Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading on Bill 3, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2020.

[2:45 p.m.]

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Could those leaving please do so? Thank you.

Minister of Finance.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — FINANCE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and welcome to your new role.

I move that Bill 3 be read a second time now.

This bill includes amendments to the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, the Financial Administration Act and the Home Owner Grant Act. This bill amends the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act to set a budget date no later than April 30 in a fiscal year following an October election to allow additional time for the budget and estimates development process.

The amendment extends the current date for presenting a budget and estimates from the fourth Tuesday in March to no later than April 30. The amendments also extend the timelines for presenting a budget and estimates when an election is held on dates other than the third Saturday in October. These rules will allow an incoming government up to 150 days, from the current 120 days, to present a budget and estimates to the Legislative Assembly if they have not already been presented.

This allows a modest amount of additional time to present a budget and fiscal plan, as well as the estimates. For consistency, the same up-to-150-days provision will also apply when there is a delay in the constitution of a final government following an election. This would apply in cases where the first government after an election is replaced so that the period of up to 150 days for tabling a budget is available to both the first as well an immediately subsequent government constituted after an election, like we saw in 2017.

The amendments extend the release dates for a quarterly report up to 60 days from the current 30 days if that report is to be included with the budget and estimates presented with 60 days. This change will maintain the current practice of including the third quarterly report with the budget, even though the budget and estimates are being presented by April 30 following an October election date. With October election dates, it is possible that the second and third quarterly reports may not be required to be made public by their due dates due to the exemptions available under the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

We recognize the importance of timely fiscal updates and reporting. With these amendments, we are now introducing a new rule that requires a post-election government to make public a report that provides a fiscal update within 90 days after the final cabinet is sworn in following the general election.

The Financial Administration Act is proposed to be amended to complement the proposed amendments to the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. First, the amendment extends the available special warrant spending authority while the Legislature is not in session during an election year to 150 days, from 120 days, after the constitution of a new government. The amendment also extends special warrant spending authority into a new fiscal year, until the date that the main estimates for next fiscal year are presented in accordance with the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, plus an additional approximately half a month to allow time for a new supply bill to be enacted for that fiscal year.

Again, the special warrant spending authority would only apply after general elections where the budget and estimates for the new fiscal year are presented very close to or after the start of the new fiscal year and where a supply act has not been enacted for the new year before April 1, or when there are unforeseen circumstances.

The proposed amendment limits the amount of spending authority to a portion of the voted appropriations of the previous fiscal year. It is not intended to provide for new program spending but, rather, to provide for continuation of the operations of government until a supply act can be passed by the Legislative Assembly. Any spending authorized by the special warrants will be fully and transparently included in the final supply act approved by the legislative assembly. It will also be debated as part of the Committee of Supply.

The amendments to the Home Owner Grant Act are the first step in ensuring that the province will meet its commitment to centralize the homeowner grant program, as included in Budget 2020. The amendments to the Home Owner Grant Act will remove the burden from the municipalities of processing homeowner grant applications. Beginning in 2021, all applications, including retroactive applications, will be made directly to the province.

[2:50 p.m.]

These amendments respond to concerns raised by muni­cipalities and do not change the eligibility criteria for the grant.

With that, I look forward to additional debate here in the House.

Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Peace River South.

M. Bernier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and congratulations again.

I also want to congratulate the minister on her appointment. I’m also honoured to be appointed as the Finance critic during such a time when scrutiny and accountability of government spending and government plans are going to be so important and so paramount.

As this is the first time I’m rising after the election, I hope the House will indulge me. As kind of practice, I just want to start by thanking a few people.

I’ll first start by thanking the people of Peace River South, who have instilled their faith in electing me again to represent them, represent their issues and their concerns here in Victoria. I also want to thank my outgoing constituency assistant, Terri Ketner, for the amazing work that she has done, representing and helping the people of Peace River South over the last four years in the riding. She did an amazing job. We formed such a great friendship supporting each other as well. We’ll miss her in the office, as I’m sure the people in the community will as well who came forward and asked for her help and our help in the office.

With that, I’ll welcome, as well, Shawna Clay, who is going to be my new assistant in the office going forward. I’m looking forward to working with her as we continue to represent the people in the South Peace.

Finally, on my thank-yous for now, I want to thank all my friends and family who have supported me through all of the years. It’ll be about 15, 16 years now as an elected official. I wish to thank all of them for their support and their grace, especially my wife, Valerie, of almost 30 years, who has put up with me and all my travels away from home as I represent the area.

I’m glad to be rising in the House today. I think it’s important that we continue this discussion on the bill. The minister has presented the bill and put it on the House here. We didn’t hear a lot of details, but I know we’ll have a chance, when we get to committee stage, to digest some of the actual wording within the bill, ask some very paramount and important questions that we will have on behalf of the people here in British Columbia, because, frankly, the bill that was put in front of us doesn’t have a lot of substance. But what it does have, obviously, is an expectation from the people of British Columbia that this government actually do their job, the job that they have been elected to do.

The main expectation of government is to be open and transparent. It’s to ensure that they’re reporting to the people of British Columbia the financial state of government, the plans that government has going forward. In fact, the main portion that they’re changing, ironically, is called the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. Now, normally I’d say that’s perfectly named, but unfortunately, what this bill is doing is actually taking away a lot of that transparency and accountability that people are asking for now, especially in the midst of an unprecedented pandemic.

People need help. People need answers. People need a plan. The bill before us today, though, is offering nothing but a delay in what people are asking for from this government, which is that help. The government is actually saying that they are not going to come forward with a plan and with what the future will look like for the people of British Columbia now until next April. The problem with that is people need to know now. People have expectations.

This actually could end up being the longest period that we’ve gone without a fiscal update or a plan from a government since — well, I’ll let you guess, Hon. Speaker — the last time the NDP were in government in the 1990s. It’s unacceptable. People expect this now.

[2:55 p.m.]

When I read through the bill…. And, frankly, it was quite easy to read through, if people choose to do it, because it’s only four pages long, not a lot of substance in there. But the only thing we see in this bill, for the most part, is that it benefits the NDP. It benefits the NDP government. I see nowhere in this bill where it really benefits the people of British Columbia, which is what we want to see.

This bill, unfortunately, is limiting the amount of accountability and transparency that the bill is supposed to actually be bringing to this House. It’s actually limiting it. It’s extending the time where government has to actually be accountable to the people of British Columbia. I’ll talk about that a little bit further on.

But we’re at a time right now where people are demanding more transparency from their governments. They expect more transparency and accountability of their elected officials. We are at a point here, after a snap election, where government has called us back during the height of a pandemic, during the crisis that we’re hearing and the expectations from people all over British Columbia that are looking for help. They call us back to the Legislature, and the one bill — looks like the only bill — that they are going to bring forward is to actually give them more time to hide, more time to not be accountable to the people of British Columbia.

Of all of the things that are going on right now in the province of British Columbia, this should be one of the last things that’s brought to this House. People need to know what’s going on. We want to know what the fiscal situation is for the people here in British Columbia. They deserve that. The taxpayers of B.C. deserve to know what’s happening.

Now, we know we’re in the midst of a pandemic. I’ll talk about some of the financial issues afterwards. But let’s talk about what’s most important, which is talking to, listening to and understanding the concerns of the people of the province of British Columbia right now, not hiding away from the responsibility that is expected of a government.

We’re less than three weeks away from Christmas. We’re a few weeks away from a holiday season where most of the time, in most years, it’s been a time of celebration. It’s been a time for family. It’s been a time to get together and a time to celebrate. Celebrate the year that passed and welcome in the future. Welcome in what’s exciting for the next year. It should be a time of comfort by and for so many people in the province.

We all recognize that it’s going to look different this year. We understand the challenges of making sure people stay safe. We support recommendations that are put forward to ensure that we can do our very best to slow down the COVID-19 outbreak here in the province so we can get back to whatever normal will be in the province and work together. We know it’s going to look different.

This government has been asking the people of British Columbia to make sacrifices for the greater good. With that, the people of B.C. have been asking government for a plan. That’s all they want. People have been willing to make these sacrifices that have been asked of them, but they want to know what is on the other side. What is the plan that government has put forward so people know there’s an end? They want to see government offering solutions. They want a government that’s offering hope.

More importantly, people are expecting a government to offer a plan, a clear plan, and a vision of how we’re going to get through this and how we’ll get through this together.

We know that, for 2020, this has probably been one of the hardest years in many generations for many people, one of the worst years a lot of people have ever gone through. I know many people are thinking: “Thank God 2020 is almost over, and we’ll get to 2021.”

This has been a tough year. Many people have lost family members. They’ve lost loved ones. I know everybody in this House, all of us, supports those grieving, and we send our prayers to those who have lost loved ones. There are also so many people who have lost their jobs, jobs they had that were supporting their families. Many businesses have had to close. People have lost their dreams, the dreams of owning a small business, seeing it grow and employing people. They’ve seen those dreams shattered.

[3:00 p.m.]

We truly feel for all those that have been affected by this pandemic, but the fear I’m hearing from many people is that government has not provided any hope. They’ve not provided any plan. People are wondering if 2021 is actually going to be better than 2020 under this government. Where is the plan? Where is the end? Where are the true supports that the people of British Columbia need to help get through this crisis?

Unfortunately, at this holiday season, all the government has to offer British Columbians is the assurance that help — well, help if it’s coming at all — will now be delayed by a few more months. It’ll be further away before people know what’s going on. Again, the people of the province…. Everybody deserves more than this from the government. People need to know what the plan is. They want to know where, when and how help will be coming and what those supports will be.

It’s our responsibility as this House, and it’s the government’s responsibility as the leading body here, to give people hope. They had an opportunity, in calling this House back, to do that, hon. Speaker. Instead, it’s a bill in front of us, unfortunately, just to delay what needs to be done.

I recognize and acknowledge that we have a new minister and again congratulate her on her role. As the official opposition, though, our job is tasked with holding the government and the minister to account, to ensure that they’re doing their best on behalf of the people of British Columbia and that they are serving the interests of the people of this province.

It’s no surprise to anybody here, to any elected official — or to anybody, actually, in British Columbia — that people need help now. We all know that. In fact, they needed our help months ago. Unfortunately, instead of that help coming, government chose to call a self-serving election. The people now have to wait for a minister to put together a plan, to put together a budget, right in the middle of a crisis. They don’t need delays right now.

The people of British Columbia need leadership. They need a government that understands what people are saying and that there actually is a crisis. They need to hear those issues and address them here in the Legislature. They need those supports now, not next April when a budget will be presented. We need to do everything in our power as elected officials, whether it’s government or opposition, to bring those supports out now, to have those helping hands out for people who genuinely need it and truly need it right now.

It’s no surprise to the minister, obviously, that we’ll be raising some questions and concerns around the bill later on, not only during the debate — as we hear from a multitude of other critics from our side of the House that are going to stand up with their concerns and comments on what they’ve heard — but also during committee stage, when we get into some of the actual lines of the bill to clarify what it actually means.

Because the bill does not have any detail and it does not have any information, the only information we have right now is that the minister has presented a bill. A few ministers and the Premier have gone out in front of the media and said, “Guess what. We have a one-time payment coming to help you out. You’d better be careful how you ration that, though, because it’s a one-time payment, and we’re not going to do anything else for you. You’re not going to know what the plans are now until next April,” if this bill passes.

Now, I’ll talk a little bit about that afterwards as well because, as the minister puts this bill forward — as we know in the House, and as the public will find out — it comes with a supp bill, a supplementary bill, which is going to allow the government to have more money — money that they’re asking for now, to come good on a last-minute election ploy that just came out during the campaign.

[3:05 p.m.]

We’ve seen the supplementary estimates, where the Premier and the minister are asking for another $2 billion. Putting that in context, that’s going to be putting us close to a $15 billion deficit, that we know of. I say “that we know of” because we never did get a Q2 report from this government. There was an election called, and we never got into the process that past governments used to always put out in the fall so that the public knew when and how their money was being spent and what the fiscal state of the province was.

Instead, in the middle of a campaign, a snap election that the NDP called, the Premier stands up and announces that everybody is going to get $1,000. At the time, he said everybody was going to get $1,000, direct deposit. “Don’t worry; it will be in your bank account by Christmas. Vote for us.”

The results of the election, obviously, are obvious. What’s also obvious is how election promises by this government seem to change after they get elected. It’s no longer $1,000 that’s a direct deposit in your bank account. It’s now $500 — if you apply. If you qualify.

I’ll talk about some of that after, because that’s more around the financial part of the supplemental bill. But I also find it interesting at the same time, actually, that they took the opportunity to say, “We only need $1.4 billion to $1.7 billion to come good on this election ploy that we had to buy votes, but we’re actually asking for $2 billion,” with, again, no detail at all of why they need that money or where that money is going to go on behalf of the people of British Columbia. The supp bill is literally one page long, saying: “Please, trust us. Please give us $2 billion.”

What scares me when I look at actual Bill 3 is that, yes, they’re asking for more money, but they’re also, again, asking for a delay in the accountability of how they spend that money. There’s no transparency in that.

What it shows me, and it probably shows most people in British Columbia, is that this government has no plan. This should not be a surprise to anyone. Have they had a plan at all? I don’t know. I have yet to see any kind of fiscal economic growth plan from this government that is substantial and that will actually work and help the province grow.

The only thing I saw was, in the middle of an election campaign, the Premier stand up and say that he needed to announce $1,000 for everybody in their bank accounts because he needed something to counter the B.C. Liberals’ proposal of removing PST for one year to help the people of British Columbia — to put money back into people’s pockets to help spark investment, to give some confidence and to actually help small business in any way possible.

You know, issues around that — we’re going to raise some of those during the debate and during the estimates. However, it’s important to mention the fact that the eligibility, again, on this will be based on 2019 criteria — before we were even talking about, before anybody even had a name for COVID-19 or this world pandemic and crisis we’re in. The government is putting forward now this, I would say, weird proposal that we’re going to base your eligibility on a time in space where there was….

Actually, people were working. Some people were working, and they might have lost their jobs afterwards. I’ll give some examples of that afterwards. But to base it on that time comes in complete contrast to what the minister and the Premier said not only during the election but afterwards — that this money was to go into the pockets to help people that were affected, truly affected, by COVID-19, who maybe lost their jobs, businesses suffering. This isn’t going to do that for so, so many people. For the government to stand up and say that it will is just wrong.

[3:10 p.m.]

We have a chance right now, while the House is sitting, to actually talk about and for government to bring forward ideas and supports for what we are hearing right now: people that are pleading for help. What about the hospitality sector that’s in crisis? What about the tourism sector, which was, for the most part, abandoned by the NDP government this year? What about the seniors that are pleading for help right now? What about the teachers that are asking for more supports, or the front-line health care workers who need help?

People are suffering right now during this pandemic and are reaching out to government for answers. They’re not asking government to delay responsibility and transparency. They are saying: “Look, all three parties, from what we saw prior to this call of a snap election, were working together.” We all recognized that this was unique times. These were times when we needed to roll up our sleeves, put partisan politics aside, work together for the people of British Columbia. All three parties in this House did that. We knew it was the right thing to do.

What we didn’t agree to was, right in the middle of all of that work together, government calling a snap election. At the same time, they’re saying how great it is we’re working together, “but let’s call an election and put partisan politics behind us.” Sounds a little contrarian. Sounds a little odd to me how those go together.

Again, people are asking for supports now. So many people are saying, “Good. Get that election out of the way. We didn’t want it anyway,” a lot of people. But they’re calling the House back. Let’s see some substance. Let’s see how we’re going to be actually rolling up our sleeves again to put programs together, to put ideas together, to put a plan together for the people of British Columbia, who are asking for it and who need it now.

Now, this bill was put in front of us asking for a delay in when the minister has to respond and come forward to this House, which means coming forward to the public, with a proposed budget for next year. What makes it interesting for me, listening to the minister when she presented the bill today….

I’ll have to go back and double-check Hansard, but it sure sounded darned familiar, because last year we sat in this House with then Finance Minister Carole James, who read out almost the exact same speech that said we need to change the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act to give government, “Whether it’s us or another government,” time in the future after an election, an extra 30 days, because this government changed the election cycle from being in the spring to being in the fall. They wanted to change this act to give them or any new government that extra 30 days to be able to present the budget in the House, instead of the third week of February, which it normally has been.

When that bill was put forward, they said: “We’re doing this because we might need extra time after an election. We may need a little bit of extra time instead of the third week of February.” So they asked this House to support that legislation to give them that little bit of extra time that they said they needed in case, just in case. Ironically, there was a snap election called in the fall, which they said they had no idea they were going to do, ironically, and did it right afterwards.

But the problem is we just heard the minister now come forward and say: “I guess that wasn’t good enough.” This is not a new government. These are the same people. It’s the same NDP. I’m going to assume a lot of the same bureaucrats, well-trained, well-versed bureaucrats within the ministry and within government. I don’t see what’s changed here. The only thing that I see changing is that government is saying: “Give us another 30 days where we don’t have to be accountable to the public for how we’re spending our money.”

[3:15 p.m.]

Again, it’s not a new government. I’m sure if the House was full right now, they’d be applauding at that, but they’re not here.

My question is: why do they need more time? Again, I do find it quite a coincidence that the government, the NDP government, put forward the original bill to change the Transparency Act right before a snap election that came forward in September, just a month or two later. That could be a whole other speech on its own. I don’t know how much time I have, so I probably won’t get into that topic today.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: I have lots of time. Good to know.

But how is that fair to the millions of people in British Columbia that want answers and that need help, more importantly?

This government, again, passed legislation to give them until the end of March, instead of the third week of February, to introduce a budget. Now that’s not good enough. Six months ago, not even six months ago, that was more than good enough. “We need 30 days, just in case.”

Now they’re in the House today. This is most important piece of legislation that they could bring forward in the middle of a pandemic, mind you. The most important thing that we have to discuss and debate right now in this House is how do we look at a bill that they just passed six months ago…. I keep saying six months ago. It seems like it. It was probably only four.

S. Furstenau: An eternity.

M. Bernier: It feels like an eternity ago. Thank you to the leader of the Green Party. You are correct. It does feel like that sometimes with this government.

But of all of the things, you bring forward a delay. Really? I would have expected the minister to stand up in the House in her opening comments, the chance that she had to speak to this bill before we get to committee stage — maybe she’ll do it in closing comments — to actually justify this. To actually say: “Look, we understand. We’re in a crisis. But we need this extra time, and this is why. This is how it’s going to benefit the people of British Columbia, and this is what we’re going to do for you.”

There’s none of that in the bill. There was none of that in the opening remarks. Everything so far is: “Well, don’t know what I’m doing yet, so give me an extra 30 days to figure it out.”

How do we say that with a straight face to the people of British Columbia that are losing their jobs? We’re going into Christmas and businesses don’t know if they’re going to be able to reopen January 1, if they’re even lucky to get people through their doors right now. People who are suffering right now with the mental anguish and separation from their loved ones — that are making those sacrifices because of this pandemic to try to figure out how to get to the other side so we can get back to what we enjoy, which is being with our friends, our families and our loved ones.

Of all of the things to debate, it’s this. I don’t understand, in the midst of all of this, why we would be debating and having to bring forward only a bill that’s about delay, delay, delay. Again, this is not a new government. There’s nothing new. I don’t think there are any surprises that are going on. If there are surprises, that’s because we’re not listening, because people are speaking loud and clear of what some of the challenges are. I think it’s really important that we listen.

If I was, and I used to be, a minister on that side of the House right now, I know I’d be at the cabinet table banging my fist wondering what the heck is going on. I, as a minister, would be hearing loud and clear right now from people in the public. Whatever ministry you have, you’d be hearing from people in those sectors saying: “We can’t wait. We need help now.”

As a minister of the Crown, it’s your duty and responsibility to go to that cabinet table and say that this is unacceptable. We need to give answers. We need support. Not a one-time $500 payment. We need to look at a plan to rebuild our economy. We need a plan to have supports for people who need them.

[3:20 p.m.]

But there are also so many other sectors out there that have their own deadlines and expectations from government, where we ask them to bring forward their plans and their budgets by February or March to show to us. Well now, how do they do that? They don’t even know what they’re going to be getting. How does a school district put together their budget now for next year when they won’t even know until after they have to present their budget if they’re getting more or less and what the expectations will be?

Again, I sure hope, as we go through this debate, that the other ministers and the other members on that side of the House, in government, are going to be standing up and actually saying what they have done to make sure that they get those supports out right away. Now, we know they’re probably going to all stand up, obviously, and support a bill to delay the transparency and delay the answers, but that’s not fair to the different sectors, to the people in the province.

Again, we could have…. If we were going to bring this House back together in the height of the pandemic, which I know a lot of people right now are shaking their head at…. With all of the restrictions around travel, around being close to people, that government would call this House back — I’m sure people would have looked at this and said, “You know what? It’s important to call it back if we’re going to be actually having those hard multiparty discussions of how we’re going to help people.” How we’re actually going to roll up our sleeves again and bring forward those supports that people need, not put a bill forward that dodges and weaves and hides from the exact things that people are asking for, which is accountability and a plan from this government.

This legislation, when I read through it again, the only people I see it helping is the NDP. It’s delaying the chance for them to actually respond to the people of British Columbia on what the fiscal state is here in the province. And I’m sure, as the ministers across heckle…. Maybe they know what the fiscal plan is. Maybe they should be telling people. Maybe they should be letting the people of British Columbia know the financial state of the province. It’s their responsibility. Their first piece of legislation and the only piece this session, and this is what they come up with.

Look, we know that people are being hit hard from this pandemic, one of the worst pandemics in a few generations. I don’t think anybody in this House is going to argue that. But what we will argue is that it is completely wrong for government not to be accountable and transparent of what they’re doing with the tax dollars for the people of British Columbia and why they’re not putting forward a legitimate plan to support people.

What the government is putting forward is that they want absolute authority just to delay the budgets and to be able to spend without scrutiny for the next few months, without any accountability of that and without any reporting of what they plan on doing for the people of British Columbia. Again, all of us — not just this House, but the people of B.C. — deserve better.

We should have actually just been finishing a fall session. We could have had two, 2½ months of continued discussion, debate and support together in this House to help the people in British Columbia. In fact, two parties — I know the B.C. Liberal Party and the Green Party — for the most part assumed that’s where we were going, because we had agreed to that. We had agreed that we would work together to help the people of British Columbia through these difficult times.

Instead, we had to put everything on hold for the last two months while the NDP decided to call an unnecessary snap election — self-serving, I should say. I guess they looked at the polls and knew what the outcome would be. “Don’t worry about it, everybody who’s suffering out there. This is about making sure we secure our majority government for the next four years, and then we’ll get back to not having a plan and trying to figure it out.”

[3:25 p.m.]

When you look at this delay, again, that they’re asking for and the way this government is putting budget delays forward, this brings us right back…. I hate to use the ’90s approach of budgeting, but this is not how it’s been done for the last 20 years. And again, the question is: why? What’s changed? What’s the difference? There is none. There are no surprises. The only surprise, again, was an election being called that nobody was expecting.

But as far as the economic state over the last two months — well, we all know what that is. As far as the people who are needing supports — well, we all know what that is. So why do we need more time? The cynic in me or the critic in me would say we need more time because this government still does not have a plan. They continue to come to this House and ask for more money, with a “trust us” approach but, at the same time, are unwilling to say where the money is going, how they’re spending that money and have any substantive reporting that shows that it’s actually benefiting people who need it.

All we’re seeing is that the NDP are digging and digging a huge financial hole for this province. And what did they do? They called legislation back to ask for more shovels. That’s what they’ve done. Ironically, this all comes on the heels of the Premier saying that we’re going to put politics behind us. “This is going to allow government to operate more effectively during a pandemic,” I believe was kind of one of his quotes. In fact, one of the exact quotes from the Premier: “I’m grateful for all British Columbians that we have put the election behind us and we can get back to focusing on the things that matter to most to you.”

In the same breath, he talked about how we were working together and there were no politics. So I’m trying to figure out which it was. If we were all working together and there were no politics, why did we need the election? And then to have the election and win a majority government and say, “Thank God we did that. We can now put politics behind us” — sorry, Mr. Premier. You can’t have it both ways. It just shows that it was a self-serving call to have an election, and truly, unfortunately, it was all about politics rather than the people of British Columbia.

It also is becoming very apparent and very clear to everybody that the election did nothing of the sort to stop any of the negative long-term implications. It did nothing to help affect the daily lives of people right now in our province that are suffering. In fact, all it did was delay it again.

Let me remind the government. You know, it’s great to come forward with this supplemental portion of this bill asking for more money to try to make good on an election ploy to get re-elected. But at the same time, where are the rent supports that were promised for people? I haven’t seen those. How come some front-line workers are still waiting for their pandemic pay that was promised to them? I don’t even know if we want to get into the debate about the $400 rebate that was promised and, I think, promised again, but yet we see nothing to actually help people.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Yeah, three times a charm, maybe? I don’t know. That means we’re still waiting, regardless.

Look, we know that budgets take a lot of work. We know there’s a lot of prep that goes into that. We have members on this side of the House who sat in that Finance Minister’s seat. We were able to put together five consecutive balanced budgets because of a lot of work that goes in to ensure that we have the right budgets put forward that are going to benefit the people of British Columbia. Through that whole time of putting budgets together on time, we also ensured that we were reporting to the people of British Columbia — their money, where it was going, how it was being spent — and having that discussion of how we do that.

[3:30 p.m.]

I’m not arguing that care shouldn’t be taken to put the budget together. Of course, it needs to. We’re talking about the financial state for the province here. I encourage and implore the government to get it right. Of course, that’s what we want to see.

Again, though, this bill is about delaying what should be done. Again, it’s not a new government. I think I’ve said that a few times, because I think it’s important to stress that things have not changed. I guess the only thing that’s really changed is people that were waiting for hope and waiting for support are now just going to have to wait longer, which, again, is unacceptable.

Unless the minister stands up and contradicts me on this, they’re not starting from square one. We’re not reinventing the wheel here. Budgets have been done before. People have put them together. People have presented them here in the House on time. So why the need for the delay? Especially in a time, a very difficult time, where people again are asking for help. Remember, this is their job. This is the job they asked to have, so it’s their job to do.

More importantly, they need to do it because the people of British Columbia deserve it and deserve it now. There’s an expectation. There’s some anxiety. We need to give people an understanding and a hope of what we’re doing.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I think last summer, again, to describe the changes that were made…. Just to put this again back into context, last year, when then Finance Minister Carole James was putting the budget together, she said: “At this time….” Again, this was only a few months ago.

The Finance Minister, when she asked for an extra 30 days after an election, if one was to be called…. No foreshadowing at all was in that bill when it came forward. But just in case an election was called in the fall: “We need an extra 30 days.” The minister at the time was quoted as saying: “These changes will allow more than sufficient time for due diligence to be done by all our good public servants who work for all of us in British Columbia.”

So again, I’m asking what has changed. Just a few months ago, the Finance Minister, who I have a lot of respect for, held that seat with incredible class and dignity, and she stood up in this House and said: “The 30 days extra — please approve this. This will be more than enough time for what we need going forward to do the due diligence that’s required to present a proper budget in this House after an election, if one was to be called.” That was just a few months ago.

I’m hoping the minister again can stand up and tell us what has changed. Other than the election, what’s changed, especially when the Premier said: “Don’t worry. Nothing will change because we’ve called an election. Work will continue. People’s supports will still be there. Nothing will change.” They win the election. The first bill to hit the floor is: “Oops, things changed, I guess. We’re not going to tell you what it is, but we need more time to get our act together.”

If the minister truly expects this side of the House to support her bill, I would have expected this bill to have more information, for the minister to be more forthright and explain why this extra time is needed, why more money than what we thought was needed and, more importantly, what the impacts will also be because of that delay.

I’m sure, and I hope, the Premier and the minister and cabinet have sat down and had numerous consultation calls around the province to say: “We are considering delaying the budget, and how will that impact you? We need to know.” Because it’s going to impact people. It’s going to impact a lot of sectors.

Back to my previous comments, we know it’s going to negatively affect people, so I sure hope ministers have been speaking up at the cabinet table saying: “We shouldn’t do this. We shouldn’t delay. We need to get supports out there now.” Unfortunately, I don’t know if we’ll hear that, but I sure hope we do.

[3:35 p.m.]

I think the main part, though, is this delay that government is asking for…. The concern that I have, and I know so many people have, in the middle of this crisis is it’s going to just perpetuate the uncertainty that we have right now in the province for peoples’ lives, their futures, for investment.

Again, we had a chance to be here right now, today, with a plan in front of us that this government could have put forward that everybody could have looked at and supported to help people. That’s what I thought we were going to be doing when we showed up here in the Legislature in the middle and the height of a second wave of a pandemic, that we would be discussing the genuine concerns that we’re hearing from people and how we’re going to support them.

Interestingly, what I heard yesterday, though, from the minister was kind of to the point where I think it just confirms the fact there’s no plan. What we heard from the minister yesterday is: “Don’t worry. Next year we’re going to go out and do some consulting. Next year we’re going to go out and consult with people to see what their concerns are and how we can help.”

Really? What have you been doing for the last year? Please tell me it’s not just the opposition that has been hearing from the people of British Columbia of their concerns and the challenges that they’re facing. If they are, we’ve got bigger problems in government.

This government has not put forward a plan. That needs to be addressed. They have the opportunity to call this House back at any time. But now we’ve got a bill saying: “Don’t fret, everybody. We might not even call the House back, maybe, until next April. We know we gave up on the fall session, and now we’re going to delay even longer before we come here.”

Let’s turn our minds, then, to the next budget. Look, I support and I hope this government…. I encourage this government to put forward a good budget, a good plan, something that’s actually going to be helping the most vulnerable people in British Columbia, the people who have lost their jobs because of this pandemic, those who have lost loved ones, who need supports, those who have businesses that are on the verge of bankruptcy. That’s what I’d like to see. That’s what the people of B.C. would like to see, but instead, we don’t know. Government has put a bill forward to not have to tell us, to not have to show us what they’re going to do for a few more months.

I don’t know how, in good conscience, we can stand in this House and support a bill that’s going to tell people in British Columbia that: “Your concerns really don’t matter, and we’re willing to wait.” That’s not good enough.

People right now…. I hope government recognizes this. Thirty days, as was kind of mentioned earlier, can feel like an eternity in the middle of a crisis, when people don’t know if they’re going to have a job. And if they have a job, are they going to keep their job? If they have their loved ones close by, how much longer are they going to be able to see them? If they’re not able to see them, when will they be able to see them?

These are some of the heartstring issues that we’re hearing about that we need to deal with. We have exhausted front-line workers out there, asking for more support. We’ve had delays in our long-term-care homes for people to get in and out because of the challenges of COVID. We’ve got struggling small businesses and families who have lost a good portion — in some cases, all — of their income and are looking for help.

[3:40 p.m.]

That brings me to the supplemental portion that the minister brought forward, asking for another $2 billion from this House. So $2 billion. Some of the questions we’re going to have, again, are, first of all: why $2 billion? The minister has stood up, even as early as yesterday, and said that they’ll need anywhere between $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion to roll out this support, they say, for people suffering under this COVID crisis, after their election promise that they’re trying to make good on. We’re going to have lots of questions about that.

Let me make it very clear. Our side of the House completely, 100 percent, supports anything right now that this government is going to put forward that is genuinely and truly going to help people who are in crisis and that need it now. We were working on that before the election. I think we were making some headway at that before the election. In fact, all three parties stood in this House when government came forward and said: “We need $5 billion more to help people in the province of British Columbia.”

They didn’t present much of a plan, but they said: “Trust us. We would like to have $5 billion more so we can go out and support people during this time of crisis.” Of course, everybody in this House said: “We need to do that. We need to look at this.” There was a lot of good faith presented, I think, by the other two parties, outside of government, that that money was going to be going, truthfully, to help people in crisis, in need then.

Even though the Premier said, “We’re putting politics behind us,” and that it had nothing to do with politics, I do find it ironic that the government held on to $1.5 billion, of that $5 billion that everybody had approved in this House, to announce, a day or two before the election, that they planned on rolling it out for a recovery plan, although people had been begging for it for months before. “Let’s just hold onto it until the timing is right, because we’re calling an election.”

But we still haven’t seen the results of that. We’ve got $1.5 billion that the government has, or had. We don’t know. We’re waiting for the reporting of where that money went. But instead of reporting, “This is the value we got for that money, here are the people we helped, and here’s why it was important that we work together and approve this $5 billion,” we’ve got crickets. “We don’t have any information. We have no plan with that. But trust us again, and give us another $2 billion.”

Now, again, of course we want to support the people who genuinely need help. But let’s talk for a minute about this pandemic relief program that the minister has put forward. We know it’s $1.4 billion to $1.7 billion. My assumption is…. Well, we know that they asked for more because they are broadening the scope of people they want to be able to help. I commend that. I applaud that, if that’s where it truly goes.

We don’t know, and we’ll ask later, why it’s now $2 billion, especially when $1.4 billion to $1.7 billion — I assume the work was done by the civil servants — is if absolutely every single person applies and receives the money. I’d like to see the reporting come back afterwards of how many people actually did respond, apply and receive that money. To go back to the point that was made earlier, I’ve heard the Premier say that the reason why she put the criteria forward that it’s based on 2019 information is because we don’t want to wait for 2020 information.

As a Finance Minister, maybe that sounds logical. From somebody in crisis, that does not. I’ll give you some examples. Of course, I think we’ve all heard them. As I said, the Premier announced that $1,000 will be deposited into everybody’s bank account if you vote for the NDP. Well, they get in, and now it’s $500 a person. It’s $500 a person only if you apply. It’s $500 a person only if you meet the criteria, based on what you made in 2019.

[3:45 p.m.]

Wrap your heads around this for a second. Before anybody knew, again, about COVID-19, before the term was invented, before we had a pandemic, before people were losing their jobs in crisis because of this pandemic, many people were working. Maybe an oil and gas worker up in my riding was out working on a pipeline, making $80,000 to $90,000 a year as an individual. It’ an okay living, putting food on the table, paying his truck payment, maybe even a mortgage on a house, or maybe hoping for that family that he’d have someday.

COVID hits us, and in February or March, he loses his job. For the last seven months, he has been unemployed. For the last seven months, he has been wondering: “When is the end? Am I going to be able to keep my house that I just bought? Am I going to make that truck payment? Can I even put food on the table? Can I afford Christmas presents for people in my family?”

How excited he was when the NDP said: “Vote for me, and I’ll give you a thousand bucks.” How shocked he was when he found out. “Wow, last year, when I was making money, that was fine. I’ve been unemployed now for almost an entire year, and this government says I don’t qualify. I was 100 percent affected, impacted and hurt because of COVID-19.” We say that this money is supposed to go help people that were affected, but yet it’s based on a time when this was not even discussed. How is that actually going to help people?

Now, sure, there are people who were struggling last year, who are continually struggling and still struggling, that it will help. We support that. But to come to this House and say, “Give us $2 billion to help a bunch of people that need it,” with no real substantive plan to show that it’s going to get to those exact people who need it, I have problems with that.

Now, I don’t completely blame the minister for this. because they’re making it up on the fly. It was an election promise just a month or so ago, and they have to figure out how to come good for that. It’s probably something the civil servants weren’t planning on doing. They didn’t have a plan in place for this, but they were told after the election: “Man, we better figure out how to roll these cheques out or get this money because we promised it if we got elected.”

Ironically, most of the other election promises they’ve done…. I guess what they should have said was: “Vote for us, and we’ll do it.” Instead, they just kind of say they’ll do it. But with this one here, they said: “Vote for us, and we’ll give it to you.” Now they’re trying to figure out how to make it happen.

I do also find it interesting how they’ve put the criteria forward that it’s means-tested. That somebody — I’m curious to see if this will actually happen — making $175,000 a year can apply for COVID relief funding and will get $10. That will be interesting stats, to see who actually does that. I’m sure most people making that kind of money will say: “Keep my $10 and give it to somebody who needs it.” This is a bizarre program.

How could we not have put something together that would generally put money into the pockets of people that need it right now? It would have put us back in a place like we were just four or five months ago where all three parties would stand up here and support the initiatives and the ideas that government was trying it put forward, if it were truly going to help people.

Now, the minister has said that 3.7 million people are eligible. I’m curious where that comes from, especially since we’re hearing now, with the criteria, that so many people won’t be eligible. But I assume that under that 3.7 million is the person that gets ten bucks. I understand where some of the numbers kind of sound good in a sound bite for the media, but will they actually and genuinely be supports for the people in the province?

[3:50 p.m.]

We’re going to have a lot of questions around this. I mean, obviously, the minister — who I appreciate, again, in her new role — will be listening to the concerns that people have brought forward, hoping that we’ll actually hear some answers to those concerns. I look forward to committee stage because in committee stage, we get to ask those tough questions and, hopefully, get some answers.

I also look forward, again, to members on the other side of the House standing up and speaking to this bill and explaining to their constituents why, of all the things that could’ve been brought forward to the House right now, this is the most important and why we’re here and “why I support this.”

I can only assume that government has put so much weight behind this being the most important thing that every single member on the government side will be standing up and speaking to it, cheering it on, touting it, and saying: “Yes, we don’t have a plan, but trust us. You’re going to get help.”

I’d assume that’s what we’re going to hear, anyway. I guess we’ll have to wait and see. But I do know that a lot of people on the opposition side of the House are going to stand up as critics in their respective roles to talk about what they’re hearing. I know the ministers are hearing the same thing, so I hope they stand up and speak about what they’re hearing and what they’re going to do in the short term to help people, not next April but now. Our critics are going to stand up and do that, because they’re listening to people. They’re hearing those concerns, and they’re going to bring those concerns to the House, because that’s our job.

It’s government’s job to be accountable and transparent with what they’re doing, not put a bill on the floor that delays, I guess, the inevitable — but still delays it. To bring forward a $500 cheque…. Let’s remember that this is a one-time election payout for the NDP, this $500. We truly, from our hearts, hope that people apply for what they’re entitled to, the people that need it, and that it genuinely goes to help them.

They should’ve had it by Christmas. That was the promise. It sounds like it’s going to be pretty tough now, when the minister announced that you can’t even start applying until the Friday before Christmas. We’ll see how well that works and rolls out. If it’s anything like some of the pandemic pay, for months and months, that people are still waiting for, I’m not optimistic, but I hope it works. I hope it happens.

I think it’s important to remember that this is one time, with no plan for what it’s going to look like afterwards for people that are struggling right now. I know I’ve heard from lots of groups that’ve said: “Look, we hate seeing government go into debt, but we understand that maybe there are times that we need to look at this. But we also want to know why and how it’s happening and what the outcomes are and when it’s going to end.”

Imagine being a person right now who’s excited to hear about this $500, and it might help them pay a portion of their rent. Of course, we know that under the NDP, in the last three years, rents have skyrocketed. People are struggling, and they never got their rent supports. But this money will go to help in whatever they choose.

My ploy is please don’t just use it on Amazon, because that doesn’t help anybody locally, but I’m afraid people will do that. There’s no criteria that says that this money has to be spent locally. Even though the minister said this is going to boost the economy, there’s nothing that says it has to. People get to choose to do with it what they want. Again, that criteria is bizarre and odd if it’s truly supposed to go to help people who have been affected, literally affected, by COVID-19 — financially impacted.

[3:55 p.m.]

I know I had some seniors call me that said to me: “This is crazy. I’m on a fixed income. Before COVID-19 even happened, I was on a fixed income, and I made just enough to pay my bills. Come 2020, under COVID-19, guess what. I’m on that same fixed income. In fact, my pension went up a little bit. I’m still trying to get by. Ironically, my life was not actually financially impacted at all by COVID-19, but I’m going to qualify for $1,000 for the household or $500 a person. So thank you very much. I wasn’t impacted, so I guess I’ll take money from the NDP.”

Meanwhile, we have people who are genuinely impacted who are out there saying: “What do you mean I don’t qualify?” What do you mean that people that were not financially impacted will get money? And for people who were losing their jobs, closing businesses, some of them won’t get the financial support that’s being touted by this government. It’s this last-minute approach of trying to come good on an election promise that concerns so many people.

Again, I’ve heard from a lot of businesses out there, from different sectors, from the tourism sector and others, that are saying: “Hey, we don’t want to take away from the individuals that are hurting.” But there’s also a bigger plan out there. If you’re going to put another $2 billion to truly spark the economy, to truly help people in crisis…. I’ve heard from a lot of people that said: “Don’t give me the $500. Give it to my boss in the small business who might have to shut their doors in January. I would far rather have a job for another ten years working for this great little company than lose my job but get a $500 one-time payment from the NDP.”

I guarantee you that if the choice were a one-time payment or keeping a job, I know what people would choose. But they don’t get that choice, because there’s no information and no plan put forward on how this money will really be distributed in a fair way to help the people who truly need it at this time. That’s all we’re asking for on this side of the House. Government has an opportunity to just be transparent, to be truthful, to tell us what their goals are and what their plans are. We all deserve that.

So again, I’m looking forward to the minister giving us those answers, because many of our critics and people on this side of the House are going to want specific answers on behalf of the sectors that they are listening to and representing as critics.

I know that shortly after myself, the leader of the Green Party — it’s, by the way, my first public chance to congratulate her on her role and re-election as well — I’m sure will have some opinions on this. I look forward to hearing from them. I also look forward, where possible, to continuing to work together. It shouldn’t always, necessarily, take a crisis for that to happen.

We have seen that when we work together, we continue to do better for the people of British Columbia when that can work. But there are times, especially as an official opposition of the Crown, where we have to stand up and say, “This isn’t good enough. We can’t work with this, because you could do better as a government. You should have planned. You should have had more supports. You should have been more transparent,” so we can support it and, more importantly, so the people of British Columbia know what to expect from their government.

I’m just going to end my remarks by saying, on behalf of this side of the House…. Again, everyone is going to get up and speak that chooses to, but I want to give our heartfelt thanks to all of the people who are working so hard during this pandemic and, a lot of times, not with the supports that they need.

[4:00 p.m.]

Our hearts go out to people, again, who have lost family members this year due to this COVID crisis. Our hearts also go out to the people who feel isolated, who feel stuck at home, who are doing their part, they hope, to put an end to this, to put some kind of shining light, hopefully, going into 2021 that things will be better. We all want that.

As an opposition, all we’re asking of government is to do their job to bring forward that hope — not a one-time payment only — to bring forward some ideas, to bring forward a plan of how they’re going to rebuild the economy, how they’re going to ensure that we don’t have more businesses close in the new year, that we don’t have more people suffering because of COVID, that we can get people back to seeing their families face to face.

Friends going out for a beer — that’s what we want to see. We all want to see that. I commend and applaud the people that are making the sacrifices right now and not doing that, to make sure we get through this as quickly as possible. I thank them.

I will end by wishing all of you, all of them and everyone, a merry Christmas and, hopefully, a bright, new prosperous 2021, where we can all work together, put this horrible 2020 COVID year behind us and work together for a proper and great future for our kids and the next generations.

S. Furstenau: I’ll just start a little bit to speak about the bill that we’re speaking to today, Bill 3, the Finance Statutes Amendment Act.

The bill amends the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act to allow additional time for the budget and estimates development process. The amendments provide the budget and estimates will be tabled by April 30, or 150 days after the designated date following the general election. As my colleague from Peace River South pointed out in his comments, this is a further extension to what already had passed in the summer session that we had. It adds an additional 30 days to the extension that was passed in a bill earlier this year.

It also provides for extensions to release dates for quarterly reports in a fiscal year where there is a general election. It proposes amendments to the Financial Administration Act, making more funding available should a supply act not be enacted by the start of a new fiscal year and would only apply to address election year schedule impacts.

However, I did hear the minister also mention unforeseen circumstances. I think that yes, indeed, we will be canvassing what exactly “unforeseen circumstances” could apply to. I think that it does raise questions about having vague or ambiguous language in a bill as serious as this about changes to how budgets are presented and timelines. What we would really want to see, and I expect our colleagues in the official opposition would also want to know, is exactly what “unforeseen circumstances” could mean.

Finally, the bill includes some amendments to the Home Owner Grant Act, centralizing homeowner grant plan administration as planned for in Budget 2020.

Just as my colleague from Peace River South has pointed out, there will be a lot of questions in committee stage. We are also unclear why the government needs yet another extension after an election to prepare the budget beyond what was already provided earlier in this year. I think that the words “transparency” and “accountability” are certainly key in our response, as well, to this bill.

[4:05 p.m.]

As a historian, there is a general historical trend that we can look at, where governments can respond to unforeseen circumstances, to emergencies, to crises in ways that further cement power in the hands of governments and that reduce transparency and accountability.

In a moment of crisis, and when we’re in an emergency, absolutely, citizens tend to look to their governments and say: “We want you to act. We want you to act with speed and haste, and we want you to address this emergency because we’re all in crisis.” That’s absolutely what we should expect of governments in moments of crisis and emergency.

What we should not accept is governments using those moments of crisis and emergency to extend that capacity for decision-making that is less transparent and less accountable beyond a moment of crisis or emergency.

My concern with this bill, as there were concerns with bills that came forward in the summer responding to COVID, is that there was an extension of these kinds of powers beyond the moment of emergency that we’re in. I think that as legislators and as people in service to this province and this institution, these are questions that we need to be asking at a time like this.

I’m going to follow up a little bit on the comments from the member for Peace River South about what people may have been expecting from this very short session that we’re having right now. I think that he made some very important comments about people probably expecting us to be very much focused on the urgent needs that people and small businesses have in this moment that we’re in. We know that this is a very significant moment of crisis for a lot of people in this province right now.

I do echo his concerns about a bill coming forward that really is about: “Well, the government is having a hard time, and we need a bit of extra time to get our budget in order. So we need an additional 30 days beyond what we’ve already got.”

I think of a business owner in Cowichan whose business didn’t make it through the first wave of COVID. This was a foundational business. It was Sports Traders in Duncan. This is where families go when you have to go stock up on kids’ sports supplies and be able to get them affordably. He had been serving the community for a very long time. But the business didn’t make it, obviously because of many, many circumstances, including that a lot of sports were stopped and continue not to be underway now.

He had a lot of bills, but he has outstanding PST bills right now, and he’s having a really hard time getting the finance department folks to recognize that he simply doesn’t have the funds right now, and he’s asking for a longer extension to be able to pay these PST costs. I think that that’s something we could be talking about. How are we going to help the people who lost their businesses this year? How are we going to find ways to grant them extensions so that they don’t also lose their homes? But instead, we’re talking about how we give government more time to get their budget together.

I think teachers may have expected that we would be talking about the circumstances that they’ve been facing this year in this session that we’re in. When we’re considering spending between $1.4 and $2 billion, teachers may have expected that they would hear something about ways to make their classrooms feel safer, ways to provide more capacity for social distancing in their classrooms.

[4:10 p.m.]

They may have expected that they would hear that the operational funding grants would be restored to what they were in 2019-2020 so that there would be some flexibility in the budgeting in a pandemic when teachers are having to deal with circumstances they couldn’t have imagined a year ago.

Like the member for Peace River South, I’m hearing from a lot of teachers. It’s not that…. To be able to put into an email the level of distress that a person is feeling, that I’m hearing from teachers, is astonishing. These emails move me to tears. They are talking about their own mental health impacts of being in classrooms and feeling like government isn’t listening to what their experiences are.

I think teachers might have expected that we would be talking about how we are going to provide them with the supports they need and the supports that students need, particularly students who aren’t getting instructional hours if they’re not in classrooms. There aren’t enough teachers to provide enough instructional hours for those students who are learning from home right now because there’s not enough funding — or educational assistants, who are operating in many different classrooms.

Artists and artisans who just found out that, even in outdoor markets, they won’t be able to have their stalls over this December season. We can still go to box stores. We can still go to grocery stores. We can still go to shopping malls. But we can’t go and support our local artists and artisans anymore at our local markets outdoors. This was the one month that Joe Fortin, who is a wood artist and artisan in Cowichan, was hoping that sales at the Duncan Market would be enough to get him over his financial challenges for the rest of this year.

Small businesses. My colleague from Saanich North and the Islands and I went out today at lunch. We met with René Gauthier. He has a company called ecologyst. He makes sustainable clothing, plastics-free. We went to where the clothing is being made by people right here in Victoria, providing jobs and employment in manufacturing in Victoria, and to his shop on Government Street. He hasn’t qualified for any supports from government over this year. He’s doing okay, although he has had to lay off some people in his shop.

One of the people who works in his shop, Dylan, said that for him and his roommates, the biggest challenge is just paying bills — rent, groceries, ICBC, hydro. They’re just barely making it. A lot of us can understand what it’s like to know that if your next paycheque doesn’t come, you’re facing some pretty dire circumstances.

I think that the member for Peace River South raised a lot of really excellent points about what people might have anticipated from our time in this House in this session. The emphasis on a one-time payment to people…. Absolutely, it will help people. It will help a lot of people. Not everybody who qualifies needs it, but it will help people. But it is one time. It will help people one time. For a family of four, $500 or even $1,000, that’s a couple of trips to the grocery store. I just saw an article come out that we can anticipate a pretty significant increase in costs of groceries this year.

[4:15 p.m.]

It brings to mind a line I heard recently, which is: we don’t rise to the level of our goals; we fall to the level of our systems. If we’re in a place right now in the province where our systems are such that people are struggling to the extent they are, and that’s exacerbated by COVID-19, then what we need to be looking at is: how do we make our systems work better for people?

I think, as the member pointed out, to be asked to wait an additional, now, 60 days for a budget to come out in the spring — to be asked to wait an additional 60 days to hear whether we are going to see some of those significant systems changes that need to happen in this province…. We know that inequality is far too great, and that COVID-19 has just exacerbated that. So we need to know how we’re going to address that.

We need to know how to make conditions better for teachers and students. We need to know how we’re going to support small and medium-sized enterprises, because they’re the backbone of providing employment in our communities. I think it’s disappointing that that’s what we’re talking about — an additional 30 days on top of the already extended 30 days to the budget.

I do hope we’ll hear some more from the government side on this bill, and from the members. I’ve appreciated the debate and discussions thus far. I do want to…. I do like the part about all of us aspiring to do better and that we can play this role — that it’s not just about talking about where you’re not doing good enough. That is the role of opposition. But it can also be about: here’s how you can do better.

I do think that a lot of people felt very proud of what we achieved this year, and that we were doing well. We were showing what the best of democracy in Canada can be, in B.C. I hope that we can hold on to what we achieved and be able to work very hard to bring out the best in all of ourselves in this place, because I think, again, in the times that we’re in, with the many, many crises that we’re facing in this province, that should be maybe the least that people can expect from us, that we are in service to.

I look forward to hearing the rest of the comments and debate on this bill. We will be canvassing many questions at the committee stage.

T. Stone: I do look forward to participating in the debate today on second reading for Bill 3.

Before I dive into the substantive comments I would like to make today, I do want to take this opportunity, as my first moment on my feet here in the chamber since the recent provincial election, to just congratulate everybody in this chamber, on all sides, for their election here and for the confidence that their communities have shown in them.

I certainly am very appreciative and very thankful for the remarks that were just made by the Leader of the Third Party and agree with her. There is a tremendous opportunity in front of us to continue to pull the best out of each and every person in this chamber as we work together on behalf of all British Columbians on what is going to continue to be a very difficult, challenging road ahead but one that is also full of promise, also full of tremendous opportunity if, indeed, we do all work together.

I want to thank my constituents back in Kamloops–​South Thompson for the trust that they have placed in me. I want to thank my loved ones at home, Chantelle and the girls, and everyone that was so helpful in the recent campaign.

We are here today at a very important time in our province’s history. We are and remain in the middle of a pandemic.

[4:20 p.m.]

I want to acknowledge the incredible coming together of British Columbians, the sacrifices that have been made by so many people in every corner of this province, as front-line health care workers have risked their lives to protect ours, as truck drivers and grocery store clerks have risked their lives to be there for us, as neighbours have looked after one another in a moment of crisis, as families and loved ones have come together to look after one another.

I do believe that the coming together of all legislators in this body last February and March and, in a unanimous way, checking the partisan politics at the door and saying, “We are going to put British Columbians first in our response to this pandemic,” was the right thing to do. It was certainly one of my prouder moments in public service to be able to say I played a small part in that.

I think that we sent a signal to all British Columbians that in the midst of a pandemic, with all of that uncertainty, with the loss, with the sorrow, with the unknown that was in front of everyone, absolutely the right place to start is to check the partisan politics at the door and to work together. That’s certainly what I think was embodied by the Green Party, our caucus and the government as well.

Again, I acknowledge the tremendous contributions of front-line health care workers, nurses, doctors and other professionals; social workers, who have done extraordinary and very difficult, challenging work through this pandemic, dealing with a rise in homelessness, a rise in addiction, a rise in so many challenges that are faced by people and families in this province. I take my hat off to police and paramedics and firefighters, first responders, for doing what they have done.

Indeed, by coming together, our province has fared better than most other jurisdictions. We do also have tremendous optimism, literally today, with an an­nouncement that the first vaccine has been approved for use in Canada and, only moments ago, the public health community in British Columbia and the government announcing the details of a vaccine rollout plan. This is reason for optimism.

As I said a moment ago, there remains a long, arduous road ahead for many British Columbians. This is a time of pain and loss and sorrow for many of our friends and neighbours. The pandemic has taken its toll on British Columbians from a health perspective. It’s taking its toll on British Columbians from a mental health perspective. The isolation that has been felt by so many, particularly seniors, has been significant. Parents, who want to know if a school exposure in any way impacts their children and the classroom that their children are in. People and businesses that, frankly, have not been impacted in the same ways.

It is not correct to say that we have all been in this together. This pandemic has impacted women much more dramatically and disproportionately than men. This pandemic has impacted businesses very differently. If you’re Costco, Amazon or Walmart, you’ve actually seen your revenues soar. Revenues have never been stronger for the big-box retailers and online distributors.

If you’re that clothing boutique in downtown Kamloops or Prince George, or in Maple Ridge or in Surrey…. If you’re that restaurant that opened up a year and a half ago, like Forno on 5th in Kamloops, with great promise, offering a totally new culinary experience in the city of Kamloops, this pandemic has treated you very, very harshly. That has to be recognized in our response. The pandemic has impacted higher-income earners less than lower-income earners.

[4:25 p.m.]

We’ve brought forward and will continue to bring forward a range of solutions, a range of ideas, again, in that spirit of working together to ensure that all British Columbians can get through this pandemic. But indeed, as the ministers on the other side, as government generally has a job to do, so does the official opposition.

There are a lot of tough questions that need to be asked. I hope that British Columbians have watched the first two days of this legislative session, and question period in particular, and have noticed that the official opposition has come to the table these last two days with very thoughtful, very practical, very respectful criticisms and suggested actions. We’ve talked about mental health these last couple of days. We’ve talked about impacts on our seniors in long-term-care homes and a range of other issues. We will continue to do that.

I think it’s also important, at this point in the discussion, to acknowledge where we are today and where we were in February or March of this year. I talk about this non-partisan coming together of all of the parties, all of the members of this Legislature. That is true, and we endorsed billions of dollars of supports for people and businesses back on March 23 in a very limited session of this place, $1.5 billion of which was earmarked for business, business recovery.

You march forward until August, September, so many months later, and not much of those supports had been rolled out to British Columbians. Not much had been rolled out until the week before the Premier of this province decided to call an unnecessary snap election. One week after he rolls out an economic recovery plan, the Premier calls a snap election, the result of which was the kicking down the road, the further delaying by a couple months, of government’s ability to ensure that the supports that British Columbians need are actually there.

Now, part of the economic recovery plan that was announced that week before the election…. Again, we had approved in this Legislature $1.5 billion of supports for small businesses, for business generally, from an economic recovery perspective. When you look at the accounting of the $1.5 billion in supports that I referenced, it is difficult to pinpoint how much of these supports have actually made their way to businesses, to small businesses in particular, to help them with the challenges they’re facing. I’ll talk more about that in a moment.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

But the Premier calls an election. It delays things by another couple of months. Then we find ourselves on the other side of the election here, with at least the promise of addressing some of the significant challenges that people face, that businesses face, in this Legislature. We find out that the government’s great big plan, the great big strategy to call us all back here to Victoria, or online to participate that way, is to deal with one bill and one set of supplemental estimates.

Now, on the bill that’s in front of us, I’m going to talk about it specifically. I’m going to talk about some of the implications of what this bill actually provides for British Columbians. I mean, we essentially have been called back here in this session through Bill 3, that’s in front of us today, to approve some pretty significant changes to the transparency and accountability requirements around the public’s finances in this province.

Coupled with that, we are going to be dealing with some supplementary estimates — a couple billion dollars worth, of which we’ve been provided very little detail. Now, we will certainly take our time and the opportunity when those supplementary estimates come forward to ask a whole wide range of very detailed questions, I think thoughtful and focused, tough questions. But that’s what we’re here, essentially, to do in a two-week session.

[4:30 p.m.]

Now, on the first piece of those two items, this $2 billion of supplementary estimates essentially amounting to, largely, a blank cheque that the government wants us to sign, we are told…. Not through any details that have been provided to this chamber, but we were told through the announcement that the minister responsible made earlier this week and through media reports that there is a $500-per-person benefit that will be made available to British Columbians.

Now, as my colleague from Peace River South mentioned earlier…. The official opposition believes that getting financial support out to people who really need that support is absolutely critical, and we’ll be supportive of efforts to do exactly that. But the challenge here is trying to wrap our heads around and understand what exactly the government’s intentions are here.

The Minister of Finance indicated yesterday that of the $2 billion in supplemental estimates that they’ll be seeking approval for from this chamber, about $1.6 billion to $1.7 billion, maybe up to $1.8 billion, is in relation to this $500-per-person benefit. Okay. Well, what’s the other $200 million to $300 million for? Why has there been no disclosure of what those $200 million or $300 million are actually intended for?

With respect to the actual $500 grant that the government wants to provide British Columbians, there’s a whole wide range of questions that need to be answered. As we saw in the announcement, this grant is going to be means-tested. Fair enough. It seems a bit odd, as the member for Peace River North indicated earlier, that someone earning an income of $175,000 would think of actually going and applying for a pro-rated amount of this means-tested grant. That would amount to about ten bucks for that individual. Like, why?

It speaks to, I think, a bigger issue with the government’s approach on this grant, a very significant concern that we have in the opposition, a very significant concern that many British Columbians and many small business organizations have mentioned, and that’s that this money does not actually go to the people who need it the most. I would argue that someone making $175,000, $150,000, $125,000 — pick your number — probably doesn’t need the ten, 20, 50, 100 bucks and would probably be happy not to take it.

The government’s application process for this…. They’re telling everyone that it’s going to be online the week before Christmas. That’s only — what? — 14 days away. I think they have 16 days to Christmas as of today. Knowing how this government has dropped the ball big-time on other grant application processes over the last year, I’m not holding my breath that many British Columbians are going to have their $500 to go and buy a few presents for their kids for Christmas, as has been promised.

Of course, if the government really wanted to put 500 bucks into the pockets of British Columbians, the Premier wouldn’t have called an election. He wouldn’t have wasted two months. Instead, he would have allowed the convening of this Legislature, as previously scheduled, for its fall session. That would have started in the first week of October, and we would have just finished it a few days ago. There would have been ample time to debate and discuss getting more supports out, in a targeted way, to British Columbians and to businesses, to those folks who really need the help. But no. The Premier decided to call an election instead and waste a couple of extra months.

We find ourselves here today with the promise: “Don’t worry. Christmas isn’t going to be ruined. You’re going to have your money.” There are going to be many British Columbians, I think, disappointed — expectations dashed by this.

[4:35 p.m.]

We have learned from the Minister of Finance directly that there’s going to be more discussion required within her ministry and with her officials as to whether or not this benefit is actually a net of federal support programs. That will be a surprise to people if it’s not.

There’s an oddity in how this program is being set up in that it’s based on your 2019 income. Well, I don’t need to say news flash to the government, but I will. The pandemic actually started in February or March — January, arguably, if you want to go back that far — of 2020.

The job losses and the employment challenges that were faced by tens of thousands of British Columbians didn’t actually start until earlier this year. These people were working last year. They might have lost their job at some point since February or March of this year. They’re going to find out, quite starkly, in a matter of days that they’re not going to get any of this 500 bucks because they actually had income in 2019, whereas they don’t today. How does that make any sense? It doesn’t make any sense.

Now, the other piece is the…. Well, as part of this…. The Minister of Finance, actually, in her comments today, referenced the necessity to move forward with the legislation in order to essentially allow for a special warrant. She then went on to say: “Special warrants are not intended to provide new program spending.” Those very words from the Minister of Finance today confirm that this government has no plans for any new program spending, any spending beyond what was approved in last year’s budget. There’s nothing new that’s forthcoming. Again, the minister said: “Special warrants are not intended to provide new program spending.”

With respect to the bill, it extends the deadline for presenting the budget and the main estimates of this House for the fiscal year from what has been the practice for many, many, many years of having the budget delivered in, I believe, the second week of February. Well, that’s going to be pushed out now to April 30. So the NDP’s very first move, the very first action they take as a newly elected majority government, is to smash the transparency and the accountability relating to the people’s finances, to the finances of the government of British Columbia.

The practical implications of pushing the budget out a couple of months are that there are a whole wide range of challenges and issues that are just not going to be able to be addressed. Individuals and businesses are not going to be able to wait until April 30. If you’re a small business and you’re just barely hanging on by a thread right now, it’s cold comfort to hear from the government that…. “Guess what. I hope you qualify as an individual for the 500 bucks. If you don’t, sorry about that. But we’ll get back to you around April 30 of next year.” That’s not acceptable.

This follows the Premier utilizing the goodwill that was generated by all the political parties coming together, as I said, and checking their party politics at the door in the best interests of addressing this pandemic in a united fashion on behalf of British Columbians. He then delays pushing any of the approved business supports, in particular, out the door until a week before an election and calls an election. We waste another couple of months. Now we’re told we’re going to have to take the extraordinary measure of pushing the provincial budget out by a couple more months. It’s not acceptable.

Meanwhile, tourism is decimated. Restaurants are barely hanging on by a thread. Small businesses aren’t sure if they’re still going to be in business three months from now. Families are worried about whether they’re going to be able to stay in their homes. Parents aren’t sure if they’re going to be able to afford to send their kids to hockey or to dance because this government has failed to act.

[4:40 p.m.]

Now, tourism. Let’s talk about that for a moment. Tourism, as I said, has been decimated. Tourism put a very specific ask in front of government months and months ago. The ask was $680 million. The government responded with a $50 million commitment and a task force, a task force that has yet to bring forward any recommendations for action.

The tourism sector actually needs liquidity. They need help with liquidity. They need help with grants. They need help with more bridge financing, help with retraining. They need help with ensuring that they can actually keep the lights on over the next three or four months and into the spring. Hopefully, the vaccines will take effect through the early and mid part of next year and they’ll survive. But this government has left the tourism industry literally flapping in the wind.

The government promised a simple measure like capping delivery charges on restaurants, on the meals that people buy from restaurants. Some are being charged exorbitant amounts, 25 percent or 30 percent. It’s ridiculous. The government promised to do that. Is that in front of us in this Legislature this session? No, it’s not.

Small businesses generally have made very clear that the government’s $300 million much-touted small and medium-sized business recovery grant program is deeply flawed. There’s been a modest uptake of the program. Why? Because the eligibility criteria is very restrictive. The application process and approval process is very cumbersome, unnecessarily so. That needs to be fixed. Is that in front of the Legislature here this week or next? No, it’s not. Let’s just ask small businesses to wait for another three, four, five months before the government decides to take action.

This pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on women. I said that earlier. Is there any strategy in front of us today, this week, next week to address that? There is not.

Where is the vision for how to get B.C. businesses back on their feet and how to reinvigorate the private sector to drive government revenues needed to ensure that the services and supports that people need are actually there? There is no overarching economic strategy that looks beyond next week with this government. That’s unacceptable.

Are we debating and discussing the issues with respect to long-term care in this province? Do we have anything in front of the government that addresses the calls for rapid testing in long-term care homes or that addresses the fact that pandemic top-up pay is only provided to long-term care homes in the public sector, leaving lots of other front-line workers out of receiving that pandemic pay? Is that in front of us? It’s not.

The concerns of teachers and parents that I talked about earlier. The use of masks in schools. The ineffective contact tracing that is being brought forward by teachers. That’s not in front of this Legislature either. Why? Why are we not debating and discussing these issues? The opioid crisis. Homelessness. Mental health challenges faced increasingly by British Columbians. Are we going to debate and discuss any strategy or plan on any of the above from the government this week or next week while we’re here in this session? It would appear not. Another failed, lost opportunity.

Now, unfortunately, it would appear that the NDP is resorting to some of its previous defaults and putting some people ahead of other people. Picking winners and losers. Support payments are based on 2019 tax returns. That means you might have lost your job, you’re out of income, you’re not sure you’re going to keep your house this year, but because you made enough money last year, you’re not going to get the 500 bucks.

Women continue to be disproportionately impacted by job losses. You know, 4,000 women in British Columbia lost their jobs in the month of November, while there were actually some employment gains for men over the age of 25.

[4:45 p.m.]

Where is there any support for mining innovation in the government’s economic recovery plan? There isn’t. As I said, there’s no support for small businesses that’s forthcoming any time soon. The tourism sector is supposed to be satisfied with a task force.

B.C.’s economic recovery — the plan for that needs to involve everyone. It needs to involve all British Columbians; all British Columbians having a seat at that economic table; all British Columbians coming together and being afforded the opportunity to make of their situation what they can, to look after themselves, their families and their businesses to rebuild our province together. That effort needs to be supported by the B.C. government, not hindered by it.

Mr. Speaker, I won’t reiterate a lot of what the member for Peace River South mentioned, but there’s…. It’s hard not to have the word “incompetence” come to mind when you look at this bill and what it really means, the Minister of Finance not being able to answer basic questions about it yesterday, the use of 2019 tax returns to determine eligibility. People that have money are actually going to get more, and those who don’t have money are going to get less. This incompetence breeds uncertainty.

Local governments have budgets to plan based on provincial budgeting cycles. Health authorities have very important budget considerations that flow from provincial budgeting, and so does the post-secondary sector and universities, and so forth, school districts.

This is also the longest time in about 20 years between fiscal updates in this province. It comes on the heels of the government amending the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act just last summer to give themselves an extra 30 days to bring in a provincial budget. Now they need another 30 days.

Not to be overly cynical, but we just learned today in the vaccine rollout plan, the details of which, that the province is hoping to have 10 percent of the population vaccinated by March with the supply ramping up towards the end of March and into April.

It was stated today that Easter is the tipping point. Easter is on April 4. With the number of people and, of course, the warming weather in the spring, it would likely mean that a lot more people are going to be vaccinated and hopefully the COVID numbers are coming down. Is that why the budget is being pushed out to the end of April? I hope not.

The cynicism in this bill is breathtaking. It’s all about a government that has chosen not to deal with a jobs plan, not to put an economic recovery plan in front of us, nothing for tourism or restaurants or the small business sector, nothing to deal with women disproportionately impacted and all of those other concerns. It’s a government with no plan, a government that can’t even figure out a way to get a recovery grant out for those who need it the most.

J. Rustad: It’s a pleasure to stand today to speak to Bill 3 and the introduction of Bill 3.

I’ve been sitting here. I’ve been listening to my colleagues speaking about Bill 3, and I listened to the minister speak about Bill 3, and there’s been a lot of talk out and around, but it makes me think about where we’ve come from to get to this place where we have a bill that is avoiding transparency and that is at the will of government just arbitrarily saying: “Well, we don’t really care about that. We can just put it in at a later date.”

For the last…. Well, since 2001, the province has enjoyed a period of time where budget transparency was the standard. That’s what we strove to do. We strove to instill this on everybody, whether you’re in a school district or whether you’re in a municipality, anything to do with this. We said: “We want to be transparent. Here’s the money. Here’s what we’re going to be doing. We’ve laid out a path.” We put it out. We gave updates. We made sure the public understood and knew what was going on. We made sure that the province had the kind of accountability, had the kind of transparency that I think everybody would like to see.

[4:50 p.m.]

This is just being thrown completely out the door now with what we’re doing here. I actually find it quite astonishing, which is why I want to go back. I think about the very first budget the NDP government brought in back in 2017. Their comment at the time was: “The era of large surpluses is over.” And every budget they’ve had since then was tight, with significant spending increases, significant tax increases and marginal budget surpluses. Well, they got caught with their pants down.

I remember giving a speech — this was in February — to Budget 2020, and I warned them back then. I said: “There’s no way this is going to be a balanced budget.” There was no way that the current year, which was the 2019-2020 year, was going to be balanced, and they laughed. They heckled.

They couldn’t see the fact that we were facing significant economic challenges even without COVID-19. But it was clear COVID-19 was on the horizon by that point and that it was going to be impacting British Columbia. But it was ignored. They just went ahead with their spending increases. If I remember correctly, $15 billion in spending increases through to 2022 in the last budget. Revenues have fallen off a cliff, and now they’ve come back with additional spending asks.

Last spring we took an unprecedented step, as opposition, to say: “You know what? This pandemic is serious. We know that people need help. We’re going to give you a blank cheque.” We supported $5 billion in additional spending without a clear plan — with just, sort of, some outlines as to how the money would be spent.

But we knew we needed to get the money out. We knew we needed to be able to address the issues and that the government needed some flexibility. So we were willing to accept that. And guess what. They did. They took $1.5 billion of that and tucked it away and kept it, didn’t have it going out there to spend on supporting businesses, and saved it for a pre-election giveaway to try to boost their popularity in numbers. I guess that was a lesson that I learned, certainly, from giving them a blank cheque: they will use it for their own political purposes and not necessarily putting the people of this province first.

So now we’re sitting here with a bill in front of us that is going to delay accountability, that is going to delay the scrutiny, that gives them the ability to drag out introducing a budget, which is going to be bad. The fiscal year end for 2020 is going to be bad. Probably in the $15 billion….

I wouldn’t be surprised now if it’s even higher than that when we get through this. Hopefully, it’s not, but that’s huge. Then where’s the plan for getting out of that? How are we going to work through these issues? How are we going to support the $22 billion in spending increases there were already, before the pandemic, plus the hole we’re in, plus the additional spending that they’re asking for and have already asked for? There’s no clarity on that at all.

There’s an old saying in the political world that goes back a long, long time, which is: “Never waste a crisis.” Clearly, the NDP and this government and their approach to this is to take advantage of this crisis to do things that they want to get done — tuck it in and be not transparent. That’s what I’m seeing, and that’s what I’m fearing.

I see that this bill here is about the budget transparency. The other piece, of course, that’s coming, which we will be debating in the coming days, is the ask for $2 billion without a clear plan and picture as to how that money will be spent.

Yes, there was an election giveaway, a promise made by the NDP to spend this money, to give $1,000 to everybody in the province. Well, of course, that wasn’t quite how it worked out in terms of what their rules are that I’m hearing at this particular point.

[4:55 p.m.]

But how much does that equate to? Well, they won’t give you that number. Maybe it’s $1.4 billion. Maybe it’s $1.7 billion. So why are they asking for $2 billion? Why isn’t there a clear plan that says, “This is how much money it’s going to take to do that. Here’s how it’s going to be laid out,” and an ask? Okay. I didn’t vote for it in the provincial election, and I’m certainly tempted to not vote for it here either.

But the question I have is: what’s the extra money going to be used for? They’re creating a slush fund out of that for year-end spending to go out and meet some of the objectives that they want to do without the accountability on it. This is crazy. I mean, this is back to the future, if you want to call it that — back to the 1990s. This is what they did in the 1990s. We’re back doing the same thing here. They didn’t learn any lessons in the time that the B.C. Liberals were governing this province and when we had fiscal transparency.

I am quite disturbed at what I’m seeing with this. It really is. Not to mention…. The budget is going to be brought in by the end of April. That’s what this bill says. But the legislative calendar wraps up at the end of May. So do they really think we’re going to jam estimates into one month of sitting? Talk about trying to hide from scrutiny and from any kind of accountability that the opposition can bring.

Do they plan to throw out the electoral calendar now, the legislative calendar now, and go back to what they did in the ’90s and sit during the summer and however long they needed to? There’s a reason we brought in the calendar. There’s a reason why we brought in the dates in the accountability, in the acts, for when the throne speech is brought in, when the budget should be brought in. The time frame’s in there, the ability for the scrutiny of that, the use of a fall sitting when necessary for legislation that wasn’t cleaned up in the spring. There’s a reason for all of that. It’s just being ignored.

I think probably one of the most disturbing things is that people don’t seem to care. How many billions of dollars are we adding on to the debt? You think about the people in this province. And I get it, you know. A pandemic — this is once in a lifetime, hopefully. Hopefully this sort of thing will never happen in our lifetime and in our children’s lifetimes again. But we’re adding on tremendous amounts of debt. We’ve added on already, in all likelihood, $3,000 for every man, woman and child in a family. A family of four is $12,000 in debt. Where’s the plan for how we’re going to address that?

I get that we need to work through that, and it’s going to take time. But delaying transparency, delaying having this bill go forward to avoid that kind of scrutiny…. The irony of this is that when we sat last summer, I specifically got up and asked why we were debating, last summer…. Why were we debating the 2020 budget? It’s irrelevant. The numbers are completely wrong — the budget numbers coming in, the deficit, all of that — because COVID changed it. There wasn’t a peep out of government as to what the real numbers would be or why we would be passing a budget that was clearly out of date, that clearly needed to be updated.

Instead of focusing on trying to give some transparency and bringing in a new budget, bringing in something that showed the province where we’re at and how we’re going to get through this and the path coming out of it, we cleared the deck by passing a budget that was completely out of date, that was irrelevant, so that an election could be called, so that we didn’t have to give the fiscal updates.

And here we are, after the election, pushing it out even further. The irony of it was that we passed legislation just last summer to ask for an extra 30-day extension to the budget in the event of an election. What did they not know then that they know now that says they need 60 days instead of 30? How does that instill any confidence that this government knows what it’s doing and has any sort of fiscal capability of managing through this kind of crisis, other than just throwing money out the door and expecting our children’s children to pay for it down the road? It’s disturbing when you think about the situation that we’re in, in this province.

[5:00 p.m.]

Furthermore, when I think about Bill 3 and the delay of the budget, I also think about this ask for the $2 billion. The NDP, when they were in power, used to throw out all kinds of things that the money would be better spent on, or that should be spent here, or money should be spent there.

Well, I can tell you. I bet you if you were to poll the people in this province right now whether they would like $2 billion, or $1.4 billion or whatever that number is going to be, or whether they’d like that money to go to protecting seniors in long-term care and increasing capacity for testing and increasing ability to be able to protect those, I can tell you what they would say: “Take that money and spend it where it’s needed to protect the lives, instead of an election giveaway.”

Why are we doing this? What are we doing here? It seems to be just a vanity exercise by this government in this process.

Then, to add insult associated with that, we get this bill that’s going to delay the accountability side. Well, the bill will be due, and it will be transparent as time goes forward, because it’ll have to be. Eventually, the Auditor General will say: “You need to give these books, and we’re going to be auditing.” There will have to be that transparency, but it is a shame that we’re going through this sort of process today on a bill to delay the budget that’s coming in.

I think back also to my time. I was a school trustee, and I was proud to serve for school district 57 for three years before going into provincial politics. I remember how hard it was to make sure that we had a budget in place and to make sure that we could give certainty for the teachers and the support staff for what the next year would look like. That was all based on what numbers would come from the province.

How’s that going to happen now that those numbers are delayed by 60 days? The school districts need to start giving notices based on their union contracts as to whether they’ve got jobs or not. They have to start doing that in April and May. They won’t even know their budget till the end of April. How do they make plans? How are they able to make the adjustments in a situation where they won’t know what their budget is until the numbers come in at the end of April? How is that accountable? How is that being helpful as a province to the institutions that are running the other important pieces of our province, such as education?

Municipalities are no different. There are moneys that are transferred. They count on moneys coming in from the province. They need to know what those budgets are. They need to have some indication from the Finance Minister and from this government, and they have to make their fiscal decisions. They are into their talks in February. They’re always waiting to hear what that budget is in February. Well, now they’re going to have to wait an extra 60 days. Do they put provisional tax increases in place in case government doesn’t come through with support? How do they manage through their budget side of things?

There are a lot of impacts that this bill will bring to our province by delaying bringing in the budget — things that we cleaned up and made sure were in place so that there was predictability so that people could structure and organize and be able to run their institutions or lives because there was that confidence that government knew what it was doing and the accountability to know what those numbers are. It’s back to the bad old days with this kind of a bill. Very unfortunate to see.

I also think about this, in terms of things like the forest sector, which I’m very fortunate to be a critic of…. They aren’t dependent upon government funding directly for their operations, but they also need to know an indication of what’s going on in ministries. And they don’t get that indication until the budgets are in place, because ministers can’t go out and start talking about what they’re going to be spending until a budget is released. So it delays for them their opportunity to be able to do planning and to have any sort of sense of what kind of changes may be coming within it from a budgetary perspective.

[5:05 p.m.]

When I think about the people of Nechako Lakes that I represent.... I’m very proud to represent and to continue to represent the people of Nechako Lakes — you know, school district 91. This is going to be a real challenge for them.

When I think about those small communities, a small little community like Granisle, the grants that come in are big when you don’t have a very big budget. It’s a small little community. They’re going to be left in the wind, wondering: “Is that money coming in? Is it not coming in? How are we going to budget?” They can’t just go back to the people. It’s such a small little community. It’s hard for them to go back and do any kind of tax increases. It’s not like the larger communities that might have a little more flexibility.

I also think, in terms of that, when we talk about the budget, there was a promise back in 2019 about the rural dividend fund. They suspended it for a period of time to be able to support the forest sector. Personally, I thought that was crazy. If they were going to be doing that, they should have been using new money as opposed to taking the money that’s really needed by those small communities in the rural dividend fund that’s in there. So now what’s the fate of that going to be? We have to wait another 60 days to find out whether or not something like the rural dividend fund is going to be considered again.

The lack of transparency that I’m seeing from this government and the desire by this government to avoid that kind of scrutiny is, like I say, truly disturbing.

I think also about the debate that we’re having here. There are so many important things. You know, my friend from Kamloops South talked about it. It seems to be a small issue, but it’s a pretty important issue to small businesses, and that is the commitment around trying to address the delivery charges. People are being asked to stay home. People are asked to not try to go out, so you’re seeing a tremendous rise in this. For large chains, maybe they can make some deals, but for small little restaurants, this is hard. How do they compete? How do they try to be able to make a go of it?

That’s something that could very easily have been addressed here. That is a real need for little mom-and-pop operations right across the province. So we’re debating on a bill to delay transparency in budget, and we’re not addressing something that should be really straightforward and could easily have been done without undue delay moving through the Legislature. But there doesn’t seem to be any thought or consideration for those types of things that could actually really help people through this.

It makes me wonder, once again, as I mentioned in my throne speech comments: what is this government’s priority? Are they really taking into consideration the economy and people that want to work, how to support those small communities and processes? Or are we in a situation where it’s just about playing nothing but politics?

When I look at this bill, I don’t know how a person can get to a place where they support it. I think the transparency that’s needed with this bill is just sorely lacking.

There are other components in this bill that I look forward to questioning the minister about as well. For example, the changes to the homeowner grant. That’s a section in this bill that doesn’t really seem to have a whole lot of explanation as to what’s going on with it. It makes me curious what the government’s agenda is in making these changes to how that process will be addressed.

I know there are many other of my colleagues that have a lot of questions, particularly from their critic perspectives: how this will impact the components that they have a concern with and are interested in pursuing. But I think most of all, after the election, when there was this talk that the Legislature was going to come back, it was to come back for one reason, which was to deal with this election giveaway, this money that was needed for this election giveaway — not to create an extra additional amount of money for a slush fund, not to change the budgeting process and transparency. Then this was thrust upon us.

[5:10 p.m.]

Okay, I guess if the government wants to be misleading and not be transparent, I guess that’s their prerogative. They can do that, because they’re government, but it certainly doesn’t instil a whole lot of confidence in how they plan to operate under a majority government at this point. Like I say, I’m disappointed at seeing this bill come in. I’m disappointed with the lack of transparency. I’m very disappointed in the estimates that are coming up, the supplemental estimate that’s coming up, and the $2 billion ask, without transparency.

I, for one, quite frankly, think it’s just not appropriate to be handing out blank cheques to this government. They’ve proven over time, and they’ve proven just in this past year, that they can’t be trusted in terms of the commitments and the process, and that they will use funds for their own uses, for their own needs, for their own political ends. That’s an unfortunate pattern that is starting to emerge and that, I suspect, will only grow as this government goes through its mandate.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that my goal — and, I know, the goal of my colleagues — is going to be to hold this government to account, to not let them get away without the accountability, to ask the hard questions and to make sure that the public sees, as transparently as possible, the true objectives of what this government is trying to achieve.

We’re in the middle of a pandemic that has not been seen since the Spanish flu. Although some might say that we’ve had a couple of other ones since then, but certainly, the Spanish flu is the one that stands out. We’re in the middle of a situation with a lot of unknowns, a lot of variables, and we’re in the middle of a situation where we all need to take the right steps and do the right measures to try to bring this under control and to protect lives. That should be our focus. That should be our government’s focus. That should be a bipartisan focus, working across the lines to be able to achieve that.

I don’t see that in why we’re here in this Legislature today. I have not seen the case for why this lack of transparency is being brought in. I have not seen the case, either economically, healthwise or socialwise, for why the $2 billion is being asked for. There needs to be that kind of transparency, and the questions need to be asked. That is the job of the opposition, and I know that’s what we will be doing to hold this government to account.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I’ll end my comments and yield the floor to my colleagues. Thank you for the opportunity.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you to the member for Ne­chako Lakes.

I recognize the member for Abbotsford West.

M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your elevation to a lofty perch in this chamber.

To other members of this chamber who…. Well, all members, some who have arrived here for the first time…. If I cheat a little bit and move over here and the Hansard camera follows me, it will see one of those members, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, who…. I’m not supposed to use props.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: Well, the member opposite says that’s not a good start. I was…. There are many reasons for which I will agree with her, as it relates to the legislation before the House.

I was reflecting, Mr. Speaker, and I should say this, that next month it will be 27 years since I arrived here for the first time. I remember the sense of excitement that I felt coming into this chamber. I see that in the eyes of the members on both sides of the aisle as they arrive for the first time. I don’t think any of us ever really loses that sense of excitement — at least, I hope not — because of the unique privilege we have to be here. Following along, as some of my colleagues have done, I’d like to thank the people of Abbotsford West — who, for the eighth time, have provided me with that privilege.

[5:15 p.m.]

My goodness. When I started, it was Matsqui, and then it was Abbotsford–Mount Lehman, and now it’s Abbotsford West. But one thing has remained constant, and that is the appreciation I feel for the people in that part of British Columbia for the trust they have placed in me to come here and do what we are charged to do as members of the official opposition, and that is to scrutinize the legislation that the government has chosen to present to the House.

Like my colleagues from Peace River South, Nechako and others, and the leader of the Green Party, I am…. The kindest term I can use would be to say that the legislation is interesting, given the rationale that was provided for calling this place into session in the first place. This, we were told, in this very, very difficult, challenging time — in the aftermath of the electoral result, where British Columbians expressed their views, those that did participate in the election, and re-elected the NDP government — was going to be a session necessitated by the government’s desire to focus on people. That was the essence of what brought us to this place in circumstances that are difficult.

I look around at the big screens here in the chamber and the smiling…. Well, maybe not that many smiling faces but a few. It’s challenging to be participating in the debates and not be here, although I do applaud the House and the staff at the House here for the steps they have made to incorporate the technology.

I remember, actually, the first time we had TV screens in here. The opposition of that day weren’t terribly happy about it, although I will give the then Opposition House Leader credit for at least agreeing to it on a temporary basis when we introduced the budget. It was the first time that we had screens in here. I think, in retrospect, that was, dare I say it, a forward-looking move, and is revealed in the use of the technology that we have here today.

But this was to be an initiative focused on people. We have Bill 3 in front of us, and I must say, in the four sections that compose the bill in its entirety, I don’t see anything about people. I don’t see anything in this legislation, which, apparently, is the only bill that we’re going to deal with. It is the only bill that we are going to deal with in this session of the assembly prior to Christmas.

I see section 1 dealing with the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. We can talk about that, and will, in detail — timelines that are adjusted to the benefit of government. I see section 2. Again, timelines that are adjusted for the benefit of government. Section 3, which addresses the use of special warrants.

Now, people don’t…. You use that language, and people say: “Well, what the heck is a special warrant?” Well, special warrants are a little instrument that used to be used very, very regularly in this House until some changes were made in 2001. I’ll talk about that. But they are an instrument that government uses when it wants to avoid the scrutiny of this place, which, after all, is why this place exists in the first place — to scrutinize the spending of the public’s money. We’ll talk a little bit more about that. But that has nothing to do with people.

And the final section of the bill, which talks about the homeowner grant and consolidating some administrative functions around the homeowner grant. That has nothing to do whatsoever with the plight of people that members on both sides of the aisle are confronted by through this pandemic experience — the people that we meet or who call us or who have Zoom meetings with us to tell us that their business is on the verge of collapsing.

[5:20 p.m.]

If you are in a business that revolves around the gathering of people, as so many businesses are, whether it’s the restaurant or whether it’s the caterer…. I have a friend that I grew up with who runs a catering business up-Island here, past Nanaimo. They’re on the verge, clinging to corporate life by their fingernails, and rightfully assumed that if this assembly were going to gather at this point in time, there would be legislation that was relevant to them. They have been disappointed. I am disappointed. But my disappointment pales by comparison to the disappointment they must feel. I am sad, but they are sadder. I am surprised by what we have before us here.

This is legislation about government, but, more importantly, about a government that seems intent upon dismantling the structures and the discipline around budgeting that was introduced to this place 19 years ago and that has served this province so well. And if the Minister of Finance, the newly minted Minister of Finance…. And congratulations to her; it is a weighty responsibility, to be sure. But if she and her colleagues want to dispute that claim, which is a serious one, that I have just made, then I invite them to do so.

Look, I confessed my length of time, longevity, whatever term we want to use. But it does provide one with an interesting perspective — not the definitive perspective, but an interesting one nonetheless — because I do remember firsthand what took place prior to 2001. And by the way, when I say that prior to 2001 — and prior to 1991, because if these sins that were dealt with in 2001…. They certainly were sins of commission by more than one previous government. But it was manipulation — manipulation of the budgeting process, manipulation of the timing of the budget and, yes, even manipulation of the numbers themselves.

I was here for the fudge-it budget. I watched it unfold. I was here when a leading member of the public service, a man named Chris Trumpy, was so offended by what took place that he felt compelled to commit to writing what he saw as an egregious betrayal and manipulation of the budgetary process. I was here when special warrants were so commonplace that barely a year went by without their use, where governments not wanting to be scrutinized for spending that hadn’t been discussed or authorized in the previous year’s budget just spent the money and then came along afterwards seeking forgiveness from this chamber.

It eventually got so bad that a series of safeguards were created. A couple, to be fair, before 2001; most after. And they were…. We called them safeguards. I call them safeguards of the integrity of the budgetary process, but they were safeguards because they represented constraints on government. And they were constraints on government. They were constraints around the timing, the date by which the budgetary instrument must be presented to the people of British Columbia. They were constraints that involved consulting experts in the guise of the forecast council.

The new minister, I presume, will still be abiding by those requirements, and we’ll have the opportunity to meet the present forecast council. It will be an interesting report, given the times we live in.

[5:25 p.m.]

They were constraints that provided for the elimination of the use of special warrants as a means of preventing that kind of unscrutinized manipulation of the budgetary process and legislated mandatory quarterly reporting periods. Those were but a few of the constraints on government designed to impose a rigour and a discipline around the budgeting process.

Previous governments lived with and within those constraints. Dare I say that previous governments lived and abided by those constraints through some fairly tumultuous times — 9/11, when the world shut down, and 2008-2009, which represented its own version of an economic meltdown.

Now, I will be the first to concede that the challenges that we face today, on a global, worldwide basis, are different and of a different order of magnitude. But it would be incorrect to suggest that previous governments were not confronted by very, very serious challenges — uncertainty on a magnitude that heretofore had not been seen.

It wasn’t easy. It wasn’t easy for those governments. Lots of late nights. I mean, if I had the time, I’d talk about the anecdotes — when the report comes in two days before the budget is supposed to be delivered that the price of natural gas has just gone down dramatically. If you want to, you can manufacture any number of excuses for not applying the discipline.

That’s what this government has chosen to do. This government has chosen to hide behind excuses, hide behind a crisis. It is a crisis, a health crisis. But by abiding by the discipline and the rigour, this province built a record of fiscal management, transparency and predictability that served British Columbians well and acquired for us a reputation second to none in Canada.

I can hear and see members of the government caucus rolling their eyes, but the results speak for themselves. How many members of the NDP government have at some point or another talked with pride of the fiscal position they inherited when they formed government in 2017 — the balanced budgets, the debt elimination, all of those things that have served the province so well when confronted by the cataclysm that befell us earlier this year?

But they didn’t happen by accident. That’s where I think members of the government caucus and members of the government make the mistake. They didn’t happen by accident. They happened because those procedural safeguards and those constraints on government existed, were applied and were adhered to. And for all of the benefits that flowed from that structural rigour — that openness, that discipline — this government, this NDP government, seems intent upon dismantling, one piece at a time, something that has served this province so well.

It is all being done under the guise of COVID, but as other speakers have said, the member for Peace River South, these are not changes that are themselves constrained to deal with an emergency situation. They are permanent. We have heard no explanation for why that is necessary or appropriate.

[5:30 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

We’ve heard no explanation, Mr. Speaker. It’s probably appropriate for me to, again, congratulate you for your lofty ascension to that noble perch in this chamber.

We have heard no explanation for something that I always thought was more or less basic about the process of budgeting and the process of approving expenditures. Now, look, the budget for the province of British Columbia, $55 billion plus…. It’s way more now. It crossed the $50 billion threshold a few years ago. It’s a big budget. It’s complex, and it impacts people. But surely, whether it is $55 billion or $50,000 or $5,000, there is a basic question that needs to be answered when people are considering major expenditures. That is: how are we doing? What have we got?

I don’t think there are a lot of people watching this program today, but I’ll bet the few that are can identify with this basic proposition. That is, when you sit down around your kitchen table, you and your partner and your family, and you’re trying to decide about making a major expenditure…. I would say that $2 billion qualifies as a pretty major expenditure. When you’re considering whether or not to make a major expenditure, probably at some point along the way you ask each other: “Well, how are we doing? What’s the update? What have we got in the bank? Do we have anything in the bank?”

Now, that’s not determinative, necessarily. There will be times when you have to borrow some money or want to borrow some money or the urgency of the situation requires you to borrow some money. I think we’re probably in one of those. But surely, before you ask people to make a decision about expending $2 billion, it’s appropriate to share with them the updated fiscal position for the province.

Not only is this government and this new minister not prepared to do that, apparently; they are prepared to introduce legislation that alters the obligations they have as a government to present that information in a timely way to the people of British Columbia. That’s not acceptable. That is irresponsible. That is a dismantling of the fundamental structure, the fundamental discipline that should be part of any budgeting process. This government doesn’t want to be constrained by that. It’s not a glorious start. It is an inglorious start for a newly elected government and a newly minted Finance Minister.

Government says to us, “Well, look. We, the NDP government, need to be relieved of these constraints. We need to be relieved of these constraints because an election intervened,” an election they called, an election that was unilaterally imposed upon the province at a most, in my view, inappropriate time. Yet that is the explanation we received, that this legislation, this Bill 3, is a response to complications and circumstances that derived from having an election. But it was an election that very few people in British Columbia were asking for, that the government itself created.

I suppose, in the parlance of the game of politics, it worked. They weren’t just re-elected; they were re-elected with a majority. Yet, that is, in my view, a wholly inappropriate and inadequate explanation for why the government would now feel entitled to continue dismantling the very instruments of budgetary discipline that have served the province of British Columbia so well.

[5:35 p.m.]

We talked about those people that we…. I think about the restaurateur on the weekends when I go across to Mission. It’s not a chain restaurant. It’s a family that operates their little place on main street in Mission. I’m not going to identify the restaurant, because what I’m going to say next may or may not be fair. I don’t think they’re going to make it. I just don’t think they’re going to make it. I hope they do. I hope I’m wrong. Been going there for 30 years. I don’t think they’re going to make it.

I have to say and relay to the chamber — because it’s the forum I have; I’m lucky enough to have the forum — what they and so many other people are saying to me. They understand, they accept and they get the fact that confronted by a health emergency, a health crisis, we have to alter our behaviour. They understand that. They’re prepared to do it. They say there are consequences. There are consequences for their lives, their business, their ability to earn a living for their families. What they say is: “How come when it’s my job, my employee, my ability to make a living, there is a lack of sympathy and that the order is the order?”

Okay. I get it. But how come when it’s the politicians looking to secure job security for themselves, none of that seems to apply? Because if anyone thinks an election can be carried out with not increasing the risk in the middle of a pandemic, they’re wrong. I have seen the numbers. I’ve seen what happened to the infection rates two weeks after that election. No one wants to say it. No one seems to want to talk about it. No one wants to acknowledge the linkage, but it’s clearly there.

So that restauranteur, another small business operator, the caterer, I hope they make it. I don’t know if they’re going to. They say to me, and they ask: “When it’s about me, I gotta suck it up, but when it’s about you politicians, you seem to find a way. You seem to find a way to conduct an election because that’s what matters to you guys.”

Then they are going to ask me: “All right. You had your election. You guys have got jobs. You guys have got paycheques. And the first thing you do when you go back to Victoria, under what the Premier says is going to be a session dedicated to my welfare as a human being in this province, confronted by all this pandemic challenge…. The first thing you do is introduce and debate legislation that makes life easier for the government.”

Shame on you. That’s what they’re going to say. That’s what they’re going to say, and I don’t blame them. I don’t blame them, because that’s what Bill 3 represents.

So I don’t expect we’re going to hear much from the government benches on this one. I mean, for the folks participating, whether here or on the screen — look, whether you’re a government member or an opposition member, you worked hard, you fought hard to get here. It’s time to be answerable. It’s time to explain how this bill makes life better for the people impacted by this pandemic.

[5:40 p.m.]

We’ve got a ways to go. It’s great news that the fruits of science are about to be unleashed in the guise of the vaccines that have been approved or will be shortly. But we’re not there yet.

People want to see this government walk the walk. Words are easy. Bill 3 falls miserably short of what I think people were entitled to expect. So there will be questions. The Minister of Finance, who, as I said, has a weighty responsibility that she has accepted, will be called to task to answer some of those questions. We’ll get to a supplementary estimate which, as my friend and colleague from Peace River South has already said, is, in its own way, dubious.

What’s at stake here is important — important for those families that are hanging on by their fingernails.

I will take my place. I will urge and invite those on the government side who are in a position to answer some of these questions to do so.

As always, thank you, and the House’s indulgence, for my participation in the debate.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Langara.

M. Lee: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Congratulations to you, as well, for assuming your role as Deputy Speaker in this House.

It is also my first opportunity to speak in this House in this session. I wanted to at least take this opportunity to congratulate all members in this House for their election, for many who were elected for the first time and for those who were re-elected.

To those who have served our province so well, those who have retired or those who were not successful at being re-elected to this chamber…. My gratitude, on behalf of all British Columbians, is to you for your service to this province.

I had the opportunity, of course, to run as a candidate in Vancouver-Langara for re-election. It was a crazy election. It was an election where we had a hard time reaching voters, either by phone or on the doorstep. I’m grateful to the volunteers, my family, friends and other supporters who contributed real time, set aside their busy lives and worked with me to gain re-election.

It’s a tremendous responsibility to come back to this chamber, not something that I know any of us take lightly. We rely on our good staff. In my case, my two constituency assistants, Tyson Schofield and Eileen Lao.

I know that we have a job do, even under these very difficult and challenging times. Those who come here and participate in person, those who are participating on Zoom and all the staff in this building who make it possible…. It’s a challenging time, but it’s one where we all need to stay safe.

I rise today to speak to Bill 3, the Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2020. As we have been talking in this debate, so much has changed since the last summer session. Questions have been raised about the debate that we were having on a budget that was there for 2020 with no adjustments. We’ve had an unprecedented pandemic affect our province yet no updates, no adjustments to that budget.

[5:45 p.m.]

In this special session, the government has put forward this bill, only this bill, alongside the supplementary estimates, to effect their one campaign promise, at least for COVID relief, for a payment to British Columbians based on their income, based on their 2019 income before COVID-19 — not taking into account those who have suffered job loss and other understandable income loss in 2020. This is what we’re here for. This is why we’ve come back together again. That’s it.

Since we left this chamber four months ago, what has the government been focused on? Well, certainly through the leadership of Dr. Bonnie Henry and the public health leadership team, they’ve been managing, with all of our health care professionals all over this province, including on the front lines…. Lots of people have been making sacrifices in their daily lives to keep others safe. There are those who are working in storefronts, those who are transporting goods, those who are serving so many of us in small businesses and otherwise. We all owe them a debt of gratitude to get through this.

Now more than ever across this province, we need leadership from this government. We are challenged with COVID-19. We’re into over nine months of this challenge. It has been draining. It has been hard. We know that many families are just trying to keep safe together and that businesses are trying to stay afloat in the face of all of the safety orders and restrictions. But when this government has been given the opportunity, it has repeatedly failed in their responsibility to map out a recovery plan, including for those sectors of our economy that have been hit hard by COVID-19, including the hospitality and tourism sectors.

As others have said, including my colleague from Kamloops–South Thompson, this government has not even acted by doing something as simple as what it actually said it would do: give assistance to small businesses by limiting food delivery charges to help restaurants through this pandemic period. I know that with my children, who rely on different ways to self-isolate…. They’re working from home, but they’re trying to stay safe. Food delivery is a service not just for those who are receiving a nice meal but for those who actually need it to stay safe — those who are immunocompromised, the elderly and others.

We need to find a better way, especially during this difficult time. We also need our government to keep focused on keeping our children, teachers, staff and schools safe and to work with parents and school trustees to do so. We need our government to help isolate its seniors in care, with their families and staff, to make sure that our care homes are as safe as possible, including through the greater use of rapid testing.

COVID-19 has been a long-running and challenging period. I see that in my riding of Vancouver-Langara. Through the South Vancouver Seniors Network, which I co-chair, we provide an umbrella network of senior-serving organizations across South Vancouver.

[5:50 p.m.]

South Vancouver has the highest population of elderly people in Vancouver. We know that every week, when we switch to an online format, running webinars to reach out to isolated seniors in their homes, to provide them with the supports, we hear many, many stories of elderly who are isolated and more confused about the situation. Every week, hearing more heartbreaking experiences of families and children being very limited in their abilities to see their parents or grandparents.

It’s a question as to whether this government can put the necessary focus and resources to help people get through this, to help our businesses that are struggling with this challenge, to help people who are homeless, those who are struggling with mental health and drug addictions, those who find recovery spaces even more of a challenge because of the necessary social distance. But this Bill 3 is not dealing with any of that. It doesn’t address any of that. It’s proposing an amendment primarily to the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, which the government already changed in the last special summer session.

This amendment is for the same purpose that was raised by the former Minister of Finance. At the time, she indicated that in the event of an election, the government needed additional flexibility. Well, how long? Thirty days. In her judgment and the government’s judgment, that would be sufficient time to provide the necessary work of due diligence to be done by the public service — 30 days. Well, one can ask what has changed since then. If that was sufficient time, what’s changed now?

As my colleague the member for Abbotsford West has laid out in great detail, the underpinnings of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act clearly provides the necessary discipline and fundamental framework around government to ensure that it manages our fiscal affairs in a prudent, appropriate and transparent manner. We are here, after all, on behalf of all British Columbians. We have a job to do. We can’t be doing that job when the government continues to delay and pushes out the budgetary process that many important organizations around the province rely on — the timing of this. School districts and municipalities, for example.

It was only five months ago that the member for Surrey South questioned the former Minister of Finance as to the timing of that. Here, it’s the same government. It’s not a new government. What’s changed? Well, there was an election. But it was the responsibility of this government as it formed a greater majority in this House to meet the standard that was there, that they changed just before the election. So why does that matter?

[5:55 p.m.]

Well, this government changed. They breached their commitment to this House — their own legislation that called for an election to be held in October 2021. The confidence and supply agreement that they had with the Third Party — this government broke that legislation and that agreement.

Why does that matter? Well, through the leadership of the former Leader of the Official Opposition, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena and the member for Kelowna–Lake Country alongside of the leader for the Third Party and others, there was a collaborative approach. There was an understanding, in the words of our colleague, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, that we need to fight the disease and not fight each other. That was a leadership style that he took that many across this country and this province applauded.

We took the partisanship out, at least on this very issue, and as we saw on March 23 in this chamber, all parties supported a $5 billion spending by this government with no details. It was done so to give government flexibility. It included $1.5 billion to support small businesses for business recovery — $1.5 billion that we thought was going to form the fundamental part of the recovery plan — a recovery plan that stalled in the summer. It went out to a survey. It didn’t appear until the eve of the snap election.

Well, as it turns out, what we saw is this government delayed the supports for front-line workers, struggling small businesses and those who have lost significant portions of their income. The thin plan that was released just before the snap election didn’t contain the kinds of supports that sectors that have been greatly affected by COVID-19 have been asking for. The tourism sector, for example, was looking for $680 million in provincial assistance to help the 20,000 tourism businesses of which 300,000 people are employed. That’s the kind of economic impact that we need to support.

Time and time again, the Premier and this government broke their word. That’s why we know that the Premier took away the focus of the government from dealing with COVID-19. How different would it have been if we had the fall session to continue to hold this government accountable for a plan that never came?

Well, we know that since the snap election was called on September 21, there were 8,208 COVID-19 cases. Since then, since that date, there have been over 38,000, which means close to 80,000 COVID cases have occurred since that unnecessary election was called.

This government lost its focus, and it shows. In the midst of a worldwide pandemic, with the combined efforts of members of this House, the Premier made a decision, and it was his decision, his responsibility that led to a vacuum of leadership. He took his eye off the ball, and now this government comes back after that election to ask for more time.

The Premier had said on election day: “I’m grateful for all British Columbians that we’ve put the election behind us, and we can get back to focusing on the things that matter most to you.”

[6:00 p.m.]

Well, we’re in the middle of a worldwide pandemic, for over nine months. What matters most to British Columbians is leadership, the kind of leadership that this House was providing, together. This Premier has failed British Columbia in calling that snap election. He admits by his very words that we can get back to focusing on things that matter. Well, we should have been focusing on things that mattered the whole time.

Why does that matter? The world is changing. We’ve lost many lives. Many are struggling. They’re struggling because they haven’t seen their family members for some time, whether they’re in a care home or self-isolated in their own home. Many workers have lost their jobs. For those who are struggling with their mental health, this has been draining, as I said earlier. It’s hard on all of us. We need a government that can provide a plan and leadership to go forward.

The province is facing, heading into this session, a $13 billion deficit. They’re asking for another $2 billion in further spending. The kinds of detailed questions that we’ll be asking here as members of the official opposition, with colleagues from the Third Party, are the details around that $2 billion expenditure. So $1.4 billion, $1.7 billion — what’s the extra $300 million for?

The requirements and the qualifications for those who are entitled to this. It was a $1,000 benefit. Now it’s a $500 benefit. Might get ten bucks. As I mentioned earlier, it’s dependent on your 2019 income. Well, what about those who lost their jobs, who lost that income? Shouldn’t that relief be targeted to that?

What about the rest of this? We’ve seen great uncertainty here with the province’s finances. The delays on the second quarter financial report…. We don’t know where the province stands right now. We’re being asked, in the face of that, to approve further expenditures.

What is the government’s plan beyond this single election promise? What is the government’s plan to help our province move forward? How will we deal with that deficit?

Right now, as we look forward to this, we need to consider all of the further expenditures this government needs to face. In the area of transportation, for example, we know that there has been a recent announcement with the federal government to provide additional funding, but that funding only carries through this financial period, ’20-21.

We know that ridership has been down under Trans­Link and B.C. Transit, and that TransLink itself relies heavily on fare revenue. It covers 58 percent of its operating expenses. Ridership had dropped by 83 percent in early April 2020.

[6:05 p.m.]

Ridership is now back up to around 40 percent of the pre-pandemic levels, but as the CEO of TransLink has recently said: “We’re facing now a fairly significant structural deficit that puts in danger our ability to continue to advance and grow the system, which inevitably needs to happen — whether it’s two years from now, four years from now — with the recovery of ridership.” So the funding that has been put in place to date, with this recent announcement with the federal government, will not be enough, as we see the needs, to ensure the long-term sustainability of the transit system in the Lower Mainland.

TransLink, for example, needs to be working with the government to develop scenarios for the prudential operating of fiscal impacts over the next three years. That sort of planning needs to be occurring.

We know, coming into this budgetary period, that there are many questions that need to be answered in terms of the government’s economic plan. How will the government continue to move forward in the face of the significant cost structure, the 23 new and increased taxes, that this government has put on British Columbians before COVID-19? What will be the fiscal position of this government coming out of COVID-19, particularly with the news we have about vaccines and the progress that’s being made?

There is a great responsibility here in this House in that we have the opportunity to do the review that is necessary, to work with the government, to represent our constituents in our critic roles and our MLA roles. This government is deflecting responsibility by limiting our ability to have transparency and accountability on their budget. They’re delaying the much-needed support that British Columbians need.

This is a time where there’s great uncertainty and great need. It’s not a time for government to delay further. The discussions we’re having here are about this bill, but it’s in the context of: what would you expect government to do? Certainly not call an unnecessary election, a snap one, in the middle of a pandemic. Certainly not that. But also, you would expect government to come here immediately, in this period, to help move forward the province.

As I said, the government has repeatedly failed to do that. Every single time we’ve convened here for special purposes — March, June through August and now — we’ve been spinning wheels on the economic recovery plan, on a budget that’s still yet to come. So it’s very important, as we look at what this government is proposing, that when you even look at the special warrant ability, the ability to fund government before the tabling of a budget…. They’re asking for a further 30-day extension.

As we debated last summer about emergency measures — and I know that the Leader of the Third Party commented on this as well — we were talking about, when provisions are put in place, that they need to be transparent, reasonable and balanced to justify those measures.

Well, why is this government giving itself the ability to do special warrants on this basis to take advantage of this crisis situation, a situation where the government should be actually doing and acting in a way with great urgency and a recognition of our situation?

[6:10 p.m.]

Great urgency is not to delay further. It’s not to merely punt the ball down the field. British Columbians need action from this government, and by this bill, it’s delaying that action. We also need to ensure that this government. By this bill, it’s delaying that action.

We also need to ensure that this government is being responsible as it spends. We have no clarity about the $1.5 billion and where it’s gone, how it has been deployed, what the impact is to help small businesses. And we’re seeking the clarity around the $2 billion expenditure request that’s attached to this bill. But we’re doing this all under the guise of darkness, because we have no transparency. We have no light on the government’s finances.

These are the concerns that I have with this bill, and I know that all members, as we work through this legislation, will ask the kinds of questions of government that we would expect them to respond to. Thus far in the debate, in the way this has been presented, we have a real lack of explanation from this government and from this new Minister of Finance, who I do also congratulate in her new role.

But we have a critical time here — a critical time in this House. I hope we use the next few days of this debate in a wise manner and in the best interests of British Columbians.

T. Wat: I rise in this House this late afternoon to continue joining all my previous colleagues on the discussion of Bill 3.

I think everyone in this House would agree that this year has been a year like no other. As we head into the colder days of winter — even though it’s not that cold yet, it will be — at the height of the second wave of this global pandemic, many British Columbians are sharing the feeling that they are facing darker days than we have felt before. And with the introduction of this Bill 3, I think we are facing even darker days.

This is a time of sorrow, a time of hardship and a time of great struggle for many of us. Families are being kept apart for the holidays in order to keep each other safe. Tens of thousands of British Columbians are entering the holiday season still out of work. And with our opioid deaths continuing to rise at an alarming rate, with no sign of stopping, even with this government having been in power for three and a half years in which they claimed that they would tackle it, it is a sign that many of the most vulnerable members of our community are facing more than one crisis.

I have called British Columbia home for more than half of my life, and like many of the MLAs I share this House with, I am proud to identify as both a Canadian and an immigrant. One thing I was quick to learn about Canadians is their unique resilience, their optimism and their ability to always find the brighter side of things. In a country that can see some very dark winters, which I wasn’t used to in the place where I grew up, I definitely learned that quickly. Most of the time, I feel I have developed this spirit of optimism so common amongst Canadians.

[6:15 p.m.]

I take pride in my work as an MLA, and I am incredibly honoured to have served and continue to serve the people of Richmond North Centre and all British Columbians for so many years. Despite the struggles we are facing today, I hope to bring the spirit of optimism with me into the Legislature this late afternoon as we debate legislation that will, hopefully, finallying deliver upon some of the promised relief for British Columbians that have endured so much.

Unfortunately, there are so many aspects to this Bill 3 — so many clauses, catches and conditions to show that its intentions are not to serve the people of British Columbia first and foremost — that, I’m sad to say, I cannot debate this bill with any form of optimism at all. The Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2020 is the only piece of legislation tabled in this crucial session of parliament, for which we were called back to in the House, even at the height of the pandemic.

This act was supposed to have one purpose, and one purpose only: to provide British Columbians with the financial relief they need to endure the second wave of our pandemic. But I cannot say with confidence that I believe this is the true intent and purpose of this bill. I want to use my time this late afternoon to outline what I believe to be the true motive, not only behind this bill but behind why this newly re-elected government — which was elected by calling a snap election at the height of the pandemic — has brought us here for these brief two weeks.

The true intent and purpose of this bill is for the benefit of government, not the people of British Columbia. This bill is intended to strip away credibility, transparency and accountability from a government that is inherently failing British Columbians in their pandemic recovery efforts. I really do struggle to see how anyone in this House could see it otherwise.

I am, so far, quite disappointed that, except for the Finance Minister — whom I have to congratulate for taking such an important file — nobody from the government bench has the guts to stand up and debate this bill. So far, it’s only the Green Party leader and our B.C. Liberal colleagues.

I urge all our MLAs to stand up and say what they think about this bill. Don’t forget that we just went through an election in the pandemic, and we who were voted in, all of us, should pride ourselves that we won the trust of our constituents. They elected us to come to this people’s House, to be their voice, to talk about their real concerns, not to just vote yes for your party. I urge all my colleagues, for the next few days, to stand up in this House and debate this bill, especially the government bench.

One only has to read the contents of this bill. So let’s look at what this bill does. This bill extends a deadline for presenting the budget and the main estimates for the 2021 fiscal year to April 30, which is one month into the 2021 fiscal year. This bill will also provide $2 billion in unaccounted spending and has provided no details on pandemic relief payments for families.

[6:20 p.m.]

This bill will, essentially, delay the budget by a month, on top of the one-month delay established back in the summer, meaning that the 2021 fiscal budget will be delayed by two months. This will be the longest period that British Columbians have gone without a fiscal update in 20 years, in two decades.

This bill, the only bill we are going to deal with before the new year, is designed to justify further delays in the promised relief to British Columbians, create less transparency and accountability on government spending, and allow this government to carry forward in its failings to British Columbians, free of accountability or consequence.

Well, this is the first bill since the provincial election, which is what makes this bill even more concerning. I fear this bill is not a radical outlier but the first of many bills of this type that we will see from this government. I’m cautioning British Columbians to be facing the darker, darker days ahead.

I fear that more bills will come with catches and conditions that will allow this government to proceed with less and less transparency and accountability to British Columbians. It also raises the question: is this a new mandate for this government? Or was this the mandate that was always on the Premier’s agenda, who now feels that he has the means to carry it out?

Just look at the session designed to support British Columbians, the session that was framed to voters as the purpose of this bill. British Columbians are going to receive a one-time payment that is supposed to hold them over until the new year and likely into the spring. But even this session has conditions to it. We are now learning that the payments will be scaled, based on 2019 income, income that was in place before the pandemic. How does this make sense? How is this supposed to support workers and families who lost their jobs because of the pandemic?

I’m really worried that this bill represents just one more example of a government that is trying to find every single excuse and justification for overpromising, underdelivering and delaying on their promised supports for British Columbians.

As the critic for Tourism, Arts and Culture, as well as the MLA for a community that prides itself on its tourism industry, I can tell you that the facts of this worrying trend are no more apparent than in the tourism and hospitality industry.

Back in July, the Tourism Industry Association of B.C., TIABC, and its dozens of sector association partners presented the provincial government with a tourism and hospitality sector recovery stimulus proposal that asked the government to allocate $680 million in order for the tourism and hospitality sector to make a full and effective recovery.

This ask was way back in July, and the government had to wait, wait, wait for several months, for the simple reason that they wanted to give out the goodies just before the election. So they announced a few days before they called the snap election that they created a tourism task force that will deliver a mere $50 million, pending the recommendation of that task force. Not only are we still pending the report and recommendations from the task force; we are now learning that we won’t see any additional support until late April at the earliest.

[6:25 p.m.]

Let’s look at the news release just issued yesterday by the new Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport. Congratulations to the new minister for having her first news release. This is no comfort for the tourism industry. All it said…. The heading is: “Building a stronger B.C. today, boosting tourism’s future.” But there is no concrete plan on how the $50 million…. Now they say $53 million, $3 million more. When will it be in the hands of the tourism sector?

I look at this news release. It doesn’t go to the tour operators or the travel agencies or the small businesses — $19.4 million to support tourism-dependent municipalities, and we don’t know which municipalities they are; $13.6 million going to all six B.C. tourism regions; and then $20 million to develop local tourism experience infrastructure and service, etc., etc. But, most likely, they won’t receive any funding until — we don’t know whether it will be — February or March. So in the meantime, many, many tourism-related enterprises and small businesses have closed or are in the process of closing.

Just look at another…. I’m just trying to let this House know that the tourism sector has been working so hard to beg the government to help them, to provide them immediate relief. The government, all they say is, “We heard it. We’re going to boost tourism’s future,” and yet they have done nothing concrete or tangible.

On October 16, 2020, four organizations related to the tourism industry — the Tourism Industry Association of B.C., TIABC; the B.C. Hotel Association; the Alliance of Beverage Licensees and Restaurants Canada — sent a letter to the deputy minister, to the Premier and also cc’d to the deputy ministers of several other ministries which also have a portfolio on tourism.

Let me read you one paragraph. They say: “As you are aware, the liquidity challenges for operators are real and significant. It is paramount that the province finds an effective way to provide grants to tourism and hospitality business owners immediately.” The word is “immediately.” And yet this government hasn’t given anything.

In the July news release, the Tourism Industry Association of B.C. also laid out detailed plans urging this government on how to help the tourism industry. They are asking for a working capital recovery grant of $475 million, support for adaptation, cost of $190 million, and support for developing resilient, B.C.-focused supply chains for $15 million. Yet all these requests have fallen on deaf ears.

In my riding, in the city of Richmond, the Tourism Richmond CEO has written to myself and my three other peers, colleagues asking us to help push the government for more relief.

In spite of the tourism industry’s concerted effort, trying to come up with plans and ways of how to help this industry, there’s nothing. Tourism has now endured a full summer season without the travel they are so heavily dependent on. Air travel dropped by 95 percent during the pandemic. Although we shall hopefully see a vaccine soon, our tourism industry will continue to suffer until it is safe to reopen our borders again.

[6:30 p.m.]

Now this tourism and hospitality industry are learning that they will have to not only endure the winter season devoid of the winter travel they rely on but also devoid of the support promised to them by this government.

These impacts can even be felt in my community of Richmond. At least three hotels in my riding, including the River Rock hotel, have closed, and they don’t know when they will reopen. You know that once a business is closed, they lay off all the workers, and they are worried about how, even when and if they reopen, they’re going to rehire their staff, because all the laid-off people will try to find other jobs, and they might not come back.

There is a significant event, a signature event, in my riding. I’m sure many of my colleagues probably have been there. It’s called the Richmond Night Market. The Richmond Night Market started 20 years ago. It was featured in 2019 in the New York Times on their front page, a full-page colour report on this Richmond Night Market. Just imagine how much it would cost you if you had a full-page ad in the New York Times, but this was their coverage. Even Americans see the uniqueness and the attraction of our Richmond Night Market and featured it on the front page of the newspaper.

Yet I just talked to the operator of Richmond Night Market, Raymond Cheung, before I spoke, to just see how it goes, because I haven’t had time to talk to him since the middle of the outbreak. He has been talking to the Tourism Ministry, also talking to the Tourism Richmond CEO. I’m sure the Tourism Richmond CEO wants to help him, but she just simply cannot convince the government, and he’s had to cancel the Richmond Night Market just last summer, according to the direction of this government. His site is as big as 24 acres, and he has to pay for the lease of this site for the year. The Richmond Night Market, as I’m sure all my colleagues are fully aware, is a seasonal business.

This summer was supposed to be the 20th anniversary of the Richmond Night Market, and he had ordered, for $900,000, all the decorations to try to have a big event at the Richmond Night Market. He’d already got the rentals from many vendors, and because of the cancellation, he has to pay them back. He had to spend all the money, and he doesn’t have any cash flow. He doesn’t even know whether he can still operate this Richmond Night Market. Now he is deeply in financial trouble.

Just imagine this 20-year-old signature event in my riding. It’s a popular signature event all throughout the world, and the Richmond Night Market doesn’t get a cent from this government. Does it make sense? I don’t think so.

Travel agencies. There are so many small travel agencies in my riding, in my strip malls. I walk around, and I see many of them closed already — this one particular one called Happy Times Travel. They have three offices, one in Chinatown, one in Vancouver — I think on Kingsway — and one in my riding. The last one was closed in Chinatown. She sent a note to me on August 11. Let me read it out. I hope that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant can listen, and I hope she can help Chinatown as well.

[6:35 p.m.]

She said: “Turning off the lights in the Chinatown store was the darkest day after I had immigrated to Vancouver in the ’80s. This is the hardest way, leaving my favourite Chinatown, where I have established my friends and my business.” Happy Times is one of the many small businesses that has been suffering.

The most job recent numbers indicate that British Columbia is still down 37,400 jobs compared to pre-pandemic levels, many of these directly related to tourism and hospitality. After speaking to this House on what I thought about this Bill 3 and also about my critic role — the tourism industry, which has a major impact on my constituents — I am urging this government…. You have now become the majority in this House, and you have been given the trust and confidence of British Columbians to do the right things.

As the Premier says, he can put politics aside and try to help British Columbians survive through this pandemic. Most important of all, now that we have the vaccine at the end of the tunnel, we are all so excited. To the Premier and this government: I urge you to come up with a more thoughtful, comprehensive plan on how to get us through this economic recovery.

Otherwise…. I have grandchildren. I am really worried for them. This government now keeps spending money for their own political purpose. My grandchildren will have to pay back this huge debt. This is not good for British Columbians. With the debate in this House from all our opposition MLAs, I’m hoping and urging that government MLAs will also speak their conscience, and hopefully, we can push this government and the cabinet to really, for once, care for the interests of British Columbians.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing, I believe, the Member for Skeena, if he’s available. There he is.

E. Ross: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and congratulations on your new appointment and to all the brand-new MLAs and the returning MLAs coming to the Legislature.

Before I begin speaking to the Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2020, I didn’t get a chance to respond to the Throne Speech. I just wanted to talk to my constituents of Skeena. Actually, I was surprised at how energetic they were, two weeks before the election, to get me back here.

I didn’t really understand my role back in 2017. I wanted to learn as much as I could before I could actually give some type of analysis back to my constituents, but I’ve always taken the role of public service very, very seriously. I really put that above anything else. I even said it one time as an elected chief councillor that my own council didn’t matter to me as an entity. The people mattered. If I could see an entity not doing anything for the good of the people, then I didn’t want to support the entity at all.

I was blessed, though, to be surrounded by people that thought likewise. I know there are people in the Legislature that think the same way. I am quite impressed by the Legislature, by the whole thought of the institution, because I’d never seen this before: where accountability and transparency is not just talked about; it’s actually acted upon. Where I come from, there is no opposition. There is nobody holding government accountable. There is nobody picking apart our decisions bit by bit. There’s none of that.

You know, for the first part of my first year in the Legislature, I had no idea what I was doing. I didn’t even know where the bathrooms were. You know, the debates and amendments — I didn’t know any of it. So I was actually pretty lucky to have people around me that taught me everything.

[6:40 p.m.]

It all came down to what I can do for those people that really want me to represent them in Victoria, and now I know why. It’s because they have faith in us, as MLAs and as people. The B.C. Liberals didn’t elect me. The people of Skeena elected me.

For those thousands and thousands of people who are watching at home, you’re probably wondering why it’s only the B.C. Liberals and the Greens debating this amendment. Yeah, I’m wondering too.

Government is silent. They all got a chance to speak to the throne speech. They all jumped up. But when it comes to this new pot of money that they don’t want to be accountable for, they’re being silent. That’s not what this Legislature is for. You did not get elected by the NDP. You got elected by your constituents, by the people of B.C.

At the end of the day, these labels we have — B.C. Liberals, B.C. Greens, B.C. NDP — shouldn’t be a reason why we don’t do what’s in the best interests of B.C., especially when we’re talking about the future of B.C., the grandkids and the kids that will have to face the deficits that we’re actually proposing here. There are cuts coming — no doubt about it — to programs, to budgets. If you don’t do that, you’re going to have to raise rates. You’re going to have to raise taxes.

While we play politics here…. Something I go back to, what I was taught back in my own band council by my own people, no less, is that we have to think out seven generations ahead, and I don’t see that. I especially don’t see it from the government MLAs sitting on the other side, just sitting on their hands. I mean, you’re an MLA. I’m an MLA. Our grandkids, together, are not going to identify as NDP or Liberals in 20 years when they see that the programs are going to get cut. They’re not going to be identified by that, and I don’t think they’re going to understand the whole process and how this unfolded.

It all came out with the idea that we should get rid of transparency and accountability, which I really envied in this place — the principles of transparency and accountability. Now I see the NDP government wants to get rid of those transparency principles. Nobody talks about that.

You talk about democracy being one vote, voting for your leadership. But the mechanics of that, in terms of getting your representatives to actually do what’s in the best interests of yourself as well as your province or your country — that’s a different matter altogether.

I don’t understand why this government wants to get rid of transparency and accountability measures. I don’t get it. We’re living in a democracy. We’re living where people sent us to the Legislature to protect democratic principles. I mean, the NDP. You’ve even got it in your name — democratic. When you talk about a government that wants to get rid of transparency and accountability measures, you’re not talking about democracy. You’re talking about some other country that doesn’t have democracy, that can do whatever they want.

I learned this on the job. I learned transparency and accountability on the job over 16 years. It actually came from the Indian Act. It was kind of silly, because the Indian Act actually proposed every single measure that you had to do as elected chief and council for transparency and accountability.

I ignored it because it didn’t actually speak to transparency and accountability, in my mind. It spoke to transparency and accountability to the federal government, but it didn’t speak to my people, so I went above and beyond. I went and toured Vancouver, where my membership was. I did social media, told them exactly what I proposed do, gave them updates, and then at the end of the day, I told them whether I had succeeded or failed. That’s transparency and accountability.

Why, when you already had a $1.5 billion fund forwarded to you before the election, do you want more, without any transparency and accountability mechanisms? You’re talking about a bill that will probably cost you anywhere from $1.4 billion to $1.6 billion, but you’re asking for $2 billion with no accountability, no budget. You want nothing. This is a scary trend.

[6:45 p.m.]

The one time I saw this in the Legislature, I thought it was a one-off. I saw this in the Legislature when the B.C. NDP actually pulled off the final yard of a ten-yard race to get LNG across the finish line. In that project agreement that was brought to the Legislature that the NDP government wanted to sign with LNG Canada, they actually included one clause that proposed to get rid of that requirement to bring major project agreements to the Legislature for debate. Why? That was billions of dollars of tax cuts and what could be characterized as a subsidy. I think the public actually had a right to know.

It had a cap on carbon tax. Whereas the rest of British Columbians and Canadians are actually going to be exposed to higher and higher rates of carbon tax, here’s LNG Canada getting a cap rate. Why did you not want to tell the people of B.C. that? What I’m hearing about, all this debate now — I think that’s really fundamental to what the problem is with this bill.

We truly appreciate the idea that we’re going to help out people, with $500 or $1,000, get through the COVID recession. But what is the result going to be if we’re getting rid of the transparency and accountability principles that you’re actually proposing? Why do you want to do things in secret?

A lot of my colleagues already talked about why those provisions were put there in the first place. And you keep trying to do better, especially in a democracy, one of the messiest systems you can have in terms of trying to progress.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

But you keep doing better. With every succeeding government, you try to do better. But you don’t try to tear it down. Can you imagine how hard it’s going to be later on, when we’re all gone, to bring back transparency and accountability? Nobody follows what we’re doing here. We don’t stand a chance, with some of those sitcoms on TV or those reality shows. We don’t stand a chance. Really, I don’t blame them, because they elected us to come down here and do this job.

I don’t like a lot of things that government does, but I do see the bigger picture on why government does what they do. I can disagree; I can agree. It doesn’t bother me as long as you do it aboveboard. What better time than now to do it aboveboard, when we’re talking about an international crisis that has affected everybody?

Now everybody in the whole wide world, eight billion people, is wondering what’s next. What are we going to do next? We’re talking about the measures that are coming down, the restrictions, but nobody seems to really put emphasis on what their governments are actually doing or the deficits that are coming. I don’t understand why, because it is going to affect affordability. It is going to affect the quality of life. It is going to affect what is basically a really good country.

I’ve heard a number of people talk about this already. The one thing that I do note when we’re talking about Canada is the tremendous appreciation that immigrants have for our country in terms of freedom of speech, in terms of our freedoms, freedom of religion. It’s an incredible country to live in.

In that respect, I’ve seen some of the comments come from government denouncing and insulting people that want to exercise free speech. Here’s a government that actually called an election during the biggest crisis the world has ever faced. But then you turn around and then you criticize everybody else for speaking up against it. How hypocritical is that?

Not only that, you called this session for one bill. You invite all the MLAs back to Victoria to travel on the planes, to travel on the boats, to sit in that Legislature. What is it, 24 people sitting there right now?

[6:50 p.m.]

It goes back to a comment that my colleague made that said when it comes to the citizens, you’re willing to make those sacrifices, but when it comes come to yourself, you always find a way to make it work. Now, if we’re truly in this all together, then stop dividing our people. Stop dividing British Columbians. They’re going to do that on their own. The stresses that this has placed on citizens right now — they don’t need politicians diving into that fight and making it worse. They don’t need that.

This slogan that came up — we’re all in this together. Well, I had that slogan ten years ago, and that came from case law, Aboriginal rights and title case law that was conveniently ignored by this government. But it was a judge. It was a judge that came up with this. He put it the best when it came to reconciliation. This is probably what we need coming out of this COVID crisis, not from Aboriginals, but British Columbians: reconciliation, to see what the world is going to look like after COVID. The judge basically said that we might as well reconcile because none of us are going anywhere.

Now, this shouldn’t be an excuse to divide British Columbians. It shouldn’t be an excuse to feed that animosity that is building up out there. I’m not going to criticize any of the measures put forward by the government. You’re doing the best you can. I think any other government probably would have done the same, if not maybe different measures.

But we can’t ignore the fact that government…. You’re not holier than thou on this question. I mean, you could have proposed this bill while we were sitting in the House before the election. You could have done that, because I never saw the bickering over COVID measures in the House when I was there. I never saw the Green Party actually disobeying what you were putting forward. In fact, they approved every one of your taxes, whether it was a new tax increase…. They approved every one of them.

Instead, what did this government do? They turned around and threw the Green Party under the bus, because we’re bickering in the House. I didn’t see any bickering. In fact, if anything, the government actually backed up over the Green Party because they actually broke the agreement that they actually signed, the CASA, the confidence and supply agreement.

It was all under the guise of working together, which I honestly thought was the best thing to do, to the point where I didn’t believe there was an election going to be called, so I didn’t prepare. I didn’t prepare any plan for election, because I didn’t think any government in their right mind, in the middle of a pandemic, would call an election. Even the federal leader of the NDP said that it’s absolutely reckless and irresponsible to call an election in the middle of a pandemic.

These are historic times. It’s time to put away the politics. This is politics. This is absolute politics what we’re doing here. Hopefully it does come out and help those people that truly need it, especially the ones that lost their jobs. But in 20 years, we’re all going to be asking ourselves where we were in the middle of the pandemic. The same way we talk about 9/11, the same way we talk about the Berlin Wall coming down, we’re all going to be talking about what we were doing.

I hope to say in 20 years: “We got rid of the politics in B.C. We stopped the vote-buying, and we got down to business. We pulled back the economy. We made sure that people were okay coming out of it.” I hope. I’m not very hopeful right now, but in 20 years, I hope.

With that, noting the time, I reserve my right to continue my debate at the next sitting.

Mr. Speaker: Member, would you move adjournment of the debate, please?

E. Ross moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:55 p.m.