Orders of the Day

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

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2021

(continued)

S. Cadieux: I am pleased to take my place to speak to Bill 10 today.

A typical supply act passes without much debate, and the purpose is simply to allow government to continue to function and serve the necessary purpose. But things have been anything but typical this past year, and nothing these days is simple.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

The past three years, while juggling two simultaneous health crises, the government has slipped into an old pattern which we’ve all seen before: grow government, raise taxes, blame anyone and everyone and everything else for your broken promises. Now, those things I expected from government. The fact that they claimed to have all the solutions to all the intractable issues while they were in opposition only highlighted their naivety and lust for office that had been fueled by 16 years in the trenches of opposition.

But what really worries me is that this returning NDP government has, in their brief tenure, already stealthily reversed the safeguards that were in place to ensure transparency and responsibility around the budget in British Columbia — safeguards put in place by the previous government, I might add, after a financially disastrous NDP era gone by.

It should be no surprise to anyone that we’ve ended up here today. Most of the front bench were here for the notorious fudge-it budget. The Premier and the chief of staff were all behind the scenes when an NDP Premier had to resign in disgrace, when the RCMP raided the Premier’s home. The current Minister of Health was forced to resign from his job in the Premier’s office for backdating a memo, yet he’s here today.

Now we’ve got a Premier who calls a snap election in the middle of a pandemic. We haven’t had a proper quarterly report in a year. Recovery programs, one after another, are unworkable, edited on the fly and not getting relief where it needs to go. And despite all of this, the Premier comes before this House and asks for $13 billion without telling us how it’ll be spent.

It’s all a little familiar. This kind of irresponsible behaviour is the very reason our government brought in the protections — the same measures that this government is currently trying to circumvent.

[1:35 p.m.]

What exactly did our government do when we were in office? Well, we brought in balanced budgets. That was a first. We brought in fixed budget dates, we engaged an Economic Forecast Council, and we took all the steps that made B.C. the Canadian leader for sound, transparent fiscal management. All of them were necessary to correct the mistakes of the previous NDP government.

All of those things were lauded, and noted, and amplified by the previous NDP Finance Minister during their first couple of years in office as things to be proud of. Proud of British Columbia’s fiscal position. Proud of our leadership in Canada. Proud of our balanced-budget legislation. But the NDP have since dusted off the old NDP playbook. History is now repeating itself.

Now, just before me, and just before lunch, the Attorney General had the gall to suggest that he’s disappointed in what he deems to be hyper-partisan hyperbole. I hope he remembers that all of these debates are recorded and that he might watch himself. Because he certainly provided some great examples of hyper-partisan hyperbole in his speech.

The Attorney General suggests that we are here to debate this bill because government needs more time to complete a thorough budget and include all of the impacts of the pandemic. He says that revenues have been deeply affected, that we should be pleased that they’re going to take more time to figure things out and that we shouldn’t be asking for an earlier budget, that that’s somehow un­reasonable.

But no, Minister, we don’t want an earlier budget. We want it on the already extended timeline you legislated yourself last year in preparation for a fall election. The AG fearmongers that were trying to make the situation like the U.S., where supply bills paralyze government services — that failing to pass a supply vote would lead to a U.S.-style shutdown.

What did he say exactly? “We see gamesmanship around supply bills in the United States. How does that end up? Government workers go unpaid. Essential services are shuttered. The only people who hurt are the people in the communities that don’t get the services. Nothing is gained by it.” Well, it’s blatantly false.

It’s true for the States, but here, if a supply bill fails, it’s a loss of confidence. And we go to an election. In that case, if a budget hadn’t yet passed, a special warrant would be justified. Cabinet could pass an OIC and simply procure the money needed in the interregnum. Section 24 the Financial Administration Act sets that out.

It’s not surprising that the Attorney General would suggest something false, probably in error, all just to grandstand and suggest that our debate of this bill is somehow a crisis for the province. So I’m happy to help the AG out with a little bit of parliamentary process. But, again, we know he’s quite often wrong in his interpretation of things. So there you have it.

No, it won’t be like that in British Columbia. It can’t be like that. Government will use their majority to ensure this bill passes and they give themselves a blank cheque. It also won’t happen because we don’t want government services to grind to a halt any more than the government does. What we are doing right now is simply our opposition duty, to point out what government is doing, question their decision to keep B.C. in the dark, question their priorities and alert the public to the fact that this is anything but normal. It signals a very, very arrogant government, prepared to treat the public purse like a private piggy bank, willing to change the law and obfuscate to do that.

The minister stood here today and said that government needs more time to figure out what to do, so they can present a plan on time. Why should we be surprised? All we’ve seen from this government is plans to make plans. But for the minister to suggest that a blank cheque should be given to his government — to his government — when his own government can’t provide education services to his own constituents….

[1:40 p.m.]

The Education budget is the second largest in government. And we should just agree silently to keep throwing the money, at last year’s rates, for services that aren’t being delivered? His constituents should be worried about that. My constituents, in the largest district in the province, are getting their education. Why can’t his district do it? Why isn’t his government ensuring that it’s happening?

Those of us on this side of the House, many of whom were responsible for the positive practices that gave B.C. a glowing financial reputation, have had to listen to government suggest that we’re asking too much and being unreasonable when we ask for a budget before we approve money. Facts never get in the way of an NDP narrative, just like good governance isn’t getting in the way for them now. How can the NDP possibly expect British Columbians to sign over a blank cheque for $13 billion to a government that gives no indication, no measure, around how they plan to spend that money?

When we look at what normally happens…. What’s normal? Well, government would present a plan through a throne speech. Then they’d present a budget, which is like the how — how they’re going to implement all of those great things in that throne speech. Then a supply bill, like this one, is put up against that plan — the budget — to hold over until we’ve done the line-by-line debate of the budget and the plan through the estimates. That’s what’s normal.

That’s what governments have done for decades. That’s how a competent government presents its plan to the people and provides transparency into their actions. That’s how oppositions are able to do their job — to hold government to account.

This year it’s very different. As the Finance Minister said herself: “This bill is different from interim supply bills that are usually presented to the House each year. This interim supply bill is being presented before the main estimates have been presented. Therefore, the calculation of the amounts required for government operations and services is based on the appropriations for the previous fiscal year, as this is considered a good approximation.”

This supply act is notable for that very reason and for the fact that the House is being asked for $13.4 billion based on appropriations from a budget from last year — which, the Premier admitted, not even a month after the budget was presented, really wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on because of the changes that were inevitable as a result of the pandemic. We have seen no update. We don’t know where the budget is at. We don’t have a clue where things are at from last year. We don’t know. Was it enough? Was it not enough? Where are they spending the money? Where are they not spending the money?

We spent the estimates last summer trying to figure out where they were going to spend the $5 billion in COVID relief funds. It took all summer to find out that indeed, the money that had been promised to business was in fact not being spent on businesses. It was being moved to other programs. I’m not saying some of those things weren’t necessary or essential. But we had to pull it out of government. They weren’t transparent about it. They weren’t upfront about it. They kept us in the dark about the last $1½ billion right through into September. Why did they do that? I wonder. Maybe it’s because they wanted to hold that money for an election promise.

The fact that we don’t have a budget to hold this supply bill up to is an obvious problem for anyone who values government transparency. Generally, the problem is avoided because the budget has already been tabled. So we know what government plans to do with the money. But as a result of the NDP’s snap election and their decision to delay the budget until April, British Columbians, and the opposition, are left in the dark. It’s not good enough, by my standards, or the standards of the constituents I represent. I believe in transparency. I believe that this government’s financial decisions should be scrutinized.

[1:45 p.m.]

I’m the first one to admit that I don’t disagree with all of the decisions government makes or wants to make, but when I rise to tell this House and the people of this province that the legislation before us actually contains a workaround from the financial rules and the Financial Administration Act and that the NDP are legally supposed to present a budget first, clearly this is an issue.

The members of this House and the people of B.C. want to know, and deserve to know, what the NDP is planning to do with the money. Frankly, we on this side of the aisle have no confidence that they’ll spend the money well or even in a way that they tell us they will. They argue that they aren’t ready and that they couldn’t possibly present a budget on time. Yet they can make a $400 million ongoing structural spending commitment. They’re ready for that.

They’re hiding, though, from the public and the opposition, how that’s accomplished. They’re taking the bows, but how do we know that the people of B.C. can afford the decision? We have no glimpse into the financial picture for the province. We have seen multiple examples, in the past year alone, of this government requesting money, the members of this House agreeing in good faith, and then the NDP doing something different.

One year ago, last March, the members of this House unanimously approved $5 billion for recovery. We took the government at their word when they said how they’d use it, and we expected it would be put to use right away helping British Columbians through a difficult time. That’s what all legislators expected. But instead of immediately using the money to provide relief, they sat on the money for months and, as I said, later decided to use it as a part of their election platform. Promises made and promises broken. That’s really what this government is good at. Lots of talk; very little action. Lots of big plans; then lots of blame everywhere but on themselves, when they don’t deliver.

I’ll go back again to the minister’s comments in her opening statement. The minister said in her opening comments that we’ve been hearing from the tourism sector, that we’ve been hearing about the people that are struggling, that we’ve been hearing about the challenges in small business. Really? Are they? Well, what are they doing about it?

We’ve been hearing these issues for a year. We’ve been raising the issues for a year. We’ve been making suggestions for a year — not suggestions on how to hold money but on how to spend it, how government should be helping at this time and not quibbling about the fact that it’s going to mean a deficit. But in the election, when the NDP finally announced that small and medium-sized business recovery grant, support was delayed because of the election. In the more than six months since it has been announced, nearly a year after the money was approved, today they’ve only managed to get 25 percent of the funds out to businesses.

In over six months — over a year after we approved the spending of funds to support business recovery — only 25 percent of the fund has actually landed at a struggling business. How can we trust a government, which can’t even get $300 million in promised funds out the door to businesses in need, to spend $13.4 billion responsibly and appropriately, when they can’t present a budget on time and can’t get proper quarterly reports presented?

We have given the government ample opportunity to prove themselves in the last year. They sure haven’t risen to the occasion. We know they have no trouble raising taxes. They’ve done it 23 times. The newest are just settling in: Netflix and pop taxes.

Making life more affordable, one little thing at a time. Under the cover of the pandemic, they want you to forget that they promised you the moon. They promised to make life more affordable. I’ll give them a couple of things. For people who travelled over the Port Mann Bridge, the removal of tolls probably made life a little more affordable. I’ll give them that.

But they promised everyone cheaper housing, and that’s a big fat no. Housing prices, overall in the Lower Mainland, are up 16 percent last year alone. They promised renters rebates and cheaper rent, yet rent is up almost everywhere as people are fleeing the city of Vancouver.

[1:50 p.m.]

Car insurance — smoke and mirrors, up so much in the last three years that now they’re promising to give you a little of that back. And 10 percent more British Columbians are relying on income assistance than when the NDP took office. I don’t think life is any more affordable for them.

Now, none of us are naive. We know that government needs money and needs authority to spend it. We’re not saying that government doesn’t need money to continue to flow after April 1. But what is disheartening is that this government has so little respect for this House that they would come here, change the law, refuse to put in a budget but bring a supply act in and say: “Oh, by the way, we want $13 billion. Just sign off.” I can’t do that. It’s not responsible.

These are taxpayer dollars. We’re responsible for how they’re spent. I want to, and of course will, ensure that money continues to flow. People need to be paid, government services need to be delivered, and hospitals need to be open — all of those things. Of course. It’s ridiculous for the NDP to even suggest that we would try to stop that. But this is a lazy government. All questions are met with an answer of: “It’s a pandemic; don’t you know?” All requests for clarity around programs or why decisions are made are: “Well, we can’t provide that. We’re just too busy with the pandemic.”

You know what? It’s pathetic, and it’s disrespectful to voters. The government doesn’t have to like me, and they don’t have to like my questions. But it’s part of the deal. If they want to make the decisions and to govern, then they also have to answer the questions. They are the questions I am obligated to ask by virtue of the fact that I was elected. That’s how it works. I come here to ask questions on behalf of my constituents.

When emergency arose around the world last year, here in our Legislature, collectively, we did what was needed. We agreed to emergency spending of epic proportions, because we understood it couldn’t have been planned and needed to be flexible. But the government didn’t do what they said they would. They refused transparency. They held money back. They hid their plans, and they still haven’t come clean or clear on where the money went or didn’t. They used money that was provided in good faith to support British Columbians through the pandemic as an election platform. Think about that. We’re still waiting for the accounting.

Businesses are still waiting to see if that support will arrive, if their government will be there for them, to help them survive through this. Through debate, I heard a minister say he was concerned about what he thought the opposition was politicizing — some of the aspects of re­covery. What? Because we’re pointing out problems, suggesting solutions, and asking for answers to questions? Are you kidding me? How can he say that with a straight face? We are asking the questions that the people of British Columbia are asking of us.

The NDP called an election in a pandemic and used COVID recovery funds as an election platform. Who’s politicizing the pandemic? And now we’re debating a bill that changes the law around budgets and government finances because they can’t be bothered to do their job. They can’t meet a deadline they set — well, that they moved and set six months ago. Yes, I’m concerned about that. We’re concerned that government is asking for a blank cheque. Yet member after member of the government benches suggests: “Nothing to see here. It’s all good. All is normal.” But it is not that.

This is a self-serving group of people who chose to call an election and put governing aside, to halt the processes of government by thrusting it into caregiver mode. Then they couldn’t get their act in gear, and they fumble around with relief programs and bungle the supports for people with disabilities.

[1:55 p.m.]

This bill is just another reminder of this government failing and flailing. We need a government that is open and honest about everything, from how they are spending our money to COVID-19 data and vaccine rollouts. We need a government that does what it says it will. But as far as I can tell, this bill just continues to suggest the opposite.

I am deeply troubled by this bill. I am deeply troubled that government can make spending decisions to the tune of $400 million for every year going forward without presenting us with a plan that says how they’re going to pay for it. I’m not arguing that the $400 million they’ve provided and announced as support for people on income assistance is a bad decision. I’m suggesting I want to see the books.

Show me how this is going to be paid for. Where is it coming from? What’s got to give to make that happen? We need to know. If government is so confident they can afford to spend $400 million a year in perpetuity, then clearly, they have enough information to be presenting their budget today.

That’s the problem. This is a smoke-and-mirrors kind of decision on behalf of government to give themselves some flexibility to do some more things before they have to show the books. That’s a problem, because if it’s not that, then it’s incompetence. Either way, it’s not good enough for British Columbians. We deserve better.

J. Routledge: I’m speaking to you from the traditional, unceded territory of the Coast Salish people: the Mus­queam, the Squamish and the Tsleil-Waututh Nations. I do acknowledge that I’m here as their uninvited guest.

It had not been my intention to rise to speak to Bill 10. It is, after all, an interim supply bill meant to provide bridge funding between the end of the fiscal year on March 31 and the passage of a new budget a month from now.

I wasn’t going to speak, because I thought it was a no-brainer and it would pass quickly. I didn’t think Bill 10 needed defending. Then I started listening to the high drama unfolding during debate, and I realized it did need defending.

We’ve been living in unprecedented times. It has been a year since the World Health Organization declared COVID a pandemic. Who knew a year ago what that even meant in real terms? Who knew a year ago how it would change our lives, our daily practices, our customs — yes, even our legislative timelines?

It has even affected the way we govern ourselves. So many things have been slowed down, been put on hold, resources redirected, while we took stock and asked ourselves: “What is safe to do? What is no longer safe to do?” Our answers to these questions have been evolving as we learned more about the virus itself, how it’s transmitted, how we behave collectively and as individuals, and in the face of this crisis, how we protect ourselves and each other.

Who would have imagined a year ago that I would be speaking to the chamber by Zoom? I’m not sure a year ago I really even knew what Zoom was. Now I find out that not only am I an MLA, but today, I’m a Zoom LA.

Thank goodness we in British Columbia have such an experienced, calm, compassionate public health officer to lead us through this crisis. Thank you, Dr. Bonnie Henry. And thank goodness we have a Premier and a Minister of Health who had the humility and integrity to let a medical expert lead us and let medical science, not politics, shape our response.

[2:00 p.m.]

In light of the aspersions that have been cast on their characters during this debate, I want to make a special point of thanking the Premier and the Minister of Health for being such positive and dignified role models. Not all jurisdictions have been as fortunate as British Columbia, and that cost lives and livelihoods unnecessarily. But British Columbia is not an island unto ourselves, and in spite of our efforts, our excellent leadership and social solidarity here, too many lives have been lost, either directly from COVID or indirectly due to the disruptions that led to skyrocketing overdose deaths. We mourn their loss, and our hearts go out to their loved ones.

The pandemic disrupted life as we know it, life as we expect it, and that includes the presentation of the 2021 provincial budget. Hence, today, we find ourselves here debating an interim supply bill. Why? Because the pandemic not only disrupted lives, it disrupted the business of this House, and the 2021 budget was delayed.

The Minister of Finance is asking for bridging funds so that we can continue to pay the people that keep our schools open, to pay the people that provide health care, child care workers; so that we can continue to build more child care centres, more hospitals, new hospitals, new schools; so that we can fund homeless shelters; and so that we can fund second- and third-stage housing for women and their children fleeing violent relationships, continue to open more urgent and primary care networks, reduce wait times for surgeries and life-saving tests. Blank cheque? I don’t think so.

In spite of the repeated claims to the contrary, the opposition speakers know exactly that these are the kinds of critical, community, nourishing expenses that the interim supply bill will fund, yet they dismissively call it an NDP piggy bank.

The government is doing good work for the people of British Columbia, work that is too important to be disrupted. The interim supply bill should have been a no-brainer, yet here we are, still debating it. I’m puzzled by the high drama being played out by opposition members. As this debate has gone on and on, I am becoming ever more shocked and disappointed to hear members opposite use this debate as an opportunity to try to undermine social unity and try to plant seeds of distrust in the government, to try to drive a wedge between the government and the people we are working so hard to protect today and into the future.

So, yes, I do feel compelled — during a pandemic that isn’t over yet, during a time when we need to trust each other and depend on each other as British Columbians to survive this pandemic, both in body and economically — to rise and respond to the smear campaign being launched from across the aisle. I feel compelled to set the record straight.

When I was a newly minted MLA, an experienced opposition member volunteered the information that what was said in the chamber was all theatre. She advised me not to take it seriously. Well, I rejected that advice. I do take it seriously. This is not theatre. It’s real life. And real people in our communities can become collateral damage of overheated rhetoric.

I listened to the debate on Tuesday. I think I heard every single speaker from the opposition benches toss in the phrase “fudge-it budget” at least once. Again, I heard it this afternoon. Well, what does that even mean? It’s clearly code. It’s clearly supposed to trigger some vague impression of government corruption and deceit. It’s clearly meant to make our government look bad and call our integrity into question. It’s clearly meant to undermine trust in the government that is leading us out of this pandemic.

[2:05 p.m.]

Few British Columbians will know or remember what “fudge-it budget” means. They just know it’s bad. So I decided to look it up to remind myself, and I am so glad I did. The first thing that came up was this. This is a newspaper article from July 12, 2010. I’ll just read the first couple of sentences.

“Released on Thursday, B.C.’s public accounts for the fiscal year 2009-2010 conclusively prove that the pre-election fiscal plan foisted on British Columbians by Premier Gordon Campbell and his B.C. Liberals on Feb 17, 2009, was the worst, the most egregious, the most deceptive fudge-it budget in provincial history.

“The public accounts show that Campbell Liberals inflated revenues in Victoria’s main operating account, the consolidated revenue fund by a stunning $2.558 billion” — and I’m still quoting — “yes, billion, with taxation receipts alone overstated by $2.1 billion. Even under the broader GAAP, generally accepted accounting principles, presentation, the Campbell government exaggerated last year’s expected revenues by a whopping $1.3 billion.

“The result: a gargantuan shortfall of $1.779 billion for fiscal 2009-2010, nearly four times higher than Campbell’s oft-repeated pre-election pledge of a deficit no bigger than $495 million.”

Billions. We are talking billions. Now compare that with the so-called fudge-it budget that they want to invoke. Compare that with the $703 million that the Glen Clark government was accused of miscalculating. It pales by comparison.

The members opposite may be regretting that they read out their talking points with such gusto. Maybe they should have checked their facts first. Maybe the next speaker might want to think twice before they remind the public about fudge-it budgets and government piggy banks. Glass houses.

During the debate on Bill 10, the B.C. Liberals have been engaging in the worst form of dog whistle politics. It feels like déjà vu. They are trying to rewrite history and paint a distorted picture of the present. Why? Because it worked for them before. What won’t they do or say to get back into power? They are past masters at tricking people into voting against their own best interests.

I want to add my voice to the voices of my colleagues who have been rising one after another to answer the distortions, distractions, and disinformation perpetuated by speakers from the official opposition. Here are some truths I want the people of my community of Burnaby North to remember.

Let’s look at our job numbers. One year into this pandemic, British Columbia has returned to 99.4 percent of pre-pandemic employment levels. B.C.’s economy remains one of the strongest in Canada, having created jobs in each of the past ten months. The labour force survey for February shows B.C. added 26,600 jobs, with the majority of those jobs going to women. This dropped B.C.’s unemployment rate to 6.9 percent from 8 percent in January, the month before. Employment in parts of the province is above pre-pandemic levels. In Prince George, it’s at 106.7 percent. In Kamloops, it’s at 103.3 percent.

[2:10 p.m.]

We know that not all sectors are back to full strength. We know they continue to need our support to thrive. We know that child care plays a huge role. According to the Conference Board of Canada, for every dollar that we spend on child care, $6 are returned to the economy. Since the beginning of the pandemic, our government has invested more than $320 million to support 4,500 child care centres. Close to $600 million has gone back to parents in reduced fees and benefits. More than 36,000 children are receiving $10-a-day child care. More than 13,000 early childhood educators are receiving wage enhancement — and that’s in Burnaby alone.

In Burnaby alone, our government has invested almost $24 million in child care. More than $7 million has been returned to the pockets of parents — $7 million that they can spend in their communities and help keep struggling businesses open. And 41 local early childhood educators have received almost $300 million in wage enhancements.

Affordable housing is something that matters to my community as well. I live in a community that wants every­one to have a roof over their heads and a door that locks. We have already built 52 units of supportive housing and another 43 are on the way, as well as 45 new shelter spaces.

Construction has started on a brand-new Burnaby North Secondary School. It will make a big difference when it is built and operational. Once complete, it will provide students with a modern facility designed for the 21st century — learning, for generations to come. The re­placement will also feature a new neighbourhood learning centre that will offer adult basic education as well as a stand-alone child care centre funded through the childcare B.C. new spaces fund and the city of Burnaby. Together these facilities will create more than 120 new licensed child care spaces, including before- and after-school care.

Members opposite keep complaining that they don’t know how we will spend the funds we’re requesting in the interim supply bill. Well, I think they do. I think the complaints are all part of their theatre. But if they don’t remember, if it doesn’t come to mind, I hope that these examples will help refresh their memories.

In the course of debate over the last few days, I’ve heard members opposite say that government needs to get out of the way. I find those chilling words. That’s more dog whistle politics. It’s code for letting the market do our thinking. It’s code for survival of the fittest. That was a statement first coined by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan about 50 years ago and repeated more recently by the likes of Donald Trump. It is code for an ideology that has crippled public services, destroyed lives and turned thriving communities into ghost towns all around the world. There is a direct line between that statement, first made 50 years ago, and the storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

I would urge opposition debaters to be careful about what they may be unleashing with their overheated, repeated rhetoric. The people of British Columbia soundly rejected that kind of thinking in the last provincial election. They chose a government that will act proactively to make life better for even the most marginalized and vulnerable. Yet I heard opposition members state earlier in this debate that the B.C. NDP bought the election. Those are dangerous and hateful words. They insult the intelligence and the integrity of voters.

[2:15 p.m.]

The people of British Columbia freely chose a government that will say yes to the following kinds of questions.

Does everyone have the right to a job that pays a living wage? Yes.

Does everyone have the right to quality health care and social supports when they need it? Yes.

Does everyone have the right to a complete education? Yes.

Does everyone have the right to affordable housing? Yes.

Does everyone have the right to a clean environment? Yes.

Does everyone have the right to a secure retirement? Yes.

Those are the principles that my government stands for. We know that we are far from realizing them all, but we are working hard to get there. Some would say we aren’t moving fast enough. Well, anyone watching this debate will appreciate what one of our biggest obstacles has been.

The interim supply bill is part of keeping up the momentum in the right direction. Those are the principles we stand for. After listening to the smear campaign and vicious hysteria that made up the B.C. Liberal debate points, one wonders what they stand for.

I. Paton: I’m not sure if I’ve been up before to actually thank the citizens of Delta South since the election, to say thank you so much for getting me back here. I did very well, and I certainly appreciate all their support.

As my colleague from Surrey-Panorama recently said, sure, we’re debating Bill 10, but it’s our job. It’s what we do in opposition. From the last speaker, it sounds like they’re absolutely terrified that they’re going to lose this vote. I’m not sure if that will happen. But boy, they’re pretty worried right now about possibly losing the vote on Bill 10.

But I would like to thank the people of Delta South. Boy, it’s so important to me: our Delta Hospital; our Delta Hospice, which is going through some real changes right now; and lots of other things that are very important to me in Delta, including dredging, farmland and, of course, protecting Brunswick Point, which is 600 acres of prime farmland that is still owned by the Crown. We really need to figure out how we can get that back into the hands of the former families that owned those properties before they were expropriated in 1969 for the expansion of the Roberts Bank coal port and terminal port. They never did need that 600 acres.

I’m here today, and I rise to speak to Bill 10, although I should note that normally, these supply acts pass with little debate because of the nature of them. They serve a necessary purpose and simply allow the government to continue to function. Normally, it wouldn’t attract much attention. But as we know too well, very few things in the past year have unfolded as they usually do.

Now, I had a very interesting note dropped to me yesterday morning by a good friend. It really sums up — in the words of, actually, a very seasoned media person — what’s happening with Bill 10. It goes like this. He sent me this note yesterday morning. He said that the Vancouver Sun columnist, Vaughn Palmer, gets it. He gets it. He calls it brazen, as the Premier and his Finance Minister ignore the very budget laws, brought in decades ago, to stop the financial shell game perpetrated against the taxpayers by the NDP in the 1990s from happening again.

Yet as the member for Abbotsford West stated in the House last week, here the B.C. NDP go again. The NDP have delayed the introduction of our provincial budget that usually takes place in February. While taxpayers have no idea what our current provincial finances are, the NDP are tabling a request for a blank $13 billion cheque. And furthermore, to do this before actually introducing a budget, the B.C. NDP have given themselves an exemption to another provincial statute, the Financial Administration Act, to get the funds.

[2:20 p.m.]

The request is a major departure from the usual practice in the B.C. House since budget legislation and accountability were tightened two decades ago. Usually the government introduces a budget and spending program in February, well before the April 1 start of the financial year. It then seeks approval to spend a quarter of the money in advance, while MLAs spend several months scrutinizing spending estimates for individual ministries. But this year the New Democrats delayed the budget until April 20, while bringing in a $13 billion supply bill, with next to no detail about how it will be spent. Pushing back, we have pointed out how the budget law now being trampled was enacted in response to NDP budgetary shenanigans of the 1990s.

Over the past three years, amidst two simultaneous health crises, we’ve watched as this government has re­turned to a familiar pattern — no accountability, no transparency, fixed election dates that have been changed, fixed budget dates that have been changed. Little by little, it has undone a number of the safeguards put in place by the previous B.C. Liberal government to ensure transparency and responsibility around the budget.

I’d like to tell a story about my dad, who is no longer with us. I became a partner with my dad in the farm auction business and the farm cattle business. We would buy and sell cattle. We exported cattle around the world. My dad always told me that if you can’t shake a farmer’s hand and make a contract with a handshake with that farmer, it’s not worth the paper it’s written on.

I can remember deals we made with people where we’d go in and buy $75,000 worth of cattle and say we were going to pick those cattle up in three weeks, because they were going to go to Mexico or they were going to go to Saskatchewan or wherever. Or we’d make a deal on milk quota. We used to buy and sell milk quotas for hundreds of thousands of dollars. I can always remember shaking a hand with a farmer in the Fraser Valley or whatever part of the province it was, and that was a deal. You shook his hand, and you didn’t have to write it down on paper.

What I’ve learned as an MLA, coming here to Victoria, representing Delta South…. I have seen so many things since the election on May 9 of 2017, where this government changes the rules. There’s no such thing as a handshake, where a deal is a deal. No transparency. No accountability. What about fixed election dates? What happened to fixed election dates? What happened when they suddenly said to us, “There’s going to be an election on October 24,” a year in advance of what was to be a fixed election date?

I’d watch TV every night. I always remember the Premier saying: “We’re really not sure. Jeepers. We just don’t know if we’re going to do this or not. It’s pretty tricky. We’re in the middle of a pandemic.” Suddenly he said: “Yeah, let’s go ahead. We’re going to have an election on October 24.”

Well, isn’t it funny how, almost immediately, we saw television ads? So you’ve got to believe that somebody was making television ads and radio ads well in advance of this date, where they said: “Jeepers, we’re not sure if we’re going to have an election or not. But we’ve got all sorts of ads on television that are ready to go.” What about fixed budget dates? That’s supposed to be down as legislation. I don’t see that happening.

What about the deal with the Third Party? You know, I thought: there’s a handshake deal. There’s a deal that’s written down on paper. That was a solid deal with the Third Party, the Green Party, and they broke that agreement. There’s No. 3 of agreements that they broke, among other things that I’ve witnessed since I’ve come here.

Instead of transparency, we see delayed budgets and quarterly reports. We see an expansion of the use of special warrants. We see various methods and ways of bypassing transparency, which is extremely disappointing.

Let’s talk about the delayed budget. I came over here in December, just before Christmas. I think we were all kind of excited about the Christmas season coming. We had gotten through the election. Some of us weren’t overly happy with the way things turned out. We certainly weren’t happy with the fact that the election was called in the middle of a pandemic, one year before the deal, the handshake deal, the written contract that said: “There will not be an election until the fall of 2021.”

[2:25 p.m.]

Back in December, we were brought back here. I came over here in December, and we thought we were here simply to debate one of the gifts. It was a Christmas gift — with the election. Out of the $5 billion, the NDP government suddenly had a bunch of that $5 billion saved. They hadn’t spent it. They saved it up. So just before the election, let’s get some ads in the newspaper. Let’s get ads on TV. Let’s get ads in the media. We’re going to give away to every family in this province $1,000, just before the election.

Does that sound like electioneering? Does that sound like a gift, a handout? Every single person in this province is going to get $500, but every family is going to get $1,000. You’ll get it before Christmas. What a Christmas present.

An election. We’ve got a whole bunch of money we saved up. We threw it out at you during the election to make sure we got elected during a pandemic. We said we’d get it to you before Christmas. Well, guess what? People all over this province are still waiting and figuring out how they can get their $500 or $1,000. Another bungled situation.

They can’t seem to get it right. They can’t get it right with campsites. They can’t get it right with vaccination rollout. They can’t get it right with the money. They can’t get it right with the $300 million that was going to go out to businesses and, of course, only 25 percent of that has even gone out so far. I think $87 million out of $345 million has actually gotten out the door to all these small businesses and tourism outfits that really, really need that money.

We came here in December. We thought we were debating the $1,000, the Christmas gift, the election gift. However, we were told on December 8 that a bill passed called Bill 3. It was a bill to delay the budget.

We were quite shocked by that — delay the budget. The budget is supposed to happen in early February. So a budget delayed is help denied to those who need it the most. A budget delayed hurts small businesses that are looking for help to keep the doors open. A budget delayed hurts the tourist sector, which is still waiting for any assistance from the NDP.

The NDP had no reason to delay introducing a budget for four months. The NDP already passed legislation giving themselves an extra 30 days following an election. Now they are getting even more time — more than what they originally had brought forward as legislation to take it all the way into April. Well, there was one reason for the delay — so the NDP can avoid scrutiny on spending and their lack of a coherent plan.

About the delayed budget. We all thought to our­selves…. We debated this Bill 3 back in December. We debated, because what about government programs? What about grants? What about different user groups that were waiting to find out about the money that was going to come to them with a budget that was going to come down in early February?

What about programs such as agricultural programs for weed control, for crop insurance, for risk management, for the damage from wildlife, the tree replant program, farmers markets, the coupon program? What about fairs and rodeos? We just had a great conversation yesterday with the Rodeo Association of B.C. These small-town rodeos are the lifeblood, the economic dri­vers of small towns all over this province. They are desperately waiting for word, for grant money to upkeep their infrastructure of their rodeo grounds, but also to get word of how they can move forward.

They don’t need word two or three weeks before the date of the rodeo. They need word now so they can plan and get the wheels moving to get going with their rodeo, which is so important to our small towns throughout British Columbia.

Sadly, it reminds us of a troubling time in B.C.’s history, a time when the then NDP Premier had to resign in disgrace, a scandal that saw the RCMP raid his house while our current Premier’s chief of staff looked on, at a time when another minister was forced to resign from his job in the Premier’s office for backdating a memo.

I’m talking about the notorious fudge-it budget fiasco of the 1990s, which saw the same Premier claim the budget was balanced before the election. But then, after all the votes were counted, surprised everyone with the news that it actually wasn’t.

[2:30 p.m.]

Fast-forward to today, and we have a Premier who called a snap election back in the fall in the middle of a global pandemic that set in motion another series of unfortunate events.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

We haven’t had a proper quarterly report. Recovery programs that are supposed to help British Columbians have been bungled over and over, yet the Premier comes before the House to ask for $13 billion without a budget and without telling us how it will be spent. Again, I reiterate how disappointed I am about the things I have witnessed since coming here as an MLA — of broken deals, broken legislation, broken acts that said there would not be an election until the fall of 2021, fixed budget dates that have been broken.

This kind of behaviour is the very reason our previous B.C. Liberal government had to bring in protections in the first place. So what did we do? We brought in balanced-budget legislation. We brought in fixed budget dates, and we cemented the use of the Economic Forecast Council. These were all steps that made B.C. the national leader for sound, transparent, responsible fiscal management, and it was all necessary in order to fix the numerous mistakes of the previous NDP government.

More than two decades later, we can’t help but be reminded of the old NDP playbook secrecy that plagued the previous NDP government and nearly brought this province and its finances to the brink. We cannot let that happen again.

I have to ask how the NDP expect British Columbians to trust a government that wants a blank cheque for $13 billion without giving any indication how they plan to spend that money. Let’s look at the overwhelming number of taxes that have been added, through legislation, since I came here in May of 2017. I’m astounded that we have a government that thinks we can move our way into economic prosperity by taxing the people of British Columbia in 23 new and different ways to create income in this province.

Let me read some of them: the employer health tax — I’ll get back to that, as far as how our farmers and our agricultural sector handle the employer health tax; the Victoria gas tax; the Vancouver gas tax; the Airbnb tax; the tobacco tax; the foreign buyers tax; the additional school tax; the speculation tax; photo radar; carbon tax; parking sales tax; development cost charge increases; property tax; cannabis tax; income tax; corporate tax; ICBC unlisted driver premium and ICBC learner premium; the hydro crisis fund tax.

I go across the page, and we’re just coming to this. Wow — the latest one, the newest, the latest. Do you like Netflix? I guess we all do, because during the pandemic, pretty much all we have to do at night is try and find a new series we haven’t yet seen. But it’s on Netflix, and we’re going to have to pay a tax to watch television now, at night.

Then, if your kids want to have a sugary drink, which I don’t think they should have…. I think they should have milk, because I was a dairy farmer for a great part of my life. There is a tax now on sugary drinks. So we’ve pretty much hit everything we possibly can, as far as taxes go.

I want to talk for a minute about agriculture, which is very dear to me, and how delaying the budget and throwing at us $13 billion worth of spending that nobody seems to know…. There are no lines that say, “This is how we’re going to spend this money in the first quarter,” because generally, that would come out after the budget is done. As a farmer, I’m thinking of analogies of how crazy this is.

Would you go to the bank as a farmer and say: “I’d like to borrow $1 million, because I’m going to expand. I want to increase my milk quota. I want to buy some more cattle. I need to build a new barn. I need a couple new tractors”? And the banker says: “Well, you want $1 million. Okay, so tell us what you’re going to spend it on. Tell us if you have some sort of a financial plan in place, and give us, line-by-line, how you’re going to spend this $1 million so, as a bank, we feel safe by lending you this money.”

[2:35 p.m.]

But the farmer says: “Well, I don’t really know. I haven’t really thought about it. I just think I need $1 million.” Well, the bank says: “Forget it. We’re not going to give that to you.”

If you were a bank, and the farmer wanted to borrow some money, they would say: “Well, do you have a bud­get?” All businesses, including farms nowadays, would have a budget they could present to the bank so the bank could see exactly where this money is going to be spent.

If you were a rancher, and you were waiting to find out about tenure or lease on some ranchland for grazing cattle, would you go out and purchase 100 bred cows — put the money down and purchase those cows — not knowing if you’re actually going to get that tenure because you’re waiting to find out if that tenure is going to be given to you? That’s kind of what’s happening here.

If you were a farmer, would you purchase your seed and your fertilizer, and have it all stockpiled, if you didn’t know for sure that you were getting the land that you were planning to rent from a neighbour down the road — an extra 100 acres? You wouldn’t do that.

That’s what I see with this $13 billion. It’s not accounted for. There’s no line-by-line item to say: “This is where we’re planning to spend this money.”

As far as government programs, there have got to be government agencies scratching their heads, going: “What is happening here? Why aren’t we seeing a budget?” The Agricultural Land Commission. The provincial lab in Abbotsford that is so important to the livestock and fishing industry in this province. The Farm Industry Review Board. There’s another program. The Investment Agriculture Foundation. The SPCA. They’re all wondering and waiting.

I’m so attached to all these good rural things that we have in the way of fairs and rodeos. The Pacific National Exhibition is not a rural thing by any means, but I’ve been on a committee, on a board of directors for agriculture at the PNE, for in excess of 30 years now. It’s so important for our young people throughout the province to come to the PNE with their 4-H projects. It’s one of the most exciting weeks of their entire year — to come to the PNE with their 4-H project and experience the big city, the excitement of the PNE.

The PNE is slowly dying. These poor folks in there…. I’ve been so involved with the PNE for so many years. They’re waiting to find out if there is going to be any money coming through to them.

All the little fairs all over this province. The Armstrong fair — the IPE, as it’s called. The Cloverdale Fair. The Chilliwack Fair. The Abbotsford fair. The rodeos all over this province, in Falkland, in Williams Lake, in Fort St. John. All these different rural economic drivers are waiting to find out if there is going to be money for them, yet no budget. No budget until the middle of April.

That leads me to something that got brought up just today in question period. I think of the mandate that has been handed down to our….

I digress. I’m sorry. I’m going off topic a little bit. I’ll just quickly talk about a little lake called Tachick Lake just up by Vanderhoof.

First Nations want to deal with addiction and the issues of people, and they found this great little old resort on the side of Tachick Lake. Can you picture it? These cabins are 60 years old. And just today in question period, we said: “What is going on with the mandates that you’ve given to the Agricultural Land Commission where they would turn down a piece of land on the side of a lake that hasn’t had any farming on it in history — turn that down as an application to put in an addiction and treatment centre by the Carrier-Sekani Family Services organization?”

We simply don’t have any faith that the NDP will spend this money well. Their track record speaks for itself. Last March, all parties came together — I remember that; I was actually asked to come over here as one of the three of us, I think, that came over here last March — to approve $5 billion in COVID recovery aid. We did that in good faith. They sat on the money for months, using as part of their election platform the $1,000 Christmas present that still is not complete.

[2:40 p.m.]

Then we saw a series of delays and bungling by the government. We’ve seen very few dollars actually get into the hands of British Columbians who need it. The small and medium-sized business recovery grant program has been botched from the start.

Just yesterday there was an announcement that only…. After all this time, I cannot believe this. You know, what’s the easiest thing anybody could do? How about at Halloween? The easiest thing to do is give away candy to the kids when they come to the door. But this government has only been able to hand out $87 million, out of $345 million, in COVID recovery money for small businesses and non-profits in this province that need that money. They’re still trying to figure out how to get it, because it’s the most complicated system anyone has ever come across.

In my riding, people constantly come to me. “How much money do I have to put out to a lawyer, an accountant or someone who can figure out the paperwork for me to actually apply for this money?” Only 25 percent of $340 million has been handed out so far. It had to undergo multiple changes due to complaints from businesses and communities, because this government cannot get it right.

One thing I’ve noticed since I came here to Victoria is that as opposition, we have pounded away and pounded away on issues that we thought needed to be fixed. Surprisingly, it’s amazing how many times the NDP has picked up on what we’ve said and actually fixed the situation.

Here’s one of them, where they made a fix, just the other day, to extend the period of time — beyond March 31, I think it was — for people to still try and figure out the red tape and the paperwork to get their portion of the $345 million. Still, today, only a fraction of the funds has gone out the door. Meanwhile, we have more and more businesses being forced to close their doors because they can’t afford to wait any longer. It’s shameful, and it’s embarrassing. The NDP government has yet to prove it can manage important programs like these, and the significant dollars behind them.

One other thing I’d to bring up while I’m here. It’s kind of something I’d like to get into question period or a two-minute statement, but I’ve got to do this. It has to do with money going out. The NDP government, just about a year ago, said that they were going to shut down the Delta Hospice. They were going to take over, through Fraser Health, to run the Delta Hospice.

I’m good with that. We had a board that wasn’t really working out for us, a society. We’re kind of happy that this is going to happen. But I cannot get anyone — as an MLA for Delta, my office is a two-minute drive from the Delta Hospice — to tell me what is going on. On February 25, the funding ended to the Delta Hospice, and we’re all waiting to find out what’s going on.

When can we get people that are in dire need going into this wonderful hospice? Please, can someone from the ministry or from Fraser Health get in touch with me so that I can let my people know what is happening with the funding and with the employees that are going to go back to work at this Delta Hospice?

In closing, I want to reiterate that it was a B.C. Liberal government that put in a number of precautions that were necessary because of the former NDP government’s incompetence and secrecy around finances. The current NDP administration is trying to skirt the rules, find workarounds and leave everyone in the dark about the current financial picture and about its plans for the huge amount of money it’s now asking for.

The last time this government spent public funds with­out a proper budget was back in the 1990s, a fudge-it budget era, a dark chapter indeed. We saw it happen once, and we cannot let it happen again.

N. Sharma: I’m happy to rise today to speak in support of Bill 10, the interim supply bill. I’m on the unceded traditional territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ people, also known as the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations, and I’m very grateful for that.

Over 12 months ago, COVID-19 came into B.C. and changed everything for families, business and government. What was clear was that government had to act quickly to support people, invest in health care, and keep people safe. What has also been clear over these last 12 months is that B.C. can count on their government.

[2:45 p.m.]

We’ve invested over $10 billion in COVID-19 relief and recovery measures, contributing more per capita to businesses and people than any other province. These measures have focused on protecting people’s health and livelihoods through support of workers, businesses, communities, health care and other critical services. British Columbians can know that their government is looking out for them — all of them, not just the people on top.

One of these programs is the small business grants, unique in all of Canada. Not long ago, I had the chance to connect with small businesses in my riding and speak with them about the grant program. I heard from a hair salon owner who was so grateful for the grant program that would help them build a bridge across this pandemic. It’s one of the many examples of government supports that have been supporting people through this recovery, including the pandemic relief payment, which is not a gift. It’s badly needed for people that are going through the worst outcomes of this pandemic, and we’ve heard nothing but great stories about its impact in people’s lives.

But it doesn’t stop there. We’ve made investments to support child care, build up our health care response to COVID, and they’re just some examples of the choices that we’ve made at the time of this pandemic. We know we have more work to do, and we will do it. But there are signs of hope. One year into this pandemic, British Columbia has returned to 99.4 percent of pre-pandemic employment levels. B.C.’s economy remains one of the strongest in Canada, having created jobs in each of the ten past months. The labour force survey for February shows B.C. added over 26,000 jobs with unemployment rates to 6.9 percent from 8 percent in January, the month before.

Employment in some parts of the province is above pre-pandemic levels. In Prince George, it’s at 106 percent, and in Kamloops, it’s 103 percent. We know that we’ll take time to recover, especially for those hardest hit during the pandemic, like the tourism and hospitality sector. But these signs of hope are a sign of the choices that our government has made to be on the side of people as we move towards a pandemic recovery.

This interim supply bill is a continuation of our commitment to British Columbians. It’s bridge funding until we get to the budget just a month from now. This interim supply agreement will help our government do two things: ensure that people, businesses and communities know that support will be there for them regardless of the timing of the budget.

Despite the opposition characterizing this as a unique practice, it’s very common to have an interim supply bill. The province passes an interim supply bill to ensure that current supports and services can continue while the new budget is debated in the Legislature. That will be only a short month away. It allows for robust estimates debate at the time of the budget and the transparency that British Columbians expect of a budgetary process. It also gives us greater time to connect with businesses and people and develop an effective long-term plan that builds on all of our current supports.

I can assure you that Budget 2021 will continue to focus on keeping people safe through the pandemic. It will continue to be responsive to the needs of people, businesses and communities to see them through this pandemic and into a strong economic recovery that supports us all.

During this debate, we’ve heard a lot from opposition, from the other side, on this bill. Quite frankly, I’m confused why anybody would oppose a bill that will ensure that vital programs and services will continue. Essential workers need to be paid. People delivering our vital vaccine program need to be supported in their work, now more than ever. The opposition seems to be against supporting these people as we move towards a transparent and open debate when the budget is introduced.

During this debate, I’ve also heard talk about what happened in the ’90s. Now, I wasn’t there in the ’90s. I’m sure I was busy listening to boy bands and doing the things that people did in the ’90s. What I can say is that I am proud to be in a government that is focused on the time we are in right now and responding to the needs of British Columbians at their highest need in this unprecedented time.

[2:50 p.m.]

While the opposition remains focused on the past — bringing up terms like fudge-it budget that, quite frankly, I’ve never heard of before — we will remain focused on the needs of British Columbians today.

I’ll just end by saying that this government, in its response to the pandemic, has been relying on British Columbians working together. We’ve made it this far through this difficult time by all of us working together to keep each other safe, to invest in the things that we need, to support our front-line workers and to bridge our economy through the recovery. I’m so proud of the work that this government has done to get us there, and I’m looking forward to a budget that continues to address the needs of British Columbians.

J. Sturdy: I am pleased to take my place in the debate on Bill 10, the Supply Act. An interim supply act is generally a pretty mundane affair, as I think we all understand. It provides an opportunity for government to continue to operate and function in the first quarter of the year. But like many pieces of legislation, or certainly this year, it’s notable in many ways.

One of those ways is that in this case, I think virtually for the first time ever, there is, frankly, no explanation of how the billions and billions and billions of dollars that are being asked for are intended or planned to be spent. The response from government seems to be: “Just trust us.” “Trust us,” they say. “It’s all going to be fine. Just trust us.” But there’s no submitted spending plan, no budget.

I think we all understand that the usual process would be throne speech — we saw a throne speech of sorts in December — then budget and then interim supply request. Then, of course, into estimates, where we go into the line-by-line details of a multi-billion-dollar budget. It’s a complicated operation.

That would be the usual process. This provides clarity to the public and understanding of where we’re going and what the intention of government is. It provides clarity and understanding to the members of this Legislature — not as we’re seeing right now. I was going to call it a blank cheque, but it’s not a blank cheque. It’s a cheque for $13.4 billion with no invoice, with no details, with no context. It’s a trust-us thing. “Don’t worry about it. It’ll all work out.”

It should be alarming. It should be concerning to all of us in the House. It includes workarounds to avoid the rules, to avoid the regulations, to avoid the constraints that are put in place by the Financial Administration Act, which legally requires government to submit a budget in advance of an interim supply bill.

This should be concerning to all of us. Some of these rules and policies and processes were put in place some 20 years ago in response to what the previous member referred to, in terms of some of the terrible untruths of the 1990s, as the big fudge-it. If the member for Vancouver-Hastings hasn’t heard of the fudge-it budget, she may well want to look it up and understand what that term means and who was involved.

[2:55 p.m.]

The B.C. Liberal government that came after those NDP governments of the ’90s put in place policies and laws to ensure that there was transparency, to ensure that government was responsible and was accountable for these budget numbers, for the expenditures. And while the Attorney railed on earlier about a number of the decisions that were made…. Well, that’s fair. You don’t have to like the decisions; you don’t have to agree with the decisions. But at least they were written out. They were on paper. They were accounted for, unlike what is being proposed right now with an interim supply bill without any accountability, without a budget associated with it.

The previous Liberal government of the early 2000s also put in place requirements for balanced budgets. I recognize that this year is an exceptional year and that’s not going to be the case. But certainly that was something that earlier governments put in place — and the requirement for quarterly reports. These, I think, were very positive things. They were positive actions. They served the public, and they held government accountable. They have stood the test of time until recently, where there seems to be an initiative, a desire, to dismantle them — actually, frankly, at a bit of an alarming rate. In this case, we’re talking about a requirement to put in place a budget and then request this interim supply bill, but this government doesn’t want to do that — no budget, an unprecedented amount of money without accountability.

Avoidance and delay really shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. It really began…. Well, it began a number of years ago, but certainly last year we saw a request by the previous Finance Minister, last summer, to delay a budget submission by a month in a year after an election. That was at the NDP’s request, and I believe we all, essentially, agreed to it at the end of the day. You’d have to wonder why we would agree to it.

This was really about a delay of a month in the case of an election year to recognize that there’s a possibility of a transition. There’s often a transition of government to a new government, and it takes time to understand what’s in the books, what the situation looks like and what the current state of affairs is and move on to put forward another budget. So it didn’t seem unreasonable to look at a one-month delay. But in the case of a fall election — you know, that fall election — well, this is what caused the whole thing in the first place.

The NDP changed the fixed election dates from a date in…. Typically, ever since the 2000s or before, it was a fixed date, put in place by the B.C. Liberals for early May. That had been the practice for a long time. But there was a desire to change those election dates to the fall. The rationale, theoretically, was around the Auditor General’s report being made available in the summertime. So going into an election with a clear third-party assessment of what the financial situation was — that was the rationale around the change in the election date.

There was some speculation in some part, in some places, that it was more about UBC students being in class in a traditionally tight riding, but no evidence of that. Be that as it may, the dates were changed. I think the point is that this is not a new government.

[3:00 p.m.]

We had a fixed election date, which, frankly, wasn’t lived up to. But we had a fixed election date and a fall election, a request to extend the date to submit a budget. This is a continuation of the existing government. This is not a new government. This is a government that should have been able to hit the ground running.

In December, the NDP decided they needed another month. They really shouldn’t need any amendment to the time, because this, as I say, was a government that was a continuation of an existing one and should have really been able to hit the ground running.

Then we were brought back to the House late. Normally we come back in early February. That didn’t happen. It was the beginning of March. We needed a delay, and then we get called back late. Then we see we have, really, a pretty darn light legislative agenda, and now no budget but a request for an awful lot of money.

Budgets really are where the rubber hits the road. It’s the plan. It lays out the path. In this case, we don’t have one. We just have a request for $13.4 billion. By the time we do get around to a budget — two months late for a government that’s been around for four years and can’t get it in even remotely on time. But hey: “Trust us. Trust us.” No budget, $13.4 billion, but: “Trust us. Trust the Premier.”

This is where the member for Vancouver-Hastings may want to pay attention. Trust the Premier. Trust his chief of staff, Geoff Meggs. Trust his current Health Minister. All intimate insiders in the fudge-it budget and memo-gate. But: “Trust us. Trust us.”

No quarterly reports — there was an interim quarterly report — but expanded use of special warrants. Then, of course, we’ve got the snap election, in the middle of a pandemic. The Green Party has certainly described their concern with that, that basically we’re getting stabbed in the back. There was a coalition, a confidence and supply agreement. Government was operating. There was cooperation, and then treachery. This was purely political opportunism. But, “Trust us,” they say.

“Trust us,” even though there was what looks like a demonstrable disregard for public health. I think many members will have seen a graph of the fall, where there is the election call, and a week to two weeks after the election is called — after the writ is dropped — COVID infections just spike. Correlation? Absolutely. Causation? Okay, I get that correlation is not causation. But it’s more than coincidence. More than coincidence. This was just a cynical grab for power with a disregard for the public. But: “Just trust us.” Well, why?

Let’s look at some other examples. Program mismanagement. The B.C. election benefit bribe — or the B.C. election benefit? What? Like: “Vote for us, and we’ll give you $1,000.” Whatever it was called. “Vote for us, and we’ll have $1,000 in your stocking for Christmas.” But I have reports of constituents in my constituency who still haven’t got the money. Maybe they didn’t vote for them.

[3:05 p.m.]

What about the small and medium business recovery grant? Twelve months — no delivery. Twelve months ago, in a cooperative fashion, we were, as the member again…. The previous speaker was talking about all of us cooperating and working together. That was, in fact, happening, starting in March. We put aside…. We all agreed on it. I think it was a $5 billion fund, of which $1½ billion was going to small and medium businesses or to business, recognizing that this is a catastrophic situation. That was supposed to…. That was in March. And what happened in April? Well, nothing. May, nothing. June, July, nothing. August. Businesses are reeling, and no support.

So then September rolls around, and there’s an an­nouncement. Ah, yes. There’s finally going to be a business recovery grant made available. And was it the next day the election was called? This was simply an election…. The government used this fund, that we all agreed to, all parties in the House agreed to…. I think it was a unanimous vote. The government used it as an election campaign carrot while we have the tourism and hospitality industries reeling.

Just as an aside here, my wife’s birthday was a couple of weeks ago. We went to Whistler, which is just down the road from where I live, by the way, so I wasn’t travelling. We went to Whistler for dinner for her birthday, and walking around in the village, it was eerie. There was nobody there. The patios, which would normally be packed…. The village stroll, which would normally be shoulder to shoulder, was empty.

I said to her that it reminded me very much of what it was like in the ’90s in November, when there was no shoulder season. There was nothing. There was nobody there. It was eerie, frankly. And this is an international destination. The international border is closed. You know, papered windows like I’ve never seen before. This is catastrophic. And the money was put in place to support businesses like these in March. And you know what? It still hasn’t essentially been delivered.

What did I hear today? Twenty-four percent of the $300 million has been allocated so far. The program parameters have been changed. The deadlines have been extended. It’s just a disaster. And a year later…. We’re a year into it, a year after the money was approved, and it’s still not in the hands of the businesses and the families that need it.

So a promise made, a promise not delivered. Sound familiar? A $400 renter rebate. Does that remind anybody of anything? Well, it should. “Trust us,” they say. Trust. “Nothing to see here.” Dismantle accountability, use special warrants, rule by fiat — that certainly seems the intention. And then we have to listen to NDP backbenchers heap scorn on B.C. Liberals. For what? For bringing in balanced-budget legislation and then actually balancing the budget. For fixing budget dates. Whoa. Terrible thing. For the Economic Forecast Council. For enhanced transparency through quarterly reports.

Combined, all of these initiatives made B.C. a leader for sound, transparent fiscal management. We’re the envy of the country. All, frankly, initiatives necessary to repair British Columbia’s damaged reputation from the ’90s.

[3:10 p.m.]

By the way, I think I mentioned we put in these fixed election dates — dates that we lived with, that B.C. Liberal Premiers lived with and that the NDP ignored at the first possible opportunity. In fact, they couldn’t even get through one election cycle — not one — before breaking that fixed election date. They couldn’t even live with their own legislation rules. It’s phenomenal.

“Trust us,” they say. “Trust us.” Well, $13 billion is what they ask for now. Frankly, that’s a whopper, especially when we have to listen to NDP backbenchers rail on — when we met our responsibilities. We presented lawfully, we fully disclosed annual budgets and quarterly reports, and we balanced the budgets. We paid down the debt, eliminated the operating deficit. Members across the aisle might want to understand what that is, as well. We were not borrowing to do daily operations. We reduced the debt-to-GDP, which reduces borrowing costs.

This government has simply coasted on the foundations that B.C. Liberals built: a record investment in infrastructure. “Terrible, terrible, terrible” is what the NDP backbenchers — and, frankly, some of the frontbenchers — would say. “They gutted everything; they gutted it. They gutted education, gutted health care, gutted it,” they say. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard them say that.

Well, how about some facts? One day, when a budget gets presented, eventually, there will be accompanying estimates books. Well, the previous ones are online. They might want to look it up. Some of these backbenchers might want to pay attention and look it up. Pull up the budgets; pull up the estimates — which I did last night, just because this is particularly irksome.

The health care budget, 2002-2003, of $10.2 billion; 2017 budget, submitted in February of 2017, $18.8 billion. So 2002-2003, $10.2 million; 2017-18, $18.8 billion. That does not sound gutted to me. Let’s talk about education, because that is the favourite one: “Education gutted.” Budget 2002-03, $1.9 billion. I think I had K-to-12, $1.9 billion, 2002-2003; ’17-’18, $5.8 billion. So $1.9 million to $5.8 billion — what’s that? It’s pretty much a tripling of the budget.

That is what these backbenchers call gutted. It just seems to me that they’re so lazy that they just believe everything that they hear. Just because you say it, it doesn’t make it true. Facts don’t lie.

Deputy Speaker: Member, if I might….

J. Sturdy: I just read them out, so….

Deputy Speaker: Member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky.

J. Sturdy: So if facts don’t lie, who is? But “Trust us,” they say. “Trust us.”

Deputy Speaker: Member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. Member?

J. Sturdy: No budget….

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, the Speaker is trying to get through to you.

J. Sturdy: Give us the money.

Deputy Speaker: Member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, please listen to the words of the Speaker. I’m trying to reach you.

I understand the temptation to target certain members within the House and call them names if you disagree with them. I would ask the member to withdraw. I don’t believe any member in this House is lazy, and I would ask the member to withdraw that statement.

J. Sturdy: Fair enough, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw the accusation of laziness, although I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the accusation that an education budget was gutted when it was in fact….

Deputy Speaker: I’m not interested in having a debate with the member. I asked the member to withdraw his statement. That is what I requested.

J. Sturdy: I believe I did withdraw the statement, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw the accusation of laziness.

[3:15 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Please proceed.

J. Sturdy: We have a request — an interim supply bill request. “Just give us the money,” is what it comes down to. “Trust us,” they say, “What have we ever done?” Well, we have seen this movie before, and it doesn’t end well. I don’t believe the trust is justified.

H. Sandhu: Before I speak to Bill 10, I would like to acknowledge that I am joining this session virtually, from the unceded territory of the Okanagan Indian Nations. I thank them for their stewardship of this land.

I wholeheartedly speak in favour of Bill 10, Supply Act, as I am confident and assured that this much-needed money will help British Columbians to thrive during and after the pandemic. I would like to make one thing very clear to the members of the opposition — that I am speaking to this bill by carefully reading and re-reading this bill, as I always do my research.

I am an educated and well-informed adult, so I am aware about my decision to support what I strongly believe in, as this bill is solely meant to help British Columbians. As an elected representative for people in Vernon-Monashee, who put their trust and support behind me, it matters to me to do my research behind every bill in order to see if this will benefit my constituents. I am also a mother of three children in university to high school, one getting ready for elementary school.

I can appreciate the sincere efforts and improvements our B.C. NDP government has made in order to support people during the pandemic at every front, whether it was health care, keeping schools safe, helping individuals by giving them the B.C. recovery benefit — plus a one-time $1,000 to many British Columbians who had lost jobs in 2020 when the pandemic started — small and medium-sized business recovery grants, and additional mental health and recovery beds. Our government also made the single largest investment in the housing sector, and much more.

It is important for people, businesses and communities to know that this support will be there, that it will be there for them, regardless of the timing of the budget. We’ve come a long way together, but the road to recovery is still ahead of us. Our support will continue for British Columbians. We need to address the pandemic, as this is the biggest challenge and reality that the entire world is facing.

I’m not sure why some members of the opposition are expressing their concerns when we mention that we are dealing with the pandemic. We have to mention that, because every decision we are making, every action we’re taking, is linked to the pandemic. So I’m not sure what the reluctance is of accepting that — that we shouldn’t mention it or we’re making an excuse. No. It is a serious reality that we all have to deal with.

We all know that it is a common practice every year that the province passes an interim supply bill to ensure that current supports and services can continue while the new budget is debated in the Legislature. We always have interim supply, well past the end of the fiscal year, to allow for a robust estimates debate. As previously mentioned by our hon. Finance Minister, moving the budget to April gives us greater time to connect with the businesses and people and develop an effective long-term plan that builds on all our current supports.

I am confident that Budget 2020 will continue to focus on keeping people safe during the pandemic. We will do this with an eye to how we position our province to seize the opportunity that recovery will offer.

[3:20 p.m.]

It was heartwarming for me to walk into my office at the Legislature on March 8, the first day of me being there, and see a beautiful thank-you card from one of my constituents, thanking our government for the B.C. recovery benefit. I’ll quickly read that beautiful sentiment. “Greetings from Vernon. Recently I received my B.C. recovery benefit. I was able to share that money with my daughter and her young family. I am sure they can put that money to very good use in these unusual and difficult times. Thank you very much for all your efforts. Happy new year.”

I won’t mention names, as I haven’t asked their permission — if I was allowed to do so. There were several other emails, and also, I personally talked to the small and medium-sized business owners here in my community when I went there to share the business recovery grant. Everybody is so appreciative. Not only that; I have been regularly getting some cards here in Vernon.

I come from the health care sector and worked at the front lines, even shortly after my election. My husband is also working in health care, and we talk often, since COVID started. We don’t even want to think or imagine what we would have done if we had the B.C. Liberal government in power. These same sentiments are being shared by many health care workers in the staff and break rooms. We are so grateful for the work that the B.C. NDP government has done, and we are grateful that they are in power.

I’m not saying the previous government. I am saying the B.C. Liberal government. Given what we have witnessed over 16 years of experience in a variety of health care settings and with two health authorities, you cannot find a better person to contrast than the ones who faced these challenges and witnessed the direct effects of the cuts and addition to the services. So we can contrast it really well.

We don’t need to read any books. We have lived through this and are still living through this. One can desperately run around to search for the quotes, trying to relate. I would suggest to the members of the opposition: rather than speaking to the people who have been away from health care for over a decade and are out of touch, go talk to the ones who have lived through your government’s cuts and austerity, and even lost loved ones, clearly due to the lack of resources, like I did — my late husband.

This bill will help to continue the efforts of B.C.’s recovery. We can come out of this pandemic stronger, and it will help us with the transition. If members of the opposition want to talk to people at the front lines, I have hundreds of names. I can connect you with those people so you can clearly know what it meant — all the supports that the B.C. NDP government has added since COVID started or since they were made government.

This money will help the health care sector, the mental health and addiction crisis, housing, much-needed child care centres, infrastructure, our schools and teachers. I am so proud of our B.C. government’s commitment and work every day to reduce poverty, to make life more affordable, and for fulfilling more than 79 percent of our promises within 3½ years. We continue to do so.

A few examples are: eliminating the MSP premiums; freezing rental rates; large cuts to ICBC rates, despite having to fix the dumpster fire that was created by the B.C. Liberal government; the largest increase in the disability benefit for the first time since 1987; and making the largest investment in student housing in B.C. to help our students to succeed.

I am proud to share that, in the Okanagan, we just received $66 million for the Okanagan College campuses in Vernon, Kelowna and Salmon Arm, where 276 beds are being added. This is the first time in B.C.’s history for Vernon to receive student housing. This will help to free up the rental housing in the community. Students will be able to save time and money, as these rental rates are going to be 25 to 30 percent lower than the rental market.

[3:25 p.m.]

One year into this pandemic, British Columbia has returned to 99.4 percent of pre-pandemic employment levels. B.C.’s economy remains one of the strongest in Canada, having created jobs in each of the past ten months. The labour force survey in February shows that B.C. added almost 2,700 jobs, with the majority of those jobs going to women. This dropped B.C.’s unemployment rate to 6.9 percent from 8 percent in January and the month before.

I don’t know why members of the opposition don’t see those facts. We’re not making stuff up. These are the facts. These are everywhere. If you do your research, you’ll find them, and you’ll be happy to know that.

Employment in some parts of the province is above pre-pandemic levels. Prince George, for example, is at 106.7 percent, and Kamloops is at 103.3 percent. While this does not mean that all sectors are back to full strength, it does mean that even as our tourism and hospitality sectors continue to struggle, our economy is growing. It also means that our approach is working — to support businesses, to operate safely. It means that businesses have stepped up to this challenge with hard work and dedication.

This pandemic has affected every British Columbian, but we recognize that some people and businesses have been impacted more severely than others. People of colour, especially, continue to experience higher rates of unemployment. We are committed to addressing the needs of the hardest hit and ensuring recovery works for everyone.

A couple of days ago I heard from a member of the opposition that the B.C. Liberals left us with the surplus budget. I chuckled at that statement, because I don’t agree with this statement. As the majority of British Columbians now know, that so-called surplus budget was not a surplus budget. It was the biggest deception.

How? Let me clarify and explain it to you: by taking millions of dollars away from Crown corporations like ICBC, mismanaging B.C. Hydro,money laundering, clawing back the disability bus passes and privatizing many services to avoid taking responsibility. It’s not a surplus budget. I am amazed by the audacity of the members of the opposition talking about transparency, given their very own track record. It is a big deception.

Why do members from the opposition forget to mention or highlight the $72 billion debt that was acquired under the B.C. Liberals’ government? Let me remind you of some of those numbers. Total provincial debt was around $45.2 billion when Ms. Clark took office in 2012. That was swollen to $65.3 billion. Then, according to the quarterly report at the time, it reached $72 billion in 2019. Talk about fiscal responsibility.

B.C. Liberals also completely gutted — yes, they gutted…. I’m sorry some members think these words are harsh, but that was the reality. I just can’t help it, not to mention…. Health care is the sector you don’t touch, or you shouldn’t touch, because people’s lives depend on how it is budgeted. So, yes, B.C. Liberals also completely gutted the health care system by laying off many — largely female — health care workers. Making the fewest buildings, having no staff and cutting existing health care staff is not called improving the health care services.

How would opposition members justify that so-called surplus budget that they’re referring to, to many of the health care colleagues who struggled financially due to the large 10 percent wage rollbacks under the B.C. Liberals? And many job losses with the privatization of services, like long-term care centres, food services and laundry — that was a recent one, especially in Interior Health, as well. Laundry was privatized and sold to one of their biggest donors from Alberta.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

I was so relieved that big money is taken out of politics, which helped us to remove a reputation of the wild west of Canadian political cash, where people were totally forgotten and the top 2 percent were the influencers on B.C. Liberals’ government’s decision-making.

It is a harsh reality. I’m sorry I have to mention it, but it’s good to contrast once in a while so voters know. To be clear, I’m not saying previous government. I am saying B.C. Liberals, as I’m more than happy to remind people of B.C. Liberals’ track record.

[3:30 p.m.]

Members from the opposition are also stuck in the ’90s and are so obsessed with the ’90s, yet they don’t like it when we mention 2016 to contrast. Let me remind you of the impact of the B.C. Liberals’ cuts and the consequences we have faced — as a young parent whose kids are in the education system and, as I mentioned, as health care professionals — in the delayed diagnosis and the error. Their direct impact was placed on kids seeking, like my daughter…. She had to wait for six to seven years for the service that she needed for her learning disability because those current services were cut. Finally, in 2017, some of the resources were added, and that’s when she accessed those services. But by then, it was too late. She was ready for high school.

Again, to the previous member, we don’t need to read any books if you are going through those lived experiences. If the member wants to discuss the ’90s track record, then I don’t think it’s unfair to reflect on the Social Credit’s history, where only the party name was changed but some cases remained the same. There should be no need to change party names to hide the track record in order to mislead voters.

It is so disappointing to hear the members of the opposition calling the recovery benefit “vote by money”. By making such statements, you are questioning the integrity of our voters and pretty much saying that British Columbians sell their votes. This is such a shame for any elected official, including myself, to make such statements or allegations.

There was also a comment made during a media interview, after the elections, from one of the B.C. Liberal candidates, saying that people were confused between the federal Liberals and the B.C. Liberal government, and that was the reason for losing some seats. Again, questioning voters’ intelligence and IQ level — I can’t even imagine. Voters and longtime B.C. Liberal supporters who talked to me — yes, talked to me — were so frustrated and disappointed at such statements. Wow. Just wow.

I want to remind the members of the opposition that when you baselessly point a finger towards others, three fingers get pointed at you. The B.C. NDP presented three consecutive balanced budgets until February 2020 and maintained a triple-A credit rating. This was achieved despite heavily investing in public services like health care, mental health, child care spaces, education, housing, eliminating the MSP. The list is long.

I know that there is much more to do, and it will take a while to fix and address 16 years of neglect. Yes, 16 years of neglect. I’m not going into the ’90s, just the recent 16 years before 2017. There is a reason I am proudly standing on this side of the House and continue to be part of the B.C. NDP. Even before, despite knowing the odds of my victory, there was no way, after witnessing and having to live through the hardships and seeing the direct impact on many of my patients due to the B.C. Liberals gutting the services that would be able to support them, that I could stand on that side.

It is no secret that when the pandemic struck, B.C. was an economic leader. We were one of Canada’s fast-growing economies with one of the lowest unemployment rates. Our strengths remain. We still have a skilled workforce, vast natural resources and our gateway to Asia.

We are still committed to unlocking the huge economic potential of reconciliation and tackling the climate crisis. We were already making great progress on keeping life affordable for people, building roads and homes and opening new schools and child care spaces. These things give us a head start on a strong recovery.

B.C.’s recovery won’t happen overnight, but by focusing on people and working for them, we are making progress. We have had British Columbians’ backs since the beginning. We will take the same approach during the recovery. December’s Speech from the Throne was a plan to keep supporting people through the winter, with direct support for health care, families, renters and businesses.

I have seen the direct positive impact of all these efforts in my riding in Vernon-Monashee. The B.C. recovery benefit is helping families make ends meet with payments of up to $1,000.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hard-hit small and medium businesses are receiving grants of up to $30,000, or up to $45,000 in a tourism business, to help keep people working. We are helping thousands of people to upskill, reskill and find in-demand jobs. We are going to keep improving fairness at ICBC and make life more affordable. We are going to increase in real estate — to protect people and tackle fraud.

Next month we will introduce Budget 2021, which will keep making health care better, support people and businesses and build stronger communities. The bottom-line reality is that the pandemic brought unexpected challenge faster than anyone could imagine. We are finding ways to support people, B.C. businesses are finding ways to pivot, and government is finding ways to help them.

In response to huge demand by B.C. businesses, we’re more than tripling the funding for the launch online program, to $42 million, to help more businesses develop e-commerce. The pandemic has disproportionately affected Black and Indigenous communities and people of colour, as I mentioned previously, which is why 30 percent of the grants will be reserved for BIPOC businesses and rural businesses.

Our government remains committed to helping businesses build back stronger so that people in the province have good jobs and more secure futures. I appreciate the announcement to provide millions to child care providers, school boards and health authorities to help them deliver COVID-safe care and renovate to create more spaces.

Our government has delivered hundreds of affordable, supportive and accessible housing units in Vernon alone, and these have changed many people’s lives. People from Vernon-Monashee are so appreciative of the recent announcements of more affordable housing for Vernon and area. This is going to benefit many more people by helping them to find a home. I thank our government for paying attention to this long-overlooked and -ignored issue of affordable housing in Vernon-Monashee. Bill 10, Supply Act, will help our government to continue these great initiatives to further support British Columbians.

With this, I would like to end my remarks and urge all the members of this House to think by putting people at your heart. There should be no place for ego or personal agendas in politics, because the people of British Columbia have put their trust and hopes in us. When they elected us, they were fully trusting. So let’s serve them well with selfless service. We are here working for people, and Bill 10, Supply Act, is aimed directly to helping people. It is okay to appreciate what’s done right, and it’s also okay to take accountability for what was not done right.

With that, I am closing, once again saying that I fully support this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to share my thoughts.

J. Rustad: I don’t know if we can really say it’s a pleasure to speak to Bill 10, but it is certainly a pleasure to continue to represent the people of Nechako Lakes and to make sure that their voice is brought forward in this Legislature.

It’s interesting, looking outside…. I’m speaking today from my home at Cluculz Lake in my riding. The weather has been nice. There has been a little bit of the lake that has opened up in front of our place, because it’s shallow. The first of the Canadian geese have arrived, which is always a pleasure for my wife and me to see. They’ve come up on our lawn. We’ve got a little bit of grass showing because we’ve got some southern exposure, and they’re nibbling on the grasses and doing what geese do: fertilizing the grass, which is not always quite so welcome, but it happens.

I have to admit that it made me wonder. It made me think, when I’m listening to some of these speeches here today, just how much fertilizer is really being spread around. Some of this stuff is pretty crazy that is being said, but I’ll get to that in a bit.

[3:40 p.m.]

The member for Vernon-Monashee, who just spoke up on Bill 10, said that she had read and reread the bill, that in the bill there’ll be money to help health care and there’ll be money to help with housing. Well, I read the bill, too. It’s one page, and there’s no mention of any of that. It’s simply a mention of a blank cheque. I guess this might be a difference between reading and comprehension. But I tell you, when I look through the bill, and when I look through at what was being offered, $13.4 billion is being asked for with no explanation about how it’s being spent.

Let’s take a look at some of these things that this government’s record has been. We’ll talk about the current government, first, before I go back to some of the greatest hits of the ’90s. We have a government who signed an agreement with the Green Party that clearly outlined that the election would be a set date.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Nechako Lakes, excuse me for a moment. Someone wants to raise a point of order.

Point of Order

Hon. N. Cullen: I do listen with great interest to my friend from Nechako Lakes. I know his constituency well. Beautiful part of the world with some incredible people with an enormous amount of dignity.

I think…. He started his speech, and I’m new to this place, so….

Deputy Speaker: What’s your point of order?

Hon. N. Cullen: Perhaps you can guide me. It’s that he referred to comments made by other members as “manure,” I believe, and spreading manure about the discussion and debate. Again, I’m new to this chamber. But in other parliaments, that type of language and reference to other members is certainly deemed unparliamentary at the very least, if not outright offensive, and not representative of the people we hope to represent.

I’m wondering if the member would consider retracting his comments and replacing them with something a little bit more appropriate for this chamber and the people he represents.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister, for bringing up the point of order.

Member for Nechako Lakes can continue, please.

Debate Continued

J. Rustad: Just to be clear: I did not use the word “manure,” so I will continue on with my speech.

As I said, we have a government that entered an agreement with the Green Party that laid out a fixed election date and broke their promise. They broke their promise. Does that mean the government should be trusted?

We have a government, when we hit the pandemic, that all parties came together to help, because we knew the people of British Columbia needed help. We signed over a blank cheque of $5 billion in good faith. We signed that over, because we knew that the people would need help, and we put some trust in the government to actually to be able to do that. What happened? They didn’t end up using the money accordingly. They used some of it, $1.5 billion, for their own election purposes. How can that be a government that can be trusted?

This Christmas the government came together after an election and asked for a blank cheque for $2 billion that we debated so that they could hand out cheques. They promised that the people in this province would all receive a $1,000 cheque before Christmas. Well, clearly, that promise was broken.

But more so…. We tried hard, and there was no explanation exactly as to how all that $2 billion was going to be spent, because it wasn’t all going to be needed for those cheques. So how was that money going to be spent? Well, guess what? We still don’t know. Personally, I think part of that is going to end up being a slush fund for this government, for money to go out the door to their friends and to other purposes around the province.

That, to me, also doesn’t build any trust. So now we’re in a situation where we have government asking, once again, for a blank cheque, $13 billion, to run what government needs to do, without any explanations for that. Now I get that it is normal for there to be a supply bill that comes in to help government get through the period of time when a budget is debated. That’s normal. But what is not normal is to put a supply bill in without a budget being introduced.

Last summer I did have to chuckle when the government, the NDP, decided to call back the Legislature so they could clear the deck for their fall election and pass the budget. The budget that was passed was completely irrelevant. It was already out by at least $5 billion, because we gave the $5 billion in addition.

[3:45 p.m.]

But with all the other changes and challenges of COVID, it was, quite frankly, farcical to be debating that budget, because of its irrelevancy. Yet we had to do it.

We debated the budget — went through the estimates, passed it — and now we’re being told that that budget that was completely irrelevant last summer…. Not completely, I suppose. There were still the operations of government, but that was obviously off, in terms of the overall budget, last summer. That’s the basis for asking for $13 billion, going forward. Once again, how does this bring any type of sense of accountability or trust in the pattern that this government has shown? Let’s not even bother mentioning the $10 daycare or the 100,000 supportive housing units or the $400 rebate or these other promises that government made and that clearly either had no intention or were somewhat erroneous in the way that they presented them to the voters.

I have in my riding, in my office, a sign that I put up above my desk. Every time I’m in my office, I always look at this sign. It’s an important reminder of who we are and what we’re doing as politicians. The sign says: “Think like a taxpayer.” It’s important to do that: to think like a taxpayer. How would a taxpayer look at this current bill?

You start talking about big numbers, like in the billions, and things like that, and people just glaze over because it’s hard to comprehend just what that actually means. So let’s put it in other terms. If somebody were to go out and want to buy a new vehicle. They went in, and the dealer sold him on all the things that were going to be in this vehicle but then said to him: “I want you to write a cheque for $13 billion. Or let’s make it $13,000, a number that is far easier to comprehend. Then once you get the vehicle and start driving it around a little bit, I’ll give you the rest of the bill.” You don’t even know how much of a down payment it is on that total price tag. You don’t know all the details on it. You’re just being asked to agree to an amount of money, with the rest of the bill and the rest of the details on it to come later.

Well, I can tell you there wouldn’t be a person in the province that would make that deal to buy that vehicle. Yet this government seems to think it’s okay to present that very same deal to the people of this province, to say: “Give us $13 billion, and we’ll tell you how much more it’s going to cost later.” So, yeah, I’ve got a problem with how this government is operating. It’s not good.

But it’s surprising to hear all of the members that have presented on the government side talking about how this is just normal. Well, I’ve got to tell you that if this is what the NDP think is normal, good God, we are in for a tough four years, because this is not normal. And it shouldn’t be recognized as normal. It shouldn’t even be thought of as normal — that the government would be asking for blank cheques, that the government would be moving forward, ignoring the rules and laws, asking for extensions, can’t even get it together to bring a budget in.

Do you know that every G7 country, with the exception of Canada — but you know, let’s not bother talking about what’s going on in Ottawa — has presented a budget? How difficult is this? And the worst part about this is that the budgets are predominantly driven by the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy, of course, is keeping track of all the numbers. They keep track of it on a monthly basis, if not a weekly or daily basis. I haven’t been the Minister of Finance. I don’t know for sure. But all of that information is there and available, so why can’t the government put it together?

I think back to when we were in government and we hit the largest financial crisis, the largest recession since the Great Depression. Yeah, we presented a budget. We had to go to election. We came out of that election, and the economy absolutely fell off a cliff, and our budget was off.

[3:50 p.m.]

So what did we do? We didn’t hide it. We didn’t drag it out and not put out quarterly reports. We came out and laid it out very clearly for people. This is what the problem is. This is the budget. These are the updates. This is where we need to go. It was clear. People could see it.

Why did we do that? We did that because the laws were brought in to show transparency and to make sure that the people of the province could have trust in a government because they’re being straight up with budgets. They were being straight up with what the numbers were.

And why did we bring in those laws? All of those laws were introduced by the B.C. Liberals. We brought them in because of fudge-it budgets under the NDP in the ’90s, because of the shenanigans that were played — the lack of transparency, the gamesmanship that happened. The people of the province were sick and tired of it.

Here we are with the same old crowd playing the same old music of the ’90s. They didn’t get it. They didn’t get it then, and they don’t get it now. They’re proving that they don’t get it, because every one of their members has stood up and said that this is normal.

I remember, famously, one of the members from the NDP cabinet, a minister, back in the ’90s, who said: “We’re government. We can do anything.” The arrogance and disrespect of that type of a statement are brutal. These are taxpayers. Like I say with that sign that’s over my desk, these are the taxpayers.

You have to think about this. This isn’t just some pot of money coming out of the air. These are people who work hard, trying to provide for their family, trying to put a house over their head, and who give money to the government through taxation so that government can be there for the services that are needed. But they also deserve to be respected. They deserve to know and not to have to write blank cheques. They deserve to see what’s happening.

You know, I listened to the Attorney General give his speech earlier today. I was quite shocked, quite frankly, that the Attorney General — the person who is supposedly the top person in terms of the law and understanding of the rules; the head of legislative review, I suspect — would come out and say that if this budget were not to be passed, it would shut down government and people would not be paid. How misleading can you be? How much of a lack of understanding of how government works could one person have, who is in that top seat and has been there for a while?

If this supplementary budget were not to pass, it’s a confidence motion. You go to an election. Special warrants get issued so government gets paid, and the work carries on. It doesn’t cause people to have to be paid. This isn’t like the United States, as the Attorney General referenced. It’s absolutely ridiculous for him to even bring that up.

Then he went on and talked about deferral accounts for B.C. Hydro. If my memory is correct, those deferral accounts, I believe, were used in the 1990s. If my memory is correct, those deferral accounts are even being used today on Site C, with the total mismanagement by this government to double the budget. Somehow it was wrong for the deferral accounts, which are, by the way, used by utilities around the world…. Somehow that was wrong for the B.C. Liberals to do it, but it’s okay when the NDP do it? What nonsense, absolute nonsense, that the Attorney General would bring up such things.

Then he goes and talks about ICBC. There’s been a lot of talk about ICBC. What I find most interesting…. The last budget that we brought in was reviewed by the Auditor and signed off. That included ICBC’s numbers — reviewed by the Auditor and signed off. What did we see when the NDP came? Well, suddenly it changed from a $300 deficit to, a few months later, a $600 deficit to, a few months later, a $1 billion deficit.

How is it that the Auditor General of the province could sign off on that and suddenly, within a few months, there’s $1 billion in ICBC? How could that have been if it wasn’t shifting in terms of how some of the accounting was done and how the actuarials were done in ICBC?

[3:55 p.m.]

I mean, I’m not in government. I don’t know exactly how they looked at it. They haven’t been transparent with it. But I can tell you something. I trust the Auditor General far more than I trust this government, especially with the way it has acted.

The member for Vernon-Monashee also mentioned bringing in a balanced budget in 2020. Well, the budget that was currently…. It obviously wasn’t balanced. The budget that was introduced was farcical. It wasn’t even close. Now yes, the pandemic hit. You couldn’t have seen it coming. There’s no way you could have anticipated the full depth of it. But it’s somewhat misleading or inaccurate to say that the budget that was brought in was balanced. It wasn’t.

I gave a speech in February of 2020 about this very thing, about how those numbers were likely off and wrong and that the budget wouldn’t be balanced. I remember getting heckled by the NDP members that were in the House at that time. Well, who ended up being right? The challenge that we have here, with this interim supply bill, is that we don’t know. We don’t know what government is going to be spending the money on. The government has had four years now to make these plans.

One of the previous members speaking talked about the fact that we need to take time to build an effective, long-term plan. Wait a second here. Were you running your election on a wing and a prayer? Did you not even think about having a budget and what needed to be done? Was there no plan or thought? Here you are, now that you’ve become government, and you’re out celebrating. Now you’re sitting down, thinking: “Well, what do we do now? We don’t really have a plan. I guess we’d have to take time to build a plan.”

That’s all part of what goes into an election. It’s all part of what goes into your platform. That’s going to go into your action plan when you come out of an election and the bureaucracy is there with all of the background and information ready to go. Why, suddenly, is it taking extra months for time to build an effective long-term plan? It makes no sense whatsoever, unless you use the word incompetence or an inability to actually be able to manage numbers.

We’ve always known that the NDP struggles with math. I get that; that’s fine. Math isn’t everybody’s strong suit. But when you think about this, what we’re debating here today, Bill 10, a supply budget is normally something that wouldn’t take up any time whatsoever. It’s normally something that is based on a budget that is already into estimates, and that is just a simple process of laying out spending for the next couple of months until the budget gets done. But this isn’t normal. There is nothing about this past budget year that is normal. I suspect strongly there won’t be a whole lot about this future budget year that will be normal.

Yes, we’ve got the vaccines coming. I was really pleased the other day to have been able to go in and help my mom, who is 99, and my dad, who is turning 94, to get their vaccine shots. I’m really happy that that has happened and that their immunity, their chance to be able to survive COVID, if it were ever to come around, has been increased and will increase for the next two or three weeks until it gets its maximum effect. That was great.

But we don’t know for sure exactly how all this is going to play out and whether or not tourism is going to come back, how the business sector is going to be able to recover and respond, whether it’s going to be a spike up and then back down. We don’t know yet, so 2021 is not going to be an average year either. It’s going to be unusual. That is still no excuse for not being able to bring in a budget and not being able to put in a supply bill that reflects the spending of that budget.

As I sit here, and I go through and think about the speeches that have been given and think about this process, I really do hope that people would just stop reading their speaking notes that have been handed down, all of the buzz lines and stuff, and think about what they’re actually doing here.

[4:00 p.m.]

It’s shameful to call it normal, because it’s not. I really hope that this government understands that its pattern from the 1990s, which is being repeated today, leads to a lack of confidence for companies to invest in this province. A lack of confidence for individuals to want to start up business and want to come forward. A lack of confidence in the ability for this province to be able to be successful, for families to be able to put their food on the table and support their children, and even be able to support their grandchildren.

It’s only through that transparency, and it’s only through being direct and straight up with people, that you can build confidence and that people will look at the province and say: “Yeah, I can do business there. Yes, I can create jobs there. Yes, I can support families there.”

Unfortunately, that pattern from the 1990s, which led to British Columbia becoming a have-not province, is on its way again, led by some of the very people that were involved in the 1990s debacle. I remember back a few years ago it was said — I can’t remember exactly who said this, but they said: “The NDP seem to be a party consisting of politicians from the 1990s solving problems from the 1950s.” I suspect that rings just as true today as it did back then. It’s unfortunate; it really is.

I had the opportunity to be the critic for Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, and our forest sector is doing very well right now, because we have high prices, because we’re receiving $850 to $1,000 U.S. board feet. Industries in my riding are working well.

People are at work. People aren’t paying a whole lot of attention to what is going on here today. I can understand that. With COVID going on, with work going on, with everything that’s happening, I can understand why people don’t pay a whole lot of attention to this, but they should, because at the end of the day this does matter.

At the end of the day, the size of the deficit — which is really just taxation on children — matters. The size of the deficit has an impact in terms of where we’ll be as a province and what we’ll be able to do down the road in terms of continuing to be able to offer services. But that transparency, that ability for a budget to be able to come forward, to be straight up, to be able to be scrutinized and then to be able to ask for the supplement that’s needed — that’s missing here, and it’s really a shame. As I mentioned already, those rules were brought in place because of what the NDP did in the ’90s, and they’re doing the same stuff again.

Like I say, it’s always an honour to be able to stand up and speak — or sit down and do this virtually, of course — on behalf of my constituents in Nechako Lakes.But it’s not a great pleasure to rise to speak to a bill like this because of these challenges and issues that we see.

I know the following speakers from government will come out, and they will rehearse all of the buzz lines and words that have been said. It is unfortunate, but that’s politics. You’ve been around this House long enough, you hear these speeches and you know how those things go. But it is unfortunate, because I do not think it serves the people of this province well. I don’t think it serves them well today, but most importantly it does not serve the province well for its future.

What this province needs is some transparency. It needs leadership that is willing to be able to come forward and be straight up. That is sorely lacking right now from this NDP government.

With that, I’ll take my place and carry on listening to the other responses. Thank you for this opportunity.

Point of Order
(Speaker’s Ruling)

Deputy Speaker: Members, a point of order was raised, during the speech of the member for Nechako Lakes by the Hon. Minister of State for Lands and Natural Resource Operations, that the member from Nechako Lakes had used unparliamentary language. The word that I heard was “fertilizer,” which in my judgment is not unparliamentary.

[4:05 p.m.]

Debate Continued

B. D’Eith: I rise today virtually to support Bill 10, the Supply Act.

I’m speaking today from the territory of the Katzie and Kwantlen First Nations.

I did want to take a moment just to say how amazingly pleased I was to see the vaccinations in Prince Rupert, especially given the high Indigenous population in Prince Rupert. It was just wonderful to see that on the news. A great thank you to all the front-line workers there and all the volunteers and everyone who is working to keep us safe.

Now, it’s interesting. In the last few B.C. Liberal responses to Bill 10, there’s this continued…. I’ve been hearing this since I was elected in 2017, this going back to the 1990s. It’s funny to hear that, because I know we have many young members in our caucus now who were in preschool during that time and don’t even know what members are talking about. I think probably what’s more relevant is what happened during the 16 years that the B.C. Liberals were in power, where they practised austerity and trickle-down economics. They plundered ICBC. They destabilized B.C. Hydro. They took teachers to court. They allowed massive, unchecked money laundering in an explosive, out-of-control housing market, and they lined the pockets of their friends at the top.

When we got into power — it was a minority government — we put people first, and we launched a 30-point housing plan. We had the first poverty reduction plan. We got rid of the regressive MSP premiums. We moved aggressively towards universal child care. We built hospitals and schools. And of course, for people in my area, getting rid of the tolls on the bridges was absolutely huge. Before the pandemic, we had balanced budgets, and we maintained a triple-A credit rating, and we had the lowest unemployment in Canada.

So I would suggest, perhaps, that the members on the opposite side may want to revise their playbook, as we can see from the fall election that nobody is listening to it anymore. It isn’t working. You know, you’ve got to…. I’m not trying to give you advice, but, man, it’s getting tired.

Let’s look at the bill, and let’s maybe put some context here. I mean, we obviously all know that we’re in the grips of the global pandemic, and hearing members from the opposition talk about deficits…. Everybody in economics, including B.C. Liberals, have accepted that in this interim period, in this very difficult time, deficits are required. I heard many, many B.C. Liberals agree to that last term — you know, this is required. It’s happening all over the world, and we need to stimulate the economy. In fact, I’m hearing from the opposition the need to spend — you know, do more to stimulate the economy. Well, obviously, that takes money.

Just in terms of context, the Economic Forecast Council estimates that B.C.’s gross domestic product declined 5.1 percent in 2020. The council predicts growth of 4.7 percent in 2021 and 4.3 percent in 2022. Now, while these are modest, it does bode well for British Columbia, and it shows us as a leader in the country for economic recovery. Since the economic low point in the pandemic in April, British Columbia has actually had nine consecutive months of job growth, and, according to Statistics Canada’s labour force survey of January 2021, this has actually brought our employment levels to more than 98 percent of the pre-pandemic levels.

You know, I really have to give a lot of credit to Dr. Bonnie Henry here for keeping construction open, for keeping infrastructure open, for managing the pandemic in such a professional and measured way to actually allow our province to continue to work under such dire circumstances.

Contrary to the opposition, their allegations that the province is not being managed properly…. In fact, we’ve retained the status as the only province with a triple-A credit rating by the three international rating agencies, and this really does signal prudent fiscal management. And not just from us, from the B.C. NDP or from the government caucus. These are from the rating agencies. They are looking at our government, and they are saying: “You are a prudent fiscal manager of your economy.”

[4:10 p.m.]

At the outset of the pandemic, the B.C. government responded to support people, businesses and communities through a lot of measures, like workers benefits, income and disability assistance top-ups, temporary tax reductions and deferrals. In September 2020, the province announced targeted investments through the StrongerBC economic recovery plan to help British Columbians get back to work, while supporting the infrastructure, services and shared growth needs for B.C.’s economic recovery.

In fact, if we look at housing starts, they are strong. Sales are strong. I look in my neighbourhood. The houses go up for sale, and sometimes there are multiple bids on them, right now, in Maple Ridge and Mission. Things are tough, but there are a lot of things that we can proud of.

The province has been well managed, both from a public health and economic relief and recovery perspective. It really is a testament to the steady hand of the financial till of our past Finance Minister Carole James and, of course, the prudent and compassionate work that our new Finance Minister is also doing.

I saw a member raise his hand to say: “You can’t say a name.” Well actually, just to remind members, Carole James is no longer in the House, but I miss her dearly.

Our new Finance Minister continues to compassionately and prudently take our province forward. That’s why it’s so important that we ensure, with this supply bill, that we actually don’t lose any momentum. In fact, that’s the essence of Bill 10, because what it is does is ensure that the people, businesses and communities know — it gives that confidence — that they’ll have the support, regardless of the timing of the budget, a budget that will be tabled in a few weeks and then debated.

It’s common practice every year for the province to pass an interim supply bill to make sure that the current services can continue while the new budget is debated in the Legislature. Particularly in this year, with the pandemic, it’s critical that we have this supply bill to ensure that the supports continue through this period from the end of the fiscal until the passing of the 2021 budget.

Of course, we’ve come a long way as a province, but this is just the beginning of the recovery. We have a long road ahead of us, and we really, really need to continue that support. Of course, from a practical point of view, members have to recognize that we have to have that time for estimates, that time for robust debate. That’s why we’ve always needed these interim supply bills.

By moving the budget to April, we’re able, actually, to give us greater time to connect with businesses and people to develop a really effective, long-term plan that builds on our current supports. We’re in a very difficult time. Budget 2021 will continue to focus on keeping people safe throughout the pandemic and will keep an eye to seizing the opportunities that we can have to move things forward.

As far as the interim supply bill, it’s also very important to ensure the current supports and services continue while the new budget is debated. In the meantime, we’re continuing to announce new and updated programs, and many previously announced supports can continue. For example, the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation just announced the extension of the small and medium business grant until August ’21 — so we need to be able to see this through — and adjusted the requirements so that a business will have to demonstrate a loss of not 70 but 30 percent. The changes have been made to make it more accessible, and $80 million is committed or out the door. We expect these changes will continue the acceleration of businesses accessing this program.

Because of the wildly successful online grant program, that program is actually being…. This $30 million that was just announced to help B.C. businesses move their businesses online was massively oversubscribed right away. So the government and the minister are showing flexibility in saying: “Hey, look. This is what people need. Let’s do more of this.” Now there is $42 million of grant funding in place to help small and medium businesses across the province move their businesses online. As we can see, there’s so much activity online for people to provide services, whether that’s telehealth, or sell products, so this is a really im­portant move.

[4:15 p.m.]

We’re helping people now. The province’s $10 billion COVID-19 response is protecting people’s health and livelihood and investing in stronger communities and a brighter future. We need to continue to be responsive to the needs of people, businesses and communities to see them through this pandemic and into a strong economy that supports all of British Columbia.

Of course, Budget 2021 will focus again on keeping people safe throughout the pandemic but also with an eye to, as I said earlier, seize those opportunities for recovery. That means listening to people. It’s not going to be the same path for some sectors in the economy. We look at some sectors, like the film industry, that were able to bounce back and have a very strong fall, the strongest fall ever, whereas other industries, like tourism or arts and culture, which I’ll address later, are struggling and will have more struggles to come because of the nature of every sector. So we have to be targeted, and we have to be smart about how we look at those things. This bill will help continue those programs that are happening now.

I mean, at the start of the pandemic, the greater uncertainty about how the impacts were felt…. We invested in broad tools. That’s also how the federal government worked, with CERB, for example. They were kind of blunt instruments because we had to act very quickly. But now we can be a little more strategic. As we continue through the pandemic response, we have to identify those most effective, and support has to be targeted to address the specific needs of specific groups and sectors. At the same time, we have to show flexibility, and that flexibility is really important so that we can actually support businesses and people in the way that they need. That has to be reflected in our day-to-day decisions.

It’s so interesting. When I hear flexibility, for example…. Last spring, I was asked by the Premier to reach out to the arts and culture community with the former Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture, and we talked to — I don’t even know how many — dozens and dozens and dozens of stakeholders in the arts and creative industry sector. Some of those things we heard were: “Look, we can’t do what we normally do. Give us flexibility to do other things. We can’t do this festival. Can we pivot into something else?” So pivoting and flexibility became very important. “Federal programs aren’t helping us in this way. Can you fill the gap?” Those are the sorts of things we listened to. In response to that, we responded.

Take a step back. If we’re talking about arts and culture, arts and culture are critical to the well-being of our society and a healthy, vibrant community. We actually, in British Columbia, have the highest concentration of arts and culture workers in Canada. We have an amazing, vibrant and diverse cultural sector, and it really does contribute to our resiliency, our vitality and the health of the communities. So we need to reflect. We have. This is reflected in the policies that we’ve had.

Just to look at how hard hit…. In December, the StatsCan labour force survey indicated that there was a 32 percent decrease in performing arts and spectator sports and related industries in B.C., which is massive. So we’re looking at an industry that…. Prior to the pandemic, the GDP for live performance, visual and applied arts and written and published work was $2.7 billion in 2018 and supported over 101,000 jobs — nearly 102,000 jobs. So a lot of people rely on that.

What happened? At the beginning, we did these consultations. We reached out right away. “How can we help? How can we help?” Of course, there were federal programs. One of the programs was the CERB program. So we, as well as many of the other stakeholders around the country — it wasn’t just us — lobbied hard, because the original CERB didn’t help the arts community because of royalties and because if you earned any other income, you couldn’t get CERB. So by having the $1,000 exemption and exemption on royalties, we were able to get many musicians and artists into that program. There are many other federal programs that were also done.

[4:20 p.m.]

There’s an investment of $181 million that is going out of the Department of Canadian Heritage. That is planned to help art communities. There’s also a $500 million emergency support fund, and there’s a brand-new Canadian emergency rent subsidy program. So there are a number of federal programs, which is wonderful. It’s great that the feds have stepped up with these things. But the province also stepped up, not only to help make sure the federal programs were responsive but also to actually help with the gaps and to actually help our local British Columbia arts, culture and creative industries.

What happened right away is that, after the consultations, $15 million was actually accelerated, in the spring, to operate B.C. Arts Council clients with their cash flow — and $3 million in arts and culture resiliency supplements. There was also $200,000 for the Vancouver Foundation, through the B.C. Arts Council, to support community responses and money for museums. So that hap­pened last spring.

Then, further consultations went on, and there was actually a B.C. Arts Council program that had targeted relief. For example, the B.C. Arts Council now has a micro grant pilot program for artists offering up to $1,500 to help artists and cultural practitioners. This is really important to consider because of the very specific needs of artists.

Another thing that Creative B.C. did was provide 740 micro grants to support musicians because musicians couldn’t perform live. This allowed them to move to live-streaming through Showcase B.C. So that was a very im­portant program.

This happened through the spring. Then, in the summer, we announced $2 million. It was an arts and infrastructure program that was launched. Of course, we know that in September, there was $21 million allocated to support arts and culture resilience, and $16 million of that was expanded arts and cultural resilience supplement, and then a $5 million Pivot Program. These are really important programs that show the province’s commitment to arts and culture.

In addition to that, in January — so moving forward — B.C. Arts Council launched a $500,000 pivot for artists, and this provides professional artists with grants up to $12,000. So to say — and I’ve heard this sometimes in question period — that there are no supports for the arts…. I say: “What?” There has been a massive amount of support for the arts, both federally and provincially. B.C. has stepped up in a huge way.

In fact, I was appointed as Parliamentary Secretary for Arts and Film, and since then we’ve received so many letters expressing gratitude for what has happened. A really good example of that is a letter that we got from Early Music Vancouver. This was addressed to the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport and signed by Fran Watters, who is the president, and Suzie LeBlanc, who is the artistic and executive director. It says:

“On behalf of the board, staff and musicians of Early Music Vancouver, we’d like to take the opportunity to personally thank you for all that you, your team and your government have done to support the B.C. arts and culture community through the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Early Music Vancouver was founded in 1970 and in the past 50 years has become an internationally recognized institution for its excellent concerts, which feature historically informed performance practices, and for its many educational programs that have created a flourishing centre for early music here on the west coast.

“In early 2020, EMV was preparing to celebrate its 50th anniversary with a significant celebratory fundraiser and concert on April 5, where more than 200 local musicians from the Pacific Baroque Orchestra and three beloved Vancouver choirs would have performed the glorious music of Beethoven’s first symphony at the Chan Centre for Performing Arts. Unfortunately, this event, along with the balance of our concert season and our two-week summer festival, were cancelled effective March 13, 2020, due to COVID health restrictions.

[4:25 p.m.]

“The funding support from the province of B.C., including operating and emergency funding from the B.C. Arts Council, Creative B.C. and B.C. gaming, allowed EMV to quickly pivot its programming from in-person events to online offerings. In just a couple of months, EMV created and delivered three new online projects: EMV summer school, an eight-week course exploring the music of antiquity and medieval music; Music for the Pause, an 11-concert series featuring Victoria-based musicians; and a musical offering, a 12-portrait project that highlighted local musicians and arts workers practising their art during the pandemic.

“EMV then developed the Digital Concert Hall for its 2020-2021 season, an 18-concert series that runs from September to May and is free for anyone to access and enjoy. This series has allowed EMV to hire local musicians and a variety of others from the music community, including producers, video and recording experts, technical crews, venues and other services required to create each unique video.

“It has also allowed us to offer the solace and inspiration of fine music to our ever-expanding audience, who can view the concerts in the comfort and safety of their own home. Many of our viewers are seniors, and we know from them that this has been a tremendous gift to those who need it.

“All of this would not have been possible without the incredible support of your government this year, and we are truly and most grateful. Thank you.”

The point here is that we are doing the work, and we need to continue to do this work to make sure that we can continue to fund the arts communities and all of the other sectors in the province.

Another example is, as of today…. I did receive a Facebook post today from Renegade Productions. They did a shout-out, and it said: “A shout-out to the government of British Columbia for approving a small business grant which we will use to pivot our business to online services. Glad to see our provincial government supporting the arts.” It’s really nice to see these types of correspondences that come in and the impact that that’s been having.

As parliamentary secretary, I was very happy to receive a list of over 100 artists and bands that received funding from the Amplify B.C. program from Creative B.C. It’s going to have a huge impact on their lives.

Of course, as I mentioned, because of health measures and the incredible cooperation between the industry, unions and public health, the film industry not only had a strong fall; they had the best fall they’ve ever had. It’s absolutely stupendous, and it’s a testament to, really, how well we’ve done as a province. We should be proud. A shout-out to everyone in British Columbia, all of the people who’ve stepped up and listened to Dr. Bonnie Henry, because that’s why we’re doing so well.

This momentum needs to be sustained throughout the months between the end of the budget cycle and the final approval of the budget. This interim supply bill, being normal…. It’s particularly important now as we roll out vaccines and move B.C. to a full recovery.

The reality is that we always have interim supply and that we need this in order that we can have a robust estimates debate. I really believe that we need to have this temporary legal authority for the government to continue. That’s what the programs and services into the new fiscal year…. This is what this is about. Obviously, Budget 2021 is going to be tabled in a few weeks, and it’s an important part of a strong, long-term economic recovery that positions British Columbia for success in a post-pandemic world.

Wouldn’t that be nice? A post-pandemic world. Of course, we’re still in that, and part of what we’re needing now is to absolutely make sure that we don’t lose the momentum, we don’t lose that interim period. If we didn’t have the money to continue the programs, it would have a huge, huge impact on all sorts of programs around the province.

It’s important for us to take the time to really look at the important things that have happened and think of the things that wouldn’t continue.

[4:30 p.m.]

For example, we have a new assertive community treatment, ACT, team in Maple Ridge that’s addressing the needs of people with severe mental health challenges; or, for example, the community gaming grants that our Kanaka education and support centre recently received; or the urgent and primary care centre that was recently opened in Maple Ridge and the primary care networks that are operating in Maple Ridge and Mission. These are all things that need this interim funding.

Cultural organizations, such as the ACT in Maple Ridge, received an expanded arts and culture resilience supplement from B.C. Arts Council. I mean, the ACT has been dark for months and months. They need these funds, and we need to continue to be able to provide these funds. Organizations like the Mission Association for Community Living got temporary pandemic pay, and they were able to survive.

Let’s not leave this without considering the impact of child care in our community. In fact, $23 million has been invested through the temporary emergency funding…. Sorry. The total amount of child care investments is $23 million in Maple Ridge and Mission. The total that’s gone back to parents through reduced fees is $11 million. We’ve actually created 301 new spaces. So we need to keep this work going. It’s so, so important.

Some of the members on the other side were talking about the $12 billion. It is a lot of money; I appreciate that. But we’re also looking at a $60-billion-plus budget overall. So this truly is — even though it seems like a lot of money — bridge funding that will get us through the budget cycle and make sure that those important programs, provincially and in my community and communities around British Columbia, are still there.

As I said, in other years the interim supply bill provides that temporary legal authority for governments to continue the programs. We’re confident that we have enough of an interim supply with this to fund all of the programs and the services until we have that Budget 2021 in place. That’s a very important thing to consider.

In closing, regardless of the budget time, we have to continue to support people’s lives and livelihoods through the pandemic. We’re working to ensure that there’s money for the programs that are helping people now so that they can plan ahead — so we can plan ahead — to make sure B.C. has a strong recovery. We’re listening to community and advocates, and we’re committed to doing as much as we can to support those vulnerable populations in the province.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

We’re really looking at all of the things we need to do in terms of sustaining all of the programs that have happened but also looking at the things that we need to do in pivoting and being flexible. Remember, in the consultations that I had, that flexibility, that ability to be nimble and move on projects to make sure that they are impactful…. We did the broad sort of blunt-instrument funding. Now we need to do the targeted funding.

This interim supply is so important to ensure that we always are able to make those little changes that we can — like, for example, the business online program and adding funding there. That is something that business showed they needed, and the minister was able to respond to that. That’s exactly what I’m talking about.

I support Bill 10, and I actually encourage the opposition to do the same. This is in order to make sure that the measures for affordability, the enhanced services that we brought about and the support for recovery from the pandemic can continue without interruption in this critical, critical time. I would encourage the opposition to really think about that for a sec.

I mean, I keep hearing from the opposition criticisms back to the 1990s, and I was trying really hard to find something to rebut. But quite frankly, there’s nothing. This is really simple. We’re in the middle of a pandemic. We need to support people. We need to support businesses.

This money is required to get us in that interim period between when the budget ends in a few days and when the budget is debated and finalized. We have to do that. Again I would encourage the opposition to maybe look at it again and vote with us on this because this is about helping people. This is about helping people during a pandemic. This is about ensuring that we have the funds and the resources to move forward as a government to make sure that British Columbia recovers. With that, I will support the bill.

[4:35 p.m.]

J. Tegart: It’s a pleasure to be in the House today to speak to Bill 10, the Supply Act. In the words of a creative orator from across the way, I get the sense as I listen to the debate that there may be a little jiggery-pokery going on here.

Usually, these acts pass with little debate. They allow 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 should. This Supply Act is notable in that the government is asking the House for billions of dollars — $13.4 billion, to be exact — without giving any indication of how they are going to spend it.

I’m very pleased to hear the members across the way give us some hints. I, taking those words, will give you some hints on where I think the money should be spent. Despite the protesting of government members that: “There is nothing to see here. Don’t know what the problem is. It’s a normal thing. It’s done every year….”

Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Members, if I could ask you to please mute your communications. We have a speaker here from Fraser-Nicola who has the floor. Let’s give her the respect.

J. Tegart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Despite the protests of the government members that, “There is nothing to see here. Don’t know what the problem is. It’s done every year. It’s a normal process,” and again, “Don’t know what your problem is….” These words have been shared by many on the other side of the House. I feel a need to clarify, for them and to the public, that all kinds of red flags go up for me when the government doth protest so much.

As someone who values transparency in government, there’s an obvious problem giving any level of government a blank cheque of $13.4 billion. In previous years, government would table a budget. They would have a throne speech. We would have some idea of what government’s vision and plans are. We would have a clear direction on how they planned to spend the money and would then table a supply bill to ensure the continuation of government programs based on the budget that was presented.

Not this year. This year government has chosen to delay the tabling of the budget — so in effect, is asking for a blank cheque. To spend on what? “Trust us” just doesn’t work for me. British Columbians are left in the dark. This legislation before us actually contains a workaround from the financial rules in the Financial Administration Act. The NDP are legally required to present a budget first. Should British Columbians be concerned? Of course they should.

The last time this government spent public funds without a proper budget was in the 1990s, an era of bud­gets that I’m sure no one wants to revisit. This is an issue, not just because we want to know what the NDP is planning to do with this budget but also because we have no confidence that they will spend the money well or in the way that they tell us they will spend the money.

[4:40 p.m.]

“Trust us” is not working for me and the people I represent. This government has quietly and gradually undone all the safeguards that the previous government put in place to ensure transparency and responsibility around the budget in B.C. Delaying budgets and quarterly reports, expanding the use of special warrants, finding ways to bypass transparency, and then to stand in this House and say: “Trust us.” I don’t think so.

We have a Premier, a chief of staff, a Minister of Health, who were all around for the notorious fudge-it budget years. Members across the aisle say: “That was so long ago. Forget about it.” Shame on us if we don’t learn from history. A history that saw the then NDP Premier resign in disgrace. A history that saw RCMP raid the then Premier’s house. A history when the current Minister of Health was forced to resign from his job in the Premier’s office for backdating a memo. “Trust us.” I don’t think so.

The fudge-it budget saw that same Premier claim the budget was balanced before the election. Then — surprise. Everyone realized after the votes were counted that there was no balanced budget. 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 despite widespread incompetence, 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 financial protections in the first place, measures that this government is currently trying to circumvent with the bill before us today.

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

After 25 years, we can’t help but to be reminded of the old NDP playbook of corruption and secrecy that plagued the previous NDP government and nearly brought this province and its finances to the brink. It’s history repeating itself, and it took 16 years of hard work and fiscal responsibility to bring us back. So $13.4 billion, with absolutely no indication of where the money will go. “Trust us,” they say. I think not.

As I listen to the debate in the House and I listen to the hints from people across the way of what they perceive might be in that budget, I have a number of questions regarding the expenditures of $13.4 billion that I would respectfully ask the government to consider when they finally show us where the money will be spent. It’s almost like Christmas.

[4:45 p.m.]

I’m honoured to serve as the official opposition Education critic. In that role, I have talked to hundreds of people across the province, sharing their concerns and asking questions.

School districts, educators and support staff have all gone above and beyond the call of duty to prepare our classrooms for a school year unlike any other. Teachers and school staff have found themselves on the front line of our fight against the pandemic, but many feel that they have not been offered the support and resources that they need to protect themselves and their students. I would like to suggest to government — and I’m hopeful — that personal protective equipment be part of the funding under the $13.4 billion budget.

Government has repeatedly ignored the request for additional measures of protection from teachers, school staffs and parents, requests such as mandatory mask-wearing, requests such as improved ventilation for air quality, requests such as greater COVID data reporting and transparency of what’s happening in schools, requests such as offering school districts the flexibility to implement additional layers of protection that go beyond what is outlined by the province to protect them against the rise in COVID variants and requests such as more widespread use of COVID rapid tests in schools. I’m extremely hopeful that these requests are included in the funding that this government is asking for.

School districts have ramped up staffing in order to provide a safe and COVID-free environment in schools. Is there continued funding for these enhanced services? School districts have also added teaching staff to provide options for students who are perhaps compromised or who have a vulnerable family member at home. Schools are providing both in-school programs and distance learning in order to accommodate these situations. The question is: is there funding available to continue to support these additional programs?

In Vancouver school district, parents are outraged that their children are not receiving the hours of instruction that are laid out in the School Act. This affects students who are competing to get into university and college and will affect their future for years to come, all while students in neighbouring districts are receiving the required hours. Teachers are stressed, support staff are stressed, students are stressed, and parents are stressed.

This government, by choosing to delay Budget 2021 by 60 days, leaves many questions unanswered. At a time when British Columbians and our education system are craving stability, certainty and transparency, this government presents a supply bill that asks for $13.4 billion, with no sense of stability given to our public education system.

[4:50 p.m.]

Like this bill, the NDP’s handling of its COVID education plan has followed a worrying trend of a lack of transparency and accountability that has become prevalent in this administration. “Trust us,” they say. Sorry, I just can’t.

Back in January, I wrote a letter to the Minister of Education asking for public disclosure on how the $242.4 million federal government grant has been and will be allocated to improve health and safety standards in B.C. schools, including a financial breakdown and a summary of resources that have already been distributed. I also asked for a detailed breakdown of planned and completed ventilation system upgrades in B.C. schools, including timelines, procedures and desired outcomes with respect to improving health and safety standards for students and staff. The third thing I asked for was clarification about which administrative bodies will be responsible for the allocation of these resources and details about how your government intends to ensure that school districts adhere to clear and definitive timelines for the implementation of ventilation upgrades.

The question I have to government is: will part of this $13.4 billion be used for any of those requests? I’ve talked to parents in Surrey. Will some of this money be used to eliminate Surrey portables, or is it just another broken promise by this government? These questions remain unanswered by government. This supply bill gives no hint whatsoever whether there will be stability in our schools. But I’m to trust them.

I also want to talk about some issues in my riding that I hope are being included in the mysterious $13.4 billion. For those of you who don’t know, I represent the beautiful riding of Fraser-Nicola, located in the interior of our province. It’s a riding that has seen its fair share of challenges, including wildfires, floods and mountain pine beetle, to name a few. We’re a resilient people that have traditionally taken care of our own, but we are tired. Our businesses are struggling and having a hard time. Our communities are experiencing flooding for the fourth and sometimes fifth year. Our economies are challenged. And then along comes COVID.

In speaking to communities like Merritt and Cache Creek, leaders are telling me that although government will cover 80 percent of costs during an emergency, often declared during flooding or wildfires, with these events happening year after year, communities are finding it harder and harder to provide their 20 percent. What I’m hearing in my riding is that communities would appreciate funding that is allocated to recognize and mitigate damage from events that used to be unusual but are happening with more frequency. They see the trends that are happening, whether due to climate change or weather change, and they would like to partner with government to plan mitigation strategies.

Are there funds in the $13.4 billion to help communities be proactive rather than reactive? I can tell you that people who have property on Stump Lake would sure like to know if there are funds available to assist with the freshet flooding that has happened over the last number of years.

[4:55 p.m.]

We have knocked on the door of government to assist, but to no avail. It seems that government agencies have dollars to do repairs from flooding. They’ve had to repair the highway a number of times in one year. But when asked to plan ahead, no money forthcoming. Will the people of Stump Lake be included in this $13.4 billion budget?

In my own community of Ashcroft, the local NDP candidate indicated that the Premier had promised 24-7 emergency room services. You can imagine how excited people in my community were. Have we seen anything close to that? Not a hint; not a word. In fact, the latest news I received just this week is that Interior Health is dismantling the lab at the Ashcroft health site and moving lab equipment out of our community. Another broken promise, and a question: is there funding for this promised service in the $13.4 billion?

During the election, the Premier and the NDP promised to spend $44 million training 7,000 new front-line workers from long-term-care and assisted-living facilities. Is this included in the $13 billion?

What about improved services for mental health and addictions? B.C. has seen the worst numbers of opioid deaths to date, yet this government has a larger budget for the Premier’s office than they do for Mental Health and Addictions. Do they intend to use this supply bill to bring British Columbians the help and support that has been woefully missing under this administration?

What about the rural dividend fund that this government stripped away from our rural communities? At a time when we need to promote innovation and economic opportunity in our rural communities, is this fund included in the $13.4 billion?

How about Internet and broadband? COVID has shown us how important those services are and how disadvantaged communities are that can’t provide the broadband needed. Is this included in this $13.4 billion?

This government is asking us to trust them. Quite honestly, my father taught me that trust is something you earn. When I think about the history, I think about the fudge-it budget. I think about the call of a snap election in the middle of a pandemic. I think about the lack of transparency in data collection and sharing during an incredibly stressful time. I think about the botched small business program and government’s inability to get the money out the door. The list goes on and on.

I can tell you there is no end to the need in my riding. One of my concerns when government asks for a blank cheque of $13.4 billion is how much of those dollars will come into rural British Columbia. I’ve shared with this House a project that we are working on in my riding through the Fraser Canyon. We did our second open house today, and we’re doing our third one tomorrow. People are excited. People are thrilled that the planning and the foundation for the work is being done.

[5:00 p.m.]

But in order to implement, we’re going to need government support. And when I’m looking at a budget, I’m looking line-by-line to see if there are the dollars needed in order to assist projects in my riding. When I look at a request for $13.4 billion with no lines — “Just sign and give us the money and trust us”?— that is not a budget process that I’m comfortable with.

My constituents send me to Victoria to be their voice. One of the most important things we do as MLAs is to peruse the government’s budget, to ask the questions, to probe, to ensure that what is in the budget is real and will make a difference in all of our ridings. To be part of a debate on a bill that says, “Give us $13.4 billion without any indication of what that will support,” goes absolutely against the grain.

I understand totally that we need to continue government. There is no doubt about that, but I’m saying to government: “You have shortchanged us today. You have an obligation to give us the information that we’re requesting.”

I can’t believe that government would actually expect that this side of the House would not have questions when you ask for a blank cheque. And a blank cheque is exactly what you asked for.

As I said, I respected my father and his advice. Trust is earned. When COVID-19 hit the province, all parties in this House came together for the people of British Columbia. We passed unprecedented spending authority in good faith, recognizing that our people were struggling and needed government support.

We trusted that government would do what it said and get that money out the door to the people who needed it most. Guess what? That trust was thrown back in our face by a Premier who used that trust, hoarded those dollars and announced a snap election in the midst of a pandemic, throwing that trust right back in our face. Trust you? Shame on me if I do.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

D. Clovechok: Thank you very much, Speaker. It’s al­ways nice to see you.

I’m always honoured to rise in this House and speak on behalf of the hard-working mountain people that are my constituents and friends in Columbia River–Revelstoke. It’s for them and with their grace that I do this work, and it’s for them that I’m here today. It’s for them I fight the fights that I fight and make sure that their voices are heard from six mountain ranges and a ferry ride away from this special place.

It’s also my pleasure to speak today in continuance of the debate of Supply Act, Bill 10, that’s in front of us today. I was beyond amused, to say the least, when the other day the member for Stikine took us on a journey back into the 1990s, talking about Harry Potter, talking about girl and boy bands and, yes, Beanie Babies.

[5:05 p.m.]

It was a nonsensical journey into the past that had absolutely nothing to do with this bill, but it was an exaggerated way of telling us that the NDP have moved on from the ’90s, inferring, of course, that we too should do the same.

Well, I would encourage that member, with all respect, to share that moving-on strategy with the rest of his caucus so that every time that we hear in this House, “16 years,” it stops being said — 16 years. The member from Maple Ridge–Mission also referenced that just earlier on, about getting past all of that.

My suggestion, again, is take your own advice and get rid of that 16 years, because it, too, is getting old. I know that doesn’t resonate well with the folks over on the other side, but I’m confident that with the help of the member of Stikine, that his experience with the ’90s will be helpful to his colleagues to, indeed, move on from this as well.

Understanding history is incredibly important, be­cause history defines and determines what today is. History helps us define and determine what tomorrow is. I want to talk a little bit about working together. The member from Stikine, actually, in his dissertation said something I thought was very powerful: “Work with us. Work with us.” I’d like to talk a little bit about how that works — working with us.

Working requires an enormous amount of trust. Working together requires an incredible amount of trust. I’m reminded of what seems like a long time ago — probably because it was — when I was a high school football coach, the head football coach. I used to tell my players about and teach my players about trust. I remember telling them a team is not only a group of people that works together, a team is a group that trusts together. Without trust, there cannot be success, and I know those words worked for those players because we won two city championships. It worked. They worked together. They trusted together.

I guess my premise around trust is that it was ingrained in me as a young man. I know that one of my colleagues today referenced his dad earlier on, and I’m going to do the same. I remember one of the teachings that my father gave me was: “When you reach out your hand to somebody and give your word to someone, that’s your honour. That’s who you are.” The advice he gave to me — and it still sticks with me to this day — is that: “Give your word with caution. Make sure that you understand what you’re doing with that word, because once it’s given, you can’t take it back. It’s your honour. It’s who you are.”

Here’s the rub with that. This government has introduced a supply act. As the member from Stikine so correctly in his assertations said, this is nothing new. Governments do this all the time. He is absolutely correct in that assertation, in that assumption. What is, however, new and highly unusual, is that the government today is asking this House for about $13.4 billion — without a budget.

If I may reflect back to December when we were in this House, and the budget was suspended in terms of presentation from February until April, which is now coming up, of course. It almost seems that this scenario, that we’re standing here in this hallowed place today, was prescribed already back in December. It comes as no surprise. And $13.4 billion without a budget — even with a budget — is an incredible amount of money. It’s highly unusual, and it is kind of new when you think about it, that we’re asking for $13.4 billion without a budget.

[5:10 p.m.]

The thing is, the NDP government wants all that money without a single stitch, not a single stitch, of explanation as to how they’re going to spend it. Not a single piece of information. Not a single word. Not one budget line reference. Not one.

I guess I have to ask this question. Does that inspire trust? Does that inspire the people that I stand here for today back in Columbia River–Revelstoke? That says to me, or to them, because that’s why I’m here — not for me, but for them: does that inspire trust? I don’t think it does. I don’t. And I’ve heard from them.

We are, without question — there’s no doubt about it — living in unprecedented circumstances, none like we’ve ever experienced and none like, in my a little over 60 years, I have ever experienced, and I hope we never get to do it again. But we’re not the first generation to face a pandemic. If we think back to 1918, when all those who survived the battlefields of World War I returned home. They were returning home to rejoin their families when the Spanish flu hit 500 million people. At that time, it was one of the deadliest pandemics in human history, but that didn’t mean the government could just shy away from their responsibility. As a matter of fact, they didn’t delay their budget. They pushed on. They got through it. And history can verify that. Not the only pandemic.

A responsible government would have tabled the budget in February, as we normally do, pandemic or not — it was possible to do that — so that everybody, everyone, including my constituents, has a clear, line-by-line accounting of how the government is going to spend $13.4 billion. I support spending money in the pandemic, and I support helping people during a pandemic time. It’s incredibly important. It’s the process that I have objection to, without any accountability. For me, that’s a big problem. For my constituents, that’s a big problem. For those of us who value government transparency — and again, includes my constituents….

Kind of as a preamble, for the member for Stikine…. I’m going to take him back and us all back to the ’90s, with an expressed intent. And that intent is to clarify an understanding, for him and others, as to how the decade of the ’90s relates to trust or, in this case, the lack of trust, right now. So let’s, together, all go back to the future.

The NDP government of that decade seems uncannily familiar to the one we have before us today, and, yes, I’ve got to say, with some of the same actors. It comes as no surprise to anyone in this province, quite frankly, that today’s reality, as it relates here to Bill 10 today, relates to the fact that the current Premier, his chief of staff and the current Health Minister were all around in government in the 1990s.

We’ve already heard in this House, but I think it bears repeating. It was a time when the then NDP Premier — can you get your head around this? I remember seeing it — a government Premier, the leader of one of the most special provinces in this country, one of the most special places on this planet — was forced to resign in absolute disgrace, with the world watching a scandal as it unfolded. Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker? Canada and the world watched as the RCMP raided his house, the then Premier’s home, while our current Premier’s chief of staff nervously watched.

[5:15 p.m.]

It was a time when the current Minister of Health was forced — forced, I say — to resign from his job in the Premier’s office for backdating a memo. That’s serious stuff. It became known across this country as the NDP fudge-it budget.

For those watching at home who have not already seen and heard what has been said in this House, let me repeat why. The then NDP Premier claimed his budget was balanced, before the election: “We have a balanced budget.” Well, people got out to the polls, and they voted. After all the ballots were counted, he told everybody…. Well, even before the ballots were counted, he said: “Trust me. We’ve got a balanced budget.” The key word there is “trust.” “We have a balanced budget.”

Well, the fact is that it wasn’t true. After all the votes were counted, it wasn’t a balanced budget. That’s not trust. Well, based upon what we see before us today in terms of Bill 10, and given the NDP players that we still have here in this place today from the ’90s, I think it’d be akin to the Thin Lizzy song entitled “The Boys Are Back in Town.”

Given their history, it’s no wonder why the NDP wanted to move away from the ’90s. It wasn’t a comfortable place for them to end in. There are no good memories for the NDP in the ’90s. They don’t want people to talk about it. It relates back to what I was saying before about history. History teaches us about where we are today, and history teaches us where we might be tomorrow if we follow the same pathway. If we follow the same measures that history did, do we make the same mistakes? It sure seems we’re heading down that track right now.

The ’90s speak also to the lack of trust that really seems…. I’m sorry to have to say this: it seems that it’s being followed. That lack of trust seems to be very evident in this place where we are today with this current government and Bill 10. That lack of trust that died in the ’90s is still here today. Yet knowing this, the Premier comes before this House and asks us for $13.4 billion, without any budget, without telling us how it will be spent, and asking British Columbians to trust — to trust.

Trust is an important word; it’s a critical word. The NDP mantra around this trust — I say this with all due respect: “No worries, folks. Nothing to see here. Trust us.” Mr. Speaker, I say: you think?

Well, I don’t think so, Premier. As President Reagan once so aptly said: “Trust, but verify.” Trust, but verify. There is nothing to trust here in Bill 10 — nothing. Why is that? Using the thoughts of President Reagan, there is nothing to trust in this bill because there is nothing that we can verify. There is absolutely nothing to verify — nothing. How do you trust it if you can’t verify it? If you can’t debate, line by line, how can you trust that? You can’t do that.

We’re talking about trust and misinformation as well. As recently as today…. I ask you to bear with me. We’re good?

Interjection.

D. Clovechok: Thank you. I appreciate it.

Interjection.

D. Clovechok: Oh, I’ll be going longer than that. But I will….

Deputy Speaker: Members, of course, will address each other from their chairs.

Member, proceed.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that respite, and thank you for the vote of confidence from the member across.

We’re talking about trust and misinformation here, and I ask you to bear with me, because as recently as today there were a couple of statements made around Bill 10. I want to read the quotes from those bills.

[5:20 p.m.]

One of those quotes was actually from the Attorney General: “We see gamesmanship around supply bills in the United States. How does that end up? Government workers go unpaid. Essential services are shuttered. The only people who are hurt are the people in the communities that don’t get those services. Nothing is gained by it.” Of course, the reference and the inference there would be that on this side of the House, we’re practising some gamesmanship around Bill 10. So fair ball. That’s how he feels.

Another one of the members from across: “I’d like to recall the recent experience south of the border with the former leader of the nation. His refusal to support paying of the bills with similar interim supply legislation paralyzed a nation. Because it’s a recent historical event, people can picture this.” I want to say that sentence again. “Because it’s a recent historical event, people can picture this.”

“Workers were furloughed,” the quote says. “Government services were shut. Thousands of people were not able to pay their bills because they had no paycheques coming in, and it went down the chain.” So the significance of those two quotes from today, in terms of what I’m speaking about here today, in terms of Bill 10, is that the premise is completely false — that government would be shuttered if this didn’t happen.

Bill 10 is a supply bill, as we all know. Therefore, a confidence motion would have to be in place. Defeating this bill would trigger an election, and if an election were called, cabinet would sign a special warrant covering the expenses of government for that period. So the inference that if this supply bill didn’t pass would mean that everything would get shut down and nobody would get paid is false. It’s not true. That speaks to misinformation, which creates not trust but distrust.

This is not only disappointing to me, but it’s a shame that it’s shouldered by those I represent, a shame that they didn’t ask for, a shame that they certainly didn’t vote for. As one of my senior citizens in my constituency told me last week, referring to this current NDP government, as she put it: “their sneaky ways.” I quote what she said. “I’m not really upset by the fact that they” — meaning the NDP — “misled me, but I’m really upset that, from now on, I can’t believe them.” Those are powerful words — powerful words. I can’t believe them. It has been put on her now, and that’s affected her life. That’s affected how she thinks, how she feels.

I wonder if the member for Stikine can tell my constituent that his NDP team is committed to building trust. I unfortunately don’t see it here in this bill. Again, I don’t think so, because Bill 10 is eerily familiar, as it screams the same kinds of behaviours that we saw coming back from the ’90s.

This is, again, the reference back to the ’90s, back to the future, behaviours and measures that our government had to rein in with legislative protections. We did that. The B.C. Liberals did that. I’ve heard from the members opposite about the wild west. Well, the ’90s, when it came to this kind of behaviour, was the wild west. We had to bring in — and I repeat — measures to protect British Columbians from this kind of behaviour. Now, today, we see this government doing the same thing by circumnavigating the legislation that’s in place, with the bill that is before us today.

[5:25 p.m.]

Recovery programs like COVID-19 relief that are supposed to help British Columbians have been repeatedly mismanaged. When I say mismanaged — again, verifiable. A promise was made by the Premier of British Columbia about the COVID-19 relief fund. “The cheques will be to you by Christmas.” Well, here we are almost into April, and there are literally hundreds of thousands of British Columbians who applied for that relief in December, and they haven’t received a dime, not a dime. British Columbians who need that money — not a dime. How does that speak, in any way, shape or form, to trust? How does that inspire trust? It doesn’t.

Let’s talk about trust and promises — or should I say, in this situation, broken promises. I can remember back to 2017, the election of 2017, and the candidate that campaigned against me in my riding, who campaigned on: “We’re going to give you $10-a-day daycare. Everybody is going to get it. Everyone.” Huh — it didn’t happen. It doesn’t inspire trust. He campaigned on saying there are going to be 114,000 new homes. Where are they? It doesn’t inspire trust.

In 2017, they campaigned on — he campaigned on — making life more affordable. But frankly, if we look at the current reality of today, housing has gotten even more expensive during this pandemic and less affordable and less accessible. That’s verifiable. That’s not pixie dust and Beanie Babies. That’s verifiable.

Making life more affordable…. My colleague, earlier on, talked about the litany of taxes that have been levied against British Columbia. It was a list as long as my arm, and it could have even been longer. Just to summarize that, they have — they being, of course, the NDP government — introduced 23 new or increased taxes.

Recently this one just — I got to be honest with you — kind of blew my mind: a Netflix tax. During the COVID-19 outbreak, people have had very little things to enjoy, and we still are in this pandemic. They’re going to tax Netflix, one of the only outlets that people have. It’s going to be more expensive for people. And I don’t drink pop. I don’t, but others do. They’re going to put a tax on pop right now. So pop and a movie. What’s the next step — popcorn?

Come on. Where is the trust associated with this, seriously? Yet the Premier comes before this House and says we need $13.4 billion, without a budget or even telling us how it’s going to possibly be spent. Well seriously, on what planet does that happen? Planet NDP. I ask this question: where is the accountability?

Noting the hour, I ask that we close the debate for today, and I reserve my right to speak again in this House at another date.

D. Clovechok moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. H. Bains moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 5:29 p.m.