Nuanced. - 228. 2026 BC Budget Breakdown: Higher Taxes, Bigger Deficits & Less Trust

Episode Date: March 16, 2026

Chief Aaron Pete breaks down the 2026 BC provincial budget, the NDP’s case for it, the conservative critique, reactions from business groups, and why trust, affordability, and fiscal discipline are now at the centre of the conversation.Send a textSupport the shownuancedmedia.ca

If you want to understand how serious budget 2026 is, don't start with the opposition. Start with the government. Because when a finance minister goes out before the budget is even tabled and basically says, this is going to make me unpopular, that's not normal political choreography. That's a warning label. That's the government telling you in advance that what's coming is going to sting. And in a province where people already feel squeezed, housing, groceries, child care, gas, insurance, interest rates, the whole stack. That kind of warning doesn't land as honest. It lands as brace yourselves.

Now, here's what I want to do today. And I want to be really clear about the approach. So today, we're going to break down budget 2026 in a way that respects the stakes. Because a budget isn't a vibe. It's not a mood board. It's a set of commitments and a set of tradeoffs. And we're going to do this section by section grounded in the actual budget documents. And I want to frame this in the simplest, most honest way possible. This is how our money is being spent. This is the ledger that explains where the product of your work goes. The early mornings, the late shifts, the overtime, the small business risk. The invoices, the payroll, the grind that keeps this province running. All of it gets skimmed, sliced, and collected into taxes, fees, levies, and the public revenue. That's money doesn't fall from the sky. It's not abstract. It's not government money.

It's our money. Taken from our wallets, from our paychecks, from the margins of our businesses, from the cost of the things we buy. And when government takes that money, when it claims, a share of our labor, the public is owed something in return, competence, transparency, and results. We expected to be spent well. We expect that if government is going to demand more from us, more tax, more borrowing, and our name, more long-term obligations than at a minimum, we should be able to look at the plan and understand it, not just emotionally, not just politically, but on paper. Because budgets are where governments stop talking.

talking and start signing. This is the point where values become line items. And if you've lived in British Columbia for the past few years, you already know the feeling. Everything costs more. But it doesn't always feel like we're getting more out of it. People are working harder, paying more, and trusting less. And that gap, the gap between what people asks from,

what the government asks from people and what people feel they are getting back is where public anger comes from. That's the emotional climate this budget arrives in. And it arrives under a government that has now been in power since 2017. The BC NDP came in with John Hogan. And for a long stretch, the brand was steady, it was competent, it was adult in the room energy. Whether you loved them or hated them, Horgan had a way of projecting stability. When that matters, especially especially when people are anxious. And then leadership shifted to David Eby. Different style, different energy, different political instincts. More activist, more interventionist, more willing to step into markets. And now we're in a moment where every mainstream commentator

are openly asking questions about whether the province has drifted from steady governance into something closer to permanent crisis management. And to be fair, part of this is because the world has been in chaos. COVID, inflation, supply chain shocks, population growth, interest rates, hikes, housing shortages, healthcare strain. Everyone's dealing with something. But that's the point. Hard times don't remove responsibility. They are a test. So here's what we're going to cover today. First, we'll dive into the budget and what it actually says and what it's actually doing. The priorities the government is claiming, the spending choices, the timeline, the headline commitments. We're going to pull from the budget documents themselves, not interpretations.

Second, we're going to steal man the NDP's argument. Not caricature it, but steal man it. Why are they doing this? What are they trying to protect? What are they betting on? What do they think the public should accept and why? Third, we're going to examine the conservative critique. What are they saying this budget means for working people, for small businesses, for investment, for the long-term competitiveness? What do they think the government is pretending away? Then we're going to look at the reaction from business and institutional voices.

And I mean the boring people. The people who don't get paid to rage, the RBC economy. The Economists, the Board of Trade types, the CFIB types, because when the professional, calm down crowd starts writing things that sound like warnings, you should probably pay attention. And then, finally, I'm going to give you my take. But I'm not going to do so as a rant. I'm going to do so as usual as a set of tests. Because here's my core belief. Good governance isn't about whether your heart is in the right place.

It's about whether your plan works in the real world. And the real world is where British Columbians live. It's where the single mom in Surrey is deciding between rent and groceries. It's where a young couple in Abbotsford is realizing they can do everything right and still never be able to buy a home. It's where a small business owner in Colonna is staring at payroll and taxes and wondering if it's even worth trying to expand. It's where people in rural communities can't find a family doctor. and the emergency room becomes the default health care plan. So when the government says,

we're securing BC's future, the public is absolutely entitled to ask whose future, secured how, and paid by whom. Because right now, too often, what we get is a budget drops, a press conference happens, a few talking points are circulated, and then everyone goes back to their corners and starts yelling.

That's not democratic maturity. That's political theater. And you can't govern a province through theater when the numbers are real. So today, we're going to take the theater out of it. We're going to take the partisanship out of it. And we're going to walk through this, like a grown-up province that wants to understand what's actually happening. Because if the finance minister is warning you, she's about to become unpopular, It's a signal that the government knows this budget has pressure points.

And when a government starts pre-explaining why you're going to be mad, you should ask a simple question. What exactly are you about to do? All right. Let's start with what's in the budget, using the budget documents themselves, and then we'll work out from there. The 2026 budget explained. Let's get into the actual budget.

Not the vibes, not the spin, the budget documents themselves. Because at the end of the day, budget 2026 isn't a speech. It's a spreadsheet with authority. It's the government saying, here's what we're talking about. Here's what we're spending. And here's the bill we're sending into the future. So let's start with the big picture. Right out of the fiscal plan, the province's three-year outlook.

In 2026, 27, the province projects about 85.5 billion in revenue and 98.8 billion in expenses. That gap is your deficit. 13.3 billion in 26, 27, 27, 28, revenue rises to about 88.6 billion. Expenses rise to about 100.7 billion. And the deficit is 12.2 billion. Then in 2028, 2029, revenue rises again to 91.8 billion. expenses rise again to 103.2 billion and the deficit is still 11.3 billion. So if you're listening for the government's plan to get back to balance, the first honest thing to say is that is not what the budget

does in the next three years. This is a budget that normalizes multi-year deficits, massive ones, and says we're going to reduce the deficit over time, but the time horizon is not back to zero. It's less bad, but still really bad. Now, deficits are. are one thing. Debt is where it becomes generational. Taxpayers supported debt, that's the debt you and I are ultimately on the hook for. It's projected to go from $116.15.5 billion in 2025-26 to $142.9 billion, then $166.9 billion, then $189.0 billion. That is a massive climb over three years, and the budget gives you a metric that I actually like, because it's plain language, the interest bite, it's basically the question how many cents of every dollar revenue are going back to paying the interest. In 25, 26,

it's 4.9 cents on the dollar. By 2627, it's 6.2 cents, then 7.3 cents, then 8.2 cents by 2829. So more and more of your tax dollar isn't going to nurses, schools, bridges, or addiction treatment, it's going to the privilege of having already borrowed. That's not moral. moral, that's math. Now the government's argument right there in the fiscal plan is that they're going to do two things at once, protect core services while managing finances closely. And to prove they're serious about uncertainty, they put a big number in the document that should make everyone set up. 15 billion in contingencies over the fiscal plan period. Contingencies is basically government saying, we know life happens, shocks happen, programs blow estimates, emergencies happen, so we're setting aside a giant cushion.

But that also means this budget isn't about what's promised. It's also about what's not fully spelled out yet, because contingencies are, by definition, money waiting to be allocated. Now, British Columbians don't just want macro numbers, they want so what? So what does this budget actually do? Where does it hit? Where does it help? What changes? Let's start with something the government is emphasizing really hard. They're going to make the public sector leaner.

So more dollars reach the front lines. In the fiscal plan, they state they're aiming to reduce approximately 15,000 public sector full-time employment services by the end of 28-29. about 3.4% of the public sector workforce. And for the BC Public Service itself, the plan references reductions of about 2,500 over three years. Now, whenever a government says leaner, I hear two translations depending on your worldview. Translation one is less bureaucracy,

more front-line service, tighter management. Translation two is you're about to wait longer on the phone and nobody will admit. Why? The government says they want to do this largely through attrition and voluntary departures, plus restricted hiring, office space consolidation, and reducing administrative overhead. So that's one of the big governing philosophies baked into Budget 26. Protect front lines, squeeze back offices.

Now let's talk about health, because that's where the public's anxiety lives. In the government's background materials, Budget 26, frames new fund. to safeguard critical services, and it highlights billions in health-related investments over the fiscal plan. But here's the citizens test. If you're in an ER hallway at 2 a.m., budget line items don't feel like care. The only question that matters is, does access improve? Do wait times go down? Do we actually have staff? And does that show up outside Vancouver? Because the minute you get rural, the system feels like it's held together with duct tape and a prayer. Now, let's talk about education and child care.

The government highlights new funding for K to 12 supports and seismic and enrollment-related capital spending. And the child care piece is huge politically because it's one of the things families actually feel when it works. When there's a notable stabilization message in this budget maintaining that's in place, constrain cost growth, and manage expansion carefully. Now, housing, because that's the political volcano in BC. The fiscal plan repeats the government's narrative that since 2017 it has committed more than 19 billion in operating capital to deliver homes people can afford, with tens of thousands of homes delivered or on the way. But the key thing in budget 2026 is not just housing investment continues, it's that the government openly acknowledges. It is repacing parts of the capital plan, including housing-related projects, and reallocating funds across the fiscal plan. And here's where it gets real, real fast.

The University of Victoria publicly stated that the province has decided to delay Uvix 50010-bed student residence project under the constraints of budget 2026. That's not a think-tank talking point. That's one of BC's major universities saying we were ready to build, and the funding pot got destroyed. So when you hear repacing, translated as this, projects that were supposed to happen sooner are now happening later, if at all, and that includes things like student housing, which is directly tied to affordability pressure in the rental market. And yes, you can steal man the rationale. High construction costs, interest rates, capacity constraints, governments don't have infinite money. But you can also understand why people react like this is gasoline on a fire. Student housing delayed doesn't just affect students.

It affects the entire rental ecosystem in Victoria and beyond. Now, public safety and justice, budget 2026 includes targeted spending aimed at repeat file and defending, chronic property crime, and justice system capacity. If you're a listener who's tired of the what happened to our city's conversation being treated like taboo, the government is clearly signaling that it sees the pressure and that it's trying to fund interventions, enforcement, and court capacity in parallel. Now, let's get to the part everyone feels immediately. Taxes, because budgets don't just spend your money.

They decide how aggressively to take it. First, personal income taxes. The government increases the lowest personal income tax from 5.06% to 5.6% starting January 1st, 2026. And the government itself, right in its budget highlights, says that works out to be about $76 more in income tax for the average taxpayer in 2026. BC business also frames that as a modest, at the individual level, small increases with offset for some while acknowledging that this is still a increased tax in a

cost of living crisis. Then there's the sneaky one, the one that doesn't sound dramatic, but it hits over time. The province will pause indexation of personal income tax, brackets, and certain credits from 2027 through to 2030. That is bracket, creep becoming a feature, not a bug. In plain English, if your wages rise with inflation, you can end up paying more tax without becoming meaningfully better off. This is the kind of policy that looks tiny on paper and feels annoying in real life. Like a slow leak in your tire. Not catastrophic, but you're topping up air forever. Now here's one of the biggest headline changes. And this is where MNP really underlined the practical impact. PST or provincial sales tax expansion to professional services

is effective October 1, 2026. MNP highlights the new Newly taxable services includes things like accounting, bookkeeping, architectural services, engineering, geoscience services, strata and rental property management, certain non-residential real estate commissions, and security and private investigation services. And yes, there's a little irony here. MNP is a taxed and advisory firm, essentially saying, just so everyone knows our own work is about to get taxed. It's like a dentist issuing a public health alert that floss prices are. going up. You're not wrong, but you're definitely paying attention a bit more when the warning comes from someone who will be billing you for the cleanup. Let's translate this into normal language for everyone listening. This is the province saying we are applying sales tax to a bunch of the services that businesses and homeowners rely on to operate and comply. And the natural downstream effect is obvious. Either those businesses eat it, unlikely, or it gets passed on. So if you're a small business and you already feel like you're getting death by paperwork, this is the province

adding PST to the paperwork, which is a bold branding choice. Now, property related tax measures also show up clearly in the budget highlights, including increases to the additional school tax rates, higher property values and changes to the speculation and vacancy rate for certain categories of owners, including starting in 2027. So the shape of the budget, 2026 is clear. This is a government trying to protect health, education, social supports, and public safety, while simultaneously admitting the fiscal picture is ugly and trying to raise revenue, constrain spending, growth, and repase parts of the capital plan. which brings us back to the phase that keeps popping up in government materials.

Disciplined choices. The budget is the government saying we're not going to slash services, but we are going to repase projects, reduce administrative headcount, and broaden the task pace. Because we think this pressure is the new normal. And that's the core bet. Now here's the question British Columbians actually care about beyond the jargon. Are these disciplined choices going to make life more affordable or stable and more functional? Or are we about to pay more through taxes, through debt, through future interest costs,

while continuing to feel that the basics are not improving fast enough? That's what we're going to take on next. Because now that we've laid out what's actually in the budget, We've matched it against what outside analysts are flagging, like M&P's focus on the PST expansion, PC businesses take on modest but real personal tax changes, and UVIC's real world example of delayed student housing. We can do the next step honestly. Steelman, the NDP's argument for why this is the responsible path and why they think British Columbians should probably accept it. Reactions to the budget. Now that we've laid out what's in the budget, let's talk about what happens next, the reaction,

because budgets don't just land on paper. They land in people's lives, they land in the boardrooms, union halls, kitchens, group chats, and the one sacred Canadian institution where all economic policy is ultimately decided, the comment section. And the reaction to the 26 budget has been pretty consistent, even people who normally disagree on everything, somehow managed to agree, on this thing. This was a tough to swallow budget. And let's start with the NDP's case for the budget

because if we're going to critique it, we have to steal man it. Premier David Eby walked into the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade where the budget got AD and essentially said, look, these are not unique BC problems.

These are pressures happening across Canada and we're navigating them in real time. And when business leaders pressed him for a clear plan to bring the deficit back to a sustainable path. He didn't exactly pretend this was painless. He leaned into the idea of comparisons matter, how we're going to relative to other provinces. And he even joked that he didn't mind getting a D if other students are getting graded too. Now you can roll your eyes at that, as many have, but there's a real argument underneath it. Governments are trying to hold up core services in an

era where costs are exploding, healthcare, aging demographics, housing pressures, infrastructure needs, while also dealing with slower growth and real affordability, anxiety. The NDP's framing is basically, we're protecting the essentials, and yes, it costs money. And then you have finance minister Brenda Bailey's pre-budget warning, arguably one of the most honest political moments we've seen in a while, where she openly acknowledged how ugly the fiscal picture is and warned she was about to become unpopular. That's not the kind of line you deliver unless you're trying to brace the public for something you know they're going to feel. So the NDP's case is this. When you strip away the talking points, we're in serious times, we're making

serious choices and we're trying to keep the province functioning while the economic weather sucks. That is the steel man. Now let's talk about the pushback and why it's been so sharp, because the business community didn't just disagree politely. They basically stood up and said, we don't understand your plan. Bridget Anderson, the CEO of the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, was blunt. She said she had hoped Eby heard the concerns and anxiety of the business community, and she described the business community and the province as being on two different pages. And she asked the question that is now haunting this whole budget conversation, what is the plan? That degrade matters because not just because letter grades are sacred.

This isn't Hogwarts, nobody's getting sorted into deficit Gryffindor. But because the Board of Trade grades budgets on fiscal management, economic growth, and competitiveness, and their bottom line was the fiscal trajectory is getting worse, taxes are rising, and the province is digging a hole? That's not great. RBC economics hit a similar note, just in economics language, which is basically English,

but with fewer jokes and a more disappointment. They said that this lacks fiscal course correction. Revenues grow, but spending grows faster, and there's no path back to balance in the forecast period. They also warn that even modest tax measures add to already high Canadian tax burdens at a time when there's intense, tense competition for investments and talent. The CFIB representing small and medium-sized businesses

went even harder. Their statement framed Budget 2026 as a missed opportunity to reverse what they called BC's entrepreneurial drought, pointing to the deterioration of finances, multiple new taxes, and a record-setting deficit that's not a left-wing critique. That's the I'm trying to make payroll critique. And then you have the forestry sector response, which, which is interesting because it's not pure condemnation. C-O-F-I's statement basically says, look, the forest sector is under intense pressure. We welcome recognition of the crisis and we welcome targeted investments that support the sector today while building a more resilient future. That's a classic industry response. Thank you for noticing we exist. Please continue funding

the parts that keep communities alive. So the business and industry reaction has a consistent theme. We hear the government's intentions, but we see a credible long-term fiscal trajectory, and we're worried this budget makes the province less competitive. Now, let's swing to the political opposition and their reaction, because they're going to treat this like a prosecutorial brief. The BC Conservatives framed Budget 2026 as a decade of decline story. Their finance critic, Peter Milobar, called it the accumulation of 10 years of the NDP's mismanagement. And he didn't mince words.

He said, I was quiet. I was quite disappointed, especially with what he described as the government trying to characterize it as nothing to see here for seniors, working families, and small businesses. And they've been more blunt in their public messaging. Millobar's line that's been quoted repeatedly is that the budget is an assault on seniors. working families and small businesses that drive our economy. Interim leader Trevor Halford hit the same theme in plain language.

Taxes are being increased. Those tax increases will hit just about everyone. And he pointed to roughly about $1 billion more coming from taxpayers. And you'll notice something important here. The conservatives aren't just saying spending bad. They're trying to connect the fiscal picture to lived experience. tax hikes, affordability pain, and the sense that the government is expanding while outcomes aren't improving fast enough. That's the emotional fuel of the critique. Now, there's another layer

to all of this that keeps coming up in commentary. The contrast between the Horgan era and the Eby era, business leaders themselves referenced it directly. In that board of trade exchange, Anderson pointed out that when Eby took over from Horgan, there was a forecast surplus on the books, something like a fiscal inheritance of relative stability. And now the province is on a trajectory that she says is deeply concerning. And that's where the Horgan-Eby debate narrative comes from. Horgan projected steadiness. He had a gut-level political instinct for when to pull back, when to pivot, when to calm the room. Eby projects urgency, sometimes bordering on permanent emergency mode, more interventions, more policy swings, more appetite for aggressive moves in housing

and taxation, in public sector footprint. Now, you can argue whether that's good or bad, but politically, the contrast is obvious. And it's part of why this budget debate feels like it's about more than just numbers. It feels it's about direction. And then you get to the moment at the Board of Trade that almost perfectly captured the tension. Business leaders ask for a clear fiscal plan and the Premier responding partly with comparative benchmarking. Other provinces are dealing with this true, which is true. But here's why that answer doesn't satisfy anyone. Because citizens don't live relative to Ontario. They live in BC. They pay BC taxes. They face BC housing prices. They deal with BC service delivery, and the public isn't asking for a ranking. They're asking for a road map.

So that's where we are. The NDP says serious time, serious choices, we're protecting core services. And these challenges are widespread. The conservatives say higher costs, more taxes, worse trajectory, decades of decline. Business groups say we're anxious. We don't see a sustainable path. competitiveness is slipping. And key sectors like forestry say, we welcome targeted help, but the pressure is still intense. Now, the only honest next step is a hard one. Okay, if that's what everyone is saying,

what does it mean? Is the budget a defensible response to real pressure? Or is it the moment where the province finally admits it has a structural problem, spending growth outrunning economic capacity and a political culture that keeps trying to solve long-term issues with short-term patches. My take. So where do I land on this? I think the province is in a horrible financial and fiscal place. And the most telling part is that the finance minister basically admitted it at the front end.

When Brenda Bailey says ahead of time that this budget is going to make her unpopular, that's not operating. position rhetoric, that's the government acknowledging that the numbers are ugly and the choices are going to hurt. And here's the thing. I don't actually think British Columbians are allergic to tough choices. I think we're allergic to unclear choices. We can handle hardship a lot better than we can handle the feeling that we're being managed or worse, that we're being asked to pay more without a credible plan to get back to stability. Because this budget is, isn't just a policy statement. It's a claim on our labor.

It's the province saying, we're taking more of what you earn, and we're borrowing more in your name, and in exchange, you're supposed to trust that this money is being well spent. And that's where we hit the real problem. Trust. If you're running sustained multi-year deficits,

expanding debt, and increasing the interest bite, you are asking people to believe that the future will be richer. The system won't get more efficient and the services will improve enough to justify that cost. And that's a big ask in a province where the people feel like the basics are now slipping away. Now let me say something that I think is politically uncomfortable, but also necessary. In moments like this, democratic legitimacy matters. It matters that people feel heard, not in the fill out our online survey, but in a real public face-to-face

process. And I'll use Alberta as an example. Not because I'm endorsing everything they're doing, but because I respect the process they're experimenting with. They've run the Alberta next consultations, and they're openly talking about putting major questions to a referendum. You can agree or disagree with the issues they're raising, as many of you may, but that instinct to actually go to the citizens and stress test big ideas in public is a healthier democratic reflex. than what we've normalized here in Canada. Decisions made in back rooms, announced in press conferences,

and then everyone is expected to move on. British Columbia should be doing more of that, especially on reconciliation, because reconciliation isn't just funding announcements and land acknowledgments. It is, in fact, governance. It's legitimacy, it's the public understanding,

what's changing, why it's changing, and where the lines are. And right now, we have a major legal and political flashpoints, like the Cowichin decision, generating real public concern. Some of that concern isn't misinformed. But either way, ignoring it isn't leadership.

The province should be doing town halls, community engagements, and structured public conversation. So British Columbians actually understand the path forward. And so indigenous communities aren't forced to carry reconciliation on their backs while the broader public stooping confusion. Now let's talk about leadership. And I want to be careful here, because I'm not interested in personal insults,

but I'll say it plainly. David Eby even comes across as low energy and an uninspired leader. And that doesn't mean he's not smart. It doesn't mean he hasn't worked hard. It doesn't mean he doesn't care. It means that in a moment stacked with crises, affordability, productivity, health care strain, social disorder, housing, reconciliation governance. People want to feel like their leader is hungry.

They want urgency that feels purposeful, not bureaucratic. They want a sense of a mission. And part of why Horgan v. E.B. comparison keeps coming up is that Horgan projected steadiness. Whatever you think of his policies, he had a grounded, calming style that made people feel like someone had their hands on the wheel. Under Eby, the style often feels more managerial than visionary, more reactive than inspiring. And that matters when you're asking people to tolerate fiscal pain. Because here's a core truth of politics.

People will accept sacrifice when they trust the plan and they believe the leader understands their reality. If people don't feel that connection, the same budget numbers hit twice as hard. So what would I want instead? I want British Columbia to recommit to its values and actually articulate a long-term vision where we are going in 10 years. What does success look like? What are the measurable targets for affordability, for public safety, for healthcare access, for economy's growth, and for reconciliation outcomes? And I want more democratic engagement around that vision, not because town halls magically fixed deficits, but because they restore something, we're losing fast. The feeling that we're all in this together.

And the government is accountable to people it's asking to pay. Because right now, budget 2026 feels like a province that's paying more, borrowing more, and being told implicitly, trust us, we've got this. And I'm saying trust has to be earned, not with slogans, not with, benchmarks, against other provinces, not with press conferences, with a plan people can see, a vision people can believe, and leadership that feels awake to the stakes. Conclusion. Budget 2026 is not just a set of numbers. It's a stress test. It's a test of whether British Columbia can still do something that used to be normal in a democracy.

Make hard tradeoffs, explain them honestly, and keep the public's trust while doing so. Because the truth is, we can argue about the ideology of the day. We can argue about whether the NDP is spending too much, whether the conservatives would cut too deep, whether business groups are being dramatic, whether unions are being defensive, whether the media is being unfair. But none of that changes the reality that British Columbians are living with right now. The cost of living is still high. Housing feels out of reach for many. Services. feel strained, and the province is running massive deficits while debt climbs and interest costs take a bigger bite out of every single dollar. That's the backdrop. And the reason this budget

hits people emotionally is because it feels like the province is asking for more, more taxes, more patience, more borrowing in our name. While many people feel like they're getting less, less stability, less affordability, less confidence that the basics are improving. So if there's one standard I want to leave all of you with, it's this. If government is going to take a share of our labor, of what we earn, then we are entitled to demand excellence in how it's spent. Not good intentions, not nice language, not we're really doing our best. But results, clarity.

a real plan. Because the biggest risk to British Columbia isn't just a bad fiscal year. It's a long-term erosion of legitimacy where people stop believing the system is fair. Stop believing it's competent and stop believing their voice matters. And when that happens, you don't just get angry voters. You get a province that can't agree on anything, can't build anything, can't reform anything. Because everyone assumes, the other side is lying and the institutions are broken. That's how places decline. Quietly first, then all at once.

So here's what I want. I want a province that tells the truth about its finances without sugar-coding and without panic. I want a province that involves citizens and major decisions, not just after the fact, but before the fact, when choices are still on the table. I want leadership that feels awake to the urgency of the moment because the challenges are too big for low energy management

and I want a long-term vision that's measurable. Affordability targets, healthcare access targets, productivity targets, reconciliation outcomes, so we're not just drifting from budget to budget, hoping something, anything improves because British Columbians don't need perfect. They need believable. They need to feel the sacrifices they're being asked to make

are part of a coherent plan toward a better future. Not just a permanent state of, hang in there. Budget 2026 is the government telling us what it's chosen. Now the public has to decide whether those choices deserve our consent. And if they don't, then the next budget won't just make a finance minister unpopular. It will make an entire political class replace it.