BC Tax Expansion Faces Growing Opposition as October 1st Deadline Nears

New Leger poll finds two-thirds of British Columbians want planned PST expansion cancelled, while businesses warn of higher costs and a legislative committee calls for repeal

British Columbia’s planned expansion of the provincial sales tax is facing mounting opposition from taxpayers, businesses, industry organizations and a multi-party legislative committee, with the new tax rules scheduled to take effect October 1.

A new Leger poll commissioned by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) found that 66 per cent of British Columbians want the provincial government to cancel the expansion, compared with 15 per cent who support proceeding with it. Another 19 per cent were undecided. Among respondents who expressed an opinion, 82 per cent favoured cancelling the changes.

The polling comes less than two months before the expanded tax is scheduled to take effect and shortly after the B.C. legislature’s Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services recommended that the government repeal the planned expansion.

Despite the recommendation, Finance Minister Brenda Bailey has said the government intends to proceed.

What is changing October 1?

The B.C. government’s 2026 budget expands the province’s 7 per cent PST to several professional and commercial services that have historically been exempt.

Beginning October 1, PST will generally apply to:

  • Accounting and bookkeeping services
  • Architectural services
  • Engineering and geoscience services
  • Security and private investigation services
  • Non-residential real estate services, including certain property and strata management services

There are special rules for architectural, engineering and geoscience services. Rather than applying the 7 per cent tax to the entire purchase price, PST generally applies to 30 per cent of the value, producing an effective tax rate of 2.1 per cent on those services.

The province is also removing or narrowing some existing exemptions affecting products and services including clothing repair materials, clothing and footwear-related services, basic cable television and landline telephone services.

The government says the changes bring B.C.’s tax treatment more closely into line with other provinces.

Poll shows broad opposition

The Leger survey commissioned by the CTF suggests opposition is not concentrated in one particular political, demographic or geographic group.

According to the CTF, opponents of the expansion form a majority across gender, age and regional categories.

Vancouver Island residents, women and British Columbians aged 55 and older recorded the strongest opposition, according to the organization’s release.

The headline results were:

ResponseBritish Columbians
Cancel the PST expansion66%
Proceed with the expansion15%
Unsure19%

Because the poll was commissioned by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the results should be understood as commissioned polling rather than a government survey. Nevertheless, the findings add another data point to a debate that has already generated significant opposition from business organizations.

Businesses have been warning about higher prices

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business conducted its own survey earlier this year involving 439 B.C. business owners.

The February survey found that 80 per cent of respondents opposed expanding the 7 per cent PST to professional services.

Even more significantly, 72 per cent said they were likely to pass some or all of the additional tax costs on to customers.

The CFIB said accounting and bookkeeping services were identified as the professional services most likely to negatively affect small businesses, followed by property management, security and architectural, engineering and geoscience services.

The implication is straightforward: while the tax may technically be charged to a business purchasing a service, the eventual economic cost can be distributed through the broader economy.

A business paying PST on accounting, security, engineering or property-management services may incorporate those additional expenses into its operating costs, potentially affecting prices charged to customers.

Security services become taxable

The inclusion of security services has generated particular criticism from businesses in communities dealing with property crime.

The Business Improvement Areas of B.C. has argued that the expansion effectively taxes businesses for purchasing security services they increasingly consider necessary to protect employees, customers and property.

In Kelowna, local business representatives told Global News that businesses were already spending heavily on security because of repeated property crime and other safety concerns.

That creates an unusual policy tension: governments and communities encourage businesses to invest in security, while the provincial tax system is simultaneously adding a 7 per cent tax to many of those services.

The issue has become one of the central arguments made by opponents of the expansion.

Business groups launch “Stop the Squeeze” campaign

The Greater Vancouver Board of Trade has organized a campaign called Stop the Squeeze, arguing that the tax expansion will increase the cost of doing business at a time when B.C. companies are already facing high operating costs.

The organization says the expanded PST could affect the cost of building homes, operating businesses, maintaining security and attracting investment.

The campaign has attracted support from a wider coalition of business organizations.

The Business Council of British Columbia has also called for the expansion to be scrapped, arguing that the tax increases input costs and could weaken B.C.’s competitive position.

The B.C. Chamber of Commerce has taken a similar position, while advocating for a longer-term move toward a value-added tax system rather than expanding the existing PST.

Why businesses object to the PST structure

One of the more technical arguments against the expansion involves the way B.C.’s PST works.

Unlike a value-added tax such as the GST/HST, the PST generally does not provide businesses with broad input-tax credits.

That means taxes paid on business inputs can become part of the cost of producing another good or service.

The Business Council of B.C. argues this can cause taxation to compound through supply chains and contribute to higher effective costs for investment.

The B.C. Chamber has made a similar argument, saying the province should consider moving toward a value-added tax with input tax credits rather than expanding the current PST.

The distinction is important because opponents aren’t necessarily arguing that sales taxes should never apply to professional services.

Some are instead arguing that the structure of the tax is the problem.

Accountants warn of implementation complications

The accounting profession has also raised concerns about how the new rules will work.

The Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia says the final regulations released in July provided additional clarity regarding issues such as multi-jurisdictional work, corporate-group services and resale arrangements.

Under the new rules, accounting services performed in B.C. will generally become subject to the 7 per cent PST unless a specific exemption applies.

CPABC has advocated for longer-term sales-tax modernization, including consideration of a value-added tax model with general input tax credits.

That position is significant because it demonstrates that opposition to the government’s approach extends beyond organizations that simply oppose taxation.

Some professional organizations are instead arguing for a different tax structure that they believe would be less distortive.

Housing industry joins the opposition

The B.C. real estate industry has also warned that expanding the PST could work against the province’s housing objectives.

The British Columbia Real Estate Association recommended that the province not proceed with the PST expansion, arguing that taxation policy can affect the financial viability of development projects and ultimately the pace at which new housing reaches the market.

This adds another dimension to the debate.

The province is simultaneously attempting to increase housing supply while imposing additional taxes on some of the professional services involved in developing and managing that housing.

Architects, engineers, property managers and other professionals can all play a role in construction and development projects.

Critics argue that additional taxes on those inputs could ultimately become another cost incorporated into development budgets.

Legislative committee calls for repeal

Perhaps the most politically significant development came from the B.C. legislature’s Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

Following its 2027 budget consultation, the multi-party committee recommended that the provincial government repeal the planned PST expansion to professional services.

The committee’s recommendation was framed partly around simplifying and streamlining the province’s taxation system.

The committee includes MLAs from government and opposition parties, making the recommendation notable even though it does not itself force the government to change policy.

The recommendation was welcomed by organizations including the CFIB and Greater Vancouver Board of Trade.

Ottawa isn’t responsible for this tax

The debate is entirely provincial.

The PST is administered by the Government of British Columbia, not Ottawa.

The upcoming changes were included in B.C.’s 2026 budget and are being implemented through provincial tax legislation and regulations.

That distinction matters because the argument over the expansion is ultimately about how the B.C. government chooses to raise revenue and structure its tax system.

The government’s case

The B.C. government has defended the expansion as part of its broader approach to taxation and public services.

The province says expanding PST to professional services generally brings B.C. more closely into line with how other provinces treat those services.

The government is also dealing with a significant fiscal challenge.

B.C.’s 2026 budget projected a $13.3-billion deficit for 2026-27, while the new tax measures are expected to generate approximately $1.4 billion over three years, according to government figures reported in connection with the budget.

The government’s argument is that additional revenue is necessary to help maintain core public services, including health care and education.

Finance Minister Brenda Bailey has indicated that the government is not planning to reverse the expansion, despite the legislative committee’s recommendation.

That puts the government directly at odds with both the committee recommendation and several major business organizations.

A $1.5-billion tax question

The CTF estimates that the PST expansion will cost British Columbians nearly $1.5 billion over three years, while government budget reporting has put the expected revenue at approximately $1.4 billion over the same period.

The difference illustrates one of the fundamental disagreements in the debate.

The province views the expansion primarily as a source of revenue.

Opponents view it as a cost that will be absorbed by businesses, consumers and the broader economy.

Both can occur simultaneously: government can collect additional revenue while businesses and households bear additional costs.

The economic question is therefore what happens to that money after it moves through the tax system—and whether the resulting public-service benefits outweigh the economic costs associated with higher prices and business inputs.

October 1 deadline approaches

With the implementation date now less than a month away, businesses providing or purchasing affected services are preparing for the changes.

The province has released detailed guidance covering accounting, architectural, engineering and geoscience, security and non-residential real estate services.

Businesses affected by the changes may need to determine whether they must register for PST, collect the tax, remit it to the province or self-assess tax on certain purchases.

That makes the issue more than a political debate.

For affected businesses, the October 1 date represents a concrete change to invoices, accounting systems and operating costs.

The larger issue: how should B.C. tax business?

The disagreement over the PST expansion ultimately goes beyond the individual services being taxed.

It raises a broader question about how British Columbia should structure its tax system while attempting to improve productivity, increase housing supply, attract investment and maintain public services.

The CTF says the answer is to cancel the expansion.

Business groups have called for its repeal and, in some cases, a longer-term transition toward a value-added tax.

The B.C. government argues the expansion broadens the tax base and provides revenue for essential public services.

Meanwhile, the province’s own multi-party finance committee has recommended that the expansion be repealed.

And according to the new Leger poll commissioned by the CTF, 66 per cent of British Columbians surveyed want the government to cancel the changes, compared with 15 per cent who want them to proceed.

Unless the government changes course, however, the new rules remain scheduled to take effect October 1, 2026.

For British Columbians, the debate is now moving from whether the tax expansion is a good idea to a much more immediate question:

Will the province proceed with a tax increase that its own legislative finance committee has recommended cancelling, despite growing opposition from taxpayers and the business community?

Ottawa Extends Federal Fuel Tax Relief Into 2027

Canadian Taxpayers Federation welcomes extension but calls on the government to make the fuel-tax cut permanent

The federal government is extending its temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel, keeping the full tax reduction in place through January 31, 2027.

The announcement comes as the government had been scheduled to restore the federal fuel excise tax on September 8. Under the extension, gasoline and diesel will continue to benefit from the temporary tax relief through January, followed by a phased return to the regular rates beginning in February.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) welcomed the extension but said Ottawa should go further and make the reduction permanent.

Gasoline tax remains at zero

The federal excise tax on gasoline is normally 10 cents per litre, while the federal excise tax on diesel is normally 4 cents per litre.

Those rates were reduced to zero beginning April 20, 2026, as part of the government’s response to elevated fuel prices and international energy-market disruptions.

The temporary suspension was originally scheduled to end September 7, with the full tax returning the following day.

The new proposal extends the zero-rate period through January 31, 2027. Beginning February 1, the government plans to restore half of the regular federal excise tax until March 31.

That means the federal rates would temporarily become:

  • 5 cents per litre on gasoline
  • 5.5 cents per litre on leaded aviation gasoline
  • 2 cents per litre on diesel
  • 2 cents per litre on other aviation fuel

The full rates are scheduled to return April 1, 2027.

Taxpayers federation calls for permanent cut

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation praised the extension, arguing that lower fuel taxes can benefit both drivers and businesses.

Franco Terrazzano, the organization’s federal director, said the CTF had been advocating for fuel-tax relief and that extending the measure would provide additional assistance to Canadians facing higher costs.

The organization is now calling on Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government to make the reduction permanent rather than allowing the tax to return to its previous level.

Kris Sims, the CTF’s Alberta director, similarly argued that Ottawa should reduce government spending to make permanent tax relief possible without increasing government debt.

Poll finds opposition to restoring the tax

The CTF said a Léger poll it commissioned found significant opposition to restoring the federal fuel tax at its previous level.

According to the organization, 63 per cent of Canadians surveyed opposed increasing the gas tax in September. Among respondents who had made a decision on the question, the opposition rate was 71 per cent.

The CTF said opposition was recorded across demographic groups, including different age groups, genders and provinces.

The poll was commissioned by the CTF, meaning its results should be considered in that context rather than as a government survey.

Ottawa says the measure is temporary

The federal government has presented the fuel-tax suspension as a temporary affordability measure.

When the original reduction was announced in April, Finance Canada said eliminating the federal excise tax would save motorists up to 10 cents per litre on gasoline and 4 cents per litre on diesel. The government estimated the initial suspension would provide more than $2.4 billion in tax relief during 2026.

The measure applies to the federal excise tax. It does not eliminate provincial fuel taxes or other charges that can affect the price motorists see at the pump.

The government also continues to apply sales taxes to fuel.

Different from the former carbon price

The fuel-tax suspension should also be distinguished from the federal consumer carbon price.

Ottawa permanently removed the federal consumer fuel charge from legislation earlier this year. That measure eliminated the federal consumer-facing carbon price, while the current gasoline and diesel excise-tax suspension is a separate measure.

The distinction matters because the two taxes have different purposes and operate through different parts of Canada’s tax system.

What happens next?

The government’s September 2026 legislative proposal would keep federal fuel excise taxes at zero through January and then restore them gradually.

The proposed timeline is:

April 20, 2026 – January 31, 2027:
Federal gasoline and diesel excise taxes remain at zero.

February 1 – March 31, 2027:
Half the normal excise-tax rates apply.

April 1, 2027:
Regular federal excise-tax rates are scheduled to return.

The Department of Finance’s legislation confirms that the extension is designed around this staged return.

For motorists, the immediate result is that the federal portion of fuel taxation will remain suspended beyond the original September deadline.

For the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, however, the extension doesn’t go far enough.

The organization argues that if Ottawa can temporarily eliminate the tax while maintaining government operations, it should look for permanent spending reductions that would allow Canadians to keep the tax savings.

The federal government, meanwhile, continues to characterize the measure as temporary relief.

The debate has therefore shifted from whether Canadians should receive a fuel-tax break to whether the reduction should become a permanent part of Canada’s tax system.

Sources: Canadian Taxpayers Federation and Department of Finance Canada. The CTF’s statements and polling claims are attributed to the organization, while the tax rates and implementation timeline have been cross-checked against the federal government’s legislative proposal.

Industrial Carbon Tax Could Weaken Canada’s Investment Climate

A new report from the Fraser Institute is raising concerns about the economic impact of Canada’s industrial carbon pricing system, arguing that the policy could discourage investment and reduce the country’s competitiveness in global energy markets.

The report focuses on the federal industrial carbon tax, often referred to by critics as “Carbon Tax 2.0,” which applies to large industrial emitters. While Ottawa eliminated the consumer carbon tax in 2025, the industrial pricing framework remains in place and is scheduled to continue increasing over time.

According to the Fraser Institute, higher industrial carbon costs could have significant economic consequences, particularly in energy-producing provinces such as Alberta. The organization estimates that the policy could reduce Alberta’s economic output by roughly two per cent, eliminate more than 10,000 jobs in the province, and contribute to the loss of more than 50,000 jobs nationwide. The report also projects a reduction in Canada’s overall economic output if the policy remains unchanged.

Researchers argue that rising compliance costs may encourage companies to direct investment toward jurisdictions with lower regulatory and taxation burdens. The institute points to a substantial decline in oil and gas investment over the past decade and suggests that carbon pricing, along with other federal regulations affecting the energy sector, has contributed to a less competitive business environment.

The report comes amid ongoing discussions between the federal government and provincial leaders about Canada’s energy future. Recent agreements between Ottawa and Alberta have modified the planned trajectory of industrial carbon pricing, slowing future increases compared with earlier proposals. However, the Fraser Institute maintains that the revised framework could still hinder investment and economic growth.

Industry leaders have also voiced concerns about Canada’s ability to compete internationally. Some executives in the energy sector argue that higher carbon costs place Canadian producers at a disadvantage when competing with companies operating in countries that do not have comparable national carbon-pricing systems.

Supporters of carbon pricing contend that such policies are necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage the development of cleaner technologies. Critics, meanwhile, argue that the economic costs outweigh the environmental benefits and risk driving jobs and investment elsewhere.

As policymakers continue to debate Canada’s climate and energy strategy, the report adds another voice to the ongoing discussion about how to balance environmental objectives with economic growth, investment attraction, and long-term competitiveness.

Feds Triple Streaming Tax, Making Life More Expensive

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is urging Prime Minister Mark Carney to reverse a newly announced increase to Canada’s streaming levy following a decision by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to raise the rate from 5 per cent to 15 per cent of Canadian revenues.

According to the CRTC, the updated levy will apply to major online streaming platforms with annual Canadian broadcasting revenues exceeding $25 million, including services such as Netflix, Prime Video, and Disney+, as reported by CBC News.

Franco Terrazzano, Federal Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, said the increase runs counter to efforts to improve affordability for Canadians. He argued that higher business costs could ultimately be passed on to consumers in the form of higher subscription prices.

Industry representatives and policy analysts have also raised concerns about the potential impact of the decision. The Motion Picture Association of Canada warned that the increased levy could significantly raise operating costs for streaming services in Canada, potentially discouraging investment and innovation in the sector.

Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa, similarly cautioned that the policy could lead to higher prices for consumers and make Canada a more expensive market for streaming companies to operate in.

Critics of the decision argue that increasing regulatory costs on digital services may add pressure to an already inflation-sensitive economy, with potential consequences for both consumers and industry competitiveness.

Terrazzano said the federal government should reconsider the policy direction, emphasizing that increased taxation on digital services risks making everyday entertainment more expensive for Canadians.

In response, the federal government has stated that it is currently reviewing the CRTC’s decision.

The CRTC has framed the measure as part of its broader regulatory approach to the broadcasting sector, while debate continues over its economic impact and implications for consumers and industry investment.

Privy Council Office Faces Scrutiny Over Spending On Consultants, Luxury Services, And Staff Perks

The Privy Council Office is facing scrutiny after records revealed significant spending on consultants, luxury services, and discretionary perks—despite maintaining a large in-house workforce.

According to documents obtained through access-to-information requests, the department spent millions on outside contractors for work that overlaps with roles already performed by federal employees. In 2025 alone, the PCO spent $17.4 million on professional services, including $5.8 million on communications, marketing, financial, and strategic consulting, even though it employs roughly 320 staff in similar positions.

Additional expenditures raised eyebrows, including $12,900 for yoga instruction, $20,400 for limousine services, $136,290 on hotel accommodations, and $386,700 on office furniture. Records also show spending on specialty items such as ceremonial plaques, coins, crests, and artwork.

Critics argue the spending reflects an overreliance on external consultants and unnecessary luxuries at a time when Canadians are grappling with affordability challenges. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has called on the federal government to rein in administrative spending and make better use of existing public service resources.

The controversy comes as Prime Minister Mark Carney has pledged to reduce government waste and curb the use of outside consultants. The latest figures are likely to intensify calls for greater oversight and accountability in federal spending.