Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate, Bill 10.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2021

(continued)

T. Halford: I zoom in on this as a privilege today to speak on Bill 10. I must also remind myself and remind others that when we talk about something in terms of a supply act, how do you explain to your constituents what exactly a supply act is and what goes along with it?

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

We’re talking about $13 billion, over $13 billion. We’re talking about a supply act, an ask of this government of $13 billion, with very limited accountability.

There has been a massive level of uncertainty that has hung over this province since the beginning of the COVID pandemic. We understand that. We’ve supported a lot of the measures that this government took in the interim to try and get us to a better spot. But here we stand today, in this House and across B.C., with many questions that have gone unanswered. This Bill 10 continues to lead to that uncertainty.

We came through a campaign in October, an election in the middle of a pandemic. A lot of us here and all members have participated in elections before. I have a closet full of T-shirts that I keep from previous elections, and they all have different slogans on them. One of the slogans that might be considered for this election is “Never let a crisis go by without taking advantage of it.” That’s what we saw with the snap election.

[10:55 a.m.]

I think it’s important to remind all members, and especially members on the government side — and this is important — you are the previous government. That’s something that you guys continue to say: “The previous government, the previous government.” You are the previous government. Maybe there are some things in that record that you’re not proud of. I get that. I understand that. Fair enough. But you are the previous government.

What we’re talking about today is a $13 billion ask. My colleague gave the example yesterday of one of his kids asking for $300, $400, without knowing what it’s going towards. I sympathize with that. I get that question often in my house, and I ask the same thing.

But when we’re looking at things in this House, and we’re asking questions that we just saw…. Where is the support for the PNE? Where is the support for the Rio Theatre? Where is the support for the BCHL? Where is the support for the WHL?

I think we can all agree that since we’ve come back from the election, it’s been bumpy. We are in the middle of a pandemic, but it’s been bumpy. It’s been bumpy in terms of getting support out to those who need it.

Every week in my constituency office, I hear from people who cannot get their economic recovery grant, a grant that they were promised in the middle of a campaign by the Premier of this province. They were promised it before Christmas, and they still haven’t got it. I had one gentleman come into my office, very upset, on Thursday of last week, who still doesn’t have it.

When we look at the business economic recovery rollout for the grants there, that was an admitted struggle of this government. They have extended those grants. They have changed the thresholds. But we are continuing to do all this work at the eleventh hour. That is a disservice to British Columbians. At a time when they need help the most, this government is ill-prepared to deliver it.

I get that the intentions may be well, but at the end of the day, they’re ill-prepared to roll out the programs that they’re putting forward. So forgive me, on this side of the House, if there’s hesitation — if there’s an over $13 billion ask in the supply agreement, that there are questions. And there are many questions.

I understand that elections happen. I understand why they happen. But at the end of the day, there has to be accountability. That’s what governments are: they have to be accountable. I stress, with this government, that we continue to try and find ways to have that accountability and transparency. It’s important.

I think that we can all applaud the great work over the last year that Dr. Bonnie Henry has done for British Columbians and the work of our health minister. I am one of the first to applaud that. But at the end of the day, British Columbians expected us all to work together. I think many of us delivered on that promise, but I think we still continue to have a long ways to go.

I end my comments today by saying that it’s this government’s responsibility to take responsibility, to realize the fact that this is not a new government. It’s not. This is the previous government.

[11:00 a.m.]

This is the government that created a stand-alone Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. That is fantastic. But you know, what would be better is if this government decided that they would actually fund the ministry properly. We have a Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions that has a budget smaller than the Office of the Premier.

Again, I would ask the previous government to make sure that going forward, they provide accountability and transparency for all British Columbians. I think we have a long way to go in terms of where this bill is today.

R. Leonard: I’m pleased to be part of the debate in this hybrid session which was created in response to our COVID-19 pandemic. I want to say thank you to the Clerk’s office and to everyone who’s been involved in making sure that we can continue the work of government through a very unique and innovative way.

I want to speak today in support of Bill 10, the interim supply bill, from the traditional and unceded territory of the K’ómoks First Nation.

This bill provides bridge funding between March 31, the end of this fiscal year, and the last day of the spring session in June, when this next year’s budget is formally passed. This is a supply bill, an interim supply bill, not a budget. It is important to state this distinction because comments by opposition members who were in government previously have intentionally obfuscated the purpose of this bill. That is, they have taken efforts to make the matter unclear and, quite frankly, unintelligible. An interim supply bill is an important practice to allow time for the breadth and the depth of exploration of the next year’s budget as each minister lays out their year ahead. It is a common practice.

I’d like to recall the recent experience south of the border with the former leader of that nation. His refusal to support paying of the bills with similar interim supply legislation paralyzed a nation. Because it’s a recent historical event, people can picture this. Workers were furloughed. Government services were shut. Thousands of people were not able to pay their bills because they had no paycheque coming in. It went down the chain. Suppliers, landlords and other businesses were affected. So yes, paying the government’s bills on time is important.

Here in B.C., getting your driver’s licence…. Having that conservation officer arrive when a cougar has visited your neighbourhood was one of the examples that the Minister of Finance referred to. How about those cheques in the mail? Health services at the ready? All these services, and more, are important and necessary for the people of British Columbia. Today an interim supply bill is a common practice in an uncommon time.

Earlier this month I had the opportunity to listen to Chris Hadfield, the astronaut, speak at the Alzheimer Society’s Breakfast to Remember. He referred to his time in space, half a year, where he had to communicate with all of his loved ones and the people on Earth through virtual ways. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, we had to adjust, ourselves, and find different ways of operating and different ways of communicating. The point he made was that after six months and coming back, being pulled out of a capsule was like being reborn. He said he knew he was entering a different world, but he also knew that he was different.

Our world is different, and we are different. We have been changed by our experiences over this past year. They have been significant. I’d like to acknowledge the hard work of the minister and her ministry staff to manoeuvre through a changing landscape that comes from a global pandemic that has not been experienced in our lifetime or even the lifetime of those who raised us. We have met those challenges. I feel confident that the supports and services that our government has provided through the pandemic have been appreciated by the peo­ple of British Columbia.

[11:05 a.m.]

We included all members of this House to make sure we were all working together to weather this pandemic storm. We listened to the needs of the people, operators of British Columbian businesses and communities, and we have achieved extraordinary things together.

Much has been made about transparency. I shake my head at those speakers from the opposition who were part of a government that managed to purposefully delete seven pages of recommendations that define and could solve the financial problems of ICBC. Those same B.C. Liberals hid hundreds of millions of dollars of ICBC losses with accounting tricks. And I’m not talking about decades ago.

The year ahead is not certain. As the Minister of Finance said: “There is light at the end of the tunnel, but we are still in the tunnel.” I’m proud of the engagement that our government has undertaken with businesses and with people and that we’re making the effort at this moment in this everlastingly heart-weary, constraining and changing time to build a meaningful and effective long-term plan in the 2021-22 budget that builds on all of our current supports.

We are living in the middle of a global pandemic as we continue to build our recovery. The focus is on people and businesses being in our best position for success in a post-pandemic world. The interim supply bill will provide for the portion of the current budget’s total approved support — not extra — to allow us to pay for continuing programs and services that British Columbians expect and have shown that they should be able to count on.

It is important for people, businesses and communities to know that support will be there for them regardless of the timing of a budget. That certainty will carry forward to the 2021 budget as we continue to keep people safe through the pandemic. This is why I support the interim supply bill.

B. Stewart: I rise today to speak on Bill 10, interim supply. I do want to kind of raise some important considerations that I think need to be considered about this particular bill.

I think one of the things that is worrisome about this is the fact that we’ve been through a very difficult time. I know that members on both sides of this House have been challenged by the complexity and the difficulty with the public health orders. However, there are requirements under the Financial Administration Act, which was clearly put in after very difficult period of time in British Columbia’s history, where accountability in terms of finances was something that was not respected, not upheld.

It really goes back to the core, I think, of some of the principles that I think are important that we do adhere to. The Financial Administration Act talks about the fact that the government will give quarterly updates. It will make certain that it presents…. In terms of after the budget, it will bring out and bring forward an interim supply, which we all understand. But this year alone, since March a year ago, we have already been here for supplemental increases in last year’s budget — which, let’s not forget, was over $60 billion, almost a 30 percent increase in overall spending across the board in terms of government services from the former government, which is often criticized as not necessarily investing properly.

How did we get the lowest debt of any of the provinces? The best rating by the bond agencies in terms of our provincial budget? It was because of the fact that we were respectful of taxpayers’ dollars. That’s not the way it started out back in 2001 when Gary Collins was the Finance Minister. He inherited an operating deficit of $2 billion per year on a budget that was just under $20 billion. So you can imagine that they were spending way more.

[11:10 a.m.]

It’s easy to spend more at home. Isn’t that the issue that people find sometimes, and we found? We have stepped in and supported this government, making certain that people have a way to cover some of the increased costs. But if we live off our credit cards or borrowings, etc., then we end up getting further and further behind, where we get into a crisis.

I want to go back to some crises that occurred back in…. Well, let’s just start with how things were managed by a former Finance Minister who was involved with the Nanaimo Commonwealth Society, in terms of taking money from individuals that he wasn’t entitled to. The bottom line is that he made a very clear, objective point that the fact is that the money that was being raised through gaming was something that he and his family were entitled to. He was the Finance Minister, and essentially it went on to the fact that when the government was replaced…. The fact is that was let go for a long, long time, but I think that it goes to the core of the principles about being transparent and honest.

It’s not just one member. Let’s go back to the 1990s when there was an election by the province of British Columbia to bring in a new Premier, Mike Harcourt, and the situation was that at the time, the government had surpluses. The bottom line is that the new Finance Minister worked within that, sprinkling all sorts of money across the province. New projects were undertaken.

Fast ferries were announced. It was announced as the fact that: “We’re going to create jobs here in British Columbia.” At that particular point when they took over, British Columbia was in the enviable spot of being the number one economy in Canada. We were a have province, where we contributed back to the federation, where we provided surpluses or contributions to help balance other provinces that were not in that situation. We moved through that to the point where, after the project was actually undertaken…. I mean, it’s reasonable to try to develop and en­courage things here, but not when it comes to interference by the government.

The project was originally announced at about $200 million. The situation ended up that when it actually did complete — and this is once the two of them were actually out there operating — it was found that it was completely not the right product to be traversing between Horseshoe Bay and Nanaimo, because the fact is that it was swamping small craft. It was washing people’s docks out.

After the first two had been in operation for a very short time — the third wasn’t yet even complete — they scrapped the project and shut it down and essentially went back to conventional ferries. We all know that the story in this was that that’s one of those projects that didn’t only double, but it was almost triple, in terms of the cost. The losses that British Columbia ended up with are staggering — over $500 million that could’ve gone into health care, could’ve gone to the member that’s responsible for social development, in terms of the clawback that we were talking about in question period today.

The bottom line is that we have to be respectful of taxpayers’ dollars. That’s what I want to kind of lay on that. If we go back to the series of incompetent decisions made by the government in the 1990s, we saw successive disregard for projected deficits by the Treasury Board, in which the current Premier served as an adviser in cabinet. He well knows what Treasury Board is there to do.

The situation is that with the respect that should be given to Treasury Board to be that sober second thought, make certain that the economic forecasts are respected, the cost of projects are considered…. I know, myself, having been in front of Treasury Board many times, that it is not…. You don’t just walk in and kind of ask for what you need or you think you need and then (a) you get it, and (b), if you do happen to get it, that you don’t stay within the budget. That is a history or a recipe of disaster that we don’t want to see repeated.

I ask, in regards to Bill 10: where is the financial update that we were entitled to see in terms of since the pandemic? What’s been happening? Did people stop working?

[11:15 a.m.]

Reality is that we have a responsibility as the opposition to make certain that we ask for that. Where are the numbers? We’ve heard the former Finance Minister, Carole James, suggest that the budget deficit could be north of $13 billion. We have supplemental estimates, which we’ve added to the already increased budget of over $60 billion, of $8 billion on top of that, which….

Actually, we don’t really know. We’ve just gone through this today. We know that we actually don’t know where the money, the accountability…. We know the public accounts eventually, whether it’s the Auditor General, whether it’s public accounts. But we expect transparency. There should not be dollars being spent in British Columbia without proper debate in this House.

We’ve already had three supplemental estimates that have spent that $8 billion. We’re being asked to vote interim supply of $13 billion plus another $365 million in terms of capital. That’s reasonable if we know what the budget is. But at this point, we have no economic update from last fall, the second quarter. We also are in a situation where we’re now being asked to delay the budget, which we don’t agree with. But the fact is that the government has pushed the budget back — not just the first period where we delayed it 30 days or a month back in December. We now have added another 30 days to that so that we’re going to see the budget come out in April.

This is just essentially willy-nilly. This is kind of what it is. Frankly, there’s no relationship to the money that’s being requested. The process, normally, would be on this basis, but we know that we spent more money last year than what the budget was. We have no idea where that’s going to land. I can only imagine, with all of the promises that were made about the fact that there were going to be resources to help businesses, help tourism, restart the economy…. Where is all that money? Where’s the accounting on it?

We haven’t actually done anything to account for the money that we effectively approved on August 14 last year, and we expect — British Columbians expect — and demand answers. That’s why we’re standing up today — that we don’t agree with this process. We think it’s flawed. Bring on the budget. Tell us the bad news. As bad as it’s going to be, what’s your plan to get us back to balanced budgets? The former Finance Minister spent a lot of time telling us about how good she and her colleagues were about balancing budgets — albeit the pandemic has changed that. Let’s get a plan back to rebuilding our economy.

We hear about the jobs numbers and stuff like that. Those aren’t all the same jobs that we lost over the pandemic period. We have many people that have gone to lower-paying jobs just to get out of the house, just to work, etc., at lower pay. Let’s call a spade a spade. Let’s make certain that what we’re talking about here is the truth, transparency, etc., as tough as it is.

We’ve been there. We have supported this government in all of the pandemic relief from March of last year into the emergency recovery programs, the additional moneys that we needed to approve in the summertime and then in December. I think that those are…. They become reckless when you start to depend on them. I think that that says…. I haven’t heard anything from the minister that makes me feel comfortable, as somebody that’s a former banker and run a very successful business. The bottom line is that as much as I love the business side of it, I still have to make certain that the math adds up at the end of the day. Otherwise, the bank will be calling my loans.

Something that most people on that side of the House…. I doubt any one of them ever had to borrow money in the early 1980s. I paid 22 percent. I was thrilled when I got a mortgage for 13 percent when I started Quails’ Gate. Those are numbers that today we forget about. The fact that the Bank of Canada rate is under 2 percent for provinces like British Columbia…. That doesn’t last forever. We saw the 2008 financial crisis. There are other things that are coming up, and we need to make certain that we have adequate protection for British Columbians.

[11:20 a.m.]

Look at how many taxes that have gone on since this government came in. We know this. We talked about it a lot during the election, the snap election, and the fact that money was doled out during that election that was really approved for economic recovery. It was used as a tool to bring people to think, “You know what? I don’t want to change horses in the middle of a flood,” or whatever it is.

I don’t disagree, but the bottom line is that at the end of the day, they were intended for certain uses, and they’ve been misused. And of course, even the latest tranche, the $2 billion from December, hasn’t all gone out the door yet. There are still many people…. My office is flooded with people.

Now, we don’t know the answers to that, but they’re trying to. They’ve made the application. Frankly, I’m not certain what made it so difficult for some of these people. The government has moved on collecting all sorts of information about taxpayers, their social insurance numbers, whether they own a house or two.

There are 23 new or increased taxes that were brought in just since 2017. That’s partially how they balance the budget. Of course, that increased spending has gone into projects. It’s gone into community benefits agreements, which is part of the way that we’re going to build things in the province.

We’re going to use the B.C. Building Trades union to be our sole supplier of employees. I have unionized contractors that are big road-building contractors in my riding. They had to basically terminate their arrangement with another union to do road projects. Of course, they’ve had to build those extra costs in, in terms of what the agreements call for. But it’s frankly gerrymandered in the way that….

The bottom line is: where is the competitive, transparent edge? How many of these members opposite don’t try to get the best possible price when they go to buy a TV or a fridge or an appliance? Let’s say they’re buying a house. I think that that’s unrealistic, in fact, to think that British Columbian taxpayers don’t have the right to enjoy that.

Where is the promised $400 renter’s grant? It hasn’t shown up yet. Anyways, we’ll talk about housing another day.

I think that the thing about it is that what we do want to talk about is: what’s next? We don’t have the information to anticipate, with the deficit that was mentioned, really no information around it — the extra supplemental spending of the $8 billion plus whatever the budget commitments are for the coming increases that were projected last February when the budget came out.

But we have the off-loading, if you want to call it that, of the employer health tax. We have the Victoria gas tax up 2 cents a litre, a Vancouver gas tax up 2 cents a litre, let alone the carbon tax. I understand that everybody wants to kind of be cleaner, better for the environment.

Yesterday was Mining Day. Our mining companies are having a tough time in trying to have people that understand and appreciate that in order to have the opportunities, whether it’s electric vehicles or wind turbines or whatever, we need to make certain that we have adequate support to make certain that these people are getting the opportunity to do that.

I don’t think people mind paying the tax, provided that they understand the full spectrum of what it is that is required to make certain that we do have a better environment. The fact is that those people are just part of it.

We have an Airbnb tax, the luxury vehicle tax. I remember the Finance Minister going through that in great detail and telling us what vehicles were under $55,000 that didn’t attract the increased taxes, but frankly, I’m not certain that that’s very realistic concerning what vehicles cost today.

Tobacco tax has gone up three times. The property transfer tax. I know that the fact that it’s gone up…. The foreign buyers tax, which I think….

Interjection.

B. Stewart: You know what? I think that, clearly, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey and the minister appreciate….

Interjections.

B. Stewart: Yes, I’m sure he does. But when we look at the speculation tax and the foreign buyers tax, the bottom line is: how much extra housing has that really created? Did it create more affordability?

Interjections.

B. Stewart: You’d know what the price in Vancouver is for average real estate prices, how much rents have increased. It’s $200 a month just in Vancouver alone. How have we helped that? The part about it is that the fact that the speculation tax has essentially made it so that people that maybe want to invest here….

[11:25 a.m.]

Maybe we want them to come and spend money going skiing and doing things like that, but they’re subject…. Where is the end of the speculation tax? What are we getting to? Are we going to have a speculation tax across the province?

It’s too bad the Solicitor General isn’t here. Because photo radar, the carbon tax, parking sales tax, DCC charges with TransLink. This is a very sensitive issue in terms of some of the taxes that we’ve seen increased. The property tax in Vancouver. The cannabis tax, income tax on incomes over $150,000. Corporate tax increased to 12 percent. The ICBC unlisted driver premium. ICBC learner premium. The B.C. Hydro crisis fund. The per-trip ride-share fees. The vaping PST. The sugary drinks tax, which has just come in. The Netflix tax, which has just happened. It doesn’t matter. They’re all taxes. The new income tax bracket for those over $220,000 in income.

This list…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member.

If the members can monitor their heckling so I can at least hear the member speak, that would be appreciated.

Also, Member, please don’t discuss if a member is present or not present. Thank you.

Proceed.

B. Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Bill 10, what this does is it’s one more opportunity for the government to think: “Well, you know, we did it this way before, and it’s regularly done this way.” It isn’t. There hasn’t been a situation where this has been used in this particular fashion, previously. What my concern is, and what I think that we’re trying to alert the government, is that there is a history in terms of the 1990s of not being accountable.

The Financial Administration Act was brought in with a specific purpose: to have to make government do that. We’ve already amended that twice to essentially allow the budget to be delayed into March and into April. I think that the situation is that when it comes time to talk about this, what we’re really wanting is we do want the government to be transparent and accountable.

What I worry about is the delivery of all of the things that are in the background. Having worked as a member of cabinet, seeing how the budgets come together, how each ministry has that responsibility…. We need to make certain that the new, re-elected government and the new members that are in there understand the importance. This is not business as usual. They have a budget that they have to make certain they bring forward that they can live within.

It wasn’t that long ago that we went through and we had supplemental estimates — not of the magnitude we’re talking about this year. But we had a lot of supplemental estimates, meaning that that was the money that was needed after they’d already had the budget and the estimates, and we had to go back and do that. This is just opening the door to being very loosey-goosey in terms of that, and the fact is that…. You know what? We need the money. We’ve got this project. It needs to be funded. You know what? That’s all well and good, and that’s where priorities come.

As I mentioned earlier in the start of the discussion, I think we need…. Everybody that has their own household budget has to make decisions. The government isn’t any different. The cabinet ministers aren’t any different. The pandemic — that was different in the sense that we did need to do something, and we supported you. We came to bat. We passed a budget of $5 billion extra spending in March to make certain that you had the resources to help get those people, the health care workers, the contact tracers, all of those types of people….

But we also gave money to help give businesses the confidence to being able to do that. We haven’t seen any visible signs that that has been delivered. There’s no information that should be out there that makes certain that people are clear in terms of what the investment is that we spent — well, now it’s $8 billion — and where it’s all gone to.

I think that one of the reasons that we have this particular act, the Financial Administration Act, is because of the fact that there was a long period where rules got manipulated and changed and they didn’t follow practices that were standard practice for the Finance Ministry and the government through successive Finance Ministers.

[11:30 a.m.]

I mean Elizabeth Cull, Andrew Petter, Glen Clark. The list goes on and on. There is Paul Ramsey. At the end of the day, there was an Auditor General, George Morfitt. In 1996, when he did his report on the budget, he said that it did not break the law but that forecasters were overly optimistic.

We can’t go back to those days when we just used a wing and prayer to kind of make these things. He essentially chastised the government of the day because of the fact that they had not followed what were respectful and good financial practices. I think the ministers have used special warrants in the past where, really, there wasn’t that accountability. Even the former Finance Minister, Paul Ramsey, in a report from the National Post, said yesterday that the special warrant money was not reflected in last spring’s budget but is needed to keep government programs going.

Well, we understand that sometimes things don’t add up, but that’s what contingencies and allowances are for. The bottom line is you have to build that in. Nobody can account for all of the things that have gone on from last February’s budget to this point, but at the end of the day, we’re now in the glue $21 billion — $8 billion plus this next $13 billion — that is unaccounted for in terms of real transparency. We didn’t go through that in the detail that we would normally go through. The taxpayers of British Columbia are owed that responsibility by the government.

Back in the ’90s, the member for Abbotsford South, who is still here today and was earlier, predicted that the special warrant spending will push the deficit to about $2 billion greater than the $1.2 billion that was predicted. “It’s very evident that the NDP has refined fiscal incompetence to an art form.” That was his comment back in 1996.

I rest my case, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to committee stage on this — where, hopefully, there will be some more information shared, transparency that I think we’re entitled to as British Columbians and as opposition.

P. Alexis: I speak in favour of Bill 10. Before I begin, I’d like to acknowledge that I’m speaking from the traditional territories of the Stó:lō, which include Leq’á:mel, Sema:th, Sq’èwlets, Kwantlen and Matsqui First Nations.

As I speak here today — it’s today that we should be focused on — I am once again reminded of how much we have asked our fellow British Columbians to sacrifice during these unprecedented times and how they have answered our call at each and every opportunity.

In turn, we, in this government, which I’m so proud to be part of, have tried to support them by providing the very best in support and service through COVID-19. The numbers do not lie. The public believes in this Premier, this government and this vision for the province — a vision that will see us rebuild an even better British Columbia in our coming post-pandemic world. However, none of that work happens independently of this assembly. To support B.C., we need to support its people and the economy. That is what this legislation addresses.

I was stopped recently by a constituent who wanted to thank me for the assistance that we were able to provide at Christmas, assistance that translated to her being able to buy much-needed eyeglasses. I had the pleasure of sharing that message with my colleague representing Coquitlam-Maillardville, who was touched by this show of gratitude for such a small yet meaningful act of support. That pair of eyeglasses stemmed from this government investing over $10 billion on COVID-19 relief and recovery measures, contributing more to businesses and people than any other province.

[11:35 a.m.]

What this interim supply legislation means is more protection for people’s health, their families and their livelihoods ahead of the next budget. COVID-19 has been the challenge of this generation, and we will feel its repercussions through our economy, our families and our health for years to come. This time last year, if there was light at the end of the tunnel, it felt like an oncoming train. But the end is in sight now, and the light is finally real.

We have asked the people of British Columbia for so much. We owe them more than we can repay, so now is not the time to nickel-and-dime them. We’re almost there. Let’s get back to work supporting them, their businesses and families. Let’s get to work building a post-COVID B.C., one that is a more prosperous and sustainable British Columbia for all.

L. Doerkson: It’s indeed an honour to rise in the House today and speak against another bill. Bill 10, the Supply Act, is what I’ll be debating and making comments on today.

I want to start by saying that it’s been suggested that the government isn’t doing anything out of the ordinary, or certainly, nothing that they haven’t done before. While that’s basically true, I do find it a little bit misleading. This government has systematically undone many of the safeguards that the previous government put in place with respect to transparency and, certainly, with respect to reporting around our budgets in general. They’ve delayed the budgets and the quarterly reports.

It’s no wonder we’ve ended up where we are today, given the fact that the current Premier, his chief of staff and the Health Minister were all around for the notorious fudge-it budget — a time when the NDP Premier had to resign in disgrace, a time when the current Minister of Health was forced to resign from his job in the Premier’s office.

Now we have a Premier who has called a snap election. We haven’t had proper quarterly reporting. The recovery programs have been what could be explained as a disaster, yet the Premier and this government come before this House to ask for $13.4 billion.

Our government brought in balanced-budget legislation. We fixed budget dates. Those steps made B.C. a leader in Canada for sound and transparent fiscal management. Over the past week, I’ve been surprised, as a new member, to hear some of the comments that have been hurled this way. That NDP members repeatedly and purposely misled this House and all British Columbians about our budgetary practices while in government, including the revenue transfer policies of ICBC — practices that the members opposite fully know were lawful….

Deputy Speaker: Member, you cannot imply that current members of this House purposely misled the House. Could you withdraw the statement, please?

L. Doerkson: I’m sorry. I withdraw the statement.

These practices — the members did know they were fully lawful and fully disclosed in our annual budgets.

I understand that this is an ask of this House that is normal for this time of the year. However, what is not normal is that usually we would have a budget and an opportunity to debate this after we’ve seen those numbers. I understand that this amount is based on a percentage from last year’s budget, which of course is pre-COVID. It does not make a lot of sense to base anything, in my opinion, on those numbers. Typically, these funds are debated after seeing that budget — which, as you know, has been moved to the end of April.

[11:40 a.m.]

The concerns I have are many. I don’t think I need to say it, but I’m going to say it anyhow. This, of course, has not been an ordinary year, and I can appreciate that, but it would be nice to know what the expenses of this province actually are, what they’re expected to be in the coming year and what they have been.

Secondly, it would be nice to know what the revenue of this province is. Now, I know we haven’t talked a lot about that, but I can assure you that in Williams Lake, the Stampede, of course, did not happen last year, and it would appear that it’s not going to happen this year as well. Hot Summer Nights car show in 100 Mile House did not happen last year, and it appears as though it’s not going to happen this year.

Now, I know those events, on a provincial scale, are not massive, but they represent millions of dollars of revenue to the Cariboo-Chilcotin in general. I suggest that you could times that by hundreds throughout the province, and I would suggest that our provincial revenue is going to be significantly reduced, which is alarming, to say the least. It’s concerning to me to think that we’ll be making a decision of this size, of $13.4 billion, without having any of that information.

I have other fears. This House and all of its members have approved large amounts of money over the past year. I’ve been here for some of that. There have been many concerns about how these funds have funnelled through to the taxpayers of this province.

The B.C. taxpayers and small businesses that have really needed this money — some of them are still waiting after months. Trust me. I’ve had many opportunities to speak to constituents that are extremely concerned about the way this money has transferred to them. So many of them have needed the money desperately. I spoke to a business owner yesterday who has lost $1.4 million in gross revenue for his business. He applied for the business recovery benefit in December and is still waiting, after providing three years of financial information for the business. They’ve lost their general manager, and they have lost half of their staff through this process.

At the end of the day, I feel like I have to make a decision on this bill, like everybody else in this House, and I simply don’t feel that I have the information before me to decide one way or the other. Not knowing what the budget will look like next year, not knowing what our revenues are this year and not knowing, of course, what our expenses are or what they’re projected to be, as I said, is concerning.

At the end of the day, when these last funds were ap­proved, I guess I’m concerned that I have no explanation for how they’ve moved and how they will move on to the taxpayers. I would have an easier time — a much easier time — approving or voting for this bill if I had the answers to those questions, of course. We all voted to get these funds to the people that needed it most. As I said, that hasn’t happened perfectly, and I am for sure concerned about it. In fact, only about 16 percent of those funds have actually happened and occurred.

It’s my right, I think, as a member of this House to expect that information. I think, though, more importantly, the people of the province have a right to this information, because at the end of the day, it’s their money. I think we forget that in this House. We should, as members, be able to answer all of these questions for our constituents, and we should be able to explain why these past funds haven’t moved. Honestly, we’ve asked repeatedly and haven’t been able to get clear answers with respect to that.

[11:45 a.m.]

A member referred to an upgrade to a road — Westcoast Road, which is in Cariboo North riding — yesterday and called it a $100 million improvement. Our roads in rural B.C. are drastically under-cared-for. In fact, in some cases, they’ve actually become dangerous to travel on. The road and the upgrade that we talked about is a road that’s actually gone. It’s no longer there, because of landslides and water damage.

Perhaps some of these funds might make their way to rural British Columbia, with respect to our roads. Perhaps some of these funds will be slated to help Bette McLennan, in Williams Lake, who hasn’t heard from the government after asking many times and after a number of meetings, even since I’ve been in the Cariboo-Chilcotin seat as MLA.

Bette McLennan’s house has flooded three times this year because of a culvert that comes off of Gibbons Road. She has been unable to repair her home, unable to insure her home, and certainly is not in a position to sell her home. Perhaps some of these funds could help fix the root of the problem, which begins from a culvert.

Perhaps Bill 10 will help to fund some of the other damage the water from this culvert is creating as it flows down through Bette McLennan’s home; continues to damage homes on Roberts Drive; continues to rip apart, literally, the home of Lacey and Randy Kuttnick, which is on Dog Creek Road; and then continues down, where it destroys Highway 20. Perhaps Bill 10 funds could be used for some of that.

Perhaps Bill 10 funds will help some of the people in my riding — and, I’m certain, throughout some of the other parts of the province — with damages that were created in 2017 from wildfires. The problems still have not been dealt with fully. As a rural critic, I could suggest all kinds of ideas for Bill 10 funds. We could use help with our mental health and opioid crisis in rural British Columbia. Connectivity. Wildlife. Rural roads. Rural highways. And, of course, rural fire halls that have had a difficult time accessing funding through the gaming funds this year.

It’s been a bumpy week here with transparency. The word “transparency” has been thrown around a lot. I would suggest that this plan and Bill 10 are anything but transparent. At the end of the day, I do have concerns with respect to the programs that have been rolling out. Not just the vaccine rollout, but certainly the rollout of the B.C. recovery. Funds have generally been very slow. I have many people in our riding that applied in December and still have not received these funds. The business recovery…. We help, every day, in our riding, people that are caught in that system that have provided unbelievable amounts of information and still have not received those funds.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We’ve seen numerous examples in the past year alone of this government requesting money and the members of this House agreeing to it. One year ago, in March, members of this House unanimously approved $5 billion for COVID recovery. My question is: how can we trust that this government, which has not been able to manage that $300 million appropriately, will manage $13.4 billion?

This bill is just another reminder of the government failing to get relief to the people. It speaks to them by delaying the budget by months. We need the government to step up, and we need them to step up very quickly, as people in our communities, for certain, need the help.

Mr. Speaker: Official opposition House Leader.

P. Milobar: Thank you. I wasn’t sure if there was anyone on the line that I might have jumped ahead of. I’m not sure if the member….

Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack.

[11:50 a.m.]

D. Coulter: Yeah, I’m here. Is it okay for me to speak, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: You can start, Member. Then we will ad­journ in five minutes.

D. Coulter: Okay. Thank you very much.

I’d just like to first acknowledge that I’m speaking to you today from the traditional and unceded territory of the Stó:lō people — in particular, that of the Pilalt and Ts’elxwéyeqw Tribes.

I’m very happy today to speak in support of Bill 10. I’m hopeful, although not convinced, that folks who are speaking against it will vote in favour of it soon, because it is just a bill that will continue providing support for people, business and communities up until we pass our next budget. These supports include nurses, doctors, teachers, social workers and other social programs that help out people in poverty. That would include some of the people that the opposition was talking about today in the House, in question period. I would hope that they support this bill if they truly care about those folks in poverty.

I’ve heard some arguments complaining about the de­mocracy of this all. Well, democracy doesn’t mean al­ways getting the outcome that you want. The people of British Columbia chose their representatives in the election in the fall. Then those representatives came to this House, and they voted on a bill to delay this budget. Now that the budget is delayed, the representatives of the communities that were voted in by the voters of each community will get a chance to vote on this bill, which will take us up until a budget. I don’t know of anything more democratic than that.

I’ve also heard some folks getting a little tender about ICBC. I can understand folks being tender about ICBC. I’d be somewhat tender if I had such a horrendous record. Some folks are thinking that they’re being accused of a crime. Certainly, we’re not projecting the fact that they’re committing a crime on them, if they feel that way. It’s not our fault that they feel like they’ve committed a crime. But I will say that their record is pretty horrendous, and I’d be tender about it as well. I know that the voters were quite tender about their record.

This bill is really important. Until we get this budget, we are continuing to announce new and updated programs, and many previously announced supports are continuing. So we really need this interim measure until we do vote on a budget in about 20 days’ time or in a month’s time.

We’re helping people now. The province’s $10 billion COVID-19 response is protecting people’s health and livelihoods and investing in stronger communities and a bright future. I think I’ve heard from members on both sides of this House about different programs and different things in their communities that folks are affected by — about COVID. If you are truly concerned about these things getting the funding for them continuing, you would vote for this bill.

I’d like to reserve my place to continue next time and call adjournment of the debate now, though, given the hour.

D. Coulter moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.