Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued debate on the budget.

Budget Debate

(continued)

M. Bernier: I know a lot of people are gathering up their belongings and leaving right now. I appreciate that.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Interjections.

M. Bernier: Sorry, I’m being heckled by the Premier.

I didn’t quite hear that, sir.

Actually, can I call a two-minute recess, please?

Deputy Speaker: Yes, you may.

This House will be in recess for two minutes. Thank you, Members.

The House recessed from 2:28 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

M. Bernier: Thank you, Chair. Sorry for the disruption that we had. It’s always unfortunate when you hear unparliamentary language in the House. You know, obviously in question period things can get a little heated, but it’s unfortunate when people take it to a personal level. I appreciate the recess, where I was just able to address an issue.

As the designated speaker for the official opposition on Budget 2021, I am also really pleased to continue my remarks from where I left off yesterday. You know, I had a lot of time to go through the budget documents last night. Unfortunately, as people can appreciate, in lockup yesterday we weren’t given all of the documents, so it took me until through the evening last night to dive into a little bit more detail in this budget.

I’m looking forward to not only covering off a few more things today, but also once we get to estimates. I know the critics in the official opposition are all lined up ready to ask lots of questions of the individual ministers, especially around a budget that has left more questions, I would say, than answers.

We want to focus on the specifics of the budget, but again, I want to just talk about a few themes that we saw in this budget first of all. The number one thing is it’s devoid of any vision. It’s devoid of any plan. Right now what people are looking for in the province of British Columbia is some hope. They wanted vision. They wanted something from government that would show them a pathway post-COVID. What is economic recovery going to look like in the province of British Columbia?

Unfortunately, what we’ve seen was kind of a status quo budget, a few reannouncements, really no new spending. More importantly, there was nothing, again, in there to show people that we are not only going to get through this pandemic in the short term, but we’re going to be able to survive and move forward in a prosperous way in British Columbia in the long term.

There’s a lack of a jobs plan. There’s nothing really in this budget that talks about growing the province, growing the economy, making sure that we’re helping employers out, making sure that the job creators of the province are supported and given some optimism that they should stay in British Columbia, that they can survive through the pandemic, but then for the long term, to make investments to help grow the province back.

That optimism is important. It’s not just about flashy announcements. It’s not about just tabling a budget in the House like the government did yesterday. It’s about messaging a plan. It’s about showing where government’s in­tentions are, where they want to go not only as a government, but where they want to see the province to go.

We saw very little of that in the throne speech, but be­tween the throne speech and the budget, almost every single time a minister in this House has been questioned about a problem, their answer was always: “Don’t worry. Wait for the budget.” So we waited for the budget. People of British Columbia, and affected people because of the COVID pandemic, waited for the budget. How disappointing it was, after all that wait.

As we know, the budget was delayed twice, so we know the budget is now being just tabled yesterday, which is two months later than normal. But after all of that waiting, after all of the anticipation that people were told, “Don’t worry. It’ll be taken care of in the budget,” now we’re hearing from everybody in the public, from the stakeholders, from people who were told to wait: “Well, that was cold comfort. We waited, and all the promises that we were told to wait for didn’t materialize.”

[2:35 p.m.]

What’s unfortunate about that is the government is continuing to hide behind the COVID pandemic. Every single answer in this House, every time this government is asked a question, they say: “Hey, don’t you realize we’re in a pandemic?” Of course, we realize we’re in a pandemic. Why do you think there are people who are asking for help? Why do you think there are employers right now that are struggling? Why do you think there are employees who are out of work, who are phoning all of our offices saying: “I don’t have a job. I can’t pay my bills.” Where’s the hope?

According to the government, it’s like: “Don’t worry. Wait for the budget.” There was nothing in there for them. There was nothing in this budget that would show somebody, right now, who has been laid off or who has lost their job because of COVID, because of the downturn in the province…. There is nothing in there that says: “Don’t worry. We’ve got your back. We’ll support you. We’re going to help you get through this. Don’t worry. When this is over, here’s our plan for you and your family to prosper, to stay in British Columbia, so employers can grow, so investment can happen and people can get back to work.”

That’s what people wanted to see in this budget. It’s not in there. Great expectations but no delivery from the government. Again, it’s unfortunate when people are told just to wait and see. Now we’re seeing it in this budget, when we talk about any support that may be there.

We talk about the $10-a-day child care — I’ll get into it later — but: “Don’t worry. Wait, it might happen.” What about growing capital investment? “Don’t worry. Wait, it’ll happen some day.” What about people who are laid off right now and businesses that we’re all hearing about that are shuttering their doors and telling us that they might not be able to reopen? They need help now, but what are they being told by this government? “Wait.”

People can’t wait anymore. People need help now. A­gain, that road map to recovery is so important. When you look at the budget and the budget documents and the forecasting that this government has done, they can say: “Look at this pathway we’ve generated for optimism.” I’ll tell you right now, every business that I’ve talked to that’s looked at this budget…. Where is the optimism when you’re forecasting almost ten years of buying shovels to dig a hole for a big deficit? Almost ten years of borrowing money.

The government, by their own admission in their own budget documents, has said: “We don’t see this province doing well for ten years. We don’t see us getting back on track to revenue-generation and balanced budgets for almost ten years.” It’s in the government’s own documents. How does that instill confidence?

If I was a company that had any choice of where to in­vest, with B.C. now being one of the highest tax jurisdictions in the country, and now a document that says, “But don’t worry; we don’t see anything changing for ten years,” I know where I’d be investing my money. Definitely not here. I hate to say that, because we know how great British Columbia has been and how great it could be, if only we show that plan for people to stay here.

The government is touting all this spending they are doing. The spending is in government. It’s not to help people that are suffering right now in the province. It’s to help government. You talk to anybody on the streets, and what is their biggest complaint, usually? It’s about government. It’s about government spending. It’s about government priorities and not looking out for the people in British Columbia.

I cannot believe that the NDP just tabled a document that verifies how people feel. This document proves them right. When you look at that hole that is being dug, when you look at the provincial debt now going to be about $103 billion, of which $72 billion is taxpayer-supported debt, rising by 13 percent a year to a staggering $127 billion — staggering.

[2:40 p.m.]

This is a number that this province has never, ever been even close to before. By 2023, $127 billion in debt.

The concern now is B.C.’s credit rating. What will that mean? Even just recently Moody’s credit rating agency, which as everybody in this House is aware of, is part of the rating for the province, said that the province’s credit rating could be facing downward pressure if new direct and indirect debt were to materially exceed the current projections, which it’s doing, coinciding with a loss in the financial management of this province. So even our credit rating agencies now are worried about the path that the province is taking, and they’re going to be watching with a close eye.

Anybody who follows the finances of the province knows that if you lose even a notch in your credit rating, the number one thing that does is just increase the cost to run government, taking more money out of taxpayers’ pockets, taking more money out of programs to pay for debt repayment and interest. It does nothing to help people.

Based on the government’s own projections — again, out of the government’s own budget document — by the end of this government’s second term, the NDP will have added the equivalent of $10,000 in additional debt for every single British Columbian — every single man, woman and child. It equals $10,000 of extra debt for them. I can tell you right now that I could go on the street and ask any single person about that $10,000, and they’ll say, “Give it to me. I don’t trust government. Give me that $10,000. I know I can invest it. I know I can spend it a lot more wisely to help myself, my family, my communities and the people around me than government,” because we’ve seen how this is playing out in this budget document.

Now, we know that’s fictitious, in a way. Government’s not going to give everybody $10,000 and say: “Go ahead and spend it.” That’s too bad, though. We’ve been actually talking about government getting money out the door to people who need it now. We’ve approved COVID relief funding to help the employers, to help our businesses, to help people who have lost their jobs. The government has failed to get that out the door in any meaningful way to help people.

I was thinking about the budget last night. I was reflecting on the comments yesterday. I was reflecting on the feedback that I was hearing. People were looking at: “What is going to be in this budget to improve my life, to improve my family’s life? We’re in a difficult time. What is in the budget?” And again, the answer has to be: not much. There is not much in here. For the average person in the pro­vince, Budget 2021 is actually not going to impact their life, really, in any meaningful way. There’s hardly any new money. There are hardly any changes.

The government can make a whole bunch of flashy announcements. They can stand on the street corner with fanfare, saying what they’re going to do to get elected, which we’ve seen through two elections now. But they fail to follow through with almost every single promise that they have made, and the few that they have tried to tackle, they have completely botched and not been able to follow through with.

Here’s a perfect example: affordability, housing affordability — one of the staples, one of the major pieces of platform for the NDP government. “Elect us and we will make life more affordable. We will help everybody get into a home. We will lower the prices of houses in the Lower Mainland.” Well, guess what. Under the NDP’s tenure, every single year prices have gone up. The thought of ever owning a home for many people now is a dream. How sad is that?

[2:45 p.m.]

The government stands up constantly and says: “We are going to tackle this problem.” Well, then tackle it. You’ve had four or five years to do something, and it’s only gotten worse. Prices to buy a home are at a record high. The prices to rent any accommodations are at a record high.

Interestingly, this government, who used to chastise, who used to bang on the desks when they were on this side of the House…. Any time we talked about the property transfer tax, they would talk about how horrible that was. Yet how delighted they are now, in government, to realize that almost $2 billion this year, the highest that I could find, in property transfer tax is one of the things that is helping government — one of the only areas where there has actually been a revenue increase — on the backs of the people in British Columbia, only further exaggerating and exacerbating the challenges of home ownership.

A National Bank report estimates that it’ll take 34 years — I think I mentioned this yesterday — to save up enough money for a down payment on a house, if you live in Vancouver, for a typical Vancouver home — 34 years. So most people, if they’re fortunate enough to be living in Vancouver right now and fortunate enough to have a job, will be filing for their old age pension at the same time that they’ve saved up enough money to maybe buy a home. That’s not the B.C. that most people want.

The real estate association says that the average B.C. home price is up 20.4 percent, year over year, for March 2021, while the supply of homes and sales are the lowest since 2000, a 21-year low. Isn’t that interesting? The property transfer tax is going up because house prices are going up, but houses aren’t being built. We’re talking about the existing stock.

We talk about supply and demand. Well, we know the demand is there. Government has said they would deal with the supply, and they have failed to do that. Investors have been given the cold shoulder by this government to develop multifamily dwelling units which would, in essence, help solve a lot of this problem. What happened to that promise of this government to work with local governments to try to eliminate a bunch of the red tape to ensure that those that do want to invest have a clear path to be able to get the shovels in the ground and build homes and accommodations to help families in British Columbia?

You know, I mentioned renters. Renters are feeling the squeeze right now. On average in Metro Vancouver, they’re paying over $2,500 a year more than they used to, to rent. When they were looking for help from this government, the government said, “Don’t worry,” in the election campaign, twice. “We have a $400 rebate that’s going to be announced, and we will be helping you with that rent. Just wait for the budget,” they were told.

I challenge anybody to find the page — and point the page to me and prove me wrong — where it says that that $400 renters rebate is coming or that it’s even identified or that it’s even talked about anymore. It’s a great campaign slogan for the NDP — like so many other things — to get elected, but when the rubber hits the road, the heads go in the sand and they forget about the promises they’ve made. That announcement, that promise — I’m interested to see if it’s going to be made again. It’s nowhere in this plan, nowhere in the budget. But when it comes to elections, the flashy announcements seem to continue.

What about job creation and economic recovery to try to help people, to try to help with that affordability and get people working? There’s almost nothing in this budget that we can point to that’s going to help people in need right now, immediately, today or for their prospects in the future. There’s no funding; there’s no comprehensive jobs plan.

[2:50 p.m.]

It’s easy for governments to stand up and say: “Well, we’re in the middle of a pandemic.” That seems to be their response for everything, but again, that’s cold comfort to all the people losing their jobs. If they lose a job but they see that plan, there might be some hope. There might be some optimism. What we’re calling for is for government to do that.

They still have a chance. Government can do a jobs plan. They can put something forward to make sure that people are not being left behind. They might have to move away for a job, or even worse, suffer without one. We can’t ignore this issue. I’m not saying this on behalf of the opposition. This is British Columbians talking. We can’t ignore this issue. The government is hiding from it.

Now, obviously, again, it’s a global pandemic. We know that people have lost their jobs. B.C. is not unique. This is happening in other provinces, in other countries as well. But if we want to be the leaders that we like to brag about, the way to do that is to show that we’re better, to show that we can do better, to show people that B.C. is the right place, that we can get things on track quickly, and we can get people back to work to help our families.

Right now, unfortunately, everybody has to remain disappointed in this budget, because it’s not in there. The only thing in this budget that is a jobs plan is the government itself growing. This is the old playbook of the NDP: “When in doubt, grow government.” As we heard earlier today, almost 60,000 new government jobs. I’m not speaking against the 60,000 jobs. What I’m speaking against is the fact that government is not recognizing that there are 40,000 people in the private sector that are unemployed, who have been given no hope or opportunity. They deserve just as much.

This shouldn’t be one or the other. This is about growing the province. This is about giving everybody an equal opportunity. We’ve all, I’m sure, been getting calls to our offices, of people telling us the terrible stories of losing their jobs, trying to put food on the table, trying to figure out how they can afford their next rent — their next mortgage payment, if they’re lucky — their car payment, their cell bill, some of what people consider the staples of life and society right now. People are not able to afford them. We need to be helping those people.

I thought we did that last year, when all three sides of the House came together and acknowledged that, yes, we’re going to have to borrow up to $8 billion to get out and help people. But that money didn’t all get out the door. People are still waiting. On top of that, in this budget, now the NDP are sitting on $1.1 billion in unallocated recovery funding.

We keep hearing that we’re in the middle of a pandemic, so why is the government waiting until the end of the pandemic to offer help? You don’t put money in the budget to say: “We have unallocated COVID recovery funding money that we’ll allocate, undefined, at a later date, unspecified of when or how.” Does that mean government’s not listening to the people who are speaking right now? Are they not hearing the same things that we are? Are they not reading all of the comments that are in social media, in print media, on the radio? People are talking and giving and sharing their stories of how they’re struggling.

It’s a slap in the face when government stands up and says, “Don’t worry. We’ve got your back,” when in fact, all they have are their own backs, by padding unallocated money to sit in government. Nobody is going to pat the government on their backs for saving money right now for COVID recovery and leaving it in the government’s bank accounts when it’s been allocated to help people.

[2:55 p.m.]

I spoke a little bit yesterday about tourism and some of the challenges. The minister and the government are trying to brag about the fact that they have allocated in this budget — one of the few areas where there is new money — $120 million for tourism. But there’s a catch. All you small tourism providers: sorry, doesn’t look like it’s for you. The catch is it’s, again, unallocated, for major tourism operators, whatever that means. I don’t know. Is that the Science World? Is that the PNE?

What does that do to help the downtown businesses that are suffering right now due to the fact that there are no cruise ships coming into the harbour? What does that do for our guide outfitters who, for two years, have been told: “Sorry, you can’t operate”? The people from around the world that used to travel to beautiful British Columbia to go hunting or fishing, “Sorry, you can’t come here right now,” but also: “Sorry, all you businesses that are affected by that. You’re too small. You don’t qualify.”

When we talk about tourism, we’re talking about billions of dollars of opportunity and revenue to the province, but we’re also talking about hundreds of thousands of people who rely on that for employment, for their livelihoods. How many people in this House, either themselves or somebody in their family, worked in the hospitality and tourism sector to help put themselves through college or university? How many people have that maybe as a first or second job even to help pay the bills? So for the government to say, “Don’t worry, there’s $120 million….” I regret to say again, like always, that there’s always a catch to anything that this government announces.

When we get to estimates, we’ll be asking the different ministries that have received funding like this to be very specific. Because we have examples, especially being here in Victoria, of small businesses, part of the tourism sector, that are being negatively affected, that are basically being put out of work, who are sitting there waiting for help or at least the opportunity to get back. I think that’s the biggest catch in this.

Most entrepreneurial people out there, most small businesses, are not looking for handouts. What they’re looking for is a chance to get back to work. They want that opportunity and some sense of hope from this government. They all recognize we have to do our part right now, though, because of COVID. No doubt. They all recognize that. There are those hardships. Any little bit of help for them obviously is needed. But the main thing they want to do is get back to what they know how to do.

I am interested, though, on tourism again…. The minister and government touts the fact that they do consultation, that they put task forces together, to bring back specific, targeted recommendations from different sectors. We’ve seen this in so many ministries under the NDP: “Don’t worry, we’re going to put a task force together to bring back recommendations of what we need to do to help that sector.”

Well, the tourism sector was given that opportunity. The task force was created last year. That task force came back and said: “We need $680 million around the province to support us, to get us through the pandemic, to ensure we can survive and be there for when the province reopens.”

Like every single other recommendation from every single task force, it seems, this government puts together: “Thanks for your work. Thanks for your time. Thanks for your opinion. We’re not listening to it. We’ve got our own ideas.” So why does government waste people’s time? Why do they put these groups and task forces together if they’re not going to genuinely listen to the recommendations and the advice that they give?

[3:00 p.m.]

The government tries to tout the small business recovery grant to help the tourism sector. Only 8 percent of tourism businesses in the Vancouver area and 12 percent provincewide reported even being able to access and qualify for that grant. Eight percent.

Is that why the government is sitting on so much COVID money? Because they put in so much red tape — they make the qualifying abilities so hard — they can pat themselves on the back to say, “Don’t worry, we have money available,” but not have a plan to get it out the door and make it hard to get it out the door.

If government wants us to support the budget, if they want us to support COVID recovery programs, we will do that if they’re actually, genuinely going to follow through with what they’re promising — to help people. Businesses in the tourism sector now are going into their second summer with no hope. I’m still waiting to hear something from the Minister of Tourism on what the plan is, because all we’ve heard right now is that they can apply for a grant and then be told they don’t qualify.

The tourism sector, like so many other areas, has been brought to its knees by the pandemic. To be told time and time again from this government, “Don’t worry. We’re here to help you….” It is hollow words.

Now, if we want people to get back to work after this pandemic, one of the biggest issues we’re going to have to face is child care. We need to have access to quality and affordable child care.

For two elections now, for almost five years, the Premier and this government has said: “Elect us, and we will bring in universal $10-a-day child care.” They didn’t say: “Elect us, and we’ll consider, at some future date, allowing everybody in the province to have access.” I didn’t read that anywhere in their platform. It said: “Elect us, and this is what you will get.”

People are staring at this government right now, once again, realizing hollow words out of the Premier’s mouth — that the Premier will make announcements to say anything to try to get elected and, again, hope people don’t hold him accountable for those promises that he’s making.

We’ve been standing in this House supporting the movement as well for affordable child care and quality child care. When you hardly have any to begin with…. The government in this budget says: “Look how great we are; we’re doubling it.” Well, when you’re doubling a small amount, you’re still left with a small amount. You’re not left with 100 percent like the government promised.

I think that’s all people want from the government, is just to be truthful with what’s going to happen. It would have been a lot more prudent, I would argue, especially since the minister even today said: “It’s a process, and a it’s difficult process, and it takes time.” Nowhere in the NDP documents, nowhere even in any announcement that I’ve ever heard, does it say or the Premier say or the government or the minister say: “We are bringing in affordable $10-a-day universal child care maybe sometime in the future. Please elect us.” Because that’s what they’ve done.

For the minister, even today, to acknowledge the federal government…. Isn’t it ironic that, once again, the B.C. NDP provincial government will drag their feet long enough until the issue becomes so difficult and so hard on people that the federal government has to come in and try to rescue the problem?

If you even listen to the federal government’s announcement…. The Minister of Finance said it’s going to be at least five years before the federal government has even brought it in. So put that on top of the five years people have already been waiting in B.C. Most children will be graduating high school and missed out on that entire promise, missed out on all of that time, from what the Premier announced.

[3:05 p.m.]

They are going to be graduating high school when they could have been people now taking advantage of $10-a-day universal child care.

Again, we’re not the only people. It’s not the opposition saying: “Why didn’t you do this?” This is the people of British Columbia saying: “Why didn’t you do this?” These are the families, the mothers and fathers, who have been begging this government to fulfil their promise. These are the child care providers themselves and the educators that are saying: “Where’s the promise that you said you were going to deliver?” It’s not here.

Emily Gawlick, the executive director of Early Childhood Educators of B.C., spoke of the commitments in the budget yesterday. She said: “The progress is so minimal, it does not meet the needs of families or educators as they try to recover from the pandemic.” The Coalition of Child Care Advocates of B.C. also said the Finance Minister’s first budget “does not deliver the system B.C. families and educators were promised in the recent election.”

The government continues to make announcements. They continue to make promises. But their track record is that they don’t deliver on them. People are starting to see that. Again, it’s not just child care. It’s the homes for these families and these children to live in.

You know, I mentioned about the missing renters rebate, the skyrocketing housing prices. What’s the government doing to solve this? There’s nothing in the budget to help this issue, after four years of them promising to deal with it.

This budget actually shows that direct housing capital funding is going to decline by 50 percent. It’s right in the NDP’s own documents. Housing capital funding is going to decline by 50 percent. Housing starts. The government is acknowledging it in their own plans. They’re projecting housing starts are going down. They’re set to decline. There’s no action in the budget documents at all to tackle or deal with the red tape, to get more houses built. Maybe that’s why they’re forecasting that the housing starts are going to go down.

There’s absolutely nothing in this budget that I could find to give relief for strata owners facing insurance costs — they’re making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet — and to help those that are in strata situations. This was talked about last year. The minister said: “Don’t worry. I’ll deal with it. Don’t worry. Wait for our budget.” Again, I’m more than willing to be proven wrong if somebody can point to the page where it references strata owners and how we’re going to be helping them with their insurance costs.

When you talk about building, you know, we’re talking about capital. We’re talking about money being spent. When you look at this budget, from the government’s capital spending, there are some really staggering numbers that need to be explained. Or should I say even the lack of staggering numbers in the budget that need to be ex­plained?

The minister, in her own Finance announcements yesterday, referenced the George Massey Tunnel. How eager were the people of Richmond and Delta to flip open the budget document to say: “Holy cow, the minister referenced the George Massey Tunnel replacement. Something’s happening”? So we looked through the budget document, and guess what we found. Nothing. Not a dollar.

In fact, even worse. A footnote towards the end of the budget document that references the long-awaited George Massey Tunnel replacement, a little footnote at the very end, says, kind of like in a movie: “To be continued. Nothing here to see. But don’t worry. We recognize it’s an issue, but we’re not dealing with it.”

[3:10 p.m.]

That’s the footnote that's in the budget document, the government’s own document. How surprised were so many people that the minister would actually reference something that they’re going to do that’s not even in the document? Not a dollar being spent.

Just a reminder: if this government hadn’t cancelled the project that was already funded — that was already started — it would be open, I believe, next year. It would be a moot point. The people in Delta and Surrey and Richmond would have that new bridge that was being built to solve one of the largest bottlenecks, or parking lots, that this province has.

When you look at the capital again in this budget document, there is nothing — no funding, no mention of a dollar amount this year — for the Richmond care tower, something that the NDP promised in this last election; something that every NDP MLA in Richmond still brags about. I’m waiting to see how they are now going to go back to their constituents and say they failed, how they’re going to go to back to their constituents and say: “I know we promised it, but there’s not even a dollar in the budget to deliver it.”

There are no new schools being built up in Burke Mountain, although the stress is there, and new schools are needed. New schools were built up in Burke Mountain when we were in government. Burke Mountain continues to grow, and they need more. The Premier stood out there and said: “Don’t worry. If we’re elected, you’re getting your new schools.” Nothing in the budget.

The Premier announced: “Don’t worry, Surrey. If we’re elected, every portable will be gone in our first four years.” Well guess what. That was last year. There are more portables in Surrey now than there were before. We built some massive, beautiful schools in Surrey when we were in government. Contrary to the NDP, who like to continue to say: “Oh, you never….”

[Interruption.]

Well, that’s interesting. Siri just agreed with me. Siri just found on the web when the B.C. Liberals built schools in Surrey. I guess I have to be careful when I mention Surrey in the House now.

But to get back to that…. The Premier stood on a corner with all the fanfare, with all the ribbons and balloons, with the critic at the time for Education, with some families, and said: “Don’t worry. We’re getting rid of every portable in Surrey.” They are still there. There’s no new school — nothing in the budget for the Olympic Village, one that’s been promised for, I think, four or five years now by this government.

One thing I did find interesting, though, in the budget. Although there are hardly any schools being built around the province, interestingly, ones that kind of weren’t promised but are being built are two new schools in the Premier’s riding. That’s in the budget — two new schools in the Premier’s riding.

Now, I’m not going to take away from the fact…. As the former Minister of Education, I know well how that area is growing as well. They need help. They need more schools. I’m excited to see those ones being built. But it shouldn’t be a competition of whoever the Premier is and whichever the Premier’s riding is, is the one that gets the schools. It should be going equally to those in need around the province.

The minister and the Surrey MLAs continue to brag a­bout a Surrey hospital, which, for the most part, is also a footnote this year, because there’s not one dollar. There’s nothing in the budget, nothing at all, this year for a hospital in Surrey. They can stand up and say: “Don’t worry; you’re getting one.” But getting one when? They can’t even get the date right in their own document.

[3:15 p.m.]

You might be getting one in six years. You might be getting one in seven years. It’s all notional. It doesn’t actually say specifically: “Dollars attached. This is when it’s going to start, and this is what you’re going to get.” It’s another flashy announcement with no dollars this year put towards it. It’s only notional in the capital plan. And even in the document, when it has the paragraph talking about the Surrey hospital, it says that they’re only going to be able to build 168 beds, when and if the hospital is built — 168 beds. That’s a far, far cry, and far below capacity, from what is needed right now in the fastest-growing city in British Columbia.

One of the things that government announced in the budget that I will carefully acknowledge — because it’s a start, and that’s why I say “carefully acknowledge” — as a step in the right direction is $500 million over three years. That’s $500 million to help the Ministry of Health, I should quantify.

It’s not the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions but $500 million going into the Ministry of Health to help in the crisis that we have in mental health and addictions and the opioid crisis. The Minister of Mental Health and Addictions’ budget is flat. She saw zero increase in her budget. The Premier’s office, though, mind you, went up by 30 percent — his budget. A lot of other budgets went down. The Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions stayed flat. The Premier’s office went up, though.

The Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions still only has a $13 million budget — $13 million. I know we’re going to ask questions again this year specifically around that. Where does that $13 million go? How many staff work in the ministry? Does most of that go to fund the ministry? How much of that actually goes out the door to help people?

In past years, when we’ve asked this government, the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions has always had to defer those answers to the Minister of Health, because it’s the Minister of Health that actually follows through and deals with a lot of these issues. So again, it might be really flashy to have a person designated with a title, but we haven’t seen any success with that. If it’s not working, maybe they need to remove that ministry. Put that $13 million back into the Ministry of Health, if that’s where it came from, or at least add it in there, and specifically target where that money is going to go out the door.

With that money, it’s over three years. It’s a start. I will acknowledge that. But the challenge with that is we don’t have just one jurisdiction. We don’t just have one city or community. We don’t just have one set of the population that is struggling with mental health and addictions. This is a provincewide issue.

I hear the — I probably could say — horror stories from our front-line workers, from the firefighters in my community and up in Fort St. John, the Dawson Creek area, who have told me the devastating circumstances where they’ve had to respond to a young person, in their home alone, who has accidentally overdosed and died because of their addiction to opioids. How are we helping those people? Where are the supports when they need it, before the tragedy?

So $500 million over three years, just to put that in perspective — and it’s in the government’s own documents — creates only 195 new treatment beds. Not to single out the Chair, but I know in his area, in Vancouver, 195 beds are a drop in the bucket for what’s needed right now to help people.

[3:20 p.m.]

Is it a start? Absolutely. But how do we disperse that? How do we deal with it on a provincial scale?

We look at downtown Vancouver and the thousands of people who are looking for help right now or who are struggling right now. One hundred and ninety-five new beds — yes, it’s a start. But we have almost 200 communities in British Columbia. So 195 beds — how is that going to be split up? How’s that going to make sure that a place like Dawson Creek or Prince George, Prince Rupert…. This isn’t a metropolitan issue. This isn’t a downtown issue. This is a provincial issue.

We see it, and we hear about it all around the province. Our challenge is going to be, to the government on this part…. Yes, it’s a start, but where do we go from here? And with this start, what are the outcomes? What do we plan on doing that’s actually going to make lives better, to actually help people?

According to the ministry service plan, 21,000 additional people have been diagnosed with opioid-use disorders since November of 2017 — 21,000 people diagnosed. Only 5,000 people, though, have received recent treatment, so 21,000 people, new people, and only 5,000 have been helped. That right there should show people the challenge — not only that we’re facing as a government but as a society — that we need to address.

At the end of the day, we just expected more from this budget. We didn’t expect a status quo. The government has made all these promises and none of them are being delivered in the budget. I want to kind of end how I started, by saying we need to — by we, I mean all of us in this House — do our jobs to help the people of British Columbia, to set the path for a strong future, to show that there’s optimism, to show that there’s a plan, to make sure people know that they’ve chosen the best province in Canada to live in, because it is.

But it’s our job to continue proving that to them. It’s our job to continue showing them that they made the right choice to be here. It’s our job to prove to them that they need to stay here because it will be a bright future for them here in the province, that we do have their backs, that we do have a vision and do have a plan. It’s not in this document, but it’s not too late. This is just one budget. But it’s not everything.

There is still time for each minister, each ministry, the Premier and the Minister of Finance to do the right thing. They have time to put a plan forward. They have time to not just say something but do something. That’s what people want to see. They don’t want to see a government abandoning promises. They want to see a government making promises and then fulfilling those promises. That’s a government people can be proud of, not one that they would shy away from.

Whether it’s helping the affordability, helping renters, helping people in Surrey that have been asking for it, there is still time. It’s not in the budget, but this government can still do better.

I want to acknowledge, again, that this is a budget during a pandemic time. Nobody is arguing that. We understand the stresses of running a deficit. We understand the need for borrowing money to help people now. Our only ask is if government’s going to be doing that, then do it. Get that help out the door. Get it out to people who need it now.

[3:25 p.m.]

We should not be seeing cuts to school districts. We shouldn’t be seeing cuts to health authorities. We shouldn’t be seeing a 30 percent increase in the Premier’s budget, in his own personal office, while everywhere else people are hurting and trying to just figure out how they can make it through to the next week, to hopefully keep their employees on the payroll.

People expect a big vision, big ideas. They were not expecting, I would argue, ten years of deficits and borrowing that this budget put forward. Again, it’s not too late, so we implore this government to do better. If they can’t do it in their budget, then they can at least do it properly for the people of British Columbia. They need help. People need help, and they need optimism. They need a clear vision, a clear path of how we’re going to get through this pandemic and then how we are going to survive as a society and economy for the years after that.

It’s unfortunate that this budget did not highlight hardly any of that for the people in the time when they need it most. It’s unfortunate that I have to say again that this is probably one of the worst budgets that I’ve ever seen and, unfortunately, at one of the worst times in provincial history. This could have been the time for government to do the right thing, for government to shine, for government to do what people needed, not abandon them.

With that, I look forward to getting into the estimates portion of the debate. It’s very important that we ask the critical questions of each minister, to see where the money is going, where the help will be for the people in the province. I look forward to hearing the other speakers in this House as well, especially the members of the government, who know, if they have read the budget, that everything I’ve said today is factual, because it’s reading right out of their own document. It’ll be interesting to see how they try to contradict that in their speeches, when they get up.

I’m looking forward to hearing all of those comments, Mr. Speaker. With that, I just want to thank you and the House for their time.

S. Furstenau: I’m grateful for the opportunity to take my place, to respond to this year’s budget.

I recognize that budget days tend to be celebratory aff­airs for governments, an opportunity to put forth their agendas and point out key investments that reflect their commitment to particular goals and policies, to fulfil campaign promises, to generate hope and excitement for the year ahead. But it is hard right now to feel particularly celebratory.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

We are reeling from the ongoing risk to our health and the tragic loss of lives to COVID-19. Our hospitals are be­ing stretched to the limit. Health care workers, exhausted from 13 months of a pandemic that has become its most ferocious in this brutal third wave, are pleading with us to do all we can to prevent infections from rising. Young people are struggling with separation from friends and family, spending the last year having to manage loss of income, loss of opportunities and loss of the kinds of experiences — attending university in person, travelling, meeting new people — that all of us took for granted as part of our lives.

A year into this pandemic, with what appears to be widespread acknowledgment that it has laid bare the deep and structural inequalities in our society, the rich have gotten richer. Those with the lowest-paying jobs, the highest risks and the most marginalized communities have borne the hugest costs of this pandemic — loss of jobs and in­come, loss of health, loss of lives.

[3:30 p.m.]

COVID didn’t just expose inequality in our world; it deepened it. We can see it right in the budget documents.

“The B.C. unemployment rate averaged 8.9 percent in 2020 and 7.5 percent year-to-date to February 2021, up from 4.9 percent in the first months of 2020.” There has been some recovery, but as of February 2021, “there were still 15,100 fewer people employed than in February 2020.” In addition, we see in the budget that “the share of unemployed people that have been without work for 27 weeks or more was 33 percent in February 2021, its highest reading in 36 years.” In February 2020, to compare, it was 12.8 percent. This is a deepening of entrenched poverty for more people in British Columbia.

At the same time, revenues from property transfer taxes were significantly higher than expected due to a housing market that saw rising prices and sales at a rate that have left many who are looking for homes unable to even get a bid in before the house is sold. Those with wealth and assets saw their wealth, for the most part, increase — and in some cases increase dramatically — in the past year. Those without significant wealth and assets, for the most part, saw their incomes decline and the opportunity to enter the housing market become even more out of reach.

Inequality, already a significant problem before COVID-19, has become worse. There have been many studies on the effects of inequality in societies, and the findings are consistent and stark. From inomics.com, an economics research site, we get a summary of some of the societal impacts of inequality: “Research by sociologists Marii Paskov and Caroline Dewilde has shown that living in unequal societies fundamentally changes the way that people interact with those living around them and, more broadly, how they perceive their community. Most notably, intersocietal solidarity — that is, the willingness of individuals to try and improve the living conditions of other members of their community — suffers.”

They go on:

“As the collective traits of generosity and compassion reduce, the social cohesion is damaged. The slippery slope is then further greased. The same study shows that declining solidarity is quickly reflected in dwindling public support for government-led redistribution which, for communities facing high levels of inequality, is exactly what is most needed.

“Economist Henrik Jordhal has looked further, linking greater social distance not just to estrangement but to higher levels of mistrust — specifically, the growing belief that other members of one’s community are fundamentally different from one’s self.

“Declining trust is not exclusive to individuals but extends to people’s faith in institutions. In a research paper exploring the impact of inequality on values and attitudes, social scientist Frederic L. Pryor found that people in less equal countries had less interest in politics, less confidence in their sitting parliament and often bemoaned a societal lack of respect for authority.”

Addressing inequality can’t be something that we app­roach with disparate policies and investment. It needs to be the lens that we apply to all of government policy, legislation and budgeting. We need to relentlessly ask the question: does this move us to become a more or a less equal society? We need to make the decision that we need to be a more equal society.

[3:35 p.m.]

At the same time, over the course of this last year, we have seen the relentless ravaging brought on by climate change, environmental degradation and biodiversity loss. It has been yet another year of records. From the state of the climate 2021 report, there are many sobering statistics. Record CO₂ levels, hitting 417 parts per million last May. The past decade was the hottest on record. The year 2020 was more than 1.2 degrees hotter than the average year in the 19th century. In Europe, it was the hottest year ever, while globally, 2020 tied with 2016 as the warmest.

The exceptionally warm temperatures triggered the largest wildfires ever recorded in the U.S. states of California and Colorado and the Black Summer of fires in eastern Australia. In June 2020, the temperature reached 38 degrees Celsius in eastern Siberia, the hottest ever recorded in the Arctic Circle. The Arctic is heating twice as quickly as the rest of the world, and as less ice makes it through the warm summer months, we lose its reflective protection. In its place, large areas of open, dark water absorb more heat, fuelling global warming further.

“Globally, forest areas continue to decline,” says Bonnie Waring, senior lecturer at the Grantham Institute, noting that there are big regional differences. “Protecting existing forests,” she tells us, “is even more important than planting new ones. Every time an ecosystem is disturbed, you see carbon lost.”

The World Economic Forum’s report on the risks of biodiversity loss states:

“All species, including humans, depend for their survival on the delicate balance of life in nature. Yet biodiversity — the diversity within species, between species and within ecosystems — is declining faster than it has at any other time in human history. The current rate of extinction is tens to hundreds of times higher than the average over the past ten million years, and it is accelerating. Although the world’s 7.6 billion people represent just 0.01 percent of all living creatures, humanity has already caused the loss of 83 percent of all wild mammals and half of plants.”

As reported in Forbes magazine, the World Economic Forum does not mince words when it comes to the economic risks of climate change. “‘Climate change, to which no one is immune, continues to be a catastrophic risk. Although lockdowns worldwide caused global emissions to fall in the first half of 2020, evidence from the 2008-​2009 financial crisis warns that emissions could bounce back. A shift towards greener economies cannot be delayed until the shocks of the pandemic subside.’ Climate action failure is the most impactful and second most likely long-term risk identified in the report.”

The advice that the report offers: “As governments, businesses and societies begin to emerge from the pandemic, they must now urgently shape new economic and social systems that improve our collective resilience and capacity to respond to shocks while reducing inequality, improving health and protecting the planet.”

That’s the World Economic Forum. Let’s compare this to the summary report of B.C.’s Economic Forecast Council that was released in yesterday’s budget. In the summary of the report from our Economic Forecast Council, climate is mentioned once, in the same sentence as LNG: “Other topics discussed by the council included the general resilience of LNG development and other capital projects despite minor pandemic-related delays; recent strength in the natural resources sector, particularly forestry; and issues surrounding climate change.”

[3:40 p.m.]

LNG, the natural resources sector and “issues surrounding climate change.” That’s the extent of the consideration that we get to see in the budget from the advice given to the minister and her staff from the economic council. That’s the extent that they thought needed to be given to climate change, which is the greatest risk to future generations.

What about the housing crisis? From the same summary report: “Looking ahead, renewed international mi­gration after a pandemic-induced lull is expected to help support B.C.’s housing market.” There’s a worry that the out-of-control housing prices that are blocking more and more people in this province out of the potential of home ownership is not recognized as a problem in this summary.

What about inequality? What did our Economic Forecast Council have to say about inequality? Nothing. Not a word. In fact, and let’s sit with this for a moment, the word “inequality” does not appear once, not once in this entire budget document. Not once.

All of the suffering, all of the sacrifices of this last year, all that we’ve seen and learned about how deeply rooted inequality and racism are in our province, our country and our world….We have a budget from what is supposed to be a progressive, social democratic government, and there is not a single mention of inequality.

Just to be fair, I also looked for the word “equity.” Just like climate change, equity got passing mention in the summary of the economic council’s discussions. “Key topics of discussion included the varied impacts of COVID-19 pandemic across industries and GBA+ identity factors; government policies to support the economy while maintaining fiscal discipline; issues around equity and in­clusion; B.C.’s housing market; the outlook for immigration and trade; and uncertainty in the global economic outlook.”

Issues surrounding climate change and issues around equity and inclusion — the two greatest challenges that we collectively face in our world and in B.C., and what our economic council has to say is that there are issues.

Yesterday, when we responded to the budget by indicating that we believe that this government has missed a pivotal moment to pair our recovery from COVID-19 with a transformative plan for this province that would ensure a green and just future for British Columbia, it was an expression of our dashed hopes that this government would seize this historic moment that we are in and truly set our province on a course that our grandchildren could thank us for. But this is not what was delivered yesterday. As so many others have also expressed, this was essentially a status quo budget, after what has been the least status quo year that any of us have experienced in our lifetimes.

What’s our common agenda? What’s the story of where we’re going as a province? Where is the unifying sense of what we’re trying to achieve together? Compare this to the United States budget, with an ambitious climate action and a commitment to economic transformation and innovation at its centre, or to New Zealand, with health and well-being as the organizing principle for budget decisions.

[3:45 p.m.]

We are still operating without a cohesive purpose for how we spend money and what overarching outcomes we are trying to achieve in this province. Right now, around the world, other jurisdictions are recognizing that reducing inequality, addressing the climate crisis and building a clean economy are not just nice to have. They are imperatives. They need to be at the centre of our recovery from this pandemic.

To achieve this, it starts with how we measure success. We need to start measuring our economy holistically and get serious about reducing inequality and reducing the share of our economy that harms well-being, like an out-of-control housing market.

I remain troubled by this government’s continued sole reliance on narrow economic indicators, like GDP growth, that don’t truly capture the health of the economy or how well it is serving the people of this province. Our continued reliance on GDP ignores and papers over an uneven and unstable economic foundation that actually harms people, partly driven as it is by the affordability crisis, household debt, and unsustainable resource extraction.

Under the confidence and supply agreement, we worked closely with the NDP, including with some extremely dedicated and motivated public servants, to develop a suite of genuine progress indicators for B.C. I’m disappointed that the work that we started together doesn’t seem to have come to anything with this new majority government.

It is crucial that we start to measure the health of our economy differently if we’re going to start making different decisions that support the health and well-being of people and if we’re going to build an economy that is inclusive and sustainable.

One place in this budget where we can see the problem clearly is with housing. Growth in housing sales and prices drove revenue gains to government, partly helping to reduce our projected deficit. On the surface, and because of how we measure our economy, this looks like a positive. But we know that the housing affordability crisis is damaging communities and leaving young British Columbians in extremely precarious and stressful situations. British Columbians have lived with a growing affordability crisis for years. They know that growth driven by an out-of-control housing market actually makes life harder. B.C.’s economy continues to rely far too much on real estate to drive revenues.

We need to change the way we assess the health of the economy if we’re going to address the structural inequalities that are built into it and that are being exacerbated by the rising housing costs and prices. While I welcome the enhanced investment into the housing hub, and into building missing middle supply, we cannot get ourselves out of this problem by expanding supply alone.

I think it’s disappointing and frankly dangerous for the health of society that neither this budget nor the recent federal budget take any action to cool the housing market and reduce the affordability crisis gripping cities across B.C. This is an extremely troubling omission, not only for young people who cannot afford to buy or rent a decent home for themselves, but for the health and long-term sustainability of the economy and local communities.

I welcome investments to youth mental health care, but we need to provide all British Columbians with the care they need to live healthy and fulfilling lives. It’s time to treat mental health like a right and fully incorporate it into our health care system. Providing proactive, accessible and regulated mental health services is an important step in addressing inequality in this province, as well as addressing many other crises we see.

[3:50 p.m.]

The budget fails to expand a regulated safe supply to combat the toll that the toxic, illicit drugs are taking on people, which this very government promised to do less than a year ago. Five British Columbians are dying every day from bad drug policy. That is unacceptable. Without immediate solutions like safe supply available, people will die before they can access any treatment beds or supervised consumption sites.

We cannot address this crisis without addressing mental health. In light of increasing deaths from a toxic supply and increasing demand for emergency psychiatric services, we must be proactive in supporting British Columbians. That care should start by ensuring that everyone who needs mental health care can access it.

On issues like seniors care and reducing poverty, we see some good steps but still a lacking commitment to deal with systemic issues. It is no doubt a positive step that, for the first time in many years, we are seeing a significant increase to income and disability assistance in this province. However, while these increases are welcome, they still leave people receiving supports well be­low the poverty line.

This budget also ignores many of the evidence-based recommendations that were made last year by the basic income expert panel to transform our social safety net and implement targeted basic income for people with disabilities, women fleeing violence and youth aging out of care. This government promised to “fix the cracks” in our seniors care system, yet in this budget, we only see $68 million, over three years, targeted towards hiring additional staff.

This pandemic has highlighted the urgent need to support our seniors, and this budget missed an opportunity to take even initial steps to increase the quality of care provided and enhance oversight for the long-term-care sector. It’s unfortunate we did not see a commitment from this government to take the steps recommended by seniors advocate Isobel Mackenzie to improve transparency and oversight of public funds that go to for-profit seniors care in British Columbia and to ensure that the requirements are being met in every seniors care home in this province.

One of the most profoundly disappointing aspects of this budget is the area of natural resource management and, specifically, forestry. It gives me no joy to say that this budget seems to confirm what many have been concerned about, that the NDP’s promises to do things differently on the environment, on land use, on forestry and on old-growth protection are, indeed, empty words and that there’s no intention to back them up with real action that would elicit any change on our landscape.

The Premier promised, during the recent election, to do things differently on old growth and to implement all of the old-growth review panel’s recommendations, including an immediate halt to logging in B.C.’s most at-risk old-growth forests within six months, and a new science-based approach to forest management that prioritizes biodiversity and proactive, adequately funded, local and provincial transition plans. As the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and conservation groups made extremely clear, a shift away from old-growth logging simply cannot happen without adequate funding, including conservation financing and funding for Indigenous-led protected areas.

With this budget, the government has shown they have no intention of changing the status quo of old-growth logging in any meaningful way. The minister, when pressed on how they would fund enhanced old-growth protection, said it would come from within FLNRORD’s budget. But the forestry budget is being slashed by $41 million this year and $30 million next year.

As Andrea Inness, from the Ancient Forest Alliance, said: “The B.C. government has missed a critical opportunity to show British Columbians that it’s serious about its old-growth commitments. Despite promising a complete paradigm shift in the way B.C.’s forests are managed, the NDP government’s 2021 budget is bereft of meaningful solutions to make it happen.”

[3:55 p.m.]

She asks: “How does the province expect to protect ancient forest ecosystems, support communities and overhaul its forest management regime with less funding than it had before?”

I expect we will see more of the same: the loss of these irreplaceable ecosystems, and the reliance on a short-term and fundamentally unsustainable source of jobs and revenues for local communities. This lack of funding particularly stings, because it means that B.C. risks forgoing the opportunity to partner with the federal government and leverage matching federal funds to protect these ecosystems.

The federal government has committed billions of dollars to protect endangered ecosystems and to support Indigenous-protected and conserved areas. I cannot understand the possibility that this government would potentially walk away and leave hundreds of millions of federal dollars on the table.

This is part of the broader trend of reduced investment in land use and natural resource management. The proportion of the budget spent on natural resource management has declined steadily, year by year, regardless of who has been in power. While the total B.C. budget has gone up, the amount we spend on managing our natural re­sources and our lands has declined. This is in the face of a biodiversity and climate crisis, and more complex land use decisions and processes than we’ve ever had before.

It is no wonder we are seeing declines in species and erosion of critical habitats, because we don’t commit the necessary funding to manage our lands and our resources sustainably.

I’ll add to this, and I expect that this is an experience for most of the MLAs who represent rural and semi-rural ridings. People are dismayed that they see activities on the land base that clearly contradict regulations and rules, whether it’s the destruction of riparian areas, whether it is mining without a permit, whether it is dumping of soil illegally, whether it is destruction of habitat, whether it’s activities on ALR land that are not allowed. All of those are happening in my riding.

When the citizens turn to government to enforce the regulations, to enforce the rules, what they hear more often than not is: “We simply don’t have the staff to ensure that there’s compliance of these regulations. There’s nothing we can do.”

In one case, there is a community in the Cowichan Valley where there has been mining operations for over a decade, often without any permitting at all. Rocks have flown into people’s yards. Groundwater has been affected. Yet despite relentless efforts of a community association, and I think I probably have well over a dozen of my own missives to government and conversations with officials, this kind of activity just carries on. The rules aren’t enforced, because there aren’t enough people to enforce those rules.

What we see in this budget is a shrug, a decrease in funds to ensure that what happens on B.C.’s land base actually just follows the basic rules that exist.

In the areas of climate and innovation, this budget makes some solid investments, including investments in the clean tech sector and the new strategic innovation fund, and funding to continue CleanBC.

I was glad to see this budget follow through on the commitment to create a $500 million strategic investment fund for B.C. A fund like this is something that we’ve been calling for, for years. This type of fund could go a significant way to supporting the growth of B.C.’s tech start-ups, by funding for the programs and supports necessary to scale.

We still need to see more details about how this fund’s mandate exists and how it will be deployed. If it's used strategically to support innovation and the scaling up of companies aligned with ambitious environmental and social goals, it could be a significant positive for our economy. Those are big ifs. We will really want to see details about how to ensure that that happens.

[4:00 p.m.]

This budget makes modest increases to continue to im­plement CleanBC. I welcome the investment into zero-emission vehicles, steps towards enhancing the electrification of our transportation sector and the investment into energy efficiency in communities. However, with this budget, government is not rising to the challenge of the climate crisis with the funding and ambition that are re­quired.

As Clean Energy Canada has said in its response to this budget:

“As countries around the world ratchet up their climate ambitions, climate action and economic action are increasingly one and the same. Canada’s largest trading partners, like the U.S. and the EU, have recognized the huge economic opportunity in transitioning to a net-zero world, as did the federal government’s budget released yesterday. We would have liked to see greater recognition of this net-zero opportunity in B.C.’s economic plan.”

Even the government’s language of a “greener” recovery, not a green recovery, makes this lack of ambition very clear. We can and we must do so much more to tackle the defining challenge of our time and seize the opportunity that is presented if we truly transition our economy.

In conclusion, there’s been a lot of commentary comparing COVID and the varying responses to it from governments around the world to the similar threat that climate change poses and the similar varying responses that we see. COVID is a much more immediate threat. Yet so many governments have found it difficult to shift away from the status quo in response to this very new, very different threat of a virus.

At the same time, there have been countries, and prov­inces here in Canada, that responded decisively and agg­ressively to COVID: New Zealand, Vietnam, Australia, South Korea and, here, the Maritimes. These governments decided that the risk of COVID was a risk they did not want to mitigate; it was a risk they wanted to eliminate. As Prime Minister Ardern said: “Aiming for zero doesn’t mean that it is a guaranteed success, but it does mean that a lot fewer people will get ill or die.”

We now look with envy at these countries where gatherings happen, families come together, and ironically, return to the actual status quo was achieved much more quickly than for those of us in places where mitigation was chosen over elimination. These countries have also had much less negative impact to their economies, which rebounded more quickly and are now enjoying the benefits of almost full economic activity.

This teaches us a valuable lesson. It’s hard to make difficult choices in response to risks that lie in the future, risks that are not right in front of us. Yet as governments and decision-makers, this is exactly what is required of us. Taking a passive and reactive approach to risks and threats that we know are coming is not what the people who we serve need us to do. They need us to identify the measures that need to be taken so that there is the least harm from these risks and these threats.

While we continue to navigate the very real and very present risk of COVID-19, we must absolutely look at the horizon and recognize that growing inequality and accelerating climate change are going to create more upheaval, more suffering and more loss. We have to be relentlessly willing to learn and, perhaps most importantly, acknowledge and learn from our mistakes. It’s what’s needed most from those of us who occupy the seats in this House.

[4:05 p.m.]

There will be much more to look at with this budget. We look forward to the estimates process. I thank you for my opportunity to respond.

B. Bailey: I rise today to speak to the 2021 budget and to speak about what’s in this budget to help the people of my riding, Vancouver–False Creek. This is a large document. Its heft and depth speak to the large number of measures it contains to support the people of this province, as we continue to battle our way out of this pandemic and into the future. It would be impossible to speak to all of the measures that are included, so I’ll prioritize what I think are the most pressing items to the folks in my riding.

I’ll look at the impacts of this budget on businesses, on families and youth, the Indigenous community members, seniors and vulnerable Vancouverites. I’ll look specifically at some of the issues most pressing in my riding and discuss how this budget supports addressing these issues specifically: the opioid and poisoned illicit drug crisis, health and post-pandemic recovery.

COVID-19 has of course had a huge impact on businesses in the riding of Vancouver–False Creek, but the impact has been anything but uniform. Some businesses have posted record sales in 2020, and their revenues continue to grow in 2021. I refer to much of the tech sector, the housing sector and those who have had a successful pivot to online sales.

For those who have not, and specifically those who work in the live entertainment, restaurant and tourism sectors, this budget has a number of measures to continue to support these important businesses. Budget 2021 funds ongoing business supports initiated through the StrongerBC economic recovery plan, to help B.C. businesses through the pandemic and to help them prepare for recovery.

Ongoing business supports include: $140 million for the StrongerBC increased employment incentive tax credit; $195 million to continue funding the small and medium-sized business recovery grant program; the ongoing PST exemption on capital investments and select equipment and machinery to help businesses pivot or upgrade; $45 million to Launch Online, connecting businesses with B.C. technology companies to create or improve their e-commerce and provide digital marketing and training to help businesses boost their online sales.

This program has been wildly successful and consistently oversubscribed. We’ve needed to extend it. It was originally for $12 million. Part of this program, up to 30 percent of the funds, will be reserved for Black-, Indigenous- and people of colour–owned businesses, and that’s a big deal and supports these businesses in my riding.

Nerissa Allen, who’s the president of the Black Business Association of B.C., says: “The pandemic has impacted so many people throughout B.C., and it has also disproportionately impacted people and communities of colour. I am pleased to see funding set aside for the Black, Indigenous and people of colour business community.” This change, combined with opening the grant program to service-based businesses, will give business owners and entrepreneurs the opportunity to access funds that will help revive their businesses.

The funds must be used to hire B.C.-based companies to develop the online store or online booking system, and many of these businesses also rely on tech that is built right here in my riding. This is an in-depth, transformative program for small and medium businesses and is having real impact.

There’s a bit of a joke going around online that you may have seen. It has got three different options: “Check the box next to the driver of the digital transformation in your business. Box 1, your chief technology officer, or CTO. Box 2, your CEO. Box 3, COVID-19.”

[4:10 p.m.]

Underneath this joke is the truth that a large number of businesses had actually left money on the table because they didn’t have the funds or time, or perhaps the know-how, to make it a priority to transition into e-commerce and online business. This fund and the ensuring transformation will serve these businesses well long after the pandemic is behind us.

Other business supports include $10 million to increase value-added manufacturing in B.C. by supporting SMEs to make their products more accessible to customers and an additional $6 million in grants for businesses to help strengthen B.C.’s supply chain. An average 25 percent re­duction in commercial property taxes is also part of the work that we’ve been doing for businesses.

Tourism and hospitality. As we all know, this sector has been hit particularly hard, and the opportunity to pivot to digital sales is less than for many other businesses, for obvious reasons. Budget 2021 continues to support these sectors. The riding of Vancouver–False Creek has some of B.C.’s most-treasured tourism destinations, including Science World. This budget includes $100 million to support tourism recovery, including support for major anchor attractions that help make B.C. such a valued and unique destination.

I have to share that throughout my kids’ childhood, we had a membership to Science World. We spent a lot of time there. I just can’t overstate how important I think it is to connect children to science and to nature. We spent hours watching the well-designed public science shows, the kids throwing their hands up in the air hoping to be chosen as volunteers to help out on stage. The kids enjoyed the many travelling exhibits, including the giant LEGO exhibits and that really gross one about travelling inside the human body, and — please excuse me, Mr. Speaker; I’ll say a word not commonly said in these chambers — fart jokes in our household were the result for many, many days.

IMAX delighted us with movies about the building of the pyramids and understanding ice and climate change — and, more recently, the Great Bear Rainforest. Even after the kids were grown, honestly, I kept going. I went to the Pixar exhibit twice with girlfriends who also worked in the creative tech sector. Of course, I’ve enjoyed many fundraisers held at Science World, including Scotch-tasting events and the science of mixology.

The value of this incredible attraction to the people of the riding is immeasurable, as I know it is to the people of British Columbia and our guests from all over the world. They’ll be back. This budget helps ensure that our world-class city and our attractions will be ready for them. In addition to the $70 million in tourism relief and recovery measures in Budget 2020, Budget 2021 adds an additional $20 million for community destination grants exactly for that purpose.

I’d like to speak now a little bit about the arts and culture sector. Vancouver–False Creek is blessed with a vibrant arts and culture scene. Granville Island is home to a large number of theatres, including the new site of Arts Umbrella, the Arts Council of B.C., the Arts Club Theatre, Boca del Lupo, Carousel Theatre for youth, Ruby Slippers Production, the fringe festival, Vancouver TheatreSports and more.

This government has worked closely with the arts sector to develop targeted recovery funding and has already in­vested $22.5 million, through Amplify B.C., to support B.C.’s music industry over the next three years, and $35 million to support arts and culture organizations. Budget 2021 builds on these investments by doubling the budget for the arts infrastructure program, which will provide $6 million in capital improvement grants to support arts and culture organization recovery.

As we all know, this pandemic has been quite ruthless, actually, on the restaurant sector. It’s been awe-inspiring to watch these intrepid entrepreneurs respond and pivot to each presenting challenge. I was once married to a restaurateur and brewery owner, with nearly 500 employees, and I know this sector well.

[4:15 p.m.]

I know how hard these employees work, how demanding and unforgiving customers can be. I know how every economic uptick and downtick has immediate impact on business. We made it through SARS. Times were glorious during the Olympics. Vancouver’s housing crisis made it hard to find employees when times were good. Then the pandemic. Imagine being a restaurateur in Gastown and losing the cruise ship business and tourism and events and locals. There are so few folks working downtown right now. So many people are working from home.

The whole business model has been challenged. Businesses are pivoting and pivoting and pivoting again. Take­out, selling alcohol with orders, delivery, plexiglass and limited inside dining, patios only. It’s been beyond difficult. This government heard from the restaurant sector that getting rid of retail pricing of alcohol and moving to wholesale pricing would make a significant difference. This government adopted a temporary wholesale pricing strategy then made it permanent. This is huge.

Government is supporting the restaurant and hospitality industry in the current short-term circuit breaker by providing more than $50 million in non-repayable grants to an estimated 1,400 businesses. We’ve issued a 15 percent cap on delivery services to stop them from gouging the sector, taking money directly from the bottom line. We’ve hired hundreds of tourism and hospitality staff laid off during the pandemic to support the B.C. immunization plan as non-clinical staff, and these employees will be able to return to the sector. These businesses can also apply to the small and medium business grant, whose funding is extended in Budget 2021.

There are multiple aspects of Budget 2021 that benefit families living in the riding of Vancouver–False Creek. Let’s start with child care. The pandemic has shone a light on the fact that access to affordable, quality and inclusive child care is not simply good social policy; it’s absolutely vital to B.C.’s economy. When, during the first part of the pandemic, schools closed and traditional supports were not available, families struggled. They struggled to manage the demands of work, many getting used to working from home and new realities, raising children while working in the same space. It’s incredibly difficult.

With the wage disparity that still far too often exists, it was often women who dropped out of the workforce, compelled to put aside their careers or employment to care for their family’s children. This government has made historic investments in the first three years of Childcare B.C., our ten-year plan to deliver universal child care to B.C. families.

Improving access to child care supports our economic recovery by creating more opportunities for parents, particularly women, to go back to work or school and gives kids the best possible start. Early childhood educators are receiving higher wages through our wage enhancement program, and we’re investing in bursaries and education opportunities to recruit more people into this rewarding and in-demand career.

Over 35,000 children have received child care for $10 a day since launch. Now thousands more families will benefit from low-cost child care, as Budget 2021 will increase $10-a-day sites across our province. More than 2,000 families in the province will have access to programs that im­prove inclusion in day-to-day activities for children with support needs, and $20 million will support additional health and safety grants to child care providers to ensure centres remain safe, through increased cleaning supplies, personal protective equipment or space improvements.

[4:20 p.m.]

We have also made public transportation free for children. Over 340,000 B.C. children under 12 will ride public transportation for free in time for classes this September. For families in the TransLink area, this is a potential savings of $672 a year for each child, or $400 per year in B.C. Transit areas.

Youth are not forgotten in this budget. We are investing in new training and employment opportunities for youth, including funding to support post-secondary education, including new spaces to build training capacity in the health care sector. There is $32 million to continue training launched through the Stronger B.C. economic recovery plan, including $5 million to expand micro-credential training for people looking to retrain or pursue new careers. There is $10 million for work-integrated learning opportunities and short-term skills training.

These are both programs that I’m personally crazy about. I think that it can be really difficult to commit to a four-year degree, and because I’ve worked in the tech sector, I’ve seen people step back and be worried they might not be ready to join that sector. Often we think about a computer science degree as being this huge barrier, and we’ve taught people to be afraid of math. But if you can take some micro-credential training in coding and find out what you think about it and whether it’s something you’re good at, it reduces that barrier, and I think it’s a huge opportunity for people to explore opportunities in different careers and to access them without having to lay down a commitment for four years.

It’s an interesting model also because you can build on top of it. You can train, go to the workforce, come back and train and so on, and it provides a lot of opportunities and flexibility. It’s a really, really interesting model that I’m so happy we’re moving towards.

The budget also includes $45 million for youth employment initiatives, creating 5,000 jobs when combined with Stronger B.C. economic recovery investments, and there is improvement of mental health supports in schools, which we all know is so important. There’s also funding to address racism and reconciliation so that the next generation can develop the support they need to thrive. And specific to the riding of Vancouver–False Creek but serving youth across the region, B.C. Housing is providing capital funding of $5 million to Covenant House Vancouver — to the expansion — to assist vulnerable homeless youth. The funding will augment $10 million raised privately and enable a new building at 530 Drake Street, the first phase of Covenant House’s capital expansion project.

Covenant House acquired the land and building site formerly occupied by the Immigrant Services Society of B.C. with the help of an interest-free loan from B.C. Housing. Once complete, the building will accommodate ad­ministrative spaces, 28 temporary crisis beds and a drop-in health care centre.

There are supports for Indigenous community members. In Budget 2021, we see continued action and commitment to the shared journey of reconciliation, including $17 million to partner with Indigenous communities and organizations, to expand access to skills training and the addition of $60 million to the base annual funding to the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. This is dedicated funding to support Indigenous negotiations and engagement on legislation, policy and programming.

There is $45 million to support culturally safe health services and more Indigenous liaisons in each regional health authority, including ours, to improve health access and services for Indigenous people. There is $14 million for the First Nations Health Authority to deliver targeted mental health and addictions services to Indigenous peoples, and there are 400 more spaces in the Aboriginal Head Start program that provides culturally relevant child care for Indigenous families. There is funding to partner with hundreds of Indigenous communities and organizations, including those in Vancouver–False Creek, to expand access to skills training and programs.

[4:25 p.m.]

There are specific funding pots allotted to those who are most in need, including low-income seniors, adults with developmental disabilities, and support for children in care. Low-income seniors in the riding will benefit from the doubling of the seniors supplement. A $175-a-month increase to income and disability assistance builds on two previous increases, for a total increase of $325 a month since 2017 for people receiving assistance — a 53 percent increase since this government came to power.

There is additional funding to support children in care who have alternative health care arrangements as well as additional supports for programs that support children with disabilities or mental health needs. Community Living B.C. will receive new funding to provide supports and services to over 24,000 adults with developmental disabilities and their families.

Now I’d like to speak about mental health and addictions. The opioid and poisoned illicit-drug crisis has had a particularly brutal impact on the community members of Vancouver–False Creek. This is the largest mental health investment made in B.C. history in this budget. Budget 2021 will continue the expansion of mental health and substance use supports to better connect people to culturally safe and effective care — $500 million in new funding over the fiscal plan to expand mental health and addictions services. I’m going to say that again — $500 million.

We’re building a better network of mental health supports for youth — $97 million there — including mental health programs in schools and expanding the number of integrated child and youth teams from five to 20 teams across B.C. by 2023-24. There is support for more school and community-based multidisciplinary mental health and substance use services. Support and expansion of the Foundry centres is incredibly important.

We’re also expanding the First Nations Health Authority’s ability to deliver mental health and addictions services to Indigenous Peoples — $14 million — and 195 new substance use treatment and recovery beds throughout the province to help more people get on the path to recovery. There is $61 million to improve access and quality of mental health services, including expanding eating disorder care and to provide better access to suicide prevention services and early psychosis intervention and detection.

Earlier this week, I rose in this chamber and spoke about the opioid and toxic drug supply crisis in my riding. I am profoundly grateful to see $330 million, over the fiscal plan, to provide a full spectrum of substance use treatment and recovery services, including $152 million for opioid treatment.

This is huge — 195 new substance use treatment and recovery beds in communities throughout the province to help more people get on the path to recovery. The impact this funding will have on my riding is immeasurable, and I personally thank the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions on behalf of the many, many constituents in Vancouver–False Creek who are impacted daily by this interminable, horrible crisis. This money represents lives saved.

The pandemic has shone an even brighter light on the importance of health services, of course. Our budget continues to protect people’s health and safety with $4 billion in new investments over the next three years. Vaccinations, contact tracing, more capacity at CDC and access for Indigenous, rural, remote communities is $900 million in funding. It helps keep seniors safe by supporting long-term care and assisted-living facilities, including screening staff and additional PPE.

This budget helps support seniors with daily living by increasing care aides and community providers. It helps seniors manage moderate to high complex needs with dignity at home through the home health monitoring program.

[4:30 p.m.]

We took action when health officials found people in long-term care and assisted living were particularly vulnerable during this pandemic. Since the start of the pandemic, B.C. has provided $345 million for the LTC sector.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The first year of Budget 2021 adds another $258 million to help keep long-term-care centres safe by providing additional supports for health care workers to maintain the single-site health facility order that’s been so important and continued screening of staff at all LTC and assisted-living facilities.

The health care access program provides training and hiring of up to 3,000 health care aides. That’s $585 million over three years. There’s a continuation to renew and ex­pand long-term-care facilities. Over 20 projects in planning are expected to create over 1,500 new beds and re­place approximately 2,850.

Skipping ahead a couple of pages. In regards to complex care housing, the budget provides ongoing and new supports for people living with the most complex mental health and addictions issues. The Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions is leading a broader framework for complex care housing and support programs. That implementation is to be supported by the pandemic recovery contingencies. To meet the demand for cancer care, PharmaCare and MSP services, there is $300 million over three years.

Budget 2021 focuses on expanding team-based and ur­gent primary care centres that provide faster access to doctors and to nurses and nurse practitioners. This is funded at $253 million over three years. The UPCC in Vancouver–False Creek has been drawn on extensively through the pandemic, and it’s worth its weight in gold.

This budget is addressing systemic racism through training, education, and hiring practices to respond to the In Plain Sight report regarding the experience of Indigenous people in the health care system in British Columbia. That’s funded at $45 million over three years.

Just to comment generally, I was really happy to hear this morning on CBC that the Bank of Canada has kept its key interest rate at 0.25 percent. It’s raised predictions for economic growth this year to 6.5 percent. That’s up from an earlier forecast of 4 percent. That’s really good news. They expect that consumer spending will return to pre-COVID spending within a year. They expect to see inflation back at its 2 percent target, happening later next year.

This is incredibly promising, and we should all take heart noting that the macroeconomic indicators for economic growth are high. It is in this light that we have a budget that is a deficit budget with a 30 percent debt-to-GDP ratio and a $9.7 billion deficit. But this is not wild spending. This is a reasoned, well-thought-out approach, balancing the needs to support British Columbians with wise and considered counsel on what B.C. can absorb going forward towards a balanced budget.

Following Budget 2021, we’ll see reductions in deficit spending year-over-year, until we again reach a balanced budget, estimated to be seven to nine years from now. It’s for these reasons that I support this budget. I want to thank the minister, her hard-working team, the Treasury Board, the Treasury Board staff and the cabinet for their diligence and hard work on behalf of the people of Vancouver–False Creek.

T. Stone: I appreciate taking my place in the debate on Budget 2021.

[4:35 p.m.]

Before I get into my comments, however, I want to acknowledge the comments just made by the member for Vancouver–False Creek. Her first response to a provincial budget and I think she did great. Certainly, as a fellow techie, I look forward to engaging with her.

I think that it’s wonderful to have more people in this chamber that are from the tech sector and that understand the tech sector and the potential that it really provides for communities right across the province. I think the work that the member did with Silicon Sisters was admirable. So again, welcome to the chamber, and I look forward to working with you.

The budget came at an interesting time — I’m not going to get into it being two months late and this and that; I think that’s been canvassed extensively — insofar as a pandemic that we have all been struggling to deal with in our own way, in our communities and with our families and loved ones. There has been lots of pain. There has been lots of loss. There has been lots of strug­gle, both from a health perspective and also from an economic and financial perspective.

I think that British Columbians were really looking for hope. They were looking for a vision, a vision for a long-term, sustainable economic recovery in this province and better days ahead. Well, they didn’t get that in this budget.

It would appear that what British Columbians did get in this budget is essentially a reflection of a government that has been in power now for a full term and is into its second term. Despite making a number of very important, very critical commitments, particularly around affordability a number of years ago, it would appear that the government has abandoned those promises around affordability. I’m going to talk about a number of these areas in more detail in my comments here today.

Needless to say, housing affordability…. Prices are continuing to go up. Supply is going down. Housing starts are going down. Rents are going up. There’s no help in sight. This is happening all over the province.

Child care. While there’s a fair bit of tinkering around the edges, there certainly has been no significant progress, no meaningful progress, on the government’s commitment to $10-a-day daycare.

Mental health, addiction and recovery. I think we all acknowledge that an important first step was taken in this budget on the treatment and recovery side of the equation. However, 195 beds and $133 million over a three-year per­iod for the entire province is not good enough. So when I say it’s a good step, it’s a very good, tiny, little, baby step. We need to see more happen there.

There's nothing in this budget to help thousands of small businesses, with the exception of some additional funding for the tourism sector, but we’ll come back and talk about that in a moment. There’s no private-sector jobs plan, as I mentioned, and as I mentioned, there’s no vision for economic recovery post-pandemic.

As the world recovers, it is going to become an increasingly competitive place. It is going to be increasingly im­portant that this province be ready to compete on that world stage, that this province be ready to re-engage in the world economy.

Where is the plan to attract that investment in this budget? I don’t see one. Where’s the plan in this budget to create the conditions for robust private-sector growth? I don’t see that in this budget. Where is the focus on un­leashing the opportunity for each and every British Columbian to pursue their dreams, to take risks, to do what they need and want to do to advance themselves, to im­prove their lot in life and their family’s lot in life? I don’t see that in this budget.

The Premier and the government have made a clear choice. There is a significant emphasis in this budget on growing the size of government — a massive expansion of government.

[4:40 p.m.]

There has been a decision made by this Premier and this government to oversee a massive expansion in the public debt with no plan to pay that back anytime soon. To think that we’re going to see approximately $27 billion worth of deficits over a four-year period, including the fiscal year that’s just ended.

Looking at the fact that taxpayer-supported debt is projected to more than double — I said that correctly, double — from about $44.5 billion pre-pandemic to $92.7 billion post-pandemic, an 108 percent increase over this three-year fiscal plan…. To look in the budget book and realize that the total provincial debt is set to increase to $127 billion, three years out, from about $70 billion pre-pandemic, and then, to hear the government say that it doesn’t have any plan to focus on how we bring that back into balance….

There’s no specific timeline. The Finance Minister has said that it’s likely that it will take seven, eight, nine years. Economists and the banks and others have said that it’s likely to take longer than that, unless there is a clear plan. We don’t see that in this budget.

The NDP love to talk about jobs recovery. The Jobs Minister has made an art form of patting himself on the back and patting the government on the back. Every other day of the week, we hear it: “British Columbia has recovered virtually every job that was lost pre-pandemic.” We hear that every other day of the week.

Mr. Speaker, you know and I know that the devil is always in the details. What the Jobs Minister, the Premier and the government don’t want to tell British Columbians, don’t want to focus attention on, don’t want to shine a bright light on is that the jobs recovery in this province is built on an extremely shaky foundation of massive reliance on part-time jobs having replaced full-time jobs and, as I said earlier, this huge expansion in the size of government.

Let’s dive into those numbers. These are the numbers that are actually in the government’s budget book. This is not me making this up, or estimating. Once a month, as the Jobs Minister does, I put our response to the monthly jobs numbers that come out from Stats Canada. But these are British Columbia’s numbers that are in the budget book.

Over the past year, British Columbia has, to this point, to March…. Full-time jobs are still down about 43,000 from pre-pandemic levels — 43,000 fewer full-time jobs. The Jobs Minister talks about all of these jobs that have been created. Well, yeah, a lot of them are part-time. Most of them are part-time: 59,000 more part-time jobs today. It’s no wonder that so many British Columbians feel so stretched. It’s no wonder that 53 percent of British Columbians in a recent survey said that they’re about $200 away from not being able to pay their monthly fees.

Now, when we look at the public sector and the private sector, the jobs in those two sectors, this massive expansion in government equates to an additional 60,000 more public sector jobs today compared to one year ago — 60,000. These are not all contact tracers. These are not all nurses and teachers. We don’t quibble at all with those positions. These are a few jobs here and a few jobs there, and a few more here and a few more there, multiplied by 100 times whatever in each ministry.

This is significant growth in government: 60,000 more public sector jobs. That’s up from 430,000 total jobs to 490,000 jobs, a 14 percent increase in one year. This is all happening under the shadow of the pandemic that we’re in.

[4:45 p.m.]

The government doesn’t want to talk about it, and I don’t blame them for not wanting to talk about it. Of course, baked into those 60,000 new jobs, those 60,000 new public sector jobs, are 55,000 unionized British Columbians. Fair enough. There are lots of hard-working people in the public sector — a tremendous number of hard-working, dedicated professionals in the public sector. But 60,000 more? It’s not sustainable.

But it does speak to the NDP’s agenda. It does speak to their priorities. I mean, this is fundamentally a group of people, a government — well-intentioned — that believes that big government is the answer to all of our problems and challenges. That government knows best. That government will take care of that for you. Government is on it. It’s that old joke, when you get that knock at the door, and you answer it, and the person at the door says to you: “Hey, good news. I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you.”

While 60,000 public sector positions have been added to government — government has grown by 60,000 positions — as I said earlier, in that same time period, 43,000 private sector jobs have been lost. I would surmise, and I would argue, that there cannot be a durable, long-term, sustainable economic recovery without the private sector leading the way. We don’t see that in this budget.

Let’s talk about women and youth. I think we all can agree, in this chamber, that women and youth have been disproportionately impacted by this pandemic. Again, the jobs numbers bear that out. In fact, young women are the most unemployed demographic in British Columbia today, at about 13 percent. Where’s the plan to get women back into the workforce? Where’s the plan to get young British Columbians back into the workforce?

There is no plan for that. All we have is a Premier who wags his finger every now and then, assessing blame, asking — urging, imploring — young people not to blow it for the rest of us in this pandemic. I’ll tell you something: that 18- to 39-year-old demographic is carrying a massive load, a disproportionate load, through this pandemic.

I couldn’t help but think about this recently. On a personal note, one of my daughters had major surgery recently at Children’s Hospital. It’s every parent’s worst thing to go through, when your child goes through those doors, and they disappear, and the surgery goes on for seven hours. It was supposed to be five. But we knew that she was in good hands — great hands, the best hands that there are in British Columbia. We were there for almost a week after the surgery. So we got to know a lot of the health care professionals in that hospital, the nurses in particular.

There wasn’t a single nurse over the age of 39. They were all in their mid- to late 20s, early 30s — every single one of them. All of the people that work over at the Ronald McDonald House, another outstanding facility that we’re blessed to have in this province — not a single person there that was volunteering when we were there…. Most of the staff that we met there were under the age of 39.

My point is that we have to be careful about assessing blame, about pointing fingers, even if it’s not intentional — especially when we are in a situation like a pandemic, where we really, truly should be in this all together. So I take my hat off and I thank, from the bottom of my heart, the exceptional care that my daughter received and that we received at Children’s Hospital recently and, in particular, those nurses on the sixth floor that just gave everything they could to make sure that my daughter had everything that she needed.

[4:50 p.m.]

They’re struggling to pay their rent. They’re struggling with transportation costs. They’re struggling, in several cases, with child care costs. They’re struggling as much as, if not more than, many British Columbians much older than they are. They deserve to have a government that has a focused plan, that has their lives and their futures in mind. I don’t see that in this budget.

Of course, we know that tourism, accommodation and food services sectors have been just hammered. That sector is still down about 25,000 jobs since February 2020. All we’ve had are botched NDP programs to try and support these businesses. I’ll talk about that more in a moment.

The last piece about jobs…. Again, it’s something that the Jobs Minister, the Premier or the government doesn’t ever highlight or want to talk about. It’s called hidden unemployment, which is a key component of the jobs picture that StatsCan puts out once a month with the rest of the jobs numbers. They say: “Here’s the standard unemployment rate.” For March, it was 6.9 percent in British Columbia.

When you actually layer, on top of the people that are unemployed, all of the people that have given up looking for work, and then you layer, on top of that, all of the people that maybe have been able to go back to their jobs but are working part-time now, whereas they had a full-time job previously — or they’re a shift worker and they’re getting half the number of shifts that they used to get — British Columbia’s hidden unemployment rate is almost 11 percent.

There’s a lot of people hurting in this province right now. They might show up as back at work and back in their job, but let’s pay attention to what each individual story actually is. Are they getting the shifts that they need? Are they getting the hours that they need in order to make ends meet, in order to pay their bills? Or are they part of the 53 percent of British Columbians that are $200 away from not being able to pay their monthly bills?

With respect to economic recovery, small businesses have been hit hardest during this pandemic. There’s no question about that. I think we all get that. I mentioned earlier…. Nothing in this budget to support small businesses — except for $120 million for the tourism sector. It is too little, too late. It’s a fraction of the $680 million that the sector said — many, many months ago — they actually needed in order to survive.

Certainly, we welcome that some of this funding goes to major anchor attractions and community destinations — not saying that that shouldn’t happen. But what about all the operators out there? What about all the men and women that have small businesses in the tourism sector that are trying to make ends meet? They’ve had no revenue for a year.

We come out of the first wave, and everybody was feeling, “Okay. Maybe there’s light at the end of the tunnel,” and then bam. We go into the second wave. The tourism sector gets shut down again. They didn’t really get reopened, frankly. Then everyone is hopeful: “Okay, we’re coming out of the second wave.” And then bam. We get hit again with a third wave. Where is government support for the 190,000 people in this sector? The business recovery grant has no new money and no top-up in this budget.

Now, I kind of understand, because this program has been an unmitigated disaster in terms of its implementation. It is farcical that this government, a year and a few months into this pandemic…. On a program that was launched last September, with funding that was approved unanimously in this Legislature in March of 2020, it is absolutely inexcusable that today not every single penny of that funding is already out the door to support small businesses that need the help. But I’ll give the government a little bit of credit here.

At least there’s an honest admission, if not a publicly advertised one, in the budget on this, of just how inept they have been with the recovery grant. They have recognized that. Small businesses are having so much trouble accessing the recovery grant that the NDP has decided to stretch the program out for an extra year — which means that $195 million of the $345 million might not actually be out the door for another year.

[4:55 p.m.]

Now, how does this not make folks on the other side, in government, realize that there are a lot of people that need the support? There are better ways to push these dollars out the door, and it needs to happen.

The government then makes a big deal about their e-commerce grant. Well, you know what? That will help a few businesses, but the vast majority of businesses that could’ve used the help could have used the e-commerce grant last year, when they were forced to transition to online sales — or the circuit breaker grant. Again, the Jobs Minister, the chief marketing officer of the government, announces with great fanfare this circuit breaker and creates the impression that businesses will get a one-time $10,000 grant, except in the fine print — no, no, no, no, no — the average grant is going to be $5,000 or less.

If you’re a restaurant and you got hit with a lack of advanced notice, this last time around, that you had to shut down or at least revert 100 percent to delivery and patio sales, takeout, no in-room dining anymore, you’ve likely spent thousands of dollars on food that was perishable, that you couldn’t sell, that just added more insult to injury. That happened to all kinds of restaurants. That $5,000 might cover that bill for a few of them. It certainly doesn’t cover their payroll costs and other lost costs. It’s a drop in the bucket.

The Jobs Minister makes a big deal all the time about how British Columbia is number one in its support. Not for small business, it’s not. British Columbia is actually in eighth place out of all the provinces, in terms of direct grants and relief for small businesses. Newfoundland has invested $740 per capita in supporting their businesses through this pandemic; Ontario, $507 per capita; Alberta, $483 per capita. I won’t read all of the provinces ahead of British Columbia, but British Columbia is at $196, per capita, of support for small businesses.

The minister stands in this House, and he stands in front of the cameras — wherever he can find one out in the province — and looks into these cameras and looks into people’s eyes and tells a completely opposite story from what’s actually happening. “I guess if I say it enough, if I repeat it enough, then it must be true.”

Perhaps galling more than anything is that the government is sitting on a billion dollars in this budget, $1.1 billion, that’s reserved for “unanticipated urgent health or recovery measures” contingency. I’ve got a news flash for the government. There are a heck of a lot of people that need the help today. I don’t think that anyone needs to sit around and wait, for the anticipation, to suddenly manifest a whole bunch of need for individuals and businesses. It’s there. Why is the government not pushing these dollars out the door? Maybe it’s because they’re pretty darn bad, pretty inept, at actually doing so. They need to get those dollars out.

There was no help in this budget for small businesses that are facing skyrocketing property taxes — the split assessment issue that we’ve been talking about for four years now. I’ve introduced a private member’s bill that would create a new commercial property sub-class that would help reduce the property tax burden for small businesses. It would also exempt them from having to pay the speculation tax, the ridiculous application of speculation tax to vacant residential land, which includes the air space over the heads of businesses. It’s nonsensical.

We’ve proposed a solution to deal with it. We were told in this House by the Finance Minister, who was then the Housing Minister: “Don’t worry. A solution is coming.” The Attorney General, the Minister Responsible for Housing, in his usual dismissive tone just the other day said to me, in response to a question in this place: “The member for Kamloops–South Thompson is getting a bit bent out of shape here. He should just be patient, because we’re working on something.” Well, it’s been four years, and there’s a simple solution to this. There was no extension of commercial property tax, the commercial property tax exemption for small business. No relief from the employer health tax.

[5:00 p.m.]

The government is going to collect $6 billion over the next three years on the backs of business, on the backs of a lot of small businesses, medium-sized businesses. No relief whatsoever for that.

So much more I would love to touch on in this budget. Only a few more things that I have time for, unfortunately.

In housing, as I said earlier, supply is down, prices are up. Prices are up in my hometown too — Kamloops, 16 percent year-to-date over the 2020 numbers. There are bidding wars, multiple offers over asking price. Many deals are getting done in a matter of hours in a single day.

I get all kinds of letters and emails and phone calls from, particularly, young people that are trying to get into the market — never thought in their wildest dreams that they wouldn’t be able to do so in Kamloops. But housing prices are out of control there. They’re out of control in most parts of this province, and this government, which was elected in large part on addressing housing affordability, is failing miserably on this account. They need to do better.

The NDP’s promise of $10-a-day child care — nowhere to be found in here. There’s little tiny baby steps, as I said earlier. Just 75 net new $10-a-day prototype sites will be added under this budget, which is about 3,750 spaces. We heard today from the Finance Minister: “We’re doubling the number of spaces that we have funded over the last four years.” You’re doubling it from a couple thousand to a couple thousand more.

Then the government has made some pretty regressive changes in the child care sector, with an obvious agenda to drive private sector operators out of the business — out of the child care sector — again, because big government is best. Let’s have the government do everything for us. But this was another issue that the government said: “We will solve this — the challenge of inaccessible and unaffordable child care in British Columbia. We’ll do it.” That was four to five years ago. Nowhere near delivering on the promise.

Mental health addictions and recovery. Like I said, I’m very much willing to say that the $500 million investment over three years is a step forward. It’s a baby step forward. But 195 recovery beds — treatment beds — in a three-year period, across the entire province of British Columbia? We’ve got to be able to do better than that. There is a moment in history here, that if we choose to write the chapter together….There is all-party unanimity in this chamber, as far as I can tell, for a big, bold mental health addiction and recovery investment in this province, and 195 beds over three years doesn’t cut it.

I find it interesting that health authorities are having their budgets cut by $1.1 billion. School districts are having their budgets cut by $53 million. It’s just inexplicable, particularly looking at the months ahead and coming out of a pandemic.

A couple things that are Kamloops-specific in the min­ute and a half I have left — no mention, whatsoever, of the cancer centre promise in this budget. The Premier came up to Kamloops in October during the election. He came for one reason and one reason only, and that was to tell the people of Kamloops: “If you re-elect me, I will deliver a cancer centre in Kamloops within four years.” Not a single dollar earmarked for that in this budget.

I have been in cabinet. I have been in government. I know how this works. I know how capital planning works. There is no possible way now, because of the time that the Premier and the NDP have wasted, that that cancer centre commitment is going to be fulfilled in Kamloops. This will be the second time — the second time — that Kamloopsians will look at each other and go: “Are you kidding me? We were promised a cancer centre. The NDP are reneging on it?”

The sense of betrayal is palpable in Kamloops. The MLA for Kamloops–North Thompson and I are going to continue to fight tooth and nail to make sure that the Premier does good on his commitment to that cancer centre.

We need more school capital in Kamloops as well. Our schools are bursting. This budget doesn’t cut it. The government has got to do better.

I thank you for allowing me to participate in today’s debate.

[5:05 p.m.]

A. Mercier: It is an honour to stand up here today in this House and to talk about Budget 2021. I just want to start by acknowledging my friend the Minister of Finance and the tremendous job that she has done and all of the staff in the Ministry of Finance and the tremendous job they’ve done in what has been a very difficult time. That’s building on the good, strong foundation that the previous Minister for Finance, Carole James, has built and the credibility that she’s built for the province of British Columbia fiscally.

We’ve heard a lot of things so far in this debate, and I anticipate that over the next coming days, we’re going to hear a lot of other very loud and sometimes outrageous statements coming from the members of the opposition that are really, in some ways, quite shocking.

We heard the member for Peace River South today say that we’re creating too many jobs, that we’re creating 60,000 public sector jobs on top of all the job creation we’ve done in the private sector of the economy. We’ve secured investment in LNG Canada, which is up in the member’s region and area up north. We’re creating a lot of good jobs for British Columbians. We are going to get through this pandemic, and we are going to get through this pandemic stronger than we were before.

This approach to budgeting, which has been brought into question by the opposition, the approach that we have to budgeting, which is called sound fiscal management, seems to be a revelation for them. We’ve even heard the member for Peace River South ask to see a jobs plan because he wants to know how we’re doing it. Because of the 16 years of B.C. Liberal bungling that we had in this province, it’s just incredible to them that things can be managed so well.

But you can see that in the middle of a pandemic, when we’re managing the health care system and we’re rolling out a mass vaccination program the likes of which this country has never seen before logistically or operationally, we’re also executing one of the most significant business turnarounds in a corporation — probably in the insurance market, period.

That’s with ICBC. After the things the opposition, when they were in government, did to that corporation, we’re putting it on a sound footing. That gives this province and this budget a sound footing to move forward on as we move through this pandemic and as we move past it.

We’ve seen what that old approach to budgeting looks like. We’ve seen the B.C. Liberal approach, the so-called free enterprise coalition. I call them the Wild West coalition. We’ve seen what it looks like when the Wild West coalition was in power. They balanced the budget by reaching into the pockets of families, with MSP, with ICBC, with hydro rates. They rolled over moneys from Crown corporations into general revenue to cover up tax cuts for their friends.

Further to that, they engaged in stunts and tricks like the fire sale of land. We heard from the Premier today, talking about the sale of the land set aside for the new Cloverdale hospital, the new Surrey hospital. That set that project back and delayed that project and delayed necessary services for people in Surrey and for people in my area and in my constituency of Langley.

It doesn’t surprise me, in some ways, that we’re seeing this level of outrage from the opposition and that we’re seeing this level of disbelief from the Wild West coalition, because they weren’t able to do it when they were in government.

It really is the result of a tremendous effort on the part of the Minister of Finance and on the professional civil service. I mean, they’ve been running full tilt to get the B.C. recovery benefit program up and all manner of programs up and going and creating new ones out of the air while also engaging in a budgetary process to keep the ships running.

Just noting the hour, I reserve my right to continue speaking, but I’d like to move adjournment of the debate.

A. Mercier moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. L. Beare: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 3.

Deputy Speaker: We’ll just take a short two-minute recess, if that’s okay, Members.

The House recessed from 5:10 p.m. to 5:13 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 3 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 3; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 5:13 p.m.

On clause 1.

Hon. H. Bains: I’m here to answer any questions from the opposition.

G. Kyllo: I was wondering if the minister could just pro­vide a bit of clarity, I guess, for the House with respect to the amount of consultation that was actually undertaken, specifically with respect to this piece of legislation. I’m just wondering if you could share with us, in detail, the number of different organizations and industry groups that were consulted as part of the background work prior to drafting this legislation.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I really want to thank the opposition. Thank you very much for the question. I think we felt that the immunization plan is the key in order for us to get over this pandemic. Part of that would be the workers, who play a key role in moving our economy. They go to work every day, produce a product and then provide us the services that we need.

It was felt that there would be times where they may not be able to go get vaccinated outside of their working hours. We want to make it as easy as possible for all workers to go get vaccinated. That’s what employers want. That’s what we as a society want, because we want to make sure that at the end of the day, everyone is vaccinated as soon as possible. There was transmission at workplaces. The sooner all workers are vaccinated, I think, the sooner we can stop that transmission.

We did go out and consult with many. Normally, consultation takes place. There’s a process out there. You send people to consult different people, different stakeholders. I personally participated in these types of consultations because I felt it was very, very important. On one hand, we want to make sure that all workers are given the opportunity to go get vaccinated without loss of pay. On the other hand, we also recognize that the employers are going through tough times themselves, and we don’t want to continue to burden them with additional costs.

So we went, and we wanted to consult both the workers’ representatives and the workers themselves — and the other stakeholders, Indigenous groups and then the business groups. We met with the labour organizations, B.C. Federation of Labour. They had a number of affiliate representatives on that call. We met with about 20 key business and industry sector stakeholders, including Business Council of B.C., B.C. Chamber of Commerce, B.C. Hotel Association, B.C. Restaurant and Food Services Association and others.

I participated in about four different consultations — the meetings. We listened. Everyone agreed we need to make it as easy as possible for the workers to go get vaccinated. There was no disagreement there. Many employers groups agreed that there should be paid time off. They’re okay with that, because many were already doing it. There were others who had concerns, and they wanted to make sure that there are some limits put on, some guidelines put on. There were others who completely opposed it.

Looking at it overall, I would say that most supported paid time off, going through those consultations. We took into consideration, when we drafted this bill, the concerns that they raised — some of them — that there should be some limits, some guidelines to be guided by. That’s why all those are reflected in here. We believe it is the right thing to do.

G. Kyllo: I’m just wondering. Can the minister pro­vide any additional context with respect to the level of consultation?

The minister had indicated that he didn’t want to put any additional burden on the backs of employers that are already struggling during this really challenging time, through our COVID recovery. With respect to the level of consultation, how was the determination…? How did the ministry undertake and determine who was going to be consulted and who wasn’t?

I’m just wondering if there was any kind of broader public advertising or any opportunity to seek other input from other organizations that may not have otherwise actually been consulted on this legislation.

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: When originally the vaccination program started, it was age-based — those who are over 80 and in long-term care, health care — and soon they were able to vaccinate that priority group. Now they were moving quickly towards the working-age population. So that’s when we realized that we needed to make sure that the people who are working…. They need to have an opportunity to go get vaccinated. That’s when we started consultations.

I can tell the member there is an industry engagement table that has been established. It has almost every business — non-profit, labour and many others who could be on — in order to get their input and give them the information about what the governments are doing. That’s where we started.

So we did that. Then all of the other groups that I just mentioned, we reached out to them. I rely heavily on — I normally do — my staff, who actually do this on an ongoing basis. So they reached out to all of those different other groups in order to catch everyone that we could. But the urgency was that we wanted to move and make sure that the workers have the opportunity, now that we’re moving into their age group, to go get vaccinated without a loss of pay.

Now, I must say — and I hope that the member would agree with me — that there are workers out there who are on paycheque to paycheque. They can’t afford to take any time off without pay, even to deal with as important an issue as to go get vaccinated. We want to make sure that they are not left out, make sure that they are given the opportunity to go get vaccinated.

There are workers, we know, with more than one job. They have to in order to survive in a high cost of living. So we need to look at them. How do we make sure that every worker is vaccinated as soon as possible? That is good for the workers, their families and the communities that they live in, and it’s good for the businesses.

Now businesses know that their workplaces are safe. The risk of them shutting down or the cluster or outbreak is next to zero. They also now will win the confidence of their customers, who know that when we are dealing with this particular business, knowing that the workers are vaccinated and they are a safe place to go and do business, they will keep on coming back.

I think, keeping all that in mind, that it is a win-win-win situation. Because at the end of the day, the whole purpose behind all of this is to get over this pandemic as quickly as possible. This is the key to achieving that goal.

[5:25 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much for providing that context. There’s no question that our quickest path to recovery is to achieve a high vaccination rate for workers across our province. But specifically back to the question on the consultation. That’s the area that I’m going to inquire a little bit more on.

The minister referenced an industry engagement table. I’m not familiar with the name of that table. I’m just wondering if the minister could maybe just share with me what the specific name of that industry table is and specifically who the members are of that particular engagement table.

Hon. H. Bains: The industry engagement table has been established for some time. It was established by the Premier. Minister Kahlon leads that. I’m on that committee, along with the Minister of Tourism. It is the table that we reach out to, to talk about the ideas — what they are facing, what their issues are and also what the government’s intentions are in different places.

I think it has almost every person that we could have on the business side, the labour side, the non-profit and others. It’s a large…. I can’t have exact numbers, but there are dozens and dozens of members that are on that. We meet on a regular basis or as and when we need to sound off some ideas.

G. Kyllo: I just want to confirm: is that actually the name of the organization? Is it called the industry engagement table, or is there another name associated with this particular group of individuals? Just further to that, if the minister can just provide a bit of context as far as the frequency of the visits and specifically how many members are on that committee and how many workers they represent in our province.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

The Chair: Minster.

Hon. H. Bains: Thank you, hon. Chair. Welcome to the chair.

It's actually called the COVID-19 Industry Engagement Table. It was established by the government. The Minister of Jobs and Innovation is the one who chairs it, and I gave you the other two ministers who are on it, including myself. They meet on the call of the chair. They have met, I’m advised, five or six times already since they were established.

I could give you a list — it’s a long one — of who’s on that table. It’s Small Business B.C., Creative B.C., Innovate B.C., Destination B.C., WorkSafeBC, B.C. Ferries, B.C. Hydro, B.C. Transit, TransLink, B.C. Pavilion Corp. From the labour reps: B.C. Federation of Labour, Unifor.

[5:30 p.m.]

From the Indigenous, Black and people of colour: the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Summit, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. Then you have the Alliance of B.C. Modern Treaty Nations, the First Nations Major Projects Coalition and the Black Business Association of B.C.

Then the regional-based representatives are Union of B.C. Municipalities, Community Futures B.C., B.C. Economic Development Association and other key business stakeholders, the B.C. Alliance for Arts and Culture, the Business Council of B.C., the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the Small Business Roundtable, the Business Improvement Areas of British Columbia, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters B.C.

The sector-specific representatives: Burnaby Board of Trade, Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, Surrey Board of Trade, Building Supply Industry Association, B.C. Construction Association, Independent Contractors and Businesses Association.

Then we go on to the Manufacturing Safety Alliance of B.C., Motion Picture Production Industry Association of B.C., Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, B.C. Agriculture Council, B.C. Trucking Association, BeautyCouncil of western Canada, Building Owners and Managers Association, the Canadian LNG Alliance.

Member, I’ve got two more pages, if you want me to continue on. I could go on.

Interjection.

Hon. H. Bains: That’s good enough, okay. Thank you very much.

The Chair: The member for Shuswap.

G. Kyllo: Welcome to the chair.

Thank you very much, Minister. It is a very exhaustive list. I certainly appreciate your taking the time to read us through that exhaustive list of the different members of the committee.

Just with respect to process, I wonder if you could share for the House, just a little bit…. When you talk about consultation, was there a specific meeting that was set up with this COVID-19 Industry Engagement Table, with specific reference to discussing the potential of this legislation that is before the House today? Or was this part of a broader sweep of an agenda as part of that consultation?

I’m just trying to get a better feel for the level of engagement, the level of input that was actually provided through this table, or if the question of paid leave for folks that are getting vaccinations was more just a bit of a report out of the consideration. Just how was the minister able to formulate all the various inputs that must have come into that process in order to land with the piece of legislation that is before us today?

Hon. H. Bains: At this industry engagement table, the other two ministers and I make reports to them. At this one particular meeting, on March 29, I raised the issue that we are contemplating to make it easier for workers to go get vaccinated and, since the vaccination plan for B.C. is the key to overcoming the pandemic, that paid time off is the one that we are considering.

[5:35 p.m.]

It’s so that every worker will have the opportunity to go get vaccinated and no one is left behind who may feel that they can’t afford to take time off. Then we left it with them. We heard, right there, some responses, but we also left them with, “Give us the follow-up input,” and we received a number of responses from them.

Then we had those four specific sessions, as I said, that I was involved in — business, labour, Indigenous and the other, as I would call them, NGOs — those who deal with people who are immigrants, probably recent immigrants, and people of colour.

We listened to all of those. We combined all of that and listened to what the responses were. What were some of the limitations they wanted to see? What was some of the opposition? There were some of the folks who were saying: “Go ahead. We like it. We are already doing it anyway.” Others said: “Yes, we would follow it.” For example, the Surrey Board of Trade was right there, saying: “This is the right idea.” I think other people gave us their input later.

That’s how we did the consultation. Then, in considering the consultation, we came up with Bill 3.

G. Kyllo: This is a bit of a follow-up. I appreciate the minister sharing so much information with respect to the consultation. I’m just wondering if the minister might be able to provide a bit of context. When he was meeting with the industry round table, was the intent to seek input and concerns from the group? The minister referenced that typically, ministers actually provide reports and report out to the group and then seek their input.

I’m trying to understand if the concern was raised during the meeting by the stakeholders bringing it to government looking for action, or if this was something that government came and presented to the group and was looking for input on the bill that’s currently before us today. It’s to get a bit of clarity as to whether this is something that was government-driven, or if this was something that was requested by the industry group that the minister referenced.

Hon. H. Bains: March 29, as you know, is around the same time that we brought in time off for vaccination without pay. Originally, that’s what we did, and I reported that to the group, that that’s what’s coming, because to make it paid time off would require legislative changes. For time off without pay, you could do it through regulatory changes.

We did that, and we said: “This is what’s coming.” Also, we wanted to move forward to: “How do we make it easier for workers who can’t afford to take time off?” There was input coming to us from some groups already, urging us to do this. So I gave our intention at that meeting: “This is what we are doing through regulatory changes, and this is where we would like to go. How do we make it easier for workers to go get vaccinated without a loss of pay?” That’s what we initiated.

That is a normal process. Any time government has in­tentions on making certain legislative or regulatory changes, you reach out to them. You say: “This is our in­tention in this area, and we are looking for input and your thoughts on this.” That’s what we did.

[5:40 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister, for that additional clarity.

As a follow-up to that, in meeting with the industry group, was government…? Sorry, let me back up. The minister indicated that when he approached the group, there was, I guess, a direction or an understanding or concern expressed by government, and they were seeking input from the industry association.

Prior to that, was the minister receiving complaints or concerns from the general population about this concern? I’m just trying to understand where the concern for the paid leave came from and what problem was trying to be solved with respect to this particular legislation that is before us.

Hon. H. Bains: I don’t mind discussing this at length, the consultation process, but I think we are on section 1, and the content of section 1 is the one that we should be debating.

But to answer the question from the member, the issue was brought to our attention that we should be moving in that particular area. We realized that there are workers who may not have the opportunity to go and get vaccinated because they may not get the leave.

So the first thing we did was make sure that they have leave that would be job-protected to go get vaccinated in case they have to take time off during work. We could have done it through regulatory changes, but we did have at least, I remember, one letter that came advocating that we should be moving into paid time off.

We raised this issue with this group at that particular meeting, that we were moving through regulatory changes. Then we wanted to know: what do you think of giving people paid time off in order to go get vaccinated? There are concerns being raised that the workers may not be able to afford to. Then, in that situation, they may not go and get vaccinated if they know that they are going to lose money.

We were also hearing — it was in the media already — that there were a number of large employers already saying that they were giving time off with pay to workers to go get vaccinated because they realized it benefits the businesses as the workers are going to get vaccinated.

That discussion was going on, so that was the first time we raised it with this group. Then we moved on to make sure that we included others — those four different sessions we held with other groups — to make sure that we got as much input from business, from labour, from non-profits, from Indigenous groups to guide us through what direction we should be going.

G. Kyllo: I’m just about finished, I think, on the consultation piece. Just for clarity, the first meeting when this was canvassed with the industry table was March 29 of 2021. Is that correct? If the minister could just confirm, was it March 29 of this fiscal 2021 that this initial consultation was undertaken?

Hon. H. Bains: Yes.

G. Kyllo: The pandemic was announced last year in February, March. Here we are a full year past, and that’s the first time that there’s been any consultation with industry with respect to the potential for providing this bill that’s before us today?

If the minister can just clarify that the first time consultation was undertaken with respect to this piece of legislation was a mere three weeks ago?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Look, of course the pandemic hit us about March last year or thereabouts, in that area. But the whole world was scrambling to find vaccinations, develop vaccinations. It took a long time for our scientists around the world to come up with a vaccination. Then once that was developed and approved by different authorities in different countries, including our country, we needed to have a vaccination plan. We depend on the federal government for vaccination supply, and the federal government depends on other countries. I must say, we used to have a factory back east that produced vaccinations here in Canada, but the government of the day sold it. Now we’re dependent on other countries to supply us with vaccinations.

Earlier this year, the vaccination plan was put together for British Columbia based on what vaccination we were going to get, the number and who should be the priority. Based on all of that, as I said earlier, the first priority was our elders and then those who take care of them, the long-term-care homes. Then, as we were moving quickly towards the working-age population, that’s when we started to think about it. That’s when we started to get this conversation going, that we needed to find a way to make it easier for working people to make sure that they get vaccinated. In case they fail to go because they are afraid to lose pay, how do we help them?

I think the member can question the timing, but no one could expect how this COVID, this virus, is acting. It changes every day. Our health care workers, our health authorities, the government are all reacting, because no one knows how this virus will be reacting today or tomorrow compared to yesterday.

I think we moved as quickly as possible and the consultation took place as quickly as possible and we reached out to as many people as possible because we want to act, we want to react, and we want to make sure that the people are given the opportunity when their turn comes. We want to make sure that the workers get the opportunity to go get vaccinated. There shouldn’t be any barriers for them to go and do it. This is one way of removing those barriers.

G. Kyllo: This is a bit of a follow-up. I thank the minister for sharing that with us. A question, I guess, that immediately comes to mind is that…. The minister mentions that the creation of vaccines has taken a significant amount of time. If I have a look at the potential quick math on the number of — 2½ million or 2.6 million — British Columbians that are working, if all of those workers were to actually take advantage of this particular piece of legislation that is before us today, the total cost to businesses could be upwards of $200 million to $300 million. It’s pretty significant.

Whether that’s going to be the uptake or not, I guess we’re yet to see. I’m just wondering, if I could ask a further question of the minister: does the minister feel that the potential cost burden of $200 million to $300 million on the backs of small businesses is deserving of more than three weeks of consultation?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Look, when this COVID hit us, everyone was impacted. Businesses were impacted. There are businesses that haven’t been opened yet. There are businesses that are not running at full capacity. There are businesses that were closed and opened again. It wasn’t anybody’s fault. It’s the way that COVID acted. The cost is huge, of having the pandemic continue on. Of course there is a cost of having workers go and get vaccinated, with pay. But let me tell you: if we don’t have that, the cost will be even more.

The benefit to the businesses, and to everybody else, could be in the billions, because as soon as we get over this pandemic, this is investment. We are making investments — both the government and businesses — every day, so that we could have a quick economic recovery. Member, you would agree with me that the best thing that could happen to all of us, especially to businesses, would be if we could get over this pandemic. That’s the best thing that could happen.

The way to do that is to have a successful vaccination plan. In order to do that, you need to remove all barriers and to make sure that clinical hours are such that people are able to go and get vaccinated at different hours, based on their needs, based on their shift schedules.

Then also, there are people out there where the businesses are supporting their workers already. They are supporting them to go and get vaccinated, without loss of pay. Many of the collective agreements already have this kind of clause enshrined in their collective agreements. Many of the businesses feel that we should be doing this, because the best thing that could happen to them would be to have all their workers vaccinated as soon as possible, so we could have a quick economic recovery.

Imagine if a business had all their workers vaccinated. The risk of them shutting down, or the opportunity to continue to operate — just compare those two. If you have four or five members out of, say, 20 workers, who fail to go and get vaccinated because they are not able to take time off, for whatever reasons, that risks the entire operation. The cost would be huge, compared to the time it would take for those four or five to go and get vaccinated.

That’s why we listened to the business group. That’s why I say: “Up to three hours.” It means that if your shift ends at 3:30 and your appointment is at 3:45, and it takes you about half an hour to travel to the clinic, you would be entitled to only 15 minutes, or the employer would be responsible only for 15 minutes, because they will be leaving 15 minutes before their shift ends. So that’s 15 minutes.

There could be another worker where the clinic hours are such that by the time their shift is finished, the clinic will not be open, or it may be that it takes an hour to travel. The member should know, because where he comes from, in the rural communities, clinics may be in the next town or a distance away. They need to travel. So it may take up to three hours for them to go and get vaccinated. You wait there for, I think, ten or 15 minutes — it requires you to wait — then come back and start your shift again.

Those cases will be there, but I can tell you that the idea here is helping the employer to make sure their employees are vaccinated and giving them the opportunity to go. If there are barriers, we remove them. That’s why the government is coming in. That’s why we went out there and consulted with businesses. They gave us their concerns; we considered those concerns. That’s why the bill is drafted the way it is.

G. Kyllo: Thank you to the minister for the additional information. I’m not challenging the merits, the validity or the necessity for vaccinations. My questions largely have been around the consultation, the amount of engagement that this government has undertaken, with different industry organizations that will be incurring costs. How significant those costs may be, we have yet to determine.

[5:55 p.m.]

If I may, just further to my previous question, can the minister advise, or share with this House, whether three weeks of consultation, in his mind, is adequate — if that is an adequate amount of consultation for a bill that, potentially, could put upwards of $200 million to $300 million in additional cost burden onto the backs of already struggling small businesses?

Hon. H. Bains: You know, like I said before, this COVID, this virus, is acting very quickly. It doesn’t give you any warning, the way it’s going to react tomorrow. You react accordingly. Our focus of the government has been the health of our population and, at the same time, working towards economic recovery. Part of all of that is having a successful vaccination program. Vaccination program is moving very, very quickly — very, very efficiently. I’m advised over 30 percent of the population now is vaccinated, and in a very short time, we should be moving to 60 percent.

Here, we were talking about moving…. When the vaccination plan was implemented, they were moving now to the working-age population. So we needed to do the consultation as quickly as possible, and that’s what we did. We reached out to as many businesses as possible. I read you the list. The member…. I asked him if I want to continue on with the list. It’s a long list. Where I first raised the issue, a possibility of us taking this action…. Then we reached out again, personally, to many of the groups that I mentioned before.

Consultation took place. The time constraint that we had, we had to do. The move, we had to make as quickly as possible, because we were moving very quickly into the working-age group and bigger population.

Let me say what the businesses actually have been saying — about the consultation, about the issue on hand. I will read it to you. “Bringing in a paid leave for a set few hours for staff to get a vaccination is an opportunity for business to look at this as an investment in a future free of COVID-19, which will be good for their business and their bottom line and ultimately economic recovery for all industries,” said Anita Huberman, CEO, Surrey Board of Trade. So businesses recognize….

I understand the member is not opposing the intent and the content of the bill, but the consultation. I think we have canvassed thoroughly — almost 45 minutes now, maybe longer — about the consultation, and I think I gave as openly information as I could. I think as a government, because of the seriousness of the issue, we need to move quickly, and we consult as many people as possible. I think we are in a good position to make the decision, listening to those concerns that were raised by many people on the consultation panel. That’s what we did.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister, for the additional context. If I might ask to the minister: can the minister just confirm and clarify for this House, when was the regulation amended for job-protected leave with respect to COVID-19 and attaining vaccinations?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: April 1.

G. Kyllo: April 1 of 2021 — just of this current fiscal? Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate that.

I believe my colleague, the Green Party member for Saanich North and the Islands, has a few questions.

A. Olsen: Thank you for this opportunity, and thank you to the minister for these responses.

It caught my attention, and I think it’s important that we just kind of pause here a little bit because over the last year, this provincial government has been in regular consultation and regular conversation with the business community and with employers across the province. There have been a number of industry panels that were led by the Premier. I sat in on those during the summer, on some of them.

I’m just a little troubled with the minister’s characterization that this vaccination program is surprising. Maybe I’m using words that the minister didn’t use. However, that’s the impression that I’m left. I’m left that we get to March of 2021, after a year of talking about the importance of vaccinations to us getting past this pandemic. Yet I’m led to believe, just in the exchange that I’ve just heard, that these conversations were left so late because this government was caught off guard or was surprised by the vaccination program.

I just want to give the minister, I think, another opportunity to respond to this. I get the sense — and I don’t want British Columbians to have the sense, if it’s not true — that the resources and the infrastructure that needed to be put in place to roll out a vaccination program, including the types of conversations that the business community needs to be able to accommodate, the request or what we’re offering here in this Bill 3…. Indeed, we’ve been talking about vaccinations for months in this province. I think perhaps that might be what my colleague from Shuswap has been getting at with respect to the consultation program.

Perhaps the minister can alleviate for me any fear that there might be around the fact that this vaccination program wasn’t, indeed, surprising and that it was something that we, as a government, had been looking to and hoping for as a way to alleviate the stress and tension that COVID-19 has created, and that the public health crisis that we’re facing due to COVID-19 was always going to be assisted by a vaccination program.

Hon. H. Bains: I thank the member for the question. Look, I think what we’ve been canvassing here is, Member…. Once we knew what the vaccination program looks like — how they will be delivering vaccines to which group, when and how — I think that’s when we realize that we need to deal with the working-age population, as they move quickly towards the working-age population.

[6:05 p.m.]

Again, the supply of vaccination wasn’t in our government’s hands. We depend on the federal government. The plan has to be devised based on the information and the supply we receive from the federal government.

Then we needed to look at the infrastructure. How do we deliver, and who is going to deliver? Once all of that was worked out, I think our intention was drawn to: how do we deal with the working age now as they’re moving towards it? How do we help the workers who are working who may not be able to take time off outside of the working hours or who need to take longer to travel to the clinic?

That’s when we initially moved towards job-protected leave, so that people can go get vaccinated and their job will be protected. Then we moved to see: how do we protect workers if they’re not able to afford to take time off? How do we deal with that issue? That’s how we moved in steps, and that’s why we’re here with Bill 3.

A. Olsen: If I may continue, just a comment here. I think that it’s unfortunate that this is the characterization of our vaccination program, frankly, because I think that over the last number of months, we have been very much alive to the fact that we needed to put in place a robust vaccination program. When we asked the questions of the Minister of Health around that vaccination program, we were assured that British Columbia does vaccinations very well and that we were prepared and ready to roll out a robust vaccination program.

I recognize that the Minister of Labour is only one part of that program and, in all likelihood, not the person that leads the vaccination program. But as the Minister of Labour, there is a responsibility on behalf of the businesses and the workers in our province.

What I’ve learned here today about the vaccination program was that all of the months that we could be building those robust vaccination programs and taking a look at all of the different variables that are in that program, including when we’re going to get vaccines and, perhaps, when those vaccines might be delayed, what are the contingency plans in that? It just really feels like we’re careening from one moment to the next, without a coordinated plan.

What was learned today, in the minister’s response here, was that the vaccination program was to deliver to 80-plus, to seniors and Elders in our community first. Then we all of a sudden realized that workers were going to have to get vaccinated, so we’ve now taken the steps in March for a bill that is being brought before us in April that could have very easily, had the legwork been done last fall, been sorted out and done in the December session with the other bills that were there.

This is not a difficult bill to write for the drafters. Nor is it controversial. I’m using this opportunity to highlight a concern that I have about the vaccination program overall, not a concern that I have with this bill necessarily. I think that this is a necessary measure that we need to take. I appreciate the opportunity to raise these concerns before the House today. I recognize the minister’s role in this is just part of it.

I just hope that the government can hear the concerns that are being raised here and hopefully we can take a more proactive approach in the future that includes online registration platforms and things that could have been developed also last fall and last summer, as we were preparing and planning for a vaccination program.

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much to the member for Saanich North and the Islands for his interjection with respect to Bill 3.

The member certainly raises an area of concern that I have. A robust vaccination program would include not just the receipt of the vaccines here in British Columbia and the administration of those, but a robust plan would also give consideration to job-protected leave, the potential implications that Bill 3 has before us for paid leave for workers obtaining those vaccinations.

[6:10 p.m.]

Although the pandemic has been upon us for over 13 months now, if we go back to last year, the months of March and April and May and June, we heard nothing. July, August, September, October, the fall session…. No mention, no consultation with industry organizations. Then we actually rejoined this Legislature back on March 1 of this year, and still no legislation.

In the entire month of March, still no consultation with business organizations. I think the minister had indicated…. I believe it was on March 29. That was the first time they actually canvassed the idea of paid leave. Again, this particular legislation could put upwards of $200 million to $300 million of additional cost burden onto the backs of employers across this province. What do we see from this administration, from this government? Jamming in three weeks of consultation, at the last minute, in order to put this bill before us today.

This bill could have easily…. The consultation could have been done easily last summer. The bill could have been brought forward last fall, in the fall legislative session. There certainly was ample opportunity in the month of December, when we met for a few weeks here in the Legislature, but again, no reference to this particular bill.

Even at the start of this session, again, this bill did not come forward. Here we are, on the 21st of April, looking at a piece of legislation, again, that puts a significant cost burden on the backs of businesses, with very little consultation. I’m very concerned by that, but I will move on. I’ve got a number of questions, and I know that we’ve probably talked a little bit — enough, maybe — about the consultation piece.

Why was this bill now only introduced, a year into the plan of the vaccine rollout? Does the fact that other jurisdictions across Canada, that they have actually recently adopted similar legislation…? Is that what the impetus was for the government to respond, or was there some other plan or direction from government that was undertaken months prior to now, that actually directed this bill that’s before us today?

Hon. H. Bains: I think we’ve canvassed this thing long enough. I gave the reasons how, when we thought about moving in this direction. Many of the questions were raised. “Why not last year? Why not last fall? Why not such-and-such a time?” I wish the member could have picked up a phone and phoned me last February, January and said: “COVID is going to hit us, and be prepared.” Somebody else could have predicted the way that COVID was going to work and impact all of us.

Or they could predict what particular day the vaccine will be available. As they say, hindsight is 20-20. We can all talk about “Could have, should have, when.” But I think the fact is that when the vaccination program that was put in place…. I might add, it is robust, one of the best vaccination plans that you could find anywhere in any jurisdiction, and it’s very efficiently done here, in British Columbia, delivered. As soon as we get the vaccination, it is put in people’s arms.

[6:15 p.m.]

I think we should all be proud of the work that our front-line workers, the health care authorities and others are doing in order to have everyone vaccinated who has their turn. Yes, the turn came to the working-age groups. That’s when we started to put a system in place — how are we going to deal with that group in the event that they don’t have time off, in the event that many of them cannot afford to take time off without pay?

Other jurisdictions…. Saskatchewan, I think days ago, came up with the same idea, but they have a different approach. They said three hours and only one dose. We’re saying up to three hours. My understanding is Alberta just followed us now, today or yesterday. They will be moving in the direction that we’re moving.

I think people are moving as quickly as possible, knowing how this virus moves and changes every day. I think this is one area that we thought that we need to fix, and that’s why the bill is here.

My suggestion to you, Mr. Chair, is that we have done enough on consultation, but there is the content. Section 1 is what we should be talking about. If there are any questions on section 1, I’m prepared to answer.

G. Kyllo: There was no surprise that we would require vaccines, and there certainly was no surprise that workers would be looking for job protection in order to go and get that very important vaccination, and, as well, that some employees may be looking for the potential of paid leave.

That’s not the question. The question and the concern that I have — and the member for Saanich North and the Islands — is the fact that we have a government that seems to be reactive and not proactive. British Columbians are looking for a government that is going to be thoughtful, proactive, forward-looking, forward-thinking. But to wait until the absolute last minute, which is largely what has been done, undertaken by this government…. To jam the consultation through over a mere three-week period…. Again, consultation on a bill that potentially could put hundreds of millions of dollars of cost on the backs of employers. It’s grossly inadequate.

I think it’s absolutely appropriate that we have taken the time we have to talk about the inadequate consultation that was undertaken with respect to the preparation of this particular bill. If the minister can just clarify: how many times is an individual allowed to actually obtain leave under this bill?

Hon. H. Bains: Just on procedure. That is later on in the section — how many times. Section 1 basically talks about that the worker is entitled to paid leave. If there are any questions on that?

If the member feels that section 1 is passed, then I can certainly move to section 2.

The Chair: Just to clarify, Minister, there are three clauses to the bill — clause 1, clause 2 is commencement, and the title. So he can ask any questions on anything to do other than commencement or the title.

Hon. H. Bains: Clause 1 only talks about leave….

The Chair: Let me say it again. He can ask any questions he wishes on the entire bill except for commencement or the title.

Hon. H. Bains: I hear you. I’m going over to where that particular issue is talked about.

To answer the member’s question, that clause talks about a maximum of up to three hours of leave for each dose.

[6:20 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that for each leave request, it’s to a maximum of three hours. Is there a limit to the number of leave requests that an employee can make?

Hon. H. Bains: Right now we know that it is contemplated that there will be two doses that the provincial health officer has decided. Right now that’s what we are looking at. I’m not sure if the provincial officer is going to change that, but considering what the provincial health officer’s position is, two doses — that’s what’s contemplated in this bill.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the answer from the minister, and I’m certainly not trying to be cute. I do appreciate that the vaccines that are available are either a single dose or two doses. But this bill, to my understanding, does not give any limitation on the number of leave requests that an employee can make for vaccination.

Currently, with a number of the different vaccines, there’s a maximum of two doses, I believe, that’s available. But this particular piece of legislation doesn’t limit it. If there was another vaccine that was implemented six months from now that might be five doses, this would still apply in each of those five instances.

This bill does not limit the number of doses employees can actually request, or the number of opportunities or times they can request leave. I guess there’s an understanding or anticipation that there’s only two, but this piece of legislation does not limit the number of times an employee would actually be able to make application for the paid leave under this legislation. If the minister can just clarify that for me.

Hon. H. Bains: Right now we’re talking about vaccine to deal with COVID. Right now the information, by vaccine suppliers and the doctors, is that they need two doses. So that’s what we contemplated in this. Once the COVID is over, the emergency is over, then this bill may be repealed. This is not going to move over to deal with some flu shots or some other virus we may get hit with two years down the road.

[6:25 p.m.]

I think right now we’re talking about COVID and two doses. But if the medical community decided the COVID is changing, the virus is changing, and you may need a third dose, this will cover it. But right now that’s not the case. The case is, right now, everyone has been advised that two doses are needed, so this will cover those two doses.

G. Kyllo: Thanks to the minister for his response.

I know it’s hard to predict what may or may not happen. I could also see the potential where an employee may decide that they want to get vaccinated with different vaccines. But currently, under this legislation, there is no limitation. If it was three or five or ten, in every instance, the employee would be entitled to leave under this piece of legislation.

Maybe the minister could just provide some clarity — that this bill does not restrict or limit the number of times an employee can access paid leave under this bill.

Hon. H. Bains: I do not believe that the worker will decide: “Well, I’ve got two doses of this, and I’m going to go and get another vaccine dose.” Workers don’t decide that. Individuals don’t decide that. It is the medical community who will decide if they are given one dose, now they need a second dose. So those two doses will be covered.

Correct. Technically speaking, if it is felt by the medical community that a third dose is needed, that would be covered. There is no limit when it comes to COVID-rel­ated vaccines. So that’s what we have in the bill.

G. Kyllo: I did say that I was going to move away from the consultation piece, but I’m just wondering if the minister could maybe provide some clarity.

During the consultation with industry organizations, I’m assuming that was all predicated by the anticipation that an employee seeking paid leave under this piece of legislation would be entitled to two opportunities for paid leave. The minister has now just indicated that there is always the potential for a third dose being required.

I’m just wondering. When the consultation was undertaken with the industry organization, was it just the two doses that were given consideration, or the two opportunities for paid leave, or was there consideration of a third or maybe even a fourth? Obviously, the more times workers seek leave under this piece of legislation has an increased cost.

If you could provide any clarity on the level of conversation and consultation that was undertaken with industry organizations.

Hon. H. Bains: Look, we did not consult on hypothetical situations. We consulted based on the facts that were before us. The community knew what the facts were. Based on those facts, we came up with this bill.

G. Kyllo: My memory is maybe not as good as it used to be as I’m getting a little bit older, but I certainly recall conversations in the medical community around the potential need for a booster shot within the last couple, three months, which would have predated the consultation that was undertaken on this particular bill.

The minister has provided some clarity to this House with respect to this piece of legislation, indicating that, in most instances, there will be an opportunity for employees to seek paid leave two times. I’m assuming that’s two times per year.

[6:30 p.m.]

However, with the fact that the bill does not provide any annual limitation and the fact that the medical community was already engaged in fairly lengthy discussion around the potential need for maybe a booster, which would then increase the number of times that employees could make application under this bill from two times to three…. That’s a 50 percent increase in the cost to businesses. That’s very concerning.

If the conversation around the potential for a third shot was not part of the consultation with industry groups…. An industry group might be having a look and having the consultation indicating: “Well, if it’s only two times, times three hours maximum, that’s six hours per employee. At an average cost, say, of $25 an hour, that’s $150. Maybe I can stomach that.” But if there’s a booster, and now there’s a third dose, well that’s $225. That’s a significant increase in cost.

I think it’s definitely important, and related specifically to this bill, with respect to what the context of the consultation was with the industry organizations. As the minister has clarified — and please, Minister, correct me if I misinterpret it — my understanding is that the consultation only contemplated the opportunity for employees to access the paid leave under this bill two times per year. But we are now in a conversation where there is potential for three or who knows how many additional times.

I think that really is important, as we have a look at the potential cost. In my opening comments, I indicated that the potential cost of this bill, with 2.5 million to 2.6 million workers in the province, could be upwards of $200 million to $300 million. Well, you add another 25 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent on to that, and pretty soon, we’re potentially getting into the $300 million, $400 million, $500 million cost.

Again, this is three weeks of consultation. That’s all we had. Three weeks of consultation. I certainly didn’t see any open calls for opportunities for business to actually weigh in and add their voice to the conversation. The minister has shared with us the consultation that was undertaken with different industry organizations. He quotes a comment by the Surrey Board of Trade. But we have not been shared — this House and our opposition certainly has not been shared — with the level of detail of consultation, the number of comments that actually came in.

Again, it comes down to: what was the clarity provided to these industry and trade organizations at the time that they were being sought out for their input? Can the minister clarify whether there was consideration for a third or fourth potential dose, on an annualized basis, when the consideration of this bill was put before the industry trade organizations in seeking their input?

Hon. H. Bains: I think I answered both of those questions. First of all, I want to clarify. It’s not two times per year, as the member may have mentioned. It’s two doses for COVID-19. Two doses were contemplated. Those were the facts given to us by the medical community. Everyone — businesses, us — knew that they were talking about two doses.

If, later on, they decided that the virus is moving in a different direction and they need a third one, this will cover it. It is still the COVID-19 virus we are talking about. You come up with a bill that is flexible in order to deal with a situation that may arise. But you can’t build the legislation based on hypothetical questions — what may or may not happen; if this happened, what about that?

[6:35 p.m.]

You consider all different scenarios. But based on the information we had at that time, it was clearly communicated to the public, to the businesses and to everybody, that there is a need for two doses. That’s how we did the consultation. That’s where the community was. But if there’s a third one, that is decided — not by me, not by the member or anybody else…. If the medical community decides, Dr. Bonnie Henry decides, that we need to give a third dose, then they will be covered.

G. Kyllo: The minister’s comments are somewhat concerning. If I correctly heard the minister, he indicated that there was a need for the legislation to be flexible. I don’t know that any of us want our laws to be flexible. The laws in this province and bills that are contemplated here need to be factual, finite and consistent, without flexibility.

It’s just very concerning, standing here as a business owner and thinking about the number of businesses that I’ve spoken to in my riding of Shuswap over the last year, with the struggles, the challenges that they have with meeting payroll, with meeting all of the demands of keeping their businesses running with reduced commerce and with the different shutdowns that are impacting different sectors, specifically the tourism sector that has been just absolutely decimated the last year. I think businesses want to have certainty.

What this bill provides is, certainly, a lack of clarity. The consultation that was undertaken by this government, in a rushed and ramshod way over the last three weeks, didn’t even contemplate, as the minister has clarified, the fact that there may be the potential for a booster, which could be a 50 percent increase in the number of times that employees could actually access the paid leave under this bill that’s before us. Excuse me for being concerned.

We have a government that is supposed to be providing leadership, being forward-looking. They’ve had a year. At the onset of COVID, I would have certainly assumed that the Premier would have identified a task force to have a look at what recovery looks like. We knew that there would be vaccination programs. We knew that there would be workers seeking job protection for leave for COVID or for obtaining a vaccine. We certainly could’ve contemplated — because it’s certainly included in lots of collective agreements, as the minister has shared with us today — the opportunity for paid leave in order to get that vaccination.

Yet here we are, on April 21, after a mere three weeks of consultation on this particular bill. It’s been thrown together. The consultation that was undertaken did not even provide the fulsome cost implications that are contemplated here. There’s no annual cap, whether it’s two or three or four. I certainly don’t know. But I think that British Columbians and business owners that are going to be shouldering the cost associated with the paid leave set out in this bill…. They need to have that certainty. This bill does not provide that.

Would the minister give consideration to putting an annual cap of no more than two doses, or two opportunities for employees to access the paid leave under this particular piece of legislation, per calendar year?

[6:40 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I’m amazed at the amount of political statements that are being made here rather than dealing with the bill on hand.

The bill is very clear that if a worker needs time off to go get vaccinated, they will not lose their pay and they would be given that time, up to three hours per dose. That’s very clear. We’re dealing with the COVID emergency. We need to move on because workers, right now, need to go and get vaccinated.

If you want to debate about the government’s role in last year and three years before that, we can do that. There is plenty of opportunity during the question period or outside, inside of this House. But right now we’re talking about dealing with one area of vaccination delivery. That is the working people who actually are out there risking their own health and their families’ health. These are the people that I’m sure the member and everybody else were applauding with pots and pans outside, every seven o’clock. These are the people we’re talking about.

Many of them are low-paid workers, women, Indigenous women. We heard from those groups that they are disproportionately impacted more than other groups. These are the people who don’t have the opportunity to go and get vaccinated without loss of pay. That’s what we are talking about — trying to deal with that situation.

Here, I’ve heard, in almost two hours now, more political speeches than actually talking about how we help those workers to go get vaccinated. How do we get over the pandemic? That’s the best thing that could happen to businesses, as the member had talked about the concerns of businesses. That’s what they want. Get over with this pandemic as soon as possible. Get their economic recovery going again. Get back to some normal again. This is part of that.

I’m prepared to sit here and listen to this if that’s the way the member wants to go, but that isn’t serving anybody any good. We need to provide the protection to the workers that they need so that businesses are benefitting because their workers are vaccinated and their workplaces are safe — that their customers have confidence that these are the businesses who cater, because they are safe places to go and cater.

It’s the right thing to do — a win-win-win situation. I think only the opposition would find some holes in having a robust and efficient vaccination program that is the envy of other jurisdictions. Mr. Speaker, 30 percent of the population are already vaccinated, and soon we will be moving to 60 percent. Soon we will have everyone covered. I think this is one area.

I hope that we can move on and get support from the opposition so that the workers who cannot afford to go get vaccinated go get vaccinated. Others who can go outside of their working hours are already doing it. There are employers who are already allowing their workers to go get vaccinated during the working hours without loss of pay.

That’s what I want to say. It is very clear. The bill is very clear. It is that they would be given up to three hours per dose without loss of pay.

G. Kyllo: What I think I heard was that there was not a willingness to consider an annualized cap or limitation of the number of times that employees can actually seek paid leave under this particular legislation. Maybe if the minister would just be kind enough to provide clarity for this House on whether he would consider the undertaking of putting an annualized cap or a limit per calendar year on the number of times that workers could actually seek paid leave under this bill.

Hon. H. Bains: With all due respect, the answer is no.

[6:45 p.m.]

I think that the bill is very sufficiently drafted. It is clearly stated that workers will be entitled to up to three hours time to go get vaccinated without loss of pay, and they will be entitled to that time per dose. So I respectfully have to say no.

G. Kyllo: The minister, earlier on in one of his res­ponses, shared with this House that many employees are living paycheque to paycheque. I believe I saw a stat re­cently that indicated that 53 percent of British Columbians are less than $200 away from being insolvent and not actually meeting their financial obligations. I think the other piece of that…. This is where it’s important that we find balance.

I’m supportive of the bill, for the most part. I think there are some challenges within it, and that’s why we’re here today. That’s why there’s an opportunity to have these conversations in the House, to canvass questions of government and to try and understand what actually directed them in the creation of the legislation.

Back to the challenge that many workers have with working from paycheque to paycheque. Many business owners are in the same boat. Many businesses are under water. We’ve had a significant number of business closures. We have lots of uncertainty with the current lockdown measures that now, we understand, are running towards the end of May. Many businesses are also challenged with meeting payroll.

I had an elderly couple speak to me about six months ago. They shared with me the fact that for them, with the impacts of COVID, they didn’t just lose their business income, they lost their personal income. Their entire retirement savings was invested in their small business. The hope was that at one point in time they’ll be able to sell their business, and that would provide them financial freedom. That, in essence, would’ve been their retirement allowance. But not only have they lost their business income; they’ve lost their personal income. They potentially may lose their business, in which their entire plans for their retirement will be wiped out.

I certainly understand the challenges individuals have and workers have, but there’s also a need to provide those necessary supports and to be considerate and thoughtful with respect to the impacts of legislation and the impact that it has on businesses and business owners. We know that in order to have a job, there needs to be a business there — a business owner that’s willing to take the risk, to put the time and energy in, to put a second mortgage on their house, to invest their capital and their time and their equity in order to create that very important family-supporting job. But I don’t see that balance with respect to this piece of legislation.

I certainly understand the position of workers that don’t want to be negatively impacted and shouldn’t actually have their paycheque diminished just because they’re going to go out and get vaccinated. But there’s a lack of balance here. Now, further to that, in providing that balance, has this current government given consideration to providing financial support to businesses to compensate them for the costs that are going to be associated with this piece of legislation?

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member can canvass the minister responsible. There are all kinds of programs available to businesses to help through COVID, but right now, I think the bill is before us. I think that’s what we would like to debate.

G. Kyllo: We heard earlier today — I believe the question was canvassed in question period — that the government is currently sitting on a billion dollars, a $1 billion slush fund that was established and set aside to provide with COVID recovery — $1 billion. Government certainly has the funds and ability to provide relief for businesses, but what I’m hearing from the minister is that there is no consideration for any type of a tax credit.

[6:50 p.m.]

We just have to look south of the border. I believe President Biden recently announced a significant tax credit, specifically to top up and provide cost remediation for businesses, specifically with respect to providing paid leave for workers to get vaccinated. So other administrations have undertaken tax credits for businesses to offset the financial burden that they will be incurring with respect to the potential for this bill coming into force and effect.

Government, certainly, has the financial resources at their disposal. As we know, over $5 billion in COVID re­covery relief was actually approved by this Legislature last year. Many of those dollars did not go out the door, despite what, I think, the understanding and belief of members of the opposition were at that time. It’s very disheartening to hear that the Minister of Labour did not give consideration or that government, apparently, has not given any consideration to providing any tax relief with respect to offsetting the cost, the significant cost burden, that’s going to be put on the backs of businesses with respect to this particular piece of legislation.

One further question. I see we are getting toward the end of the day. I’m quite looking forward to carrying on, maybe as early as tomorrow, with some of these questions. But if the minister can just provide some clarity: how is the length of time, or the length of leave, determined by an employer?

As the minister has indicated, this piece of legislation provides up to three hours. Who makes the determination on what’s an appropriate amount of time? If there is a vaccination centre that’s available five minutes down the road, is ten minutes, half an hour, one hour, three hours…? Who makes the determination on what is suitable or an adequate or appropriate amount of time for an individual to leave work, get vaccinated and come back?

The Chair: Minister of Labour, after you answer the question, I would entertain a motion, if you would care to do so.

Hon. H. Bains: It is a labour relation issue. I think the employer and employee can work those details out themselves. I think most of them will determine that. If it’s a ten-minute drive, then they will be reasonable to look at that. If it’s a one-hour drive, they will look at that. Both employer and employee will know the situation. Every situation is different, so I will leave it up to them, because they’re the best people who would be making those decisions.

Mr. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:53 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. H. Bains moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:54 p.m.