the total amount of expenditure that this government has approved for FIFA?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The first thing I’ll mention is that the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture is

giving an update very soon on updated budget estimates in regards to…. This is a very

fulsome estimate including the city of Vancouver, PavCo, federal government contributions,

all the work that has been done to really pull in funding and provide those estimates.

So that is imminent.

The way that the spending from contingencies will be visible is through public accounts,

of course, as it always is. In ’24-25, the member could look at page 98, for example,

where we had $10 million in that year. In the public accounts that are coming up,

of course, if we look at Tourism, Arts and Culture, we’ll see spending for FIFA and

then, of course, the following year for the final accounting.

[3:55 p.m.]

Peter Milobar : The minister is the head of Treasury Board. I’m assuming that these spending approvals

would have been through Treasury Board. If not, we would’ve already seen a line item

in the budget, surely, for FIFA spending and what has already been pre-approved for

spending.

Has there been a limit capped on what has been approved for FIFA, or is it just a

rolling dollar figure with frequent updates and requests for more money?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : A question in regards to: have we put caps on spending at FIFA? There are some areas

where we have been able to have some limiting control and other areas less so.

I’ll identify for the member that the area where we’re experiencing the most risk

in regards to cost is in regards to public safety and security, which also is the

thing that’s most important to us and, really, is the driver behind the work that

we’ve done with the federal government to secure funding from them. The member will

know that we have secured $100 million from the federal government to assist with

those costs.

We’ll have more information on an overall updated estimate on FIFA in the coming short

amount of time from the Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture.

Peter Milobar : This isn’t meant to be disrespectful in the least towards the minister of sport and

tourism, but I find it hard to believe that they were just given a blank cheque to

go out and make agreements and spend whatever they feel was needed or requested by

FIFA.

Surely there either had to be a pocket of money that was identified by the Finance

Minister and given authority to the minister responsible to make those decisions within

that funding envelope. Or are there multiple ministers involved? Public Safety — is

PSSG involved as well as Tourism? There are multiple facets to these cost pressures.

Who ultimately is approving the final decision on whether or not things get approved

or not, and what is the ceiling? Or is it just truly an open cheque, as the late Premier

Horgan first described FIFA being when the government first said no to FIFA, that

they weren’t about to give a blank cheque?

[4:00 p.m.]

It’s starting to sound like this has turned into a blank cheque if the government

can’t provide any detail in Finance estimates around the maximum exposure ceiling

that the government has pre-approved within the budget that we are dealing with right

now.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : In the last two or three budgets, really, we’ve held funding in contingencies for

FIFA. The way it works when we structure it in that way is that any movement of those

contingencies has to undergo quite a rigorous process through Treasury Board management.

The cost estimates that will be coming out in the coming days will present a range

that will be low to high in terms of what we expect the final cost to be, and the

member will see those numbers shortly.

[4:05 p.m.]

We’re very conscious that this is not in fact a blank cheque, that what we’re doing

instead are very regular visits to Treasury Board and Treasury Board management over

this process, which has been very rigorous. You can go back and take a look at the

June 2025 update, which showed the total gross costs and all of the different components

broken down. That’s what we’ll be seeing in the coming days from the Minister of Tourism,

Arts and Culture that will update these numbers for us.

Peter Milobar : To make sure I understand the minister clearly, it’s not actually going to be a detailed

update. It’ll be a detailed update with a low and a high and a possibility of what

we may spend or not spend. So not a whole lot of certainty, other than the fact that

it’s starting to feel like an adult game of “Pin the tail on the donkey” here.

It might be $624 million on the low end. It might be $1 billion. “We’re not really

sure. Here are the possible scenarios, and we’ll tell you after the event’s over,

but you’ve got to wait until the end of May for us to even give you a range.”

What’s the point of all the delay? Two years ago, when you had $1 billion in contingencies

identified as FIFA…. I said it’s FIFA-related, and the minister — not this minister,

the previous minister — kept saying: “We’re never spending that much on FIFA. That’s

ridiculous.” And here we are.

If we can’t get a finite, detailed costing two weeks or so before games are starting

to be played, it does sound like a blank cheque if you don’t actually know what the

costs are. If we’re saying it might be higher, it might be lower, but it won’t be

lower than 625 or 624, better be exacting….

And we’re thrilled that the federal government gave us possibly 10 percent of the

cost of FIFA at the eleventh hour, forgetting that they gave Ontario an $8 billion housing fund at the same time. I

guess that’s about comparative. We might as well take a victory lap. Or Alberta got

a cheaper carbon tax than we got, but we’ll take the $100 million. Chalk one up for

B.C. Go, Team B.C.

Is the minister saying that with this FIFA update, the minister has not instructed

the Minister of Tourism and Sport to provide a detailed and accurate accounting of

what the cost of FIFA is, that it’s instead going to be a range of high and low potential

costs, of what FIFA is going to cost?

When that happens…. And I’m not holding my breath that it will happen before we’re

ending this session, because the end of the month is after we’re done in this session.

Let’s just say, in some miracle, it actually got released tomorrow, before Premier’s

estimates started — god forbid we have transparency during Premier’s estimates — and

the low is still magically at 624, and the high is somewhere in that $1 billion range.

I think we’ve all been around politics enough to know what will happen. The opposition

will say it’s $1 billion, and the government will keep insisting it’s $624 million.

That is the problem when we start getting a range of a high and a low after waiting

months and months of questions upon questions being unanswered, with being told: “Trust

us. There’ll be an update soon.”

How wide of a range, if there’s going to be a range as the minister just said there

will be, are we expecting? Is it within $100 million range, or is it just a wide-open

range of the FIFA wish list versus what the government is prepared to talk about?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The member is asking questions that will be readily available in just a short amount

of time in the update that’s coming from Tourism, Arts and Culture. So I don’t want

to presuppose anything that’s coming with that information. There will also be a detailed

accounting, of course, after the event, once all of the variables and risks are locked

in and we know exactly what they are.

If the member is interested in sort of a framework in which the costs are considered

to see it, also the low and high and the categories, I can refer the member to appendix

1, June 2025, public update on FIFA 2026 costs. Of course, those numbers will be updated

shortly, as I’ve mentioned, but the categories and who pays what and the level of

range, I think those things remain accurate. That update will be available to the

member shortly.

[4:15 p.m.]

Peter Milobar : Given part of the mandate for the Minister of Finance is to find all cost savings

and drive down the cost of government and spending, was any direction given by the

Minister of Finance to the Minister of Tourism to rein in FIFA spending?

Was there any cap set for the cost of things like the hospitality suite? Or was that

at whatever the going rate was, and the province was fully committed to having to

accept that hospitality suite at whatever cost it was deemed to be? Or did the province

have the opportunity to reject acquiring the hospitality suite for the games? We understand

it could be anywhere from $500,000 or higher for the seven games.

What was the direction by the Minister of Finance in her quest to find savings for

the taxpayers around direction around the suite and the costs associated with it?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Thank you for the opportunity to talk about the Treasury Board directive in regards

to FIFA World Cup 2026 match tickets and FIFA Fan Festival premium tickets.

We issued this directive with my signature on it, effective date May 1, 2026. There

are a number of policy objectives that are captured in this directive: that provincial

World Cup tickets are handled properly and transparently; that provincial FIFA World

Cup ’26 tickets are used in accordance with statutory, regulatory and appropriation

provisions and not used for personal gain; and that provincial FIFA World Cup ’26

tickets are used economically and efficiently to advance the province’s objectives,

including economic development, and to support revenue generation by the city of Vancouver

to help offset the city’s publicly funded FIFA World Cup ’26 hosting costs.

[4:25 p.m.]

I want to highlight a couple of things. Specifically, the member has asked about the

investment attraction suite. There is a lot of rigour that is built into the use of

tickets for this suite and who will be included in this suite. There are limitations

to this, including being limited to CEOs and chairs of boards and the limited number

of those. This is all spelled out in the directive.

There will be no more than two tickets for ministers for games, and that will be for

official functions. The ministers will be chosen depending on the specific function

required at those games.

Tickets may not be used for staff recognition or retention purposes, provided to spouses,

family members or additional personal guests. They may not be transferred, sold for

any other kind of contest, sweepstakes or promotional purposes or provided to a contractor

as part of compensation for goods and services.

I think, really, what we want to highlight is that we have heard stories of other

events around the world where elected members brought family members and friends,

and it was a situation where there was personal gain. That is not at all the directive

that is in front of us.

We in fact are going to ensure that the opportunity that British Columbia has in hosting

this World Cup helps us drive forward our objectives for revenue development, for

economic development and to continue to grow our province. That’s what the suite will

be used for.

I know that the minister responsible, the Minister of Jobs and Economic Growth, has a rigorous process by which he’s designing the invitations to that suite,

focused specifically on different sectors and who from that sector will be coming

together, international investors that will be coming in. Again, rigour will be applied.

I know that that minister would be happy to speak to the member about it.

I will go ahead and pass a copy of this directive to the member for his records.

Peter Milobar : Again, I asked a dollar question. Budget estimates, Finance Ministry. Every time I’ve

asked a dollar question, I get a process-and-procedure answer back. I appreciate the

detail that the minister went into, but the question was whether there has been a

cap set by her in terms of the cost of the suite or if it’s just open-ended at whatever

the rate FIFA sets.

Did the government have the ability to say no if they deemed it to be too expensive?

Or was it just that they had to take a suite, and it had to be whatever the price

was? If so, what was the dollar figure that this minister would’ve approved under

the backdrop of supposing to rein in costs of government?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The member has asked a number of times for the numbers on this, and I’ve made it clear

a number of times that those updates are coming soon. He’ll be able to have those

numbers available to him.

In the meantime, the question in regards to: “Is there a blank cheque, or does the Minister of Finance have any input…?” It’s true that there are some non-discretionary costs when you take on an event like FIFA — things like required updates to the facility, the type of grass or non-grass that is used at the facility.

There are particular expenses that come with it when you host FIFA. Those are kind

of locked in. The Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport has been under very clear instruction to do everything possible to keep costs down

on this event and has complied with that instruction.

We’ll have more to say in regards to those numbers as they’re released in the coming

days.

Peter Milobar : Well, I’m reading from a five-page document, signed by the minister on April 30, 2026, that she just provided to me.

On page 5, under “Accountability”: “(

b) if the government of B.C. or a government organization is subject to a purchase agreement in relation to provincial FIFA World Cup ’26 tickets, it will strictly comply with the terms of that agreement.”

Minister signed off on these directions. I’m asking what the cost is of what she agreed

to. If she doesn’t know what the cost was when she signed off on a directive that

says the government of B.C. is subject to purchase agreement in relation to tickets

and will strictly comply to the terms of that agreement, that sounds like a blank

cheque.

So did the minister know, when she signed off on this directive April 30, 2026, which was

not that long ago, what the cost of the suites were going to be, or did she not know what the cost of the suites would be, which would fall under “strictly comply with the terms of the agreement” around tickets

allocations for FIFA World Cup 2026?

It has to be one or the other. Either on April 30, the minister knew what the cost

of the suites were going to be, and she should be able to provide that figure today;

or she didn’t know, and she signed off on a directive that creates a blank cheque

for obligations under FIFA that the government was unaware of on April 30, 2026.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I suggest to the member that there is a third option, which is that the minister does

know and is deferring to the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport to give

their update, which they have planned in the coming days.

Peter Milobar : Well, isn’t that just wonderful for the public that we have a Minister of Finance

that’s responsible for all of these budgetary pressures, the spending, who signs off

on a memo from the end of April of this year, so a couple of weeks ago, has the answer

and in the middle of budget estimates, where the public is supposed to get those answers

and the opposition is supposed to get those answers, won’t even provide a basic sub-answer

to the overall FIFA question.

I wasn’t drilling in and asking for the final breakdown of every single expenditure.

I was asking about a very specific component of it. The minister has now just acknowledged

she knows.

Madam Chair, I look for direction from you. My understanding is that in budget estimates,

if the minister actually does know the answer and has been asked, they are compelled

to answer the question. I believe…. That’s what I was always understanding was the

way this place was supposed to work in the interest of transparency and openness.

In fact, we’re debating Bill 9, a FOI bill, down the road, just down the hall, that

would actually make it even harder to get public information.

So I guess I’d ask Madam Chair for some direction here. If the minister is saying

she actually knows the answer to a question being posed in budget estimates, a financial

question on something directly under her, is she not compelled to answer on behalf

of the public and the opposition? Could I get a clarification on that, please?

The Chair : Member, in my role as Chair, I’m not able to compel answers. But certainly, I think,

it’s the understanding in the budget estimates that the opposition asks questions

and the government provides answers.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I just want to make the point that I think it’s very reasonable for me to….

[The bells were rung.]

I’ll wait for the bells to end.

I just want to say that I think it’s very reasonable to allow the Minister of Tourism,

Arts and Culture to do the update that they have planned. They’ve been working diligently

on this file. It’s a very important update, and for me to take something away from

this work I don’t think is appropriate. It’s a matter of a number of days until this

information is fully disclosed to the public. The ministry is very happy to do any

high-level updates, which we’ve been doing in this process, and I think that’s the

correct way to move forward.

Peter Milobar : Oh, the irony that the bells were ringing there for a vote about the FOI legislation

I just talked about. The government is putting up a fight, kicking and screaming, to make sure that they can restrict access to information, and we have it on full display

right here in budget estimates.

It is shocking to me. We couldn’t get an answer with a dollar figure of what an operating

deficit is from this government earlier on in this.

We can’t get a clear answer on what the percentage cost overrun of the public sector

agreements are — we can find that out after the fact — not how much the government is overspending, even

by a percentage, and a percentage not even attached to an actual dollar figure, just

so we have an idea of the scope and the scale of the ineptitude of the negotiations

that are happening right now while we’re supposed to be keeping costs under control.

The minister’s best answer is that they feel it’s reasonable that they don’t answer

questions they actually have the answer to after acknowledging they have the answer

that was directly related to a memo the minister provided to me 12 minutes ago that

was dated April 30 that she signed. And the minister sees no problem with that whatsoever.

Talk about a government that has lost touch with transparency, accountability and

what it means to actually answer reasonable questions, budgetary questions, dollars

attached to those budgetary questions in the middle of — wait for it — budget estimates.

[4:40 p.m.]

How dare the opposition try to do their job on behalf of the public. How dare we. Shame on us all.

So let’s try this, then. When you look at the three-year capital plans, we see, three

years ago, tobacco tax revenues were projected to be $510 million this year. Last year the government

changed that projection down to $450 million. This year it’s been downgraded again

to $311 million. From $510 million to $311 million in the same span of the fiscal

plans laid out in front of us.

Can the minister explain why tobacco tax revenue has dropped by almost 50 percent?

Now, I would use percentages instead of dollar figures because we can’t seem to get dollar

figures out of the government today during budget estimates, but if the minister would

prefer to use numbers, it’s $200 million or almost a 50 percent reduction.

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The member has asked a question about declining tobacco tax revenue year over year in multiple budgets,

and there are two parts to this story. One part of the story is good news, which is

that it’s driven by changing consumer behaviour and that consumption is down in British

Columbia. We have one of the lowest tobacco use in Canada…. So that

part is good news.

But we also know that the illegal tobacco is competing with the legal tobacco. That

is one of the reasons why we’re undergoing a review of our Tobacco Tax Act, and that

review is underway.

Peter Milobar : Given a demonstrated loss of a minimum of $200 million…. I say minimum $200 million

of tax revenue because, frankly, I don’t believe that it’s because consumption has

gone down. We heard from industry repeatedly over the last several years — and there

is no way government hasn’t heard repeatedly from industry — about the ever-increasing proliferation of illegal tobacco.

As the economy worsens and it becomes even more attractive for people to buy, it becomes

a problem. It becomes a very clear tax problem of a minimum of $200 million because

that doesn’t actually account for the lost revenue in the first place. In other words,

we should have been collecting several hundred million dollars more in tobacco tax

revenue despite this drop.

I talked to one operator just recently that, on a Saturday, would normally sell almost

1,000 packs of cigarettes. Sold 98. It was 98 instead of 1,000. Talked to another operator in

a country setting, in my former riding, a small store. The van literally pulls into

his parking lot, and they open the back door up and sit there and sell cartons of

cigarettes to people walking into his store in his own parking lot. It’s not a theoretical.

It’s happening at an ever-growing pace.

What steps, what funds has this Finance Minister approved for extra enforcement to try to protect the tax revenues of the province

of B.C.? With the spinoff of public safety improvement, organized crime crackdown and public health…. We don’t actually know what’s in those illegal cigarettes because

they are not made to any safety standard or held to any safety standard in manufacturing

whatsoever.

We’ve watched a steady decline in tobacco tax revenue over the last couple of years,

and it sounds like the government is content to chalk it up to people smoking less.

They acknowledge illicit tobacco, but they don’t acknowledge that it’s a significant

part in all of this.

[4:50 p.m.]

So what change, what direction, what extra funding, what significant steps are going

to be taken? Saying you’re going to study it longer doesn’t improve the situation.

The industry has been raising the alarm bells about this for years now in British

Columbia. Surely, it doesn’t need that much studying; it needs actual enforcement.

What is going to be done in the short term to combat illegal tobacco, the health impacts

it winds up creating, the loss in revenue it winds up creating and the organized crime

it actually helps to embolden within British Columbia?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : We’re talking about the decline in tax revenue from tobacco. I want to be clear that

there are two things happening at once.

[4:55 p.m.]

It is true that tobacco use is down, particularly among young people. There’ve been

a number of independent studies that have shown that. It’s down for deliberate reasons

— high tobacco taxes, comprehensive indoor smoking bans, restrictions on advertising

and retail displays, packaging requirements, public health campaigns and smoking cessation

programs, and growing stigma. These are having an impact.

I’m not raising that to argue with the member. I agree with the member that there

is a problem with illegal tobacco. We know that to be true. We have heard that. As

the member has heard, we’ve heard that as well. That is why we have a dedicated investigation

unit working on this issue. They work regularly with police forces all across the

province.

I’ll share to the member that since 2012, with police, we have seized over 55 million

grams of illicit tobacco. This includes, in 2026, 33 seizures. We know that there

is more to do, and the work that we’re doing on the Tobacco Tax Act, that review that’s

underway — this is one of the drivers behind that review.

Peter Milobar : In terms of the overall impact with the tobacco taxes in general, what specific measurements

are the government using, other than sales, then, to convince themselves that usage

has dropped? When I use the eye test, I see more people out smoking these days than

I have in several years.

To give people at home an idea, when we’re talking about illegal cigarettes, when

a pack is around $20 these days, $18, you can buy illegal cigarettes anywhere from

$3 to $5 a pack. You can walk into corner stores that are selling the regular brands

and say: “No, no. I’m looking for the $5-a-pack cartons, and they’ll sell you a carton

of ten packs for $40 or $50. That’s the difference in pricing we are talking about,

for the viewers at home.

It’s not conceivable, when you see a difference in price that significant, anywhere

from 90 to 75 percent cheaper, that people…. I don’t understand how the government

can say with certainty and with such confidence that people aren’t smoking as much.

They just simply aren’t buying tobacco that is triggering tax.

What measurements are the government using then? They’ve acknowledged there’s the

illegal side. They’ve acknowledged that they’re doing some enforcement and some seizures,

which is good. But to make statements that people are smoking less to the tune of

a 50 percent reduction in taxation seems like a bit of a stretch. If the drop in revenue

isn’t tied to a drop in consumption, and we know we’ve already been losing money,

that means we were losing a significant chunk to the illegal market over the last

two years than we previously were.

What measurables are the government using when it comes to tobacco use and tobacco

taxes that are tied to it? This is a significant tax revenue. It used to be a significant

tax revenue piece for the government. It used to be $500 million. It’s now down to $300 million, if they’re lucky.

What measurements are they using on the consumption side that gives them certainty that the drop in revenues is tied to a drop in consumption

and not just a shift to the illegal market?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I have been very clear in each one of these questions that there are two things going

on. There is a decline in smoking rates, and we have challenges in regards to illegal

tobacco. I in no way implied that illegal tobacco was not a challenge.

I don’t need to get into a back-and-forth with the member in regards to smoking rates.

You can refer to the Canadian Cancer Society website that specifically spells out

that British Columbia has seen a decline in smoking rates, and it particularly looks

at the usage among young people. There are many studies out on this. It is not for

the Minister of Finance to do this research.

I’ve mentioned to the member that we, too, share the very strong concern that illegal

tobacco is impeding our taxation, but it’s also causing many other problems, as all

illegal activity does. We’ll continue this very important work, which includes ensuring

that we continue to seize illegal tobacco.

I will share with the member that I’m getting a little tired, and I flipped a number.

I said that since 2012, we’ve seized over 55 million grams of illicit tobacco. The

correct number is since 2021. We, in conjunction with police, seized over 55 million

grams of illicit tobacco. There is a lot more work to do on this. It is one of the

drivers of the work behind updating and modernizing the Tobacco Tax Act, and that

review is currently underway.

Harman Bhangu : I want to follow up on something from the Transportation estimates.

When we left that discussion, the Minister of Transportation made it clear that long-term

funding for TransLink is being worked on by the Ministry of Finance. That’s why I’m

here asking today.

Right now, there has been a short-term fix, but everyone knows there still needs to

be a real plan to pay for this going forward. That is supposed to be in place by 2027.

People want to know, especially with talk around a potential election later this year,

whether this is going to mean a road tax.

[5:05 p.m.]

My question. Can the minister outline what specific revenue tools are currently under

consideration by the Ministry of Finance to address TransLink long-term funding requirements?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : This work is underway. I’m not in a position to share any final decisions yet, but

I will make it very clear, as did the Minister of Transportation, that we are certainly

not in favour of road pricing.

Harman Bhangu : Can the minister confirm whether the province is evaluating options that would result

in increased cost to drivers, including road tax, vehicle levies or similar measures?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : On this side of the House, we are not in favour of tolls, and we are not in favour

of road tax. That’s not the direction we’ll be going. We continue to work closely

with TransLink as we consider future revenue tools, being mindful, of course, of the

costs that people are facing.

Harman Bhangu : I just want to get this on the record. Given that a long-term funding plan is not

expected until 2027, can the minister confirm whether the province will provide clarity

before the fall on what revenue tools are being considered, including whether road

tax forms part of the plan?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Third time. We are not considering road tax.

[5:10 p.m.]

Harman Bhangu : I just want to go back to the part where I said it’s not expected till 2027. Can the

minister confirm if the province will provide clarity before the fall on what revenue

tools are being considered?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : This is work that we’re doing with TransLink and the Mayors Council to provide them

a tool which, then, they will decide how to use. That work is for 2027, so we’re not

expecting to make an announcement in the fall. This is work for 2027.

Peter Milobar : I just want to get clarification from the minister that I’m truly reading the budget

correctly, that, in fact, on page 1, the budget estimate for this year is a $13.3

billion deficit; next year, $12.165 billion, which is $1.2 billion less; and then

$11.4 billion, which is another $800 million less, $900 million less. Is that correct?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : As the member knows, that is correct.

Peter Milobar : The minister has been talking about the spending discipline and fiscal discipline

to get to a path of balanced budget, and that’s why they’re taking these hard measures.

The bulk of the 15,000 FTEs that will be seen and that will be lost to find these

efficiencies and cost savings and make government more cost-effective, to bring that

deficit down, will be found in ’27-28 and ’28-29. Is that correct?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I’m on page 27 of the blue book, expenditure management and workforce reduction targets.

In 2026, the member will see, in terms of expenditure management savings, $950 million;

workforce reduction targets, $200 million. In 2027-28, expenditure management savings,

$1.24 billion, and workforce reduction targets, $800 million. In ’28-29, expenditure

management savings, $1.32 billion; workforce reduction targets, $1.850 billion. For

a total over the fiscal plan, expenditure management savings, $3.51 billion; workforce

reduction targets, $2.85 billion.

[5:15 p.m.]

Peter Milobar : Well, it’s interesting, because those total savings on page 27 the minister referenced

are a higher number than the reduction in the deficit. So the deficit is going down

by $1.2 billion, and yet the total net savings is supposed to be $1.377 billion next

year. The deficit is going down by about $2 billion over the two-year period, yet

it’s $2.4 billion in net savings, apparently.

More importantly, when you go: “How are you funding everything…?” Then you go to page

79, and not only are the savings going to be outstripped but you have extra taxation

in each of those years, new taxation — not from economic growth, new taxes that are

in this budget.

The net taxation difference in this budget, from taxes that have been readjusted either

downwards, very minor downward adjustments compared to the increases that we see….

In fact, I can see one, two, three, four taxes that went down in this year and one,

two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten that are new or increased. The

following year, it’s the same — one extra new tax credit, yet 11 new or increased

taxes — and the same in the following year.

Again, just the straight revenue side, you look at the deficit going down by $1.2

billion but taxation next year increasing by $1.5 billion on new and increased taxation

— not economic growth.

Can the minister explain how, on the one hand, they are talking a good game of really

reining in spending and getting our economy growing and that’s how we’re going to

get back towards a balanced budget, when in fact brand-new, never-before-seen taxes

are actually adding $757 million net this year, $1.521 billion the following year

and $1.937 billion on year 3 of this plan? All new taxation. Didn’t exist before this

budget this year.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The first thing I’ll say is that there are a number of different things happening

concurrently, of course, in Budget 2026. We are very focused on reducing government

spending. We’ve done that through an expenditure review that is ongoing. We’re doing

that through a reduction of 15,000 valued members of the public service. These are

difficult decisions.

[5:20 p.m.]

We have modest increases, as the member has highlighted, in regards to the tax system,

and when we do this expenditure work, it is also true that some of the reductions

that are being made through expenditure work are reinvested. So again, looking at

page 27, you’ll see that there’s a line called “Funding reinvested in core services.”

We know how important it is for us to continue to protect the services that are core

to British Columbians. These are difficult times. We are in the middle of a trade

war that is having an impact and, also, now the supply chain challenges that are coming

from the Strait of Hormuz. These international issues seem so far away, but they are having an impact, and

they’re having an impact on our bottom line. They’re having an impact on investment

decisions.

It’s really important to highlight the investments we continue to make. Now, we could

have made a decision to slash spending on health care or slash spending on education,

but that would have had a huge impact on British Columbians, and that’s not what they

want us to do.

I draw the attention of the member to page 9. In Budget 2026, in addition to making

these very difficult and careful decisions about how to bring down spending, about

how to make reductions, primarily focusing on administrative roles and making modest

changes to the tax system, we’re also protecting core services. You’ll see those highlighted

in table 1.2.1, “Protecting core services people rely on,” page 9.

In this budget, we make additional investments in health, mental health and addictions

care — over the fiscal plan, the three years, $2.769 billion.

We make additional investments into K-to-12 education, so key for people — over the

three-year fiscal plan, $634 million.

In child care…. We know that child care helps people get back into the workforce.

It’s a very important investment for people. We’ve been able to bring down child care

costs for people. It’s an affordability measure as well as an economic measure. In

this budget, over the three-year fiscal plan — $330 million invested into child care.

We make supports available for children and youth and expand access to support needs

— $475 million over the three-year fiscal plan.

I could go on. These are important decisions that we’ve made to do two things at once:

to protect British Columbians and the services that they rely on, those core services,

but also to be deeply focused on how to bring down costs where we can, targeting those

reductions in ways that won’t impact front-line services.

Peter Milobar : Well, that all sounds well and good, but the reality is there are still billions of

dollars of new taxation in this budget that get downplayed quite significantly by

the minister at a time…. She’s right. Times are tough. That’s probably why people

are buying illicit tobacco instead of regular tobacco, because they can’t afford the

regular tobacco right now.

In terms of the overall approach by this government, though, as it relates to the

ongoing deficit and trying to get our way out of the mess that we’re in, can the minister

let us know, based on this fiscal plan and based on the newly announced changes to

the Canada funding agreement around health care and the transfer…? What does that

do in the short term for planning purposes?

I believe the number I saw was that it could be anywhere up to a $2 billion or $2.8

billion cut to federal health transfers. I may have that number wrong. That’s why

I’m looking for a clarification. But if that’s the case, does that automatically mean

that the deficit in ’28-29, right now, would be pushing $14 billion if changes aren’t

made between now and then, when the budget comes forward?

[5:25 p.m.]

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I believe the member is asking about the fiscal cliff. There had been an increase in the Canada health transfer by the federal government after COVID. That is due to go back to a prior rate in ’28-29. That has been included in the

budget assumptions.

I will share with the member that I sit on the FPT. This is a table of federal, provincial and territorial Finance Ministers. This is an item of much discussion, as the member could imagine, and the pressure

to ensure that this fiscal cliff is not realized is very significant.

We’re meeting again in July, and this will be a point of discussion with the federal Finance Minister.

Peter Milobar : So just to be clear then, when this budget was being created — back in November, December,

January — and published, the minister had already accounted for and was fully aware

of the health transfers and changes that were scheduled to take effect.

I just ask that because the way it was portrayed in the media and the way the minister

talked about it in the media recently, it seemed like this was a new revelation, that

it was unknown, that there was great concern, that the federal government was changing

the agreement to deal with their own budgetary issues and that it was coming on the

backs of the provinces.

I don’t disagree that we should have all the money we can possibly get. I’m trying

to understand the way it was conveyed recently versus the reality, it sounds like,

that this was actually fully accounted for and expected and, in fact, budgeted for

in this document, heading forward, so it was not really a big surprise. This is an

ongoing negotiation, and if it doesn’t change, there’s nothing that comes as a shock

to the government.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Yes, we’re aware that there is a planned reduction in ’28.

I think the member is referring to a comment that I made to the press when asked,

in regards to the spring update from the federal government: “Is there anything that you would like to have

seen that was not included?” Because I’ve been advocating with the other Finance Ministers

to ensure that this fiscal cliff does not come to reality, I responded to that question

by saying that yes, I would like to have seen that there was a commitment from the

federal government to continue at this level of funding. That was the comment that

I made in the press.

Of course, if we are successful, and if the federal government does continue to provide

this level of funding, that will show us a reduction in our deficit.

Peter Milobar : It’s being like a cigarette, tobacco settlement all over again.

[5:30 p.m.]

In terms of the freezing of the personal tax brackets, this has been…. I canvassed this a bit during the budget bill itself, but I don’t think the public fully, obviously, were watching committee room

conversations or anything like that, not that the masses are watching this either.

I want to make sure I understood the minister’s answer correctly that the tax freeze

that will generate $960 million in this budget document is the tax bracket.

For those watching at home, what you normally would see for paying income tax calculated

on gets adjusted each year. In this case, the government has frozen that rate so it

doesn’t keep going up, so the taxation on your earning threshold stays the same. The

earning threshold stays the same, so your taxes go up, which means the government

will generate an extra $960 million in taxation over the life of this fiscal plan.

Now, I had made the assumption, erroneously, that at the end of the three years, there

would be a reset and a catch-up of those tax brackets, and we would catch it up. But

the minister, in the middle of the bill debate, seemed to indicate that no, once the

freeze gets lifted, we just start back up from the freeze point, and that extra $960

million of taxation is just baked into the system. In other words, you’ll always be

paying that higher tax rate perpetually because your tax bracket has been lowered

comparative to inflation.

Why was the decision made, first off, to freeze the tax brackets for three years and

not to have a catch-up period, as well, once the freeze comes off?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : We’re discussing de-annexation. De-annexation helps raise revenue without having to

further raise taxes. Government is balancing the need for tax revenue to protect the

core services that British Columbians rely on and the need to reduce the impact to

taxpayers. To maintain this equilibrium, the measure will be temporary, beginning

in 2027 through 2030, and will be monitored throughout. Despite the change, B.C. will

remain one of the lowest income tax jurisdictions in Canada.

The member asked why this particular time frame. That is both to align with the fiscal

plan but also to make sure it’s a temporary measure that we’re tracking and keeping

tabs on. The member asked why no catch-up at the end. In fact, at the end, we’ll be

looking very carefully at the results, the actual rate of inflation that occurred

during that time frame and also doing an interjurisdictional scan comparing taxation

rates for British Columbians to other Canadians, with the objective of ensuring that

we continue to have a comparably low taxation rate.

Peter Milobar : A couple of things to unpack on that answer. Sorry, what has changed between now and

when the bill was debated in committee stage? When I asked in committee stage, that

was not the answer.

It was not that at the end, there will be a comprehensive scan and review and assessment

with other tax jurisdictions. It was that there would be no catch-up and that the

freeze would be lifted, but it would just continue on as it did in the past, only

starting at the freeze as a starting point.

Has something changed from when I asked direct questions in committee stage and was

supposed to be getting the similar answers? What exactly has changed?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Yes, the bill does behave as the member has outlined, and I will point out to the

member there is no change in how I’m representing this.

On Tuesday, March 31, at 6:05 p.m., I can see in the transcript that I said: “As we

approach the turning back on of the bracket, it is a time to review the impact.” That’s

what I’ve just described to the member.

Peter Milobar : The other part of the previous answer was…. One before. The minister said this is

a way to not increase taxes. It’s going to collect $1 billion more in this fiscal

plan. The minister seems to think that’s not an increase in taxation.

Does this bracket freeze just apply to new taxpayers, people that aren’t currently

paying income tax in British Columbia, or is it in fact $1 billion extra being collected off of the exact same pool of taxpayers,

with the addition of a little bit of population growth if we’re fortunate enough to

see that over the next little while? If so, can the minister explain why characterizing

$1 billion of taxation to her is not considered an increase of taxation?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The member is correct. I misspoke. I should have said it does not increase tax rates.

Peter Milobar : Well, I’m sure everybody that’s paying that extra $1 billion will be relieved to know

they’re not paying a different tax rate, just paying more actual dollars. You know,

that’s actually what matters to people’s household budgets — the dollars, not the

tax rate.

And to that end, what was the basic personal exemption last year? What is it this year? And what is

it for the remaining years in this fiscal plan?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : In 2025, the basic personal exemption was $12,932. In 2026, it’s $13,216, and that

remains flat throughout the fiscal plan.

Peter Milobar : Minimum wage will be going up on June 1, and it will go up June 1 each of the following

years. For people earning minimum wage, the basic personal exemption — in other words,

the amount they can earn before they start triggering paying income tax — will not

go up for the life of this fiscal plan. So even the basic personal exemption has been

frozen with the tax bracket freeze. Is that correct?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : We’re discussing the impact of tax changes in this fiscal plan on minimum-wage earners.

I’ll share with the member that if an individual has employment income below $26,750,

they will continue to pay no taxes. If an individual is a full-time worker earning

minimum wage and claiming no additional credits or deductions, then this individual

would pay. If they’re working 30 hours a week, they’ll have a $30 tax savings for

the year. If they’re working 35 hours a week, it’s a $2 tax savings for the year,

and 40 hours a week is a $2 tax savings, basically a break-even.

This is based on the individual claiming basic tax credits and deductions for an employee,

i.e., the basic personal amount, CPP and EI tax credits, B.C. tax reduction credit,

and a deduction for enhanced CPP contributions. These amounts would be lower if the

individual claimed additional deductions — for example, union dues, child care expenses,

RRSP contributions and employment expenses like motor vehicle costs, supplies and

special uniforms.

When considering the actual amounts claimed by taxpayers, an individual earning an

annual income of about $37,500, which is minimum wage on 40 hours a week, would see

an estimated savings of about $1,700. Income of $33,000, 30 hours a week, a savings

of $35, and $28,200, 30 hours a week, a savings of more than $50 for 2026.

Peter Milobar : Well, I’m sure people that work minimum wage on 30 hours a week are glad to know that

they can make RRSP contributions to lower their tax hit. I hate to break it to the

minister, but most people earning minimum wage, if they’re only getting 30 hours at

their workplace, probably have a second job, because they’re not able to survive otherwise.

When you see the tax rate for the first $50,000 that you earn go up in this budget,

and you see tax brackets frozen in this budget, and you see the minimum basic personal

exemption that you can earn frozen in this budget — which means that as your income

goes up, you still only can earn the $13,316 before you start triggering into tax

territory — people earning minimum wage will see their taxes go up.

A lot of the things and a lot of the deductions the minister is talking about for

people on minimum wage, they simply can’t access, because they’re trying to survive

with rent, with groceries, with other things in life. So it’s a great theoretical

exercise, but the reality is these are tax changes that are going to bring in $1 billion

extra in revenue a year.

Now the tax bracket has a calculation next to it, the freezing of the tax brackets,

but I didn’t see a calculation of the freezing of the basic personal exemption. Why

was there not a calculation of the freezing of the basic personal exemption and what

that would do for government revenues? Why is it just the tax bracket that has a calculation

next to it?

[5:55 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : To the member, I’m excited to see his newfound interest in people who are earning

minimum wage, after the work on that side of the House for many, many years to make

sure that it did not increase. Since the NDP came in, in 2017, it has increased every

single year — from $11.35 to now at $18.25, which is leading the country.

The member asked a question in regards to where the changes in the freezing of the

personal exemption are shown. It’s rolled up, so I’m not able to provide a specific

number to the member on that. But I think it’s very important to note that the work

that we did….

While we increased taxation modestly, we designed it in such a way that it’s designed

to protect the lowest-wage earners in British Columbia. In fact, more than 40 percent

of British Columbians will not experience a tax increase or will have a reduction

in taxes because of this specific design to ensure that we’ve increased tax credits

for the lowest-wage earners among us.

I think that’s where I’ll leave it.

Peter Milobar : Well, I find it remarkable. Every time I ask for dollars on any modelling that’s been

done, anything today, it’s: “Well, we haven’t done that. We don’t have that. It’s

rolled up.” Yeah, it might be rolled up. Someone had to make the calculation. That’s

why I’m asking, because it’s not in black and white in the document.

The personal basic exemption was frozen for a reason, and that reason was to generate

money for government. It’s simply not acceptable or good enough that the minister

yet again is trying to say that we actually don’t know how many dollars that decision

is going to result in. It’s not believable.

We had the minister say she actually knows the answer to a question around FIFA and

dollar figures, but she won’t give it today.

We had the minister say that despite the head of the public service publicly acknowledging

that they have a structural and an operational deficit, even last year going into

negotiations with the unions, they can’t tell me what that dollar figure is out of

the $13.3 billion deficit.

We’ve asked what the percentage of the public sector agreements is over and above,

higher than what the government thought they were going to be spending on these agreements

— not the dollar figure, not the baseline, just the overall percentage of extra cost

associated with these agreements. The minister did acknowledge on Thursday that the

public sector agreements are coming in more expensive than the government had anticipated.

“Anticipated,” hopefully, is another word for “budgeted for.”

We have an extra $1 billion added to the contingency funds this year, next year and

the following year — from just last year’s projections of the contingency funds.

So I don’t think I’ve been too unreasonable today trying to get actual dollar figures

out of the minister and all of her staff, all of the people that are doing these calculations.

It’s not fair to them. I’m willing to bet they’re actually providing a number that

the minister is refusing to give.

If they don’t have a number, how did these decisions get made? How do you make tax

policy changes that say we are going to freeze the basic personal exemption for the

lowest-income people in our province and stand up on the one hand and say they’ll

pay less tax, but you don’t know how much tax it’s actually going to collect by freezing

it? How do you know the one but not the other? Why will this minister and this government

refuse to provide any clear answers when it comes to these questions?

[6:05 p.m.]

I would like to take a minute, since we have the time, to clarify, because the minister

seems very fixated on my time in government, both in question period and everything

else. So let’s be abundantly clear for the minister of my time in government, shall

we?

It was 18 days. I was elected in 2017. I didn’t have a PS behind my name. I didn’t

have a ministerial title behind my name. I was as backbench as you could get for 18

days. The minister seems to think I had a hand in decisions that were made 16 years

before that.

If she wants accuracy in this place, let’s get it straight. They have been government

for nine years. This is this minister’s budget. This is this minister’s modelling

on how they are generating revenue — an extra $1 billion in personal income tax in

this budget. It was this minister’s decision to freeze the tax brackets to generate

that $1 billion. It was this minister’s decision to freeze the basic personal exemption.

I have simply asked how many dollars the freezing of the basic personal exemption

is going to generate. The minister’s answer is she doesn’t know. No one in the Ministry

of Finance knows. Someone just thought it was a good idea and let’s throw it in there.

Who knows if it actually creates money or doesn’t create money for government, whether

it impacts low-income people or doesn’t impact low-income people.

The one thing I can say, I guess, if I’m the minister, with certainty, though, is we’ve taken other tax measures to save money for those same people. It

makes one wonder why the minister doesn’t want to put a dollar figure on a tax policy

change she is responsible for, no one else in this chamber.

So I’ll ask again. What is the dollar impact for the freezing of the basic personal

exemption in this fiscal plan?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The member is asking about a specific component that is rolled up into another category.

On page 79, when we look at the Income Tax Act changes, the fourth bullet down — the third one after “Income Tax Act” — says: “Freeze

personal income tax brackets and non-refundable credits.” The “non-refundable credits” includes the personal exemption, so that is

the broader category that the member is asking about. You can see the numbers across

the plan: $60 million; $309 million; $590 million.

To talk further about the non-refundable credits, we can look at…. It’s referenced

on page 82. It talks about including the basic personal amount, the age amount, the

disability amount. The change will have a greater effect on British Columbians with higher incomes. That’s how it has been designed.

The member would like a breakdown of those two different components. The non-refundable

credits of the numbers expressed here, the first year, ’26-27, are $19 million; the

second year, ’27-28, are $95 million; and the third year, ’28-29, are $177 million.

Now, I recognize that the member has asked not just about all the non-refundable credits

that are in this category but specifically about the personal exemption. My team is

able to get that for the member, but we don’t have it on hand yet. We’ll provide a

note to the member on that particular number.

Peter Milobar : While collating those documents, I had asked on Thursday if there was a written direction

to ministers — not to overall ministerial operations, but to ministers — specifically about their own personal travel, their own travel for ministerial purposes. What direction

was given, in writing, by the Finance Minister to the ministers to make sure that

their own spending on what would be considered ancillary spending…?

[6:15 p.m.]

I recognize travel is part of the job, so I’m not saying there should never be travel.

But what changes to policies of expectation, to the ministers themselves, was conveyed

by the Minister of Finance?

I didn’t get anything conveyed over to my office in writing of what’s there. I’m hoping

there is something, and I’d just like to know what direction was provided by the government.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I am responding to a question in regards to what guidance we have provided to ministers

in regards to reduction in expenses and, particularly, travel. I will share with the

member that in the budget letter that I provided this year, we were quite directive.

The budget letters are not just for the ministries; they’re also for the minister.

Budget letters set out a range of expectations and requirements that limit discretionary

spending. These are both, as I say, to the minister and to the ministry’s office.

Examples of budget letter direction limiting discretionary travel and prioritizing

alternative options such as video conferencing…. Any non-essential travel requires

the deputy minister’s approval, even for the minister. Requiring deputy minister approval

for any new or renewed professional service contracts and many other things — conferences,

business meeting expenses, furniture and equipment, and it goes on.

Specifically, I’ll highlight that STOB 57, which is the travel category, limits discretionary

travel. This is for non-essential conferences and meetings — must be restricted and

alternate options prioritized, for example video conferencing. Ministries must have

an approved framework to minimize travel costs, limit greenhouse gas emissions and

restrict discretionary travel and the number of ministry participants travelling to

a meeting.

[6:20 p.m.]

Pre-approval by the deputy minister is required for in-province and out-of-province

travel. Only approvals for essential travel related to the direct delivery of government

services can be delegated to an ADM. And pre-approval by the Deputy Minister to the

Premier is required for out-of-country travel.

The Chair : Thank you very much, Minister.

Seeing no further questions, we will call on the minister to…. Thank you.

Vote 26: ministry operations, $381,863,000 — approved.

Vote 27: government communications and public engagement, $29,430,000 — approved.

Vote 28: B.C. Public Service Agency, $115,350,000 — approved.

Vote 29: benefits and other employment costs, $1,000 — approved.

Estimates:

Management of Public Funds and Debt

Vote 47: management of public funds and debt, $3,797,749,000 — approved.

Estimates: Other Appropriations

Vote 48: contingencies, $5,000,000,000 — approved.

Vote 49: capital funding, $6,153,166,000 — approved.

Vote 50: commissions on collection of public funds, $1,000 — approved.

Vote 51: allowances for doubtful revenue accounts, $1,000 — approved.

Vote 52: tax transfers, $2,466,000,000 — approved.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I move that the committee rise and report resolution and completion and ask leave

to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair : This committee sits adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:24 p.m.

The House resumed at 6:24 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Lorne Doerkson : Committee of Supply,

Section B, reports resolution and completion of the estimates

of the Ministry of Finance and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 9 — Freedom of Information

and Protection of Privacy

Amendment Act, 2026

George Anderson :

Section A reports completion of Bill 9 with amendment.

The Speaker : When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. Mike Farnworth : Next sitting.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat :

Section C reports progress on Bill 20 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

The Speaker : This House stands adjourned until 1:30 pm tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.