Contents

The House met at 1:01 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

Doug Creba

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I rise to give homage to Doug Creba. This tribute knits together the words of Jan Pullinger, John Little and Sue Creba.

Sue and Doug were a partnership. They helped build a fairer and more just community, and our region will be poorer now that one of the partners is gone. Our deepest condolences to Sue, their terrific kids and grandchildren.

Doug was a person who made things happen. He met life, including political life, head on. Doug was a constituency and ministerial adviser to both Jan Pullinger and then Evelyn Gillespie, both MLAs and ministers. He organized for Bob Skelly and, with the BCGEU, bargained the NDP constituency assistants’ first collective agreement. Doug served on the B.C. NDP’s provincial council and on the Nanaimo riding association executive, including mine.

Jan Pullinger was Nanaimo’s first female MLA. I’m the second. Doug worked very hard to elect us both, again and again.

This political work was built on a strong social justice foundation. Doug and Sue volunteered in Africa for four years. In Nanaimo in the ’80s, Doug worked for unemployed workers, then as a support worker, then as a social housing manager. Doug lived his values in every way in his life — of sharing, of inclusion, of supporting one another — sometimes fighting peacefully for justice, fairness and the greater good of all.

Doug single-handedly rescued our Mid Island Co-op. Or better, he gathered a team of dedicated folks who together rescued the co-op and made it a thriving, profit-making business. If you get a yearly profit rebate, his friends say it’s because of Doug Creba.

Doug was in charge of backstage security at both the MusicFest in Courtenay and Islands Folkfest in Duncan for many years, providing a secure and safe place for organizers, performers and volunteers. This summer Howie and I loved seeing him hold court at the Providence Farm beer garden for the last time.

His astonishing bucket list this past 12 months took Doug and Sue to Scotland and to Cape Breton. They took the train across the country. Fiddle music dominated each brilliantly optimistic tour.

In true Doug fashion, over his last 13 days, he was serenaded daily in Nanaimo Regional Hospital by musical visitors from near and far, to the benefit of those in the adjacent rooms in palliative care. I heard Doug’s hospital bed was pulled into the NRGH courtyard for a huge Fiddelium show — true or not, legend.

[1:05 p.m.]

Doug spent his life giving all he could to the people and the community around him. He fed us, literally. He was fun, hard-working, caring and richly human.

Doug died surrounded by friends and family through the evening, exactly the kind of full house he would’ve appreciated.

Huge thanks to the wonderful NRGH palliative care team. They were exceptional.

Doug lived and died with courage and a great deal of love for and from those closest to him. May we all live life so large, be so loved and leave such impact.

Kuldip Singh Thandi

Sunita Dhir: I rise today with profound sadness to honour the life of Mr. Kuldip Singh Thandi, a respected community leader who passed away peacefully at the age of 80 after a courageous year-long battle with cancer.

Mr. Thandi devoted many years of dedicated service to the Khalsa Diwan Society of Vancouver, where he served with distinction as both president and treasurer. In these roles, he led with integrity, humility and deep commitment to seva, selfless service, inspiring all those who had the privilege to work with him.

He was a remarkable organizer and a trusted voice in the community. Through his leadership and generosity, he strengthened the Ross Street gurdwara and supported countless families. His wisdom, kindness and willingness to serve made a lasting and meaningful difference in the lives of many.

Mr. Thandi’s contributions to the gurdwara and to the broader community will not be forgotten. His legacy of service will continue to inspire future generations.

A memorial service for Mr. Kuldip Singh Thandi will be held on March 8 at 12:30 pm at Riverside Funeral Home in Delta, followed by Antim Ardas prayers at 2:30 pm at Ross Street gurdwara.

On behalf of the Legislative Assembly and the people of Vancouver-Langara, I extend my heartfelt condolences to the family, friends and the entire community during this difficult time. May Waheguru bless his soul with eternal peace.

Statements

Kalle Eriksson Participation
at Milano Cortina Paralympic Games

Scott McInnis: I’d just like to highlight a very important moment for a former student of mine coming from Kimberley. Kalle Eriksson has been selected to compete in the visually impaired para-alpine team in the Milano Cortina Paralympics.

Kalle is 21 years old, grew up skiing at the Kimberley Alpine Resort. He began his journey with the para-alpine team in ’24-25, winning ten medals, including two golds, with his guide Sierra Smith, who is a former World Cup skier herself.

I’m just wishing Kalle all the best. I hope to provide updates on some medal success for him. He’s a ripping skier, but even more, he’s just a heck of a young man.

Thank you very much, and good luck, Kalle.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call third reading on Bill 3, Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2026.

Third Reading of Bills

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

The Speaker: The question is third reading of Bill 3, Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2026.

Division has been called.

[1:10 p.m. - 1:20 p.m.]

Members who are participating remotely, please make sure your cameras are on.

Member for Kootenay-Rockies, would you please confirm that you are in a private place — indoors and private?

Pete Davis: Yes, I confirm I’m in a private place indoors.

The Speaker: Thank you.

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

[1:25 p.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 46
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
NAYS — 42
Loewen	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Halford	Rattée
Kooner	Banman	L. Neufeld
Van Popta	Dew	Clare
K. Neufeld	Rustad	McInnis
Valeriote	Botterell	Bhangu
Paton	Day	Chan
Toor	Hepner	Giddens
Dhaliwal	Wilson	Maahs
Block	Stamer	Gasper
Mok	Davis	Kealy
Brodie	Sturko	Boultbee
Williams	Chapman	Bird
Doerkson	Luck	Tepper

The Speaker: Bill 3 has been read a third time and has passed.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading on Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act.

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued committee stage on Bill 5, the internal trade act.

In Section C, the Birch Room, I call Committee of Supply debate on estimates for the Ministry of Education and Child Care.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Budget Measures
Implementation Act, 2026
(continued)

The Speaker: The member for Kelowna-Mission will continue his debate on second reading.

Gavin Dew: Bill 2 also contains a technical-looking amendment to the Assessment Act.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

That deserves much more scrutiny than it will probably get. It amends section 19 of the Assessment Act by adding a new subsection, 19(6.1). Here is the government’s wording:

“Subject to subsections (5) and (7), in determining actual value, the assessor is not required to consider any restriction placed on the use of the land and improvements by a person other than (a) the Crown, (b) a local government as defined in the schedule to the Local Government Act or (c) a local trust committee as defined in the Islands Trust Act.”

Why does that matter? Because in the real world, property values are affected by risk. They are affected by uncertainty. They are affected when buyers worry that unresolved claims, disputes or assorted constraints could delay development, increase legal exposure or reduce the practical use of land.

This amendment appears to make it easier for B.C. Assessment to say: “Unless that restriction comes from government, we are not required to take it into account.”

That raises an obvious question about clause 28. Does this mean a fee simple property owner could see the market value or appraised value of their land diminished because buyers and lenders price in uncertainty on the land base from unresolved land claims, but the assessed value is artificially propped up because the assessor is “not required” to consider restrictions not imposed by government?

In plain language, could British Columbians end up paying higher taxes on a paper value that ignores real market uncertainty? This is not a small technical point. It goes directly to whether people are being taxed on what their property is truly worth in the market or on a cleaner, fictional value that is more convenient for government revenue.

To be fair, the act still requires assessors to consider certain registered covenants, but that only sharpens the question. The minister should answer clearly, and we will ask in committee stage. When unresolved asserted claims impair market value in practice, is B.C. Assessment expected to reflect that reality or pretend it doesn’t exist?

Bill 2 is also about protecting the discretion of the executive and reducing legislative scrutiny. It extends the period through which deficits may be forecast. It raises the threshold for capital projects that must be specifically stated to the Legislative Assembly from $50 million to $125 million. That scopes out a lot of projects, including projects we’ve seen delayed in this budget.

[1:30 p.m.]

Bill 2 also quietly reduces accountability for capital spending by changing the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act threshold, as I previously mentioned. On its face, that sounds like a technical adjustment. In practice, it means fewer major projects are singled out and scrutinized. It means fewer projects are forced into the sunlight of this House as distinct line items that members and the public can track. We saw how important that was in this budget, with the significant changes in the delivery date, if ever, of a number of long-term-care facilities.

The government will argue that inflation and construction costs justify this change, but that argument is backwards. If project costs are rising and the risk of overruns is rising, transparency should go up, not down. When the stakes get bigger, the reporting should get sharper, not softer.

This is not happening in isolation. This government’s approach to infrastructure accountability has a pattern. In the Ministry of Infrastructure service plan, the government does not even publish a clear, measurable, on-time budget target. They acknowledge they will develop specific objectives and performance measures later, to be determined.

That is the opposite of what the public expects, especially from a ministry created to deliver projects on time and on budget, which now can’t even define a target for delivering projects on time and on budget. British Columbians don’t want a government that comes back after the fact and says: “We will decide what success looks like in next year’s document.”

Put those two choices together, and the direction is obvious. First, they avoid clear targets on whether projects are delivered on time and on budget. Then they raise the reporting threshold so fewer projects have to be specifically stated to this House. That is not better governance. That is reduced accountability, by design.

If this government is truly confident in its capital management, it should be willing to measure performance openly and report more, not less. A serious government sets clear targets, reports consistently and accepts scrutiny. This bill moves in the opposite direction.

Then there is perhaps the most revealing part of this bill. After raising taxes on paycheques, expanding the PST, squeezing homeowners and protecting the tax base wherever it can, this government also decided to abolish the independent Office of the Merit Commissioner — not reform it, not strengthen it, not modernize it; abolish it.

An office created in 2001 to provide independent oversight of whether appointments in the B.C. public service are actually based on merit is being folded into the very machinery it is supposed to oversee. Bill 2 removes the Merit Commissioner as an officer of the Legislature, redefines the Merit Commissioner as the head of the B.C. Public Service Agency acting in that capacity, repeals the core independent oversight provisions and routes reporting to a minister instead of this House.

The government will try to dress this up as efficiency or cost savings, but the annual budget for the office is about $1.7 million. That’s a lot of money, but in the scale of a provincial budget, it’s pocket lint. Even the outgoing commissioner warned publicly that the cost of losing independent oversight may far exceed the savings from eliminating a small oversight body. He pointed out that a non-partisan, multiparty legislative committee approved a three-year budget for the office only months earlier and recognized its role in upholding merit-based practices.

So this is not some obvious, commonsense cleanup of a stale institution. It is the government wilfully choosing to get rid of an independent watchdog that the Legislature had literally just affirmed.

The timing is awfully convenient, is it not? This is not happening after a long run of glowing audit results and perfect confidence in the system. The Merit Commissioner’s own materials noted an increase in “merit not applied” findings and a decrease in “merit” findings. The office’s reporting showed “merit not applied” findings rising to 10 percent. The commissioner then said publicly that the most recent audit found the highest rate of flawed hiring processes and outcomes in nearly a decade.

So this government’s answer to rising concerns about merit is not more scrutiny; it’s less. Their answer to a watchdog raising alarms is to take away the watchdog.

[1:35 p.m.]

That is what makes this so politically revealing. The government is not eliminating an office because the problem disappeared. It is eliminating an office because the office still mattered. When trust in institutions matters, when competition for jobs is tighter, that is exactly when independent oversight becomes more important, not less.

Bill 2 does not merely rename the office. It guts the very architecture of independence. It repeals the provisions dealing with appointment, audit, review and dismissal processes. It strips away powers to compel answers and disclosure. It changes the annual report so it goes to the minister, not the Legislative Assembly. And then, in the transitional provisions, it dissolves the office and transfers its property, records, liabilities and unspent budget to the Ministry of Finance. It defangs and neuters the watchdog.

That is not an efficiency measure. That is a consolidation of control. It is the executive branch taking the files, taking the budget, taking the reporting line and taking the oversight in-house.

There’s also a transparency problem here. Bill 2 removes the Office of the Merit Commissioner from the list of public bodies under FOIPPA and creates a carve-out so records held by or for the Merit Commissioner, or related to the commissioner’s functions before this amendment, are outside the normal access route.

The government will say privacy protections still apply, and technically, that’s true. But the political fact remains. This bill abolishes an independent office and at the same time creates a special rule that makes access to its old records harder through the ordinary public route.

For a government already known for secrecy, that’s not a good look — not a good look at all. They’re burying the records, sweeping them under a rug, shutting down the watchdog. That should tell you exactly what you need to know: that this government has something to hide.

There’s another layer of irony here. The office’s mandate was expanded in 2018 to include dismissal reviews. More recently that work was affirmed as important and meant to remain independent from government. Yet now, through a bill — a budget bill, of all things — the government is scrapping that independent structure and handing the function to the bureaucracy itself. That is not just inconsistent; it is cynical. It says independence is important right up until independence becomes inconvenience.

Let us be plain about what is happening here. This government is abolishing an independent office that exists to make sure public service hiring is based on merit, at the very moment that the office is reporting more problems in the system. It is moving oversight from the Legislature into the executive. It is weakening transparency around the old records, and it calls that progress.

British Columbia needs high-quality public servants chosen on merit, not a system where friends and insiders can be rewarded with cushy jobs while taxpayers are told to trust the same government that just fired the referee.

Taken together, Bill 2 tells British Columbians exactly what this NDP government is about. More tax on work. More tax on services people rely on. Less relief for rural and northern homeowners. Higher carrying costs for people who defer property taxes so they can stay in their homes. More room for government discretion. Less legislative scrutiny. And above all of that, the abolition of an independent office that exists to make sure merit, fairness and accountability still mean something in the public service.

This bill is not just a budget implementation bill. It is a statement of priorities, and those priorities are badly out of step with what British Columbia needs right now.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I am here today to speak in support of Bill 2.

Our budget does not pretend the world is easy. It recognizes fiscal constraint and the enormous challenge of a much smaller working generation supporting our parents as they age and need more complex care.

We simultaneously also need to invest in the future of the young people of this province, especially with training that allows them to create a stable life here. This budget eyes the challenges honestly and chooses stability, fairness and long-term strength for British Columbia.

[1:40 p.m.]

It’s not a budget crafted in comfort or a time of global abundance. Each line recognizes a time of uncertainty — economic, environmental, geopolitical and social.

We hear in our offices every day of the struggles and successes of our constituents, our neighbours. We hear about the effect of tariffs. We see the changes in people’s everyday choices. Their choice is to buy and support Canadian, to buy local, to ensure that we stay strong.

I’m so heartened when I go to local farmers markets, the restaurants in my area, the small local businesses, and I see more of my neighbours than ever before continuing to invest dollars back into our province with their choices, to ensure that we choose Canadian.

Sometimes those choices are hard. “Made in Canada.” “Grown in B.C.” Looking for those labels means we need to take time, make the effort and vote carefully with our limited budgets. Each individual choice is a powerful investment in B.C.’s future. Thank you.

This budget recognizes the difficulty of those hard-thought, careful choices and respects them. Here’s what we know. We cannot ruthlessly cut our way to a stronger province. On the other hand, borrowing has consequences, even if those funds are investments in capital projects and in people that are growing our province. It’s reasonable and prudent to sustain services for our province, our businesses, our non-profits and our people. We defend our core services and discipline the spending.

This budget tells the story of global economic uncertainty, our changing alliances and our commitment to forge our way through to the future by strengthening international relationships with our long-standing partners and reaching out to create new paths with our newer allies. Across the globe, we see slower economic growth, shaped internationally by trade uncertainty, war and the ongoing climate crisis.

Here in B.C., we have localized challenges that we must respond to: the stresses created by reduced federal immigration targets and rising borrowing costs worldwide. The budget must also grapple with the rising cost of debt. Every dollar spent on interest is a dollar not spent on nurses, teachers or public safety. The budget maintains front-line core services in health care, education and social services, while making deliberate, thoughtful choices to slow spending growth, modernize revenue and protect the front line.

This budget demonstrates a commitment. Front-line services will be protected at levels comparable to pre-pandemic benchmarks, even as economic seas become rougher. That means concrete investments in the supports that protect us here in B.C. Over $2.8 billion in new funding, over three years, is directed to strengthening health care, expanding capacity, supporting workforce recruitment and improving access to mental health and addictions treatment.

We will keep connecting people to family doctors and nurse practitioners. Back in 2010, under the previous government, there was a promise that everyone would have a family doctor by 2015. I want to acknowledge that there was, at the time, an enormous and complex challenge in growing and expanding our health care system.

Personnel were retiring in an unprecedented wave. As the pattern of service of medical professionals changed, the dominant age demographic was beginning to shift from working-age adults to seniors. The province was becoming increasingly urbanized, but rural, remote and northern areas still needed support, services and connections.

All of those challenges meant that the previous government could not complete their promise. By the time they left government in 2017, there were 900,000 people — close to one million people — without a doctor, 250,000 more people without a doctor than before they made that promise.

I wish they had succeeded, because that would have been good for all people here in British Columbia. It was a tough challenge, and the past plan didn’t work, but now, in 2026, every single one of those challenges has intensified. We now have a higher proportion of seniors than at any other time in our history, plus there is now a global shortage of health care workers, with other provinces and countries competing fiercely for the same pool of doctors, nurses and health care professionals.

Yet even with all of those challenges, let me talk about what is working: the current plan under this government. B.C. is succeeding. We are turning a corner. We have attached a record number of people to family doctors. In 2024, we attached a record number of 250,000 people, outpacing the population growth of 167,000, and 4,000 people are connected each week, which is a 52 percent increase from the previous year.

Additionally, more than 850 new family doctors have been added since the launch of the new physician pay model in 2023. We now have the most doctors per capita of any province in Canada, with more on the way. We will keep going.

[1:45 p.m.]

Of that $2.8 billion, $131 million is specifically dedicated to evidence-based mental health and addictions services, helping ensure that we are able to support the most vulnerable people in this province.

Health care matters, and education matters. For families and children, we will spend $634 million over three years strengthening K-to-12 education, hiring more classroom teachers, special education teachers, counsellors and psychologists.

We know how important it is for families to have safe, accessible and affordable child care. We want parents to be able to choose to participate in our economy, so this budget commits $330 million to maintain affordable child care fees and support operators and educators. These historic and ongoing investments in child care have allowed thousands and thousands of women to choose to join the workforce.

In the last quarter of 2025, over 900 new child care spaces opened all across this province. Here are some: Burnaby, 74 spaces, including 24 for infant and toddlers; Courtenay, 31 spaces, including 15 for infant and toddler; Douglas First Nation, 46 spaces; Kelowna, 48 spaces; Langley, 72 spaces; Maple Ridge, 110 spaces; Merritt, 76; North Van, 37; Skatin, 26; Sooke, 37; Sorrento, 56; Surrey, 80; Vancouver, 32 spaces; and Victoria, 224 spaces.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I’m just going to interrupt you and recognize the member for Vancouver-Langara.

Sunita Dhir: Can I seek leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Sunita Dhir: It’s my absolute pleasure to welcome, on behalf of the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, 28 grade 5 students along with their teacher, Joanna Molt.

They are from École Anne-Hébert, which is the first francophone school in B.C., established in 1983. The school serves 323 students from kindergarten to grade 6.

May we all welcome them to this House, please.

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker: The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville continues.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Every one of those spaces I mentioned represents a family that is able to find care for their child, more freely make choices about their future and participate as they choose in the economy. We need to make sure that the economy is strong, resilient and diversified while being able to take on opportunities of the future. We have to grow the economy in a way that’s good for B.C. and for Canada. We need to be responsive, ensure we all benefit and build towards the future.

Budget 2026 advances the Look West: Jobs and Prosperity for a Stronger B.C. and Canada strategy. So $241 million to double trades training and apprenticeship seats by ’28-29. This is the largest investment in trades training in our history. This represents training opportunities for good family-sustaining jobs. A new $400 million B.C. strategic investment special account to co-invest with the federal government on nation-building projects to bring capital to this province. And $40 million to strengthen permitting capacity in natural resource and tourism sectors, some of the heart blood of B.C.’s economy. Expanded incentives for manufacturing, clean technology and innovation.

These investments recognize that economic security is national security and that British Columbia is positioned to have a pivotal, nationally vital role to play in Canada’s energy transition, critical mineral supply and trade diversification. Together these large investments in the larger economy and the small investments in people’s lives are the companion building blocks of a functioning, close-knit, interdependent society.

This budget will continue to improve another key pillar of our common good: public safety. We want people to feel safe in their neighbourhoods, on their bus rides, their walks home and in their small businesses.

Budget 2026 commits $139 million over three years to address repeat violent offending and property crime. This includes the new chronic property offending intervention initiative, expanded resources for the provincial forensic firearms lab and support for faster investigations and charge approvals.

Compassion and accountability are not opposed to each other. They work hand in hand. Communities deserve safety, where families can reliably build lives and businesses. Individuals deserve pathways out of cycles of harm.

[1:50 p.m.]

Public safety is not an abstract policy discussion. It’s not a statistic on a spreadsheet or line item in a budget. It’s something people live every single day in their communities.

Budget 2026 tackles those realities in response to data with collaboration across all levels and thoughtful and careful planning. The budget provides $139 million over three years to strengthen public safety and restore confidence in the justice system, not through slogans or through shortcuts but through targeted, evidence-informed action.

I want to thank the Minister of Public Safety and their staff for their work, recognizing that repeat offending has historically been one of the highest costs to the justice system — enforcement costs, court costs, holding costs — yes, but also to businesses and individuals in the community and, ultimately, also to the individuals who commit the offences.

The research into patterns of crime is clear. A relatively small number of individuals are responsible for a disproportionate amount of property crime and violent reoffending. Ignoring that reality does not serve compassion, rehabilitation or the most effective implementation of public safety.

With the introduction of the chronic property offending intervention initiative, we’ll see a focused, coordinated approach designed to intervene earlier, supervise more effectively and disrupt the cycle of repeated harm. This initiative improves coordination, bringing together law enforcement and prosecutors and probation services and social supports to ensure that individuals who repeatedly offend are no longer passed from one system to another without accountability or follow through.

This budget recognizes that intervention is more effective with enforcement, and enforcement with support has the best chance of success. The answer is not choosing one over the other. It is ensuring that all the resources, efforts and policies align to increase the chance of ending the cycle. Swifter and more efficient processes are good for everyone.

Budget 2026 expands resources for the provincial forensic firearms lab, accelerating ballistic analysis, firearm tracing and investigative timelines. Thorough, careful investigation is a cornerstone of our justice system, and increasing efficiency while maintaining integrity is essential. Delayed evidence is delayed justice, and delayed justice undermines both deterrence and fairness.

Enhancing forensic capacity means faster investigations, stronger cases and quicker charge approvals. We know the necessary responses can look different across the province. What’s needed in Coquitlam-Maillardville looks different from what may be needed in downtown Vancouver or what is required in rural, northern or suburban communities.

Budget 2026 supports community-specific safety responses, which means targeted enforcement, improved access to justice services and stronger coordination between police courts and social agencies, including action to address the extortion crisis that has affected businesses and families in multiple regions of this province.

The creation of a dedicated task force paired with expanded victim supports and federal partnership funding reflects an understanding that economic intimidation is not just a criminal issue. It is a threat to community stability and economic confidence. The budget ensures we meet that threat with full cooperation across every sector and level of government and law enforcement.

Holding individuals accountable for repeated harmful behaviour is not incompatible with breaking cycles of harm by continuing to support people, especially young people, with treatment, housing support or mental health services. We can align public safety investments with expanded mental health and addictions treatment, recognizing that untreated illness and trauma can drive cycles of offending.

We must respect and support victims of crime and the damage done to communities. We must also see the humanity of those repeating cycles of harm without ever excusing the harm itself.

These public safety investments are part of a thoughtful fiscal framework that responds to debt-servicing costs that put pressure on the future.

The budget invests in programs that deliver measurable outcomes, safer communities and reduced repeat offending.

In those communities, we will continue to systematically approach one of the defining challenges of life in British Columbia, the issue of housing. Over the next three years, there is a budget of $37.7 billion for taxpayer-supported infrastructure. We will continue to build the supports that British Columbians need. Investment in schools, hospitals, transit, and housing continue. We will see thousands of units of housing come online. But we have to integrate into that plan today’s economic conditions, not yesterday’s projections.

Affordability measures remain in place through the B.C. family benefit, stable child care funding and targeted housing tax measures. The budget updates the speculation tax for foreign owners and untaxed worldwide earners, and the additional school tax is strengthened for homes valued over $3 million. These measures are about fairness, ensuring that those with the greatest capacity contribute appropriately while services remain protected for everyone.

[1:55 p.m.]

Modernizing B.C.’s tax base is an essential piece of this budget. Comparatively, our provincial sales tax has had one of the narrowest applications in Canada, even as a significant section of our economy has shifted toward services and digital platforms. The application of our tax policy must be fairly applied across sectors, and we must ensure that our revenue system is resilient to the changing composition of the economy.

Beginning on October 1, 2026, the budget expands the PST to selected professional services, including accounting, bookkeeping, property management and non-residential real estate commissions, to be consistent with taxation in other sectors at the standard 7 percent rate. Architectural, engineering and geoscience services will be taxed on only 30 percent of the purchase price, maintaining a balance between revenue generation and infrastructure cost control.

Budget 2026 also makes targeted adjustments to income taxation, an increase of half a penny per dollar in the first tax bracket rate with a corresponding increase in benefits for the 40 percent of British Columbians who are low income. This small change means that B.C. is still one of the lowest-taxed provinces for working- and middle-class families.

This budget in 2026-2027 doesn’t chase applause or leave people behind in education, in health care or social services. It tells the truth. We face pressures, but we will protect the services people rely on. We will invest in growth, in skills and in reconciliation, and we will keep going.

Bruce Banman: It’s always a pleasure to be able to respond to a bill. In this case, it’s Bill 2. I’ll be speaking about the failures and concerns surrounding the 2026 British Columbia Budget Measures Implementation Act.

While budgets are intended to guide a province towards economic stability and improved public services, this particular bill, this legislation in front of this House, raises several very serious concerns. Rather than strengthening British Columbia’s long-term financial health and improving affordability, critics argue that the 2026 implementation act introduces policies that actually may increase financial pressure on residents and businesses, delay important infrastructure and create uncertainty about this province’s economic future.

Now, I know that we talk an awful lot in this building. There is always, sort of…. Well, one side spins, and then the other side counter-spins. But I think it’s important to hear what those from outside of this building actually have to say, and I would like to read into the record some of them. Let’s start with the media.

Rob Shaw says: “B.C.’s new budget hikes taxes to generate more than $800 million in revenue, with increases to personal income tax and the PST scope, but still projects a record-breaking $13.3 billion deficit and skyrocketing debt levels, and it holds the line on education, health spending.” That was Rob Shaw.

“B.C. is raising personal income tax on the first $50,363 to try and generate new revenue as the budget sinks in red.” Also Rob Shaw. “It’s the first time the lowest income tax bracket has been raised since 2000, when the B.C. Liberals first took power.” Rob Shaw.

The Times Colonist: “The B.C. budget brings public service cuts, delays to Vancouver Island projects. Highlights from 2026 B.C. budget? Growing deficit, tax hike and PST changes.” Les Leyne: “Tax adjustments coming to offset projected deficit jump in B.C. budget.”

[2:00 p.m.]

The CBC: “The B.C. budget increases tax increases, 15,000 public job cuts projected, a $13 billion deficit.”

The CTV: “This fiscal year, B.C.’s deficit is expected to reach $13.3 billion, the highest it has ever been.”

The Vancouver Sun: “Higher taxes, more debt: five ways the 2026 B.C. budget will affect you.”

The Globe and Mail…. Not really a stellar review thus far on this budget, from the press. The Globe and Mail: “B.C. budget projects record-breaking $9.6 billion deficit, rising to $13.3 billion next year.”

I could go on and on.

Mo Amir: “David Eby’s entire premiership can be summarized by B.C.’s 2026-27 budget: no vision, just managed decline, self-contradictory, no principles, no consistency….”

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a reminder not to use names.

Bruce Banman: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was doing a quote. So I appreciate that.

Deputy Speaker: Yeah, even in a quote.

Bruce Banman: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

“The Premier’s entire premiership can be summarized: self-contradictory, no principles, no consistency, trying to please everyone but pleasing no one, a generational price tag for British Columbians.” That was Mo Amir. “I’m sorry,” he goes on, “but his government can’t believe that an $11 billion budget deficit is unsustainable.”

Stakeholders. It’s one thing for the press to speak, but what do the stakeholders actually have to say? The CFIB says that B.C.’s entrepreneurial drought deepens as Budget 2026 increases taxes for everyone. “Break out the ibuprofen because Budget 2026 will be a huge headache for small businesses, not what’s needed when we’re facing entrepreneurial drought,” said Ryan Mitton.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation. “Bailey needs to cut government spending and stop piling more debt on taxpayers. Government spending has rocketed up too far too fast. It’s time for the government to put down the credit card,” says Carson Binda. “Brace yourselves for big tax hikes and more debt.”

The Independent Contractors and Businesses Association:

“Tax increases, historic deficits and record debt make the Premier’s 2026-27 B.C. budget challenging for B.C. construction businesses.

“First, a personal income tax hike will put half a billion more out of B.C. workers’ pockets. It gets worse. The NDP are reintroducing bracket creep, which punishes workers who move from one tax bracket to another by taking more out of their paycheques. This makes it more common for a person to get a raise, move up to the next tax bracket and actually take home less money due to higher taxes.”

Think about that for a minute. So you unwittingly get a raise from your boss, or you move, thinking you’re actually getting a better job, and you’re actually going to take home less money than you were at a lower wage. Bravo. Well done on this budget. Bravo.

I could go on. The Business Council of B.C.:

“We’ve got about $4 billion in the budget in tax increases, and that’s really concerning, because the private sector is already very, very weak. The deficit deteriorates to a record $13.3 billion, $3.1 billion larger than projected in last year’s budget.

“At 2.9 percent of GDP, the deficit far eclipses the one during the COVID-19 emergency in 2021, when the government ran a deficit of $5.6 billion, of 1.8 percent of GDP. And B.C.’s finances have unravelled at a breathtaking speed over recent years as spending growth has far outpaced revenue growth.

[2:05 p.m.]

“Households and businesses also faced around $4 billion in tax hikes over three years to try to plug the fiscal hole in a further blow to private sector economic activity.”

I’ve got about ten more pages. None of them are complimentary to this budget.

Implementing this, actually, is the highlight of the failure of this government over the last ten years. They went from a surplus that they inherited to the point where we are now approaching, I believe, $182 billion.

Interjections.

Bruce Banman: If the members want to get up and speak, I suggest they stand up and speak. Perhaps the member would like to get up and speak.

The B.C. seniors advocate: “It’s going to put pressure on family caregivers, people who should be in the workforce, who are now caring for that senior, and it’s also going to create a situation where the seniors are not getting the kind of care they should be.”

The BCGEU. “Health care, education, child care, public safety, public services — these services allow our members to go to work, businesses to operate and communities to thrive. They lower household costs and create stability in uncertain times. Weakening them doesn’t solve a deficit. It shifts costs directly onto working families,” says Paul Finch, president of the BCGEU.

“You cannot build a productive economy on a crumbling public foundation,” says Paul Finch. “Any cuts to front-line services, any cuts to unionized employees that provide critical services to British Columbians is just going to hurt people that need those services right now. It is also going to hurt the economy.”

I think it’s important to listen to the agriculture sector, as well, that is particularly abundant in my riding of Abbotsford South. This budget is disappointing. British Columbia currently ranks last among other provinces in operating funding for its Ministry of Agriculture. However, there is a long history of underfunding the sector in this province most recently. Based on the five-year rolling average, B.C. is still last place at 3.4 percent compared to 4.6 percent for New Brunswick.

We placed behind New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in funding agriculture, yet we brag about it all the time in this House. Spending on the Ministry of Agriculture and Food would need to increase an estimated 25 percent from $143 million to $179 million to contend with New Brunswick for 9th place. Nothing like racing to the bottom, is it?

As has been mentioned by others, this budget is nothing to cheer about, and the implementation of this act is nothing to cheer about. As mentioned in, I believe it was, clause 25 this government has decided that the Merit Commissioner is no longer required. Well, that’s interesting. That’s troubling.

I know if this side of the House had proposed that, that side of the House would be screaming their heads off because we’d be hiring all our insider friends. That’s what the Merit Commissioner is for. It is to ensure that insiders and people that we owe political favours to don’t get plum jobs.

Well, there have been a few plum jobs that have been pointed out already on that side of the House, like joke writers getting outrageous amounts of money.

[2:10 p.m.]

There have been some problems already on that side of the House. The Merit Commissioner goes on, actually, to say that there has been an increase in problems that they’ve identified.

What is this government’s response to that? Well, rather than strengthening the Merit Commissioner’s position, streamlining it, improving the powers to ensure that the public’s money…. You know, this is not our money. It’s not. These are hard-working British Columbians that pay their taxes, hard-working businesses that fund our economy, that pay it in goodwill, hoping that the rules in place make sure that there’s going to be transparency, fairness and honesty.

The Merit Commissioner was put in place to ensure that, not just when one side is there but when all sides…. No matter who forms government, the Merit Commissioner is there to ensure that things don’t get out of hand, that we’re not giving plum jobs to insiders, that we’re not stacking the deck on what should be neutral.

The one thing when I was a mayor is that I was always impressed and amazed at how neutral the staff were. It’s for good reason. Even in our offices, in our constituency assistants, I know my staff pride themselves in being apolitical. It’s a very difficult challenge for them to do because, to the best of my knowledge….

I like my staff, and they like me, but they have a job to do. You can’t just say when the phone rings: “Hi, who did you vote for last time? Oh, I’m sorry. You voted for the wrong team. We’re not going to help you.” It’s not supposed to work that way.

The Merit Commissioner is put in place so that the bureaucracy remains neutral. It’s a very important job. What this government is doing is basically saying: “You know what? No, we don’t want that. Let’s get rid of that. That’s a little pesky. No, no, no. I don’t like it. Let’s just fire him. We’re going to eliminate the position totally.”

It’s outrageous, and the public actually should be rightfully outraged as well, because one day this side of the House is going to be government. Do you really want us hiring all our inside friends? I don’t think it’s wise. This position is there for a reason.

This government has already been accused of being the most secretive government because of what they’ve done with FOI requests, and: “Oh, now, wait a minute. In the budget now, we’re going to actually….” They’ve become a little persnickety about: “You know, these FOIs are just too tedious to write. We’re going to tighten it up to make it even more difficult for FOIs.”

The public and the press should be outraged that this government is actually doubling down on reducing transparency, instead of increasing transparency. Good governance requires transparency. Sometimes, yeah, when you’re on that side of the House having to answer questions, it’s annoying. It’s inconvenient. Well, tough bananas. That’s what you signed up for. It’s just too darn bad. That’s the nature of the business that you signed up for.

Good governance requires transparency, because what transparency does is it insists that we end up with good governance. You have to be held accountable, and you can’t hide everything behind glass doors. This isn’t The Wizard of Oz. You don’t get to hide behind a curtain and pull strings. Good governance requires transparency, and what this government is doing is the exact opposite of that, at a time when they’re spending more money than they’re taking in.

[2:15 p.m.]

There are some other things that are very, very, very concerning about this particular implementation. When you have destroyed the economy to the point that this government has…. They can blame it on everyone else, but when you’re running a business, if situations change, you have to learn to adapt. If you don’t adapt, you’re going to go bankrupt. Well, governments also can go bankrupt.

We now have a record deficit. We have a record debt of $182 billion. Divide that by 5.5 or 5.7 million people and tell me what you get. Somebody’s got to pay it. I don’t think I’m going to be around long enough to pay that debt back. It’s no wonder the youth are fleeing. If I got stuck with that credit card bill, I’d be leaving too: “Thanks, Mom. Thanks, Dad. I’m out of here. You go pay your own debts.”

Decisions have consequences. Then, when you start running out of businesses, because they’re closing down, and when the economy starts to tank, there’s only one thing you can do, and that’s to raise taxes, which is exactly what they’ve done. Who do you end up going after? Well, they’ve gone after the working poor. That tax rate is rising, as it was mentioned.

The other one that they’re going to hit is they’re going to go: who else do you go after? Seniors. They go after seniors because, actually, seniors have assets. Then what you do is sign seniors up to say: “Hey, you know what? We want you to stay in your home because we don’t have a long-term-care facility for you.”

Oh, that’s right. We cancelled all those. We’ve cancelled six of those. Abbotsford cancelled one. Campbell River cancelled one or delayed. Chilliwack, cancelled or delayed. Cottonwood’s long-term care is cancelled or delayed. Delta is cancelled or delayed. Fort St. John is cancelled or delayed. Squamish is cancelled or delayed. It works out to 1,200 beds cancelled or delayed. “Seniors, we want you to stay at home because we’ve got nowhere but a hallway to put you in at a hospital.”

Then what you do to them is say: “Hey, don’t worry about it. We’re going to make it more affordable. We know you’re hard up. We’re going to let you defer your property taxes. We’re going to have a nice low rate for you because we want to be nice to you. You’re actually helping us because it will cost us less to keep you in your home than it would be to put you into a long-term-care facility, even though you probably need one. We’re going to push you there as long as you can.”

What did they do with that? Well, now that you’ve signed up…. Once you’ve signed up, now you’ve got to pay it back in order to get out of it, which the seniors don’t have. Now what they did is…. This is the ultimate bait-and-switch. “We’ve signed you up to this thing. Now we’re going to take from prime minus 2, which is a pretty good deal….” Literally, what I heard is that they’re accusing seniors of somehow making money by investing.

So they go: “We can’t have that. We don’t want you investing in the economy that’s already poor. We don’t want you helping out in any way you can to help offset so you can stay home. Yes, we know we don’t have a place for you. But what we’re going to do to you now that you’ve signed up for this deal is…. We’re going to change it from prime minus 2 to prime plus 2, and we’re going to compound the interest.”

If a credit card company tried to pull that kind of nonsense off, there would be all kinds of screaming and all kinds of people that would be yelling to try and do this. It is outrageous that we would do something like this to the very people that built this country, the very people that are on a fixed income, trying to stay in their house. We’ve now, midstream in an agreement, changed the rules on them. That is not only shameful; it’s reprehensible.

[2:20 p.m.]

“We don’t have a place to put you. We’ve just shut down the building of 1,200 beds in long-term-care facilities. We don’t have a doctor for you. We don’t have the at-home-care people, even, for you. Now we’re going to charge you compound interest.” I don’t know how members on that side of the House that say they’re for seniors, say they’re for people on a fixed income and say they’re for the poor can sleep at night.

This is what happens when you mismanage a budget and you mismanage an economy and spend money as if there is no tomorrow, and you know full well that you’re not going to be in government and have to clean up the mess that you left. It’s reprehensible behaviour. It’s reckless behaviour, and it is incompetent at a gross level to be able to do this to certain individuals.

I wish just for once I could get up and say: “You know what? I’ve got nothing to complain about on this side of the House.” I really do.

Interjection.

Bruce Banman: I know. The other side says: “No, no, that’ll never happen.” Darned right it’ll never happen, because you guys keep mismanaging stuff so much. You give me an encyclopedia to read from, on what’s wrong.

On this budget, I’ll go over a few of the other things. You know, I had a 30-minute speech. I haven’t even gotten to it yet.

The rising provincial debt and deficit concerns, as I’ve gone over, increased the financial pressures on seniors, through the property tax deferral changes. It delays and reduces infrastructure projects. There are concerns about the housing affordability and development. We had contractors in here talking about what this is going to do. How does that affect them? How does this affect home prices?

Okay, now you’ve got to pay PST on the accountant. You’ve got to pay PST on engineering firms. You’ve got to pay PST on all of the things that go into actually building a home. For all those reports that were PST-exempt, now there’s going to be a 7 percent added cost.

The average cost of a building, when you build it now, is about 30 percent of what you pay for your property, for your new home, as government-demanded requirements. Now there’s going to be another 7 percent on top of that, on a lot of these services.

What would have been wise would have been, if you want to stimulate the economy…. Do you remember the GST rebates back in the day? It was one of the biggest building booms we’d ever seen. Rather than be innovative, and we want to have home affordability, if we’d say, “You know what? It’s PST-free on anything to do with construction,” we would have a massive increase. If what happened to the GST is similar — I believe it would be — we would have a massive demand, and we’d spur it.

You know what? That would sure as heck help out our forest industry. Oh, wait a minute, they can’t get any fibre to be able to supply the two-by-fours. We’d have to probably bring them in, because you have…. Oh, that’s right. They’ve mismanaged that as well.

This particular budget is so bad on so many levels and so shortsighted on so many levels. It provides little or no help to anyone. It’s grasping at straws, and I believe it will be the ultimate failure of this government. I believe it will be the downfall. This government has become so entrenched in ideology that they can’t…. They have forgotten how to actually help people.

You need to have a small sliver of taxes from a very big pie to have a robust economy. If you do not have a robust economy, you have to start going deeper and deeper into people’s pockets. That’s exactly what this budget has done.

[2:25 p.m.]

It has cut the very nature of things we need, like long-term-care facilities. It has hurt businesses by adding PST onto services that they don’t need at a time when they’re already under immense pressure. It goes after people on minimum wage and seniors.

Now people — I would say to them — are going to look and say: “Jeez, do I want a raise? Do I want to work overtime? Because if it bumps me into the next tax bracket, in addition to the extra half percent I’m going to get clipped already by this budget, I’m going to be worse off.” Like groceries and rent aren’t hard enough to buy already.

This budget and the implementation of it helps absolutely no one. It removes safeguards in place, like the Merit Commissioner, to make sure that there is transparency. I know this budget got recorded as a D. I would say it’s a triple-F — failure, failure, failure.

I wish it was different, for the sake of this province. I wish it was different, for the sake of those that are trying to open up a business or trying to feed themselves or stuck with the very difficult choice of deciding whether they’re going to pay rent or food or just pack up and move.

It is generally a pleasure to speak in this House, but I found no pleasure in talking about this particular implementation act, because there’s not a heck of a lot of good to cheer about.

Amna Shah: I am quite pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

Before I begin, I just want to acknowledge and thank all of the staff that make us look good in our communities and the work that we do, who dedicate, really, their lives to servicing our constituents; and also all of the people that stand with us, whether we’re in our constituencies or whether we’re coming to this amazing chamber to do the people’s work. I extend my sincere gratitude to all of their service, because it truly does transform lives.

This budget that we’re talking about, through the Budget Measures Implementation Act, is about protecting the services that people really rely on. It’s a bit more than that. It’s not just about protecting the services. It’s about continuing to build on the record level of investment in infrastructure, in health care, in education, in housing, so that we can improve our communities, our standard of living, meet the needs of the people across the province.

I know that for the past eight years, this government has been investing in communities across British Columbia, and it’s to benefit everyday British Columbians, not just the specific few but everyday British Columbians.

I want to take a quick trip down memory lane for what prompted some of these key investments that have truly changed the lives of people, including people that I love and that I care about, the people that are closest to me. I take a trip back in my mind to my brother’s challenges crossing the Port Mann Bridge, at the time, which was tolled quite heavily. And it was to the general discontent of the majority of my community.

I mean, who wants to pay to use a bridge every single day just to get to your job that provides you and your family sustenance? I don’t think anybody ever wants to do that. But as an individual, my brother, who was helping build this province, had to go over that bridge every single day. He complained to me….

[2:30 p.m.]

You know what? Going over that bridge was something that affected my preference and where I would like to take a job, actually. I was quite young, and I wanted to be cognizant, because it builds up over a year. It’s in the multiple thousands, actually, depending on how much you used that bridge.

I remember MSP premiums and my co-workers, my colleagues, having to pay that. It truly was a burden.

I think back to my mom, who’s been an educator her entire career, an early childhood educator, a Montessori teacher who’s educating children in their most formative years of their lives, a Montessori teacher with great hopes and aspirations to help shape our future, who wasn’t even making a decent wage at the time. It was heartbreaking to see how much she put into it, as I know many educators do. It was difficult for her, even, to see some of the parents who would struggle to pay their child care fees.

It wasn’t a good time. I saw a lot of people in my community, my closest loved ones…. I did see them struggle. That’s why the investments that this government has made over the years are really transformative on people’s lives. I saw that happen.

Just to get back to some of these challenges, look at the tolls on the bridge. When we went out there and spoke to people and we heard that this was not what it is that people wanted…. They couldn’t afford it. The B.C. government of the day…. We removed the tolls on the bridges. We got rid of the MSP premiums. They were not just an inconvenience; they were major burdens on people’s families.

My mom was the beneficiary of the wage increases for ECE teachers directly. The parents that she knew who were putting their kids through child care were the beneficiaries of the early stages of the child care plan from its inception. All of these investments that we’re talking about had a direct impact, and they matter. This budget is about building on those investments.

These investments have been poured in despite all of the challenges that we faced. We’re talking about some of the most challenging times in our province’s history, in national history, global history.

I mean things like COVID-19 that really stopped our lives. One day we realized that, oh my gosh, this is something like we’ve never seen before. The impacts of that are still felt today in our communities.

I’m talking about floods, wildfires, and now we’re still facing challenges. We’re talking about a trade war that’s threatening attacks on us, dependent on what a certain individual feels like when he wakes up in the morning — we’re good, then we’re not good — affecting our economy every single day.

You know what? Looking back, I’m so grateful to be a British Columbian because we have seen our communities come together, helping each other. We have seen our communities lifting each other up.

I want to take this moment to thank every single British Columbian who has stood up to get us through some of these challenges. In the pandemic, we had heroic health care workers, day in and day out, who spent time away from their families to put themselves in harm’s way to help others, to save lives.

[2:35 p.m.]

I want to thank the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who at the time was the Minister of Health. He stood up every single evening, every single day with Dr. Bonnie Henry to give us an in-depth analysis of what was going on in the province.

There was immense work that was put in through the Ministry of Health, through doctors, through nurses, through all of the workers, the essential workers in our hospitals, in our communities, and I want to thank them. I just want to thank them.

We had neighbours who were helping each other through floods, through wildfires, through some of the most horrific moments of each other’s lives.

All of these things affected us, and they still continue to do so. It’s a difficult time. I completely feel that. It is a difficult time all across Canada, in every single province in this country. And you know what? Even though we have the second-lowest net GDP-to-debt ratio, families are still feeling it. Families are feeling it.

With Budget 2026, it provides $37.7 billion over three years for capital projects like schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, transit, because we know we have to keep our economy going.

I support a budget that cares for people in my community, in Surrey. It’s about investing in our kids. It’s about investing in health care. It’s about expanding opportunity, figuring out creative and innovative solutions and partnerships with other sectors — even non-profit organizations, the business sector — so that communities have what they need to thrive, and that again, we are working together. This year’s budget continues to deliver some of the most historic investment that Surrey has ever seen.

I’ll just start off with health care. We had this constant conversation about us needing a new hospital in Surrey for many years — actually, probably for a decade. We knew that we were about to expand in population and growth, and we needed that. It’s unfortunate that the place where it could have been was sold off. It’s unfortunate. But we had to get back to the drawing board. We had to fix the mistakes of that previous government.

So that’s exactly what we did. We’re continuing to deliver that new Surrey hospital and B.C. cancer centre. It’s a $2.88 billion project. It’s not a small project. It’s a state-of-the-art facility, which includes 168 in-patient beds, advanced imaging, surgical suites, oncology services and, yes, an emergency department as well. I’ve heard misinformation out there about it not having an emergency department. It certainly does. Let’s just correct the record here.

I’ve been to the site multiple times to see the progress and to see how many skilled-trades workers, construction workers, are working at this site. For some of them, this is their first job. They’re being trained in partnership with the developer, with the contractors, with the government to unlock opportunities for workers who are just starting off in our skilled-trades sector and our construction sector in general. I’m incredibly excited to see this state-of-the-art facility come to life when it’s done.

In my own riding of Surrey City Centre, we have made and continue to make some enormous investments in making it a place of educational excellence. We’re talking about the new medical school, the first in over 50 years, coming to Simon Fraser University — in 55 years, to be exact — which is going to train 648 future doctors in a 12-storey facility that includes a family clinic and child care spaces.

[2:40 p.m.]

We’re talking about education for the future. We know people want to have families and still be able to go to school and still train to become doctors, and we need to accommodate that. So we build with that.

This project in itself is going to create over 3,000 jobs. As we see it open in 2030, we have an interim space that’s ongoing, ready to accept new medical students this coming year.

I am so excited for the first cohort of 48 students that are going to be attending the first medical school here in B.C. in over 55 years. I really am. And I know the families in my riding and the families across Surrey are happy about that too, because they want to be able to live, they want to be able to work, they want to be able to play in their city and locally.

And you know what? Also a special place in my heart is the cardiac catheterization suites that were just opened in Surrey Memorial Hospital. A person who’s very near and dear to me just recently had a procedure at one of those cath lab beds. Just to see that that transfer to Royal Columbian didn’t need to happen…. That’s what needed to happen before. Patients had to be transported over the bridge to Royal Columbian, and it just was not ideal for anybody getting treatment at cath labs that was living south of the Fraser River.

And we’re not done. We’re going to continue to invest through our acute care tower, which is going to expand capacity. I heard members talk about that today. It’s going to expand capacity at Surrey Memorial Hospital, including specialized services, women’s health, pediatric services. So there is a lot more coming in terms of investments for health to really expand and make health care services available to people living south of the Fraser.

I just want to speak quickly about mental health care and our investments in mental health care with this budget, and protecting the health care services that people count on. We want to make sure that we have the resources to keep hiring the doctors and the nurses and the health care workers that we need so that people can rely on getting care when they need it.

This budget provides $131 million to support mental health and addictions treatment, including expanding ACT teams all across the province, 100 new involuntary care beds in Surrey and Prince George, and really expanding mental health supports across our province and in Surrey as well. I was just at an announcement to open up ten new treatment beds at a detox facility in my riding as well. I feel quite lucky.

One of the things that really is so near and dear to me is our continued expansion of Foundry centres all across our province. Surrey City Centre just opened a new Foundry centre, which was so needed in our community, a brand-new area of help and mental health supports for our youth aged up to 24 years of age.

We’re going to continue to expand, through this budget, new Foundry facilities across the province. We have 19 open right now. I think we’re going to get 16 more that are on the way. These services, which are accessible in many different languages, are culturally safe and informed mental health care and primary health care, life skills training, all under one roof. These are transformative spaces for our community.

So we’re not going to just step back, because we understand the crucial need for these services, especially during times of global instability, economic instability. We understand the need for these very crucial services.

[2:45 p.m.]

I just want to pivot over to some of the investments in education in Surrey and the historic investments that we’ve already made and continue to make.

Clayton Heights Secondary. We’re doubling capacity there with new additions to the school that have spaces for Indigenous learning, for child care. This project that’s going to open its doors in 2029 is going to be a welcome addition to the Clayton Heights community.

Fleetwood Park too. I see the member from Fleetwood is here in the chamber with us, who I know is very happy about expanding room for 800 more students at Fleetwood Park Secondary. It is going to be completed in just a couple of years.

Projects like this just mean less crowding in our classrooms, in our schools, at a point where Surrey’s population has really exploded in such a short period of time. We know that we have to act and we have to act quick, and this budget ensures that we continue with that type of work.

Education, whether it be early childhood education or whether it be elementary, secondary…. We all know that our post-secondary students require extra assistance at times and extra care, and they do deserve that.

When I was at Kwantlen Polytechnic University to unveil the new $143 million student housing and dining project, I just realized how many families that’s ultimately going to impact. I mean, 358 beds, a 161-seat dining hall, hundreds of jobs in the creation of that space. It is almost up to, I would say, 800 direct and indirect jobs that it’s going to create.

It’s going to be the first student housing that KPU has ever had. We’ve seen the transformation of KPU from Kwantlen University College to Kwantlen Polytechnic University. We can’t stop there. It can’t be stagnant. It has to continue.

It’s important for families, especially during this time of global instability, to be able to get around with ease. There are more and more families that are switching from their car commutes to using public transit. I know that every time I have any meetings or any events in downtown Vancouver, the SkyTrain is the way that I go downtown. I would not get into a car and drive downtown — many reasons why. I fully support taking public transit because it’s so convenient.

We’re trying to make it even more convenient for people outside of the Vancouver downtown core to get there and back home. The Surrey-Langley SkyTrain extension, which is 16 kilometres of an expansion of the Expo Line, is so important to families in Surrey, families in Langley and beyond, because it really unlocks the opportunity for jobs, for opportunities. These are not just commutes; they’re livelihoods.

I referenced earlier in my speech that even something as simple as tolls actually made me reconsider the opportunities in my life. Really bridging that connection that previously wasn’t there is going to unlock economic opportunities and benefits for communities outside of Vancouver and Surrey and Langley.

This budget supports that development. It supports the very strong need for that type of development and innovation that we need in our province right now.

[2:50 p.m.]

Really, when you take all of these things together, these projects represent billions of dollars in investments, tens of thousands of jobs and a future where our schools, our hospitals, our universities are ready for the next generation. They’re places of excellence. They’re innovative. They’re creative. They’re a draw for people — not just locally, not just out of town, but a draw for the rest of the world.

We have people in our communities who are leaders in different sectors and fields, and we have to invest in them, which is why this budget doesn’t just support core services, doesn’t just preserve them, but it looks to opportunity and advancing opportunity for the amazing people in this province who are going to take us forward. So while we protect our critical services, such as health care and education, we just want to make sure that people get the support that they need, when they need it.

As the Parliamentary Secretary for Mental Health and Addictions and Anti-Racism Initiatives, that is the work that I do every single day. It’s finding opportunities, creative projects that bring our community together. So when I speak about things like Foundry or mental health care, it comes from deep within me, because I see how many lives it transforms every single day.

I see it in the youth that use Foundry services, who say to me that they never thought that they could feel so safe getting treatment, getting health care, that things are so accessible that they just have to take out their phone. They just have to look for appointments, in the comfort of their own room, feeling like they can finally not be alone.

These are the things that we need to ensure that we keep investing in, and that’s what Budget 2026 really does here, so I’m proud to support Bill 2 for the implementation. There’s so much here that we need to really highlight, because our commitment to British Columbians has never wavered. It never has, and it never will. At a time like this, where there are multiple threats on the horizon….

We are going through that right now. We see what’s happening in the world, and really, I’m worried about what that may bring, just like the families of Surrey, British Columbia, just like the families of British Columbia everywhere. But I know, and I am confident, that we can get through this when we get through it together. We’ve done it before; we can do it again.

When we roll out a budget that protects what matters most to people, it strengthens the system that people rely on. It builds a more resilient, more equitable, more caring province, and it also recognizes that we have a lot more work to do. I don’t think there’s anybody on this side of the House that thinks: “Drop the budget, we’re done, and yay.”

I don’t think any of us believes that. We’re fully in understanding of the challenges that we face right now, and I commend all of the members in this House — all of them, both sides — for the work that they do every day. We may not see eye to eye on things, but I truly feel as though all members of this House care for British Columbians.

I’m looking forward to getting to know all of the other members more, to be able to work with them on some creative and innovative ways on how we move forward, because there is no other way. Today I thank you for entertaining my thoughts on this bill.

Again, I just want to give a big thank-you to my staff here at the Whip’s office, my staff in my constituency office and all of the people who uphold the work that comes not just out of this chamber but out of the constituency offices, out of the ministers’ offices, out of the public service offices.

[2:55 p.m.]

I don’t think that I could find a bunch that I could be more proud of, and it’s been an honour of a lifetime. I never thought I would be here, but I truly am thankful for everyone that surrounds me.

Kiel Giddens: I rise today to speak to Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

I do want to thank the previous speaker for her words about the work we all do in our constituency offices. I fully agree that all of us are here to serve the public and work on our constituents’ behalf. Whether we agree with a policy or not, the intent behind it and the care is real, I believe, as well. So I thank the member for her comments.

I want to start with what the Budget Measures Implementation Act, Bill 2, actually is achieving, and that is something I did not hear from the previous member. There was a lot of talk about spending, so what was actually in the budget. But I want to get into what this particular bill actually means.

When we hear the words “budget implementation,” yes, that sounds like the administration of the budget and the spending. It looks like a routine piece of legislation that just adjusts the financial rules, and spending happens. But let’s call this bill what it really is. It’s a tax bill. That’s something that we didn’t hear from the previous comments. Bill 2 is the legislation that turns the tax increases from this year’s budget into law.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Every tax increase that families and businesses will feel from this year’s budget is implemented through this bill. When we debate Bill 2, we’re debating the real financial consequences that British Columbians will face in their paycheques, in their household bills and in the cost of running a business. Unfortunately, when we look at the contents of this bill, what we see is government asking British Columbians to pay more at precisely the moment when many of them can least afford it.

Earlier this session, just a couple of weeks ago when we debated the budget, I spoke about the people I represent in Prince George–Mackenzie. I spoke about the seniors who come into my office because they can’t keep up with the rising cost on a fixed income. I spoke about working families who are watching their paycheques shrink as groceries, fuel, housing and child care are paid, but there’s too much month at the end of the money. I spoke about small business owners who are exhausted from rising costs and regulatory pressure.

Those conversations are the lens that I am looking at this legislation in Bill 2 with. When I apply that lens of those families, the seniors, the small businesses, I see a series of tax measures that will increase the cost of living and the cost of doing business across the province.

Let me begin with one of the most significant measures in this bill, and it’s the increase to the lowest personal income tax bracket. Bill 2, as it is in the budget, raises the base provincial income tax rate from 5.06 percent to 5.6 percent. I know that sounds like a very small amount, but this is significant. This is a 10 percent increase in the lowest tax bracket.

For the lowest earners in the province, this hits their wallets the hardest, and it’s broad-sweeping. That, in fact, impacts all families, because the lowest tax bracket includes everyone, as well, at the first levels of their tax, so that’s significant.

This is the first increase in the lowest provincial income tax rate since 2008. For nearly two decades, governments of different political stripes recognized that raising the base income tax rate affects everyone and particularly those who can least afford it. Because the lowest bracket applies to the first portion of income that every taxpayer earns — that’s what I just referenced — that means this tax increase affects workers, seniors, young families and new entrants into the workforce.

[3:00 p.m.]

Those young workers are who I’m very concerned about. They’re trying to make it. They’re trying to afford their first home, perhaps. They’re trying to, perhaps, move out of their parents’ house, but it makes it much more difficult to do when we’re taxing them more.

Everyone pays this. It comes at a time when British Columbians are already facing the most significant affordability pressures in a generation. As I said, groceries are more expensive. Housing costs still do remain extraordinarily high. Fuel costs are high, particularly in northern and rural communities, which I represent. Insurance, utilities, transportation costs — all high costs on families.

The question British Columbians are asking is really a simple one. Why is the government choosing this moment right now, when British Columbians are struggling, to raise income taxes?

The income tax changes don’t stop there. Bill 2 also includes a policy that may sound technical but has consequences. It’s the freezing of the income-tax-bracket indexation. Previously, income tax brackets rose with inflation. That means as wages increased to keep up with rising prices, workers were not pushed into higher tax brackets simply because inflation had increased their nominal income. The indexation was designed to protect taxpayers from something economists call “bracket creep.”

Bill 2 freezes that indexation. In practice, that means that as inflation continues and as wages slowly rise to keep pace with the cost of living, more and more income will be taxed at higher rates.

Workers may receive modest wage increases simply to keep up with rising prices, but instead of those increases helping them to get ahead, they will increasingly be captured by the tax system. Even if someone’s real purchasing power doesn’t improve they will still pay more tax. That’s not tax fairness. It’s simply a quiet way of increasing the tax burden year after year.

A very glaring tax measure in Bill 2 is one of the most significant expansions of the provincial sales tax in, I would say, a generation. For the first time, the PST will apply to a wide range of professional and business services. This includes accounting services, bookkeeping services, architectural services, engineering services, private security and non-residential real estate management. All of these services will now be subject to 7 percent PST. These aren’t luxury services; they’re the cost of doing business. They’re essential components of operating a business responsibly.

I’ve spoken many times in the House about my own family’s small business, that I grew up with. My dad still runs Giddens Services, an appliance and electronics repair business. This will go to the costs that my father and my uncle, the two business owners, pay for bookkeeping; that they pay for all of their accounting, that they pay for the things that they need, fundamentally, to run their business.

Engineering and architectural services are required for the construction sector and real estate development. Security services are increasingly necessary for businesses facing vandalism, theft and property crime. I’m going to touch on that a little bit more. These are operational necessities. When the government adds 7 percent tax to those services, it increases the cost of running a business across the province. This comes at a time when the payroll taxes and the cost of doing business has been added on many areas.

I recall the government…. When the NDP first came in, they didn’t run on an employer health tax, but it hit small businesses very hard, including my own family business. This is all passed through in higher prices, reduced investment and fewer jobs overall.

I have talked about this in the House before, but before entering public life, I served as president of the Prince George Chamber of Commerce. I spent a lot of time listening to small business owners. I know how tight the margins can be, because I’ve talked to them about it. I know that many businesses operate on very small profit margins as it is, while trying to keep their employees working and their communities thriving. For those businesses, the expansion of PST to professional services is something major, and it has real cost for them.

Consider a business that hires private security though. Because theft and vandalism have become serious problems in communities, small businesses in Prince George have had to do just that.

[3:05 p.m.]

Larger businesses in Prince George, like London Drugs, have security present at all times in their stores. They’re paying this every day and then having to pass that on. We’ve seen in Vancouver that cost led to the closure of the London Drugs location in the former Woodward’s building. Those businesses will now pay 7 percent more for protection for their business and their properties.

The city of Prince George pays for private security in our downtown as a band-aid solution because of the growing cost of vandalism and theft and challenges that we have, that we’ve talked about so many times in this House.

Now we’re actually going to be saddling municipalities with that increased cost and that goes on to people’s property taxes. Those are the taxes that each and every homeowner is going to pay. Every business pays into property taxes.

Layer after layer of cost is added when we add taxes like this, and it happens at a time when business confidence in British Columbia is already fragile. When taxes and costs rise faster than economic growth it discourages investment and it discourages entrepreneurship. Who wants to start a new business when they know that it’s just going to be harder and harder to get ahead?

We heard the business surveys from the Victoria business improvement association. The majority of businesses would actually leave and shut down their business if they weren’t locked into leases. That’s the dire situation that we are in, in this province right now when it comes to businesses and entrepreneurship. Ultimately, that’s going to hurt us in the long run. It’s going to hurt job creation. It’s going to hurt those opportunities for young people in this province.

These tax measures, as I’ve said, will not only affect businesses. They’ll affect homeowners. Many strata corporations rely heavily on professional services, particularly accounting, engineering and property management. Those services are essential to maintaining safe buildings and properly managed communities.

But when these services are suddenly subject to a new 7 percent tax, the costs of operating strata buildings rise. We know that can often lead to disputes when strata corporations are trying to save to make sure that they can afford to pay for improvements to the building and not just for the basic services that they need to operate as a strata.

Condo owners in British Columbia will see their monthly costs increase. Strata fees are going to rise for those who are in those buildings. These folks are not going to receive any additional services in return for that extra tax that they’re paying. It’s simply a new tax embedded in their monthly bills.

When we were talking about the budget…. This is an area I talked about already, but there is a measure in Bill 2 that will have a particularly significant impact on rural and northern communities. This bill removes distinctions that previously recognized the realities for northern and rural homeowners under the homeowner grant program.

For decades, those distinctions acknowledged that the cost of living in rural and northern communities is different. Travel distances are longer. Heating costs are higher. Fuel costs are higher. Access to services often requires significant travel, yet under this legislation, those distinctions are removed.

For homeowners in northern communities, including those in Prince George–Mackenzie, that change will translate into higher property-tax costs. For some households, that change is going to mean $200 more per year. And $200 might not sound like a lot of money, but on a household budget, that’s significant when it comes tax time, when we all pay our property taxes. When you combine it with higher energy bills, higher grocery costs, higher insurance premiums and the higher taxes elsewhere in the system, it adds up and families notice.

That’s not to mention…. This is something that needs to be repeated time and time again in this House. The wealth generated in this province — so much of it comes from rural and northern B.C. The mines and obviously, the forest sector still contribute so much to the province.

LNG and natural gas sector. Natural gas certainly did contribute a lot to this year’s budget and that needs to be recognized. That also should be recognized for the natural gas workers who get up every single day to make sure we have safe, heated homes in our province, everywhere in B.C.

[3:10 p.m.]

Bill 2 also expands PST to items and services that many people rely on every day. The removal of certain exemptions means that services like basic cable and land-line phone services will face higher taxes. Maybe some people might dismiss this as outdated technology, but in rural communities, land lines remain an essential form of communication.

Of course, these long-standing services that PST didn’t apply to previously, seniors rely on them. Nearly all seniors, including those who may be watching at home today, are watching on a basic cable package. They want access to see what we’re doing here in the Legislature, and they want access to information about the news and what’s happening in our province. Is that too much to ask? Rural households rely on these services as well when cell coverage is unreliable.

Emergency services rely on land lines, and that’s going to have a cost to volunteer fire departments, for example. When those services become expensive, it disproportionately affects those who are already on fixed incomes. That is why these budget measures are such a massive impact to seniors. It’s so challenging to see a demographic and people who have given so much to our province, to have them on a fixed income being saddled with these extra costs to their daily budgets.

Of course, what makes these tax increases particularly difficult to justify is the broader fiscal context. This year’s government revenue is projected to reach approximately $85 billion. That’s the highest revenue level in the province’s history. Despite all of that, at all of these tax increases, we have a record deficit. The province is projecting a deficit exceeding $13 billion, as we know.

British Columbians are being asked to pay more in taxes, and the government finances continue to deteriorate. It’s a structural deficit. Government is basically trying to plug holes in the Titanic at this point with these measures. That raises a fundamental question about the government’s overall fiscal management. Instead of saddling it on the backs of seniors and small businesses and families, government needs to look at how it’s managing its fiscal framework overall.

If revenue is reaching record highs and taxes are increasing, why are deficits still growing? The answer, as many economists have pointed out, is that spending growth has been outpacing revenue growth for several years. When that happens, deficits become structural, as I have said. That leads to rising debt, and rising debt leads to higher debt-servicing costs. Those costs ultimately compete with funding for essential public services like health care, education and infrastructure. Every dollar spent on debt-servicing is a dollar that can’t be spent elsewhere.

I want to talk a little bit about accountability. These budget measures also contain provisions that eliminate something that we have talked about already extensively in this House, mostly in question period. It’s the elimination of the Office of the Merit Commissioner and transferring, as the Finance Minister tried to argue, its responsibilities to the public service bureaucracy within the public service.

The Merit Commissioner played an important role in ensuring that hiring in the public service followed the merit principle. Not only that, I want to point to the fact that something else was added to the Merit Commissioner’s responsibilities a number of years ago. There were, obviously, wrongful dismissals, which were something that were added to the Merit Commissioner’s responsibility. We need to have just service for public sector workers. If they are wrongfully dismissed from their job, they need recourse. The Merit Commissioner reviewing that is a proper check on government accountability.

Indeed, I would say that the Legislature, an all-party committee, did agree with that. I’ll quote David McCoy, the Merit Commissioner. He said: “A non-partisan multiparty committee of the B.C. Legislature recognized this in December when they approved a three-year budget to our office to continue our independent oversight of hiring and dismissals process in the B.C. public service. The committee expressed appreciation for the office’s dedicated commitment to upholding merit-based practices in public service hiring.”

[3:15 p.m.]

That’s how important this was. All parties were involved in this. Members from both sides of the House made that recommendation. Yet on the same day the budget was introduced, we had the committee stand up. That’s where this report came from, from that committee’s important work.

I will also say that the Merit Commissioner’s office, in their service plan, said: “It is notable that since ’22-23 there has been an increase in merit-not-applied findings and a decrease in merit findings.” That’s why this is more important than ever. We can’t run a government based on friends and insiders. This cannot happen. The Merit Commissioner was a check on that.

I asked the government what they are trying to hide. This is such a small savings in the budget measures and the overall fiscal framework. What is going on in the government right now, that they need to get rid of an office and lay off these important public servants that are doing the work to protect the public interest?

I want to just highlight that point about dismissals again. Mr. McCoy also said: “Our mandate expanded to include dismissal reviews in 2018. Only recently, a non-partisan committee, a multiparty committee, conducted a legislative review of that responsibility and affirmed the importance of this work, and that it remained independent from government.”

That goes back to recommendations that were made by Ombudsperson Jay Chalke because of wrongful dismissals from the Ministry of Health that happened where health care workers were dismissed and government was found in the wrong. The Ombudsperson supported these workers.

The important thing about that is the fact that one of these particular workers actually took their life because of the wrongful dismissal that actually impacted their mental health. That’s how serious this is. Removing the Merit Commissioner’s office is something that is disrespectful in my opinion.

Government is obviously making choices in this budget, and rewarding friends and insiders may be one of those choices. I sincerely hope not, but there’s a pattern that’s emerging here. When we step back and look at this legislation as a whole, I want to reiterate that this bill raises income taxes. It expands sales taxes. It increases property tax burdens for rural homeowners, it increases operating costs for businesses, and it does so during a period when affordability pressures are already intense.

British Columbians are not asking for more taxes right now. They’re asking for relief. They’re asking for stability. They’re asking for a government that recognizes the financial pressure that they are under, that seniors are under, that families are under right now.

People in Prince George–Mackenzie understand that governing involves difficult decisions. They understand that public services must be funded. Yes, we have to have taxes. I’m not disputing that. But it has to be fair.

They understand that economic cycles change, but in return, they also expect responsible fiscal management. They expect that when government revenue reaches record highs, taxes will not continue rising. They expect that rural communities will not be asked to shoulder a disproportionate burden of the tax burden in this province. They expect that policies will strengthen the province’s long-term economic competitiveness.

As we’ve seen from what we’re hearing from the business community, that’s absolutely not the case.

Deputy Speaker: Member, can I just interrupt you just for a moment? I think we’ve got a member about to seek leave. Apologies.

Sunita Dhir: Mr. Speaker, may I seek leave to make an introduction, please?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Sunita Dhir: It’s my absolute pleasure to welcome another group of students on behalf of the member for Vancouver-Fraserview. We have 28 grade 5 students along with their teacher, Johanna Molt, and other staff members.

[3:20 p.m.]

They’re from École Anne-Hébert, which is the first francophone school in B.C., established in 1983. The school serves 323 students from kindergarten to grade 6.

May we all welcome them to the House again, please.

Deputy Speaker: Very glad to have you here, everyone.

We are debating Bill 2, and we will return to Prince George–Mackenzie.

Apologies, Member.

Debate Continued

Kiel Giddens: Well, of course. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to wrap up my remarks. I am just about at my completion here. I want to say that, unfortunately, the tax measures contained in Bill 2 move B.C. in the opposite direction. They increase costs for families. They increase costs for businesses. They increase costs for rural homeowners.

The demographic that I am most concerned about is the fact that they increase costs for seniors. Seniors have done so much to build up this province. They’ve paid their taxes. They’ve done so much to support all of our families.

I think about my grandparents. My grandpa on my mom’s side worked in the mining sector. He worked up in the Cassiar mine, then at Endako near Fraser Lake. He worked at the Similco mine in Princeton. He paid his taxes. He contributed so much to the province and to our health care system by doing that.

The resource sectors, like what my grandpa worked in, in mining — they paid for the public services that we inherited. So to tax seniors more, that’s the problem I have the most with this Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

Our seniors deserve better health care. We heard from the budget that, in fact, there are cuts to long-term-care beds. Seniors are struggling and want to stay at home, but now that choice is more challenging for them as well. The cost that we’re adding to their fixed income is going to be more expensive with these budget measures that we’re implementing under this bill.

I ask that if things are considered within this budget, let’s consider the seniors that we need to be supporting, and let’s try to make some changes, amendments, to these budget measures to really focus on what we’re doing and how we can actually support seniors.

I urge the government, whether that’s the PST increases on cable or land lines, whether it’s yarn that seniors are using to knit the sweaters for their grandchildren…. All of that needs to be looked at in the context for what it is.

For all of the reasons I’ve discussed, I can’t support Bill 2. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill. I look forward to hearing from the members opposite and members on this side of the House as well.

Hon. Diana Gibson: I rise today to represent the constituents and members across Oak Bay–Gordon Head, whom it is my great privilege and honour to represent, and to speak today to some of issues that I know I’ve had questions about from members across the community, whether that’s such a diverse community of seniors, working families, businesses, small businesses and young students that are at the university and college.

The issues I hear from them are common, of course — challenges with affordability in these times of rising prices, concerns about caring for a loved one, a family member, caring for aging parents. The issues across all of them are really the things that I carry with me into this House every day, and I’m going to speak to some of the ways that Budget 2026 helps to deliver for them.

I’m really proud of the ways that this budget does help to deliver for community members by protecting the programs and services that they need. The budget puts people at the heart, tackling the challenges that families face, supporting businesses in uncertain times, and laying the groundwork for a stronger B.C.

[3:25 p.m.]

Budget 2026 prepares us to move forward, to build a stronger economy while keeping people at the centre of every decision. It invests in communities, strengthens essential services and ensures that the people in B.C. thrive today and into the future.

To build a strong future, Budget 2026 outlines multiple measures that strengthen our economy. It’s about making thoughtful choices to protect the services British Columbians rely on, while we position the province to be resilient and strong in the long term.

I want to start by talking about health care, because that’s a key issue across our communities. By expanding access, this budget is supporting health professionals and strengthening mental health and addiction services. We’re enhancing education and supports for families and children as well, ensuring that young people have their best start in life.

We’re investing in communities and infrastructure to make schools and hospitals, transit and local facilities safer and more connected. We’re supporting jobs, making opportunities, by helping businesses to innovate, grow and create meaningful jobs across our province. Our government is committed to delivering this for the people of British Columbia.

Since 2017, we’ve been working to strengthen the services that families rely on, expand the opportunities for our young people and ensure communities are safer, healthier and more connected. We’re bringing child care costs down and expanding supports that families need.

Budget 2026 invests $330 million over three years to protect and stabilize the progress we’ve made in child care. Let me restate that. We are investing more in our child care because we know how critical that is for women and families. As we come closer to International Women’s Day, I know the emphasis that we need to be placing on ensuring women have the supports they need.

At the same time, we’re continuing to strengthen supports for children and youths with diverse needs. With $475 million in investment over three years, we’re building a more flexible, more equitable support system to ensure they can access the resources they need to thrive and live full and happy lives.

Budget 2026 continues the work our government has been doing to rebuild our K-to-12 system after the devastating challenges and cuts under the Liberal government. Our budget is reinvesting both in building schools and in adequately funding the teachers and the supports that are needed with $634 million in new K-to-12 funding over three years, including much-needed investments in the classroom enhancement fund that will help bring more teachers, more special education supports and more counselors into our classrooms.

This is something I hear from family members and from teachers across our community — that it’s so critical that we’re continuing to support these pieces of our education system.

I want to turn to safety, something else that we hear across greater Victoria. There have been concerns about safety for community members and businesses. I’m so grateful to the city of Victoria for their community safety and well-being plan — which, I have heard from businesses and service providers, is making a difference on the ground in Victoria.

With $139 million in new funding for justice and public safety, our government, in Budget 2026, is continuing to support this kind of work, reducing repeat and violent offenders and supporting timely access to justice. We’ve been lobbying and working with the federal government to ensure that we have the kind of protections we need for our businesses and our community members through that justice reform.

On capital, there was a huge infrastructure deficit when we came into government in 2017, a huge infrastructure deficit left by a government that hadn’t built the kind of investment of schools and hospitals and infrastructure that was needed over those 17 years. We’ve been building the capital, but it comes at a cost, because when you don’t build for decades and then you need to, it becomes quite a bit more expensive.

Our government is continuing to invest in the capital that we need to support our student housing, our hospitals, our schools, our transit, across communities from Vancouver, Surrey and Mission to Prince Rupert, creating jobs, improving lives and ensuring that we’re building the services and infrastructure people need.

We’re also working to ensure that when people come to get the services they need, those services are there. In Budget 2026, health care was made a huge priority and continues to be invested in, with $2.8 billion in new funding over three years to expand capacity and improve access for people in B.C.

[3:30 p.m.]

This includes $2.3 billion to grow our province’s health care system capacity, hiring more doctors, more nurses and health care professionals, because I’ve heard across our community that there are still members not connected to a family doctor or nurse practitioner. We’re connecting people every day, but we know there’s more to do. That’s why this investment is in Budget 2026.

We’re advancing planning and development with the operation of more hospitals and health facilities. And of course, the new training facility for doctors that we opened, the new medical school, is going to be opening its doors in September.

This year Budget 2026 also introduces new investments into in vitro fertilization coverage, supporting nearly 1,800 families to help build their families. We’re securing hundreds of millions in federal contributions, also, to expand essential medications, including diabetes treatment and enhanced menopausal hormone therapy, which became covered just last weekend.

Also, we’re improving supports for seniors outside of hospital settings, ensuring they can receive high-quality care closer to home and in their homes, maintaining independence in their communities as they age.

I want to turn now to some of the things that are happening right here in our south Island community of Oak Bay–Gordon Head. In Budget 2026, there are investments in post-secondary, with the University of Victoria’s Engineering Computer Science Building, a new building that’ll give space for 500 more students, delivering on the province’s commitment to new technology seats throughout B.C. It’s expected to support 604 direct and indirect jobs, and the province is committing $97 million towards the cost of that project.

Also, Camosun College. Students at Camosun will soon have on-campus student housing for the first time at the Lansdowne campus. A new six-storey wood-frame building will combine five floors of student housing alongside additional amenities and services.

Other investments across the south Island that we’re continuing to make in this budget include long-term care in Colwood. We know that on the south Island, long-term care is needed, as our population has a high proportion of seniors. That’s why we’re investing in a new facility in Colwood for a total of 298 residents.

Additionally, our government invested in the new centre for Indigenous law at the University of Victoria, a groundbreaking investment in a university, the world’s first joint degree program in Indigenous law. It has a beautiful new building on campus.

Other investments that this government has been making from 2018 to 2025 include schools like Cedar Hill Middle School and Victoria High School, upgrading and making schools safer and building new spaces.

I want to speak for a minute about the housing side, because there have been concerns raised around what this budget delivers for affordable housing. One of the things that’s really important to note is that since 2017 in this province, our government has been delivering more than 95,000 homes in communities throughout B.C. — 95,000 homes.

We are seeing rents fall. Asking rents fell 4.7 percent, compared to this time last year. That’s because our government has been doing the work to ensure that we’re building non-market and market housing people need.

B.C.’s renter’s tax credit is also part of this, helping renters with up to $400 per year for low- and moderate-income renters, individuals and families. B.C. also capped the maximum allowable rent increase and tied it to inflation, at 2.3 percent in 2026, down from 3 percent in 2025. That rent control, when I talk to students and working families in our community, has been a critical part of helping them tackle affordability. We continue to be committed to ensuring that we’re helping with housing affordability through that rent control.

As part of the federal budget, GST has been eliminated on first-time homebuyers on homes up to $1 million to help with affordability for home buyers. Of course, there are thousands of more units still coming, across our province, as we continue to work on building the kind of housing that people need in terms of affordable, below-market and market.

In the Oak Bay–Gordon Head area, there have been huge investments across housing and units that have been built in a range of different types of affordable housing by our government.

This includes, for example, the Balmoral Road development in Victoria, 56 new permanent homes with supports. Princess Avenue, 28 units of transitional housing, in partnership with the John Howard Society. Discovery Street, 94 of the former Capital City Centre Hotel rooms, 96 in temporary supportive housing units.

[3:35 p.m.]

Nigel Valley housing, 70 new affordable rental homes for people with low or moderate incomes. The Juniper, 48 self-contained furnished studio homes for people at risk of homelessness. Meares Street, 48 new permanent supportive homes for young adults 19 to 27.

Kwum Kwum Lelum, 45 homes for Indigenous people experiencing homelessness. Linwood Court in Saanich, 98 one-bedroom affordable homes for seniors. SȾÁUTW̱ First Nation in Saanich, a five-storey building with 24 two-bedroom suites for working families.

Across town at Douglas Street, 100 affordable rental homes for individuals, seniors and families in 54 supportive homes. Burnside Gorge at Cecilia Road, 88 new affordable homes for low- to moderate-income individuals, families and people with disabilities.

Our government is working to build the kinds of homes people need — working families, seniors, young people, Indigenous people experiencing homelessness — across the range of housing, and we’re going to continue to do that work.

I want to turn for a moment to the tax side of this budget. In order to deliver the programs and services our community needs, we need to see a growing economy, and we also need to focus on tax fairness. I’ve spent much of my career working on budget analysis and tax fairness, and I’m proud of the work that this budget does to do both — revenue generation and tax fairness.

The government has been focused on keeping costs down for people, reducing taxes for middle-income and working people. Global uncertainty is slowing growth everywhere. High costs, global instability and volatile commodity prices are putting pressure on public finances.

[The bells were rung.]

Deputy Speaker: Minister, could I just ask you to pause just for one moment.

Hon. Diana Gibson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When I talk about the tax issue here in our budget, it’s really important for us to recognize that the priorities for our government, in how we structured the financial side and the tax side of this budget, are to protect public services like health care and education, while keeping B.C. one of the lowest-taxed provinces for families and reducing the deficit responsibly over time.

One of the ways we’re working to achieve this is by increasing the base rate in the first tax bracket by less than 0.6 percentage points and offsetting that for low-income British Columbians through a tax credit.

Many people don’t understand how this system works in terms of the marginal tax brackets, but everybody pays, in their first bracket of income, the same tax at that lowest tax bracket, including anyone from billionaires like Chip Wilson to low-income working families. Everybody pays that same tax.

What we’ve done is lifted that level up so the wealthier people like Chip Wilson would be paying a higher tax at that bracket, while we give the money back to low-income people in a tax credit. That is making our system more fair and more progressive, while ensuring that we are capturing the revenues we need to support the programs and services people need.

We’re mindful of the costs for British Columbians and affordability challenges, and that’s why we’ve ensured that lower-income individuals receive an increased reduction in their tax credit so that they’re better off. Even with this change, middle-income British Columbians will continue to have amongst the lowest taxes in the country.

Another question people have asked around the tax system is on the expanding of the PST. This is an important issue to talk about. I myself am a former small business owner, and I know how challenging the margins can be for small businesses.

When we’ve got the supply chain challenges and cost escalation, small businesses struggle. That’s why our budget is focused on ensuring affordability and protection for small businesses, despite the expansion of the PST, which is important in terms of ensuring we have the revenue base to support the programs and services we need to deliver for British Columbians.

When we expanded the PST base to include additional goods and professional services, it was to help diversify our revenue sources, to prevent cuts to health care, education and the core services people rely on. It aligns B.C. with how other provinces apply PST. It’s consistent with the way other provinces are doing it, allowing us to apply services to a broader base of services.

[3:40 p.m.]

However, we know how challenging it is for small businesses, and that’s why our government continues to ensure that the action we’ve taken for small business is there. Increasing the employer health tax exemption threshold from $500K to $1 million in 2024. Enhancing the film and television tax credit for productions in 2025. Enhancing the interactive digital media tax credit in 2025. Increasing the small business venture capital tax credit budget’s annual limit and encouraging investment in eligible small businesses. Lowering the small business tax rate from 2.5 to 2 percent in 2017. We brought the small business tax credit below where it was under the Liberals.

Small businesses are the backbone of our economy and our communities — 98 percent of our businesses are small businesses. Our government is committed to working to ensure that they can thrive and grow and be a dynamic part of our growing economy into the future.

I want to turn now to talking a little bit about the ministry that I hold. I’m honoured to have been appointed the Minister of Citizens’ Services last summer. The work done by the Ministry of Citizens’ Services impacts the daily lives of British Columbians from expanding high-speed internet across the province to the important work of building equitable public services in partnership with the anti-racism data committee.

We have programs on technology. We have all of government technology and innovation across our government in the Citizens’ Services Ministry, and we’re dedicated, through our ministry staff, to providing over 300 government services through our 65 B.C. service centres. We’re focusing on both providing digital services and providing in-person services to meet every citizen where they’re at with their needs for access to programs and services across our province.

I want to start with connectivity, because we know that connectivity is critical. Whether you’re a business in a remote community, somebody working remotely, somebody looking to study online or connecting with family and community, connectivity is a priority. Our government has been expanding high-speed internet and mobile services so that families, students and businesses can thrive in this digital age while being able to live and invest in their local communities.

As a minister, I’ve had the opportunity to announce new connectivity initiatives that are making a real difference across our province — projects that are opening doors in rural communities, strengthening safety corridors along major highways and creating new opportunities for rural and Indigenous communities.

Today 97 percent of homes across the province have access to high-speed internet, a remarkable increase from even just a few years ago. In rural areas, access to high-speed internet has grown from 57 percent in 2017 to 80 percent today. In First Nations communities, from 66 percent to 88 percent in the same period. Some of those communities include Bella Coola and the Nuxalk Nation and the Central Coast region, Clinton, Ruth Lake, Deka Lake in the Cariboo, and many more.

These improvements reflect not only investment but partnership and shared commitment. We’re not stopping there. We’re on track to ensure that more than 99 percent of homes have access to high-speed internet through land-based, made-in-B.C. solutions. But connectivity is not just about homes. It’s also about safety. Connectivity along our primary and secondary highways is critical for emergency response, access to 911 and peace of mind for travellers. That’s why we continue to partner with service providers to build the critical infrastructure that is a priority identified by local governments and First Nations.

B.C.’s extensive highway network spans remote wilderness and mountains to connect communities across our province. Delivering cellular service in these areas presents significant challenges due to high operational costs, limited power, difficult terrain and severe weather conditions.

But we remain committed to working with our telecom partners to establish mobile connectivity in every corner of our beautiful province. We’ve demonstrated a strong commitment to expanding mobile connectivity with funding for public Wi-Fi to 28 rest areas and five emergency call boxes in the northern Rockies as we continue to work on ensuring safety across our highways.

Connectivity is opening doors for local businesses to reach global markets, students to learn from anywhere, community health centres to deliver virtual care, First Nations to pursue economic development and families to stay connected no matter where they call home. In 2022, B.C. and Canada each committed $415 million for a combined $830 million to accelerate broadband infrastructure in rural, remote and Indigenous communities.

[3:45 p.m.]

This historic collaboration remains one of the largest joint broadband investments and has helped advance a key commitment under our Declaration action plan. This work isn’t symbolic; it’s transformational.

I want to share the meaningful progress we’re making under our Anti-Racism Data Act to ensure public services are not just efficient but equitable and responsive to the diverse communities we serve.

Anti-racism is a core value in all the work our government does but especially my ministry’s. It guides how we serve people and how our ministry supports communities across the province. Creating a fair and equitable British Columbia is important for everyone.

In a time where, just today and across our province, DEI and racial equity work has come under increasing attacks and efforts to dismantle it, our province is standing strong and doubling down on our commitment to anti-racism.

My ministry continues to lead this effort, building the work set out in our Anti-Racism Data Act to identify the barriers experienced by Indigenous and racialized people in accessing government services. Each year we learn more about the barriers people face. Each year we take another step toward creating a more equitable British Columbia. B.C.’s Anti-Racism Data Act is one of the key tools that helps us to identify where inequities exist and to fix them.

This work began in 2022, following many years of advocacy from Indigenous and racialized communities as well as recommendations from the B.C. Human Rights Commissioner. The act was introduced so government could safely collect, use and share disaggregated data, including race-based information, in order to better understand systemic inequities and take action to dismantle them.

In May 2025, we released initial research findings focused on three priority areas: updated racial diversity in the B.C. Public Service; representation across agencies, boards and commissions; and economic inclusion, including wage gaps across major occupational groups.

As we come towards International Women’s Day and we know that we still have not closed the gap in pay for women, and we continue to see racialized groups face larger gaps, we know it’s critical to continue doing this work.

Part of that is to ensure that services are available and accessible to all British Columbians. In the work of that, we have our Service B.C. offices. I want to give a shout-out to the incredible team in Service B.C. doing the front-line work. As an individual comes in to access a Service B.C. office, they may be accessing any one of 300 different services. Our staff are there to help them in person, in different languages, ensuring that they have access.

In communities that don’t have a Service B.C. office, we have a mobile service van. We have initiatives, experimenting with shared service models with libraries and city facilities, so that we can continue to ensure that real, in-person services are there on the ground for people who need them.

We also know that people want digital service access, and that’s why we have Connected Services B.C. This is part of my ministry’s work to modernize and better coordinate digital services across government. I’m so proud of the work we’re doing to ensure that citizens can access services easily through a connected, across-government service approach.

This approach pulls together expertise in technology, information management and digital delivery to offer a streamlined, one front-door approach. It’s also bolstered by data privacy and protection that will reduce the number of times an individual has to enter and disclose their personal information while accessing services.

It’s not just about technology. This change is about improving people’s experiences and businesses’ experiences with government. For example, health gateway gives people in B.C. secure, convenient access to their medical records, reducing the need to navigate multiple systems. It’s so great to go into a different health facility from your own family or regular practice, or if you don’t have a family doctor, and know that the medical records you’re going to need if you’re in a crisis will be there.

By using shared platforms, common tools and coordinated delivery, Connected Services is helping lower costs and create efficiency gains while improving service access for people across the province.

Another area that’s important to talk about and in the news a lot these days is artificial intelligence. There are many opportunities to improve service delivery for British Columbians with artificial intelligence and automation, but we’ve seen how important it is to ensure that we’re also shaping this in a way that is about security and responsibility.

[3:50 p.m.]

We hold the opportunity to harness innovation to do things like better predict wildfires or help with health research and cancer research. At the same time, we have the tremendous responsibility of ensuring that this is done in a way where humans still make the decisions and the technology serves us, not the other way around.

For my ministry, the foundational approach is transparency, accountability, protection, security. We continue to do work with the public service around implementation of AI as we look to harness its potential to better deliver services for British Columbians in a seamless, one FrontCounter approach, while protecting their security and privacy.

The approach that we’ve taken in this budget is really fundamental to building the economy, an economy that’s growing and resilient, while individuals are met with their service needs. Easy service access and also the services that they need are there for them.

That’s where we come to Look West. The Look West strategy is really about the economic vision behind ensuring our services are available and fundable and sustainable. Look West is about building a stronger British Columbia. It’s committed to including technology and supports for skill training and investments in our business sector, so that we can harness innovation across our economy to ensure it grows and is strong.

Of the top projects listed by the federal government on their major investment, the majority of them are British Columbia projects because British Columbia is the gateway for the future of Canada. That’s why we called our strategy Look West, because B.C. has everything that is needed for building a strong, growing economy across the country.

We continue to be investing in Budget 2026, in those kinds of programs and services that are going to help us to grow our economy, so that our programs and services can be there for our seniors, for our young people, for our students, for our facilities, for our businesses, and that we can continue — all of us together, collaboratively — to work to grow our economy in a way that’s inclusive, that supports everyone, that lifts us all up.

That’s what Budget 2026 is focusing on doing. It’s to ensure we’re supporting our programs and services while we’re finding a fiscal path forward that’s responsible and growing our economy.

Scott McInnis: It’s a wonderful privilege and honour to stand up and speak in this House every opportunity that I get on behalf of the phenomenal people who live within Columbia River–Revelstoke, a riding that is geographically bigger than Switzerland with communities dotted throughout. I’m so proud to be here to represent their interests and to speak on their behalf here in Victoria.

I’d like to get started first…. I do see the Minister of Health here, and I’d like to start with a very positive thank-you on the record for some news yesterday.

I just really appreciate the province opening and creating a deal with Alberta again, for surgical services between British Columbia and Alberta, and I really thank the Minister of Health for that. It’s been a lot of collaborative work over many years, going back to my predecessor, Mr. Doug Clovechok.

This is really important for my constituents and also my friend, who is unable to be here, in Kootenay-Rockies. It’s much, much easier to access the services in Lethbridge and Calgary for people living in the East Kootenay — whether it’s Sparwood, Elkford, Fernie, Kimberley, Invermere, Golden. That is a very positive move, and I thank the Health Minister very, very much for that, from the bottom of my heart. It’s really great to see some collaborative, non-partisan work be done for the people.

I’m hoping on that note, that we can continue to work together to open up additional services with Alberta — NICU services, oncology services — which will generally just provide a better quality of living for the people I’m so honoured to represent in the East Kootenay.

That’s about all the good news I have to share, but I wanted to start off very positively with that.

I think I need to start off with just a very general and very brief overview of the riding I represent, Columbia River–Revelstoke.

[3:55 p.m.]

We are a very vast, beautiful, diverse set of communities, in my riding. We are primarily a tourism-related economy in Columbia River–Revelstoke, whether it is the absolute best fly-fishing probably on the planet or access to backcountry heli-skiing. Obviously, we have some of the best ski mountains on the planet — whether it be Kimberley or Panorama; Kicking Horse; obviously, Revelstoke Mountain Resort. We have the absolute best when it comes to the outdoors. Mountain biking, which is really taking off in the last ten years or so. Obviously, hiking. Very big hunting community.

That’s kind of the bread and butter of the communities I represent, when it comes to industry — tourism. Tourism is a very rewarding but complex industry as well. There are a lot of transient workers that come in and out from all around the world, and we’re thrilled to have them there. They really service the tourism industry in a really remarkable way. The reality is the tourism industry supports small businesses generally, whether it’s local coffee shops, restaurants, various other businesses which are offshoots of some of the larger tourism-related industries that we have.

We don’t have a ton of big business where I live. It’s the heartbeat of our communities. I have to say that there has been quite a bit of frustration in my office when it comes to communication around this budget. I was quite passionate in my budget response speech about that because I just really felt that, for my constituents in Columbia River–Revelstoke, for rural B.C. in general, there wasn’t a whole lot in this budget to help us out in these very difficult economic circumstances that we find ourselves in.

I mean, we’re a rural caucus — the opposition, generally speaking. There are a lot of us that represent very small communities in the vast wilderness of this province, and yeah, we are a little bit frustrated. There are a lot of these measures within the Budget Measures Implementation Act, which are not overly supportive of rural British Columbia. I have to be honest about that. I’ll get into some of those details shortly.

I did appreciate the last speaker, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, speaking directly about some of the services and things that the budget supports. Although maybe I don’t agree with some of the information that she was sharing perhaps, as being something that’s supportive for all British Columbians, generally speaking, I appreciated the member focusing on the details of this legislation.

I have to be honest. I respect all my colleagues in this House, from all parties, all seats that are here from the 92 members, beyond myself. But it does get a little bit frustrating at times when it feels like the government members are criticizing the critics. I think there’s a lot of time going down memory lane as a defence shield against what is a really awful budget.

We talk about the 16 years of the Liberal government in power here. Well, let’s talk about the government from the 1970s and 1980s, if we’re going to do that, and blame them for what we see here today. As my good friend from Abbotsford West rightly points out, it’s been nine long years here. The excuse of cleaning up a mess from a Liberal government since 2017 isn’t holding a lot of water around here, especially for rural British Columbians, especially Columbia River–Revelstokians who are really struggling.

[4:00 p.m.]

I’ve had a lot of communication — lots of it I’ve read into the record — about frustrations that people are seeing with this budget.

I have to speak for a second on the record, because it absolutely reflects directly to the Budget Measures Implementation Act and some of the measures that are taken within that.

It’s about the new daylight savings time change initiative that was implemented by this government. It affects everybody in the province, essentially, except for my constituents who are on mountain time. In my riding, I have two time zones. This time change…. Why it leaves mountain time out of it is kind of beyond me.

Half of the year we’ll be aligned with the rest of the province. Half of the year we won’t be. I can’t understand that. I can’t express the amount of communication and frustration I’ve had into my office about this.

I’m struggling to find why the Minister of Mines is laughing. I’m happy to put that on the record as well — that there are members in this House from the government who think that’s funny.

We’re going to have tremendous confusion, at times, when this is rolled out. People travelling between East Kootenay and West Kootenay will have various things at various times of the year changed when it comes to the time. That will impact travel. That will impact virtual court dates. That will impact businesses. Why we were left out of this is beyond me. I mean, we don’t mind being an hour ahead all year long. But now that we’re left out of this, it flip-flops back and forth. This is extremely frustrating.

The mandate from the government has been: “Well, okay, local governments, you guys can now negotiate amongst yourselves and talk and figure something out.” What a waste of time and resources for already thinly stretched local government, whether it’s regional districts, municipalities, to have to find time to get together and sort this out when they’ve already downloaded tons of policy and regulation from this government. It’s completely unacceptable and extremely frustrating.

I’m happy to share on the record when it comes to the official statements from my part of the world, because it is not positive about what seems to be a benign change in Vancouver and Victoria.

There are a lot of issues with this budget that directly impact everybody in British Columbia, but it really impacts rural British Columbians the most. As I said, our spending in this province is out of control, to the point, and I’ve mentioned it many times, debt servicing costs will soon be reaching $1 million an hour.

How do we, as legislators representing our communities, explain that to the public when we’re seeing maternity wards being diverted? Crime and safety is out of control. Groceries are increasingly expensive. But we’re spending close to $24 million a day in interest to pay the debt. That’s not even the principal. That doesn’t make it any smaller.

My Conservative values are deeply, deeply rooted in smart fiscal management. This is a reckless budget.

Now, I get it. I understand that the government is protecting, as best they can, core services. But as I mentioned in my budget speech, again, where’s the absolute state of emergency when it comes to an industry like forestry? There’s a major hole in the bucket, and the bucket is emptying quickly.

[4:05 p.m.]

I’d also like to take a moment at this time to recognize the incredible health care workers we have in Columbia River–Revelstoke. We’re quite fortunate in most of my riding to be fairly sufficiently staffed most of the time. Even for those, especially, who work at the Kootenay Regional Hospital — which is, generally speaking, at about 110 percent capacity — thankfully, we’ve had no diversions or closures.

That’s just a testament to the unbelievable work undertaken by the people who service that hospital. I cannot thank them enough, because the reality is that in my riding, when people come to enjoy the outdoors, sometimes they get hurt and they need those services, and it really swells into the local health care facilities. The people who are staffing those just have my utmost respect.

The Budget Measures Act, obviously, is to pass the taxation measures for this government, and I have to say that, again, there’s lots left out here for rural British Columbians. As I mentioned in my budget speech — again, agriculture — we have a lot of ranches in Columbia River–Revelstoke, and the slashing of the budget for wildlife losses is really inexcusable for people that are simply trying to feed the province.

We have wildlife. We’re blessed to have large herds of elk, especially in the southern portion of my riding, but they generally, especially in the winter months, graze on hay fields and alfalfa fields, because they can’t move to the mountains and the government doesn’t like ranchers to fence.

So what we’re left with is wildlife that belongs to the province — belongs to all of us, the property of the province, under the management of the province — that can sometimes quite decimate hay fields which feed domestic animals. That budget has been slashed by close to half. It didn’t appear that there was a lot of warning or foresight coming for the ranchers, with the communication I’ve had, that that was coming.

People had, again, budgeted for things like medication. Cattle require a lot of medication at times. Obviously, they require feed, especially in the winter months and especially when they’re certain age, and ranchers budget for that stuff. Then all of a sudden they get a cheque in the mail for half the money they were thinking they were going to get.

It’s kind of inexcusable, Mr. Speaker, to be honest with you. These are the people, again, that feed the province in rural B.C. Does that get forgotten about in here while we take $400 million and put it into what’s — I’ve got to be frank with you — the government’s strategic investment fund? That’s a great name for something where we really have no idea what it’s going to be used for.

It’s for major projects. Well, what? I didn’t hear anything, when it comes to details as to some of the targeted investment — that half a billion dollars, which is coming off the backs of seniors, working families, small businesses — of what that’s actually going to be used for.

I haven’t seen a long-term energy strategy to address what is an increasingly high energy shortfall in this province, for example. It’s frustrating, and it’s hard to explain this to the hard-working individuals in Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Now, to people who live in greater Vancouver, through no fault of their own, things like basic cable and land-line services don’t really mean much.

[4:10 p.m.]

There are not many people that are using that technology anymore, with Netflix and cell phones, but in my riding, when you leave Radium, driving north to Golden, you generally don’t have cell service for close to an hour and a half on the highway. Seniors, families — a lot of them have those land lines. Now they have to pay PST, simply for being able to communicate with the outside world. I don’t, on behalf of my constituents, find that to be very fair.

The accounting and bookkeeping PST charges, for an essential service to operate a business, now being charged PST. I got an email that I asked my constituent if I could share, and she said, “Absolutely.”

In the wonderful town of Edgewater, about ten minutes north of Radium Hot Springs, Zuzana Janicek, who runs Thousand Peaks Bookkeeping: “Dear MLA McInnis, I’m writing you today, as a small business owner and bookkeeper in the East Kootenay, to express my deep concern regarding the recently proposed B.C. Budget 2026. Specifically, I’m urging you to oppose the expansion of the provincial sales tax to include accounting and bookkeeping services, effective October 2026.”

She lays out here, in her 800-word-or-so email, why that’s a problem, and I agree with everything that she says.

We are discouraging some individuals — again, small businesses in Columbia River–Revelstoke — from actually using some of these services to properly account for the business undertakings that they’re doing.

She also identifies non-compliance as a risk here. “Punishing compliance” — and that’s in a quote. It’s a non-recoverable tax for businesses, unlike a GST credit, punishing small businesses over big industry, as bigger businesses generally have in-house accounting and bookkeeping services — not somebody like Bear’s Eatery, in Kimberley. They’re not afforded that luxury.

This is the frustration coming from rural B.C., specifically Columbia River–Revelstoke, about this budget. People are asking why this budget appears to be so unfair for them. And I’m having a tough time here. I’m trying, as a person who’s generally positive and optimistic, to find those bright lines in the budget for us. I can’t really find any, to be honest with you.

I have to say, above all else in this budget, the one thing that concerns me the most is the elimination of the Merit Commissioner’s office. I often think about, when the government introduces legislation — there are certain things before the House right now that we can’t talk about, but we certainly will — what their reaction would be if a Conservative government were to bring in a host of measures to create a wall of secrecy around what government is actually doing.

[4:15 p.m.]

This office is being dissolved. Its assets, functions and records are moved to the Ministry of Finance. You won’t be able to access anything previous to this under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy — no FOI requests that’ll be retroactive. And the Minister of Finance says: “Well, we don’t need it. We have a culture, in our government, of hiring on merit.” So it’s just a benign function of government.

I have to say that the former Merit Commissioner had something else to say about that, and it certainly doesn’t align with what this government is telling the public. Mr. David McCoy, on February 19, 2026, said: “It’s the highest rate of flawed hiring processes and outcomes in nearly a decade.”

So either the Finance Minister is completely disconnected from reality — which I don’t believe, because I understand that minister to be a very smart person — or they’re not being extremely forthright. This is not a huge budget line item — $2 million. It’s not about the money for this. To the layman out there, it’s: “Let’s just get rid of it, and then we can hire whoever we want to, friend or insider, or both.”

Mr. McCoy also said on February 19, 2026: “The cost of losing independent oversight may far exceed the savings from eliminating a small oversight body.” I couldn’t agree more.

Mr. Finch, from the BCGEU, had recently stated: “They’re overseeing themselves. It effectively eliminates the audit function.” That’s not good governance. I just cannot understand why this government, time and again, continues down a path away from transparency instead of toward it.

We are here to represent the people of British Columbia, and it is their right to know what’s going on in here, how we’re spending their money, how we’re conducting our business, who we’re bringing on board to make critical decisions. It seems like every other piece of legislation here is moving away from that.

This is extremely concerning, and the public, with our help in opposition, will be waking up to this reality from this government. Transparency in a democracy is paramount, and we are losing that culture in here. It’s irresponsible, and it’s shameful. A $2 million office, because the Finance Minister says they have a culture of hiring on merit, not needed — unbelievable.

The removing of northern and rural distinctions on homeowner grants. I’m looking around at my colleagues who live in northern and rural communities. That seems to target and punish a specific sector of this province geographically. That’s not my opinion; those are the facts from the budget itself.

[4:20 p.m.]

I’m extremely concerned with the growing rural and urban divide in this province. In Columbia River–Revelstoke, we accept that we make sacrifices living away from major urban centres; that it’s not a quick bus ride to the local hospital; that we may have to drive 15, 20, 40, 60 kilometres each way to work every day or to school. We get that. But why we’re, seemingly here, intentionally punished in this budget is beyond comprehension, and it’s inexcusable.

It’s time for a wake-up call here. Urban British Columbia doesn’t exist without rural British Columbia. The industry and the resources we provide are not on Howe Street.

I want to work collaboratively with government in a non-partisan fashion to get things done here. That’s why I came here. But I find it increasingly difficult to do so. I’ve got to say, at some points in this job, it really makes me not like that part of it because it makes me feel like I’m banging my head off the wall. Rural B.C. matters. That’s all I have to say.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Before I start, this is the first time I’ve been able to share this, so I wanted to share my deep condolences for the community of Tumbler Ridge.

We are heartbroken by the devastating tragedy in Tumbler Ridge. I’m sorry I’m fumbling through the words. I spoke with my sister-in-law, and her friend had lost her daughter that night.

Our thoughts are with the community and with those who are grieving the loved ones, those who are recovering, the first responders and everyone whose lives have been forever changed. We are all grateful for the work of the police officers, the first responders, health care workers, teachers and the school staff, who showed bravery beyond measure. Their commitment reflected the very best of who we are.

Thank you.

I would like to start by acknowledging the lək̓ʷəŋən Peoples, the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations, upon whose territory we are gathered here today.

Budget 2026 makes careful choices to protect what matters most and secures B.C.’s future. There is so much I could speak about in this budget. I will share highlights in the Cowichan Valley.

Eight years ago people in the Cowichan Valley sent a clear message: fix what is broken, invest in people and make sure this beautiful valley is not left behind. Under this Premier and this government, we have been doing exactly that. This year’s 2026 budget keeps us on that path.

The most visible symbol of that change is on the hill above Duncan — the new Cowichan District Hospital. After decades of talk and delay under the previous governments, our government approved the concept plan in 2018, the business plan in 2020, awarded the contract in 2022 and has been steadily building ever since.

[4:25 p.m.]

The nine-storey, 204-bed hospital will more than double emergency space; expand operating rooms from four to seven; add advanced imaging, including a built-in MRI; and provide a 20-bed patient psychiatric unit with a psychiatric intensive care unit. It is designed with cultural safe space and traditional healing area, reflecting Cowichan Tribes, Quw’utsun People, and all Indigenous patients who rely on this regional hospital.

Budget 2026 keeps this project on track as part of nearly $38 billion in capital investment in hospitals, schools and transit across the province, with Cowichan named specifically among the major hospital builds. Construction is anticipated to be completed in 2026, with the doors opening to patients in 2027, meaning people here will soon receive quality of care they deserve close to home.

The new Cowichan Urgent and Primary Care Centre in Duncan is a big step forward as well. With over $12 million in start-up and improvements and a team of 30 health professionals, families will see fast access to care and less pressures on the emergency rooms. We’re also continuing the low-, no-cost counselling through the House of Friendship, because mental health matters.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

I just wanted to share that I did have a chat with a constituent of mine that accessed the Cowichan Urgent and Primary Care. They were very impressed of the service that was provided and were very happy that they didn’t have to wait any longer to see someone. So that was great.

Over the last eight years, this government has built the supports that families in the Cowichan Valley count on, from schools to child care to youth and mental health. The new Cowichan Secondary School that opened in my riding in January and upgrading schools provincewide through billions in capital funding for seismic upgrades and enrolment growth, including a fast-growing community like ours.

Our child care in Budget 2026 adds another $330 million to stabilize the child care system, helping keep spaces open and affordable for parents in communities like Duncan, North Cowichan, Cowichan Bay and Lake Cowichan, with 238 open or soon-to-be open child care spaces.

At the same time, Cowichan has been selected as a phase 3 community for integrated child and youth teams, bringing multidisciplinary, community-based mental health, substance use support for kids and youth through Island Health, the school district 79, Ministry of Children and Family Development, and the partners like FamilySmart. These are not abstract programs; they are the counselling in our schools, the clinicians visiting families and the culturally rooted support for First Nations, Métis and Inuit children and youth across the valley.

With work between the province and Cowichan Tribes and local organizations, the youth emergency shelter in Duncan was opened, which provided safe space for youth in the community.

I was just in estimates, chairing and listening to the Minister of Education and Child Care. Budget 2026 includes $634 million in new funding for teachers, student services, and to support inclusive learning as the number of inclusive learning students enrolled is on the rise.

[4:30 p.m.]

So $169 million invested in the classroom enhancement fund will result in more teachers for everyone, as well as special education–educated teachers and teacher-psychologists and counsellors.

As I said, I was listening to a passionate debate on the estimates and how important it is for us to continue this work and supporting child care and K-to-2 education. Another $3.9 billion in capital funding is allocated for seismic replacements and upgrades, as well as projects to address enrolment growth in B.C.’s fast-growing communities.

Budget 2026 provides a $330 million lift to ChildCareBC to stabilize the programs and services that families rely on as government works to modernize B.C.’s child care system.

This stabilization is critical as provinces and territories continue negotiations with the federal government to deliver flexibility and resilience across the system. This funding will maintain lower fees and the spaces and support for operators and educators achieved over the past eight years. During this stabilization period, the province will work to bring more equity into the system.

After hearing from operators that currently funded models limit their flexibility to support high-quality inclusive care, the province will pause the enrolment for new providers into operating funding models and the $10-a-day ChildCareBC program. During the stabilization, people, family and providers currently in the $10-a-day program will see no changes.

Cowichan is a rural region with deep Indigenous history, and our government has treated that as a strength to build on, not a barrier. As Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Health and as MLA for the Cowichan Valley, I have worked to make sure rural voices in Indigenous communities are at the centre of the provincial decisions from primary care access to culturally safe services.

In the last eight years, we have seen landmark steps in reconciliation in this valley, including the historic 312-hectare land transfer near Skutz Falls to Lyackson and Cowichan Tribes, work that this government helped lead with local nations to restore culturally significant land and support true land-based healing and economic opportunity.

Another historical moment was the agreement with Canada and the province. Quw’utsun reclaimed the right to govern their children and family services. This was a historic pathway forward for children and families. As I had been a witness at the ceremony, it was so heartfelt to see the children dancing and celebrating this historical moment and the Elders also being there to witness this.

Our government’s approach to reconciliation here is not just about words. Indigenous-led housing, watershed stewardship in the Cowichan, and the skills training rooted in Indigenous knowledge and prosperity….

Budget 2026 continues to prioritize health, education and social services as the main areas of new spending so that rural communities like ours do not have to choose between reconciliation, health care and economic opportunities.

People in the Cowichan Valley know that a healthy community also needs good jobs and a resilient local economy. Over the past eight years, this government has raised the minimum wage, lowered ICBC rates for drivers and invested in new industry and skills training so that working people could build a life here.

[4:35 p.m.]

Through the rural economic diversity and infrastructure program, more than $1 million has been invested directly into the Cowichan Valley projects. So $500,000 for the Economic Development Cowichan Tech and Innovation Ecosystem project; $25,620 for building the Cowichan cannabis trail; $100,000 to support training for our small livestock and poultry producers at our eco-village; $377,750 for a circular economy project in Duncan.

I’m going to circle back after I say this next one. It’s $500,000 for North Cowichan to service industrial land and attract new employees.

I just wanted to touch on the circular economy project. Duncan Paving was a really good example of businesses or people just thinking about: “Do I really want to get into this circular economy? What is it all about?”

I was a witness to one of the meetings where this fellow got up and talked about it and found out how easy it was. It was at a North Cowichan meeting. He just said how easy it was to implement it into his business. He was looking forward to meeting up with this lady that was helping him find new ways to save money and also making it fun.

I just wanted to share that fun story, because when we think about changing things or doing something new and we hear about it, it can be anxiety. All of these different things can creep in. You could be afraid to try something new and not know if it would be disastrous or not.

But I will go on to say that the Duncan Paving Co. participated by processing milled asphalt, repurposing on-site materials like tires and pallets and using reclaimed asphalt in new designs. Those are just some of the examples that I had written down here. I didn’t realize that I included it in my speech. He also shared that he was quite excited to incorporate more, so that’s great.

These are practical, on-the-ground investments that create jobs and support small businesses and help us transition to a more sustainable regional economy.

The province has taken action on all fronts — in enforcement, housing, health and justice — to stop the cycle of crime and get people the help they need to make the B.C. community strong and safe for everyone, Budget 2026 provides $139 million over three years to reduce repeat violent offending and chronic property crime and support timely access to justice.

This includes $73 million to continue to improve access to the justice system and support court operations, including sheriff recruitments and retention, Crown counsel and judiciary legal aid and the B.C. prosecution service; $16 million for the new chronic property offending intervention initiative that strengthens monitoring and enforcement for crimes such as vandalism and shoplifting that are hurting businesses; $26 million for repeat violent offenders intervention initiatives, for which early evaluations show the program is resulting in significant fewer police interactions and faster charge approvals for high-risk violent offenders.

[4:40 p.m.]

There is also $24 million for the continuum of the special investigation and targeted enforcement program and the community safety and targeted enforcement program, both of which provide valuable resources to police to combat repeat violent offenders, address street disorder and connect individuals to community services.

I know this is going to be really welcomed in our North Cowichan detachment, which is a new police station, but that’s a story for another day.

We’re supporting growth and diversity: $1.4 million for the Canadian Bavarian Millwork in Chemainus and $1.5 million for projects in tech initiatives and agricultural training. These investments protect existing jobs and create new ones.

Here are some highlights for the forestry workers from Budget 2026. Expanding skills and training, apprenticeship and support.

And the budget puts money towards training and working for in-demand jobs, especially in trades and technical fields.

Skills and trades training: $283 million over three years. The budget builds on the employer training grant, which helps employers pay for training apprentices and workers.

A new $400 million B.C. strategic investment special account will enable B.C. to quickly take advantage of opportunities to work with the federal government as it invests billions of dollars to defend Canada’s sovereignty, creating jobs and economic opportunities. This special account will help the province attract investments that leverage B.C.’s strength in the sector such as clean energy, sustainable forest manufacturing, responsible mining and clean technology.

Budget 2026 invests over $40 million over three years to remove barriers and avoid duplications in permitting, including forest and resource permits, with the goal of slashing permitting backlogs, reducing duplications and shortening timelines.

The other thing that I wanted to highlight…. The largest investment last year in my riding was $74 million in building nearly 200 homes for Cowichan Tribes at River’s Edge, which will help ease the critical housing shortage, and the 92-unit co-op housing development on Sherman Road in North Cowichan.

These are the two projects that I knew about when I was sitting at North Cowichan as a councillor. I just wanted to share those things that have moved forward. I know these projects take time, and I was just glad to be a witness to that moving forward.

This 2026 budget is not about starting something new or from scratch. It is about finishing the work people here asked us to do eight years ago. It keeps the new Cowichan District Hospital on schedule, strengthens child care and youth mental health, supports rural health and reconciliation, and continues to diversify our local economy.

Tony Luck: It’s a real pleasure to be here today and speak a little bit about the budget.

I’d like to thank my previous colleague for some of the comments he made. I’d rather be standing up here and talking about elk all day long rather than doing what I’m doing here, but that’s okay. And I’m recognizing some of the challenges he has with his farmers in that area, directly related to some of the budget changes that are coming down the pipe.

[4:45 p.m.]

What I’d like to speak to is mostly about the gutting and elimination of the Merit Commissioner in my comments this afternoon, because I think that’s an integral piece. It kind of sets the tone for a lot of the things this government has been doing and what’s happening, moving forward.

Out of this big document, the budget, they sneak in these little things like this that are eliminating hugely important factions to the people of British Columbia, things that keep governments…. I don’t care if it’s this government, when we become government, whatever it is. It’s really important for the people in British Columbia to know that the things happening in government are being well looked after and there’s a proper oversight in place.

Today I would like to speak to that budget. I stand today, to be very, very clear about this, strongly against Bill 2, just as I was about the budget. I’m strongly against the budget, and I am strongly against this bill, too, here.

In Bill 2, it appears that…. A lot of the things within this budget are being sold as minor budget measures, a small inefficiency, so tucked into the Budget Measures Implementation Act. But what it really represents is something much, much larger on the bigger stage here and much more dangerous, I think, in the long run. That’s another deliberate step in the steady erosion of openness, accountability and independent oversight in British Columbia.

There is a track record of this happening with this government. It is the quiet, creeping dismantling of the guardrails that protect every British Columbian and protect the public interest. When a government removes independent oversight it doesn’t just save money. It removes friction, it removes scrutiny, and it removes consequences. That is precisely why independent oversight exists in the first place.

Why does the Office of the Merit Commissioner matter? Well, it exists for a simple reason — to ensure that hiring in the public sector services is based on merit, on competence and qualifications, not political connections, internal favouritism or, especially, patronage. In plain language, it is a watchdog that helps ensure public service jobs go to the most qualified applicants, not the best connected.

This is not theoretical at all. It happens all the time in other jurisdictions. We certainly don’t want it creeping into the public service here within British Columbia.

The Merit Commissioner has audited thousands of appointments; reviewed fairness complaints; and, in some cases, helped reverse flawed hiring practices. This office is not red tape. It is a public guarantee that people who run government programs, manage permits, oversee public safety, administer grants, procure contracts and deliver front-line services are hired through a process that can be independently verified. That is what trust looks like in a democracy, not blind faith in government but transparent systems with independent verification.

Bill 2 dissolves the independent Office of the Merit Commissioner and shifts its function into government itself, specifically to the B.C. Public Service Agency and the Minister of Finance, through transitional controls of assets, liabilities and records. This bill explicitly dissolves the office and transfers responsibility and records to the Minister of Finance.

This is the essence of the problem. The watchdog is being put on the government payroll. The Public Service Agency will be both the operator of the hiring system and the overseer of these systems. That is not independent oversight by the last time I checked. That is self-policing. That is exactly what critics warned about the moment this became public.

Now, don’t take our word for it on this side of the bench, because they’re always pointing fingers at us and everything.

[4:50 p.m.]

Let me give you a couple of quotes here. As BCGEU president Paul Finch put it: “They’re overseeing themselves. It effectively eliminates the audit function.” The union also made clear that they were not consulted and oppose the move because independent oversight is the point, not the paperwork.

When the watchdog becomes the guard or the fox starts guarding the henhouse, the public loses its independent check. The cost-savings claim doesn’t survive scrutiny.

The government likes to frame decisions like this as a drive for efficiency. So let me talk a little bit about that. They say cutting oversight makes government leaner and more effective. But British Columbians should ask themselves what exactly this government means by “inefficiency” — this government, maybe not our side of the House but this government — because if we look at the government’s actual record of delivering major projects, the definition becomes hard to understand.

Time and again, we see projects that are years behind schedule and billions over budget, from major infrastructure to housing programs, while the government lectures everyone else about efficiency. The irony is striking. They are prepared to eliminate an independent oversight office that costs a fraction of 1 percent of the provincial budget yet preside over projects where costs spiral and timelines collapse.

Cutting the watchdog that protects transparency is not efficiency. It is convenience. Real efficiency means competent management, honest reporting and independent scrutiny. What this government calls efficiency too often looks like removing the people who ask difficult questions while continuing to deliver projects late, over budget and with far less accountability than taxpayers really deserve.

Hon. Speaker, $1.7 million is not a cost problem in the context of a provincial budget; it’s minuscule. More importantly, what is the cost of losing independent oversight? Well, the Merit Commissioner himself answered that directly, warning that the cost of losing independent oversight may ultimately far exceed the savings from eliminating a small oversight body. If I were a betting man, I’d probably take that wager.

That’s not partisan rhetoric. That is the independent officer whose job is being eliminated, stating plainly why any governance expert already knows oversight is cheaper than scandal. Oversight is cheaper than patronage, and oversight is cheaper than flawed competitions, wrongful dismissals, grievances, payouts and the institutional rot that follows when fairness becomes optional.

It’s worth noting that the office was not struggling for legitimacy. A non-partisan, multiparty committee of the Legislature approved a three-year budget for the office to continue its oversight work recently and expressed appreciation for its commitment to merit-based practices. So the legislators’ own oversight committee recognized the value of this position. Yet government, for some reason, moves to eliminate it anyway? Something’s not adding up. This should alarm every member of this House, every citizen in British Columbia.

Why now? Why is this happening now? The Merit Commissioner’s service plan reported that since 2022-23 there has been an increase in the merit-not-applied findings and a decrease in merit findings. In the audited results of 2023-24, “merit not applied” reached 10 percent, the highest rate since 2016-2017. That means, in a growing share of reviewed competitions, the office found that the merit principle was not properly applied.

Now, I’ll ask the obvious question. If the trend line is moving in the wrong direction, why would you eliminate the independent office that detects and reports the problem? That is not efficiency, and I think I’ve explained the efficiency problem previously. That is simply evasion.

The Merit Commissioner’s most recent audit work also underscored the point, describing the highest rate of flawed hiring process and outcomes in nearly a decade. Just as independent oversight is flagging more issues, the government moves to shut the oversight down. When I was a kid, I’d go: “Hmm.” That is the opposite of reform. This is shutting off the alarm because the fire is inconvenient.

[4:55 p.m.]

Bill 2 goes even further. It doesn’t just dissolve an independent office. It amends FOIPPA to exclude records created by or for the Merit Commissioner from freedom-of-information requests. It’s kind of like putting cement shoes on something and throwing it in the ocean. It disappears.

Let’s be clear about what that means. Government is not only moving oversight inside government; it is also creating a new barrier to public access for the historical records of the independent oversight. That should disturb anybody who believes in openness and fairness with government, because the public can no longer rely on FOI as a backstop to understand how hiring oversight was carried out, what patterns were found or what systematic issues may have been documented.

It’s not a minor technical change. The bill explicitly adds this exemption to FOIPPA. So the direction of travel is unmistakable: less independence, less disclosure, more internal controls and more secrecy.

Bill 2’s commencement provision shows that sections 8 to 10 and 13 to 27, which include the FOIPPA changes and the Public Service Act changes affecting the Merit Commissioner, come into force by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Have we heard that before?

That matters because it reinforces the pattern this government keeps returning to — big power shifts brought into force later by cabinet regulations, away from the moment of legislative attention, away from full public scrutiny and, often, away from meaningful accountability.

That means, folks, we’re becoming irrelevant in the process. We have no oversight in this House, and it’s slowly slipping away from us. Is that how you build trust? I think this is more like how you avoid it.

However, the deeper issue.… This is the pattern. The public understands patterns, even when government hopes they won’t. This government has repeatedly limited transparency and weakened independent scrutiny. We have seen it in many areas before.

Giving a couple of examples. British Columbia introduced, and this government introduced, a $10 application fee for general FOI requests — a fee that government itself described as applying before a request will be processed, a $10 fee for everybody that wants to apply for an FOI, for every ministry. Whether you call it cost recovery or a filter, the effect is the same. It deters access, particularly for ordinary citizens, small media outlets, researchers and community watchdogs.

In 2022, the B.C. government received a Code of Silence Award, connected to widely criticized changes to access-to-information rules. These awards exist to highlight governments that distinguish themselves by denying public access to government, to which the public has a right. You don’t win this kind of notoriety by accident. You earn it, and you have earned it.

We have seen legislation flawed by giving cabinet extraordinary override powers, including concerns raised publicly by UBCM on Bills 15 and 44 — we saw that in the last session; we pointed it out time and time again — providing cabinet with powers to override local government processes such as OCPs, zoning and subdivisions. You can debate the merits of any one bill, but the trend is the point. The trend is the point: move decisions upward, narrowly scrutinizing broader cabinet discussions.

Now, with Bill 2, the government approach to merit-based hiring oversight becomes: “Trust us. We’ll oversee ourselves.” But that is exactly what independent oversight is designed to prevent. I remember a long time ago there was somebody that used to say: “Trust, but verify.” We’ve got rid of the “verify,” and we’re supposed to just trust. No, ladies and gentlemen, we should be trusting, and we should be verifying.

[5:00 p.m.]

This is not just about politics. It’s about public administration. Merit-based hiring protects the taxpayers by ensuring competent people manage public funds and programs. It protects the public servants by ensuring promotions and competitions are fair, especially in tight labour markets and hiring freezes. It protects service delivery by ensuring qualifications are real, verified and relevant.

Public confidence, by preventing the suspicion or the reality of patronage — in today’s climate, that matters even more. As Paul Finch noted, in a partial hiring freeze where competition is intense, it is more important than ever that sought-after positions be awarded on merit. This isn’t this side of the House talking. Once again, this is their side of the House. These are their folks, on that side of the House, concerned about how their government is acting.

Now, governments will always say that the merit principle remains in law, but a principle without enforcement is just a slogan. A rule without an independent checker becomes a rule that can be bent, quietly, until it breaks. That is why merit must be more than words on a page. It requires independent auditing, independent reporting and a credible threat of exposure when the system is abused or neglected.

The Merit Commissioner put it plainly. The proposed legislation removes core functions like random audits and dismissal reviews, and it removes the requirement for government to report on these matters for public transparency.

While the government remains, the bill strips out the very mechanisms that make merit real. When a government is confident in its processes, it welcomes independent verification. “Look, we’re doing everything right. Come on, have a look and make sure we’re doing everything right.” That’s the sign of good government. That’s what makes good government. They’re not afraid of having the sun shine or the light shine on them.

When a government is proud of the hiring integrity, it does not dissolve the office that verifies it. So we have to be suspicious. What are you hiding? Why are you getting rid of this office? What has gone on? Oh, and you’re also locking away the records, so we can’t even see what’s happened in the past? We can’t see what happened yesterday? When a government believes in transparency, it does not add new FOI exemptions for oversight records.

So the question becomes unavoidable: what is government afraid that the public will see? I think that’s a great question. What are they hiding? If the government truly believes that merit is embedded in culture, as the Finance Minister suggested, then independent oversight would only confirm that and strengthen trust. Instead, they are tearing it apart. Whatever little last vestige of trust that the public has is being torn apart by bills like this.

The most dangerous attacks on democracy are not always dramatic. They are incremental. Bit by bit, slowly, slowly, they move towards complete collapse. They’re procedural. They are buried in budget bills. They happen by dissolving an independent office, transferring its records to a ministry, removing FOI access to those records, changing reporting lines away from the Legislature into the government, stripping enforcement tools like powers to compel answers and disclosure, and bringing key provisions into force later by cabinet regulations.

Each step may be defended as administrative, but put together they describe a philosophy. This is the creep, the gradual closing in towards a government that can operate with less daylight, fewer independent checks and more internal discretion. Once that culture takes hold, it is very, very difficult to reverse.

If the government’s true concern is cost, there are definitely constructive options for streamlining and making this more efficient. They could start by modernizing the office. They could streamline audits. They could improve reporting formats. They could even align oversight with current workforce realities.

[5:05 p.m.]

They could reduce duplication by maintaining independence — we might have a few more up our sleeves as well; all they have to do is ask — but do not eliminate independence. Do not make the hiring referee part of one team. Above all, do not weaken FOI access and public transparency at the same time as you centralize control.

In closing, British Columbians do not expect perfection from any government, but they do expect honesty. They do expect fair systems. They do expect that when government hires, promotes and appoints, it does so based on merit and that someone independent can prove it.

When you remove independent oversight, you are not just changing an org chart. You are changing the relationship between citizens and the state. You are asking British Columbians to trade verification for trust, transparency for assurance, and accountability for press releases. Once government starts down the road, once it begins dismantling the watchdogs and narrowing the windows, it rarely stops on its own.

Bill 2 is not an efficiency bill. It is a warning sign to everyone in the province of British Columbia. It is a line in the sand about what kind of province we want to be, moving forward — a province where the public service is protected from patronage through independent oversight or a province where government oversees itself, shields the records and calls that good enough.

British Columbians deserve better than self-policing, they deserve better than creeping secrecy, and they deserve a government that strengthens accountability when problems emerge, not one that silences the process, and reveals them.

That is why this House should reject the elimination of the independent Office of the Merit Commissioner and demand that transparency and merit-based oversight remain where they belong — independent, public and accountable to the Legislature and to the people of British Columbia.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I am incredibly proud to stand in the Legislature this evening to speak in favour of Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, and broadly in support of our provincial budget that’s been tabled. In a world of uncertainty, Budget 2026 makes careful choices to protect what matters most and to secure B.C.’s future.

I am a proud British Columbian. I am a proud member of this Legislature and a resident of Coquitlam–Burke Mountain. It’s where I’ve lived for the last over 20 years, almost 25 years. It’s where I’ve raised my family.

I am unbelievably proud to be in the position that I am in as the Minister of Children and Family Development. I’ve often said in this House that it is the privilege and honour of a lifetime to be in this role. I take it incredibly seriously. It is one of the most challenging things that I have ever done and the most rewarding.

When I think about…. Today is Thursday. We’re going home to our families. I really miss my kids right now. I really miss my husband a lot. My youngest sent me a message in question period today and said: “Mom, hey, can you call me?” I got that panic, thinking that there was something wrong. I won’t share the details of that call. Everything was okay. But me being here and choosing to be here and choosing to stand in this Legislature and speak in favour of this budget isn’t something that I take lightly.

Every day that I leave this House, every day that I walk home, every day that I go back to Coquitlam–Burke Mountain I reflect on the importance of this role and the job that I have in this role.

[5:10 p.m.]

I move adjournment of debate and reserve my right to continue.

Hon. Jodie Wickens moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 5 — Trade Recognition Act

Stephanie Higginson: Section A reports that Bill 5 is complete without amendment.

Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Now.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Trade Recognition Act

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is third reading of Bill 5, the Trade Recognition Act.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: Bill 5, the Trade Recognition Act, has been read a third time and has been passed.

Hon. Josie Osborne: I call continued debate on Bill 2.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Budget Measures
Implementation Act, 2026
(continued)

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I was just reflecting on how important it is for me, when I am supporting bills and when I am doing this really important work, that I honour the time that I am spending away from the people who I love the most, that I am honouring my values.

I often — I’m sure, as many members of this House — when experiencing challenging things, when delivering on challenging and complex issues, spend a lot of time thinking and reflecting on those things. In my car, in my bathroom, I have sticky-notes that I post with my values, the things that drive me in the work that I do and the things that are non-negotiables for me in how I do my work, how I show up as an MLA, as a minister and as a mom.

Whenever we have to make difficult decisions, when we are supporting our programs and services and our families and our seniors and our children in this province, I have that measuring tool for myself, values of integrity and honesty and compassion and love.

This budget is about, for me, honouring those values. It’s about protecting the most vulnerable in our province, protecting the programs and services that we need to deliver to ensure that children have access to the supports that they need, that families who are struggling in this very difficult time have access to health care, to education, to child care. That is what this budget is about. This budget is about protecting the work that we’ve done over the last eight years.

There isn’t a jurisdiction that is not struggling right now with deficits across this country. I’ve spoken before…. My whole family lives in Ontario. Alberta just posted their very challenging budget. Every place in Canada is struggling and grappling with some of the challenges that we are facing here in British Columbia.

I am proud of a government that will do their level best to speak the way John Horgan would speak, to do their level best to make sure that we are protecting the programs and the services that we have stood up.

I have the honour and the experience that some members in this House haven’t had. I had the opportunity to be in opposition and to be in government. I sat on that side of the House when there was a different government.

[5:15 p.m.]

It’s incredibly frustrating to me, sometimes, to hear how members opposite are speaking about this budget and speaking about the actions that our government has taken, because it doesn’t recognize the history of how we got to where we are.

When we formed government in 2017, there was a significant structural, infrastructure and social services deficit in this province. We had had decades of…. In the sector that I come from, with children and youth with disabilities, there wasn’t an investment in decades. So when we formed government, we did the work to bring services up to a level that they needed to be to build our roads, our hospitals, our schools, to invest in infrastructure. I am proud of that work, over the last number of years, that has been done. We need to protect that work.

I hear comments from members opposite. Half say: “You’re spending too much.” The other half say: “Stop spending.” You can’t have it both ways. We need to invest. We need to make sure that our children are protected.

I am proud of the investments that we’re making. And I’ll get into some of the investments that I am incredibly proud of, but I still want to talk about the history that some people may not be aware of.

When I got elected in the by-election, and I was the MLA for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, there had been no schools built in Burke Mountain, in one of the fastest growing communities of our province. The history of the years before and the decades before in Coquitlam was that they shut down eight schools. They closed them. They sold the land. We had a provincial government for years that sold off our public resources, and those actions put us in a significant, challenging position.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Since we formed government, when it comes to schools: $168 million for Burke Mountain secondary school; Coast Salish Elementary, $38.3 million; Irvine Elementary, $24.3 million; Panorama Heights Elementary, extension. That’s just in my riding alone, the schools that have been built and invested in. That’s not even the entirety of Coquitlam or the Tri-Cities or other places in the Lower Mainland that have been starving for investments in things like schools and hospitals and infrastructure.

I think I have a couple more minutes still. I think that it’s so incredibly important to know your history so that you know what will happen potentially in the future. We cannot afford governments who do not build, who do not invest, who cut.

This budget is not about cutting. This budget is about protecting. This budget is about putting a red line around the services that we know are crucially important for vulnerable populations of people.

I’m most proud, in this budget and in my ministry, of a $475 million net new investment for children and youth with disabilities. This hasn’t been done before ever. We have never had a government that has said: “We recognize that children and youth with disabilities have gone far too long without investments, and we’re going to make a decision to do things better, to strengthen services, to make sure that they are fairer for everyone and to make sure that there are more of them.”

Every single member in this House has a child development centre that serves their communities. Our child development centres that deliver highly specialized interdisciplinary work, that are crucially important for children and their development, have not seen funding lifts in decades. That has created significant inequity. That has created significant challenges in our communities, and I am proud that I am a part of a government that is investing over $80 million into those community programs and services so that more children can get what they need faster and for the duration of their childhood.

I’m also proud of the….

[5:20 p.m.]

The Speaker: Noting the hour, Member.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Okay.

I will just end with….

The Speaker: Sure. Go ahead.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I remain proud to be part of a government that makes the investments that we’re making in this budget. I remain proud to be part of a government that will protect core services for the people who have relied on us to come here and do this job. And I will always be proud to have the time to be in this role and to serve my community.

Noting the hour, I move adjournment of debate, and I reserve my right to continue.

Hon. Jodie Wickens moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Susie Chant: Committee of Supply, section C reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Education and Child Care and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Josie Osborne moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m., March 9.

The House adjourned at 5:21 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:28 p.m.

[Steve Morissette in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 5 — Trade Recognition Act

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 5, the Trade Recognition Act.

On clause 1.

The Chair: Opening comments, Minister?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thank you so much, Chair. I appreciate it.

Thanks to my colleague, who did rise before me, for giving me some time to make an opening comment.

I’d just say that I think this is a significant piece of legislation. When the Premier asked myself to take this role on, he made sure for us that there were three priorities. One was to attract investment to British Columbia. Second was to reach across the globe and make more relationships and expand our trade opportunities. Third was to take down barriers, to remove interprovincial trade barriers.

[1:30 p.m.]

As I’ve shared with this House before, B.C. is playing an important role in the discussions around removing interprovincial trade barriers. We are chairing the table that is, across the country, trying to get all provinces on board to agree on different elements of removing interprovincial trade barriers. This legislation — I hope everyone supports it — is a foundational piece of all that work that needs to happen.

I want to thank my team for the work that they’ve been doing. They have truly been leaders across the country, and I want to recognize them. I look forward to the debate with my colleague on this bill.

Kiel Giddens: I will be covering just a few minutes while the critic for Jobs and Economic Growth is speaking to another bill.

I wanted to reflect a little bit on where we are with interprovincial trade within Canada. I fully agree with the minister that this is a critical topic. It’s a very critical topic for British Columbians and indeed all Canadians.

We’ve been talking about this topic for well over a year now, obviously. When we first learned of tariffs from President Trump, it was distressing for many businesses, both large and small, for many families who are impacted by those tariffs.

Unfortunately, we can’t control what is going on south of the border. We can’t control the red-headed menace that might be involved in attacking our trade with a longtime trading partner. What we can control is trade within our Confederation, within Canada, and that’s something that we have talked about for a significant amount of time in this House already.

This bill replaces part 1 of the Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act, and that’s a part that we talked about extensively. That bill, known as Bill 7 last year, was subject to significant discussion. I did join the critic for Attorney General and the critic for Jobs and Economic Development too as part of the debate in that discussion.

There was a lot of talk about…. Whether it was trade barriers on things like occupational health and safety, I spoke about that at length, how this interrelates with labour mobility, how it affects the trade of goods and services.

To reflect on how important this is, I do recall some of the discussion last year as Canada was having a more robust conversation about interprovincial trade. There was a report released last year from the C.D. Howe that’s called Eyes on the Prize: A Game Plan to Speed Up Removal of Internal Trade Barriers in Canada. It was something that I read at length because I just learned about how important…. Reducing those barriers overall has the potential to impact our economic growth.

To quote the C.D. Howe, they said: “Removing all obstacles to trade between provinces and territories that might be susceptible to policy intervention could increase the Canadian GDP by up to $200 billion annually, a 7.9 percent boost. The impact would be far-reaching, helping on a range of downstream issues that Canadians care about, like housing affordability, health care worker shortages, supply chain resilience, real-wage growth, consumer choice, productivity and industrial competitiveness.”

As the Labour critic in the official opposition, I firmly take heed of what we heard in that report. It was consequential for many, many types of businesses.

Part of this discussion included how to best tackle this. Last year the government brought forward a proposed approach within a larger tariff bill. At the time, I had argued that we needed stand-alone legislation on this. So I’m glad to be talking about separating this from Bill 7. I think that’s a positive step.

We should have been talking about that a year ago, in my opinion. We did, in fact, have the member for Nechako Lakes introduce a bill before the Legislature last year, Bill M203, called the free trade and labour mobility within Canada act.

[1:35 p.m.]

That was based on similar legislation that was introduced in Nova Scotia — similar legislation that, eventually, other provinces like Ontario, Manitoba and others had looked into — making sure that that reciprocity was something that we defined more clearly and breaking down those barriers together.

We do have to do this in step with Team Canada, and that’s something, again, that was a term that we used a lot last year. We had the great big Canadian flag on the front of the Legislature.

We do have to think like Team Canada. We have to think and work with other provinces. So when we get into the discussion, I think understanding how this work will work in tandem with other provinces, what work has been done with the other provinces…. I think that’s something we’d like to learn a little bit more about in the context of this discussion.

Just to, obviously, get into the overall intent of the bill and, maybe, in the context of the remarks I’ve just made…. Before I get into talking about the definitions, I’m wondering if the minister could explain a little bit about the thought process behind the bill in the context of what was brought forward in part 1 of Bill 7 in 2025, just to maybe outline, I guess, for the public and for businesses, for communities, how this fits into the context of what government has been doing over the last year.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I want to thank my friend for his opening comments. I couldn’t disagree with anything that he said there, so it appears we’re very aligned in the same goals of wanting to remove these barriers.

Not a conversation that has just been happening over the last year. I’m sure the member knows this is a 30-, 40-, 50-year conversation. When I was the minister in this same ministry five, six years ago, I remember just being frustrated because we couldn’t get provinces to agree on simple things to move this conversation forward. To see the momentum we have now…. It’s exciting.

There are a couple things within the question. This bill is important because Bill 7 had a sunset clause, so the time was expiring. Now, with this, we’ll have legislation that is permanent, which is obviously very important. Also, this is much easier and simpler for folks to read, which is important because we want people to understand what this is.

Of course, in that time, we’ve also signed the CMRA, which is a significant step forward. It means goods that are produced or created in one province can be sold here and goods that are made here can be sold in another province.

That’s an important step, an important agreement for us from a national level. Some have said it’s the largest reduction of red tape in Canada’s history. It’s an important step, but we’re not done there yet.

Another important piece that I think will be of interest to the member is that we actually pushed to ensure that all provinces list their exceptions publicly. So if you are having an exception, everyone should be able to know what your exceptions are.

That’s a conversation that we continue to have with my colleagues across the country. The teams meet regularly to have discussions. In fact, I believe they’re meeting again within the next couple of weeks with our partners from across the country and met just a few weeks ago. The conversations are ongoing.

When the Premiers met within the last month, I think it was, this came out of the communiqué, that the direction from the Premiers to all the ministers was: let’s keep making progress, let’s move forward with all the other elements.

[1:40 p.m.]

That’s an important step, but you can only move as fast as your partners want to move. That’s a little bit of a frustration, certainly for me. I’d like to have everything done yesterday. But we have to make sure that other jurisdictions are able to do the work that they need to do to make sure that this is a fruitful discussion.

I’m confident that we’re going to continue to make progress. We’re going to be bullish from a B.C. perspective. We made our position pretty clear. We want to remove all trade barriers. We want exceptions to be posted publicly and transparently so that everyone understands our exceptions, if there are any, and why. And we strive to have some of the lowest exceptions in the country, because we know how important this work is.

I appreciate the member’s comments. It sounds like there’s a lot of alignment. I look forward to diving deeper into the legislation.

Gavin Dew: I apologize for being late, as I was just finishing up in the other room.

Thank you to the minister for rearticulating the purpose of the bill. I will make a few brief remarks, and then I’m happy to jump in.

As we begin committee stage on Bill 5, I want to briefly frame the questions we’ll be putting to the minister on a clause-by-clause basis.

This bill does not arrive in a vacuum. It arrives in the shadow of Bill 7, one of the government’s signature pieces of legislation last year, which was introduced with great urgency, broad rhetoric and demands for aggressive powers in the name of immediate action.

Yet after all of that, we are still awaiting clear public evidence of what, in practical terms, was actually done with those powers. We are still awaiting a real scoreboard. Which barriers were removed? Which regulatory changes were made? Which procurement decisions were materially changed? Those are not unfair or unconstructive questions. They are the obvious questions.

That history matters because Bill 5 also heavily depends on implementation. It depends on how the government interprets the bill, how actively it uses the powers it gives itself and how transparent it is with the public about what changes are actually made. It also raises an important distinction that will run through much of our questioning in committee, and that is the distinction between formal market entry and practical market access.

A bill can make it easier on paper for goods and services from other provinces to enter British Columbia, but if the operational post-entry rules remain broad enough, complex enough or burdensome enough, then many of the practical barriers may remain in place. In that case, the door may technically be open, but the hallway may still be blocked. That is one of the central issues we intend to test in this committee stage.

Another is the question of what is actually included in the bill and what is not. The government has spoken in broad terms about mutual recognition and reducing interprovincial barriers, but the actual effectiveness of this framework will depend on the exclusions, the carve-outs, the regulations and the way those provisions are interpreted and applied.

Our questions today will focus not just on the bill’s broad stated purpose but on the mechanics that will determine whether it delivers real results in practice.

Having said that, the minister is well aware that we’re broadly supportive of the intent of the bill, and the questions that follow are asked with the intent to ensure that it works as intended.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the opening comments. The member didn’t get a question in, but maybe I’ll just share with the member what I just shared with his colleague a moment ago around Bill 7. It also gets him a chance to have a glass of water, because I know he just finished another speech in the other chamber as well.

His colleague had just asked why this is needed, given Bill 7. I shared with my colleague across the way a couple of things. One is that Bill 7 had a sunset clause. We knew that something would be necessary to have permanent…. You couldn’t just rely on that specific clause in Bill 7. This new legislation is permanent. That’s an important, foundational piece we needed.

Since the signing of Bill 7, we have signed the CMRA, which is significant. Some have called it the largest reduction of red tape in Canada’s history, because it allows for goods that are made in one jurisdiction in the country to be able to be sold here and something that’s made here to be able to be sold in other jurisdictions.

I think the member is right to note that it doesn’t mean it’s done. We are still at the table negotiating.

[1:45 p.m.]

I shared with his colleague that not only did the Premiers just recently meet with a communiqué directing their ministers to continue the work and show additional results; we have been meeting for several weeks with our counterparts across the country negotiating all the other elements that we want to see come across the line.

B.C., it’s important to note, has not only initiated but has chaired the negotiations that helped conclude the CMRA. We continue to play a leadership role in removing barriers across the country in all spectrums.

Not only that, but we led the way to ensure that any exceptions that are in place be made public, not only in British Columbia. We fought to make sure that every province did the same thing, because it’s not helpful to businesses if one province posts exceptions and then others don’t. It was not an easy thing, but we got every province to agree to that piece as well.

I hope that gives an overview of why Bill 7 versus this, but I’m happy to go into a conversation with my friend across the way.

Gavin Dew: Appreciate the remarks and the opportunity to have a glass of water.

Obviously, Bill 7 was positioned as an urgent tool to remove internal trade barriers and change procurement practices. The minister has spoken about the work that was accomplished under CMRA, and I think that, certainly, there is adjacency between the objectives that led to Bill 7, the conversation around Bill 7 and the work that was done in bringing to fruition the CMRA.

Could the minister expand a little bit on any public evidence that the specific powers enumerated in Bill 7 were actually used in meaningful ways?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I just want to be clear. I’m not going to go into a discussion about all of Bill 7 here, and hopefully my colleague understands. We’re talking about this bill, and sometimes when I start answering one, it’s taken as “Well, you started it, and we’re going to keep going.” I just want to make sure we keep it very focused on this piece.

But what was important for us and the reason why it was important for us and the reason why many provinces brought similar powers in place at that time was that…. You know, when you’re in a situation like the one we were in and are in now, you don’t know how much time you have to be able to move.

What we heard from our colleagues from a federal level was: “We need to move, and this could get much worse.” We didn’t know at that time whether CUSMA agreement items would be protected. There were a lot of variables that we can’t control.

Since then, the team has been doing a lot of work. There are thousands of regulators. We have to meet with our partners across the country to come to agreements.

As I was saying to my colleague before, this is a discussion that has been happening for 30, 40 years, and the reason why there hasn’t been movement is because it’s complicated. It’s just years and years of rules that have been put in place that are hard to kind of move back on.

Our teams have been not only doing the work. They’ve been leading in that work, and it led to the CMRA being signed, which is historic and, I think, celebrated across the country. It’s quite the accomplishment. It’s also motivation for us. Not only can we do more, but we must do more.

This legislation is foundational for us. It’s foundational because it gives us a stand-alone statute. It allows us, as we do this work and as the conversations continue to happen, to be able to have a foundation which all of those agreements can fall into.

Gavin Dew: I certainly don’t intend to belabour the Bill 7 conversation. I think, from the perspective of opposition and some of the public, there was frustration that there was a pattern of urgency, controversy and retreat without much public, visible demonstration of results at the level of the specific powers enumerated.

[1:50 p.m.]

I don’t intend to spend a lot of time on Bill 7, but I would just ask if the minister will commit to public reporting under Bill 5 in greater detail so that members of the Legislative Assembly and the public can see exactly what barriers are identified, changed or removed.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Appreciate the question from the member. There are a few things.

One, the additional oversight in this case is not necessary for the statute. Any new or amended regulations are already published under B.C. Laws. That goes to the comment that I made earlier, which was that we got an agreement from our partners across the country that whenever there’s an exception, it’s not hidden. It’s made public. That is already built into this. Cabinet will review proposed regulation under Bill 5, and that will be made public.

Second, ESTRA was adopted in extraordinary circumstances and gave authorities unrelated to interprovincial trade. These factors created a rationale for reporting and review that is absent here in a statute limited to trade recognition.

Third, Bill 5 aims to reduce compliance requirements, rather than adding new compliance requirements, for reporting and review.

I can also share with the member that we are working at a national level to create a document for all businesses so that they understand where you can go to see exceptions, how the trade barriers that we’re removing can benefit them as businesses. Instead of B.C. making one, every province making one, we agreed that we’d make one national document for all businesses, and I think that will go a long way. We’re hoping to have that within the next couple of months.

Gavin Dew: Thank you to the minister.

Could the minister expand a little bit on what the timing of publication will look like?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Of course, we hope that the bill gets support and that it passes. Our goal is to have the regulations done for spring. That’s our target, and we’ll be making those public through B.C. Laws.

Gavin Dew: Appreciate the answer. I should have been more specific in what I meant to ask.

Can the minister speak to the timing of publication when changes are made using the act, such as the removal of barriers, etc.?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: All the exceptions go through a similar process. It’s an OIC. It’ll go to cabinet. It gets approved. It will be posted publicly on the B.C. Laws site.

As I said, the national document that we’re looking to create will give guidance to businesses across the country, where they can go to see exceptions and rationales around exceptions as well.

Gavin Dew: How long before they come into effect will those changes be made public?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We’re just trying to understand the question. The process for exceptions I’ve already laid out. We’re hoping the legislation passes.

The exceptions, as a package, will go to OIC through regulation. They will be made public. In future, if there are additional exceptions — our government, future government — it will be posted in the same way. It’ll go through cabinet. It goes through an OIC. It gets posted on the site, and businesses, of course, get access through this national document to be able to identify what they are, where they are.

There also will be a little bit of a period when we post the exceptions for us to do a bit of an education with the business community, with our regulators, with our partners — for them to understand how that impacts them. It’s not going to be like a flip of a switch, and everybody has figured it out. There’s going to be a period where everyone’s going to be figuring it out.

Creating national documents for everyone, so that it’s as streamlined and as uniformed as possible, is the goal.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the fulsome answer.

Just to be clear, I’m thinking primarily about subsequent regulations made and about how long they would be made public before they are implemented. How much notice will be made available to the public or to the business community before implementation?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s a bit of a tricky question in that we didn’t fully understand it, but I think I’ll give it a crack, and then the member can tell me if it’s correct.

I’ve laid out the process that we’re going to take. Now if, for example, business XYZ comes across a barrier that shouldn’t be there because we’ve done this, but they found some unique piece of legislation that’s a challenge to them, then in that case, we would have to go back. We’d have to go open that up. We’d have to go to the ministry. We’d have to identify the statute.

At that point, it can be either an exception, or it can be removed, depending on safety and a whole bunch of other criteria that we have. It will be an ongoing thing. Our intent is to post the exceptions by regulation after the legislation hopefully passes. That’ll be the first block. Then it’s going to require ongoing work for us.

[2:00 p.m.]

We’re for sure going to see some businesses say: “Well, you removed it here, but there’s this issue here.” Great. We’re going to go back, identify whether there’s a health or safety issue or what the rationale is for having it. If there’s not, then we have to go back and, through probably a misc bill, make changes. I can’t say it will be a misc bill, but different ways to make those changes.

It’s going to be an ongoing thing. It’s not going to be a one-and-done because we know that as this thing is implemented not only here but across the country, we’re going to have these issues that we’re going to need to address, which I think in the end will lead to better laws and a better environment for the business community as well.

Gavin Dew: I think we’re not far apart in understanding this. I will come back to some details there when we get to clause 10, section (2). Really, I’m just looking to understand how much notice will be provided. I don’t want to belabour the question now. I’ll circle back to it later. I think the minister is providing answers that are clear and intentional.

So perhaps I can move into clause 1.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you for the discussion to date. I want to make sure I properly understand how this bill, if it becomes law, will interact with the CMRA, the Canadian mutual recognition agreement, on the sale of goods.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thank you to my friend. It’s weird to do this on the screen. Thank you down there for the question.

The CMRA was an agreement across the country with all the provinces, and this bill, this legislation, actually enacts it. The first one was just a general agreement amongst all our partners that, yes, we’re all going to do this, and this is how we’re going to do it, and we’re going to post our exceptions. In this legislation, the reason why it’s important is that we can’t actually implement any of that until this legislation is passed and regulations are passed.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’d like to continue with two more if that’s okay.

I also have no particular desire to belabour Bill 7, but I do want to ask, just as a setting-the-stage question. What lessons from that Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response), Bill 7, have been applied to the bill that’s in front of us?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There are a couple things.

One, in order to replace ESTRA, part 1, we need a separate statute devoted to the trade recognition. So that’s what’s happening here.

Second, I think lessons from Bill 7 and CMRA include simplifying text. I can give the member two examples of recognition rules in sections 2 and 3. Bill 5 has parallel provisions on sales of goods, the use of goods and the supply of services to make the recognition rules simpler for readers to understand.

As well, Bill 5 separated exceptions from the recognition rules, whereas ESTRA combined them, making them longer and potentially harder for readers to understand.

Those were a couple of lessons that we’ve put in place here.

Jeremy Valeriote: Lastly, for clause 1, I’m hoping the minister and his staff can update us on the status of equivalent pieces of legislation in the other provinces and territories.

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I believe all provinces have now introduced similar legislation, except for Alberta. I believe the minister from Alberta has committed to introducing legislation very soon, imminently, so they will be in line as well. I believe Manitoba just did this two or three weeks ago as well.

There’s no indication that other provinces are not honouring the agreement. There’s no indication that other provinces are not following through on the commitment to post exceptions. There’s, at this point, no concern that we’ll be doing something that other provinces won’t be doing.

It’s critically important. The reason why it takes time is that we’re trying to get everyone to do the same thing.

I would say that if we get to a point where we just can’t get agreements across the country, I have said to my colleagues that we’ll start working with individual provinces to make agreements. The Premier signed an agreement with Ontario on a few items.

We believe the moment is now. The time is right for this to be done at a national level. We have momentum, so we’re going to continue to do that.

All provinces, to my friend from the Green Party, have been so far honouring their agreements.

Gavin Dew: I am now proceeding into questions on clause 1.

What exactly is captured by “regulatory measure”? Does that include policies, practices, standards, guidance documents, directives and unwritten administrative requirements or only formal legal instruments?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The definition the member refers to is…. Well, it’s there. It’s broad on purpose. We wanted to make sure we captured a whole host of things as opposed to being very narrow. Obviously, the broad definition allows us to be able to make this work — I think where the member is going — more comprehensive.

I’m happy to answer any questions the member might have on it, but we try to be much broader in the law, which allows us to be broader in scope.

Gavin Dew: If “regulatory measure” is defined broadly, how will businesses know what barriers are truly displaced and what barriers still survive in softer administrative form? How does the minister distinguish between a legitimate safety or consumer rule and a disguised trade barrier?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s actually connected to section 2. This is a negative list approach. It’s to give businesses the confidence that, if they don’t see the exception, this bill overrides the rule.

I put a caveat in place because sometimes businesses will bring things to us for questions, and we may need to change other laws. But the approach we’re taking is this approach, which is to say, if you don’t see the exception, you’re good to go.

We purposely went in this direction as opposed to doing the other one, in which you have to build lists and lists of exceptions all the way through.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

Gavin Dew: On clause 2. What specific categories of goods…?

The Chair: I recognize the member for Kelowna-Mission.

Gavin Dew: Sorry. I’m just trying to get a reputation for going fast, you know. Thank you very much.

To the minister….

Interjection.

Gavin Dew: My colleague thinks that’s very funny.

What specific categories of goods does the government expect will see the biggest practical changes in the first year?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s a little bit of a tricky question. I meet with businesses who say: “You know what, this change will help us now get into markets across the country.”

I can’t believe how many companies I meet with say, “I’ve been selling in Vietnam,” or “I’ve been selling in China or in Mexico, and I haven’t been wanting to sell in Ontario or Quebec or other provinces because there are too many rules.” So the reason why it’s complicated is….

We hear from business groups that this means billions of dollars of economic activity. I believe that it would have a lot of positive benefits. But given the tariff situation that we’re in, businesses having to pivot, manufacturers perhaps having to pivot and then look into other markets, I’m not entirely sure, in the short term, what the benefits will be.

I don’t want to say a number and then be stuck to it because there are so many things that are moving. But industry tells us that these changes will lead to significant economic activity across the country. And of course, they’re also advocating for additional changes.

Gavin Dew: Does the minister believe clause 2 will reduce costs for consumers? If so, how will government quantify that rather than just assert it?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m sure the member has seen the same reports I have that show the benefit to consumers when you remove interprovincial trade barriers — the cost savings that people can have, the options they get when there’s a product being produced in B.C. going to another jurisdiction which couldn’t, in the past, compete. And vice versa, coming here, there’s an expectation that those savings will come back to consumers.

We rely quite a bit on industry partners, Stats Canada, to start showing us the data on the impacts for consumers. That will come over time. That’s what we’ll be relying on to see where the benefits are with the goods piece, for now, and then the other measures we’re negotiating.

Gavin Dew: Will there be a dashboard, a report or any other indications of exactly what savings for consumers were achieved so they can look back one or two years from now and see success quantitatively?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Because this is happening at a national level, I suspect that there will be work done, with all the provinces wanting to work together, to be able to quantify the opportunity. At this point, we haven’t landed on what that could look like.

There will be data. Stats Canada will have data. There’ll be many organizations putting out data. But we haven’t landed on a national approach for how we’ll quantify the benefits at this stage.

Gavin Dew: Bill 7, last year, was supposed to let government move urgently on interprovincial barriers. What goods-related barriers were actually removed under that earlier framework?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Well, it wasn’t enacted so it wasn’t able to bring the CMRA, which we’ve negotiated and brought in. Now that we have the CMRA agreement done, we have the time to create a statute that’s dedicated to this. That’s why this legislation is here now in front of us.

Gavin Dew: I don’t intend to belabour the point that Bill 7 was sold as urgent and then never enacted.

What public process will businesses use if a ministry or regulator continues to impose duplicative testing approvals or certification despite clause 2?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: If my friend would be patient for section 7, that’s the entirety of section 7. It’s focused on powers to ensure that regulators are following what we’ve agreed on nationally.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’d like to ask: without this bill coming into force, what limitations are there currently existing that preclude the sale or use of goods in B.C.?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I hope it’s possible to raise the volume a little bit. We had a little bit of a challenge to hear my colleague in his question.

I think what I heard from you — please feel free to correct me — was essentially: “Why is this bill needed?”

I see you making a grimace. Is it possible just to ask the question again? We’ll get you the answer.

Jeremy Valeriote: Okay. Just hoping for a summary of the limitations that currently exist that preclude the sale of goods and services into B.C. What problem are we trying to solve here?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The problem we’re trying to solve is that businesses that are trying to set up operations here and considering selling across the country find it very frustrating and challenging to let alone know the rules in one province, to try to figure them out across every province and every jurisdiction across the country.

What we’re trying to do with this legislation and these agreements is to ensure that if someone sets up an operation in one part of the country, they know they have access to the market across the country.

I hope that answers the question. I’m sure the member is going somewhere with it, but, at this point, the problem we’re trying to solve is that it’s really complicated for businesses to be able to sell goods. We’re talking about the agreement, CMRA, with goods. Obviously, we’re negotiating other pieces still.

As far as goods, as an example, if you create a product in British Columbia, you have to go through a very expensive, lengthy process to learn the rules in Alberta. Then you have to learn the rules in Manitoba. You have to go all the way through, only to sell in our market.

Many of our companies say: “You know what? It’s just easier to make something in B.C. and sell it to Mexico, because it’s easy there. Or I can just go to China and sell it there.”

[2:25 p.m.]

We’ve got products that are being created in parts of our country that are not going across the country. They’re often going to the U.S. or going to other markets. We want to be able to open up our market here for products to be created and sold across the country. This doesn’t solve the entirety of our challenge of the shift from the U.S. It doesn’t solve the entirety of the problem, but at least it expands our market to be able to compete within the country, as opposed to having to go internationally.

Jeremy Valeriote: Has the ministry undertaken estimates of what the economic impact of this legislation is? If so, can the minister share some details of those estimates?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There’s a lot of research that’s out there. I can share with the member that the IMF just did a report — I believe it was this year — where they said that if we remove interprovincial trade barriers across the country…. Right now the interprovincial trade barriers are approximately a 9 percent tariff. That was their estimation. For services, it could go up to 40 percent.

C.D. Howe has done a report. Trevor Tombe from Alberta, who’s a pretty respected economist, has also done his estimations. Macdonald-Laurier. There’s actually a massive list of public research on this topic.

That’s the reason why the Prime Minister has made this a priority. This is why all the Premiers have made it a priority. We just need to increase efficiency. Whether it’s up to 40 percent in services or whether it’s 2 percent, we still need to be more effective. We still need to be more efficient, and that’s why it’s important for us to do this important work.

Jeremy Valeriote: My last question for clause 2. Does section 2(c) also apply to regulations in other provinces and territories?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Well, the clause is only for B.C. The member knows we can’t prescribe on other provinces. That’s why the agreements are so important.

The agreements give us clarity, not only on what B.C. is going to do but making sure that every province is doing something similar. Otherwise, we would just do something here, and then we’d have that same problem where everyone else has their barriers up and we’ve removed them. That’s why the negotiations are so critically important and why we continue to push at that table.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

[2:30 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: Could the minister tell us what service sectors the government expects will benefit most from mutual recognition under clause 3?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s a similar answer to the question the member asked in the previous clause, so I won’t repeat it. I’ll just say it’s the same answer.

Gavin Dew: What is the intended interaction between clause 3 and existing B.C. licensing or scope-of-practice rules?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The legislation applies to non-certified occupations. I’ll give the member some examples of them: creative professionals, actors, musicians, artists, retail employees, general service employees, administration, clerical workers, receptionists, administrative staff, education, some university lecturers, business management consultants, IT consultants, hospitality, hotel concierges, waiters, baristas, etc.

Certified occupations are…. You’ll see in section 9. It’s carved out, and the reason why is that they already are covered under the Labour Mobility Act.

Gavin Dew: Can a business legally supply a service here under clause 3 but still be blocked in practice by post-entry rules, licensing rules or restricted client rules?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We’re getting into a little bit of section 4. This bill focuses on pre-entry, so whether you’re able to come and provide your service. Post-entry, you still have to follow the rules. If you provide a service and you…. If there’s a speed limit in a community, you’ve got to follow the speed limit. Those are examples.

Post-entry rules still apply, but this is about pre-entry.

Gavin Dew: With the recognition that part of the answer to the next question may be clause 7, what disputes does the minister anticipate between ministries, regulators and service providers? How will those be resolved?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The answer is a little bit similar to the answer I gave in clause 1, which is that it’s going to be a bit of an ongoing process.

Let’s say a business believes there’s a regulation that is contrary to the law. They will go to the ministry that is responsible and raise that. Then the ministry, working with our team, would look at it and see if there is a health and safety reason for that. There’s an option there for an exception to be created, and then that has to be posted, or the regulation needs to be changed to align. Of course, businesses will have the ability to sue if the regulation is out of line and no one’s addressing it.

That is something that’s agreed upon across the country — that they’d go to the province of jurisdiction to get it addressed.

Jeremy Valeriote: I appreciate the minister’s answer on the previous clause.

I have to say I’m a little bit surprised that there are no internal economic modelling or estimates on this. We seem to be relying on think tanks like C.D. Howe and the IMF. I don’t mean to repeat the question, but can we clarify that there isn’t any economic modelling of this that has been done within the B.C. government?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The Ministry of Finance may have some modelling and some research. I don’t have that with me now. But I can share with the member that there’s decades of research on that.

I get it. There may be an economist out there that says: “Hey, leave everything be. It’s not needed.” I know there’s an economist out there from a progressive organization that’s saying: “Hey, this is not needed.”

Regardless of the benefits, let’s just say all these reports are not correct. I think it’s still prudent in this environment for all jurisdictions in the country to look at all of our rules and say: “Are they really needed? Are they still providing a benefit?”

[2:40 p.m.]

If it’s a health and safety piece, I get it. There’s a process here for the exceptions to remain to be able to make sure people are safe. But do we have a rule for the sake of having a rule? That’s a process, I think, that we should be doing, ongoing. We do that with the ease-of-doing-business review in the province. We do that across the board.

We can discount the decades of research and studies. We can say all the business communities that are asking for this…. Maybe they’re asking for it, and it really won’t benefit them. I think that would be a stretch.

So yes, we are relying on a lot of data that is public, and we’re doing this because we think this is a more efficient way of running operations in government across the country.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m actually not arguing with the notion that this can be beneficial. What concerns me a little bit is that the government is doing budgeting, revenue forecasting and other pieces that are pretty integral to next year’s budget and following. If we don’t have any of our own internal modelling….

The minister mentioned that the Ministry of Finance may have some of that. Is there a mechanism through this committee where that can be provided as a follow-up, not on the spot but at a later time?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The budget is with the rules as we have them now. Given that for 40 years, we haven’t been able to remove trade barriers, we can make a lot of assumptions of what will happen over the year. I’m hopeful we’re able to make those changes. But the budget was made on where we’re at right now, and the modelling is done in that way.

I don’t have that. I can get the member all the reports that are public, but I know he has probably got access to them all himself. I’m happy to talk about the bill as it is and, of course, happy to answer the questions on the bill, of why it’s structured the way it is.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll move on, except to comment that I wish we weren’t relying on the C.D. Howe Institute for this kind of piece. But I’ll leave that one there. My goal for this year is to keep my passive-aggressive committee comments to a minimum.

Subsection (b). “A service that may be supplied in another province may be supplied in British Columbia, despite any regulatory measure related to the supply of services.” Yesterday we spent way too long in private members’ committee talking about professional reliance and standards and ways to avoid disastrous events.

I apologize. I don’t have the best analogy on hand. But when I think about, for example, the provision of engineering services and something pretty critical like dam safety…. Other provinces will have dam safety boards and dam safety commissions that have different regulatory regimes. From my point of view, this reads to me that an engineer from, say, Saskatchewan, which has no topography, can come and deliver a service in B.C. without any regard for the regulatory regime in B.C. That’s really concerning.

Is that a correct interpretation of this clause?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the example. It goes to the answer that I shared with my critic as well.

There’s pre-entry — what skill sets, who can provide the service. That’s what this bill is about. How it’s provided is post-entry, and the rules of the province remain.

[2:45 p.m.]

In the example that the member shared, if a person has the accreditation as an engineer across the country and has the skill sets, they can provide the service. But what is being provided, the service that’s being provided, is not part of the legislation as of now.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

Gavin Dew: We’re making good progress here.

Can the minister…?

The Chair: I recognize the member for Kelowna-Mission.

Gavin Dew: I’m just trying to skip all the process. We’ve got to get it going.

All right. Thank you.

Can the minister provide examples of rules that are clearly preserved by clause 4 and examples of rules that would clearly fall because of clauses 2 and 3?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: So post-entry. We’ve talked about post-entry. I’ll just give examples.

Pre-entry would be around requirements on production, composition, quality and performance, standards such as packaging, labelling, testing, inspections, approvals. That’s one piece.

Now, examples of post-entry rules. I think it will make sense to the member. How a service is supplied. For commercial transport, taxis must comply with speed limits, etc. Who may sell a good. Businesses must have a licence or a permit, for example, to sell alcohol. Who may purchase a good. Individuals must be 19 years old to buy here, but it might be different in other jurisdictions.

My ADM here, Kevin Volk, gave the example of body armour. Body armour…. Obviously, it could have one standard rule, but who can sell it here in British Columbia can vary. That’s the difference between the two.

Gavin Dew: Does the minister agree that if a so-called post-entry rule has the practical effect of blocking or discouraging market participation, it should be treated as a trade barrier?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: That’s a tough one to answer. If the member has an example, I’m happy to try to take the example. But essentially what we’re doing here is saying that a product that’s created in one province…. We don’t see the difference between that product in British Columbia.

The reason why it’s challenging…. I hope the member appreciates that the reason why it’s challenging to answer is that there are just so many variables involved in specific products. There are so many that it’s a little difficult for our team to imagine what that possible solution could be.

Gavin Dew: Obviously, flagging up what hopefully is a fringe, outside scenario. How will the government prevent ministries from simply relabelling barriers to avoid having to change them? Will the government publish written guidance on clause 4 so that regulators don’t interpret it as a broad escape hatch if there’s not a desire to make change?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: That would be difficult, because you can’t circumvent the spirit and the intent of this law. If examples did come up like that, obviously, they would have to come forward. We’d have to review whether that becomes an exception or not. And there’s obviously opportunity for private interests to sue if they believe it’s a barrier that doesn’t have an exception already.

Gavin Dew: Very reasonable answer.

Is clause 4 deliberately future-proofing areas like alcohol or more sensitive sectors if national mutual recognition expands later?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: That’s certainly not the intention. Clause 4 aligns with the CMRA agreement, so the example the member gave is not one that is contemplated.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

Gavin Dew: Clause 5 outlines a set of exclusions, specifically Indigenous Peoples, maintenance of monopoly, taxation and incorporation.

Can the minister expand on why these exclusions were chosen and what principles guided them?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The excluded measures…. “Indigenous People” is common across Canada, even international trade agreements. So that’s a common thing that happens in all trade agreements.

The maintenance of monopolies. ICBC. Liquor Distribution Branch. That’s pretty self-explanatory.

Taxation. If one jurisdiction has a tax, that doesn’t mean we’re going to have to have that same taxation.

Incorporation. It just varies sometimes. B.C. has rules, Canada has rules, and that’s the reason why it’s in.

Gavin Dew: What exactly is meant by “measures related to Indigenous Peoples” in this clause, and how will the government be working to ensure this clause is interpreted consistently with constitutional obligations and DRIPA or similar commitments?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: First off, as I said, this is common in all trade agreements across the country and international trade agreements.

The member has asked for an example. An example would be preferential hunting opportunities that are available to Indigenous people under B.C. laws.

Gavin Dew: The minister has provided an example, but can he please expand on what other monopolies government is protecting here and why?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s the same as the answer I gave before. LDB and ICBC were predominantly the ones.

Gavin Dew: Fair.

How broad is the taxation exclusion? Could government ultimately end up preserving economic barriers by characterizing them as tax-related?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The tax measures are outside…. I can’t think of an example of where we would do this, but I was just talking to the team. For example, Alberta with wine, where they put in taxation, and it essentially is a bit of a barrier.

But taxation is excluded. Every jurisdiction has the ability to put in taxation. That is something that we’ll continue to watch, something that we’re having discussions with folks in Alberta on. They just recently made some changes, which may eliminate that particular challenge.

Just because one jurisdiction has a taxation measure doesn’t mean we all should have it as well. That’s the reason why it’s excluded.

Gavin Dew: Are there additional categories that government considered excluding but chose not to?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m not aware of any others. If we felt they were important, they’re in the legislation.

Gavin Dew: I’ll also just flag to my colleague, the Agriculture critic, that I’ll throw to him after this question for a couple. Delta beef is coming out.

[3:00 p.m.]

As it relates to the regulatory measures that are exempt, will the complete list of regulatory measures excluded be published before commencement, under these categories?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The regulation that will bring the bill into enforcement will have all the exceptions.

Ian Paton: Thank you for the opportunity to talk about a few agricultural issues with cross-province trade barriers.

Barriers to internal trade that impact agriculture and agrifood sectors include dairy quotas, trucking requirements, health and safety regulations, packaging and labelling requirements, business registration and professional licensing differences across provinces, among other things. Collectively, it’s estimated that these barriers cost the industry of agriculture approximately $1.7 billion annually.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has identified the two largest barriers to interprovincial trade in agriculture as differing provincial transportation regulations and inconsistencies between provincial and federal inspections required at meat-processing facilities.

Examples include differences in acceptable truck sizes and weights, permitting and licensing requirements and safety standards. For instance, certain regulations require a commercial vehicle, perhaps hauling livestock, to get a second inspection when crossing a provincial border. Some trucks are allowed on B.C. roads at night but only allowed on Alberta roads during the day.

Parallel federal and provincial regulations for meat-processing facilities pose another significant barrier to interprovincial trade in agriculture and agrifood sectors. A meat-processing facility that only sells their products within the province where they are located is under provincial jurisdiction. However, in order to sell across provincial borders, the facility must be registered with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

I’m just wondering. What sort of consultation have you had with other provinces with agricultural trade when it comes to milk quotas; meat inspection; regulations for trucking to go back and forth; and, of course, even packaging for our vegetable products that have different packaging requirements from one province to another?

Then finally, of course, the alcohol issue. We’re trying to figure out how we can easily move our B.C.-produced wines to all other provinces in Canada without any interruptions or regulations.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: My friend from Delta asked what I call a Richard Zussman question, where it’s supposed to be one question, but he asked seven questions in the one. Sorry it took a couple seconds extra to get back to him on it.

There’s a whole bunch of things in this question. All good questions.

First off, while Bill 5 applies to food, it does not supersede federal laws around food. So that’s an important, I think, distinction for him. Including interprovincial trade in food and safety centres, B.C. does not seek to override these federal laws. If a provincial statute on food contradicts a federal statute on food, the federal statute is considered supreme.

On transportation, we have an MOU on transportation across the country. Right now there’s work happening to reconcile trucking-related measures that can be unnecessary barriers to efficient movement of goods. We’re working closely with other jurisdictions to implement commitments in the manner of that agreement while maintaining safety.

Areas of collaboration include steering axle weights, guidelines for trailers, signage, lighting, escort vehicles, daytime and nighttime definitions, construction zone clearances, oversize or overweight vehicles, among other areas. There’s a lot of work happening in the transportation space that could have an impact on food.

On wine, we’ve been clear that we believe direct-to-consumer needs to be a part of an agreement that’s happening nationally. That’s something I’ve been pushing with my colleagues across the way. Work is still ongoing.

Packaging. If there are B.C. rules that limit packaging, that’s covered by the bill. If we have rules in B.C. that are limiting products coming in, it’s covered by the bill. If the member has examples on the packaging side that he wants to explore further, I’m happy to hear them, and I can give him case-by-case answers. But it’s hard to know because there are so many different rules that he could be implying.

Ian Paton: Just one more rally here.

My question to the minister. Was the Minister of Agriculture brought in to be involved with putting together this Bill 5 as far as the agricultural issues?

Secondly, I just want to get back to our famous B.C. wines and craft beers. After this is passed, this legislation, will the borders be open to freely move our wine and beer? Right now I believe if you were actually pulled over by the RCMP bringing alcohol from Alberta into B.C. in the trunk of your car, you could be fined for doing that.

Will this eliminate some of these inconsistencies with moving alcohol back and forth?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: On the question of whether the Ministry of Agriculture and other ministries were involved, absolutely. Every ministry was involved. It’s a lot of regulators and partners, and it takes time. So yes, they are very active in the conversations.

To the member’s question about alcohol, there isn’t an agreement yet. Those discussions are happening. So I can’t say. We do protect our monopolies here. I think that’s important to say. We talked about that, I think, in the section before this, in section 4.

That being said, there are discussions happening around alcohol and food at a national level. When we have an agreement, that will be a foundation for us to move forward.

Gavin Dew: I’m pleased to hear of progress being made on direct-to-consumer for wine. I hope the minister will indulge me for a moment, recognizing we might be slightly out of scope, and provide us with a little bit more of an update on the progress being made around DTC for wine.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I know that it’s an important topic in his area. I wish I could provide him more detail, but because it’s still in negotiation, I don’t think it’s appropriate to talk about which province is the barrier and which one is not.

That being said, there definitely are some, I think, positive conversations happening in this space. I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to get some resolution, but you can only move as fast as your slowest partner. That’s the challenge in these negotiations.

Gavin Dew: I fully respect what the minister can and cannot share, and I would simply say that we all win when more of Canada gets to drink great B.C. wine, particularly the fantastic wines of the Okanagan.

Interjection.

Gavin Dew: If I were trying, I would begin naming every single one of the 17 wineries in my riding. But then I have a colleague in Boundary-Similkameen who has about 130. So she might come in and start naming them all.

Suffice it to say, I’m certainly very appreciative of the effort being made on the wine front.

I don’t actually have a question. That was just an excuse to say nice things about wine.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

The Chair: Member for Kelowna-Mission.

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much. That’ll be Kelowna-Mission, with the best wineries in British Columbia. All are free and welcome. All are free to imbibe. Thank you.

With regard to clause 6, can the minister expand on what legal protection or procedural shield this clause is intended to provide? Just walk us through the intent and effect a little bit more on this one.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Sections 6 and 7 go together. Essentially, what 6 and 7 say is that if a regulatory body refuses to conform with the agreements that we have across the country, they’ll be notified. They have 60 days. And if at 60 days they don’t, it means the minister has the power to make the change.

[3:15 p.m.]

In sections 6 and 7, it’s to ensure that sections 2 and 3 are applied.

Gavin Dew: Frankly, I was too distracted by my passion for B.C. wine, and I may have started getting into clause 7 versus clause 6. I don’t actually have much on 6, so I’m more than happy to sit and to move to that passing.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

Gavin Dew: Can we just get a little bit more of an illumination from the minister as to how he sees what threshold must be met, in practical terms, before a minister requires a regulatory authority to conform? What is the path of escalation there, from an operational perspective?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The scenario in this situation might be as follows. Let’s say a business comes in and says: “We believe that this does not align with the legislation — this specific regulation.” The process would be that it would go to the ministry. The ministry would have an opportunity to look at that and say: “Wait a minute. It makes sense for there to be an exception on this — health, safety and other reasons.”

If they rule that exception isn’t needed, they can go to the regulator and say: “This doesn’t align with the act, with the legislation.” That’s the next step. If it doesn’t, it gives the minister the ability to make that change. That’s the process in which this section would come up.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll do a quick question, and then I have an amendment to move.

The clause 7 section is carried over from the 2025 act of Bill 7. Can the minister speak to his experience with this over the past year? How many times did the minister use this discretion and on which regulatory authorities?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think the member is referring to Bill 7. Because it wasn’t enacted, it wasn’t used.

Jeremy Valeriote: Have regulatory agencies been consulted to confirm that 60 days is a sufficient amount of time to fully consider and implement a request?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This is similar language to ESTRA. That engagement happened at that time.

I think it’s an important point to note that if a business comes forward and believes that rules are in place that, I guess, infringe on this act, the minister will need the power, if a regulator isn’t making the appropriate decision, to be able to act.

But to assume, from a flip side, that if a minister didn’t have that power, somehow that would change it…. The person, the business would just go to court, and the courts would direct them to do it. So giving the minister the power to be able to do it ensures that we honour the law, here and in our agreements.

Jeremy Valeriote: Can the minister speak to what preparatory work is happening in regulatory agencies in the case that this bill receives royal assent?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Ministries have been engaging with regulators. Also, this is the same language that was in ESTRA. So it won’t be a surprise to anyone, because ESTRA was introduced almost over a year ago.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’d like to move an amendment, please.

The Chair: Okay. We will distribute, and you can go ahead and speak to it.

Jeremy Valeriote: Okay.

[CLAUSE 7, by adding the underlined text as shown:

(3) A request made under subsection (1) must be published as soon as practicable by the minister on a publicly available website.]

[3:25 p.m.]

[Stephanie Higginson in the chair.]

The Chair: I’ll let folks know that the amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

Jeremy Valeriote: May I speak to the amendment? I’d like to introduce it. I’ve only read the text of it.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I’ll be brief. This is a transparency piece that’s similar to what my colleague, the member for Saanich North and the Islands, worked so hard with the Attorney General to put into Bill 7, this type of transparency mechanism.

This clause reads that the regulatory authority amends or repeals a regulatory measure. It’s a request, although I would submit that it’s not much of a request if the minister can force it through after 60 days. But it’s written as a request, 60 days, and put it through.

[3:30 p.m.]

All we’re asking in this amendment is that it be publicly available so that the public and legislators can be aware of what regulatory measures are being amended or repealed.

With that, I’ll just hope that we can support this type of simple transparency measure on a bill of this significance.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I just spent some time with the team seriously considering this. I think, at this point, I can’t support it.

First off, the member’s comment that this was negotiated as part of ESTRA…. It wasn’t, in fact, on this section. Because of the extraordinary powers of Bill 7, there were provisions put in, not on this section but in another section.

What we’re asking regulators to do is to follow the law. We’re not asking them to change regulations that are not part of the law. They’re doing what they’re required to do.

This wasn’t, as the member described, a piece that was negotiated in this section. I just want to be clear on that. And when regulations change, they are public. The public is going to get a sense of that change.

I had a consideration of it. It just doesn’t make sense as how the member has described it. So at this point, I can’t support it.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Kelowna-Mission.

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much. Had the Chair been here for the extensive wine discussion earlier, she would be well reminded of my riding, which contains the best wineries in British Columbia.

Thank you very much for bringing this amendment, to the Greens. This is an amendment that we will be supporting. We do believe that transparency is important. We do believe that it is a logical and rational approach for these requests to be published as soon as practical by the minister on a publicly available website.

As I interpret the clause, it strikes me as logical that a request be made public, in particular if there is a public interest in that request or if there is a stakeholder or business interest in that request. We think that providing proactive disclosure and enabling opportunities for there to be engagement with what amendments or appeals might happen is a good and appropriate way to ensure that there’s an appropriate balance of transparency and of predictability around what rules are made.

We will be supporting this amendment.

Rob Botterell: Certainly, this is definitely the same section. It was part of Bill 7, and it did apply to the same bit.

Certainly, from our perspective and as the House Leader that brought this forward in the Bill 7 context, I don’t see what the harm is in passing this amendment and preserving this step.

I’ll, obviously, join my colleague in supporting this amendment.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Not to contradict my friend here, but I’ve got it here in front of me. There was a requirement to post a summary of the regulation and that it was amended, not that the request was made. So it is completely different. I appreciate his comments, but it’s not, in fact, the same.

Rob Botterell: With the greatest of respect, it is a distinction without a difference.

Sheldon Clare: Certainly, transparency is a foundation of what we are trying to achieve for the public.

[3:35 p.m.]

I want to speak in favour of this particular amendment. I believe that it is useful. It does not do any significant harm to the bill. I think that it actually could be considered a friendly amendment.

I’m disappointed and saddened that although this other group of us thinks that there is merit in this and are willing to support it…. I would suggest that it would be worthwhile for the minister to have a more thorough look at it and see it for the merits that it brings rather than any potential for anything to mess up the bill, because I don’t believe it does that.

I think this is actually something that we can agree does help the general interests of the public, and it does aid in making the process one that inspires more confidence in the legislation rather than takes away from that particular confidence.

When we’re considering this particular amendment on this important bill, which has generally gone fairly smoothly so far…. I think our discussions on this matter have been quite reasonable. I think that this minor change, as proposed by my colleagues in the Third Party, is something that should be considered very carefully for the merits that it can bring. It does not seem to bring any harm to the bill, and I would suggest that it should be considered in that regard.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, the question is the amendment to clause 7.

A division has been called.

[3:40 p.m.]

Okay, folks, does everybody in the committee agree to waive time?

Leave granted.

The Chair: Excellent. Okay.

Before putting the question, I remind all members that only members of Section A or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

The question is the amendment to Bill 5, clause 7.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 5
Botterell	Maahs	Stamer
Williams		Luck
NAYS — 5
Routledge	Davidson	Sunner
Kahlon		Yung

The Chair: Members, there being an equal number of votes for and against, the Chair must make a casting vote.

The Chair votes against the amendment, to keep the bill intact in its original form and as adopted at second reading. Therefore, the motion is defeated.

Gavin Dew: The amendment that was brought forward by the Greens, I think, was intended to bring transparency to ministerial requests. In that spirit, I’ll just ask the minister if he can expand a little bit on whether ministerial requests for conformance will be made public or what scope of requests will be made public at what time.

Could he just illuminate a little bit more what the timeline is for disclosure in general?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, I think it’s important to note that the ability for a minister to make this change is to ensure that a regulator is conforming with the law of British Columbia. I think it’s important for the process. If something is not conforming with the law, of course, there’s the ability for someone to sue and for it to go through a court process.

If a decision is considered to be needed changed…. For example, if something comes forward and maybe there’s a safety concern around it or a public health concern around it, what would happen is government would say: “Okay, we think that this may need an exception or may not need an exception.” Then government goes out and engages with the public to say, “Here is the change” — probably the business that brings it forward as well, but other industry folks — “We believe there may be a safety issue here. Tell us why we don’t think so.”

We’d have to look at other jurisdictions to see why they don’t have these rules. Then government has the ability to make an exception if they believe that there’s a safety concern. But they also have the ability to say: “No, we have to conform with the law.”

So that’s the process that’s laid out here, which I should say is a process that government follows on a lot of things.

Gavin Dew: I certainly appreciate the explanation from the minister.

I think that if I’m not mistaken, the minister’s resistance to the amendment brought was the idea that every request would be disclosed, and I can see where he’s coming from just in terms of the funnel from requests down to amendments or appeals, down to interventions by the requesting minister.

Can the minister just expand a little bit on…? Let’s say for the sake of argument that there is a request made. Let’s say it proceeds down that chain of action from request to there being, potentially, a refusal by the regulatory authority and it then being overwritten.

What does that look like from a reporting perspective? Will there ever be a report that is made public? How will the public or affected stakeholders know what happened, what decisions were made by whom, when and why?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There are a few things. Maybe I’ll give an example of what we’re talking about here. A product is created in Ontario, and we have a regulation here that it must be a green label. The label there, in another province, is something different. The regulator says: “No, it needs to be green for this reason.” Well, if the regulator won’t change this, the minister needs the power to be able to do that.

[3:55 p.m.]

There are a few things we can look at and say: “You know what? Maybe we agree with you that there’s a safety and health concern.” Then we need to go through a process and create an exception. Or maybe the minister says: “No, that’s ridiculous. It doesn’t make sense.”

I think what’s fundamental here is that if we make an agreement across the country, all provinces make an agreement that we’re going to do this, it shouldn’t come down to a province saying, “Hey, you know what? We can’t honour the agreement we had,” because a regulator disagrees with the same safety requirements that every other province has.

If we’re really trying to cut red tape and create efficiency across the country, we need to create that efficiency. We can’t be creating rules saying: “Yeah, we agree with you in principle. But, by the way, if regulators don’t agree with the law that we have passed in this House, they have the ability to do this.” That’s the rationale for it. Those are the paths for making those changes.

I appreciate your comments on the challenge with the amendment, because every time a request being made…. We’re trying to get rid of red tape. That’s adding red tape to the entire process.

Hopefully, that answers the member’s question.

Gavin Dew: I certainly appreciate the explanation. I think what the minister has said certainly helps to explain the process. What I’m hoping just to get a little bit more on, and I didn’t get, was when the outcome of that process will be made public. Will there be a report on rulings, etc.?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Sorry, I should have added that.

Any regulation that’s changed has to be made public, so it will be made public. Hopefully, that answers the question.

Gavin Dew: Not trying to be pedantic, but just help us understand. The outcome will be made public. I think we all certainly understand that the outcome will be made public. I think the minister has argued that it does not make sense for every request to be made public.

Somewhere in the middle of that is a reasonable ground where not just the outcome is made public but some understanding of why a conclusion was reached so that, for example…. We mentioned the example of a company or an industry group pointing toward an issue, saying: “We’d like to have this resolved.” It doesn’t get resolved.

What the minister is describing is a black box that produces an outcome. I’m just trying to understand to what extent the public or stakeholders affected get to peer into that black box and have an understanding of how and when and by whom a decision was made.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, I’ll come back to the rationale for this decision that we’re making here, which is…. What we’re saying is that we have to honour a decision that’s being made where all jurisdictions in the country will have similar rules. If the path goes forward where a minister has asked for a regulator to align with the laws of the province, those regulations will be made public.

Then, of course, with any regulation that comes forward, the public can ask questions, partners can ask questions. I can think of many regulations that we’ve passed which come up in question period and the public can scrutinize. That’s the process we have in government.

What’s vitally important here is that we’re not asking for regulators to do anything other than follow the law of the province.

Rob Botterell: Still trying to clarify the basis of the amendment that was defeated. I just wanted to read into the record the text of Bill 7 and the text of the amendment. And then certainly offer the minister, if the minister wishes to comment….

In Bill 7, at section 3(1), regulatory provision means that….

The Chair: Sorry, Member. I just want to remind you that the question has been put and decided, so we don’t need to revisit it.

Rob Botterell: So I can’t read into the record a section of an act?

The Chair: You can read in a section of the act, but you can’t re-canvass debate on the amendment.

Rob Botterell: Okay. I’ll read text of legislation into the record.

Section 3 of Bill 7 defines regulatory provision: “means a bylaw, rule, resolution, practice, policy, standard, procedure, measure or other record that is made under an authorizing enactment and affects or may affect the trade in goods or supply of services in B.C.”

Section 3(3) says, “The minister charged with the administration of the act under which a regulatory provision is made (a) may request the regulatory authority to amend the regulatory provision,” and it carries on. We’ve just noted earlier that regulatory provision includes measure.

Then in section 3(7), there is a clause that says: “A request made under subsection (3),” which I just referenced, “must be published as soon as practical by the minister on a publicly available website.”

So requests for changes to measures are published. I’m not commenting; I’m just trying to read into the record.

The Bill 5 clause 7 says: “The minister charged with administration of the act under which a regulatory measure is made may request the regulatory authority for the measure to amend the measure to make the measure conform or repeal the measure to the extent the measure does not conform.”

We have already on the record the amendment that was defeated, which matches the clause in Bill 7.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Just talking to the team here, and the member is correct, so I apologize. Our team thought we were talking about section 20 in the definition. So I want to apologize to the member. He was correct that that piece was in the ESTRA piece.

I still stand by the position we took, because it wasn’t based on whether it was in ESTRA or not, but I do want to acknowledge to the member.

Gavin Dew: I think we’ve probably canvassed this one sufficiently.

[4:05 p.m.]

I will just say that as this is enacted, I hope that there will be further conversation around what can be disclosed when so that there can be opportunities for learnings from the process and so that individuals or groups that might go through can just better understand how things proceeded and be able to more effectively make arguments for intervention.

I don’t think we need to belabour that further, but I think that it’s a worthwhile conversation to be had by government.

I’ll just close off on clause 7 fairly shortly here. Does the minister see Bill 5 as more cautious than the Bill 7 framework because clause 5 narrows how much practical regulatory change clause 7 will ever force?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We believe that it’s the same level of caution that is in this bill. So no, we don’t see a difference in that.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

The Chair: The committee is going to go on a five-minute recess, please. No more than five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:06 p.m. to 4:13 p.m.

[Stephanie Higginson in the chair.]

The Chair: Calling the committee back to order. We’ll start questions on clause 8.

Gavin Dew: Can the minister explain the intent of clause 8?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The question was very quick, and the answer from my team was very quick. They said: “This will ensure that you don’t go to jail.” So it’s about trade law only.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you for the opportunity to join the debate here today.

Just in terms of clause 9, I want to make sure to understand how it works in relation to both what was in last year’s version, Bill 7, and how it relates to the Labour Mobility Act as it exists currently.

Maybe before I get into a couple of specific questions I have, could the minister just first of all explain the intent and how this relates to the Labour Mobility Act?

[4:15 p.m.]

Second, I’m hoping that the minister…. Just to save time, I’m going to ask a second as well. If the minister could also define “extraprovincial occupation” and confirm that it’s the same definition that’s in the Labour Mobility Act.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I know it’s a challenge when members have to run, speak in one chamber and come back, but we had just addressed this before the member came.

This act covers non-certified occupations. Examples I gave earlier: creative professionals; retail; administration; education, like some university lecturers; hotel concierge; waiters — that type of thing.

Anything that is a certified occupation falls under the Labour Mobility Act. This legislation doesn’t touch that.

Kiel Giddens: I’m just wondering, maybe, if the minister could also describe why it was necessary to separate rather than incorporate what was in the Labour Mobility Act directly into the law. Why define it in this way and explain it the way it’s in Bill 5 here rather than ensure that the language is the same in both?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The rationale for doing it this way is that the Labour Mobility Act already has mechanisms for mutual recognition built into it. We didn’t need to create a new regime because the regime already exists. This is creating a regime for areas that it does not exist at this time.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister for that clarification. That’s helpful.

Given that answer, I’m wondering if there are occupations or trades that government believes are outside the Labour Mobility Act that may still create interprovincial barriers. Is there anything else that needs to be covered?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Those are the occupations I was referring to in my earlier comment, and that’s why we’ve incorporated them — non-certified occupations, as we call them — as part of this.

I gave the member examples. Others would be: flight attendants, trainers, photographers, painters. There’s a big list of the professions. So that’s the rationale.

[4:20 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: Just in terms of the Labour Mobility Act, it is pretty critical for goods and services to be traded across provinces. It affects…. Certification is the largest one, that’s the main topic, but I’m wondering if there are any challenges with respect to occupational health and safety regulations across provinces, within this clause or within the broader context of the discussion — how this would be treated, I guess, both within the Labour Mobility Act and overall with this bill.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I acknowledge the point the member is making. Those conversations are alive. It’s not part of the bill here. I can share that those conversations around occupational safety and all those things are happening, but it’s not related to this bill, because much of it is outside of the bill.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate that the conversations are happening. They are very important.

I think, obviously, we have robust occupational health and safety regulations and standards for very, very good reason. These are critical. Ideally, it would be recognition up to the highest standards in that mutual recognition in that way, really helping all provinces level up to that but in a way that allows goods and services and businesses to be able to work across provincial borders.

I’m wondering just with regard to that: is that something overall that is a bit of a gap that needs to be looked at so it, perhaps, could be incorporated later through amendment? Is that something possible, whether it’s in this clause or elsewhere?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I guess a couple of things.

One of the principles, from a British Columbia perspective, that we’ve been having in all these discussions is that we don’t want this to be a race to the bottom. We’ve been clear from the beginning, especially when it comes to health and safety and some of our environmental standards.

That’s an important principle. I appreciate the member raising it. That has been pretty clear from the entire table, I would say. There’s nobody that wants to compromise on those things.

There are two parts to the question. One is that this bill is focused on pre-entry. Some of the occupational pieces the member mentions are post-entry. That work on post-entry is ongoing, to align some of our occupational safety pieces to other provinces. That’s more fluid. That changes in jurisdictions, but that conversation is alive, and it’s happening.

If those changes need to be happening, it’s not, probably, with this bill. It would happen in other areas and other laws and other regulations.

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

[4:25 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: With regard to clause 10, can the minister expand on the timeline of publication of any regulations made by the LGIC for these purposes?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Any regulations that will be changed will be made public pretty much right after cabinet has okayed them.

Gavin Dew: Just to expand on that question, when they are made public, what will be the approximate timeline between publication and implementation?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It goes back to a previous answer I gave my friend across the way, which is that it’s a negative list approach, essentially saying that our laws are aligned unless we have an exception. Exceptions will be posted publicly, and that’s a commitment we have across the country.

Gavin Dew: Appreciate that. Very reasonable.

Can the minister speak to what consultation, if any, will occur with industry, consumers, Indigenous groups, regulators or the opposition before such regulations are finalized?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Well, there’s the conversation of exceptions. That’s the initial list of exceptions. The reason why this is taking time is that we have over 100 regulators — 100 meetings with regulators, consulting every ministry, going through every single item to identify what those exceptions will be. It’ll go through a normal process, cabinet process, all made public.

In future, if there are challenges to the law, then you have to go through the same process, and you have to publicly display any regulations changed through B.C. Laws.

Gavin Dew: In reviewing the powers enumerated here, how does this regulation-making scheme differ in substance from the kind of executive flexibility the government said it needed under Bill 7?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s similar to the trade-enabling sections in Bill 7.

Gavin Dew: I would like to bring an amendment to clause 10. The amendment in my name is currently with the Table Officer, who will, I believe, photocopy it, circulate it. Then I can speak to it.

The Chair: Okay. We’ll take a brief recess while we photocopy it and distribute it.

The committee recessed from 4:30 p.m. to 4:33 p.m.

[Stephanie Higginson in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay. We’ll call us back to order, and I will ask the member to move his amendment.

Gavin Dew: I am bringing forward an amendment to clause 10, which adds section 4.

[Clause 10 is amended by adding the following:

(4) No later than 12 months after the Act is brought into force and every 12 months thereafter, the minister must publish a report on the impacts of this legislation that reviews the:

(a) impacts on barriers removed,

(b) effect on business entry and practical access,

(c) impact of exclusion regulations made under section 10(2),

(d) use of Ministerial authority granted under section 7,

(e) any applications to either add or remove exclusions to the regulations of this act,

(f) effects on consumer costs.]

On the amendment.

[4:35 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: These are all, in my view, very reasonable things for us to look to results on.

I would say that if the bill has the effect that the minister hopes it will, this report will be a success story. But I do believe, as we have canvassed over the course of discussions on the bill, that it’s important that there is appropriate transparency so people can see what is actually happening in terms of the bill, so we can measure the effectiveness, so we can see, in a reasonable way, what uses of ministerial authority were granted under section 7.

I think we’ve really touched on a lot of these points throughout the course of the discussion. I think that the amendment that was brought forward by my colleague from the Third Party earlier spiritually attempted to accomplish some of what’s in here.

I think this is an eminently reasonable report, and I can’t see any good reason why government would not be 100 percent on board with the desire to publish this report annually.

The Chair: I’ll just let folks know that, procedurally, the amendment is in order.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Great. Thank you.

I appreciate the intent here, but I see money in this, and it’s money that at this point I can’t…. It’s money and time of staff that is a challenge and the reason why I can’t support it.

First off, these analyses are going to be done by every business organization, anyone that’s…. All economists that are working in this space will be doing their own reports, and there are going to be many of them. Stats Canada is already having discussions about releasing reports. We’re talking about it at a national level, reports being done, so that we’re not having every province doing their own reports — to streamline.

We’re going through an extensive ease-of-doing-business review to cut more red tape, and that’s where the energy of my staff needs to be.

I appreciate the intent. I’m supportive of that. I just can’t support this amendment at this time.

Rob Botterell: Government that has the confidence of British Columbians is government that is open, transparent and accountable, and it’s not a cost of doing business. It’s not a cost that we need to avoid and streamline and get away from.

British Columbians must have open, transparent and accountable government. What we’ve seen in numerous decisions over the last year and a half is a movement away from openness, transparency and accountability in the way in which legislation is framed and crafted and enacted.

That is why I support this amendment, and the Green caucus supports this amendment, because this is far-reaching legislation that has very positive potential upsides, and to the extent that it comes into force, British Columbians need to have this type of information.

The best approach to assembling that information is not to farm it out to the federal government, farm it out to other provinces, farm it out to business organizations. It’s to have the government, the minister responsible, providing this type of information so British Columbians can have confidence and understand how this is working in an open, transparent and accountable way.

I will have further, much more detailed comments to make at second reading of Bill 9, which is not the topic for discussion today.

[4:40 p.m.]

There is a disturbing trend underway here away from openness, transparency and accountability. At a minimum, this type of amendment introduces a check and balance that, given the confidence the minister has in the success that this legislation will have and the work that’s going, will be a cause for celebration every year. This will be a report that will be celebrated every year.

Fundamentally, without this type of report, we don’t have the type of mechanism to really assure British Columbians that we have open, accountable and transparent government.

Earlier today we started in on the discussion of 30 by 30. It’s a problem crossing a lot of ministries.

In this particular bill, which is so important, I fully support this amendment because I think it will increase confidence in this legislation and equip the minister with the framework to really celebrate success.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the member for Kelowna-Mission for bringing forward this amendment.

I want to echo some of the comments from the House Leader of the Third Party about transparency and accountability. I think that is such a cornerstone of our democratic system — responsibility to the Legislature, of course, but responsibility to the public here. I think that’s what this amendment is speaking to.

At the very, very start of this discussion, I talked about that C.D. Howe Institute report — $200 billion in potential benefit to Canada and British Columbia a big part of that. We need to measure that. You can’t measure what you’re not tracking.

I think, to respond, I appreciate the minister’s comments about publicly available information. I think if StatsCan is actually incorporating some of that work, that’s good. That’s work that government can incorporate, perhaps, into a report. If there are business groups that are collating information, those are synergies that government can take advantage of.

There are things that those organizations will not be able to measure. I think that’s the important part of this amendment. Things like the impact of exclusion regulations made under section 10(2) and the use of ministerial authority granted under section 7.

These are things directly within the government’s control that we…. The public deserves to know what all is being enacted, what decisions government is making and what the results are from those decisions.

I think that is where the public is going to buy into this. That’s what we’re going to see as a country, even, to see Team Canada working together. But the public needs to see that. They need to see it measured. They need to see it tracked in a report.

That’s why I think this amendment is a practical thing to do to really build momentum and support for this as an overall project. I know that we agree on the need for this interprovincial trade legislation and reducing barriers. Let’s work on this together. I think this is a good-faith amendment as part of doing that.

Gavin Dew: I certainly appreciate the minister’s remarks, appreciate the concerns. I think that my colleague from Prince George has rightly outlined the reality. Frankly, the idea that there is some massive, insurmountable cost to reporting on the effects just doesn’t wash as an argument against this amendment.

Again, if there are high-quality reports being undertaken by Statistics Canada or by some of the economists that the minister has cited, then that absolutely produces an opportunity for the ministry, the minister, the government, to be able to report out with reliable statistics as to the economic implications, with reliable reports coming from substantive and credible industry groups.

That, frankly, allows a significant number of the items that are included here to be covered off through the work of others. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with government looking to those authoritative sources and pulling them into their reports, as is frequently the case with a number of different reports that are published by government.

As my colleague the House Leader of the Third Party has rightly articulated, transparency matters.

[4:45 p.m.]

There are certainly items in here that can be reported on by a variety of different credible economists — and will be.

Again, I see value in synthesizing them. I think hopefully they’re a success story that can be told. But there are very specific pieces of information in here that only the government can report on and should report on. The public deserves to know. Stakeholders deserve to know.

This is a bill that, again, I anticipate our party will support, but this is one very important change that we believe is absolutely crucial, and I hope that the minister will change his mind and that his colleagues will vote for this amendment.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, the question is the amendment to clause 10 on Bill 5.

Division has been called.

[4:50 p.m.]

Okay, Members. Is everybody comfortable waiving time?

Leave granted.

The Chair: Okay. Before putting the question, I remind all members that only members of Section A or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

The question is the amendment on clause 10 on Bill 5.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 5
Kindy	Banman	Valeriote
Giddens		Stamer
NAYS — 5
Routledge	Davidson	Sunner
Kahlon		Yung

The Chair: Members, there being an equal number of votes for and against, the Chair must make a casting vote.

The Chair votes against the amendment, to keep the bill intact in its original form and as adopted at second reading. Therefore, the motion is defeated.

Clause 10 approved.

On clause 11.

Gavin Dew: Could I ask the minister…? I’ll assume, with the minister’s comfort, that we can talk about clauses 11 to 14 somewhat as a package.

I’ll just afford the minister an opportunity to walk us through what the existing statutes being amended are and why, just in plain English terms, to describe what the set of changes is.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the question.

Section 11. The significance of that is that ESTRA, part 1, will be repealed when the new act enters into force, to ensure that the two statutes do not overlap.

The significance of section 12 is removing the requirement to publish a summary and rationale of regulation made under ESTRA, parts 1 and 2, and not including that requirement in the act. It does not undermine transparency, as new regulations are published on the standard B.C. platform, B.C. Laws.

Section 13. The select standing committee review was included in ESTRA due to extraordinary conditions of its adoption. Such a review is not necessary for the act, nor ESTRA, part 2. Cabinet will review proposed regulations under the act. New regulations are published, as I’ve noted before.

Then in section 14, the act repeals ESTRA, part 1, and with it, its expiry date. The act removes cabinet powers to repeal a provision of ESTRA, part 1, as the act repeals part 1. The act removes cabinet’s power to repeal a provision of sections 6, 7 and 10 of part 2 before May 28, 2026, as it is not necessary.

Gavin Dew: Do any of these consequential amendments narrow rights, expand ministerial discretion or reduce independent oversight in ways not readily evident from the short title?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The answer is no.

Clauses 11 to 14 inclusive approved.

On clause 15.

Gavin Dew: What date does the government currently anticipate bringing Bill 5 into force?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I shared with the member earlier that our goal is spring.

Gavin Dew: Can the minister just rehash what specific implementation steps must happen before commencement?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We have to finish our work around building out the exceptions and then, at that point, go to cabinet. Then we’ll be making them public.

Gavin Dew: Just to close on the theme I opened on, if Bill 7 was supposedly urgent and part 1 of ESTRA was already in place, why are we here again with another bill that still depends on later regulations to do the real work?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I won’t go too much into it, because I did answer this question in the beginning of the bill.

When the tariffs from the U.S. administration came in, it was an extraordinary time. We had to prepare for every possibility. It was a clear message from the federal government that we needed to move quickly. We didn’t know at the time — there were a lot of variables — if CUSMA-related items would be included or not. So we needed the ability and the tools to be able to move really quickly, and we’ve been doing that work.

This bill, I hope, gets support from everyone. I’ve heard support from everyone. It’s critically important because it gives us a permanent structure, a permanent statute, to be able to do this work so that we don’t need the temporary powers that we brought in place.

[5:00 p.m.]

I also have highlighted that we were able to get the CMRA signed, which is historic in itself. It’s the largest red-tape reduction in Canada’s history. I think everyone should be proud of that, given how long it has taken to get any movement on this file.

I also acknowledge that we have a lot of work to do, but we can only move as fast as our slowest partner. If I had a choice, we would have had all these decisions made a long time ago. But every province is moving at a slightly different pace.

We are chairing the table, we are leading the table, and we are pushing at the table for an agreement on as many items as we can with as few exceptions as possible, without compromising safety for the public.

Gavin Dew: The minister has used that line a few times: “We can only move as fast as our slowest partner.”

Who is our slowest partner?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Well, we have many partners in the federal government. At this point, unfortunately, I won’t be naming the names of the provinces because it varies on topic to topic.

I can say that sometimes we hear provinces talk about being the most pro-business provinces. When it comes to discussions about trade, sometimes they’re not the most pro-business.

I think we have to find a way to move forward. I’m hoping that the direction the Premiers have given to all the ministers drives that desire to continue to make progress on this.

Gavin Dew: I’ve run to the end of my questions.

I want to thank the minister for a productive session. I thought we had good questions, good answers, good conversation that illuminated the issue for folks.

Again, thank you very much for a productive time. We are, definitely, broadly in support of the bill. There are some issues we had questions about. There are some changes we hope to make. But on the whole, this is certainly a bill that I feel we can support.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I just want to echo that sentiment.

I think if the public gets an opportunity to see the dialogue that happened on this bill between the members from Prince George and Kelowna, my colleague from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky and my friend from north Islands, they would be proud to see a thoughtful discussion with real issues that will have material benefits to the people of British Columbia.

I want to thank them for this and look forward to future bills.

Clause 15 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:02 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 1:29 p.m.

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Education and Child Care
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon. I call this Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Education and Child Care.

On Vote 20: ministry operations, $10,029,589,000 (continued).

[1:30 p.m.]

Lynne Block: I just want to give a brief overview of the fiscal landscape and then go into specific areas.

The increase in education funding is a positive step, and the additional investments in the K-to-12 system are very welcome. However, more money does not always equate to better outcomes.

Total operating expenditures rose by $1.13 billion, or 6.1 percent, in 2024-25, compared to the previous year, and the 2025-26 budget builds on that with a further $240 million increase. However, these gains must be viewed in context.

The K-to-12 sector is experiencing not only enrolment growth but also rising student complexity, with more learners requiring specialized supports, mental health services and individualized programming. At the same time, districts face ongoing challenges related to cost inflation — including negotiated wages, benefits and fuel — which continue to outpace baseline funding heading into ’26-27.

While the funding increases are meaningful, they do not fully keep pace with the real pressures facing schools, leaving districts stretched and struggling to meet the evolving needs of their students.

To quote one of the many emails I have received from across the province, the writer states:

“We are told again and again that B.C. is spending more than ever on public education — bigger budgets, more staff, new programs, new strategies, new language. If spending were the measure of success, we would be celebrating, but it isn’t. Outcomes are.

“Math scores are down. Reading scores are down. Provincewide assessment results show fewer students meeting basic proficiency standards in the very skills that underpin everything else we say we care about: literacy, numeracy, problem-solving. At the same time, standardized testing has essentially been hollowed out so that fewer uncomfortable comparisons can be made.

“The most striking part is not that results are falling. It’s that they’re falling during a period of sustained and rising spending, per-student funding, staffing levels, administrative layers. And yet, measurable learning outcomes have weakened.

“The idea that standardized testing itself is the problem has become especially convenient. Tests are dismissed as stressful, inequitable or outdated, as if the absence of measurement somehow produces learning. But what really makes testing uncomfortable is not the exam booklet. It’s the evidence. Evidence makes outcomes visible and limits the ability of governments to claim success on vibes alone.

“None of this insinuates that educators don’t work hard or don’t care. They are the heroes who work in increasingly complex classrooms, paying for resources out of pocket on online marketplaces, stressing the fact that they have had to navigate the complex realities of overly broad curriculums and overfilled classrooms.”

There is a lot more that has been conveyed to me, but suffice to say that this educator and parent concludes by saying: “Better results won’t come from bigger budgets alone. They will come from clarity of purpose, honesty about outcomes and a system that values learning over rhetoric.”

Just recently a meaningful commitment from the province resulted in a tentative agreement between the B.C. government, BCPSEA and the BCTF that was reached in early February 2026, following disputes over classroom conditions. While formal bargaining has concluded, the deal still requires ratification by BCTF members, March 2 to 4, so they’re still ongoing right now, and BCPSEA’s membership, March 6. Until those votes are completed, the current contract remains in effect and the agreement is not yet fully finalized.

How much of the new funding is earmarked for improved learning conditions in ’26-27, and, if so, what is included under the improved learning conditions?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: Questions around funding of collective agreements really go through the Ministry of Finance, but what I can tell the member is that, historically, what happens is that once a collective agreement is ratified, the Ministry of Education receives a special grant from Finance to cover the costs of the new collective agreement in this year’s budget.

[1:40 p.m.]

It’s too late to include it in this year’s budget. You have the documents in front of you.

A special grant is received, and then that is incorporated into future-year budgets. So next year’s budget would include whatever the lift is from the collective agreement.

The member asked about some of the investments going up in our budget, and whether it included the collective agreement, so I want to let the member know exactly where the increases in our budget are.

In Budget 2026, we have an additional $924 million in operating funds for the ministry over three years. That includes $415.1 million to fund public school enrolment. We have $330 million in funding for child care investments and fee reductions for birth to five in school-age child care wage enhancements and child care–provided operating funding.

We have $1.675 million in funding under the classroom enhancement fund, $46.2 million for independent schools to fund enrolment, $6.4 million to fund caseload pressures for First Nations reciprocal tuition, $4.5 million to fund future-ready K-to-12 career connections of dual credit, $30 million reduction due to the cancellation of the B.C. training and education savings grant and a $15.3 million reduction for administrative and discretionary spending due to the expenditure management.

That’s the breakdown of the budget for the member.

Lynne Block: Actually, that’s really interesting, because I’ve got those questions later on, so I’m going to refer back to them a little bit.

I’m just curious though. I’m assuming that this special grant is received, and you’re saying it’s incorporated in next year’s budget. So am I to understand that this education budget doesn’t include a dedicated contingency for settlement-related costs?

Hon. Lisa Beare: No, it’s not part of contingencies. As we said, it would be a special grant granted to the ministry once a deal is signed. There is no deal signed yet, so there’s no money assigned yet. That will come once a deal is signed.

Lynne Block: So there is a special grant that’s incorporated in next year’s budget. A special grant is received, and you said it’s going to be incorporated in next year’s budget. That’s what you said just now.

I’m just curious then. Was there not any special grant in this budget to cover the possible settlement-related costs that are coming?

Hon. Lisa Beare: Once again, Finance leads all this.

No, there’s nothing in this year’s budget because it’s not allocated yet. There is no agreement signed yet. Once the agreement is signed, allocation will come, which will be incorporated in future budgets, remembering budgets are on three-year cycles. So next year’s budget will incorporate new numbers once they’re known following a collective agreement.

Lynne Block: Interesting, though. I’m concerned to see where that money is coming from for this year.

Anyway, I’d like to talk about the per-pupil operating grant. The actual core per-student operating grant — please correct me if I’m wrong — in B.C. for ’25-26 is $9,015, which represents the basic provincial funding for a typical K-to-12 student before any supplements.

[1:45 p.m.]

In 2024-25, the base grant was $8,915, meaning the year-over-year increase was about $100 per student or roughly 1.1 percent, a modest rise that is well below typical inflation and the growing costs districts face.

Some government statements, however, claim that per-student funding has risen to over $13,600 since 2017. This figure is a bit misleading if interpreted as the core grant, because it is calculated by taking all K-to-12 funding components, including the basic grant plus supplements for Indigenous students, special needs, rural and remote districts, labour supplements, classroom enhancement and other allocations, and dividing that total by overall enrolment. The $13,600 represents a simple average across all students, not the actual foundational funding that every student receives.

Meanwhile, district expenditures, including salaries, benefits and inflationary pressures, are rising faster than the base operating grant. While the basic grant increased only 1.1 percent in ’25-26, districts may face overall cost growth of 4.4 to 6 percent, creating a funding gap that can put programs, staffing and supports at risk.

The real base funding per student is far lower, and there’s a clear gap between actual costs and the core operating grant, raising concerns about how the ’26-27 budget will address these inflationary pressures and prevent program reductions.

How does the ’26-27 per-pupil grant formula address the estimated 4- to 5-percent gap between core operating grant increases and actual inflationary pressures faced by districts?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: Thank you to the member for the question and for being a strong advocate for continued investment in public education.

We in our government absolutely believe in supporting the K-to-12 system and supporting our public education system. You’ve been able to see that since we formed government in 2017. One of the very first things we did was increase the operating grant to the K-to-12 system, as soon as we took office, by an additional $1 billion immediately, because that’s the kind of values we’ve had.

We’ve seen the increase in K-to-12 education funding year over year, and we’ve seen an increase again this year in light of the fiscal pressures that we’re all facing. The member knows we are facing a difficult fiscal situation here in the province, and the Premier and our government made it very clear that we were going to protect core services like public education, and we did. We continue to invest.

We are facing the same pressures as every other level of government all across the country, all across the globe. Every business, every non-profit, every family are all facing inflationary pressures. That is the reality we have. In light of that, we made sure that we continue to invest and not cut in public education, as others have called for. We want to make sure that we continue to do that investment.

For the member’s knowledge, a bit on the per-student amount. Approximately 74 percent of operating grant funding is based on enrolment per student. The remaining 26 percent is distributed through a series of supplements for students. We have special grants.

The interim total funding per student is $13,871 for the ’25-26 school year, which is 47 percent higher than the 2016-2017 average.

Lynne Block: Given negotiated wage settlements, slow enrolment growth — it’s projected to be 1,250 FTEs — rising fixed costs, aging infrastructure and increasing student support needs, why has the base per-pupil grant not been adjusted to reflect these cumulative pressures?

Hon. Lisa Beare: As I’ve said, we have continued to invest in our K-to-12 system. That is a core goal and a core priority for our government. We made really difficult choices in this budget all around. We chose to continue to invest in public education, as we have since we formed government in 2017, because we believe in supporting our students and supporting the K-to-12 system.

We know there are challenges in the system, absolutely, just like in every level of government all across Canada, all across the globe. We know there are challenges for non-profits, for businesses, for families. These are all challenges we’re facing, yet we continue to invest in public education and increase our funding, year over year.

Lynne Block: In April 2024, a letter was sent from the West Van school board to the then Minister of Education, the Hon. Rachna Singh, and the then Minister of Finance, the Hon. Katrine Conroy.

[1:55 p.m.]

It was to “bring to their attention the pressing need for an adjustment in the education funding model to better support districts with static enrolment.”

The letter goes on to say that “while the 2018 Funding Model Review Panel’s report made recommendations to address this issue, key recommendations aimed at improving the funding model have not yet been implemented.” That was 2024. “It is crucial that action is taken to rectify the inequity inherent in the growth model of funding to ensure that all districts, regardless of enrolment changes, receive adequate support to maintain financial sustainability and to continue to provide world-class education for their students.”

It was copied to numerous individuals, including Hon. Rachna Singh, Minister of Finance Hon. Katrine Conroy, councils, associations, deputy ministers, MLAs, as well as school boards 5, 22, 48, 60, 67, 72 and 79.

Question to the minister: have any of those key recommendations that were made in the 2018 Funding Model Review Panel been implemented? If so, which ones? If not, why not?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: Following the 2018 review, several improvements were made, especially in areas of financial management and accountability, and those were substantially completed by spring 2021 before the COVID pandemic hit the K-to-12 sector.

We improved equity through recognizing B.C.’s children and youth in care funding allocations, by the equity of opportunity supplement. We strengthened improved transparency and accountability through a modernized framework for enhancing student learning. We co-developed the financial management committee and the new financial planning and reporting accumulated operating surplus policies, and we supported more school districts with implementing new ministry policies.

The member has seen my mandate letter. Continued work on funding model review is not in my mandate letter. We are not contemplating a new funding review.

What we have done is continued to invest in education, year over year, to support students.

Lynne Block: I’m on staffing recruitment and retention now. Last year the BCTF estimated that over 20,000 teachers would struggle with mental health issues before the age of 40, and hundreds left the profession, citing stress, burnout and poor work-life balance. These challenges directly affected classroom stability, student outcomes and district budgets, particularly given the growing need for substitute coverage and recruitment spending. It is the wages of staff which are the major expenditure of every school district.

B.C. faces even more critical staffing shortages, even more than last year. BCTF surveys show 50 percent of teachers report higher workloads, while 14 percent are unlikely to continue teaching in two years. Teachers and staff cite increasing workloads, more stress and violence.

I understand this budget is high-level and cannot provide provincial data regarding teacher attrition rates; vacancies, whether full-time, TTOC or continuing; or sick leave usage. Neither can this budget specifically provide benchmarks or targets to use to evaluate whether provincial recruitment and retention investments reduce attrition.

Last year this ministry allocated $370 million over three years to support the K-to-12 education sector, to hire additional teachers — including special ed teachers, psychologists and counsellors — to support the growing number of students with special needs.

Can the minister please provide the number of additional teachers, including special education teachers, as well as the number of psychologists and counsellors, who were directly hired as a result of last year’s extra funding?

And, part B, how much of the original $370 million is left for the remaining two years?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: Can the member please just clarify the $370 million number, what specifically she’s referring to and where she got that number, so we can help determine the answer she’s looking for?

Lynne Block: My understanding is that last year the ministry allocated $370 million over three years to support the K-to-12 education sector to hire additional teachers, including special ed teachers, psychologists and counsellors, to support the growing number of students with special needs.

Hon. Lisa Beare: The $370 million was the overall lift for K to 12 last year, so it included a number of things. It wasn’t just additional workforce. There were other pieces in it.

For the increased amount of teachers, I’ve got some preliminary numbers. Following the estimates, we can go do the detailed math and give the member more. We can provide that in writing after.

[2:10 p.m.]

We have approximately 200 more teachers, 100 more counsellors, 25 more psychologists and 115 special ed teachers. As I said, I’ll get those….

Interjection.

Hon. Lisa Beare: It’s 115 special ed teachers. I’m happy to provide the member, in writing, a more detailed breakdown of that, following estimates.

Lynne Block: Thank you. That’s really helpful.

Is there any money left of that $370 million for the next two years? It was over three years. That was the one. And I note that this budget is providing an additional $634 million in new K-to-12 funding, again over the three years, to support hiring more teachers.

I’m just wondering how you’re going to allocate that money over the next three years. Is it simply following the same pattern as the $370 million, if there’s any left there? More teachers, more psychologists — or how?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: As in every year, last year’s budget was fully allocated to districts and distributed to districts, which manage the operations of their districts, including hiring and staffing.

This year’s budget. The member mentioned the 640 number. That includes $415 million to fund public school enrolment, $167.5 in funding under the classroom enhancement fund, $46.2 million for independent schools fund enrolment, $6.4 million to fund caseload pressures for First Nations reciprocal tuition and $4.5 million to fund future-ready, Career Connections and dual-credit.

Those funds get distributed to the district on their annual allocation basis and then they continue the operations and the hiring at the district level.

Lynne Block: I’m assuming that “over three years” means that it’s still over three years, correct?

Hon. Lisa Beare: Correct. The 640 currently allocated is over three years.

Next year’s budget will be a different number, rolling over three years, yes.

Lynne Block: Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate that.

Given the 76 percent increase in letters of permission since 2022-2023, how much of the $634 million allocation in ’26-27, if any, is specifically budgeted to reduce reliance on uncertified instructors? What is the total projected spending on LOPs and uncertified staff, if that can be addressed?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: As I said previously, we fund districts to hire at the local level. They go above and beyond to ensure that they’re getting certified teachers in classrooms, but sometimes that’s just simply not possible. We don’t fund letters of permission. We fund districts for hiring, and they make their hiring accordingly. But I do hear the intent behind the member’s question, so I want to outline some of the things that are happening in our system.

We know that jurisdictions across Canada and the world are experiencing challenges in hiring qualified teachers and support staff. We here in B.C. are not unique in the problem, which is why we are taking action. I think it’s important the member knows the good work that we are doing so the member is able to participate and share that information.

We’re working closely with our partners on implementing our workforce plan, which is supported by investments of $15.2 million over three years.

We’re investing to train more teachers and improve program accessibility through expanding access to the teacher education programs that are delivered partly online, allowing people to train in community without having to leave their community. We’ve heard that’s a significant problem for those who want to get certification but simply can’t pick up and leave their job, leave their families. So the more ability to do hybrid and do online and train those people in community, the better, because if you train in community, you stay in community, and you work in community.

We’ve been removing barriers by providing financial awards to support students in northern B.C. who want to become teachers. We’re encouraging that next generation of teachers by providing incentives.

We’re working in partnership with the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills and First Nations organizations supporting the creation of teacher education programs delivered in First Nation communities to increase the number of First Nations teachers, which is significant.

We have over 130 new teachers who have been recruited to rural and remote areas through hiring incentives over the past four years.

We have 60 student teachers receiving $8,000 awards to relocate to northern B.C. for their practicum, helping them experience the benefit of teaching in rural communities and, hopefully, staying in rural communities if they’ve done their practicum there. It’s really hard when you’re in a little K classroom, and you fall in love with all the kids. You want to stay there. This year we’ve implemented a return of service award providing up to $18,000 to student teachers who commit to teaching in a northern school for three years after graduation, really continuing to support those communities.

We’re funding the creation of a new teacher education program delivered partly online through Vancouver Island University starting August 2026, which is expected to enrol an additional 20 to 26 students. So new teaching programs coming as well.

This year we launched a provincial teacher mentorship program that includes specific supports for First Nations teachers and French-speaking teachers.

The member’s previous question talked about teacher burnout. We absolutely don’t want to see those years 1 to 5 teachers get burnt out. Having that mentorship there and available to support teachers as they’re launching into their career is absolutely vital. I was really excited to bring that back a year or two ago.

Through Post-Secondary, we’re also supporting the creation of three First Nations–led community-based teacher education programs expected to enrol 50 to 60 students, with graduates as early as 2028. So more programs.

This year alone we’re investing $3 million in recruitment and retention efforts with a focus on teachers for rural remote Indigenous areas. An additional $1.29 million over four years is being provided by the federal government to support the recruitment of French-speaking teachers in B.C.

So we are all hands on deck here in B.C., ensuring that we are training as many teachers as possible, encouraging teachers to stay in the profession. And ensuring that areas that have been more impacted by tougher…. It’s harder for them to hire in rural, remote, Indigenous, for example. We’re providing them as many supports as we can.

Lynne Block: Actually, you’ve answered my other three questions. And I appreciate that, because I’m talking about professional development and mentoring.

Seventy percent of new teachers quit within the first five years, and they cite two things. One is they’re not taught how to teach, and they’re not mentored or role-modelled, and that’s critical. So the professional development — excellent.

[2:25 p.m.]

Also, I’ve got quite a few previous students who are now teachers in this province, and I keep in touch with them. They are not in the Lower Mainland. They are out there and doing a fantastic job.

They do cite…. I’d just say that with one in seven teachers reporting that they may leave within two years, the funding, which you’ve outlined, to improve their working conditions, because they report less stress…. They want less workload, less violence and reduced burnout and what BCTF calls “violence of austerity.” So I’m really appreciative that you are doing that.

I would highly recommend that you highlight them more so that teachers really know that they’re out there — student teachers, whatever there is. Mind you, $8,000 is not enough. Just saying.

All right, so I’d like to talk, if it’s okay, about the classroom enhancement fund, because you’ve touched upon it. It was established in 2017 through a memorandum of agreement between the Minister of Education and Child Care, the B.C. Public School Employers Association and the BCTF. Its purpose was to support implementation of restored class size and composition language by enabling school districts to hire additional teachers and specialized staff and to cover related overhead costs.

While these allocations were discussed within the broader K-to-12 funding, the other ones, only $322.9 million represented direct CEF funding. Am I correct in that? I hope I am. The other amounts, which I won’t go over….

Can you tell me, please, Minister, more of a breakdown of how the $322.9 million allocated to the classroom enhancement fund for the ‘24-25 school year was spent? Was it hiring additional teachers, special education, psychologists, counsellors and other classroom supports, or was it given out to the districts for them to determine what they needed?

Hon. Lisa Beare: I would have to go verify the member’s previous number, but I can talk about this year’s number for the member because that would be helpful.

The member is right, in the second half of her question, that it is allocated to districts to meet the requirements of the restored collective agreement language. For the member’s knowledge, I’ll explain this year’s number for her, so that would probably be helpful.

The CEF fund has three components. It has staffing for classroom and specialist teachers. It has overhead for the ancillary costs of employing these teachers, including support staff dictated by the collective agreement language. And it has remedies where school districts are unable to implement the restored language despite best efforts.

The funding is based on actual hiring and cost as reported to the Ministry of Education and Child Care, based on actual hiring as of September 29 of the school year and actual remedy costs for October.

For the ’25-26 school year, CEF allocation totals $854.9 million, which supports 6,073 teacher FTEs at a cost of $763.2 million. It’s 3,641 enrolling teacher FTEs, 2,432 non-enrolling, so specialist teacher FTEs, $46.8 million of overhead costs and an estimated $44.9 million for remedies based on actual remedies incurred in October 2025. So that should be helpful for the member.

[2:30 p.m.]

Lynne Block: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that.

One of the other questions I had is regarding the remedies and step, increment, pressures, etc. Just curious. Do you keep track of exactly how many people in the new budget? Regarding staffing, new staffing, rather than remedies or people who are TTOCing, is it actually new staff?

Hon. Lisa Beare: Yes, we do track, because it’s based on the reporting numbers that I read out earlier on those reporting dates.

Lynne Block: I appreciate that. I like numbers and statistics and data. Then you can make a bit better decisions. So I appreciate that. I’ll have a look afterwards. It will come up next year, I’m sure.

I’d like to go to the Indigenous education. You touched upon it just a little bit earlier. For 2025-26, the Indigenous education targeted supplement under the B.C. operating grant formula is approximately $2,000 to $2,300 per eligible Indigenous student — Status as well as self-identified First Nations, Métis and Inuit students — depending on final annual grant tables issued by the ministry.

So you provide it to school districts to support Indigenous support workers, cultural programming, academic supports, community liaison and graduation and transition initiatives. It’s not a top-up. I understand that.

The 2026-27 provincial budget includes $634 million over three years for K-to-12 education overall, but there’s no separate line item for Indigenous-specific racism funding. The documents I look at emphasize continued work on Indigenous curriculum implementation and recruitment strategies but do not disclose discrete dedicated line items for those activities.

My question is: what specific funding amounts in the 2026-27 B.C. provincial budget support Indigenous education priorities in K-to-12 schools, including implementation of the Indigenous-focused graduation requirement?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: Yes, per-pupil funding does flow through for the ’25-26 school year.

Indigenous education targeted funding provides $115 million to directly support Indigenous students in academic and cultural programs. That money does go to districts. They work with their Indigenous education councils, which receive an additional $6.3 million in funding to do things like support language programming, provide support workers, work on graduation rates, graduation coaching, all that sort of targeted work that’s being done at the local level.

Lynne Block: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that.

You mentioned briefly, and I missed it…. What funding is specific, or is it going straight to the districts? What funding is explicitly allocated for recruitment and retention of Indigenous educators? You mentioned it earlier, but I missed the number, so thank you.

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: For this school year, $950,000 for training, recruitment and retention for Indigenous education workers.

Lynne Block: Thank you.

My apologies. “You.” I keep saying that. Fiddlesticks.

Anyway, I’d like to go to….

Interjection.

Lynne Block: Fiddlesticks. That was my go-to when I was teaching. Kids loved it, and they were all using it instead of swear words, so they knew it was from me.

Education assistants. In estimates last year, I brought up this government’s 2024 election commitment to have an EA in every K-to-3 classroom. I asked: “Of the $370 million allocated to support K-to-12 education, could you please specify the amount earmarked for the commitment of an EA in every K-to-3 classroom, and could you please provide a projected timeline for full implementation across the province?”

In the December 2025 Votes and Proceedings, the ministry graciously supplied an answer, stating that “80 percent of K-to-3 classes throughout B.C. currently have EA support. We’re closely working with B.C.’s education partners to explore ways to support hiring more EAs.”

However, the fact is that, according to the BCTF, approximately 79.7 percent of K-to-3 teachers report having no assigned or designated EA.

Is it my understanding that we still are missing 20 percent of K-to-3 classrooms without a dedicated EA? And what amount or what percentage of the money allocated last year to support K-to-12 classrooms went to increasing the number of EAs?

If you have that data, I’d love it.

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: The coverage rate continues to be about 80 percent, as the member did reference. Districts continue to make decisions around hiring at the local level. But we are supporting…. You know, this is a complex piece of work. We do continue to allocate a total of $25 million annually to school districts as part of the learning improvement fund to support additional resources for students, and many of these districts are using these increases to support education assistants. We know that’s not enough, and we know there are inconsistencies.

We’re providing greater support in consistency in training programs for education assistants. The ministry released, in fall 2025, an EA competency framework to serve as a guide and common point of reference for post-secondary institutions, employers and EAs to support the workforce getting into their jobs and knowing their jobs. As well, several institutions — such as Douglas College, Northern Lights College and Camosun College — are expanding, through additional intakes, flexibility for delivery and increased cohort sizes.

So again, we’re addressing this on all levels — recruitment, retention and training. This is a complex piece of work, but I am confident in the work we’re doing and that we’re going to continue to move ahead towards our mandate goals.

Lynne Block: I agree that that work is continued. Great. The pipelines, though, are getting to be broken because of what’s happening with the international students. We heard from quite a few of the colleges that do train EAs as one of the things, and because they’re not getting the numbers, a lot of them are closing. So we’re going to be really in trouble with that. I just want to pass that on. It’s kind of like a domino effect.

What I’m going to be doing next year is saying: “Okay, it’s 79-point-whatever this year. I expect it to be higher next year.” All right? I do. Remember, I like statistics.

[2:50 p.m.]

We’re on to feeding futures. The B.C. government created feeding futures as a provincial school food program to help ensure students have access to nutritious meals at school. That was part of the 2023 provincial budget. B.C. committed $214 million over three years for feeding futures.

You went to all the 60 public school districts to create or expand school food programs, with annual allocations of approximately $71.5 million for operational food programming and an additional $5 million through the food infrastructure program for facilities and equipment.

In the 2025-26 school year specifically, districts are allocated $71.5 million in feeding futures funding plus $5 million through the food infrastructure program.

Is this the last year of the initial three-year funding of $214 million over three years for feeding futures? If so, does this present budget ensure the continuation of this program on from this year?

Hon. Lisa Beare: Thank you to the member for the question.

The feeding futures program is an amazing program. I know the member has probably toured some local schools in her district, and I can attest, in my touring across the province, to how amazing these programs are. So many schools either have accessible breakfast, lunch and snacks or a combination thereof throughout the day for our students.

I’ve been to a number of the breakfast programs or the lunch programs, and I love what it is doing for our kids. We know that you can’t learn if you’re hungry and if you don’t feel loved. So by so many schools turning this into an inclusive program….

It’s open to everyone. So many schools are using it as a breakfast club — “Come in. Have fun, play and have a breakfast” — or a lunch club —“Come in. Participate” — removing the barriers for kids.

It is changing lives and making a real difference in these students’ lives every single day. And yes, it is in base budget and it is ongoing.

Lynne Block: I’m delighted to hear that.

Just a thought, planting a seed, considering the huge increase in families using food banks…. According to sources, one in four British Columbians now avail themselves of food banks. Perhaps this minister could consider the growing need for the expansion of the feeding futures program.

I’m hoping that the ministry does keep a tabulation of what’s happening in certain districts. They may need more money or less money in certain areas. I’m just saying: please keep it up. Please monitor it, because it really is oftentimes a life-saving breakfast or lunch that gets the kid to school, even. So yes, please.

I’m going to go to literacy screening and outcomes, my favourite. I wanted to just talk that….

Literacy screening. All right, am I correct in assuming that the literacy screening, which is designed for K-to-3 students, is the Acadience one? If not, which screening model is being used besides this one, or is there a different one for kindergarteners? I know that you are going to be putting the Acadience one…. It’s going to be formalized for next year.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: I want to begin with the member. I know this is a passion area for her, as it is for me. We both agree that reading is a fundamental skill that students need to develop and that everything we can do to help set our kids up for success as part of their educational journey is invaluable.

[3:00 p.m.]

That is why we made the choice this year to ensure that every single kindergarten student was screened for literacy, to help determine where the gaps are and support them on developing their skills. For this year, districts are using a range of screening tools, including the Acadience tool.

Moving forward, we’re working with school districts, literacy experts, researchers and education partners on a provincial approach to implement it across K-to-3 students through a single B.C.-made screening tool for all schools, beginning in the ’27-28 year.

Not only are we doing the training. We’re also focused on providing professional learning supports for teachers behind that as well, to make sure that we’re including the training that teachers need to implement screening in their classrooms so that they can support literacy issues and instruction and intervention.

Having that mandatory screening, combined with evidence-based interventions and developing that made-in-B.C. approach, is one of the ways that we’re working in the K-to-12 system to make sure that we are setting kids up for success and providing that meaningful progress on literacy outcomes, which we know are so important.

Lynne Block: Thank you, Minister.

Through the Chair, I’m delighted to hear that. I know all about it, but I’ve got some thoughts.

The Acadience, for those who don’t know, will be mandatory for K to 3 next year. It is a standardized early literacy assessment tool designed to measure foundational reading skills such as phonemic awareness, letter sound knowledge, decoding and oral reading fluency. It is intended to be administered one-on-one with students; conducted multiple times per year, benchmarking and progress monitoring; used to collect data on student literacy development; and intended to inform instruction and identify students at risk.

I have heard from many primary teachers about the early intervention and literacy screening. I put all their comments into one sort of feedback. “I’ve been thinking about the Acadience assessment and what is missing in its rollout. We’ve been told that the government is mandating Acadience for all K-to-3 teachers next year.”

The Chair: Member.

Lynne Block: Yes.

The Chair: I’m just going to get the minister to clarify something.

Hon. Lisa Beare: Thank you, Member.

It might be helpful for the member. Acadience is not the mandatory tool. It’s one of a number of tools being used this year. Districts have the choice to use the tools they were using in their districts as we build the B.C.-wide tool.

So Acadience is not the mandatory tool, moving forward. There will be no mandatory off-the-shelf tool. We’re developing the made-in-B.C. tool, in partnership with everyone that I listed earlier, to support our learners. There isn’t a specific tool that the member has concerns about being mandatory.

Lynne Block: My understanding is that some districts, though, are mandating it from K to 3. That’s what I was told by the teachers.

No? So you’re saying that there are different literacy assessments throughout the province, depending on what…? But each district will have at least one literacy screening assessment, correct?

Hon. Lisa Beare: What we have done is mandated the need to screen, so districts must screen.

[3:05 p.m.]

There was a list of approved tools that districts could use. Districts are using a range of tools across the province currently. So if a district is currently using Acadience, that may be the one they’re using to screen for this year as we proceed with the made-in-B.C. tool, which will be the tool for all districts and all screening, moving forward.

So districts are currently using a range of tools off a list of approved tools, and each district, you know…. If the member’s talking to a district that’s using Acadience for now, that is very possible.

The important thing is that they are screening, and the important thing is that, moving forward, there will be a made-in-B.C. tool developed in partnership with academics, the TF, superintendents, education partners to ensure that we’re supporting B.C. students.

We’re not mandating a specific tool until we have the made-in-B.C. tool. We are mandating screening, which is the most important part.

Lynne Block: Yippee. But respectfully, I’m looking forward to the one made in B.C., because when you have different results, different assessments, what’s working in one district or the levels in one district may be totally skewed in another district.

So one of the things I would like to know is when that would be for everybody.

The other thing is…. There’s a whole bunch of issues with the Acadience ones and, I’m sure, other ones — to find the time one-on-one and learning support teachers to help out. Everyone’s so busy. So it would be really wonderful if, indeed, they didn’t have to have additional time or staffing for themselves to do that and that the expectations are realistic to whether it’s one-on-one — obviously, these are during instructional time — because in a primary class, that’s not happening. Heavy administrative burden, so they need very clear communication and mandates.

Respectfully, there are many primary teachers who have never been taught how to teach literacy or phonics, believe it or not. They don’t…. Myself, who was a literacy specialist in high school and then elementary and then back in high school, in professional development…. I took the Orton-Gillingham on my own, simply because I knew that I didn’t know enough how to teach it. And I would really, respectfully….

You said you’re going to help train teachers. Fantastic. That professional development is key, because otherwise, you won’t have consistent, relevant, accurate results. They will be skewed because depending on the level of the teacher administering the test….

I’m thrilled, though, that you will be doing that. I’m looking forward to hearing when that’s going to be a rollout and how you will be compiling the results, because that would be so helpful to all the teachers. And I’m sure that once those students have been identified that do need the support, they will get it, and that there will be EAs for them in the classroom, as well as more learning support teachers who do know phonics and reading literacy.

So yippee. You’ve made me very happy today with that.

Hon. Lisa Beare: Do you want me to answer the question then?

Lynne Block: Sure.

The Chair: Recognizing the minister.

Hon. Lisa Beare: Oh. I’m sorry, Chair.

The Chair: That’s okay. Both of you are very passionate about this.

Hon. Lisa Beare: Yes. You know, it’s a good area to be passionate about. But thank you, Chair. I haven’t yet interrupted you. I apologize.

And yes, thank you to the member for being so focused on this. It’s so important.

Yes, I can confirm to the member that professional learning supports for teachers — including the training they need to implement and screen in their classrooms and support that literacy instruction and intervention — is available, and we have funded that. This will roll out in the ’27-28 year for all districts — the one tool that the member was asking about — and we’re looking at ways to make it as streamlined and as easy for educators as possible, so that it’s quick and integrated.

[3:10 p.m.]

Lynne Block: Consistent, comprehensive, districtwide. I love it — and that the professional development goes along with it, because that is absolutely key. Otherwise, there’s no point.

I would like to move on to proficiency scale versus letter grades, please. We shifted in the 2016-17 start, 2018-19 start in certain districts. That pilot work — there were three flaws with the process. Okay?

One, it was limited and uneven participation. Early pilots involved a relatively small number of districts and schools, meaning the experiences of these participants may not have represented the diversity of contexts across the entire province — e.g., urban versus rural, large versus small districts, etc. This makes generalizing results to all students problematic.

Secondly, insufficient authentic comparable data. Because the pilot spanned multiple years, with different districts joining at different times and using a variety of local approaches, there was no standardized provincewide data set collected on outcomes such as parent understanding, student achievement changes or impacts on learning equity. Without those consistent metrics, it is difficult to evaluate effectiveness objectively.

And third, lack of clear reporting and evaluation transparency. Publicly accessible disaggregated data about the pilot — including how many students were involved, how outcomes were measured and what feedback was gathered from parents, students and teachers — has been limited. This makes it hard for any stakeholders, parents, teachers, etc., to assess whether the pilot met its goals before full implementation.

Those were some of the concerns with the pilot project. I always look for the flaws when I do research data.

Noting these concerns, moving forward, and that parents are still struggling with the proficiency scales…. I know of quite a few instances where teachers were told not to use the term “emerging” because it would look bad on the teacher and/or the school, even though it was the most accurate term that should have been used.

Has the ministry done any follow-up, analyzed or collected any feedback, on whether teachers feel adequately supported and trained to implement the proficiency scale objectively and consistently? And if gaps exist, what steps are being taken to address them?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: The member is right. Updates to student report cards were introduced in July 2023. The changes came from years of engagement and piloting the new report cards by school districts.

So the report card changes required a shift for teachers, families and students. The new cards no longer use the letter grades from 4 to 9. They use the proficiency scale that the member referenced. That explains the process for students from K to 9.

Letter grades and percentages are still in place for grades 10 to 12. Graduation status updates were also added to help keep families informed that their child’s progressed towards graduation and help keep students on track to graduate.

We have heard from many schools and district leaders that they put a lot of work into implementing the new report cards and to ensuring that they’re keeping families up to date on the changes. You know, big changes like this aren’t things that settle overnight, but we are hearing out in community and from districts that it’s going well.

This is a continuous process for improvement, and we continue to work with the TF and our superintendents to assess consistency and quality and address any gaps if they are raised, and we address those in real time. So we continue to work with the system as it continues to settle through the rollout.

Lynne Block: It’s interesting, because you’re hearing from a certain group that it’s great. I’m hearing from teachers and parents that it’s not so great. So I guess we’ll get them together one day.

We have a huge decline in literacy, as well noted, and we’ve just come out with the C.D. Howe Institute. We have a significant decline in mathematical proficiency among students in B.C., with performance dropping the equivalent of two school years since 2003. And they say the core issues are: vague curricular outcomes, de-emphasis on foundational skills, shift to exploratory math, technology in the classroom, lack of standardized evaluation, curricular flexibility.

What has that resulted in? Steep performance decline. In some countries, students in elementary school are doing calculus. Some of our students don’t even know times tables right now. The decline in B.C. has seen a 42-point decline in math scores — 42 points since 2003 — and this drop is significant enough to be equated to the loss of approximately two years of schooling.

The share of students performing at the lowest levels has doubled, while the number of students performing at the highest levels has been cut in half. Because students lack a strong foundation in basic math and knowledge of various techniques, they are struggling with international assessments such as PISA. They’re coming out in the fall. They’ve been going down. Our scores have been going down — that require advanced problem-solving abilities. Our students are not being prepared.

[3:20 p.m.]

So my question, before we take a break…. I’ll talk fast. We’ve got declining FSA results. We’ve got declining PISA results. Would you consider reintroducing grades 4 to 9 — along with the proficiency — letter grades so that parents and students have a choice as to whether or not they look at the letter grades, look at the proficiency scales or look at both?

Hon. Lisa Beare: Thank you to the member for the question. I’ll be brief on this because I know the member will probably come back with some further questions on it. Absolutely, I share the member’s concerns whenever we see declining scores. That is not what we want to see, and I’m sure we’ll talk more about that after the break.

You know, for the member’s question, I don’t see a correlation between the letter grades and the scores. We would rather focus on the reasons behind declining numbers and address those, which is what we are doing. We can talk about those after, than having multiple systems in place.

The member was concerned about workload for teachers before. The additional workload of having two systems and two gradings in place versus the one is significant, so we’re doing the change management right now. We can come back and continue to talk about literacy and numeracy, I’m sure, when we get back, but I share the member’s concerns, and we’re continuing to address those.

Chair, I would like to request a recess.

The Chair: I am going to entertain one more question.

Steve Kooner: I represent Richmond-Queensborough, and I was here in the estimates debate last year. I asked a question about a school bus service, the Queensborough school bus service, which transports students from Queensborough to New Westminster Secondary School, so to and from New Westminster Secondary School. The minister told me last year that the government was working on a lasting solution, talking to TransLink and the New Westminster school district, and there was a campaign promise by this NDP provincial government that the Queensborough school bus service would be made permanent and for free.

The parents in Queensborough are really worried. They held a rally recently. The school bus service is to end as of June 2026, which is just a few months from now. The community has been waiting since the last estimates debate, whether there’s going to be further funding.

My question to the minister is: is the minister willing to write a letter to the New Westminster school district confirming that the provincial government will in fact be funding continued service of the Queensborough school bus service, in this month?

Hon. Lisa Beare: Thank you to the member for the question. This is an ongoing conversation with the school district in New West.

I want families to know that nothing is changing right now. Their service that they rely on for this year is going to continue as we continue to work on a permanent solution together. Nothing is changing for the students right now.

With that, I would like to request a ten-minute recess.

The Chair: Okay. This committee will be in recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:25 p.m. to 3:36 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section C, back to order.

We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Education and Child Care. I now recognize…. Who’s speaking?

Interjection.

The Chair: Oh, “critic,” says the minister.

Okay, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.

Lynne Block: Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister….

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: After that lovely interruption, Member, please, go ahead.

Lynne Block: Thank you, Chair.

More literacy — Learning Pathways. The B.C. Learning Pathways is a resource for a structured literacy framework designed to provide a clear scope and sequence for reading instruction, align teaching practices with evidence-based literacy research and ensure greater consistency across classrooms and districts. It is intended to be implemented by embedding it into daily literacy instruction, by guiding teachers on the order and progression of skills and by supporting systematic phonics and foundational literacy instruction and is intending to improve long-term reading outcomes provincewide.

I believe the B.C. Learning Pathways initiative has its strengths. It provides a clear scope and sequence, which can offer helpful structure for instruction, particularly with new teachers. However, there are still questions about communication and implementation.

The feedback from many sources is that it is not entirely clear how consistently expectations have been communicated across schools or what accountability measures accompany it. Specifically, some of the implementation questions that have arisen are on the need for clarity and consistency of communication; the level of professional development, again, that is needed and provided; and the alignment between curriculum expectations, reporting requirements and classroom realities.

In short, while the B.C. Learning Pathways provides helpful instructional structure, it also raises concerns about workload, practicalities, support and purpose. The expectations do not fully account for the realities of day-to-day teaching.

Two questions, actually. Where did the moneys come from to fund the development of this Learning Pathways initiative? How much money is earmarked for professional development and training for those teachers and support staff who’ve never been taught phonics and foundational literacy instruction?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: Learning Pathways is a teaching tool that teachers can use to deliver what’s already part of curriculum. It’s not a new expectation, as the member knows. It helps them understand what proficiency looks like. And we invest $15.8 million for professional development for learning.

Lynne Block: What public metrics will demonstrate the impact of Pathways on either literacy or numeracy?

Hon. Lisa Beare: Learning Pathways doesn’t deliver specific metrics. It’s a tool for teachers. What we continue to use are the ongoing metrics from our FSAs and our graduating literacy assessments, for example. Those are the metrics we use.

Lynne Block: So basically, we are relying on the FSAs or other accounting ways of finding out whether their literacy is improving or whatever. We don’t have benchmarks?

I guess what I’d love to know is how we are doing each grade level. This, to me, was more like a scope and sequence, which, I think, is absolutely valuable — what should be taught in what grade and what isn’t being taught in what grade.

How do we know they’re improving unless it’s just on FSAs or PISA or whatever? I would love to see a way we can really evaluate — pre, during and post — improvements or where it’s needed. You’re saying that that’s not going to happen, or it cannot happen unless it’s through FSAs or something like that.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: There’s a lot of assessment that happens in the education system, and I know the member will be aware of this.

Again, Pathways is a tool. It’s a tool for teachers. It’s not a measuring tool itself. It is a tool for teachers to use when teaching, to assess proficiency.

But we have the FSAs in grades 4 to 7. We have the very important screening that we were talking about in K to 3, for literacy, in addition to the international assessments as well. We have FESL, the framework for enhancing student learning, as the member is aware of, at the local level, which requires boards to report on literacy outcomes. Most importantly, at the classroom level, we have the reporting out to parents and students — which is that before, middle and after — in the school year.

So there’s a series of reporting and assessing that happens for kids all throughout their K-to-12 journey.

Lynne Block: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate what you said. I wish it was more like that, but in reality, it’s not as robust. I will leave it at that.

I’m looking at student and teacher support services. I don’t know what the provincial ratio is of direct-to-student staff, teachers and EAs versus administrative staff, but that’s not what I’m focused on right now.

Despite supplemental funding that reached $1.01 billion in ’25-26 for inclusive education, the counsellor-to-student ratio in B.C. remains — please correct me if I’m wrong — one counsellor to 693 students, while the average counsellor-to-student ratio in North America is 1 to 250. This government promised in the 2024 election that they would provide a counsellor or a psychologist in every school in B.C.

How many schools in B.C. have a full-time counsellor and/or psychologist, and how many do not?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: I don’t have a per-school breakdown here that I can give the member, but what I can tell the member, which will be useful, is that there’s currently…. As of September 2025 in B.C. public schools, there are approximately 1,100 school counsellors available in public schools, which is 100 more than the previous year.

For the member’s knowledge, I’m sure she’s been following…. The teachers’ collective agreement that has been tentatively reached between the TF and the K-to-12 employers association will provide additional supports to classrooms, including an increase in the number of counsellors, but that is not ratified, obviously, until after tomorrow. So I won’t be able to give any specifics on that, but tentatively, in the agreement, there’s an increase of counsellors as well, in addition to the 100 that are new that are currently in the system.

The Chair: Members of the committee are reminded that when the minister or the member is speaking, please don’t…. If other people could refrain from speaking during that time, it would be appreciated. Thank you so very much.

Lynne Block: Thank you for that. I’m hoping that in the very near future we will have 100 percent coverage. I really do, because it’s important.

One of the questions, a very difficult one: what outcome metrics — either wait times, referrals, attendance, crisis incidents — are used to evaluate effectiveness? The tragedy at Tumbler Ridge was a brutal metric, one that I pray will never happen again. But do you have any metrics that you can use to measure the efficacy of the counsellors in the schools or what’s happening?

I’m going into the ERASE program next, and that’s one of the reasons why I’m prefacing it.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: I want to particularly thank the member for this question, because we know that the mental well-being and safety of our students and our staff is ultimately our highest priority. Every single student in B.C. deserves to feel safe in their environment, have an education environment that helps them learn and thrive and grow.

I want to approach this on a number of levels, because obviously, school districts are the employer, so it’s up to districts to measure their staff efficacy at that level. But we do measure student mental health and well-being, which I’ll get into.

Students learn, throughout their K-to-12 journey and at an age-appropriate level, using evidence-based lessons, about mental health and about substance use, a number of things, through their entire K-to-12 journey, including mandatory physical health and education classes in the K-to-12 curriculum.

[4:00 p.m.]

Additionally, the ministry allocates more than $3 million annually to mental health in school grants. These grants are distributed to all 60 school districts and to the Federation of Independent Schools to support mental health and substance use initiatives.

In partnership with the ministries of Health and Children and Family Development, we also continue to support 39 integrated child and youth teams across 20 school districts and communities. These teams provide children and youth with multidisciplinary, wraparound mental health and substance use care in schools and in the community.

Now, measuring mental health. Student mental health and well-being, which declined during the COVID-19 pandemic, has steadily improved to pre-pandemic levels. In our student learning survey in ’24-25 and our middle years development — the MDI, as the member knows — in ’24-25, one in three students in grades 4 to 8 are thriving in B.C. in the MDI. In ’24-25, the proportion of students in grades 4 to 7 and grades 8 to 12 reporting good to excellent mental health remained stable at 56 percent, with no change from the prior year, which is good.

We have a number of other things that I’m sure we can talk about. I’ll stop here because I know the member has more questions. But it’s truly my number one priority. I have always said that student safety and well-being is my number one priority as a minister. So I thank the member for the question.

We know student connectedness is a protective factor for kids, and that is second only to family connection, which is why, under our mental health in schools strategy, we focus on both students and adult mental health and wellness, and we’ll continue to do that.

Lynne Block: I’m very well aware of those assessments. The 56 percent, though, hasn’t budged. We need to improve that. And I say “we.” We need to improve that.

It’s not enough to feel safe; it’s to be safe. That is something that is vital for all students and teachers. I can speak from experience. I’ve been involved in lockdowns. They’re terrifying, because I’m responsible for those kids in my classroom. Blinds are drawn. Dark — lights out. You can’t say a word. We’ve got desks and chairs and tables piled against the doors. So I know what it’s like, and what goes through you and never leaves you is the sense of responsibility that you have for those children.

The little ones are better than the teenagers, because the teenagers know. The little ones think it’s a game. So thank you.

So ERASE. For those who don’t know what it is — expect respect and a safe education. It is a provincial strategy in B.C. focused on creating safe, caring and inclusive schools addressing bullying, harassment, discrimination, violence and other harmful behaviours.

I’m going to give you an example, Minister, because I think this is really important. A parent of a primary school child submitted two ERASE safety complaints in December 2025 but received no acknowledgement, no case number and no independent follow-up, with the reports apparently routed back to the same school administration involved in the concern.

The parent’s core issue is the lack of transparency, independent oversight and clear escalation mechanisms within the ERASE reporting process. As a follow-up to this parent’s concerns and several others, they identified several problems with the ERASE program.

ERASE lacks transparent oversight, independent review mechanisms and publicly reported data on follow-up, outcome, staffing or costs, as it operates without a dedicated budget line or external accountability framework. Reports appear to be routed back to districts without guaranteed independent triage, and there’s no publicly available provincial reporting on response timelines, case tracking or even effectiveness. Great goals but no structured follow-up.

Given that ERASE has no dedicated budget line in the 2026-27 Education estimates, what specific funding within the ministry’s operating budget supports independent triage, case tracking and provincial oversight of ERASE reports?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: So the Report It tool, specifically. That Report It tool has a budget of $102,000 annually.

The member knows the tool is anonymous, so when a report is done, it goes to the safe school coordinator in the district — from the person reporting it directly to the safe school coordinator in the district.

For privacy reasons, the report does not come to the ministry, obviously, and I know that the member understands that, although we do get an alert if there has not been a follow-up to the report done at the local level. We can follow up then on making sure that that follow-up has occurred. So if the report isn’t actioned, we get that alert.

If this hasn’t happened in a particular district…. I know the member has written a letter sounding very similar concerns to us directly. We’re actually working on a really comprehensive response for the member on that.

[4:10 p.m.]

I’m happy to continue work with the member offline in following the comprehensive response that’s going to go to the member. And if the member ever wants to provide us with the district where these concerns are, we’re always happy to do follow-up. But again, it’s anonymous. It goes to the safe school coordinator in the district who is supposed to action it. I’m happy to have follow-up with the member if she has concerns, offline.

Lynne Block: Thank you, Minister. So $102,000 per year isn’t a lot of money. I find that really interesting.

I’m just wondering. Is there any more money that can be put into that from the $634 million in new K-to-12 funding? Because it is regarding student safety and counselling and safe school coordination.

Is there a way to…? You just said that it goes to a particular person. Is there any way that you collect that data of how many it is around the province?

I’ll tell you why. If a particular issue keeps rearing its head in one particular district or two particular districts, then perhaps those districts need extra counselling, extra support, extra mentoring — whatever is needed. I’m just saying that we don’t know where the issues are or how we can help resolve those if we don’t quite know the data. I guess that’s what I’m asking.

Hon. Lisa Beare: The $102,000 that I mentioned was simply for the Report It tool itself. ERASE is funded at just over $1 million. We have $5 million in mental health funding that goes into schools — as well as all the other work we do with ICY teams, those sorts of things. We do collect aggregate-level data on the Report It, and we do analyze the trends.

In ’24-25, the ERASE tool was used to submit 1,972 reports. Public schools submitted 1,659 reports. Independent schools submitted 313.

The highest number of…. Report categories were broken down: bullying/cyberbullying, 573; school community concerns, 355; negative digital climate culture, 163; hate and racism or radicalization, 160; physical violence, 156.

What we do then is we adjust our training across the province through the ERASE program, in light of the aggregate trends that we’re seeing. So our training is adjusted to meet the needs of those report levels.

[4:15 p.m.]

Lynne Block: Training. You mean specific schools or school districts get more counsellors or more professional development? How does that work? Do you have a flying team, for instance, that goes to a particular school district?

Let’s say, out of the thousand…. For one of the incidents, one of the reports, that is mainly in a certain area or certain three school districts, do you have…. When you say training, what does that involve?

Hon. Lisa Beare: The Report It tool is not the only way that we’re keeping track of what’s happening in districts. Obviously, we have a number of ways of doing that to make sure that we’re keeping the pulse on what’s happening in districts and our regular work with the superintendents and our K-to-12 partners.

[4:20 p.m.]

I do think it’s positive to see that the tool is being used. This means that students are feeling comfortable and using the tool. They are reporting it. We are able to adjust accordingly through that knowledge and through that data, which I think is fantastic, that kids are doing that.

Every district has a safe school coordinator and a team, and that’s who we train. But we don’t only just train them. We train child and youth mental health workers as well as police and community partners through our ERASE training.

During the ’24-25 school year, training was delivered to 19,000 people, including over 800 educators and community partners, 16,500 students and 1,750 families.

We delivered a number of sessions in ’24-25 for educators and community partners. We added community of practice sessions, digital threat assessment, basic threat and risk assessment, advanced threat and risk assessment, trauma-informed safe and caring school communities and “Foundations of School Safety.”

We did “Establishing Safe, Caring and Respectful Digital Communities” for students, “Establishing Respectful Relationships and Consent.” For families, we did “Establishing Safe, Caring and Respectful Digital Communities.”

We have two new training sessions in ’25-26 that have been added.

For educators, we have “Critical Incident Response Management,” which is a full day, in-person course designed to help schools and districts navigate critical incidents with intentional care and consistent practices.

For families, we have “Establishing Family Practices for Safeguarding Against Cyberbullying and Sextortion.”

I think it’s really important that we say…. When we have these more critical incidents or concerns in a district, we are able to provide these targeted supports for those needs or those critical incidents. And we have school safety subject experts to provide what can be 24-7 targeted supports when needed in districts.

It’s all-encompassing. We train people in the school district and the safe school coordinators, their teams. We train families. We train students. We train community partners, mental health workers, police. We have subject-matter experts who can come into a district when we have a critical incident or a really targeted need for support. There’s a lot of work we’re doing, and we continue to learn from every incident and adapt.

Lynne Block: Thank you, Minister. I love that. Just a suggestion. I believe it would be helpful to educators to have that training available to them at least once a year. Just passing it on.

I’d like to go to the rural adjustment fund, please.

Your area of expertise, right?

British Columbia’s K-to-12 education funding does not include a stand-alone rural adjustment fund, as I understand it. Rural and geographic cost factors are embedded within the broader operating grant formula, which totals approximately $7.25 billion for ’25-26 under the government of B.C., while the budget provides $14.6 million over three years, just under $5 million annually, to support rural and remote teacher recruitment and Indigenous educator retention.

Please correct me if I’m wrong. There doesn’t seem to be a clearly itemized allocation identifying how much of the operating grant is specifically dedicated to offsetting higher transportation, heating, maintenance, fuel and low enrolment costs in northern and rural districts. And I don’t think there’s a distinct operating envelope to address broader climate-driven and infrastructure pressures unique to those regions, but please correct me if I’m wrong.

Of the $7.25 billion operating grant for 2025-26, what specific dollar amount is calculated to offset rural and northern cost pressures such as transportation, heating and low enrolment? And what methodology is used to ensure those allocations keep pace with inflation and rising fuel costs?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: The member referenced, and she knows that there are, geographical calculations that go into the operating funding — rural versus urban, north — and that represents about 7 percent of the funding.

Lynne Block: Does the $634 million in new education funding include dedicated support for expanding satellite or remote teacher training programs? You did allude to those earlier, so I’d love for you to explain a little bit more, because that was then, and this is now. Or must those initiatives be funded from the existing $14.6 million recruitment and retention allocation?

Hon. Lisa Beare: I won’t repeat a lot of what I said, just in the interest of time, for the member, because we did talk about remote teacher training, hybrid, the ability to do online.

I will highlight two programs. VIU, we provide $350,000 for what is primarily a remote satellite program. And UBC, $300,000 for their program, for example. These are the kinds of investments that we’re making to ensure that we’re giving everybody the ability to potentially stay in community.

Lynne Block: I’m just curious. I don’t know the answer. Is there a specific budget for housing stipends in rural districts, and is that a part of the 14.6 million?

[4:30 p.m.]

I’m just curious, because…. Was it 8,000 that was said earlier from the minister about teachers staying in rural districts? I’m just curious what the incentives are.

Hon. Lisa Beare: Just, again, in the interests of time, because I know the member really wants to get through her questions, I won’t repeat what I said before. We did address a number of those issues earlier.

For the housing specifically, that’s not done through the ministry. Typically, that’s done through districts. There are a number of districts who have made the choice to do teacherages, provide housing. But that’s at a district level.

Lynne Block: I’ve only got about 240 more questions, but hey, we’ve got to fill the time. Just having fun.

I want to talk about cybersecurity, technology and AI literacy. School districts right now, across the province, are facing growing financial pressures related to cybersecurity and technological modernization, with costs increasing annually as digital infrastructure expands and risks become more sophisticated.

I remember, just in my school district, the thousands of intruders trying to hit our firewalls every single day. I was just blown away. We were one of the first districts to really start with technology. Now that it’s getting old, to replace it is getting very, very expensive.

In 2024-25 alone, the Ministry of Education and Child Care spent $5.1 million on firewall services — correct me if that’s wrong, but that’s what I was told, so I’m just checking — reflecting just one component of broader systemwide investments in cybersecurity, network protection, device management, cloud services and emerging priorities such as AI literacy.

As reliance on digital learning platforms, especially for our rural communities, and administrative technologies grows, these expenditures are becoming a recurring and escalating obligation within the education budget. I remember being a trustee in West Van. We were looking at having it as a separate cost in our operating budget — cybersecurity or technology.

What, if any, proportion of the overall education budget is currently allocated to cybersecurity and technology upgrades? How is this expected to grow in the ’26-27 fiscal year, or is it just embedded in the operating moneys given to the districts?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: Since 2018, the province has delivered provincial firewall security services to mitigate cyberattacks, block inappropriate online content and help maintain a safe digital environment for students.

ECC, our ministry, and Connected Services B.C., CSBC now, coordinate to understand the cross–K-to-12 system needs, the risks and the opportunities associated with cyber security. We, in the province, have invested $44.4 million in firewall security services under the enhanced cyber security service agreement, which runs until June 2027. Work is underway on a process to secure replacement services beyond that date.

For ’25-26, CSBC has a $5.3 million budget for firewall services. As of October 1, 2025, CSBC assumed ownership of ECC’s, our ministry’s, technology. Going forward, CSBC and ECC will continue to work in partnership to deliver cybersecurity services to school districts, to ensure safety and security for students across the province.

Moving forward, all that work shifts into the Connected Services B.C. realm. So this is probably the last year you and I will talk about this. It will move over there, going forward, but we continue to invest.

Lynne Block: Thank you, Minister. Great, great move.

One more question regarding this. One of the most pressing issues in teacher workload is the antiquated reporting platform MyEdBC. I hated it.

I understand the MyEdBC contract is under “planning stages” for replacement. My question to the minister, please: what is in the ’26-27 budget for the third-party audit and procurement process regarding a replacement for MyEdBC — I can hear the cheering now — which is intended to reduce teacher administrative workload?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: Our ministry is working closely with Connected Services B.C., who is responsible for the technology now for MyEdBC. So that is the Ministry of Citizens’ Services, moving forward.

We are working closely with school districts, independent schools, teachers, families to understand the user needs and shape a future system that better supports everyone who relies on it, with the primary responsibility resting with CSBC. But we’ll continue to shape those policy approaches and continue to lead with the sector, and we’ll have a role in what the new MyEdBC will look like.

Lynne Block: We’ll finish with me on a high note then, because I’m sure I can hear the cheers from many teachers and educators in the province.

In closing, I want to express my sincere gratitude to you, my hon. Chairs; to the Minister of Education and Child Care; to the parliamentary and ministry staff who support this process; and to my colleague MLA here, Child Care critic, for her professionalism and steadfast commitment to children and families.

Estimates can be technical and detailed, but, at its heart, this conversation is about something profoundly human: the future of our children. Behind every figure in this $9.828 billion budget are real lives, students sitting in classrooms today who will inherit a world very different from the one we know — a world shaped by artificial intelligence, global competition, economic uncertainty and rapid technological transformation; a world that will demand resilience, adaptability, creativity and, above all, knowledge.

If we are honest with ourselves, despite the very best intentions of educators, administrators and government, we are not yet achieving the outcomes our children deserve. Spending is rising, yet literacy and numeracy scores are falling. Complexity is increasing, yet clarity is often lacking. Our teachers are working heroically in challenging classrooms, but measurable results tell us we must do better.

An excellent education is not a partisan goal; it is a moral imperative. It is the foundation of opportunity, prosperity and freedom. It is the great equalizer. And excellence must mean something real. Merit, excellence and intellectual achievement must remain central to our education system. Opportunity should be open to every child, but standards must remain high for every child. When we lower expectations, it is not systems that suffer; it is students.

As Nelson Mandela wisely said: “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” So right. That power depends not merely on access but on quality, not merely on rhetoric but on results, not merely on intention but on measurable excellence.

Our responsibility is not only to fund education but to ensure it equips students for a rapidly changing world — one where critical thinking matters more than ever; where literacy is the gateway to opportunity; where numeracy underpins innovation; and where character, resilience and intellectual curiosity determine success.

[4:45 p.m.]

We owe it to every child, whether it is in a rural classroom, an urban school, a kindergarten class just learning their letters or a grade 12 student preparing to graduate…. We owe every child to provide an education that prepares them not just to participate in the future but to shape it.

To the teachers, education assistants, counsellors, bus drivers, custodians, administrators, trustees and support staff across B.C.: thank you. Your daily work, often unseen and under extraordinary pressure, is shaping lives in ways that statistics can never fully capture.

To parents and guardians: thank you for your trust, your advocacy and your partnership.

To students: you are the reason we are here.

Let us move forward with humility about where we are falling short, courage to confront uncomfortable evidence and determination to restore clarity, standards, merit and excellence at the centre of our system, because the future is arriving quickly, and our children deserve to be ready for it.

Hon. Lisa Beare: I want to say a very big thank-you to the member for West Vancouver–Capilano. This is my second year in estimates with this member, and she is always incredibly respectful, incredibly kind and incredibly thoughtful in her questions. I appreciate the tone and the tenure that we’ve had during this debate, and I absolutely enjoy doing estimates with this member every year.

Thank you for the questions.

Heather Maahs: I am pleased to begin questions for the Minister of Education and Child Care as the opposition critic responsible for child care and early childhood education.

I would like to begin by thanking the minister, the ministry officials who are present today and the staff supporting the work of the committee for being here to assist with the estimates process.

I would also like to take a moment to thank the residents of Chilliwack North for the privilege of representing them in this Legislature.

Families in Chilliwack North, like families across British Columbia, are deeply affected by the availability and affordability of child care. Many parents in my community are balancing work, family responsibilities and rising costs while trying to find reliable child care for their children.

The issues we are discussing here today are not abstract policy questions. They affect real families and communities across the province every day. Estimates debates provide an important opportunity for this committee to examine how public funds are being used and to better understand the direction of government policy.

With that in mind, I would like to spend some time examining the government’s recent decision in Budget 2026 to pause expansion of the $10-a-day ChildCareBC program and to place that decision in the context of the commitments British Columbians have been hearing for nearly a decade.

Families in this province first heard the promise of $10-a-day child care during the 2017 election, when the government committed to building a system that would dramatically expand access to affordable child care across British Columbia. The rollout of that system began in 2018 with the launch of the ChildCareBC plan and the first prototype sites.

Since then, British Columbians have repeatedly been told that the province was steadily moving toward a system that would make $10-a-day child care universally available. However, nearly a decade after that promise was first made, access to $10-a-day child care remains limited. Even the government’s own numbers show that only a small share of licensed child care spaces in British Columbia currently operate under the $10-a-day ChildCareBC model.

[4:50 p.m.]

Families across the province continue to face long wait-lists and limited availability, while the government has continued to present the program as the centrepiece of its child care plan.

This brings us to Budget 2026. In the government’s February 17, 2026, backgrounder titled Safeguarding Critical Services, the province states that Budget 2026 provides $330 million over three years to stabilize ChildCareBC programs while the system is modernized.

However, the same document confirms that the province will pause enrolment of new providers into both the operating funding model and the $10-a-day ChildCareBC program. In practical terms, that means that nearly a decade of promises about expanding access to $10-a-day child care…. The government’s own budget materials now show that expansion of the program has been paused while the system is reassessed.

It is also useful to consider how the government itself has recently been describing the ChildCareBC system in its own communications with the sector.

In the February 27, 2026, edition of the ChildCareBC bulletin, the minister stated: “ChildCareBC is still a young social program, and strengthening it for the long term will take careful, thoughtful work.” The bulletin went on to explain: “As the province begins to update and modernize funding and service models, this work will be undertaken in partnership with the sector, providers, families, communities and title and rights holders.”

That description is notable when placed alongside the commitments British Columbians have been hearing about since the 2017 election. Families were told that a universal $10-a-day child care system would be built and expanded across the province. Yet nearly a decade later, the government’s own communications now describe ChildCareBC as a young social program that is still undergoing modernization.

Similar remarks have also been made by members of the government. During second reading debate on Bill 19, the Minister of Forests told the House, “Building a child care system takes years; it takes decades, as we’re learning,” acknowledging that patience is wearing thin for many people and that families remain frustrated by the continued difficulty of finding accessible child care.

For families who have been hearing promises about $10-a-day child care since 2017, those remarks raise an obvious question. If building this system was always expected to take years and even decades, why were British Columbians repeatedly told — in 2017, again in 2020 and again during the 2024 election — that access to universal $10-a-day child care was just around the corner?

Nearly nine years later expansion of the program is paused. The government now describes ChildCareBC as a young social program, and the Minister of Education and Child Care is now left holding the bag for commitments this government has been making to families since the day it first took office in 2017.

Shortly after the release of Budget 2026, this issue was raised in the Legislature. On February 23, the member for Abbotsford-Mission pointed to the government’s own budget materials, showing that enrolment of new providers to the $10-a-day ChildCareBC program would be paused.

In response, the minister told the House that the member for Abbotsford-Mission was incorrect about everything in her question. However, in the same response, the minister confirmed that the government had put a pause on entry into the $10-a-day program — the very point raised by the member for Abbotsford-Mission and reflected in the government’s own budget documents.

In order to understand how the government arrived at this point, it is also useful to consider some of the internal records that have been released through the B.C. Open Information website over the past year. B.C. Open Information’s ministerial calendar records show that these issues were being discussed internally, at a senior level with the ministry, well before the pause was announced.

In the Deputy Minister of Education and Child Care’s calendar for March 18, 2025, there is a one-hour entry listed as: “Deputy Minister Meeting, $10-a-Day Operating Funding Model and Treasury Board Report Back.”

[4:55 p.m.]

The title of that meeting indicates that the $10-a-day program and the operating funding model were being examined in connection with a report back to the Treasury Board, with updates on program funding, implementation or challenges associated with the program.

The following day, March 19, 2025, another entry appeared in the deputy minister’s calendar, entitled “Deputy Minister Meeting with Child Care on School Grounds Pilot Update.” That entry refers to a pilot project examining child care on school grounds. However, no results, findings or evaluations from that pilot appear to have been released publicly prior to the introduction and passage of Bill 19 in 2025 — legislation intended to expand child care on school grounds.

Other internal records also point to ongoing analysis of the program throughout 2025. Briefing note summaries from April 2025 indicate that the ministry completed a contract with Deetken Insight for ChildCareBC, $10-a-day research completed on April 16, 2025. However, the cost of that contract, the scope of the research and the deliverables produced through that work are not publicly disclosed.

Additional records from May 2025 show that the ministry prepared a briefing note for the Minister of Education and Child Care, titled “Operating Funding Model, Wage Grid Background,” completed May 8, 2025.

By the summer of 2025, the ministry was also preparing materials related to expansion of the program. A briefing note titled “$10-a-Day ChildCareBC, 2025-26 Intake” was completed August 15, 2025. Just days later, on August 20, 2025, the ministry sent an email to child care providers across British Columbia, announcing that a new intake into the $10-a-day ChildCareBC program was open, with applications accepted until October 1, 2025, and stating that the government was on track to reach 20,000 $10-a-day spaces by spring 2026.

However, we are now in spring 2026, and Budget 2026 confirms that enrolment of the new providers into the $10-a-day ChildCareBC program has been paused. The practical implication of that decision is that the expansion pathway the government relied on to meet the 20,000-spaces commitment under the Canada-wide early learning and child care agreement has now been halted.

If enrolment of new providers into the program is paused, it raises a straightforward question for the committee: does the government still expect to meet its commitment of 20,000 $10-a-day spaces by March 31, 2026?

Further records from October 2025 show that the ministry prepared a briefing note for the deputy minister regarding the renewal of funding agreements for the original 2021 cohort of $10-a-day centres. Calendar records from the associate deputy minister during that same period also include a meeting from October 7, 2025, titled “A $10-a-Day Care Expansion Challenge.”

Taken together, these records suggest that internal discussions were underway regarding challenges associated with expansion of the program, even as the government was publicly encouraging providers to apply for the $10-a-day spaces.

Those internal concerns now appear to have surfaced publicly. Expansion of the $10-a-day program has been paused, raising the question of whether this is simply a pause or the beginning of the government backing away from the program entirely.

At the same time, Budget 2026 signals a shift in focus toward before- and after-school care on school grounds. The budget materials indicate that while the remaining 11,800 new spaces fund projects continue to come online, the government intends to expand before- and after-school daycare through school-based programs. Budget 2026 allocates $25 million toward that effort, including $5 million in capital funding through the Ministry of Infrastructure and $20 million in an operating fund over three years.

The Chair: Member, I’m going to ask you.… You’re getting very close to the end of your time. Please bring forward a question that’s related to the estimates in the room. Thank you so much.

[5:00 p.m.]

Heather Maahs: Thank you. Yes, I will.

However, the concept of expanding child care on school grounds is not new. It has been raised repeatedly by the B.C. NDP over the years, including in the months leading up to the 2001 election; again in 2020, through Bill 8 in the lead-up to that year’s provincial election; and again in 2024, through both a pilot initiative announced in May and a campaign promise during that year’s provincial election, when the Premier pledged $500 million over two years to expand before- and after-school child care across British Columbia.

With that preamble, I will ask my first question. The ministry has referenced a $330 million lift related to child care funding. Can the minister outline how that $330 million increase is allocated across the ministry’s child care programs over the three-year fiscal plan, including the child care fee reduction initiative, the affordable child care benefit, the ECE wage enhancement, the child care operating funding program and any other ChildCareBC-related programs?

Hon. Lisa Beare: Just double-checking our numbers here.

Welcome to the estimates, Member. Looking forward to our next few hours together.

For the $330 million, I will break it down for the member.

For 2026-2027: child care operating fund, $22.5 million; child care fee reduction initiatives, $22.5 million; early childhood educator wage enhancement, $45 million; for a total of $90 million.

For 2027-2028: child care operating fund, $31.5 million; child care fee reduction initiative, $31.5 million; early childhood educator wage enhancement, $47 million; for a total of $110 million.

For 2028-2029: $40.5 million for the child care operating fund; the child care fee reduction initiative, $40.5 million; early childhood educator wage enhancement, $49 million; for a total of a $130 million, bringing us the 330.

Heather Maahs: Thank you for that very concise answer.

My next question is…. Our research review of publicly available information suggests that the number of infant-toddler spaces in the $10-a-day child care centres program is roughly 3,282.

[5:05 p.m.]

Can the minister confirm the total number of centres currently operating, the total number of spaces across those centres and whether the estimate of the infant-toddler spaces is accurate?

Hon. Lisa Beare: Very excited to say that across the entire province, we have 171,708 spaces for child care. This is a significant increase since when we formed government. Our government has continued to invest in child care, year over year. We continue to expand spaces and expand all of our programs, all of our fee-reducing programs across child care.

For infant-toddler. All across the province, we have 26,953 infant-toddler spaces, and we have 6,133 child care facilities participating in one of our funding programs.

For $10-a-day spaces in zero to three, we have 4,137.

Heather Maahs: Those are spaces that are available? Are those enrolled, or are those attending — these numbers?

Hon. Lisa Beare: That’s the total number of spaces. I think the member might be trying to ask if those are available spaces, if there are kids in each of those spaces. That would have to be checked with each individual provider. I don’t have that number.

Heather Maahs: You know what? I will come back to that later. So those are available spaces. Okay.

[5:10 p.m.]

Would the minister provide the projected 2026-27 spending for the child care fee reduction initiative, broken down by provincial contribution; and Canada-wide early learning and child care, CW-ELCC, funding; as well as the ’25-26 forecast spending and the ’24-25 confirmed actual spending for each of those funding sources allocated to the child care fee reduction initiative.

Hon. Lisa Beare: Testing our math skills over here. The best of what I could pull out for the member….

For CFRI, the actual for-B.C. forecast as of December for ’25-26 is $278 million provincially and, for the feds, $521 million, for a total of $799 million.

For ’26-27 for B.C., we’re forecasting $255 million for provincial and, for feds, $580 million, for a total of $835 million.

Again, at the end of the day, testing our math here. These are the numbers we think we’ve got for her.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. This meeting does stand adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:15 p.m.