Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading, Bill 10, Supply Act, 2021.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

[2:30 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2021

Deputy Speaker: Members, if I might ask, please take your conversations out to the hallways or, even better, the open air — outside the buildings if you need to do that. We will be proceeding with discussion of interim supply act 2021.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 10, the Supply Act (No. 1), 2021, be read a second time now.

Existing voted appropriations will expire on March 31, 2021. Bill 10 provides interim supply for ministry operations and other appropriations for approximately the first three months of the 2021-2022 fiscal year, until the 2021-22 estimates are presented and the House completes debate of the appropriations in those estimates. Interim supply for ministry operations and other appropriations is required to ensure continuation of government services until the final supply bill comes into force.

This bill is different from interim supply bills that are usually presented to the House each year. This interim supply bill is being presented before the main estimates have been presented. Therefore, the calculation of the amounts required for government operations and services is based on the appropriations for the previous fiscal year, as this is considered a good approximation.

Bill 10 also provides one-third of the combined voted amounts in schedules C and D of the 2020-2021 estimates for disbursements related to capital expenditures, loans, investments and other financing requirements. The one-third authorization provided for in relation to these disbursements is higher than the proportion authorized in relation to ministry operations, as the disbursements described in schedules C and D are not evenly distributed throughout the year. Therefore, the higher level of interim supply is required to accommodate the payments that will be made under these schedules.

Bill 10 also authorizes one-half of the disbursements referred to in schedule E of the 2020-2021 estimates. Schedule E of the estimates outlines the revenue collected on behalf of and transferred to specific programs or entities. There is no impact on the operating results, borrowing or debt resulting from the collection and transfer of this revenue.

These interim supply appropriations are based on the accountabilities and allocations outlined in the 2020-2021 estimates and will allow the government to remain funded until the main estimates for 2021-2022 are presented and passed. The final supply bill for the 2021-2022 fiscal year will incorporate these amounts to ensure it reflects the sum of all voted appropriations to be given to government in that fiscal year.

This bill is about making sure that we can continue to support British Columbians. As a government, we have certainly seen the impacts of the pandemic here in British Columbia and around the nation and around the world.

I’m very proud of the fact that our government has provided the most supports of any other government here in the nation to make sure that British Columbians can take care of their families and can take care of their loved ones, making sure that child care is there for those who are on the front lines, making sure that doctors and nurses and lab techs can go to work to make sure that they’re able to take care of our loved ones who might be exposed to COVID or sick with COVID and making sure that they are doing their jobs. We’re making sure that their children are cared for.

We also want to make sure that those who are working in long-term care, taking care of our seniors, who thankfully now are vaccinated…. They still need care. We need to make sure that they continue to be paid, continue to operate and continue to take care of our seniors.

We also need to make sure that those members that are living on the margins, whether they find themselves without a home, live with mental illness or addiction or live with a disability, continue to also receive the government benefits that they rely on in order to have a quality of life that allows them to take care of themselves.

[2:35 p.m.]

All of these things that we are able to provide, all of these things that we know, through COVID, just how much more precious it is…. This bill is about making sure that that can continue to happen.

I know that the members are going to probably complain about the fact that they haven’t seen the budget yet, which is coming on April 20. We have been in an unprecedented time, and making sure that we take the time to hear from the various constituent groups about what their needs are, making sure that we have a budget that responds to those unique needs….

Dr. Henry has said…. Over the past year, she’s often referred to: “We’re all in the same storm, but we’re in different boats.” It’s such an apt description. Making sure that we are connecting with all the various boats and understanding what their needs are so that we can have a budget that responds to their needs — that’s absolutely critical.

Taking the time to make sure that we hear from the tourism sector, hear from the manufacturing sector, hear from people with disabilities, hear from front-line workers, hear from the whole range of diverse groups that make up British Columbia, that make us so special, and understand their unique needs, because they are in different boats…. That’s what it means to be in different boats. Some are more stable in a storm. They’re more flat-bottomed and can ride the waves more easily. They’re more resilient. And others are certainly more fragile and need a little bit more understanding and a little bit more, perhaps, budget support in order to make it through this storm. That’s why we haven’t seen budget estimates, as is normally the case. That is coming.

In the meantime, we need to make sure that the supports are there for people when they need it. We need to make sure that we continue to pay our teachers, who are out there every day, making sure that our children are learning. We need to make sure that we continue to pay those conservation officers, especially, I would say…. The member from Port Moody was here earlier, and, certainly, we’d been chatting about cougar sightings in his community and making sure that conservation is there to keep those folks safe. So there’s another….

Interjection.

Hon. S. Robinson: Oh, I see the member from Burke Mountain is here, and I know that the cougar was up in his riding as well.

This supply bill is about making sure that those people that we count on, those people that we don’t often even think about in terms of, you know, how they are paid and how they come to be to take care of us, who’s responsible for that…. This bill is about making sure that those people can continue to do the important work that they do. I think it’s also important to mention to everyone here in the House that this is normal, to do a supply bill, because we often need more time to debate estimates. It goes well beyond March 31, which is year-end, and we bring forward supply bills every single year. Certainly — I’ve been here since 2013 — every single year there’s a supply bill that’s brought in that’s debated, that’s passed, while we continue to do the important work of going through estimates process and passing the budget so that we can continue to do the important work that British Columbians count on.

I know that there is going to be ongoing debate about this, but I want to finish off my comments, as part of the second reading, about how outstanding the public service has been in terms of their work in helping us get through this extraordinary year.

I can remember, from my home office — which was my son’s old bedroom, transforming it into a livable workspace — talking with the public service a year ago, right through for months, just doing work from that space and talking about how we were going to take care of British Columbians, how we were going to address — certainly, as the previous Housing Minister — the concerns that renters had, how we were going to address the concerns that we had around people who were homeless, how we were going to thin shelters, how we were going to find more shelter space, how we were going to make sure that health care could be delivered to those that were most on the margins, how we were going to do that recognition when we didn’t understand how COVID, frankly, was transmitted at the time and we knew we needed to act.

[2:40 p.m.]

It was the public service and the people on the front lines and their collaboration, and, frankly, their late nights, their weekend work…. I don’t think the public would fully appreciate how hard the public service worked to help us all get through this last year.

This bill is about making sure that those people continue to get paid, continue to do the important work that they are doing right now during this pandemic. I want to preface that by saying the important work that they’re going to have to keep doing.

We are not through this pandemic. Yes, there’s light at the end of the tunnel. I see my colleagues across the way with sort of a smile in their eyes, feeling the energy that we are getting there. We are getting closer. A year ago, we did not anticipate that we would be vaccinating people now. The talk at the time was it was going to be a couple of years. Well, it’s a year. This is exciting, but we’re still in that tunnel.

We know that there are parts of the economy that have not yet been able to come back — particularly around tourism, for sure. But we also need to make sure that we’re ready for a recovery when we’re able to be out of this state of emergency.

The opportunities are there before us as well. It really is a public service, doing a significant amount of work to help us all get through this last part of the pandemic and move into the new phase once we all have herd immunity and are able to see the Emergency Management Act repealed so that we’re not in this state of emergency.

I look forward to that day. But for right now, I look forward to the debate in this House. With that, I look forward to hearing what my colleagues have to say.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that. I look forward to hearing everybody’s comments as well. But let me just start by acknowledging a few things that the minister said.

This is not normal. Now, there are a lot of things that aren’t normal, as the minister highlighted, throughout the last year, when we talk about the pandemic and we talk about some of the things, programs, that government was trying to roll out. But what’s not normal is the process that this government is going through right now.

I heard the minister stand up and say…. All of the great public sector workers out there, all of the great work that’s being done — that these funds that the government is asking for are to go to help those people and the great work they’re doing. How do we know? Are we supposed to now just take government’s word for it yet again? I’ll get into some of the things a little later on in my speech of why this is not normal. The process that government is going through, the laws that they’re having to basically change in order to go through putting a supply act forward as they are….

One of the things I’m hearing from people is that they’re actually starting to get sick and tired of this government using the pandemic as a shield for not doing their job, for not following timelines, for not being accountable and transparent in the work that they are doing, which is expected of them by the people of British Columbia and of this House. People are getting frustrated. They’re getting frustrated, definitely, with the pandemic, but they’re frustrated with the government and the way they’re dealing with it.

This government has delayed quarterly reports. They’ve delayed the budget. The minister acknowledged that, but that’s one of the reasons why we’re going to have to discuss this bill in further detail today. It’s because the budget has been delayed, and this government has been unable to tell anybody where a dollar of it really is going.

This is another “trust us” exercise. We’ve seen how that’s played out over the last three, four years with this government not being able to fulfil the promises that they have made to the electorate. This government is having to bypass transparency laws in order to put the Supply Act forward.

[2:45 p.m.]

Now, in some ways, this should be no surprise to this House or the general public if you think back now. It’s the current Premier, his current chief of staff, the Health minister, and they were all around in the 1990s during the fudge-it budget era. So in some ways, it’s no surprise.

I know most people remember when the NDP Premier needed to resign in disgrace because of the handling of the financial situation under an NDP government. I know many people probably remember those TV cameras rolling and filming the RCMP raiding the Premier’s house to find documents while the now chief of staff in the Premier’s office looked on and watched all that take place.

I think we also remember the Minister of Health having to resign his job in the Premier’s office for backdating memos. So, yeah. Of course we’re finding ourselves in the same situation with the same NDP government. You’d think 20 years later, a few different faces, they would have learned. But we’re back in the same scenario of this government not being able to handle the finances of the province and now trying to use the pandemic as a situation to hide behind for them failing to do the jobs that they were elected to do.

You know, I look at this last year…. In good faith, I will say that we had all three parties, all sides of this House who understood that we were in the middle of a pandemic and that extra supports would be needed to help people, especially vulnerable people in the province, businesses that were hurting, people who lost their jobs. Obviously, we all understood, we all empathized, and we all realized that we needed to do something as elected members of this province to help those people.

In good faith, we did that. We trusted this government. We took them at their word because, at that time as well, they were unable to put the documents in this House to say where all those dollars would be going. Even if they did in some situations, they failed to fulfil that promise to help people when we said that that money was going to go and do just that.

In front of us today…. It is unfortunate when we’re in a situation that this government, on their track record in the past, is once again, in good faith, asking for trust — for us to give them now $13.4 billion, to be exact, with no accountability. The minister says: “Don’t worry. Don’t worry, this is normal.”

Well, actually, it’s not. I’ll explain some history on that in a moment. But she also said: “Don’t worry. You’ll see the budget.” We’re being asked to spend $13.4 billion, again, without knowing where a single dollar of that is going. It’s another case of: “Don’t worry. Just wait. Trust us.”

Because of what happened in the 1990s under an NDP government, there’s a reason why laws were changed in the province of British Columbia. Laws around accountability. Laws around transparency and around the financial situations of how we report. We brought in the balanced-budget legislation. We brought in fixed budget dates. For that matter, we brought in fixed election dates, but we’ve seen how this government fails to follow those rules as well. We brought in the Economic Forecast Council to help guide the budgeting process.

Because of all of those things, that’s why British Columbia was considered a leader in Canada, a leader around transparency and accountability, a leader around fiscal management. It’s because of those laws that were brought in to ensure that that information was shared in a timely way, in a legal way and in an appropriate way for the people of British Columbia. Because at the end of the day, some people in this House, especially the NDP government, forget it’s the taxpayers of British Columbia’s money. It’s not theirs. They deserve to know where that money is being spent.

[2:50 p.m.]

We’re back to the old playbook, 25 years later. A few new characters in the book. History is repeating itself again. The fear we have, and we are already starting to see, is that because of this lack of accountability and transparency with this government, we’re also losing credibility as a province in the financial world. They expect better. The citizens expect better as well. Just because this government did it in the past doesn’t mean they have the right to do it again.

As the minister said, it’s a normal process to bring in a supply bill. What she failed to mention is that every single time in the history of the province of British Columbia when a supply bill is brought to this House, it’s after a budget. There’s a reference point. You can come forward and say: “We need $13.4 billion, and here’s our budget for the next fiscal year. This is why we need this money, and this is where it’s going to be allotted to in the three-month transitional period while we go through an estimates process.”

In the past, that was normal. In the history of this province, that’s always the way it’s been done — until you have an NDP government. Then, once again, the rules change to accommodate the fact that they were unable to do their jobs.

The present situation of putting supply bills forward after a budget started in 1974. This isn’t back in the B.C. Liberal era. It’s not in the original NDP era. This is 1974 that this process started — to put a budget in front of the House, put a supply bill forward, to talk about the expenditures when you’re doing a Supply Act (No. 1).

What’s interesting, again, is that laws were brought in to specifically outline how the process should work in this chamber. Now, there have been times in the past where budgets were presented on the same day as the Supply Act, or a few days later, maybe even a few weeks later. But in every single case in the history that I could find, it was never, ever presented in this House before a budget.

When the minister stands here and says this is normal, that’s a facade. That is her trying to hide the fact that she was unable to — and this government was unable to — put a budget forward in a timely manner based on the criteria laid out in the legislation that requires them to do so.

Now, last week we passed and discussed a few bills in this House. In some of them, we talked about how simple they were — not a lot of monetary change, just a few wordings. Well, some of those were 175 sections long, hundreds of pages long, took a lot of discussion and debate on the minister’s side, on this side of the House. Yet we find in front of us today the NDP government asking for $13.4 billion, no strings attached, no idea where it’s going, on one piece of paper asking this House for it. That’s it. One piece of paper. No idea what ministries — what they’re receiving. No ideas what programs are going to be allotted funds.

Now, we need to remember. We’re in a unique situation here. This NDP government, this Premier and minister, last fall changed legislation again to allow them to pass the budget late, but they’re bringing a budget forward in an entirely new fiscal year with a 20-day gap. It might not sound like a lot to some, but that means that we have a fiscal year ending. We have a three-week window with no idea what the budget is for the government, yet they say they need money to continually pay the bills.

[2:55 p.m.]

None of us on this side of the House are naive. We know that the government needs money. We’re not saying the government doesn’t need money to continue after April 1. We know that. It would be absurd to think otherwise. What’s also absurd is to come in front of this House and ask for that money in good faith, with no explanation of where it’s going to go.

What ‘s even more interesting — the minister acknowledged it in her opening remarks, and it’s one of the few lines that’s in the bill — is the fact that they were unable to put a budget forward in a timely manner before the end of the fiscal year, like has always happened. But because of that, they also have to, under the legislation for a supply act, reference last year’s budget.

We have a government now who is saying, “We aren’t able to put a budget forward. We can’t tell you where the money is going, but in order to meet the criteria of law we have to reference some budget, so let’s reference a budget from last March” — from pre-COVID, before any supports were out to help people. The law says they have to reference a budget. So yes, how convenient it is that they put in here for the purposes of this act the main estimates for the previous fiscal year, from the fifth session of the 41st parliament. They’re to be read as if they are the estimates for the ’21-22 fiscal year.

I look forward to every minister in government standing up and explaining, if they are getting any money, where that money is going. But more importantly, what I’m wondering on behalf of the people of British Columbia, who find themselves still in the midst of a pandemic, who have been relying on some supports — those that have succeeded, from this government, because as we all know, they all haven’t…. Do those supports expire on April 1? According to what we have in front of us, it sure sounds like they do.

If your small business recovery grant…. I know the government tries to tout the fact that the applications are extended. There is nowhere in this budget, though, that says there’s money there for you, sorry to say. In fact, it’s a budget that’s referenced before those announcements were even made, and that’s the budget that this government is now referencing for the Supply Act.

There’s no $150. Of course, government has clawed back $150, but I guess maybe there’s no continuation of the $150 to help people on disability, people who have been frustrated as heck from this government, waiting for their COVID recovery benefits. The government tries to pat themselves on the back. They promised 3.7 million people that they would receive this by Christmas. We know that didn’t happen. The government, in their own admission, has said there are half a million people who have applied that still haven’t received those funds. We’re talking three months later. We have one million people who, for the most part, have just given up on this government and haven’t even applied, which is unfortunate, because so many of those people need those funds.

Again, under this bill that we have in front of us…. I look forward to the minister standing up and saying if those funds are magically going to show up in their budget, because we don’t know. There is nothing in this bill that tells us where the money is going.

That’s why we raised this. This is a first. This is not normal. This is a government who has been unable to meet their obligations as a government under legislation. After the budget last March, another $8 billion was added. We have no idea, in detail, where that money has gone, how much is left, if any is going to continue on. Again, the assumption is, as of April 1, there’s no money there. It might magically, hopefully, happen to show up in a budget on April 20. But how do we know?

[3:00 p.m.]

This government’s ability to ask for people to trust them is wearing thin. This House’s ability to continue to approve money to help people during a pandemic, which we all want to do…. We all recognize that, but it’s becoming harder and harder. What’s more frustrating is when we finally have those discussions and we think we have some detail of where the finances are going to go to help these people, it doesn’t show up.

The minister says in her opening comments: “Well, you know, we’ve been hearing the tourism sector, we’ve been hearing about the people who are struggling, and we’ve been hearing about the challenges in small business.” Are you really? Are they listening? Because we actually approved finances in this House to go help those people in need. And the government sat on the money.

That’s frustration for so many people. That’s frustration for the opposition who, in good faith, trusted this government. Now, once again, they’re asking us to do it again. The Premier even admitted that that budget that was presented last March — a year ago now — was not really worth the paper it was written on. So why would they reference that same budget now to tell us where they’re going to be spending money? That’s a frustration for a lot of people. Anybody who will be watching this, I think, would appreciate and understand, as well, that government has a job to do, that government has a tough job to do. But it’s still their job to do.

This government has had no problem during a pandemic raising taxes. They have no problem trying to get more money to come in, yet they’ve failed giving out quarterly reports to say how much or where it’s going. It’s unfortunate that we find ourselves in this situation. Again, I want to say that we appreciate the fact that government needs to continue, that bills need to be paid. Nobody is arguing those points that the minister brought forward this morning.

What my issue is — and what my challenge back to the government is — is the process. How can you stand up, as a government, and pat yourselves on the back about transparency and accountability when you’re breaking those exact same laws to put this bill on the floor? It is going to be the obligation, I hope, of the NDP members to explain that during this debate. It’s one thing to stand up and say: “We need $13.4 billion to move government forward.” I’m looking forward to hearing government members stand up and say, “Trust us” — again with no information. “I’m willing to stand and support this bill as an NDP member, not knowing a darn thing.”

If they do know something, well, there’s a travesty all in itself, because they should be sharing it with this House. We will find ourselves right back in the 1990s fudge-it budget era, if that’s the case. So government has a job to do, and so does opposition. Our job, on this bill specifically, is to highlight and to call to the floor the fact that, once again, the government is not living up to their roles and responsibilities around accountability for this province.

[3:05 p.m.]

I mentioned the COVID recovery benefit, the small business benefits that were out there trying to help people. I’m hoping some of those ministers responsible for those files will stand up and tell me I’m wrong — that they can point somewhere in a schedule, somewhere in a budget that has not been presented to the floor of this House, to be able to verify that I’m wrong, to be able to show the public that, yes, money will be continuing on April 2 for anybody who applies for a grant, and: “Here’s the line item in my budget to prove it.” If not, it’s another example of “just trust us,” and we’ve seen how that’s worked over the last couple of years, as this government has failed to roll out programs to help people.

The government had no problem last Friday quietly, towards the end of the day, announcing that on April 1 there are going to be tax increases in certain areas, no problems with those press releases. I do find it interesting that this same government and Premier have no problem doing that. “We will announce….” They’ve found time to come up with all of the work needed to raise taxes but not enough time to put a budget forward for where those funds will be going or why they need it.

Now, I can only expect that, on April 20, we’re going to be hearing of a massive financial hole that this government has dug. I also assume that this government and minister are going to then, in turn, try to use the pandemic shield as the reason why. Unfortunately, the books don’t verify that. This government was already in a solid fiscal decline before COVID even started, and that was on top of increasing or bringing in over 20 new taxes to the province to increase revenues. That’s on top of increasing the carbon tax and getting rid of the revenue-neutrality portion of it, to bring that into general revenues.

This government has had no problems finding money through taxes out of the pockets of the people of British Columbia. Where they have a problem is showing them where they’re spending it afterwards and why they needed that money and why they continue to go into debt at the same time. We’ve heard all the problems with the speculation tax and that people are being targeted. Now, it’s mostly British Columbians who are being targeted, as homeowners. We have numerous examples that we’re going to bring forward during estimates to be able to get the Premier and the minister on the record of why these British Columbians, who are not speculators, are being targeted now and having to pay this extra money.

We’ve heard all the stories of businesses over the last few years under an NDP government that have shut their doors, prior to COVID — a lot of them because of an employers health tax, that burden that was now put onto the employers who never had to pay that before.

I hear chuckles. I’m looking forward to the members explaining to me how I’m wrong on that. Because I can show the members hundreds of businesses that have been shut down because they no longer could afford the em­ployers health tax, and people lost their jobs because of this government. What’s unfortunate is I’m being heckled for that, which means they’re not even listening to those same businesses that are telling the stories, that have been in the media, that have written to the ministers. Shame on them for ignoring them. Shame on this government for not acknowledging that those taxes and those policies have impacts on people, on businesses, on livelihoods.

That’s appalling that I would get heckled on that, as they pretend it doesn’t happen under their watch, when it does. I challenge them to prove me wrong on that, that no business was shut down. People lost their jobs because of that issue.

I’m just going to end by again acknowledging that the opposition understands the process of the fiscal situation of this government and how bills need to be paid. That is not what we are challenging. We understand that. What we’re asking is why this government is asking for $13.4 billion. That’s all. Just show us where that money is going to go.

[3:10 p.m.]

What’s normal is that every other government in every other year since the 1970s has followed a process of accountability and transparency until the 1990s when that changed. Laws had to come in after an NDP government to ensure that that process would continue on behalf of this House and for the people in the province. How upsetting it is to see this happening again under an NDP government, 25 years later — that once again the laws are being broken to accommodate them.

I look forward, again, to any government member standing up and explaining where this money is going in detail, because as I mentioned, the bill is one page. There’s no schedule attached, like there’s always been in history. If the government had put this on the floor, with a budget telling us where that money is going to go, that would have been normal.

A. Singh: I love it when my friends opposite have to dig back 25 years, again and again, to find anything. They forget that they destroyed ICBC. They raided coffers of Crown corporations to balance their budget. They’re the architects of a financial election campaign regime that was called the Wild West. Never mind the housing crisis. But let’s forget that for now.

We’re going to talk about what the Minister of Finance was talking about. When I came here and sat down today…. Actually, my friend from Richmond South Centre earlier talked about ubuntu — I to I in the we. I came here, and I sat down today. As he mentioned that, I realized I’m sitting at seat 13. My spirituality is the Sikh spirituality. The number 13 is really, really prominent and important in that spirituality because the Punjabi-Gurmukhi word for 13 is ੧੩ ਤੇਰਾਂ / تیراں, which also, coincidentally, happens to be the same word for “yours.”

There’s this whole concept in Sikh spirituality that follows all the spiritualities, whether they’re religious spiritualities or just spiritualities that come from thousands of years. Christian spirituality has that same thing: render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what is God’s, God being the embodiment of the people. Yours, ੧੩ ਤੇਰਾਂ / تیراں — the central concept of that is that everything is shared. It’s a people’s. That’s why I’m proud to stand on this side with a government that believes in that, that believes in the people and believes that we work for the people.

As has been mentioned again and again, this should not be unusual, having an interim supply bill. Twenty days — really not that substantial. I’m going to read the Minister of Finance’s statement on the interim supply bill, right? It kind of says it all, but I’ll go into more details afterwards, as well, because my friends on the other side may want them.

She states: “Twelve months ago, COVID-19 turned our lives upside down.” We all know that. We’re living in an unprecedented time, in a time that we all hope we’ll never have to go through again. “Since then, the province has invested over $10 billion in COVID-19 relief and recovery measures, contributing more per capita to businesses and people than any other province.”

I’ll pause there. We’re talking about businesses and businesses closing down. This is a government that has brought British Columbia’s economy to a place where economists all over agree again and again, report after report — one of the best economies in the world, one of the best economies in Canada. Incredible credit ratings. Unprecedented job numbers, even at the end of a pandemic or towards the end of a pandemic.

[3:15 p.m.]

I continue to read: “These measures have focused on protecting people’s health” — something that everybody agrees on — “and livelihoods through supports for workers, businesses, communities, health care and other critical services. Next month” — about a month from now — “we’ll be introducing Budget 2021, which will continue to be responsive to the needs of people, businesses and communities to see them through the pandemic and into a strong economic recovery that supports all British Columbians.”

Again, the key in all of this message, the key in the concept here, is people. This is for them, for all of us.

The interim supply legislation introduced today, a simple piece of legislation, really, will provide bridge funding between the end of the fiscal year on March 31 and the last day of the spring session, when the provincial budget is formally passed. What is it, 20 days? Introducing this kind of interim supply legislation is common practice. It’s been done year after year after year.

COVID-19 has been an unprecedented challenge. While we can see the light at the end of the tunnel, our government will continue to ensure we keep people safe, while creating the foundation for a sustainable recovery for everyone. That should say it all, but I have 25 more minutes, so I’ll continue on.

It’s important that people, the businesses that they run and the communities that they’re part of know that support is there, regardless of the timing of the budget. We’ve come a long way together. It’s just over a year since this pandemic hit us, but the road to recovery is still ahead of us. The vaccines are here now — right? — but we all know that economic recovery will take some time.

Again, I’m proud to sit opposite the Minister of JERI there, who has done an incredible job during this time and will continue to do so. I think my friend agrees.

Interjection.

A. Singh: Good karma.

As is common practice every year, the province passes an interim supply bill to ensure current supports and services can continue while a new budget is debated, thought out — a budget that, as the minister stated earlier, responds to the very needs of the people that we’re here for, that we’re elected to serve, not a budget that comes from nowhere but a budget that responds to the needs of the people.

You need time to be able to do that. By moving the budget to April, this gives us greater time to connect with businesses, to connect with those very people and develop an effective, long-term strategy, a long-term plan, that builds on the current supports that we’ve laid out. That’s necessary during this time. We want to make sure that we come out of this robust, we come out of this strong and we come out of this united.

Budget 2021 will continue to focus on keeping people safe throughout the pandemic. We’ll do this with an eye to how we position our province to seize the opportunities that recovery will offer. We don’t know what the future holds. We want to be able to be flexible and to be able to seize on those opportunities and to move into the new world.

What this essentially does is that it ensures that current supports and services continue while the new budget is debated in the Legislature. In the meantime, every day we’re continuing to announce new and updated programs and substantiate many previously announced supports that are still continuing. In fact, a few weeks ago Minister Cullen, the minister across the way there, announced the extension of the small business grants and loans and changed the criteria for that. That’s what we want to be. We want to be a government that’s flexible, that listens to businesses, listens to people and is able to respond to that.

We’re helping people now. It’s not tomorrow; we’re helping people now. Our $10 billion COVID-19 response is protecting people’s health. It’s protecting their livelihoods, and it’s investing in stronger communities and a brighter future for everybody. We’ll continue to be responsive to those needs, to the needs of the people, to the needs of businesses and the communities that they live in, to see them through this pandemic and to, hopefully, build a strong economic recovery — again, that supports and works for everybody, not just people at the top, not just a few but for everybody.

This budget, Budget 2021, will continue to focus on keeping people safe throughout this pandemic. You know, the path forward is not the same for everyone. It’s not the same for all sectors of the economy, and we recognize that. Our support for investment, our support for people and our support for businesses should also recognize that.

This last year has been so unusual, so unusual. The amount of uncertainty that we have, what was going to be impacted, what wasn’t going to be impacted — no one really knew what was happening.

[3:20 p.m.]

This House came together, and I commend this House for coming together for that. We invested with broad tools to quickly provide support to as many people as possible. We continued through our pandemic response and recovery to identify those who were most affected. Now, as we’re a year into this, our support has become a lot more targeted to address the specific needs of particular groups and sectors.

Much has been spoken this morning about mental health and addictions, and we recognize that. So our Minister of Mental Health and Addictions is working day in and day out, focusing on that, focusing on providing the tools and the resources that the great people that work in that sector need. You’ll see this flexibility reflected now in our day-to-day decisions, as you’ll see it reflected in the budget as it comes up.

Again, it’s not an unusual thing to have an interim supply bill. It happens year after year after year at the end of the fiscal year to allow for a debate on robust estimates. It’s common practice to ensure that current supports and services continue while the new budget is debated. As we know, things get debated for quite some time, and the ’90s get mentioned again and again because there is nothing else for them to mention.

As in other years, the interim supply bill provides temporary legal authority for the government to continue the programs and services into the new fiscal year. Budget 2021 is an important part of a strong, long-term — and that’s a key here: long-term — economic recovery. We’re nowhere out of this pandemic. It’s going to take a long time to get out of this. We’re going to need all the supports and services that we need to get there to make sure that British Columbians, the people that live here, have those supports and services that they need for success in a post-pandemic world.

When you’re thinking long term, it’s really important that you listen to the people that are going to be affected by this, that you connect with those businesses, that you connect with the people out there to develop a program that’s meaningful, a plan that takes into consideration the things that you need for long-term planning and that builds on what’s already happened, builds on the current supports that already exist.

Again, the amount that’s required here is not in addition to Budget 2021. It’s a portion of Budget ’21’s total support. It’s a continuation of the programs and services during this interim period. As in other years, this supply bill provides a temporary legal authority, as I stated earlier, for the government to continue the programs and services into the new fiscal year. My friends have spoken this morning and on many days in this House on all of the wonderful programs that have come up in the last few months — indeed, in the last year.

Now, my friends said: “Will services stop on April 1?” Well, that’s the whole point of having an interim supply bill, right? We’re confident that this interim supply bill will have enough funding to fund fully all of the programs that exist until the new budget is brought in, until it’s debated and is passed.

Our supports for British Columbians that are so necessary at this point, at this juncture in the pandemic — they won’t be impacted. We want to make sure that people in British Columbia continue to get the amount of care and the quality of care that they expect to get from this government, and there are contingencies already built into this supply bill, in case of an emergency. But British Columbians will continue to get the amount of support that they have.

While some StrongerBC programs are designed to end with the fiscal year, we’re going to continue to support people’s lives and livelihoods through the pandemic. For example, up to 3.7 million of British Columbians are eligible for the B.C. recovery benefit. We all know about this, where individuals can apply and receive up to $500 and families up to $1,000. We recently announced $20 million in grants through a community economic recovery infrastructure program. We have the small business grant program that can supply up to $45,000 in grants for tourism-related businesses and $30,000 for non-tourism businesses.

[3:25 p.m.]

These are grants. These are not loans. We’re not inflicting more debt on people. People have enough debt at this point. We want to create the supports and services and offer the services that are able to get people out of the pandemic and give them the resources so that they can dig themselves out of this collective hole that we’re all in right now.

The development of our budget in 2021 includes looking at what we’ve done so far to ensure that the province’s supports and services are working for people, for businesses and for communities that they were created for, as well as the supports that we’re going to need in the future. Of course, more details will come when we get closer to the release of Budget 2021.

Again, this has been a challenging year for all of us, and I’m really proud to stand here in British Columbia to say that this House has met that challenge incredibly well. We live in a province that’s gifted. We have all of these people working together to help the people of British Columbia come out of this with the supports and the services that they need.

This is not an unusual tactic. This is not an unusual thing, an interim supply bill. This whole year has been unusual, and this is but a small part of it. There’s nothing unusual about having an interim supply bill to get through those 20 days, to make sure that people have the supports and the services that they require, to make sure people have the supports and the services that they need until the full budget is passed.

Again, almost astounded that we have to talk about this. It seems that it should not be that unusual. We should really carry on and get to so much of the other work that we need to do.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I was a bit scared to stand up that time.

I look forward to continuing debate on the Supply Act before us today. I don’t recall ever having been asked to agree to provide funding with no transparency as to how something would be allocated, with no spending plan.

I’ve heard a lot of platitudes from the other side of the House, in terms of: “Why should we even be questioning this, because this government is doing so many good things?” But it’s our responsibility to question this. This isn’t about all the programs and supporting good people in the community. This is about being accountable to British Columbians. It’s about coming up with a clear, true, transparent plan so British Columbians know that their money is being managed well.

The Minister of Finance mentioned at the beginning as she spoke about this bill that we are in unprecedented times, and that is why we don’t have a budget yet: “We are in unprecedented times.” Well, we’re in unprecedented times, and never more have we needed a budget to be on time and as accurate as possible.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

There are many non-profit boards out there in the community who, I’m sure, have made sure that they’ve got budgets in place because they’re concerned and they’re worried and they’ve got to figure out how they’re going to be spending their money this year. There are organizations, businesses — they have fiduciary duty to make sure that they’ve got budgets in place and that they know how they’re going to be spending their money. So saying that these are unprecedented times, and that’s why we don’t have a budget yet, makes no sense to me.

Government should have anticipated the issue with the supply bill when they asked to delay the budget. This is not typical. We normally would have a budget. It still would need to be debated, but we would have an idea of where the money was going to be allocated.

To be clear, we want to make sure that the financial ob­ligations of the province are met. We don’t want to shut things down, but this is not the way to keep funds flowing. Having a budget developed and presented in a timely manner is how we do this. As the minister said, a supply bill should just generally sail through with not much fanfare. It’s a basic function of the business of the House.

[3:30 p.m.]

It is normally following due process, but it is not this time. It would generally just allow the government to continue to function and to serve its necessary purpose, but as we know all too well, this past year very few things are unfolding as they usually do.

This supply act is very concerning, in that the government is asking the House for $13.4 billion without an explanation as to how they want to spend it. Over the past three years, amidst two simultaneous health crises, we’ve watched as this government has returned to a pattern that we’ve seen all too many times before. Under the cover of COVID, this government is quietly and gradually undoing all of the safeguards that the previous government put in place to ensure transparency and responsibility around the budget in B.C.

To clarify, I guess I should not say “the previous government.” I need to remind this government, as they like to point blame at the previous government quite frequently, that they are the previous government. Delaying budgets and quarterly reports and expanding the use of special warrants are finding a way to bypass transparency.

Now, this government likes to walk down memory lane. So it shouldn’t be surprising, given the fact that the current Premier, his chief of staff and the Health minister were all around for the notorious fudge-it budget years in the 1990s. This was a time, as my colleague said earlier, when the then NDP Premier resigned in disgrace. A scandal saw the RCMP raid his house while our current Premier’s chief of staff looked on. It was a time when the current Minister of Health was forced to resign from his job in the Premier’s office for backdating a memo.

This kind of behaviour is the reason our previous government had to bring in the protections in the first place, measures that this government is currently trying to circumvent with the bill before us today. What did our government do when we were in office? We brought in balanced-budget legislation. We set fixed budget dates. We cemented the use of the Economic Forecast Council. These are all steps that made British Columbia a leader in Canada for sound and transparent fiscal management. This was all necessary to correct the mistakes of the previous NDP government.

We can’t help but be reminded of the old NDP playbook of corruption and secrecy that plagued them and nearly brought this province and its finances to the brink. This is history repeating itself, yet those of us on this side of the House have had to listen to backbench NDPers repeatedly making accusations and irresponsible statements about our budgetary practices while in government, including revenue transfer policies with ICBC — something that these backbenchers perhaps do not understand.

These practices — as members opposite know full well — were fully disclosed in our annual budgets and quarterly reports and practices even utilized by the NDP governments of the 1990s. While the members opposite make accusations and irresponsible statements about these revenue transfer policies, the facts are indisputable. Between 2012 and 2016, $514 million was transferred from ICBC to government to support critical government services such as health care and education.

Meanwhile, between 2012 and 2016, a total of $1.5 billion in capital and $300 million in income was transferred from the optional side of ICBC to the basic side of ICBC, all in an effort to keep rates as affordable as possible for British Columbians. The members continue to make their irresponsible statements to the contrary, while at the same time their cabinet colleagues, bit by bit, dismantle the safeguards that our previous government brought in to ensure transparency.

[3:35 p.m.]

In light of all this, how can the NDP expect British Columbians to trust a government that wants a blank cheque for $13 billion, without giving us any indication or any transparency around how they’re planning to spend this money? We know where this kind of behaviour has left us in the past.

This government has already given itself the authority to delay introducing next year’s budget by a month. That was in addition to the extra month they had already given themselves last summer. This is an issue for government transparency, just like not sharing the terms of the Telus contract. It is for just this reason that the B.C. Liberals brought in the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

We don’t even know what the financial position of the province is. The budget should be setting the initial expectations for near-term recovery, and we should now know the real trajectory of provincial debt before being asked to spend more. Now, because of this government’s decision to delay the budget until April, British Columbians are left in the dark.

We know that the pandemic is certain to leave a much higher provincial debt-to-GDP ratio. We know this will be burdensome to manage. It’s even more reason that British Columbians need to know where the money is going. I’m trying to think of a comparison of this — an analogy to show how it might work in another situation — but I’m afraid I can’t, really.

I don’t think I ever could have gone to my board of directors and said: “Hey, guys. I know you haven’t seen our financial statements for the end of the year, and I know we talked a little bit about the budget. Yeah, I know that’s already two months too late. But could you trust me, and could you provide the usual funds for the first quarter? I’ll get back to you on the details.” Well, I think I’d be looking for a big fat no from my board if that was the question.

The Financial Administration Act states: “A sum appropriated by a Supply Act must not be spent for any purpose other than those described in the estimates of revenue and expenditure….” Now, when that was written, that was actually referring to the current incoming fiscal year, not last year’s fiscal year. Under the Financial Administration Act, it is legally required to present a budget first, but the legislation that is before us today sets out a way to work around that requirement from the Financial Administration Act.

As the member for Peace River South stated earlier, the last time this government spent public funds without a proper budget was, again, in the 1990s — a time which we, and most economists, will affectionately refer to as the economic dark years for British Columbia.

This government has also moved away from multi-year contracts to one-year contracts with social services providers. This was done several years ago. The delayed budget has now put many non-profit service providers at risk, without a guarantee of their funding continuing for even another year. This has added stress and concern for their staff and their boards of directors. How do we know that these funds we’re talking about today are going to be supporting these vital services in the communities? How do these non-profit organizations and service providers know that these funds will be supporting them?

The NDP cut $225 per month in the emergency relief support fund for children and youth with special needs last September. I understand from families with children with autism that their annual autism funding is being clawed back, although they can clearly demonstrate that their children’s needs have increased during this pandemic, making it even more important that they can afford the therapeutic and respite services they need in the coming months and years. Many of these families had to leave paid work to stay home with their young person because they did not have that support.

[3:40 p.m.]

Now with this clawback of autism funding allowances, families who are disproportionately feeling the pain of the pandemic are facing additional hardship. Will they be getting any of this money? We want to know what the NDP is planning on doing with this money also because we have no confidence that they will spend this money well or that they will spend it in the way that they tell us they will.

We are concerned about this legislation, because in the past year, the government requested money, and the members of this House agreed in good faith. Then the NDP did not spend the money how it had promised. Last March, in spring of 2020, the members of this House unanimously and cooperatively approved $5 billion for COVID recovery aid. We worked cooperatively. We worked in the best interest of British Columbians, and we took this government at its word when they said how they would use these funds. Our expectation was that it would get out the door, and it would get out the door quickly to support British Columbians.

Now, I don’t understand why this government took so long and sat on that money for months, but then it coincidentally became part of their election platform. When the NDP finally announced the small and medium-sized business recovery grant, support was delayed in getting to people because of the snap election and because of the constraints and difficulty in applying for and qualifying for this money. In the more than six months since it was announced and nearly a year after it was approved, the government has still only been able to get $55 million out of the $300 million set aside for these businesses in need. This means that they have only managed to get out 16 percent of these funds to businesses.

How can we trust a government that can’t even get $300 million in promised funds out the door to businesses in need when they’re coming to ask for approximately $13.4 billion, and now we don’t know what they’re asking for?

In 2009, at the height of the economic crisis, when the B.C. Liberals introduced a supply bill the day before the budget and for the duration of the estimates, this Premier said: “When I go home and someone in my constituency says, ‘What are you spending it on?’ I’d rather not guess.” Well, I must admit that all MLAs should be concerned about that now.

What do we tell our constituents when they ask what we are spending this on? We have given this government ample opportunity to prove themselves in this last year, but they’ve only proved their own lack of financial acumen and a vague grasp on economic principles.

This bill is just another reminder that this government is failing to get relief to people. It speaks to them delaying the budget by months and leaving British Columbians without additional relief as this pandemic drags on. British Columbians need support. B.C. businesses need support. We need a government that is open and honest and transparent and manages its funds well and lets us know where everything is. We need a government that will do what it says it’s going to do.

Now, we know that the bills need to get paid. We know that the work of government needs to continue, but this isn’t the right way to do it. It’s irresponsible.

M. Dykeman: I appreciate the opportunity to rise virtually in this House to speak to this interim supply bill. Before proceeding, I’ll choose to ignore the barbed shot by the previous speaker, insinuating that we were uninformed backbenchers speaking to the bill. I assume that those speaking notes were probably intended for somebody who’s been elected longer than a few minutes.

[3:45 p.m.]

I myself wouldn’t have said that as a new member, especially sitting in opposition.

It’s been enlightening this afternoon listening to all of the members speak, in opposition, of their extensive experience governing through a pandemic. Oh, wait. That would be right. Absolutely nobody sitting here today has previous experience governing through a pandemic. That’s good. We’re all starting from an even base, then, aren’t we.

I agree that it’s unfortunate, as the member for Abbotsford West had said earlier. People are sick of something, but they’re not sick of what he’s characterized. They’re sick of the divisive politics. They are sick of revisionist history being constantly spewed in this House. They’re sick of hearing stories of the ’90s every time there’s a disagreement. They are looking for people to actually govern. We saw that with the results of the last election.

Sorry. I was wrong. I misspoke. It was the member from Peace River who was talking about how unfortunate things were and people being upset. It was actually the member for Abbotsford West — when the member was Finance Minister, actually — who introduced interim supply bills that totalled $65 billion over five years.

We, right now, are not presenting anything differently. We are presenting a bill which is an interim supply bill for the upcoming fiscal year of 2021 to 2022. It does not impact the current fiscal year. It is intended to allow programs to continue during a pandemic. We are attempting to keep the programs that people are relying on moving forward during a pandemic.

These are unusual times. You’ve heard: “This or that is unusual.” That’s right. That’s because we are literally in unusual times.

Estimates debate will proceed after the budget’s presented in the Legislative Assembly on April 20. In past, we’ve actually seen…. For instance, the B.C. Liberals have actually passed interim supply bills that gave themselves five months in 2009 and six months in 2005. We’re looking to April 20 because we, as a government, believe in the importance of consulting with organizations and people affected in order to have a budget that recognizes a significant shift. We have to be able to govern through a pandemic and figure out what the needs are for people going in so that the budget presented actually meets people’s needs.

Even though the budget is being tabled later than a regular year, we’re actually not anticipating the final supply bill being delayed much further than usual. The total amount being voted on, appropriated expenses, is $12.3 billion. The amount, like I said earlier, is not in addition to Budget 2021. It’s actually a portion of Budget 2021’s total, allowing the continuation of programs and services in the interim period.

As in other years, the interim supply bill provides temporary legal authority for the government to continue the programs and services in a new fiscal year. It’s because it’s important for people and businesses and communities to know that that support will be there, regardless of the timing of the budget. It is a common practice for the province to pass an interim supply bill to ensure that those supports and services can continue while the new budget is being debated. As we mentioned, we’re looking at April 20.

This has been a challenging time. An economic recovery is different than keeping status quo or looking at, say, growing the economy under normal circumstances. These are unusual times.

[3:50 p.m.]

I find it rather humorous in that you have the opposition standing in the House discussing financial transparency when part of the role that this government has played is to deal with the complete and utter apocalypse that ICBC was and the evisceration of an education system, and we’re sitting here in this House today with the government talking about transparency. Literally, giant surpluses were created and then moved into general spending by just taking money out of Crown corporations. It was a rainy-day fund. No, that’s not transparent. That’s actually the exact opposite.

This is not a normal set of circumstances because, like I said, it’s a pandemic. There is a requirement now to look and robustly consult with those affected to ensure that the budget meets the needs coming out of this pandemic, moving towards a road to recovery, to an economic recovery for our province that, as you can see, is doing quite well.

There are many groups that need further support, and those groups are receiving support and will continue to receive support. But the divisive politics in the House — people see through that. They don’t find it to be endearing. It’s not helping, sitting there and rattling on the same ’90s line. Everybody has the same speaking points in the House, going on about the ’90s. It’s doing exactly nothing. It’s doing zero. It’s not assisting. As opposition, there’s a role to hold government accountable, but recycling the same divisive ’90s line shows exactly the issue. It’s not bringing anything tangible to the table at all.

Moving the budget to April gives this government greater time to connect with businesses and people and develop an effective, longer-term plan that builds on all of our current supports. Budget ’21 will continue to focus on keeping people safe through the pandemic, which is the goal here — to have a safe recovery.

When you ask why something takes longer, well, all of the restrictions in place — those have a real tangible impact on things. It makes it harder to consult with people. You know, there are less people at work. People are working from home. Logistically, anybody from the outside looking in can see that there would be a slowdown in the way things usually were done. But the difference is that this government will do it with an eye on how to position our province to seize opportunities that recovery will offer. So instead of sitting there looking backwards in our rearview mirror at the ’90s, we’re actually looking at how to move the province forward.

Budget 2021 will be focused on keeping people safe and how to position the government, how to position the province out of this into a strong economic recovery. And you know what? The path forward is not going to be the same for all people or sectors of this economy. We need to recognize that and support investment that’s more targeted, which means it’s going to be a really robust consultation.

At the start of the pandemic, with greater uncertainty about how the impacts would be felt, there was an investment in broad tools, and broad tools were able to quickly provide the support that was needed as quickly as possible. But going through and moving towards the recovery portion, it’s important to identify those most affected. Support has to become more targeted because of that, to address those really specific needs, groups and sectors. I mean, if your history was just cutting everything and leaving it to starve, or just throwing it all in a rainy-day fund and just pretending it’s a casino, it would be pretty easy, wouldn’t it?

This government actually wants to target how there’s going to be a strong economic recovery in a way that makes sense. It’s also an eye to understand that maintaining flexibility must also be possible.

[3:55 p.m.]

One of the things we’ve learned through the pandemic — because none of us have been through a pandemic before, though you wouldn’t know that today with the comments in the House — is we need to be able to respond to changing circumstances and support people and businesses, because there will be a continuance of change. We’ve seen that.

We saw, recently, Minister Kahlon announce the extension of the small and medium-sized business grants to August 31 and adjust the requirement to show a revenue loss from 70 percent to 30 percent. That is an example of being flexible and understanding that, as we receive more information — which is something, during a pandemic, that is often interrupted, the flow of information — we’re able to respond to that, because we have a clear focus of an economic recovery. So we’re seeing that flexibility in day-to-day decisions, and that will be reflected in the budget.

As we’ve heard other speakers say, interim supply, well past the end of a fiscal year, is in place to allow for a proper and robust estimates debate. It’s a common practice. It ensures that the supports and services can continue while the new budget is debated in the Legislature.

It’s important that we took the time to connect with businesses and people in order to develop meaningful and longer-term plans. That’s something that needed to be done, and people appreciate that. They don’t appreciate being steamrolled or being surprised. And our government has worked closely….

We’ve heard members opposite talk about concerns with the school district. Well, I can assure you, as somebody who’s served as a trustee for a long time, I’m grateful that this government is taking the time to properly consult and support in doing what needs to be done, because I have lived through the shocking surprises of not knowing what’s going on with one-time or this funding or whatever.

Our government is working very hard to ensure that those that are affected have had the proper opportunity to be consulted. And those estimates are coming as soon as the budget is presented in the Legislative Assembly on April 20. This isn’t six or nine months. At the end of the day, the final supply bill shouldn’t be delayed much later than usual, which is pretty impressive, considering that we’re in a global pandemic.

This isn’t something that’s just affected B.C., and the people of B.C. deserve to have a proper consultation to reflect the unusual times. The province works very closely with all of our government-funded agencies to ensure that they have information they need to plan and prepare for the upcoming fiscal year, and that year is no different. This is meant to ensure that government-funded agencies have what they need in the interim.

The current fiscal year is not impacted. This is for the upcoming fiscal year, 2021 to 2022. At the end of the day, we’re confident that we have enough of an interim supply to fund all programs and services until Budget 2021.

Further, one of the things that I do find, as I mentioned earlier in my opening statement, is how this has become, once again, a divisive conversation. This isn’t about trust. The members opposite sat there and said: “Oh, well, we’re expected to just trust this.” No. We’re sitting here with an interim supply bill in front of the House in order to keep the province moving forward to ensure that we’re able to navigate through a pandemic.

This has become, from members opposite, an exercise in looking back at history and rewriting it. That does not help. I agree. It’s unfortunate because, at the end of the day, we need to work together to ensure that this province comes out in the strongest way possible, that people feel supported. The programs are there to support them as we go forward, with a budget being tabled on April 20.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks.

[4:00 p.m.]

M. Morris: I listened to the member for Langley East speaking about history and the past. Of course, that’s all I’ve heard from this government for the last four years, is the history of the past 16 years or more. I think it’s great to look back upon history from time to time to reacquaint ourselves with how things work. I think future performance could best be determined by past behaviour.

What we’re seeing from this government now, with this particular bill, is reminiscent of the past behaviour of the ’90s. I remember that back in the ’90s I was a senior police manager, administrator, and every spring we would get our budgets. This would be 1996 through to 2000. Within two or three months after we got our budgets, they were always cut. Repeatedly, every year, we’d lose 4 percent, 5 percent, 6 percent from our budget, and that was a lot, trying to triage all the criminal investigations that are out there.

There were times that police cars had to be parked; when the vessels patrolling the 25,000 kilometres of coastline that we have in British Columbia had to be docked; where vacancies weren’t filled and members were overworked, taking stress leave off because of the job. Aircraft were parked, and we couldn’t afford to get around the province to do the work that we were supposed to do. As a result, a lot of things suffered through­out the province here.

The NDP government back in the ’90s — I do recall that era quite well, where they used special warrants on a fairly regular basis — were very opaque, I guess, in the way they administered the budgets of the province at that particular time. It reminded me of…. It’s much the same as looking at your chequing account. You don’t have any money in your chequing account yet, but you expect [audio interrupted] in the next weeks you might get paid, or not.

It takes me back to just a little situation there with my son one time. We were at a hardware store, and he saw a bicycle that he wanted to get. We told him we couldn’t afford it right now and didn’t have enough money in the bank, and he said: “Well, just write a cheque.” That’s what this government is doing, just dropping a warrant here and there, just to throw a few more bucks out there.

They’ve had ample time to address the budgetary issues not only for ’20-21, which they haven’t done, but for ’21-22, which is the current budget. I correct the member for Langley East, when she was talking about the budget for 2020-2021. There was no budget for 2020-2021. Being a law enforcement officer for the majority of my career…. Everything that we do needs to be anchored in legislation. It needs to be anchored in law. That’s what I find problematic with this particular bill.

Section 23 of the Financial Administration Act states: “A sum appropriated by a Supply Act must not be spent for any purpose other than those described in the estimates of revenue and expenditure….” The last opportunity we had to look at the blue books, the estimates, was in ’19 and ’19-20. A long time ago in the way the world has gone, and a lot of water has gone under the bridge since that particular time. It has no reference to what we’re doing here today.

COVID has impacted the province significantly. The member for Langley East and some of the other members have stated that we’ve never had to operate in a pandemic like this before. It produces some significant challenges for people in government, people in the government agencies, to ensure that the services are provided there. We just make sure that the agencies have the resources that they need in order to get the job done.

Unfortunately, the job hasn’t been done as smoothly and seamlessly as it should with respect to the amount of money that was allocated for many of the programs here. But we’ll see. We’ll see when the hood pops open on this budget, coming up in April. I look forward to that particular date, just to see how much money we have spent. I don’t think government even knows how much money they have spent.

[4:05 p.m.]

Government has changed a couple of bills in the last session of government — or in the last government, I guess — where they extended the period of time that quarterly reports had to be submitted and the budget had to be submitted, and they kicked the can down the road. Of course, we entered this term of government, and the budget was kicked down into mid-April, towards the end of April. We’re debating this particular bill here today without the privilege of knowing what the estimates are for 2021-2022.

How do we know what to assess? How do we know that we can guarantee the people of British Columbia that they’re getting value for the dollar? And big dollars, you know: $13 billion now, of course, is just a portion of what might be spent down the road. There’s a lot of work here to do. Normally, when a supply act is presented before this House — in the experience that I’ve had in this House since I’ve been elected — it passes with very little debate. There’s not much to say about it. Everything is laid out in the financial reports that we have for the upcoming budget.

We’ve had two health crises over the past couple of years, where the opioid crisis has taken a number of lives, unfortunately, throughout the province here, and we have COVID. Millions and billions of dollars have been spent and have been allocated to various programs in the province here, but we still see the death rate and the opioid crisis increasing dramatically throughout the province. Nothing has been done in that regard.

The police resources haven’t been increased to address those kinds of issues. Our mental health workers haven’t seen increases, or the treatment facilities. We haven’t seen an increase in the treatment facilities, to any significant degree, that will start addressing those particular types of issues. The government has been slow in addressing some of the programs that they’ve had under development and developed in the last two months, getting the cash out. Only about $55 million, out of a total of $300 million that had been budgeted for these various programs in the province, has been allocated so far.

One of the problematic areas that I’ve seen throughout the last several months here, in getting the money out and addressing the issues that the people who really need the money need to see it, was the snap election that was called. We had a Premier that called a snap election.

He had been given $5 billion. The House was in perfect harmony early on in the last government, in that session, in ensuring there were adequate resources out there for the people of British Columbia as a result of COVID. People were losing their jobs; businesses were shut down. There were a lot of restrictions in place, and folks needed that money right away. Lo and behold, we had an election that was called. That slowed the process down — and stopped the process, in many cases — there for a number of weeks, a number of months.

Looking back to the 1990s — I recall that era very well, like I said — there were a number of things that were changed when the B.C. Liberals got into government in 2001. Yeah, I’m going back to a history lesson here, for the member for Langley East.

When the B.C. Liberals came into government in 2001, there were a number of changes that were made so that governments couldn’t take advantage of budgetary issues like that. They couldn’t take advantage of the special warrants in order to increase their cash flow. We brought in the balanced-budget legislation. We fixed budget dates. We cemented the use of the Economic Forecast Council — which, I think, was one of the highlights of that particular era.

[4:10 p.m.]

We made B.C. a leader in Canada for transparent fiscal management. It was all done to correct the mistakes of the previous NDP government of the 1990s. We’ve seen the gradual dismantling of that legislation over the past number of years, a couple of years. I think British Columbians should be concerned about that.

When we see this budget showing up — whenever it does, if it shows up, like we’re expecting it to show up — on April 20, I hope that it’s reflective of good monetary practices. I hope it’s reflective of good use of the large amounts of money that this House has approved for the previous government and over the past few months for the people of British Columbia to ensure that they get the services that they need to help them through the pandemic.

Our tourism sector is suffering significantly. There are many restaurants that are shutting down. There are transportation companies — our buses, coaches for the highways. There are some significant dollars that these industries are going to have to be paying out here over the next few months and weeks as the pandemic, hopefully, starts subsiding and people start travelling around the province a little bit more. Are those programs going to be in place to help them out? We don’t know.

The budget, the $13.4 billion that this current government is requesting with…. It’s a one-page document. It’s quite phenomenal, frankly, to my way of thinking, to see somebody ask for permission, on a one-page document, to spend that kind of money without any supporting documentation to that at all. There are a lot of people that are worried out there. We have an economic recovery strategy that somebody had better be putting their attentions to in the not too distant future. They should have been doing it by now. It’s reflective of a large budget coming down to the pike in April.

How are we going to pay that budget off? I think what we’re doing is we’re subjecting two or three generations of British Columbians to pay that off, moving forward, here. They have no input into how that money is spent. We’ve been asking, now for months, for this government to provide us some reference, some idea of how they’re going to be spending the money, how they’re going to be spending the funds. We’ve been met with a blank stare. We’ve been met with accusations that all we’re doing is talking about history.

Talk about history. Look at the money that was spent back in the 1990s. We look at the way it was spent. We look at the obscurity of how they spent money back in the 1990s. So I think we should have been a little bit more confident in the transparency act that was passed before — and the measures that were brought into place by our government back in the early 2000s — to hold this government steadfast in their approach to budgeting so that it remained as transparent as it was before. It’s becoming more obscure. It’s fading off into a cloud. Nobody knows what is going on.

The Finance Minister and all the ministers during estimates will certainly be taken to task on how their budgets are going to be spent. I’m just curious, though — because we’ve gone so long in this province without any kind of a budget — as to what instructions the ministries have received from government. How much can they spend? Have they been told to maintain the status quo? Have they been told to cut back by 5 percent or 10 percent, or some percentage amount from what their 2019-2020 budget may have been at that particular time?

I think the minister had better be prepared to answer questions like that when we pop the hood open on this particular issue here. There’s a lot of work that needs to be done to reinstil the confidence in British Columbians that their tax money is being spent wisely.

[4:15 p.m.]

The businesses that have been hurt so much…. Is there [audio interrupted] of confidence they’ll have that they’re not going to get taxed unnecessarily to try and dig out of the hole that this government is creating — if they are creating one? We don’t know, because we haven’t seen the budget. We don’t know exactly what those numbers are.

There is a significant amount of work ahead for everybody here. We are going to be bringing up the past behaviour of this particular government, because many of the players that are in key positions right now were in pretty substantial positions back in the 1990s with the previous government. Their practices could very well indicate the direction that this government is taking for the 2021-2022 budget year.

This is a significant issue for all British Columbians. I hope they’re going to pay attention to the hole that is being dug here, financially, by this government, without any transparency, without any explanation to the people of British Columbia about how they’re going to be looked after, now and in the future.

I look forward to further discussion on this as we progress through the discussion on this bill.

Hon. N. Simons: It’s a pleasure to have this opportunity to rise in the House and speak to the interim supply bill. It’s not always the one that gets the most attention from our colleagues, but it’s a fairly regular occurrence in this Legislature that we ensure that the funds needed to run our programs and services don’t stop while we’re waiting for the budget. Obviously, this has happened practically every year, so I’m pleased to be able to say that the good work of our province, the good work of our government, will be able to continue unabated as we debate this legislation.

Just to refer back to the member for Prince George–​Mackenzie, I don’t mind if he wants to give us some history lessons from his perspective. I can go back and do current events and talk about the impact we still feel from his government’s years of neglect and years of turning their back on people in our society that really needed the attention of the government, something that they didn’t always get.

If he wants to bring up past history, that’s his job. That’s his job as an opposition member. I don’t think I spent 12 years in opposition talking about anything…. I was probably focused on what government could have done better, and now I have an opportunity to be among people who have an opportunity to actually make things better for British Columbians.

I think it’s, first of all, important to know that this legislation will allow us to continue to do our good work for businesses and individuals. We’re there for British Columbians, regardless of the timing of the budget. I think those technicalities….

We have important programs and services to deliver, especially considering the time we’re in. We’ve all come through, and are continuing to trudge through, this pandemic with a degree of resilience that I think can make us all proud to be British Columbians, regardless of what side of the House we sit on. I think that there has been a marked degree of mutual support for the policies and the programs, recognizing the challenges that we face, recognizing that things are going to get better and recognizing that until they do, government has to be there for everyone.

[4:20 p.m.]

It’s common practice, in fact, that governments or provinces pass interim supply to ensure that we can continue to do what we’ve started. I obviously support this legislation. In the interim, we have an opportunity to ensure that we adapt to the changing economic circumstances that we face.

There’s one thing that has been constant throughout this pandemic, and that is the changes that we’ve seen. Change being the constant requires government to be nimble. I think what we’ve seen reflected in our approach is that ability to adapt to the changing conditions of our economy, the changing conditions of our social lives, of our community lives. The work that we’re doing to ensure that we have a long-term plan for British Columbians is going to be one that is based in solid foundation and solid understanding of the needs of our business community, the needs of our communities, all sectors of our communities.

Budget 2021 will obviously continue to focus on keeping people safe through this pandemic and to seize all opportunities that exist to ensure that not only do we recover with strength but that we build resilience for unforeseen events that might face our province in the future. The lessons that we learn as government, the lessons that we learn as a province, I think are lessons that all representatives from all sides of the House are best to heed and consider. We don’t always have all the answers. Sometimes we need to be assertive and confident in the approaches that we take.

I think that the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, or the member for Surrey South, the members in the opposition — their responsibility is to hold us to account. It’s an important role for the opposition. I believe quite strongly that government will be able to not just justify and explain but demonstrate that the approach that we’ve taken to this pandemic, as we begin to recover and through the process of making our province more resilient — that we have, in fact, taken a good and strong road, one that is built on our capacity as a province.

The biggest obvious consideration that we face now is the continued recovery. We’ve seen that British Columbians returned to close to our pre-pandemic employment levels. We are one of the strongest provincial economies in Canada, having created jobs in all of the last ten months in a row. The labour force survey for February shows that we added 26,600 jobs, with the majority going to women. This dropped our unemployment rate to just under 7 percent, to 6.9 percent. In January, it was 8 percent.

I think it’s important to be not necessarily proud of the recovery efforts but confident and satisfied that British Columbians are doing what they have to do. This isn’t about cheering and winning and losing. This is about us collectively and steadfastly approaching the challenges with confidence and with strength and with intelligence, with good deliberation and careful deliberation.

[4:25 p.m.]

As much as the opposition would politicize some aspects of our recovery, I think our approach as government is to remain steadfast, remain focused on our goals — the goals that we share with British Columbians, the goals that we share as a government caucus. That’s to help people in their difficult times and help people become as resilient and as prosperous as we [audio interrupted].

Employment in some parts of the province is actually above pre-pandemic levels. Some of the rural part and some of our more northerly and rural communities have recovered well. But obviously, when talking about where we’ve had successes, we don’t deny that there continue to be challenges. We will continue to address the challenges, and we will continue to try to find solutions where we haven’t found the success we want as a province.

I don’t expect our focus and our determination to wane. This is a long-term recovery effort that is rooted in a place where I think we can proudly say that we have been successful in negotiating to where we have arrived so far. In some parts of our province, where tourism is a mainstay of the economy, the challenges remain. We continue to seek out the best way to ensure that government policy does everything it can to support our economic recovery. We do that together by operating and by sharing ideas and by acting on some of the ideas that are presented to us.

The pandemic has obviously affected everyone, and some businesses more than others. I’m quite confident, even as we toss political grenades at each other, that in fact we do all have the same goal in mind. That’s to ensure that our province recovers with strength and recovers with the optimism that we had been feeling before the pandemic hit.

We should remember that the general approach of our government is somewhat different from the previous Liberal government, insofar as our primary focus has always been on people, the people in our communities through­out the province — all people, not just the well-connected people who benefited from the vast majority of the Liberals’ policies and programs and tax schemes and regulations.

In fact, we are still, I would say, feeling the effects of a government that was fairly focused on one thing only. That was the populist idea that governments don’t need to be there for people. They just need to set policies that are good for their connected, wealthy friends. Really, what this challenge to the province has shown us, I think with clarity, is that it would have been even better if we had had some foresight as a province to ensure that we were able to meet the challenges that uncertainty and unknown events might present. Clearly, the government’s response in terms of health care was one that was making up for problems created by the previous government.

[4:30 p.m.]

It’s not a blame game. It’s just a historical fact that our health care system suffered from the kind of lack of investment that characterized some of the sectors in health. We’ve fixed some of those problems already, and we will continue to correct some of the policy impacts over the previous government.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The social service sector entirely…. I mean, you can almost say that, as a whole — since the efforts to cut budgets to Children and Families, Social Development, the cuts that occurred in all sectors, even in forestry — we’re still recovering from the crass and ill-advised tax cuts that occurred in early 2000s, if you talk history, if you want to talk about the impact of historical decision-making.

I can point to a few people on that side of the House who were there, who were sitting at the table, who are mentioned in George Abbott’s book Big Promises, Small Government. That is a compendium of decisions that were made by the previous government. That is a historical account of the poor and ill-advised policy-making that took place prior to the New Democrats earning government in 2017.

The mistakes that were made…. I wouldn’t call them mistakes. The deliberate efforts to reduce government to the point that it was not as effective as it should have been in addressing the challenges that we face. I could not imagine a government preoccupied with their well-connected friends managing a crisis that affects everybody. So I’m relieved at the fact that we do have a government concerned about people, about how children are doing in school, how families are doing. We have a focus on ensuring that parents have access to child care.

Many of the worst offences, I would suggest, that oc­curred during the previous government were well documented and even well-pointed-out at the time that they were ill-advised. Yet, three years after inheriting what was pretty much a gutted system, our province has shown itself to be resilient, and our government has shown itself to be not just capable but wise decision-makers who have been able to help us navigate these difficult times.

It’s confidence, and it’s assuredness that, if we focus on the best interests of children and families, that means we’re focusing on the best interests of our economy. It’s children, families, people in our communities that need to be supported at home so that they can ensure that they can continue to run businesses, continue to work in our various sectors.

I think one thing that demonstrates the province’s approach is that our economy has managed to stay as active as possible during these challenges. You look at other jurisdictions where people are talking about going back to school. They’re talking about going back to work. They’re talking about industries and sectors reopening. What we’re doing, I think, can be characterized more as reaccelerating. Very little was shut down completely. The balance that our public health officials and our government found, I think, has served our province well and continues to serve our province well. The budget that’s forthcoming this spring will continue on that path.

[4:35 p.m.]

Clearly, investing in British Columbians is how we’re going to get through this. Investing in supports for businesses — small, medium and large — is going to be how we get through this. Investing in families and children, in communities — that’s how we’re getting through this. And infrastructure. All the things that help to create jobs, help to create confidence, help to create the conditions for others to start or continue or thrive in their own businesses.

We are obviously going to be recovering together as fast as we can, but with the knowledge that some things will take time. We’re not going to see all of the employment figures recover as well as they have so far. In some parts of our economy, there will be continued struggles. I think the best approach is one that carries on the successes that we’ve managed to achieve to this point.

I’m looking forward to any further debate on this. The suggestion that we’re going to be asked questions in estimates…. That’s no surprise there. That’s our responsibility as members of executive council. I’ve been on the other side in estimates asking questions of budgets, sometimes finding answers to be unconvincing, other times being satisfied with the responses provided. All members of the opposition should be prepared to ask questions in estimates, to ask us about our budgets, and we should be prepared to provide answers. That’s how our system works.

I’m confident that my colleagues and I are making decisions that are in the best interest of British Columbians. I look forward to making more decisions that are in the best interest of British Columbians. That’s just what we do. As the opposition will try to find evidence to support their theories, I think we can simply point to the communities that we serve and say that our community members are excited about the future. We’re confident about the future.

As the vaccinations and immunizations occur through­out the province, the plan is in place. It’s been in place since the beginning of the pandemic. It’s being rolled out in a way that should inspire confidence or satisfaction that the approach that we’ve taken has been a deliberate one, a conscious one, and one that ultimately protects the health and well-being of our communities.

Clearly, there’s been a lot of sadness through the last year — sadness and frustration and an impatience that I believe is one that we all share, an impatience with the hope that the condition that we’re living in now improves. I think it gives us also a realization of the importance of the social aspect of our beings.

I really do anticipate that the plans that our province has, the plans that we have collectively as a province, with the government that we have now, will serve us well. People will look to our province for ideas not on just how we’ve gotten to this point but in our recovery as well.

[4:40 p.m.]

Next month Budget 2021 will continue to pursue the same kinds of programs and policies that have gotten to us, that have helped people and businesses and communities through the difficult times. I think a strong recovery is ahead of us. We’ve seen evidence of it happening already with the job numbers, with the school attendance numbers.

The interim supply legislation which we’re debating today is simply the bridge between the previous budget and the next one, which is to be formally passed, obviously, this spring. I see it as an important and commonly used tool to continue to be able to pay for those programs and services. I look forward to the questions that opposition members will have. I hope to be able to provide them with all the answers they ask of me.

I’m happy to support Bill 10, interim supply bill.

With that, I will look forward to the comments of my colleagues — I believe, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

D. Davies: Not quite Vancouver-Quilchena, but close — on the opposite side of the province.

I look forward to continuing the debate on this ambiguous supply act that is before us today, Bill 10, which is extremely void of anything as to where the $13.4 billion is going. In fact, and I know my colleague held this up earlier, it is a one-page bill — two, if you include the cover page.

Now, normally this would be routine, but as we have heard numerous times, we are in everything but routine right now.

Foundationally, we can always look back on these supply bills, looking back on a previous budget. This is now presented on the budget that would have been presented in, let’s say — in normal times — February, just last month. We can always look back at that and say: “All right. Here’s the budget that you presented. Here’s where the gaps are filling in.” And we can move on.

Of course, we don’t have that pleasure this time. That’s what makes it ambiguous, cryptic, dark, obscure and vague. I like putting words through the thesaurus, and that one fits just perfectly.

It is something that really stood out to me. The member for Richmond-Queensborough mentioned it in his comments just a couple of speakers ago — that it’s only 20 days; it’s not really substantial. Well, I don’t know; $13.4 billion on a hope and a prayer and not really tied to anything scares me. We also heard the member for Langley East mention something similar as well: “Oh, it’s just going to get us through here the next little while.”

And we get that. We understand that that is the intention of this bill. But it’s this big long process that we’ve gone through that does not make sense. Tying this to the budget in 2020 doesn’t make sense. We’ve heard the Premier. We’ve heard the former Finance Minister already state that the 2020 budget was not really worth the paper it was written on because we entered into a pandemic. Unfortunately, we fast-forward into where the budget has been now postponed until April, six or seven weeks past normal. It ties into some really poor planning on behalf of the government, in my opinion.

Yes, I get that we have never — I know it was mentioned — been through a pandemic. But there is still a reasonable amount of trust in a government that they should be able to plan and get their ducks in a row.

[4:45 p.m.]

The minister said that this is routine. With that in mind, we can’t all say that everything is routine right now. But we’re here to talk about this bill and how the NDP really just want to whisk this through with limited debate. I think that’s why we’re all standing here debating this, because it is a significant amount of money with zero direction on where it is going.

I’ll maybe put this into listening context for all those thousands of viewers that are at home watching this debate and trying to figure out why we’re debating this.

I’m going to put it into a little story here, which I think ties it in quite well. I have two kids. I have a teenage daughter. She’s going to be buying a vehicle here pretty soon. She comes to me and says: “Dad, I need 300 bucks, 400 bucks.” All right, a teenager — that’s probably not extreme.

But I’m not just going to hand over the $300, $400, $500. I’m not just going to hand that over. I turn to my child, and I say: “Hey, tell me. What are you going to be spending this money on? Are you looking at starting a small little business on the side? Are you just putting this towards a car, maybe a sporting event, even something like a concert?” I think that gets you on a nosebleed ticket now — $300. “But I want to know what you are spending this money on.”

You wait a minute, and you look. You wait for this story and this response, and there’s a blank look on your teenager’s face: “I don’t know. I don’t know what I’m going to spend it on. Not really sure how I’m going to spend it. I know I need it.” That’s kind of where I put this as.

Now, we’re talking $13.4 billion. The public has really no idea. The last speaker, the Minister of Social Development: “This is just to bridge last budget to get us through this next budget.” Well, it really isn’t. It’s actually starting in the middle of the water and hoping the bridge goes somewhere.

I don’t think that that is what British Columbians want. They want to know where their money is being spent. They want to know that there is transparency on their tax dollars that are being spent. I think British Columbians, once this starts rolling out and people are talking about this, are going to feel like they’re in the dark, not knowing where this money is going.

I don’t want to go talk about the past and bring up the 1990s. I know the other members have. I found it quite funny. Langley East and even the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction also mentioned how the other side is being partisan as they turned right around and brought in all their partisan points.

We do have a job to do here as opposition. That is our sole role as opposition — to be critical of government legislation, to be critical of the government’s actions. I appreciate the minister did mention that he appreciates what I appreciate. That’s why we’re here talking today on this bill. Government should not just be able to willy-nilly change things around. We’ve seen this already — the fixed elections. We’ve seen that. Yeah, well, that’s only good when we need it. Where does it stop? Normally we have a supply act. We’re not in normal times.

“Let’s just do it.” I don’t think there’s logic in that argument. It’s the government coming to us in this room, to British Columbians, saying: “Just trust us. Trust us, and we’ll make it work.” I’d like to say I have all the confidence in the world to believe that, but I don’t. I don’t think we should all just fall in line on this legislation and “yea, all opposed, carry on.” We have to ask some serious questions, and we will get deeper into this during the committee stage. I think British Columbians, especially in the not-for-profit sector, are going to be asking many of these questions as well.

[4:50 p.m.]

We have no idea of what this $13.4 billion is connected to, as we have years and years before us. It’s a bill that is connected to a budget that we’re debating, a bill that is connected to a budget that we will be going into committee stage, dissecting and asking questions on, on behalf of British Columbians — not a bill that is attached to a budget that a kindergartener could have presented last year, because it was really not worth the paper it was written on. Things had changed that much because of the pandemic.

We have numerous examples of why people are not trusting this government, moving forward. “Trust” is an important word. We ourselves and the Third Party had trust in the government that there was a level of cooperation here early last year on working toward what was best for British Columbia. We saw how that turned out: the $5 billion recovery program.

Government said, “Trust us to use it,” and we British Columbians expected that it would be used the right way and would support the people that needed it the most, through probably the most difficult time for many British Columbians. It was done because British Columbians needed it. I don’t know if you remember a little election that happened back in October, but that’s where the majority of that money went. Campaign promises to bolster: “Vote for us, and look what you can get five or 5½ months later.” By then it was too late for a lot of people.

We’ve seen the government say: “Trust us on the small and medium-sized business recovery grant.” There is a sector that needs help. “Trust us. We will help you.” Well, I give that an F-minus, because most of that money still has not gone out the door to support businesses. In fact, $55 million out of $300 million has gone out the door. But: “Trust us. We know what to do. We will spend the money. We can do this.”

How? How can we trust a government that can’t manage $300 million, in almost a year, to get it out to business? How can we trust them to blindly spend $13.4 billion? That’s the issue that we’re facing. We’ve given the other side a whole year to prove…. Well, we’ve given since 2017 for this government to really prove themselves. We’ve seen a lot of things being proved, but they’ve not been successes. We’ve seen a lot of incompetence being proved, and this is what worries us: a blank cheque — really, a blank cheque — for $13.4 billion. Well, we don’t know where it’s going to go.

This bill is just another reminder, I guess, of failing to get the relief out to people, the people that need it. Delaying the budget till April is leaving many British Columbians without the benefits that they need. Just before me, we had the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction on. It’s convenient that I’m following him, because I can point out some of the things that I thought I might have heard him speak about in his remarks.

[4:55 p.m.]

This Thursday we have a group of advocates that were initially going to be on the front lawn, advocating for the $300 to be reinstated for income and disability assistance to seniors. The $300 clawback. The Premier is on the record saying that he supports it. Is that part of this? I thought maybe the minister might have alluded to that.

Even with just the budget being delayed upwards of two months, I had non-profit groups reaching out to me stating their concerns about if the money would be there. We could go back to them if we had a budget that was presented in February. We would’ve been maybe debating the budget. There might’ve been some people talking about it, including government MLAs. We would have been talking about this budget and saying: “Yeah, there is money for…. The Premier had promised that he agrees with the $300 supplement. That’s in the budget.” Or the supports for Community Living B.C. that are required. Or the many, many thousands of not-for-profit groups around the province of British Columbia that provide social service supports.

We could go to them and say: “It is in the budget. It was put in the budget in February, these moneys. We’re going to be asking questions during estimates.” That we could give them, but we can’t give them that right now. We have no idea how much money is going to be supporting these social development programs, none whatsoever. And to say: “Well, we have this money that’s going to be passed here….”

This one page on $13.4 billion refers back to the 2020 budget, which isn’t reasonable to be referring back to. Maybe the government should have thought about that before they delayed the budget. In fact, they should have maybe thought about it a bit more. We might not have been here debating this bill. In fact, we would not have been here debating this bill had things been routine and normal. And I mean routine and normal in regards to a budget being presented in February, when it should have been presented.

Community Living B.C. We’ve talked a lot about them. They provide an incredible amount of support across the province — $1 billion to deliver programs. Where does that money come in? Again, we don’t have anything to reference it to. These programs are vital. These are vital services and supports that British Columbians need. Many of them, these organizations, have budget cycles that tie into the provincial budget cycles. They’re struggling to find out: “How do we fit into the province’s budget cycle? How do we fit into this Bill 10?” How much of that money…? Is it a percentage? What does that look like for the not-for-profit sector that delivers these programs?

WorkBC Employment Services delivered almost $30 million last year to help British Columbians who are desperate to find new work. Where do they stand in regards to this?

We are in unusual times. Nobody argues that. We are arguing the point that government did not think this through when they delivered this Bill 10. I don’t think government thought it through when they were looking at delaying the budget initially, which has put us into this precarious position that we’re in right now today, debating this supply bill.

[5:00 p.m.]

I do look forward to diving a little bit deeper into this during committee stage. I know that there will be lots of questions. There’ll be lots of specific questions to all the different organizations, all the different ministries that do tie into where these moneys go. I’m looking forward to digging into that.

That being said, thank you for the time, Mr. Speaker.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to Bill 10, the Supply Act. I’m glad that a little more humility has crept into the debate than was happening earlier.

I think it’s important that we not forget that we’re actually having a debate here and that the debate that we’re having here is framed in the context of billions and billions of public funds being spent and that has little or nothing to do with the parties that are represented in this House. It has everything to do with whom we serve in this place. We serve the people of British Columbia, and it’s important, when we’re having the debate about billions of dollars, that it be in the context of those people that we serve.

I want to start my comments on Bill 10 with the ac­knowledgment, as many speakers have stood and stated at the outset of their comments, that there is a supply act, and interim supply happens every year. It’s a standard part of the spring session. As other members have noted, it’s to ensure that there’s the ongoing funding of programs that allows for the time between one budget to the next.

What’s unfortunate about the debate that I’ve heard unfolding here in this chamber today is that the whole story is not necessarily being told. While members of the government would like us to just stop on the point that this happens every year, it’s important to acknowledge the fact that what’s happening in this supply act doesn’t happen every year. What’s happening in this supply act is unique. There’s lots of excuse-making. We’ve heard lots of excuses for why this is the case, but let’s just be honest about the fact that this supply act is unique — as unique as the times, as many people have pointed out.

The government hasn’t presented a budget and estimates to this House. As other members have pointed out, there is little ability between now and when they do…. They want us to pass this act now. In fact, they need this House to pass the act now to allow for the funding of the administration of government. But there’s little transparency and accountability. So the members of the opposition should very much be concerned about that fact. It’s not a minor fact.

Essentially, this is an advance on a budget that we have not seen. That is the main distinction between what’s happening here today, in this debate and in this request from the government, and what has happened in previous years and the previous requests of previous governments. Essentially, this House today is being asked for $13-plus billion, which is a lot of money. They’re asking for our support of that without the information that governments normally have when they’re making the determination that they will support a supply act.

[5:05 p.m.]

This is particularly problematic because last year’s budget, the budget that they’re using to provide the context for this…. Because there is no budget to provide any context to their request, they’re tying this to the previous year’s budget. What’s problematic about that is that the previous year’s budget is irrelevant. It’s pre-COVID. A lot has happened since then, as many speakers have said.

We’re being asked, the people of B.C., represented by the members in this place…. No matter what party you’re from — as the people of B.C. often hear, whether you’re on this side of the House or the other side of the House — the reality of the matter is that the representatives of this House are being asked to spend $13 billion without the context that’s normally in place. I think that that’s important to point out.

As is said in this bill, the bill has to circumvent the Financial Administration Act. In section 1 of the act, part 2 says, “For the purposes of this Act, the main Estimates for the previous fiscal year ought to be read as if they were the main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022.”

Section 3, “Despite section 2 of the Financial Administration Act” — despite section 2 of the Financial Administration Act — “a reference in section 23 of that Act is to be read in relation to this Act as a reference to the main Estimates for the previous fiscal year.” So while members of government stand up in this debate and suggest nothing is different, that this is what we do all of the time, are there any differences? Yes. There are differences.

Indeed, every time we’ve been told and every time we will be told, “We’re just doing what we’re doing, folks; we’ve always done it….” Except that we’re not. Maybe the people of B.C. should think about that, when their government can stand up, member after member, to say: “Don’t worry; nothing to see here. We’re doing what we’ve always done.” Except that in the very language of the act, they’re saying: “No, we’re not doing what we’ve always done. We’re doing something different.”

I think what the people of B.C. want is for their government to tell them what they’re doing, to be honest about that, and then to do it. This Supply Act is out of context. The Supply Act should be tied contextually to the current year’s budget. That’s not what’s happening. So I look forward to future members standing up and acknowledging the fact that yes, there is a Supply Act every year and that yes, this year it is different, because it is, in fact and in reality, different than previous years.

The government has framed this unfortunate delay largely as they’ve been framing everything in their delays: due to the COVID-19 global pandemic. Now, I was here at the beginning. I was here a year ago. I was one of the ten members that sat in this place and approved the $5 billion and the $1.5 billion recovery fund. It was a day like none other, probably, in this chamber. “Surreal” was the word that I was looking for. I would say that it marked, I think, the beginning of the change of how this place operates.

Last year I spent most of my time working from my patio. I never thought that — whether legislating from the chamber or constituency work or whatever — I’d spend so much time on my patio as an elected member. So there is no doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a tremendous impact on governing in this province, and there’s no doubt that the administration of our government, the staff and the public servants, have done a tremendous job to negotiate the really incredible challenges. However, part of what we’ve seen here is a really troubling trend of a reduction in transparency and accountability of this government.

[5:10 p.m.]

We did, in that time a year ago, come together in a cross-partisan way — again, only reflected in the very substantive challenge that we faced. We came together. There was very little definition between this side of the House and that side of the House. I think that was what kind of caught me off guard in the tone of the beginning of this debate around this. The fact is that we have seen in very recent times a time in which all members of this place have come together to support British Columbians.

So $1.5 billion was approved for pandemic recovery, and that was by all parties in the House. It, unfortunately, ended up being a campaign fund. Because all through the summer that money was being consulted on. We’ve have heard member after member after member stand up and say that the government supports consultation and engagement and asking. Well, we saw that all through the summer. Then on the eve of the election, $11.5 billion worth of programs put in front of British Columbians as if it were magic.

Yet it was months previous I was sitting in this seat right over here when we approved that budget. The government chose to delay this budget until April. The 2021-22 budget was a choice by the government to delay that budget. Normally, we would have the budget in front of us right now at the same time as we would be debating this Supply Act. We would be able to take a look at it, and we’d say: “Okay, we see the budget in front of us. We recognize the imperative of government continuing to deliver programs, as the members have talked about. Based on the fact that all the documentation is in front of us, based on the fact that government has followed its due process. Based on the fact that it’s in alignment with the Financial Administration Act, let’s proceed.”

Usually, this process happens very quickly. Very few debates at the Supply Act. But the government also chose to trigger that snap election back in the fall, in the middle of a pandemic. That was a choice of this government to delay and to put that in the middle of a budget process that was actually moved up into the summer. The budget consultation was moved up into the summer to give the government more time to consult, more space between that budget consultation. Recognizing that it was going to be unlike any other year, they moved the budget process in advance.

They were probably more prepared and had more time for the 2021-22 budget, in terms of that consultation process, than any government has been in maybe a decade or longer than that, except for the fact that they then decided, the Premier decided, to throw an election in the middle of it. That election has had — despite how many people in this House would like the public to believe otherwise — widespread disruptive impacts on our society. We’ve heard about it over and over and over again. Program spending that didn’t get out the door. Critical changes to programs that couldn’t be made to make sure that they worked properly when they first failed. Small to medium-sized business programs are an example of that.

We’ve seen the numbers in the modelling and then in the numbers on the graphs of COVID cases escalating rapidly during the election. We were told: “Not going to happen; don’t worry about it. It’s going to be just an inconsequential election.” With deep, deep, deep consequences. We saw that Peter Milburn’s report on Site C was actually ready in October, but it wasn’t delivered until Christmas because, as he said, there was no government to give it to when it was ready. We were told that these kinds of delays were not going to happen. But instead, they did.

To make up for the snap election, the government brought us back in December. They brought us back under the auspices that we were going to be approving the grant to support British Columbians, the $1,000 election promise to all British Columbians.

[5:15 p.m.]

Then we also saw a bill, at that time, that would give the government the ability to do a few things. First, to delay the budget by over two months so that it didn’t have to come in February, so it’s going to come now in late April. Then, as well, to give themselves enhanced ability to use special warrants. Essentially, the ability to just spend money unchecked when the Legislature is not in session.

This is part of this contextual narrative that is playing out, a government that wants the ability to just call money and spend it without the associated transparency and accountability that is required when we’re actually paying respect to the people who pay the taxes and need the services that government provides.

This whole year, as I said, has been unusual. On that I can agree with my colleagues. It’s been an unusual year. But let’s not forget: 2017 was an unusual year as well. So 2017 saw us go into an election. It was unusual because a Green won in Saanich North and the Islands. But more than that, it was unusual because we got into a minority government situation, where, with the B.C. Greens and the B.C. NDP and the B.C. Liberals, there was no majority government in this province.

It’s important to point this out. The B.C. NDP government, in a confidence and supply agreement with the B.C. Greens, put together two budgets in that odd year, in that challenging time. I know it was challenging, because I was a part of those negotiations. There was nothing easy about that time.

In fact, as many people were saying, that was the least stable our government has ever been. As it turns out, it was pretty stable for 3½ years. But it was the least stable. Everybody was taking bets on when the government was going to fall. Somehow the Minister of Finance and this government delivered a September budget update and started the process and finished the process for Budget 2018 in February of 2018.

For all of these delays that have been argued necessary due to COVID, because of a unique situation, it’s important to point out that we’re not that foreign to unique situations. Yes, they’re different. Yes, a global pandemic and a minority government are different. However, I would suggest that we’ve experienced so few minority governments in the recent, modern history of this province that actually the situation that we faced in 2017 was traumatic for this institution. It was dramatically different from what we’ve seen.

Here we are now. We’ve got a situation in which we’ve delayed this budget, or we’ve been told that we need to delay this budget because of COVID. The reality is that we’re delaying this budget because of an election that was called. Claims that we can’t get the budget together, yet this same government got two budgets together in one year. We have examples of where the government is able to deliver a budget under duress, and in this situation, in this case, they’ve chosen not to.

They claim that this is about consultation, and more consultation. The reality is, of course, that that consultation happened a long time ago. The government has gone through that process. The committee that is charged with that has done the work. This government, prior to the election, was more ready for budget ’21-22 than they were previously, because that process was sped up.

This isn’t a new government. This is the same Premier. The majority of the cabinet is in place. This isn’t a new budget. This is not a new budget from a new government. This is a new budget from a government that largely has had its hand on the tiller for the last 3½ years. The delay — let’s just be honest — is because of an election. It’s because of the timing of the election and that decision that was made by the Premier.

[5:20 p.m.]

Like I said previously, response to COVID-19 was delayed because of it. Support for small and medium businesses delayed because of it. Support for the tourism and hospitality industry delayed because of it. Budget 2021-2022 delayed.

My final bits of comments here on this. I would just like to point out the process. Process is important. In this bill, this Supply Act, the government is flouting important processes. My job — as has been mentioned previously — as a member of the opposition is to hold government accountable. It’s to demand transparency when the government is using its power to ignore due process and the impacts that come from that. There are real consequences.

To my colleagues who want to just stand and suggest, “Don’t worry,” or “This is different,” there are enough impacts on our society caused by COVID-19 already. The last thing that people of British Columbia need is their government also throwing wrenches into the spokes at the same time, which is what’s happened over the last number of months.

There’s one member who stood up and said he’s astounded that we must talk about this bill. I would just suggest…. I ask the question: should this House just give the government, then, $13 billion to spend without debate? That doesn’t sound like the democracy that we have set up here. That doesn’t sound like how this place is supposed to work.

I know the government would like to not have the accountability and transparency, and their actions recently have shown that they’re trying to achieve that. They might, in fact, use their majority of votes in this place, if they can convince their own members to just go along with it to get that power. But that doesn’t mean that it’s right and that they should have it.

There is a great deal of difficulty to hold government accountable when there’s nothing for us in the opposition to point to and say…. We can’t point to the budget from the last time and say: “Oh, well, the context of this Supply Act is from this budget over here.” That’s not the way it should work, arguing that 20 days is 20 days, or 15 days or ten days. As the Premier has said and a member has raised, the Premier said previously that one day is too many. Well, apparently that’s changed. I think it’s the laissez faire approach to some of the debate here, like: “Don’t worry about it. It’s just 20 days — just 20 days. What’s 20 days?” It’s a lot when you’re talking about $13.5 billion.

Most British Columbians will look at this and see a bald MLA splitting hairs, probably.

Interjection.

A. Olsen: Yeah, there’s been a few, but I’ll just speak for myself. However, is this bald MLA splitting hairs because he has so few hairs to split? No. No, it’s because the processes that we’ve set up in this place for accountability and for budgeting measures are well-established, and they’re there for a reason. They’re there to protect the interest of the public that we raise that money from. If those are flouted, if those are set aside, if those are easily put aside, then what certainty do those people have?

We must hold government accountable, and we must hold up the processes that are in place to protect the public interest. If we’re not doing that and the government basically has this laissez faire approach about it, which is just: “Whatever; it’s just 20 days. What’s 20 days really…?” It’s nothing, in the grand scheme of things.

But it is important. The reason we need to protect those processes is because other businesses, non-profits, other organizations have created their processes to match ours.

[5:25 p.m.]

When we do that, the delays that were caused back in the fall by decisions that were made by the governing party here throw all of those planning processes into chaos. You can imagine the people who have to manage the other budgets that are contingent on this budget — what they must be thinking right now — as they’re hearing government members go: “Oh, don’t worry about it. It’s just 20 days. You guys just hang in there a little bit.” The people who are working — just hang in. You might have a job; you might not. Twenty days. It’s nothing, really. Except it is something. It does mean something, and it means something for a reason.

The reason we have these processes is so that other groups and organizations can align their processes so that in the end, we can have certainty. What the chaos of the election was called…. People say: “Oh, it’s just the Greens standing up because he was the one that was burnt.” No. The certainty that’s created by this place filters down through our society, and other people and other organizations, non-profits, businesses, need us to stick to our processes and not flout them and then, when we do, minimize that.

I’d just like to close by saying that this has been an unusual and a challenging time for this institution, incredibly so. We’ve seen, as members, the impact on this institution. But I also want to point out that this has been incredibly challenging not just for us but for everybody in our society, for everybody in our communities that we represent.

So the chaos that’s been created by an election, the chaos that’s been created by delaying the budget…. It is just wrong for us to stand up in this House and minimize it like it is of little consequence, because the consequences and the ramifications are very large. We do ourselves in this institution a great discredit when we make the debate about us and our political parties, when we make it about what they did in the 90s and what they did…. I can’t wait till we talk about the 80s and the 70s in this place.

What we need to be focused on is the job that we have at hand right now, which is Budget ’21-22 and, on the opposition benches, holding government accountable for that. Unfortunately, what we have here in front of us is we have a supply act that is pointing and created a context that just doesn’t exist. For me, that’s very troubling.

With that, I will take my seat. I thank Mr. Speaker for the opportunity to speak to Bill 10. I really hope that as we move forward in the coming budget cycles, we can once again — in light of the fact that we’re dealing with a global pandemic — create that certainty that the people of British Columbia, the organizations that rely on us to have that certainty…. That they can once again rely on their government to create that certainty for them so that then they can do the important work that they need to do on behalf of their constituencies.

With that, thank you. HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

B. Anderson: First, I would just like to say that I would like to speak in support of the bill.

I’m speaking in support of the bill from the unceded traditional territory of the Ktunaxa, the Sinixt and the Syilx. I’m just grateful that I’m able to live in this beautiful land, and I appreciate the First Nations and the work that we’re doing towards reconciliation, because it’s a really important process that we need to all take part in.

This year [audio interrupted] is almost exactly a year that our lives have changed dramatically, and they changed very quickly. We went from knowing there was maybe something coming to all of a sudden things changing drastically. Kids were taken out of schools. Businesses had to close down. A lot of us thought: “Okay, maybe this will be two weeks. Then we’ll be able to figure it out.” Of course, people with experience, like Dr. Bonnie Henry…. She knew what we were in for, for the long haul.

[5:30 p.m.]

I was personally worried that we weren’t going to see a vaccine for maybe two years or longer. But now, as we’re actually rolling out the vaccine at an accelerated pace than we had anticipated, now that we do have the vaccines available for British Columbians, I just feel extremely grateful to all of the people that have been working so hard to get us through this year — all of the essential workers.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

I think this year it was a really important time that we reflected on what is important and what jobs are of value. I think we found out, all of a sudden, that it’s incredibly valuable to have your grocery stores open. The work of people in long-term-care homes, whether they are the nursing staff or the cleaners — that is incredibly important work in order to keep our loved ones safe.

We’ve watched how people have come together as a community, and we’ve watched how businesses have pivoted. I felt incredibly grateful to see how our businesses were able to pivot extremely quickly. Some of the businesses have been hurting. My region is a tourism region. We have businesses that have had to shut down. Baldface is a big draw for this region, but they have not been able to operate this year because they weren’t going to be able to operate in a safe manner. They haven’t been able to be open this year, and that has impacts, of course, on the restaurant and retail sector.

We are seeing, of course, people turning outwards. Some people are turning inwards, but some people are turning outwards. They’re exploring our local area more. We’ve seen more people. We’ve seen more bike sales. We’ve seen more ski sales. We’ve seen more cross-country ski sales. People are really trying to enjoy the environment in which they live. They’re also turning to support their neighbours. We’ve watched incredible groups that come together with neighbours to try to support each other during these extremely challenging times.

I just feel very grateful when I look around the world and even look across Canada and see what we’ve been able to do, collectively, as British Columbians, over this past year. Now that we’re seeing, really, that light at the end of the tunnel, I’ve been more and more hopeful. As we’re seeing that we’ve had a day with no deaths, finally, from COVID-19, that’s a bright light. We’re seeing that more and more of our grandparents are able to get vaccinated. Our health care workers and our essential service workers are getting vaccinated.

After what felt like a very, very long time for me, we’re able to get together in groups, outside, of less than ten people. I know that a lot of people are going to really benefit and that their mental health is going to be able to benefit because of that.

Now, what this interim supply agreement provides…. Of course, we do it every year, but we’re hearing that this year is different. Well, we know why it’s different. This isn’t a surprise. What this is going to be able to do is provide the funding for the services like health care, like education — services that we all depend on as British Columbians, for the interim. It’s just an interim. That’s the portion of the budget we will…. That is for the 2021 budget, and that’s going to be coming up around the corner here. I’m really looking forward to seeing all of the great things that we’re going to be able to deliver in this budget for people.

I know, in my riding, we’re finally seeing money that’s going into affordable housing for people. We’re in a region where we’re in a real crisis. People are not able to find housing. These are people with good jobs, with kids in schools, who are contributing to the community, but the housing stock is just not available and just not there.

I was able to go with Jenny Robinson two weeks ago — it’s Hall Street Place — and toured this beautiful new building that’s going to be housing for people within our community. To see this critical work…. We’ve needed this type of housing for a decade, and now we’re seeing these three large facilities that are being built for housing in our community.

[5:35 p.m.]

We’re seeing more and more investments in health care. I think that during the pandemic we’ve all really realized how fortunate we are to live in a country and in a society that has public health care. Seeing more investments into public health care and into mental health services and support, I think, is incredibly important.

We’re also seeing agricultural supports. I know that Creston is absolutely thrilled to see that the food hub is going to be developed this year. This was a project that Tanya Wall had been working on for about ten years — to get the food hub located in the Creston Valley. What this is going to do: farmers are actually going to be able to process their food and have value-added foods with this food hub.

One of the things that we deal with, most years, is a cherry cull. These cherries, generally because of weather, are not actually sellable on the market. The cherries would have to be brought to the landfill and managed that way. Now the town and the regional district are building a composting facility. But what’s even better than composting those cherries is that those cherries are now…. They’re perfectly good cherries; they’re just not perfectly good to sell. They’re going be made into fruit leather, a value-added piece of food to help feed British Columbia.

These are just some of the really exciting programs and services that been part of this last budget and that we’re going to be seeing here in the future with our funding model. With this interim supply agreement, it’s important we provide that bridge until we’re able to look at and debate this next budget together and move forward as British Columbians.

I just have a lot of hope. I’m very grateful for the trust that the province put in our provincial government, because they know how important it is to finally be seeing more investments in education, in health care, in seniors care and in mental health supports. As we move forward, it’s going to be absolutely critical to our recovery that we are supporting businesses.

What we’ve been able to do this year…. Everything is unprecedented, but this is the first time that businesses have been able to apply for grants. With these grants, we’re going to be able to see businesses make it through the hardest part of this pandemic. I believe that with some of the lessons that they’ve learned, they’re going to be stronger because of it. That’s what I’m hearing. Some of them have been able to go online or change their service model slightly, and they’re planning for the future. I’m just so grateful for those businesses and for the ingenuity that we have in our communities across this province.

Kalesnikoff is a great example of a business that has been in our community for four generations. They’re able to operate from seedlings. They’re actually the ones that are reforesting the area, but then they’re able to also harvest that timber. They have their mass timber facility. They’re able to create these mass timber structures, which are using our local wood. It has a lower carbon footprint than if we would be building with concrete. It’s absolutely beautiful, and it’s going to be used in a building, hopefully, here in Nelson, which is going to be the library, but also in buildings throughout the province.

Those are the types of investments that we’re seeing here in British Columbia and that are really creating value-added for our province, which are also really good jobs. These jobs are really important for us to continue as we move through the pandemic and into recovery.

I just wanted to say, again, that I’m in support of this bill, and I wanted to thank the Speaker for this opportunity.

E. Ross: It’s good to be back in the House. It’s quite odd, though, because there’s nobody here. Nice to see the staff, nice to see the Speaker, a couple of my colleagues, even my colleagues across the way there — nice to see you guys. Well, it’s nice to be back, but very odd, especially as what I refer to now as being a sophomore in this place. I’m not a rookie anymore. There’s still more to learn in terms of the process, but I do appreciate the governance system here in B.C.

[5:40 p.m.]

What we’re debating here is Bill 10, Supply Act, 2021. Apart from the speeches saying that we don’t want to get partisan and make political statements, and then going into a partisan speech ragging on each other, we’re not doing anybody the benefit of understanding what we’re talking about here today.

We’re talking about $13.4 billion of B.C. taxpayers’ money, and government wants us to believe that this is just routine. Well, I am a sophomore — I’m not a rookie anymore — but I do know this is not routine. Even where I come from, back in my chief and council days, this was not routine. Council was never given hundreds of millions of dollars with no justification. We had to present a budget. We had to debate the budget.

Now mind you, it’s not like this, not like what we do here. In fact, I take it back, in terms of why I joined the B.C. Liberals in the first place. I think it’s well known that I joined because I wanted to help B.C. get LNG off the ground. I was tired of the opposition to LNG. I was tired of the rhetoric, and I thought I could help. Then I get in here. We win the election in 2017, but we lose government. Which is fine; that’s the way the system works. But the underlying reason I wanted to come here was because I actually tried to form my own chief and council on the same structure that I saw here.

It’s a great structure. I come from a chief and council where there are no checks and balances like what you have here. We do have financial by-laws. We do have financial policies. We have all kinds of rules for how we run our system. But we don’t maintain it. I think I approved four dog by-laws as chief councillor in my time as chief and council. Here, you have the continuity and the corporate memory to keep B.C. going. This is a really good governance structure that actually puts democracy in action.

This institution represents how we hold government accountable on behalf of our constituents, no matter where we’re from. It doesn’t matter if you’re from Terrace, Quilchena or my past colleague’s riding, Michelle Stilwell, from Parksville-Qualicum. I said I’d give her a shout-out. There it is.

The fundamentals of governance, I know, go beyond the financial accountability that we’re talking about here. Really, what we’re talking about is financial accountability without this spin, without the partisan attacks. Because once you start to undermine democratic principles, where is your province heading? Where is your governance heading?

It should be troubling for the people of B.C. to know that the B.C. government is asking for $13.4 billion, but they are not giving any justification. This is what we’re debating today, for all those millions of people watching at home. That’s the supply bill. And the supply bill is a normal part of the business. I understand that. But normally what happens, and I’ve heard this repeated many, many times here, is that, first, you present your overall budget. That’s what you present. Every government has done this.

Once you present that budget, then we set it up for debate. But government needs a chunk of change to keep the programs running in B.C. That’s what they need, so they present a supply act. The Supply Act outlines where the government is going to spend the $13.4 billion.

There’s nothing here. We’re not debating a budget. We’re not debating a supply act. I’m not sure what we’re debating other than the $13.4 billion that the government doesn’t want to justify. They don’t want to explain it.

[5:45 p.m.]

I just heard the previous speaker talk about how it’s going to be great to get more affordable housing, agricultural support, mental health support, health care and education. Okay, where is it? I don’t see it. Transparency and accountability can’t just be words.

The processes that were set up in this Legislature were not for us as MLAs. It was not for the government. It was for the people to have the trust in a system that their representatives knew full well what was being done with their tax dollars. They knew full well where the province was heading in terms of direction, because most of the direction is actually funded by the dollars that come from B.C. citizens.

In the, I’d say, 16 years that I was chief and council, I came across a lot of politics that talked about transparency, accountability. Especially in election time. It always came out. It was a platform for many, many people that wanted to be chief and council, but in public meetings, when I asked them what that meant, I couldn’t get a clear answer.

As usual, I went to find out my own answer. I couldn’t find an answer that couldn’t fit the context of what we were doing. And there is different context. There are municipal councils, regional councils, us here as the Legislature in the province of B.C. There are federal governments. There is different context on how you carry out transparency, accountability. But there is no reason to hide financial statements. There is no reason to hide financial projections or expenditures. That’s what the Legislature is for.

I’ve got to go back and tell my constituents in Skeena, who actually re-elected me: “I have no idea what the government is going to spend $13.4 billion on. I don’t have a clue. I’m sorry. I can tell you they talk about Agricultural support, affordable housing, but they’re not going to prove it.”

And this would be so simple. In the four years that I’ve been here, we’ve done this every single year at budget time. And to be honest, I know a lot of MLAs in this House haven’t paid much attention to it, because normally, it’s routine. We know the government has got to keep the lights on while we sit in here and debate the full budget. We know it’s routine. We know you’ve got to pay those health care workers. We know you’ve got to pay the teachers. We know you’ve got to keep this ship running.

So what’s the problem? Why is it not detailed, even in general, in terms of the numbers, in terms of the categories? And just to cite the party line, no matter what party you’re in, and say, “Just trust us,” you’re not doing any service to your constituents who voted you in, who wanted you to represent their interests as taxpayers.

I know I’ve been called a rogue at times. I know I’ve been described as a person who goes my own way. But I do have a deep loyalty to constituents. I do have a deep loyalty to B.C. And I have a love for governance — true governance — complete with transparency, accountability. Today, for some reason, we’re talking about bypassing it. Doesn’t that scare anybody, especially the rookie MLAs?

Four years ago I probably wouldn’t have known what was going on here — because of the politics, because of the spinning, I wouldn’t have known. I would have asked my colleagues: “What is my true job here as an MLA? Is it to my party? Is it to the Legislature? Or is it to the people of B.C.?”

In this case here, I’d say that we’re failing the people of B.C. It might be minor to you, but that’s a slippery slope. I learned this principle as chief councillor when our very first steps came into the economic development world, the resource world, and millions of dollars were starting to come into my community.

[5:50 p.m.]

I went to report to all my community members in Terrace, Kitimat, Vancouver, Prince Rupert, and every message I got back was: “We trust you.” I pleaded with them. I begged them. I told them in public: “Please don’t trust me. Verify what I’m telling you. Ask me questions. Ask me the tough questions. Write to me. This is your money. This is your future. I do appreciate the trust, but I’m not going to be here forever.”

The problem I had as chief and council…. I did not have the continuity or the corporate memory to leave behind me when I left. I tried as much as I could to build that structure, to duplicate what I saw here in the B.C. Legislature, but I couldn’t do it. I didn’t have enough time.

You’ve got the structure. B.C.’s citizens and taxpayers, you have the structure, the continuity, the corporate memory. You also have the principles of transparency and accountability built into this place. And now we’re talking about throwing it all away.

This might be minor. But in the grand scheme of things, if this keeps going the way it’s going, this is not going to be a very good province to live in, if you can’t trust your government. I do question how this government actually doesn’t like the principles of transparency and accountability.

I first saw it from my own eyes when we were debating the LNG Canada agreement that the B.C. government had negotiated with LNG Canada. With all the tax breaks — the carbon tax, the PST break…. They got rid of the LNG tax break, which is kind of funny. The NDP are always claiming that the Liberals only appeal to the elite and the rich people of B.C., yet they give the biggest tax breaks to one of the biggest projects in B.C. That, to me, wasn’t looking out for the little guy.

Anyway, that’s the first time that I saw the NDP government actually try to override the principle of transparency and accountability — when they tried to slip in a clause that said no longer would major agreements have to be brought to this Legislature. Thankfully, we beat the NDP government on the vote. Thankfully, the Green Party, just before the vote, left the room, and we won that vote. I don’t think British Columbians understand the bullet that they dodged when you’re talking about a government that negotiates a $40 billion agreement, gives all kinds of tax breaks, and they did not want to bring it to this Legislature.

There are more projects coming down the pike. Chevron has still got to come through — another multi-billion-dollar project. Nisga’a has just recently announced that they’re putting their multi-billion-dollar project back on the table again. I think the citizens of B.C. have a right to see what their government is negotiating when they’re talking about multi-billion-dollar projects and the tax breaks that come out of it.

That was the first time I saw this NDP government try to thumb its nose at transparency and accountability. The other one was proportional representation — just recent history. The NDP government and the Green Party really wanted it so badly. They throw this information out there to the B.C. citizens, but they can’t explain it. They can’t describe it. That is scary, till you start to add this all up, and you’re starting to see a government that actually just wants free rein on the finances of British Columbia.

What do they do when the opposition does their job? I, as an opposition member, have a job to do. I have to question government and try to hold them accountable, which is not going to be easy because the NDP government have — what? — 50 seats. I can yell, scream. I can debate all I want. But they’re still going to push this through, because they have the votes. But at least I get my concerns on the record. I understand that’s the way the system works.

What doesn’t help, though, is all the spinning. We do our job and just say: “Could you at least give us some numbers where that money’s going to go?” And somehow, the NDP government turns around and says: “Well, it’s unfortunate that you don’t support front-line workers.”

[5:55 p.m.]

That’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re trying to hold government responsible for $13.4 billion, and we’ve got nothing to go on. We don’t even have the context of a full budget. We don’t know what happened with the rest of the money that we gave to the government that we actually — everybody — approved in this House because of the COVID crisis.

I’ve heard the criticism. I’ve read the criticism of my colleague from Vancouver-Quilchena — that he didn’t do enough to criticize government, that he didn’t hold them accountable enough for COVID. But it was under his recommendation that I decided: “Yes, I’m going to listen to my leader and just say yes. I’ve got to put down my political ammunition, and I’ve got to vote in favour of what the government is proposing.”

Given what we were going through back then, I’d probably do it again, because we have never seen anything like this in our lifetime. The last time when we saw something on a worldwide scale was probably World War II. In fact, in ten years, we’ll all be asking ourselves, hopefully: “Where were you when the COVID crisis happened?” It’s historic. I don’t blame my party. I don’t blame my leader for us agreeing to work together with the government, because at the time, it was the right thing to do.

This is not the right thing to do right here: what we’re doing right here, right now. We’ve had enough time to assess the damage done by COVID, not only to our economy but to our society. We know that people are suffering in care homes and dying. We know there are certain ethnic minorities that are suffering more than others, certain age groups that are suffering more than others. We know how hard it is now to roll out a vaccine plan. We know it. The government can’t keep hiding behind that excuse.

There are a lot of smart people in the Legislature that know how to govern. They know how to budget. So to come to the Legislature and just say, “Give us a blank cheque for $13.4 billion, and don’t worry about it. Somehow we’ll be accountable for the future.” The government hasn’t been accountable for the last batch of money we approved. In this case, I know that the NDP government is going to spin this. I’ve heard a few speeches on it already.

I do know that we have to do more, as the Legislature, to combat what’s happening with COVID. We’ve got a future to build, but we can’t start building that future by undermining the principles of democracy. We can’t do it. Where is it going to end? A government that has no accountability or responsibility to the citizens is not a democracy. I know that there are other forms of leadership around the world that actually dictate from the top down, with none of the democratic principles that we’re employing here today. But this is Canada; this is B.C.

If the people don’t understand or appreciate the principles of what happens in this House, I can understand that. There are probably four people watching us today. But for MLAs in this House: you understand. I can’t think for a minute that there’s one person in this House, 87 MLAs, that doesn’t understand the principles of democracy and what our job is here today.

For the record, I do support the government doing more to address COVID coming out of this. I do support that. Without a doubt, I do support the idea of making sure that the lights are left on until the full budget is presented and then voted on and approved. But I don’t support the government just giving out one piece of paper, saying: “Give us $13.4 billion, and we’re not going to tell you how we’re going to spend it.” I don’t support that; I can’t.

That’s not what the people of Skeena elected me for. They wanted me to come down here and understand the process, then go back and report. Normally, I don’t even report on supply acts. I don’t report that, because I understand it’s the normal course of what we do down here. There’s nothing really extravagant or controversial in supply acts. We’ve done four of them, together in this House since I’ve been here. I’ve never reported once to my constituents, because it’s normal, routine business.

[6:00 p.m.]

This today, Bill 10, Supply Act, 2021, is not routine business. You’ve given us nothing to debate, except for the idea that you’re trying to override the principles of governance.

As for the rest of the partisan speeches I’ve heard, I’ve heard NDP MLAs talk about the B.C. Liberals in terms of ICBC, the revenues. I’ve heard B.C. Liberal MLAs talk about Bingogate. I’ve heard of the fudge-it budget of the ’90s. I’ve heard all that, and there’s more. But as we go back and forth and throw these backhanded insults at each other, we’re not doing B.C. any services here, just by insulting each other and dragging up the past and pointing out which government was bad back in the day. That’s not why B.C.’ers sent us here.

Today more than ever, B.C. wants to see the Legislature lead B.C. out of the pandemic. The future could look bright in five, 10, 20, 30 years, but not with these politics, and not with the idea of eroding democratic principles, especially in this place here, in the Legislature.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and speak in favour of the second reading for Bill 10, the interim supply bill, and to take my place.

We know that the interim supply bill has been introduced to bridge the gap between funding between the end of the fiscal year, March 31, and the last day of the spring session, when the provincial budget is formally passed. As my colleagues who have spoken…. Certainly the interim supply legislation is common practice in British Columbia each spring.

What is uncommon is that we’re late. It’s later than usual because we find ourselves in these unprecedented times, in terms of just recently marking the one-year anniversary of the global COVID-19 pandemic, which has turned our lives upside down in British Columbia, across Canada and around the world. To respond to that…. I want to speak a little bit about that and then get into some of the points further. Our government has invested over $10 billion in COVID-19 relief and recovery measures. Really as a response to…. We’re on record as contributing more per capita to businesses and people than any other province.

I’m proud to say that while the challenges of COVID-19 have been unprecedented — it has taken a terrible toll in terms of people who have passed away, who have gotten sick, been hospitalized, have ongoing health issues and challenges — I think British Columbians should also be thanked in terms of the response to COVID-19.

I want to recognize the leadership of our provincial health officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry, and all staff who’ve worked on the bill, and really all members in the House, yourself included there, Mr. Speaker, as your role as the Health critic, playing a leading role. I think that leaders across British Columbia stepping up and answering the call and British Columbians taking the recommendations from the health officer put British Columbia in the place of not having to bring in as many restrictive measures that we’ve seen, certainly across Canada, in response to containing the spread of the virus.

We’ve been able to keep our construction industry running and working and supporting businesses to operate safely. We’ve been able to see restaurants and other businesses operate, even though they have faced unprecedented challenges.

[6:05 p.m.]

We know that COVID-19 has disproportionately impacted different sectors of the economy. But I think that British Columbians coming together has really played an important role.

Besides the challenge, I just want to speak a little bit about the difficulty in communities, the nature of many experiencing isolation and loneliness. Really we’ve seen — I’ve seen, certainly — the response of community individuals really stepping out, reaching out and wanting to assist members who are in need. We’ve really seen that as well. We’ve seen British Columbians right across the province step up and assist to support seniors, to deliver food and care baskets to seniors and to others who have difficulty getting out, to really assist and support folks.

Besides the health pandemic of COVID-19, British Columbia also…. We’re facing the dual pandemic of the opioid crisis, which has been exacerbated by COVID-19, resulting in an increased toxic drug supply because of the restrictions of goods crossing the border and with individuals being isolated, many using in isolation and dying from overdose. Those dual challenges have really presented us with incredible challenges.

The interim supply bill…. To respond the COVID-19 relief, we’ve made really record, unprecedented investments in British Columbia. When we talk about British Columbia in the context of Canada but also British Columbia in the context of the world, because it is a global pandemic, we know that the global crisis, as well in British Columbia, has really laid bare a number of fault lines. Inequality, those who face multiple barriers — race, gender, class, other institutionalized barriers — often face a disproportionate impact in terms of death, hospitalizations, being on the front lines as essential workers and really bearing the brunt in terms of COVID-19. Certainly, we’ve seen that in British Columbia.

The other aspect that’s important for us in British Columbia to realize, and that I think people around the world are coming to value, is that we really see the importance and the value of our public health care system, which has protected British Columbians.

Certainly, our government’s commitment to invest in health care and taking the health of British Columbians as the most important principle in terms of how we prioritize our spending measures, putting resources in place…. That has been key — to put the health, the welfare, the safety of British Columbians at the centre of all our considerations. The health of British Columbians really is the foundation in terms of the recovery of our economy. It’s the basis in terms of being able to move forward and recover. That has really been…. It’s a stark, I think, illumination for us in British Columbia, to take stock and to value our public health care system and the importance of that.

Another feature that has been really brought to the fore is the importance of, when we see that these fault lines of inequality have really been exposed in the global pandemic…. I want to read a statistic I came across to really show just the stark contrast and contextualize the investments that our government has made in terms of supporting people and businesses here in British Columbia.

[6:10 p.m.]

Around the world, in the last year, we’re marking the one-year anniversary of the pandemic, and there is a shocking illustration in terms of when we see those exacerbated fault lines of inequality. Globally in 2020, billionaires increased their wealth by $3.9 trillion. If they increased their wealth, where did it come from? Well, workers lost $3.7 trillion. So that’s just a very stark picture in terms of, on a global scale, the impact and the deepening of inequality.

When we look at the interim bill, the previous budget that was tabled and, as well, the budget that’s coming next month, measures that our government will take will look at ensuring that, at the centre, British Columbians’ health is protected and that British Columbians are supported and that, moving forward, we ensure that these fault lines of inequality do not tear our province apart, that resources that we invest to support British Columbians to move forward as we come out of the pandemic put British Columbians on an equal footing, moving forward with a society and with a province that doesn’t leave people behind.

It talks about and prioritizes our collective future together. It’s an approach…. I’m proud of the commitment and the investments that our government has put — over $10 billion now. It’s really been addressing the inequality, putting at the centre, ensuring we address that there is equality from a perspective of anti-racism, recognizing a decolonial view, reconciliation with Indigenous people. The increase we’ve seen globally, the rise in the right wing and white supremacy — that these issues are front and centre.

We identify them, we take them on, and we invest in British Columbians. We invest in programs. We invest in our public services that are really a collective asset, if you will, for British Columbians. I think that, certainly, we know the history of public health care in Canada with the father of health care, Tommy Douglas — the value that Canadians hold for health care.

I think that British Columbians and Canadians and people around the world are recognizing the importance not only of public health care; the importance of public services that support people, the importance of measures that are put in place to support workers and to support those who are at the margins and that look to level the playing field.

This experience and this priority on our moving forward collectively, together, and looking out for each other…. I think, when we look at British Columbia and how we have been able, so far, to come through COVID-19, that’s something that stands out for me — neighbours that I’ve talked to, business owners, people in non-profits, right across the spectrum. It’s appealing to that higher moral or ethical ground to think, of course, of ourselves but for your neighbour and for people down the street, for those less able, who have less access to resources — that they should be supported. Certainly, that really is articulated, and British Columbians…. We understand that more than ever before.

It’s not easy, and certainly there are challenges ahead, but I think that those are some important key components. When we look at the pandemic, it’s really shown that investments in health care prevent the spread of disease and provide care for our family members when we need it the most. Contrasted to the record of the previous B.C. Liberal government…. Just a contrast — that prioritizing tax cuts for the wealthy would mean less money for services like health care.

[6:15 p.m.]

So those are two clear paths, I would say. We’ve heard some discussion and debate on looking back and analyzing the record of the previous government, the previous B.C. Liberal government and where we are now, in the midst of COVID-19 and moving forward.

I think the path is very uncertain, but I have a lot of faith and hope in British Columbians, and I believe in the resilience of British Columbians. I think, looking forward, in terms of the supply bill and the budget that we will be debating next month…. The importance of our government focusing on investing in health care, investing in people, building and strengthening public services, taking a view around prioritizing an anti-racist and intersectionality view with respect to public policy, protecting the environment — these are the key foundations. These are the key values, I think, shared by British Columbians.

We know, as well, that essential workers, often on the front lines — they came to the fore, hailed as heroes — are also in difficult times, underpaid, overworked.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I want to talk a little bit about the long-term-care sector and the contrast between where we’ve come from, the experience in COVID-19 and where we’re going. We know that COVID-19 has challenged all of us — the experience, for example, in our long-term-care system, which had been dismantled under the previous government. Wages had been…. There was a race to the bottom, contracting out. Contractors were rewarded for lowering wages. We know that that really undermines service provision to seniors.

When the COVID-19 pandemic came, our government, the Minister of Health, took decisive action to ensure that there was protection in place for seniors in long-term care. What were some of the initiatives and commitments? Raising wages for workers in the system, predominantly women, racialized women, raising wages in the sector. Bringing in the single-site notice, where workers could work at one site for full-time hours. That created a levelling off and standardization in ensuring that adequate care could be provided to seniors in the pandemic.

We know that it was different with the restrictions in terms of visitors to seniors, the restriction of folks who could visit seniors. The measures that were put in place and the investments to rebuild those services in long-term care for seniors — a commitment in the billions of dollars — go towards improving quality of service, improving the working conditions and wages of workers, and rebuilding that service and restoring that trust that our seniors deserve. That was one clear area, in terms of investments in long-term care and moving forward and looking forward.

We know that we’ve heard some discussion about the record of the previous B.C. Liberal government during 2001, and that’s looking in the rearview mirror. Those programs of austerity, cutting of public services, cutting taxes for the rich and those at the top — I think that’s where that belongs, in the rearview mirror.

Looking forward, we know that the challenges in terms of our recovery won’t happen overnight but by focusing on people and public services, providing opportunities, training opportunities as well as in the long-term-care sector. We’ve made a commitment to provide training opportunities and hiring additional staff to work in the sector. That’s a key commitment that not only improves service for seniors but provides opportunities as well.

[6:20 p.m.]

We know that moving forward, there are a lot of challenges, but our government continues to be focused on looking out for people, working for British Columbians, providing support and also ensuring that we build and strengthen public services.

We’ve provided, as well, a number of supports for our recovery, our B.C. recovery. We know the B.C. recovery benefit helps families make ends meet with payments up to $1,000, direct investments to support families. Small and medium businesses are eligible to receive grants up to $30,000 and up to $45,000 for tourism businesses — the incredibly hard-hit tourism and hospitality sector — really to keep people working. As well, additional supports to help thousands of people upskill or re-skill and find in-demand jobs. Continue to improve fairness at ICBC and make life more affordable. There will be cheques coming back to British Columbians for a rebate in terms of turning things around at ICBC. Bringing in transparency in real estate to protect people and tackle fraud and, also, recently taking action to stop gun violence.

These are some of the initiatives that our government has undertaken to support British Columbians and really invest in people. These are the key cornerstones in terms of moving forward. Where do we want to go? Where do British Columbians want to go? We have big challenges.

I haven’t spoken about what we’ve seen, as well, in terms of just this rise in anti-Asian racism that has really increased sevenfold. These are the reported instances of anti-Asian racism. It’s characterized as anti-Asian racism, but it’s basically people who are darker-skinned, racialized, have been…. The impact…. I have had so many reports into my office — on the street, people being assaulted, verbally accosted. Really, this has come out and really highlighted the need to tackle racism. I am very pleased about the commitment of our government to take that on and to move forward around addressing systemic and institutionalized racism in our province. We have a long history of that. Our government is taking decisive steps which….

It goes hand in hand, in terms of how we recover, how British Columbians, as a province, recover, how we ensure that as the vaccination program continues to gain steam, people are protected, that their health is protected and that that’s the basis for our economy recovering. But hand in hand and key is the important commitment around addressing this scourge of anti-Asian racism, the need to recommit to Indigenous reconciliation. These are key and central in terms of moving forward.

I’m very pleased to speak in favour of second reading for Bill 10. I look forward to — we have the budget that will be coming next month — talking about the continued commitment of our government to ensure that British Columbians are kept safe, that there are equal opportunities for all British Columbians, that people and businesses are supported and that we take steps to move forward to build a province where we can live in safety with respect and dignity. That’s a future that all of us can be proud of. So thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.

M. Elmore 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 6:25 p.m.