Hansard — Wednesday, February 18, 2026 Afternoon, Issue No. 118

Macklin McCall: I wish to introduce to the House three guests who are joining us in the gallery today: Jeremy Welder, Sarah Mackinnon and Katie Davies Jorgensen. They are involved with the Upstream Kelowna program in school district 23.

Established in 2021, this is a school-based, innovative focus on the early identification and support of grade 8 students who may be facing challenges such as bullying, anxiety, family conflict or housing instability. Through a student-needs assessment, the program helps identify young people who might otherwise fly under the radar and connects them with supports before issues escalate. This preventative approach strengthens resilience, promotes safety and supports families in their communities.

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

Hon. Christine Boyle: In the gallery today are my deputy minister Teri Collins; her mom, Jeanette Malcolm; and my former ADM and executive financial officer Tracy Campbell, accompanied by her husband, Jim Campbell.

I would like to take a moment to recognize and thank Tracy Campbell for her 20 years of dedicated public service here in B.C. She entered retirement just at the beginning of this year. Tracy served as a member of government’s corporate executive for the Ministries of Housing and Municipal Affairs; Tourism, Arts and Culture; Attorney General; Public Safety and Solicitor General; and many others along the way.

What truly set Tracy apart was not just her skill and her dedication but her quick wit, her passion and her ability to get things done. Tracy reminds us that public service, while serious in purpose, can be carried out with humour and humanity and a smile. Through her sharp mind and free, fun spirit, she built bridges across departments, forged friendships that will last beyond these walls and created a network of colleagues who are better connected and better public servants for her work.

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

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

Hon Chan: Today in the House we are pleased to have members of the Insurance Brokers Association of B.C. joining us. We are honoured to welcome their team this morning, including President Amrit Sidhu, Vice-President Amanda McPhee and Chair Rosy Puri-Manhas, along with their 20-plus members and delegates in the precinct today.

I would like to thank them for their work in expanding access to insurance, advocating for fair regulations and strengthening consumer protections. I look forward to working with them in the near future.

Would the House please join me in welcoming them here.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: It’s that time of year again when caucuses on both sides of the aisle in this House get to meet and work with a brand-new crop of interns. These are young people from all over the province who assist us, do amazing work and get incredible experience about how this place functions and works.

It’s my pleasure today to introduce the five interns who will be working with the government caucus over the next number of months. They are Keira Emes, a bachelor of arts in political science from the University of Northern British Columbia; Lauren Onderwater, who has a bachelor of arts in political science from the University of the Fraser Valley; Abedah Siddiqui, a bachelor of arts in political science also from the University of British Columbia; Adanna Nduagu, who has a bachelor in arts and political science from Simon Fraser University; and Bethany Shymko, who has a bachelor of arts in political science from the University of Victoria.

[1:40 p.m.]

Our universities in this province are clearly well represented.

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

Kristina Loewen: I know the Insurance Brokers of B.C. have been welcomed this morning, but I want to point out that one of them is my good friend and neighbour. He actually lives three doors down from me, and we have the dubious distinction of serving on the same strata council together. He’s got a beautiful wife and family. He also has a pool, and I have not been invited over for a swim yet.

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

Sunita Dhir: Today I have the pleasure of welcoming my volunteer and constituent Dayakar Rayapureddy. He came to B.C. as an international student. He’s working as a chef. He’s very interested in B.C. politics, and he is exploring opportunities to work in this sector in our beautiful province.

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

Peter Milobar: In the fall, I introduced my son Ethan, who was down here for the first time. At that time, his wife, Cassidy, was expecting their first child. Just shortly before the House started sitting, they welcomed to this world my fourth granddaughter under four years of age, Noa Mary.

Will the House please make her welcome.

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

Would everyone please make her feel welcome.

Steve Kooner: We have some municipal politicians here from New Westminster. We have Councillor Daniel Fontaine, Paul Minhas. I believe we have Mayor Patrick Johnstone here as well.

I’d like to welcome them.

Hon. Anne Kang: Today I would like to welcome the representatives of Heritage B.C. who are joining us in the House today: Board Chair Keri Briggs, Director Gavin Chamberlain, Executive Director Kirstin Clausen and Communications Specialist Katie Varney.

Heritage B.C. plays a vital role in preserving and promoting the richness and diversity of history of our communities across our province. Through their leadership, their advocacy and support for local heritage organizations, they help ensure that British Columbia’s stories, places and traditions are protected for future generations. We thank them for their dedication and the important work that they do across British Columbia.

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

Rob Botterell: I would also like to welcome Jenna and Kaden, the interns joining the Green caucus this session. Every year interns join our caucuses to learn and contribute to the work we do in this House.

Jenna completed her bachelor of arts in political science with a minor in business and her thesis on the impact of emotions and effect in the creation of flood resilience policies.

Kaden recently completed his bachelor of arts with honours in political science, and his thesis examined the conditions that influence the policy stability of supervised consumption sites across Canada.

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

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

Reann Gasper: Today is my son’s birthday. I am away from him, and that feels really funny. He turns 15 today. He loves basketball, and he’s over six feet, so he’s towering over me.

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

Misty Van Popta: In the House is a friend and great Conservative, Blaine Badiuk. Always open to having meaningful conversations, Blaine comes to us from our great neighbours to the east, Alberta.

Will the House please make Blaine feel welcome.

[1:45 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: The Leader of the Official Opposition is looking like he’s fashionably late for his first time in this chair for QP, so he’s asked me to introduce his mom, Patti Halford.

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

I also want to introduce his aunt and uncle Jane and Terry Bailey, who are visiting from the great city of Surrey.

Will the House please make them all feel very welcome.

Tributes

Victor Joseph Stocker

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

Victor was a devoted husband, father and grandfather, a true salt-of-the-earth Saskatchewan farmer, who later built a life of service in Kelowna, and a man of deep Catholic faith and generosity.

Our thoughts are with his wife, Leona, his son Jarrod, who runs my constituency office, and the entire Stocker family.

Introductions by Members

Sheldon Clare: It’s not my youngest daughter’s birthday today, but it was very recent, and I just wanted to wish her a very happy 20th birthday.

She enjoys skiing in the southern part of British Columbia, something that I would really love to be doing myself with her right now.

Please join me in wishing her a happy birthday.

Jeremy Valeriote: We’re in full onboarding mode in the Third Party caucus, so I’m delighted to welcome our new caucus policy adviser, Leif Douglass.

Leif is an Action Canada Fellow who just submitted his master’s thesis on the public fiscal implications of decarbonization in B.C., including a tool to drive government decision-making. A Kamloops native with experience in student politics and on the board of IPAC Victoria, Leif will have a huge impact on our wee Green caucus.

Would the House please make him feel welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Trade Recognition Act

Hon. Ravi Kahlon presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill intituled Trade Recognition Act.

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

I’m pleased to introduce the Trade Recognition Act. This bill represents a major step forward in modernizing British Columbia’s internal trade framework. It advances our long-standing commitment to reducing unnecessary barriers, improving regulatory clarity and supporting the competitiveness of B.C. businesses and workers.

This legislation provides a clear and principled set of rules that recognizes goods and services from across Canada. Under this act, if a good may be sold or used in another province, it may be sold or used here in British Columbia. If a service may be supplied in another province, it may be supplied here in British Columbia, unless a specific exception applies. These reforms will help lower costs for consumers, simplify business operations and support economic growth in every region of this province.

The act also protects what needs protecting. It ensures that B.C. may continue to apply rules on how a product may be used or how the service must be delivered, protecting high standards of health, safety, consumers and environment protection. It also preserves B.C.’s ability to maintain rules relating to Indigenous Peoples and maintenance of monopolies.

The act includes flexible regulation-making powers that allow cabinet to exempt specific goods and services, provinces or regulatory measures when appropriate. This negative-list approach provides transparency for businesses and ensures that the exceptions are clear and targeted.

The legislation also repeals part 1 of the Economic Stabilization Act, replacing it with a permanent, modernized recognition framework.

I want to highlight that British Columbia is not only acting in isolation. Across the country, other provinces and the federal government have adopted their own trade recognition legislation. As others modernize their frameworks, B.C. businesses are gaining clearer, more predictable access to markets right across Canada.

Finally, the act will come into force via regulation.

This legislation strengthens our internal trade system, reduces red tape and creates new opportunities for businesses and workers across this province, and it does so while safeguarding the core public protections that British Columbians rely on.

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

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

[1:50 p.m.]

Members’ Statements

Community Response to Shootings
in Tumbler Ridge

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

First, allow me to acknowledge that I’m speaking on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, those of the Songhees and Esquimalt. These are the people who have stewarded the land, sea and sky from time immemorial, and I’m grateful for the care and wisdom that is always present in our work together.

As I walked to the Legislature over the past week, I noticed the Canadian flag and others lowered to half-mast. A half-masted flag is never done lightly. It signals that something significant has happened, something that touches not only a community but all of us. Often it marks the passing of a national figure. On this occasion, it marks something different: our collective grief for the people of Tumbler Ridge.

I spoke to a friend of mine last Thursday. He and his wife live in Tumbler Ridge, and he’s a teacher at both the elementary school and the high school. He spent that Tuesday afternoon in lockdown with 14 grade 3 students and some of their parents, sheltering in place from nearby violence, trying to ensure that everybody felt safe in an unknown situation.

I asked what might help. He said: “Tumbler Ridge is a functional town. We need to do functional things.” Then he spoke about maybe starting some version of a community memorial garden where the kids could grow vegetables, share food and rebuild connections.

No one knows clearly what the path forward is in Tumbler Ridge, but it is the many steps taken by all that will recreate strength and stability, safety and trust.

Lunar New Year

Hon Chan: Lunar new year is one of the most widely celebrated holidays in the world, observed across many countries and regions across Asia and by communities around the globe. This year we welcome the Year of the Horse — a symbol of strength, perseverance and forward momentum towards success.

Across our province and throughout Canada, we’re fortunate to live in a society where cultural traditions are not only respected but also joyfully shared. Nowhere is this more evident than in Richmond.

Once again the annual midnight countdown and the flower market at Aberdeen Centre brought thousands together to welcome the lunar new year. The atmosphere was electric, with cheering crowds and a powerful sense of togetherness, making it one of the largest lunar new year celebrations in North America.

What was especially touching was that while people are celebrating this festive season, their thoughts were with the people and victims in Tumbler Ridge. This is truly a testament to the compassion, care and strength of being one province.

Yesterday, on New Year’s Day, throughout the city, dragon and lion dances filled malls and community spaces, including the Yaohan Centre and the Aberdeen Centre. The thunder of the drums, the rhythm of the cymbals and the vibrant colours created moments of joy and excitement for children and families alike, symbolizing good fortune and prosperity for the year ahead.

For many, lunar new year is also a deeply meaningful, spiritual time. Worshippers visited Lingyen Mountain Temple, the International Buddhist Temple and the Fo Guang Shan Temple, with some arriving just before midnight to light the incense as the new year began, offering prayers for health, peace and blessings.

The celebrations are far from over. Festivities will continue at Lansdowne Centre, and many are looking forward to the Chinatown Parade, a cherished tradition that brings together communities from across all regions. Multiculturalism is not simply a concept. It is a gift we must never take for granted.

Last but not least, I wish everyone a healthy, prosperous and joyful Year of the Horse. 龍馬精神, 馬到成功.

Black History Month

Dana Lajeunesse: Today I wish to recognize the significance of Black History Month to British Columbia, a time dedicated to celebrating the remarkable contributions of Black Canadians to our province and to our country. This month is not only an opportunity to reflect on the achievements of Black individuals throughout history but also a call to acknowledge the ongoing journey toward equality and inclusion.

[1:55 p.m.]

British Columbia has been shaped by the resilience, creativity and leadership of Black communities. Our province’s story is richer thanks to the ingenuity and spirit of Black Canadians in fields such as business, education, arts and public service. From teachers and entrepreneurs to artists and activists, Black British Columbians have contributed to the advancement of social justice, the promotion of cultural expression and the fostering of inclusive communities.

Let us not forget the remarkable legacy of the early Black immigrants who settled on Vancouver Island in the 1850s. Answering the invitation to Governor James Douglas, many Black families journeyed from California to Victoria, seeking dignity and opportunity. They established churches, founded businesses and helped build schools, all while facing adversity and discrimination. Their resilience created lasting foundations in communities like Victoria and Saanich, and their descendants continue to enrich our province today.

As we celebrate Black History Month, let us recognize the significance of this occasion for all British Columbians. It is a chance to learn, to listen and to ensure that our actions reflect our values of respect, justice and opportunity. May this month inspire us to build a province where everyone’s history is honoured and every voice is heard.

Reann Gasper: When we reflect on Black History Month, we’re not talking about a separate category of stories. We’re recognizing contribution. This year’s theme is: “Honouring Black brilliance across generations, from nation builders to tomorrow’s visionaries.”

Black history in Canada is a part of our shared story. It is woven into the building of communities and strengthening of families, the growth of businesses and the shaping of the values we hold together. This month isn’t about elevating one group above another. It’s about seeing the full picture, recognizing the many people whose contributions have helped shape our country. When we honour Black history, we aren’t dividing the table; we are simply acknowledging everyone who helped build it.

Black History Month is also a time to reflect on legacy. The quiet ways of courage, faith, perseverance and vision are passed from one generation to the next. Legacy lives not only in historic milestones but in everyday acts of leadership, in families who nurture hope and in communities that choose to build, even when the path forward isn’t clear. It reminds us that what we inherit is not only history but responsibility, to carry forward what is good, to learn from the past and to leave something stronger for those who will come after us.

One of the most meaningful moments in life is when a young person sees someone who reflects their story in a place of leadership. Because of that, they grow in their confidence, integrity and purpose.

As we reflect this month, may we continue to listen and learn and to appreciate the stories that shape our communities, because understanding one another strengthens the foundation we all stand on. Today we honour those who came before us, and we commit to building a future worthy of their legacy.

Ramadan and Community

Amna Shah: Community is more than just a place. It is the quiet understanding that we belong to something larger than ourselves and that we are responsible for building and protecting it together. Community is the listening when we disagree. It is the tears we shed when our neighbour hurts. It is the happiness for someone else’s success. It is a shared spirit, a shared strength, a shared responsibility.

As Muslims like me observe the sacred month of Ramadan, the month in which the Quran was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad — peace be upon him — we are reminded of devotion to our community. We are reminded that generosity multiplies when shared and that caring for others is essential. Each fast we break at sunset is a reminder that we are accountable to God and to one another.

[2:00 p.m.]

As we reflect, our hearts are with the families of Tumbler Ridge, who are carrying an unimaginable grief. In moments like this, words feel small, but presence is not, compassion is not and standing together is not.

Islam reminds us that no one is meant to endure sorrow alone. It reminds us that community is presence. It is choosing to reach out, to hold space for grief, to ensure that even in darkness, no one feels abandoned.

I pray that this holy month may bring moments of peace amid overwhelming pain. May it strengthen the bonds of community that grief has tested but not broken, and may it inspire acts of compassion that echo far beyond these days. May all who are mourning feel surrounded not only by prayers but by the warmth of people who care, standing together in grief, in hope and in a shared determination to build and to protect our community.

Ramadan Mubarak.

Lunar New Year and Korean Community

Misty Van Popta: Many of us in this chamber will be wishing lunar new year greetings to our constituents this week, but I would like to take my time here today to give a little special extra greeting to my riding’s largest minority community — Koreans.

It wasn’t until after I got elected that I fully understood and appreciated the size and long-standing impact of this community within north Langley, so many fantastic small business owners and families that always smile at me when I’m knocking on their door.

It is their quiet but meaningful contribution to local life that makes them stand out as neighbours. I have been frequently gifted tasty treats from friends, which has always expanded my horizons as someone with an admittedly limited palate. But honestly, I have found their deep humility and hospitality my favourite quality.

Lunar new year, to my friends and neighbours, passes tradition down through families, reinforcing strong values, respect and resilience. When I have asked about specific traditions on lunar new year, for my Korean friends, it was highlighted that much of the time is spent with family and honouring their elders.

Celebrations like Seollal are opportunities not just to honour culture but to also bring people together across communities. I felt that this past weekend as I was enthusiastically dressed in beautiful hanboks to record a message with my constituent Yun. The pride in sharing not only his culture but sharing their traditional dressings — it was palpable.

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

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

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Mr. Speaker, 22 students from Vancouver Island University have joined us in the gallery, along with their teacher Lauren Touchant. My connection is through my friend and neighbour Lauchlan Benton.

Will the chamber please welcome Erika, Kate, Henry, Rosalie, Mia, Sam, Terek, Zoe, Mikayla, Grace, Brandi, Saige, Alyaa, Carlos, Sho, Victoria, Jordan, Kai, Jäger and Russel.

Welcome, friends.

Oral Questions

Service Model for
Children with Support Needs
and Funding for Services

Trevor Halford: It wasn’t just seniors that this NDP government attacked in yesterday’s budget. It was also, sadly, children with disabilities. This is an NDP government that has consistently overpromised and underdelivered when it comes to this province’s most vulnerable.

[2:05 p.m.]

When the Premier first took office in 2022, he told autistic children they would keep their direct funding. He said: “Every child in B.C. should have the supports they need to thrive.”

Four years later, the Premier strips those families of the individualized funding they fought so hard to keep. That means over 5,000 children will have their funding wiped out entirely, only to see themselves placed on wait-lists that this government cannot keep up on. By the time they reach that spot, they will be aged out.

How can the Premier look these families in the eyes, after he committed to step up and keep their individualized funding, and strip these kids of the money they deserve?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: All children in our province deserve access to the supports and services they need to be their best selves. I want to make it very clear that this is a $475 million investment into vulnerable children in our province that has never been made before.

Thousands more children are going to receive access to direct funding supports. We are making investments in highly specialized, community-based child development centres. We will be working with families over the next year, alongside them, to make sure that they know what supports and services are available for them.

I understand that any time there are changes in a system, that can be challenging. As a mom, I understand that. We will work alongside families, with them every step of the way.

The Speaker: Opposition leader, supplemental.

Merit Commissioner and
Public Service Accountability

Trevor Halford: Only an NDP government like this could actually get up and applaud the fact that they have now stripped families, in some cases over 5,000 families, of funding when it comes to their autistic children. That is not something to applaud. That is absolutely shameful.

But it’s also shameful that this Premier seems to be allergic to accountability. How have they done that? They’ve eliminated another layer of government accountability by quietly scrapping the independent Office of the Merit Commissioner. The minister’s justification? Government hires already based on merit.

Well, the only merit that this government hires based on is if you are a friend or an insider of the Premier of this province. We’ve seen that firsthand. That is the Premier’s merit. We’ve seen that with Michael Bryant. We’ve seen that with others.

Let’s be clear. This Premier has changed laws when it comes to the FOI. They’ve eliminated the local auditor general. They’ve introduced Bill 14. So what does this Premier do every chance he can get? He bypasses any measure when it comes to accountability on himself or this NDP government.

When will this Premier stop gutting the last bit of merit left in this government? Will he keep this commission, yes or no?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It’s important to understand the role of the Merit Commissioner. This is an office that was overseeing the PSA on questions of merit.

Merit has become such a part of our PSA culture. In fact, last year alone, when the Merit Commissioner reviewed 276 audits of hirings and appointments in the public service, they found “no evidence of patronage in any appointments.”

Budget Provisions for Child and
Youth Mental Health Services

Claire Rattée: According to the Canadian Mental Health Association, there are 84,000 children and youth in this province that are suffering from mental health challenges and 58,000 of them are not receiving the treatment that they need. While northern and rural communities still haven’t even received access to these supports, the ministry for children and youth has cut $3 million from child and youth mental health services in this budget.

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

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Our children and our youth are the most important things in our province. We are doing everything in this budget to protect core services, particularly for children and youth.

There are no cuts to services for children and youth experiencing mental health challenges. We have expanded Foundries across the province. In my community, we’re opening a brand new Foundry in just a few weeks. Hundreds of children will have access to primary care, to peer support, to mental health support.

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

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Claire Rattée: I can appreciate that that’s good for the minister’s community, but the children in my community up north and other communities up north don’t have access to services. And the minister might want to check her budget documents again because page 49 of the estimates says there’s $3 million that’s being cut from children and youth mental health services.

Every one of the scarce few mandatory care facilities that is referenced in this year’s budget was already announced last year: Surrey Pretrial, Alouette and Prince George. There’s nothing new here.

So I have to ask. Can the minister please point me to the page in the budget where there are new announcements to fill the glaring gap in this government’s approach to mental health care, or does the government just plan to continue their trend of recycling old press releases?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We continue to make these key investments — for example, continuing to build hospitals that have psychiatric units. We are building in Prince George, a riding held by the other side for years, and this investment was not made. It’s been made by us.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Shhh, Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Also in this budget, we are making additional investments in schools. We are helping teachers. We’re doing things like bringing in more….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, please.

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

We are making investments in school counsellors, school psychologists, additional special education teachers to help children get the care they need right at their school.

Proposed Changes to DRIPA and
Role of Courts and First Nations

Rob Botterell: Last spring this government brought forward Bill 15. It became a fiasco when First Nations raised serious concerns about lack of consultation. This government then proceeded to pass the legislation without the support of First Nations. Trust has been eroded. Now this government is planning to amend DRIPA.

To the Premier: will you ensure you have the full support of First Nations before proceeding with proposed changes to DRIPA?

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

No question, reconciliation is the journey that we must walk on together with British Columbians, with First Nations in this province, and that means listening to each other. That means working together and listening to each other when we don’t always agree with each other. So there’s no question that there’s work we have ahead.

But I do want to focus that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act has led to some great success recently. I think of our work with the Tāłtān Nation and a day of great pride when we stood together to announce a major new mine approved together in their territory, with incredible benefits for the region, for jobs, for our country of Canada.

I want to keep doing that work with nations as we use the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act to raise us all up and, more specifically, to respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Rob Botterell: DRIPA was passed so First Nations wouldn’t have to rely on the courts except as a last resort because government would finally work with them up front to build consensus. Now this government is proposing changes that would weaken that framework by limiting access to the courts when consensus cannot be reached.

The government often tells the public to trust the courts, except when those court decisions affirm First Nations rights and title. The Premier is making the same mistake with reconciliation that so many of his predecessors have made before.

[2:15 p.m.]

To the Premier, why is the Premier creating one standard of court review for Indigenous rights and another for everyone else?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I respect the role of the court, and I respect the role that First Nations can use that court. As you’ll know, there was a time when our House and the federal parliament banned the use of courts. So I want to make sure we’re clear that that right will always exist and that we will work hard to make sure that people still can use the courts when needed.

That being said, I think it’s better when we find a way to get to agreement by listening to each other, working together, spending the time that’s required to do that work. That’s how we do get more durable projects. That’s how we get more durable relationships.

I’m leaning into that work in my role here, and I think we need to lower the tone here, listen to each other a little bit more and find that path that we all want to greater prosperity and respect for each other as neighbours.

Sage Mesa Community Water System

Amelia Boultbee: My question is to the Premier. In my community, there are 242 homes whose water infrastructure has collapsed, which is on provincial land and is provincially controlled, and they do not have access to clean drinking water.

My question is whether or not this government is going to download the $1,200-a-month cost onto these seniors and small families or whether the government will step up and make a meaningful financial contribution.

Hon. Randene Neill: I thank the member opposite for the question. I can’t imagine how stressful this is for the residents of Sage Mesa community. There have been long-standing water servicing challenges in that community.

Our understanding is that the regional district of the Okanagan-Similkameen is in active conversation with the residents and community there and with the utility to acquire it and apply for grant funding. This is work that we all need to do together. Residents are aware of that. The regional district is also aware of that, and hopefully we can reach a good, long-term, sustainable, safe solution for the entire community very soon.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Amelia Boultbee: I thank the minister for that.

I speak on behalf of the regional district and all these constituents when I say that we do not agree that this cost should be downloaded, and we’ve been asking this government for many years to meet this $33 million financial obligation. We should not rely on this speculative $7 million grant, which may or may not occur.

Is this minister aware that if the reservoir bursts, it’s going to cost significantly more than $33 million to fix and this government is going to have to fix it at that time?

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

This is something that we take very seriously. Our infrastructure is what powers our province, and the responsibility of water systems on individual communities is always up to the utility that created that service in the first place. We’ve learned over the years with different improvement districts that as those systems age, the residents that use that water aren’t always able to pay to be able to sustain it to the expectation that was set out to them from the province in the first place.

Again, this is something that we care about incredibly deeply. We’re working with the community and the regional district to find a really good, safe, sustainable solution for the future.

Budget Priorities and
Impact on Workers

Kiel Giddens: There’s no question that workers in my riding have struggled. They’ve faced curtailments and layoffs this winter at mills. Now working families in the North will be out another $200 after this government’s cut to the northern and rural homeowner benefit. It’s clear that the party with so-called labour roots has lost its way.

This Premier and this Finance Minister are also planning to cut the budget for the employment standards branch, which is in place to help the most vulnerable workers in the province. Hermender Singh Kailley, from the B.C. Federation of Labour, called it “an unacceptable reduction in much-needed support for B.C.’s most vulnerable workers.”

[2:20 p.m.]

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

At a time when working families are struggling, why is this government turning its back on workers who are simply trying to protect their paycheques in the middle of an affordability crisis?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. The rural homeowner grant was really designed to offset the increased costs from the carbon tax. We recognized that the carbon tax did not land evenly on everyone, that some rural communities people were transiting further in their vehicles, so when the carbon tax was removed, so too did we remove that.

It’s really important to note that this budget continues to protect the advances that we have made on affordability for families, things like…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: …the family benefit, reducing costs for ICBC, the incredible advances that we have made in child care — by the way, something that that side of the aisle stood against.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, please.

Expansion of Provincial
Sales Tax to Services

Gavin Dew: The Finance Minister played to the crowd at the board of trade economic summit by saying: “One cannot distribute wealth if there isn’t any wealth.” She went on to say she had to remind her colleagues of that quite regularly.

A $500-million-a-year expansion of the PST on services like accounting, bookkeeping, engineers and architects will drive professional services jobs out of B.C., and it will pass on costs on every single housing project and every single business in this province.

Since the minister evidently spends a lot of time explaining basic economics, can she explain exactly how kicking small business when they’re down is going to produce more affordable housing, wealth or jobs for British Columbians?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We have been working diligently to improve opportunities in British Columbia. You have seen us land four of the ten projects of national significance that the federal government has focused on. These are so important to continue to grow our economy. We know that last year we saw our economy grow by 32,000 jobs. We’ve been continuing to double down on this work.

The member opposite refers to comments I made at the board of trade. It is true that I remind some people in this chamber that we have to have wealth to distribute it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The minister has the floor.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’ll remind the members opposite that it was us who actually reduced the small business tax from 2.5 to 2.

But it is true that we have had to take some tough measures, to be frank, in this budget. We have done that for the following reason: to protect the services that are so important to British Columbians. We are determined to continue to invest in health care. Not everyone has been attached to a family doctor yet. We are doing that work. We are hiring more nurses. We are hiring more teachers. We are protecting those services.

We know what the other side would do. We know what the other side would do, because you told us. Just yesterday, a member from the other side….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, Members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, Members. Shhh.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Well, of course you wouldn’t defend it, because you wouldn’t make the choices that we’re making to ensure that we’re protecting services.

Interjections.

[The Speaker rose.]

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

[The Speaker resumed their seat.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: A member on the other side, from Chilcotin, said that in fact if the two biggest ministries are Health and Education, then obviously they would have to feel the brunt of these budget cuts. Unbelievable that that’s the choice that side would make right when people need those supports most.

Budget Provisions for
Long-Term-Care Projects

Brennan Day: It’s truly amazing to see this government defend a budget that is backfilling for eight years of disastrous budgets.

It’s clear in this budget that this government has completely abandoned seniors. Yesterday this NDP government cancelled long-term-care projects in Abbotsford, Campbell River, Chilliwack, Kelowna, Delta, Fort St. John and Squamish, where wait times are already measured in years. We need 16,000 additional long-term-care beds by 2036, and this government doesn’t have a plan.

[2:25 p.m.]

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

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We haven’t cancelled these projects. I want to explain what’s happening here. It’s very important. There are members who claim to be business people. You’ll understand this clearly.

There are proposals that are coming across my desk right now for long-term-care facilities where the cost per bed is $1.8 million — per bed. We are not approving them. We’re going back to the drawing board because we cannot afford to spend that kind of money on long-term care. We need to deliver long-term care for people.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We need to take that money and make it go further than $1.8 million per bed. We can bring that number down. That’s the work that we are doing right now. That’s the work that we are doing.

How do you do it? Maybe you would like to spend $1.8 million per bed. We wouldn’t. We’re going to bring that cost down.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Kamloops Centre.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Read the numbers, Member.

There are a number of things we can do to get these costs down, and that’s the work we’re doing. We can look at having standardized builds. We can look at using prefabricated, and we can look at the specs that we’re building to. Are we building more spec than we need to, or can we bring it down?

These can help us bring down these costs, because we will be able to build more as a result, more efficiently and faster. That’s the work we’re doing.

The Speaker: Member has a supplemental?

Brennan Day: I don’t believe you. These have been in the budget since 2023 — going on three years. Not a seniors home in Campbell River. Nothing started in the other projects. It’s shameful. We need 16,000 beds by 2036. We need to build 2,000 beds a year.

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

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’ve shared the plan to get us there. We’re doing the work to come up with a way of bringing down these costs so we can accelerate building more long-term care.

To the member opposite who spoke, in fact, the Vancouver Island health region has been helping us with this, in the example of Colwood, for example.

We are able to do this work. We can work together to bring down costs in long-term care so we can deliver more, because that’s what British Columbians need.

Government Action on
Affordability Issues

Á’a:líya Warbus: The Minister of Finance yesterday said: “We know families are struggling. The cost of everyday life keeps going up, especially at the grocery store.”

I can tell you that in my community, it’s not the cost of grocery store prices that people are privileged enough to struggle from. It is the growing lineups at food banks that have them concerned in an affordability crisis. Instead of families receiving their $1,000 grocery rebate that they were promised, this government instead gave them a 12 percent increase on their income tax.

My question is: how can this Premier look into the eyes of families who voted, who are struggling to maintain the very basics and strap them with additional costs instead of relief?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It’s true that many people are struggling, and that’s why we’ve protected the affordability measures that we’ve made over the last number of years in this budget.

But I want to point out to the member opposite some numbers. First and foremost, 40 percent of British Columbians, those of us who are the lowest wage earners, will pay less because of the tax changes that we made.

I want to point out some contrasts. For a family that makes $100,000, in 2016, under the previous government, they would have paid net provincial tax of $7,473. In 2026, they’ll pay $4,600. A family with a $30,000 net income in 2016 still paid taxes, $177. Under our government, they get $1,623 back.

[2:30 p.m.]

Forest Industry Conditions
and Government Action on Issues

Lorne Doerkson: Forestry is in crisis. We didn’t hear that word in the budget speech yesterday. Mills are closing. Thousands of jobs have been lost, hundreds in my own riding. Food bank usage is at an all-time high.

COFI says: “The sector’s immediate survival depends on the increase of harvest level through predictable and economic access to wood.” We’ve heard only empty words from this government which promised, in 2022, 30,000 jobs. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. We’ve seen a loss of 15,000 forestry positions in this province.

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

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

Interjection.

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

Interjections.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Donald Trump arrived.

Interjections.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Clearly the Seattle Seahawks got the memo, but the members opposite haven’t. The biggest champions for Donald Trump sit on that side of the House.

Donald Trump has attacked our forest sector — 45 percent duties and tariffs. For communities like 100 Mile, the loss of their mill, specifically, goes back to the impact of wildfires and the attack of Donald Trump on our forest sector.

On this side of the House, in Budget 2026, we are rolling out a stumpage payment deferral program that is ensuring there is more money in the pockets of our forestry workers, making sure that we’re keeping the lights on as we deal with this horrible attack that Donald Trump has taken on our forest sector.

On this side of the House, we are going to stand up for workers. We’re going to stand up for communities like 100 Mile. We’re going to ensure that we’re going to fight like hell for those workers in every part of this province.

Property Tax Deferment Program

Peter Milobar: I was in 100 Mile recently and met with a millworker whose last day after 33 years was the day before. He doesn’t feel this Forests Minister is standing up for him.

In fact, those tariffs, the extra duties, were put in place by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Last I checked, I believe our Finance Minister was campaigning for Kamala Harris with her proud T-shirt during the federal election. I didn’t post the picture; the Finance Minister did.

We are short over 16,000 long-term-care-home beds in this province. We have a budget that, despite the minister saying these projects weren’t announced in long-term care, makes it very clear on page 64. It says: “Approved projects with adjusted timelines.”

In fact, $100 million has already been spent on said projects that the minister says haven’t even been approved. That’s interesting math by the government. That’s long-term-care beds.

We have seniors that can’t get into a long-term-care home, so they are having to stay at home. They are living in their own homes that they bought years ago, and they can’t afford it in any other way than the property tax deferment program. This budget, this mean-spirited attack budget on seniors by this NDP government, has decided to take that interest rate from 2.9 percent to 6.9 percent.

They have also decided to make the interest compounding, which makes it even worse for seniors trying to stay in their own homes. They don’t have a long-term-care home to go to. They have to stay in their own home, and this government decides to pick their pocket and try to actually take more money out of it.

Why, with fewer care beds available, would the government think it’s the right thing to do, in a budget like this, to attack seniors and the equity in their homes and actually have almost usury-level interest rates as well as changing the compounding nature of the interest all in one year and slough it off yesterday as this is a nothing…?

[2:35 p.m.]

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

How can the minister look seniors in the face and say this is a good change and they should be thanking this government for it?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’ve explained the reason for this change. When we made this program available, it was designed to support seniors staying in their homes. What happened instead, because the rate was prime minus 2, is folks who didn’t need it accessed it and took that cheap funding and invested it to make money.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

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

At prime plus 2….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: For people over 55, this program was available. At prime plus 2, it remains a reasonable amount for seniors to be able to access and young families to be able to access.

Now, to be clear, how the program works is that they put off paying their taxes and it gains this small amount of interest. It does not affect one’s monthly spending.

But I want to talk about the overall theme of this budget, because we are focused on protecting what is important for seniors.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, take it easy.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Just yesterday the member for Fraser Nicola said — in fact, a direct quote: “If education and health care are the two biggest line items on the budget, then they’re the ones that are going to have to take the brunt.” That’s not the decision that this side will make.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

Finance and Government
Services Committee

Paul Choi: I am pleased to present the third report of the select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the first session of the 43rd parliament, titled Annual Review of the Budgets of Statutory Offices, 2026-27 to 2028-29.

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

Motion approved.

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

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

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

The Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services is responsible for exercising general oversight of the province’s nine statutory officers, which includes reviewing and recommending their office budgets.

This report summarizes the committee’s discussions with the statutory officers regarding their 2026-27 to 2028-29 budget requests and contains the committee’s recommendation regarding those requests. The report also outlines the committee’s decisions regarding the appointment of the independent auditor to audit the Office of the Auditor General for the fiscal year of 2024-25 to 2027-28.

Prior to receiving budget requests from statutory offices, the committee conveyed its expectation that, consistent with the broader public sector, offices limit their requests to maintaining current operations while actively seeking opportunities for savings and greater efficiency. Members were also appreciative of officers that continued to display fiscal prudence, including finding savings to offset cost pressures.

In our deliberations, the committee agreed to recommend limited additional funding, prioritizing front-line services and emerging issues faced by some offices, particularly those that provide critical services to British Columbians.

On behalf of the committee and all members of the Legislative Assembly, I wish to express our appreciation to those statutory officers and their staff for their important work. In particular, I would like to recognize the four officers whose terms have recently concluded for their dedicated years of service. The committee welcomes their newly appointed successors and looks forward to working collaboratively with them in the years ahead as they undertake their important work in support of members of the Legislative Assembly and British Columbians.

I would also like to acknowledge and extend our appreciation to staff in the Parliamentary Committees Office for their continued support.

[2:40 p.m.]

Lastly, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all committee members for their dedication and valued contribution throughout the committee’s deliberations.

Donegal Wilson: I would also like to acknowledge and thank all members of the committee for the work that went into this report, including the member for Burnaby South–Metrotown.

As a committee, we take seriously our responsibility to ensure strong oversight and responsible stewardship of public funds. In reviewing the budget requests from the statutory offices, we carefully examined both fixed costs, such as leases and office space, and more flexible expenditures, including grant funding, to ensure that resources are being used effectively and thoughtfully.

Our role is not simply to approve budgets but to ask the right questions and encourage continuous improvement. We continue to urge all offices to look for opportunities to operate efficiently and identify cost savings where appropriate while still fulfilling their important mandates for the province.

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

As was noted by the member for Burnaby South–Metrotown, we recognize the significant work that statutory offices undertake on behalf of British Columbians. We look forward to meeting with them this spring, including several new statutory officers, to hear updates on their operations and ongoing priorities.

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

Motion approved.

Public Interest Disclosure Act
Review Committee

Darlene Rotchford: I am pleased to present the report of the Special Committee to Review the Public Interest Disclosure Act, titled Review of the Public Interest Disclosure Act, a copy of which has been deposited with the Office of the Clerk.

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

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

Motion approved.

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

As the House will recall, the Public Interest Disclosure Act provides a framework for the public sector employees to report certain types of wrongdoing with protection from reprisal. The act requires a special committee to review the act once every five years.

This was the first review of the act since it has come into force. Our committee’s work included receiving input from key stakeholders and the public.

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

Leave granted.

Darlene Rotchford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our committee concluded receiving input from key stakeholders and the public. On behalf of the committee, I would like to express our sincere appreciation to the organizations and individuals that took the time to participate.

I would also like to acknowledge the work of all the public sector organizations and employees as well as Jay Chalke, the former Ombudsperson and the staff of the Ombudsperson for their work operationalizing the act over the last few years.

In the course of our review, the committee highlighted the act’s essential role in promoting a culture of reporting and upholding integrity and accountability within the public sector.

While the act is functioning well overall, we identified opportunities to strengthen both the act itself and the public interest disclosure process. Our committee makes 30 recommendations to enhance the clarity and efficiency of the act, strengthen privacy and confidentiality protections and further build trust and confidence in the public interest disclosure process. We also underscore the need for strong protections for disclosers and consistent ongoing education and training across the public service.

I would like to extend my serious thanks to all committee members for their dedication and meaningful discussions during the review. In particular, I would like to thank the Deputy Chair, the member for Abbotsford South, for support throughout our work; as well as the previous Deputy Chair, the member for Prince George–Valemount, for their thoughtful contributions and hard work on the committee.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to express my appreciation to the staff at the Parliamentary Committees Office who support our work, including Karan Riarh, Natalie Beaton, Hanna Kim, Alexa Neufeld and Kayla Wilson.

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

Bruce Banman: I would also like to extend my sincere appreciation to all committee members — particularly the Chair, the member for Esquimalt-Colwood; and the previous Deputy Chair, the member for Prince George–Valemount — for their dedication and the work they’ve undertaken on this review over the past year.

[2:45 p.m.]

While I was late to the game on this one, being appointed through this, I think it is important to thank, in particular, the Chair and the Deputy Chair for the extreme amount of work that they did to get us this far.

I’d like to also recognize everyone who contributed their perspectives and provided thoughtful input on how the Public Interest Disclosure Act can be improved.

It would please this House to know that we worked collaboratively to consider that input, to come up with our recommendations. In particular, committee members recognize the importance of ensuring accountability in the public sector and fostering a culture in which individuals feel safe reporting wrongdoing. To that end, we highlight opportunities to enhance confidentiality and privacy protections for the disclosers and witnesses as well as the opportunities to improve protections against reprisals.

Finally, I would like to extend my thanks to the staff of the Parliamentary Committees Office and Hansard Services for the support they provided throughout our work. They really do help make this House a better place. Thank you.

Darlene Rotchford: I move adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

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

Budget Debate
(continued)

Peter Milobar: I’ll pick up my comments from yesterday and do a little light reading out of the budget book, because in question period the minister indicated that long-term-care-home beds were not actually approved yet, which we were talking about.

I thought I would read directly from the budget, on page 64, which very clearly says: “Approved projects with adjusted timelines: Abbotsford long-term care, TBC.” Originally the year of completion was 2027. One would think, given it’s 2026, that it was in construction. It would have been approved. In fact, project costs to December 31, 2025, of $25 million, with an estimated cost to complete of $211 million. Seems fairly detailed for a project the minister says wasn’t even approved.

Campbell River long-term care, TBC. Originally 2027. Now this one, of course, would have been behind schedule because they only spent $1 million last year, with a $134 million total project cost. In fact, they even say “internal borrowing of $80 million, other contributions $54 million” — a fair amount of detail actually provided for a project that the minister, half an hour ago, said hadn’t even been approved.

Chilliwack long-term care, TBC. Originally a 2029 completion; $8 million spent last year. A $274 million total project, $246 million of internal borrowing and $28 million from outside sources. Again, half an hour ago, the minister said that project had never been approved.

Cottonwood’s long-term care replacement, TBC; 2029 was the original date, and $2 million spent last year to December 31, 2025. A $187 million project, $112 million of internal borrowing and $75 million from other.

Delta long-term care, TBC; 2027 was the date for that project that supposedly had never been approved, even though it’s under a heading that says “Approved Projects with Adjusted Timelines.” Apparently, TBC and adjusted timelines we’re just supposed to shrug about. Now, the interesting part about this was that Delta was $15 million last year, $180 million overall budget.

Squamish Hilltop long-term care, TBC. That was a 2030 project. No money spent last year at all, but a $286 million project.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Now, one would think that if this government was actually managing capital projects, they would realize that almost everything is over budget and delayed in this budget book to begin with, so I don’t take fault that they’re trying to actually rein things in a little bit.

[2:50 p.m.]

But I find it interesting that they’ve decided to pretty much exclusively focus in on seniors housing. Seniors housing and long-term care with a slight health care component to it, obviously, so seniors can age safely, with dignity, in safety — all removed in this budget and replaced with a home property tax deferment program that actually sees this interest rate skyrocket and changes how they calculate the interest, just so they can squeeze some more out.

Now, I don’t have this number confirmed. I would have to run it through a modulator. But somebody had indicated that what they originally had thought was going to cost them $45,000 of interest, over the 20 years they were hoping to still be able to live in their home and use the deferral program, will go from $45,000 worth of interest to $220,000 worth of interest. I have to confirm those numbers, but it seems about right with the compounding nature of what has happened with this change.

My point being, this government has had no problem extending deadlines on other projects. So why, when it comes to long-term care, did the government not simply say, instead of 2027, 2028 or 2029?

We know they’ve extended the SkyTrain from Surrey to Langley by a couple of years. We know they’ve extended lots of other hospital projects by a couple of years. They’ve extended schools by several years. Substation upgrades have been extended by years. You name it. Agassiz-Rosedale Bridge repair project — it’s been extended to 2029, and it has gone up in budget as well.

So when the minister says: “Oh, but we can’t afford the investment in long-term care….” Well, who has been government for the last eight or nine years, watching the cost of long-term-care beds skyrocket? It’s been this government.

It’s kind of like the 15,000 employees, and I’ll get to that in a minute, that are mythically…. I say mythically because I have no belief that the government is actually going to cut those.

The government is talking today in this budget like they had no clue that long-term-care beds were more expensive in B.C. than anywhere else. They’ve been warned. They’ve been warned for years that, in fact, private sector long-term-care beds are much more cost-effective. But ideologically this government is opposed to that.

So then go all in. If you’re ideologically opposed, defend the extra cost based on that ideology. Don’t punish the senior that is trying to get a long-term-care bed. But that’s exactly what this government is doing. On the one hand, they’re so hell-bent on their ideologies, they literally don’t care who gets harmed by it — in this case, seniors looking for long-term-care beds.

There is a direct ripple effect. We have hospitals that are overcrowded in most of these areas that are listed. There are seniors waiting in an acute care bed for a long-term-care bed. That pushes people into the hallway.

We have overcrowded hospitals. We have seniors getting inappropriate care. They don’t require an acute care setting, so it’s not a great way for them to be spending their days. And we have seniors desperate to just stay in their own home.

This government keeps saying: “Stay at home. It’s the best option.” The only way they can afford that is by deferring their property taxes while they live on a fixed pension, likely under the $50,000 threshold.

This government’s response to those seniors is to delay indefinitely all the seniors long-term-care-home projects in the budget. Turn around and play with the numbers on the property tax deferment program. Take away, if you live anywhere outside of the 604, the $200 homeowner grant. Hit their pension income with an increase in taxation, and tell everybody it’s no big deal even though it’s going to bring in half a billion dollars.

For the odd senior that might like to still sew or knit, we’re going to tax those materials as well with PST, because it doesn’t exist yet. For the senior trying to save a few dollars, who doesn’t have a cell phone and isn’t worried about having 85 channels on TV because they just have basic cable, this government is going to go and tax that as well. They’re going to add the PST.

How proud must those NDP members be with this budget. I look forward to their budget speeches where they proudly stand up and explain to the seniors why this is actually good for them. How proud they must feel.

[2:55 p.m.]

I know that probably went through their heads when they campaigned a year and a half ago for the NDP: “I want to form government so that I can increase taxes to seniors, so that I can slow down construction on long-term-care beds.” I bet you that went through every single NDP member’s head.

We won’t hear any of that, of course. No, no. They won’t want to run offside, especially if they’re on the back bench, with the Premier’s office. The cabinet members are going to want to make sure they don’t run offside with the Premier, to be subject to a cabinet shuffle. So they’ll stand up and defend the indefinite delay, the cancellation. “TBC” is cancelled, to be cancelled.

They actually have the ability, as the government, to put a different year in, if this was truly just a one-year delay in these projects to get a handle on pricing. They have spent significant dollars.

The most shocking one is that they’ve done the same treatment to the Burnaby Hospital redevelopment phase 2 and the B.C. Cancer centre there. Believe me, when I saw that, I flipped straight through to see if the Kamloops cancer centre…. Although it’s been designed poorly and is going to be the only one like this — not in a good way — in North America, at least that one wasn’t put on hold quite yet.

The minister stood up in question period and took shots at this side, talking about this riding and that riding had been represented for so many years…. Well, it’s interesting. Last I checked, Burnaby has been represented by the NDP for a long time. Talk about taking an area of this province for granted.

If you live in Burnaby, you should feel like you’ve been taken advantage of and taken for granted. They didn’t just delay your hospital by a year. It was supposed to be open in 2029, three years from now. We all know that is way too fast for a hospital project that would just be getting underway. But they didn’t say 2030, 2031. No, they’ve said “indefinite.”

It’s okay that other hospital projects, if you’re in Burnaby, have gone over budget, have been delayed and can continue to proceed along. But if you live in Burnaby, if you’re the NDP, they’re going to take your vote for granted. They’re going to assume that you’ll tolerate this, that you’ll shrug it off, that you’ll re-elect NDP candidates in that riding even though they’ve paused a $1.8 billion hospital phase 2 change, in the same grouping that this minister says those projects have never been approved.

All I can take from that is that this minister thinks they haven’t actually approved projects on page 64 with the bolded heading “Approved Projects with Adjusted Timelines.” Now, we’re told we have to take what the government says…. The ministers of the Crown would never mislead this House, so I will take that at face value — that the minister was not misleading this House, which means these projects are not approved.

She has the audacity to stand up and, out of context, quote a member from our side talking about the pretty obvious thing, about health and education spending in a budget, when a government says that budgets are under strain.

I know the member. I know exactly what he meant. The minister knows exactly what he meant too. She’ll try to torque it for political gain. That’s fine. That’s what we do. But I would point out to the minister, the member from our side….

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

Secondly, if we want to talk accuracy, last I checked — no disrespect to the member; his riding is right next door to my riding — he’s not on Treasury Board. They are. He’s not sitting at the cabinet table. They are. He wasn’t consulted on what should or shouldn’t be in the budget. They were.

Last I checked…. I get asked this question doing the media circuit right now around the budget, thinking that the opposition has some miracle solution to nine years of NDP fiscal mismanagement and that we’re going to walk in, in government, and be able to provide everybody the “what would you do instead” answer, and everything would be solved in the first fiscal year of us forming government.

[3:00 p.m.]

It’s not going to happen. It’s going to take years to unwind this mess. It’s going to take years to actually re-engage and get the private sector economy firing like it should be. How underutilized it has been by this government, because all they want to do is stack costs on.

But the minister decided to try to deflect by taking out of context what a member on our side that quite literally has absolutely nothing to do with the budget creation or implementation or development…. Somehow that absolves her, while she has literally signed off on a document that, on page 64, has removed health care facilities out of the budget — be it long-term care or be it the Burnaby Hospital redevelopment.

There’s also student housing that they have removed, as well, from UVic. We haven’t even touched on that yet. All in the same area. So to the NDP, I say shame on all of them for agreeing to a budget like this. Shame on all of them for trying to deflect away by taking out of context what everybody knows — that health and education account for a large percentage of the budget and thinking that that’s going to somehow turn the tide of public opinion.

I don’t know if the members on the other side actually have seen the headlines and what people are saying, but it’s not good. It’s not good at all. In fact, they “definitely seem to manage to piss off everybody.” Not my words. That’s Marc Lee from that right-wing think tank, the Centre for Policy Alternatives. That was his assessment. Business groups have slammed it. Everybody has slammed it.

Seniors. After the first 20, 25 minutes of my speech yesterday — half an hour, whatever it happened to be — the amount of messages I was receiving from people I’ve never met, thanking me and our caucus for bringing a voice to the pressure that seniors are feeling and how deserted they feel by this government, even before the budget but even more so after this budget. The messages I’ve received from working families that are offended by how this minister and this government have brushed off their concerns about affordability with this budget.

The small business owner that has reached out to me and others in our caucus wondering just how the heck they’re supposed to, essentially, pay an extra 7 percent for their security guards now — security guards they’ve had to hire because this government has created nothing but chaos on our streets and in our business districts. The government’s solution to that is to tax them 7 percent on everything they’re spending on security.

Because this government loves to make tax forms even more complicated for small business, when you go and hire a bookkeeper, we’re going to charge you 7 percent on that as well. Then, when you take your bookkeeper’s work to the accountant so you can file your year-end tax statements, we’re going to charge you 7 percent on that. If your small business happens to be that you’re a homebuilder, guess what. When you go and hire an architect, you’re going to pay 7 percent on that. If you need to do geotech on the lot you’re building on, 7 percent on that.

Sure sounds like a government trying to tackle the affordability crisis in housing, the same government that just cancelled student housing at UVic — once again, I would suggest, taking the voters in that area of the province for granted. You know, the last time the NDP government took all the voters for granted in this province, they wound up with two seats in this House — two seats, including in Burnaby, including where UVic is. Reading this budget, I can understand why they lost those seats.

[3:05 p.m.]

That’s the problem. We have a record deficit, record debt. We have a Finance Minister that presented a budget yesterday, trying to paint a very rosy picture. None of it actually lines up. I mentioned the 15,000 jobs that are supposedly going to be lost. The reason I say “supposedly” is that the deficit in this year’s budget, based on the government’s own projections this time last year, was supposed to be $10 billion.

Last year they said they were going to be on a road to fiscal responsibility, a road to a balanced budget and a road to fiscal sustainability. That was last year’s budget, talking about looking forward. None of that has come to pass.

Instead of a $10 billion deficit, which would still be bad but at least would be trending downwards, they actually had the audacity to deliver a $13½ billion budget yesterday, showing…. Guess what. Guess what’s going to happen next year, folks. Oh, the deficit is going to drop to $10 billion. Have we ever heard that before from this government? I’m not going to put a lot of faith in that projection.

They talk a good game about cutting 15,000 jobs out of this budget over three years, the key word being “over three years,” because they won’t tell us what they’re going to do in year 1. Apparently, they’ve developed a whole budget document of 174 pages, with complex charts and data in the back and assumptions, all sorts of things, to calculate out how to get to their expenditures and their revenue projections.

They’ve accomplished all of that, and there’s no targeted timeline for the 15,000 employees. They won’t tell us how many in any given year. They won’t tell us if they have budgeted for it to be buyouts, if it’s going to be attrition or if it’s going to be a combination. They say all the right stuff. They say it’s going to be that, but they don’t actually say what the fiscal plan actually has been built into it for.

The Premier and the Finance Minister talk as if they don’t know where these 15,000 employees came from. Now, I don’t take issue with any of the employees, but the Premier is talking like somehow the opposition hacked into the government’s Indeed work-share account and did 15,000 job postings that the government was unaware of, and they went ahead and filled these 15,000 positions. Then the Premier woke up right before the budget and said: “Wow, where did all these people come from?”

But that’s not the case. The Premier had the password to the Indeed account, and they kept hiring and hiring. I stood in this place in 2021, as the last speaker to the budget that year for the opposition, and highlighted that the public sector was growing too fast, and it was brushed aside by government. The Premier was the Attorney General at the time. Every year after that, we have been shining a light. Member after member in this place has been talking about the unsustainable growth.

It was just last year that BCGEU was warned about the unsustainability and what may or may not happen, going into contract negotiations. Then this spring the same has happened again. It’s not by the opposition, finally, but top-level bureaucracy is now saying that this is not sustainable.

The Premier’s response has been one of shock and surprise, as if he hasn’t been there this whole time, creating this mess in the first place. So when I get asked what I would do differently, first off, I wouldn’t have created the mess that they’re in. That’s a big first step, but now we do have a big mess to clean up, and there’s just simply no way to do it quickly.

You have a government so desperate to try to change the channel that they want to take something a colleague says out of context to make it sound like we’re shutting down hospitals everywhere. It’s not just the Finance Minister that does that. I’ve seen the Forests Minister do that in tweets, saying he’s out door-knocking and it’d better be the NDP, or the B.C. Conservatives will start closing hospitals.

[3:10 p.m.]

How ridiculous of a statement is that? How ridiculous of a statement is it for a minister of the Crown to try to say, with a straight face, to people at the door, to fearmonger at the door, that we will be the ones closing hospitals when they are the ones closing emergency rooms on a regular basis.

How ridiculous is it for a minister of the Crown to be saying that when, on page 64 of his own budget document, they’ve removed a whole hospital expansion in Burnaby that the minister just said today was never approved, despite already spending $45 million on it?

Perhaps the NDP should worry a little bit more at their lack of performance than trying to torque things to suit a narrative that is just false. The simple fact of the matter is this budget fails to deliver. It doesn’t deliver for working families. It certainly doesn’t deliver for seniors. It doesn’t deliver for small business. It doesn’t deliver for the health care sector. It certainly doesn’t have any accountability around fiscal management.

Here’s another one. “It’s another fiscal disaster for British Columbians.” That’s from Tegan Hill, acting director of B.C. policy studies, Business in Vancouver. They also say: “The B.C. government’s disastrous fiscal position has led to higher taxes, the last thing British Columbians need.”

Bridgitte Anderson, from the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade: “The cost alone to service the debt is at $9 billion. How on earth is any credit-rating agency going to look at this and not do another downgrade to British Columbia?” That’s $9 billion if this government actually sticks to the three-year plan that they haven’t been able to stick to all the way along. That means in a couple of years, it’s not $9 billion. It’s going to literally be in double digits, debt-servicing, which leads to decisions like cancelling long-term-care beds.

News flash for the other side. That’s closing health care facilities. Not doing the Burnaby redevelopment phase 2 and the B.C. Cancer centre that goes with it? I guess this government wants to get back to sending people to for-profit hospitals down in the United States for cancer treatment like they had to do, while accusing us of two-tiered, American-style health care.

Again, they never want to be judged on their own actions. They literally try to mirror their actions back on us, as if we’re the ones doing it. We agreed that people should get cancer care as fast as possible, and if it had to be down in the United States, we agreed with the government when they had to do it. But it was the government that created the situation for that to have to happen in the first place. It wasn’t the opposition; it was the government.

Riding after riding in this budget the NDP are taking for granted. It’s interesting. I get asked that at home a lot: “Maybe if you weren’t in opposition, would Kamloops get more or not?” They’re actually laying the boots to their own ridings as well, but not in a good way, because they can’t manage a budget.

Let’s look at spending decisions. We have a $1.8 billion Burnaby Hospital redevelopment phase 2. If you go to transportation and if you check things like, I don’t know, the Surrey-to-Langley SkyTrain station and project, which everyone agrees is needed and we want, that’s behind schedule. It’s also $2 billion over budget.

Now, I often say: “Well, if they only managed that capital project properly, how many schools could you build in Surrey and Langley for that $2 billion, that are desperately needed? How many extra construction sites of employment does that create, while still creating a public good?”

In this case, you can draw a direct line. That $2 billion would’ve enabled the Burnaby Hospital to continue. But we have a government pointing their fingers back at the opposition, as if we somehow had something to do with them not managing capital projects properly. It’s laughable in the extreme.

[3:15 p.m.]

I see my good friend and colleague from Delta South here. It’s laughable in the extreme that we have a budget that is cancelling long-term-care beds and a hospital, because they just don’t want to own the fact that it’s delayed and over budget, but somehow, magically, the Massey Tunnel is still slated for its original completion date and still at $4 billion. They haven’t even adjusted the construction costs to that.

How exactly is the Massey Tunnel, given that we are already two months, almost three months, into 2026, going to magically be built by 2030 for $4 billion when they don’t even have the environmental assessment done?

Remember that environmental assessment that they need to make sure they get Indigenous sign-off on? And under DRIPA…. I do hope that they ask all the way up the Fraser, that all those nations that rely on salmon get asked what they think about dredging and a tunnel being dropped in where the salmon swim right past. Or is it just within 50 kilometres? Is that what they consider adequate? We don’t know because they won’t tell us.

That’s the problem with this budget. Unfilled promises and a full-on attack on seniors, working families and small businesses.

Talk about accountability and the fiscal mismanagement in this. Just think that this is a government that now is wanting to change not only the Merit Commissioner being removed, under the guise of saying: “Well, they’ve never found an issue with our hiring, so we’re good. We don’t need them….” Oh, yeah. That’ll keep things on the straight and narrow then.

It is ridiculous to say that because the oversight the office actually created to make sure there’s proper oversight is working. Maybe it’s because it’s something that’s actually working properly in government. They’re not sure what to do about that, so the easiest way for them is just to remove it.

The bigger…. Well, not bigger. They’re both big. The other transparency piece that’s a big concern is…. They laughed yesterday. The government, especially their back bench, was chuckling away when I pointed out that on page 64….

For the viewers at home, in the budget book, when you look at a project and it’s either over budget or delayed or both, you read it, and not only does the name of it get put in bold but if the year of completion is changing that gets put in bold, either faster or slower. Let’s be honest though. Everything is slower with this government, not faster. Then the project cost gets put in bold as well, if it’s changing.

When I highlighted that the approved projects with adjusted timelines…. None of them are bolded. These are all the long-term care in the hospital that has been essentially cancelled by this government. The year of completion has changed to be from 2027 to TBC, but that’s not bolded. None of the costs that might change have been bolded.

None of it was bolded because the government actually didn’t want anyone to really notice this. They wanted us just to skip past it. Why that’s important is because in this budget, they also want to change the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. The pages I’m reading from right now are all projects valued at $50 million or more, and the government finds it too onerous to have that transparency, where they print a list of their projects with the completion dates and the cost listed.

Apparently, they would prefer this budget book be 170 pages instead of 174. What they’re proposing to do with the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act change is that any project that is under $100 million would not be in this book.

[3:20 p.m.]

They say: “Well, the $50 million was picked in the year 2000. It’s no longer a relevant number. We’re going to do it, but we’re going to do it based on inflationary pressures since the year 2000. We don’t actually want to put a dollar figure in the legislation. We’ll leave that to regulation,” even though a very quick google calculation will tell you that it’s approximately $100 million — anywhere from $94 million to $101 million.

This is why it matters. If you’re a parent with Burke Mountain secondary students going there and your school was supposed to be open in 2025 or 2026, would you not want to know that it’s now highlighted in bold for 2027 and if it’s a new build that it’s now 2030 and $73 million? Under the new rules, you wouldn’t even know what the timeline of that school is.

How do you plan, if you’re having a family and you have young kids already, which neighbourhood you want to move into if you’re not even sure what year the school is going to open or reopen?

Most schools are under the $100 million. Secondary schools aren’t for the most part, but a lot of them are. Centennial Secondary was done in 2017, granted. It’s still in this book for some reason. New West Secondary was $107 million.

This is the thing. If they want to clean up the process, why hide? Why focus on a year talking about cuts having to come, make your legislation about getting rid of a Merit Commissioner, with a Premier whose office is stacked with patronage appointments and consultants? It makes one wonder what the cabinet actually does with the number of consultants that are advising him outside of cabinet. Not wanting to shine a light on the fact that a project might be delayed ties into even more lack of transparency in this budget.

Then you have the $5 billion contingency fund, which last year was $4 billion. The government won’t tell us what it gets used for. They’ll use very general terms. They’ll say for fire, flood, emergencies. Legislatively, they could get that money whether they had the contingency fund or not for fires and floods. But fine, they want a bit of a placeholder, just to make sure.

It used to be around $1 billion. Then COVID hit. They identified $3.2 billion or $3.5 billion for COVID. COVID ended. They just got rid of the descriptor. Now, year after year, they have a $4 billion or $5 billion slush fund. No accountability. No transparency. They can spend it after the budget is passed and go around and make announcements on projects.

For the ones over $50 million, they at least have to update us on the first- and second-quarter updates, but not if it’s something under $50 million and not if it’s not capital, if it’s just a grant or operational. So even less transparency there and a continuation of budgeting literally billions of dollars because they just don’t want to be held to what they said they were going to do. The Premier’s office wants the flexibility to run around and hand out goodies.

There’s even more, folks. There’s even more. This budget in a time of supposed fiscal restraint…. Remember, last year this government was hard-pressed to tell us where they were going to find $300 million worth of savings on a $95 billion budget. This budget has decided that now would be the great time, despite having a $5 billion contingency slush fund, to create another $400 million slush fund.

This one is a pure, unadulterated slush fund. There is no other way to put it. It’s $400 million controlled by the Treasury Board — i.e., the Premier’s office — to do with it whatever they want.

[3:25 p.m.]

They can do low-interest loans, not to seniors that want to stay in their home on deferred property taxes, apparently. They need to pay prime plus 2 percent. But if you’re a friend and an insider to the Premier, you can get yourself a low-interest loan out of this $400 million slush fund.

If you don’t even want to have it as a loan, you don’t want to pay it back despite nominal interest being on it, you can just sweet-talk the cabinet and the Treasury Board and the Premier’s office, and under this provision, they can just give you a grant.

They can just give you a grant, because there are apparently not enough ways for government to funnel money into pet projects out there. We need to create a whole new system with a whole new pot of money, almost the same amount of money going into this pot that they are taxing seniors with the income tax changes.

I’m sure the seniors are thrilled to know that actually what they’re funding with the extra tax on their fixed-income pensions is a slush fund for the Premier to ramp up for an election. I’m sure that’ll make the seniors feel really well.

But it’s at Treasury Board’s discretion. And here’s the irony. When John Horgan was the Premier, guess who got fired from Treasury Board? The current Premier. The current Premier was removed from Treasury Board by Premier John Horgan. That current Premier is now setting up a $400 million slush fund that will be administered by Treasury Board. Like, you can’t make this stuff up.

Oh, and they also changed, under the guise of COVID, that it was too onerous to get full Treasury Board approval for things. So the chair or the vice-chair could just sign off and then just inform Treasury Board at a later date of the decisions that were made.

It’ll be interesting as we dive into that to find out if those rules still stand in place or not. I remember questioning Selina Robinson at length about that — before she was fired by this Premier — about the provisions and the extra powers that was conferring on Treasury Board.

So there’s a lot that’s happening around Treasury Board in this. It’s bad enough they have the $500 million InBC high-risk-investment scheme that they’re hard-pressed to show any investments in. It’s had a lot of administrative costs paid out but hard-pressed to show any real success out of that.

If they really wanted to have something around grants and boosting low-interest loans for innovation and things, they already had an investment vehicle. They could have put the money in there. But no, no, they need to create a stand-alone, brand-new $400 million slush fund for the Premier to play with as he tries to find an election window. And let’s be clear. That’s exactly what this is.

So if you’re a senior at home, while you’re contemplating paying more tax — PST on your basic cable, having to now pay PST on your land line, on any material you buy to sew clothing or on any yarn you go to buy to knit clothing for your grandkids or kids or just as a hobby to pass the time in your home that you’ve owned for 40 or 50 years that you thought would help you retire comfortably and safely, as the government is always telling seniors to stay at home as long as possible….

You’re now finding out that the tax deferment plan you had for your property is now going to have compounded interest and interest rates that went up by 4 percent overnight without any warning or discussion. If you’re a senior that lives outside of the 604, you’re going to be paying an extra $200 in property tax because the government has removed a $200 property tax homeowner grant from you in this budget.

If you’re living on your fixed-pension income, you’re going to pay the brunt of the half a billion dollars extra that they’re going to collect off of this tax change. If you happen to be slightly above $51,000, they’re not even bumping that up so you stay in the lowest tax bracket. You can pay extra on that because they froze the tax brackets this year to collect an extra $600 million.

[3:30 p.m.]

If you’re one of those seniors, to you I say, if you ask why they need the money and where it’s going, phone or email the Premier. It’s going to his slush fund of $400 million that him and Treasury Board will be able to give out in the form of low-interest loans and grants.

If anyone thinks that it’s not all for grants, I have a bridge to sell you. But we tried selling this government a bridge, and they rejected it for a tunnel. That bridge actually was going to be $2.9 billion instead of the $3.5 billion in the budget. Fixed-price contract, ready to sign. This government could’ve signed it when they took office. Instead, they cancelled it. That was 2017. A ten-lane bridge with room for high-speed transit on it and $600 million under budget.

What do we have instead? We have six long-term-care homes and a hospital being cancelled in this budget, because they say they don’t know how to actually spend capital dollars wisely or effectively. There’s your contrast between how these two sides of the House do things.

Would’ve been open, but this government’s response instead was actually to spend money on the Steveston overpass. Despite warnings, they forged ahead to do it. Yes, those improvements are needed, but the improvements they’re doing right now are being done at such an elevation it makes a bridge impossible without ripping that whole interchange out again. They did that knowingly.

If you’re going to make that decision, get on with the tunnel already. If you were going to do that Steveston interchange and lock it in, that design and the tunnel, just get on with it. You’re the government. Waive the environmental assessment at that point. You’ve committed yourself to a tunnel, and all you’ve done is created gridlock.

Now, arguably the new tunnel would have the same lanes for rush hour heading in one direction that the current tunnel does, so I’m not sure how much it’s going to ease traffic. Kind of like when they just opened the Pattullo Bridge and replaced an 80-year-old, four-lane bridge to account for 80 years’ worth of growth and any future growth in the Lower Mainland over, I’m assuming, the next 80 years. You would hope that bridge lasts that long. Their answer was to replace the four-lane bridge with a four-lane bridge.

Oh, and by the way — and I have a former mayor of Surrey sitting behind me — they also said to Surrey: “Oh, and any of those interchanges and on-ramps and everything you wanted on your side of the river that was in the original plan, you’re now on the hook for it. Surrey taxpayers can pay for that if they want it. We’ll just span the river, and that’s it. You’re left on your own.”

When the minister says that this is a budget that is about refocusing and making efficient infrastructure decisions and infrastructure spending, first off, what took them so long? Secondly, why did you pick health care, of all things, and seniors health care in particular?

I thought it was bad enough earlier in the year. Again, it wasn’t our side closing maternity wards down in B.C. It was the NDP. Emergency rooms, maternity wards, pediatric wards shutting down under the NDP, and they have the audacity to go knock on doors and tell people we’re the ones that are going to be closing whole hospitals down.

I thought it was a bad enough full-on attack on women’s health over the summer and into the fall as we saw the crisis unfold with ob-gyn services across B.C. Again, that’s not just to do with giving birth, with maternity. That’s about a wide range of women’s health issues when you’re talking about an ob-gyn. In fact, the vast majority of women, the least interaction they’ll have with an ob-gyn in their life is while they’re pregnant. It’s all the other medical needs that women have.

I thought it was bad enough that this government had turned their back on women’s health as badly as they had. They’re now apparently turning their back on seniors care and seniors housing and seniors affordability. The government that’s supposed to understand how pensions work seems to think that seniors are living the life of Riley with their fixed-pension incomes and they can pay some more. As the minister said, it’s minor. Well, it’s enough money to fund the Premier’s slush fund.

[3:35 p.m.]

The mental health budget, $3 million cut from that, again, from a government that will turn around and try to lecture this side of the House on what we would or wouldn’t cut. I’ll tell you, if we didn’t need to find the $400 million slush fund for the Premier, you could fund a whole lot of these cuts that I’m talking about right now. You could fund $3 million for mental health that’s being cut. You could help small businesses with their crime and safety. You could do all of that. That’s about making a decision of prioritization of scarce tax dollars.

“This budget’s tax increases make B.C. a less competitive place to do business,” says Ryan Mitton, CFIB’s director of legislative affairs for B.C. “Small businesses are telling us it’s simply too costly to grow right now, and new taxes, like adding PST to professional services, do not help. Nearly two-thirds of B.C. business owners tell us they would not recommend starting a business today.” That’s the business environment that’s been created by this government. They have completely ignored the pleas from small business with this budget.

Again, if we just focus in on the $400 million slush fund that the Premier demanded be in this budget…. You could do a lot of good with $400 million in all of these smaller pockets of money that are going to feel real pain, that are helping real people in their communities. But that wasn’t the decision and the choice of this government.

They turned around, and the Premier’s office said: “I need a $400 million slush fund. And by the way, I want to make sure there’s no oversight of people I hire, so let’s get rid of the Merit Commissioner as well. I don’t want to be encumbered, heading into an election season, on who I hire for what purpose and who I give money to for what reason.”

Crime and public safety — 250 police were promised in 2023. Government dines out on that a lot. We’re hard-pressed to find them anywhere. They don’t show up on any of the rolls. The numbers haven’t changed. The Public Safety budget sees a $4 million cut this year.

Again, if the Premier could have only made do with a $396 million slush fund, we would have had the Public Safety Ministry not need a cut. But I guess he doesn’t do well with $396 million to help friends and insiders. He needs $400 million.

It’s wonderful language around bringing forward more resources on the extortion file — desperately needed, fully supported on this side. Again, we asked what took them so long. But it’s desperately needed and welcomed.

But are there any extra resources in this budget going to that? If there are, again, that’s supported. But then in the interest of transparency, tell these other communities what resources and what priorities are being walked back. If you haven’t increased the budget and you’re trying to expand into the extortion in a meaningful way, in a real way, something has got to give.

Imagine if the Premier, instead of asking for a $400 million slush fund for his friends and insiders, had stood up in Surrey with this budget and said: “We have $400 million to fight the extortion crisis.” Imagine if he had done that. It’s all about choices. Maybe he’ll have a friend, an insider, that gets to his ear and that’s how it turns out to be after all. Or maybe he could just take some of the $5 billion contingency slush fund and push it into that.

[3:40 p.m.]

This government is trying to make it sound like they are the bastions of wise capital decisions and wise capital spending and that’s why they’ve cancelled six long-term-care homes, a hospital and a student residence at UVic. That’s what they want you to believe.

Let’s just look at the numbers since 2017, shall we? Since 2017, they are over budget by $17.3 billion on $80 billion worth of projects. It’s a 25 percent cost overrun.

They are also behind schedule. When I first saw this number, I thought it was days behind schedule. I thought: “Oh, maybe it’s just days behind schedule on average.” Because that would work out to be that most projects are about a half a year behind schedule. So I thought: “Okay, well, that seems reasonable.” Then I had to recheck with staff and recheck with staff.

No, the construction delays on those projects…. Remember, this is in the backdrop of a government saying they have cancelled these long-term-care housing projects because they’re going to reshape how they deliver capital projects now. Those delays are 158 years — 158 years.

This is a government that had to pass legislation recently saying they’re going to fast-track schools. They still haven’t come up with the regulations on the fast-tracking legislation. They can’t point to one school project that has been started under those bills’ provisions.

They said they needed Bill 15 to fast-track major projects, but they still haven’t got the regulations for those in place eight months later.

They said they needed Bill 7, to run roughshod over everything and actually override every law of the land. Let’s not forget that in Bill 7, this government, under the guise of the threat of the United States, wanted to change the legislation that they said could override every law, including what we’re doing right now. They would not have to present a budget. That’s what they said they needed to fight the tariff war. They had to back off from that.

When we talk about lack of transparency and power grab and concern about things like $400 million slush funds and $5 billion contingency slush funds and getting rid of a Merit Commissioner, all within the same budget, that’s on a backdrop of saying: “Don’t worry about it, the tax changes really aren’t that significant….”

Oh, by the way, in question period, despite the fact that page 64 says these projects have been approved and have been in previous years’ budgets, we have a Finance Minister that stands up and says: “Those projects haven’t been approved. We haven’t spent that $100 million on those projects already.” The opposition is making it up, apparently. We’re just making this all up. Every time we read from their budget book we’re making things up.

I can remember asking for three years for them to point to the page number that the Surrey hospital was in — three years. They couldn’t, because it wasn’t in the budget. It’s a simple request: is it in the budget, or is it not in the budget?

Now, the Surrey hospital would have been over the $50 million threshold, so at least that would have had to show up. But it wasn’t in the budget, not for three years. It eventually made it in the budget.

That’s the other piece of transparency — the fact that they want to remove the threshold to actually report what’s going on in their own budget.

We have borrowing out of control. We have a systemic operational deficit that is unsustainable. Not by my words, although I have said that for years; by their own head of the public service.

Again, these are government documents and government voices saying this. This isn’t the opposition. This is the Centre for Policy Alternatives, which is a well-known and respected — you may not agree with them, but they are respected — policy think tank, the Centre for Policy Alternatives.

There’s a Fraser Institute on the right side of the equation. There’s the Centre for Policy Alternatives on the left side of the equation. Each has a set of economists and policy people that have a slant on life, absolutely, but they’re good at what they do. They know their stuff. They’re qualified.

Their own senior economists — I’ll paraphrase this part — say that no one’s happy with this budget. It’s junk. It’s a junk budget.

[3:45 p.m.]

We hear about all the great and wonderful things this government is going to do in education. I don’t know if we should say they’re being proficient or what the new language is. I can never remember. My kids are out of school right now, so I didn’t have to deal with the “proficient,” “meeting” or “exceeding” or whatever all that language is. I came through on letter grades. Most parents I know would like to see a letter grade, actually know what’s going on in the school a little bit.

Let’s see. In the election, in 2024, every K-to-3 class was going to have a teacher assistant. That was the Premier’s commitment that he walked away from immediately. Then, last year, there was supposedly new money coming into the school system to help support for kids.

This year the language is very similar, and the dollar figures are very similar, so we’re a little unsure whether this is all new money or just a repeat of the existing program because they’ve actually failed to staff and provide those supports.

In the backdrop of that, we have numeracy levels dropping. We have literacy levels dropping. We have more and more kids going undiagnosed and struggling in classes, which is not fair to that child, and it’s certainly not fair to the rest of the class and other young kids in those classes, because they can’t get access to get a proper diagnosis and proper treatment in place to help them.

The time for those words has long since passed from this government. Those words do not provide solace to the parents.

Then, in the backdrop of all of that — kids struggling, parents struggling to try to even get a diagnosis — this government has the bright idea to cut funding in this budget to kids with autism. Not all of them. It’s good that they’re expanding which kids can actually access help and support — kids with FASD and other neurodivergent issues. I support those kids getting help, absolutely, and their families. But give them the help they need. Don’t take it away from someone else that’s already getting it.

That’s what this government’s solution is in this budget. Take away from one set of kids to give to a different set of kids. Put the whole system into chaos again with a cohort of kids that can least tolerate that type of change in their lives, that can least tolerate a different care worker coming to help them instead of the one they’ve bonded with.

We all know this. I know the NDP knows this, yet they’ve agreed to do the exact opposite in their budget.

Imagine if the Premier would loosen up his $400 million slush fund and give that to kids with autism and other neurodivergent challenges and their families. They always say: “Well, where would you find the money?” Well, that’s where I’d find the money. I wouldn’t have a $400 million…. I don’t think anyone on this side of the House would have a $400 million slush fund with a budget like this, let alone ever. It just wouldn’t happen.

We have people in this chamber right now that were former mayors — Abbotsford South, Surrey. I’m probably missing one or two. We didn’t have slush funds as mayors. We still managed to run our cities.

The Premier doesn’t seem to know how to get ready for an election when he’s in government without a slush fund. It’s just wrong. It’s a large enough number that it’s wrong on so many fronts.

If they just kept the contingency slush fund to $4 billion, just $4 billion, like they did last year, they would have another billion dollars. There’s $1.4 billion right now — found.

Even if you didn’t do anything with those other programs I’ve just suggested, you would be down to a $12 billion deficit. Down to. That would still, by the way, be a record deficit — $12 billion.

[3:50 p.m.]

When the minister stands up and admonishes us and the Premier stands up and admonishes us and says that they made hard decisions and the hard choices and that this is a serious budget and they’re doing the hard work….

Really? Are you really doing the hard work? Do you want a victory lap that the Premier’s office for once had a budget cut in it of $1 million?

Last year they said they needed $4 billion because they needed to solve all the public sector contracts. Fair enough. That’s how it gets done. You don’t want to show your hand in negotiations.

They also said: “All of that $4 billion slush fund will be spent in this fiscal year.” We’re not sure where, because they never give a proper accounting of it until it’s long since been spent. But because they haven’t actually solved the public sector job issue, they’re now using the same language in this year’s contingency funds to solve the rest of the contracts.

Last year they needed $4 billion to fight forest fires and floods and to complete negotiations with the whole public service. Despite having very few contracts in place, they say: “All that money has gone now, and we need another $5 billion to solve fires, floods and the public service.” Again, choices.

If you’re a mayor in a small community or a large community with a lot of interface, you’re not very happy these days. It’s dry. There’s not much snow. There might be snow up in the alpine. Certainly, when I drive through the highways, there’s snow up higher in a lot of areas. Not a lot of snow down by where people are living in this province right now. It’s dry. It has the potential to be a very bad fire year.

Logan Lake. Again, the member who was miscontextualized by the Finance Minister — that’s in his riding. It got praised for its FireSmart, got praised for how it dealt to save all those homes in advance of a fire that we all knew one day would rip towards Logan Lake.

The government was all too happy to stand with the mayor of Logan Lake, in all the photo ops they possibly could, to talk about the value of FireSmart.

I used FireSmart when I was the mayor of Kamloops. We thinned out neighbourhoods that were in the interface. It’s effective. Communities have used it all over. West Kelowna could desperately use FireSmart.

What’s this government’s priority? A $400 million slush fund for the Premier or fund FireSmart? I know that those viewing at home probably think: “Well, of course they would fund FireSmart. It’s only $25 million a year or somewhere in that range.” Nope.

Despite a forest sector in decline, despite people that fell trees and remove trees desperate for work and communities desperate for fire protection in advance of a fire hitting their community, this government’s priority was to make sure the Premier had a slush fund, and communities can just figure it out on their own.

But don’t worry. Once the fire starts to encroach on that community and threatens people’s livelihoods and threatens people’s livestock and threatens people’s homes, this government will use their $5 billion contingency fund to throw literally buckets of money into the flames of the fire to fight it then.

Then they’ll turn around and they’ll blame a bad fire season on why they have such a deficit. They do that every year. Every time there’s a quarterly update, they blame the fire season for why they have a deficit. It doesn’t matter that they’d already budgeted for that deficit. They just blame it on that. It doesn’t matter that taxes are lower, that the economy is softening, that millworkers are out of work. None of that matters. Blame it on Mother Nature, and don’t take any responsibility for not doing any preparations whatsoever.

I’ll touch on one last area before I finish up here, because it is a concern. Coming from Kamloops, we have an economy that is very focused on natural resource development still. We have the largest spend for the mining industry of any community in the province by far. We have all of the big service groups — the Finnings, the Brandts, all of those.

[3:55 p.m.]

Kal Tire has the big tire retread plant there, so they get those massive haul truck tires done in Kamloops. We have a lot of spinoff for mining. Eighty percent, probably, of Highland Valley Copper employees live in Kamloops. We have New Gold, although there were some job losses there recently. We have the Kruger pulp mill. We have the Tolko plywood mill. We have a mill in Savona.

The Kruger pulp mill helps Interfor at Adams Lake go. It’s not as many mills, because there are not as many mills open anymore, but it helps a large region of mills stay in business, because they take what would otherwise be a cost item to that mill — the chips, the hog and the sawdust — and they use it.

We are a very resource-dependent community, despite our size, but we also have a thriving tech sector, life sciences, a university, government jobs and courthouses — all of that which goes with being a hub city but not a lot of population within 45 minutes of us. It draws a lot of that in. We kind of straddle both worlds in Kamloops in terms of that.

What I see in this budget, from a government that has completely walked away from the forest sector, is shocking to me. Absolutely disgusting, frankly — the lack of action in this budget. Again, these are all this government’s actions.

The Forests Minister wanted to try to say in question period that it was all Donald Trump’s fault. Those duties have been known for years as coming our way. It was John Horgan in 2017 that said he was going to Washington to solve the softwood dispute. Instead, he came back and we ceded the chair of the softwood panel to one of the maritime provinces.

That’s the NDP’s history on this file, starting from when they took office. I’m not saying it could have necessarily been solved, but that was the big promise. That was the commitment.

In 2022, we were still collecting $1.8 million off of the forest sector. This government, in their three-year fiscal plan that year, showed the next year was going to be $800 million and the next year was going to be $800 million. They’d already planned for a $1 billion drop, back in 2022, of revenues from the forest sector.

In that same year, they had the audacity to promise people that they would add 30,000 jobs to the forest sector. Staring at a budget that showed a drop of $1 billion of revenue coming in from forestry, this government made the commitment and the promise that 30,000 new jobs would be created in forestry. One would think that meant that they were going to take significant and meaningful action, over that fiscal year, to change that drop in revenues.

The next year, the only number in the natural resource lines of income that did not change was forestry. It stayed at $800 million, and it did for the subsequent year as well. Everything else moved around — global markets, you name it. Everything else moved up a bit or down a bit. They kept forestry at $800 million while still promising 30,000 new jobs. And then again. Then it was $600 million.

Now it’s $500 million in this budget, and we’ve lost 15,000 forest sector jobs in the same time frame that they promised to add 30,000 private sector jobs in the forest sector. That’s this government’s track record, just from 2022, just from when this Premier became the Premier — big promises, nothing in the financial plan to back it up and trying to point the fingers back to something that may or may not have happened in 2002.

[4:00 p.m.]

That’s the track record of this government, of this minister, when it comes to the forestry file, in this budget. This government has walked away from forestry so badly, while they talk about ramping up our natural resource sector to try to grow our economy.

They did not say the word “forestry” once in the speech yesterday — not once. We did a word search. We had to wait till afterwards. The minister normally provides their speech in advance to us in lockup and to the media in lockup. This year they were so proud of their speech that they didn’t even provide that ahead of time.

Not once was forestry mentioned in the budget yesterday. How exactly are we supposed to grow our economy based on natural resources if this government has completely walked away from forestry, if they completely ignore everything the industry keeps saying year after year?

If we lose another 5,000 forest sector jobs, I have news for the government. That means they’d have to find 5,000 other mining jobs or LNG jobs, just to replace the ones they’ve lost, before there’s a net benefit to the province.

You can’t keep letting a sector die like this. You can’t stay holed up on Vancouver Island or in Vancouver, saying that you understand the forest sector, by visiting a town once in a while. The minister’s next tour will be a tour of shuttered mills, because there are going to be more mills shuttered under his watch than are still in operation. But this government doesn’t seem to get that.

They say all the right things. They say they’re going to grow the economy by firing up the natural resource sector. How exactly do you do that if you’re going to keep losing thousands of jobs in the forest sector? You’re just trading one job for another. That’s not growth. That’s static. That’s not accelerating GDP growth. That’s just being content with being average and mediocre. That’s not going to get you out of a hole.

I have news for the government. I agree. You can’t cut your way out of the hole that you have created for everybody. You actually have to grow the economy. You can’t do that with a Forests Minister and a government that ignores the industry, to the point that it’s almost closed.

From $1.8 billion in ’22-23 to $500 million in ’26-27 and 15,000 job losses. It’s a net difference, from what this government said they were going to do, of 45,000 jobs. Imagine if they’d even taken half the action they said they would be doing. That would be a net increase of 12,000 forest sector jobs right now, not 15,000 lost.

How much better would our economy be? It wouldn’t be $500 million. It might not be $1.8 billion, but it would be getting close to that again, and you’d have 27,000 people actually paying income taxes, not going to a food bank. But that doesn’t seem to be a concern of this government in this budget. Not one time in the minister’s speech did she say the word “forest” or “forestry” — not once.

We have a full-on attack on seniors and their affordability. We have a full-on attack on working families. We have a full-on attack on small businesses in this budget. We have a forest sector literally begging for help from this government. They can’t even be bothered to say the word in the budget, and they expect us to believe that they’re going to grow the resource economy in this province.

It’s shocking how heartless this budget is, how mean-spirited this budget is, how an NDP that is supposedly there for the people has literally walked away from every group they have ever said they are there to defend.

Most of those forest workers are unionized. They don’t want a transition or an early buyout. They just wanted a job. They wanted the pride of a hard day’s work and the pride of going to the grocery store and paying for their own groceries.

[4:05 p.m.]

They didn’t want a government handout. They wouldn’t mind access to a family doctor or an emergency room that actually stays open in their town. But even that they’re willing to tolerate a bit.

A senior just wants to stay in their home. They don’t want to have to move into a long-term-care facility that doesn’t even exist and that, according to the minister, is no longer even approved. Not my words. Her words today. We all heard it.

People just want to be able to watch a basic cable package so they can watch a little bit of sports and a little bit of news on TV, and this government says: “Why don’t you pay us 7 percent more for that privilege?”

Rural B.C. I have news for all the urban-centric NDP MLAs. A lot of people in rural B.C. still have really bad cell service. Guess what they like to rely on. It’s a land line. You’ve taken away rural B.C.’s $200 property tax homeowner grant, and you’ve replaced it with an extra 7 percent tax on their phone bill for their land line. That sure is going to hit the point for them.

By every measure, this budget has decided to dip into the pockets of everybody in a way that they use things in their daily, everyday life, and the government has tried to pretend it’s no big deal. It’s several billions of dollars a year that we’re talking about, all those measures I just mentioned, predominantly on the backs of seniors, especially low-income seniors, who don’t have the flexibility to go get a second job or even a first job, even if they wanted to or were able to.

That’s what this budget has done. It has hammered the people that need the help the most. We could have avoided a lot of this — not all of it, but you could have avoided a lot of it — by not giving the Premier a $5 billion slush fund and a brand-new, never-heard-before $400 million slush fund that is at the sole discretion of him and Treasury Board on how, to whom and when they give that money out. That is, at its core, what is the most objectionable thing about the priorities of this government and the decisions they made in this budget.

We get asked what we, as B.C. Conservatives, would do differently. We wouldn’t be cruel to seniors. We wouldn’t hammer hard-working families. We would actually support small business.

We certainly wouldn’t be trying to make sure that the Premier had a massive slush fund to operate out of his office in the next year or two as he’s trying to find an election window, trying to pretend that everything is okay. That’s how this government operates, because they have no success to try to campaign on. So they’re going to have to rely on good old-fashioned slush funds and a tax.

They’ll make things up. They’re going to make things up, saying that we’re closing hospitals, despite the fact that it’s their budget that actually has a hospital project removed. They’re going to say we’re closing hospitals, despite the fact that it’s them that are overseeing emergency rooms closed, pediatric wards closed and maternity wards closed.

Interjection.

Peter Milobar: I’ll pull up your social media. Maybe you don’t write your own social media. Maybe that’s the problem.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the member for Kamloops Centre has the floor, and we’ll all get an opportunity to have conversation.

Peter Milobar: Maybe the minister wants whoever writes his social media to actually write factual things then. But that’s exactly what this government does. Spin, turn, deflect, get a slush fund, and don’t try to actually acknowledge anything they’ve done that hasn’t worked or that is wrong.

We’re going to hold them to account throughout all of our budget responses, because enough is enough. We’re hearing from seniors. We’re hearing from those hard-working families. We’re hearing from small businesses. We know the government is. The difference is that we’re actually listening to those people. This government is choosing to ignore them. We are not going to ignore them. We’re going to stand up and fight for them every single day in this House.

Thank you for this time, Mr. Speaker.

[4:10 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: I’m honoured to be here on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking People, the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations, and to rise today to speak to Budget 2026.

I also want to continue to acknowledge the people of Tumbler Ridge, who’ve experienced trauma and heartbreak eight days ago. We keep them in our hearts as we go about our business in this House today and every day.

I note that I will be the designated speaker on behalf of the Green caucus.

As the government has not hesitated to tell us, this is a budget that comes at a challenging moment for British Columbia. While the government focuses on the trade disruptions and political instability south of the border, there are many other challenges that currently face our province, and a response in this budget must seek to address successfully a range of challenges.

We know there’s a climate crisis. We can see the rise of fascism and totalitarianism. We have an unregulated internet that challenges us every day. We have people lacking connection to community and place, facing mental health challenges, without support networks and primary care.

As my colleague has noted, from seniors to students to small business owners to working families, from new parents to new immigrants to new homeowners, people are looking for certainty. They’re looking for the certainty that enables them to get on with their lives, and they’re looking for a government that has their back. They’re looking for hope.

It’s hard not to be completely disappointed that this budget fails to meet the moment. The government has bowed to a public narrative driven by right-wing economists and ideologues, which says that the most important figure in this budget is the deficit. We have to hold our hands up to the deficit.

In the B.C. Green caucus, we disagree with that obsessive focus profoundly. We look at this budget, and we think about what it means for people, for the environment, what it says about who we are as a province and what our priorities are.

As it turns out, when we look for those priorities, they’re really disappointing. This is a budget that puts industry before people. It strips back years of progress on environmental protections. It puts responsibility for the lack of fiscal discipline squarely on the backs of those who can least afford it — children, people experiencing homelessness, working families.

This budget asks us to think about numbers rather than about people. Everything is down to the numbers. It tells us that balance sheets are more important than our environment, that debt repayments are more important than caring for our elders, but in doing so, it forgets that budgets are self-fulfilling prophecies. In the midst of an economic downturn, in the midst of the many challenges we face, what is needed is investment in people, in infrastructure, in hope.

[4:15 p.m.]

There are no major cuts to services, but Budget 2026 is a slow retreat of public services. There are no supports for people who are struggling with affordability pressures on anywhere near the scale that is needed, no supports for low-income families lining up at the food bank, no support for people who are unhoused. This is a budget that completely fails those in our society who are struggling.

In this province, kids are not okay. They’re in overcrowded classrooms. The educational assistants and counsellors that this government promised in 2024, that election, have not arrived.

Children are facing a range of problems that simply didn’t exist when most of us in this House were in schools. From social media algorithms radicalizing and feeding them disinformation to the ongoing impacts of COVID-19 to summers dominated by wildfires, our children and young people need support. They need hope more than ever.

What they get instead is forgotten. This budget continues the trend of a decrease in education funding in real terms. You know, many of us look at the numbers. “Oh, these are big numbers.” But the fact is that when you compare this over time, there is an ongoing decrease in education funding in real terms, and there continues to be huge overcrowding. There continues to be a lack of critical assistants in the classroom.

So while the government promises no cuts to front-line services, it quietly chips away at school budgets instead. Education spending continues to fall as both a percentage of operating spending and a percentage of B.C.’s gross domestic product.

In 2026-27, this coming fiscal, the provincial government will spend 4.3 percent of GDP on education — on the most important component in building the type of future workforce, skilled workforce and healthy, well-supported families that are needed for us to prosper as a province. And 4.3 percent is a shockingly low number. The famously small-government Liberals spent 4.9 percent of GDP in their 2016 budget. We can’t even keep up with the small-government Liberals, and that was a record low, down from 5.6 percent in 2009.

What we’re seeing is that over the years, the funding for education as part of our gross domestic product is dropping as a percentage. The education resources in this province are simply withering away year by year. This decision, this intentional reduction in the resources available in the schools, shows up every day in classrooms that are too small, with too few teachers and educational assistants, with staff who work second jobs, with resources that don’t meet the needs of students.

We should have a budget where education is front and centre and is growing significantly, because that is the key to our future. And the way this is headed, this decision will show up every day for the next 50 years. Today’s children are tomorrow’s adults. If we are serious about being the economic backbone of Canada, a concept I’ll come back to later, then having a well-educated, secure and resilient population now and in the future will make a major contribution.

[4:20 p.m.]

While we’re talking about children, the decision to pause enrolment of new providers into their current operating funding model and $10-a-day child care begs belief. Child care is not only incredibly important for children, who need to feel safe, secure and supported in this turbulent environment and world we live in…. Without that internet safety that should be there, it’s a huge problem.

If we followed through on the commitments that have been made, it would be an anchor for families, for connection to community and a driver of both economic growth and gender equality. Investing in our young people is the best investment that we can make as a province. We know this. We know investing in people in the first years of their lives has benefits that last for decades. Yet in the interests of short-term debt management, the people who pay are the youngest British Columbians and those who look after them.

Let’s talk about the biggest section of the budget, health. Health is once again the elephant in the budget, taking 41 percent of government’s operating spending and almost 9 percent of GDP. We see it in all our ridings, rural and urban. There is a huge gap between the level of health services that British Columbians expect and what they experience when they need access to primary care, to emergency care.

We’re spending more on health care now than we were at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, yet it seems that whatever we spend, it’s never enough. Part of that reason is because the province insists on providing health care in the most expensive ways possible. If we addressed poverty head-on, we would find reduced need for access to health care. If we invested in the social determinants of health, if we expanded significantly access to community health centres, that would be the way to reduce the demands on the high-cost forms of emergency and after-the-fact treatment.

Late treatment is the norm. Let’s look at one example. Options for Sexual Health is closing 11 clinics across British Columbia next month because the government has decided that cutting access to primary and preventative care will save them money. This is despite clear evidence that reducing access to these services impacts population health.

The need doesn’t disappear. It’s instead moved to other clinics, which are also busy and less expert in sexual and reproductive health, despite decades of evidence that ensuring access to sexual health services improves educational and health outcomes, especially for girls and women. We see this pattern time and again. In an effort to save money, the government thinks short term, and ultimately, it costs us more.

Just to come back to the point that the amount of money we’re spending and how we’re spending it…. This shows up every day in ridings across the province, and we’re not getting the result. We’re not being creative. We’re locked into a way of delivering health care that is highly costly and leaves many, many British Columbians without primary care. We need actual creativity, because this is a very large budget. There’s no reason in the world why we can’t deliver the services in a proactive way.

[4:25 p.m.]

The latest example is in my own riding, where a clinic has been given until March 31. It’s being evicted from its premises by Island Health, and there are going to be over 500 complex care patients, many of them Indigenous, who will suddenly have no access to health care.

What we find is that the clinics on the peninsula are full. They’re at capacity. Where is the leadership to provide a solution? A year ago I met with the Minister of Health, with that clinic, and this problem has been on the radar for a year. It’s not a question of money. It’s a question of actual leadership and creativity.

We worked closely with the government on health care under CARGA, working together and collaborating on a review of primary and preventive care. That review is focused on ensuring equitable access to medical services for remote, rural and underserved populations, including First Nations Peoples. The review is clear that community health centres are impactful in improving access to primary and preventive care and can play a role in reducing demand on emergency rooms by providing a team-based entry point into the health sector.

We’re proud of that work, and we’re glad that the government is looking at moving forward in collaboration with the B.C. Association of Community Health Centres. But we need to find the funds and deliver the resources to actually breathe life into those recommendations.

We can’t see it but we hope that buried in the budget is the funding that was agreed on to support community health centres — that that funding is out the door soon and that this model, which is well understood, well respected and well supported, and now with a roadmap built into a report, will be expanded significantly across the province, especially in rural and remote areas.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

We can’t talk about the need to improve health care without talking about mental health, a sector where the prognosis is even more challenging than in health. This government continues to conflate public safety and mental health and is doing all that it can to transform our mental health system into an involuntary treatment system. There are simply not the resources being made available for the wraparound care, and that leads to expansion and expanded use of involuntary treatment.

It was deeply concerning to see a public servant mentioned by name in the budget twice, an indication perhaps of the capture of a single way of thinking that has overtaken this government. That is a very big concern for us because we know that this is an issue that needs to be dealt with in a variety of ways and in a variety of parts of the province without a single-minded, one-size-fits-all approach.

We know that there is a multitude of crises in our mental health system, including a lack of access compounded by the government’s decision not to fulfil their CARGA commitment to introduce psychologists into the public health system.

That is a prime example of this government’s ability to reach an agreement on what needs to happen, announce the agreement on what needs to happen, and then a year later nothing has happened. If there’s one thing that is fundamental to improving the mental health of British Columbians and supporting kids and others in need of mental health services, it’s the expansion and introduction of psychologists into the public health system.

[4:30 p.m.]

Where we land is once again prioritizing late-stage interventions instead of wide and early public access. That means the problem is not going away any time soon. Until we flip that around, this problem will continue to get worse. The costs will continue to increase, a decision that we all will have to live with unless we make this fundamental paradigm shift in getting the support up front.

We could have a lot less involuntary care. We could have a lot less in the way of mental health crises if we actually put the resources in up front. That’s really critical, and we don’t see that type of emphasis in this budget at all.

Indigenous People are another main concern for the Green caucus in terms of this budget. It is deeply concerning — the way in which this budget addresses the fundamental importance of reaching reconciliation with Indigenous nations and people across this province on a range of complex issues. That is fundamental to creating the certainty for economic progress, for all of the things that relate to reconciliation. Reconciliation isn’t simply about economics and economic development. It is reconciliation across the board, respecting Indigenous perspectives and interests.

What have we seen? We’ve seen a government that has already signalled its intention to gut the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

We have the opposition saying: “Repeal it.” We have the government side saying: “Make amendments to eliminate the ability of nations where the process of reconciliation set out in DRIPA is unsuccessful.”

It’s: “Oh, we’ll have a framework so we can actually work on reconciliation together, set it all out, and if it doesn’t work out or it doesn’t go in a reasonable time frame, there’s no dispute resolution. We’ll just amend away the ability to bring the courts into the process as a last resort.”

Either way, where we end up is with the courts being the first resort. We’ve been down that road for 50 years, 100 years.

I can tell you that the goal of this exercise is to build consensus. You don’t build consensus and negotiate resolutions, like with the agreement on Haida Gwaii, like with treaty agreements, when you say: “We’ll just ship it off to the courts.”

Where is it in the budget that we learn that that is fundamentally the objective of this government, to shift everything to the courts? We look at the ministries’ budgets, the deep cuts to the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and the big increases to legal budgets in the Attorney General’s department.

There’s nothing that can signal so strongly that we have moved on from the days of alignment on the need to have First Nations Peoples involved in decision-making than cuts to the Declaration Act secretariat, to government-to-government relations and to intergovernmental relations.

If you don’t have the resources, if you don’t have the staff, how are you going to meet this moment?

[4:35 p.m.]

Across the province, government and First Nations need to sit across the table and resolve issues, reconcile issues that are standing in the way of economic progress, cultural progress, in building community together.

It’s 195 days since the Cowichan decision was handed down by the B.C. Supreme Court. It was a clear instruction to the government to get to the negotiating table. We’re presented with a budget that says: “We’re not interested in the negotiating table. We’re not interested in finding certainty. We’ll see you in court.” It’s a great day for lawyers, this budget, but it’s a bad day for British Columbia, and it’s a bad day for reconciliation.

Underpinning so many of the problems I’ve talked about today is a persistent and growing inequality in British Columbia. Inequality is corrosive, and here’s what we know about the state of the economy in British Columbia, the result of this type of inequality.

We know that 41 percent of people, four out of ten people, are less than $200 away from being unable to pay their bills each month. We know that there are 170,000 seniors in this province that are living in poverty. We know that a quarter of the people of this province are experiencing food insecurity. We know that food bank usage has increased by three-quarters just since 2019 — three-quarters increase in food bank usage.

While the budget includes plans to ban property controls that prevent businesses from selling fresh food near grocery stores, it doesn’t do much to change the massive profits corporate grocery chains are raking in on the backs of British Columbians.

Income and disability assistance rates remain well below the poverty line. When we were negotiating CARGA the first year, we had a plan that we would work together to look at the benefits of raising income and disability assistance rates to the poverty line, because we believe, and we think the evidence will clearly show, that if we took that step, we would reduce costs in numerous other areas that would more than pay for the increase in those rates. Government never got to that work, despite our agreement that that work would be done.

Here we have parents of children with disabilities forced to pay out of pocket for services and supports. Last year the government removed the spousal clawback on disability assistance. They have yet to remove the spousal clawback on shelter assistance.

Fundamentally, the government is continuing to tinker around the edges while thousands of people live in legislated poverty. This is one of the wealthiest provinces or one of the wealthiest jurisdictions in the world. It’s certainly one of the wealthiest jurisdictions in Canada. Why is it that 25 percent of people are experiencing food insecurity? What happened?

How can we have 41 percent of people less than $200 away from being unable to pay their bills? How can we celebrate the fact that 170,000 seniors in this province live in poverty? What type of province is this that we live in if we say we can’t afford to actually take care of British Columbians that face these challenges?

Yet at the same time, British Columbia is now home to at least seven billionaires. The wealthiest 0.01 percent of Canadians hold 4,000 times the average wealth of a family in the bottom 50 percent of wealth distribution.

[4:40 p.m.]

It’s no different in British Columbia. We’re right there with the rest of Canada. Inequality is here, and it’s growing, and it tears against our social fabric. We’ve seen what inequality can do. It destroys the belief in fairness. It destroys the belief in the social contract.

There is nobody in this Legislature that can tell me that if somebody earns or has 4,000 times the average wealth of a family that’s facing the challenges of the poor, they earned every cent of it. That is just a ludicrous proposition. So when this income inequality takes hold, it worsens economic performance, it slows economic growth and it lowers something we should all be able to enjoy as British Columbians: happiness.

High levels of inequality lead to worse health outcomes across all socioeconomic groups, make growth less stable and durable and reduce aggregate demand. We in the Green caucus are not prepared to stand aside and say: “Oh, we can’t afford to take care of the most vulnerable in our society.” We in the Green caucus are not prepared to stand aside and say that the 1 percent and the billionaires shouldn’t be paying their fair share. That’s why the B.C. Greens have been pushing for tax reform.

What is it that we look at in this province? What is it about this province? What possible calculation is there that says it’s something we want to cheer for? British Columbia and Alberta have the lowest taxes on people earning more than $150,000 year. Why are we proud of that? I am not proud of that. Why shouldn’t British Columbians making more than $150,000 a year pay the types of taxes that other provinces, other than Alberta, pay?

There is simply no justification for that. When you live in the province, you’re part of a community. You need to pay your fair share. And you know, I’m not alone. Even Moody’s credit rating agency, that paragon of left-wing economics and investment analysis, has indicated the tax take for British Columbia is low and could be raised. Why aren’t we looking at that? Why are we afraid to look at everybody paying their fair share?

We would argue, though, that tax reform needs to go further than income. It needs to include wealth, because it’s not the doctors, the engineers and the developers earning $200,000 a year, the lawyers, that are driving this inequality. It’s those who are building huge stores of wealth, who are refusing to invest in improving our productivity, those who are crowding out small businesses.

I’d be very surprised if MLAs from rural communities wouldn’t join me in supporting the need for tax fairness. That’s why we proposed a wealth tax package to the government — one that would address both inequality and the deficit, one that the government refused to engage with, refused to even look at. Yet we have a $13 billion deficit coming up, and we’re not prepared to look at the tax policy side of the equation. That is just irresponsible.

That is a complete abdication of looking at ways to properly fund the services that people need. Not what’s happening right now, not the level that maybe we can hold on to the core services. No, we should have classrooms that are properly funded with assistance that’s properly funded.

[4:45 p.m.]

We should have health care that is team-based, where the psychologists are built into the system, where nobody has a lack of access, whether it’s emergency care, primary care, long-term care that’s needed.

We have one of the wealthiest jurisdictions in the world and in Canada. Why can’t we deliver that? What is it about our community, where we’re prepared to abandon that goal?

You can’t talk about wealth in British Columbia without talk about housing and the property market, and it’s not a pretty picture for housing in this budget.

The government has decided to end the immensely successful community housing fund, which supported the building of affordable rental homes. This is a key example of government acting against their own best interests, because we know that when the poorest British Columbians are properly housed, that is the foundation for the ability to successfully obtain work, to support their kids, to deal with all of the things that we know need to happen for a prosperous, safe, secure family outlook.

Building housing to meet the needs of people who’ve been priced out of an exorbitant rental market is not only the right thing to do; it’s the economically responsible thing to do. When you have housing, you are able to plan. You can actually see a brighter future.

We know that people who don’t have access to secure, affordable housing don’t disappear. These are the people we see on our streets and in our parks. These are the people visiting emergency rooms to access care. They’re people sleeping in cars, on couches, in tents — in my riding, sleeping on derelict boats, causing huge environmental issues — because there’s nowhere else to go.

These are not young people. These are children. They’re seniors. It doesn’t discriminate. Poverty doesn’t discriminate. Lack of housing doesn’t discriminate. If this government was truly serious about addressing street disorder, we would see money pouring into deeply affordable housing. A housing-first strategy gives people certainty, calm and the ability to make long-term decisions in their own best interests.

So what’s the plan? Well, the ministry’s target for affordable housing units consists of affordable rental units, social housing and co-ops. What’s the plan? We’re going to decline the building of affordable housing units over the upcoming years. The prediction for this year is 4,500 units, dropping to 4,000 next year, and only 2,500 affordable housing units are targeted to be completed in ’28-29.

We have a population in this province of 5.7 million people and all we can muster, as a government, to take care of the most vulnerable, those that are in need of affordable housing, to bring them off the street, to keep them off the street, to not have them couch-surfing, sleeping in parks, in tents — all of the things that we’ve seen over the last ten years — is 2,500 affordable units. That’s pathetic. That’s no commitment to solving the housing challenges that those most in need face. That’s a total abdication. That’s a lack of ambition.

You know, there are lots of willing partners in the construction sector ready to do everything they can to make life better for British Columbians. It’s heartbreaking that we’re even having to have this discussion. Where is the emphasis on that foundational affordable housing?

[4:50 p.m.]

You have to feel for the private sector and municipal partners who’ve been working in partnerships with the government on initiatives like the community housing fund, who’ve poured money, energy, time and effort into these projects. They must be feeling so blindsided today.

In my riding, I have non-profit community groups who’ve been waiting since last July to find out if their application will be approved so that they can help those most vulnerable in their community with affordable housing. Now their hopes are going to be dashed. Some of them have been carrying lines of credit. They’ve made big investments on the assumption that the government would continue this program at its existing level. They deserve better than this from this government. I, frankly, hope the government apologizes to them and makes right for their time, energy and money.

Housing — lack of ambition, lack of commitment, lack of scale for the problems we face.

Health care — great plan, lack of implementation, lack of resources. A continuing disappointment in that fundamental part of health care delivery: mental health support, psychological support.

Schools — a complete and utter failure to deliver the education experience our kids need to succeed in the 21st century.

What more could go wrong? Well, let’s talk about the environment and climate change. This budget is deeply worrying for everyone who cares about future generations. B.C.’s latest climate report confirms that the province will fail to meet its legislated emissions reduction targets for ’25 and 2030.

Despite legislation mandating a 16 percent cut in emissions by 2025, the province has seen less than a 3 percent decline. For 2030, B.C. is forecast to meet just half of its 40 percent goal. This is a profound betrayal of our kids and future generations, whose lives and livelihoods will depend on the planet we’re failing to protect today.

At least Trump is straight about it. He just says: “I’m just going to repeal everything and not worry about the climate.” You know, at least he doesn’t pretend. At least you know where you stand with Trump, which is that climate change doesn’t exist and we don’t need any regulations. That would be a more honest approach than making these targets and saying: “Oh, we’re not going to bother to try to meet them.”

Budget 2026 should have acknowledged that younger and future Canadians are being left to shoulder the growing risks and costs of climate inaction. We should be committing to reclaiming a leadership role. It was Gordon Campbell as Premier who set the leadership role for us on climate change. I can tell you that there are not many times in my life that I have celebrated the idea that Premier Gordon Campbell did something I could really cheer for. That was one of them.

This government has completely abandoned that commitment because: “Well, the public might not be quite with us. We have to go….” Well, no, the public is looking for leadership on this. That includes renewing CleanBC, ensuring a stringent industrial carbon price and implementing other policies that will keep ambitious climate targets within reach. Sadly, we see none of that in this budget.

Sure, we can compare ourselves to the U.S. and say, “Oh, well, we’re doing a bit better,” but let’s look at the Scandinavian countries. Let’s look at other parts of the world that have similar challenges to us in terms of delivering climate solutions and achieving targets. The fact that we’re a northern geography, the fact that we’re an export-oriented economy, doesn’t stand in the way of doing the right thing here.

[4:55 p.m.]

For so long, the primary economic engine of this province has been the extraction of resources, done in a way that treats clean air, water and stable climate as an appealing wish list item and First Nations as stakeholders.

That’s a failure of courage and imagination and a lack of a moral compass. It’s a failure to understand that our current economic system is killing us and the planet and a failure to put in place the guardrails that ensure that the economy works for people, not the other way around.

In this, when you look at it, we absolutely can’t take the approach of: “Oh, we’re a small economy. We don’t make a big contribution. So we’ll just sort of muddle along. Yeah, we’ll expand LNG and all the health impacts that’s going to have from flaring. We’ll ignore it, because we don’t have a big part of the problem.”

Well, that type of thinking is what leads to the biggest inability to deal with climate change. If everybody does their part, if they see us as leading this, we can make a big impact and set an example for others. Instead, we have this continued emphasis on resource extraction priorities at the expense of climate solutions.

That’s not going to work, and we’re going to have unmanageable damages and costs in the future. For many in this room, we won’t experience the full impact, but our children and our grandchildren will. We’re failing them by not taking this seriously.

Budget 2026 includes no new funding for many other key environmental commitments: endangered ecosystems like old-growth forests and habitat of at-risk species, or getting us closer to the promised provincial biodiversity law.

You know, we have no information. That’s another classic of this budget: the lack of information and detail in service plans. There’s no information on how much of the $1 billion destined for conservation commitments that was announced in 2023 has been spent or how much remains. This is important information if the B.C. government plans to keep its promise to double protection to 30 percent by 2030.

Three-year funding for the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness continues to hugely underestimate the costs of wildfires and other climate disasters.

The budget allocates between $108 million and $111 million to the Emergency Management Ministry over the next three years, despite the fact that the ministry usually spends far above that. This year alone, projected spending is over $440 million.

The Forests Ministry continues to see budget allocations of less than $1 billion, even though wildfire costs regularly push its spending above that, often by hundreds of millions.

Forestry, as we have said repeatedly, is a sector in crisis. We’ve worked with the government on a review of our forests and forest policy. It was very clear that the status quo isn’t working. We need urgent protections for old growth. We need better data. We need independent oversight. We need regional management. We need to help operators make decisions where we provide long-term certainty.

There’s no money in the budget to implement the forest advisory report. There’s no increase in funds to deal with this forestry sector in crisis. Yes, there are baubles, but we need fundamental change.

[5:00 p.m.]

We could have $1 billion more a year in revenue if we actually made the systemic changes and completed the work that was promised some time ago in transforming the forest sector. Nor does the budget include new funding tied to a revised CleanBC plan to meet B.C.’s climate goals.

You know, new policies and funds are urgently needed. We need policies. We’ve lost the consumer carbon tax. We have this 2030 net-zero requirement for LNG terminals, which is wavering in EV rebates.

So despite identifying climate disasters as a major threat to the economic outlook of the province, this government continues to invest in the fossil fuel industries that drive climate change. And we’re talking about ramping up resource extraction and fast-tracking mega projects while simultaneously cutting or freezing the budgets of the ministries responsible for regulating these sectors.

This Look West plan, this government’s push for oil and gas and mining, is coming at the expense of environmental protection. That’s a dangerous approach that only locks in uncertainty and conflict for years to come. It locks in more poverty too. This government earns less from oil and forestry than from lotteries and liquor. If we’re not honest about how we make our money, how will we ever grow our economy?

As we all know, the government killed the consumer carbon tax. That led to a collapse in carbon tax revenues of $2.4 billion. We also know big polluters are paying next to nothing for their emissions, while about one-quarter of B.C.’s total emissions come from the oil and gas sector.

Alongside this, the B.C. government eliminated a billion-dollar income transfer, which went to low- and modest-income households. Given that those low-income households don’t burn as much carbon, the vast majority benefited from the carbon tax regime.

At this moment of uncertainty and fiscal restraint, we should not be backtracking on international commitments to take climate action and protect nature. Climate and conservation solutions are readily available. We can see them being implemented around the world, and we know the evidence shows that they deliver greater economic benefits than yesterday’s boom-and-bust industries and support a diverse economy, health, safety and well-being.

The most challenging part of this government’s budget is that there’s no plan. There’s no strategy. Even when they have a strategy, they immediately put it on the shelf rather than into action.

What we’ve seen from this government over the past years is a focus on announcements. They’re great at announcements. There’s social media content, sizzling social media content. There’s a banner with the name of the new project. There are ministers ready to stand behind the Premier and nod enthusiastically, but there’s no plan. There’s no through line. There’s no ability to understand and enunciate where they want to be and how they’ll get us there.

There’s no sense of a solution that we’re all driving towards with ministers who are connected, who understand the linkages between portfolios. Now, if the issue is having the right people to support it, we’re about to take 15,000 FTEs out of the public service.

Government should be about implementing and following through with things, not merely about announcements. It should be about ambition. The government should have big ideas. We shouldn’t be focusing on what we need to cut to keep the deficit under $15 billion. We should be focusing on how we build an economy and a fair tax system that eliminates deficits altogether.

[5:05 p.m.]

There’s no plan here. There’s no plan on how…. John Maynard Keynes. Counter-cyclical spending. Second-lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in Canada.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with running deficits in order to invest in a future that enables you to balance budgets, but this is a government that can’t figure that out, so we’re headed towards very high debt, and we have no plan.

The government, in response, will point repeatedly to the Look West strategy as the economic underpinning for the economic growth of this province. It’s going to solve all the problems, maybe ten years from now, but we’ll have money pouring in, and we’ll have a balanced budget, and it’d be the land of milk and honey. What we forget is that this is basically a reprint of Christy Clark’s 2012 B.C. jobs plan. Look West is not a plan for growing an economy. It’s a plan for mortgaging our environment, for ensuring our coastlines are littered with stranded assets.

For the immense volume of resources that companies extract in B.C., provincial finances are getting shortchanged. In the early 2000s, B.C. used to pull $3 billion to $4 billion per year from resource royalties at a time when the economy was a third the size it is currently. Corporations who profit from extracting and selling public resources need to pay back more of that value to the public purse.

Look West can be more accurately described as “Looking Lost” or “Looking After Industry.” It’s really disappointing that this is the direction the government has chosen to move in. Given their love of reports on shelves, it’s not surprising that they already have a detailed economic strategy that they’ve chosen not to implement and put in the bottom drawer.

I had huge hopes that the government would step up and make the investments in the forest sector, including implementation of the PFAC report, which, by the way, COFI and the truck loggers and others support as a necessary part of restoring the forest sector to where it should be. I was disappointed because it just went into the bottom drawer. The funds are not in place.

Interjection.

Rob Botterell: Two weeks ago the report was tabled. This government has known before the budget was baked what would be involved.

In 2022, economist Mariana Mazzucato was commissioned by this government to provide advice on a plan for managing multiple crises, including social inequalities, lagging productivity and the climate emergency. The professor was clear in her report: building a stronger and more productive economy while tackling social inequalities and the climate emergency are not mutually exclusive. Instead, they must go hand in hand.

She urged the government to partner with communities to embed the social contract and care for the economy in core of decision-making. This is in alignment with the B.C. Greens’ push for well-being, a well-being approach to the economy.

What does it matter if the economy is growing but the benefits are only going to seven billionaires in Vancouver or to the well-to-do, the 1 percent? What good is economic growth when it scars our landscapes, pollutes our air and poisons our rivers? We can increase the health budget all we want, but what we know is that LNG plants are flaring next to people’s homes.

It will never be enough. We have to take a different approach.

[5:10 p.m.]

We have the plan. We’ve had the plan sitting in somebody’s bottom drawer since 2022.

I’ll return to a comment made just moments ago about the PFAC report. I will be the happiest person in the world if some of that $5 billion contingency is used to fully implement that plan this year. A proper economic strategy which measures not just growth but the beneficiaries of economic growth, the impact on our environment, the long-term implications for our children and their children, how it’s improving the lives of the most vulnerable people — that’s the way forward in this moment we’re in.

With that, I’ll begin my brief concluding remarks. I’ve been striving to go as long as my colleague earlier, but it appears I won’t be able to go almost two hours. In time, I hope to be able to expand on my points with the enthusiasm and the vision and the detail and the repetitiveness.

I am deeply disappointed with the decisions this government laid before us in this budget. We cannot judge this government by what they say, only by how they act. And what they have said to us is that they will place the burden of their fiscal mismanagement on the backs of the most vulnerable British Columbians. They will sacrifice our environment to enrich the most wealthy. They will walk away from successful projects, many successful projects, leaving partners in…. This is not the ambition we need in this moment.

This afternoon, in these remarks, I’ve laid out from a Green caucus perspective how we would approach it. We would not be afraid to call on the most wealthy in this province to pay their fair share. We would not be afraid to expand core services. We would not be afraid to implement a strategy that focuses on building a green economy.

We would not be afraid to say to teachers and children across this province that we are going to deliver and invest so that you have the best education and you have the best support to make the greatest contribution you can.

This is a sad day for British Columbians, one that will linger long after this government leaves office.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks for the opportunity to be able to rise in this House and provide my remarks on behalf of the people of Langford-Highlands to Budget 2026.

Before I do, I want to take an opportunity, being that it’s my first time rising in the House outside of question period, to offer my sincerest condolences to the people of Tumbler Ridge. We’re a province that had a day of mourning on the day of the throne speech, but I think it’s fair to say that we’re all still in mourning over what happened — an absolute tragedy.

I’ve had the opportunity to get to know the mayor. He was meeting with me at the Natural Resources Forum just a couple of weeks ago and gave me a hard time for not stopping by Tumbler Ridge on my last visit to the northeast. I’m looking forward to the opportunity to visit that beautiful community for the first time later this year.

To the mayor and to the MLA for Peace River South, who has shown outstanding leadership, given the challenges that he has faced representing that community over the course of the last couple of weeks, I want to thank them both for their leadership.

There has often been a lot of talk of the leadership of the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition as well as the Prime Minister and other provincial and national leaders, but the folks that are truly working on the ground 24-7 are the MLA for Peace River South, the mayor and council and the First Nations and the leaders in those communities. They live those tragedies day by day.

Again, on behalf of the people of Langford-Highlands, I want to offer my deepest condolences to the families of those lost and to the entire community as they continue to mourn what truly was a tragedy.

[5:15 p.m.]

I also want to take the opportunity, as we begin a new legislative session, to once again thank the people of Langford-Highlands for the opportunity, the real gift that I get to be able to represent their perspectives and their points of view in this beautiful chamber.

It truly is a gift, coming on three years, of getting the opportunity to be able to rise in this House, whether it’s speaking to a budget, the throne speech or legislation. It is a true gift to be able to rise in this House and represent the perspectives of Langford-Highlands. It was Langford–Juan de Fuca, now Langford-Highlands, a riding that is facing considerable challenges with growth but lots of opportunities and success that I’m looking forward to diving into as I provide my remarks to Budget 2026.

I think that as the Minister of Finance acknowledged…. I want to thank her for her leadership. I want to thank the Ministry of Finance for the work that they’ve been doing over the course of the last number of months in preparing for Budget 2026. Budget 2026 is a very serious budget. It’s a serious budget for very serious times.

I want to take an opportunity — I don’t get two hours — in the 27 minutes that I have to be able to speak today, to talk about what’s happening in our world and how that impacts us here in British Columbia.

I think it’s important for us to recognize that we are a subnational government. There are lots of challenges and opportunities that exist in British Columbia, but I think if there’s something that we’ve learned over the course of the last year, it’s that we are impacted by all of the global players around us.

I think it’s fair to say that we live in a world filled with extreme and divisive views. We just have to look at the course of the last year, the actions of Donald Trump.

President Trump came into office, and not only has he wreaked havoc on British Columbians and all Canadians but people around the world. His attack on our working people — whether in forestry, auto and steel and aluminum, core sectors to our economy in Canada, but specifically forestry here in British Columbia — has been absolutely devastating to communities in every corner of this province.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs are on the line because of a President that has gone forward and raised softwood lumber duties and also has called our softwood lumber a national security risk and has added section 232 tariffs on top of that, which I expect will be in front of the courts, if they’re not already.

The world has changed over the course of the last year. Not only has he attacked our working people, but he’s attacked our sovereignty. He has talked about making Canada the 51st state.

If there’s something that has brought us together as Canadians — outside of those that believe that they want to join the United States, which is a little bit of a movement we’re seeing in Alberta right now that I hope gets stomped very quickly — it’s that we are proud Canadians — proud Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We are going to fight for our people. We are going to fight for this beautiful country we call home.

I am a son of immigrants who made the decision to immigrate here to Canada. I am proud to be a Canadian. I’m proud to be a resident of Langford. We’re going to work very hard over the course of the next number of years in our time in office and our time in government to ensure that we continue standing up for working people.

I think it’s fair to say that over the course of the last year, British Columbians have seen a new world order. The Prime Minister spoke about this in a speech in Davos just a couple of weeks ago. Every government of every political stripe is trying to figure out what’s next.

How do we protect our people? How do we protect our sovereignty? Imagine that we’re not just Canadians; imagine if we’re the people of Greenland right now. It was just a couple of weeks ago where the President was actively talking about invading another country.

These are scary times. I was out on the doorstep just a couple of weeks ago in my community of Langford. I was door-knocking in the Bear Mountain neighbourhood. Overwhelmingly I heard from people…. We talked about challenges, whether it’s accessing health care, making sure we have more schools. But overwhelmingly, the message that I heard from my residents in my community is they’re scared.

They’re scared of what’s happening. They’re scared to put on the news at night. They’re scared of what’s happening in the United States and how it’s impacting us as a country, impacting us as a province, and it’s impacting our communities.

[5:20 p.m.]

I think it’s right for all of us to have those conversations with our communities, and really, as we talk about Budget 2026, it is important for us to acknowledge that we live in very grave times.

We are in the midst of a trade war with the United States. We are seeing the President reshape foreign policy, trade policy. That is impacting us as British Columbians even though, because of the work that we’ve been doing over the course of the last number of years and, I would argue, in the last number of decades to diversify our trade, we are the least impacted province in the entire country.

But we are impacted when it comes to forestry and a whole host of other sectors, when 70 percent of our forestry products are destined to cross the U.S. border to help build the homes that Americans need.

This is a really tough time, and I think it’s important, as I begin my remarks to Budget 2026, that I ground myself in the realities of British Columbians, the realities of Canadians and what all of us are facing and have faced over the course of the last year since Donald Trump came to office.

It was an honour and privilege last year to join the Premier and many other ministers on this side of the House to take our message to the world. The Premier was just in India — and also in Japan and South Korea and Singapore last year — a couple of weeks ago.

I had the opportunity, a true honour, to be able to represent the government of British Columbia, to be able to represent British Columbians, on the largest forestry sector trade mission our province has ever had. Literally 50 or 60 people are fighting very hard alongside me to forge powerful partnerships. We visited Japan. We visited South Korea. We’re going to take more steps over the course of this year, as part of the support that comes from Budget 2026, to be able to not only forge those powerful partnerships but truly diversify.

I want to ensure that we, in the case of forestry, can diversify. We know the Americans are always going to rely on our lumber, and we are proud to help Americans build the homes they need. I’ve had conversations with state senators from California, in parts of California that were devastated by wildfires. Not only were we proud to be in California to fight alongside Cal Fire with the B.C. wildfire service, but we are going to be there to help them build the homes. But we know that the tax that Donald Trump has put on our softwood lumber is nothing but a tax on middle-class Americans.

It has been an honour for me, for the Premier, for the Minister of Jobs and the minister responsible for trade to be able to help shape the conversations around the world. When I was in Japan and South Korea, I heard loud and clear — whether it was from government representatives at the national level, at the lower level when it comes to local governments or at provincial levels — about the uncertainty they see in the world.

They are having the same conversations that we are having. They are looking for stable trading partners. They are looking for powerful partnerships that will last a lifetime. That is the same conversation we’re having with our customers, and there are huge opportunities for us to diversify our trading relationships. Budget 2026 is centred on ensuring that British Columbia is set up to compete against the world.

We also have to recognize that as we compete, we’re competing with others. When I was in Japan and then South Korea, the Russians were there just two weeks prior to me. I’m sure the Germans were in just a couple of weeks after me. We are competing with the world when it comes to our forest products. We are competing with the world for LNG and all the other important natural resource sectors that we’re proud to stand up for on this side of the House.

We have to recognize that this world has changed entirely in a year, and we’re just keeping up with that change. I’m proud of the MOUs we’ve signed. I’m proud of the new Forestry Innovation Investment office being supported by Budget 2026 in the U.K. We see huge opportunity in the U.K. When I was chatting with some officials, they shared with me loud and clear: “British Columbia, are you here for the good times, or are you here for the long time?”

My message to them was that our relationship with the United States has changed forever. I never want to see a forestry worker put in this position ever again. That means we have to diversify. That means we have to get back into those markets. The U.K., Europe, U.A.E., North Africa — these were all markets that we had in the ’90s and that we lost over time when it just became easier to do work with the United States.

[5:25 p.m.]

Our relationship has changed forever, and that is the context of releasing Budget 2026, focused on supporting our core programs but also focused every single day on securing our future as a province. That is the message I heard on the doorsteps in Langford-Highlands, and that is the message that we are delivering with Budget 2026.

We always say, and my predecessor John Horgan always said this…. It gives me great pleasure to mention his words in this House because he’s a man of great honour. I don’t appreciate it when others mention it and take cheap shots, which the member for Kamloops Centre often does. But with the mention of John Horgan, the immediate thing that comes to mind are his comments about what the competitive advantage is of our province.

We are a beautiful province. We are filled with an abundance of natural resources. But what I heard on my trade mission to Japan and South Korea — what I have heard over the course of my time working in government, working as a minister, as an MLA, as a constituency assistant, all the roles that I’ve had — is our competitive advantage as a province is not just our resources. It’s not the beauty of our province, the landscapes that I’ve had the opportunity to visit over the course of the last year, the communities that I’ve had an opportunity to visit over the course of the last year. It’s our people.

Budget 2026, just like every single budget that we have put forward as a government since 2017, has always been about putting people first and investing in people. It’s why, on this side of the House, we are making a generational investment in Budget 2026 in trades training — over $200 million, nearly $250 million in trades training.

I am the sibling of a Camosun College student who is participating in a trades-training program and who is going off to do incredible things like setting up heating and cooling for people’s homes. I think of the work that my little brother does working in the trades, and I think of the thousands of folks like him in every corner of this province that will have an opportunity.

The Premier and the Minister of Finance have shared, in her speech, the example of that Amazon worker who started off at a low wage and now is making, I think, over $150,000. That is only possible when we invest in trades training. The leadership that my colleague the Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills has shown to bring this generational investment is only possible when we invest in our competitive advantage.

That is our people. We are investing in the future of British Columbia. Those that work in construction, those that work in our trades sector — making sure that they are with us to help build the infrastructure we need to be able to help support our growing community.

When we’re talking about Budget 2026 and talking about generational investments, it is so important for me to recognize a key investment in this budget for my community of Langford-Highlands, an investment directly in Langford that impacts not only my community but surrounding communities. In Budget 2026, we are investing nearly $220 million to build a 2,000-seat new secondary school in north Langford, right across from Costco. This is a substantive investment. In fact, this is the largest investment, the largest public education investment in the Sooke school district’s history: $220 million to build a brand-new high school for the people of Langford.

Now, I got my start in politics outside of this House when those guys sat on this side of the House. And when those guys sat on this side of the House, we had to collect signatures on petitions. We had to walk out of school, and we had to talk about asbestos in our walls leaking into our water fountains. We didn’t have to do any of that. We made the case. We see the growth. Langford has stepped up. Langford has stepped up and built the housing, and they need a new high school, and they deserve a new high school.

In Budget 2026, we are delivering a new secondary school for my community of Langford-Highlands in north Langford. This is a substantive investment. It builds on nearly half a billion dollars that our government, since 2017, has invested in the Sooke school district — nearly 5,000 seats that we have invested as a government in the Sooke school district to help support the future of Langford-Highlands, to help support my colleagues from Juan de Fuca–Malahat, Esquimalt-Colwood and that entire region.

[5:30 p.m.]

That is us investing in the future of British Columbia. I am so proud, and it builds on the new John Horgan Campus, which just opened a short while ago — a substantive investment, an economic investment that provides post-secondary education, a first of its kind in Canada. You have Royal Roads University, the Justice Institute, Camosun College, the University of Victoria and the Sooke school district. Five institutions, five incredible organizations all in the same building — named after my dear friend John Horgan, the John Horgan Campus — in addition to multiple schools. Again, 5,000 seats.

Budget 2026 doesn’t move away from that. It continues investing. I am proud to report for the House that I just had a conversation with the superintendent of the Sooke school district. The request for proposal for architects is out. They have had dozens of requests for participation. I know they’ll be making decisions very soon.

For those in Langford-Highlands that are tuning in or will be seeing this later, I want you to know that construction is starting next year. Shovels will be in the ground soon, and we are excited that Budget 2026 delivers a brand-new secondary school, which will be built on time and on budget for our community, opening in 2030. That is good news for the people of Langford-Highlands.

The work doesn’t stop there. One of the number one issues that I hear on the doorstep is health care and ensuring that we have a health care system that supports our most vulnerable, a health care system that supports those that are aging in our community. For decades, my community of Langford-Highlands and the entire West Shore region was told that we don’t deserve a long-term-care facility, that we don’t need that investment, that those investments should just happen in town.

In Budget 2026, we continue the work towards delivering a long-term-care facility for the community of the West Shore based in Colwood, in Royal Bay. This is a substantive project. It is a project that has grown in size, recognizing the need and the growth that is happening in my community in that region, but Budget 2026 says it is important to continue proceeding with that investment.

That’s not all. I had an opportunity just a few short days ago to be able to meet with Alyssa Andres from the South Island Primary Care Society. We have hired hundreds of doctors over the course of the last couple of years.

Recruitment and retention was a challenge. I’m the former Parliamentary Secretary for International Credentials. I lived, over the course of the few months that I was in that role, the stories day by day of people coming here with incredible experiences, incredible credentials, only to be pushed aside.

From the work that we’ve been doing in the U.K. in our advertising campaign, the work that we’re doing in the United States to attract doctors and nurses and other allied health care workers, I am really proud to support a budget that helps deliver and support the South Island Primary Care Society and the work that they’ve done to recruit ten new doctors for the community of Langford and the entire West Shore region.

These are thousands of people that were on a list, waiting for a doctor, that every single day are getting a call from that clinic in downtown Langford saying: “It’s your turn to have access to primary care.” That is the work that we’re doing on this side.

There are those that believe we should cut in health care and education, and they’ve made their position known very clearly in their local papers. On this side of the House, we are going to continue investing in those core services of health care, of education, of mental health — all the supports and services that our communities talk to us about in our community offices every single day.

South Island Primary Care Society is an incredible organization leading the way. Many of the doctors coming from the U.K. and many of them coming from the United States are making their home in Langford, making their home in the West Shore, in the south Island and now providing a quality service for the people in the West Shore.

We have to talk about the challenges, but we also have to recognize the opportunities that Budget 2026 delivers not only for the people of Langford-Highlands but for the people of British Columbia. We’ve been talking an awful lot over the course of the last year but, I would argue, much longer about economic growth. Economic growth delivers economic prosperity, and we’re seeing that with major projects moving ahead.

With LNG, the government that sat on this side of the House promised LNG, promised a $1 billion fund to help pay for all the supports and services that British Columbians relied on. Didn’t deliver a single project. Not a single project. This is the government, the B.C. NDP government led by our Premier, led by Premier Horgan, that has delivered six projects that are now either operational, under construction or nearing final investment decision.

[5:35 p.m.]

Four mines, or as the Minister of Mining, I think, reminded me last night, five new mines that have been approved just in the last few months. We’ve got great opportunities to drive forward on these major projects.

Now, the major project that I’m focused on every day is forestry. Forestry is facing big challenges. I talked about the challenges earlier today in the House about record wildfires.

We’re preparing for another challenging wildfire season here in British Columbia. Last year was a calmer season for us in British Columbia, where we led the opportunity to be able to help support other provinces and territories. It’s the second-worst wildfire season in Canadian history but a calmer season for British Columbia.

But we know it’s not just wildfires and Trump tariffs and duties that are impacting our forest sector. It’s the low price of lumber. The price of lumber is below $500. That is substantive.

The 2022 budget. I had an opportunity to pull that out. That referenced nearly $1 billion in stumpage revenue. Do you know what the price of lumber is from that time? Well over $800. The price of lumber has dropped over the course of the last year. The futures show it, hopefully, getting up. I’ll rely on the Economist to help advise me in regards to where the price of lumber is going.

But it’s not just that. The actions that Donald Trump has taken in his own country, let alone the impact he’s having on British Columbians and Canadians with his comments and his trade actions, have completely destroyed the housing economy and affordability in the United States. The collapse of the U.S. housing market is almost to the levels of 2008, 2009. This is substantive. So when you’ve got the low price of lumber and a complete collapse of the U.S. housing market, this speaks to big challenges for forestry.

Again, where do we go from here? I made a commitment to forestry workers, when I took on this job, that I wanted to build for the next 100 years. I wanted to move us away from boom and bust to stability and certainty. We have faced an awful lot of challenges in forestry over the course of 2025. I think 2026 is going to be another challenging year for forestry just because of those options that I’ve laid out.

We’re working hard to increase fibre supply. We’re working hard to modernize our mills, our reman facilities, our value-added manufacturing facilities. But Budget 2026 actually invests more in forestry. We have a stumpage deferral program that keeps the lights on. This is an exact ask coming from the industry. They need a little bit of help to keep the lights on. We are dealing with record duties and tariffs.

What can we do as a province to help keep people working in communities across the province, including the member for Prince George–Mackenzie? This is something that his community has asked for, and this is something that Budget 2026 delivers. The wildfire risk equipment trust program is $5 million. The FireSmart funding is an extra $15 million to keep that program going as we undertake important work to review the whole suite of funding that that program delivers. A new PST tax credit on machinery and processing.

The member opposite raised a slush fund — a $400 million strategic investment fund to take advantage of the hundreds of billions of dollars that the federal government is putting on the table. I think it is important for us as a province to put our hands up and say: “Yes, federal government, we want to see these investments here, and we are putting our money where our mouth is.” That is investing $400 million through our strategic investment fund in those projects.

I could say a lot about the member for Kamloops Centre. Yesterday in the House, during his initial remarks, he said there was a $400 million cut from the Ministry of Forests budget. I was sitting here, and I’m sitting right behind the Minister of Finance, and I’m like: “I don’t know where he’s getting those numbers.” A $400 million cut? What is he talking about?

This is a member who’s delivered three or four, if I’m not mistaken, speeches as a critic. I’m sure he knows how to read a budget. What he does not recognize, when I went back to my office and actually pulled out the blue books and read the estimates, is he is factoring in that we spent over $1.3 million as a ministry because of fires. So he has conflated the baseline forecast for last year with our baseline budget.

[5:40 p.m.]

If he actually does the math, instead of doing Conservative math, he will see more dollars being invested in the Ministry of Forests in Budget 2026. And the reason that we are investing more money in Budget 2026 is because of B.C. Timber Sales.

B.C. Timber Sales has not been performing — year over year, a 30 percent increase in sales in communities across the province. In the North alone, a 50 percent increase in BCTS sales year over year.

The reason we’re investing more in Budget 2026 in forestry is that B.C. Timber Sales is starting to perform again. We are going to continue making the investments in Budget 2026 and in future budgets to ensure that B.C. Timber Sales can be that program of change, that program that continues to provide high-quality fibre to mills and communities all across the province.

To conflate a $400 million cut is just absolutely laughable, and I think it’s something that I hope the member opposite will take the opportunity to apologize for.

Again, the member opposite is the member for Kamloops Centre. He is the MLA for the headquarters of the B.C. wildfire service. If he has questions about the B.C. wildfire service and he doesn’t want to ask me, literally, go down the block and ask the incredible team at the B.C. wildfire service that is working day and night, every single day, not just during wildfire seasons but right now, supporting communities like Tumbler Ridge. They’re up there supporting that community right now.

Ask them about the work that they’re doing in Australia right now. It wasn’t just California that called the B.C. wildfire service for help. It was Australia as well that is having support from the B.C. wildfire service.

Holy smokes, 30 minutes goes by quickly. Let me just conclude, as I see a minute and a half left on the screen. I don’t know if I get to be the designated speaker. I think the Minister of Finance might have taken that role. Look, I’m going to end with just a couple of closing remarks.

It is clear to me that we are going to hear, over the course of the next number of days, a real debate and discussion around the future of this province and where we go from here. I’m glad the budget provides an opportunity for us to be able to have real, honest conversations around the future of British Columbia.

It is clear to me that there are extreme and divisive natures not just in our world, not just what’s happening with the United States. There is extremism and division happening in British Columbia as well. It is clear to me, over the course of the last year and a half, sitting as a member of the executive council, that extremism and division are coming from the Conservative Party of British Columbia.

I think the choice is clear. We can have calm, steady and competent leadership from our Premier and our government or have a Conservative Party that would focus every single day on pitting British Columbians against one another. That is the choice that British Columbians are going to have.

As I get down to the last few seconds of my speech, I will use every opportunity…. As a member of this House, as the Minister of Forests, as the MLA for Langford-Highlands, I will work hard every day to ensure that those Conservatives — filled with extremism, filled with division and that want to pit British Columbians against one another — never sit on this side of the House.

Kiel Giddens: It’s an honour to rise in this House once again to respond to a provincial budget. As the MLA for Prince George–Mackenzie, I’m still very humbled that the folks in my riding elected me to do this job.

I want to join all members of the House in expressing my deepest condolences and my prayers to everyone in Tumbler Ridge and all who are mourning right now. This is a very, very difficult time for many, many people. As the Finance Minister and the Finance critic both stated, we do have to continue the business of government in the Legislature while supporting those who need our help.

This is my second time responding to the budget, but this year I stand here with a deeper appreciation for the responsibility that comes with representing a region that is struggling in many different ways.

I hear my constituents’ stories in my two offices. I have seniors that come into my office, struggling to make ends meet, when they have to travel outside the region to seek medical and surgical supports. Children and youth in small communities lack mental health supports or social work supports. This is something that’s even more apparent in small towns like Mackenzie.

[5:45 p.m.]

I’m glad that the member for Langford-Highlands has a new school in his riding that’s being built, but I certainly don’t actually have anything in school district 57. Working families need good, safe places for their kids to go to school.

I hear from small business owners who simply feel burnt out. They’re drowning in red tape, and they’re feeling helpless. Many of those happen to be businesses involved with the forestry sector.

We just heard from the Minister of Forests as the last speaker. The Minister of Forests would also know that working families in my riding are struggling with tighter paycheques because of economic uncertainty. In my remarks, I’m going to touch on the impact on forestry and on what’s going on in this province right now and in my own riding.

When I speak this year, I’m picturing the real people I’ve met over the past year. I’ve said this before: my main reason for standing in this House is to fight for my kids’ future and to get every opportunity for them to get ahead. Today’s choices have an impact on the future for all of our kids and our grandkids.

The provincial budget matters to working families. In the long run, families need to know that B.C. is a place that they can stay. They need to know that they have every opportunity to provide economically and thrive, that they can find a home to call their own. For that, we need stability — economic stability, fiscal stability and stability in essential services. When I apply these lenses to Budget 2026, I see a government that is asking British Columbians to contribute more while failing to stabilize the province’s long-term fiscal path.

Northern B.C. is where my wife, Elyse, and I chose to raise our family, and we want to make it better for our kids. Prince George–Mackenzie is about the size of Wales in the U.K. It’s a very big region. It includes forest-dependent communities, mining and exploration workers, oil and gas workers, ranchers, rural homeowners, small business people, health care workers, tradespeople and families, who expect that if they work hard and contribute, government will manage responsibly in return.

As Labour critic in the official opposition, I’m reviewing how this budget impacts working families. First and foremost, are they better off? Are their paycheques stretching further? Are their rights protected?

I also sit on the Legislative Assembly’s Public Accounts Committee. I try to review the consolidated financial statements, not just the announcements but the trajectory. Is the spending aligned with revenue? Is debt manageable? Are we preserving flexibility for the future?

In reviewing the budget in terms of its burden on working families and on this province’s trajectory for the future, I am very concerned. At the same time that this province is in need of certainty, this budget increases the tax burden on working families, seniors and small business owners.

Government revenue is projected to reach $85 billion. That is a historic level. Revenue is rising significantly. This budget includes $1.48 billion in income tax increases — $959 million through bracket changes and the freezing of indexation and $1.468 billion through PST expansion and exemption removals. Revenue is climbing significantly, mostly because taxes are rising, and still the deficit is projected to exceed $13.3 billion, something the Finance Minister also neglected to mention in her speech.

This is a huge concern. If revenue is at record highs and taxes are increasing, why are we still running structural deficits? This year’s deficit is over $3 billion higher than what the government had told us it would be a year ago. The PST expansion will raise about $45 million more from working families and seniors through basic items — basic TV cable packages, land-line phones and shoe repair — not exactly luxury purchases.

These are things, as my parents and my grandparents taught me…. Repairing instead of replacing should be making life more affordable, but this is something that’s impacting seniors disproportionately and, certainly, working families. When the government chooses to raise the basic personal income tax levels, this is a $500 million tax increase that disproportionately hits seniors and working families, in the middle of an affordability crisis.

It doesn’t stop there. For rural homeowners, including seniors and working families in my riding, the loss of $200 annually, from changes to the rural and northern homeowner benefit, is huge when the property tax bill comes due.

[5:50 p.m.]

In northern communities, costs are already higher, whether that’s heating bills or fuel costs. Travel distances are longer. Yet the resources produced in the Interior and the North help to pay for services here in the south of the province. When revenue is projected at $85 billion, rural households reasonably ask why they are being asked to give back more. It just doesn’t make sense to folks in the North.

Now, through the Public Accounts Committee last fall, we reviewed the province’s audited financial statements, as I’ve said. From fiscal year 2023-24, debt rose 20 percent. From ’24-25, it rose another 26 percent, including a 34 percent increase in the taxpayer-supported debt. I asked the Auditor General whether increases of this magnitude have precedent in British Columbia’s history, and the answer was clear. They don’t.

This year we’re seeing another 19 percent increase in the debt, and in these past several years under the NDP has been the most dramatic accumulation of debt in this province’s history. When this government took office, debt to GDP was approximately 15 percent, and it will reach roughly 30 percent this year. Under the government’s own budget projections, it is on track to exceed 37 percent over the next fiscal cycle.

The Business Council of B.C. stated: “B.C.’s finances have unraveled at a breathtaking speed over recent years as spending growth has far outpaced revenue growth. Households and businesses also face around $4 billion in tax hikes over three years to try to plug the fiscal hole, in a further blow to private sector economic activity.” That phrase is important: spending growth has far outpaced revenue growth. Revenue is rising, but spending is rising much faster, and that is how structural deficits form.

The business council also warned: “The current fiscal plan fails to stabilize the province’s finances. Debt servicing is the fastest-growing line item in this year’s budget. Provincial finances remain on track for a fifth consecutive credit rating downgrade that will further increase the cost of debt servicing.”

Debt servicing is projected to reach $8.7 billion by ’28-29, approximately $1,520 per British Columbian. That means fewer dollars available for long-term-care beds, health care recruitment, infrastructure and, certainly, education. Debt interest payments are becoming one of the largest spending items in government, only behind health and education, and this trajectory is simply unsustainable. It makes it clear that British Columbians simply can’t afford more of this NDP government.

Now, as a former chamber of commerce president, I can tell you that this is one of the most concerning provincial budgets I’ve seen in several years for small businesses. They are the entrepreneurs, the dependable employers, the businesses that give back to their communities and the family businesses — like my dad’s appliance repair shop where I grew up working as a kid in services.

These are the backbone of our economy but also of our communities. Yet in Budget 2026, small businesses face a $500 million tax increase through the expansion of PST to professional services such as accounting, bookkeeping and private security. These are not optional expenses and will hit an already stretched bottom line.

Businesses who are already paying for private security due to vandalism and theft, which has only increased under this government’s watch, will now see those security costs increase by 7 percent. At the same time, the budget for the Solicitor General and Public Safety Ministry is actually decreasing by $4 million.

Members in the House will recall that I mentioned that CrossRoads Brewing in Prince George burned down last year as a result of arson, and Prince George business owners are at a breaking point. Over 1,000 people turned out at a town hall meeting this past October to say that they’ve had enough. This is one of the many examples of why business confidence in B.C. remains at record lows.

[5:55 p.m.]

According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, British Columbia has experienced five consecutive quarters of negative business growth. The CFIB said: “This budget’s tax increases make B.C. a less competitive place to do business. B.C. cannot grow its way out of a deficit if it is not growing its entrepreneurs.” At the same time, funding for small business and economic development as well as trade investment promotion has actually been reduced.

It’s absolutely essential that we get back to a mindset of growth in this province. The government left forestry out of their Look West economic plan almost entirely. Without growth in forestry, we impact growth in small business formation. Without investment confidence in the mining sector, oil and gas or the technology sector, this all impacts small business formation as well.

It’s why private sector job growth has been essentially non-existent. Since 2019, B.C. has experienced the weakest private sector employment growth among all Canadian provinces. That means that deficits persist, debt accelerates and our flexibility as a province shrinks, and we continue down the spiral that we’re currently in. This is exactly why the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade gave this government a D report card on this budget.

We heard just previously from the Minister of Forests, and I want to turn my attention to talk about forestry jobs. The Minister of Forests boasted about what the government has tried to do in the midst of this crisis, but he’ll also recall that when Sinclar Group Forest Products announced indefinite production curtailments in Prince George, Vanderhoof and Fort St. James, they blamed external pressures.

Yes, tariffs were certainly one of them and the duties that are unfair on our softwood lumber industry, but to quote their exact words, they said: “It was the result of an unsustainable provincial policy landscape and persistent uncertainty around fibre supply to deepening economic challenges.” That’s what we heard from forestry companies who are trying to get ahead right now and keep their people employed.

Sinclar is doing whatever they can to keep their employees working, but they’re working three days a week right now. Think of how that hits your paycheque. On top of that, when the property tax comes due, that’s an extra $200. They’re actually paying more in income tax now as well.

Yes, duties and tariffs are partly to blame, but government policy is a real barrier and cause for uncertainty. Just ask the workers in Crofton. None of the product from Domtar’s Crofton mill went to the U.S., and they still announced a permanent closure, because the conditions to access fibre supply simply weren’t sustainable.

I’ve met with Unifor and PPWC workers from Northwood and the Intercon pulp mills in Prince George, respectively, and they’re very, very worried. They don’t want to get up one day and end up surprised, like the Crofton workers were, because we didn’t fight for their jobs, because we didn’t change provincial policy when we had a chance.

With a crisis in the forestry sector, I would think it would be a major focus area in this budget. The minister disagreed with the Finance critic on the budget projections, but we did see $1.325 billion in that ministry for last year’s revised budget estimate. This year it’s $910 million. That could be a failure in actually budgeting properly for wildfires. We need to actually budget properly for that.

When the public is looking for that, we’re obviously going to have to find the money from somewhere. The NDP’s way of doing it will just be to add more to the deficit, add more to the debt, because that doesn’t matter. So really, this could also be construed as a cut from the forestry budget at a time when families who depend on forestry paycheques are just barely hanging on or are already facing layoffs.

Forestry was not mentioned once in the Finance Minister’s speech. Not once.

Forestry is not theoretical for us like it is to some folks here in Victoria. It supports millworkers finishing their night shifts. It supports logging contractors who have millions invested in equipment. It supports trucking companies, mechanics, silviculture crews and the small businesses that depend on them. So when a provincial budget doesn’t even acknowledge forestry, people notice.

The Council of Forest Industries said in their response to the budget: “We are concerned about the budget’s plan for a harvest level of 29 million cubic metres over the next three years, a figure that sits well below the province’s own allowable annual cut of approximately 60 million cubic metres. The sector’s immediate survival depends on increasing the harvest level through predictable and economic access to wood.”

[6:00 p.m.]

These words matter. “Immediate survival,” “predictable and economic access” — this isn’t partisan rhetoric directed at the NDP, but it’s a message directly to that Forests Minister. It’s simply an industry stating plainly that stability is required to keep communities viable, and they’re not doing enough right now.

If harvest levels sit far below allowable annual cut for sustained periods, capital flows elsewhere. Investment slows. Modernization pauses. And when that happens, stumpage revenue growth slows too, as we’re seeing in this budget.

So I would hope that the Minister of Forests would speak up about the fact that this budget is actually very concerning for the sector he’s supposed to be representing.

A province that weakens its resource base weakens its revenue base. Even more importantly, it weakens the rural B.C. economy and the socioeconomic outcomes for working families. Just ask the people in Mackenzie, who are struggling day to day. The community has faced insurmountable challenges due to forestry changes in their economy, in that important rural economy.

Now, as Labour critic, I also want to direct concern towards the planned reduction in funding for the employment standards branch in the Ministry of Labour. This is something I’ve questioned the Minister of Labour on already, because this government has struggled to meet its own targets in this area already.

As it is, the service plan for the Ministry of Labour has a target of 80 percent of employment standards branch complaints that are supposed to be resolved within 180 days. Well, in 2024…. We know from the estimates process last year that only 32 percent were resolved within 180 days. That’s not a great result.

This government is already missing the mark, and Budget 2026 will make that actually worse. It’s not good enough for workers or employers. As I said earlier today in question period, the B.C. Federation of Labour has already expressed concern. One of the other things that they said: “These cuts put low-income workers at risk of wage theft and mistreatment. In the midst of an affordability crisis, we must make sure workers aren’t losing access to their paycheques or being taken advantage of.”

I agree. I fully agree with that. We need to make sure workers have adequate protection. In an affordability crisis, protecting workers’ earnings is essential, and this budget is actually putting that in jeopardy. And this is a small amount that we’re actually talking about. The Ministry of Labour’s budget is a very small one in the overall context.

If government is increasing tax burdens, it must also ensure workers’ wages are safeguarded. That’s what the employment standards branch is supposed to be there for — to protect those vulnerable workers who need it.

We also need complaints to be resolved if we actually want healthy workplaces for the benefit of both workers and, actually, employers as well. We can’t simply leave these complaints in the balance, waiting in the system and think that the workplace is going to be a healthy one to work in every day. It actually creates unhealthy workplaces, and that’s also going to lead to mental health challenges. It’s going to lead to people leaving their jobs. It’s going to lead to changes overall. So this is actually going to have an economic impact on the province and probably the province’s bottom line as well.

Just as workers need protection in the workplace, families need protection in the health care system. I want to touch on health care, being as it’s the largest spending item in all of government, because pressures remain significant, and this impacts all of us in every corner of the province. I would argue that the pressures are even higher in the North. I’ve spoken about that before.

Let me be clear. I’m glad to see that the patient care tower at the University Hospital of Northern B.C. in Prince George is still funded, but I worry about our ability to fill it with staffing and equipment by 2031, when it’s supposed to be completed. We need these services desperately. Northern Health is the only health authority in the province without proper cardiac care, for example.

Here’s another fact. Shockingly, women in the North experience twice the rate of maternal mortality compared to the rest of the province. We have to do better.

[6:05 p.m.]

We’re seriously in need of long-term-care beds. This is something that was talked about, again, in question period today. As it is, provincially, long-term-care wait-lists have more than tripled over the past decade.

At UHNBC, over a third of the hospital is actually ALC, alternate level of care, patients who are living in the hospital rather than in a long-term-care home or some other proper home for them. Mackenzie has a total of four beds, despite a growing seniors population moving there in search of affordable housing. There’s a looming crisis. The average wait provincially is almost 300 days for long-term care, and it’s even longer in the North.

On psychiatric care, this is another major strain across the North, and certainly at UHNBC as well. But for those who need secure forensic psychiatric care beds, there are no beds at all right now in Northern Health. Patients need to somehow be transported to one of only three beds available in Kamloops.

I want to thank Dr. Barbara Kane in Prince George for her petition and her advocacy to bring secure forensic psychiatric care and involuntary treatment to Prince George.

I want to see the results that this government promised in their announcements last year at UBCM, and I want to see exact timelines. I’m not seeing that right now in this budget, so I’m going to be asking those questions. Families are carrying the burden of care in the meantime, with all of this, with wait-lists on the rise.

Our emergency departments, as you know, Madam Speaker, are stretched. We were told record spending would strengthen health care, but access remains strained. ER closures are still happening.

I know that Northern Health is working very hard, but places like Mackenzie are still experiencing closures. When a hospital like that closes, it means that seniors or families have to somehow make it two hours to Prince George, only to wait in line there for care.

Yesterday the B.C. Nurses Union said that the government must address chronic, systemwide challenges, including workforce shortages, emergency department closures, rising violence in hospitals and increasing patient complexity.

How are we supposed to respond to these evolving and critical needs in the health care system if we’re not managing the system properly? Or are we simply going to manage the system’s decline?

That’s why fiscal discipline and service delivery are actually connected. The trajectory of this government’s budgeting has serious implications for our ability to deliver front-line health care, like the nurse-to-patient ratios that nurses are desperately calling for right now.

If debt servicing continues to rise at this pace, the ability to expand capacity narrows. It’s something I’m very concerned about with this budget, and there’s no way that we’re going to fill that patient care tower at UHNBC by 2031 on the debt trajectory we’re on. This is a crisis in our ability to pay for health care in the future.

I’m going to try to wrap up my remarks. In closing, this budget increases taxes and increases debt. It increases costs for rural homeowners and small businesses. It overlooks forestry, reduces support for vulnerable workers, and it does not stabilize the province’s fiscal trajectory.

People in Prince George–Mackenzie understand that governing is complex. They understand trade-offs. But they expect steady management, and that’s what we’re not seeing. They expect that when revenue reaches record highs, debt will actually stabilize. It won’t double.

They expect that when taxes increase, services improve visibly, but we’re not seeing that. They expect that key economic sectors are acknowledged and supported. Right now, many feel like they are contributing more, while certainty and their paycheques actually decline.

For those reasons, I cannot support this budget. But in saying that, I will continue to advocate for a path that restores competitiveness in our resource sectors, protects workers, supports entrepreneurs, strengthens health care capacity and returns British Columbia to long-term fiscal sustainability.

British Columbia should be a place where people can build a good life. We have everything going for us: incredible natural resources, access to tidewater and skilled, hard-working people who live here, who want better opportunities. But instead of people coming here to build their future, many are leaving.

[6:10 p.m.]

I’ve talked about the Business Council of B.C. They had to create a “Stay with B.C.” advertising campaign last year just to convince young people not to leave.

We can’t lose our talent and our future. I want my kids to have a future here in British Columbia. It does not have to be this way. We can create good jobs and real opportunities right here at home. We can make practical, commonsense decisions based on evidence and what’s best for working families, not decisions driven by politics like we see in pipeline politics and the other games, the divisive politics that we do hear from the other side of the House.

Let’s make B.C. a place where businesses want to invest and workers want to stay. Let’s get major projects built. Let’s responsibly develop our resources and create steady, good-paying jobs.

Along with my colleagues on this side of the House, I will continue to pressure this government to do the right thing, and I look forward to rolling up our sleeves to fix the NDP’s mess after the next election.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I am rising in this House today, and I want to start by recognizing that I am rising on the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən People of the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.

I also want to join my colleagues in our House, across the aisle and my colleagues on this side, in sharing words of support for Tumbler Ridge, the community and the families impacted by the unimaginable tragedy that occurred last week. I deeply agreed with the comments of the Leader of the Opposition that there are no words to describe something so horrific happening to children and to a family.

I, as a mom and in this role as the Minister for Children and Families, am left with heaviness and a disbelief that we’ve experienced and seen what we’ve seen. I think when tragedies and things like this occur, it’s really hard to understand how the world keeps turning. I think we all feel like it should stop, but it doesn’t.

I have an important role in this Legislature as the Minister of Children and Family Development to continue to do the important work for families across our province. It is an honour of mine to stand here to reflect on the 2026 budget speech as the Minister of Children and Family Development.

I have advocated for children and youth in many capacities over my lifetime, as a service provider, as a parent, a community organizer and now as the minister for just over a year. Serving the children, youth and families of this province is a role that I take incredibly seriously, and it is one, like I said, that I’m honoured to have.

Over the last year, I’ve had the opportunity to travel our province and meet with families and parents and service providers, other people who have dedicated their lives to giving back to children and families. I’ve gone to Prince Rupert, to Terrace, to Williams Lake, to Port Alberni. I’ve listened to the concerns that people have and to the real challenges that people are facing.

This past year has tested British Columbians in significant ways. Families across the province have faced rising costs, global instability and pressures on the economy, factors that have increased demand on public systems. These pressures have touched nearly every household and every community. For many, a sudden illness, a job loss or eviction can push a family into crisis.

I also want to express that these challenges are not happening in a vacuum, and they’re not just happening in British Columbia. They’re happening across our country and across political stripes.

[6:15 p.m.]

There are stresses in our health care system and in our mental health system, not just here in British Columbia. My entire family in Ontario talks about similar challenges under a Conservative government there. These challenges are facing all of us as Canadians, not just here in British Columbia. That’s why stability, predictability and access to services are more important than ever.

In challenging times, I believe we are measured by the decisions we make when resources are limited. It requires staying focused on core priorities and protecting services that families, children and communities depend on every day. Even as we navigate these fiscal pressures, our government has remained committed to ensuring that every public dollar is directed towards front-line services and safeguarding supports for those who need them the most.

In the months and years ahead, our responsibility is to ensure that every child and young person feels safe, supported and cared for, no matter what challenges come their way. When basic needs are in place, children are free to enjoy their childhood. I believe deeply and passionately that kids should be able to be kids.

There is no one in this province more worthy of investment than children and youth, and that’s why Budget 2026 provides a historical investment of $475 million in new funding over the next three years to support children and youth with disabilities and their families across British Columbia. I was proud to be able to stand with advocates and parents at my side on February 10 when we made this announcement that will expand and strengthen services for those who need it the most.

As minister, I believe that every child deserves access to the supports and services they need to be their best selves. And as a mother, I know how much support it takes to help a child flourish. I know that this is especially true when we are raising a child with disabilities. I’ve seen firsthand how critical it is for families to get the right help when they are doing everything that they can to meet the needs of their child or children, particularly those with the most significant and complex needs.

Families have been telling us for years that our systems are not working the way that they need to. That’s why I got involved in politics in the first place, and I had the opportunity to sit on that side of the House in opposition and bring forward the stories of children and families at that time.

Families need financial support, of course, but they also need services and a system that is easier to access and navigate. Families want to focus on loving, enjoying and spending quality time with their children, not being exhausted by endless hours of advocacy, navigating complex systems or telling their story over and over again.

In 2022, our government announced that it would make changes. We wanted to create an easier system that was fairer. I was not here at the time, but I understood the frustration that families expressed and that service providers expressed. It was clear that we missed the mark, and we needed to pause and engage and get it right. That’s why we changed course, because the goal has always been to get this right for children and families, and I know that we can’t do that without listening and engaging.

We undertook years of extensive engagement. During that time, we spoke to families, to service providers, to experts. We invested $4 million for advocacy organizations such as the Disability Collaborative that included AutismBC and others. More than 5,000 people as well as service organizations and leading experts like Dr. Suzanne Lewis from the SFU Autism Lab provided invaluable input.

Again and again, across the board, we heard that far too many children with diverse needs and families from a wide range of circumstances are not being served by our current system. What we heard is that we need to build on what families and advocates and experts have told us. Expanding access to direct funding, strengthening community-based services for children and youth and families who need it the most needed to be the path forward.

[6:20 p.m.]

Families asked for flexibility, more coordination and increased investment. We heard those voices, and we are moving forward to transform the system to a better one for the future. That’s why we’re investing $439 million for the new disability benefit, $245 million for the new disability supplement, $80 million for community program expansion, a total of $475 million in new money in addition to the existing $289 million funding that we spent. Direct funding will increase from approximately $190 million to $326 million annually, putting more support directly into the hands of families.

With this investment, we will deliver more financial support where it is needed the most. We are going to expand, like I said, community services, which will help preserve choice for families and simplify the system. Every member in this House has highly qualified specialized child development centres in their community.

The increased direct funding includes two new individualized direct funding streams. The first is a disability benefit of $6,500 or $17,000 per year for children and youth with the most significant needs, not just children with one singular diagnosis. This benefit will mean significantly more support for more families and throughout childhood.

The second funding stream is a new income-tested disability supplement of up to $6,000 per year for middle- and low-income families. Currently there are thousands of children and families who feel that they’ve been left behind by the current system. I’ve received letters from members of the opposition with respect to children who do not receive support currently under our system. Families of children and youth with Down syndrome, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, intellectual disabilities and many more, including children with autism, under these new programs will be receiving direct financial support. That support is significant, up to $23,000 per year throughout childhood. This is transformational.

Making this change and this investment is about a commitment to child rights, fairness and making sure that all children get the right supports to live a good life. And while this will certainly make a significant difference, I also know that financial supports are not enough. We need stronger coordination across government and service agencies to improve how families access and experience services.

That’s why, as I mentioned, we are expanding community-based programming by more than 40 percent over the next three years to include behaviour and mental health supports and expanding services — six to 18 — and navigation services. This will significantly expand programs in communities and build off of existing supports in place. It also creates an opportunity to build a system that is better aligned and connected, easier to navigate and less burdened by administration. This is a fundamental shift in how we support children and youth with disabilities, and with this investment, we will deliver more financial support where it is needed the most.

I think most of you in this House know that this is work that has been near and dear to my heart for years, and I am deeply committed to making sure that we get it right. Over the coming months, we’ll be providing step-by-step support for parents as we move to these new benefits and services. By working with families, service providers and advocates, we are providing more supports and services that are tailored to meet the individual needs of children with disabilities.

I want to offer to any member of this House supporting their constituents through these changes that we can provide you with all of the information so that they know what supports and services they will be receiving in the new system.

As we strengthen supports for children and youth with disabilities, these improvements connect to our larger vision for a child and youth well-being plan in British Columbia. That vision is guiding our work through a cross-government action plan.

[6:25 p.m.]

We are working across government to reshape a long-term approach to improving the well-being and outcomes of children and youth in B.C. This plan, like I said, aligns services across ministries and agencies creating a new model of child well-being that focuses on prevention. This is so that we can reach children and families earlier and provide support before crisis occurs, strengthening supports and providing comprehensive wraparound services.

We are working with our partners and those with lived experience to build a system that prioritizes easy access and early intervention and allows us to track and evaluate outcomes. It is a commitment to transform the way the province offers programs and services.

The goal is a system that doesn’t just react when there’s a problem but also promotes true wellness. This is a big undertaking, and it’ll take time.

We also have other actions underway across government that address safety, accountability and more consistent care. For example, in collaboration with other ministries, we are creating centralized tools so that teachers, counsellors, police and social workers can share information more effectively so that we can respond better and faster to issues as they arise.

Through the Ministry of Health, we are addressing the need for early intervention and mental health addictions programs for young people with the continued expansion of Foundry and integrated child and youth teams.

Through the Attorney General, we’ve made progress on several commitments from Dr. Stanton’s report on B.C.’s treatment of intimate partner violence and sexual violence.

There is more work to do, and I am pleased with the strong direction in my mandate to get it done.

We are seeing the lowest levels of Indigenous children and youth in government care in over 20 years. But Indigenous children continue to make up a significant proportion of those in care, despite being a small percentage of the overall population. That must change. This disparity highlights the urgent need for systemic change and culturally appropriate approaches to child welfare.

We know Indigenous children and youth do better when they remain connected to family, community and culture. That’s why I am proud that B.C. is leading the country with First Nations as they reclaim jurisdiction over their children, youth and families. We have signed 15 agreements with nations that have determined their path forward to self-determination of child and family services, with dozens more to come. This work is unprecedented and vital to enable collaboration, information-sharing and self-determination of child welfare for and by First Nations.

My ministry’s budget has increased by over $311 million so that we can continue to do the critical work necessary to improve supports and services for children and youth and families across British Columbia, and I’m honoured to continue to do that work.

Budget 2026-27 ensures that core services are there for British Columbians, beyond just the Ministry of Children and Families. People in my own community of Coquitlam have benefited from the investments we’ve made.

In a couple of weeks, we’re going to open a Foundry for children and youth in the Tri-Cities. This will expand access to primary care, peer support and clinical counselling, much-needed support in community, accessible to youth and young people.

We have built a brand-new state-of-the-art high school on Burke Mountain. Burke Mountain is a fast-growing community. There were 15 years of no building of any schools on Burke Mountain. We have opened multiple schools on Burke Mountain since we formed government. I am proud of that. So 1,000 high-schoolers will get to go to school in their community when the Burke Mountain high school opens.

I also had a constituent reach out to me to let me know that they have just been attached to a family doctor. We have connected hundreds of thousands of British Columbians to doctors or nurse practitioners through our health connect registry.

[6:30 p.m.]

These are just a few examples, and I’m looking forward to continuing to work hard to deliver on these services and infrastructure that the people of Coquitlam are expecting.

I have been an advocate all my life. I’ve been a fighter for the rights of the most vulnerable, and I continue to do that every day. I’ve always wanted to make a difference for them, and I think we’ve made some significant strides over the past year.

I want all children and youth to have access to the supports that they need to live a full, happy and healthy life and to reach their goals. As the minister, I’m committed to seeing children and youth thrive in an environment with better wraparound supports, with early intervention and prevention and fewer barriers between programs and services so that they can get the services they need when and where they need them.

I have always believed that the issues my ministry faces and the issues of children and youth in British Columbia and for families are non-partisan issues. I truly believe that there are many members in this House that share the desire to ensure that children and youth are cared for and loved in our province. I’m always willing to work with any member in this House on these issues.

Like I said, it is my honour, and I am grateful to be able to respond to the budget. I look forward to the coming weeks and months ahead of doing this important work.

Korky Neufeld: First, I would like to just mention to the community of Tumbler Ridge that our thoughts and our prayers remain with you as we conduct our business here in the House, and we continue to advocate for long-term services and supports for the community in Tumbler Ridge.

I also want to thank the residents of Abbotsford West. I remain grateful for your support to represent all of you here in Victoria.

Well, Budget 2026 was a tough pill to swallow. British Columbians are asking a very simple question: where has all the money gone?

In 2022, this province posted a surplus of more than $5 billion. Today we’re facing a record deficit exceeding $13 billion. In just a few short years, we have gone from strength to staggering red ink. Our total debt is projected to reach $182 billion this year and $234.6 billion by 2028-2029. That is more than tripling the debt since this government formed government under the previous NDP Premier.

Interest payments alone are projected to reach nearly $9 billion annually. Just think about that for a moment. Just paying interest on fiscal irresponsibility is costing British Columbians $9 billion annually — the third-largest line item in government spending. And members across the aisle are proud of this budget? That’s $24 million every single day just to service the debt. By 2028-2029, that will cost $1,520 per British Columbian, up from $532 in 2016-2017.

You know, like the member from the Green Party mentioned, creating a deficit may not be bad. Well, let me ask some questions. After all this borrowing, all this spending, all this growth in government, what are the outcomes? Well, let’s measure them.

Are British Columbians safer today? Crime has worsened in many communities. We’re hearing it on the news every single day across the province.

[6:35 p.m.]

Are our downtowns in our urban areas healthier? Many are struggling with disorder, with vandalism and shuttering their storefronts.

Is our population growing in British Columbia? In other words, are people coming to this wonderful province where we’re spending all this money? In some regions, it’s actually declining and people are heading east, to Alberta and to other provinces.

Are our jobs flourishing? Private sector growth is weak. Investment is actually leaving the province, and business confidence is eroding.

Again, British Columbians and myself are asking: where has all the money gone? Well, let’s look at record spending, record debt and record disappointment. Government spending has exploded from $52 billion in 2017 to nearly $98.8 billion today, a 90 percent increase in less than a decade. The bureaucracy has grown dramatically — tens of thousands of additional full-time-equivalent positions over the past decade — yet this budget now proposes cutting 15,000 FTEs without any credible or transparent plan.

What’s the plan? Have services improved proportionate to those hirings? I don’t think they have. People are telling me that they’re on the phone and they’re getting constantly blocked with bureaucracy. So adding all those people into the public sector has not improved services.

Have wait times shortened? We’re adding all these middle-management pieces in our hospitals. How are the wait times increasing?

Have project delays disappeared? Well, I don’t think so. I think we just opened up a bridge that was $1.8 billion over and two years late. No. So that’s not happening. Since 2017, capital projects have seen $17.3 billion in cost overruns — can’t blame that all on Trump — and 158 cumulative years of construction delays. Projects that once had timelines are now simply marked TBC — to be confirmed or to be cancelled. We don’t know.

British Columbians are paying more and getting less certainty. While accountability is now under threat, this budget quietly eliminated the Office of the Merit Commissioner, the independent watchdog that ensures that public service jobs are awarded on merit and not political loyalty. It was not highlighted in the budget. It was not prominently disclosed in lockup materials.

The question is: why eliminate independent oversight now? At a time when spending is at record levels, when debt is skyrocketing and when trust in institutions matters more than ever, this government is scrapping the very office designed to ensure fairness and accountability. The only jobs that seem to have a clear plan to cut are the ones that hold this government to account.

Then there’s the billion-dollar tax hike on families. The Minister of Finance herself admitted in her speech: “Families are stretched by the cost of living.” Yet what does this budget deliver — any relief, any help, any sticks of carrot, anything? No. A $1.1 billion tax increase on working families and $500 million in provincial income tax increases, including on those in the lowest income bracket; $600 million through bracket creep and indexation freezes; PST expansion to professional services, shoe repair, clothing patterns, land lines, cable and more.

Who does this target but families? As the Finance Minister said: “Families are stretched by the cost of living.” Now they’re adding costs, not relieving costs.

[6:40 p.m.]

When times are tough, families repair their shoes instead of buying new ones. They fix, mend and stretch every dollar, and this government taxes that effort. Shame on them.

Seniors living on fixed incomes are being told to absorb new costs. Small businesses paying for private security after repeated vandalism will now pay 7 percent or more on those same services.

First of all, government is supposed to protect people. They’re supposed to set up municipalities with police to protect business owners and homeowners. Here, they’re now taking matters into their own hands, and now they’re being taxed on that. This is not affordability relief. It’s a billion-dollar shakedown of British Columbians.

Now let’s bring it home. I live in Abbotsford, so the Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce gave me some notes. Here we go.

The chamber of commerce is the voice of more than 800 businesses across our region. I rise today to speak candidly about Budget 2026 as it relates to our region and our community in the Fraser Valley and for the economic future of British Columbians.

Let me begin with a simple truth. British Columbia is at a fiscal crossroads. Nobody is denying that. Budget 2026 acknowledges pressure. No one is denying that. It acknowledges global uncertainty. That’s been a couple of years, but it hasn’t been nine long years. It acknowledges slowing growth. But what it does not yet provide is a decisive, credible and comprehensive plan to restore fiscal balance and materially improve competitiveness.

Businesses understand difficult trade-offs. They do it every day. They make hard decisions to keep their doors open. Every employer in Abbotsford has had to make hard decisions over the past several years navigating inflation. They can handle that.

Labour shortages. Yeah, they’re working with that. Supply chain disruptions. They’re finding ways. They’re very creative. And rising borrowing costs.

What they need from government now is clarity. They need a government that is disciplined, and they need a credible growth agenda.

Instead, what Budget 2026 presents is a record $13.3 billion deficit, substantially higher than previously forecasted, with annual deficits remaining above $11 billion across the three-year fiscal plan. Provincial debt is projected to rise from approximately $154 billion to roughly $235 billion by 2028-2029. Let that sink in.

You know, we throw these numbers out like they’re nothing. They’re just big numbers. It’s just way out there. But $154 billion to $235 billion — that is $85 billion. That trajectory represents one of the most dramatic debt expansions in the province’s history. We’ve never been here before. And while the government describes this budget as leaner, the structural imbalance remains firmly in place.

The plan to reduce 15,000 full-time-equivalent positions across the broader public sector is largely expected to occur through attrition and retirements over time. This is not structural reform. It is a gradual adjustment within a much larger fiscal challenge.

At the same time, debt-servicing costs are rising materially as interest payments consume a growing share of revenue. Fiscal flexibility narrows, and every dollar spent servicing debt is a dollar not available for infrastructure, not available for housing, not available for health care expansion, not available for economic development in high-growth regions like our Abbotsford here in British Columbia.

Credit rating agencies will assess this path carefully. With no defined timeline back to balance, further downgrades remain a credible risk. I think this is coming sooner than we think — that our credit rating is going to drop, and nobody is going to want to invest in this province. The risk translates into higher borrowing costs, which only compounds the challenge. This is not theoretical. It is measurable.

[6:45 p.m.]

The province is leaning heavily on comparative GDP performances as reassurances. Real GDP growth is forecast at 1.3 percent in 2026, rising to just under 2 percent in subsequent years — mid-pack nationally. But modest growth below historical norms does not materially improve productivity. It does not meaningfully expand wages. It does not restore affordability, and it does not resolve structural fiscal pressures.

Growth at that level maintains the status quo. It does not change the trajectory, and I think British Columbians were looking for something in this budget that would say: “You know what? There is a horizon we’re aiming for. There is something that we’re going to get done in the next couple of years.”

What have we got? Status quo. We just want to make sure the boat is not going to sink. There is no hope in this budget for British Columbians, and if British Columbia is serious about restoring fiscal health, we must grow faster than our debt. We must expand productivity. We must attract capital, and we must compete aggressively for investment. We have none of that in this budget. That requires more than incremental measures.

Budget 2026 introduces several tax changes intended to stabilize revenue. The base personal income tax rate increases to 5.6 percent. Income tax bracket indexation is temporarily suspended.

The provincial sales tax is expanded to professional services, including accounting. Now my wife, who does accounting at home, when she sends out a bill, guess what. Engineering, architecture, geoscience — those are construction-related professions. And we’re going to create affordable housing. I’m trying to figure that out. It doesn’t work.

Property management and certain commercial real estate services. Property-related tax increase, including higher speculation and vacancy tax rates for foreign owners. Increases to the additional school tax for higher-value properties and the introduction of home-flipping tax.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

For businesses, the expansion of PST to professional services is particularly consequential. All these taxes on accounting, engineering, architecture, geoscience, property management and certain commercial real estate services are particularly consequential for the Fraser Valley.

It raises input costs by 7 percent across multiple sectors. Manufacturers will pay more for engineering services. Developers will pay more for design and architectural services. Farm operators and processors face higher compliance and advisory costs. Property managers and commercial landlords face additional expenses that ultimately flow through to the tenant.

Who will pay for all this? The end user. And we’re going to create an environment where people want to invest, where people want to buy, where people want to get a mortgage, where people want to get a house. It doesn’t make economical sense. These are not abstract increases. They are direct cost pressures in an already competitive labour and investment environment.

Noting the hour, I reserve my place and move adjournment of debate.

Korky Neufeld moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Jodie Wickens moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until ten o’clock tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:49 p.m.

Contents