Contents

The House met at 1:02 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

Firth Bateman, George Windsor
and Paulus Maas

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I rise on a sad, sad day. We’ve lost a few important people, two people in my community.

Firth Bateman was well known to myself and the member for Delta South. Firth passed away at Surrey Memorial Hospital on Christmas Day after an ongoing battle with some health issues. He was fortunate to be surrounded by family when he passed away. He was born in Belleville, Ontario, on August 2, 1947. He was raised in Stirling, Ontario.

He had such a large presence in our community. In his professional life, he was a social worker for the Ministry of Social Services. Later in life, he moved on to financial and estate planning. He loved outdoors. He was loved by his family and friends. He had his dog. He loved his dogs — Jessie, Gamble, Festus, Jingles.

He was a selfless man, a fierce supporter of those he loved. He leaves a large hole in the lives of those who loved him. He’s survived by his wife of 48 years, Gillian; his son Torin; and his daughter Cara, who I believe lives here in Victoria. He’s also survived by his sister Bonnie, and his younger brother Glenn.

He served on the Delta police board. The member for Delta South and I were just reflecting yesterday on the funny encounters that we’ve had with him when he just randomly calls us and says, “I need to talk to you about urgent politics in Delta,” and sure, he’ll call me, and then he’ll call him, as well, to get both sides of the story.

He will be really missed in our community.

We also lost George Windsor. He was a long-time Delta community member, volunteer. George passed away peacefully on February 6.

Prior to his illness, George dedicated himself to minor sports in Delta. He was very active in the refereeing space. He trained and mentored referees. He was the president of the North Delta Minor Hockey Association. When his hockey duties were over, George, on the side, would build sets for the Sidekick theatre in Delta.

Every time I saw George he would talk about community. He was just always smiling. And every time I’d see him, I’d say, “George, where’s my bacon?” because he used to make his own bacon. Without a doubt, within four or five weeks, he’d be knocking on my door and saying: “Here you go, buddy.”

[1:05 p.m.]

My love goes out to George’s family, in particular Val Windsor, who was chair of Delta school board for many, many years.

Lastly, two years ago, I was able to recognize my friend Paul Maas, who came to visit me here. He came with his family to do heli-skiing. That was a passion for him and his in-laws.

Last week they were in Austria, when they were heli-skiing and, unfortunately, got hit by an avalanche. Paul’s family survived, but his father-in-law passed away and was unfortunately not able to be found. I just want to send love to my friend Paul and to his entire family in the Netherlands.

It’s hard to make sense of these types of tragedies, and I want to ask the House to send condolences to this amazing family.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 4, the Supply Act.

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Citizens’ Services. When they are completed, I call the Attorney General estimates for the Douglas Fir Room as well.

In Section C, the Birch Room, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Infrastructure.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2026

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I move that Bill 4, the Supply Act (No. 1), 2026, be read a second time now.

Existing voting appropriations will expire on March 31, 2026. Bill 4 provides interim supply for ministry operations and other appropriations for approximately the first three months of 2026-2027 while the House completes debate of the appropriations presented in the 2026-2027 estimates.

Interim supply for ministry operations and other appropriations is required to ensure continuation of government services until the final supply bill comes into force. Bill 4 also provides one-third of the combined voted amounts in schedule C and schedule D of the 2026-2027 estimates for disbursements related to capital expenditures, loans, investments and other financing requirements.

The one-third authorization provided for in relation to these disbursements is higher than proportion authorized in relation to ministry operations, as the disbursements described in schedules C and D are not evenly distributed throughout the year. Therefore, the higher level of interim supply is required to accommodate the payments that will be made under these schedules.

Bill 4 also authorizes the full amount of the disbursements referred to in schedule E of the 2026-2027 estimates. Schedule E of the estimates outlines the revenue collected on behalf of and transferred to specific programs or entities. There is no impact on the operating results, borrowing or debt resulting from the collection and transfer of this revenue.

These interim supply appropriations are based on the accountabilities and allocations outlined in the 2026-2027 estimates. The final supply bill for the 2026-2027 fiscal year will incorporate these amounts to ensure that it reflects the sum of all voted appropriations to be given to government in that fiscal year.

Peter Milobar: I rise to speak to the Supply Act (No. 1), 2026, Bill 4.

I agree with much of what the minister has laid out. Normally, I only pretty much say that on this bill, and then we move on.

[1:10 p.m.]

Frankly, given the minister’s diatribe to end the budget debate right before lunch, though…. You know, I think it’s important that we don’t, in the future, wind up having the minister think by any means I’m trying to mislead this House when it comes to budgetary bills or the numbers within it, and I certainly wouldn’t want to mischaracterize what the minister just said.

I know she said: “Approximately one-quarter.” I’m not trying to quote her, saying that she said “one-quarter,” because I believe it’s important to actually have the full quote if one’s going to use that inside of this chamber in terms of the context of what is being said within this bill.

So in clause 1, when the minister says “approximately one-quarter,” I can understand that, and I certainly would not want to ever accuse her of misleading this House by using such language by shortening that quote up in this debate or in future committee stage, saying, “But you said one-quarter,” because that’s actually not what was said.

That’s the importance not only of budget debate but of these documents and the numbers within them. We have to make sure as an opposition that we’re properly scrutinizing, and although the government may not like that scrutiny from time to time on this bill or other budget bills or other pieces of legislation in this place, that is indeed the role and the responsibility of the opposition, whether the minister of any ministry or the Premier agrees with that or not.

Certainly, we will embark on, and I will embark on, a full and thorough scrutiny much longer than I normally do on a supply bill, when we get to committee stage, to ensure that there is full, transparent and 100 percent accuracy on any and all calculations that got us to the approximately one-quarter — not one-quarter — of expenditures in clause 1 or in clause 2, which is the one-third, approximate one-third, and then even in clause 3.

So again, it is a little disappointing, I guess, that sometimes members’ words get shortened up to serve political interests in this place, especially when it’s at the close of a debate. I think I’m our only speaker, so the minister may be able to close again, and Lord only knows where that goes if it’s based on the response to the budget close.

But we will, obviously, as an opposition, support this one — and only one — budgetary bill, because we do recognize this is about keeping the doors of a hospital open and operating, keeping the doors to schools open and operating while we continue to thoroughly scrutinize and lay bare what is actually in the budget, much as we did with all of our budget responses, which is actually the core of how these numbers in this bill have been calculated, as the minister said. It’s based on the overall budget. That’s why this is one particular fiscal bill we will actually support as an opposition, because we do believe that that should move forward.

But as we scrutinize this at committee stage and figure out where exactly those numbers are interrelated…. I’ll give one example: when the minister incorrectly quoted the assertion that Public Safety was seeing a cut. Now, that’s operations, so that would be part of clause 1, which is operations and comes into this calculation. It actually does indeed have a $4 million drop in its overall budget this year. That is indisputable. It’s the minister’s own budget documents.

What was actually characterized in our speeches is that we didn’t know what service would pay the brunt because of that cut.

Now, the minister talked about, in her budget response to close, how other internal areas within public safety were actually seeing increases. That actually proves the point that the opposition was trying to say. If you have an overall cut of $4 million and there are operational shifts to try to account for extortion in other areas — we were simply pointing out in a speech, certainly not in the scrutiny of committee stage or the scrutiny of budget estimates — where exactly would the other changes happen within Public Safety?

The minister feels that was a mischaracterization. We certainly think it was just trying to lay bare the facts for the public, and the minister instead decided to layer on other political rhetoric, I guess, maybe because the budget has not been as well received as the government may have thought it was. Somehow that is now the opposition’s fault, because we created the budget mess that they just delivered.

[1:15 p.m.]

Point being, we will delve into, with great detail, just how much of that $4 million cut is accounted for in clause 1, during committee stage, because, again, I would not want to offend the minister or any of the government ministers, thinking that we were deliberately or otherwise trying to mislead the public or stakeholders or user groups or senior citizens or any people like that when it comes to the budget.

With that, Madam Chair, I thank you for this time.

We do look forward to committee stage. It will be a much more robust and thorough investigative look into the various clauses this year. Again, I want to respect the comments, as egregious as they were, during the close to the budget debate from the Minister of Finance, but I’ll deal with that with my parliamentary privilege response in future days.

But really, this is about, on the Supply Act, making sure that we actually have assurances from the government that things they have made cuts in have been properly accounted for and reflected in the supply bill so we make sure that they actually are being properly funded for that approximately one-quarter of the year or for the one-third of the year as it relates to other operations or other expenditures that are front-loaded in a calendar year and exactly how that calculation came and the great detail that we will require as opposition.

I guess this is just a forewarning for the minister and her staff so that they come prepared with that level of detail, because, again, in the spirit of getting to the truth for the public and the electorate, I think it’s critically important that we actually do that work.

This year with the supply bill, we will support it, but we will make sure it has the full force and effect of the opposition fully scrutinizing and challenging all the assumptions made in these calculations by the minister.

I thank you for the time.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call the Minister of Finance to close debate.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Of course, government always welcomes honest debate and looks forward to a thorough exploration of this bill and any bill.

I now move that we close debate.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 4, Supply Act (No. 1), 2026.

Motion approved.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I move that Bill 4 be committed to a Committee of the Whole for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Brittny Anderson: I call second reading of Bill 5, Trade Recognition Act.

Bill 5 — Trade Recognition Act

Hon. Brittny Anderson: Could I just call recess for five minutes?

Deputy Speaker: We’ll have a recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 1:18 p.m. to 1:20 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: I call the House back into session.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I move the bill be read a second time now.

I’m pleased to rise to speak to second reading of the Trade Recognition Act. This bill modernizes British Columbia’s internal trade framework and advances B.C.’s leadership in trade reform.

This act replaces ESTRA, part 1, with a permanent framework to reduce trade barriers in B.C. Businesses and consumers need certainty, and this legislation provides it. It reduces unnecessary duplication. If a good may be sold or used elsewhere in Canada, it may be used or sold here. If a service has been supplied in another province, it may be supplied here in British Columbia. Moreover, this bill preserves B.C.’s ability to protect environmental, health, consumer and other important standards.

Businesses often find it difficult to trade goods and services across the country. Requirements are hard to identify, add unnecessary costs and slow economic growth. By modernizing our recognition framework, the act lowers administrative and compliance costs, improves speed to market, supports consumer choice and strengthens competitiveness for B.C. businesses. All of this is achieved without weakening the protections that British Columbians rely on.

The legislation complements national efforts under the Canadian free trade agreement and ongoing discussions to expand Canada’s mutual recognition agreement. British Columbia continues to be a leader in this space, particularly in advancing recognition for services, which are increasingly important as part of our provincial economy. This act allows B.C. to take responsible, forward-looking action while supporting broader national progress.

The legislation includes exceptions to ensure that B.C. retains full authority where needed. These safeguards ensure that recognition does not compromise public protection and that there is no race to the bottom.

The act does not apply to B.C. measures relating to Indigenous Peoples. The recognition rule does not interfere with current or future Indigenous-specific initiatives. For example, preferential procurement opportunities would continue to be outside of the scope of this act. Furthermore, the act does not apply to preferential hunting opportunities available to Indigenous People under B.C. law.

The act includes practical mechanisms to ensure successful implementation. If a B.C. regulator maintains a measure that does not align with the act, the responsible minister may require that the measure be amended or repealed.

The Trade Recognition Act is balanced, practical and forward-looking. The act reduces unnecessary duplication. It supports B.C.’s businesses and consumers. It strengthens economic competitiveness. It replaces temporary legislation with a permanent and stable framework. And it preserves B.C.’s safety, environmental and consumer standards. This bill modernizes our internal trade rules while protecting the interests and values of British Columbians.

I will ask all members to support that we proceed to Committee of the Whole with a detailed examination. With that, I look forward to hearing my colleagues speak to this bill.

Teresa Wat: I rise today to speak to Bill 5, the Trade Recognition Act.

In plain language, this bill is meant to make it easier for goods and services that are legally sold or supplied in other provinces to be sold or supplied here in British Columbia. The idea is mutual recognition, to cut down on duplicate certifications, duplicate approvals and needless barriers that make it harder for businesses to expand and harder for consumers to benefit from real competition.

We support that concept. We support the goals of reducing interprovincial trade barriers and making Canada’s internal market work better for British Columbians. That is good for workers. It is good for businesses that want to grow, and it is good for families who have been paying too much for too long. But supporting the concept does not mean giving this bill a free pass.

[1:25 p.m.]

We have questions about the mechanics. We have questions about how this will actually work in practice, especially given the significant discretion that is left to regulation and implementation. We have questions about whether this government is prepared to do the hard follow-through required for a bill like this to deliver real-world results.

It is also impossible to discuss Bill 5 without discussing the context, because the government is not arriving at this issue fresh. Bill 5 comes in the shadow of Bill 7, which was one of the primary pieces of legislation in this House last year.

Bill 7 was introduced with a lot of urgency and a lot of tough talk, including demands for aggressive powers in the name of immediate action. People will remember what happened next. Bill 7 landed with sweeping language and sweeping authority. It immediately triggered widespread concern about overreach and a lack of legislative oversight. Critics warned it went far beyond a targeted tariff response.

Then, as the backlash grew, the Premier publicly walked back a major chunk of the bill, announcing the removal of what many describe as the most extraordinary section and acknowledging it did not strike the right balance between fast action and democratic safeguards.

When the government now comes forward with Bill 5 and asks the House to trust the follow-through, it is fair and necessary to remember the Bill 7 pattern: urgent rhetoric, first; controversy, second; retreat, third. And still very little evidence of real-world action that matches the scale of the powers they demanded.

Bill 7 was sold to this province as urgent. It was wrapped in emergency language, moral certainty and a promise of decisive action. Then, after all that noise, British Columbians have seen basically nothing.

We are still awaiting evidence that this government used those aggressive powers to drive meaningful regulatory changes. We are still awaiting evidence that this government actually followed through in a serious way on the procurement rhetoric that surrounded Bill 7. We are still awaiting proof that this government did more than posture. That is why we keep coming back to Bill 7.

Under Bill 7, this government insisted it needed extraordinary tools because everything was urgent. Fine. But where is the public scoreboard? Which specific regulatory measures were actually changed using those powers? Which barriers were actually removed? Which ministries issued directives and followed them through? Where is the evidence that procurement rules were materially altered in a way that actually changed purchasing decisions on the ground?

We heard the tough talk. We saw the controversy. We watched the retreat. What British Columbians have not seen is transparent proof of results. If this government wants trust on Bill 5, it needs to start by showing that it used the powers it already asked for.

This matters to Bill 5 because Bill 5 is another bill where this government will make big claims and then ask British Columbians to trust that the follow-through will come later. But British Columbians have learned that later too often means never or not in any way that changes life outside this chamber.

[1:30 p.m.]

So yes, we will support this bill. We will support it because we agree with the objective. But we will also insist on something that this government has struggled with: accountability for results.

Now let’s turn to what Bill 5 actually does. At its core, Bill 5 creates a mutual recognition rule. Goods and services that are legally sold or supplied in another province can generally be sold or supplied here. This should reduce formal entry barriers. It should help some businesses avoid duplicative testing, duplicative approvals and duplicative certification.

It is also worth noting that industry has identified some positive features of this bill. One is that it makes mutual recognition permanent and removes the uncertainty of a sunset clause. Businesses plan investments and expansions based on stable frameworks and temporary measures that could disappear.

Another is that it is unilateral. It does not depend on B.C. negotiating reciprocity agreements province by province. It is a default approach that, in theory, should lower barriers more quickly.

Industry also pointed out that Bill 5 generally aligns B.C. law with the Canadian mutual recognition agreement, the CMRA, framework, which is a direction many in the business community support.

All of that is constructive, but the strongest area for focus is what is not included, what is not guaranteed and what may still prevent real market access, even if paper entry becomes easier. There is a risk, and it is a real one, that Bill 5 makes entry easier on paper while leaving practical barriers in place. This is where it helps to separate two concepts that get mashed together in government talking points.

The first is formal market entry. Can a product be sold here at all? Can a service be supplied here at all?

The second is practical market access. Can a company actually operate here in a commercially realistic way? Can it distribute? Can it market? Can it meet licensing rules? Can it navigate retail restrictions? Will enforcement practices effectively block it anyway?

Bill 5 focuses heavily on the first concept, but the bill also very explicitly preserves B.C.’s authority over post-entry rules. Under division 2, particularly sections 4 and 5, the bill preserves B.C.’s authority over how goods and services are sold, used or delivered once they are in the market. It also contains carve-outs, including monopolies, taxes, Indigenous Peoples and incorporation.

Now, there are legitimate reasons to preserve some post-entry rules. Nobody wants mutual recognition to override local rules in assured ways. But as industry has flagged, the way section 4 is written can operate as an escape valve.

If post-entry rules are interpreted broadly, then barriers may simply relocate rather than disappear, so a business may avoid a redundant certification requirement at the front end but still face a maze of operational requirements once inside — distribution rules, licensing rules, retail rules, marketing rules and enforcement practices that still shape whether it makes commercial sense to serve B.C.

[1:35 p.m.]

Entry may be easier on paper, but practical market access can still depend on those operational rules and their enforcement. Here is what I mean by the difference between paper entry and practical access.

Imagine a small manufacturer in Alberta that makes a building product, something boring but essential, like insulation, fasteners or components used in HVAC. If it is already lawfully sold there, mutual recognition should mean they do not have to redo the same testing and certification just to serve customers in B.C. That is the promise.

But if, once the product is in, they face a thicket of post-entry requirements around distribution, labelling, retail rules and approvals that functions like a second gate, the practical outcome is the same: higher costs, fewer suppliers and less competition. We can pass a bill and declare the door is open, but if the hallway is still blocked, families and businesses will not see lower prices.

On services, think about a specialized service that businesses rely on, like equipment inspection, technical maintenance or certain kinds of consulting. If a firm can legally supply that service in another province, mutual recognition should help them offer it here without running into duplicate hurdles. That could mean more competition and better pricing for B.C. businesses.

But again, if the post-entry rules around licensing, permitted scope of work or who can serve whom are interpreted broadly, then recognition becomes theoretical again. A company may be allowed to supply the service but not in a way that is commercially workable. That is why the mechanics matter and why section 4 must not become a loophole.

That is a key point. The government will be tempted to declare victory the moment this bill passes, but businesses do not live in the statute book. They live in day-to-day operations. If this government wants to claim this bill reduces barriers, it needs to prove that those post-entry rules are not being used to preserve the same obstacles under a different label.

Now, this is also where the comparison to Bill 7 matters again. A key difference between the interprovincial trade framework that was being discussed in Bill 7 and what is being done in Bill 5 is how regularly change is likely to happen. Bill 7 pushed regulators toward amending or removing rules that conflicted with the recognition framework. It was more forceful, more aggressive. That was part of why it triggered push-back.

Bill 5 keeps a similar tool. Ministers can still ask regulators to change rules and can step in if they do not. But Bill 5 also explicitly preserves B.C.’s authority over how goods and services are sold or delivered once they are in the market. So the extent of regulatory change will depend on how broadly those post-entry rules are interpreted and how actively ministers actually use these powers to resolve conflicts.

Let me put that in one sentence, because it is the heart of this critique. Bill 5 may open the door, but it does not guarantee the hallway is not still blocked.

[1:40 p.m.]

Now, there’s another theme we need to put on the record. Limitations remain even under the national mutual recognition approach. There are major categories that have been excluded or limited under the CMRA framework, including categories like food, live animals, alcoholic beverages, cannabis, tobacco and plants. In addition, governments can adopt specific carve-outs that allow them to retain requirements in areas they choose to exempt, listed under annex A in the CMRA agreement.

If the government wants to talk about affordability, it should also acknowledge that this bill will not touch some of the categories that matter most to the costs families feel every week. If this government wants to talk about leadership, it should also explain what carve-outs B.C. intends to give and why, and how we will ensure those carve-outs do not become permanent excuses for inaction.

Trade barriers are not just about whether something is allowed in theory. They are about whether something is allowed in practice. That brings me to another missing piece — trucking and logistics. Trade is movement. Goods do not magically teleport between provinces. If we do not align rules that affect interprovincial trucking and the movement of goods, then internal trade remains expensive and fragmented, regardless of the legal framework.

Industry is telling us B.C. has not clearly signalled intent to join the MOU partnership on interprovincial trucking. If that is true, it raises a basic question for this government: is B.C. serious about reducing internal trade costs, or is B.C. only serious about passing bills that sound good only?

If B.C. is engaged, what’s the timeline and what changes will British Columbians actually see? If B.C. is not engaged, why not?

Now I want to return to section 4, because this is where the mechanics really matter. Section 4 appears to preserve government’s ability to regulate products and services after they have entered the province. There are legitimate reasons for some post-entry rules to prevent absurd results and protect public interest. But as industry has highlighted, section 4 is broadly written.

Let me linger on section 4 for a moment because this is where a lot of the real-world impact will be decided. I understand why government wants a provision like this. You do not want mutual recognition to accidentally override sensible local rules. But if post-entry is defined too broadly, it becomes an escape valve that can preserve almost any barrier so long as someone can describe it as operational. That is exactly how you end up with reform that looks bold on paper but feels unchanged in practice.

So when I ask the minister about the intended boundary of section 4, I’m not asking for a weak reassurance. I’m asking for clarity that business can plan around and that this Legislature can hold this government to.

I want to put clear questions to the minister and invite answers either in this debate or at committee.

First, what is the intended boundary between an entry barrier that is overridden by mutual recognition and a post-entry rule that is preserved?

[1:45 p.m.]

Second, will the government publish guidance to regulators on how section 4 is meant to be interpreted so that it does not become the escape hatch that swallows the reform?

Third, does the government agree that a post-entry rule that has the practical effect of blocking market participation should be treated as a trade barrier and addressed under this framework?

Fourth, how will conflicts be identified and resolved? Will there be a transparent process so businesses can see which barriers were raised, which barriers were removed and why?

Fifth, when ministers request regulators to amend or remove measures, will those requests be made public with reasons so British Columbians can see whether this bill is driving real change?

Those are not hostile questions. They are the basic questions that determine whether this is meaningful reform or just a change in branding, because, again, Bill 7 is a credibility test. This government demanded aggressive powers under Bill 7, framed it as urgent and then retreated when controversy erupted.

British Columbians have yet to see convincing evidence that those powers produce real change. So this government does not get to ask for another leap of faith. It gets scrutiny. It gets conditions. It gets questions on the record. It gets a demand for proof.

I want to bring this back to the people this bill should help. This matters to workers. An apprentice who wants to follow work should not be told their skills are valid in one province and suddenly questionable in another. This matters to small and medium-sized businesses. A manufacturer or service provider should not have to pay for duplicate testing or duplicate approvals that do not add safety but do add cost.

This matters to consumers. Competition is how you get better pricing and better choice. In a time when families are watching every single dollar, government should not defend duplication and friction that inflate costs. This matters to the broader economy. A province that is serious about growth does not tolerate barriers that separate Canadians from Canadians.

So we will support Bill 5 because we agree with that direction. But we will also be honest about the government’s track record and the risk that this bill becomes cautious, symbolic and incomplete.

Let me be constructive and specific about what we expect from this government to ensure Bill 5 is more than a slogan.

First, an implementation plan with dates, not an open-ended regulation. A clear schedule.

Second, transparency on exclusions and carve-outs. Publish what is excluded, what is exempted and why, before the bill comes into force, not after.

Third, measurable reporting. How many barriers were identified? How many were removed? How many conflicts were resolved? How many regulatory changes were made? If this government claims this reduces costs, show the scoreboard.

[1:50 p.m.]

Fourth, guidance on section 4. Define the boundaries, constrain the loopholes, and make it clear that barriers cannot simply be re-labelled as operational to avoid mutual recognition.

Fifth, disclosure of ministerial interventions. If ministers are going to ask regulators to change rules, disclose it. If they step in, disclose it. If this government is using strong power, it should not be invisible.

Finally, a review clause. After 18 to 24 months, bring back a report to this Legislature on what actually changed and what the measurable impacts have been.

If this government agrees to those commitments, it will go a long way toward building confidence that Bill 5 is real, because without those commitments, the risk is obvious. The government will pass a bill, declare victory, and then implementation will be slow, quiet and limited. British Columbians, unfortunately, will be left with another statute that sounds strong and delivers little. This is exactly what many people believe happened with Bill 7.

I will close with this. We will support Bill 5 because British Columbians benefit when we reduce internal barriers and improve competition. But we will not pretend this government has earned trust on implementation. We will not allow them to rewrite history on Bill 7. We will not let them claim urgency when their track record has been sound and fury followed by silence. We will support this bill for British Columbians, and we will demand the follow-though that this government has too often failed to deliver.

Jeremy Valeriote: It’s my pleasure to speak to Bill 5, which aims to bring into legislation the removal of interprovincial trade barriers by recognizing how other provinces regulate the sale of goods and services.

Trade policy remains top of mind for British Columbians, with continued threats from the U.S. to many sectors of our economy. I’ve heard this in my constituency and from people across this province. The Third Party caucus recognizes the value in reducing unnecessary barriers and making it easier to buy from other provinces and to ensure our products are for sale across the entire country.

We should be making it easier to trade with provinces and territories across Canada, and therefore, I want to support this bill. I really do. But I have questions and concerns about what the real benefits of this bill are for our economy and the people of B.C.

We have to strike a balance between facilitating trade while upholding the high standards and protections that people rely on, and we need to make sure that economic efficiency isn’t the reason to sacrifice key safeguards like labour standards or environmental protections.

The first issue I want to talk about is that we’ve been talking about removing trade barriers for over a year now. Last year part 1 of Bill 7, the Tariff Response Act, was passed to great fanfare for the huge economic benefits it would have for our province, and we were told that these were urgently needed changes that were so urgent, the Premier would be forced to call an election if they weren’t passed.

The problem is that the section of that bill on interprovincial trade barriers was never brought into force by this government. It did functionally become established in December 2025 with the Canadian mutual recognition agreement, but how can we and the public know what the benefits or harms of this new bill are since these trade barriers were only finally eliminated two months ago?

Is this bill necessary? Has the federal government made this piece of legislation redundant? And why was the original piece of legislation never brought into force? These are all questions that the minister needs to answer to assure this House that this bill is of benefit to all British Columbians and to assure us that he understands the complicated patchwork of legislation governing this federation.

I’m glad my Third Party colleague, the member for Saanich North and the Islands, is here because he spent a huge amount of effort successfully advocating last year for the sunset clause in the Tariff Response Act as well as transparency, oversight and accountability provisions, to make sure that we could have a real-world assessment of the impacts on removing these barriers for British Columbians.

[1:55 p.m.]

Now this new bill is being proposed, and these provisions are conveniently omitted. We keep hearing about these major benefits of removing internal trade barriers for Canada and B.C.’s GDP, but where is the analysis on what has happened over the last few months since the signing of the Canadian mutual recognition agreement?

I believe we need to see some of the early results of this work. The impact on small businesses that are the backbone of our provincial economy is unclear. Unlike the oil and gas lobby, they don’t have the direct ear of senior ministers. We need a better understanding of who will benefit and who will incur potential new costs.

Some exemptions have already been added to this bill from consultation that has happened across sectors, which is a good start to make sure it is responsive. But we don’t yet know if there will be ongoing structured consultation mechanisms for further exemptions and who will make these decisions.

Seems like many of these questions are still not answered after this government has already had a full year to remove trade barriers.

Second issue. The other big concern we have is how much this is really doing. Removing these barriers sounds great on the surface, and I’m sure there’ll be benefits for some sectors. But we also need to make sure we acknowledge the limits of how much this will help people in this province and make sure that this government isn’t giving people and small businesses false hope.

The benefits and trade-offs from this legislation need to be made clear to British Columbians — yet another reason why a one-year trial would have been so helpful.

This is one potentially useful tool, but it isn’t a whole toolbox. I think it’s important to be clear that this change is not a substitute for the real reforms we need to make to make sure that we have a strong, diversified and climate-aligned economy that works for people all across this province.

We’ve raised some of these issues recently. For example, the B.C. government is currently purchasing nasal naloxone at a higher price from an American company when they could be supporting a B.C. business and saving public money while doing it.

This government also continues to directly subsidize the LNG industry that also funds President Trump and his war on trade. If we’re truly committed to economic independence, then ending those ties would have a much bigger and more direct impact on our economic security.

Moreover, the government continues communicating largely through the very social media platforms that are used to promulgate disinformation and drive the MAGA movement — including X, formerly Twitter — rather than supporting local media.

None of these issues will be solved with the removal of internal barriers, so I want to make sure that this bill doesn’t take away from the focus on other important issues. Especially now, we have to maintain high standards that support workers and businesses to make sure these are not unintentionally eroded by this legislation.

I hope the promised benefits from removing internal barriers come to fruition, but I worry that the focus on internal trade barriers will prove more of a communications exercise than something that delivers real results.

To close, I think it’s important we keep our eye on the bigger picture of (1) protecting our climate, (2) ensuring affordability and (3) helping workers in all parts of our province.

With those concerns in mind, I look forward to hearing more specifics from the minister on this bill at the committee stage.

Darlene Rotchford: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today in support of the Trade Recognition Act.

One of the foundational pieces of our Look West strategy is to secure more ambitious Canadian mutual recognition agreements. The CMRA, which B.C. signed in November of 2025, will see each and every Canadian province and territory agree to recognize each other’s regulations on the sale of goods except food.

The practical impact of this is that if a product can be sold in one province, it can be sold in another without further testing, approval or certification. This was an unprecedented step and marked one of the most significant reductions in interprovincial trade barriers in Canadian history.

B.C. led this work around the negotiating table. It was a momental achievement to get this agreement concluded. But we must go further, and that is why our government has introduced Bill 5. Bill 5 represents a continuation of B.C.’s national leadership on internal trade.

We passed Bill 7, the Economic Stabilization Act, last year. It was because we knew we needed to act fast. We will cast our minds back to the time last year. Nobody knew what was coming. There were new threats almost every day. In North American history, trading relationships began to quickly fall apart.

[2:00 p.m.]

Part 1 of Bill 7 gave B.C. the ability to recognize other provinces’ regulations and allow for goods sold in these provinces to also be sold here. Many other provinces have taken this step, and the CMRA signalled that each province intends to align with this national strategy to reduce interprovincial barriers.

As more provinces move toward similar legislation, the benefits for provinces like B.C. grow greater. B.C. businesses, if they wish, will be able to more easily expand to new domestic markets. These are new opportunities that are unlocked by purposeful work to remove interprovincial trade barriers wherever possible.

Part 1 of Bill 7 will expire this May, so B.C. needs a legislative framework to be able to continue its progress on interprovincial trade. Bill 5 will ensure that there is continuity so that we can stay aligned with the CMRA and continue to work to make progress on internal trade while we negotiate further with other jurisdictions. When we can bring other provinces together to come to a broader mutual agreement, we will already have the legislation in place to enact the agreement right away.

We know that this global instability is not going to subside easily, so we are planning for our future. Bill 5 is one measure that will help us build a stronger economy here in B.C. and help us contribute to a more unified Canada.

B.C. is leading by example. We were one of the first provinces to introduce interprovincial trade legislation. It was B.C.’s leadership working with other jurisdictions to address concerns and find common ground that will help bring the CMRA to completion.

Make no mistake; the CMRA is a landmark agreement. While the CMRA establishes mutual recognition for the sale of goods except food, Bill 5 goes further. This bill would establish recognition for all goods and services. Not only does Bill 5 enable us to align with the CMRA, but it also puts us on the leading edge of reducing unnecessary trade barriers.

This is a long time coming. Report after report highlights the considerable economic benefit that easier interprovincial trade could bring. For B.C., it could mean billions of dollars added to our provincial economic output. This is growth that would deliver good jobs for British Columbians in every community across the province. We are doing it without compromising the protections that British Columbians rely on.

We will uphold regulations concerning health and safety, the environment and consumer standards. We will also protect our critical public services, like ICBC. It is plain to see that not only is interprovincial trade economically beneficial for business, workers and consumers alike, but it’s also possible to do it without sacrificing the values we hold dear.

Our government’s Look West strategy has established a clear plan for growth in B.C. It lays out a path forward for B.C. to become the economic engine of Canada. To be the engine, we need to be competitive. Interprovincial trade barriers have often been obstacles to economic development, not just in B.C. but right across the country. That’s why we’re targeting economic growth with a multi-pronged approach, so all British Columbians can share in the benefits.

It all starts with workers. B.C. has incredible talent across many diverse sectors, from life sciences to professional services to our skilled trades. That’s why, through Look West, we’re doubling our investment in trades training to $214 million over three years. Our talent is one of our key selling points. While businesses are making investment decisions, we’re looking for readily available talent and a predictable talent pipeline.

When we are reducing interprovincial trade barriers, which increases our global competitiveness and tracks levels of investment from within Canada and abroad, we are raising B.C.’s stature as we compete for major projects and investments.

As we aim to grow our strategic sectors — like life sciences, advanced technology, mining and critical minerals, maritime and aerospace, construction innovation and more — B.C. will need highly qualified professionals to lead that growth. Many of the major projects that will be advanced in the upcoming years will require B.C. to recruit and retain many more of the skilled-trades workers who will get the job done. That’s why we’ll continue to work with other provinces and territories towards an agreement on labour mobility.

You can see how our interprovincial trade is a subtle but necessary component of our plan to deliver good jobs and prosperity here for a stronger British Columbia. Bill 5 is a necessary and practical step forward as we work to modernize our internal trade rules. The Trade Recognition Act provides new opportunities for B.C. businesses by opening new markets inside Canada.

[2:05 p.m.]

It also provides administrative relief for those businesses, particularly our small businesses, that cannot afford to do business in other provinces due to the cost of duplicate regulatory compliance. For B.C. exporters, it means their products will be more readily available across Canada, and for B.C. consumers, that means more opportunity to buy Canadian-made products.

Bill 5 provides stability, continuity and predictability as we establish a permanent provincial framework for internal trade. It does so while preserving the health, safety and environmental attractions that we all value. The Trade Recognition Act is forward-looking and sets the stage for B.C. to continue its national leadership on breaking down interprovincial trade barriers.

I hope all members will join me in supporting Bill 5.

Peter Milobar: I rise to speak to Bill 5, yet another bill that is urgently needed by this government to advance things in British Columbia. It makes me almost feel like we’re having the Bill 15 debate all over again, or was that the Bill 14 debate? Oh no, this is actually replacing Bill 7. All three of those bills were rushed and needed to happen right away.

In fact, Bill 7, which this bill is taking a big chunk out of to rework, actually had a whole section that had to be removed because it was massive government overreach that would literally give this government the ability to change any law or to ignore any law that they chose. We wouldn’t even have needed to have a budget debate if Bill 7 had passed with those provisions in it, because the government was waiving the requirement for themselves to even bring the budget forward into this chamber.

After hearing the Finance Minister today, I’d say it’s a good thing the opposition does have an opportunity, on behalf of the public, to scrutinize the budget. That’s the problem with Bill 5, ultimately. We are supportive of it at this stage, and that’s the caveat, because just as we saw with Bill 7, as we got into committee stage — as others started to actually scrutinize the bill, understand the true intention of the government and what was either lacking or what was overreach — it became very clear that it was not supportable.

At this stage, we support Bill 5, but as we work through this bill and as we work through committee stage, we may find ourselves saying: “You know what? This really isn’t going to hit the mark.” I say that because even in the previous member’s comments…. I don’t take great issue with what she is saying, but with interprovincial trade, as soon as you say, “We will protect B.C.,” that’s a red flag for every other province.

That has been the sticking point with interprovincial trade barriers all along. If you talk to a sector or you talk to a province, everyone’s for it as long as it doesn’t actually change their small piece of that overall equation of the economy.

We need interprovincial trade barriers removed. I’ve been speaking about this for quite some time, and frankly, it’s disappointing that this is as far as we’ve gotten with this government.

They passed three bills in this place and said they needed them for immediate action, to take immediate steps to bring the economy along, to move projects forward. Instead, we have a budget that’s removing projects and slowing them down. We have three bills that still don’t actually have regulations ready to go and enacted, just the regulation on making the bill functional.

Before we even have that in place, we have yet another addition/change with Bill 5, tying back into Bill 7, purportedly to remove interprovincial trade barriers, as well, with the Trade Recognition Act. But Bill 7 was supposed to actually enable that to all happen. What the heck has happened over the last year? Why do we need Bill 5 if Bill 7 was the cure-all a year ago?

At its core, that’s why I say that at this juncture we support Bill 5. We’re not 100 percent clear, until we get into committee stage, that the government is actually serious at this point and taking real, meaningful and tangible steps to get rid of interprovincial trade barriers — interprovincial trade barriers that this government rarely talks about openly. They do when it is politically convenient for them.

They spend more time talking about the President, less time talking about this. Yet we know that interprovincial trade barriers create a 23 percent tariff-equivalent drag on the economy in British Columbia.

[2:10 p.m.]

Precious little, though, has actually been done. They will talk about all the work that has been done, how far things have moved, the tables that the minister is at, that we’ve never seen this type of action before and that it’s a long time coming. All of that type of language will be used, yet all the barriers are still in place — substantively, anyway.

When this government gets more hyper-fixated on hyper-politicizing and mischaracterizing statements on this side of the House, instead of being hyper-fixated to actually take care of our own internal trade barrier issues that we have within our own country…. By the way, B.C. is the second-most impacted province on interprovincial trade barriers in the country — second most. Only Quebec is impacted, and that’s just a little bit more than B.C.

At a time where we’ve had a forest sector under attack and assault over the last year, this government has pointed the finger south and not figured out a way to meaningfully get rid of interprovincial trade barriers, not because that would necessarily save the forest industry but that it might help us with our overall economy that is hemorrhaging. When you look at the current budget, no steps taken. So now we have Bill 5. We have, essentially, the replacement for Bill 7.

As my colleague from Richmond was saying, there are lots of questions that we have within the various clauses. We’re not sure even with clause 1. We have a government saying…. This is where it’ll be tough, in committee stage, to actually understand what the true intent and what the true expectation of the government will be, moving forward.

In clause 1, it defines “Indigenous Peoples” with the same definition as in DRIPA, but we also have a government saying they’re bringing forward amendments to DRIPA right now. We haven’t seen those amendments. We don’t know what the government’s intention is with DRIPA, yet we’re supposed to pass Bill 5, which makes sure that it’s tying itself, indirectly, to DRIPA.

Now, if we didn’t know there were amendments coming, you would read that clause and you would just know how to interpret that with existing DRIPA legislation. But the government has made it very clear that they are supposedly…. I say “supposedly” because no one has seen or knows what those amendments are. Now that we’re underway in session, one would have thought they would have brought that forward with some haste, given the length of the session we have.

How does Bill 5 not just tie in with existing legislation but with the legislation this government has very openly talked about amending? They won’t tell us how they’re going to amend it.

That creates an actual bit of a problem when you’re trying to figure out how Bill 5 will actually function with the rest of the country, which does not have DRIPA in effect, and how you’re going to remove that interprovincial trade barrier. How are we to remove interprovincial trade barriers when you’re supposed to be jurisdictions that recognize each other’s standings and when we don’t fully understand — as a jurisdiction that stands alone with DRIPA in place provincially — how that will impact?

I’m not saying that to inflame the whole DRIPA debate. I’m saying it because it’s just the reality of the situation we find ourselves in. We obviously have said that we would repeal. We campaigned on that. We have a government that has said they’re going to amend. We don’t know if it’s minor or significant. We also know it’s the only piece of legislation like that across the country.

The government is saying that clause 1 in Bill 5, for a trade recognition act, will have DRIPA in effect. We don’t even know what that means provincially, let alone what that means to actually, truly, opening up interprovincial trade across the country when no other jurisdiction has anything close to that as a provincial law. So I ask that question now, and I pose that — as a warning question, I guess, an advance question — to the ministry.

[2:15 p.m.]

I think it actually deserves a serious conversation and a serious answer at committee stage, because it’s real and it could have very significant impact to how the removal of interprovincial trade barriers even happens or not — not just for British Columbia but whether it, indeed, happens across the country — with an impact to the national economy.

So I do hope the government comes with a full set of answers to that particular clause, because it is serious.

Again, it is not meant to incite anything. It is meant to actually deal with legislation and how it’s worded — the government’s intent to it and how it interconnects with other pieces of legislation not just in B.C. but how it will be interpreted across the country to remove those interprovincial trade barriers.

That’s at the core premise of interprovincial trade barriers. There are provincial laws and rules that are different, different standards across the country, and you come to some agreement of a middle ground that people can live with and which standard will be the overarching standard. And if you meet that minimum standard, essentially you have access to the market.

I’m oversimplifying it, I know, but that’s the basic premise of interprovincial trade and the barriers that Bill 5 is purporting to remove.

Goods sold or used in another province can be sold and used in B.C. Is that only if they’re sold and used in another province under the guidelines of DRIPA or not?

Services delivered in other provinces can be delivered in B.C. Can a case be made that those services, if they’re not conforming in other provinces, actually are allowed to just come into the province and operate under the same provisions of a different province that they are currently operating in, or do they have to conform?

In other words, it’s great to say that we welcome services from other provinces in, but if it’s the B.C. standard and legislation that is now the standard being expected to be held to by this government, you’re not removing interprovincial trade barriers. You’re just telling everyone in the country to act like British Columbia.

I know what the response back will be, and I’m pretty sure the government knows what the response back will be from those other jurisdictions.

There are exemptions, regulatory measures that are not overridden by a division that defines things in clause 7 and then the regulatory overrides that ministers can have. And again, we always have the out-clauses that the Lieutenant Governor in Council can make exceptions and override clauses, which always creates a little bit of worry. So that’s, fundamentally, the issue.

Then the fact that this act doesn’t come into force until regulation…. People at home might wonder why that is a big problem or not. With every piece of legislation, various clauses have a date they come into effect. Some will say “by royal assent.” Some will say “by this date.” Some will be retroactive.

Under this government, most pieces come forward and say…. Unless it’s something that they need to fix that they made a mistake on, then it’s retroactive. They’re always good at doing that to cover their mistakes up.

But this government all too often has a bill coming into effect by regulation, which means they’ll then go away and they’ll think about things. So they’ll tell us the rough idea of where they’re going in this place. When we get to committee stage, they’ll answer with very vague answers, saying: “You’ll have to wait for the regulation,” “Well, we’ll see what the regulation says,” “We haven’t written the regulation yet.”

In fact, we asked those questions — ironically, they introduced FOI legislation today — about the previous FOI legislation because, again, this government seems to be amending all their own homework because they messed up the legislation in the first place when they brought it forward.

We asked all those questions like that, and that’s the runaround we got on the FOI legislation — that the fee for filing for an FOI hadn’t been decided yet. It would be decided by regulation after consultation. And 15 minutes after the debate was over, lo and behold, I guess they’d finished consulting, and the fee was set. The order in council was signed in the hallway, and away they went. We had a $10 fee.

[2:20 p.m.]

That’s the track record of this government. So when I see Bill 5 talking about “left to regulation” when this bill will come into force and effect, it’s worrisome. As far as I know, the regulations needed in Bill 7, which this is actually essentially amending, haven’t all been created and signed off on.

Bill 14 that was critically urgent to deal with issues related to the trade war hasn’t been finished and signed off on. Bill 15, same thing, which brings us now to Bill 5. So track record after nine years in government actually doesn’t matter, because what this government doesn’t seem to get is every time they point the finger to a previous government to blame, they’re pointing it at themselves.

So when they bring Bill 5 forward, it’s because they didn’t action Bill 7 properly, their bill. And they’re now needing to bring forward other legislation. In fact, when Bill 7 was in, we specifically asked around things like labour mobility and other issues like that. The government didn’t want to go anywhere near that then. So it is going to be interesting. And I think by virtue of this bill being left to regulation, that won’t cut it at committee stage.

There’s too much at stake for our economy right now. You just have to look at the fiscal plan to realize that, if you actually look at it in an honest lens, if you actually believe the head of the public service who says our budget and our fiscal plan is not sustainable. That path is not sustainable. You don’t have to listen to the opposition. Just listen to your own top bureaucrats telling you that, if you’re the government.

Known disputes in interprovincial trade barriers are a drag on our economy, which means we do have to remove them if we’re going to open up our economy to its full potential. But answers to legitimate questions in this bill that we will have that fall back on: “Well, we’ll just wait till we do the regulation. You’ll find out then.”

By the way, to the viewers at home, the regulation that I’m talking about…. What happens is usually at about four o’clock on a Friday afternoon, the regulations that government doesn’t really want to have to talk about get released. They get released publicly, but they get released on the website and the orders in council. They get flooded in there. You really have to dig around and pay attention to what’s going on to see them.

Sometimes they’re benign. Lately with this government, it’s just all been about patronage hires and promotions while they’re under a so-called hiring freeze. But, you know, why need a Merit Commissioner?

But that’s the problem when these things wind up in regulation. The regulation does not get the scrutiny of this House. The regulation gets developed by the insider circle within the Premier’s office that’s not even sitting at the cabinet table, that won’t be sitting in here answering questions in budget estimates, that gives their marching orders to the various cabinet ministers and the cabinet table. Then those ministers are sent to defend what they’ve been told to defend and developed by the Premier’s inner circles of partisan hires, of political hires.

I think given the fiscal situation this province is in, given the desperation our business community is in, to have some hope and some actionable way forward, especially in relation to interprovincial trade barriers, especially in relation to our lack of competitiveness….

The same industries that are asking this government to rethink adding $550 million of extra PST taxation to it this year are the same organizations representing the same members that this government is trying to tell us that they’re actually looking out for in Bill 5, while talking about getting rid of interprovincial trade barriers so we stay competitive with the rest of the country.

[2:25 p.m.]

We already have the most punitive PST system in the country. This government just layered onto it, and they’re trying to say: “Don’t worry. When we move the interprovincial trade barriers, we’ll be even more competitive.” No, we won’t. If we’re not legitimately competitive, those same manufacturers will go to a different province that actually is competitive. And they will have open access to the B.C. market. We will have lost the jobs.

This government doesn’t seem to take that seriously. I’ve been saying that since we first started talking about interprovincial trade barriers and their removal, and this government has ignored it every step of the way.

Business organizations have been talking about that. There are two sides to this conversation that have to both be dealt with in a real way, not just with a piece of legislation that’s going to wait for regulation till god knows when. The business community doesn’t need performative legislation; they need performance. They’re not getting it from this government.

Again, we fundamentally agree with Bill 5. We will vote for it at this stage, and we will reserve our right, based on the answers or lack thereof during committee stage, as to whether we advance it any further with support.

Again, these are very real, and these are interconnected with the rest of the country, questions that we have, especially with clause 1, because that is not just the standard level of safety testing or standard that we have.

DRIPA is whole and in part completely different than legislation in the rest of this country, provincial legislation. So not only do we need to actually have a clear line of sight at committee stage of what that actually does mean for the removal of interprovincial trade barriers but if this government hasn’t brought forward their DRIPA amendments, how do we meaningfully ask those questions and get an answer that might actually fundamentally change, literally a week later, when those amendments come forward?

These are the implications when you have legislation that is performative. This is what happens when you have photo-op and sound bite legislation. It can look and sound very impressive, but if the government is unwilling to give that level of detail of critically important answers to critically important questions, that’s all it is. It’s performance art.

Now, you can maybe put it on a poster board and sell it to the National Gallery for $1 million. You never know, sometimes, what they buy for artwork. But that’s not what our business community is looking for. They’re looking for real, meaningful help. And we do hope that’s what Bill 5 will provide. We’re a little skeptical, given the track record of this government, but at this point, it’s all we have to work with.

With that, I thank you for the time, and I do look forward to committee stage, where we will thoroughly canvass this bill to find out what the government’s true intentions and interpretations of the various clauses actually are and how they will actually function in the real world, not in this chamber.

Paul Choi: I am pleased to speak today in support of the Trade Recognition Act. Bill 5 will replace part 1 of the Economic Stabilization Act with a permanent framework to reduce interprovincial trade barriers in B.C.

As Parliamentary Secretary for Trade, I understand the critical need for Canada to take significant steps towards breaking down its interprovincial trade barriers. Now, each province and territory has a part to play in this mission, and B.C. is at the forefront of the push to make domestic trade simpler.

When I meet with local businesses and partners, one of the top concerns is interprovincial trade barriers. When I meet with business leaders around the world, they express uncertainty and sometimes confusion as to why there are barriers to trade within Canada.

[2:30 p.m.]

Well, it’s a tough question to answer, but what it means is that the Canadian economy is not as integrated as it should be. It means that we are not only dealing with uncertainty because of our unstable trading partners to the south but also that Canada has historically been limited in its ability to grow its domestic markets.

In this time of great uncertainty, we need to move with great urgency. This is why our government has introduced Bill 5. This bill will enable B.C. to align with the national effort, which B.C. is leading, to allow freer movement of goods across provincial barriers.

I want to take a moment to explore the impact that the interprovincial trade barriers have had in B.C.’s businesses, big and small. The OECD reports that most Canadian businesses, especially small businesses, don’t engage in interprovincial trade. More than half of businesses that do trade interprovincially reported some kind of obstacle. It’s clear that interprovincial trade barriers are getting in the way of internal trade and providing this incentive for businesses to look for domestic opportunities.

This has a wide range of effects in every community. A business in Burnaby or Merritt or Terrace wants to send their products to Alberta, Manitoba or New Brunswick or any other province. Right now they often need to spend time and money combing through the thousands of legislation each jurisdiction maintains just to understand what is and isn’t allowed. That’s thousands of regulations each across 14 different jurisdictions.

This is the definition of burden. I think it goes without saying that businesses in B.C. should not need to hire a trade lawyer to send their products over the Rockies. It should not be easier to trade north to south than it is east to west. At a time when others may be turning inward, our approach should be to expand opportunity, remove these unnecessary barriers and lead with confidence in free and fair trade.

Interprovincial trade barriers mean that the movement of goods is slower than it needs to be, which increases costs for exporters, truckers, railways, warehouses and consumers. It means that investment potential is diminished because investors do not see the stability and certainty that they need to make business-critical decisions. This is a real problem for Canada’s productivity, for our consumer products and for our major products. The impacts of this are significant, and it’s long overdue that we take a unified national approach to reducing and eliminating these barriers wherever possible.

As B.C.’s representative to PNWER, the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, I have firsthand experience in conversations with political, business and community leaders on both sides of our shared border. Nearly universally, these leaders are condemning tariffs. They know that these old-fashioned, outdated and harmful trade measures are not beneficial for businesses or workers. Tariffs are costly, and B.C. needs a deliberate, targeted response.

Last year our government introduced Bill 7 to do exactly that, and we knew that we needed to move quickly to provide relief and work to open new markets for B.C. businesses. The threat of North American trade being so severely interrupted means that we need to look closer to home. There is a plethora of untapped opportunities in Canada, and one of those opportunities is interprovincial trade. That’s why we made it provincial law that B.C. would recognize goods and services sold in other provinces as goods and services that can be sold in B.C.

Our actions alone are not going to solve the Canada-wide problems of interprovincial trade barriers though. When we passed Bill 7 in B.C., we set an example for other provinces to follow. We have indeed seen many provinces follow suit. For B.C.’s leadership, we have been recognized by the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and more.

As we set out to find a consensus among provinces and territories to reach an agreement that will significantly reduce inter-trade barriers, in November, B.C. signed the Canadian mutual recognition act, as did the federal government and all other provinces and territories.

[2:35 p.m.]

Under the CMRA, provinces agree that we will recognize each other’s approvals, testing and certification when it comes to the sale of goods. This was difficult work, and there is much more work to do at the table among provinces. But because of B.C.’s leadership, we have broken new ground on reducing interprovincial barriers and simplifying the flow of goods within Canada.

That brings us to Bill 5. When we passed Bill 7 last year, we didn’t know what the future held, but we knew we needed to act. But the enabling section of Bill 7 expires this May, so B.C. needs a permanent legislative solution for interprovincial barriers, and Bill 5 is the piece that establishes B.C.’s permanent framework for simpler and affordable trade within Canada.

Bill 5 will allow B.C. to continue meeting our commitment under the CMRA. In fact, Bill 5 goes farther than that in the CMRA. This legislation recognizes all goods and services, and we hope that all other provinces will join us in this broader recognition. While this is unilateral recognition on B.C.’s part, having this legislation in place permanently will help us qualify as a reciprocal jurisdiction to those provinces whose legislation is more stringent. And our framework will reduce the administrative burden on small businesses who are looking for new markets to export to.

We know that right now many businesses would not only prefer to sell to other Canadians but they are relying on that opportunity to keep their businesses running. This framework will reduce paperwork and keep products from being held up in the warehouse until duplicate certifications and approvals have been acquired. It will strengthen competitiveness for B.C.’s businesses, and it will make it easier for British Columbians to buy Canadian.

This is what B.C.’s leadership looks like. This government is absolutely committed to doing the hard work to advance the cause of breaking down interprovincial trade barriers. We will continue to lead, and we will continue to get results for British Columbians. With B.C.’s leadership, we are protecting the things that are most important to British Columbians.

While we firmly believe in mutual recognition and the reduction of inter-trade barriers, we will also firmly defend our strong protections that keep British Columbians healthy, keep workers safe and keep our environment undisturbed.

Under Bill 5, we retain the full authority to maintain exceptions. We will not jeopardize health and safety or the environment. B.C.’s standards are the baseline, because a rising tide lifts all boats.

These exceptions will be clear, and they will be public. In fact, B.C.’s exceptions under the CMRA are already published online for anyone to access. Under Bill 5, recognition does not apply to monopolies. This allows us to keep things like Liquor Distribution Branch and ICBC so that we can continue to provide public car insurance with some of the lowest rates in the country, and that’s something to be proud of.

As new products enter the market and efforts towards simpler interprovincial trade unfold, we will continue to monitor the effects. Bill 5 allows to add and remove exceptions quickly, as necessary. As I have laid out, the Trade Recognition Act is a flexible, modern piece of legislation that is the right tool to deal with our new reality.

It will allow us to continually evaluate B.C.’s needs while giving us the ability to respond to the evergreen threat of American tariffs. It means that there will be greater investment opportunities here in B.C., which will drive economic growth and help create good jobs for folks in every sector across British Columbia. It means that folks will be able to buy more Canadian goods at a time when we all want to support our local businesses. It will mean more B.C. products on shelves in the rest of Canada.

We are going to confront economic hardships head-on, and the Trade Recognition Act is an absolutely critical tool in our toolbox. I’m very happy to support Bill 5, and I hope all members will join me in doing so.

[2:40 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: It is always an honour, of course, to rise on behalf of the people of Prince George–Mackenzie. Today I’ll be responding to Bill 5, the Trade Recognition Act, and, of course, speaking for my constituents but also today in my capacity as the opposition critic for Labour. I know there are a number of labour components about this bill.

I want to start with a principle that I think every member of this House should actually be united on, and that’s that Canada should function as one economic country, not ten separate ones divided by unnecessary internal barriers. Too often we make it harder to trade across Canada and actually easier to trade with our neighbours down south. That’s what this bill, I think — the topic, overall, of interprovincial trade that we’ve been talking about for well over a year now — has been all about.

We set up barriers just even here in our own province that hold back job creators. I’ll use an example. Our building code makes it almost impossible for a company like East Fraser Fiber in Mackenzie to sell their value-added finger-joint products within B.C., let alone across other provinces. As a result, they sell their made-in-B.C. product down south to the U.S. About 98 percent of their product goes down to the U.S.

Can you imagine if we put in the work to align our rules to support B.C.’s forest products here at home? Then also imagine if we put in that same time and effort to make sure that those same products could be sold across Canada. We can do so much better in our economic resiliency if we get out of our own way, and I think the example of East Fraser Fiber would be one that would be well served.

Of course, there’s a lot of talk about that orange guy down south with terrible hair, and he’s going to be doing his thing. I am firmly against his tariffs. I’m against his attack on institutions. But let’s not worry about him. Let’s actually look after our fellow Canadians and work together for a change across this country. We had this conversation a year ago already in this House, and we’re still at it today.

Workers should be able to go where the jobs are. Businesses should be able to sell Canadian products to Canadian customers, and families should benefit from a strong national economy built on cooperation from coast to coast to coast. Canadians should be able to work with Canadians and sell to Canadians without hitting a wall at each provincial border — full stop. That’s where we need to get to in this country, and interprovincial trade barriers are still a major factor and a major problem in our economy.

Reducing interprovincial trade barriers is not just sound economic policy. It strengthens our resilience in these uncertain economic times. It strengthens our unity as a country, and it strengthens our independence in a world where global economic conditions are increasingly unpredictable. At a time when supply chains can be disrupted by events beyond our control and trade tensions can emerge overnight, Canada’s greatest economic strength should be Canada itself.

I have to say we’ve heard of this movie on interprovincial trade barriers already before. We had these conversations last year. The government told us that they didn’t need stand-alone interprovincial trade legislation. They told us that Bill 7 was what was needed.

I’ll remind the House, of course, that the original iteration of Bill 7 had a Henry VIII clause. The Premier wanted, at the time, the power of a king. But Conservatives and everyday British Columbians pushed back, and the clause was removed.

We went on to debate the rest of Bill 7, including the interprovincial trade components in part 1 of that bill. Well, unfortunately, this government has squandered economic opportunity. They’ve squandered time for businesses to pivot. We now have to wait for this bill. Now we have to wait for regulations for businesses to actually get clarity.

All the while, this government just hit British Columbians with PST increases. They hit small businesses with PST increases to accounting and professional services, and this is making B.C. less competitive instead of more.

It’s more important than ever that we get interprovincial trade right because these businesses need this right now. The global economy has entered into a period of profound uncertainty. I understand that. I’m willing to look at this bill for its merits because I want our province to recognize this and actually change how we look at our national economic resilience.

Countries around the world are adopting protectionist policies, and the tariffs that contributed to the Great Depression in the 1930s, of course, are back, despite the U.S. Congress’s recent efforts to overturn them. Strategic competition between major powers is reshaping trade relationships. Supply chains that once seemed stable now look very fragile.

[2:45 p.m.]

I’ll use, again, that example of East Fraser Fiber in Mackenzie. They rely on a supply chain with the U.S. If we had a path for interprovincial trade barriers and our own economic resilience for made-in-B.C., made-in-Canada solutions, then they would be much better off.

In this environment that we’re in right now, Canada can’t afford this past approach that the government has taken on, and that includes opposing nation-building projects like interprovincial pipelines. The government, unfortunately, has been a barrier to Team Canada on that subject. In interprovincial trade, I want to see the government doing more to support Team Canada overall.

Given that we’ve been in this discussion for over a year now, and I said the same thing last year, Canada can’t afford to weaken itself with internal barriers that make it harder to trade with our own country than it is with foreign partners. The easiest trade barriers for Canada to remove are the ones that we put up against ourselves.

Again, during debate on last year’s legislation as part of Bill 7, I talked quite a bit about interprovincial trade barriers because I thought that was the only important factor within that legislation. I referenced a report from the C.D. Howe Institute titled Eyes on the Prize: A Game Plan to Speed Up Removal of Internal Trade Barriers Within Canada.

That report estimated that eliminating internal trade barriers could increase Canada’s GDP by up to $200 billion annually, simply by allowing Canadians to trade more freely with one another. That’s $200 billion — not from new taxes, not from new resource discoveries, not from foreign markets — from unlocking the potential of our own national economy.

The report also highlighted how internal barriers contribute to some of the most pressing challenges Canadians face: housing shortages, labour shortages, productivity gaps and supply chain inefficiencies. These are real, potential benefits that can affect affordability, job opportunities and economic security for families across the country. Families in British Columbia, in the uncertain time that we are in right now, need more economic security.

For the people I represent in Prince George–Mackenzie and for communities across northern B.C., in particular, interprovincial trade barriers and trade in general is an important topic. It’s a region that is export-dependent — global exports. But it could be an area where our region can open up, with more trade immediately to the east of us with our neighbouring provinces.

Our resources are the foundation of our economy in the North. Our region produces lumber that builds homes across Canada, energy that powers industries, agricultural products that feed families and equipment and services that support major projects nationwide. We produce for the country, not just for local consumption.

When barriers exist, those goods become less competitive, and that’s when projects stall, investment flows elsewhere and jobs disappear, as we’ve seen in the forest sector. Small and medium-sized businesses feel these impacts most acutely.

A contractor in Prince George does not have a compliance department to navigate ten different regulatory regimes across the country, just like a trucking company can’t afford delays caused by inconsistent rules between provinces. A manufacturer cannot redesign products to meet slightly different standards in each provincial jurisdiction.

Red tape doesn’t just slow down paperwork. It slows down paycheques for families in communities like Prince George and Mackenzie. With the downturn in our forest sector, people and businesses are really struggling. Much of this problem is stemming from a lack of access to fibre and unsustainable policy from our own government. For rural and northern communities, smoother interprovincial trade is important for our economic survival and long-term prosperity.

I had a contractor in my office in January who was seriously considering moving his business to Grande Prairie because they already worked in both provinces, in B.C. and Alberta. He talked about the ease of doing business in that province compared to B.C., with lower taxes and with less red tape.

I told him simply that I didn’t want that to happen. I didn’t want him to pack up and move. I wanted him to trust in staying with B.C. B.C. should be a more competitive jurisdiction, and he should be able to work across these artificial borders freely while raising his family in Prince George. We have to do better for people like this.

[2:50 p.m.]

Canadians encounter internal trade barriers in many aspects of their daily life. Perhaps the most widely recognized example involves alcohol. Beer, wine and spirits is a common example that the media cites every time this topic does come up. Canadians are often surprised to learn that it can be easier to import wine from Europe than to ship wine directly from Ontario to B.C. and vice versa.

Craft breweries, wineries and distilleries face complex provincial distribution systems that limit their ability to sell in Canada. Obviously, this is the type of example that I think people will be wondering about in discussions of this bill. These restrictions hurt small producers. They limit consumer choice and prevent Canadian businesses from reaching their full potential within their own country.

One of those producers is in my riding. Pacific Western Brewing has been employing people in Prince George and brewing their great beer for 69 years now, but it’s challenging for them. So I ask: will this bill make it easier for PWB to send their products across Canada? That’s something that I hope the government has some clear answers for. I’d like the government to just provide businesses like PWB with certainty.

One of their biggest issues is the requirement to send many of their products to the Liquor Distribution Branch warehouses in Kamloops or the Fraser Valley before the product can be sold, even within B.C. I’d like to break down the barriers that make that liquor distribution system such a barrier to trade both within B.C. and across Canada.

Transportation is another example. Trucking companies operating across provincial lines have to comply with different rules regarding vehicle weights, dimensions, permits and safety standards. These inconsistencies increase costs; cause delays; and, ultimately, raise prices for consumers.

Construction is another sector greatly affected, with differences in building codes. I talked about that one already in the case of those finger-joint products from East Fraser Fiber. Material standards are different across provinces. These can complicate projects that span provinces. They can increase costs for housing and infrastructure, at a time when affordability is already a major concern. Individually, these differences seem technical, but collectively, I think, they represent significant barriers to economic growth.

As Labour critic, one of my focus areas with this legislation — which I’ll be continuing to dive into, hopefully, when we get to committee stage as well — is really about what this legislation means for workers. A unified Canadian economy requires the movement of people and not just goods.

Across Canada, we face labour shortages in some regions and unemployment in others. Skilled trades are urgently needed for infrastructure, housing, energy development and resource projects, yet workers face barriers to employment because credentials recognized in one province are not automatically recognized in another.

A welder does not become less skilled at a provincial border. A nurse does not lose their training when they move west. A heavy-equipment operator doesn’t forget how to run machinery because paperwork differs in different provinces. A skilled worker doesn’t become unskilled just because they cross a provincial border. That’s a fact that we need to recognize and we need to try to harmonize across Canada.

Bill 5 doesn’t override occupational licensing systems. Those matters fall under the Labour Mobility Act. I think that is an important point just to reference here. Worker safety, training standards, apprenticeship systems and professional regulations exist for very, very good reasons, but I do wonder if this bill could do more to align with labour mobility. It’s a topic we shouldn’t forget about when we’re talking about trade and the world of work across Canada.

Another issue directly connected to my critic portfolio is occupational health and safety. Workplace safety rules are essential, and we should always be striving for improvement each and every day. Every worker deserves to go home safe at the end of every single day. That’s something that we can certainly all agree on. However, inconsistent safety regulations across provinces can create unnecessary complexity for companies and workers operating interprovincially.

[2:55 p.m.]

That can hurt safety as well, when employers and workers struggle to navigate the different rules across Canada. A construction company working in multiple provinces may need to comply with different training requirements, reporting procedures, equipment standards or certification processes, depending on where the work occurs.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

These differences do not necessarily improve safety, and often they create duplication, confusion and administrative burden. Safety rules should work to protect workers, not trap them in paperwork. Greater harmonization of occupational health and safety frameworks across Canada could maintain high standards while reducing unnecessary differences that impede mobility and project delivery. I hope that is an area that we can explore more in committee stage as well with this bill.

Harmonization must not become a race to the bottom at the same time as we talk about these standards as well. Mobility, I think, should raise opportunity, not lower standards. Worker protections have to remain strong, and safety requirements must remain robust. Fair wages should also not be undermined through what we’re looking at here.

What we’re looking at in what this means for British Columbia’s workers…. We’re talking about reciprocity. If British Columbia recognizes goods and services from other provinces, we must ensure that B.C. workers and businesses receive equal treatment elsewhere. Free trade within Canada has to work both ways, and B.C. workers deserve the same opportunities across the country that others will have here.

From Bill 7 debate last year, I recall the work that the Attorney General referenced in meeting with other provinces. I’d like to believe that some of those discussions can be enacted into action. In their answers, I haven’t heard it clearly yet but I hope the government can speak a bit more in detail about that in their responses, of how this work has been happening across Canada with other provinces right now and if we can actually do this in a meaningful and speedy way.

The bill also references Indigenous Peoples and exempts matters relating to Indigenous Peoples from automatic recognition provisions. Economic development, of course, I firmly believe, should include Indigenous communities, and implementation must respect rights while creating opportunity for shared prosperity, but I think it’s fair to ask how this affects our trade across provinces.

We want to make sure that Indigenous communities and non-Indigenous communities alike can benefit from trade and not be left behind, and we want to ensure that the public understands the need for this particular reference. I think the government will have to talk about this a little bit more during committee or perhaps in the second reading responses.

Other provinces have moved ahead. While British Columbia has been debating this issue over the past year, other provinces have taken concrete action. Nova Scotia introduced landmark legislation at this time last year, designed to remove interprovincial trade barriers through mutual recognition. Ontario has taken steps to improve labour mobility and streamline regulatory differences. Manitoba has also moved forward with initiatives to facilitate trade and mobility with other provinces.

These jurisdictions recognize that strengthening internal trade is one of the most practical ways to support economic growth and resilience. Other provinces, from what I’ve seen, are opening doors, but B.C. has been left behind, I think. We’re behind the times. We need to speed up what we’re doing here. We shouldn’t be at a disadvantage compared to workers and businesses in provinces that have been moving more decisively because we looked at tariff legislation that didn’t tackle this properly the first time.

This bill, of course, replaces provisions from Bill 7, the Economic Stabilization Act, that were supposed to address trade barriers through regulation. No meaningful action has been taken under those powers. We haven’t seen the regulations for them. And we didn’t just lose time in that; we lost opportunity. We should be leading, not playing catch-up.

I’m glad to be talking about interprovincial trade in the context of this bill, but we have to do this better. We have to be better as a province. This was an issue which didn’t suddenly emerge last year.

[3:00 p.m.]

Interprovincial trade, we firmly said, should have had stand-alone legislation, and members of the opposition introduced stand-alone legislation last year, specifically aimed at reducing interprovincial trade barriers.

The member for Nechako Lakes introduced Bill M203, Free Trade and Mobility within Canada Act. That proposal, of course, was not advanced by the government. They could have called that bill. It was modelled after the other provinces that we’re actually trying to trade with here.

Instead, we had a charade around Bill 7 that, unfortunately, wasted precious time that businesses needed, that British Columbians needed to actually get ahead. If action had been taken earlier, British Columbia could be leading nationally on internal trade reform. We could be…. At this point, we are catching up, and it’s unfortunate.

Bill 5 establishes a framework based on mutual recognition. We’re going back to what was in the member for Nechako Lakes’ bill. A lot of this is stand-alone legislation pulled out of Bill 7, but it does have exclusions and regulatory-making powers, and that is important.

The legislation alone doesn’t remove the barriers. The implementation of it actually does. Success of this bill will actually depend on how these regulations are developed, how quickly they’re enacted and whether they address real obstacles faced by workers and businesses.

The problem is that we’re now going to have to wait an unforeseen amount of time for those regulations. That’s why it’s more important that we find out what the government intends to do with regulations. We can’t afford to have this delay. Our businesses are already falling behind, with PST now being applied to professional services.

Bridgitte Anderson from the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade said this could be the final straw for many businesses. Let’s not keep letting them down. Let’s hear what these regulations actually are now so that businesses can have that certainty. I would have liked to see the government’s full plan aligned with other provinces rather than wait longer for these regulations to happen. I think it’s incumbent upon the government to explain more about that, and I’d like to see that very soon here.

We also don’t want to see that those regulations create unnecessary carve-outs or exemptions. That’s something that we’re only going to find out, by the looks of this bill and how it’s written, from the regulations. It could really water down this bill.

What do those regulations mean for businesses like Pacific Western Brewing, which I’ve already mentioned? These are legitimate questions, and I think they would help with overall enthusiasm for support for this bill.

Of course, we’re debating the principle of the bill, and we’ll get into whether it will actually work in committee. As Labour critic, I’m going to be looking closely in that committee stage on that reciprocity. I’m going to ask about worker protections, labour market impacts, safety standards, Indigenous engagement and measurable outcomes.

That’s what, unfortunately, we haven’t seen enough of from this government — outcomes. We want results for British Columbians and to not see them suffering and really moving behind economically.

Canadians believe in this country, its workers, its resources, its innovation and its future, but we must remove the barriers we have placed in our own path. When Canadians trade with other Canadians, I think everyone benefits.

Canada is one country. Our workers built it, power it, harvest its resources and keep communities running from coast to coast. They should not be held back by unnecessary barriers between provinces. If we trust Canadians to build this country, we should also trust them to work anywhere in it. Workers and businesses cannot afford another year of inaction that we’ve, unfortunately, seen.

I look forward to examining this legislation in detail at committee stage and working to ensure it delivers meaningful results for British Columbians and for Canadians as a whole.

George Anderson: I’m pleased to speak in support of Bill 5, the Trade Recognition Act.

In November, British Columbia brought together 13 provinces and territories and the federal government in an unprecedented collaboration. Together, we approved the Canadian mutual recognition agreement on the sale of goods, mutually recognizing regulatory measures to reduce barriers to the free movement of many goods across provinces.

[3:05 p.m.]

This agreement makes it easier for B.C. businesses to sell products across Canada and for people to buy Canadian-made goods. We are now building on that momentum.

This bill seeks to modernize British Columbia’s internal trade framework and advances British Columbia’s leadership in trade reform. I want to be clear. If you can build it, make it or provide it somewhere else in Canada, you should be able to do it here in British Columbia.

Internal trade barriers don’t protect British Columbians. They slow us down. They raise costs. They hold back opportunity. In the world we are living in today, we cannot afford to hold ourselves back. That’s the moment we’re in.

These are not normal economic times. Global supply chains are uncertain. Protectionism is rising. Economic nationalism is back. Everyday British Columbians are asking a simple question: is our economy strong enough to stand on its own? That’s what this bill is about.

When uncertainty rises outside our borders, our strength must come from inside them — inside our province, inside our country. Let me say this clearly. British Columbia’s future will be built in Canada and not negotiated away somewhere else.

The B.C. Conservatives might want us to be the 51st state, but we will never be the 51st state. We are not an economic branch for another country, and we will never build our prosperity by waiting for permission from somebody else.

Let’s talk about what this legislation does. Right now businesses are facing unnecessary duplication. They’re facing different approvals, different certifications, different administrative hoops. What are the results? The results are higher costs, slower timelines, less competitiveness.

This bill replaces temporary measures with a permanent framework that says that if a good or service is approved elsewhere in Canada, it can be recognized here. That means lower compliance costs, faster time to market, more consumer choice and stronger competitiveness for British Columbia businesses.

Critically, it does all of this without lowering our standards. There is no race to the bottom. Our environmental protections remain the same. Our health and safety standards remain. Our consumer protections remain. Economic strength and public protection are not opposites; they are partners.

This act replaces ESTRA part 1 with a permanent framework to reduce trade barriers in B.C. Businesses and consumers need certainty, and this legislation provides it. I know that the member for Prince George–Mackenzie has been talking about certainty. I’m glad that this legislation does exactly that, because it reduces unnecessary duplication. If a good may be sold or used elsewhere in Canada, it may be sold or used here in British Columbia. If a service may be supplied in another province, it can be supplied in British Columbia.

Bill 5 proposes to ensure that businesses will no longer need to do retesting, approvals or certification for goods and services that may be sold, used or provided in another province. Again, this lowers compliance costs, speeds up the time to market and ultimately provides lower prices and more choice for consumers.

B.C. proposed and chaired negotiations to conclude the CMRA. The parties may seek to extend the agreement to cover services, as this is a major component of Canada’s economy. If the CMRA were to cover services, the bill would help to immediately bring those elements of the agreement into force, as British Columbia will have a legislative regime in place to recognize services that may be supplied in other provinces.

[3:10 p.m.]

This approach aligns with national commitments, complementing the Canadian mutual recognition agreement and the Canadian free trade agreement, and demonstrates British Columbia’s leadership in modernizing internal trade.

This legislation maintains the ability for British Columbia to regulate health, safety, the environment and consumer protection, ensuring our standards remain strong while reducing unnecessary barriers.

Our friends on the other side like to bring up the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade. Well, let me tell you. The work that our government is doing directly responds to what business organizations like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business have spoken about, what the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade have spoken about — who support mutual recognition across the country.

We are committed to continuing the work with our partners to support the free movement of labour, alcohol, financial services and other services to make it easier to trade within Canada. This work also aligns with our Look West strategy and its goals of diversifying trade, expanding markets and ensuring British Columbia remains a leader in Canada’s economic future.

So why does this matter to everyday British Columbians? It matters because this bill isn’t just about paperwork. It’s about people. It’s about the small manufacturer in Nanaimo trying to ensure that goods can actually reach Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the other provinces within our country. It’s about the tradesperson who wants to work where opportunity exists.

I’ve gone and I’ve lived in other provinces, and let me tell you, this bill will make it much easier for the next generation to be able to thrive within our country.

It’s about the entrepreneur who doesn’t have a compliance department. It’s very easy to often talk about the big company, but what I care about are the small businesses within all of our communities that actually drive our economy.

Every unnecessary barrier is a hidden tax on ambition. When we remove those barriers, we don’t just improve efficiency. We actually unlock potential for our small businesses.

I want to address the debate we often hear because when it comes to the economy, there are two approaches. One approach is to talk about growth. The other is to actually remove the barriers to it. One approach is slogans, and the other is solutions.

If I might say, the opposition tells us they support businesses, yet they don’t always support the work required to make that business easier for those small businesses. They call for growth, but then they oppose the actual tools that are going to make it possible for those businesses to be successful.

I think we’ve heard it today. They call for competitiveness but then resist that modernization. And, Mr. Speaker, you’ll know this, and I’d say for some of the people who are choosing to watch Hansard today…. They’ll call for leadership. The opposition will call for leadership, but you know what they’ll do? They prefer a press conference rather than progress.

Economic growth doesn’t come from press releases. It just doesn’t. I know that my friends on the other side are having a good laugh because they are thinking about the next slogan that they’re actually going to put out next in a press release. But what I can tell you is the great thing is that we’re focused on actual policy that’s going to deliver results for British Columbians.

[3:15 p.m.]

I’ve been listening carefully to what the Conservatives have been talking about, and as I mentioned already, the member for Prince George–Mackenzie talked about creating certainty. They’ll say they want less red tape, but here we are actually bringing solutions that are going to make it better for everyday British Columbians, that are going to make it better for small businesses, that are going to make it easier for us to do the work that we need to in this province and across the country.

Then all of a sudden, they’ll have concerns, talking about how we should actually delay things. Suddenly, they have concerns about change.

They say they want a stronger economy. Here we are, streamlining internal trade. Guess what happens next. Delay.

Some people have actually heard me say this before, especially when I’ve talked about construction. The most expensive material in construction today is delay.

That’s what we are experiencing from the Conservatives right now. They delay the work that British Columbians are asking for, which is to stand up for our country and to stand up in a way that makes sure that British Columbia is the most prosperous place in our country. Every moment that we have had the opportunity to advance good work on behalf of British Columbians, unfortunately, the opposition chooses to hesitate. At some point….

Interjection.

George Anderson: Oh, are you trying out a new slogan? I’m looking forward to the new slogan you’re trying out. That’s great. I’m looking forward to the press release you’ll put out. But anyway….

Deputy Speaker: Members, thanks very much for your input, but I’d like to hear the comments from Nanaimo-Lantzville.

George Anderson: That being said, at some point you actually have to decide about what you want to achieve and accomplish. Do you want less red tape, or do you just want to talk about less red tape? Cutting a ribbon is easy, but cutting red tape is actually leadership. That’s what we’re seeing under this minister, the Minister for Jobs and Economic Growth — real leadership that is going to ensure that British Columbia leads Canada and is the economic engine for our country.

I want to talk about something bigger. I want to talk about how national strength is important for our province. It shouldn’t be easier for us to trade north to south. We should be able to trade easily from east to west. It’s something that I’ve talked about in looking at our ports and how we can ensure that the infrastructure that exists within our country actually allows us to build across the country.

I give the example of the 2021 Coquihalla shutdown, which actually stopped trade from occurring across Canada. I’m glad you’ve recognized that it is partly your fault.

Our prosperity should not depend on how open someone else’s markets feel this week. Our prosperity in British Columbia should depend on how well Canada works for Canadians and how it works for British Columbians. This is what this legislation supports: a strong internal economy; a more integrated country; a Canada that trades with itself first and, confidently, with the world second.

This legislation creates practical implementation tools. If a regulator maintains a measure that doesn’t align, the responsible minister can require it to be amended or repealed. That matters, because good policy without accountability is just good intentions. British Columbians don’t just want good intentions. They want results. I agree with the member for Prince George–Mackenzie that we need to be delivering results for everyday British Columbians.

Let’s look at what the goal is for our province overall. Let’s take that step back. What kind of province do we want to be? A place where opportunity gets stuck in the process, or a place where talent can move, ideas can scale and businesses can grow? I know which province I’d like. For some of the people on the other side, I’m not too sure if they’re aware.

[3:20 p.m.]

The future economy will move fast, and the jurisdictions that will win will be the ones that are faster, the ones that are simpler, the ones that are more predictable and the ones that are more confident. This bill is about building that kind of province.

I’ve said this before, but I want to say it again clearly and directly. Leadership is not about saying yes to everything. Leadership is about removing what no longer makes sense. Leadership is about making the system work for people, not the other way around. And leadership is preparing for the economy we are heading into, not the one we remember.

In uncertain times, some voices look outward and ask: “What will the United States do?” But our question should be different. What will Canada do? Our future will not be decided in Washington. It will be built in communities like Nanaimo-Lantzville. It’ll be built in communities like Prince George–Mackenzie. It’ll be built in Surrey, Kelowna and in every community where people are ready to work, build and grow.

We are not the 51st state. We are a country of provinces working together, and the stronger our internal economy is, the better our country will be. Bill 5 is a necessary and practical step forward as we look to modernize our internal trade rules.

The Trade Recognition Act provides new opportunities for B.C. businesses by opening up new markets inside of Canada. It means there will be greater investment opportunities here in B.C., which will drive economic growth and help create good jobs for people in every sector across our province.

The Trade Recognition Act is forward-looking and sets the stage for B.C. to continue its national leadership on breaking down internal and interprovincial trade barriers. We just need to look at Bill 5 and know that it is balanced, it’s practical, it’s forward-looking. And it does exactly what good economic policy should do. It removes barriers. It protects standards. It strengthens competitiveness and supports British Columbians, like my friend right here.

The choice before this House is simple. Do we keep talking about growth, or do we actually make it easier to grow? Do we keep defending the status quo, or do we build the economy British Columbians need for the future? I have four nephews and a niece, and my hope is that we do everything possible to ensure that British Columbia is there for them.

There’s a book that I read a couple of years ago. It’s called If Science is to Save Us, and the premise of that book is whether or not we have a duty to be a good ancestor. I think all of us in this building, regardless of where we sit, on the opposition benches or on government benches, want to achieve that goal, achieving the goal of where we lead in British Columbia, where we are ensuring that our young people, our seniors — everyone — have the opportunity to be successful.

When we look at the next century of prosperity, it’s not going to be built just by being cautious. It’s going to be built through confidence. I feel grateful every single day to be working in a government where we recognize that our people are the strongest economic policy that we have.

[3:25 p.m.]

Confidence in our workers. Confidence in our businesses. Confidence in our province and in our country. Confidence that when Canadians trade with Canadians, there is no limit to what we can achieve. What I know about that is that it’s going to be British Columbians who lead that charge that says: “Our best days are ahead of us.”

We know that when we try to get something from Newfoundland, when we try to get something from Ontario, when people try to live across this province, that’s what makes us stronger as a country. It’s not continuing to look at the old days of where we just said, “No, I would much rather get something from a different country in the world,” despite being able to get something from Ontario, whatever that good might be.

On that note, I’ll just begin to conclude, because it’s important that many other members in this House have the opportunity to debate this bill and talk about how we can actually build a better province, rather than just listening to me talk about what I think is great for this province.

I’ve said it before. I’ll say it again. We need to reduce duplication. We need to reduce the barriers that make it difficult for consumers to be successful and to give the businesses and consumers the certainty in legislation that they want. Certainty is important. What I will tell you is that we need to make sure that we advance economic growth in this province.

As I conclude, the Trade Recognition Act is forward-looking, and it’ll put British Columbia on the necessary stage to be a leader nationally by breaking down these internal provincial barriers. I hope that every single member of this House will recognize why it’s important to move ahead in this direction and vote in support of this bill.

Ian Paton: I appreciate the opportunity to get up today and speak to Bill 5, the Trade Recognition Act.

I think we’ve proven it here this afternoon on this side of the House that we’re actually in favour of getting moving with recognizing that we have too many trade barriers across the provinces and British Columbia. Rather than throw out grade 5 derogatory comments to the other side of the House about a bill that we actually all are probably going to agree that it’s important we move forward on, and taking Bill 7 and making it into Bill 7-lite….

As to Bill 5, I think it’s time that we move on with getting this done, rather than standing here for another term and talking about how we can remove interprovincial trade barriers.

As the critic for Agriculture for my party and as a farmer myself living on our family farm in Delta, I find it extremely important to the agricultural trade business in Canada and British Columbia to move forward with removing barriers to trade for such things as vegetables, fruit; vegetable and fruit packaging; meat, inconsistent meat inspection regulations; the wine industry; moving equipment and farm equipment across provinces in this country; moving livestock; the trucking industry and the regulations about trucking going back and forth between our provinces; and also safety regulations and weights when it comes to agriculture; and to health and safety when it comes to agriculture and livestock.

[3:30 p.m.]

This is costing Canada $1.7 billion a year in agricultural trade by not being able to open up trade between provinces for agricultural products.

Let me begin. Clearly, the B.C. Conservative caucus supports removing interprovincial trade barriers. We support making it easier for goods and services to move across Canada. We support economic growth, competition and lower costs for British Columbians.

Hot off the press, just this morning, from the Business in Vancouver article “B.C. Wineries Press Premiers to Allow Direct Wine Sales Across Our Country”:

“Christa-Lee McWatters is among B.C. winery executives lobbying to be able to sell wine directly to consumers across Canada. They want provincial governments to remove interprovincial trade barriers and allow direct-to-consumer wine sales from out-of-province wineries.

“‘We’re always looking for other markets and to be able to increase sales,’ said McWatters, vice-president of Osoyoos’ Adega on 45th Winery and Surrey’s Gate 22 Winery. ‘To not be able to ship within our own country, really, is ludicrous.’

“Being able to sell direct-to-consumer wine across the country would enable her wineries to sell more wine and have a larger slice of overall sales, being in the more profitable DTC sales channel.

“Wine Growers B.C. CEO Jeff Guignard was among wine industry leaders who recently signed a letter to the Premiers on January 27, demanding that they act on their commitment to reduce interprovincial trade barriers.”

This bill is a response to the federal government and all provinces and territories signing a new Canadian mutual recognition agreement designed to break down internal trade barriers so that goods legally sold in one province can be sold in another. The agreement is intended to help businesses market their products across Canada more easily and give Canadians greater access to Canadian-made goods without facing redundant standards or approvals.

This all seems reasonable, but when we look closely at Bill 5, B.C.’s response to this larger federal agreement, we still see a lot of protection, provincial red tape, prohibitive tax structures and protection of monopolies that make this bill less effective.

Of course, we can’t ignore just how long it’s taken to get here.

This bill requires serious scrutiny to ensure that it’s actually effective and not just a promise, like last year’s Bill 7. Members will remember last year’s Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act, commonly known as Bill 7. Part 1 of that act granted government the authority to create regulations to reduce interprovincial trade barriers. The authority was there. The tools were there. The urgency was declared.

Yet after 12 months, not a single order was issued to reduce trade barriers on goods or services. Not one. It took a year to write 835 words, and now we wait again. A new bill. Heaven knows how long these regulations will take. A year lost.

What happened? We were told Bill 7 was urgent. We were told it was action. We were told it was necessary to respond to economic pressures. But it turns out it was political theatre. Now we are told Bill 5 is the real solution, after a year. If this was so urgent last year, why the delay?

British Columbians are disappointed that interprovincial trade hasn’t happened yet. So let’s take a look at the new so-called interprovincial trade bill and see if it’s going to get us any closer to being able to enjoy goods and services from across Canada.

At its core, Bill 5 establishes a straightforward principle. If a good can be bought, sold or used in another province of Canada, it can be bought, sold or used in British Columbia. If a service can be supplied in another province, it can be supplied here in British Columbia.

That is common sense. Canada is one country, and we support that principle. But principles only matter if they are implemented. Implementation requires regulations, which brings me to the central themes of Bill 5 debate, which are delay, red tape and overregulation.

[3:35 p.m.]

Let’s look at some of the clauses in the bill to see how these themes play out. Clause 2, “Sale and use of goods.” Division 1 of Bill 5 says that a good legally sold or used in another province can be sold or used in British Columbia despite any existing regulatory measure. That sounds strong, but there are two important limits. It’s subject to division 2, and it’s subject to regulations.

Division 2 sets out the exceptions and exclusions — the situations where mutual recognition does not necessarily apply. That includes areas like monopolies, taxation, Indigenous rights and other protected regulatory measures. In other words, even if a product is legal elsewhere, division 2 allows the government to decide that it can’t be used here.

Division 2, clause 4, “Post-entry rules.” Now let’s dig deeper into the division 2 part of this bill. Clause 4 preserves regulatory measures about how a good is sold or used; how a service is supplied; who may sell, purchase or use a good; to whom a service may be supplied.

The breadth of this language matters. If interpreted expansively, it could significantly narrow the automatic recognition promised in clauses 2 and 3. For example, let’s talk about something practical — fruits and vegetables. Right now a grower shipping produce across provincial lines can face different packaging and labelling rules in different provinces. That means separate packaging runs, separate inventory, separate compliance costs for fruit and vegetable producers. Those costs are not theoretical. They come straight off the bottom line from a farmer.

In principle, Bill 5 should help. If produce is legally packaged and sold in another province, it ought to be sellable here in British Columbia without forcing growers to redesign boxes or reprint labels just to cross a provincial border.

But here is the concern. This bill is subject to exclusion. It is subject to post-entry rules, and more importantly, it is subject to future regulations that we don’t even know exist yet. If other provinces or B.C. chooses to preserve B.C.-specific packaging requirements under regulation, then nothing changes. Growers will still face duplication, consumers will still pay more, and we have passed a framework without delivering relief.

The question is simple. Will this bill truly eliminate unnecessary packaging barriers for our fruit and vegetable producers, or will they still be waiting for regulations while costs continue to rise? It’s a thoughtful consideration to how this will be implemented and the ramifications of post-entry rules that make the difference between symbolism and results for all sectors facing duplicate post-entry ramifications.

Clause 5. I want to focus specifically on clause 5, because while it may look technical, its implications are very real for farmers, health care, seniors, businesses and consumers in this province. Clause 5 excludes regulatory measures relating to the maintenance of a monopoly, taxation and incorporation. Each of those words carries weight, and each of them narrows the reach of this bill.

Let’s begin with taxation. Under this bill, it doesn’t say that goods produced in B.C. will have competitive tax advantages to similar products coming from other provinces.

Let me provide an agriculture example. The exclusion for taxation means this bill does nothing to address provincial sales tax on critical farm inputs. A B.C. farmer purchasing some equipment or emerging tools like a precision agricultural system still pays PST, even though competitors in other provinces do not. So you can get an agricultural drone in Alberta, while a B.C. company trying to sell the same drone pays tax. I wonder where people will buy their agricultural products. Likely not in B.C.

That cost difference affects competitiveness as well. It affects margins. For many family farms operating on tight budgets, it affects survival. If we are serious about making British Columbia more competitive across Canada, we cannot ignore the taxation carve-out that includes PST, sitting right in clause 5.

Looking at PST and how it affects B.C. businesses who produce products is a must, or else we just open up our borders to competition without giving our own businesses the same competitive advantages — essentially disadvantaging them in the national economy.

Now let’s consider monopoly protections. British Columbia maintains monopolies in areas like liquor distribution, cannabis distribution, insurance through ICBC, electricity transmission and distribution through B.C. Hydro, and B.C. Ferry Services. Clause 5 explicitly protects the maintenance of a monopoly. That means entire sectors can remain closed or tightly controlled, despite the rhetoric of open trade.

[3:40 p.m.]

Why does this matter? It’s because it shows that the government is choosing to preserve its control rather than promote competition. Our B.C. craft breweries, wineries and distillers will all be exempt because this still doesn’t allow for direct sales to the consumers in other provinces.

Where government decides a monopoly should remain, this act simply steps aside. That sets a precedent that limits how broadly mutual recognition can apply, leaving entire sectors shielded from the benefits of open trade.

Then there are the issues of preserving existing regulatory frameworks. This is why we must scrutinize clause 5 carefully and demand clarity. Who benefits? Who remains excluded?

Let’s look at things like health care supplies and seniors. We need to look at if provincial purchasing systems, hospital formularies or seniors care supply frameworks are treated as protected regulatory structures. If they are, then the benefits of mutual recognition may never reach the people who need them most — care homes and seniors who could continue facing higher costs, limited choice and unnecessary red tape under this trade bill.

Labour mobility. Clause 9 says this bill doesn’t apply where the Labour Mobility Act already governs extraprovincial occupations. So clause 9 essentially says that where these regulated-occupation mobility systems already exist, with processes to assess and transfer certification, Bill 5 defers to that model, instead of creating a new one within this act. That avoids duplication, sure, but it doesn’t guarantee an automatic right to work across provinces for professionals.

While many skilled trades and professional roles are included, not everyone is, and it relies on a patchwork of existing rules that vary by occupation. This affects people that work as electricians, plumbers, carpenters, welders, engineers, architects, accountants, veterinarians, professional biologists, agrologists, notaries, lawyers, paramedics, nurses, LPNs, etc.

All these people still have to navigate B.C.’s separate certification or regulatory processes, even if they’re fully qualified elsewhere. They still need to meet B.C.’s professional standards, insurance requirements and other regulatory rules.

This clause slows down critical health care staffing, delays construction and infrastructure projects and keeps skilled workers from contributing where they are needed. It’s a clause that tells skilled workers to continue to wait.

Internal trade barriers cost Canadians billions of dollars every year. Removing them is a good policy. It’s common sense, and we support it, but leadership requires urgency. This government had the authority, under Bill 7, for a full year and did nothing. Now it presents Bill 5 and asks us to celebrate, while implementation still waits on regulations, cabinet discretion, protections for monopolies and taxes that block real competition.

In this bill, we must scrutinize the exclusions. We must know what the post-entry rules actually mean for businesses in this province.

British Columbians cannot afford another year of waiting. We need regulation that won’t continue to cripple interprovincial trade. Let’s get things moving, and let’s remove the barriers from province to province for all products and professions across Canada.

Hon. Rick Glumac: I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill 5, the Trade Recognition Act. I am glad to see that members of the opposition are in support of this bill as well.

When I served as Minister of State for Trade, which was my previous role, I talked to a lot of businesses. I heard from most business leaders, whether B.C. businesses or businesses from outside of B.C., that the interprovincial trade barriers made no sense.

[3:45 p.m.]

Canada is one country or one economy, but interprovincial trade barriers increase costs, administrative overhead and time spent on compliance. They slow down the flow of goods across our provincial boundaries and they decrease consumer choice, making it more difficult to buy Canadian at a time when all of us want to spend our money to support Canadian businesses.

These barriers have made it so difficult for businesses to trade in domestic markets that many businesses source their inputs from and export their products to the United States because it’s easier than exporting to the next province over. It should be easy to buy Canadian products, but sometimes you can walk into a store and there might not be a single made-in-Canada product on the shelves.

Time and time again, we’ve heard that these barriers are bad for business, they’re bad for consumers, they’re bad for productivity, and they need to go. But interprovincial trade barriers have hung on for many years, and they’ve, in some cases, gotten worse over time.

Even as provinces negotiated the agreement on internal trade, the new west partnership trade agreement and the Canada free trade agreement, Canada still struggled to eliminate its barriers to interprovincial trade. Then, of course, with Trump coming into the presidency and imposing tariffs on its neighbours and allies, it was the motivation that we needed to come together and unify around the need to move quickly to tear down these barriers.

British Columbia has led this work. Last year we passed Bill 7, the Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act, which established B.C.’s recognition of goods and services sold in other provinces and territories.

This legislation was pulled together in a time of great uncertainty. As we all tried to make sense of where things were at with tariffs, it set out in law that if a good or service is sold in another province, it can be sold in B.C. without further testing, approval or certification. But because it was emergency legislation, this part of Bill 7 sunsets in May of this year.

Here in B.C., we need to continue taking action to protect British Columbians and our economy from the effects of these tariffs. Bill 5 will make these measures permanent and ensure that B.C. businesses have the edge they need to protect themselves during this period of global destabilization.

In November, B.C. and every other province and territory signed the Canadian mutual recognition act. The CMRA is an agreement among all provinces that we will mutually recognize each other’s approvals and certifications for goods, excluding food and alcohol. B.C. spearheaded this agreement and pushed it across the finish line in unprecedented time.

The CMRA makes it substantially easier for goods to travel within Canada. Where businesses and prospective exporters used to have to navigate thousands of regulations in each province they wanted to do business in, now they’ll be able to reference a simple list of exceptions for each province. If an exception isn’t listed, then goods can be sold in that province.

Bill 5 is the legislation that will enable B.C. to fully align with the CMRA. This will significantly reduce administrative costs, get goods to market faster and strengthen competitiveness for B.C. businesses. I would argue that one of the most important aspects of Bill 5 is that it’ll increase opportunities in B.C.

We know B.C. is a global leader in many sectors. We are globally competitive, and we have some of the greatest products that are created right here in this province. When Canadian provinces like B.C. are looking to the world for investments and new relationships, we’ve always been confronted with the reality that we’ve been stuck with these interprovincial trade barriers. That’s the way it’s always been.

[3:50 p.m.]

This is not something that other countries have to deal with. Most of our trading partners don’t have these kinds of internal trade barriers. That was making Canada, as a country, less competitive.

We have some of the best businesses in the world right here in B.C., and Bill 5 will help unlock new opportunities for them. In my current role as Minister of State for AI and New Technologies, I’ve had the opportunity to meet with incredible, innovative tech companies that are growing right here in B.C. There are start-ups and scale-ups that are always looking for investors to help them grow.

With tech as a rapidly growing sector in B.C. — in fact, the fastest-growing sector in B.C. — these are businesses that provide good-paying jobs for British Columbians today and into the future. But with the investment uncertainty that interprovincial trade barriers have had historically, these businesses have been at a disadvantage.

B.C. has an unrivalled tech ecosystem with more than 12,000 companies and many companies in the AI space and quantum space that are world-leading. We have the educational institutions and the amazing talent. We have a government that is fully supportive of B.C.’s tech sector. And through our Look West plan, we are positioning AI and quantum as priority sectors for economic growth.

In just the past couple of years, we’ve seen in the AI sector the number of companies more than double to over 600 companies. Our government is committed to building on the growing momentum of this industry and making sure all British Columbians are ready to seize the opportunities ahead. But now more than ever, we need to be able to attract investment so that we can keep jobs here in B.C. Bill 5 is a critical piece of that puzzle.

Estimates from the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade highlight that reducing internal trade barriers in Canada could generate a $7.6 billion increase in B.C.’s GDP. Exporters will be able to expand into new domestic markets, but they’ll also be able to benefit from new domestic and foreign investment. This benefits all of us in British Columbia. It means more jobs. It means higher wages, greater consumer choice as well as the stronger public services that come with increased provincial revenues.

There are many benefits to reducing interprovincial trade barriers, and while B.C. has been moving with great urgency, we also know that we must continue to protect British Columbia’s health and safety, as well as the environment. Bill 5 does that. B.C. has the strongest standards for health, safety and environment, and that’s something we’ll never sacrifice.

B.C. will retain full authority to make regulations and safeguard our hard-fought protections and will be transparent about which exceptions to mutual recognition we will make. This will be a publicly available list, as with every other province, so that businesses can have predictability and confidence.

The Trade Recognition Act is practical, forward-looking legislation that will help B.C. continue to respond to the instability caused by tariffs. Bill 5 will reduce unnecessary duplication of regulations that cause significant overhead for B.C. businesses. It will also allow B.C. businesses to more easily expand into domestic markets, opening new destinations for B.C.’s world-class products.

It provides more opportunities for British Columbians to buy Canadian, and it will strengthen B.C.’s economic competitiveness and attract new investments, both of which are critical to the continued success of B.C.’s strong and growing tech sector.

Bill 5 meets the moment, and I hope members will join me. I have heard a lot of support so far in voicing their support for this critical legislation so we can continue to break down interprovincial trade barriers, grow B.C.’s economy and unlock millions of dollars of potential investments that will drive B.C.’s future.

Deputy Speaker: We will be turning to our online participants. We’ll take a very brief recess. We’ll be in recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 3:55 p.m. to 4:02 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: All right, Members. We’re going to call the chamber back to order. We had a little technical problem, but I believe we’ve got that sorted out, or I certainly hope we do.

Gavin Dew: I’m pleased today to speak to Bill 5, the Trade Recognition Act.

In plain language, this bill is meant to make it easier for goods and services that are legally sold or supplied in other provinces to be sold or supplied right here in British Columbia. The idea is mutual recognition, to cut down on duplicate certification, duplicate approvals and needless barriers that make it harder for businesses to expand and harder for consumers to benefit from real competition.

We support that concept. On our side of the House, we are firmly in favour of reducing red tape. In fact, to answer the questions of those members in the House who have been texting me to inquire about the giant blue scissors in my background, those are my red-tape-cutting blue scissors.

You’re more than welcome to borrow them anytime.

Deputy Speaker: Normally, we wouldn’t allow props. But I think this afternoon, we’ll take it, Member.

Gavin Dew: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that that’s definitely not a prop. That’s simply a part of the background decor of my office. But I appreciate your flexibility in that regard.

We support the goal of reducing interprovincial trade barriers and making Canada’s internal markets work better for British Columbians. That is good for workers. It’s good for businesses that want to grow, and it’s good for families who have been paying too much for too long. But supporting the concept does not mean giving this bill a free pass.

We have questions about the mechanics. We have constructive questions about how this will actually work in practice, especially given the significant discretion that is left to regulation and implementation. We have questions about whether this government is prepared to do the hard follow-through required for a bill like this to deliver real-world results.

[4:05 p.m.]

It is also impossible to discuss Bill 5 without discussing the context. The government is not arriving at this issue fresh. Bill 5 comes in the shadow of last year’s Bill 7, which was one of the primary pieces of legislation in the House last year. Bill 7 was introduced with a lot of urgency and a lot of tough talk, including demands for aggressive powers in the name of immediate action.

People will remember what happened next. Bill 7 landed with sweeping language and sweeping authority. It immediately triggered widespread concern about overreach and a lack of legislative oversight. Critics warned it went far beyond a targeted tariff response. Then, as the backlash grew, the Premier publicly walked back a major chunk of the bill, announcing the removal of what many described as the most extraordinary section and acknowledging it did not strike the right balance between fast action and democratic safeguards.

So when the government now comes forward with Bill 5 and asks the House to trust the follow-through, it is fair and necessary to remember the Bill 7 pattern: urgent rhetoric, first; controversy, second; retreat, third. And still very little evidence of real-world action that matches the scale of the powers this government demanded.

Bill 7 was sold to this province as urgent. It was wrapped in emergency language, moral certainty and a promise of decisive action. Then, after all that noise, British Columbians have seen basically nothing. We are still awaiting evidence that the government used those aggressive powers to drive meaningful regulatory changes. We are still awaiting evidence that the government actually followed through in a serious way on the procurement rhetoric that surrounded Bill 7. We are still awaiting proof that the government did more than posture. That is why we keep coming back to Bill 7.

Under Bill 7, the government insisted it needed extraordinary tools because everything was urgent. Fine. But where is the public scoreboard? Which specific regulatory measures were actually changed using those powers? Which barriers were actually removed? Which ministries issued directives and then followed them through? Where is the evidence that procurement rules were materially altered in a way that actually changed purchasing decisions on the ground?

We heard the tough talk. We saw the controversy. We watched the retreat. What British Columbians have not seen is transparent proof of results. If the government wants trust on Bill 5, it needs to start by showing that it has used the powers it already asked for.

This matters for Bill 5 because Bill 5 is another bill where the government will make big claims and then ask British Columbians to trust that the follow-through will come later. But British Columbians have learned that later too often means never or not in any way that changes life outside this chamber.

So yes, we will support this bill. We will support it because we agree with the objective. But we will also insist on something this government has struggled with: accountability for results.

Now let us turn to what Bill 5 actually does. At its core, Bill 5 creates a mutual recognition rule. Goods and services that are legally sold or supplied in another province can generally be sold or supplied here. That should reduce formal entry barriers. It should help some businesses avoid duplicative testing, duplicative approvals and duplicative certification.

It is also worth noting that industry has identified positive features of this bill. One is that it makes mutual recognition permanent and removes the uncertainty of a sunset clause. Businesses plan investments and expansions based on stable frameworks, not temporary measures that could disappear.

Another is that it is unilateral. It does not depend on B.C. negotiating reciprocity agreements province by province. It is a default approach that, in theory, should lower barriers more quickly.

Industry has also pointed out that Bill 5 generally aligns B.C. law with the Canadian mutual recognition agreement framework, which is a direction many in the business community support.

[4:10 p.m.]

All of that is certainly constructive. But the strongest area for focus is what is not included, what is not guaranteed and what may still prevent real market access, even if paper entry becomes easier. There is a risk, and it is a real and serious one, that Bill 5 makes entry easier on paper while leaving practical barriers in place. This is where it helps to separate two concepts that get mashed together in government talking points.

The first is formal market entry. Can a product be sold here at all? Can a service be supplied here at all?

The second is practical market access. Can a company actually operate here in a commercially realistic way? Can it distribute? Can it market? Can it meet licensing rules? Can it navigate retail restrictions? Will enforcement practices effectively block it anyway?

Bill 5 heavily focuses on the first concept, but the bill also very explicitly preserves B.C.’s authority over post-entry rules. Under division 2, particularly sections 4 and 5, the bill preserves B.C.’s authority over how goods and services are sold, used or delivered once they are in the market. It also contains carve-outs, including monopolies, taxes, Indigenous Peoples and incorporation.

Now, there are entirely legitimate reasons to preserve some post-entry rules. Nobody wants mutual recognition to override local rules in absurd ways. But, as industry has rightly flagged, the way section 4 is written can operate as an escape valve.

If post-entry rules are interpreted broadly, then barriers may simply relocate rather than disappear. So a business might avoid a redundant certification requirement at the front end but still face a maze of operational requirements once inside: distribution rules, licensing rules, retail rules, marketing rules and enforcement practices that still shape whether it makes commercial sense to serve British Columbia. Entry may be easier on paper, but practical market access can still depend on those operational rules and on their enforcement.

Here is what I mean by the difference between paper entry and practical access. Imagine a small manufacturer in Alberta that makes a building product, something boring but essential like insulation, fasteners or a component used in HVAC. If it is already lawfully sold there, mutual recognition should mean they do not have to redo the same testing and certification just to serve customers in B.C. That is the promise.

But if, once the product is in, they face a thicket of post-entry requirements around distribution, labelling, retail rules or approvals that function like a second gate, the practical outcome is the same: higher costs, fewer suppliers and less competition. So we can pass a bill and declare the doors open, but if the hallway is still blocked, families and businesses will not necessarily see lower prices.

On services, think about a specialized service that businesses rely on, like equipment inspection, technical maintenance or certain kinds of consulting. If a firm can legally supply that service in another province, mutual recognition should help them to offer it here without running into duplicative hurdles. That should mean more competition and better pricing for B.C. businesses, which is ultimately positive for the consumer, for people and families.

Again, if the post-entry rules around licensing, permitted scope of work or who can serve whom are interpreted broadly, then recognition becomes theoretical. A company may be allowed to supply the service but not in a way that is necessarily commercially workable. That’s why the mechanics matter and why section 4 must not become a loophole.

That is a key point because the government will be tempted to declare victory the moment this bill passes. But businesses do not live in the statute book or in government press releases. They live in day-to-day operations where the full scope of limitations on their ability to do business remain highly relevant, not just the ones that are foregrounded in this bill or in government communications.

[4:15 p.m.]

If the government wants to claim that this bill reduces barriers, it needs to prove that those post-entry rules are not being used to preserve the same obstacles under a different label. Now, this is also where the comparison to Bill 7 matters again. A key difference between the interprovincial trade framework that was being discussed in Bill 7 and what is being done in Bill 5 is how regulatory change is likely to happen.

Bill 7 pushed regulators toward amending or removing rules that conflicted with the recognition framework. It was, arguably, more forceful, more aggressive. That was part of why it triggered push-back and concerns.

Bill 5 keeps a similar tool. Ministers can still ask regulators to change rules and can step in if they do not do so, but Bill 5 also explicitly preserves B.C.’s authority over how goods and services are sold or delivered once they are in the market. So the extent of regulatory change will depend on how broadly those post-entry rules are interpreted and how actively ministers actually use their powers to resolve conflicts.

Let me put that in one sentence, because it is the heart of the critique. Bill 5, as I said before, may open the door, but it does not guarantee the hallway is not still blocked.

Now, there is another theme we need to put on the record. Limitations remain, even under the national mutual recognition approach. There are major categories that have been excluded or limited under the CMRA framework, including categories like food, live animals, alcoholic beverages, cannabis, tobacco and plants. In addition, governments can adopt specific carve-outs that allow them to retain requirements in areas they choose to exempt, listed under annex A in the CMRA agreement.

If the government wants to talk about affordability, it should also acknowledge that this bill will not touch some of the categories that matter most — that cost people and families feel every week. If the government wants to talk about leadership, it should also explain what carve-outs B.C. intends to keep and why, and how it will ensure that those carve-outs do not become permanent excuses for inaction.

Trade barriers are not just about whether something is allowed in theory. They are about whether something is allowed in practice. That brings me to another missing piece: trucking and logistics. Trade is movement. Goods do not magically teleport between provinces. If we do not align rules that affect interprovincial trucking and the movement of goods, then internal trade remains expensive and fragmented, regardless of legal framework.

Industry is telling us that B.C. has not clearly signalled intent to join the MOU partnership on interprovincial trucking. If that is true, it raises a basic question for this government. Is B.C. truly serious about reducing internal trade costs, or is B.C. only serious about passing bills that sound good? If B.C. is engaged, what is the timeline, and what changes will British Columbia actually see? If B.C. is not engaged on the trucking front, why not?

Now I want to return to section 4, because this is where the mechanics really matter. Section 4 appears to preserve government’s ability to regulate products and services after they have entered the province. There are entirely legitimate reasons to have some post-entry rules to prevent absurd results and protect the public interest. But as industry has highlighted, section 4 is quite broadly written.

Let me linger on section 4 for a moment because this is where a lot of the real-world impact will be decided. I certainly understand why governments want a provision like this. You do not want mutual recognition to accidentally override entirely sensible local rules. But if post-entry is defined too broadly, it becomes an escape valve that can preserve almost any barrier as long as someone can describe it as operational. That is exactly how you end up with reform that looks great on paper but feels unchanged in practice on the ground for real companies operating in the environment.

[4:20 p.m.]

When I ask the minister during committee stage about the intended boundaries of section 4, I am not just asking for a vague reassurance. I am asking for clarity that businesses can plan around and that this Legislature can hold the government to.

I want to put some very clear questions to the minister, proactively, and invite answers to be drawn out in the committee stage. This, I think, is a very good and appropriate way to signal the direction we’re going in committee and, again, to afford the opportunity for the minister and his team to think actively about some of these questions, recognizing that there is broad support for the bill. Our goal is to make sure that we are interrogating the specifics of it and getting clarity on the record.

Among those questions…. First, what is the intended boundary between an entry barrier that is overridden by mutual recognition and a post-entry rule that is preserved?

Secondly, will the government publish guidance to regulators on how section 4 is meant to be interpreted so that it does not become the escape hatch that swallows the reform?

Thirdly, does the government agree that a post-entry rule that has the practical effect of blocking market participation should be treated as a trade barrier and addressed under this framework?

Fourth, how will conflicts be identified and resolved? Will there be a transparent process so businesses can see which barriers were raised, which barriers were removed and why?

Fifth, when ministers request regulators to amend or remove measures, will those requests be made public with reasons so that British Columbians can reasonably evaluate whether this bill is driving real change?

Those are certainly not hostile questions. They are the basic questions that determine whether this is meaningful reform or just a change in branding.

Again, Bill 7 is the credibility test. This government demanded aggressive powers under Bill 7, framed it as urgent and then retreated when controversy erupted. British Columbians have yet to see convincing evidence that those powers produced real and meaningful change.

This government does not get to ask for another leap of faith. It gets scrutiny. It gets conditions. It gets questions on the record. And it gets demands for proof.

Now I want to bring this back to the people this bill should help. This bill matters to workers. An apprentice who wants to follow work should not be told their skills are valid in one province but are suddenly questionable in another.

This matters to small and medium-sized businesses. A manufacturer or service provider should not have to pay for duplicative testing or duplicate approvals that do not add safety but do add cost.

This matters to consumers. Competition is how you get better pricing and better choice. In a time when families are watching every dollar, governments should not defend duplication and friction that inflate costs.

This matters to the broader economy. A province that is serious about growth does not tolerate barriers that separate Canadians from Canadians. So we will support Bill 5 because we agree with that direction. But we will also be honest about the government’s track record and the risk that this bill becomes cautious, symbolic and incomplete.

Now let me be constructive and specific about what we expect from government to ensure Bill 5 is more than just a slogan and more than just a performance.

First, we expect an implementation plan with dates, not open-ended by regulation but a clear schedule.

Second, transparency on exclusions and carve-outs. Publish what is excluded, what is exempted and why, before the bill comes into force, not after.

Third, measurable reporting. How many barriers were identified? How many were removed? How many conflicts were resolved? How many regulatory changes were made? If the government claims this reduces cost, show the scoreboard over time.

Fourth, we’ll be looking for guidance on section 4. Define the boundaries, constrain the loophole, and make it clear that barriers cannot simply be relabelled as operational to avoid mutual recognition.

Fifth, disclosure of ministerial interventions. If ministers are going to ask regulators to change rules, disclose it. If they step in, disclose it. If the government is using strong powers, it should not be invisible.

[4:25 p.m.]

Finally, a review clause. After 18 to 24 months, bring back a report to this Legislature on what actually changed and what the measurable impacts have been.

If the government agrees to those commitments, it will go a very long way toward building bipartisan confidence that Bill 5 is real. Without those commitments, the risk is obvious. The government will pass the bill, declare victory, and then implementation will be slow, quiet, limited and untransparent.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

British Columbians will be left with another statute that sounds strong but delivers little, which is exactly what many people believe happened with Bill 7.

I will close with this. We will support Bill 5 because British Columbians benefit when we reduce internal barriers and improve competition, but we will not pretend this government has earned trust on implementation. We will not allow them to rewrite history on Bill 7. We will not let them claim urgency when their track record has been sound and fury followed by silence.

We will support this bill for British Columbians, and we will demand the follow-through that this government has too often failed to deliver.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Minister of Jobs and Economic Growth.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I thank my friends across the way, my colleagues, for speaking to this bill. I heard some thoughtful questions that we’ll be able to discuss at the next stage, and I look forward to that.

With that, I move that this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Deputy Speaker: Okay. Before we get to that, Members, the question is second reading of Bill 5, intituled Trade Recognition Act.

Motion approved.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I, too, will try that again. I move that the bill be committed to the Committee of the Whole to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: At this point, I believe, the House Leader has already moved to Bill 3, so I call the second reading of Bill 3.

Bill 3 — Budget Measures
Implementation Act (No. 2), 2026

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I move that the bill, Budget Measures Implementation Act, be read for a second time now.

It’s never been more important to unlock economic opportunities for B.C. As the Minister of Finance noted in the 2026 budget speech, this past year has been immensely challenging.

One year ago we witnessed the launch of an unprovoked, unjustified trade war at the hands of our closest ally. The trade war and rupture of the world order, as the Prime Minister has called it, continue to have ripple effects that are being felt around the world. We must be disciplined and focused in making careful choices about where we will spend our resources.

Through our Look West strategy, we are leading the fight for a stronger B.C. to grow sectors and create new opportunities for people as we increase our economic security. Achieving this requires attracting new investment. Leveraging dollars from other partners for projects that are a benefit for B.C. has never been as important as it is today.

Gaining new employers or expanding businesses, advancing the results of construction and capital investments to supporting our skills trades and the highly skilled jobs we expect to be permanently created from these new operations, alongside training and co-op opportunities, including pathways for new professionals who gain from learning on the job at these world-leading facilities, and taking their skills to the next level and driving our economy into the future….

In turn, generating benefits across the province, additional revenues for the province, as we continue to fund and deliver the public services that British Columbians rely on….

In recent months, we’ve seen the federal government take new steps to shape Canada’s future. This includes making investments in new or expanded programs and in new transformation projects. It will be important for British Columbia to see its fair share of dollars.

Bill 3 and the proposed B.C. strategic investments special account expand our toolkit. When we focus on advancing projects into the provincial interest while bringing alongside new investment from others, this means moving beyond just using grants into use of other commercial tools when it’s appropriate and circumstances are right.

The proposed special account is grounded in the reality of our current fiscal environment. We can’t fund every project nor every sector nor everything today. We will be careful in our choices.

[4:30 p.m.]

Strategic projects, proposals will be expected to commercially stand on their own merit, with demonstrable need, confirmed co-funders to share risks, a solid business plan that meets B.C.’s goals and priorities and good returns for British Columbians.

Proponents should expect the fundamentals of their projects to be scrutinized and tested, to be the subject of detailed financial and business case analysis and stress testing. In short, proponents should expect us to look closely under the hood; for us to say no; and, for those that do advance, an expectation that any dollars we bring to the table be both protected and rewarded.

When the business case is right for British Columbia, we may consider use of a variety of financial tools described in the legislation and in forthcoming regulations. This may include grants with stipulations, loans and loan guarantees, equity participation and other forms of investment and benefit-sharing. This expansion and, indeed, sharpening of the financial tools available in our toolkit come from the perspective that if any company does well and British Columbians help the proponent project succeed, then British Columbians directly should see some benefits.

Our province stands on a robust foundation — an independent economy that’s strong, resilient and works better for people. Through Bill 3, we’re taking careful and thoughtful steps to further unlock new strategic investments in this province, creating good-paying jobs and growing sectors, generating additional financial returns for British Columbia and encouraging sustainable growth that ensures our collective prosperity.

Finally, I should share that this bill gives us similar tools that already exist in Ontario; Quebec; at the federal level; and, of course, now recently with the U.S. government. We need to be able to compete with other provinces. We’ll need to be able to combine with the federal government programming. And of course, we need to be able to compete against the U.S., China, India and Indonesia, which also have similar tools at their behest in their countries.

With that, I look forward to hearing the debate and hearing from my colleagues.

Peter Milobar: I rise to speak to Bill 3, the Premier’s $400 million election slush fund, as I like to call it.

You know, budgets are all about decisions that governments have to make. The rhetoric leading up to this budget was all about the hard decisions, tough cuts and that things were going to have to change, that this government had learned their lesson and that they were going to do things differently.

What did we see? We saw a $400 million slush fund, in the form of Bill 3, be created on the backs of revenue generated from senior citizens, with a change to the homeowner property tax deferral program which will see not only the interest rate go up by 4 percent this year but interest compounded monthly, instead of the former interest rate calculation, and which will have a significant difference to the costs of that program to a senior.

The minister characterizes that as seniors trying to take advantage of a tax loophole, when all they’re trying to do is afford groceries on their fixed-income pension budgets, which also get taxed extra in this budget to pay for the Premier’s $400 million slush fund, which is Bill 3.

That is why decisions made by government matter, when it’s tight times especially. When you look at Bill 3, it sounds good at face value, actually, when once again the minister talks about this, but let’s be clear. When you’re talking about a slush fund program like this, that’s exactly what it is.

Why do I say that? There are no clear guidelines spelled out. It’s actually Treasury Board…. It would be bad enough we have the InBC $500 million high-risk venture capital scheme that this government brought in several years ago, which has resulted in no tangible deliverable other than hiring a bunch of people at high rates to manage the money sitting there. But this bill, on the backs of senior citizens and hard-working families, with taxes increased to pay for it, allows for grants and, essentially, angel investing.

[4:35 p.m.]

To hear the minister talk about it, these are all going to be thoroughly vetted, good business plans, well-laid-out, yet no actual detail in the bill as to what those rules will be. Worst off, it’s adjudicated by Treasury Board. They’ve created the fund to have the money sitting there, and the best that they can do to adjudicate and try to put confidence in the public that the $400 million that they’ve just pulled out of senior citizens’ pension incomes to pay for this….

How it’ll be managed and how it’ll be looked at is by Treasury Board, where if we ask questions around how that decision was made, the answer back will be: “We can’t talk about Treasury Board decisions.” “Well, what was on the agenda?” “We can’t talk about the Treasury Board agenda.” “Well, what was the vote?” “We can’t talk about Treasury Board votes.” “Can we see the minutes of the decision? What led into that?” “We can’t talk about what happens at Treasury Board.”

Those will be the answers that come back. That is who will be making the decisions on this $400 million slush fund controlled by the Premier’s office. A Treasury Board, I might add, that this Premier was fired from, from the previous Premier. Because of how he wanted to handle things through Treasury Board, under John Horgan’s watch, he was fired from that Treasury Board.

Now we have a bill that takes $400 million out of the pockets of senior citizens to fund the Premier’s pet projects that he wants to put through Treasury Board. Boy, I sure have a lot of confidence in that. What could possibly go wrong?

Why the need to actually make grants possible? It’s bad enough that you’re taking the money out of seniors’ pension incomes to try to fund this slush fund. Could we at least have a small modicum of hope that the investment might actually turn out to be a positive investment and see an actual return to the taxpayer?

Why say grants? Grants are far removed from low-interest loans or security backing. Grants are “here’s your money.” “Here’s your money that we don’t have to explain why or how we came up with the name that gets part of that $400 million, simply that Treasury Board in their wisdom decided to make that decision.”

The other thing this government did with Treasury Board, which is very interesting…. They did this a few years ago. I believe Selina Robinson was actually the Finance Minister at the time. I know the NDP doesn’t like us to mention her name in this chamber. Certainly, the Premier doesn’t like it, with his track record of the handling of that situation with a respected cabinet minister.

They changed the rules around Treasury Board at the time to supposedly speed things up because it was too onerous for Treasury Board to get together to make decisions on how to spend the money through Treasury Board and approve projects. So they changed the process so that the chair of Treasury Board could just sign off on things and let the board know later. Wow.

Now Bill 3 has a dedicated $400 million for them to play with. They don’t even have to play within the bounds of what’s been announced.

When we go to budget estimates and I ask the Minister of Finance questions around the $400 million program, do you think there’ll be any clarity given on any of those questions? Or do you think it’ll be handled like their other slush fund, the $5 billion contingency fund, where the answer simply is: “Well, that’s for projects in the future. But trust us. We’ll make sure they’re properly vetted”?

Then I will ask the minister: will there be any public oversight? Will there be a reporting back to this chamber before final funds are released? Will there be anything more than a press release touting only the information the government wants you to read and an evasion of answers to any questions that may be asked that are perhaps uncomfortable for the government but legitimate and avoided by the government?

[4:40 p.m.]

That is the secrecy of Treasury Board. That Treasury Board is where projects go when the government is trying to strategically figure out, with what limited funds they have to spend on capital projects, what to approve or not approve. That’s why they have that level of secrecy about a brand-new $400 million slush fund, created exclusively in Bill 3, for their direct control.

We can say what we want about it: “It’s not the Premier’s office; it’s Treasury Board.” Let’s just admit how the real world works in this building. Treasury Board will do exactly as the Premier’s office advises with this $400 million or you will not be on Treasury Board any longer. That’s very clear, especially with how this Premier operates.

We have a $400 million slush fund — built on the backs of senior citizens, small businesses and hard-working families — at a time when the government says: “We absolutely have to tax you more. We’re so sorry that we have to tax you more, but we need it. We have a record deficit. That’s why we need all those extra tax dollars from you — a record deficit.”

They failed to mention that they put an extra $1 billion in a contingency fund, which is a slush fund as well, and that they need the $400 million for Bill 3, while they’re telling people: “We need $500 million off their backs from low-income people, with the income tax hike, and $600 million by freezing the tax brackets for everybody and another $550 million coming in from small businesses for the cost of PST on security and professional fees.”

That’s how this government is paying for the extra $1 billion in the contingency fund and the $400 million in Bill 3 — for anyone at home wondering how they’re paying for this — instead of not impacting those taxes.

I haven’t even touched on the home property tax deferral program, the PST on your basic cable bill or the PST on your yarn and your sewing materials that has been added on — all while still delivering a record deficit. And when the Premier and the minister are asked about their spending problem, they shrug their shoulders as if they don’t have one.

Then we have Bill 3, which adds $400 million of spending with zero oversight. As everybody knows, the Premier is desperately looking for an election window to open. If ever it sounded like an election fund…. I don’t know what else to call it. Slush fund, we’ve been calling it, but maybe an election slush fund is a more accurate descriptor.

It’s five years after the InBC high-risk venture capital scheme was created — which at least had a board to oversee it, not Treasury Board — with questionable results on that, but this is absolutely worse than that. I didn’t think this government could get worse than the InBC high-risk venture capital scheme that they brought in, but now we have the $400 million Premier’s election slush fund.

People at home just need to ask themselves…. I say this in most of my speeches because I find almost everything this government is doing right now is in direct contradiction to what I’ll guarantee NDP members ran an election on, thinking that they were going to stand up for. But they won’t stand up. That’s why I know they won’t stand up at Treasury Board against whatever the Premier says they need the money spent on. They will never stand up in this chamber against the Premier and his wishes, ever.

[4:45 p.m.]

I can’t imagine, had we been government and introduced Bill 3…. It created a $400 million election slush fund — overseen, essentially, by the Premier’s office, with zero oversight but the ability to give out grants from the $400 million. It’s not capped. It’s not 10 percent of the money that will be grants. All $400 million can be grants.

There’s no deliverable highlighted in the legislation, of what grants or loans have to be used for to create. They could talk about creating economic good, economic well-being. Yeah, when they start dumping tens of millions of dollars into people’s bank accounts, there’ll be some economic spinoff, but is it actually maximizing the $400 million, or is it just helping friends and insiders?

Let’s remember, this is the Premier’s office, which has a litany of hiring bad decisions around friends and insiders for contracts, with no deliverables. At least they went through the guise of going to provide a service for the taxpayer, with a contract received by a friend and an insider to the Premier.

Bill 3 just cuts that out. It just cut out the middleman — no need. “Can we see the contract?” “Well, you can’t see that. That was part of Treasury Board’s deliberations. It’s confidential.” That will be the answer that comes back on money that’s expended with Bill 3.

It makes one wonder what exactly has been going on. Why would expenditures from 2018 until now suddenly be eligible under the parameters of Bill 3? What grants have been given out that shouldn’t have? What paperwork is being caught up right now that the government said: “Oopsy, I guess we’d better cover it”?

On a bill that is creating a brand-new fund, a slush fund built on the backs of senior citizens getting extra taxes layered on them, why does it have to be, essentially, retroactive to 2018?

Why do they want almost a decade’s worth of oversight on what decisions have come through Treasury Board, covered off by Bill 3? What grants, what loans, what programs did they fund through Treasury Board from 2018 till today and that they are a little concerned about, that perhaps they didn’t actually follow the rules? They’ve had to push that into Bill 3.

I’ll read the clause, because I think it’s important that people at home hear this:

“(16) For the purposes of this section, (a) money paid out of the consolidated revenue fund on or after April 1, 2018, and on or before March 31, 2026, further to an obligation under an agreement designated under subsection (17) is deemed to have been paid under subsection (6) with the prior approval of Treasury Board,

“(b) the recipient of the money paid or the person who will be the recipient of money that may be payable by the government under an agreement designated under subsection (17) is deemed to be an eligible recipient, and

“(c) the purpose for which that money was paid or may be payable is deemed to be in respect of a strategic investment.”

They’ve already decided that for some decision they made in 2018, 2019 or 2020, well, that was made in respect of a strategic investment, but only after they’ve said so in Bill 3, in 2026. Why is that? Well, they’re saying: “Just trust us. Just trust us with $400 million of seniors’ new and increased taxes in this year’s budget. We’ll spend it wisely. It’s 2026. What could possibly go wrong? There’ll be oversight. There’ll be wise choices. There’ll be wise decisions. Oh, by the way, could you also make it retroactive to 2018 while you’re at it?”

Again, the opposition didn’t create this legislation. We would never create something like this. This is the government’s legislation that I’m reading from and that we’re debating.

[4:50 p.m.]

There’s fundamentally a problem with the system when you have a government that keeps acting this way, keeps trying to shroud things in secrecy and does not want transparency, especially on a budget that has been this punitive to lower- and middle-class-income families, seniors on fixed pension incomes, small businesses.

All of them had to have their taxes raised to pay for this slush fund or we would’ve had a $15 billion deficit. That’s the basics of this. The Premier wanted a slush fund. They didn’t want a $15 billion deficit. They were okay with still a record deficit at $13.3 million, so the only way to pay for Bill 3 and not hit $15 billion is to add $1 billion into contingencies, add $400 million into a brand-new fund for this and make it actionable back to 2018.

I mean, I’ve heard of backdating memos in this government, but this takes it to a whole new level. It really does. At least this backdating is in black and white and clear.

I really do hope, for the sake of the public, that when we get to committee stage on this bill — if we get to committee stage on this bill — we actually do see some transparency in answers, especially on why the retroactivity is needed. What bad spending decisions are they trying to cover up? What bad grants or bad loans were made that they’re trying to cover up that were made without the proper checks and balances?

I know I certainly want to know. I know the public wants to know. It’d be interesting to get a line of sight on that, based on how the Auditor General has looked at the books in the past, to see whether or not there’s something that needs to be relooked at.

There is no way I can support Bill 3 in any way, shape or form. The whole fundamental premise, in a time of economic crisis that this government has created, for their solution to create a $400 million election slush fund for the Premier, with zero oversight and retroactivity to 2018, is very reprehensible.

Interjection.

Peter Milobar: I hear the Minister for AI saying: “Do you know Ontario has this?” Then move to Ontario.

It’s interesting how the government likes to try to explain what other provinces do.

Did you know Alberta doesn’t have any PST? Not only did they not add it to security forces in people’s stores, Minister; they don’t have PST at all. Why don’t you do what Alberta does, when it comes to the PST? Let’s hear you talk about that, if we’re going to talk about what other provinces do.

I’m standing in British Columbia talking about British Columbian seniors getting hammered on taxes. And this minister’s answer is that Ontario is doing it so that’s why we have to tax senior citizens so that our Premier can have an election slush fund? Are you kidding me? That is the response? Because some other province is doing it?

Other provinces also have better health care outcomes than we do, Minister. Other provinces have better outcomes when it comes to crime and safety. Other provinces don’t have the overdose crisis we have. Should we do what other provinces are doing on that, or do you want to just sit here and talk about one tax measure?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Member.

Interjection.

Peter Milobar: I am speaking to the bill.

Deputy Speaker: Members, Members. Remarks through the Chair, please. Thank you.

Peter Milobar: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would love for this government, which tries to defend Bill 3 by saying that it’s what Ontario does, to explain to us why, then, we do not have health care outcomes that other provinces have.

If we’re going to rely on picking and choosing when we’re going to rely on measurables from other provinces, why does this government feel they needed to tax seniors with Bill 3 to actually pay for Bill 3 with new taxes on seniors and small businesses that don’t exist in other provinces? Why will this government not tell us why exactly we are not following the example, then, of other provinces and removing PST instead of adding PST to pay for Bill 3?

[4:55 p.m.]

I can understand why the members on the other side don’t understand the connection between the new taxation and the new spending in this bill that it’s created. In a budget that the minister said was going to have no taxes in it — no new taxes, no increased taxes — we have an extra $400 million of spending that directly needs taxation to pay for it. I think we’ve discovered why this government doesn’t understand the relationship between taxation and expenditures. It’s because they don’t seem to think that taxation ties into a bill that is all new spending.

It is disappointing. There is no way we can support this bill. The government can explain to the senior citizens of this province, to the hard-working families of this province and to the small businesses of this province why they needed to see tax increases this year to pay for the Premier’s Bill 3 $400 million election slush fund that enables him to provide grants to whoever he chooses with zero oversight, zero scrutiny and is actually, essentially, retroactive to 2018.

It’s an offensive piece of legislation, especially in these economic times, and I cannot believe this government can be so out of touch with the public that they think that they’re going to try to sell this as a positive thing for people.

So we will look forward to committee stages as we move forward on this, and frankly, we hope we defeat it, which means we’re going to an election. We will gladly fight an election on this type of garbage that they’re bringing forward.

Darlene Rotchford: The only election going on is a leadership race on that side, and you can tell by that speech right there.

I’m honoured to speak today in support of Bill 3 and to highlight how this legislation, along with our broader economic strategy, strengthens opportunities in British Columbia, including members of our Armed Forces community and veterans.

A slush fund doesn’t come with public reporting requirements, independent oversight, measurable performance targets. This fund does.

While some members are focused on slogans, we’re focused on jobs. This $400 million investment is about leveraging private capital, growing B.C. business and keeping talent here at home. I want to ensure that that talent will be here today and that it will be here when my children decide whatever they may do in the future.

As we steward British Columbia’s economy through turbulent global conditions, we must remain clear-eyed that economic strength is fundamental security, stability and opportunity for those defending our nation and for their families who stand behind them.

Our province is positioned as a gateway for major projects and global trade, with deep seaports, a highly educated workforce and strategic advantage that connects us to markets around the world. The Look West strategy lays out a target plan to deliver major projects faster, expand skills training and grow key sectors that will drive our economy forward.

This matters to Armed Forces and our veterans community. Many service members choose to return to British Columbia with world-class leadership, technical skills and professionalism. We see that here in my riding of Esquimalt-Colwood, whether that’s at Seaspan, Hope Shipyard or some of the other marine sectors that we have.

We are creating pathways for those skills to translate into well-paid civilian careers in industries that are vital to our future. We are focused on strengthening our workforce, investing in trades and advancing training and work-integrated learning into ensuring British Columbians are ready to build major projects and fill high-demand roles.

Bill 3 supports these objectives by enabling government to use a broader set of strategic investment tools to attract partners, leverage private capital and advance projects that create jobs.

Whether it’s through grants, loans, equity participation or conditioning support, this expansion of tools is grounded in careful fiscal management. We have a responsibility to be disciplined with public dollars. Projects must demonstrate commercial viability, share risk harm from partners and a solid business case that advances provincial priorities and delivers measurable returns to British Columbians.

That prudent approach ensures when British Columbians help make a project succeed, British Columbians benefit, including our veterans, who deserve access to stable work, training opportunities and careers that value their experience.

[5:00 p.m.]

Look West also promotes economic diversification by growing sectors like the marine, aerospace, defence-related, manufacturing, critical minerals, technology and trade logistics — all areas where veterans often have relevant experience and leadership to contribute.

As we seek to deliver major projects faster, another pillar of our Look West, we are opening up opportunities for apprenticeships, co-ops and ongoing training opportunities that help service members transition to civilian careers without barriers.

Additionally, strengthening international trade links and export infrastructure, a core element of Look West, reduces economic vulnerability and makes British Columbia a more resilient economy. That matters for families, for communities and for future generations of veterans who want to continue to make B.C. their home.

Bill 3 and the proposed strategic investments special account expand our toolkit to support these strategic priorities while maintaining a focus on fiscal responsibility, strategic alignment and measurable outcomes. British Columbia stands on a strong base — a resilient and independent economy that works for the people who live and serve here.

Through Bill 3 and guided by the principles of Look West, we are supporting job-creating projects; growing sectors that align with the strengths of our workforce, including our veterans; encouraging sustainable economic growth; and ensuring that British Columbians benefit directly from the opportunities we pursue.

You hear me stand in this House, and I talk about my past credentials. I come from the labour world. Over the years, I have talked to many trades folks in different sectors, and you hear stories about how they’ve had to leave to go to work. I come from a province in Atlantic Canada where, quite frankly, people had to go to Alberta to seek employment because they couldn’t do it in their own province.

I want to ensure by the things we do in this province that those skilled workers are staying in British Columbia and then the future generations are also staying in British Columbia. We want to make sure that the labour force is going to be, again, not just here today, not just for my children but also for their grandchildren.

I find it interesting to hear concerns about investments in private enterprise from members across the way who routinely call for economic growth and job creation. You can’t demand growth on Monday but condemn us on Thursday. If you can’t argue the policy, you attack the motive. The fund exists for one reason: to strengthen British Columbia’s economy and create good-paying jobs. The rest is political theatre, quite frankly.

I urge all members to support Bill 3 not just for its fiscal and economic merits but because it is the investment of the people of this province. It’s for the investment in people in my community. It’s for our veterans. Who I know has veterans on…. The other side of the House, I hope, would agree. We want to ensure there are jobs for them. Those who dedicate themselves to our service deserve nothing less than the same respect from us here in this Legislature.

Hon. Rick Glumac: I’m happy to rise in the House today to speak to Bill 3.

As the Minister for Artificial Intelligence and New Technologies, I see clearly that the next generation of economic growth will be shaped by our ability to lead in advanced technologies. Artificial intelligence and quantum are no longer future concepts. They are foundational to productivity, security, innovative tech for clean energy and global competitiveness.

British Columbia is uniquely positioned to lead as Canada’s economic engine. We are home to globally recognized post-secondary institutions, including the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser, and world-class research hubs like the Vector Institute’s partnerships and the Creative Destruction Lab, which support high-growth science and technology ventures.

We’re also a key participant in Canada’s national quantum ecosystem, including collaboration with the University of Waterloo and the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics.

[5:05 p.m.]

But talent and research alone are not enough. To translate this into economic prosperity, we must be able to support companies in scaling, anchor intellectual property here at home and attract major capital investment into British Columbia. That is why Bill 3 is so essential.

The proposed strategic investments special account strengthens our ability to partner in projects that are aligned with provincial priorities, including developing a strong and secure AI infrastructure, advanced computing, stabilized semiconductor supply chains, data centres and quantum commercialization. These are capital-intensive sectors. They require patient investment, co-funding partnerships and flexible financial tools.

Prior to this bill, when the B.C. government wanted to support a major private sector project, the primary investment that we had available was essentially a grant. That means we’re committing money but there’s no provincial stake in the outcome, no participation in the upside of that funding. It was just, basically, a transfer.

While that has its place, the new B.C. strategic investments special account takes a different approach. We can now make direct equity investments. We can take ownership stakes. We can provide commercial loans to high-impact private sector projects.

This is important because it means the province is no longer just a benefactor. We become a financial partner. If a company succeeds, B.C. shares in that success. That dynamic changes the nature of the conversation between government and industry in a very meaningful way.

Every proposal that is considered must demonstrate clear commercial viability, strong governance, confirmed co-investors and measurable economic benefit to British Columbia. Projects will be vigorously scrutinized and stress-tested, and public dollars will be protected.

To get a sense of what this means, this $400 million fund, we can look at another fund that we had. It wasn’t the same type of fund, but our B.C. manufacturing jobs fund, which essentially offers grants in the way that I described earlier, was $153 million. It was able to invest in over 150 projects.

That program, with $153 million, was able to leverage over $1 billion in total investment. That supported nearly 5,000 jobs. It’s projected to generate $17 billion in new economic activity and close to $7 billion in provincial GDP contribution and more revenue coming to the province of British Columbia.

The new strategic investments fund is designed to deploy the same kind of opportunity but at a much larger scale. Where British Columbians can unlock growth, British Columbians share in the return.

AI and quantum technologies are rapidly transforming industries, from health care diagnostics and resource optimization to climate modelling and advanced manufacturing. Jurisdictions around the world are racing to secure leadership in these sectors. If we don’t act, these investments will go somewhere else.

[5:10 p.m.]

If we are strategic, we can anchor and keep innovation here in British Columbia, creating high-paying jobs, expanding our tax base and strengthening our economic sovereignty.

Bill 3 gives us the tools to act strategically. It allows us to align with federal investment in research, commercialization and advanced technology infrastructure, ensuring British Columbia secures its fair share of national innovation funding.

Federal funding programs, the strategic innovation fund, the Canada growth fund, critical minerals initiatives, defence procurement vehicles — virtually all of them require co-investment. They are designed to fund projects where there is demonstrated provincial, private sector or institutional buy-in. Ottawa wants to see that a project has real partners who have real capital to invest.

That’s why I mentioned earlier that other provinces do have these vehicles, like Ontario, Quebec and others. When I said this, the member for Kamloops Centre told me to move to Ontario. Then he went off and talked about how great Alberta was, which is interesting.

This bill also contemplates our broader economic strategy to diversify markets, grow targeted sectors and increase resilience in the face of global uncertainty. AI and quantum technologies are not abstract policy ambitions. They represent the industries that will define the next 20 to 30 years of economic growth. Through careful discipline and strategic investment, we can ensure that British Columbia remains at the forefront of this transformation.

Bill 3 positions our province to compete responsibly. The strategic investments fund provides broader flexibility, the ability to play in major industrial deals, to co-invest at scale and to be a genuine financial partner rather than a grant administrator. This strengthens our capacity to attract world-leading projects. It ensures that economic returns flow back to people and communities, and it supports a future in which British Columbia is not simply adopting innovation developed elsewhere but shaping it.

I encourage all members to support Bill 3.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the question is second reading of Bill 3, intituled Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2026.

Division has been called.

[5:15 p.m. - 5:20 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Members, before we take the vote on this bill, I would like to confirm one thing with the member for Kelowna-Mission. Is he in a private place? Okay.

Members, the question is second reading of Bill 3, intituled Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2026.

[5:25 p.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 48
Lore	Blatherwick	Dhir
Routledge	Elmore	Toporowski
B. Anderson	Neill	Osborne
Brar	Krieger	Davidson
Parmar	Sunner	Beare
Greene	Wickens	Kang
Begg	Arora	Higginson
Sandhu	Lajeunesse	Choi
Rotchford	Chant	Phillip
Popham	Dix	Sharma
Farnworth	Eby	Bailey
Kahlon	Chandra Herbert	Whiteside
Boyle	Ma	Yung
Malcolmson	Gibson	Glumac
Shah	G. Anderson	Chow
Morissette	Valeriote	Botterell
NAYS — 43
Loewen	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Halford	Rattée
Wat	Kooner	Banman
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	Clare	K. Neufeld
Rustad	McInnis	Bhangu
Paton	Day	Chan
Toor	Hepner	Giddens
Dhaliwal	McCall	Wilson
Maahs	Block	Stamer
Gasper	Tepper	Mok
Kealy	Armstrong	Sturko
Boultbee	Williams	Chapman
Bird	Doerkson	Luck
	Davis

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

Motion approved.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Committee of Supply, Section A, reports resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Citizens’ Services and reports progress on the Ministry of Attorney General and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Susie Chant: Committee of Supply, Section C, reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Infrastructure and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until Monday morning.

The House adjourned at 5:28 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:07 p.m.

[Rohini Arora in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Citizens’ Services

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Citizens’ Services.

On Vote 19: ministry operations, $741,339,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any remarks?

Hon. Diana Gibson: I do. I’m honoured to be here on the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking People, known today as the Songhees and xʷsepsəm Nations.

I would like to introduce the Citizens’ Services team here with me today. I appreciate my leadership team and all that they do to help our ministry deliver services for the people of British Columbia.

With me here today are Shauna Brouwer, deputy minister; Hayden Lansdell, associate deputy minister and chief information officer; Holly Cairns, ADM of corporate services division; and Rhianna Begley, executive director of service delivery operations. Other members of my team may join as the estimates process proceeds.

I’m honoured to have joined the Ministry of Citizens’ Services last July. The work being done at Citizens’ Services touches the lives of every person in British Columbia when they access government services, whether online or in person. Through Service B.C., people can access over 300 government services in 65 offices around the province online, over the phone and now through two mobile service centre vans.

All of our divisions are working to help people across B.C. My ministry’s Connected Services division is working with the federal government and internet service providers to build critical infrastructure for high-speed internet and cellular connectivity.

Our investments will ensure people have the connectivity they need to access virtual health, online education, social networks and the infrastructure necessary for economic growth and productivity that strengthen job creation and small businesses.

[1:10 p.m.]

Our goal to connect all communities in B.C. to high-speed internet services is a priority. As of January 2026, 97 percent of homes across the province have high-speed internet; 80 percent of rural homes now have high-speed internet, compared to only 57 percent when we took office in 2017; and 88 percent of homes in First Nations communities now have access, compared to only 66 percent in 2017.

We’re also working on important mandate items, such as strengthening our digital systems across government so that people can receive trusted and connected public services online.

Connected Services B.C. is part of my ministry’s work to modernize and better coordinate digital service delivery across government and is part of a broader effort to align with how people experience government services. This pulls together expertise in technology, information management and digital delivery to offer people a single, streamlined front door to government services.

This approach simplifies processes, encourages innovation and reduces duplication, all within a sustainable, user-centred approach. We’re creating a more connected and seamless experience that puts people and businesses at the heart of the services they use, enabling whole-of-government coordination and reducing duplication and delays.

Connected Services B.C. reflects a long-term shift in how government approaches digital modernization, improving coordination across government and supporting the development of a more trusted, inclusive and connected service ecosystem. By using shared platforms, common tools and coordinated delivery, we’re lowering ongoing costs while improving service delivery.

I’m also pleased to share that last summer the Vital Statistics Agency transitioned from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Citizens’ Services. With this move, government is better positioned to deliver trusted, equitable and connected digital services starting from birth.

Last December the real property division transitioned from Citizens’ Services to Infrastructure, to strengthen how we deliver infrastructure projects and manage real estate within the B.C. public service within one ministry.

Citizens’ Services is also responsible for helping government to run smoothly, from government workstations to procuring goods and services and overseeing information management and security.

I want to thank everyone working within our ministry for all the hard work and the work they’re doing to serve the people of British Columbia. I look forward to our conversations here today.

The Chair: I now recognize the member for Langley-Willowbrook. Would you like to share opening remarks?

Jody Toor: I would. Thank you.

Minister and staff, thank you for being here today. I greatly appreciate it.

Estimates is one of the few moments in this Legislative Assembly when we get to step back from announcements and look carefully at how government actually operates — not what it intends to do, not what it announces but how it actually functions day to day in the lives of people. For me, this process is not about revisiting old debates. It is about understanding how the system works and who it works for.

Government is rarely experienced in grand speeches. It is experienced in small, ordinary interactions, like when someone tries to renew a licence online and the page times out. It is experienced when a small business owner spends hours trying to understand how to bid on a government contract and is unsure whether they even qualify or when a journalist files a freedom-of-information request and waits and wonders how long transparency actually takes. It is experienced when a rural community hears that broadband expansion is coming and asks whether it will meet not just today’s needs but tomorrow’s.

We are living through a profound digital shift, and increasingly, government is experienced through a screen. Services are moving online. Processes are being centralized. Systems are being unified. These are real advantages. There are real advantages to that. Digital systems can reduce paperwork. They can speed up approvals. They can allow services to be accessed at any hour of the day. They can lower administrator costs.

But there is another side to that transition. For people who are comfortable with technology, digital services are effective. For people who are digitally challenged — like seniors who struggle with passwords, newcomers who are still learning the language and the system, people without reliable devices or internet access, people with disabilities navigating complex interferences — those same systems can feel isolating.

[1:15 p.m.]

A website that works well for some can become a barrier for others. A portal that reduces in-person visits can unintentionally remove human contact. A digital form that replaces paperwork can create frustration if there is no one available to guide you through it.

The Ministry of Citizens’ Services plays a central role in this transition. It builds the digital backbone of government. It shapes procurement pathways that affect businesses across the province. It oversees information management and privacy. It supports broadband expansion in rural and Indigenous communities. It sets standards that the other ministries rely on. In many ways, the ministry determines how British Columbians experience government itself.

Today my questions will move through three broad themes.

First, structural and allocation. Where most of the money goes tells us what the government is prioritizing. When one part of a ministry receives the largest share of funding, that shows where the main focus is. I want to understand what the focus means, whether it’s about maintaining old systems, building new ones, centralizing control, tightening spending or some mix of all of those.

Second, definition and measurement. Words like “modernization,” “digital transformation” and “innovation” are used often, but what do they mean in measurable terms? If the number of digital services increases, has a process for completing a transaction become shorter? If procurement opportunities increase, has the participation broadened? If broadband coverage expands, are the standards sufficient for future technologies like telehealth and AI-driven services? If more data is collected, have reporting burdens been reduced elsewhere? I’ll be asking how the ministry measures not only growth but clarity.

Third, structural discipline and leadership accountability. Good governance is not only about adding systems. It is also about removing complex situations. It is about asking: are approval layers fewer than they were? Are processes simpler than they were? Are response times shorter than they were? Is the public experience clearer than it was?

People do not experience government as an organizational chart. They experience it as a log-in that works or doesn’t, as a call that is answered or isn’t, as a process that takes one step or six.

In a time of economic uncertainty, global trade and changing population trends, it becomes even more important that investments are aligned with real conditions and that modernization includes room for those who struggle with technology. That is framework I will be working within today.

With that, I will begin with questions related to Connected Services B.C. and overall resource allocation.

Connected Services B.C. represents the largest portion of your operating budget. What is a primary cost driver within that division this year?

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Thank you, member opposite, for the question. The primary cost drivers in the Connected Services division include staffing, which is anything from developing in-house technologies to data management to contract management. Of course, with bringing 14 different departments into Connected Services, there are a lot of different pieces to manage in terms of the different departments.

The other piece is contracting, so licensing mostly. Of course, there’s anything from a computer and workstation through to apps and technologies for delivering services.

Jody Toor: How much of that spending is tied to legacy systems versus new system development?

[1:25 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Within the Connected Services budget, we have a transformation budget, which is the capital envelope. In that envelope, 65 percent is for legacy modernization and 35 percent is for transition tools and new Connected Services tools.

Jody Toor: Are there sunset timelines for legacy platforms?

Hon. Diana Gibson: In terms of legacy technologies, Connected Services B.C. came together October 1, and we’ve been working on that roadmap with a priority of focusing on services, in terms of a supported transition, and considering risks and priorities.

I want to let the member opposite know that the work in terms of upgrading and modernizing legacy technologies has been ongoing even well before the Connected Services initiative began. We have already transitioned Mining and Forests and are almost done with transitioning their finance legacy technology.

Jody Toor: Would it be possible if I can get a dollar figure for the 65 percent legacy system?

[1:30 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: As I said, 65 percent of the transformation and technology funding of the capital budget is for legacy modernization, which is approximately $58 million.

Jody Toor: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

Can you please give an example of how the older system aligns with the new digital direction?

Hon. Diana Gibson: The Connected Services modernization has a single-window approach. The vision is for allowing government to leverage the digital service delivery model to transform people’s experience with government services.

[1:35 p.m.]

Using a tell-us-once approach, individuals provide key transformation once, which is then shared across government programs instead of requiring repeated entry through various government applications or websites.

With that being the vision for Connected Services, as we align with the new digital direction with the legacy systems, we’re doing things like the B.C. Services Card as a safe log-in — so common component — and user testing when we’re modernizing, to ensure that this is continuing a user-centred approach. Common payment system, for example, is another common component, so something like PayBC. We’re continuing to build it out with the alignment with our vision.

Jody Toor: What is the total FTE count for the ministry in 2026, compared to 2025 and 2024?

Hon. Diana Gibson: There are 2,615 full-time equivalents, or FTE, employees in my ministry as at the end of January. This includes 272 FTEs in the real property division.

I just want to stop for a moment and let the member know that there have been quite a few changes within the ministry over the course of the year. It’s difficult to give that change year over year, so why don’t I walk through some of the changes that have happened in the staffing in the ministry? That’ll be helpful, I think, to answer that question.

It includes 272 FTEs in the real property division who will be transferring to the Ministry of Infrastructure and 19 human resources FTEs who will transfer to the Public Service Agency as of April 1. In addition, there are 63 employees who will transfer to my ministry as part of the Vital Statistics move from Ministry of Health. As well, there are 1,279 employees who are included in the Connected Services B.C. reorganization and that will transfer in 2026.

The total number of FTE employees has decreased overall by 108, from 2,723 to 2,615, between March 2025 and January 2026.

Jody Toor: What is the projected salary and benefits savings from workforce reductions announced this year?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Thank you to the member for the question. We have got ongoing efforts to align our staffing with efficiency where possible, which includes an announcement Tuesday for a voluntary departure program. Invitations will be going out on March 2. It will include…. But for the most part, we’ve been focusing on attrition, retirements, reduced contracting and retraining to avoid layoffs and ensure that we’re effectively using staff to deliver services.

Jody Toor: What is the ministry’s total contractor and professional services budget for 2026?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: I refer the member opposite to page 30 of the supplement to the estimates, in which there is a table for the Ministry of Citizens’ Services. Columns 60 and 63 include the figures that the member is seeking. Professional services is $21.8 million, and information systems contracting is $456.6 million.

Jody Toor: Has the contractor spending increased, decreased or remained stable compared to last year? Can the minister please provide a dollar figure?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: There has been a reduction in the contracting. In the budget for Citizens’ Services and Connected Services, it’s $437.246 million for the Connected Services budget. This already includes the $35 million reduction that was announced in the budget. So this is after the $35 million reduction, most of which is from our IT contracting.

Jody Toor: When most of the money goes to Connected Services B.C., it suggests that the government is prioritizing building and running digital systems — that is, behind-the-scenes technology — more than expanding face-to-face services for the people at B.C.

Is that a fair statement, Minister?

Hon. Diana Gibson: Absolutely not. If I refer the member to page 55, you’ll see that services to citizens and businesses has the same budget, with no change.

Jody Toor: That doesn’t mean front-line service is ignored, but the spending shows bigger investment is in the digital backbone of the government, not the physical front door.

Now, the question I have to ask myself is: what does the structure of that spending reveal about your government’s priorities, Minister?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: What this budget represents is a clear focus by our government on delivering front-line services better, faster and more accessibly. That’s because that number in Connected Services is for all of the ministries. It’s the back-end work to ensure that front-line workers across SDPR; MCFD; Finance, with procurement; Education; conservation officers….

It’s front-line workers across every ministry that are being served through this so that we can ensure that citizens can access the services they need, when they need them, effectively.

Jody Toor: I’m not against digital technology, Minister. I’m concerned at the rate at which the digital technology may leave thousands of B.C. residents in the dark, as I hear time and time again from people in my community of Langley-Willowbrook.

This leads to my next question, which is digital delivery, the primary way people are expected to interact with the government rather than expanding in-person or phone services. That suggests that, as I indicated, digital systems are now the backbone of government. Decisions about technology are being made in one central place.

Modernization technology isn’t treated as a choice; it’s treated as a priority. Is that a fair statement, Minister?

[2:00 p.m.]

The Chair: Just a reminder to members to please keep your phones on silent.

Hon. Diana Gibson: First, I want to correct the question that was asked around the budget to affirm that the budget did not go up. It went down by $35 million, so it’s not increasing.

I also want to remind the member that every ministry is touched by this with front-line services, not just our Service B.C. offices but front-line learning services across all of the ministries which are working to deliver for people.

In our Service B.C. office alone, we are improving in-person access through innovations like our B.C. services van. We continue to have 65 offices where people who want in-person services can access them, as we work to ensure that we’re not leaving anyone behind and that people are met where they are for their service access.

Also, we do user testing, including with seniors, testing and observation for any of our innovations so that we’re continuing to ensure that it works for the people it’s being designed for. That’s putting the residents and community members at the centre of our innovation.

[2:05 p.m.]

By connecting all these services, we are ensuring that services to British Columbians are improved, with an ask-me-once approach where the systems are doing the hard work that people do right now. We’re ensuring we’re not leaving anyone behind.

Jody Toor: Thank you, Minister, for the clarification.

Can the minister provide the total approved life-cycle budget for Connected Services B.C.? How much has been spent to date, and over how many fiscal years is the project projected to run?

Hon. Diana Gibson: Connected Services is a division, which means it has a base budget with no fixed end date, but the stated goal is that all major life events will be supported by Connected Services by 2030. The base budget for Connected Services B.C. is $651.762 million.

Jody Toor: Has a full business case been completed for Connected Services B.C.? Will it be tabled publicly, and what is the projected return-on-investment timeline, including forecasted annual operating savings once fully implemented?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Connected Services B.C. is a division, which means it’ll have many projects which will each have their own business case, KPIs, milestones and such that’ll be reviewed by the deputy ministers committee, which has been delegated authority from Treasury Board for managing the $89 million capital budget.

In terms of the overall use case for Connected Services B.C., Connected Services B.C. is allocating existing resources and is focusing on using these resources more effectively, which is planned to achieve $30 million in cost savings in ’26-27.

A centralized information technology organization with a whole-of-government approach reduces duplication and saves money and time for the people of British Columbia, and government-shared platforms, standards and infrastructure will help avoid multiple ministries having to solve the same problem independently. This will allow government to substantially reduce procurement and development costs while avoiding duplication, ensuring that IT solutions are customizable, scalable and fit for purpose across government.

Jody Toor: What portion of Connected Services B.C. spending is allocated to external contractors and consultants? How many vendors are currently engaged? What competitive procurement processes were used, and what oversight techniques are in place to prevent cost overruns?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: In the supplement to the estimates, on page 30, is the detail on the professional services and IT contracts, in columns 60 and 63.

In terms of the numbers, analysis has been done, and it’s about 300 entities. In terms of procurement, we follow the procedures and policies of the government that are in chapter 6 under the Ministry of Finance, and all contracts over $10,000 are posted to Open Information.

Each project has a project board that includes the budget and time, with oversight by the deputy ministers committee on digital and data, which is delegated authority from Treasury Board.

[2:20 p.m.]

Jody Toor: Is the minister aware of any contracts with the software provider Workday?

Hon. Diana Gibson: A review of our database indicates that core government does not have a contract with Workday.

Jody Toor: The budget indicates that Connected Services B.C. brings together people, technology and data across ministries. In simple terms, that suggests more decisions about digital systems — like websites, online platforms and service portals — are now being made in one central place rather than separately within each ministry.

So instead of the Ministry of Health designing its own digital tools independently and the Ministry of Transportation designing theirs separately, there is now a central body guiding how those systems are built and how they function. Am I understanding that correctly?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: That is not an accurate statement. Connected Services works closely, perhaps even more closely than before, with the ministry’s partners in projects. We work with them not so much in a centralized model, but it is in a clear partnership model.

They’re part of the governance. The ministry partners are part of delivery. They’re part of decision-making. They’re part of user testing. They’re part of project boards. They’re part of every process of the development from day one. We could not do Connected Services without working with our partners to do it together.

Jody Toor: Has the creation of centred services B.C. reduced duplication across ministries, and if so, by how much in dollar terms?

Hon. Diana Gibson: Connected Services launched and started on October 1, and we had been doing the analysis to map out the systems and identify opportunities for efficiency while improving service delivery. Of course, I’ve already said we’re saving $35 million annually as a result of that.

An example of the kind of duplication that we’re talking about is duplicate technologies. I can give you a specific example.

We recently received a request to fund the building of a capital management IT system for a ministry. In the past, we may have funded that tool despite another ministry having a similar system. Instead of investing $5 million for a second time to build a stand-alone system, we are investing up to $1.5 million to enhance the system already developed to meet the requirements of both ministries. This will reduce the cost of implementation and reduce the ongoing costs of operating the resulting platform.

Jody Toor: Minister, since the creation of Connected Services B.C., do individual ministries have more flexibility in designing their digital services or less?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: In terms of flexibility for the ministries and new technologies, that really depends. There will be clear principles that will apply to any new technology, testing things with users — for example, inclusive data standards or using the B.C. Services Card so we have that one-door approach. These will be requirements that we have to ensure that we’re delivering better services for people.

But at the same time, previously different ministries had different capacities and would have had different abilities to do flexible technology development. Now we can allocate teams to support the needs of government, meet the needs of citizens and prioritize that, which means for some ministries there will be increased capacity for flexibility.

In the end, this really focuses on ensuring that citizens are at the centre of our systems and citizens’ needs are prioritized.

The Chair: The committee will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 2:34 p.m. to 2:43 p.m.

[Rohini Arora in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, Members, we’ll call the committee back to order.

Jody Toor: Minister, what criteria does the ministry use to decide whether to proceed with major IT capital investment in a time of fiscal uncertainty?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Decisions to proceed with IT investments are based on quite a big number of criteria. It starts, of course, with service level — if services are negatively impacted by the current technology.

Also, the opportunity to stitch together services so that people start to experience that Connected Services journey for all life events.

Another is the breadth, the number of British Columbians that would be impacted.

Another is the speed at which it would be delivered.

Also, we, of course, look at the economic impact, the cost-benefit analysis, the reduction of risk and the program’s readiness. As mentioned earlier, we’re working in close partnership with the programs to deliver this — so the program’s readiness to partner.

Jody Toor: What measurable indicators does the ministry use to track digital exclusion, meaning people who are unable to access services online?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: It’s hard to determine if people go online or not, but I can say that we really are working to improve digital services and want to improve digital services. We know there’s a lot to do in that area, and that’s what Connected Services is all about — continuing to do the work to improve how people access digital services.

What we do measure is percentage of households in B.C. with access to internet services with a minimum speed of over ten megabytes per second. We also measure citizen satisfaction with the contact centres and citizen satisfaction with Service B.C. centres. We continue to ensure that people aren’t left behind by delivering services in person, as well, and innovating and improving our in-person and phone access.

Connected Services, which is only a few months old, will be looking at how we continue to measure things like digital inclusion, and we’ve got B.C. Stats within Connected Services that will be working with us to do that.

Jody Toor: Minister, can you point to a performance measure in this service plan that tracks whether processes are becoming simpler over time?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: One of the big ways that we’re measuring the innovations we’re doing and the new technologies under Connected Services is through the ongoing user testing that we’ve been doing, and it’s really across all of the different innovations. That is a big part of how we’re testing how the technologies are working for people.

But we know there is more to do in terms of being able to assess satisfaction with digital services, and we will continue to work with B.C. Stats and our system users to develop that.

Jody Toor: Where in the service plan is there a metric that tracks the removal of outdated processes or requirements?

Hon. Diana Gibson: Within Connected Services, we have two teams that are working on (1) the legacy modernization and (2) policy streamlining. These are ensuring that we’re updating outdated technologies and processes. It can be policy that’s impacting on technology. In the Ministry of JEG, they have the red-tape reduction and will be measuring a number of these things through that red-tape-reduction measurement process.

Jody Toor: How does the ministry know whether modernization is reducing barriers, not just adding digital options?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: The purpose of Connected Services B.C. is to provide a one-front-door approach, and it’s all about reducing barriers. It’s to move beyond the system-by-system, ministry-by-ministry process where citizens are interacting with government, to make it across government where there’s a one-front-door approach.

For example, if somebody has a baby, we want them to be able to access a suite of services. They can get their B.C. Services Card; their social insurance number; and, in future, get onto the child care registry.

This is really about removing barriers and aligning policies across ministries, as well, to streamline processes. For example, different ministries have different income thresholds and things like that for programs. This is about removing those challenges for citizens accessing services.

Jody Toor: I want to shift to the digital marketplace within the service plan. By the number of IMIT opportunities posted, as the target increases from 17 to 125 over four years, is volume of posting the primary indicator of success for this program?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Metrics around our IMIT and digital marketplace aren’t volume-based metrics. It’s about measuring access to government opportunities, where we’ve heard from the sector and from businesses across B.C. that traditional procurement practices weren’t serving, particularly, the small and medium-sized firms. This is about us listening and engaging, and this is a metric to reflect that.

Our measure is to provide more opportunities across procurement, and we know that for companies that can access our digital marketplace, it can be a game-changer. For example, there’s one company that was able to scale from two to over 100 people after accessing the digital marketplace.

It’s great for the economy. It’s great for delivering. More importantly, of course, that company helped us to deliver a critical app during COVID that helped millions across the province.

Jody Toor: Minister, beyond the volume of postings, how does the ministry measure actual success in the digital marketplace? What percentage of posting opportunities result in contracts, and what portion of those contracts go to first-time vendors versus repeat suppliers?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: The digital marketplace offers several procurement services to enable government to partner with high-quality digital talent in our private sector. Some examples are Code with Us and Sprint with Us. The Sprint with Us program offers companies opportunities to bid on contracts of up to $5 million. These procurements can take as little as 17 days, start to finish.

We are working with the sector to enable better access, because we’ve been listening and we know that we can do more. We are working. We just had a vendor session yesterday with 240 vendors. I’ll be meeting with companies, talking about procurement policy in the coming weeks to hear about barriers to access; experiences with contracting, consulting and bidding; and how we can better ensure access for companies. We’ll be continuing to do that work.

Jody Toor: If modernization was intended to make procurement easier and faster, what evidence demonstrates that it has reduced procurement cycle times compared to traditional streams?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: As we move into modernization, we know that the traditional procurement can take quite a while, which is why that Sprint with Us program, for example, takes procurement from months down to 17 days. We are looking to continue to innovate in ways that help facilitate access to procurement.

Another opportunity is challenge-based procurement. Rather than coming to the procurement with an ask and a solution, we’re coming with the challenge and seeing what can be brought to the table.

As we think about modernization, we will likely need new streams for this work. We will be talking more, as mentioned already, with the tech sector about how we move forward with that, continuing to do that innovation in ways that really are focused on not just elevating and engaging across the sector but, of course, focusing on delivering services better for British Columbians.

Jody Toor: How many internal approvals are required before IMIT opportunity is posted, and how many approvals are required before it is awarded?

Hon. Diana Gibson: The approval for an IMIT expenditure really depends on the size and scope of the contract. For example, we have ranges, anything from $5,000 to millions. So the approval process, of course, would vary greatly.

Right now there are two major pieces. One would be, of course, approval by the spending authority — the one with authority for spending against budget. The other would be the qualified receiver, who is the one that’s able to report that they received what was committed. With this focus…. Of course, with the moment we’re in where we’re focusing on efficiency, all procurements are being carefully reviewed.

Jody Toor: Minister, before returning to line items, I want to understand the guiding philosophy of this ministry. When services are modernized, is the primary objective effectiveness or accessibility? When those two come into tension, which one governs decision-making?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: In the business of service delivery, it’s not possible to be effective if you’re not accessible. If people can’t access the services, we’re not delivering them effectively. We will continue to work to ensure that we’re elevating both effective and accessible services that are available to citizens of British Columbia. It’s not a trade-off.

Jody Toor: Your mandate speaks aggressively about innovation and cost-effectiveness.

Can the minister identify a measurable performance indicator in this service plan that demonstrates accessibility is weighted equally with effectiveness?

Hon. Diana Gibson: I’d like to reiterate that, as an agency whose priority is delivering services to British Columbians, effectiveness is service delivery, and service delivery is about whether citizens are satisfied with their access and use of a service. We measure, under our performance measures, citizen satisfaction with the contact centre and citizen satisfaction with Service B.C. centres, which measures our effectiveness and our access.

Jody Toor: Minister, the other day a gentleman came into my office looking for help. He had no computer, no email address and no ability to navigate library systems. Every service that he needed, needed digital access. This is not an isolated case. Many seniors in this province are not digitally fluent, not by choice but by circumstances. I want to understand how this ministry accounts for them in its design and measurement of services.

Minister, how many British Columbians over the age of 65 does the ministry estimate do not regularly use online government services?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Our ministry is very aware that there are seniors and other individuals around our province who, for a myriad of reasons, might not have the digital skills, fluency or technology to access services online. That’s why we continue to maintain in-person services across the province, including a service contact centre in Surrey.

I would suggest the member refer the person to either access the services…. They have a choice. In person at the Surrey contact centre. We also have a phone line that serves the entire province and has many, many languages, which they could contact by phone. The person has multiple options if they’re not digitally fluent.

We will continue to engage. I also met just recently with the seniors advocate, who was recognizing the opportunity with Connected Services B.C. for us to improve access for seniors and to work together, to user test and to engage with seniors around how they access services.

[3:30 p.m.]

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Jody Toor: Does the ministry track the number of citizens who abandon online applications due to technical difficulties or lack of digital literacy?

Hon. Diana Gibson: Individual programs track the drop-off on use of forms and use that to assess whether a form needs changing. Every form has on it a phone number that you can call and you will have somebody that can help you, without the form, to access that program or service. Our staff, our teams and our department are working to ensure people have access to the programs and services they need.

Jody Toor: What portion of core Citizens’ Services transactions now require an email address or online verification?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: I want to clarify for the member opposite that we don’t require online use of digital systems. We offer it because we’ve been asked to offer more services online. That is an offer, and it’s an option. They still have an option to access those services in person through our Service B.C. offices and other front-line service offices.

The idea is that people have been asking if they could use one B.C. Services Card to access services as a single verification, moving from multiple online log-ins to access services through different portals to one front counter using a single card where they can verify their identity.

Jody Toor: Can the minister confirm whether shifting services online reduces per-transaction cost to government?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: All systems are subjected to a rigorous business case. We talked earlier about the multiple criteria that are used to evaluate them. As we shift into more digital services, we continue to use those multiple criteria to evaluate the cost benefit. Reduced transaction costs can be one of those criteria. Of course, there are multiple others that we’ve discussed, including improving service access.

We are looking to reduce duplication where we can and have been doing so as we proceed. The services that we’re bringing to people in that one-front-counter approach could even be raising service for somebody that they weren’t even aware that they were eligible for.

Jody Toor: Page 9 references FOI annual reporting. Minister, what service standards does your ministry believe are unacceptable in responding to freedom-of-information requests? Is there a threshold at which delay becomes failure?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Freedom of information is an important way that government demonstrates transparency, promotes accountability to the public and engages people to receive both personal and public interest records.

My ministry is committed to improving the FOI system to ensure that people in B.C. can have timely access to the information they need. Since 2021, we have committed over $8.2 million to this goal through investments in process efficiency and modern technology.

My ministry’s FOI staff are working hard to help people access information. In fact, productivity has improved by 36 percent. It’s still not enough to meet the increasing volume and complexity of FOI requests. Today’s FOI requests are large, complex and take longer to provide to applicants due to increasing amounts of digital information.

Over the past five years, the average number of pages in an FOI request, a general request, has increased by 250 percent. Still, in 2024-25, 81 percent of requests were completed on time. In 2024-25, ministries published nearly 3,600 proactive disclosures.

I really want to point out, to the importance of this, that our ministry is looking at innovations for being able to meet the needs of FOI in this challenging time of increased volume and complexity. Proactive disclosures are something we’ve implemented in order to help, no FOI even required. Where there’s a file that is repeatedly requested that we know is going to be requested, we can proactively disclose that and have been doing so.

There are 17 current proactive disclosure directives that require the release of government information. In fact, in 2024-2025, there were approximately 3,600 proactive disclosures published, contributing to over 19,000 disclosures in the last five years.

We’re continuing to make an increasing number of high-value records available through other open information channels as well, such as B.C. data catalogue and ministry-specific programs and platforms.

Jody Toor: Does the ministry measure the percentage of FOI responses exceeding allowable timelines? If so, what is the number this year?

Hon. Diana Gibson: As I just mentioned in my last answer, in 2024-2025, 81 percent of requests were completed on time.

In light of the need for transparency, we do have an annual report that comes out. If you reference page 9 of the service plan, there’s a link to the annual report, and it gives you more detail on those reporting metrics.

[3:50 p.m.]

Jody Toor: What is the current FOI backlog compared to last year?

Hon. Diana Gibson: On page 8 of the annual report, you will see the data with regard to overdue requests. The current number, of course, wouldn’t be accurate because people are working on it at this minute, and it would change by the hour.

[3:55 p.m.]

You can see that there are challenges. We recognize the challenges, particularly because the bulk of these are personal requests.

An MCFD personal request can be very large and often include highly sensitive personal information involving engagement with outside parties. It can take an FOI analyst many months to review complex information found in a request, including paying close attention to protecting that third-party personal information.

Since 2021, we’ve had a memorandum of understanding in place with MCFD to augment the Ministry of Citizens’ Services staffing complement and to apply additional human resources to these requests. It’s important to recognize that a typical MCFD personal request contains hundreds of pages pulled from numerous locations, file folders and information technology systems. File contents can exceed 5,000 pages and sometimes be as large as 10,000 to 20,000 pages.

Together with MCFD, we are working towards service sustainability and making intentional service delivery improvements.

Jody Toor: How many fees did the government collect from FOI requests last year?

Hon. Diana Gibson: I refer the member opposite to page 17 of the FOIPPA annual report, where fees for access to information are listed in a table. The 2024-2025 numbers are there, the most recent numbers, and the application fees and processing fees are listed there.

Jody Toor: Can I get those numbers, Minister?

Hon. Diana Gibson: The application fee for 2024-2025 listed on page 17 of the annual report is for $22,590, and the processing fees paid to the nearest thousand, on page 17 of the annual report for 2024-2025, was $70,000.

Jody Toor: How many FOI FTEs have been reduced or reassigned?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: The MOU with MCFD continues to add 20 FTEs, which is where we’re trying to tackle the biggest challenges. That staffing level has not changed.

Across the ministry, we do have attrition at a rate of about 2 percent. Of course, as you know, there’s a hiring pause on right now. We do post expressions of interest across the ministry for any critical vacancies.

Jody Toor: Minister, between Budget 2025 and Budget 2026, what service requirement or internal approval process did the ministry eliminate?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: I want to assure the member opposite that our ministry is continually looking at opportunities to improve service access and service delivery across all of our programs and services.

An example of a recent change that was made around permitting is our work with B.C. Hydro to ensure that permitting goes smoothly for connectivity projects. The ministry works with passive-infrastructure owners, including B.C. Hydro, for access to poles and passive infrastructure for government-funded connectivity projects.

The ministry, in partnership with the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions and B.C. Hydro, has launched a proactive make-ready initiative that fronts the engineering design, poll assessments, required upgrades and other permitting work before the service providers begin construction. This work streamlines approvals, removes historical bottlenecks and cuts deployment timelines by an estimated six months.

In the Connected Services side as well, as mentioned previously, we’ve got two teams, one looking at legacy system modernization and another looking at streamlining policies. We’re going to continue to see that work be done to improve service delivery timelines.

I’d be happy to hear from the member opposite if there are opportunities for service or process changes that they think would help.

Jody Toor: Minister, the ministry projects near-universal access to 50/10 megabytes-per-second internet. Is that standard enough for emerging AI, telehealth and remote education demands over the next five years? Are your broadband investments based on population growth projections, and if those projections change, do your investment plans change as well?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: In March 2022, the B.C. and federal governments committed to investing up to $830 million to support the expansion of high-speed internet services to all remaining rural and Indigenous households. The B.C. government’s goal is to provide all households with a minimum speed of 50/10 megabytes, the universal service objective which is set federally by the federal regulator, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

When this funding was announced, there were an estimated 115,000 households underserved in B.C. There are now approximately 65,788 underserved households. These figures mark important progress towards meeting the goal of connecting all households in B.C. to high-speed internet services.

Figures show the status of broadband connectivity, how the government is tracking 100 percent of households served with high-speed internet. We continue to track the households and make progress as we go, and the population growth is included in those numbers.

It is our goal to connect all communities in B.C. to high-speed internet services. As of January 2026, 97 percent of homes across the province were connected; 80 percent of rural homes now have high-speed internet, compared to 57 percent in 2017; and 88 percent of First Nations home communities now have access, compared to only 66 percent in 2017. We’re continuing to do the work to close that gap.

[4:15 p.m.]

Jody Toor: I’ll close the estimates now. I just want to thank the minister and staff. Thank you for the discussion today.

We have talked about capital spending, digital systems, broadband and performance targets. On paper, those are categories. In real life, those are experiences. They determine whether someone accesses a service easily or gets stuck, whether a small business can compete or feels shut out, whether a rural family connects or feels left behind. The ministry sits quietly at the centre of those experiences. It may not make headlines, but it sharpens how people feel about such services.

Today government increasingly feels digital. I’m not anti-digital, but within our diverse communities, everyone matters. Technology can improve effectiveness. It can reduce duplication. It can create consistency. But modernization carries responsibility.

When services move online, accessibility must increase. When systems are centralized, complexity must decrease. Growth is easy to measure — platforms, connections, contracts — but clarity is harder. Are systems simpler? Are timelines shorter? Are processes easier to navigate? Are people who struggle with technology still supported? I’m not too sure.

When someone cannot navigate a portal, they do not experience transformation; they experience isolation. Modern government should not leave people alone in front of a screen. It should make connection easier, not harder; access wider, not narrow; transactions simpler, not layered.

That is a lens I have brought today — not to resist moving forward but to ensure that measurable, inclusive and human modernization should make life simpler. Government should feel closer, not distant.

I want to thank everybody that took part today. We had this discussion, so thank you.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I ask the minister if they would like to make any closing remarks.

Hon. Diana Gibson: I want to thank the member opposite for the discussion and the important issues that we discussed today as we work for Connected Services to ensure that citizens across British Columbia are met where they’re at, with services they need, when they need them and that we continue to do the work to deliver for British Columbians.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, and all members.

Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

Vote 19: ministry operations, $741,339,000 — approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members.

The committee will be recessed for the next ten minutes to reset for the next minister.

The committee recessed from 4:18 p.m. to 4:27 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Estimates: Ministry of
Attorney General

The Chair: All right, folks. I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General.

On Vote 14: ministry operations, $742,545,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to be thankful to all the team that’s watching at the ministry and is here in the room to support me through this estimates, and I appreciate all the work that they’ve done.

Steve Kooner: I’d just like to start by saying thank you to the Attorney General and the staff for being here today. I know it takes a lot of preparation to be prepared for estimates, and I appreciate the whole Attorney General’s department for all the work that you guys do.

In terms of just an opening introduction, I guess this is the second estimates that we’re having between the Attorney General and myself, and the theme is kind of overlapping since last year.

My concerns last year were that there wasn’t enough in terms of the Attorney General’s budget in terms of increase. Fast-forward to this year, I have similar concerns. They’re kind of even more significant for me at this time because we have a lot more justice issues that we have this year versus last year.

We’re dealing with such things…. In public safety, we’re dealing with the repeat violent offenders. We’re also dealing with repeat property offenders. In regards to public safety, we’re also dealing with the extortion crisis, which started spiking up in May of last year. We’re also dealing with issues of private property rights, particularly in Richmond, in my riding.

[4:30 p.m.]

There are a lot of justice issues right now, and at this time, it’s more important than ever to have the proper budget to kind of address all these crises that we’re actually seeing today. My concerns are similar to last year, but they’re a little elevated because we are seeing a lot more issues in justice compared to last year.

I note that there is a little bit of an increase, in terms of budget, from last year’s estimates. The total operating expenses were for $871 million, give or take. Now that budget, or the estimate budget, has come up to $896 million. Let’s just say $897 million, if we round it off. It’s come up about $25 million.

Last year, in last year’s estimates, I was saying that we need to account for population growth. We need to account for inflation. The number I used last year was 5 percent. When you factor in 5 percent from last year’s estimates — which were $875 million, give or take — to now….

If you put 5 percent, the increase should’ve been more than what we’re actually seeing right now. Right now what we have is a $25 million increase. I feel that there is a shortfall, and there’s especially a shortfall because we are dealing with a lot more justice issues this year compared to last year.

Those are my opening remarks. My focus will be on prosecution services, and I will touch upon legal services as well. This is prior to some other critics joining in, in terms of dealing with the anti-racism and multiculturalism aspect of Attorney General. The MLA for Richmond-Bridgeport will be touching on that. Then, after that, we do have the critic for ICBC to touch up on ICBC issues. My focus will be all the issues other than those two issues that I just mentioned, that the two other critics will be handling.

I guess we can get into the questions. There is an approximately $10 million increase in the prosecution service item line. My question is: what is that $10 million for? What is it going to be applied to?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to give a little bit of a summary of what’s in the budget related to Crown, because that’s the topic, the member noted the $10 million, which is a 4.6 percent base budget lift. That is for directly supporting the Crown but also for major cases.

But there are other further items that would go to Crown resources. One is the continued funding of the ReVOII program, which is $8.5 million, and then the new chronic property offending initiative, which is also in there. I think the Crown allocation of that is $4.9 million.

The total FTEs are now 1,037 of Crown prosecutors, and that’s the highest ever.

Steve Kooner: Okay. I just want to clarify. We were discussing the $10 million amount in terms of the increase in prosecution services, as per the line item, but we are now told that there was also an additional $8.5 million and for the C-POII $4.9 million. Where would that be included in terms of the line items?

Hon. Niki Sharma: If you direct your attention to page 25 of the budget, it lists that out. There’s a budget, and then there are the items that are funded through contingency, and those are some of the ones identified, like ReVOII and C-POII.

Steve Kooner: Page 25, the Attorney General mentioned there’s contingency. The lines that I actually see in here are the voted appropriation; operating expenses; capital expenditures; loans, investments and other requirements; revenue collected for and transferred to other entities. Is it page 25?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m happy to clarify. I’m talking about the budget, the overall budget document. I think we’re probably looking at different things. The page number that I gave the member was the Budget 2026 document.

Steve Kooner: Just going back to the point, are there any other increases, other than the $10 million, the $8.5 million and the $4.9 million, in terms of prosecution services?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Those are the budget’s increases, and I think I went over them. It’s at $10.5 million, which is a 4.6 percent increase, and then the contingency funding for ReVOII and the C-POII program.

Steve Kooner: In regards to the $10.5 million, I do see that the ReVOII program is covered and the C-POII program is covered. Are there particular programs in the $10.5 million as well?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s part of general operations.

Steve Kooner: Earlier it was stated that the FTEs would be brought up to 1,037 people. Is this as a result of all this funding — the $10.5 million plus the $8.5 million plus the $4.9 million?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes.

Steve Kooner: In regards to the 1,037 FTEs, out of that number, how many of those are Crown prosecutors?

Hon. Niki Sharma: So 52 percent of that number that I gave you are Crown counsel, and 48 percent are employees or are professional staff.

Steve Kooner: Okay. I’m just going to flow through to my next question, on a different topic.

In the estimates, under operating expenses for agencies, boards, commissions and other tribunals, there is a gross $80 million compared to a net $56 million, a surplus of $24 million. Then it’s stated that the $24 million is as a result of external recoveries. What does that refer to? What’s the external recovery from?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: That is a global number to represent things like fees that tribunals might charge for filing or things that are recoverable. That’s why that number is as it is.

Steve Kooner: What happened to the surplus? We know where it came from, but what happened to it?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to walk through that line to clarify the numbers that we’re talking about. If you see the gross column that the member is talking about, it’s at 80. Then the next one’s at 24, in brackets. That’s how much the gross would be for their expenditures, and then the external recoveries would be at the 24. So the net amount is the 56, which is what we’re budgeting in this budget.

Steve Kooner: Just to go back a step, the minister had stated that the external recovery is from fees and recoverables. What fees are those?

Hon. Niki Sharma: If requested, my team could provide a complete list, because, actually, there are a lot of agencies boards, commissions and tribunals, and they are varied. But mostly what they would be is filing fees.

Steve Kooner: Would that be court filing fees, or would that include the tribunals, courts and boards?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Specifically, this line item is for agencies, board, commissions and other tribunals, so not courts.

Steve Kooner: Okay.

Just moving on to a different line of questioning. I’d like to ask a question in regards to the minister’s office. The minister’s office budget is $765,000. Can the Attorney General give us a breakdown of this budget?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Of that breakdown of my ministry’s office…. The salaries and benefits are about $668,000. Then we have operating costs, which are about $97,000. That is the amount that covers seven staff with various positions.

Steve Kooner: Out of the $97,000 in terms of the operating budget, how much is spent on travel?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Of course, with a budget that’s forward-looking, I don’t know exactly how much travel would be this year, coming up. But I can tell you, based on last year, that of that, about $28,000 was travel.

[4:55 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Can the Attorney General share the number of prosecutors in the B.C. prosecution service? Earlier it was mentioned it’s 52 percent of 1,037 FTEs, but what’s the number in terms of Crown prosecutors?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There are 528 members of the Crown Counsel Association and 503 members of BCGEU, so that’s the difference between the Crown and the professional staff.

Steve Kooner: So we know there’s a total of 528 Crown prosecutors. How many of them are front-line Crown prosecutors?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The head of my B.C. prosecution service in the province says that all Crown counsel are front-line. They’re all capable of taking on files at different times.

Steve Kooner: Thank you for that answer. The answer came from the head of the prosecution service. Is there a differing opinion in the prosecution service of what Crown prosecutors are front-line or not?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The question was differences of opinion, and I would say the opinions on this side are that all Crown counsel are front-line and are able to take on files, and do, when required.

[5:00 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Back in September or October, I was just watching the news, and there was a union president for the Crown prosecutors that said that when the discussion was happening in terms of repeat property offenders, it was suggested that the Crown prosecution service needed an additional 50 front-line Crown prosecutors. Perhaps the B.C. prosecution service can elaborate on that.

The 50 additional Crown prosecutors that should be front-line — have they been hired since September or October?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I appreciate the work of the Crown Counsel Association. They represent their members well, and they endeavour to reflect the interests that the members have. I can say that increasing Crown resources has been definitely work we have done to make sure that the Crown resources are increasing to the level that’s needed.

I would say that since 2023, there was a hiring of 40 more FTEs at the Crown prosecution service. Then with this money, with C-POII in the budget, we expect that there will be another further increase of Crown across the province.

Steve Kooner: Just to answer that question, since that news story I watched in September or October…. The representative was saying that 50 new front-line Crown prosecutors are needed. How many hires have happened, since September or October of 2025 to now, to address that need?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, although I appreciate the Crown Counsel Association’s advocacy and numbers that they bring forward, the work that we’ve done with the prosecution service is an analysis of the FTEs that are needed. They’re constantly hiring. I think that when a Crown leaves, they’re hired.

From the perspective of the Crown prosecution service, they’re fully staffed. The C-POII will bring more Crown through those resources that we talked about at the beginning, with the C-POII program and the ReVOII program. Since I’ve been AG, we’ve put another 40 FTEs with the Crown team.

Steve Kooner: Thanks for that information — I really do appreciate it — in terms of what we may have coming into the future.

[5:05 p.m.]

When I heard that number of 50 front-line Crown prosecutors needed, it set alarm bells, because I know the total number of Crown prosecutors is, approximately, a little over 500. If somebody’s wanting 50, that’s 10 percent more. It’s a big number.

I just would like to know how many. Has it been five new hires, ten new hires or 15 since September or October of 2025 to now? It’s a period of approximately five months. Does the ministry have that data?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, this budget will give more money for Crown and their team for C-POII. As such a large organization, they’re constantly hiring and filling positions and doing that. I think it’s not an answer I’m able to give right now about all the times in those months that they have done that, but they’re stable right now with their staffing.

I mentioned the number at 1,037 FTEs, which is the highest that they’ve ever had, and this budget will give additional resources to Crown.

Steve Kooner: I really do appreciate the Attorney General’s answers. They’re helpful.

But I’m kind of alarmed by the number of 50, and I’m looking at the total number of Crown prosecutors, which is 528. That’s a big number. Probably for the public watching and hearing 50 and that the total number of Crown prosecutors we currently have is 528, that’s a big number. That’s a big void to kind of fill.

I appreciate that the Attorney General may not have the information here today, but I anticipate this debate will continue next week as well, so I would appreciate if the Attorney General’s department can look into that and just get at those numbers.

It’s a very crucial number. If someone out there, someone at a high-up level, was saying there’s a need for 50 front-line Crown prosecutors just five months ago and we only have 528 at this time, that’s about 10 percent. That would be a huge budgetary discussion that we would really need to have today or sometime during these estimates debates.

I really am requesting if the Attorney General’s department can request that information for the next time we meet here after today. It’s very crucial.

Now we’ll just move on. I guess I’ll put a question. Is it possible for the Attorney General’s department to get that information for next time?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah, we can get those numbers to you.

I think maybe I should be clearer about this. Although we appreciate the association’s advocacy and the number of 50 that’s put forward as their assessment of what’s needed, it’s not necessarily the case that we agree, or the prosecution service when they do their allocations of Crown counsel, that that’s the number that should be hired to.

We’re happy to get the information about what has been happening over the last little while, and I spoke again about the budget increase in resources that will go to Crown counsel and since 2023 the increases in resources that have gone to Crown counsel. We can talk about what has been done in the last few months that the member asked about.

Steve Kooner: Okay. Thank you for that answer.

I’ll just put a clear request on the record. I’m asking for the number of Crown counsel hired since September and October of 2025 to now. I would like that number.

[5:10 p.m.]

In addition to that, I would like to know how many of those that are hired were actually front-line. Could we have that for the next day’s discussion so that we can actually go through that? That’s a request that I’m putting on the record today. With that, I’ll continue my next question.

I guess another point is that if there’s a difference in opinion in terms of what the Crown prosecutor’s union is saying versus the actual Crown prosecution service. Is there a reason that there’s a difference in opinion between the two?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m not going to speculate on that. The Crown prosecution association does a really good job of representing themselves and their opinions, so I’m going to refrain from answering that question.

Steve Kooner: Okay.

We’ve talked about front-line Crown prosecutors, which we’re going to get back to next time as well, once we get the accurate numbers in terms of how many Crown prosecutors have been hired since September and October of 2025. So I’ll come back to that discussion when we get that data from the Attorney General’s department.

But we also do have, sometimes, ad hoc Crown counsel or prosecutors that get appointed on cases. How many active special prosecutors does the ministry have, and are any of them working on active cases right now?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move the committee rise and report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Citizen Services and report progress on the Ministry of Attorney General and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:14 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 1:07 p.m.

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Infrastructure

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We are now meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Infrastructure.

On Vote 37: ministry operations, $420,514,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I’m pleased to be here today on the territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən Peoples, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

I’d like to start by identifying those ministry staff who are with me here today.

We have Bobbi Plecas, deputy minister; and Jason Butler, executive financial officer and assistant deputy minister of corporate services and community capital development. We have Jennifer Melles, assistant deputy minister of infrastructure and policy and partnerships; Amy Miller behind me, assistant deputy minister of community capital development; Miguel Morrissette, assistant deputy minister of the real property division; and a number of other ministry staff who will also be joining us, depending on the topic of discussion; along with Irene Kerr, president and CEO of B.C. Infrastructure Benefits; and Mark Liedemann, president and CEO of Infrastructure B.C.

Before I continue with the remainder of my remarks, I do want to acknowledge the horrific tragedy that occurred a couple of weeks ago in Tumbler Ridge, and I want to thank the B.C. wildfire service, ATCO and Fort Modular for providing quick access and setup of modular classrooms.

Prince George school district. They really stepped up, as well, to support the Peace River South school district, along with Focused Education, Staples and Grand and Toy. Together they supplied classroom furniture and materials for students and teachers in an expedited fashion.

[1:10 p.m.]

We acknowledge CBRE for their professionalism in managing the site; BMO, United Way B.C. and Canadian Red Cross for donating to support the families and the community; and the program staff in the Ministry of Education and Child Care, the Ministry of Infrastructure and other ministries who worked tirelessly and around the clock to help support the community. I want to thank all of them for their dedication to our province, each of you for your care and really acknowledge the support that all of you have provided to the people of Tumbler Ridge.

Going back to the Ministry of Infrastructure’s estimates process, I’ll say that after years of increasing the capital plan to close gaps and strengthen services that people depend on, we all acknowledge that the world has changed dramatically.

Like other governments across Canada, we are facing fiscal pressures that require realistic and disciplined decisions to protect the services that people rely on and to maintain long-term stability, which is why, in Budget 2026, we are re-pacing the capital plan to manage debt while continuing to build critical infrastructure like schools, hospitals and transit for British Columbians.

Budget 2026 projects nearly $38 billion in taxpayer-supported capital spending over the next three years. This includes 17 major hospitals and acute care facilities; important transit expansions like Surrey-Langley SkyTrain and the Broadway subway project; 66 major K-to-12 school additions and improvements; building nearly 3,900 new student housing beds; and, of course, work underway on the first new medical school in western Canada in nearly 60 years.

This is in addition to hundreds of projects that have already been completed, including 14 new and upgraded hospitals or health care facilities, 23,600 new student seats at K-to-12 schools and 7,300 new student housing beds.

This year’s capital plan reflects the current fiscal environment and paces projects to mitigate construction cost escalation and maintain a competitive debt-to-GDP to support economic growth.

Following our annual review of the government’s capital plan, spending projections were refined to reflect more accurate timelines and anticipated federal funding as well. Project timelines were reassessed, and as a result, Budget 2026 sees an adjustment to the timelines of some capital projects.

We know that we have more to do to deliver infrastructure that people need in their communities. Budget 2026 is the result of careful choices that protect what matters most and ensure that we can sustainably deliver the hospitals, schools and other infrastructure that communities need in the years to come.

I look forward to debating the estimates. With that, I turn it over to the Chair.

The Chair: I recognize the member for Langley–Walnut Grove. Would you like to make opening remarks?

Misty Van Popta: Yes. Thank you, Chair.

First of all, I want to just really acknowledge the opportunity to do this work together, and I’d also be remiss not to say I’m awfully excited that we’re doing this during daylight hours and not in the midnight hours as of last year.

I know that there are hundreds of hours of work in this room alone and on our side as well, so I do want to acknowledge the efforts to try to do things better. But as my job as critic…. It’s to get into the nitty-gritty and to ask the difficult questions. I’ll be doing a lot of that over the next seven hours or so, over the next two days.

Understanding that we’re on the third floor, a lot of stairs involved in this room, trying to keep things kind of compartmentalized so that staff isn’t having to go up and down….

Interjection.

Misty Van Popta: Yeah, I know. The unintended gym protocol that I’m not getting outside of this chamber.

I’ve kind of got a little bit of different themes that I’ll be touching on. I’m going to open up mainly with just some general ministry questions, areas of procedural concern, process, a dive into the operations of the ministry, and then we’ll move on to a more targeted line of questioning.

[1:15 p.m.]

I’m going to start, really, by diving into the operations of the ministry. Last year, obviously, brand new MLA, first ministry up…. I wasn’t feeling quite like I totally understood everything last year quite like I do this year.

I did take a significant amount of time to make sure that I had fully understood what I could from the budget book through a brief, and I just really wanted to go back to the mandate letter, which I think I actually forgot to bring.

Honing in on a couple pieces, I just refreshed my mind about what your mandate was, looking into the lines that spoke specifically about finding efficiencies, working in collaboration with other ministries to streamline processes. I just wanted to start off by touching on where you’ve come in the last 15 months in some of this work.

I’ll start off by saying that I deep dove into the ministry itself and the operations. One of the takeaways that I’ve got, looking through last year’s estimates notes, is that I think it was recorded that there were 97 or 99 staff at the time. Understanding that real estate or real properties are now brought in, I’ll touch on those numbers a little bit later.

Based on what’s public access right now, I did a deep dive. We’ve got a 40 percent management to what appears to be front staff levels…. There are some departments, in fact, that have equal or larger numbers of directors than they do staff. For instance, in the education and child care capital department, I think I counted, I want to say…. I think there were ten directors and ten staff.

I wanted to ask, as the first opening question: could the minister please discuss what measures she has taken within the operations of her ministry this past year to find cost savings? We’ll just start there for now.

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Thank you for your patience as we try to work out the numbers and a response that is helpful.

[1:25 p.m.]

First, I need to remind the House that the Ministry of Infrastructure was created at a time when hiring was frozen across government. The Ministry of Infrastructure, as a ministry, started out exceptionally lean already. It collected capital staff from the Ministries of Health, of Education, of Post-Secondary and Future Skills.

Then, within the staff complement, we had to figure out how we provide all the administrative functions of a normal ministry — IT, HR and so forth — because those FTEs did not come over from those ministries. So we started out with an exceptionally lean ministry.

If we go back to Budget 2025, the expectation was that our ministry was delivering in excess of $25 billion of capital funds, of capital infrastructure, with a staff complement of about 100 people. The member will be able to figure out the math. It comes out to almost half a billion dollars of capital delivery per staff member — so an exceptionally lean ministry in terms of the delivery of projects. And despite the moderation of the capital plan in this year’s budget, it’s still an exceptionally lean ministry.

Now, I say this with the caveat of setting aside the real properties division for now, because the real properties division only just came into the ministry, and part of the work that we need to do with the real properties division is to understand their staff complement and fully integrate it into the new ministry.

We believe that there are significant opportunities for us to utilize the FTEs and the expertise and the skills from the real property division to build out the general capacity of the ministry. But the real property division did come over to us from the Ministry of Citizens’ Services already kind of as a complete and mature unit, and the work is happening to make better use of those FTEs.

In terms of the member’s question around excluded staff or what she described as managers, I should note that the Ministry of Infrastructure does not provide front-line services to communities. We manage projects and primarily manage projects in partnership with other partners. So there’s a lot of management work involved in the Ministry of Infrastructure.

It’s also worth noting that a significant amount of our work involves activities or requires activities from staff members that do not fit bargaining unit job descriptions — so anything that is related to cabinet confidence, liaising with senior partners.

They are classified as managers because their work description doesn’t fit bargaining unit definitions, but they are workers. They do a lot of work. Some examples of excluded staff will include some of the architects and engineers in the real properties division — those sorts of things.

Given that a significant amount of the Ministry of Infrastructure’s work over the last 15 months was related to legislation, for instance, the vast majority of the staff that work on legislation are excluded staff because of the confidential nature of that work and the highly specialized nature of that work. It means that the staff that are required don’t fit neatly into bargaining unit definitions.

Overall, right now, our non-real properties division staff complement — kind of that foundational Ministry of Infrastructure staff — sits at 113 FTEs for the entire capital program that they’re expected to deliver.

Misty Van Popta: That says to me that there was not a hiring freeze last year because, on record, you’re at 97, which would mean that there was an increase of at least 15 people in your ministry in the past year. Before I would break there, I’ll just pop in a few other things.

If we could just go into, while you’re scrumming…. If you could just respond if there are any current vacancies. Or are you planning on…? Maybe now that all the ministries have kind of been figured out, when you’re pulling from schools and hospitals and things like that, if you found any efficiencies in that, there are positions that will not be filled if there is a current vacancy now.

[1:30 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The Ministry of Infrastructure was actually approved for a staff complement of 148 FTEs in February 2025. You can see how far below that we’ve been this entire time.

There was a hiring freeze in the public service, but because the Ministry of Infrastructure was just starting up — and I described some of the challenges, in terms of the administrative functions, that a ministry would normally have that we lacked — we as a ministry received special permission from the head of the public service to do some internal hiring, so only hiring from within the public service, which also meant that we were giving excellent new opportunities to public servants, who were already in the public service at the time, from other ministries.

Examples of where we would have needed to fill those gaps include, in addition to what I’ve already described, the legislation team. The Ministry of Infrastructure was able to take on capital staff, but we did not have a legislation team, which was required to actually develop the IPA.

[1:35 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: I’m still trying to mirror or flush through how a hiring freeze…. Even though you’re hiring within the public service sector, it’s not deemed a hire. Understanding that they’re within the same union or otherwise, it’s transferring from another budget into a ministry budget. If I look at the HR department, we’ve got an executive director, a director, two managers and two staff, which is not what was there last year.

A lot of the narrative about tightening up purse strings…. I do understand that this department and this ministry is running more lean than others, but that doesn’t mean that there’s not room for improvements in running even leaner.

I find that narrative a little bit challenging, that although it’s within the public servant sphere, it is still an actual hire. It just seems like a play on words. If you’re pulling in from other ministries within the Legislature, that’s one thing, but I’m struggling with that a little bit. I also know that you’re moving them out of Infrastructure — I think HR and IT, based on the brief. That’s starting in April, I believe.

I’m going to move on from that. Rather than scrumming, unless it requires…. I noticed that there was a $4.9 million increase in salaries and an $8.5 million increase in operating costs. Am I to assume that’s because of the real property being brought in? If not, then we’ll scrum on that.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I’m going to do my best at this. It’s accounting speak.

It’s a fiscally neutral accounting standard adjustment where funding was adjusted between accounting pots that we call STOBs but apparently was actually fiscally neutral across government.

To the member’s previous question about the hiring freeze, to be clear, the hiring freeze was across government. But the Ministry of Infrastructure, as a new ministry, did need to grow in order to become a ministry that was actually set up to succeed. The hiring freeze meant that the public service was not growing, and in order to better utilize the existing staff complement that existed within government, people shuffled around internally. It’s the same thing that we would do if we were trying to improve efficiencies and fill in gaps within our own ministry, except that it fits within the same budget.

When you have a public service that is frozen, but you still have new needs coming up because there are programs being developed and other programs coming to an end, it is, I think, understandable that any organization would want to use their existing resources better and shuffle them around. So the internal hiring that the Ministry of Infrastructure did from other ministries was effectively part of that shuffling around.

Some of the other reasons why the member will see some increases in FTEs are also that we’ve had people on long-term leave that returned as well. Some capital project managers that were on maternity leave or long-term disability or sick leave may have returned partway through the fiscal year.

Misty Van Popta: Okay. We’re going to move on now to a bit more of a broad discussion on project delivery in general, not focusing in on, say, long-term care or anything like that.

Outside of Bill 15 regulations, which we’ll probably touch on a little bit later, are there any policies or regulations that have been updated or consolidated or deemed void since the ministry has formed? If so, which ones could be attributed to some efficiencies that you found?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I’m sympathetic to where the member is coming from. In this ministry, which is so different from any other ministries, as in where we are in our life cycle….

Recognizing that the opposition likely has a similar line of questioning on all the different ministries…. In the case of other ministries, we’ve got very mature, well-established ministries that perhaps have grown and evolved over many years and many decades and are now in a position to try to shrink and find efficiencies.

The Ministry of Infrastructure is actually almost in the opposite situation, where we are brand-new and trying to establish and trying to become a ministry that can do the things that we were created to do. We’re sort of on a different trajectory, so I apologize. My answers perhaps will sound different from what you’ll hear from other ministries, because we’re on a different trajectory right now.

Over the last year, I would say that our ministry’s focus, aside from the creation of the IPA and some of the other new scopes that came into the fold, has been focused on integrating the three sectors of capital delivery that previously existed in other ministries.

They came with different staff, with different project management expectations, different processes, different standards for information management, different standards and expectations for oversight, different ways of communicating with partners. A specific example would be how the different sectors of project teams previously would issue their capital letters to partners in very different time frames from one another throughout the fiscal year.

The process of trying to integrate and align and use lessons learned to establish best practices across all sectors is a big part of the work that we have done. That means aligning processes and expectations, information collection, raising the general standard of management of projects and raising the standard for cross-sector oversight that government has through the ministry.

We also are able to…. That process in itself contributes to the efficiency and the better delivery of projects that government can provide. By adding the real property division…. One of the major reasons why government chose to do that is also so that we could better utilize the existing technical expertise that existed within the real properties division.

Instead of having Citizens’ Services have the separate real property division, we brought it into the Ministry of Infrastructure so that we could use their architects and their engineers and the quantity surveyors to actually provide the kind of technical expertise that we desperately needed on our projects. We also better utilized Infrastructure B.C. as a Crown corporation to provide more procurement advice.

[1:50 p.m.]

All of this allows us to reduce reliance on external consultants. We’re able to better utilize the in-house expertise so that we’re not outsourcing as much of that work. We will still have need for external consultants in many circumstances, but we were able to better utilize the staff that already existed within.

It also increased our capacity to better validate what we were hearing from partners. We rely on partners like school districts and post-secondary institutions and health authorities so much to deliver their projects. Having the internal capacity and expertise to be able to receive their plans and say, “It doesn’t really make sense” or “Have you thought about it this way?” really allows us to make better decisions on projects.

Misty Van Popta: Thank you for that.

Based on the mandate letter, it says you’re to work with colleagues to address permit delays. Now that we’re going into this conversation about efficiencies, which permit timelines have you been able to work with other ministries to improve, and by how much?

If I think back to some of our IPA discussions, there was some conversation about water permits and the WLRS revision and stuff. Can you speak to any improvements — based on your mandate letter, which says to work with your other colleagues in other ministries to find a better way to do things — if you’ve had any success in that yet?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The primary, most obvious way that the Ministry of Infrastructure was intended to help reduce permitting timelines was through the Infrastructure Projects Act, which I know we canvassed significantly through the debate on the legislation last year.

Since the passing of the legislation, we set out to do the fulsome engagement that we had always intended to do following that. There have been significant engagements, a ton of work around the development of guidelines for provincially significant projects and the development of the qualified professional reliance model.

There has been extensive work with the environmental assessment office on developing an expedited EA process. That work is ongoing.

What I will also say is that one of the other major wins that came from the creation of the Ministry of Infrastructure was the superior project focus and drive that comes from the existence of the ministry, which means that we are more able to directly work with colleagues and partners in other ministries to course-correct on permitting applications and to ensure that permits for public projects are receiving the attention that they require from permitting agencies within other ministries.

It also meant that our project teams are able to be more proactive in intervening in conversations with local governments in order to move those conversations along when partners and local governments might otherwise get stalled out, for whatever reason, in the course of their work to get a local government permit or decision.

The fact that the ministry exists in the format that it does, where we exist solely and specifically to move projects along, has meant that we have been able to actually grab the bull by the horns on all of our projects and drive them forward in a more efficient and better manner.

Misty Van Popta: Understanding the IPA piece of it and the work that comes out of that act being in place now came after your mandate letter. The mandate letter specifically says: “Work with your ministerial colleagues to address permit delays in major infrastructure projects and identify opportunities for reduced cost and increased efficiency.”

There was a mandate there for you to work with others to find and, rather than the direct result of the Infrastructure Projects Act, to be able to lift them out, highlight that there’s a problem here and fix things that are project-related. It doesn’t ever get to the crux of why those issues have resulted in such a backlog. At one point, there were 7,800 permits sitting, I think, in some sort of water permit or something like that.

[2:00 p.m.]

This piece of the mandate talks about your ministry working with other departments to get to the root of the problem of why there’s such a backlog in permit delays, so I want to speak specifically to that.

What work has occurred within your ministry to work with, say, water and land to increase their efficiencies?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: It’s probably worth clarifying that the mandate to allow us to work with other ministries on improving permitting processes did not give the Ministry of Infrastructure authority over all of those processes. It’s collaborative, okay? Just making sure that was understood.

That is how we’ve been able to get our projects through permitting challenges more quickly: by working with other ministries. We work collaboratively with them to ensure that our project permits are prioritized. We work collaboratively with them to advocate and problem-solve on permits that are struggling to get through for projects spread across the province. In doing so, we also are able to collaboratively identify more systemic issues that those ministries are then able to carry out to improve their work overall.

Aside from that, aside from the more project-by-project focus of the work, through the auspices of the Infrastructure Projects Act we’re also able to work with them on developing these expedited processes, the expedited EA process and the qualified professional process.

All of that work happens in collaboration with these ministries. All of this work has to happen in collaboration with those ministries, and our collective work is intended to be something that they’re then able to extrapolate basically across the field.

[2:05 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: Moving on, can you speak to whether the ministry is involved specifically in the design phase of projects, whether it’s hospitals, long-term care, schools? At what point does the ministry get involved with the design of projects before they’re funded?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I’m unable to really answer this from the perspective of the Ministry of Infrastructure — as in, the last 15 months — because the reality is that the vast majority of the projects that are underway have existed for longer than the Ministry of Infrastructure.

What I would say is, generally speaking, government had not been involved in the design of the projects, particularly those projects delivered by partners like school districts, health authorities and post-secondary institutions. I think that is something that we intend to change.

From K-to-12 schools, the province provided high-level guidelines, and the team did review school district designs from concept through construction from a primarily cost-efficiency perspective and to identify opportunities for value engineering. But government was not involved in the design of health care sector projects nor post-secondary institution projects.

This is a space that the Ministry of Infrastructure intends to get into, which is why we have been, first off…. The creation of the IPA allows for the Ministry of Infrastructure to be more directly involved in the delivery of infrastructure. That’s new from the last year. It’s one of the reasons why we put that in there.

[2:10 p.m.]

We’ve also been talking about creating standardized design guidelines for long-term-care projects because we recognize the need for more efficient designs. Some of these projects that have been built through partners are gorgeous, wonderful, real testaments to the community spirit, and they are wonderful to be in. They also oftentimes involve design elements that are not critical and are very expensive.

Given the government’s fiscal situation, it is important for us to be much more focused about what’s being delivered in the projects that government funds. So part of the reason why the Ministry of Infrastructure was created was to get into that space.

Interestingly, the real property division that just came over from the Ministry of Citizens’ Services…. They actually do the design directly. Their teams design courthouses and correctional facilities. It again speaks to why it was important for us to marry that division into our ministry, because we would like to take advantage of their expertise and experience in this and extend it to other areas of project delivery in our ministry.

Misty Van Popta: I remember hearing a lot about the standardization of projects from last year and then going into the IPA debate period. I was wondering then…. With the real division, I would assume, then, that the long-term care and school piece would fit into there.

I always jokingly have said this over the years. I grew up in cinder-block schools, and I came out, I think, okay. So I’m thinking that there is something between these beautiful, amazing facilities that we’re building and going back to a bit of the basics through standardization. I would assume that that would be going into your real properties division.

Could you speak to a timeline of when you see that work would be completed for long-term care and for schools?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I was commenting to the team behind. I said: “I’m going to have to clarify.”

The Ministry of Infrastructure is not becoming the real properties division. The real properties division is becoming the Ministry of Infrastructure. So there will be a reorganization, and the skills and expertise that came over as part of the real properties division that previously existed in Citizens’ Services will likely be…. There will be a reorg to ensure that we’re fully maximizing the skills and expertise of everyone in the now Ministry of Infrastructure.

In terms of the work that we are doing to get more involved in design, I would say it’s already underway, and it’s continuous. For instance, we are regularly refining the design guidelines for K-to-12 schools. We have already been encouraging school districts to use repeatable designs — not just school districts but other partners as well.

A good example would be the Langley school district. It regularly uses repeat designs. Hazel Trembath in Coquitlam is going to be a modified repeat design of another middle school. So we’re already getting ourselves involved in shaping how these more recent projects are being delivered.

In the long-term-care sector, work has already been underway, basically since the inception of the ministry, to better understand how we’ve been delivering long-term care and how that needs to be improved. The work has included cross-jurisdictional scans and an analysis of where opportunities have been realized in other provinces and how we can bring that here.

We’ll be seeking input from partners and stakeholders on that process in the weeks ahead, particularly since we’ve communicated the re-pacing of those long-term-care projects.

I’ve also been speaking with board chairs to ask their teams to work with us on the next step on long-term care, because it is our intention to actually deliver beds and more of them, but we need to do the work together to make sure that we’re able to deliver at scale.

I think I’ll pause there.

Misty Van Popta: Since 2019, institutional construction costs have risen by 30 percent. There are three pillars, if you will, that contribute to the costs of construction. You’ve got material costs, labour costs and policy and regulations. Much of the material and labour cost challenges have stabilized since 2023 and equally affected the private sector versus the public sector.

[2:20 p.m.]

The third pillar, policy and regulations, is much in the hands of this government. Whether it’s procurement rules and sourcing requirements or climate-action-type policies in CleanBC, these attribute massive costs to the bottom line of a construction project.

Could the minister please go through the CleanBC program as it relates to provincial infrastructure projects, and could she please speak to the cost implications that CleanBC requirements impose on infrastructure projects in B.C.?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Driving down greenhouse gas emissions and addressing climate change through climate action has been a priority of our government and British Columbians for many years. It’s understood that climate change has significant negative impacts on people’s health, on people’s mental well-being, on our environment and on our ability to sustainably thrive as a community and a society into the future.

[2:25 p.m.]

Part of the CleanBC program encouraged us to also look at the types of buildings that we were building and explore whether there were opportunities for us, through the design of the building, to drive down greenhouse gas emissions that are required to operate the building.

I would say that the opportunity to design a building so that it is carbon-neutral…. It differs depending on the building. It is a lot easier to do on some projects than others.

For example, if you have an elementary school and it is determined that for an extra 3 percent on the construction cost, we can reduce the carbon emissions from that building by 50 percent, and that amount is compared against the life-cycle operating costs of the building and we find that because it takes 50 percent less energy to operate over its life cycle, the savings in operating costs exceed the investment on the capital side in order to bring down those greenhouse gas emissions, it would be an easy decision to make.

But not every building is like that, so the decision is made on a project-by-project basis.

Misty Van Popta: Could you speak to some of the hospital projects underway right now — like St. Paul’s, Surrey — in terms of the CleanBC impact on their design in the costs associated with those projects?

The Chair: This committee is going to take a five-minute break, so we will be back here at 2:32.

The committee recessed from 2:27 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the Committee of Supply, Section C, back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Infrastructure.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The health capital policy manual provides a guideline that designs should attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent, compared to LEED gold, for no more than 3 percent additional cost.

Misty Van Popta: I was recognized by the actual former Minister of Environment and Climate Change and was quoted as saying: “Studies in B.C. have estimated that the average new construction cost to meet step 5, which is net-zero, energy-ready buildings for all new construction types” — so not just step code, which is housing — “is approximately plus 10 percent.”

Understanding the mandate that it inherently costs 10 percent more to build these types of facilities, you’re stating it’s only 3 percent. Let me do the math here. On a 2.8…. We could even split it down the middle if you want. But if you want to go with the 3 percent….

What’s 3 percent? Somebody help me out here.

We’re still looking at roughly $86 million on a hospital project, which is a significant amount of money for protocols when we’ve got people and patients lining hospitals throughout British Columbia.

I was recently in my own local hospital, randomly in the elevator. A lady walked in, burst into tears looking at me and said: “Did you see my mom lying there?” I said no, but she said: “She has been lying outside the nurses’ station for 12 days.” This is Langley Memorial, which, based on not hitting the budget this year and needing other work done, is not going to be addressed any time soon.

We’ve got an inherent problem where we’ve got a lot of money being spent on regulations while not building and not increasing capacity and opening up money that could be spent building more facilities and larger facilities. I just wanted to talk about that.

I’m wondering if the minister is looking into current regulations and procurement rules that have a direct cost implication to construction costs and can commit to the patients of today in addressing the shortfall in the amount of beds that we have in this province.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The short answer is yes. We are constantly taking a look at our procurement processes, our design guidelines and the specifications which we expect our public facilities to be built to.

It is important to note, however, that different buildings have different design complexities, and the costs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in different buildings will be different. Some buildings will be easier to design as carbon-neutral than others.

The health capital policy that I shared earlier basically means that if a 50 percent greenhouse gas reduction cannot be achieved for under 3 percent, then it’s unlikely to be considered for moving forward. It is a way that government caps the additional cost of greenhouse gas emission efforts in our buildings.

[2:45 p.m.]

That being said, it’s also very important to note that the life-cycle cost of a public infrastructure building and the provision of services from it are not limited to how much we invest in the capital side. It also costs an enormous amount of money to operate and to run.

A big amount, a big line item, of those operating costs will be energy costs as well. More energy-efficient buildings take less energy to run.

So it is not as simple as saying that because we are investing tens of millions of dollars more in a multi-billion-dollar project, we have somehow wasted that money. A lot of those costs are recovered through the operating life-cycle costs of the building.

In addition to that, I really need to emphasize that the impacts of climate change on health are real. We have had historic heatwaves, during which hundreds of seniors died and thousands more were admitted into hospitals to help deal with symptoms of acute heat stroke and heat exhaustion.

Our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to do our part from a climate action perspective are part of our work to help ensure that the health of our province continues to be sustainable. It is part of our work in protecting people as well.

I do want to emphasize that this isn’t simply an expenditure to tick off a box. There are very real reasons why governments here and around the world have taken climate change seriously.

Misty Van Popta: I agree about doing our part, but I think that comes down to philosophy as well. I’m a self-confessed reasonable environmentalist. I grow my own food, drive a hybrid, hang my own laundry out to dry six months of the year. I do my part, and I do believe that we should do our part.

But the fact is that seniors are dying in hallways today. When we talk about the heatwave, it’s interesting to think of that analogy. How many of those seniors should have been in a long-term-care facility and in the comforts of a place where there was air conditioning? A lot of people don’t have choice in where they live, because the facilities are not being built fast enough.

Construction today is not the construction of the 1950s. We are inherently more energy efficient. Understanding the life cycle of a project is important, but building facilities today to the already increased standards that we have in construction — the envelopes, windows, HVAC systems, all of that — is inherently more efficient than what we were previously building.

We’re talking about construction costs of long-term care not being addressed in this year’s budget but also seeing that we have policies that are driving up the cost of construction when people are dying today. How am I supposed to say this? It’s hard to say: “We’re doing good over here, but we’re making people wait over here.”

I’d just really encourage that we look at those policies, see where we can build facilities faster and put money into building infrastructure that we need today.

I’m going to move on to another item that has been popping up quite a bit. I’ve been talking a lot in the non-profit private sector, both in school delivery and in long-term-care delivery. And seeing why…. They have a budget on a project, and that’s what the cost of the project is at the end. One of those is, really, contracts.

I was just going to ask the minister how she’s going to address contracts and ensure that there are contractual obligations to deliver projects on budget and on time. This is how the private sector currently works: “This is your budget. You don’t have more money. Make it happen.”

There’s a change order environment that is enshrouded in government projects, whether it’s on the contractor side, knowing that it happens. I just wanted to understand, from the ministry’s perspective, how we’re going to rein that back, how we’re going to be able to close that loophole to make sure that if a project is $500 million, that’s what it’s being built for.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I want to remind the member that since 2017, our government has invested nearly $14 billion on health capital projects and continues to forecast an additional $29 billion over the next ten years. It is the largest investment program into health capital that the province has ever undertaken.

When the member talks about the need for more acute care beds, the need for more long-term-care beds, the need for more health care facilities, we absolutely agree. We have been taking action over the last many years to increase the infrastructure capacity of the province to be able to deliver those services.

Six major hospital redevelopment projects have been completed since 2017. We have a further ten in development or under construction. They will provide 3,800 new in-patient beds, new operating rooms, new emergency department spaces, diagnostic imaging modalities. These include the new hospital project that is now open in Terrace, the one open in Fort St. John. We’ve got ongoing redevelopment projects over at Royal Columbian Hospital, and Cowichan District Hospital in Duncan is still ongoing.

We’ve committed nearly $3.8 billion in funding towards 12 new long-term-care facilities in Richmond, Vancouver, Nanaimo, Cranbrook and more and have committed $246 million to 50 new urgent and primary care centres, 20 new primary care networks and four community health centres across the province. We know that there is more work to do, but it is also important to recognize that an enormous amount has been done already.

[2:55 p.m.]

The work that we are doing now is to take a step back and understand where we are now in terms of what is needed and the cost to deliver projects the way that we’ve done so far and find better ways forward, exactly as the member has described is needed. We agree.

In order to mitigate cost escalations on projects, we now build in scope ladders so that when projects go to procurement, we’re able to basically create the project that fits.

Mitigation efforts undertaken by the ministry to reduce the likelihood and impact of cost escalations include establishing appropriate project governance to ensure timely reporting, issue identification and the implementation of mitigation strategies. We ensure that sector partners undertake comprehensive functional programming and design development and secure third-party cost estimates before requesting approval.

We are establishing disciplined use of project contingencies and requiring prior approval to access it. We’re also monitoring contingency drawdown on projects to identify emerging risks earlier.

We’re leveraging data from recent comparable projects to validate cost assumptions and identify potential escalation risks; minimizing changes to project scope wherever possible; and, where it is unavoidable, requiring formal change control processes to measure full cost and schedule impacts.

We’re also requiring project owners to maintain risk registers with mitigation strategies and accountabilities clearly outlined to support proactive management of known risks.

Misty Van Popta: Thank you for that. It’s good to hear that we’re trying to figure out where some of those problems have occurred in the past and how we’re going to mitigate them going forward.

Just in this year’s budget, I think I counted six health…. Not including long-term care but both cancer centres, Royal Inland, St Paul’s clinical, I think the new Surrey…. They all had budget increases this year. That was where that line of question came from.

That’s the important work to understand. That kind of budgeting and estimating go hand in hand. I was greatly shocked last year hearing the $1.2 billion increase in Surrey, just in one calendar year, which to me isn’t a material or labour cost.

It’s not even necessarily, I would think, in my perspective, some sort of gross overrun but probably more an estimating error at the beginning of the project. Just because that’s where my brain lives, I want to understand that this isn’t a rounding error, that there was something fundamentally incorrect at the beginning.

There’s also a $650 million increase on St. Paul’s, I think it was. I just want to understand what we’re doing now in terms of estimating projects. We see it a lot on, obviously, the transportation side, where the project cost that we’re told at the beginning is not what it is at the end.

I want to understand how we’re going to close that gap, or how the ministry is going to close that gap, on the understanding of estimating of projects so that the price tag that we’re told at the beginning closer matches at the end.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I really appreciate the member’s background on this. She’ll understand the importance of accurate estimating.

It’s important to note that once a project goes into procurement, our ministry and government generally manage the project in the same way that the private sector does on those contracts. The difference is the reporting requirements on government versus the private sector.

If you’re a private sector company or non-governmental organization, you are able to complete your design and get a quantity surveyor to provide an estimate on the design. You’re probably at a class A or class B estimate at that point, and you can provide that number publicly with significant confidence that that’s probably where you’re going to end up.

But by law, when it comes to our projects here in government, we are required to disclose a nominal number far earlier in the process. For some projects where a cost estimate is disclosed at the concept planning stage, we’re talking a class D estimate at best.

Then we will update the report-out after an approved business case, at which point it will be a class C estimate at best.

Design happens after the business case approval, at which point we will finally get to a class B or class A estimate. Then you go out to procurement, and you finally know what it costs.

Part of the frustration and the complication of the numbers that are being publicly reported is that they stem from an effort to be as transparent as possible, and it’s based in law. But as you can see, it doesn’t quite serve the public very well to not truly understand the cost of a project.

Because the government is required to release numbers far earlier in the process than any organization typically would — far earlier than the point at which an organization would have greater confidence in the cost — you see a lot of changes in what’s reported.

Market conditions, of course, make a difference. When projects have concept plans that are approved four or five years ahead of procurement timelines, then the market conditions have changed drastically.

[3:05 p.m.]

We are working with the Ministry of Finance and internally to try to figure out a way, basically, to improve our public reporting on estimates in a way that is both transparent and accurate. But the current process is, I would say, not ideal.

Misty Van Popta: I appreciate that answer.

I would also say that site location and site conditions are major drivers of projects. I saw a picture of, I think, a Langford school built into the side of a mountain. I’m like: “We’re going to have some issues with that one.” You don’t know. Then building a hospital on an aquifer is generally not super cost-effective either.

Those are the challenges that, say, the general public doesn’t understand — when we’re estimating the cost of a project and we don’t know where it’s going to be located, when those drivers are going to have a massive impact on the cost of a project.

I would surmise that you’re at least working with the Minister of Finance on reporting. Transparency is utmost, and I think that that’s why the public generally is rightfully outraged at some of the cost increases while also simultaneously not understanding the process.

It’s a world that I understand your challenges with, but it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be fixing it — transparency to the public and making sure that projects are estimated properly.

I also question, though…. My understanding is that a lot of the original cost estimates are happening through the health authorities and that schools are done through the school districts.

If the minister could maybe just speak to whether there’s a benefit, since the funding of a project and the responsibility of a project is held in-house with the province, and if that piece of estimating shouldn’t also be held in-house instead of relying on, essentially, kind of like a quasi third party to do that work for you.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We do rely on our partners to do the cost estimates, and they use professional quantity surveyors. Our ministry doesn’t duplicate that work. But I can assure the member that I strongly believe it is not just in the public interest but also in the ministry’s interest to be providing publicly reported numbers that are accurate.

[3:10 p.m.]

It is incredibly frustrating, the way that the current government reporting process effectively requires us to report a number that ends up being so short of reality. It’s embarrassing, and it’s unacceptable. So we are very motivated in our ministry to work with other partners within government and work on improving this process so that we’re able to deliver accurate numbers.

I’ll also note that once we get to the business case approval step on major projects, staff from the Ministry of Infrastructure actually sit on project boards. We’re able to be much more involved and much more integrated into the development of the project to help manage and provide oversight on costs.

Examples of this would actually be some of the long-term-care projects that are proceeding. Their cost estimates started to increase over time, but because our teams were a part of the project board, we were able to work with the health authority and drive down those costs to a point where we were able to continue to proceed with them.

There is a lot of collaborative work on these project boards, even with partners, particularly on larger projects, and we look forward to continuing to find ways to be more involved in other projects so that we can do the same thing.

Misty Van Popta: All right. We’re going to move on to Bill 15, otherwise known as the Infrastructure Projects Act, just on its integration into the ministry since royal assent in May.

I’m just going to read a little segment here of some of the transcript in Hansard. This is the minister: “We have seen in the past where critical community infrastructure projects have been held up by the challenges that government does not currently have the tools to deal with, so we have been called upon by British Columbians to build that infrastructure more quickly for them. That is why we’re committed to carry out the work of this legislation.”

Could the minister please clarify if the Infrastructure Projects Act is currently executed or in play at this time?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Section 2 of the act is in force. Section 2 provides the Minister of Infrastructure with the powers and functions in relation to policy development, planning, capital funding, land acquisition, development and administration of surplus land procurement, delivery and oversight for infrastructure projects.

Misty Van Popta: How much stakeholder and staff work has been completed to date, and how long will the remaining work take? Have you executed your powers as minister to give this work a schedule and a deadline? We’re going to treat it like a project.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The ministry began public engagement in spring of 2025. So this is outside of section 2. We’re talking about the regulations for the streamlining tools now.

[3:15 p.m.]

The ministry began public engagement in spring 2025, including focused consultation with First Nations, interest holders such as the Union of B.C. Municipalities and environmental not-for-profit groups. An online engagement website was set up to inform the public and interest holders of opportunities to comment, through public surveys, on the provincially significant eligibility criteria and the proposed qualified professional reliance model.

A total of 667 survey responses were received for the provincially significant eligibility criteria survey as well as 795 responses for the qualified professional reliance model survey.

Work is underway to confirm the eligibility requirements for category 2 projects. These are the projects that are not administered by government. Once eligibility requirements for provincially significant designations are in place, recommendations to cabinet for a decision for a project to be designated under the act can be made.

In terms of First Nations consultations, consultation has occurred with more than 49 First Nations, primarily on the provincially significant eligibility criteria, with some initial engagement on the qualified professional reliance model.

We’ve had more than 40 meetings held with 49 First Nations between July and November, and 211 initial letters on the proposed legislation were sent out on March 26, 2025, to First Nations and Indigenous groups and organizations. An additional 202 letters were issued on the proposed regulatory consultation opportunities in July of 2025.

Follow-up letters were also sent in October 2025. Further follow-up letters offering a final opportunity to consult on provincially significant policy proposals and future consultation on the qualified professional reliance model were sent in January, just a few months ago.

Consultations have ranged from one-time government-to-government meetings to regular biweekly and ongoing meetings from July 2025 to now. We’ve also been consulting with the Alliance of B.C. Modern Treaty Nations, and engagement with the First Nations Leadership Council is continuing.

Discussions have also been underway with the Union of B.C. Municipalities on the legislation. That began last June. A working group was established between the ministry and staff from the Union of B.C. Municipalities to plan and deliver engagement and consultation opportunities to local government staff and elected officials.

We held two webinars on the provincially significant eligibility requirements for municipalities in fall 2025, and more than 160 people attended the webinars, combined.

We continue to work with UBCM staff to develop policies and guidelines for local government on implementation of division 2 and on three tools in the IPA.

Misty Van Popta: Understanding that a lot of the consultation work has started, and you’ve got feedback coming back in, what is the timeline for the ministry, then, to compile that and produce regulations? What can we see in terms of the work finally being completed?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: There are several regulations under development. We expect the first to receive a decision in the spring.

Misty Van Popta: Okay. So we’ve got two.

I’ll clarify. If you could speak to how many more regulations need to come in play besides just the first two and if they can be acted on. If they’re usable and in force without the remaining policies and regulations — if you can speak to that as well.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: There are three areas of work underway in relation to the tools outlined in the IPA. There is the regulation that sets the criteria for provincially significant projects, the category 2 projects. There is a framework being developed for the qualified professional reliance model. And then there is work underway with the environmental assessment office and the Minister of Environment around the development of an expedited EA process.

Misty Van Popta: So two of those three are coming online in the spring. Is that what you’re saying, then?

I was trying to figure out how much more work needs to be completed and if those two that are coming in the spring can be enforced and in play without the remaining policies and regulations in play.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Thank you to the member for clarifying her question.

[3:25 p.m.]

The criteria for provincially significant projects will, we expect, come into force in the spring. That will allow us to designate projects as provincially significant.

When a project is designated as provincially significant, they will have access to some or all of the streamlining tools. As a reminder, there are six streamlining tools — two under the provincial permitting bucket, two under the environmental assessment bucket and two under the local government bucket.

Under the provincial permitting bucket, we have a tool to bring a project to the front of the line that does not require a regulation to access.

The second is that the qualified professional reliance model will require a framework and an associated regulation specific to the project and whatever permits that project is looking to use a qualified professional for.

Under the second bucket, the expedited EA process will not be ready for the spring. However, the second tool under the EA bucket is what we might call the auto-permitting tool, which is the ability to automatically provide permits on low-risk permits if an EA has already assessed the risks of that category of permits. We can go into detail. That does not require a regulation to access, that second tool.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The two local government tools also do not require a regulation to access.

Misty Van Popta: Okay, moving on. Both MLAs Giddens and Botterell asked about the pressure to pass the Infrastructure Projects Act so quickly. Closure was called, and only eight of the 48 clauses were debated on such an important piece of legislation. It was actually MLA Botterell that brought up bulk-buying opportunities.

The following is an excerpt from the minister in regards to comments on the topic:

“For instance, in terms of modular classrooms, we have a significant amount of funding for modular classrooms. Right now each individual school district must carry out their own procurement process. It is not possible for them to coordinate a procurement process. It’s not possible for government to take that on for them.

“With these authorities under section 3, government will be able to take advantage of the benefits that come from the economies of scale and potentially put out a procurement for modular classrooms on behalf of multiple school districts, achieving a lower cost per project or a lower cost per classroom than those individual school districts would be able to achieve with their own individual projects.”

Then another quote. “It is likely worth noting that it has been government’s interest in pursuing this concept for quite some time, but we have also not been able to carry it out because we do not have authority currently to do so.”

Then one other one. “So we’re talking about hitting September 2026 with these classrooms, and that would require procurement that will be well underway by summer, beginning of fall — in that range. We’re looking to move as quickly as possible.”

I want to dive into those comments and the reality of that work to date.

If the minister could answer, noting that only section 2 of the IPA is actually in play right now, whereas bulk buying…. The capability is under section 3. Could you speak to how many bulk-purchased classrooms have been procured since the enactment of the IPA?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: When I remember, when I think back to the 40 hours or so of debate that we had on the IPA, my recollection around those comments and questions raised by the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands….

That also reminds me that we’re not meant to use names.

Interjection.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: It’s okay.

It was a question about the urgency around the passing of the legislation.

[3:35 p.m.]

To be clear, the ability for my ministry to involve itself directly in projects, including through bulk buys, is actually activated through section 2.

Going back to the debate, I remember that there were quite a few questions that were mixed up among some of the sections. That power actually is activated. It’s activated under section 2. Further, section 3 powers can be activated at any time if a specific project requires it, so we do have the ability to activate it immediately.

What we have found, however, is that the mere existence and articulation of the tools in the act have motivated our partners to collaborate much more effectively on our projects. We are finding that our projects are automatically being front-of-lined with partners for permitting. Conversations with local governments around topics that have, in the past, proven more challenging for some of our delivery partners to navigate with local governments have flowed much more easily.

So the existence of the IPA and the articulation of the tools in the IPA have sent a very strong message about the expectation and the intention of government to prioritize these important public provincial projects, and that in itself has actually resulted in projects speeding up. That’s, I think, a good place to be.

I will also note that I shared, in a previous response to one of the member’s questions, how much work has been done over the last year. It is an enormous amount of regulatory development and consultation work that could not have started without an act in place. The sooner the act was passed, the sooner that work could be done so that we could actually bring in the regulations necessary to activate some of these very important tools.

Misty Van Popta: The question was specifically about bulk buying classrooms, though, and that this act needed to hit royal assent by May so that you could start procuring in the spring.

I’ll reread that quote from you, as well, again: “We’re talking about trying to hit September ’26 with these classrooms, and that would require a procurement that is well underway by the end of summer, beginning of fall — in that range.” That would have meant end of summer 2025 and beginning of fall 2025.

Now we’re into February of 2026. How many modular classrooms have been bulk bought based on the commentary that this bill needed to be rammed through so that you could hit that target date?

The Chair: If I can remind members, please. If you’ve got an electronic device that’s making a sound, could you ask it not to anymore, please. Thank you so much.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Thank you for clarifying that.

It was our intention to proceed with bulk buying in the summer of 2025. As the member will know, it is also necessary for governments to be agile about changing conditions — market conditions, fiscal conditions and so forth.

[3:40 p.m.]

Fiscal conditions changed over the course of the last year, ultimately resulting in the moderated capital budget that the member sees before her today.

We are working towards a bulk buy. We’ve been working with Infrastructure B.C. on a market sounding on bulk procurement, and it has been informing our approach on that.

Misty Van Popta: Then the rush to have this bill reach closure — only eight of 48 clauses debated — under the guise of moving to economies of scale for purchasing modular classrooms…. It doesn’t seem to have come through.

We’re here to do democratic work, to debate, to do processes of understanding legislation. The IPA was a massive piece of legislation, and we weren’t afforded the time to go through it fulsomely. I think that, given the economic and financial situation, a lot of the discussion around the reasons to want to purchase bulk-buy classrooms was because of the economy of scale.

We’re going to talk about schools later on, probably more on Monday. A lot of modular additions are hopefully going to be under “not disclosed” because they’re under the $50 million mark. We’ll get into that conversation later.

But I would assume that economy of scale, as you had talked about in the Bill 15 debate, was one of the reasons why we wanted to move towards bulk buy. If we’re in a state of financial constraints, it would seem reasonable that a bulk purchase that achieves economy-of-scale pricing would be something that we would want to do.

I’m still not understanding why, if we’re in a financially constrained position, we wouldn’t be exercising the IPA to bulk purchase, as used as one of the reasons why we had to ram through the bill.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We are continuing to work towards a bulk procurement process. We’ve been working with Infrastructure B.C. to understand market conditions, and we will be acting according to their advice on that.

But I do need to emphasize that that example was just one example of the reasons why the IPA was necessary. We are already using the powers that are afforded to us by the IPA through section 2. We are already benefiting from improved project delivery through the prioritization of permits that has been afforded to us through the signal sent by the IPA. We are already using the powers under section 2 to become more involved in the delivery of schools and projects on behalf of partners.

An example of this would be Tumbler Ridge. In Tumbler Ridge, in the days following the disaster, our ministry recognized that the school district was in no position to be sending their staff in there, back into the school, to assess the damage of that horrible tragedy when they needed to focus on the people that were affected.

So our ministry took it upon ourselves, using the authorities that were provided to us through the IPA, to become more directly involved in coming up with the plan forward and in actually executing on delivering temporary facilities to site. It was through those efforts, those collaborative efforts, that we were able to place temporary facilities onto the site of the elementary school in Tumbler Ridge within one week of the tragedy.

We now have modular classrooms that are able to be used on a longer-term basis landing in the community now. We were able to take on that work on behalf of the school district because of the authorities that were provided to us through the IPA. So the idea that the IPA was not required, not useful, that we’re not using it, is simply not true.

I also want to remind the member again that there’s an enormous amount of work around the development of the regulations that was required to actually bring several of these tools into force, and we knew that we could not begin that work until the act was actually in place. That work has been underway, and we’ll continue to do that.

[3:45 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: I feel uncomfortable talking about Tumbler Ridge in regards to an IPA, because I do truly believe that we would’ve found a way to help Tumbler Ridge in the aftermath of what happened. I don’t think that the passing of this legislation impacted that. I do really, truly believe that government would’ve found a way to have assisted the school district, regardless whether the IPA was in place or not.

So I reserve this commentary to maybe not be a part of this process, because I don’t like to see it kind of…. I don’t want to use the word “weaponized.” But government would’ve found a way, and I do truly believe that. We’re a room full of humans here that would do anything that we could to help the school district in that situation, regardless of whether the IPA was in place or not.

But dialling this back to the original conversation, I’m going to go on record saying that there is no bulk purchase of classrooms at this time that were made in the fall and summer of 2025, as discussed.

Yes, the IPA has other benefits and other things that you’re working towards, and I do understand that. But one of the key pieces that was talked about at least four or five times throughout the bill debate was the ability to bulk buy classrooms.

Knowing that that is a route that we’re going to have to use for a lot of school improvements over the next little while…. If we were going to implement the IPA at such speed, not allowing for the fulsome discussion on it, I would’ve hoped that we would’ve used that piece of the legislation quite expediently in order to meet the economies of scale that are going to be required.

With that, do you mind if we take a five-minute recess?

The Chair: This committee is in recess for five minutes and five minutes only.

The committee recessed from 3:47 p.m. to 3:56 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section C, back to order. We’re currently considering the budget of the Ministry of Infrastructure.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I just want to acknowledge what the member said earlier about my previous response. I appreciate that she said that she didn’t want to suggest that I was weaponizing Tumbler Ridge, because I certainly was not.

At the time of the debate for the Infrastructure Projects Act, I think none of us could have possibly contemplated or even believed that a tragedy of such scale would have happened in one of our small, tight-knit communities in our own province here. What I was describing, however, is a factual use of the Infrastructure Projects Act.

I completely agree that in the wake of such tragedy, government would have found a way. We would have found a way. But it is also true that our staff were able to move confidently because they knew that they stood on the authorities provided to them through section 2 of the IPA and that we will continue to be able to provide that support to the school district through the rebuild of the school and whatever the future plan is for the school, to the extent that they would like us to.

Under the previous system, we would have required the school district to take the lead, particularly outside of an active emergency response context. That would have been the law. But here we are able to take on as much as possible, as much as they would like us to take on, and that is possible because we have the legal foundation to do so. It is simply a fact of how it has been useful.

The IPA has helped us with other projects as well. It has helped us in conversations with local governments around the Smith schools in Langley. It has helped us in resolving some conflicts and challenges with the local government when it comes to the F.W. Green project in Cranbrook, which is a long-term-care project.

I understand that the member is moving on to long-term care, so I think that’s a good segue too.

Misty Van Popta: Before we fully get into long-term care, would you be able to provide the list of projects that have benefited currently from the IPA that you were just talking about — that since the implementation, there have been some projects that have been improved due to the implementation?

I don’t need it right now. If you could just email that back to us. Sorry. It doesn’t have to be a direct list, but conversations that have benefited through the process of the IPA. Because you’ve mentioned it twice now that projects have been improved already.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I appreciate what the member is asking for. The reason why we’re struggling with whether we can provide a specific list is because it’s integrated into the operations of our ministry. These are regular conversations and these are authorities that we regularly stand on as a ministry to move projects forward. There isn’t a specific list in that regard.

Misty Van Popta: You also, just prior to the recess here, talked about fiscal conditions that changed in the past year, that resulted in a reduced capital budget. Could you talk to what those fiscal conditions are?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The fiscal conditions that form the basis of our budget exist beyond the Ministry of Infrastructure. The minister to best describe the fiscal conditions that have led to the decisions made in the budget would be the Minister of Finance.

The Chair: We’ll declare a five-minute recess at this time, please. Let’s just stay in the room. It’d be great. Maybe three minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:01 p.m. to 4:05 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I’m going to call the Committee of Supply, Section C, back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Infrastructure.

Over to the member, please. Thank you to everybody for your patience.

Misty Van Popta: Moving on to long-term care — obviously a big discussion, lots of inquiries from constituents, lots of media attention. I think that it’s in our best interest to have the difficult conversations to get into the reality of the situation and go from there.

I’ve done a lot of conversations on the non-profit private sector side and care providers, and some of the takeaways that I’ve got are the following here.

The new care homes that are being built by this government are being built to hospital standards, not to the needs of the average senior. Long-term care does not equate hospital care needs in many situations, yet there seems to be a gold plating of these projects. Now we’re suddenly wondering why things are more expensive in the public sector over the private and non-profit sector.

Two-thirds of long-term cares are built and operated by the private sector, and they all have waiting lists. The level of care that they are offering is not only acceptable but sought after, and what they offer is flexibility. They are building homes. Including land costs, their price per bed is in the $800,000 to $900,000 per bed range.

Long-term care is about flexibility. It’s about options that fit the users’ needs. Overengineering of long-term-care requirements and scope are problems well identified within the provider sector without action until last week.

This delay is not about 1,200 beds now indefinitely on hold. This is a compounding problem that has also resulted from HEABC contract negotiations that has actually resulted in the halting of RFPs and current projects in the intake, because there are unknown labour costs now attributed to operators without their knowledge prior to the HOA.

The projects that have been halted due to the stopping of the RFP have actually resulted in an additional 1,500 beds that are now on hold, on top of the 1,200 that were just announced in last week’s budget. That’s 2,600 beds for seniors, not just the 1,200 government beds.

We’re now beyond what is a crisis for seniors needing long-term care. It is now a full-blown emergency. Where did the government want these seniors to go?

We’ll start with a basic question. To the minister: when were you made aware that the cost of government long-term-care beds was getting out of control?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We, or I, have been concerned about the escalating costs of long-term-care projects since the creation of the ministry. It was part of the reason why the ministry was created, which is why we began the work of our cross-jurisdictional analysis on what was going on in other provinces better and our work to understand what was going on with projects here in British Columbia.

It’s also why we involved ourselves in several projects that have since succeeded in driving down the price point per bed. But there’s more to do.

The Chair: If I can ask other members of the committee to refrain from talking when the minister or the member is talking, I would appreciate it. Thank you so very much.

Misty Van Popta: When the ministry was formed…. I’m going to make the assumption, but I’d like to get clarification that there were cross-knowledge conversations with the ministries which were amalgamated under the Infrastructure Ministry — like Ministry of Health in this case — and, whether it was through staff or with the minister directly, if any knowledge was transferred to you about the costs that were happening prior to you becoming minister.

Were you made aware? You became aware when you became minister, but what happened to that information that was…?

I’ll go into it. It has been known since before 2024 that cost escalations on long-term care have been an issue. Were you made aware from the Health Minister when the Ministry of Infrastructure was created?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: It was understood. Government understood that escalating costs on projects was a problem, which is why the Ministry of Infrastructure was created, to be able to provide more focus on the delivery of projects. The Ministry of Infrastructure was created in part through the transfer of capital staff from the Ministry of Health, and with that came the historic knowledge that existed with the staff.

[4:15 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: There was an RFS or RFP, depending on the lingo that you want to use, for Fraser Health in September of 2024, which I think was probably for about, I want to say, 1,500 beds at the time. I could be wrong. But definitely an RFS went out in September of 2024.

We then go into Budget 2025. There are no adjustments there. Now we’ve come to Budget 2026, and we’re halting ’27. If we’ve known since September 2024 that we’ve got escalating cost issues, what has that work been, rather than resulting in seven care homes being halted now?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I think the member may be conflating an RFP or RFS that was issued by the Ministry of Health for private and non-profit beds. Those projects are not administered through the Ministry of Infrastructure.

For the projects that are managed through the Ministry of Infrastructure, since the creation of the ministry, we’ve been working with health authorities to value engineer their projects to get the price points down. We have been successful in several projects in getting those price points down to an acceptable level, comparable to other projects that we have seen be able to be delivered in other parts of the country. In many other cases, we have not.

Given the fiscal reality that has forced our hand in Budget 2026, we are now at a place where a pause and a reassessment of the approach forward for seven of these long-term-care projects is necessary.

Misty Van Popta: Could the minister please state how much…? How over budget are the long-term care that are currently underway right now? How much over budget are they?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We had that conversation earlier about the class C estimates and the class D estimates and so forth. These projects would have been previously reported out based on class C estimates, which we established as plus or minus a significant amount. Not very accurate.

The projects that are currently underway — F.W. Green, St. Vincent’s in Vancouver, the Nanaimo-Lantzville project and the Western Communities project — are on budget according to their class A estimates that they were approved to proceed on.

Misty Van Popta: What was the original disclosed value of those projects?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: St. Vincent’s Heather’s class C estimate was reported back in 2022 as $207 million. The class C estimate for F.W. Green would have been reported back in 2023 as $156.5 million. Western Communities long-term care — their class C estimate was reported out in 2022 at $224 million. The Nanaimo-Lantzville long-term-care project’s class C estimate was reported out in 2023 as being $286 million.

[4:25 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: Could the minister please quantify what the ministry feels is too expensive? What is considered too expensive for a long-term-care bed?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: It’s really difficult to draw a line in the sand, for a lot of the reasons that the member will understand through her experiences in construction herself. For each project, the cost to build the project will differ depending on site conditions, geotechnical conditions, the mix of the population that the facility is intended to serve.

There may be differing parking or zoning requirements that impact price, and project sequencing requirements may be different as well — building a greenfield versus replacing an existing facility and the need to decant and relocate existing services to complete the project.

It isn’t so much that there’s a specific line in the sand, but what we are seeing come in right now in terms of project costs is in excess of $1.8 million per bed. We certainly think that is far too high, particularly in comparison to what other provinces have been able to deliver and different types of projects that we’ve been able to actually deliver more recently.

In those examples I provided the member earlier, where we worked with the health authority to drive down the per-bed costs, we were able to achieve a per-bed cost of about $1.1 million. We think that’s workable, and we hope to improve further upon that.

Misty Van Popta: Knowing that this work…. My understanding is you’ve worked with two long-term cares over the past year to drive down those costs, Nanaimo and the one in Colwood. I think it’s Western Communities.

Is that the one? Yeah.

[4:30 p.m.]

You’ve worked with those two in the past year. What was the tipping point in the past year that has resulted in the announcement last week of re-pacing — I’m going to get into why it’s called re-pacing when it’s really about cost — the seven long-term-care projects?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I think government is called upon to make difficult decisions all the time. It is absolutely the case that new long-term-care beds are needed in communities right across the province. We need the beds that we’ve committed to so far. We need the beds that are underway. We need even more beds than that.

When you are faced with the reality of needing new beds and you’re seeing cost escalations, and if you are a government that is not willing to simply cancel the project, you’re faced with, basically, two options. You can continue on with the project despite cost escalations or put it on pause and put it through a complete rework to get the cost per bed down.

A government’s decision will be dependent on the circumstances that it is operating under. There may be times when the fiscal situation that the government is operating under allows for a project to proceed, even if it is exceeding the cost-per-bed estimate that the project was originally intended for. Then there will be other circumstances that require government to not proceed, if those projects are too expensive.

There have been cases where the government has had, I would say, the luxury of proceeding with a project because it was needed in the community despite cost escalations. We are no longer in that place, and hard decisions must be made. A part of those hard decisions is to put a pause on these projects that are so over budget and find a different way to deliver the beds that communities need.

[4:35 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: We’ve known for some time that the escalated cost of beds has increased significantly, so much so that you’ve worked with Nanaimo and with Colwood to bring those costs down, which has happened, I believe, over the past year. Actually, my understanding is that Nanaimo isn’t even fully…. The redesign isn’t even completed yet.

I want to go back to why those two projects were afforded the opportunity to go back to value engineering and redesign while the other seven projects which were approved roughly around the same time were not afforded that opportunity and are sitting there with cost values that you are not comfortable proceeding with.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We’ve been working with health authorities to bring down cost per bed over the same period of time that the Vancouver Island Health Authority was working on bringing down their cost per bed for the two projects that succeeded. The efforts were not successful in all projects, but they were afforded the opportunity to do so, yes.

Misty Van Popta: That sounds like some were successful and were still not proceeded with. Can you please clarify, for the record, if other health authorities were able to bring their costs down but were not proceeded with?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The Western Communities long-term-care project and the Nanaimo-Lantzville long-term-care project were able to achieve a class A estimate of about $1.1 million per bed. The other projects were not able to achieve that.

Misty Van Popta: I’m going to jump around here based on that answer.

Can the minister please confirm that the Delta long-term-care facility is reported correctly at $180 million in the 2026 budget?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I was hoping the member could repeat her question.

Misty Van Popta: Could the minister please confirm that $180 million, as reported in Budget 2026 for the Delta long-term-care facility, is correct?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: That value reflects the class C estimate from April 2023.

Misty Van Popta: It’s a 200-bed facility, and on a class C, that’s $900,000 per bed. I wasn’t going to do this right now, but I feel like I need to.

Since March 2025, city staff have been working with Fraser Health on preliminary discussions on the building permit, providing support and guidance for the requirements. This is a project that was announced in 2023. It has already spent $15 million on this project.

In May 2025, the city issued a soil deposit permit. In July 2025, the city issued a plumbing permit to allow for on-site reconfiguration of sanitary, storm and water mains for the support of the redevelopment. In December 2025, Fraser Health officially applied for the building permit on this project. I think it would be presumptive of Fraser Health to move to a building permit phase if this project wasn’t to be moving ahead.

[4:45 p.m.]

I want to understand from the minister’s perspective if getting this far down the line on a project and stopping it is appropriate. There are other projects on this list that have not even started proceeding with any dollars of value into them yet, or minimal, which I would assume is consultations, engineering, drawing and things of that nature.

But $15 million worth of work has already commenced on the Delta long-term care, which speaks to the fact that this is quite far down the line and that we’re probably…. There’s information on the cost of the value of this project that’s not released yet.

I want the minister to speak about Delta specifically, about why we’re halting a project that’s significantly underway with three different permits already. Then I’ll have follow-up questions after that.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Government had to make very serious decisions about its capital plan and about programs right across government, and the health authority would not have known about this decision until it was released on budget day.

Misty Van Popta: Was the ministry aware? Well, it would have had to have been aware if it’s reporting that $15 million worth of work has commenced already on a project.

Knowing that a couple of these projects have had significant investments into work already proceeding, could the minister please discuss or put on public record how the minister weighed priorities about which projects moved ahead and which ones were paused?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: To be clear, this project is not cancelled. It is deferred, and government did make the difficult decision to defer the project, understanding the sunk costs.

Misty Van Popta: So $15 million of siteworks have been completed — water mains, sewer connections, site grubbing, compaction and, I think, some limited formworks. The city of Delta was committed to by the then Housing Minister in 2023 that this project was going ahead.

I’m going to first go back to the term “re-pacing.” When I hear the word “re-pacing” but then the Finance Minister stands up in question period and talks specifically about cost and that hospital beds are $1.8 million…. Yet I haven’t seen any evidence of which projects are $1.8 million yet.

Even on page 68, we’ve got a $1.59 million all the way down to a $1.09 million. We’re not seeing the class As, so there’s no transparency on where the $1.8 million value is coming from. Not all projects are coming in at that.

[4:50 p.m.]

The minister, just a little while ago, previously said that one of the projects was in the $1.2 million range. We know that the private sector is building them in the $800,000 to $900,000 range. So the margin of difference isn’t…. When you take in regulatory concerns and also the amount of hospital-like standards that are being built into the public sector long-term care, the difference between $900,000 and $1.2 million can speak to that difference.

Again, I want to go back to find out if projects like Delta — because they’re being re-paced when, really, it’s about costs — are going to be going back to the drawing board. Are they going back to the beginning and to a complete redesign?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Yes. It is our intention to work with the health authorities on re-evaluating how long-term-care projects are being delivered, and that may require a redesign.

I will note, also, that a lot of the sunk costs going into siteworks, as the member has outlined, will continue to be required for whatever future project is erected at that site.

Again, these projects are not cancelled. They will go ahead, but perhaps not in the same form that they exist right now.

Misty Van Popta: Can the minister please confirm if this project, specifically Delta, was under contract already? Will there be penalties or delayed change orders attributed to the stop-work order?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The work approved on this project was limited to the siteworks. That being said, they do have a CM in place, and we’ll work with the health authority to understand the impacts of that.

Misty Van Popta: When it comes to water and sewer, they do need to be in specific locations based on what is being built. What I’ve just heard is that there could be delayed change orders, and there could be change orders related to a new design in terms of the work that has already been completed to date.

[4:55 p.m.]

I would like the minister to verify that my assumption is correct that water and sewer may not be in the correct location, based on whether it goes back to a redesign, and whether there are going to be change orders related to delayed cost to the CM.

[5:00 - 5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I apologize profusely to the critic for the delay. We are confident in a big portion of our answer, but we wanted to try to reach somebody over at the health authority to verify part of the member’s question. Unfortunately, we haven’t been able to reach them, so I will provide the response that we’re confident in right now and then perhaps follow up with the remainder.

Fraser Health has not gone out to tender on any of the major works packages. This we know. The piece that we are trying to verify is whether they have gone out to tender on any water or sewer works, which was the member’s specific question.

I apologize. We didn’t think that it would be that difficult to reach the right person, but we will report back at our next opportunity so that I’m not making the critic wait further.

Misty Van Popta: Community projects, especially ones built in partnership with hospital and community health foundations, are extremely important.

[5:10 p.m.]

I know the DHCHF has been fundraising for years. They have a very dedicated group of regular donors and big contributors to projects like this. They do significant work with supporting the Delta Hospital in all sorts of things that, truthfully, should be funded through the ministry. But they are doing that work as good stewards of their community, and this has obviously come as a huge, disappointing shock.

I wanted to ask if the ministry has reached out to anyone at the Delta Hospital Community Health Foundation or any other stakeholders to discuss the delay, communicated a plan, moving forward, given that it’s…. Everybody is usually pretty excited when something hits building permit phase, and this is obviously going to be a huge disappointment.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I want to acknowledge how important the work the foundations do is for our community.

At this point in time, our next step is to work closely with Fraser Health on figuring out the path forward. That’ll help inform the types of communications that Fraser Health — the information and the next steps — will be able to share with the foundations after that.

Misty Van Popta: One final question. Can you, sorry, just go back to a previous statement regarding how nothing has been awarded yet on the tendered side? That means it has actually gone to tender, so pricing has come back on this project, although it hasn’t been awarded.

Has it gone to RFP? Has the pricing come back?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: No, it’s that they haven’t gone out to tender at all on their major works packages, not simply that they’ve not been awarded.

Hon. Chair, I move that committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:14 p.m.