The House met at 1:01 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Personal Statements

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: First, in question period, the member for Skeena…. I had thought the member said “emergency weather shelter,” but she in fact said “emergency shelter.” So I will withdraw that piece from my comments.

Tributes

George Humphrey

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Also, I want to share some sad news. We’ve lost an amazing person named George Humphrey, and I want to send condolences to his family.

On behalf of the Ministry of Housing, I want to acknowledge that George enriched the building industry in many ways — specifically, his service on the Building Code Appeal Board. George graciously chaired the board starting in 1990 and served on the board for 25 years, providing the industry with resolution on over 500 disputes. His amazing legacy lives on and continues to inform the industry professionals as they navigate the B.C. building code that George knew so well.

I want to send heartfelt gratitude for George and many thoughts to his family on everyone’s behalf at the Ministry of Housing as well as the province.

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister, for withdrawing your comments during question period. I consider the point of order raised is now resolved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 14, and in Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued committee stage on Bill 15.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects
(Streamlined Permitting) Act, 2025
(continued)

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Members. We’ll call the House back to order, where we will continue debate on Bill 14 this afternoon.

Amelia Boultbee: When British Columbians hear talk of streamlining energy permitting, they expect commonsense reforms — updates that cut unnecessary red tape while still protecting the environment, upholding safety standards and ensuring communities have a say in what happens in their backyards. Unfortunately, that is not what Bill 14 delivers.

[1:05 p.m.]

Bill 14, the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting)

Act has been dressed up by the government as a much-needed response to a permitting system they themselves made nearly unworkable.

For years, they layered on rules, hurdles and complexity, choking off investment, driving projects away and leaving communities frustrated by delay after delay. Now, faced with the consequences of their own mismanagement, they want to present as the fixers of a problem they created.

But let’s be clear. This is not a thoughtful correction. This is not about carefully balancing efficiency and transparency. What this bill actually does is hand over sweeping authority to cabinet and the B.C. Energy Regulator, cutting the public and this House out of the process entirely.

Bill 14 is not reform. It is yet another attempt from the NDP to stretch into overreach. It sidelines local voices, removes essential environmental and safety safeguards and gives a small group of decision-makers the ability to push projects forward without the accountability British Columbians expect from their elected leaders. It removes the checks and balances that give communities, Indigenous nations and everyday British Columbians a voice. It undermines the safeguards that ensure projects are built safely and responsibly, and it concentrates far too much discretion in the hands of cabinet behind closed doors.

If this government is serious about accelerating renewable energy, they would need to do it in a way that brings people along, not shuts them out. Unfortunately, Bill 14 does the latter. It is a heavy-handed piece of legislation that will cause more harm than good.

Over the course of my remarks today, I will walk through the troubling aspects of Bill 14, beginning with its overreach in defining what counts as a renewable energy project, its dangerous exemptions from environmental assessment and its unparalleled granting of authority to the regulator to rewrite its own rules without this House’s oversight. At the heart of this debate is a simple truth: democracy, transparency and accountability cannot and must not be sacrificed in the name of expediency.

Let us now examine how Bill 14 begins its overreach, right from the very definitions it sets in part 1 of the legislation. While the government frames this bill as focused on nine wind farms and the North Coast transmission line, the language embedded in the text tells a different story. The term “renewable resource” is defined so broadly, covering everything from biomass, biogas, geothermal, hydro, solar, ocean to wind, that it leaves the door wide open for cabinet to sweep in nearly any project they wish, simply by regulation.

They don’t need to bring it back to this House for debate. They don’t need to ask the public’s permission. All they need is an order in council, and suddenly, the project is deemed streamlined and exempt from the usual safeguards.

And if British Columbians take comfort in the idea that hydro dams, at least, are supposedly excluded, they shouldn’t. The only place where this exemption exists is in briefing materials, not in the bill itself. There is no explicit protection in law stopping cabinet from extending these powers to hydro dams or any other form of infrastructure they may later decide fits their agenda.

This is not a targeted reform of the permitting system. This is the writing of a blank cheque. It gives cabinet the latitude to designate, at any point and with no public process, any renewable project as streamlined regardless of its size, its location, its impact or its controversy. That is deeply dangerous. It eliminates the predictability and transparency that businesses, communities and Indigenous governments rely upon. It puts at risk the hard-won consultation processes that have been established to give communities a say in developments that directly impact them.

When a government centralizes decision-making behind closed doors, it erodes public trust. It invites conflict. It risks legal challenges, project delays and public backlash — the very problems this bill claims it is trying to avoid.

British Columbians expect better. They expect that if a major project is going to be designated as streamlined, that decision will be made openly, transparently and with clear justification, not hidden behind regulation or cabinet orders that escape public scrutiny.

[1:10 p.m.]

One of the most glaring and dangerous aspects of Bill 14 is how it dismantles environmental review processes in British Columbia, processes that communities in regions like mine, Penticton-Summerland, rely on to protect their environment, their livelihoods and their way of life.

Clause 14 disapplies the Environmental Assessment Act for specific wind projects and the North Coast transmission line. The government argues that this is a necessary step because the existing environmental framework does not adequately address wind energy. While the current framework may need modernizing, the response from this government is apparently to throw the entire process out the window.

I want to be clear. Environmental assessments are not just procedural steps. They are the mechanism by which we carefully evaluate the impacts of major projects on our land, water, wildlife and communities. They provide a structured, transparent opportunity for public input and scrutiny.

For the people of the South Okanagan, this is not a theoretical issue. We know the importance of ensuring that large-scale projects do not threaten sensitive ecosystems, agricultural lands or water resources. We expect our voices to be heard when our environment and our future is at stake.

Bill 14 grants cabinet the unilateral authority to exempt projects from environmental assessment, and it allows them to do so without consultation, without local input and without any independent evaluation of the risks. Respectfully, this is not responsible governance. It constitutes silencing of local communities, Indigenous peoples, environmental stewards and those who will live with the consequences of these decisions long after the projects are completed.

What message does it send to the people of Penticton-Summerland and surrounding communities that their knowledge of the land, their concerns about their environment and their right to participate in decisions that affect them are secondary to the government’s timelines?

We cannot allow that message to stand. British Columbians deserve a permitting system that is both efficient and inclusive. We can streamline processes without stripping away the critical safeguards that protect our communities and our environment. Bill 14 abandons that balance. It replaces thoughtful review with unchecked approvals. This is a recipe for conflict, environmental harm and long-term economic and social costs that our communities will be forced to bear.

Another deeply concerning aspect of Bill 14 is the way it erodes long-standing protections for agricultural land in British Columbia, land that is the backbone of communities like those in my riding of Penticton-Summerland.

Clause 15 of the bill grants the government authority to override the Agricultural Land Commission Act for projects deemed streamlined under this legislation. This means that renewable energy projects approved under Bill 14 will have unprecedented power to repurpose, subdivide or fundamentally alter agricultural land, all without the oversight, consent or even input from the Agricultural Land Commission.

For the people of the South Okanagan, this is not just a policy detail. This is a direct threat. Agriculture is not simply an industry in our communities. It is a way of life. It supports local jobs, food security, tourism and a deep connection to the land.

Bill 14 jeopardizes all of that by giving the government and the B.C. Energy Regulator the power to authorize non-farm use, subdivision or the dumping of soil and fill on ALR land without consulting farmers, ranchers or local governments. There is no requirement in this bill for public consultation or even notification.

My opposition to this bill is not to oppose renewable energy. Our farmers and communities support responsible clean energy projects, but they expect those projects to respect the land, the environment and the people who live and work there. Bill 14 makes a mockery of that expectation.

By bypassing the Agricultural Land Commission and centralizing decision-making in the hands of cabinet and the regulator, the government is disregarding the very safeguards that have protected our most precious agricultural lands for generations. That is a betrayal of rural British Columbia, of food producers and of the values we hold dear in Penticton, Summerland and the entire South Okanagan.

[1:15 p.m.]

This House must stand up for agriculture, it must stand up for rural communities, and it must reject Bill 14’s reckless disregard for both.

If we needed any further proof that Bill 14 is more about consolidating unchecked authority than responsibly supporting renewable energy, we find it in how the legislation extends into areas far beyond energy permitting. Clauses 16, 17 and 18 empower the B.C. Energy Regulator with sweeping discretion to bypass critical laws that were never designed to be optional.

The legislation allows the regulator to suspend the application of the Safety Standards Act, ignore the Heritage Conservation Act and overrule protections in the Wildlife Act for any project pushed through the highest level of fast-tracking under Bill 14.

To say this is overreach would be an understatement. The regulator, whose mandate is supposed to be technical oversight of energy activities, is suddenly handed the authority to make determinations about cultural heritage, public safety and wildlife management, with no obligation to consult the people affected.

In my riding and many others, outdoor recreation, fishing and hunting are more than just activities. They are part of our local identity, supporting businesses, tourism and family traditions passed down through generations, yet under this legislation, the regulator would have the power to revoke these rights overnight.

Hunting, trapping and fishing licences, which were earned, paid for and are vital to rural life, can be cancelled at the whim of the regulator, with no notice, no hearing and no path to appeal. This is not streamlining; this is the sidelining of local communities from the decisions that shape their own backyards.

It is equally disconcerting that Bill 14 places heritage determinations into the hands of the regulator and allows them to appoint an individual of their choosing to decide whether a site holds cultural or historical value. Respectfully, that is not a safeguard; that is a rubber-stamp system designed to fast-track approvals, which could erase the voices of those who live on these lands.

On the matter of safety, the bill sends the chilling message that when projects are politically prioritized, the safety of workers and the public is negotiable. This is a betrayal of basic governance and an affront to British Columbians who expect and deserve safe, responsible development in every sector.

Beyond the heavy-handed encroachment on safety and heritage, Bill 14 ventures even further into the realm of fiscal overreach and democratic erosion. Clauses 11 and 12 of this bill grant the B.C. Energy Regulator unprecedented powers to impose fees and levies on renewable energy projects.

It’s not just the imposition of new costs that is concerning; it is the fact that these fees can be applied retroactively, reaching back to 2024, regardless of when a project was approved or commenced. Retroactive taxation is not standard policy; it is an extraordinary measure that throws fairness, predictability and business certainty out the window.

Companies that followed the rules of the day, that invested based on known regulatory frameworks, could now face the possibility of having new, unforeseen costs applied after the fact, simply because the regulator or cabinet decides to change the rules.

What message does this send to potential investors in British Columbia’s renewable sector? It tells them that no project is ever truly secure, that no agreement or permit is ever final, and that the goalposts can and will move without warning. At a time when British Columbia is striving to attract private investment in clean energy, this is the worst possible signal to send.

It’s not only economically reckless; it is fundamentally undemocratic. Clause 13 goes even further by allowing cabinet to amend the Energy Resource Activities Act, the law that governs the regulator itself, by regulation. That is to say, the very body responsible for implementing the law is being given the power to rewrite it without ever returning to this House for scrutiny, debate or vote.

[1:20 p.m.]

This is a violation of the basic principles of legislative democracy. If a government wishes to change the law, it must do so openly, through the democratic process under the watchful eye of the people’s representatives. Bill 14 sidesteps that entirely, handing cabinet the ability to reshape the governing framework of energy regulation at will and without transparency. This is not governance for the people; it is governance around the people. And British Columbians will not stand for it.

Clause 21 of the bill is another example of the government’s disregard for lawful governance. It retroactively validates any actions the regulator may have taken, dating back to April 1, 2024, even though this legislation had not yet been passed. In plain terms, the government is attempting to grant itself the power to legalize actions that under the current framework could well have been outside the law.

This is not responsible conduct that should be defending the rule of law and instead is an attempt to shield the government and the regulator from scrutiny, from accountability and from the legal consequences of their actions. And if clause 21 weren’t alarming enough, clause 23 doubles down on this approach. This clause allows the government to cancel existing environmental assessment certificates — certificates that communities, First Nations and project proponents negotiated over years, often through hard-fought discussions aimed at balancing development with environmental stewardship.

What does that say to the community groups who spent countless hours reviewing projects, voicing concerns and negotiating protections? It says, quite bluntly, that those efforts no longer matter. This is more than administrative overreach. It is the rewriting of history. It sets a precedent that no certificate, no permit condition and no community agreement is secure under the government — that any deal made today can be undone tomorrow without so much as a phone call or a public announcement.

This is a government that once campaigned on transparency, on respect for Indigenous rights, on protecting farmland and the environment. Yet with Bill 14, they have crafted legislation that violates all those principles and does so retroactively. This House should not allow that precedent to stand.

As I conclude my remarks today, I urge this House to step back and see Bill 14 for what it truly is, not as a narrow attempt to fix delays in renewable energy permitting, but as an all-encompassing power grab that touches every corner of our governance, our communities and our environment. This is not governance that serves the people of British Columbia. This is governance that serves the interests of the few, while silencing the voices of the many.

The people of Penticton-Summerland, like communities across this province, want to see renewable energy developed, but they want it done in a way that respects our values, our lands and our democratic institutions. They want to know that when a project is proposed, it will go through an open, fair and rigorous process — one that considers environmental impacts, listens to local communities, upholds safety standards, protects farmland, honours Indigenous rights and ensures public transparency every step of the way.

They do not want to wake up and find that those protections have been swept away by a bureaucratic decree or a cabinet order made without debate in this chamber. Bill 14 fails the test of good governance, it fails the test of transparency, it fails the test of accountability, and above all, it fails the test of respect for the people, for the land, for Indigenous peoples, for the democratic process that should guide every decision we make in this place.

I respectfully call on every member of this House to stand against this legislation, not because we oppose renewable energy, but because we stand for the principles that must govern its development: fairness, balance, integrity and, above all, respect for the people of British Columbia.

[1:25 p.m.]

Let us reject Bill 14, and let us begin the real work of building a permitting system that works for everyone.

John Rustad: It’s an honour to be able to have an opportunity to stand and speak to Bill 14. I know the minister is going to get a chance to respond to many things that have been said, and I look forward to hearing some of those responses. I may not agree with those responses, of course, but that’s fair enough. That’s what politics is about.

When I think about Bill 14, I often think about my riding. There are a number of wind projects and opportunities in my riding, which I think are interesting projects to see moving forward. I always am honoured to have an opportunity to stand up and speak on behalf, of course, of my riding of Nechako Lakes.

When I look at the wind projects that are going through the process, though, I often wonder: why has there been such a delay in the process of getting these wind projects going? Why wasn’t there a call for these wind projects to move forward, say, since 2017? Oh yes, that’s right. We had a change of government, and they stopped going after these projects. So it stopped these things from coming forward.

Meanwhile, now we’ve waited eight years, and in that process of waiting eight years, we have seen the environmental assessment process become so onerous, so problematic, that you can’t get things done. You’ve seen other legislation and components come forward by this government that make it virtually impossible to get things done. You’ve even seen changes to the agricultural land reserve, which this government did, which they’re now, of course, going to throw out as part of Bill 14.

You know, I get that they’re embarrassed about all the things and all the barriers and all the problems they’ve created over eight years to actually see projects move forward, and they’re looking for a way to save themselves. I get it. It’s fine. But the consequences of what they have done over that time can’t just be solved with Bill 14 or even Bill 15 or even Bill 7.

You look at, for example, the mining sector. It takes up to 15 years to get a mining project through the permitting and through the process — 15 years. That’s like you’re going as a board to your shareholders and you’re saying: “We want to invest a significant amount of money, potentially $1 billion or $2 billion, on a project, but we will get to mine it for the next generation.” It’s crazy to think it takes that long to get a project going.

It’s no wonder why we have seen, for example, exploration dollars decline by 27 percent, why we’ve seen the number of metres drilled decline by 40 percent, why we are considered a jurisdiction where people don’t want to invest in things like mining. Bill 14 and its sister Bill 15 don’t solve these problems.

But let’s take a look at, maybe, what other jurisdictions are doing. You look at, for example, Sweden — solid left-wing government, solid environmental standards. They get it done in two years. Two years. How come it takes us this long? If you want to just have a quick look at housing — and that has, obviously, nothing to do with Bill 14 — it can take three to five years to see a major housing project go through. You go to Denmark — which is a left-wing government, high environmental standards — and it takes two months.

The problem is not needing to go through with a bill like this to trample democracy, to trample the rights of input, to make sure that standards, environmental stuff is being bypassed. No, no. The problem is what they have created over eight years to get to this point. The problem is they need to go back and actually rip out all of that stuff that they’ve done so we can get projects moving through in a timely way.

Just last year we had somewhere between 10 and 20 percent net of the electricity we consumed in this province coming from the United States. The year before it was around 10 percent. This year, to date, we’re already around 6 percent of the power we’re consuming, and it’s climbing. And now, suddenly, they’ve got a problem. They want to get projects moved forward. Well, seven or eight years ago, they actually removed the requirement for British Columbia to be energy self-sufficient when it came to electricity. They didn’t move forward asking for projects. They didn’t get stuff happening in the hopper. Now we’re short. Now they’re in a panic.

That is not how to govern. That is not how you get things done in this province. You have to have the foresight. You have to look forward. You have to be moving things in a timely way, so that they can move forward, understanding that there’s a process that goes forward.

You know, when I think, for example, of wind projects…. I mean, when I think of up in your riding, Mr. Speaker, or even in my riding, why won’t cattle stand under a wind project? Interesting question. Obviously, there’s noise, there are components. What about migratory birds? Have you ever looked underneath large windmills to see how many birds were taken out? It’s an interesting question.

[1:30 p.m.]

These are all important environmental issues that should be brought forward as part of a process, not to mention the many, many kilometres — tens, if not hundreds of kilometres — of power lines that need to be built and what that does for wildlife, what that does in impact on the land base and what that does with First Nations rights. That’s all part of what a wind project will be.

On top of all of that, this government has refused to answer the question of exactly what this is going to cost the ratepayer. You think about it. They’re going to build a power line now from the northeast to the northwest. They don’t have the electricity to put in it, because we’re importing power from the United States, but let’s set that aside for a second. They’re going to build this power line. It’s going to be, they say, $3 billion; I say $5 billion. They haven’t built anything, ever, once, in a project on time.

So $5 billion. That is now — what? — 30 percent of the cost of Site C? How much is Site C adding to the cost of electricity in the province of British Columbia? How much will this power line add to the cost of electricity? And who’s paying for the power line? Guess what. That’s going to be the ratepayers of British Columbia that are paying for it, not the proponents.

There’s a simple solution. For one-tenth of the cost, you could have all the power you want to the northwest, without having to put that cost on ratepayers in British Columbia — one-tenth of the cost. Don’t you think that would be the right thing to do? Half the population of this province is within $200 of going under and not making their bills. How much is this going to cost the ratepayers in British Columbia, in the rate increases for the power line alone — not to mention all of these wind projects?

When I was in cabinet, we looked at wind. We looked significantly at the potential of wind and at all of the projects that were, let’s say, tier 1, where many of them move forward in British Columbia. Many of these projects are not tier 1. They’re down even lower, so their efficiency and their return are less.

We looked at the cost associated with it, whatever it was…. It was $95 to $115 a unit to build that out. It was more than a decade ago when we looked at it. The costs have obviously gone up since then. The issue is that they only give you 15 years, or 25 years, if you’re lucky. At 15 years they start degrading. By 20 years you’re lucky if you’re getting more of it. Then you’ve got to rebuild it.

What does that mean for environmental assessment? What do you do with the windmill blades? What do you do with the product? How do you deal with that? Do you dig a hole in the ground and bury them? They aren’t recyclable. So how does that work with environmental assessment and that process, going forward? What does that cost, not just for today but for 40 or 50 years out, in having to replace the windmill once, twice, maybe even three times, for that amount of power?

Here’s the other problem with wind. Wind has to be part of the mix; don’t get me wrong. I think it’s important to be able to have it as part of the mix, but when we are at minus 30 or 35 in weather throughout most of British Columbia last winter, guess how much power was being generated by wind. Close to zero. When we need the energy the most, it is the energy that is not available. That puts tremendous pressure on the whole system to make up the additional energy.

Now, we’ve got our heritage dams. We’ve got site C coming on. That helps to firm up the power, which is a good thing, but you cannot be in a situation where you’re losing so much of that energy potential because it’s not generating power. Depending on how much wind projects come on, they’re usually in the 25 to 40 percent range of what their capacity is, on an annual basis. They peak up; they go down. They need to be firmed, obviously, by dams.

You’ve got to build twice as much wind power, if not three times as much, to match other sources for the stability that you need within the grid. Once again, what is the cost to ratepayers? By how much are rates going to have to go up for these projects? It’s something conveniently ignored by this government. With proper assessment and proper scrutiny going through the House, going through that, we’d come out with those numbers, as opposed to just cabinet saying: “We’re going to move forward with these projects regardless.”

It’s important to be transparent to the people in British Columbia. It’s important to make sure that we know what our costs are going to be. I think about what we need to get done in this province, in opening up our mines. There are 27 mines that are ready to be going as projects, which represent a $100 billion investment. LNG opportunities — there’s stupendously more if we can get rid of these emission caps and these other problems that governments put in the way.

We got to get our feet back under our forest sector. We got to drive investment in businesses in B.C., because at this point, investor confidence and business confidence are at all-time lows, practically, in this province.

[1:35 p.m.]

There’s so much that needs to be done. Adding costs, overriding the process, is not the way to build confidence. Adding uncertainty on power is not the way to build confidence. Getting rid of all of the barriers and the process that this government has put in place over eight years is the way to go — streamlining it so that anybody can move a project forward — not just projects handpicked by a Premier who has said it has to be Indigenous-owned.

I fully support economic reconciliation. I support Indigenous bands being involved in projects and companies. I think that’s great. That is the path we have to go. In saying that it has to be, it means that any other project can’t go forward, certainly not in a timely way. They’ve got to get mired in this long bureaucratic process that this NDP has created over time.

That’s not the way to build an economy. That’s certainly not the way to build confidence. And that’s certainly not the way, in my opinion, of making sure that the ratepayers of British Columbia are protected. At the end of the day, we are talking about the people in British Columbia needing electricity on an ongoing basis.

We are already in a shortfall. We need to make sure that we do everything we can to expand our electrical grid. We need a 50-year-plus plan showing where it’s going to come from, what those costs are, what those options are.

This government’s not doing anything associated with that. They’re just moving forward projects that they have handpicked to say, “Yes, we want these things to go forward,” as opposed to going through a competitive, open-market process that should happen. Again, that’s the way this government does everything. Just look at the community benefits agreements and their approach to favouring unions, which really are not community benefits. I would argue that you can’t see any community benefits, except for accelerated costs and massive delays.

Regardless of that, we need to be able to see that kind of confidence in British Columbia. That’s what we’re going to be trying to do. That’s what, certainly on our side of the House, we’re trying to do. Which is why when we look at Bill 14, when we look at Bill 15, when we look at Bill 7, we’re opposed to this type of overreach by government. We’re opposed to this anti-democratic process that “government knows best.”

Ask yourself this: can you name anything that this government has been doing, over the last eight years, that has improved? Certainly not on health care, on homelessness, on drugs, on our economy, or when it comes to our forest sector or any other major sector that we have in this province, on housing or on affordability.

“Don’t worry,” the government says. “Trust us. We know best. We’re going to handpick projects. We’re not going to have a competitive process. We’re not going to allow for the kind of entrepreneurial innovation and cost savings that is needed. No, no, we know best. We’re just going to approve projects.” Well, that is not how you build an economy in B.C., how you build confidence in the province or how you look after the people in British Columbia.

We stand opposed to these bills. We stand opposed to this overreach because it is the wrong way to go. You need to have this House respected, to have democracy respected and to make sure that at the end of the day, we always keep the people as our primary interest.

What is the cost going to be for them? What is this going to look like? How are we going to meet those long-term needs? Most importantly, how do we assure people they’re not going to have blackouts, which are now being warned for places like the Okanagan, because we’ve had a government that has been ignoring this problem for eight years?

I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words, always, on behalf of my riding of Nechako Lakes, and I look forward to the response from the minister.

Á’a:líya Warbus: I rise today to oppose Bill 14 and to bring in a few perspectives that I think are very important, especially in the climate we’re in right now, within reconciliation, and considering the speeches that we heard from First Nations leaders, young women, on the steps of the Legislature building today, who are speaking about the invisibility, the silence, all the important recognition that needs to happen from this government. I think this bill is the example of how that gets ignored.

[1:40 p.m.]

I look at some of the statements that have been made by the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, who just yesterday and today are calling upon this government, and directly to the Premier, in regard to Bill 14. This is the vice-Chief of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs:

“We want you” — speaking to government, again — “to hear from us directly that the Chiefs and leadership on this call” — which happened just this morning — “are unanimously opposed to the bills, both 14 and 15. We are also in agreement that we will be taking action to ensure they are not passed, but if you do manage to force them through, despite our collective opposition, we will be exploring every avenue to kill them.

“You did not follow your own law and processes, you did not respect our rights, and that has resulted in legislation that is not redeemable in the present form.”

Jody Wilson-Raybould, a former Attorney General and an Indigenous lawyer, also states:

“You don’t make good law by breaking the law” — this is in regards to Bills 14 and 15. “They violate Section 3 of DRIPA, this government’s own recognition of consultation with Indigenous and First Nations across British Columbia. You don’t drive economic growth by setting the stage for conflict in the courts and on the ground. First Nations, industry and all British Columbians will be the victims of the government’s pursuit of this bad law.”

Again, the UBCIC put out a statement that said: “Fix the bill, or kill the bill.” I quote, again, their words: “Don’t dare say, ‘Trust us.’”

I think, in bringing all of this, it’s very clear that a pause, to ensure that legislation we bring forward in this House is done in good faith with Indigenous communities — as outlined in the declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples — needs to happen. Taking the time to ensure that that process is followed is not going to impede the sense of urgency that we’ve been made to believe exists.

Speaking to Bill 14 in particular, on the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act — it’s there in the name, a streamlined process — we’re told repeatedly that Bill 14 will unlock the province’s economic potential.

Again, on this side of the House, we support that, but we also support the government following its own laws and finding a way to do this in partnership with Indigenous people, who are going to benefit from having a say and gaining the economic opportunities that are afforded to everybody else in this province.

“We recognize that the timeline that we had for engagement on this bill was shorter than we’d have liked.” That is a direct quote from this government’s own minister in relation to Bill 15, and it applies here to Bill 14 as well.

If this legislation — from its onset, from its inception, from the very creation — is going to infringe upon Indigenous rights that this government has made a commitment to, then I’m not sure why we’re still here debating it. There needs to be a recognition that it be afforded the time it takes to have the alignment with DRIPA and that Indigenous leaders are going to be on side with any changes to legislation that’s going to affect them. That’s very clear.

[1:45 p.m.]

Bill 14 consolidates authority and decision-making on renewable energy projects, but it also restructures the administration of power in a way that does not prioritize accountable or transparent governance.

British Columbians themselves have all come out from different levels of government, not just Indigenous, to say that they do not feel represented in this legislation, that there’s no need to rush past the consultation phase they should be afforded. And this side of the House feels that because closure was imposed and we organized ourselves to debate these bills in a certain way for the shorter time that the government afforded to us, we’ve made a lot of concessions in terms of democracy and shorting the opportunity for proper debate by every member in this House who deserves that time.

Those concessions were made because of closure. But now we’re hearing an uproar and an arising of voices from British Columbians, Indigenous and business owners and municipalities and even industry, who are saying: “Just pause. Just hold for one minute so that we can have the opportunity to ensure that this legislation is going to be moved forward in a good way.”

I cannot support this bill in good conscience. We cannot, on this side of the House, support this bill in good conscience. There is too much at stake when we begin to….

The Chair: Member, I just need to ask you to pause just for a very brief moment while we recognize the member for Burnaby North.

Janet Routledge: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Member.

I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Janet Routledge: We are joined this afternoon with a grade 5 class from St. Helen’s School in Burnaby North. Not only is St. Helen’s in Burnaby North; it’s in Burnaby Heights. They are valued neighbours of mine, and in fact, one of their number, Gianluca, lives right next door to me. This is our future of democracy here to observe and participate in democracy at some point in the future.

Please join me in giving them a very warm welcome.

Debate Continued

Á’a:líya Warbus: In getting back to the debate and what we’re talking about here, I think we could go for a very long time and get into the details of how…. Again, this side of the House is absolutely on board with getting industry and economy going in this province. We’ve needed it for a long time, and there have been processes missing. There have been discussions and real, I think, collaboration timelines, deadlines that have been missing and lost so that government can ensure and have the ability to be in close contact with any Indigenous community or nation that’s impacted.

Because there are no clear determinations in these broad powers afforded by this bill, who’s to say really? It’s that uncertainty that’s the premise of what I’m saying and what I’m speaking out about. This trend is not just Indigenous leaders that are noticing. Again, the public is noticing.

[1:50 p.m.]

Vaughn Palmer said: “On closer examination, the two bills do not actually repeal any of B.C.’s heavy regulatory burden. Rather, they give the cabinet arbitrary powers to override existing rules, regulations and procedures on projects favoured by the NDP.”

That ability to have flexibility…. What it actually does is skip over some very important processes. The public’s noticed, and this side of the House has noticed.

Yes, we campaigned on cutting red tape. We still believe in that. But cutting red tape means coming up with processes that are going to work for everyone in a democratic way. It does not mean cutting corners. It means clearing out the bureaucracy that slows down good projects, not gutting the safeguards that protect our land, our communities and our democracy.

There’s a stark difference between efficiency and recklessness. To take these big swings from how long we’ve waited for projects to go forward and be approved and make a difference, create jobs for all of British Columbia…. Now we’re going to speed it up to the point where no one can be in support of that kind of process and that kind of governmental, centralized power.

I’ll just close with this. We absolutely want to grow our economy. We want to see Indigenous communities benefit. We want to see that self-determination happen, absolutely. But it has to start on the right foot. If we can’t do that, then I think we need to take a pause in the process, take a look at how to right the ship and ensure that everybody in this province is moving together in one direction, paddling the same canoe.

Let’s get the process right before shovels hit the ground so we are not forced to clean up after policy failures later on.

Misty Van Popta: Glad to be here to speak to Bill 14. I just want to talk a little bit about my community, about Langley. We’ve got some energy needs there. We’re one of the fastest-growing municipalities in British Columbia. We’ve got needs for a new substation in my community. When I look at Bill 14, I don’t see how those needs will be met in my community.

There’s lots to say. My colleagues here have spoken to the different pieces of Bill 14. I thought I would actually kind of jump in a little bit further into it, just talk about some of the pieces that I see in regards to recovery and fees — things like that. Riveting information here.

I’m going to jump in with clause 12 of Bill 14. It authorizes the B.C. Energy Regulator to impose levies retroactively. The effective date for those levies is set as April 1, 2024, a full year before this bill comes into force.

The mechanism is straightforward. The commissioner issues a certificate to the project proponent, public or private, requiring them to pay a specified amount. That amount is determined unilaterally. Once served and published online, it becomes enforceable. No appeal process is outlined.

Clause 11 expands on this by giving the board authority with Treasury Board approval to increase, decrease or disapply fees entirely. The board can make different determinations for different projects or classes of proponents, in effect a flexible fee structure, discretionary in both amount and application.

These are not incidental powers. They redefine the financial relationship between government, regulator and industry. The regulator becomes both the adjudicator and creditor with little transparency required beyond the posting of a certificate.

[1:55 p.m.]

The question is not whether levies are appropriate. The question is whether they are predictable, proportionate and subject to independent oversight. In Bill 14, they are not. There is no formula laid out, no public framework for how costs are calculated, no requirement that fees reflect actual environmental burden, project scale or public input. Just a levy, issued at discretion, potentially backdated by more than a year.

This creates uncertainty, not just for project proponents but for communities like mine. When regulator costs are unstable, the consequences cascade. Capital is relocated, timelines shift, and project designs change — all of it without public input. We are legislating risk into the system, not operational risk but regulatory unpredictability. British Columbians who ultimately bear the economic and environmental consequences of these projects are left without a clear map, without recourse, without context.

This may be legally sound, but it is structurally flawed. Sound regulation depends on two things: clear rules and credible process. Bill 14 provides neither. It introduces a “pay now, explain later” model, it makes financial obligations retroactive, and it places critical fiscal powers into the hands of a regulator whose core mandate is approvals, not financial fairness. There is no built-in auditing function, no mechanism for reviewing the scope or impact of a levy once imposed, no assurance of parity between projects of similar scale.

Again, this is not about intent. It’s about structure. Once a precedent is set for retroactive fees, once we grant a regulator the right to rewrite financial obligations after the fact, we are no longer operating under a rule book. We are waiting for the next memo. Legislation should never leave the public or private sector guessing, but in this case, both are left to speculate. That is not streamlining. That is improvisation at a legislative level.

Bill 14 is not an isolated case. It must be understood within a context of a pattern, one that is beginning to define this government’s legislative posture. It follows Bill 7, which sought to grant extraordinary authority to the Minister of Housing to override local governments and to rezone land at will. That bill was rightfully scrutinized for its centralization of power.

Now Bill 14 extends a similar authority structure into the energy and environmental space. The mechanism is different, but the trajectory is the same: move decision-making out of sight, away from public processes; concentrate it within the regulatory or executive discretion; reduce legislative debate; minimize local input; and sideline oversight.

This bill allows cabinet, by regulation, to determine which projects are exempt from environmental assessments, which lands can be used outside of agricultural purposes, which fees will be imposed and which parts of standing legislation will apply or not apply. It also allows the B.C. Energy Regulator to alter or ignore conditions set under other statutes without needing to seek legislative amendment, without public hearings and without direct accountability to this House.

This is not just a question of policy design. It’s a question of legislative culture. If I may, Mr. Speaker, it’s the kind of shift that happens quietly until one day we look up and realize how much has moved behind closed doors.

Now, let me be fair here. I do not believe every member across the aisle is comfortable with this. I believe some are as concerned as we are about what it means to give regulators the authority to bypass environmental law, heritage protections and long-standing land use frameworks.

[2:00 p.m.]

In fact, I suspect many feel the weight of this in their own constituencies when farmers, fishers and rural residents ask what protections remain when a project is classified as streamlined; when Indigenous leaders ask what consultation truly looks like under this bill; when community stakeholders read clause 13 and realize how easily foundational acts can be rewritten from inside cabinet. This is where the bill becomes more than a document. It becomes a decision.

Embedded in Bill 14 is not just a set of permissions. It’s a philosophy, a governing approach that says urgency justifies expedience, that the right people with the right tools don’t need the same guardrails, that if the goal is good, the process can bend.

But good intentions are not good governance, and even good outcomes cannot excuse bad precedents. We were not elected to manage the outcome alone. We were elected to steward the process, to ensure that the path we take is as legitimate as the result we seek.

Once we accept the idea that fundamental frameworks — environmental review, land protection, public input — can be turned off when they become inconvenient, we create a future that is governed by exemption. That’s what’s at stake here, not just the projects outlined in this bill but the precedent it sets for every project that follows. Excellent guidance.

I’ll strike a deeply thoughtful, grounded tone, appealing not to party lines but to shared conviction. I’m really struggling. I’m really struggling with a lot of things that have happened today. We’ve heard a lot of words in these chambers, especially over Bill 14. I’ll mention Bill 15 just briefly, even though it’s before the House — not what’s being said in the chambers but outside.

I’m really scared for a lot of these bills and the tones that they’re setting and how we got to a place in this chamber where we’re given the tools by our constituents and those who have voted for us to act responsibly, to not bypass procedure, to not bypass standing orders to get things done.

There are moments in this House when the weight of a vote exceeds the weight of legislation. This is one of those moments. While Bill 14 is presented as a renewable energy framework, it is, in truth, a referendum on how much authority we are willing to concede for convenience, for pace, for process. Every member of this Legislature will have to live with the decision they make here, not only politically but personally.

So I want to be very clear. The questions I’m about to pose are not partisan; they are principled. They are the questions any thoughtful legislator on either side of this House should be asking before voting in favour of a bill like this.

First, why does this legislation allow a regulator to act retroactively? Why is it necessary to validate actions that were taken before the law existed, unless those actions would have otherwise been challengeable?

Second, why is the Environmental Assessment Act being deliberately disapplied, instead of updated to accommodate renewable development? If the government believes in clean energy, why not pursue clean governance alongside it?

Third, why does this bill override agricultural land protections, heritage, oversight, safety standards and public access to wildlife regulation, silently through delegation rather than transparently through debate?

[2:05 p.m.]

Fourth, why are fees and levies enforceable by certificate followed to be imposed retroactively without a clear methodology or appeal process?

Perhaps most important of all, why does cabinet require the power to apply, modify or disapply entire sections of the Energy Resource Activities Act by regulation, without legislative approval?

These are not minor queries; these are structural questions. Every one of us in this House has a duty to ask them, because the people we represent cannot ask them for us, not once the vote is cast.

You see, this is what it means to govern — not just to stand for outcomes but to uphold the process that brings them about, not just to chase the goal but to protect the ground we stand on while we do it. That’s where the tension of this moment lives. If we vote to pass this bill, we are not just voting for renewable energy. We are voting to accept that the ends justify the means, that because we like the label on the front of the bill, we’re willing to overlook what’s written inside.

Some may choose to do that, but that choice will be remembered. It will be remembered by local governments who find themselves sidelined on permitting decisions. It will be remembered by Indigenous nations who read the fine print and find consultation replaced with delegation. It will be remembered by farmers who discover their land use protections evaporated through cabinet regulation. It will be remembered by families, workers and industry who realize too late that oversight was traded for speed.

We did not run for office to make decisions in the absence of scrutiny. We came here to serve, to steward and to stand for something that holds and to make the tough decisions. When we cast our votes on Bill 14, that’s exactly what we will be doing — standing for something, either for the integrity of process or for the convenience of bypassing it, either for a vision of renewable development that includes the public or one that edits them out.

I urge every member of this chamber, before the votes are called, before the lines are drawn, to remember what you came here to do. The public may not remember every clause, but they will remember where we stood. I, for one, want to be found standing on the side of clarity, of accountability and for the people who trusted us to hold the line.

I want to close by returning to something simple, something that shouldn’t be controversial. British Columbians deserve good governance — not perfect governance, not effortless governance, but good governance. Measured, principled, accountable. The kind that doesn’t hide authority behind regulation, the kind that doesn’t trade away process for expedience, the kind that doesn’t sell the promise of progress while writing off the protections that give progress its meaning.

Bill 14 does not reflect that standard. It may contain elements of positive intent. It may streamline development. It may even enable projects that are, on their own, worthwhile. But taken as a whole, this legislation crosses a line and does so without apology. It centralizes authority. It suspends oversight. It dilutes land protections. It weakens heritage conservation. It creates retroactive powers with no natural limits. It rewrites legislative frameworks without requiring legislative debate. Not once does it offer a credible answer to the question: why must this be done this way?

We are not opposing this bill because we oppose renewable energy. We are opposing it because the means matter, because democracy is not just what you say; it’s how you move.

[2:10 p.m.]

When the public stops recognizing the system they’re being governed by, you lose more than their consent. You lose their trust. This isn’t a partisan objection; this is a principled one.

The principle is this: climate solutions cannot come at the cost of democratic erosion. The residents of British Columbia are not just asking for clean energy. They’re asking for clarity and for confidence, for a government that doesn’t force them choose between progress and participation. If this House passes Bill 14 as it stands, we are telling them that their say is secondary, that decisions affecting their land, their water, their safety and their future can be made by regulation, exemption and delegation, that accountability is negotiable when the project is big enough.

I reject that message, because clean energy deserves clean government, and clean government demands more than speed. It demands scrutiny. It demands structure. It demands laws that can be trusted not just to deliver outcomes but to reflect the values we promised when we ran for office in the first place.

Today we can choose to stand for something deeper than efficiency. We can stand for balance. We can stand for transparency. We can stand for the long view, for the idea that how we build matters as much as what we build. That’s the vote. And I believe when the dust settles, when the details are remembered, when the public looks back and asks who stood up and said, “This is too far,” they’ll find those of us who voted against this bill, not because we’re obstructionists but because we were builders, too, builders of trust, builders of good governance, builders of a future where the public still has a seat at the table.

I urge this House to take the harder road, the road of restraint, of reform and of respect. I will be saying no to Bill 14. Say yes to something better.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I’ll call on the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions to close our debate on Bill 14.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Thank you to all the members of the House who participated in the debate on all sides.

Bill 14 is important legislation. It, essentially, assists us in doing what we need to do, which is to build in this province, to build clean energy projects and to make the way we deal with clean energy projects, in terms of how we regulate them and how we address them, more efficient.

Members of the House will know, and I’ll just say that I’ve been a long-time member of the House and I believe in the role of opposition strongly in the House. But I think there is an obligation to be factual. There is an obligation to not, I think, mislead, inadvertently, perhaps, but mislead nonetheless.

Deputy Speaker: Member, we are always careful around that kind of language.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I know. That’s why I say that, hon. Speaker, because I think we have legislation here that is consistent with legislation that has been passed in this House for decades. The legislation in this bill, this legislation, puts renewable energy projects under the B.C. Energy Regulator.

You know what else is under the B.C. Energy Regulator? Oil and gas companies. You know when we started doing that? 1998. You know what happened in the House? It passed unanimously.

All of these issues, all of these responsibilities that are now being assigned to renewable energy projects, essentially, have been dealt with in the oil and gas industry by the same regulator for 25 years. We have an experience with this. So when people talk about new things and ignore the fact that they supported that…. And they support it.

Would anyone on that side of the House suggest that we should eliminate the B.C. Energy Regulator from oil and gas? Surely, the member for Kamloops Centre isn’t arguing that. That we didn’t….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: The minister has the floor.

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, hon. Speaker, the member for Kamloops Centre and his former party, profiles in courage…. He moved to a new party just before the election.

Interjection.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Here he is, and that’s good. And here I am.

The B.C. Energy Regulator has had that in place for 25 years.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, the minister has the floor.

Hon. Adrian Dix: We debate the estimates every year. And even though the B.C. Energy Regulator has some responsibilities for the ALR under its legislation, not once has any member of the opposition raised any issues about how they dealt with that. Not once in all that time.

We have the comments of the Leader of the Opposition, which I’ll start with. He says the opposition cares about ratepayers. Well, before we got here, 16 years before we got here, he was part of that government. In his long period as a Liberal activist and MLA, we saw B.C. Hydro rates increase 54 percent above the rate of inflation over that period.

Do you know what has happened to them since this government has come to office? They’ve declined 12 percent below the rate of inflation.

I heard them all say it: “We’re in favour of renewable energy.” But transmission is critical to renewable energy. Transmission projects are renewable energy projects, and they’re against the North Coast transmission line. They’re against the line that brings renewable energy, produced in the North, to the northwest. They’re against that. How do I know that? Because they’ve said so. They want to put an immediate stop to that project, and the Leader of the Opposition opposes it. Are they against renewable energy? You bet they’re against renewable energy.

The Leader of the Opposition suggests: “Well, we’re not really against wind power.” But what does he actually say? What does he actually think about wind power? When we heard, “We’re in favour of wind power, just not this wind power,” or not this way for wind power. What does he say about wind power? It’s a dream. He says: “It’s a dream. It’s a fantasy. You might as well be running the country on unicorn farts.” Not my words, the words of the Leader of the Opposition, who says he’s in favour of wind energy.

He’s not in favour of wind energy. He’s not in favour of renewable energy. The opposition is not in favour of wind energy, and they’re not in favour of renewable energy. That’s fair. They can oppose the bill, I suppose, on that basis. But I think — and I say this with all due respect, as the members of the opposition said from time to time in their speeches — that the discussion from the Leader of the Opposition and members of the opposition about their support for the Environmental Assessment Act….

They started this session by saying, and I quote: “We should suspend all but the essential requirements in the Environmental Assessment Act.” They want to gut the Environmental Assessment Act. And they spent days here, 37 speeches here, saying they’re in favour of the Environmental Assessment Act. They’re against it. They want to immediately provide, under that act, a ten-year extension to already permitted natural gas pipeline projects. So I guess for some projects they’re against; for some they’re in favour. They’re either against or mostly against.

In fact, these are their party policies. Can you believe you would advocate for gutting the Environmental Assessment Act at the beginning of the session and then end the session saying you’re the big supporters of the Environmental Assessment Act? No one on earth will be fooled by that.

Now, we did have a chance…. My friend from Kamloops referred to the fact that I listen to speeches in the Legislature. Yes, I do, because when my bill is before the Legislature, I like to listen to members speak. I’d say there were two different sets of speech notes. The member for Peace River South gave a speech. I don’t agree with a lot of what was in his speech, but there was nothing…. There were moments of disagreement on matters of policy. He’s a serious person who knows a lot about energy. I have a lot of respect for him. He didn’t make any inaccurate statements in his speech.

The member for Kamloops Centre — I disagree with a lot of what he said, really profoundly disagree on points of history and everything else. I think we’d say we disagree. We’d have a good debate about it. He didn’t say any inaccurate things. He didn’t use the speech notes everyone else did.

[2:20 p.m.]

Everyone else — 161. Let’s call them, respectfully, inaccuracies — 161. Now, this is a bill about streamlining process, so it would be wrong for me to go through all 161 inaccuracies. I’ve decided to group them. I decided to group them in the name of streamlining.

So 22 members of the opposition made allegations, I guess you’d call them, about worker safety. They include the members from Surrey–White Rock, Richmond Centre, Prince George–North Cariboo, Abbotsford South, Bulkley Valley–Stikine, Surrey-Panorama Ridge, Salmon Arm–Shuswap, Kelowna Centre, Langley-Willowbrook, Abbotsford-Mission, Maple Ridge East, Kootenay-Rockies, Chilliwack North, Surrey–Serpentine River, Boundary-Similkameen, Prince George–Mackenzie, Fraser-Nicola, North Island, Comox-Courtenay, Abbotsford West and, yes, Penticton.

And I don’t want to forget my friend from Langley, who finished it. It was after I finished the list.

They said…. Let me just give you what the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine said: “Another deeply troubling provision in Bill 14 is its removal of the Safety Standards Act.”

Bill 14 does not reduce any safety requirement — not one. All of those members…. There were 22 of them. What they said wasn’t true. There are not overlapping safety regulators in a facility that is permitted and regulated by the B.C. Energy Regulator.

Section 17 of the bill disapplies a select provision of the Safety Standards Act related to gas systems, pressure piping and refrigeration equipment at renewable energy facilities, to ensure that Technical Safety B.C. and the BCER are not regulating the same equipment. This is the same model that is currently used for oil and gas and hydrogen facilities.

By legislation, the hydrogen bill was passed three years ago, I say to the member from Kamloops South. He was here. The Leader of the Opposition spoke to that legislation. He didn’t raise this issue because it is not an issue.

Work site safety is regulated by WorkSafeBC under the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. The bill does not change, in one iota, WorkSafeBC’s responsibilities or the requirement for worker safety. The member for Prince George–Mackenzie said that this was one of the main reasons — this issue of worker safety — that he can’t support the bill, so I’m glad to clear that up for him. Maybe he will vote for it at the end of the day.

If the legislation was doing what they said it was, you would have to believe that there is no worker safety law or protections in oil and gas, which is absolutely preposterous. You know who said that it was absolutely preposterous? Well, he didn’t use those words. The member for Peace River South, who knows something about the industry, said that the safety standards in oil and gas are exceptional, in contradiction to 22 of his colleagues. Exceptional — by the B.C. Energy Regulator.

The BCER….

Interjections.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The BCER…. I’m happy that…. I’m just bringing supporters to my cause, I say to the hon. member from Kamloops.

The BCER…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the minister has the floor.

Hon. Adrian Dix: …has been overseeing safety in the facilities that it regulates since 1998. They should know that before they try and scare working people with statements that are not correct.

The BCER has a dedicated compliance and enforcement staff and emergency response that work with the public industry and public safety agencies to prevent accidents and ensure safety. I think the oil and gas industry — surely, we all agree — does a good job under the direction, of course, of WorkSafe and of the BCER. That argument, which 22 members used, is just false.

They talked about the Heritage Conservation Act. I won’t list off all the members, but there were a lot of them. There were a lot of them who spoke about the Heritage Conservation Act, which, of course, continues to apply as it applied before. So 18 of their members…. Oh, wait, 20 of their members — I have to bring it up to date to today — talked about the Heritage Conservation Act.

Bill 14 gives the BCER the same powers under the Heritage Conservation Act that it already has for oil and gas. How about that? These statements that were made…. It allows, of course, the Minister of Forests, to delegate additional authorities to the BCER, as is the case now. The Ark of Katie project, which is before us — lots of issues around archaeology dealt with by the BCER, applying the Heritage Conservation Act.

[2:25 p.m.]

The member for Abbotsford-Mission, for instance, said: “The bill is a profound degrading of the way things currently are, of what we protect and who gets to decide.” It’s exactly the same. In exercising delegated powers under the Heritage Conservation Act, the BCER would be subject to all the constraints that the minister or ministry officials would be.

The member for Richmond-Bridgeport said: “Chinese pioneer burial grounds and archaeological zones could be bulldozed.” Imagine saying such a thing when it’s just not true. Imagine trying to use such a tactic to scare people. There’s a debate to be had on this legislation; there always is. You don’t need to do that. You don’t need to bring forward information that is wrong. You don’t need to frighten people about issues that clearly aren’t issues. Everybody knows they’re not issues. Everybody who sees them are not issues.

In fact, in terms of the Heritage Conservation Act, there is no change. And the system that’s in place has been in place with the BCER since the Heritage Conservation Act was in place, something the members of the opposition should know, because they have a duty in our system as well.

The Wildlife Act. I can’t even list off the number of inaccurate statements made about the Wildlife Act. An effort, and I’d say this…. You, hon. Speaker, in your speech in the Legislature, talked about the real concerns people have in communities about the application that guide-outfitters have and hunters have. There are real issues out there. We don’t have to find issues. We don’t need to create issues that aren’t there. There are real issues to debate and discuss and serious ones. Thirty-three members of the opposition spoke about this, and their assertions are simply wrong.

For example, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, my friend, went so far as to tell his constituents that it includes powers to arbitrarily cancel hunting, angling and guide-outfitter licences without hearing. That’s an end quote. I’m not sure why misinformation would be provided to constituents, but I’m happy to correct the record. The issuance and administration of hunting and other licences are authorized under separate powers of the Wildlife Act and not included in Bill 14, something that had people attended briefings that were offered they would have known. These authorities remain with the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

The B.C. Energy Regulator is regulating the proponent of a renewable energy project and the authorizations of that proponent. The regulator will not be able to cancel or suspend permits issued to someone that is not the proponent of a renewable energy project. That is exactly the opposite of what 31 members of the opposition said.

Again, you can disagree with this bill without saying things that are completely untrue and trying…. I suppose it’s in the interests of the opposition to promote uncertainty and confusion and problems in its own sort of private interests, but it sure as heck isn’t in the interests of the people who live their lives and care profoundly about the Wildlife Act.

The first provisions about suspension and cancellation for cause in the Wildlife Act were put in place in 1966. I was two. W.A.C. Bennett was the Premier of British Columbia. They stayed in place under every government. The only thing that really fundamentally changed in that time was a provision about the opportunity to be heard, which was added by the Glen Clark government in around 1999. They continued to be in place under all the NDP and Liberal governments that followed, and they stay in place today.

The fact of the matter is Bill 14 does not remove any existing requirements or processes under the Wildlife Act, and Bill 14 does not allow the BCER to cancel hunting or other licences. This is just a fact, contrary to what 31 members of the opposition said.

Another large number of members of the opposition, 27 of them, talked about agricultural land. Now, the provisions around agricultural land mirror the provisions that are already in place for the BCER, because the agricultural land reserve, like all the other acts I talked about, still apply. When you go to one-window regulation, which we have for oil and gas and which we’re going to have, if this bill passes, for renewables…. That’s the issue we’re talking about here. The legislation here gives the BCER delegated authority to approve non-farm use for the purpose of facilitating oil and gas projects under the act, and that is currently the power that they have now for the oil and gas industry.

[2:30 p.m.]

The proposed legislation, again, supports a one-window approach by extending the BCER’s authority over agricultural land to renewable energy and transmission line projects. In similar ways, the existing Agricultural Land Commission delegation agreement, under which the BCER already makes decisions regarding non-farm use of agricultural land….

This is a delegated authority that has been in place for years. I have been in this Legislature for 20 years, and I have never heard anyone challenge that in this Legislature — not one time. The act applies. It should apply, and of course what we’re doing here is applying it in the same way to renewable energy, effectively under the B.C. Energy Regulator, as we do now for the oil and gas industry.

Now, if members want to get up and say we shouldn’t do that with the oil and gas industry, that’s fair enough. But they can’t say, “Oh, we support renewable energy,” and then say, “We shouldn’t do that,” or that there’s some principle that they’re defending agricultural land. I’ll tell you who defends agricultural land in this Legislature. That’s the people on this side of the House.

A bunch of people….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, we’ll call for order. Calling for order.

Calling for order, Member.

Members, the minister has the floor.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker.

Several of the members of the opposition, 16 of them, suggested that…. I’ll just quote the member for Salmon Arm–Shuswap, because many of the speeches were extremely similar. “It gives regulators the power to rewrite primary legislation.”

As the member for Kamloops–North Thompson stated — I’m trying to spread it out, I say to the member — “They can rewrite whatever they want.” That’s what he says. This is absolutely false. There is nothing in this bill that gives the BCER the ability to rewrite acts — just nothing.

We’re in front of the Legislature to determine whether the BCER will become the regulator in new areas, which is something we did three years ago with hydrogen, and it was unanimously supported in the Legislature. All the same issues apply. The Leader of the Opposition spoke in the debate. He didn’t oppose the legislation. But they are now, because there are politics for them involved — but not the public interest involved.

This is not a power that the BCER has on its own or a power that it can have on its own.

There was a lot of talk about cost recovery and how this was somehow bad for the economy. Well, that’s how the BCER functions, right? That’s how it functions. One of the reasons, and there’s an argument for it, is that it makes it an effective regulator.

The proponents, the industry, through fees for actions of the BCER, pays for the BCER. And in this case, in cost recovery, we’re saying that renewable energy providers or applicants will pay for the application process. That’s what we’re saying. These are routine mechanisms that address clarity.

There’s one part of it that’s one of my favourite parts, where the members of the opposition talk about retroactive levies, and they make extraordinary statements about them. I’ll tell you what it is, how it works and why it’s in place.

Oil and gas producers would have a legitimate concern if the BCER, which is funded not by government directly but through fees, was paying for the regulation of renewable energy. In the period when the BCER is addressing renewable energy, before the act comes into place, we put in provisions to allow them to pay for that so that the oil and gas industry doesn’t have to pay for it. You have a circumstance where the applicant pays for the regulation.

Those being regulated pay for the regulation — not the taxpayer. That makes sense. It has been supported in the past. It has been supported by the Conservative Party in the past. And it allows them, also, because it’s a one-window regulator, to do full-cycle regulation.

We heard a lot about what happens when windmills have to be taken down or they’re abandoned. It’s a full-cycle regulator just like in oil and gas. People who work in those areas will know exactly what I’m talking about. Those provisions are in place in the transitional period to ensure that the people who get the benefit from the regulation, those applying for renewable energy projects, pay for it and not, say, other people who pay for the BCER, like oil and gas companies. That’s what it’s for.

[2:35 p.m.]

When people say…. As the member, my friend for West Kelowna–Peachland — because I’m trying to spread it around a bit — says: “Let’s talk about retroactivity. Bill 14 grants the government retroactivity. That means a person or business — be it a guide-outfitter, a landowner, a small clean energy operator or even a local First Nation — can find themselves subject to new rules, penalties or obligations for actions they took before those rules even existed.” That is just completely untrue.

That is the application. That is the so-called retroactivity, and that’s what we’ve been talking about in this legislation. We have heard speech after speech say: “It’s contrary to the rule of law. It’s authoritarianism.” It’s ensuring that the people who are being regulated pay for that regulation and not people who aren’t being regulated. That’s the purpose of it. Again, not a mistake the member for Peace River South made, because he read the legislation and understood it. He criticized the legislation effectively without doing that.

I spoke earlier about environmental assessment. I’ll just say one thing about appeals, because there are claims, on the opposition side, of some change around how appeals are handled. Bill 14 does not change any existing appeal frameworks under any act. By adding renewable energy projects under the ERAA framework, there may be some additional decisions that become appealable. In other words: more appeals, not less.

While the decisions respecting agricultural land, and the member will know this, under the proposed act are not appealable, those specific decisions are not appealable now under the Agricultural Land Commission, as the member well knows.

I guess, finally, we have to talk about renewable energy. We’ve understood in these 161 inaccuracies, let’s call them, about heritage conservation, about agricultural land, about retroactivity, about how the B.C. Energy Regulator functions…. That has been the basis of all of the speeches.

But all of the speeches included this one thing: “We believe in renewable energy but just not this. We believe that renewable energy should be subject to a multiministry regulation but not oil and gas. We believe that renewable energy is a great thing. Really, we do. We’re in favour of the North Coast transmission line. Really, we are.” Except they’re not.

It’s their position that they’re opposed to the North Coast transmission line. They’re opposed to people in the northwest benefiting from energy produced in the North — the people who want to see more mining and more critical minerals and more activity in the Port of Prince Rupert and, yes, more LNG in the northwest done in the northwest.

We always hear how they support the North. This isn’t supporting the North. Opposing transmission lines across the North to bring energy to the northwest is not supporting the North. It’s damaging the interests of the North in the partisan interests of the Conservative Party.

I repeated earlier — I won’t repeat them again, because the comments of the Leader of the Opposition might well be unparliamentary — how he describes what he believes about wind energy. Well, here’s what we believe. Here’s what we believe about transmission lines and renewable energy. We believe it’s part of the economic future of B.C., as it has been part of the past, as it is part of the present.

We saw that there was — and I’m talking back to 2000 — a 3½-year average for environmental assessment for projects that largely had the same results through environmental assessment. So we’ve changed that. We’ve come to the Legislature, and we’ve changed that.

We’ve maintained and are strengthening the permitting regime. It makes sense to have a single permitting regulator. It makes sense. That’s why we did it in 1998 for oil and gas. That’s why we did it three years ago, with the support of the Conservative Party, for hydrogen. That’s why we’re doing it now.

We need to go as a province. This is a critical moment in our history as a province. We are being challenged. The basis of our economy and, yes, our sovereignty is being challenged by the President of the United States — no small thing. We need to diversify our economy and ensure we have the electricity to build that growing economy in the future.

[2:40 p.m.]

We’ve never had this many requests for energy or this much hope around economic development in the northwest — and everywhere else. And we are acting in a way consistent, I think, with what’s happened in the past, consistent with the best possible regulation, consistent with the principle that we need to build our province and create wealth in these times, that we need to address climate change in these times.

We have a Leader of the Opposition that doesn’t believe in the science of climate change. Well, we believe in the science of climate change. We have a Leader of the Opposition that doesn’t believe in renewable energy. Well, we believe in renewable energy.

The Leader of the Opposition, when we named 18 priority projects, was against 12 of them. We believe in building British Columbia. Bill 14 helps build British Columbia. I ask all members of the House to support it.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question before this House is second reading of Bill 14, intituled Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act.

Division has been called.

[2:45 p.m. - 2:50 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Members, the question before the House is second reading of Bill 14, intituled Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 46
G. Anderson	Blatherwick	Elmore
Sunner	Toporowski	B. Anderson
Neill	Osborne	Brar
Davidson	Kahlon	Parmar
Gibson	Beare	Chandra Herbert
Wickens	Kang	Morissette
Sandhu	Krieger	Chant
Lajeunesse	Choi	Rotchford
Higginson	Routledge	Popham
Dix	Sharma	Farnworth
Eby	Bailey	Begg
Greene	Whiteside	Boyle
Ma	Yung	Malcolmson
Chow	Glumac	Arora
Shah	Phillip	Dhir
	Lore
NAYS — 43
Sturko	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Rustad	Banman
Wat	Kooner	Halford
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	Gasper	K. Neufeld
Day	Block	Bhangu
Paton	Boultbee	Chan
Toor	Hepner	Giddens
Rattée	Davis	McInnis
Bird	Luck	Stamer
Maahs	Tepper	Mok
Wilson	Clare	Williams
Loewen	Dhaliwal	Doerkson
Chapman	McCall	Valeriote
	Botterell

Hon. Adrian Dix: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

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

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 2:54 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

[2:55 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance

The Chair: We will call the chamber back to order, and we will call on the minister to move the vote and give us some opening remarks.

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

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you for the opportunity to make opening remarks. We’ll be discussing Budget 2025 and a number of the important measures that are included. This is essentially a budget that was brought forward during, perhaps, the most economically consequential time in recent history, with the threat of unjustified tariffs coming to us from the south.

This budget stands strong for British Columbians and focuses on protecting public services and at the same time managing our finances carefully, ensuring that every dollar lands to the best benefit of British Columbians.

This budget supports businesses that create jobs and focuses on economic growth in our province. We’re diversifying where we sell our products and our resources, and we’re growing a more self-sufficient economy, all in partnership with First Nations, with business, with labour.

While we are focused on economic growth, we are also protecting the services that are so deeply important and core to British Columbians. For example, this budget added $4.2 billion over three years to health care to continue growing the capacity across our health care system — more doctors, more nurses, more hospitals and supporting the SFU medical school.

Adding to the historic $1 billion in mental health care investment, there is $500 million over the fiscal plan. This will help us to continue to support made-in-British-Columbia models of care like Road to Recovery, the Foundry centres for youth and Indigenous-led treatment recovery and services. And $15.5 billion over three years to continue to build hospitals, clinics and other health care facilities. Publicly funded and universally accessible quality health care is part of who we are as Canadians.

Budget ’25 also included $370 million over three years to hire more teachers and support staff, including special education teachers, psychologists and counsellors; $172 million over three years to support more children with autism, with serious disabilities and complex care needs; $4.6 billion to build, systematically upgrade and renovate schools and playgrounds throughout the province; $16 billion to build more bridges, roads and transit for people to get to and from work and, so importantly, to ensure supply chain resiliency, keeping both people and, importantly, goods moving.

In Budget ’25, we’re also increasing the speculation and vacancy tax to turn more empty homes into homes for people. There are 90,000 already underway or delivered, not through speculation but through the builds that we’re doing. Speculation brought in about 20,000 homes so far, and 90,000 additional homes are underway and/or delivered throughout the province.

We’re reducing costs for families by making housing more affordable: $1.1 billion over four years, including $318 million for BC Builds. We’re focusing on making communities safer: $325 million over three years for justice and public safety, including $24 million to provide timely access to justice.

[3:05 p.m.]

We’re building up B.C.’s critical infrastructure; $45.9 million of capital funding over the next three years will deliver more, really, of everything — housing, schools, health care facilities and so on.

This is a time when we have to do two things simultaneously. We have to make sure that every dollar is being well spent, carefully spent and reviewed, and we need to make sure that we’re protecting services for British Columbians. I look forward to discussing and to answering the questions of the member opposite as we get into the estimates for Finance.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister. We will be contemplating the Ministry of Finance budget estimates this afternoon.

Peter Milobar: Thanks to the minister for the opening comments, and thank you to the minister’s staff for being here over the next several days as we delve through the budget.

I’ll leave my opening remarks to that. I probably said enough during the budget speech, the Bill 5 speech or committee stage of Bill 5 on some of the background.

Just jumping straight in, I’m wondering if the minister, in last year’s fiscal plan…. Of course, these are three-year fiscal plans, so last year’s fiscal plan had a projection for this year of the 2025-26 budget.

Did those projections include provisions for the new collective agreements that need to be negotiated this year with the public sector? Were those potential costs factored into the ’25-26 projection in last year’s fiscal plan?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes, and thank you to the member for the question. We did plan for the mandate in last year’s projections for this year, and those figures were held in contingency.

Peter Milobar: Thank you for that. Last year there was a projected deficit of almost $7.8 billion for this fiscal year, but that was predicated on a 2.3 percent GDP growth, which is obviously lower this year. How significantly does the interplay of GDP growth and the deficit interconnect?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: To the member’s question, in regards to the interplay of budgeting and projections of GDP, of course, it’s a very important factor as we’re looking at revenue projections and a key driver for revenue impact. As we receive economic data, of course, we do quarterly updates.

Peter Milobar: Just so I’m clear then, if GDP growth was to drop a bit, of course, it’s not unrealistic to think that a deficit might grow if spending stayed, to try to protect some of the core services and things that the minister has talked about.

Can the minister confirm then, in the fall economic update — the six-month check-in, as it were — that the projected GDP growth for this year had been downgraded from that 2.3 percent down to 1.9 percent already?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’m happy to share this information with the member opposite in regards to GDP projections for 2025. In Budget 2024, the projection was for 2.3. In the first quarterly, in 2024, the projection was 2. Fall 2024 update, which was in early December, was 1.9.

Peter Milobar: So it went from 2.3 to 1.9. Projected deficit was originally $7.8 billion, based on that 2.3. Certainly, the government must have been expecting that the deficit would be growing, given that GDP was dropping quite significantly.

Can the minister, then, confirm…. I think it’s pretty straightforward, but just so we get it on the record. This year’s fiscal plan…. Last year projected at 2.3. At the six-month check-in point, 1.9 percent GDP growth. And this year’s fiscal plan was actually built around a 1.8 percent GDP growth, which means, essentially, almost the same as the six-month check-in.

[3:15 p.m.]

At that point, had the government already realized their projections from the previous year were not going to be met and the deficit would indeed be much higher than the $7.8 billion projected, heading into this fiscal?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: For the member’s benefit, I’ll describe a number of factors that led to the change to $9.4 billion. It’s not, of course, one factor, and it would be wrong to suggest that GDP is isolated in this way.

I have in front of me what we refer to as a “waterfall chart,” which shows ups and downs that explain changes that we see in the first-quarter report, ‘24-25.

So $391 million down was related to lower corporate income tax than had been predicted; $146 million, lower sales tax revenue: $193 million, lower natural resource revenue; $146 million, higher investment earnings; $392 million to the positive, higher commercial Crown net income; $130 million to the negative, other revenue changes; $118 million to the positive, fire management costs; $225 million to the negative, statutory and other expense changes.

So all of those factors together led to the $9.4 billion prediction.

Peter Milobar: So here’s the problem I have. We have the minister saying that GDP growth plays a significant part or is an important part in projecting revenues of government. I can appreciate that. We have GDP growth that went from a predicted 2.3 percent down to 1.8 percent.

Yet government revenues in that same time frame went from a projected $82.8 billion to $84 billion. So despite a declining GDP, the government decided, in this budget, to ramp up revenue projections. At the same time, we have expenses projected at $90.6 billion, now at almost $95 billion.

[3:20 p.m.]

So when the minister says that this is a budget that’s keeping a keen eye on expenses and the dollars and spending and making sure we’re not undermining, and it’s supposed to be predicated on GDP growth playing a significant part in projections, at first blush you would think, well, we went from a $7.8 billion projected deficit to $10.9 billion because of GDP growth slowing down. But the revenues don’t indicate that. We went to a higher deficit despite higher revenues, which is totally contrary to a sinking GDP.

Now, the interesting thing is if you take that extra $4.3 billion of spending and subtract off the extra $1.16 billion of extra revenue the government has projected, you wind up with $3.1 billion of extra expense. If you take that $3.1 billion of extra expense, add it to the $7.8 billion projected deficit from last year, lo and behold, you come out at exactly $10.9 billion, which is this year’s deficit.

So at a time when we’re struggling to get any clarity around certainty on these numbers, can the minister explain? Was it just a mathematical quirk? Was it just blind luck for the government? I mean, we’re talking about a potential fudge-it budget here.

We have GDP growth that’s plummeted by almost 25 percent of what was projected — quick math off the top of my head. It might be higher; it might be a little bit lower. I think it’s a little lower than that, maybe 20 percent. You have record spending. You have revenues actually going up despite dropping GDP.

It appears it was just a simple calculation, one document to the other. Well, let’s just take our revenue and expenses, add them together. If it’s positive, we have a surplus. If it’s a negative, we have a deficit. Don’t worry about those other indicators down below, things like GDP growth, debt-to-GDP ratios, nominal GDP growth, real GDP growth. We’ll just do a top-end revenue expense, plus and minus, and call it a day.

Can the minister explain how, all of a sudden, in this year’s budget, GDP growth seems to be completely detached away from the revenues and expenses to create our deficit when, your first answer on last year’s projection, it was heavily tied to those projections at 2.3 percent?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’m not entirely sure I understood where the member had pulled his numbers from, so I will ask for clarity there. If he’s asking the simple question if government revenue minus expenses equals deficit, obviously the answer is yes. But the framing of GDP as being this all-encompassing driver of revenue is not the correct framing. It’s an important aspect, but certainly not the only one, which is why I responded to the member’s question with showing a waterfall chart that walked through a number of the different puts and takes that lead to the numbers that we have.

Perhaps for the member’s benefit, he might consider looking at last year’s chart 1.2 and comparing it to this year’s chart 1.2. I think that would help the member understand the further complexity of what revenues are impacting.

Peter Milobar: My point is that it seems highly interesting that when GDP is actually dropping, revenues are still actually going up to government. That’s an interesting take.

[3:30 p.m.]

I know, obviously, to get on page 1, to get to a deficit, I’d have even more questions if it didn’t reconcile with A plus B equalling C. So in the interest of time, I’ll continue to move on.

In terms of last year’s projections to this year’s projections, the minister has referenced tariffs, for obvious reasons, in her opening comments in this book and throughout the months leading up to today. How much in contingencies is set aside for tariff response?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I just want to point out that the member is saying GDP is dropping. Of course, we’re talking about the rate of growth, so it’s not an absolute that’s dropping below zero. This is a rate of growth and, of course, continues to be on the positive side.

In regards to the question about how much of our contingencies are specifically allotted…. The contingencies are $4 billion a year over the three years of the fiscal plan, and there are a number of different uses for contingencies, one of them being…. Should we need to fill in gaps from the federal response to the impact of tariffs on particular businesses and people, then we’ll draw on those contingencies.

Peter Milobar: I’ll loop back. We’ll keep, probably, coming back every question on GDP at this rate. The point being that GDP in last year’s — for this ’25-26 fiscal plan — projection, the revenues used a 2.3 percent GDP growth to get to $82.838 billion. Again, GDP is significant when it comes to revenues. GDP is the only indicator that we actually use on page 1 to help explain some of the revenues that are coming into government and a high-level, quick projection.

When I said GDP dropped, the projection the government then used for this year’s fiscal plan had gone from 2.3 percent to 1.8 percent. I’m not disputing that, but that is a drop of a projected GDP over the year. However, the government’s projected revenues went from $82.833 billion to $84.003 billion.

That says to me that even though the government is acknowledging GDP is dropping on their fiscal plan compared to what they thought last year, they’ve decided to show revenues going up. It makes it very questionable where we’re going to land on our first quarter update based on these types of projections, given that last year the government was confident they’d be in the $7.8 billion deficit range, and this year we’re already starting at $11 billion, and I haven’t even got close to touching on carbon tax, as the minister is well aware. We’ll get into that later.

Now, the question on contingencies wasn’t everything else in the basket. It was certainly…. To get to a $4 billion number, the minister must have agreed to a notional number that might be needed to help with tariff response. What was the number, the dollar figure attached to tariff response? Not the exact programs that would be used — that’s why it’s in contingencies, so it can have flexibility. I understand that. But there had to have been a dollar figure to go into a calculation to get to a $4 billion contingency fund.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’m not ready to stop talking about the question of GDP that the member has raised, because it’s my belief that he’s incorrectly framing it.

It is true that an important consideration and modelling tool involved in predicting our revenue is, of course, GDP and the advice that we get on what we expect GDP to be. But it is also true there are other factors that are driving government revenue, specifically natural gas. Commercial Crown and federal contributions are up, and so that is the explanation of why you’re seeing this increase in revenue.

I will direct the member to page 149, table A9 in the appendices, which clearly spells that out and will help the member understand this point.

In regards to the contingencies question, it’s too early in the year for us to disclose the specific contingency allotment. We do report on how they are used. We did increase the contingencies number, and we’re also working to limit and reduce the way that contingencies are used in a number of different ministries. We’ll be updating the contingency use each quarter.

Peter Milobar: Well, I find that answer troubling. Again, it’s meant to be just a cumulative of what this government is anticipating as potential tariff relief.

[3:40 p.m.]

This is a government that’s tried wrapping itself in the tariff war. There are responses that are going to happen. Almost every piece of legislation, somehow, is getting tied to tariffs and the urgency of needing it, no matter how long it has taken the legislation to come to this chamber to be introduced or not, how long it has taken to action.

In fact, the only piece of legislation that moved quickly through this was to remove carbon tax. That took 14 hours. Everything else has taken forever, even to hit the floor.

I’m simply asking…. I don’t need to know what programs are being envisioned for tariff response. I won’t be following up with those types of questions. I’m not asking for any of that. I’m not asking for the timelines of when it might be disbursed. But we’re talking about a budget that starts at an $11 billion budget deficit and is slated to grow and grow.

The minister talks about getting spending under control and sharpening our pencils. Surely, there needed to be a pencil that was pretty sharp for coming up with a number to insert into contingencies that this government was contemplating. Within the basket of issues within contingencies, there would be a projection for wildfire. There would be a projection for flood disasters and things of that nature that happen. The minister has already said that public sector bargaining is part of contingencies.

I am not understanding how we cannot get an idea of the order of magnitude, the dollar figure within contingencies, that this government came up with. That would be the one thing that has been added into contingencies from last year that didn’t exist: the tariff war.

What was the dollar figure the government used to arrive at and put into the contingency dollars?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: As the member knows, over the fiscal plan, we have $4 billion in contingencies each of the three years, for $12 billion of contingencies. There are a number of different uses for those contingencies that can come up during the year.

We don’t disclose that in advance, and we will be updating on it quarterly. It includes a number of things that have variability — for example, the cost of wildfire response — and it also will include any response that we need to initially respond to tariffs.

I do also just want to take issue with the member’s framing that somehow our government has wrapped ourselves in…. I think the direct quote was that we wrapped ourselves in the tariff war.

I just want to make it very clear for anyone listening: no one on this side and, I imagine, in this House has any interest in a tariff war. This is not something we want. This is not something we went looking for. But we do find ourselves in these circumstances, and it’s imperative that we respond in a way that’s prudent and that protects British Columbians. That’s exactly what we’re doing.

Peter Milobar: Well, if the minister doesn’t like “wrapping themselves in the tariff war” as a phrase, I’m not sure what other phrasing would be more amenable to her. The reality is that this budget….

In fact, page 1: “Budget 2025 is being released in a time of unprecedented uncertainty and significant economic and fiscal risk posed by the ongoing threat of U.S. tariffs. The potential impacts of tariffs on jobs, businesses, communities and people throughout British Columbia are significant. Budget 2025: Standing Strong for B.C. is a plan to secure a brighter future by building on the province’s strengths.”

[3:45 p.m.]

It goes on and on. The opening lines of the budget document are about tariffs, and yet when you ask very general questions of this government about what provisions are in this budget book specifically for tariffs, the answer is, “We can’t divulge that,” even though I’m not asking for exact programs.

I’m not asking for what it would be used for. I’m not asking if it would be used for industry, if it would be used for individuals — none of that. I’m simply asking for a dollar figure that this government has notionally put aside to help respond to tariffs.

They had no problems doing that for COVID. They had no problems doing that to identify for CleanBC. In fact, CleanBC in last year’s projection was still $320 million in this year’s contingencies — a defined line item for contingencies that said: “CleanBC, $320 million.”

It’s shocking to me, because last year’s budget showed a little over $3 billion in contingencies for this year. I would have thought the simple answer for the minister would have been $980 million, because the only thing that has actually changed between last year’s budget and this year’s budget is the tariffs.

I tried giving the minister every opportunity to acknowledge that this government has put away almost $1 billion for tariff response. All we can conclude from the evasion by this minister around the question is that it’s substantially less, and the government doesn’t want to acknowledge that.

Is that substantially less because the government has now realized that for the public sector bargaining, which is a part of contingencies at $532 million per 1 percent of agreement, they actually need more money to solve the public sector bargaining than they first anticipated last year? Is that why the minister is unable to just give us a clear answer as to what would be in contingencies for tariff response?

Lawrence Mok: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Lawrence Mok: This afternoon in the gallery, we have students from the Garibaldi Secondary School with their teachers and parents visiting the parliament building and the Legislature for the first time. So please join me in giving them a warm welcome.

The Chair: Welcome to everybody in our gallery today. It’s nice to have youth with us for sure.

[3:50 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member began by pointing out that I didn’t like the framing “wrapping itself in the tariff war” when referring to our government and very generously asked what wording would be more amenable. I think the truthful wording would be “responding appropriately to this significant threat.” That’s what this government has been doing, and that’s what this budget does.

There are a number of different ways that the considerable economic threat of tariffs from the President Trump administration shows up in this budget, and there are a number of things that we’ve done to respond already in regards to this very significant threat.

We have a three-part response to President Trump’s tariffs.

The first part is really focusing on strengthening British Columbia’s economy. We’ve identified a number of major projects, including a significant number of clean energy projects, that are being accelerated in timeline. Not only is it about identifying projects that are close to being complete, through their assessment and permitting process, and pulling them forward; it’s also about taking learning from where those particular projects were slowed down and applying that learning throughout the system to ensure that we can accelerate the timeline to getting projects done.

There’s a group of students that are here today. I just wanted to greet them and share with them that we’re doing estimates for the Ministry of Finance.

Welcome to the chamber. The member opposite is asking questions, and we’re having the opportunity to respond as we explore the expenses in this place. You’re welcome to enjoy.

The important piece here is that there are many different components. One is really focusing on the growth of the economy.

We’re also deeply focused on diversifying trade markets, and that happens in a number of different ways. It’s not just about focusing to the east and the very strong opportunities we have in markets such as our third market, which is Japan, and our fourth market, Korea, which is deeply important — we’re doing that work; in fact, a trade mission was announced just yesterday — but it’s also about bringing down the trade barriers across Canada. There’s work happening in many different ministries with many different ministers to bring those barriers down.

We’ve also been responding with strong countermeasures, which the member opposite’s leader and group were very much against. For example, we took the measure to remove alcohol from red states off of the shelves, something that the opposition opposed. But we do know that it had impact. It was not a political measure; it was a strategic measure.

When we took the strike against Kentucky bourbon, we know, for example, that in a vote in the U.S., a number of Democratic leaders were joined by members of the Republican Party to stand up against tariffs, two of whom were, in fact, from Kentucky, because they were experiencing the harm that these tariffs were causing.

We are taking action on tariffs. It’s deeply, deeply important. It’s not a make-believe issue. It’s not something that we chose. It is a very significant economic threat that we are taking seriously in a number of different ways, including having the ability to have initial response to tariffs in our budget through the use of contingencies.

Now, it’s true that the initial response will come from the federal government. That is for the simple reason that the federal government has the tools and is the leader to be able to put forward counter-tariffs. They will collect money, and it’s appropriate that money be spent on the businesses and the people that are impacted by these tariffs. What we’ve been very clear about, and what the money that we’ve put in contingencies is for, is to fill any gaps.

Peter Milobar: Well, to be clear, we said it should be all states, including the blue states that Kamala Harris’s party would have been represented by that this minister had no problem campaigning for during the federal U.S. election, trying to encourage those expats living up in Canada that could vote to make sure they voted for that side of the ticket.

[3:55 p.m.]

The reality is that the question — despite the lengthy, meandering non-answer — was around dollars put into contingencies for tariff response. It’s important because the projection in last year’s budget for next year’s fiscal and in this year’s fiscal is for $4 billion in contingency. It’s $4 billion in this year’s, but last year was $3.73 billion. So the actual wiggle room for tariff response over the length of the term of the President, by this government, is actually diminishing. Again, tariffs certainly weren’t on the radar screen last year for next year’s fiscal. That’s the problem.

The answers of deflection…. The minister referred me to table A10, which is really just a percentage of growth rates and per capita. If she had gone up to table A9 on the page above, despite her saying natural resource revenues are up, she’d actually see that compared to projections for last year, based on their own table A9, natural resource revenue is actually down $435 million in this year’s budget compared to last year, at least how I read it. It’s $2.977 billion. Last year was $3.432 billion. That would be a drop of $435 million.

We have a budget that is predicated on tariffs, according to the minister. She talks about programs in the budget and dollars set aside in contingencies, but none of that is allowed to be discussed publicly. Businesses don’t know what type of supports they can expect, what level of supports they can expect. Individuals don’t know.

The minister just said that of course, the bulk will come from the federal government, not the provincial government, in terms of supports, at least in the early days, if and when those ever trigger in with countervailing tariffs that add any substance.

Sticking with contingencies, can the minister explain, with carbon tax gone, which funded CleanBC, and CleanBC having $320 million worth of contingencies in this year’s budget and a stated want to tighten the belts…. Is there still the $320 million available for CleanBC initiatives, or has that been removed?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I just want to clarify a couple of things before I respond to the last part of the question.

In 2024, the budget included $3 billion in contingency. In 2025, it’s $4 billion. I don’t think the $3.7 billion was accurately quoted.

I do also want to point out that in contingencies, there are, again, puts and takes. Sometimes there are things that move into base budget from contingencies. A specific example is Budget 2025 supports the final compensation adjustments pursuant to the 2022 mandate, including providing nearly $1.5 billion over three years to ministry budgets for the cost of collective agreements.

Lastly, in regards to the question for CleanBC and contingencies, I think it’s important to recognize that there is a review of CleanBC underway, and some contingencies would still be available to fund CleanBC initiatives.

Peter Milobar: Can the minister explain, then, why the government is able to have a direct line item of contingencies for things like CleanBC? It’s projected at $320 million for this year. It’s actually projected, based on last year’s budget, at $130 million for next year.

To be clear, last year’s budget showed a $3.02 billion contingency for this coming fiscal, which is now $4 billion. I’m not disputing that. That’s why I said $980 million is unaccounted for, but the minister refuses to say that’s for tariffs. One can only assume it’s for the collective agreement that the minister has acknowledged is part of contingencies as well.

[4:05 p.m.]

In that same budget projection for ’26-27, it’s $3.73 billion. This year’s budget, ’26-27, is now $4 billion, which is only $270 million difference. The only thing that would have changed between those years and this would have been tariffs.

It’s not exactly a planned, robust accounting for tariffs, moving forward, knowing that President Trump is likely just getting started and going to be there for four years — that or the government is optimistic it will be dealt with in short order, and we won’t be under tariffs. I think everyone would hope to not be under tariffs for any length of time.

In terms of the contingencies. Why I’m trying to get into this is because the government has characterized this budget as…. The minister has called it a point in time. Well, every budget is a point in time. The government has tried to portray this as how it was next to impossible to anticipate what the road ahead looked like under tariffs, and that’s why this budget reflects those strong actions being taken by this government to weather the tariff storm, and that’s why we’ve built in a robust response. But we can’t have a dollar figure attached to that robust response.

It’d be nice if there was even a program, but there’s not and not even a dollar figure. Yet for COVID, there were COVID contingencies — actually said it. Yet the tariff war has been likened to the last time we had to meet a challenge like this, which was COVID. This was the same government at the time. They’ve decided a different way to budget, a different way to frame. Some, dare I say, wrap themselves in the issue.

We have contingencies that have gone up compared to last year, but only for this year. Next year’s are notionally about the same. And $230 million or $70 million is a bit of a rounding error when you’re pushing $100 billion worth of spending. You have one year of a bump. We have a collective agreement that is part of that contingency, at $532 million for every 1 percent of settlement.

You have CleanBC in the mix, but the minister can’t even commit today that despite the fact that there is no more carbon tax and a $2 billion hole in our budget and an unknown way forward and Ministers of Environment and Energy that have announced things like the end to EV rebates and other programs that are part of CleanBC…. The government today, despite the minister in charge of telling every other minister to tighten their belts and find spending efficiencies, can’t even commit to the fact that there might be $320 million of CleanBC contingencies we don’t actually need for CleanBC. That’s still in the budget.

We have GDP growth in this year’s budget, which was projected six months before this budget came out in the second-quarter update…. The second-quarter update had GDP growth for this year at 1.9 percent. This budget is now at 1.8 percent. That second-quarter update was developed before any Trump tariff threats were out there. So no GDP growth adjustment for tariffs in this budget. GDP growth dropped compared to the projection last year. Deficit went up compared to the projection for last year. That has nothing to do with tariffs.

Can the minister point me, in this budget document, to the specific areas where they have addressed the tariff issue compared to last year’s projected budget or, more importantly, the second-quarter update from last year as well? To actually address and deal with tariffs. All I can find is an unknown sum of money in contingencies. This government doesn’t want to tell us what that is either.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I just want to point out that this budget came out on March 4. That was the very same day that tariffs were to come down on Canada. It is absolutely appropriate to use contingencies as a tool to respond to something in such flux, and contingencies are put aside for exactly that reason. That’s appropriate.

It wouldn’t be appropriate to put in programming without thorough analysis of what was happening. It requires planning to respond, and the tariff situation has been constantly moving. So in order to respond in a way that allows us to be there for people and there for businesses, putting money in contingencies in this budget is a good decision.

It’s also appropriate that the federal government lead that response. It’s appropriate because the federal government will be collecting counter-tariffs. That will be the lead response. As these tariffs have been put on and taken off and put on and taken off in one sector, another sector, negotiations, this has been a very fluid situation.

We need to respond to what rolls out from the federal government. Having money in contingencies to do that work is an appropriate decision. We have enough money to be able to respond appropriately for British Columbians to fill in any gaps that happen in response to these tariffs.

Peter Milobar: How much money is enough money, and how much is in contingencies?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Budget 2025, over the three-year fiscal plan, has $12 billion in our fiscal plan, in our contingencies. That includes $4 billion over each of the next three years. Some of that money will be available to respond to the tariff threat. As we find out the specific implications, we will be able to respond.

Peter Milobar: How much of the $4 billion this year in contingencies is set aside for tariff response?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member well knows that’s not how contingencies work. If it were a line item, it would be in the regular budget.

Peter Milobar: How much money is set aside in this year’s contingencies calculation for CleanBC?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’ve answered this question once already, which is that CleanBC is under review. There are contingencies that will be available for CleanBC, but the review process is underway right now.

Peter Milobar: Thank you, but that wasn’t the question. How much money is in a line item for CleanBC in contingencies? It was $320 million projected for this year. I’m assuming that’s the same. We’re able to talk about CleanBC and contingencies and put a dollar figure to it without wrecking national security or competitive advantage for anyone. Why are we not able to do the same when it comes to tariff response?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: There is no line item for CleanBC in this year’s budget in the contingencies.

Peter Milobar: So is the minister saying that in this year’s budget, despite the budget being dropped about a month before anything happened with carbon tax provincially, that CleanBC was full steam ahead, that there was already a review underway to remove CleanBC out of contingencies?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The contingencies are meant to be available for things like urgent caseload pressures, for example, or if the wildfire situation is worse than expected and we need to access additional funding, or if there is something of that nature — a flood, for example.

The situation with CleanBC was that when it was first stood up, it was accessed through contingencies. We’ve done a lot of work during Budget 2025 to push a number of items that have become ongoing back into the ministerial budgets. The contingencies are meant to be something different than that, which is flexibility for government to respond to externalities.

That’s where we will access funding to support any work that we do to help people with tariffs, to fill in any gaps from the federal response. It is an appropriate use of contingencies, just as wildfires are and caseload pressures are.

There are examples of our work to push things back into ministries once they have become ongoing programming and are not appropriate for contingencies. I shared with the member an example from Budget 2025, which pushed final compensation adjustments pursuant to the ’22 mandate back into ministry budgets. That was $1.5 billion pushed back into ministry budgets. CleanBC is not a specific line item in Budget 2025 for this similar reason.

Peter Milobar: I never thought I’d see the day that this government would get even worse with transparency, but here we are.

I’ll read for the public’s knowledge what I’m working off of when I’m trying to ask these questions around contingencies. Page 57 of this year’s budget book. Here is the description of contingencies: “The Budget 2025 expense forecast includes a contingencies voted appropriation of $4 billion in each year of the fiscal plan to manage priority spending initiatives and caseload pressures.” That’s it.

Here’s the description on page 61 last year: “The Budget 2024 expense forecast includes a contingencies voted appropriation of $3.9 billion in ’24-25, $3 billion in ’25-26 and $3.7 billion in ’26-27. This includes $3 billion in future years for priority spending initiatives and caseload pressures. The contingencies allocation also funds programs or initiatives with uncertain costs such as the upcoming FIFA World Cup matches in 2026, where plans and costs are still being developed and refined with partners.” A lot more description about potential areas.

In fact, tariffs didn’t even get mentioned in contingencies in the budget. The minister has acknowledged that they somehow make up part of the $4 billion, but she refuses to tell us just to what consequential number that may or may not be.

[4:20 p.m.]

Let’s see. Last year, CleanBC, ’24-25, $385 million; ’25-26, $320 million; ’26-27, $130 million. Priority spending initiatives and caseload pressures: nothing for last year’s budget; $1 billion in this year; $2 billion for next year. General contingencies: $3.5 billion last year; $1.7 billion this year; $1.6 billion in ’26-27. A handy little chart, even, under a much better description. This year we can’t even get a number, a dollar figure, on something as significant as tariffs, which everyone in this province is rightfully worried about.

You know, the minister talks about the liquor industry. Well, the craft distilling industry has been begging this minister and this government, has met directly with Ministry of Finance staff as well as the Solicitor General staff and others for years, but most recently, met with agriculture staff, as well, about trying to get treated the same in the taxation regime and the markup regime as VQA wines.

In other words, if everything was produced and put into the bottle in B.C., it gets taxed the same way and access to B.C. government liquor store shelves. That would be tariff response. It would make them more competitive. As we’re removing liquor from shelves and having empty shelves sitting there, we could actually have B.C.-distilled booze on the shelves in B.C. liquor stores.

But they need tax help with that. The perfect funding vehicle would be tariff response money that’s buried in contingencies. But they can’t get a direct answer out of this government. They thought weeks ago they had an agreement and thought they were just a few weeks away from an announcement. Nothing has come. Time is running out. That’s just one example.

The craft brewers are looking for help as they face costs and impacts of tariffs, because all of their cans get shipped up from Texas. So when the Americans put an aluminum tariff on, it increased the costs of all the cans for our craft brewers who are already facing massive cost increases in rents, in property taxes, barely able to survive. And when they come to us and ask, we say: “Well, the government says they have money for tariff response. That wouldn’t be federal. That would be provincial.”

But we can’t actually tell them with certainty if there’s enough money in contingencies for tariff response. I was hoping to get a bit of an answer today to know if we’re actually giving false hope to people to say: “Well, maybe the government is sincere about working with you.” But we can’t find out from this government — no clarity, no certainty, no clear expectations.

Last year’s budget had $1 billion for this year and $2 billion for next year, which are still part of that cumulative total that the minister is talking about for this year and for next year. And it included and added in for the first time FIFA. How much in this year’s contingency budget is still set aside for FIFA?

[4:25 p.m.]

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: As the member knows, we don’t disclose specific numbers in contingencies as a general rule. It’s a basket of funding that’s available to us to respond as need arises. Some of those responses might be due to wildfire. We’ve identified that we will be accessing contingencies should we need to supplement the federal response in regards to tariffs. There are many other uses for contingencies.

[4:30 p.m.]

In regards to FIFA and contingencies, I will share with the member that the province is working with all partners to manage costs, revenues and risks, and that the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture intends to provide a public update with its partners in spring 2025, as previously publicly committed.

Peter Milobar: It always astounds me that we get such inability or willingness by ministers to talk about generalities of something called contingencies. That’s purposely supposed to be general. Yet they have no problem talking about programs that would be related to said fund. They just never want to actually be held to a dollar figure or talk about a dollar figure so people have an order of magnitude and scope and scale of any potential projects or programs that might be attached to that funding.

I can only assume that some of it…. Frankly, predecessors would have jumped to this much sooner — so I give the minister full marks for not — would have wrapped themselves in the public sector negotiations. Of course, then it’s a backwards calculation, and then the public sector would know exactly how much money the government is willing to spend on them or not moving into negotiations.

Frankly, that would have been a much more logical answer, and we could have saved an hour, but here we are.

To that end, my understanding is the minister has confirmed that that’s part of contingencies, as well, that spending; $532 million, I believe, is the number the government frequently has used per 1 percent of agreement.

The BCGEU has had some interesting comments over the last few days about how negotiations are going. Can the minister indicate where the government thinks…? With the time frame the government is working under, does the government feel that they will be at a place of agreement with the public sector unions in this actual fiscal, or do they see it dragging out and having retroactive provisions have to kick in?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I think the member knows exactly what my answer is, because it’s appropriate that any negotiations happen at the bargaining table, and it would be inappropriate for me to make comment on those negotiations.

What I will say, though, is that we have tremendous respect for the people working in our public sector. We know that they do really important work for the people of British Columbia, and we value them so highly. We also know that we’re in a very challenging fiscal time and that we wish both sides the very best to come to the best agreement possible. I won’t be commenting in order to ensure that that in fact does occur.

Peter Milobar: Well, according to this article in the Vancouver Sun May 12, you know, bulletins had gone out the week before the article lamenting the disappointing lack of progress at the bargaining table and the replacement contract that expired on March 31. “Outside the bargaining table, you’ve seen another side of the employers delaying and intimidation tactics,” the bulletin read. A revised bulletin toned down the offending passage somewhat, left in the accusation, though, that the New Democrats had engaged in intimidation and delaying tactics away from the bargaining table.

The union seems to be unhappy with what they regard as a status quo stance on the part of the New Democrats, and they say: “We know that there is money to invest in our public service. Every day we see money that they spend on consultants and inappropriately procured infrastructure projects.” They also note that the hiring freeze doesn’t seem to apply to the political side of government, just to the everyday employee.

[4:35 p.m.]

Has the minister revised any direction, or is it still open season and open hiring for any political appointees or communication staff that the government deems that they need for their own interests, but it’s still a technical hiring freeze within the broader public service?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We do continue the guidance that we have provided on the hiring freeze. There are exceptions made that are made by the head of the public service.

In regard to the member’s question about some of the GCPE folks, there were a lot of people who left the GCPE during the election and then came back into GCPE. That actually saved government money, and we’ve also seen people who have moved across government into different roles.

There are some exceptions that have been made in regard to the hiring freeze, usually for a position that we would identify as being of high priority. For example, a chief of staff might have a very significant impact on a minister’s work with that position not to be filled. But we are seeing the hiring freeze being quite successful. We are seeing most movement that is happening, happening within government.

Peter Milobar: I recognize I committed to discussing GCPE starting on Monday, so I’m not talking about GCPE specifically. It was about broader…. Just to be clear for the minister. I do appreciate the answer, but it’s really more around finding out if the hiring freeze…. It does not sound like it has changed, that the rules are still the same.

This was actually the head of the public service talking to BCGEU, and they felt very worried about some of those comments that were being made. The Deputy Minister of Finance was also there, according to this report, so I’m just trying to find out how accurate this media accounting is of the April town hall that they both spoke at.

Ms. Salter spoke at length about the government’s duty to taxpayers and the need to do everything we can do to rein in spending. I don’t take issue with that. And then the Deputy Finance Minister followed up with a sobering overview of B.C.’s fiscal predicament. “Debt is approaching $100 billion and on track to hit $160 billion within the next three years.”

So it’s interesting. The deputy minister has a much more, I would say, realistic world view of what’s going on than the glowing language the minister uses when we start talking about debt and how it’s tracking over the next three years. That’s much more in line with language that I would use talking about the debt and the ever-growing and spiralling debt.

“Interest payments will soon be eating up $6 billion a year, making debt-servicing the third-largest ministry after only Health and Education.” Once again, very similar to language the opposition would be using. You don’t hear the minister talking this way very often.

“Though spending growth has been reduced to 3.3 percent from 8.7 percent in an election year….” Well, that was a convenient spending boost. Look at that, in an election year. Who would have known that the government spending would go up from 3.3 percent to 8.7 percent during an election year? But apparently this government did. Too bad they didn’t follow through on any of those election promises, but I guess well-intentioned.

So 8.7 percent in an election year. “B.C. is headed for another $10 billion operating deficit. ‘These numbers are real,’ Scott told the thousands of public servants who logged on to the town hall. ‘This is not a short-term financial crisis.’” Financial crisis.

[4:40 p.m.]

“‘We have a systemic deficit that we have to adjust. If we don’t adjust it, it will go on in perpetuity.’”

All language I have used, very similar, for months now that gets dismissed by this minister, yet this is the Deputy Minister of Finance saying this.

“‘Moreover,’ he said, ‘there can be no more delays in tackling debt and deficits. Speed is our friend. If current trends continue, it would only get worse, owing to the toll of compound interest.” It characterizes that the urgent tone of Scott’s briefing was a departure from the “this is not the time” mantra of the Premier and other NDP ministers before the 2024 election.

Wow, a lot has changed in just a couple of months despite the fact that this was all projected in last year’s fiscal plan, especially at the six-month update. But I digress.

The head of the public service says there have been no discussions on layoffs but then also added: “I can’t offer guarantees that there won’t be such discussions going forwards.”

Can the minister confirm that we indeed have a $10 billion structural deficit in our budget?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you to the member for the question.

I will just correct that it is not 3.2 to 8.7; it is 8.7 to 3.2. That really reflects the work that we’ve done to ensure that we are starting the path to balance reflected in 2025.

I do want to take the opportunity to speak about the deputy minister’s comments. I think it’s really important to know that were we not to take action, that would be the situation that we are in. But we are taking action. We are taking significant action. The hiring freeze is one small step, but there are many, many important steps being taken, the efficiency review that we’re involved in right now being perhaps one of the most important aspects of it.

I think the deputy minister, who I work with very closely and who is deeply involved in this work and such an important ally in our achievements of our goals here, is sharing that should we not do this work, this is what the outcome would be. But we are doing this work. We must do this work. It is deeply important that we do this work, and we know that. That’s why we’re doing it.

It’s true that in this fiscal plan, we’ve booked three initial savings from our efficiency review, what we were able to predict: $300 million in the first year; $600 million in the second and the third year. But it is my hope that it will go deeper than that. It’s important that we turn this around and ensure that we are on that pathway to balance over multiple budgets. That’s the commitment we’ve made to the people of British Columbia, and that’s the work that we’re involved in.

In addition to the hiring freeze and the program reviews that we’re doing, the efficiency reviews, we’re also deeply devoted to economic growth and economic development. This is such important work. All of this must happen in order for us to be successful in ensuring that this does not become structural deficit. That’s the objective. That’s the work we’re deeply involved in.

[4:45 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: I take no issue with what the deputy minister said. I agree with it all. I just don’t know why it has to be on a private chat with BCGEU members and not to the broader public. That’s what transparency is about a provincial budget book — not spin. This was not spin; this was cold, hard reality.

The question wasn’t what steps the minister has or has not taken. The minister reaffirmed, based on her own 8.6 down to 3.3, leaving out the part that the 8.7 was in an election year — the increased spending by government. I recognize that she was not the minister at the time — that was her predecessor — but it was the same Premier, though.

That increased spending has gotten us to where we are today. Repeated electioneering spending has got us to where we are today. It’s not just me that says that; “these numbers are real,” said the deputy minister. “This is not a short-term financial crisis. We have a systemic deficit that we have to adjust.” They’re not my words but the Deputy Minister of Finance’s words.

The government — the minister and other ministers — likes to constantly talk about it: “Well, we’re building schools. You’ve got to look at the capital when we talk deficits and debt. You’ve got to look at capital spending.” This appears that the presentation indicated to the BCGEU, a portion of the public service, a $10 billion operating deficit — not operating and capital, but operating.

Can the minister confirm that we have a $10 billion operating deficit? Or did the Deputy Minister of Finance misconvey to the BCGEU the financial state of British Columbia?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It is astonishing to me, hon. Chair, that this member is framing this question in this way — this is the most public of documents, and it clearly states what the deficit is, very clearly, which anyone can access — and suggesting that I’ve not spoken about it.

I spoke about it in this chamber on budget day. I spoke about it in front of the entire media on budget day. I took many interviews on it, and I’ve been speaking about it, frankly, since. It is a public-facing document that identifies, very clearly on page 1, that there is a budget deficit.

Yes, it’s an operating deficit. We have also a section on capital. The member clearly knows this. The framing of this question is confounding.

Peter Milobar: It’s not confounding. It’s trying to get clarity out of the minister herself, because we have other…. The minister can wave around the budget book all she likes. It wasn’t me who chose to answer the first very clear question I asked about it in the way she did. That seems to be a repeated path here.

The reason I asked the question is because government ministers try repeatedly to conflate, to distract with, to combine — any other word you would like: “The building of hospitals and the operational deficit are one and the same.” We hear that all the time.

I’m trying to get it very clearly stated — and the minister did, very clearly, state it: that’s a $10 billion operational deficit. I don’t understand why that was difficult for the minister to acknowledge the first time I asked it.

[4:50 p.m.]

We’re trying to also make sure that the way the presentation was reported is accurate. I’m not a BCGEU member. I wasn’t part of the presentation. There are another five million people that wouldn’t have been part of that presentation. I’m sorry if that seems to be a bit of an inconvenience to the minister. If they would like, they could just release the whole presentation, so that people could see what the government is saying in relation to their tax dollars and the potential move forward.

Now, in that presentation — and the minister just touched on it, around hiring freezes — the minister has conveyed several times that there has actually been a savings by hiring people back. Again, I’ll dig in more to GCPE in specifics on Monday. If there is a….

[The bells were rung.]

The urgency of the presentation from the deputy minister is real, and I appreciate that. With that type of urgency, I’m trying to also, with these next few questions, understand the urgency that the minister, then, has provided in guidance to other ministers, other hiring practices, to the head of the civil service. Has there been any discussion or direction, then, that if there have to be any reductions or layoffs, the same percentage of reductions and layoffs would take effect with political staff as well?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member has, a number of times, referred to this town hall as a BCGEU event. My understanding is that that is not correct. Certainly, that’s a part of who was there, but this was a town hall that was for the entire public service. It’s important to know that the work that we’re doing in regard to an efficiency review be understood properly and within context. The deputy minister was giving the context of the work that we’re doing.

It’s also a priority for us that the focus of this work is about finding efficiencies, and it is not our first place to go to layoffs. We are really deeply engaged with every ministry to do everything we can to ensure that we’re spending dollars wisely while protecting priority services for British Columbians. That’s where we are with this work.

Peter Milobar: I appreciate the addition that it was more than just the GEU. In the news article for which I’m trying to get accuracy and reference points, it only referenced the BCGEU. That’s why I’d assumed it was just them.

I get that the minister maybe doesn’t want to go to the road of layoffs and firings, and I’m not asking if that is any time in the near offing. What I was asking was: has there been any direction from the minister? Has there been any direction given, or an understanding out there, to the politicized staff within government? That seems to be growing at an alarming rate. Some ministers have nine or ten staff, where ministers used to have five.

Has there been any indication to the rest of cabinet, to the rest of government, that if the unfortunate situation comes where there has to be job losses in the public service, there will be an expectation by the Minister of Finance to the rest of cabinet that they find the same percentage of jobs on the political-staffing side of the equation?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I don’t think it’s beneficial to speculate at this time about this. We’re really engaged in this deep and careful work, with the goal of it not being about layoffs. It’s work that we’re doing very closely with each ministry, ensuring that their insights and their knowledge of programming and of where there are opportunities to bring money back into the general coffers are guiding this work. It’s work that’s undergoing right now, and I’m not going to comment further in regard to that.

Peter Milobar: Well, then, let’s jump into the non-union staff and the managers — which was referenced in the article as well — not political staff. These are what I would consider not political staff. I’m trying to make a very clear delineation between the two, just for the minister’s understanding. You know, the Ministry of Environment office has non-unionized workers or non-unionized management in it.

According to the union president, Paul Finch, that segment has increased by 52 percent, yet the unionized public servants have only gone up by 28 percent. Can the minister explain that reconciliation, if it’s accurate or not? If there were to be decisions made, is it the view of government that everyone needs to be treated equally on a percentage basis? Or is it going to be targeting one specific segment, either unionized or non-unionized/exempt or political staff?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’ve been provided some numbers in regard to the growth rates, over five years, of both excluded and included staff. The excluded total growth rate over five years is 18 percent, and the included total growth rate over five years is 20 percent.

[5:00 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: I’ll take the non-answer of any ratios of layoffs to mean that the minister doesn’t want to go down the hypothetical road. The problem is that’s all we have to go on. It’s hypothetical tariffs today. It’s a tariff response and now hypothetical efficiencies of government.

The minister has said several times today and previous days that she has been instructing and tasked with — in fact, her mandate letter talks about it — spearheading the drive, and rightfully so. The Minister of Finance should be in charge of this, overseeing the tightening of the belts of government.

Just today we saw a report come out about a $3,600 dinner with very scant detail attached to it. Maybe it was justified; maybe it wasn’t. I would think that the public, though, would like detail when things like that come out. That tends to drive the bigger problem. You think: “Oh, was it a $12 orange juice or whatever it was with Bev Oda — $16 or whatever it was?”

You know, it’s usually the lack of transparency that winds up being a problem for government, not necessarily the dollar figure itself. So we’ll see where that all goes with these efficiency reviews. Granted, this looks like it was a dinner that was ahead of any announced efficiency review, despite the government already being in horrible fiscal shape, at the acknowledgement of their deputy minister.

At any rate, efficiencies — sounds great, sounds wonderful, cost savings. All the right language is being used. What targets has the Minister of Finance laid out for ministers to actually try to achieve? What are they actually looking for? Are they looking for a dollar figure? Are they looking for a percent of their overall budget? Particularly their operational budget, given where we’re at with operational deficits.

Does it vary by ministry? Is it just: “Please go away. Ask the bureaucracy that helped build this large mechanism to tell you where an efficiency can be found”? Because usually when you go and ask a bureaucracy that question, their answer back is: “Well, if you give us some more people, we can be more efficient.”

What is actually the target that the minister has instructed the other ministers to go out and look for or try to find? Just simply saying, “We’re looking for efficiencies,” doesn’t really provide any path to balanced budget. Now, $300 million sounds wonderful, but on $95 billion worth of expenditures, that’s 0.3 percent. It’s a rounding error.

Is it a 2 percent cost savings they’re supposed to find, a 5 percent cost savings? Is it just: “Do your best. Tell us what you got”? Are there sacred areas that the minister has told: “Don’t worry about it. You don’t have to look at anything. Your ministry is not being touched at all”?

What are the parameters of this efficiency exercise that ministers are supposed to be undertaking under the watchful eye of the Minister of Finance?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’d like to describe the two stages that we’ve got on the efficiency review. The first stage is really in regards to initial expenditure management, which is about reducing administrative and operational spending on areas like travel, professional and consulting services, office and business expenses and other discretionary spending.

We’re also engaging now with ministries to review all existing government programs and initiatives to optimize resources by ensuring programs remain relevant and efficient and sustainable. We’re also applying the lens of growing the economy.

[5:10 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: That’s all good language. The problem is it doesn’t actually equate to a tangible deliverable that the taxpayer can understand — what the landing spot by the government actually is when we talk about getting on a path to balanced budget and the urgency that the deputy minister seemed to indicate we need to take.

In the spirit of that urgency…. This next part is truly meant with goodwill towards the minister.

My colleague for Surrey-Cloverdale had a constituent reach out and had indicated these fairly famous actions that were taken during the war. I noticed in the throne speech there were a lot of references to war — tackling the tariffs as if there was a war going on, the urgency that we’ve heard that we’re going to tackle the fiscal mess that B.C. is in.

So Winston Churchill famously employed the Action this Day red stickers in response to a note from four of his overworked code-breakers, including Alan Turing, in October of 1941. These were the people who broke the German’s Enigma code which helped them to win the war. When the under-resourced code-breakers at the ultrasecret Bletchley Park asked for more help, Churchill wrote to those in charge: “Action this day. Make sure they have all they want on extreme priority, and report to me that this has been done.”

This was the first time he used Action this day, and from then on, Churchill used Action this day stickers, which were put on war documents that were priorities where he wanted immediate action and an update by the end of the day.

Now, I’m not using this as a prop. I’ll just hand it over to the staff, and they can pass that and a descriptor over to the minister at some point. There’s a whole box of stickers for the minister to use with her staff and other ministers so we can actually get some urgency to this. And I say that with all sincerity because it is serious.

The deputy minister has validated the seriousness of that to the public service, and I don’t think it was just a negotiating ploy on his part for the government. I think it was trying to bring a very real dose of a lot of the same things the opposition has been saying about this budget moving forward and the fiscal plan and the fiscal state of this province moving forward.

So the minister says that we’re looking at travel costs and other expenditures of what would be considered non-priority or non-necessity. Is there a dollar figure attached of savings that they are actually targeting?

Again, I’m going to keep coming back to the dollars involved because, ultimately, that’s what the balance sheet in the budget actually worries about, not the language of “we’re looking for” or “finding efficiencies” or “effective use of.” None of that language matters to the balance sheet. Is there an actual tangible dollar figure that is being sought by the Minister of Finance for a reduction?

First off, they’d have to, I guess, quantify what the actual spend in those categories in her view is versus what’s someone else’s view. What I deem to be essential would not be what the minister deems essential or a different minister or a different minister. That’s just human nature.

So has the minister quantified what that overall spend is on those types of non-essential, travel-related, office-related expenses? Has there been a directive of a dollar figure or a percentage cut from those areas?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you to the member opposite and the member from Surrey-Cloverdale. Any day that Alan Turing is quoted in this House or Bletchley Park is mentioned is a good day for me. I agree with the sentiment of action this day. We are taking this challenge very seriously. I want to be very clear that the deputy minister’s words are my words. We have been driving this forward. This is deeply important to me.

This is the work that is going to make it possible for us to continue to provide the services, the core services that are so important to British Columbians. Because when you look at a trajectory that sees growth of deficit-spending at the level trajectories are looking, without change, that’s very concerning. That is not what we are going to do. We’re changing those trajectories through this work.

So it is important, and it is Action this day. I do find myself in agreement with the members opposite on the importance of this action and that it be taken very seriously. I would say that is exactly what is happening in this building right now.

[5:15 p.m.]

Now, there are a number of different ways that people can approach doing a review and leading a reduction in government spending. The approach that we’ve chosen to take is one of deep collaboration and careful consideration. That deep collaboration is with each one of the ministries. It’s not a situation where we’re giving out a, “This is a 10 percent cut across the board,” or something of that nature.

This is different than that because it really is our belief that each one of the ministries will have a different opportunity to bring forward ways for us to reduce spending in that ministry, with the priority of protecting services for British Columbians. It’s so deeply important that that is the lens by which we do this work, and that’s why we’ve not taken a more blanket approach but one of deep collaboration with each one of the ministries.

I hear the member asking for numbers. We will have numbers, going forward. There are going to be more reported in Q1, but the numbers for now are this $1.5 billion over three years. Those are our initial numbers. Those are the initial targets, and it’s my intention that we outperform those numbers.

Peter Milobar: Well, again, though, I guess the minister, in her comments, will come back to quite regularly talking about core services. I’m asking very specifically about what the minister has also characterized outside of that, such as travel and other expenditures and non-essential….

The minister’s mandate letter is January 16, directing her to direct the other ministries to do this. You got January, February, March, April, and we’re now in May. So it’s five months down the road. The budget would have been developed and signed off on to get to the King’s Printer sometime late January, early February. Surely direction had already been given to ministers by that point. It gets introduced in March. Here we are a couple of months post that.

We’re talking about non-essential things, not a core service review asking the Minister of Health if they can keep all their hospitals open and operating or if one can be removed out of the system. We’re talking about travel. We’re talking about booking meeting rooms.

I can remember when we had our hotel. We used to do a lot of ministry work in Kamloops when they had to do workshops and such. A decree went out, and they couldn’t have coffee services and muffin services and things of that nature.

Surely after five months of looking at non-essentials, ministries have reported back as to what they feel they are going to cut in this fiscal for expenditures? Is there not a dollar figure yet, five months post mandate letter, of non-essential spending savings that this government has found?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you to the member for the question and to the agreement that we will answer it on Monday.

I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:18 p.m.

The House resumed at 5:19 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

George Anderson: Committee of Supply, Section B, reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Finance and seeks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Jessie Sunner: Section A reports progress on Bill 15 and asks to leave it again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Ravi Parmar moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m., May 26.

The House adjourned at 5:20 p.m.