Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading debate, Court of Appeal Act, Bill 11.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — COURT OF APPEAL ACT

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be now read a second time. The Court of Appeal Act was enacted in 1982, with the most recent revision in 1996. Over the years, amendments have been made to the act that have affected its overall organization and usability. This has caused confusion for litigants trying to navigate the appeal system.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Currently the act includes provisions that combine matters of statutory nature with those of practice and procedural application, which fall more appropriately within the scope of the rules of the Court of Appeal. Changes to the act and the rules for the Court of Appeal are part of a user-centred approach to modernize, improve access to justice, and make the legislation easier to understand. The content of the act and the rules will be reorganized to have the general powers reside in the act, and all aspects of the procedure in the rules.

The language used in the act and the rules will also be harmonized for improved usability. With this bill, there will be increased clarity to sections in the act that were not previously articulated or were consistently misunderstood. Increased profile will also be given to sections that are most frequently referred to. Feedback received through the public consultation was reviewed and considered in these amendments.

The need to modernize the courts is not a new pursuit. It is an important and ongoing work in partnership with our courts to improve access to justice. The impacts of COVID-19 have highlighted the necessity of embracing the flexibility of audio and video appearance methods and the importance of integrating remote and electronic op­tions within our court system.

The act and rules amendments take a user-centered approach to provide a comprehensive, easier-to-follow guide for the appellate process. While there are benefits to the operations of the Court of Appeal, we believe that litigants will benefit the most from these changes.

M. de Jong: To the Attorney, the Court of Appeal, as he has pointed out, our highest court in this province, I think, is celebrating 111 or 112 years of operation. I remember that because when I sat in the Attorney’s chair some time ago, it was the centenary of the Court of Appeal.

[1:35 p.m.]

It has rendered decisions on some of the most important questions — societal questions, legal questions — that have arisen in our society. It is one of the three branches of governance. I remember a former chief taking exception when I suggested that the judiciary represented one of the three branches of government. He didn’t like that term. I changed it to governance. But he wasn’t particularly fond of that as well.

I think it is a basic tenet of our parliamentary democracy that between the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch, the three together are the agencies that our society relies upon to govern behaviour and ensure there is equality.

The objective that the Attorney has laid out in ensuring that the court is composed and operates and enjoys a jurisdictional authority that is modern, organized and understandable by those litigants who use it is, I think, a laudable one and deserving of support. There is no question that over time, as changes in technology, changes in procedures occur, it can become a bit of a labyrinth to navigate — not, by the way, just on the part of unrepresented litigants but even those who enjoy the assistance of able counsel and the support that exists for lawyers. It can, at times, be confusing.

The Attorney, in his brief remarks, spoke of — I think, legitimately — the emergence of new technologies and the adopting of new technologies. It’s hard to talk about or think about positive features associated with something as debilitating as an international worldwide pandemic, but the degree to which institutions, like the courts, have adapted and begun to use those technologies probably falls into that category.

As we look ahead to the committee stage debate that will take place, I likely will want to ask the Attorney the degree to which some of that technology will become, in his view, a permanent feature of the dispensation of justice.

I think the Court of Appeal now does broadcast, if that’s the right term, some of its proceedings and the issuance of decisions. It has always been my view that if we are to ask of the population a broader understanding and support for the work undertaken by the courts, we should be examining ways to utilize technology to provide people with more of an opportunity to watch and observe the workings of the court, including the Court of Appeal.

To the extent that this legislation and the subsequent rules that will become an important part of that package allow for that or facilitate that will be of interest to me. When the Attorney introduced the bill, he spoke of — and I think he mentioned a few moments ago again — the increased phenomenon of self-represented individuals. It is a reality, to be sure, to what extent that is…. A phenomenon that is the product of other challenges or problems…. Access to legal representation is something that is very much the subject of debate.

[1:40 p.m.]

I may seek the Attorney General’s views on that in a general way when we contemplate the specific provisions of the legislation. The rules package and the rules that subsequently guide the operation of the court will, of course, be very important. I think the Attorney General can anticipate some questions from this side of the House around the composition of the rules of practice committee and the degree to which he believes that that agency or that body will continue to bear responsibility for rule changes.

All of this, of course, takes place in the context, it should be mentioned, of a white paper that the Attorney General and the government made available, I think, at the tail end of 2019, the fall of 2019, that followed in some work that had been initiated two or three years before that. I should point out that I am grateful to the staff within the Ministry of the Attorney General for the opportunity to speak with them earlier today and pose some questions about any significant differences between the content of the draft bill that was attached to the white paper and what we have before us today in Bill 11.

They were very obliging in pointing out a few areas where there are some differences. At the moment, they don’t appear to me to be significant differences. But I think the Attorney can anticipate perhaps several questions relating to any of the changes that were provoked by the publication of the white paper and the feedback that he and the ministry received.

Always a bit tricky, of course, in dealing with the courts on these matters, for no other reason than to ensure that their independence from the executive and legislative branches are properly respected. But I expect to receive and anticipate receiving assurances from the Attorney General at the committee stage of this bill that significant discussions and consultation took place with the court. And that he and, therefore, the House can be satisfied that the legislative product before us enjoys the support of the court — that it is designed to provide statutory governance around the act. What we have before us will speak to the powers that the court enjoys and the individual justices enjoy.

The rules will speak ultimately to how litigants can access and operate to take advantage and receive the benefit of that jurisdictional authority. I will expect to pose several questions to the Attorney General about that interplay and the timing around the final publication of the rules.

I believe that that will be the extent of my comments at second reading for this bill. I look forward to the opportunity to pose some of those, and perhaps a few other, questions to the Attorney when we get to the committee stage shortly.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I turn to the minister, the Attorney General, to close second reading debate.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to my critic for his remarks and insights. I’m glad the staff was able to be of assistance to him in answering questions and helping him prepare for committee stage.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I call continued second reading on Bill 10, Supply Act.

[1:45 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: The member will have to move that into Committee of the Whole, Bill 11. This is in reference to the bill that just finished second reading. That must be moved to committee, Minister.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the Clerk. I got ahead of myself there.

I move that the bill — that bill being Bill 11 — be committed to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 11, Court of Appeal Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Deputy Speaker: Now we’ll move on to the next one.

Hon. D. Eby: I call continued second reading on Bill 10, Supply Act.

BILL 10 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2021

(continued)

D. Coulter: I’m happy to continue debate here on Bill 10.

Bill 10 is just going to allow us to continue to be responsive to the needs of people, business and communities and to see through the pandemic and into a strong economic recovery that supports all British Columbians. It’s an interim spending bill in between now and our budget. It’s not uncommon for governments to have interim supply bills.

I’ll just speak quickly about the budget and whether it will support people through COVID. Budget 2021 will continue to focus on keeping people safe through the pandemic, and we’ll do this with an eye to how we position our province to seize the opportunities that recovery will offer. The path forward is not the same for all people or sectors of the economy. Recognizing this, our support and investment must be targeted now, which is why we so desperately need to pass Bill 10.

At the start of the pandemic, with greater uncertainty about how the impacts would be felt, we invested with broad tools to quickly provide support to as many people as possible. As we continue through our pandemic response and recovery and identify those most affected, our support has become more targeted to address the specific needs of particular groups and sectors, and it’s supporting all sectors.

At the same time, we’re maintaining the flexibility to respond to new and changing circumstances and to support people and businesses across B.C. You’ll see this flexibility reflected now in our day-to-day decisions, and you’ll see that reflected in our budget, as well, when it comes next month.

There’s been lots of talk about ICBC in this debate. I don’t really want to bring it up again and affect folks’ tender feelings over the disastrous management of ICBC under the last government. There have been comments from other members of the House that we’re calling them criminals. We’re certainly not calling them criminals. We don’t believe it’s criminal.

A lot of people are talking about ICBC, but not enough people are talking about the fire sale that the B.C. Liberals had when it came to land — selling land to many of their donors, actually. So $493 million worth of land to balance their budget. This is land that they could have gotten $860 million for. That’s $367 million worth of public assets that the B.C. Liberals forgo by selling off this land in a fire sale — just beyond the pale.

Also, I think it’s easy to forget the draconian cuts that the B.C. Liberals made to our public services over the years. It brings me to tears, really. It’s, in many ways…. Not in many ways; it is shameful. I mean, this is…. Now we’re getting lectured about budgets and the like. I’m just…. As you can tell, Mr. Speaker, I’m almost speechless.

[1:50 p.m.]

We’re getting lectured about budgets and supporting people through COVID. Folks don’t want to pass this bill, which would be very irresponsible — very irresponsible — yet the record of the previous government is just shameful. I don’t know how you can keep a straight face and lecture us after that disastrous record.

I was a school trustee for four years under the B.C. Liberals, and I remember the cuts — lots of cuts, no increases. We had to cut busing. We had to cut supports for students that desperately needed these supports. Every year we were cutting educational assistant hours, which just affected the most vulnerable students and was really upsetting to me. I’m still a little angry over it.

Also, here in Chilliwack, very few capital projects. But in the last three years of my tenure as a school trustee, under a B.C. NDP government, we have two new schools on the way. We have business cases that have been accepted by the Ministry of Education for several expansions in our school system. This is the difference that this government is making in the lives of British Columbians.

This is why we need this interim supply bill today, so that we can continue to support British Columbians during this difficult time. I just don’t understand arguments from the other side. They’re not even arguing about whether we should support people. They’re arguing about things that have nothing to do with this bill. Like I said, I’m almost speechless. I’m having a hard time articulating my thoughts here, because it is so sort of bizarre to me that we are even debating this.

We’re debating whether we are going to pay nurses, doctors, teachers, social workers, whether we’re going to support folks in poverty through our social programs. I know that the B.C. Liberals don’t want to pay people fair wages. They’re obviously against community benefit agreements, which ensure fair wages for local folks, Indigenous people, women and other underrepresented groups. I know they don’t want to pay people a fair wage, but now they don’t want to pay people at all.

I’m probably going to end it there before I get angry. I’d just like to urge my colleagues across the aisle to vote yea for this bill.

T. Wat: I rise in the House this afternoon to speak on Bill 10, Supply Act, 2021. I look forward to continuing the debate on this subject.

Many colleagues on this side of the House have already eloquently spoken on why they are so, so disappointed at this bill. I feel it extremely crucial that I have to speak as well, even though I might be repeating some of the comments made by my colleagues earlier. The typical proceedings that take place when debating a supply bill like this one, particularly one that would take such a substantial sum out of a budget, which we know is already under the strain of COVID, is for it to follow the unveiling of a new budget.

This is my third term that I have the privilege and honour to serve the constituents of Richmond North Centre. I have to be responsible to my constituents to ensure that all the proceedings of the Legislature are proper and transparent. I honestly don’t know how my honourable colleagues on the other side of the aisle can explain to their constituents that this government doesn’t follow the process in this people’s House.

This is not unusual responsibility or irresponsibility, as suggested by the previous member from Chilliwack. This is a matter of transparency, which this NDP government is so proud of. Where is the transparency of this bill? I’m speechless too.

[1:55 p.m.]

Usually these supply acts pass with little debate. They allow the government to continue to function and serve a necessary purpose. But as we all know too well, very few things in the past year have unfolded as they usually do. This order of business has been followed by governments for decades, and it’s a key tenet for maintaining openness with the B.C. public, especially when we are talking about a government that burned through nearly all of the $2.7 billion budget surplus — just listen, a $2.7 billion budget surplus — left over by the previous government, even before the pandemic.

Unfortunately, over the past three years, amidst two simultaneous health crises, we have watched as this government has returned to a pattern that we have all seen before. This government has quietly and gradually undone all the safeguards that the previous government put in place to ensure transparency — this is a very important word, transparency — and responsibility around the bu­dget in B.C.

It’s no wonder we have 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 of the 1990s. I’m old enough to remember that.

The fudge-it budget saw that the same Premier claimed the budget was balanced before the election, then surprised everyone with the fact that it wasn’t after the votes were counted. I’d just emigrated to this beautiful province when I saw this unfold, and it was shocking. Now we have a Premier who called a snap election in the middle of the pandemic.

We haven’t had a proper quarterly report. Recovery programs have been repeatedly mismanaged, yet the Premier comes before this House to ask for $13 billion, without a budget and without telling us how it will be spent. It is all eerily familiar. 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.

Transparency is a fundamental part of government, and it is part of government’s duty to spend the budget entrusted to them by the B.C. taxpayers with openness and clarity on its intended purpose.

On this side of the House, many of whom were directly responsible for the practices that gave B.C. a glowing financial reputation and reputation for transparency, we have had to listen to backbench NDP members repeatedly and purposely tell a different story in this House about our budgetary practices while in government, including revenue transfer policies for ICBC, practices that the members opposite know full well were lawful, fully disclosed in our annual budgets and quarterly reports, and practices even utilized by the NDP government 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, a total of $514 million was transferred from ICBC to government to support critical government services such as health care and education.

[2:00 p.m.]

Meanwhile, between 2012 and 2016, a total of $1.5 billion in capital and $300 million in income were transferred from the optional side of ICBC to the basic side of ICBC — all this in an effort to keep rates as affordable as possible for the average driver.

What did our government do when we were in office? We brought in balanced-budget legislation, fixed budget dates, the Economic Forecast Council — all steps that make B.C. the leader in Canada for sound, transparent fiscal management, all necessary to correct the mistakes of the previous NDP government.

The members opposite make their misleading statements while, at the same time, their cabinet colleagues dismantle, bit by bit, the safeguards that our previous government brought in to ensure transparency. Unfortunately, the NDP government has chosen to not only undo all the work of our government and delay the next budget for two months, but it is also utilizing this bill to circumvent a key principle, the one that ensures a government cannot spend its supply bill appropriation like this without first presenting a budget.

After 25 years, we can’t help but be reminded of the old NDP playbook of corruption and secrecy that plagued the previous NDP government.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I would ask you to withdraw that statement. We’re not casting aspersions or using such unparliamentary language against each other, even though it may be tempting. Please try to get the best out of each other. I would ask you do that on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

T. Wat: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. I withdraw my statement.

History is repeating itself. There’s no concrete part of this supply bill’s funding or spending measures that we can debate on because, by choosing to spend the supply bill appropriations without first presenting a budget, this government is casting aside a process traditionally utilized by this House to outline such spending measures. Before this government has successfully gotten all the supports promised to British Columbians nearly a year ago out the door, they are writing themselves another cheque, a massive cheque, and don’t even have the decency to tell us what it is for.

This bill offers even less transparency at a time when British Columbians are asking for more. Even if the intention of this supply bill and spending plan are good, the entire way this administration is going about it feels like foul play. We see more hidden figures and shifting spending from a government that is developing a reputation for not being honest and open with British Columbians, and incompetence.

All of this we already know, as I’m certain that even the members on the government side are all too aware of the murky nature of this bill. I am certain that many of my colleagues will continue to use their time to speak on this bill to diligently outline more of these points. 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 any indication, without any measure of transparency, around how they plan on spending that money?

We know where this kind of behaviour has led us in the past. We have seen this movie before, but the sequel is always worse. We don’t have any faith that the NDP will spend this money well. They have proven themselves incompetent.

[2:05 p.m.]

When we unanimously approved $5 billion in COVID recovery aid in March of last year, we did so in good faith. Since then, the NDP have sat on that cash and failed to adequately deliver to people and local businesses. They have also delayed the provincial budget, meaning that businesses will have to wait longer for the relief they need. This includes the small business recovery grant, where just 16 percent of the funds have been provided to businesses, businesses who are in desperate need of assistance.

I want to use my remaining time to look at this through the lens of those British Columbians who have entrusted me to bring their concerns forward in this House. The countless small and independently owned businesses in Richmond are suffering due to the pandemic. Many are still waiting on the support promised to them through the small and medium-size business grant. To date, only $55 million of the $300 million approved nearly a year ago has made it out the door into the hands of these businesses.

Are there any additional supports included in this budget for the thousands of businesses this government has failed to help so far? Even if there are, will they be able to get the funding out the door this time? It doesn’t matter how much money this government promises to put aside for our businesses if they’re going to have to wait another year before they see any of it in their hands. Many have already and many more will be forced to close their doors permanently long before then.

What about our tourism industry? As the critic for Tourism…. Is there any additional support for them in this funding? Tourism operators are currently enduring another season without being able to rely on the interprovincial or international tourism they need to keep their business afloat. These operators have been doing their part to keep our community safe at a great cost to their livelihoods. They have very clearly outlined to this government what support they need to endure the economic challenges of COVID.

Back in July, tourism operators asked for $618 million from this government in order to make a full recovery. Remember, this is an industry that has lost an estimated $16.8 billion in revenue due to COVID. What this government offered them was a fraction of this: $100 million. Not even all of it has made it out of the door into the hands of tourism businesses.

Many of our tourism businesses and cultural exhibits, like the Richmond Night Market and PNE, don’t even qualify for the business grant. Yet this government has ignored their calls to revise their criteria. The list of our landmark tourism venues and events that have not got any grants from this government is very lengthy. I can go on and on and on and on. The aquarium, Science World, the art gallery, etc. I don’t think I have enough time to cite all of them. As it stands, only 2 percent of tourism operators have been able to access the supports offered by this government.

[2:10 p.m.]

On top of this, government has made no effort whatsoever to delay or offer any respite from the fixed costs and expenses that these businesses are still subject to. The travel agency industry has seen little to no revenue since travel was restricted a year ago due to the pandemic. Yet Consumer Protection B.C. chose to still charge them nearly $800 in licensing fees in March 2020 and again this month.

Every single dollar counts for the struggling travel agency and tourism-related business. Ontario and Quebec’s consumer protection agencies have waived these fees until 2022. I don’t understand. Even after we brought it up in question period time and time again…. Yet this government is not listening. It’s not listening. They have chosen to do nothing, to do nothing. I thought this government was supposed to be listening to British Columbians. So disappointed.

Not only does this put B.C. tourism operators at a significant disadvantage to many of their counterparts in neighbouring provinces; this government’s inaction on the issue directly contradicts recommendations outlined by the tourism task force report — the task force this government commissioned. Recommendation 6 in the task force report is to defer and relieve the fixed costs of businesses.

My office has received letters from 68 travel industries to express their dismay with this government’s poor handling of relief for their business. I would like to read a few into the record here.

Lily Teo of Orient Travel:

“Because of COVID-19, our travel agency lost all of our bookings due to cancellations, which resulted in lost earned commission. We haven’t had sales since March 2020. We have had zero income. The travel agencies need help. Every dollar of savings means a lot to our survival.

“The Travel Industry Council of Ontario and consumer protection office in Quebec have waived the mandatory fees. Unfortunately, despite lobbying by ACTA and by travel agencies individually, Consumer Protection B.C. has done nothing except refrain from moving ahead with the 2021 planned fee increases, but they are still collecting at 2020 rates. What is the point of protecting consumers who are not able to consume?”

Let’s listen to another constituent of mine, Dennis Chung of Optimal Travel:

“I would like to express that the travel industry was hit the most since the beginning of the pandemic. With zero revenue but countless cancellations and the recall of our earned commission from all airlines, it’s very difficult to survive or sustain our business. I’m hoping that you can voice on our industry’s behalf, so that our provincial government can do something to keep us going.”

These businesses, and thousands of businesses like them, have been waiting nearly a year for assistance from this government yet have been left to fend for themselves.

[2:15 p.m.]

While the announcement of additional funding is welcome news, what good does it do when I cannot respond to the inquiries my office is getting from our many concerned businesses and outline to them what additional supports have been put aside for them? When can they expect them, and what is this government doing differently to ensure that they actually get the supports out the door this time?

I sincerely hope that as we proceed, this government will answer these questions and proceed with a promise of greater transparency, accountability and competence so that we can ensure we don’t lose many of our beloved businesses for good.

Speaker’s Statement

RESPECTFUL LANGUAGE IN DEBATE

Deputy Speaker: I watched the debate this morning, and reflecting on the most recent comments by the preceding member, I thought it might be useful for members to reflect on Standing Order 40.

For those who haven’t read it, as they might be new to the House, or for those longtime members who have forgotten or chosen not to follow the rule, the rule is around respectful language in debate. It states around unparliamentary language. So folks might want to pay attention and take a look at their speeches to see if they’re going to transgress.

We don’t want members to be imputing false motives, misrepresenting another member’s language or accusations thereof — charges of uttering a deliberate falsehood, abusive and insulting language likely to create disorder.

I really would like members to not have to have the Chairs intervene to remind you not to be abusive to other members in the use of your language. Let’s try to get the best out of each other for all British Columbians.

Thank you, Members.

Now we turn to the member for Surrey-Cloverdale.

Debate Continued

M. Starchuk: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for those words of wisdom. As a new member, I will try to adhere to those words.

With regards to Bill 10, I stand virtually to speak in favour of what is inside Bill 10. COVID-19 has been an unprecedented challenge, and the word “unprecedented” has been used an unprecedented amount of times. While we can see some light at the end of the tunnel, our government will continue to ensure that we keep people safe, while creating the foundation for a sustainable recovery for everyone.

I think that’s one of the keys that our government is involved with, making sure that our citizens of British Columbia are safe during this time of the pandemic.

The interim supply legislation that’s here today provides a bridge funding between the end of the fiscal year on March 31 and the last day of the spring session, when the provincial government budget is formally passed. Introducing this kind of interim supply legislation is common practice in British Columbia every spring.

We should be reminded that in 2017, on the second of March, there was a $22 billion bridge that was there. Then, going back as far as March 5, 2013, there was a $19 billion bridge that was there. The bridges go back to even March 26th of 2012, where there was an $8 billion bridge.

We know that COVID-19 has turned everybody’s lives upside down. It’s the same here in British Columbia as it is across Canada, as it is across North America and the globe. While the end of the pandemic is getting closer, we’ve still got a ways to go. We will need to get through this the way we always have when there’s an emergency and an urgency, and that’s looking out for each other.

People and the businesses across B.C. — we’re working hard to fight the virus and get back on track, and as the MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale, I’m telling my constituents that we’re there working for you.

As I’ve said, our priority all along has been there to protect the people’s health. That’s not going to change.

[2:20 p.m.]

I’ve been involved in public safety since a long, long time ago in 1980, when I stepped up to that plate to talk about public safety. That’s not going to change. We’ve come a long way together, and we know that we’ve got further to go.

Our government is investing in health care, schools, seniors care, to protect people unlike what’s ever happened in previous governments, where those large supplemental budgets went unchecked.

Let’s never forget the cuts to schools, seniors programs and the health care sector, where social services were completely gutted at the cost of who needed it the most. We watched as those social services were shrunk by over 10 percent, at the cost of those people that needed it most.

When we also talk about health care cuts, let’s not forget about the lands that were set aside for a new hospital in Surrey. The B.C. Liberals sold the land where the hospital was going to stand and serve all of us south of the Fraser. I’m pleased to be able to say that, in my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale, a new hospital is on its way in the future to take the place of those lands and that hospital that was sold back in 2014.

When we think about schools, since 2018 there’s been more than 18 new schools, expansions and upgrades that have taken place in Surrey. That’s as a result of the prior six years to 2017, when there was only one school — one, Mr. Speaker — that came to the city of Surrey. That’s at a time when the population is growing at 12,000 to 15,000 people on an annual basis. One school was set aside during that period of time.

When we talk about the budget and we talk about what’s there…. I’m not sure why the constituents of Richmond North Centre are not able to access some of the funding that’s there. When we take a look at the extension of the small and medium-sized business grants that have been extended to August 31 and adjusted the requirements for the businesses to demonstrate revenue loss from 70 percent to 30 percent, it shows that the government is listening. It shows that the government cares about those people that are there.

I know in my constituency that there’s a firm with accountants and that they’ve reached out to the clients on their list. They’re going down that list, and they’re providing help to some of those people. One of those people is a person that I know within the restaurant business. They do catering alongside that. They found this business and the program that’s in place, and they’re at the end of that process that they’ll see themselves in the neighbourhood of $45,000.

Not only are they a small business in the restaurant industry, but they’re catering to those tourists that were coming. Because of the world pandemic and the travel restrictions that are there, those people can no longer come and utilize their services that are there.

When we take a look at the progress that we’re making to make life affordable for people, whether it’s building roads, homes, opening new schools or child care spaces, those are the things that I’m proud of with our government that’s there. These things give a head start on a strong recovery.

The people of Surrey-Cloverdale are as diverse as it comes. There are many young families that are in my constituency, and these are the things that they need. When I look at the infrastructure investments that are coming to my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale…. We take a look at the SkyTrain expansion to Langley. No longer is it going to be done in one stage and then a second stage that gets there. It’s going to be done in one continuous build all the way from Surrey centre, through my riding, into Langley.

That in itself is going to provide high-end jobs for those families that are actually living inside of the riding. They won’t have to cross a bridge to get to work. They will not have to be in traffic. The project itself, SkyTrain, will lower the GHGs that we have that we have to take a look at when we’re talking about the planet.

We’re building a recovery that includes everyone. Everyone from the person that has the small business to the person that’s just making ends meet. It’s not just the people at the top.

[2:25 p.m.]

We’ve come a long way, and there’s lots to do. I think that’s why Bill 10 is so important for all British Columbians that we have this out there. When I think about Bill 10 and what’s happened and what we’re hearing in the rhetoric of what’s happened in the past, I think we have to go back down to the common practice of the interim supply legislation that we’re talking about today to provide that bridge funding.

This is nothing new to British Columbians. This is nothing new. In 2012, it was an $8 billion one. In March 15, 2013, it was $19 billion. March 6 of 2014, it was $8 billion. March 11, 2015, it was $8 billion, the same as what it was March 1, 2016, $8 billion. Then March 2, 2017, it was $22 billion. If I was good with math, I would add that all up for you to tell you how many billions of dollars, but I’m not that way. What I can say to you is it’s nothing new. It’s a practise that’s considered common in British Columbia each spring.

Rather than taking up the time of this House and speaking ad nauseam about certain things that are there, I simply just say that what we’re talking about with regards to Bill 10, and the importance that’s there to every British Columbian, is why I stand virtually in the House today in support of Bill 10 and hope other people do as well.

R. Merrifield: I look forward to continuing the debate today on the Supply Act before us.

I just heard from the member before us that this is typical. This is usual. In fact, he read out all the different amounts that we’ve seen over the last years. But what that member fails to recognize is that this is not usual, because in all of the other situations that he just mentioned, there was a budget already presented. We do not have a budget presented.

Normally there wouldn’t be a large debate around this type of bill, because they do allow government to continue to function and they serve a necessary purpose. But as we know all too well, very few things in the past year have unfolded as they usually do.

I’ve heard how much and how necessary this is, because of this extraordinary nature of this time, this pandemic. Few alive today have seen a pandemic of this nature and significance. But this supply bill is not the making of a pandemic. It is the making of an election — a snap election that was held in the fall — and a pattern of a lack of transparency and mishandling of the finances.

Over the past three years, amidst these two simultaneous health crises, we’ve watched as this government has returned to a pattern that we’ve seen before. This government has quietly and gradually undone the safeguards that the previous government put into place to ensure transparency and responsibility around the budget of B.C.: delaying budgets and quarterly reports, expanding the use of special warrants and then finding ways to bypass transparency.

The member from Chilliwack talked about cuts. Let me remind that member why.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

It’s no wonder to me why 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 of the ’90s. Let’s remember what happened during that time that created the necessary cuts of the next government. You see that time, during the last NDP government, was when the NDP Premier resigned in disgrace.

[2:30 p.m.]

It was a scandal that saw the RCMP raid his house while our current Premier’s chief of staff looked on.

This 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. The fudge-it budget saw that same Premier claim the budget was balanced before the election, and then, ta-da, after the election, it wasn’t — after the votes were counted.

That’s all too similar to this Premier claiming that the election of 2020 would not have an effect on the people of B.C. — but then called a snap election in the middle of a pandemic. Well, since then, we haven’t had a proper quarterly report. Recovery programs have been repeatedly mismanaged. Yet the Premier comes before this House to ask for $13.4 billion, without a budget, without telling this House how it will be spent.

It’s all very familiar. This kind of behaviour is the reason that the previous government had to bring in the protections in the first place, measures that the now NDP government is trying to circumvent with the bill before us today.

What did our B.C. Liberal government do when we were in office? We brought in balanced-budget legislation. We fixed budget dates. We brought in the Economic Forecast Council. We brought in the Premier’s Women’s Economic Council. All of these were steps that made B.C. the leader in Canada for sound, transparent fiscal management — all necessary to correct the mistakes of the previous NDP government.

After 25 years, wow, we can’t help but be reminded of the old NDP playbook of corruption and secrecy that plagued the NDP government and nearly brought the province and its finances to the brink. This is history repeating itself.

Yet those of us on this side of the House, many of whom were directly responsible for the practices that gave B.C. a glowing financial reputation, as well as the surplus of funds that the NDP government had when they took over government, have had to listen to backbench NDP members repeatedly and purposely mislead the public and all British Columbians about our budgetary practices while in government, including revenue transfer policies with ICBC.

I’ve listened to these. I’m kind of one of those keeners, you know, one of those that really likes to hear what other people have to say, especially the members of this House. I hold it somewhat sacred in that everyone here represents so many in British Columbia. As I’ve listened to the speeches in this debate, I’ve also listened to the slanderous labels and, I will say, the tales. So being a keener, I’ve done some investigation. I actually wanted to know what exactly happened.

You know what I found? Well, I found out that practices that the members opposite know full well were lawful, fully disclosed and transparent, which were in our annual budgets and quarterly reports — oh, wait, here’s a shocker, even practices that were part of 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, a total of $514 million was transferred from ICBC to government to support critical government services, such as health care and education. That is $514 million that didn’t need to come from a taxpayer. 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.

[2:35 p.m.]

Why? In an effort to keep rates as affordable as possible for drivers, not increasing rates by 40 percent, 50 percent, 60 percent, 100 percent in some cases for drivers of B.C. — meanwhile, giving them a pittance of a rebate back. The members make their misleading statements otherwise and at the same time as their cabinet colleagues, bit by bit, dismantle the safeguards that our previous government put in place to ensure transparency. In light of this, how can the NDP government expect British Columbians to trust them with a blank cheque of $13 billion without giving any indication, any measure of transparency, around how they plan on spending that money?

We know what this kind of behaviour has left us in the past. We’ve seen this before — now the NDP demanding more time to create a budget then tabling this Supply Act bill, the government asking the House for billions of dollars — $13.4 billion, to be exact — but no indication of how they’re going to spend it. Well I, as a believer in democracy and a holder of government to account, and as one who serves as the loyal opposition, I would say that all governments need to be held to more transparency than that.

This issue, this whole debate, is usually completely avoided by a tabled budget, because then everybody knows exactly how government wants to spend it. But we don’t have a budget. And the amount that’s before us isn’t even based on pandemic funds. It’s based on a pre-pandemic budget that was created before the pandemic was even declared. And then I’ve listened ad nauseam about how great the government is doing right now, how many different programs each of the ministries are rolling out so well.

I’m not sure who they’re listening to, because people in B.C. are struggling. They are struggling with mental health. They are struggling with low-paying jobs and part-time jobs that they’re just trying to substitute to make ends meet for their families. They are struggling with COVID fatigue and from a lack of socialization and interaction with those they love most. They’re looking for hope. They’re looking for a plan forward.

They were promised relief funds by Christmas, and it’s March, with only 65 percent of people eligible receiving funds. Well, that’s actually not 65 percent of the people of British Columbia. That’s 65 percent of eligible people, which means that’s really only 50 percent of British Columbians. And as a mother of five children, all in university, I can tell you 50 percent is a failing grade.

Then let’s start on the small and medium business recovery grant, because they’ve so completely botched this one. They’ve only gotten 16 percent of the funds to the struggling businesses in B.C., and then they brag about how businesses are struggling and depending on government. And they quote a report that talks directly about dependence on the federal government, not on the government of B.C.

[2:40 p.m.]

We should all be concerned. Small and medium-sized businesses are the lifeblood of B.C. We are the entrepreneurs of Canada, and we have a failing record today for how we are supporting our businesses.

Well then, let’s talk about rentals. Wow. New rental rates come out today. Well, I have to say, I guess we pat ourselves on the back for making four out of the top six most expensive rental markets in Canada. Vancouver is No. 1. Burnaby is No. 3. Victoria is No. 4. Kelowna, my home riding, is No. 6, with a 2.1 percent month-over-month increase and a 5.7 percent year-over-year increase.

Is that what we want to be proud of? Is that what we want to pat ourselves on the back for? And the reason is because this government refuses to deal with rental supply and instead goes head to head with developers on land, eating up, chewing up supply. Is that affecting us positively? No, it’s not.

Here are some headlines for you. This was after the bill that we had to pass last week. “B.C. Rental Market Could See Further Squeeze Due to Rent Freeze” and “Rent Freeze, Construction Rules Fuel Housing Shortage.” Success — 50 percent, 16 percent and the top four out of six of what the list is that you don’t want.

We’re not going to receive a budget before this supply bill has to pass. In fact, thanks to their decision — the NDP’s decision in December to delay the budget until April — British Columbians are left in the dark.

In reading this legislation…. This was quite interesting for me. As a keener, you actually read the bills. It actually contains a workaround, a way of contorting the law and freeing themselves from the financial rules in the Financial Administration Act. The NDP are legally supposed to present a budget first. The last time this government spent public funds without a proper budget was in the 1990s, an era of budgets that I hope no one wants to revisit.

We’ve been told: “We need extra time because of COVID. Don’t you understand, member for Kelowna-Mission? It’s COVID. We’re in the middle of a pandemic.” I assure you, I understand probably better even than government understands it, because I haven’t been in government for long. I’m newly minted.

When March of 2020 hit, I was financially responsible and had a fiduciary responsibility to over 28 companies. I can assure you that I had sleepless nights trying to figure out how those budgets were going to work, which protocols were going to come at us and how it would affect us.

COVID-19 has been a reality for all businesses — every single non-profit, non-profits that feed kids every single morning, trying to figure out: “How are we going to feed children?” — and also every household, every person in B.C. So why should government not be held to the same standard? Why does government get to have a different set of rules than every other company in B.C., than every other person in B.C.? Is the government above the law? “Oh wait. No, no, no. Let’s just change it.”

[2:45 p.m.]

Every business, every organization, every single one that I was involved with before prepared budgets. In fact, at one of the companies, we called it the doom budget — doom budget 1, doom budget 2, doom budget 3, doom budget 4. Different contingencies, different thresholds, different resistance. Why can those organizations, outside of these walls, somehow get it done with far fewer resources than we have in here, and we can’t?

In fact, and this is ironic, the very documentation that the NDP government has required for all of its grants and programs, as well as from businesses applying, was all part of their budgets. That was all part of the financial responsibility and accountability and transparency they had to show this House. Yet now, this government, this NDP government, is asking for less transparency than they required of everyone else. Why? This is an issue.

Maybe I’m Pollyanna. Maybe I’m just too new. But honestly, if I don’t stand up, if I don’t tell you how upset I am about this, I’m not doing a service to the citizens of British Columbia.

Tell me: how will mistakes not repeat? How will the behaviours of those in charge of these funds, the very same people who did it in the ’90s, not do it again? The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. The past behaviour of this NDP government shows nothing more than secrecy, incompetence and a lack of transparency.

I was taught that trust has to be earned. It can be lost, and it’s incredibly difficult to regain. I don’t see, over the last 3½ years, anything that would give me confidence or have regained trust, because we’ve seen numerous examples in the past year alone of this government, this NDP government, requesting money. The members of this House want desperately to support every British Columbian going through the worst pandemic in history, and agree in good faith, and then the NDP does something very different and very self-motivated.

One year ago, last March, the members of this House unanimously approved $5 billion for COVID recovery aid. British Columbians took government at their word when they said how they’d use it. We, as government, expected it would be put to use right away, helping British Columbians get through a difficult time. But instead of using this relief, instead of providing this money to British Columbians, they sat on the money for months, using it as part of their election platform, consulting on how it should be used, which was actually part of their election intel.

When the NDP did announce the small to medium-sized business grant, well, support was delayed in getting to people. Why? Because of the election. In the more than six months since it was announced, and nearly a year after it was approved…. Well, let’s go through those numbers again: $55 million out of $300 million set aside, out the door to businesses in need. I’ll just review the failing grade of 16 percent. How can we trust a government that can’t even get $300 million in promised funds out the door to businesses in need? How can we trust them to appropriately spend $13.4 billion? I don’t know.

The long-term care report was done in October, but it wasn’t delivered until March. Site C report was done in October, but it wasn’t delivered until March. We have given the government ample opportunity to prove themselves in the last year, but either it was incompetence that left those reports on someone’s desk — or what?

[2:50 p.m.]

This bill is just another reminder of this government failing to get relief to people. It speaks to them of delaying the budget by months, leaving British Columbians without additional relief as the pandemic drags on. We need this government to step up, to provide support to British Columbians and to provide transparency, accountability. We need a government that’s open and honest about everything from how they’re spending our money to COVID-19 data or a vaccine rollout. We need a government that does what it says it will do.

We’ve been told for the last year that we’re all in this together, but clearly, this NDP government is not with us. They have a different standard for themselves, a different expectation of transparency and reporting, and will change the rules of governance to suit themselves despite everyone else being held to a universal standard. Truly, that’s elitist behaviour. Maybe that’s who they believe themselves to be, above all of the rest of us who just have to — I don’t know — provide budgets, create transparency, report on a quarterly basis. Or at least they’re willing to work around good governance and change it when it doesn’t suit them.

We need a government that’s going to hold themselves to the same standards that organizations, households and, indeed, every single person that has a bank account in this province is upholding. And we’re doing it without needing to change the law. As far as I can tell, this bill represents exactly the opposite.

If we are all in this together, why isn’t the NDP government giving us a budget? “Trust us,” they say. Trust is earned, and this trust must be re-earned after being broken in the late ’90s.

S. Chant: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the group.

I come speaking to you from the unceded territory of the Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish First Nations. I’m very grateful to have the opportunity to work, play and learn on these territories.

I am absolutely thrilled that I’ve had the opportunity to actually see some live theatre. I haven’t seen any for ages. Here I am in a Zoom environment, socially distanced, away from all the things that could do me damage, and I am getting the opportunity to see live theatre. It’s a wonderful thing, and I thank the opposition for that opportunity, because I haven’t had any for over a year.

Mr. Speaker, I really do offer my thanks to the opposition for this opportunity.

I find it interesting, having been involved in government entities pretty much all of my life — in the world of health, in the world of the military, in the world of all sorts of things that we could go on and on to talk about. But we won’t.

Fiscal year comes to an end, and whenever fiscal year comes to an end, the budget comes after that time. And guess what. The province needs to continue. Now, this is a given, whether we’re in normal times…. Oh my goodness, here we are in COVID times, where nothing is normal, where nothing that has applied within our realms — none of the rules that we know, none of the plans that we make, none of those things — has been able to be followed because COVID has been the great unknown.

[2:55 p.m.]

When the great unknown comes along, you need somebody to take charge and take the steps — whatever group you’re responsible for, whatever group you’re accountable to — to move those people forward. We take that responsibility terribly seriously. It is important for us to understand that health and safety — and I will say health and safety are what I live and breathe — come first.

What would it have been like if COVID had come in 2015? Oh my goodness, I don’t even want to think about it. Health departments were in shambles, we were having problems getting people paid, and we cut back on many things.

The government of the day had done all sorts of things to gut many, many of our social programs. Sadly, it’s the people that are dependent on those social programs that have the highest impact from COVID. We all have impact — there is no question — but those people really have that impact. Had this been prior to 2017, had COVID come prior to that time, we would have been in terrible condition, absolutely terrible.

However, we are extraordinarily fortunate, in my opinion, because COVID has followed no process whatsoever. There has been no plan. I can guarantee that everybody in this room, virtually or otherwise, has never been through a pandemic before. I know this because I’m probably amongst the oldest, in spite of what our Premier and a couple of other people will say about age. I’m amongst the oldest, and I have not been through a pandemic. I’m a health care provider. I’d have noticed. Truly, I would have.

I am just really grateful that we had a government in place that rose to the challenge, put its experts in charge and kept the people of the province — their safety and their health — first and foremost. That’s what we have been doing, and that’s what we will continue to do.

However, at this point, having been given a wholehearted mandate by the province to continue the COVID management efforts, the interim supply bill should not require a great amount of discussion, debate or perhaps even a lot of thought. We have to keep the province going until we get a budget in place.

We have a situation that is completely unknown to everybody, that we have to keep revising our plans for because things change. The variables continue to change. We do the best we can. We get some plans in place. We are prepared to hear the data, the information. We’re prepared to change those plans as we need to, but we have to keep moving forward.

The budget is a critical part; completely agree. The interim supply bill is also a critical piece. We need it to allow us to get into the next phase, to allow us to get towards the budget presentation and to allow us to have solid, comprehensive and robust conversation about what the budget needs to look like to allow our province to move forward, to allow us to continue to support our people, to allow us to hear where the needs are and move towards meeting their needs. To allow us to be nimble and move from place to place and go: “Oh my goodness, look at you. Oh my goodness, this is how it has affected you.” How do we do that?

As MLAs, we listen to all our people. We try really hard to listen to everybody. We try really hard, even if they’re yelling at us at the top of their voices, trying to make sure that we hear the misery in their voice, or the unhappiness. We listen, we hear, we bring it forward, and we try to work as a group to do the best we can for everybody in this province.

We also have to keep things going. COVID is not the only thing in the world. The health system is still there. We’re still trying to palliate people. We’re still trying to provide wound care. We’re still trying to provide all the things in hospitals that need to be done in spite of COVID, that still continue on. COVID is another layer.

[3:00 p.m.]

In schools, we need to continue the work. The kids need to be in school. We know this. If I had been a parent with school-aged children and hadn’t been able to have them in school…. Oh, dear. I don’t even want to think about it. However, my children are adults, and I’m grateful. We need, we want, we think…. We hear all the things that go on in our province on a normal, day-to-day business time or a normal, day-to-day time. However, it is layered over with COVID, and that has taken it well out of the sphere of normal.

Now what we’re looking to do is to be able to respond to that ongoing threat — it’s a threat; we know it is — continuing, however, to keep the underpinnings, all the things that make our province what it is, what it was and what it will be. Those things have to keep going. That’s where we have to have an interim supply bill. It makes no sense to say no to it, no sense whatsoever. Discussion and debate are important — got it, understand that. However, the actual idea that the supply bill would not be supported at this point is, I would say, part of our drama.

Something that we can do in this pandemic is that we can forecast that the debate…. The budget debate, as I said, needs to be robust, comprehensive, and critical, because we want to ensure that all people, in all pockets of the province, have as much support as possible to come away from the horrendous turmoil that COVID has provided. We want to get through this trajectory, to another place, where we can think: “Oh, look at me. I can go to live theatre again. I don’t have to depend on my computer.”

We’ve been seeing resilience, strength, creativity and tenacity. These are characteristics we want to maintain, ongoing, in our province. We will all do our bit towards that, including ensuring the province continues to function while we establish a budget to take us through to the place that we want to be when we’ve achieved herd immunity and are actively recuperating.

Mr. Speaker, thank you so much for allowing me the opportunity to speak in support of Bill 10, the interim supply bill. I strongly believe that it promotes the capacities of all of B.C. to not only to survive but to thrive past COVID.

C. Oakes: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak virtually.

I’m speaking to you today from the Lhtako First Nation, with respect.

I’m going to start my comments on, perhaps, some of the recent things that I’ve heard in the House. I actually have my copy of Parliamentary Practice behind me. I think it’s critically important that I, as all members of this House, stand in firm respect for the practices and for the Legislature and for all those individuals that have come before us. What is so incredibly troubling in the debate today is that this is a bill that is taking one more step, with the NDP government, of dismantling any form of transparency and accountability.

[3:05 p.m.]

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour basically made a joke of the comments that we were bringing forward about our concerns of making sure that we’re following transparency and accountability formulas. She talked about what would happen if, you know, 2015 rolled along and if that’s when COVID had happened. Well, I would remind the member that when the previous administration, in 2017, left government, we left a $2.7 billion surplus.

I think about that. I think about the enormous amount of money that has been left to really help people during this difficult time. I also reflect on the fact that if members of government and the NDP backbenchers that I’ve been listening to in their debate to Bill 10 have such a disregard and lack of understanding of fiscal management to really understand what this bill is about…. I find it incredibly concerning and troubling. What we are asking is approval of $13.4 billion, to be exact, without telling anyone how the government is going to spend that money.

I think about all of the constituents in Cariboo North that I’ve been so blessed to represent, and all of the conversations over many years of listening to how hard the constituents of Cariboo North work. To even contemplate the numbers of $13.4 billion and to understand what that represents, to understand the tax dollars of that family of four and how difficult of a time that they may have and how hard that family has to work so that they can pay taxes, so that we have the benefit and the privileges, as a society, to benefit from that tax base….

I think of all of the seniors that are so hard-working. I think of the country, and I think of the province that has been built because of all of these citizens in our communities and the enormous contributions that they have made. When I talk about these incredible individuals, when I talk about these pioneers, when I talk about these community-builders, when I talk about all of the heart and soul of our communities, I know it’s not just Cariboo North. I recognize that the investments that people have made to build this province, for generations and generations to come, exist in every single riding of this province.

Then I ask myself…. As the MLAs who are representing these hard-working men and women, how can they be so disrespectful of understanding how hard-earned it is? For us to be sitting and having a discussion of approving $13.4 billion, without any budget from this government, without any understanding of the investments that were made to help the constituents in my riding….

I would like to start on the conversation of health care, because I know many members have talked about that. We have heard from nurses; we have heard from paramedics; we have heard from front-line care aides. We have heard from so many organizations that absolutely need support. They need more support from this government.

How are we to go back to these agencies, these organizations and these hard-working front-line health care professionals and say: “Well, we just voted on a budget. I don’t know what it is. I don’t know what the needs of your particular group or organization are, but look, the government told us to trust them.” As an elected official, is it my due diligence just to trust somebody? No. My due diligence is to ask the questions that my constituent members are asking me to bring forward.

[3:10 p.m.]

I think about all of those that have been impacted this past year. I want to offer my most sincere condolences to all of the families that have lost loved ones during this past year. I know that COVID has had such a significant impact on so many people’s lives. I also recognize that that impact goes much greater beyond that, because lives have changed so dramatically.

Can I assume, because I haven’t seen the budget of that $13.4 billion, that residents who live outside the Lower Mainland, people from Cariboo North who have to travel to the Lower Mainland for health care, surgeries, health care appointments…? Are those costs now going to be covered by the NDP government? They say they’re looking after people.

All of those health care costs that we incur as individuals who live in rural ridings in British Columbia, who do not have access to that health care in our areas…. Are the NDP going to cover us for those costs and make sure that we do have an equitable health care system, that individuals are not impacted by costs that perhaps people in other parts of the province do not have to pay for? Am I to infer that of this $13.4 billion, there will be a dramatic shift in how government supports rural economies and health care needs for people living in Cariboo North?

Am I to infer that of that $13.4 billion…? I have a list of roads. I’m inferring that…. The government told me to trust them, to sign off on this interim supply bill. I’m going to list the roads. I’m going to assume, because I’ve heard all of the NDP members before: just trust them…. I mean, this is common practice. So obviously these roads must be included.

Let’s see: Soda Creek-McAllister Road, Horsefly Road, Hatchery Road in Horsefly, Likely road, Beaver Lake Road, Mountain House Road, Ransom Road, Knickerbocker, Pinnacles Road, Batnuni Road, Nazko Road, Marsh and Garner roads, Baker, Baker hill, Quesnel, Hydraulic, French Road, Bastin hill, Kersley Dale Landing, Garner and Webster Lake roads, Crystal Street, Highway 97 North at Cottonwood, Highway 97 North at Pinnacles Pellet, Highway 97 South at McLeese Lake, Borglen Road.

Somebody just sent me a note that we’re having issues around Soda Creek. So am I to assume that if we approve this bill today, those roads will be fixed by this government? Is that what I’m to assume?

Of that $13.4 billion, how are guides and outfitters going to be supported? We’ve heard from the Premier that he certainly understands that businesses have been impacted by the fact that international travellers cannot come into the country. That impacts so many tourism-related businesses. Guides’ and outfitters’ businesses have been absolutely decimated, not just by the travel ban but by policy decisions that this government has put in place long before COVID. I mean, they’re waiting for a refund on changes and policies that the government made last year. They’re waiting for that money. They still haven’t seen it.

Am I to assume — because we actually haven’t gone through estimates, and we haven’t actually seen the budget — that that is in this $13.4 billion? Is that what the government is asking me? Is the government asking me today to, all of a sudden, now change their view on how they respect volunteer fire departments? I have certainly heard members in this House stand and make statements about the importance of volunteer organizations and search and rescue and all of these so critically important organizations in our communities.

The truth is we’ve seen cuts for volunteer fire departments in the Cariboo, the unincorporated volunteer fire departments that rely so much on community gaming grants and other programs that have been put forward.

[3:15 p.m.]

We’ve heard that there’s a reprioritization, and now volunteer fire departments don’t qualify for money. But we’re supposed to trust the government. We’re supposed to trust the government that they’re looking after the people of Cariboo North.

These reprioritization exercises, where they shift the money…. The impact is on organizations in our regions, like the unincorporated volunteer fire departments that step up. Whether it was the wildfires we saw in 2017 and 2018, whether it’s the flooding that we’ve seen over the last two years, we depend so heavily on these organizations. I’ve brought it up in estimates before, and I get directed to go and look at these different programs or grants that are available. Guess what. They are not available for the unincorporated volunteer fire departments.

We hear the government, time and time again, reflect and have programs that they put out, but the reality is that nobody, or very, very few people, is able to access any of the grants and the programs that the government is putting forward. The government talks about the success that they have in that. “Well, help your constituent apply for these grants.” I have books that I would be happy to show the ministers on the support that we have certainly worked closely with constituents on, trying to work through the programs that the government has put forward. The ministers, during previous estimates processes, have said to go and look at that.

The reality is that they do not qualify because the strict eligibility that the government is putting on all of these programs has created a significant challenge for organizations and volunteer groups to be able to access any of these funds.

Here would be something for reflection of this government. If you do not have volunteer groups, whether it’s the volunteer fire department, whether it’s the search and rescue, whether it’s treatment, addiction, mental health treatment facilities that we’ve heard about last week…. If you don’t have the volunteers and the support organizations, and you’re doing a complete shift into government…. If you are looking at your attempts, within government, to move away from any kind of support on volunteers and to fund it all through government, I don’t even know what that thought process is.

How are you going to afford that, and is that part of this $13.4 billion? Are, all of a sudden, people in rural B.C. not supposed to have any sort of public safety access, because you’ve eliminated any ability for us to access any of the support for our volunteer organizations or our hard-working volunteer fire departments?

I know that this interim supply bill is based on the pre-pandemic budget, so maybe I’ll shift there a little bit. I am sharing with this House today, and I hope that they will take it to heart, that this will be an incredibly difficult spring freshet for infrastructure in British Columbia. Last year, when you looked at the Cariboo, we had one of the most impactful years on infrastructure that we’ve seen, with over 200 areas of road infrastructure that were damaged.

I am hoping that the concerns that have been brought forward by incredibly informed individuals…. I’m hoping that we still have time to take steps to ensure that the type of damage that I am concerned we are going to see in the Cariboo this spring freshet…. There is still time for the government to take action. There is still time for the government to do preventative work.

Whether that is going out and ensuring that we’ve got proper ditching, gravelling; making sure that we are doing culvert replacements, cleaning out the culverts; it’s making sure that we are doing the necessary work to ensure that we don’t find ourselves in the position that we have been in the last few years, where we’ve seen devastating consequences on our transportation corridors, the economic livelihood of the citizens of Cariboo North.

[3:20 p.m.]

Quite frankly, it has greatly impacted their quality of life. I heard earlier, somebody in the House mention about the investment in West Fraser Road. I do want to thank the government for that investment. But I want to remind the member…. Perhaps the member is not familiar with the number of times I’ve had to raise and bring this issue forward. It’s a much larger story that needs to be told.

I want to acknowledge that the disaster financial assistance came from the federal government, and we are grateful for that investment.

I want to put on the table here today and to read into Hansard the fact that the regions in Cariboo North are still dealing with the devastating consequences of the wildfires in 2017 and 2018. Just because we’ve moved from those times, those consequences still happen. But those investments have not been made. It is as if we have forgotten that those wildfires happened.

We put some money into the communities, we’ve made some policy changes, and now we move on. Well, the fact is that we are dealing with significant damage to road infrastructures because we’re still trying to address the challenges from the wildfires, which have now led to significant watershed issues. We’re having issues with biodiversity. We are having issues with flooding. All of those can be pointed back to the challenges that we had during the wildfires.

This $13.4 billion — is that money that is actually going to respond to the needs that we’ve had for many years, following the wildfires? Is that money that we’re going to see invested in ensuring that we’re not going to have the flooding and the infrastructure? Are we going to see a significant investment over the next couple of weeks to make sure that this damage doesn’t happen?

I rose in the House in March of 2018, and I warned this House about the fact of the impacts of the wildfires and what we were seeing in areas such as Nazko, with flooding, which is usually one of the first areas that we see in our region that tends to flood. And how, as the watersheds get impacted and back up into the streams of Narcosli, that is going to have devastating consequences.

We were warning the government. We stood in the House and said: “You need to get out there, and you need to put investments in some maintenance.” This is not part of the maintenance contract that the government signed off on last year with maintenance contractors. They put forward what needed to be in those maintenance contracts. Let me be clear. This is separate. This is the responsibility of the Ministry of Transportation and this government that needs to be investing in the public safety of British Columbia.

I again say that I raised it in March and April. We saw a significant impact to West Fraser Road. We lost the road through a landslide. Now, yes, it’s going to cost. The early estimate was $104 million. I know it’s gone out to tender. But consider the respective taxpayer money. If we do the work on the preventative side of things, if we do the work on making sure that the ministry is investing in understanding the hydrology reports, the geotechnical reports…. They all exist. If they were to invest in the preventative side of the equation, maybe we wouldn’t have such huge costs when we see the significant damage, which is bound to happen.

I hope I’m wrong. I hope that that $13.4 billion — that we do not need to see a significant amount of that put into infrastructure, rebuilding, because of the fact that this is a government that just isn’t investing in rural infrastructure on the preventative side. I hope I am wrong. I would be happy to stand in this House and say: “Look, we’ve had a great season. We haven’t seen any of the significant damage.” I honestly hope that that is where I have the opportunities to stand in this House.

[3:25 p.m.]

I do have a couple of comments from constituents. When they knew that we were talking about this bill, they asked me to raise it. I have committed to them that most certainly, I take every opportunity I can, when the constituents want me to raise their concerns, to bring that forward.

The government has talked a lot about the support of the programs and grants that they have and the announcements that they’ve had. The first comment I think I will make is that, again, people have had considerable challenges meeting the eligibility of these programs.

Earlier today in question period, the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation talked about Science World. “As an MLA, why aren’t you supporting these members in applying for these grants?” Well, so many of these organizations are non-profits and aren’t eligible to apply for the types of grants and programs and services that the member talked about in the House.

Going back, again, to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour talking about the love of live arts, of course we love live arts. We’ve been raising in the House repeatedly about the challenges that arts and theatre organizations are facing, because for so many of them, unless you belong to the Arts Council or certain organizations, you’re just not able to access some of the financial grants that this government has made available.

For all of those groups and organizations, for all of the individuals that have fallen through the cracks, we are wondering how the government is going to fix that. If the government doesn’t actually provide us a budget, and they’re asking us to vote on $13.4 billion without understanding or knowing where that money is going, it is doing a very strong disservice.

Here are some of the constituents to whom I committed to raise their concern. Judy Kenneway applied for the B.C. recovery grant on December 22 and still has not received her money as of today. I can share with you that while this is one constituent — and I want to thank Judy for allowing me to use her name in this House, because it actually points to a person — I’ve got a long list of individuals who have still not received their B.C. recovery grant.

My message to everyone who may be watching this is to contact your MLA, especially if you have an NDP MLA. Please call them and let them know if you have not received your B.C. recovery benefit.

I know that the government has put forward an MLA hotline that we call. We repeatedly are continuing to do that work. But we’ve been working for months to try and help our constituents access these funds, and there is a disconnect. There are a lot of individuals that continue to wait to get access to these funds. I think it’s important.

I want to talk a little bit, too, about Phyllis Leblanc. Phyllis is fantastic.

Phyllis, thank you so very much for…. Please know how much of a difference you make. As MLAs, often, especially in this hybrid fashion, we can have some difficult days. I like that you let us know very clearly what we, as MLAs representing the Cariboo, should be doing. I absolutely appreciate your honesty.

Phyllis is a senior. She said that the senior supplement that started last year has now been clawed back to $150. The way the announcement is worded led one to believe that you are eligible if you receive these benefits. So here’s the difference. The government’s great at posting all of these supports that supposedly are meant for all these people, but you’ve got to read the fine lines.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

It actually means that only those seniors on income assistance, disability assistance or hardship assistance and those in receipt of a comfort allowance or the B.C. seniors supplement — $50 monthly through SDPR — actually qualify.

[3:30 p.m.]

The government is telling seniors that you can be available for this money. But actually, when we go and try and help our constituents with that, we find out that there’s a whole long list of eligibility. If you’re not on income assistance, if you’re not qualified on these, you’re just not available.

Or how about Tim Nellon? Tim Nellon contacted me about the B.C. homeowner grant. “If we haven’t received notification of an accepted application for a grant before tax payment deadline, will we be made to pay taxes in full or wait for a reimbursement later? Being a senior citizen on a fixed income, this would be a huge blow to our finances, and knowledge of what the process will be is very important.” Clarity and process.

Again, we’re being asked to approve $13.4 billion with­out understanding what the budget is, without even understanding what any processes are. “Trust us.” That seemed to have worked so well for Judy, who is still waiting, since December, for the B.C. recovery benefit. The government said, “Trust us,” then. They said: “Hey, trust us. These grants are coming. Money is on its way.” That seems to be the famous line that the Premier is saying. “Help is on the way. We’re here to help all people.”

There are sure a lot of people that have fallen through the cracks — and 13.4 billion hard-earned taxpayer dollars. They want to know if they’re actually going to be eligible. When the government says, “Trust us; the money’s on the way,” they’d like to know.

Again, we’ve got a lot of concerns. Aleta and Don Kennedy of Nazko. Nazko always floods first. Every single year it breaks my heart that…. Why do we continue to see a repeat of the challenges we have and lack of preparedness when they’ve been impacted every year? They’re concerned about what happens to the roads if they’re flooded and they can’t get in for their vaccines. It’s a very real problem.

On the tourism side. I know I’m running out of time, but I committed to raise the New Pathways to Gold. They’re waiting for money, for an announcement from the government. Am I to assume that this $13.4 billion includes the money for New Pathways to Gold?

How about Cottonwood House? Cottonwood House is such an incredible treasure in Cariboo North. They are in need of funds. Am I to assume the $13.4 billion has some money coming to Cottonwood House? How about Barkerville Historic Town? We’ve repeatedly heard the Premier talk about how important Barkerville Historic Town is, and it absolutely is. Are there resources for Barkerville Historic Town in this $13.4 billion?

How about all of the other tourism operators that are across this province and are waiting? You can get a grant to do an upgrade, when you’re really just trying to figure out how you’re going to pay your suppliers and keep your lights on. There’s a complete disconnect there.

I’ve got lots of questions from constituents that they’ve asked me to raise during this period of time. Non-profits again have been asking, small businesses who are nervous about trusting this government.

This government is supposed to have a small business lens in every piece of legislation. It’s still supposed to apply a small business lens, yet I’m not sure we’ve necessarily seen that. Sixteen percent of money out the door to help small businesses isn’t a huge success. How many closed doors in every single community? Every single MLA needs to take a check of the fact that their communities are going to be impacted forever because of the decisions that this government is making today.

One needs to wonder what is in that $13.4 billion. How about students? Students need support. They’ve been left out of so many opportunities. I see that my time is up, but please don’t forget about students and all of the important initiatives and the investment in our post-secondary education. That is so incredibly critical to ensure that we are successful post-pandemic.

K. Paddon: It’s an honour to be speaking from the unceded traditional territories of the Stó:lō people today.

I want to take a moment as I express my support for Bill 10. I realize, based on what I’m hearing today, that I may not have introduced myself in a way that can be understood. I’m very proud to be the member for Chilliwack-Kent, to be able to represent voices here, to carry forward the ideas and advocacy from this area and to bring forward the needs and the priorities from my area.

[3:35 p.m.]

I’m not only an MLA; I’m also a mother. I also am part of my community. Today, during March break here in Chilliwack-Kent, as my children, my teenagers, were at home, I actually unfortunately had the opportunity to have to explain to them some of the thoughts and opinions being shared in the House.

On the government side of the House, I’m known as a valued member. But today I had the opportunity to explain what the idea of a backbencher is and why that language would be used. Now, I also heard “newly minted,” but I believe I’m on the wrong side of the House to be called that.

In the meantime, I will happily, as a backbencher, share these ideas. As an MLA, as a representative for Chilliwack-Kent, I work very hard. I get to work very closely, although we’re currently often apart, with members of my community, to hear their struggles, to hear their good news, as well, which is fantastic, to celebrate and to mourn and to really try and carry the priorities.

I work with individuals and families, which is something I’ve done throughout my career, previous to my time here. I do get to work with small businesses, medium-sized businesses, advocates across the community, business people across the community, whether it be in child care or agriculture, often in education, a lot of community service networks.

I think that one of the things that’s most important and one of the reasons I stand so strongly for this bill is because people and businesses and, I know, my community need to know that the support they are depending on and the services that they need and depend on will continue to be there.

As many of my friends have mentioned, we do this every year. I do understand and have heard from other valued members that this is not like a normal year, that in their opinion, this is wrong somehow. I hear the frustration at the idea that this is different because of COVID. Yet this is different because of COVID.

We understand that in order to prepare a budget that will respond to all of the things that have happened this past year and the things to come in the next and to make sure that that budget reflects the needs of British Columbians and to give us time for a hearty and healthy debate, where respect and positive language will be used to move things forward, I hope….

In the meantime, we do need to have this interim supply. I understand, as well, that there’s some concern from the other side of the House that British Columbians aren’t going to know what’s happening or may not trust what’s happening.

I’ve also had the opportunity to explain today to my children that one of the ways — one of the many, many ways — our government listens to British Columbians is through consultation, is through being adaptive, like with the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation adjusting not only the timeline but the eligibility criteria for a grant to make it more responsive, based on the feedback. But overall, the way that I understand what British Columbians are saying is that they have given our government an overwhelming and stable mandate as we lead British Columbians through the pandemic.

COVID has challenged absolutely all of us. British Columbians are worried about their health and their livelihoods. They should not be worried about the timeline of our debates for the budget. We have to allow for that process to work the way it is intended. Just like every year, that requires the interim supply.

The pandemic is changing so much in our province. Our government is working to make sure that they’re taking care of people. As we move through this pandemic together, as we’ve seen, as we all understand, all of the valued members…. We understand that it’s also highlighting vulnerabilities and gaps that existed before.

[3:40 p.m.]

I can’t express enough how difficult it was to explain today to my children, as we watched the debate, why anybody would say that it’s unfortunate that they have to listen to the backbenchers, that they have to listen to the backbenchers say something. I also got to explain, which is a lesson that we often speak about in my home, that there’s a difference between not agreeing and not understanding.

What I would like to offer is my understanding, even though that means that I don’t agree with a lot of what I’m hearing during the debate. But that’s a good thing, in my mind. It means that we are having discourse. Now, it’s not necessarily in a way that moves things forward together, but it is important. I’m happy to hear the thoughts of the other valued members.

We’ve come a really long way together, but the road to recovery ahead of us is very daunting. There is a lot of hope, and a lot of work has been done by our government.

The B.C. recovery benefit is helping families make ends meet, with payments up to $1,000. I understand from others that there are people who have not yet received their benefit. I know that my office works with them as well. I’m happy that once — not that there’s a delay — we’re able to work with them, they’re able to receive their benefit. We’re hearing the stories of the impact that that’s making. But for so many, they’re making the application and receiving their benefits in a matter of days.

Hard-hit small and medium-sized businesses are receiving grants of up to $30,000 or up to $45,000 for tourism-related businesses. This helps keep people working.

We understand the pain. Here in Chilliwack-Kent, there are tourism businesses, as well, that are very hard hit. We understand the pain of looking at a business that’s been your dream, that has been your work and often your life’s work, and feeling uncertain as to whether things are going to be okay. Our government is offering that grant and that hope.

It’s not a loan. They don’t have to repay it. That’s to keep the doors open and to keep the dreams alive until it’s safe for tourists to come back.

We’re helping thousands of people upskill and re-skill and find in-demand jobs. I’m very excited about the micro-credentials at UFV here in Chilliwack-Kent.

We’re going to keep improving fairness at ICBC. That helps make life more affordable. I know there’s been a lot of conversation about ICBC and the history. I don’t feel like I need to get into that.

We’re going to increase transparency in real estate and protect people and tackle fraud. This is something that we’ve taken on, and it’s something that we’re looking at. It all has to do, as well, with money laundering and driving up the prices of homes.

We’ve taken action to stop gun violence. That was done here, not so long ago.

These are things that I feel we can be proud of. So when we’re discussing things that we have to then explain, not only to our constituents but to our children and to everyone that we serve, I suppose I ask for some clarity from the other valued members.

I find that some of the questions in question period versus some of the comments during the debate on this bill are incongruous. They don’t fit. Are we to spend more money and help more British Columbians or are we to spend less money and not continue to support the services and supports that we need until the budget is passed? Are we to be certain that we’re being responsive to the needs or are we to rush a budget that may not address the issues that have developed over the last year — and before?

We always have an interim supply, well past the end of the fiscal, to allow for robust estimates debate. I feel that those contradictions are not intentional. I do appreciate conversations around transparency and how important that is.

[3:45 p.m.]

I also find it dangerous when we stray into language and commentary that could be misleading. I understand that it’s important to make sure that our thoughts are heard. For some, it’s important to make sure that those thoughts are captured in a way that can demonstrate their passion for sticking it to them. In this case, I’m focused in my support on this bill because I’m concerned about people. I’m concerned about British Columbians.

Please don’t be confused. As backbencher or valued member or newly minted, my role here is to represent Chilliwack-Kent. By supporting this bill, I’m supporting the services and the families and the people who need these supports, while we have vigorous debate on our budget.

There are a lot of thoughts that I’ve had as I’ve listened to the other valued members today. My colleague from Richmond North Centre said that it’s no wonder we end up where we are today. Although I may not agree with their sentiment in saying it, I think it’s no wonder we end up where we do today — where we have hope of a vaccine, where we have plans and money going out the door for small businesses and families and individuals, where we recognize and we see we have a government that is committed to supporting people who are most vulnerable.

I look at my team, I look at the other valued members, I look at my friends, and I think: “It’s no wonder.” I see the work that’s been done. One of the things that I’m focused on moving forward is making sure that at the end of the day, I come back to my constituents, and I can say: “This is how I’ve worked for you. This is how I’ve carried your voices.” It’s not my voice that is heard in this place. It’s the voices of my constituents.

I understand that there are many opinions about how we should agree or disagree. I think we can do it respectfully. I think we can do it in a way where we move forward, even when we disagree. But that doesn’t represent a lack of understanding, and that doesn’t discount the value of each and every member who comes and who speaks on behalf of their constituents, who is elected by their constituents and whose mandate is clear.

I am very happy to speak in support of this bill so that we can move forward together and all valued members can contribute to the debate around the budget in a way that ensures we’re being responsive not to an idea about what things might be, because we have a deadline, but that has been thoughtfully considered and has incorporated the knowledge that we’ve gained in the last year, with a slight delay.

That is what I have to share. I appreciate very much the words and the things I have to think about from the other valued members of the House. But I do urge them: Budget 2021 needs to continue to focus on keeping people safe through the pandemic and into recovery. We need to do this with an eye on how we position our province to take advantage of the opportunities that recovery will offer and to grow from the lessons that the pandemic has taught us. All along the way, we need to make sure that we’re focusing on people.

T. Shypitka: It gives me great pride and honour to speak today and rise in this House, albeit virtually, and speak to Supply Act, 2021.

First, I want to mention that I am speaking from Kootenay East and the traditional territory of the Ktunaxa First Nation.

I look forward to this continuing debate on the Supply Act that’s before us today. I just want to kind of go back on some of the comments that have been made mention by members on the other side, on the government side of the House.

[3:50 p.m.]

It’s to the point that we’re not debating this bill that’s in front of us to stop it from happening. We know it’s going to pass. We know it’s going out there. We have no problem with that. What we have a problem with is the transparency that this Supply Act contains.

The member before me, for Chilliwack-Kent, says we need this money for our public service workers. Absolutely. We support all those. We have some of the greatest people in the world in our communities right now taking on a crisis, the COVID-19 crisis. Our health care workers, our paramedics, our ambulance service, our police — we need to keep the lights on for those folks. We need to keep them assured that funding will continue. And it will. This bill will pass.

What we’re concerned with is the fact that there’s a lack of transparency tabling this act before a budget comes out. Now, the member from Vancouver-Seymour said this is normal. He said: “We always put out a supply act before the budget.” We don’t. We put out a budget so we can make some line items for the supply bill. That’s a total reversal. It’s nothing new, and it’s nothing normal. I should say it is new. Well, maybe not. In the ’90s we did it. We did it during the fudge-it budget years of the NDP government. It isn’t completely new, but it is new in the last couple of decades at least.

This is $13.4 billion that we’re allocating and just signing off on. This isn’t the first time. This isn’t something that’s brand-new to the members of this House. As a matter of fact, this is the fourth time this has happened. Last March, we had $5 billion roll out.

Let me just say that the collaboration and the work together that happened between all three sides of the House — the Greens, the NDP and the B.C. Liberals…. If you want to talk about unprecedented times, that was fairly unprecedented. We all knew we had to get together and work together to look out for the best interests of British Columbians in what, at that time, a year ago, we had no idea was coming down. We were in the early stages of the pandemic, so we hunkered down and we got together, and we signed off on $5 billion to go to economic recovery and to help the people of British Columbia.

Well, what happened? Not all that money got spent right away. As a matter of fact, most of that money didn’t get spent right away. As a matter of fact, some of that money still has yet to be spent. Largely, it’s arguable that a lot of that $5 billion went to an election campaign. That’s kind of sad. We worked collaboratively together. We all, like I said, hunkered down, and we tried to do what was best for British Columbians. But at the end of the day, it was a political stunt, in my opinion. That money was lying there, waiting — $1.5 billion to business recovery.

As of September…. As a matter of fact, it was two days before the election was called — the snap election, the unnecessary snap election, I might add. Two days before it was called, there was an offering from government that $1.5 billion would soon be in your hands. Then there was $300 million to go to B.C. business recovery. We’ve only seen about 15 percent of that roll out, and here we are a year from when it was first promised.

This is not good governance. This is not transparency. This is not collaboration. This is not partnership. And I think everybody knows that. I don’t think I’m speaking out of the side of my mouth here. I think it’s pretty obvious what’s been going on, and it’s a little maddening.

Then in July, we signed off on another billion. That was legitimate. That was matching funding from the feds on transportation support. That’s what these types of supply and some of these special warrants that we need to get some of this money out the door…. That’s legitimate. That was well served for British Columbians. I think Surrey will benefit from that a lot, and that’s helpful. But then here we are. We went into a snap election — unnecessary. A lot of people could argue that it was taking advantage of COVID, of the situation.

[3:55 p.m.]

We were assured at that time…. The Premier said that this would not impede government. This would not impede the safety or put in harm’s way the safety of the people of B.C. This election would…. Government would carry on. Dr. Bonnie Henry just recently said that she may have made an error in not clamping down on….

So here we are. We’re in the election. Government has promised that this is not going to hamper all the good work that government does. But what did we see? We saw a shortened fall session. What normally would be two months’ work went to two weeks. That certainly got in the way of support for B.C. businesses and B.C. people at large. We didn’t see any rollout, at that time, of any of the money.

Now here we are, the fourth time to the trough, and it’s $13.4 billion. Of course, this money will be spent, I’m sure, largely on what it’s intended for. But as the member that preceded me, from Chilliwack-Kent…. She wants it to go out to our support workers. Of course we do. But which ones? We have no idea. There are no line items attached to this supply bill that identify where this $13.4 billion is going to go. That’s the whole idea of having a budget in front of handing money out. We have to be assured. Government hasn’t assured us on that.

Like I said, the $300 million…. Let’s be clear. There was also…. Sorry, I forgot the last piece. In December, we handed out the third allocation. That was $2 billion. That was to go to a recovery grant for British Columbians. That time we debated…. That was the only bill that went forward. As a matter of fact, there was only one bill. So we went from two months to two weeks, and only one bill passed. That was on delaying the budget.

It’s kind of funny. A lot of the excuses…. There are two excuses that governments use. One, if they can’t answer the question, it’s either the fault of the previous government or the B.C. Liberals. Actually, the NDP are the previous government now. So if they can’t answer a question, it’s either the previous government’s fault or the B.C. Liberals’ fault. Or it’s COVID’s fault. In this example, they’re largely using COVID, because it’s unprecedented — never been done before. “We’re kind of off our wheels a bit here. We have to delay the budget, because we’re not on full deck here.” I don’t know what the excuse really is.

This is the second time. The debt to GDP has only been worse once before in our Canadian history. The worst time was in World War II. Now we’re suffering the second-largest time in history. But there’s a glaring difference between what happened in World War II and now.

In World War II, the leaders of the day hunkered down. They didn’t run away. They didn’t delay budgets. They made sure they were on time so they could get the resources out when they needed to. We went from one of the biggest deficits in Canadian history to one of the biggest surpluses only a few short years later, because people did the right thing. Government did work. They did get ahead of the curve.

We’ve heard the Premier saying: “We want everybody in B.C. to find another gear. The end is almost here. Let’s find another gear.” “Let’s lean into the wheel,” is, I think, his actual quote.

What about government? Do they not have the responsibility to lean into the wheel a little bit and put a budget on time? That’s not a big ask. You look around every corporate business in British Columbia right now, and every municipality, every regional district. Their budget is on time. They do due diligence, and they’re facing the same challenges — with less resources, I might add, than what provincial governments have. But they get it done. A lot of it’s volunteer work. Yet in a time of crisis, in unprecedented times….

[4:00 p.m.]

We hear it all the time. It’s true, but it’s getting a little overused, I think. And I think it’s used as an excuse more than anything. You’d think, in a time of unprecedented crisis, that the government would want to step it up and lean into the wheel and get the budget out and not delay. But this government seems to think it’s okay to sit back and, you know…. “It’s COVID’s fault. We’ll just delay it. We’re going to ask for $13.4 billion, and we’re not going to tell you where it’s going.”

It’s not the fact that we’re arguing that funds should be released and the Supply Act should pass. Of course it has to pass. Of course we’ve got to keep the lights on. This is what the other side doesn’t understand. We’re not arguing whether this bill should pass or not. We’re arguing on government’s responsibility to the taxpayer. I mentioned this to a friend of mine today, that $13.4 billion is going out the door and we have no reason. They went white in the face. They couldn’t understand how that could happen. I think a lot of people in the House can’t understand how this can happen. But it is, and here we are.

There are a lot of good things that that $13.4 billion could go to. I could think of a whole bunch right off the top of my head. We have a wildlife issue in British Columbia right now. It’s never been really addressed properly. It’s not a partisan issue. All the governments have failed. We’ve never put any sustainable funding in towards wildlife. We’ve never put a priority on wildlife.

Everybody likes to talk about how iconic and how symbolic some of our creatures are, some of our great, magnificent animals that we have this province, yet they don’t put their money where their mouth is. I’d love to see some of that $13.4 billion going to a proper wildlife management plan. That would be awesome. I think it would make a lot of people happy. I don’t think anybody would be against that. I don’t think you could look at any party in our Legislature right now that would not agree that we should be putting wildlife as a priority, and I’d love to see some of that money go towards that.

Mining and exploration — obviously near and dear to my heart. I live in a pretty industrious part of the province. We have four of the five top mines in the province here, but we’re in fear of losing our natural resources. Right now we’ve got 14 operating mines, two smelters, and if we don’t get on board…. We have not seen a new mine come online since this government has come into play, and if we don’t get a new mine on board, we’re down to five mines by the year 2030 or 2040, somewhere around there.

That’s devastating. That’s $1 billion into government coffers every year. That’s $7 billion spent annually throughout the province. That’s a big hole, and we’d never fill it. And if we don’t get our permitting addressed, if we don’t get clarity and certainty in our permitting processes, if we don’t address certain things that make us uncompetitive, like the carbon tax, for example…. I think industry actually, for the large part, supports a carbon tax, but how it rolls out and how to protect those emission-intensive, trade-exposed industries that we have globally…. We need to make sure that those industries are protected.

Access to health care is another big one I’d love to see some money go towards, in my neck of the woods, anyways. We have a really great relationship with Alberta, yet we’ve seen over the last couple of years that that access has been radically restricted, to the point now where I’ve got people in my riding that are making game-changing, life-changing decisions on whether or not they can have radiation treatment because they’re being slotted in Vancouver, which is a 13-hour drive in the best of times. In winter, it’s almost impossible sometimes.

They’re sitting around the dinner table saying: “Hmm, jeez, I don’t know if dad’s going to be able to get his radiation treatment because we can’t afford it. We have no support there. Mom can’t take time off work like she could if we were going to Calgary, where it’s only a couple-hour drive.” These conversations are happening right now around British Columbia, in my area.

When we talk about the bill and we talk about the money, we’re not talking about: “We don’t want it going out the door.” We’re saying: “Who is it going out to?”

[4:05 p.m.]

This is a big issue, and it really speaks to the legacy that this government is really working hard on. I don’t know why they’d be working that hard on this, but let’s look at some of the other legacy items that this government has really been putting forward, like taxation, unprecedented taxation by this government. I can’t even remember the number now. I don’t know if it’s 26 new or increased taxes. It was 21, and I think we’re up to 26 or 27. Billions of dollars at any rate.

Assault on homeowners. We’ve seen that as a legacy issue here with this government — spec tax, ALR changes, Bill 15 and Bill 52, taking away the rights of landowners on secondary homes. Now we’re seeing something with the homeowner’s grant where they’re shifting that, taking people’s personal information, their SIN numbers, where it’s never been done before. They say it’s fair and say it’s simpler, but I don’t know what’s simpler and more fair than going down to your city hall and checking a couple of boxes off and handing over a cheque. That’s an assault, I think, quite honestly.

Residential Tenancy Act being reformed. It’s giving those home investors a real hard time to be sustainable. I’ve talked to a few people who have taken the chance — no guarantee, put the money down, mortgaged to the hilt — to maybe provide themselves with a little bit of a retirement income. These are innocent, everyday British Columbians, wanting to provide for themselves. Not everybody has a pension, let me tell you.

I come from the private sector. I’ve employed literally thousands of people, and I can tell you, for every business owner, there is no guarantee. For every employee, there is no guarantee. Some of those employees do squirrel away enough money sometimes. It’s hard, but they do. They put the money down for a…. “Let’s maybe get a second home and rent it out. Maybe if we’re lucky and the markets are correct and luck is on our side and we get good renters…. Maybe in 20 years we can pay it off, and that can be our retirement.” That’s a big deal.

Now with some of these changes, that’s just not going to happen. I’ve talked to numerous people who were considering it, and they say there is just no way. There are good landlords and there are bad landlords, I’m not going to argue with that. But there are good tenants and there are bad tenants as well.

Deputy Speaker: If I might draw the member’s attention to Bill 10, the Supply Act. I think the legislation he’s speaking to was passed earlier in the session. We don’t debate legislation that is in the current session. Just to bring the member back to the Supply Act.

T. Shypitka: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that. I don’t want to get too far off track here. We’re talking about a Supply Act where money is supposed to be going, and we’re unsure.

Transparency is kind of what I’m touching on here. Transparency is something we’ve seen this government not do a lot of. We saw the caribou recovery program for example. No transparency, no consultation. So botched in fact that they had to call it back. They had to extend it. They had to bring a special person in to look after it. That didn’t go over very well. It still doesn’t.

ALR reform — I said earlier — on eliminating regional agricultural decision-making. We took away the regional ALC, the regional agricultural land committees, put it into provincial executive, but there was no consultation with anyone on that.

Land use planning out here in my area — shutting down access. I agree. We need to control access. There is no question. But let’s include people. Let’s talk to stakeholders. Everybody is not going to always agree on what they hear. But the biggest argument you’ll always get when a decision is made is they were never spoken to, and there is no excuse for that.

That’s what we’re seeing from this government, and that’s what we’re seeing from this bill. If I can tie it all back to that, this is a huge epic fail on government’s part as far as showing a lack of transparency. They can dress it up any way they want. They can say it’s COVID-related, or they can blame us somehow. I’m not sure how they spin that one, but they’ll probably find a way. The fact of the matter is we’re handing out $13.4 billion of taxpayer money, and we have no clue where it’s going.

[4:10 p.m.]

I’m not going to be a conspiracy theorist, as much as to say it’s going into nefarious programs or anything like that. I’m sure most of it will go in the right places. But it is the responsibility of government to table that so we can debate those in estimates and other avenues. Before we pass it, we need to see the budget line items, where they’re attached to, so we know where it’s going, so we can assure British Columbians.

The member for Chilliwack-Kent said: “Business needs to know the support will be there.” I think that was her exact quote. But where is it going? “Business needs to know that the supports will be there.” Well, sure. Of course. Who doesn’t agree to that? That’s what we’re saying. We want business to know the supports will be there. But there is no identification on where it’s going.

There are lots of things that we can talk about here on this bill and what it represents. But I think, at the end of the day, what it really means is that we need government to step up a bit here. We are in a major crisis. Everybody is counting on one another to get us through this. We see hope. You see the vaccine rollout, although that’s another topic on how that’s going. But we need government to step up. Government really wants…. They ask us all the time to find another gear. Where is government’s part in doing the same?

I think it would have been great if government would have said: “You know what? We’re going to work around the clock.”

We had a two-week session in December, which was terrible, in my opinion. We went from a two-month session to a two-week session, after the Premier said: “Oh, the snap election’s not going to change anything. Business as usual. We’ll still be looking out for British Columbians.” Yet we went to a two-week session to pass one bill, which was to delay the budget by two months. Wow. If that’s looking out for British Columbians, then wow. I don’t even know what to say. I don’t want to commit myself into something unparliamentary, but it’s frustrating.

Just to close, I want to say that both sides of the House have to really look deep, and they have to look in the mirror. Don’t read off of your speaking notes, I urge those on the other side, because I think you almost believe what you’re reading sometimes. We’re not arguing about if the money should pass, if we should be handing out the money to keep the lights on. We’re saying British Columbians deserve better. They deserve to know government is working for them, and they need to have some assurance and trust that it’s spent in the right places. That’s what this bill doesn’t represent.

With that, I’ll hand the floor over to my colleagues.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Given the year that British Columbians have had and the impact of the pandemic on every single part of our lives — the lives lost in long-term care homes, the lives lost in the overdose crisis, the terrible strain on people’s mental health, the isolation people have experienced while trying to keep each other safe and the terrible impact on small business — I so appreciate how business has stepped up and modified their operations, recognizing the imperative to keep people safe. But that has been at a very tough cost.

It is the least that a government could do to create the stability, the investment and the solidity of the constancy of flow of government investments — the dollars flowing so that teachers can continue to do their work, so that Nanaimo General Hospital can continue to operate and save lives and keep people safe.

The imperative in this year, as has been the common practice in this Legislature, is that you pass an interim supply bill so that you have the time to do the budget development, the transparency, the debate in the House, and the work in the lower houses, which is usually happening parallel to this chamber, where cabinet ministers come, sometimes for weeks on end, to answer questions from the opposition and defend their program spending.

[4:15 p.m.]

This process is all about transparency. And this bill that I speak in favour of today, Bill 10, the interim supply legislation, is to support the continued flow of government funds, taxpayers’ funds into the services that support British Columbians. It is for the purpose of transparency that this legislation is tabled.

Honestly, to hear from the opposition that they are now concerned about transparency…. I was watching the former B.C. Liberal government for 16 years that more often than not decided, “We don’t need a fall legislative session. It’s fine. We’ll just do our own work without any view of the public into operations of government” — without any feeling that there had to be legislation passed or tabled or presented.

Again and again, this Legislature, under the member that just spoke before me, under his party’s government, sometimes sat for 30 or 35 days a year. Even in the course of a pandemic, when so many people had to stay home and this place had to completely modify its operations, collectively, all parties have agreed here now to do their work in view of the public. That is what we are doing. That is what this Bill 10 is in aid of — to be able to allow that time for transparency and debate. Quite a different style of operation from who now is sitting in the opposition benches.

I do want to give British Columbians a sense, or a rundown, of the way that we have been supporting British Columbians just in the last couple of weeks. With thanks to my office team, I’ve just printed out some of my favourite press releases of ways that we are supporting British Columbians.

Particularly, I think maybe the second-last speaker didn’t hear the announcement from my colleague, the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, of another unprecedented investment in supporting people living on income assistance and people living with disabilities. This was the three o’clock announcement today: “…300,000 British Columbians will benefit from the largest-ever permanent increase to income assistance and disability assistance rates and the first-ever increase to the seniors supplement.”

People have been calling for continued investments. I believe — I’ll look to the minister for this — the previous government invested an extra $100 over 16 years. A $100 increase in total. So this is what is new now. This is a permanent $175-a-month increase, the third increase in rates since this government first formed responsibility in July 2017.

We had already increased income assistance and disability assistance rates by $100 per month in September 2017 and $50 per month in April 2019. Then, during the pandemic, increased by a temporary supplement of $300 a month, provided from April to December. Then a $150-per-month recovery supplement, January until now, as well as the $1,000 one-time benefit.

That doesn’t even touch on the child opportunity benefit announced in the budget a year ago and implemented this fall where families with one child get $1,600 a year, families with two children get $2,600 a year and families with three children get $3,400 a year. Lifting people out of poverty and then watching the benefits that flow from that. People that are now able to participate more fully in their own local economy. Local business benefits from that. We all do better when we lift everybody up.

Last week the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation announced the extension of the small and medium-sized business grants until August 31 and adjusted the requirement for business to demonstrate revenue loss. It used to be 70 percent. It’s now 30 percent. I know in Nanaimo, the chamber of commerce has been calling for reform on this area, and I’m very encouraged that the minister has responded — and the very hard work of the public service to get that out the door.

[4:20 p.m.]

Just last week a new urgent primary care centre in Penticton, which is particularly focused on mental health and addictions. This is going to be the first long-term primary care service initially for people with mental health and addictions, then adding on, as the centre is fully implemented, more primary care support as well. This is the 23rd urgent primary care centre announced in British Columbia and the 20th to open — again, a way that we are continuing to keep investments flowing to British Columbians.

The month previous: 100 new publicly funded addiction treatment and recovery beds, and 46 of those are new spaces in existing treatment and recovery options. To be able to get these into place, and available to people of all income levels immediately, these have been converted from private-pay — which used to be, traditionally, available just to the people with the very highest incomes. Now this is for the people in between — publicly funded beds. Then the balance of the 100 beds are brand-new.

I’m very encouraged that, I think, almost 20 of them are in Nanaimo. I’m grateful to the John Howard Society and Edgewood, both, for stepping up to that open grant. This grant opened last summer, but the money has only just flowed right now. Also, just in the last couple of months — again, transparency about how we’re spending to invest in British Columbians and make a difference where it’s needed most, particularly because of the increased pressures resulting from the pandemic — 53 grant applications came in for people that were looking for increased support to be able to operate treatment and recovery homes.

These are operators that were particularly challenged by social distancing requirements of the pandemic. They had to bring their facilities down to half-capacity. They are now able to expand. That’s a $2 million investment, supported by all members in this House. I’m very grateful for that. It’s making a difference in people’s lives.

Also focused on children and youth, strengthened mental health and substance use services were funded through community gaming grant programs. These are new projects in Vancouver, Williams Lake, Duncan and Kelowna — and one of the organizations that I’ve loved meeting, in Nanaimo, the Take a Hike Youth at Risk Foundation. They just do fantastic work, working with young people to get them out into wilderness experiences.

Although this is not part of government funding, I’m very grateful to organizations, like Mountain Equipment Co-op and others, who donate down jackets, sleeping bags and things so that young people can get out, particularly Indigenous youth getting out on the land and teaching their peers about the benefits to mental health of travelling and living in the wilderness. They’re very encouraging stories that these young people bring back.

We’ve also been able, with the support of the taxpayer, to expand — for people living in rural, remote and Indigenous communities — almost $1.5 million to support overdose response and awareness in communities across British Columbia, a particularly challenging area where travel may be an impediment to accessing treatment and recovery services. This funding is helping to overcome that.

Also, in training up that next wave of workers, I’m very encouraged to see my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education announce new training for community mental health workers in a number of locations in British Columbia, particularly the Nicola Valley Institute of Technology in Burnaby and also Vancouver Island University in Nanaimo — training up those community mental health workers.

We need more people on the front line. We recognize people, particularly from the non-profit sector, that have really been holding together the addictions and recovery sector. The people on the front line have been working hard, unsupported, for many, many years. We’ve been trying to bring more support to them in the last couple of years. We recognize that there’s more to do. The pandemic has challenged all of their operations. I’m particularly encouraged when I’m able to let people that are working so hard on the front line know that there are new young trainees that are coming forward into the field and are willing to step up and do the work.

[4:25 p.m.]

There is more to come. There is much more to do. The budget process that will unfold just next month will, as always, be something that is open to full transparency, extended debate in this House and in committee. Anybody sitting at home who has got any spare time can watch all of the feed, either on television or on the B.C. Legislature’s website. Everything is available to you. Nothing is happening on the budget in this House and how it gets processed without all eyes being able to be on it.

To be able to bring the investments that businesses, people in the social sector, people living in long-term care, the workers supporting students and people in the health care sector…. All of that requires the support of a continued budget, the solidity and constancy of support.

That is what our budget to come is in aid of, and for right now, this is what Bill 10, the interim supply act, is in aid of. Despite the objections of the members on the other side of the aisle, I will be voting in favour, and I’m very grateful and encouraged by the work of the Finance Minister to bring us to this point, where we can do our work for British Columbians in full view of the public.

M. Lee: I rise today to speak against this Bill 10.

I heard earlier the MLA for Chilliwack talk about how “tender” members of this side of the House were, around certain comments that were being made by the members on the government bench. He went on to talk about the last election and how democracy works. He said words to the effect that members on that side of the House were elected. They came forward, and they brought forward many different things. They brought forward the election vote-buying mechanism in December, $2 billion of expenditure. They brought forward the supply bill, a blank cheque. The member for Chilliwack asserted that voters voted. That’s what they’re getting.

I think the member is forgetting, of course, the 28 members on this side of the House and the two members from the Green Party, or the Third Party. We each have a responsibility to British Columbians and our constituents to hold the government accountable.

What does that mean? We know that budgets and throne speeches set out the priorities of the government. We go through this on an annual basis. There needs to be transparency and accountability in what we do. For the member for Chilliwack to suggest that it doesn’t matter what the members on this side of the House think and that it doesn’t matter that we’re provided with a throne speech, the budget, to have the opportunity to go through estimates, ministry by ministry…. That doesn’t matter?

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

I think it’s insulting. He purports to lecture us on what democracy is. I hear some clapping from the other side of the House. Well, let me say, though, this is what we’re here to do. This is the reason why we need the tools, the transparency in order to do it.

Interjection.

M. Lee: Okay. Well, I appreciate that I’m getting teased. That’s fine. That’s par for the course here. It is, certainly. But you know, this is not just fun and games, of course. This is not just fun and games.

[4:30 p.m.]

We are here to demonstrate and take on a responsibility and to perform it to the best of our abilities. We can’t do that if what this government is presenting is nothing, no details. In fact, the way out of the requirements under the Financial Administration Act is to rely on last year’s estimates. Last year’s estimates, the government acknowledges, are out of date.

So much has changed — we know that — under the cha­llenge, under COVID-19 and the pandemic. But it’s more than just where this government issues its next press release for a funding announcement. It’s about: how are we going to rebuild this province?

I appreciate that we need to ensure that all British Columbians are healthy and safe. And we do owe a debt of gratitude to all our health professional leadership of our province, and our front-line workers, who are making so many sacrifices to ensure that that’s the case. But we owe them this. We owe them the leadership of this House to ensure that there is a path forward for recovery. And recovery is not just economic; it’s all linked together.

There are decisions and priorities that are reflected in a budget, in a throne speech and in the estimates process. So when we’re being asked to approve a supply bill for $12 billion without telling British Columbians how they’re going to spend the money, that’s a real challenge. We haven’t been provided with a budget, a quarterly report or even an up-to-date report on the government’s financial position.

We know that when we think about and consider how did we got here, we go back to just a year ago in this House, on this floor. The Premier, the Leader of the Official Opposition, and the Leader of the Third Party took the opportunity to acknowledge all of the deaths, all of the toll that COVID-19 has taken on our province — over a year ago. Today we’re about 51 weeks away from when there was a special sitting in this Legislative Assembly. There was a special approval, by unanimous resolution of the House, for $5 billion in COVID aid. Under those circumstances, there were no real details either. But that was perhaps understandable in the sense that we were in an emergency situation.

I appreciate that we’re still in that emergency situation, but that was over a year ago. The government had the opportunity, of course, with the approval of the House, to look at what was to be a forecasted expenditure of $2.8 billion for general relief for British Columbians and $2.2 billion for businesses. The actual spending would amount to $3.1 billion for British Columbians and $1.9 billion for businesses. In August 2020, this government came back to this House to delay the provincial budget from February to March — if an election was triggered in the fall, in effect.

[4:35 p.m.]

The then Finance Minister said that these changes will “allow sufficient time for due diligence to be done by the good public servants who work for all of us in British Columbia.” I know how hard it’s been for all our public servants to get through this pandemic. And as we’ve heard time and time again, they’re expending tremendous effort to navigate what has been a very uncertain time.

We have a role to play here. We have a responsibility. Again, there was an approval given. It was thought reasonable to extend. But there’s a limit. There’s a limit.

When we are talking about such a significant expenditure of the province’s resources — resources, as I know, that the member for Kelowna West spent a considerable amount going through…. We know, over the last 3½ years, the amount of taxes and further tax burden that this government has raised before COVID. Now, of course, under COVID, further expenditures to help the province through this time. But we ought to be having this debate, this discussion, about exactly what the government’s plans are that we haven’t seen.

We haven’t seen the kind of economic recovery plan from this government that we ought to be. Where do we see that? Well, we expect to see it further in the throne speech or in their budget, but we’re not seeing it now. We’re being asked to approve a supply bill in the absence of that detail, in the absence of those priority choices that we know every government needs to be making and with the scrutiny of every member of this House.

We know that on the eve of the snap election, on September 17, 2020…. One week before the election, we saw this government continue to crank up news release after news release, government announcement after government announcement of spending. I remember recalling 30 different announcements and press releases going out from this government on a Sunday. Just cranking it out.

Of course, of the supposed $2.2 billion in funds for businesses, we saw $1.5 billion in recovery spending being held in reserve until this government launched a so-called plan to help this province. This was the pre-election platform for this NDP government’s snap election call, which they launched on September 21. We know that John Horgan, the Premier of this province, when he stood in front of the cameras, said: “You know, I’m still thinking about an election. I haven’t made a decision.”

Well, the Premier made his decision, and we all paid the price, because what happened is that this government took its eye off the ball. It took its eye off the ball and put government, ourselves, into a snap election. We lost at least a critical 60 days in transition, in the middle of a pandemic.

Interjection.

M. Lee: It’s not wrong. It’s the fact. The fact of the matter is that for 60 days, this government — every single member on that side of the House and this side of the House — was thrust into a campaign in a pandemic, at a time where we should have continued to focus on the priority planning of this government, not delaying further accountability, not extending the responsibility of this government to put forward a budget.

[4:40 p.m.]

We are still paying that price today. We’ve seen, in December of 2020, this government further delay the budget, from March to the end of April 2021, by legislation and expand the special warrant authority for the period lasting from the end of the fiscal year to 15 days past the tabling of the 2021 main estimates.

We came back in the session in December, at a time where the government was basically saying: “We need more time.” Again this Legislative Assembly, despite the protestations from the members on this side of the House, extended that time. When will this stop? When will this government accept responsibility, not call a snap election in the middle of a pandemic for its own political gain? British Columbians continue to pay the price for the lack of a plan, a lack of leadership from this government.

Of course, we’ve seen what that has meant. We’ve seen the continued challenges with this government, in terms of meeting its requirements. I will say that when the NDP government did announce the small and medium-sized business recovery grant, that support was delayed in getting out to British Columbians because of the election.

In the more than six months since it was announced in September of 2020, and nearly a year after it was approved in March of 2020, the government has only been able to get out $55 million, out of the $300 million set aside, to businesses in real need. This is at a time where businesses continue to struggle, businesses that employ people, British Columbians. British Columbians are tired of the divisive nature of this government. They’re tired of that.

Why is it that when we’re looking at supports for those who have invested their time and energy to build a business, to employ British Columbians in our communities, the government is not there when they really need it? We had to look at shutting down certain parts of our economy and the way we do business because of the pandemic. That was understandable. What’s not understandable is this government leaving those business owners and employers out on a lurch, sitting on this money, making it so difficult to access those funds when those funds had been earmarked, set aside, for deployment over a year ago. That is inexcusable.

It does raise the question of trust. If this government can’t even get the $300 million in promised funds out the door to businesses in need, how can we expect and rely on this government to spend $13.4 billion? We know that this government has continued to be delayed in the way that they’re operating. As I mentioned, they continue to delay the budget by months and they leave British Columbians without additional relief as the pandemic continues to carry on. We need a government that is open, honest and accountable to this House, not one that continues to hide behind additional delays.

[4:45 p.m.]

This is where, when we look at who is involved with this government, we look at their history and their past, not necessarily as a government but as individuals. There’s a lot about trust in this House in terms of who we can trust and who has the kind of integrity to be the leadership of this province. When we look at the history of the current Premier, his chief of staff, the Health Minister…. As many members on this side of the House have talked about, they were all around for the notorious fudge-it budget of the 1990s.

Interjection.

M. Lee: Well, it’s relevant directly to what this government is bringing forward, because of course, we are being asked to approve a supply bill with no details, based on estimates from last year, just so the same people that were involved in the ’90s can fudge all the numbers, because we can’t hold the same individuals accountable for what they purport to plan to do.

It is not good enough for members on that side of the House to stand up in this House and just announce release after release after release. That’s not good enough. We need a budget. We need a throne speech. We need to go through the estimates process. And then we go through the supply bill. That’s the sequence. There’s a reason for that. How else can members on this side of the House hold the government accountable if we don’t have that?

We know that at that time, we had an NDP Premier who resigned in disgrace. We saw a scandal that saw the NDP raid his house while our current Premier’s chief of staff looked on, a time when the current Minister of Health was forced to resign from his job in the Premier’s office for backdating a memo. That same time saw a fudge-it budget, with the same Premier claiming that the budget was balanced before the election, then surprised everyone with the fact that it wasn’t, after the votes were counted.

You know, this is the same kind of repeated pattern that we’re seeing from this government. They have taken advantage, at least from a fiscal point of view, of our circumstances. We need to have a path through this as a province. Again, job one is dealing with the health emergency. We all understand that. But we have to have a way through this. This government is responsible for leading us through that, because they were elected to do that, as the member for Chilliwack would say. But we have a responsibility to hold this government accountable, and this government is hiding their plan from us.

This is our concern. They are effectively circumventing all of the previous discipline and measures that we’ve brought forward, that the previous B.C. Liberal governments have brought forward in the past: balanced-budget legislation, fixed budget dates, the use of the Economic Forecast Council. All steps that made British Columbia the leader in Canada for sound, transparent fiscal management and measures that were put in place to correct the mistakes of the previous NDP government.

Interjection.

M. Lee: It may be dismissed by the member across the way, but it’s that cavalier dismissal that really concerns me. This is the time for this province. It’s such a critical time. We all understand that. But it goes beyond the kind of mere partisanship that we continue to see from other members on the other side of the House.

Interjection.

M. Lee: Well, you keep talking, and I’ll continue to finish my comments here.

The point is…. This is a time where we all have to come together, but we have to come together to understand exactly where we stand financially and what the financial priorities of this government are. And in the absence of that, I don’t see how we can approve this Bill 10. It is inappropriate to be doing this.

[4:50 p.m.]

We know that for those sides of the House to be making comments and accusations about the previous government, including revenue transfer policies with ICBC, knowing that those are irresponsible statements….

The facts are this. Between 2012 and 2016, a total of $514 million was transferred from ICBC to government to support critical government services such as health care and education. 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 drivers. Members on the government bench continue to make their irresponsible statements to the contrary, while at the same time their cabinet colleagues, this NDP government, continues to dismantle the safeguards that the previous B.C. Liberal government brought in to ensure transparency.

This is what concerns me. Many would say, as the saying goes: “Never waste a good crisis.” This government certainly is not doing that. That’s the reason why they seized, through the Premier’s own decision, to call an election in the middle of a pandemic.

Last week in this House we were asking questions of the government, about the government’s own planning for this critical vaccination rollout. That is just another example of the lack of planning and understanding by this government. They are scrambling. They’re scrambling to do what they had time to do, to plan out that vaccination rollout, to have an integrated online call-in system like other provinces in this country. Day after day this government continues to demonstrate its lack of competence, its lack of leadership. All it wants is an extension.

British Columbians cannot continue to wait. We cannot continue to wait on this government to demonstrate the kind of leadership we need in this province. I appreciate that in the last election this government received more votes as a party than this side of the House.

Hon. L. Beare: I hear a “but” coming.

M. Lee: As the member across the way anticipates, yes, there is a “but.” The fact of the matter is, it was done on the basis of ensuring that we have a government that can be held accountable, that can be responsible in the way that it governs.

The way that this government continues to bumble in the aftermath of that election clearly demonstrates that when the Premier took his eye off the ball and thrust the entire province into an election, we lost time. We lost critical time that could have been utilized to plan out the budget, the financial affairs of this province.

I appreciate that it’s dynamic. It’s a dynamic environment that we’re living in. But every other government in this world seems to be able to manage. Why is that important? Because last summer when we were debating the Emergency Program Act with the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General of this province, we know that there were appropriate safeguards around any government that operates in an emergency time. These same safeguards for financial transparency and accountability apply to this government regardless of which party is in power.

[4:55 p.m.]

They ought to apply. When we see a government ignore and dismiss and vary from that, it should cause British Columbians real concern. Because after all, we need to ensure that there is trust and confidence in a government. There isn’t any in this one, when a government continues to delay and delay.

As I’ve said in this House, as well, in the last comment that I can make here, as we look at the importance of our transportation networks around the province and our infrastructure build, we need a government that sees the importance of maintaining those transportation networks as being safe, efficient and reliable. We need to ensure that people can travel safely around this province during this time. But we also need to ensure that those networks, whether they’re local airport authorities, bus companies, regional airlines, rail, trucking, taxis, taxi services…. We need to ensure that people will still have those transportation networks for the progress of our economy.

We know there are opportunities now to continue to invest in our infrastructure for this province to ensure that we’ll have a strong economic recovery coming out. These are the kinds of priorities that we need to see from this government — and what the funds, the taxpayer dollars, of our province are being utilized on. This is the kind of forward thinking that we are not seeing with this supply bill, because we’re seeing nothing.

G. Kyllo: It is certainly my pleasure to speak today to Bill 10, Supply Act.

This is a very unfortunate situation that we’re in, where we’re debating a $13.4 billion spending bill without the presentation of a budget. I think that any of us, either at home or those of us that may have business experience, would certainly never operate our businesses or conduct our family households in this manner. Yet this is the manner in which this current government has chosen to actually operate.

It was interesting. Just as my colleague was previously speaking, I pulled out, actually, Budget 2019 — a bit of a slide deck that we had put together that looked at some of the significant tax increases that were presented in this Legislature last year. To think that here we are, well over a year since the last budget was presented, and this is largely the only document that we have in which to hold this government to account.

As you know, the job and role of official opposition is to provide scrutiny of government. The government of the day has significant revenues — an entire department called government communications and provincial engagement, with tens of millions of dollars they spend annually on professing all of the wondrous things that the government is providing.

It is largely put on the opposition members, myself and my colleagues, with a very limited and extremely slim budget, to try and actually hold this current government to account. In order for us to be effective and to actually achieve that goal and objective, there is a requirement and a reliance on the opposition party to actually to have a budget, provided by government, to which we could actually undertake a comprehensive review in order to hold government to account.

We have seen this story before. My colleagues have mentioned that, if we go back to the previous administration, back in the 1990s, we saw what happened under the NDP government: large on spending, low and very lax on economic growth of the province.

During the 1990s, British Columbia went from being No. 1 in Canada for economic growth to No. 10, the first time in the history of this province that we actually.… British Columbia, with all of the wealth of resources and a skilled workforce, under the previous NDP administration in the ’90s, became a have-not province. Now, that’s offensive.

[5:00 p.m.]

We certainly have other reasons to be concerned. We saw unemployment. We were actually the lowest-performing province in government during the ’90s for job creation — again, going from No. 1 to No. 10. So on both any fiscal matrix as well as job numbers, the previous administration absolutely failed this province. We saw folks leaving this province in record numbers, and that really put a dampening on the economy here in British Columbia.

When the B.C. Liberals actually formed government back in 2001, I think it’s important to note that the NDP were absolutely booted from power. We may recall that out of 79 seats, the NDP only held on to two seats. Now, think about that for a second. What kind of message did British Columbians send the previous administration?

We certainly thought, when they came to power in 2017, only with the support of the Green Party members…. For those who may be listening at home, just as a bit of a reminder, in 2017, the B.C. Liberals won 43 seats. The NDP secured 41 seats, and the Green Party had three. So despite the B.C. Liberals winning the plurality of the vote and also securing more seats in the province, through a deal undertaken and now known as the confidence and supply agreement, the NDP were able to entice the Greens to join them, giving them the 41 plus three, which gave them 44 seats out of 87, providing them the majority government.

Boy, when you talk about a government that can’t be trusted, we only have to look as far as the current Premier of this province. The only reason that the leader of the NDP party became Premier and took power in this province was through the support of the Green Party members. But at the first opportunity, when the now leader of the Green Party was only newly minted as a new leader and needed a year in order to raise funds to get ready for the next election….

Just to remind members, the fixed election date was for October 16 of 2021. Although there was much musing about the potential of an election, the Premier continued to express to British Columbians that he was not looking to call an election. But what did we see happen? He actually dropped the writ in September of this past year, tearing up the confidence and supply agreement and, basically, taking out the poor Green Party at the knees.

Again, the only reason they formed government was with the support of the Green Party. It was a real disservice and a travesty, in my mind, when the current government put their own political interests ahead of the health and well-being of British Columbians by calling an election in the middle of a pandemic.

As we think of some of the negative consequences of that election and what it actually caused as far as hardship, part of it is what the government is now relying on as the reasons for postponing the budget. It’s largely attributable to the fact that they actually called a snap election. So the current government breaks the legislation by calling an early election, basically contravenes the fixed election dates, and then turns around and uses their own efforts, their own ill will in calling that fall election, as the reason and justification for now not being able to provide a budget for British Columbians.

No apologies from our side with respect to the need and the necessity and the concerns we have of raising some of these very important concerns that I know many British Columbians have.

Looking at last year’s budget, because again, that is the only thing that we have to actually rely on, having a look at some of the tax-and-spend efforts and initiatives of this current government….

[5:05 p.m.]

Back in 2019, when they presented their budget, the three-year fiscal plan showed an increase in spending over the three-year planning period, which allocated an additional tax increase of $1,100 per person in the province. That was extrapolated to be approximately $2,500 per family. It represented a 26 percent increase in spending over the life of government. And that was based on an anticipated balanced budget last year.

We now know that the deficit for this last spending period is likely upwards of $15 billion. That’s $15,000 million. I think, for many of us, when we hear billions and trillions, it’s hard to kind of quantify what a significant amount of money that is: a $15 billion deficit, the single largest deficit in the history of our province.

I think we can all appreciate that COVID-19 has caused considerable concern and significant reductions in revenue for government as well as a need for additional spending. As we saw last year in March, when the Legislature was convened on an emergency basis, there was support, both by Green Party members as well as by the entire B.C. Liberal caucus, for a $5 billion spending plan to assist with COVID recovery.

We took, then, government at their word when government identified and, certainly, conveyed to us that there was $1.5 billion in funding that was going to be made available, largely for economic recovery for small businesses. Again, we took government at their word that those funds would be made available and put into the hands of British Columbians that were suffering and struggling in order to help them keep their lights on and get through this last year.

What did government do? Well, the one thing that we do know is that the Premier actually appointed and anointed himself as the chair of the COVID Economic Recovery Task Force. It took them five months of meetings before they finally came forward with an economic recovery plan, a manner in which they would actually provide economic relief for small businesses.

I believe that that announcement actually came out on a Friday. Lo and behold, guess what happened three days later, on a Monday. Well, that’s when the Premier decided that it was time to go back to the polls, calling a snap election in the midst of a pandemic. The funds did not roll out into the hands of those businesses that were struggling and looking for that very important lifeline.

There are many concerns that we have. The Premier professed to British Columbians and to the media that the snap election would not hold back or defray the opportunity for those funds to flow into the hands of businesses, yet nothing could have been further from the truth. We now are fully aware, over the course of the last number of months, that by the time December rolled along, zero dollars had actually flowed into the hands of businesses, rather than those necessary supports. I believe that as of last week, only about $50 million, of the $300 million fund, has actually flowed into the hands of struggling businesses.

Then there was yet further concern that, should those funds not be allocated and expensed by the end of March, those funds may not be available for those businesses as they were initially promised. Again, we have a government that seems to be operating, as much as possible, in secrecy. We have not seen the typical quarterly fiscal updates that a government, under normal situations, would actually be providing British Columbians. Even during the estimates process last year, we had many ministers that were very hesitant and reluctant to provide any information.

Just back to the tax-and-spend government and some of the challenges we have. We know that in order for us to have a significant economic recovery, we need to make sure that businesses are competitive here in British Columbia, yet nothing is further from the truth when it comes to the efforts of this current government. We have seen a new employer health tax that came through, which adds the equivalent or upwards of 2 percent of additional costs right onto the backs of B.C. employers. That’s about $1.9 billion of additional new taxation that is now on the backs of B.C. businesses, further reducing their opportunity to be competitive in an increasingly global climate.

[5:10 p.m.]

We saw an increase in the corporate tax. The provincial portion of the corporate tax in British Columbia is now 50 percent higher than it is in our neighbouring province of Alberta. Just think about that for a second: 50 percent higher. In Alberta, the rate is 8 percent. In British Columbia, it is 12.

If you’re a business looking at setting up shop…. The province is actually looking at trying to attract large corporations. We are doing a very disservice to the opportunities of B.C. businesses to attract that necessary and important capital that’s associated with those businesses by having a tax policy framework that is out of step with other jurisdictions with which we compete.

Nineteen new or increased taxes. And this was as of last year in 2019. We can add to this list now. I believe it’s now up to 21. I mentioned the employer health tax. We also have the Airbnb taxes, additional school taxes, speculation tax, photo radar, cannabis taxes, ICBC unlisted driver premiums, ICBC learner premiums, B.C. Hydro crisis fund and ride-sharing trip charges. We’ve seen increases in both income tax, foreign buyers tax, corporate income tax, carbon tax, parking sales tax, Vancouver and Victoria gas taxes, development cost charges, luxury vehicle tax, tobacco tax, PTT surcharges and TransLink property tax. The list goes on.

We need to make sure that this province remains competitive with other jurisdictions, and we are going in the opposite direction. When we have a look at the opportunity for economic recovery, economic recovery does not come from increased taxes and by continuing putting more tax burden on the backs of British Columbians. The way for prosperity in this province is to have a competitive tax structure to be supportive for new investment capital, to make efforts to reduce red tape and to actually be inviting to other businesses that might otherwise be looking for other jurisdictions in which to invest.

As we look at this budget, with a $13.4 billion deficit that’s actually based on a budget that’s over a year old, it’s offensive. There is not a corporation on this planet that would actually suggest that this is an appropriate way of doing business. So why should we as members of the Legislature, with the sole responsibility of holding government to account, somehow acquiesce and just accept what this government is actually trying to do?

The last time the government actually spent public funds without a proper budget…. Guess when? It certainly wasn’t under a B.C. Liberal administration. No, it was in the 1990s under the previous NDP government. That was the era of the fudge-it budget. I believe that when the B.C. Liberals finally got into government in 2001 and checked under the hood and actually had a look at where the finances of the province were, there was a $5.4 billion structural deficit. That’s what was inherited by the B.C. Liberals when they took power from the NDP government — a far cry and very different from the financial picture and the health of British Columbia when the NDP actually formed government with their Green partners back in 2017.

For members listening at home, for constituents listening around the province, when the NDP came in, in 2017 — a very different fiscal picture. British Columbia was number one in Canada for economic growth. It was number one for job creation. The NDP inherited a $2.7 billion surplus. You compare that to the $5.4 billion structural deficit that was left by the NDP at the end of their tenure back in the 1990s when they were booted from government, only retaining two of 79 seats. Again, I think that members watching from home can understand some of our concerns and hesitancy with just automatically rubber stamping this Supply Act, 2021.

Now, the legislation that’s before this House actually contains a workaround from the financial rules in the Financial Administration Act.

[5:15 p.m.]

This is something that the NDP are legally supposed to present — a budget first before actually undertaking this work. But as we see, that is not the case.

Now, I could certainly go on at length about the budgeting process. But I think that when we look at character and some of the actions of the previous administration, it’s worthwhile…. I know many of my members have mentioned this, but it’s certainly important for me also to go on the record of just reminding British Columbians of some of the challenges that the current NDP government had.

You know, I’ve mentioned the fudge-it budget era. There was also the B.C. fast ferries scandal, which diverted tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars into the construction of fast ferries that were non-functional and actually had to be sold off at cents on the dollar.

Then we also had Bingogate. Bingogate was, again, an undertaking of members of the then NDP administration. David Stupich is one. For any members watching at home, you might want to just google that number. Mr. Stupich pleaded guilty to one count of fraud and one count of running illegal gaming schemes. I’m reading this. This is a report by CBC: “Stupich, who was once an NDP Finance Minister, faced 64 charges.” Now, many of those charges were stayed in exchange for two guilty pleas. Not one but two guilty pleas.

The article goes on to say that “for almost 20 years, Stupich’s Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society ran lotteries it said were for charity, but later funnelled the proceeds to a B.C. New Democratic Party newspaper. The scandal helped bring about the resignation of then Premier Mike Harcourt,” even though, apparently, he wasn’t directly involved in it. They certainly weren’t able to tie him to it. It just goes on to say: “It’s not known when Stupich will be sentenced” — this is a bit of an older article — “or if he will even be going to prison.”

Very concerning. Apparently, $115,000 initially was set aside in a trust account to return to charities within the region. It was the intention for those moneys to be disbursed to Nanaimo-area charities.

Now, if I look about the potential of…. Not the potential. There’s not a whole lot of potential with a specific budget. But if I look to my own home riding, Shuswap…. I’m very blessed to be the MLA for Shuswap. It’s now my third term. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to represent the hard-working men and women of the Shuswap. But what we have seen in the Shuswap over this last year….

Shuswap is very dependent on the tourism sector. We know that the tourism sector has been hardest hit of almost any other sector in the province. I’ve had constituents both phone and come into the office, over the course of last summer, absolutely devastated. For many small business owners, not only has their business income been devastated, but they’ve also lost all of their personal income.

For many small mom-and-pop shops, it was always the intention for many of them that they’d continue to invest in their small business with the anticipation of one day selling that small business and it then providing them their retirement income. But what has happened with the loss of business income, the loss of personal income and the potential for many of these businesses actually going underwater is that not only have they lost their business income and their personal income, but any hope for any retirement income is largely being thrown out the window.

I think we can all appreciate that government funding initiatives to help to support businesses are important. However, they’re of no value — absolutely no value — until such time as the money actually flows into those hard-working men and women and those small businesses. Identifying a funding program and putting the necessary funds within it doesn’t benefit anybody. It is only of benefit when the money comes out the door.

[5:20 p.m.]

As we’ve seen with the $300 million COVID restart funding program, it’s been an absolute failure. Here we are, over a year since the anniversary of the pandemic, and the majority of the funds that were established and approved by all parties of this House last year, back in March, are still not out the door.

Certainly many concerns around the lack of transparency, as I mentioned. No fiscal updates. Typically, government would, under normal situations, actually provide quarterly updates. We have not seen any quarterly updates. So government is really looking and asking for British Columbians, on faith, to approve Supply Act (No. 1), 2021, Bill 10. I certainly have extreme challenges with actually doing that.

I’m certainly looking forward to listening, with interest, as my colleagues make further comments and, more specifically, as we actually get into the committee stage of Bill 10 and to having an opportunity to dissect and make further inquiries more specifically with respect to the different sections of Bill 10 and how they are going to impact British Columbians.

With that, I will take my seat. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity.

H. Yao: My first opportunity to speak and address the House. I rise to talk about Bill 10, the interim supply bill.

Before I continue, I do want to acknowledge that Richmond South Centre, which is the riding I represent, is actually part of the Musqueam and Coast Salish unceded and traditional territory. I thank them for allowing us to live, work and play in the territory.

Before I continue, I do want to emphasize the fact that we are talking about an interim supply bill. A supply bill is designed to actually match the gap between the previous year and the first of the year, due to the budgeting process.

Many people are talking about real-life scenarios. So I’m going to give a real-life scenario. If I’m sitting on the board of directors for a non-profit organization and we agree to postpone the AGM for one month due to unforeseen circumstances, as a board of directors, we will not turn around and then demand to see that one-month budget from the executive director to present to the board of directors. That would be far more unnecessarily taxing for the non-profit sector.

We’re going to look at the government right now. We do have an interim supply bill. It is designed to reflect the previous year, the 2020-2021 budget, as we are matching an April 2021 budgeting process, which was previously already approved.

I have heard many individuals from the other side talking about facile discussions about leadership, about what we can do with the budget and transparency. Many of them actually mentioned that we could spend the money on wildlife or on health care.

As a government representative, I do want to emphasize one important point. This is to sustain the current existing government to move forward for one month. This is not talking about how we can take $13 billion and spend it somewhere else. This is how we can keep the government operational.

Our goal is to move forward and be ready for the April 2021 budget process. As a government, we are dedicated to ensuring that we work with the opposition and work with our government to prepare for economic recovery.

I heard many people on the other side of the aisle talking about educating us about the democratic process. So let me further the education process. They talked about a 2020 snap election, about how that has thrown everything off the track.

I do want to emphasize…. There’s a major shift in British Columbia’s preference, which was demonstrated by the voter turnout, which was demonstrated by the voter support of putting 57 B.C. NDP MLAs in this House. There is a need and there is a will in British Columbia for a change in course of action for our government, for our province, for our future.

We’re talking about economic recovery. We’re looking at 99.4 percent, almost pre-pandemic times. We actually have a job rate that is returning back. People are getting back to work. The economy is recovering slowly back from this situation.

I also want to talk a bit more about small and medium-sized business growth, which the others have mentioned many times. They’re often talking about $300 million. “Just roll it out. Just roll it out.” Yet they keep on talking about accountability and transparency. Our government is having a process to ensure the money is given to the small and medium-sized businesses that need it the most and will continue the process.

[5:25 p.m.]

I know the minister who is part of the economic job recovery has done a fabulous job in ensuring that we continue to maintain good communication with everybody, with British Columbia’s small and medium-sized businesses and businesses in tourism, and to continuously adapt and become agile in how we can continue to support their recovery.

I also want to talk about…. We are talking about extending the budget for one month through this interim supply bill to ensure that health care can continue, to ensure that teachers can continue to work, to ensure that whoever in the public service sector — who are doing great work, especially during this challenging pandemic time, and who continue to put themselves at risk to serve British Columbians — can continue to work without a fear of putting their jobs at risk.

We also want to talk about leadership. We’re talking about a vaccine rollout. Many people only mentioned what happened on Monday, but I do want to mention what is happening this week. We are actually ahead of schedule now. British Columbians are talking about economic recovery, and everyone is truly betting their success on people’s lives returning to normal. The only thing that is a really key factor for that is the vaccination rollout. The B.C. NDP government is rolling out now ahead of schedule. That’s demonstrating leadership.

The B.C. Liberals in the House are also talking, during this bill discussion, about a $2.7 billion surplus that was left behind for the B.C. NDP government and the Green Party. I want to turn around and ask them a question. How come our health care wasn’t invested in enough to keep up with the pandemic today? How come Richmond Hospital is still not there? For 16 years, there was no discussion about Richmond Hospital, except a bunch of press releases. We are talking about a $2.7 billion surplus, yet students in Richmond were still, back then, studying in schools that were not seismically safe.

The B.C. government understood we are in a unique time. We’re in a challenging time at this point. We have 57 MLAs on this side working hard for British Columbians, in partnership with the opposition and in partnership with the Third Party, to ensure that we come out with a successful and a strong economic recovery plan. This interim supply bill will give us the opportunity and the ability to prepare for a comprehensive economic plan coming out in April.

I just wanted to go back to square one. We want to talk about this interim supply bill. It is, again, creating reassurance for the public service to continue to work and to serve. It is not talking about how we can spend the money for wildlife. It is not talking about how we can spend money on other projects. It is giving the government the ability to continue for one more month so we can prepare a comprehensive bill for April 2021. The current interim bill is reflective of our 2020-21 budget. We encourage the opposite party to actually take a quick look at that.

I rise today. I’m making my speech very short, but I do want to emphasize the simple fact that the B.C. NDP has demonstrated leadership, step by step, throughout this process. We are looking at a 99.4 percent job recovery rate to the pre-pandemic. We are looking at small and medium-sized business grants that are going out. We are putting actual money, according to the member opposite, into hard-working British Columbian men and women, in their pockets, through the COVID-19 economic recovery grant.

I will just say that I fully support our interim supply bill. I would encourage the opposition to join us to continue our government moving forward in support of British Columbians.

One last note. I do know that some members opposite mentioned the COVID-19 benefit. I do know my office has done quite a successful job of getting people the COVID-19 benefit. We encourage constituents or even the members opposite…. We would love to find a way to help you and help your constituents get the proper benefit accordingly.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member, for your first speech in the House.

Recognizing the member for Abbotsford South.

B. Banman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is indeed a pleasure for me to continue the debate on this supply act. This is the first debate that I have had with regards to a budget.

I’ve thought long and hard about this particular budget. It’s been my understanding that usually these supply acts pass relatively quickly. There’s not a lot of debate.

[5:30 p.m.]

As was mentioned, they allow the government to continue to function and take care of those necessary items that need to be done. It’s the usual operation of business at times. But let’s face it. The times that we live in — nothing about them is usual or ordinary. We are living in extraordinarily unusual times. Over the past years, we have seen a pandemic that has rocked the world. It has changed the lives of many people. There have been many people that, sadly, are not with us now, that would have been most likely with us had it not been for this pandemic. Patterns have changed.

What has not changed are the patterns of this government, in my opinion. You know, when I ran to become a member of my party — to put my name forward for the election — I anticipated that the agreement that had been put in place by all of the parties, during one of the most extraordinary times and challenges that the world has seen, would have been honoured.

All of the members, as I watched…. There was co-operation, because the public needed us to be on the same page. The public needed more than ever for all of the parties to do what was right by the citizens of British Columbia: to look after them during a pandemic. What was not required, in my opinion, was for someone to calculate the odds and use a pandemic to their own advantage.

There are a lot of British Columbians, I think, that are waking up to that fact, and I don’t think they’ll be in any hurry to forget that fact — that it’s pretty clear that the snap election was called sheerly because one side knew they could win. In my opinion, it was not the right thing to do during a pandemic. It’s not lost on me that shortly after the election…. And I believe that the day of the election was safe, but people did get together and gather.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

By calling this election, I believe that the infection rates were in part because people were gathering as they do during an election to talk about policy, to talk about candidates, to talk about the leaders, to talk about the election in general. I believe that that is in part why our numbers went up. We did not need to put people at risk, in my opinion, to hold an election.

My point for that is that one of the things that is required is trust. How can you trust a government that put their own needs ahead of the needs of the people, the citizens, during a pandemic? To me, that trust has been broken.

After that, during the middle of this, we’ve also watched while this government has quietly, gradually undone many of the safeguards the previous government put in place to ensure transparency and responsibility around the budget in B.C. Transparency — you know, good democracy requires sunlight. It requires lots of sunlight. It requires that because it’s that sanitation. It brings things out into the light, away from the shadows, away from the back rooms.

[5:35 p.m.]

Part of what happens now is one side of the House, our side of the House, holds to account the government. That’s what opposition does. What’s being asked of us is that we should just close our eyes, because we can’t see what’s in this. We can’t debate any particular line item, because it hasn’t been presented. Had this government planned ahead…. They’ve had plenty of time to do so. They were able to plan an election. Surely they could have planned a budget.

They’ve asked for delay after delay. Now here we are, expected to trust that the moneys that are supposed to be spent will be spent appropriately. Yet we cannot see them and debate them, as what happens in good democracy.

Section 1 legally deems last year’s estimates to be the estimates for 2021, thereby exempting the supply bill from restrictions under section 23 of the Financial Administration Act, which 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….”

Unfortunately, we cannot debate that right now. We’re being asked to blindly trust a government that broke its word, broke its promise with regards to a fixed election date. We’re supposed to now trust that same government, and for me, that trust has been broken. Delaying budgets, quarterly reports, and expanding the use of special warrants, which are only to be used in extraordinary times…. The argument could be made that a pandemic is an extraordinary time. But really, they’re finding ways to bypass transparency.

Now, I’ve been in the province of British Columbia…. Other than when I got my doctorate and I had to leave this province, I have lived in this province my entire life. I have seen my fair share of governments come and go. But I also remember, for instance, when the first NDP government, when I was young, brought in ICBC. It brought in ICBC. One of the hallmark reasons was to make insurance affordable for younger drivers. Yet it’s no surprise that this same government has now made it some of the most unaffordable insurance in all of the land.

I remember Bingogate. The scandal that that was. I remember the fudge-it budgets of the ’90s. Here we are with some of the very same players that were involved in that. The current Premier was the chief of staff, and the Health Minister — they were all around for those notorious days back in the 1990s. I remember the Premier of the day having to resign in disgrace. I remember watching the news when the RCMP raided his house. I remember the time when the current Minister of Health was forced to resign from his job for backdating a memo.

The fudge-it budget saw a Premier claim the budget was balanced prior to the election and then was surprised that it wasn’t. No one was surprised after the votes were counted.

[5:40 p.m.]

Here we are in a similar situation, where for many British Columbians, myself.… That trust, for me, has been broken in some way, has been removed to take a look at what…. We’re actually wanting to throw our hands up, and we’re not talking about small potatoes. We’re talking about billions, and we are just supposed to say: “Yeah, that’s good. Don’t worry about it. Yep. Fire away. I’m sure you’ll do the right thing. We don’t need to look at that.” That’s not how it works.

Then, to further that trust, especially when it comes to money management, I’m left to look at the investment that was put into the Massey bridge, to replace the Massey Tunnel, and how that was just walked away from over political ideology. I’m left to look at the freeway expansion, which is supposed to go all the way to 264th and actually stops 500 feet short of 264th — one of the fifth most likely places to have an accident, by the way — and it will do nothing. It is money misspent.

I’m not comfortable writing a blank cheque. On top of that, what have we got to go on? We haven’t had a proper quarterly report. We have recovery programs that have been mismanaged, bungled, whatever you want to call them. The money is not getting to those that it was promised to help. Yet the Premier comes before this House, asking for $13 billion without a budget or how it’s going to be spent.

That’s just not good enough. It’s just not right. It’s got some sounds to it that are all too familiar. It’s this kind of behaviour that I would remind…. This previous government had to bring in the protections in the first place, measures that this government is currently trying to circumvent with the bill that they’ve placed before us today.

This House was working collaboratively together, and now here we are. We’re no longer, in my opinion, at that point where we can trust to work collaboratively. How can you work collaboratively together when the very agreement that you had for a fixed election date was just ripped up because you liked the numbers in the polls?

Good democracy requires debate. Good democracy requires being given the opportunity to go over the numbers and check them. The opposition is being denied that, in this particular moment in front of us.

I watched what our government did prior to me getting here. I was proud that they brought in a balanced budget. I was proud that they brought in fixed budget dates, fixed election dates. You know what? We had one of the greatest economies in all of Canada.

Sadly, my recollection of every time the NDP has come to power is that we are left with an economy that’s in shambles. I remember once there was a slogan: “Will the last person leaving B.C. please turn out the lights?” I remember graduating when the economy was in a very bad state. It’s been 25 years. But this is an old play. It’s right out of the NDP playbook. You can’t have this kind of secrecy, not for this kind of money. You just can’t. I don’t want to see history repeat itself.

[5:45 p.m.]

I got into this because I wanted a better life for my grandchildren and all of the children. I listened to my colleague from Chilliwack when he said that he would be the last person, the last generation, to own a home. I was struck by the lack of hope, the lack of vision and the lack of being able to encourage people. I refuse to believe in my heart that that is the case.

The NDP are asking us for billions of dollars without telling us how they’re going to spend it. The public deserve better than that. There’s no budget, there are no reports, there’s no quarterly report, and there’s no update picture with regards to the financial position.

I think that this side of the House had plenty of opportunity to plan a budget and to make sure that budget was done in an open and transparent manner. That’s what good governance is about. That’s what good democracy requires — that transparency. It’s no wonder, based on its track record, why people have questions about trust.

What this bill is going to do is appropriate funds for the first quarter of the fiscal year. That staggering amount is $13.4 billion. It is limited, as I mentioned, to a formula on a percentage of the previous year’s budget, as it was laid out in Bill 3, the Finance Statutes Amendment Act 2020, voted on last session.

If we’re to follow tradition, generally this has been presented after the main estimates, and budgets are presented to the Legislative Assembly by the Finance Minister. That’s what normally happens, and it’s done that way for a reason. It’s because it allows for good governance. This Legislature will now be asked to be voting on the first quarter of a fiscal year’s expenses during unprecedented times, without having seen a budget. “Trust us. We’re going to do the right thing.” How do we know that?

You broke trust for me when, during a pandemic, somebody looked at numbers and decided to win an election for their own personal gain. This side of the House has reason not to trust…. But more importantly than that, the public demands of us that we ask questions and say: “You know what? Show us your numbers. Show us your budget. Let’s talk about it line item by line item, and maybe we can actually help you spend some of it better.”

Take 264th for instance. It makes no logical sense why you would stop widening a freeway 500 feet prior to one of the fifth most accident-prone places in the entire province. It does nothing to help the gridlock, and it’s only going to make it worse. That would be something that we should talk about. That should be something that should be open. It’s one of many things that should be open.

We should be talking about why it is that funds are not getting to the right places. Why is it that the tourism industry, who is hanging on by their fingernails, is being left out? Show us the numbers. Show us your plan. Show us how we can debate this bill so we can make it a little better. There are some sections on this bill…. Section 3, for instance, appropriates $365 million for capital expenditures and financing transactions. Okay, great, but for what? Section 4 appropriates $722 million for disbursements and transfers. Okay, show us what those are for.

[5:50 p.m.]

I am saddened that this is where we are. I am sadd­ened that the trust has been broken, and this particular government with this budget would rather leave it hidden than just open up the books and say: “Here it is.” They had plenty of time to do this. They had an obligation, during a pandemic, to do it. The excuses that I have heard are just not good enough. If all it is, is copy-and-paste from the last budget, well, that should be fairly easy to debate. Yet it’s not.

I don’t think that the public deserves to be left in the dark. I think sunlight should be shone on this, especially during these times. I think that both sides of the House have the right to debate the budget. It’s one of the most important things that we’re going to do. Yet it appears to me that the old playbook, that old movie, is being played once again. A little sidestep, a little soft-shoe. But it’s not fun and games. It’s not fun and games at all.

I find it shameful. I think that the public deserves to see, especially during a pandemic, especially when we made them go to the polls during the middle of a pandemic. They have a right to take a look at the numbers. They have a right to take a look at the books and see how their money is going to be spent, to see how much of a deficit our grandchildren most likely will have to pay off and how that’s going to be spent. I think this side of the House has a right to debate that. I believe that we are being robbed of that opportunity because of this.

It’s bad enough that this election was held early. It’s bad enough that the world is where it is at the moment. I think that there is some insight, if we were all pulling together, where we could actually improve and tweak parts of this budget. I am troubled — deeply, deeply troubled — that that hallmark of a budget has been removed.

You can’t play it both ways. You can’t say, “Hey, you know what? My numbers are really good. Let’s pull an election so we can win,” and then hide the budget. It needs to be exposed to sunlight. That’s what good democracy is about. We all got in this to try and do better, and collectively, I still think we can. But the way it stands, there have just been far too many missteps on things that should not have been missteps. There’s been far too many, I think.

Traffic gridlock in the Lower Mainland is at epic proportions, and because of ideology, being able to fix that was taken away. To me, that’s all part and parcel of why I have a lack of trust that this particular budget is going to do the right thing by British Columbians, that this particular budget is going to do anything to increase the hopes of the people that are out there and are just trying to hang on and get through this.

We’re there. The vaccine is here. There is hope on the horizon. Now is not the time to be hiding a budget, not during these extraordinary times.

[5:55 p.m.]

I want to thank you for the ability for me to share some of my thoughts on this particular budget. I want to thank you for hearing this side out. It’s just a shame that we don’t have the ability to actually get into the meat and potatoes of this budget, because we’re being denied the ability to even look at it. British Columbians deserve the right to look at a budget that amounts to $13 billion. I am at a loss as to why any government would want to deny that ability from those that elected it. I think it’s a bit of Russian roulette, and I have a hunch it’s going to backfire. But it need not.

Let’s look at the numbers. Let’s talk about them. Let’s work together and try and do right so that this economy will be strong coming out of this pandemic. We all know that this economy is going to need help. The tourism sector alone will need our help. How can we help with our hands tied behind our backs and blindfolded because we’re not able to actually look at things in a proper manner?

I’m not comfortable writing a blank cheque, and neither are British Columbians. I’m not comfortable not being able to look at the numbers to help those in our community that need help. I believe that how this budget went around and how it was not exposed is the furthest thing from what democracy should be, and I am deeply, deeply saddened and troubled.

With that, I will end my remarks, and I appreciate the privilege of being able to have spoken in front of the House.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Stikine. Sorry — minister.

Minister, please proceed.

Hon. N. Cullen: Good evening to you and to the members and to the public watching.

I am speaking to you from Smithers, British Columbia, on Wet’suwet’en territory and Gitdumden territory, to be more specific.

It’s a pleasure to be joining you and to be talking about Bill 10, the interim supply bill.

I’d heard before I had entered B.C. politics that the B.C. Liberals had a certain obsession with the 1990s. I don’t know if it was the Beanie Babies or the “Macarena” or the girl bands and boy bands that entertained us all through that wonderful decade.

To my Liberal colleagues, I want to say that it’s time to let it go. We’ve had a couple of decades since then. A lot has gone on in the world. Harry Potter is no longer young. We’ve moved on. Y2K didn’t turn out to be much of a thing. So if all the Liberals have to go on are proscriptions that they obsessed over 20, 30 years ago, it’s no wonder that voters had such a difficult time understanding the offer the Liberals were making to the challenges that we faced in the 2020s, which is where we are right now.

Today we are debating an interim supply bill which the opposition has taken a new-found obsession over in trying to pull back some great conspiracy theory of how the government is acting and conducting itself, when interim supply bills are what governments do. They bridge the programs and supports that citizens rely on to take us into the budget.

[6:00 p.m.]

I know the Liberals are just so hopeful and waiting to see what Budget 2021 will look like. Just 30 more sleeps or so and we’ll get them there. We’ll be unveiling exciting and important new programs to help British Columbians through what everyone has recognized as unprecedented times.

Let’s take a look at what the government has done, because past action is a good predictor of future action. This government has looked to support people through one of the most trying and difficult times for so many British Columbians. We’ve seen $10 billion allocated and spent to support British Columbians, to support British Columbian businesses and communities at the very grassroots level, right from the very beginning of this difficult time.

In particular — and this is what a social democratic government does — we have focused on the most vulnerable in our society, those that would be affected most by the slowdown and shutdown of certain aspects of our economy, to make sure that those people got attention first.

Now, I’ve seen right-wing ideological governments, like the one prior to us forming government, who focus only on the wealthy and well connected, making sure that they have their corporate tax cuts and their wealthy tax cuts in place before anything else is done, that they can speculate on homes and drive up the prices for everybody. The Liberals were fantastic at taking care of their friends over those many years.

I suppose our friends are the working people in this province. Our friends, as a government, are those that are struggling day to day and week to week just to get by. We knew 12 months ago, when this difficult journey began, that those people would be the ones that we needed to look out for first.

It is this government, more than any other government in this entire country of ours, that protected the most vulnerable in society. It was this government that supported small and medium businesses to the highest rate of any government in this country. It was this government that looked at not only cleaning up the messes of things like ICBC….

It amazes me, the audacity of colleagues across the way that want to bring up ICBC as an example of what this government is not doing enough of. The Solicitor General and the Attorney General have had to take that appropriately named dumpster fire back, hose it down, clean it up and then be able to operate a good public insurer once again.

What have the results been? My goodness. Better coverage, lower rates, better service for British Columbians and working people that not only help those families but help out our broader economy. If the Liberals want to keep bringing up examples like ICBC, my goodness, I encourage them to do so.

We also have helped out with social assistance. We saw the minister out today, helping out 300,000 of our fellow citizens who rely on these supports just to be able to eat, just to be able to pay rent. There will be increases, the largest increase in our history.

More support for seniors. That was just announced today, and I didn’t hear a Liberal once mention it. I assume that they have seniors in their constituencies. I assume that they have working and poor people in their constituencies, but I just don’t hear them mention them very often.

I’ve been in opposition. I’ve spent my fair time there. I know that the opposition’s role, and it’s an important role, is to be able to hold government to account, to question the initiatives. There are times when the government is doing the right thing, and the smart thing for an opposition to do is to just simply say: “Yes, more of that, because it’s helping people that need the help most.” I know it’s difficult, and it doesn’t often happen. It might not get them the odd headline or an extra tweet, but it really helps out British Columbians, who we all work for.

Now, we’ve seen the supports this government has done to keep people in their homes, to make sure that there were no evictions during this pandemic, to make sure that renovictions became a thing of the past. I know, in the constituency that I represent, certainly a rural one in northern British Columbia, the old landlord trick of changing a countertop or a carpet in the hallway, evicting somebody for that and then jacking the rent up — twice, sometimes three times as much — because there was a possibility of making just a bit more money.

That wasn’t the province and the place that we wanted to live in. So we made changes to the way things worked so that that couldn’t happen again. I’m still waiting to hear from the opposition how that was a good thing. That’s just a good idea. Instead, I hear: “Well, there are bad landlords, and there are bad tenants. There are good landlords, and there are good tenants.” No kidding. What we’re trying to do is stop the bad landlords from being bad landlords.

[6:05 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: If I might, Minister, as I gave the caution to an earlier member who decided to speak on that legislation, which we passed in this session, of course, I’ll draw your attention to Bill 10, the Supply Act.

Hon. N. Cullen: Absolutely. Thank you very much, Speaker. You can understand the temptation that we have of speaking about those good initiatives, even after they have passed the House, because they are so good. It’s so important to remind British Columbians of them, but I take your heeding and your warning.

Now, Bill 10, the interim supply bill, allows the bridging to take us through to the next budget, allows the government to continue doing the good work that people elected us to do, allows us to continue the progress we’ve made on the recovery rate. The fact that 99 percent or more….

Almost 100 percent of the jobs that were lost over the course of the pandemic have been replaced, in part because of government support and in large part because of the resiliency of this province. The resiliency of those small and medium businesses, despite all of the things changing around them, having to change the way that they operate their businesses, having to change the way they do the basic day-to-day activities that they had grown successful at, has allowed us to recover back so many more of those jobs. And there’s still more to do.

Bill 10 speaks to this — that our ability to bridge and make sure that those support programs are there and that the wage subsidies that were brought in previously and the programs that people have been relying on, small businesses and individuals alike, will still be there. That’s what this bill does.

What are the Liberals deciding to do? Well, they want to talk about the ’90s. They don’t want to talk about the 2020s. They don’t want to talk about this year or next year or our possibility to recover as a province, at our individual community level, even stronger than we went into this. We need to extend our hand to our friends across the way and say: “Work with us a little bit more.”

Point out where you have problems, of course. But on the things that work, support it. When we’re rolling out vaccines and we’re putting them into the arms of British Columbians to keep us safe, note that. Support that. Make sure that people understand that in your communities, vaccines are being made available to our elders, to our most vulnerable, to Indigenous populations in rural and remote communities and, more and more, to those who are on the front lines and who have done so well.

Bill 10 speaks to continuing on the programs that we need to continue on. Now, if this is the bill that the Liberals are choosing to filibuster, it’s curious to me. There must be other things that they don’t want to talk about.

When the opposition wants to fill up the clock on something and say some great travesty and conspiracy are taking place — when interim supply bills are as old as parliament, when the idea of bringing forward legislation, bringing forward a bill like this one, that takes us through to the budget, maintains the programs that people are relying on…. It is a good thing, a natural course of events in a democracy.

They can scream to the rooftops that something else is happening, something untoward is happening, when, in fact, we know this is how governments supply the interim to allow and to take us through to the next so that programs aren’t cut, so that there aren’t suddenly people phoning up and saying: “I expected this support. What happened?”

I want to make some reference to this. It’s come up in debate, and I think it bears some notice. Time and time again I’ve watched colleagues in the Liberal Party refer to those across the way who are not in cabinet as backbenchers who are not aware of what’s going on, backbenchers who aren’t in on the details. Somehow their voices are diminished.

I considered standing on a point of order or privilege on this. No member’s voice, in this House, should ever be diminished, regardless of the position that they hold. We don’t treat, in our caucus, those that are in cabinet differently from those that are not in cabinet. We believe that the voices representing the constituents we’re here to represent need to be heard, regardless of position.

Now, that may not have been true when the Liberals were in government. It may be that they diminished backbenchers, as they would call them, calling them these less-referenced people. They couldn’t have the same space and occupation in our debates in this Legislature. We disagree with that. I would encourage my Liberal colleagues, regardless of who’s speaking to them from across the floor — that they show them that basic modicum of respect.

They were elected here, just like you. They have a voice to bring to a bill like this one, just like you. Referencing people as if they are on two tiers, that there are some voices that are more important than others….

You’ll forgive me, Speaker, for being somewhat impassioned about this. I’ve seen effective people from all sides of the House, opposition and government, from within cabinet and without. We as parliamentarians, we as legislators, should do all we can to encourage people into the debate, not seek to diminish them because they hold a certain position in the House.

[6:10 p.m.]

What a privilege and honour it is to sit and speak in the Legislature of British Columbia. What a privilege it is to represent, and attempt to speak on behalf of, others. This constant referencing of “backbenchers,” of those less than, infuriates me as a democrat, infuriates me as a citizen. Regardless of where you live in the province, regardless of who’s representing you, we all hope for good, strong representation.

I live here in Stikine, where we are hewers of wood and drawers of water. Our resource industry is really important. Bill 10, the interim supply bill — to allow the programs that are supporting those natural resource sector industries, supporting those workers — is something that I can easily support.

I look forward to the next budget that the Finance Minister will bring down, to see where it is that we can continue to build a more just and socially responsible economy, one that considers the environment, one that implements things like the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, one that actually makes the possibility of British Columbia becoming what it was always hoped for: a place where, regardless of your background and orientation, you could live, thrive and survive in this province.

Now, I know there have been a lot of speeches today. I’m sure there are Liberal colleagues that would like to also rise and bring us back to the 1990s. Maybe they can start to talk about their favourite boy bands. I know I have my own personal list. I do hope they speak to the present and the future as well — what we are doing here today as well.

In passing this bill and allowing the Legislature to go through this debate, and finally come to a Committee of the Whole and have a vote — and then move on so that the programs that we’ve initiated can be supported with the public dollars that are being allocated in this bill — we can then talk about the many challenges and opportunities we face as a province.

We can come together as a Legislature, as we did a year ago, when it was realized that the challenges facing us in this pandemic were extraordinary, they were unprecedented, and they required all of our best thinking. They didn’t require tactics. They didn’t require filibustering. They didn’t require taking up the agenda of the Legislature to talk about something that happened two, three decades ago. It talked about us dealing with the circumstances that we find ourselves in right now. I think that was the best of our parliaments right across this country, when people could find common ground. It’s not often. It’s not necessarily common, but it’s important.

I wholeheartedly support this bill.

Just one last thing. I noticed my colleague for Richmond South Centre was making, I think, his first speech. If that was his first speech, my goodness. We’re going to have to get him on the rolls more and more often. The passion and enthusiasm he has for Richmond South Centre, his energy, are something that…. As someone who’s spent a bit of time in some legislatures, I’m just so impressed and so enthusiastic to hear more from my colleague and more from many others.

We have a lot of work to do. We have a lot of things that we want to get done for this great province of ours. I look forward to the debate. I look forward to the debate that takes place even in this millennia. That would be fantastic, because the more we can talk about now, the more we can talk about today and what we hope for in the future, the better off we’re serving all of our constituents.

A. Wilkinson: I’d like to thank everyone for participating in this rather complicated but effective hybrid session. We’re all doing the best we can under the circumstances — my colleague from Stikine doing it through modern technology from Smithers.

It’s remarkable that we can accomplish this. Of course, many of our colleagues have reasons they are best to stay away from the Legislature — health reasons or family reasons — and this has actually proven to be a successful mechanism for conducting the business of the province.

Before we examine the substance of the bill, which obviously is very limited, the minister of state’s remarks call for a response. He asks us to let go. Well, there are a few things we won’t let go of: integrity, transparency, accountability, the role of the Auditor General, the legislation that was passed to make sure that budgets are accountable and transparent. This piece of legislation asks us to discard all of those in favour of expediency for the government of the day.

We will not let go of integrity, regardless of what the minister of state says. We will not let go of accountability and let the NDP recreate the fiasco of the late 1990s, where they ignored accounting standards, where they played fast and loose with the money of the people of British Columbia, and where the British Columbia electorate took fierce revenge on them for that kind of behaviour.

[6:15 p.m.]

The minister of state says, “Only 30 more sleeps,” and he asks us for $13.5 billion. That’s $450 million of unaccounted, unattributed, unbudgeted money for every sleep. Certainly, where I live and in the family I grew up in, $450 million a day of unaccounted funding is not acceptable. It screams out for accountability, transparency and for a credible budgetary process.

I will not accept the admonitions of the minister of state living in Smithers as he says that we should just let it go. “There’s no need to be here. No need to ask any questions. Nothing to see here. Just give us $13½ billion.” He says he does this with the voice of our most vulnerable, with the voice of the population that he purports to have a special access and representation for because he’s a social democrat.

Well, I will be talking this afternoon and tomorrow about some of those most vulnerable people — the seniors who cannot get vaccines, the 94-year-old who’s waiting for the vaccine while their neighbours in Alberta are getting it age 60 and, in Ontario, getting it age 61, while 94-year-olds are dismissed in British Columbia and can’t get the vaccine.

I’ll be talking this afternoon and tomorrow about the Vancouver school students who are having their education destroyed this year through the capricious behaviour of this government and the Vancouver school board in their inability to deliver the most basic statutory requirement for education in high school. We have thousands of high school students in the city of Vancouver. Roughly 18,000 are receiving 1.75 hours a day of education, and that’s to be upgraded to 2.75 hours. Are these students vulnerable? They’re highly vulnerable, because they are determining how they enter the adult world, and this government is letting them founder.

If that is how the minister of state purports to be protecting the most vulnerable, he has a lot of work to do now that he’s finally in government after decades in opposition in Ottawa.

The NDP have consistently failed the students of my riding, the students of Vancouver, and have consistently failed in the vaccine rollout, which is 25 years ahead, in terms of age groupings, in Ontario and Alberta compared to British Columbia, when the per-capita vaccine deliveries are identical, as managed by the government of Canada.

The minister of state talks about two tiers and how he doesn’t believe in that. Well, that certainly wasn’t apparent during an election campaign when the us-and-them brochure came out, showing who are good British Columbians and who are bad British Columbians.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member — sorry — for just a moment.

Hon. L. Beare: Just rising on a point. We are speaking to Bill 11. I’ll remind the member, through the Chair, please.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Noted.

Member, please proceed.

A. Wilkinson: Thank you. As I recall, we’re actually speaking to Bill 10, but that is a technicality.

Rather than engaging in the kind of hypocrisy that we just heard from the minister of state, the kind of bland statements that actually have no substance, that do not serve the vulnerable people of British Columbia — those high school students and seniors — we need to talk about how we ended up with this bill on the docket in the first place.

We cannot forget that it was in 2000 when the NDP were finally caught on the carpet, the last time that funds were appropriated without legislative approval as the NDP overshot their budget by $495 million and needed special warrants to do so — totally unaccountable, totally un­budgeted and totally ignoring the audit process.

We then moved on to 2001 when our party was obliged to amend the NDP’s Budget Transparency and Accountability Act to make it real, to make it something substantive, so that people could have credibility when they talked about B.C. budgets. That was 20 years ago. Special warrants were barred, except in natural disasters and the period surrounding an election.

[6:20 p.m.]

Here we have the NDP asking for $450 million per sleep, as the minister of state puts it, with no budget, no accountability, and based upon budgetary documents that they themselves say that, as of a year ago, were irrelevant and of no relevance at all to the funding of services in British Columbia.

We now have the consequences of the BTAA amendments in 2001 that require third-party accounting principles to be respected — generally accepted accounting principles — because the NDP made them up as they went along in the 1990s. They faked them. They falsified financial statements. The Minister of Health today was involved in falsifying documents in the Premier’s office.

This is the record that we now see looming up once more, with members of the NDP proudly stating that all of that accountability is just a lot of tosh, that it’s not really all that important because we’re in a pandemic. Well, look around the world. Why are we so special that we don’t need any kind of accountability? We don’t need any transparency. We don’t need a budget. In fact, maybe there’s no need for a legislature at all, when you’re in that kind of state of mind.

We have to continue to press this party, to press the NDP government, to focus on the things that really matter to British Columbians, to focus on the things that are going to be needed in the future as they spend this $13.5 billion, which they will pass in a budget. As this act proceeds, they will have that money in hand. They will use that money in the 30 sleeps until the budget, as the minister of state describes it, and they will have no accountability whatsoever.

This is shameful. It raises the question of why we come to the Legislature at all, except to pass one-page bills giving the government of the day $450 million to spend for every sleep. That is wrong. There’s no point in getting elected if it’s just to rubber-stamp one-page bills that consist of the entire budget of the province. We have to consider: what is it we have to be concerned about? What are the things that jump out at us that need to get addressed?

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It’s going to be a long process as we go through this budget that comes up 30 sleeps from now, as the minister of state puts it, because the NDP are not telling us what’s going on. There is no transparency at all. We have faced a world where they have quietly and gradually undone all the safeguards that the previous government put in place to ensure that transparency and responsibility. We now have delayed budgets, meaningless budgets, no quarterly reports, which the finance officials who we are well acquainted with are fully capable of producing, but they are being suppressed for political reasons.

This use of special warrants with Bill 10 and its equivalents is totally inappropriate in a democracy. That’s why the legislation had to be passed by the NDP in the year 2000, and then amended to give it real teeth in 2001, to prevent exactly this kind of behaviour by a high-handed government.

We have to look at the circumstances we’re in. They say it’s a pandemic. Of course it’s a pandemic. That’s stating the obvious. One year ago last month, in March, members of this House unanimously approved a $5 billion COVID recovery aid package. We fully supported that, because the wheels had come off the bus in the world economy. The federal government leapt into the gap and filled it with programs like CERB, which we are all pleased to have seen come in to rescue the Canadian economy and the working people of Canada.

We took the government at the word they provided back in March of 2020, when they said how they would use it. We expected it would be put to that use right away, helping British Columbians get through a difficult time. Instead, we immediately saw the money being squirrelled away, being saved up for election goodies because they had an alternative agenda. They had a plan to splash out cash just before an election because only they controlled when that election would be held.

When the NDP finally got around to announcing the small and medium-sized business recovery grant, the support was delayed getting to people because of the election. The Premier said: “Oh no, don’t worry. The government works through an election.” That is patently false because of the caretaker mode the government goes into. In the more than six months since it was announced — nearly a year after it was approved — this lifeline for business has been able to get out only 16 percent of the budgeted money because of ridiculous criteria, because of a bureaucratic process. In the meantime, these small, family-run businesses are failing left, right and centre.

[6:25 p.m.]

Just walk down any business street and see the business failures while this government sits on billions of dollars of unspent money that could have been support, providing financing and keeping those businesses alive.

I reserve the right to continue my submissions to the House.

A. Wilkinson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.