First Session, 42nd Parliament

(2020) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, December 14, 2020

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 9

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Mary Judith Baker

Hon. B. Ma

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M203 — Equal Pay Reporting Act

S. Cadieux

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Extra FARE food hamper service in Chilliwack

D. Coulter

Elections B.C. administration of general election

A. Wilkinson

Family caregivers

S. Chant

Protection of wild salmon

E. Ross

Langley School District Foundation meal programs

M. Dykeman

Calvin Domin and fundraising for Foundry centre

T. Shypitka

Oral Questions

COVID-19 response for disability assistance

recipients

S. Bond

Hon. J. Horgan

D. Davies

Hon. N. Simons

Site C power project

A. Olsen

Hon. B. Ralston

S. Furstenau

Massey Tunnel replacement project

M. Lee

Hon. R. Fleming

I. Paton

P. Milobar

Tabling Documents

Guarantees and indemnities report, fiscal year ended March 31, 2020

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

Hon. L. Beare

Tabling Documents

Office of the Ombudsperson, special report, Complaint Handling Guide: Setting

Up Effective Complaint Resolution Systems in Public

Organizations

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Finance Statutes Amendent Act, 2020 (continued)

K. Kirkpatrick

L. Doerkson

T. Halford

T. Shypitka

S. Cadieux

P. Milobar

S. Bond

Hon. S. Robinson

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

R. Leonard

A. Olsen

J. Brar

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Finance Statutes Amendent Act, 2020 (continued)

MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2020

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

M. Bernier: Of all my years, this is the first time we’ve been in the Legislature

this time of year where I get the honour to do something that I’ve never

gotten to do before.

I’d like to give a big shout-out to about half of my family. This year

I get the honour to do this. My eldest son, Niel, turned 33 on the fourth of

December. My mom’s birthday was on the seventh of December. My youngest son,

Trevor — his birthday is today. He turns 22 today. I miss you and love you,

Buddy. Wish I was home. My middle child, Rel, turns 29 on the 19th, and last

but not least my grandson, Crozzley, turns five on the 22nd.

As you can appreciate, it’s a busy month in December in my family,

leading up to Christmas. I’m hoping the House will help me wish all of them

very happy birthdays this December.

[1:35 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vernon-Monashee.

H. Sandhu: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Congratulations on your new role.

I’m joining you from the unceded territory of the Okanagan Indian

nations.

Today I want to acknowledge and appreciate one of our incredible local

businesses and their big contribution to our riding: Okanagan Spirits Craft

Distillery, represented by the Craft Distillers Guild of B.C., in Vernon and

in Kelowna. Their distilleries have played a crucial role to help flatten

the COVID-19 curve by providing thousands of litres of free hand sanitizer

to many front-line workers: workers at medical clinics; fire, ambulance and

police department staff; staff at care homes, homeless shelters, women’s

shelters; public daycare staff; cashiers at grocery stores; postal workers;

and many more.

Mr. Speaker: A reminder to all members, when you’re making introductions or making

statements, no props, please.

Tributes

MARY JUDITH BAKER

Hon. B. Ma: It is with sadness that I share with the House today the passing

of Squamish Nation Elder and matriarch of the Mathias Joe family, Mary

Judith Baker. Judy was born to her mother, Rosy “Posie” Joe, and was the

granddaughter of Chief Mathias Joe and Ellen.

Fondly referred to as the Princess of Capilano, Elder Judith grew

up in Xwmélch’sten, also now known as Capilano Reserve No. 5. Judy will

be best remembered for the way that she could make everyone feel so

special with her loving and caring nature. She was married 59 years to

her love, Gary Brian Baker, and is survived by her son, Gary Mathias Ray

Baker; sister, Margaret Prince; daughter-in-law, Suzanne Patricia

Nahanee; as well as many nephews, nieces and grandchildren.

It is my honour to introduce her to the House so that the House

may know her.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M203 — EQUAL PAY

REPORTING

ACT

S. Cadieux presented a bill intituled Equal Pay Reporting

Act.

S. Cadieux: I move that a bill intituled the Equal Pay Reporting Act, of which

notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and

read a first time now.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted many inequalities that still

remain in society and have served as a reminder that we certainly can’t

have a true and equitable economy until we close the gender pay gap.

Recent job number data continues to show a worrying trend that women are

finding the current job market tougher than men. It’s alarming that

while men saw mostly job gains last month, women over the age of 25

actually lost jobs in November.

In the six provinces that have pay equity legislation, the pay

differentials are up to 12 percent lower. How do we catch up? The

transparency that the Equal Pay Reporting Act would provide is a start.

West Coast LEAF provided similar advice to government, and the Finance

Ministry briefing note for the minister recognized pay equity

legislation as a best practice.

We here have the power to prescribe transformational measures and

compel employers to do what’s right and what is best for British

Columbians. The bill intends to bring pay inequality into light by

requiring any employer in B.C. with 50 or more employees to publicly

post an annual breakdown of gender wages in their business. This

information will include wage and bonus pay for male and female

employees and be available on a company website or by other easily

accessible means.

It’s time to move beyond passively acknowledging there’s a

problem. Yes, there will be conversations it will spark, theories and

excuses, but really, the only question I once again ask of this House

is: would you be okay with it if I were to pay your daughter less than

your son?

This government included a commitment to bring forward legislation

to address pay equity in their pandemic election campaign, and it is

included in the mandate letter of the Minister of Finance. The Premier

indicated that he’d be looking for good ideas, no matter where they came

from. Here’s one ready to go.

[1:40 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

S. Cadieux: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M203, Equal Pay Reporting Act, introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

EXTRA FARE FOOD HAMPER SERVICE

CHILLIWACK

D. Coulter: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and congratulations on your

election.

Today I want to mention an innovative food security program in

Chilliwack. It’s called Extra FARE — food access for restricted eaters.

Christopher Hunt and Margaret Reid, members of Chilliwack Citizens 4

Change, envisioned it and run it with 100 percent volunteer

help.

As the pandemic struck, they noticed that even more people in our

community could use food assistance, yet before and during COVID-19

times, many people were not really able to fully benefit from regular

food hamper services. Folks with dietary restrictions such as lactose

intolerance, celiac and gluten-free needs, various allergies and so on

cannot eat much of what comes in standard hampers. Also, most hampers

don’t feature a lot of fresh fruits and vegetables.

They decided to reduce barriers in Chilliwack by creating Extra

FARE to get the right food to the folks who need it. They’ve made a

partnership with Hofstede’s produce in Chilliwack to increase fresh food

content. There are also other ways that they do food security programs

differently than they’ve been done in the past. The service includes

clients self-selecting, from an inventory menu, product choices that

they want included in their weekly hampers. Clients can tailor their

hamper to their current needs and wants. To reduce mobility barriers,

volunteers deliver hampers right to clients’ doors.

Chris and Margaret were able to create this thanks to a

partnership with Bowls of Hope and generous funding from the United Way

of the Lower Mainland grants via ECSF funds from the government of

Canada. They hope that it will be a model that catches on and

spreads.

ELECTIONS B.C. ADMINISTRATION

OF GENERAL

ELECTION

A. Wilkinson: We all know that 2020 has been a difficult year for many, many

reasons. One thing we can celebrate is the exemplary work of Elections

B.C. during 2020.

In our democracy, it’s critical that we have an election agency

that we can fully trust. In exceptionally challenging circumstances,

Elections B.C. provided exceptional service. So 725,000 postal votes

were sent out, Advanced polls were provided for seven days in 341

locations. Close to 1.9 million votes were counted. A judicial recount

was conducted without incident.

Think of the unprecedented circumstances. Thousands of employees

were trained to manage voting during a pandemic — an entirely new

experience. Hundreds of voting locations were rented and made safe for

voting. Hundreds of thousands of citizens were able to safely exercise

their democratic right to vote. All of this work proceeded

flawlessly.

Through all of this, we had the background noise of American

sources doubting the reliability of voting systems in our neighbours to

the south. But none of us have heard any significant complaint about

Elections B.C., because they did their work quietly, professionally and

efficiently.

We often take for granted the strength of our civil society and

our democratic institutions. Elections B.C. is a central pillar in our

democracy that we must be very thankful for, and we must thank them for

their job well done.

Please join me in thanking the management and staff of Elections

B.C. for a job very well done in the 2020 general election.

FAMILY CAREGIVERS

S. Chant: I would like to acknowledge and recognize the work that is done by

many, many families in providing caregiving services to their children,

to their seniors and to their adult family members who are unable to

care for themselves in a whole variety of ways. These folks work on

tirelessly. Sometimes they have help from the public sector. Sometimes

they have help that they purchase from the private sector. But all the

time they are on duty, and they’re doing the work.

[1:45 p.m.]

I think we need to make sure that we acknowledge these people. In

my constituency, we have many, many families who are dealing with many,

many different types of conditions. We have folks that have ALS. We have

folks that have Huntington’s. We have folks with Parkinson’s. We have

children that have not been able to get to school for a variety of

different reasons. We have all sorts of things going on in my community,

and I know those things are going on in all of our communities right

across British Columbia.

I feel that it behooves us to make sure that we remember those

people always, because on top of making sure that their care is provided

for their person, they also have to protect them from COVID. They also

have to make the hard choices sometimes not to get help, because they’re

fearful that their person is just too vulnerable or too

immunocompromised to get that service or get that help.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge those

families, both in my riding and across the province, that are doing that

unpaid, unsaluted work that’s involved in providing care for somebody

within your family that needs that care and can’t or is unable to get it

from other sources.

PROTECTION OF WILD SALMON

E. Ross: I rise in this House today to speak to the decline of our coho

stocks here in B.C. Our declining salmon stocks have been a case of

great concern for many different interest groups, be it First Nations,

sports fishermen, commercial fishermen or advocacy groups. For years,

scientists have struggled to identify the root cause of the decline in

salmon stocks in the urban rivers and amidst a body of water diluted

with thousands of various particles and chemical agents.

Very recently, scientists have been able to pinpoint a certain

chemical, 6PPD — an agent commonly used to prevent dryness and cracking

on car tires and commonly found in runoff — as one of the root causes of

our declining salmon populations. Reading how scientists were able to

focus in and identify one agent as a root cause out of a mixture of

thousands of perceived causes and issues, I couldn’t help but draw

parallels between this approach to environmental assessment and

Aboriginal rights and title case law.

From 2004 to 2017, 20 First Nations bands, the LNG industry and

both levels of government started out to see if the theory of case law

and environmental assessments could be translated into an LNG export

industry. It was extremely difficult and frustrating, but the parties

kept at it, and we finally got LNG off the ground officially in 2017.

This is the effort that’s needed today if we’re going to pinpoint more

issues affecting salmon stocks, because it becomes apparent pretty

quickly that issues can get pretty complicated but also that there can

be many parties at the table that want relevant issues answered within

the same topic.

We’ve taken many steps, but there’s still a long way to go. As we

congratulate these research scientists for this amazing step forward in

preserving our coho stocks, I hope that we can take the same approach to

the many root environmental issues that we all share a commonality with,

issues that we all can take, unified as British Columbians, so we can

contribute to a better today and tomorrow.

LANGLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT FOUNDATION

MEAL

PROGRAMS

M. Dykeman: I’d like to take this opportunity to tell you today about a vital

program to my community of Langley East. It is fair to say, I believe,

that 2020 will long be remembered as a very challenging year. This makes

it all the more important to recognize people like Susan Cairns,

executive director of the Langley School District Foundation, and all

partners involved in the organization that have kept kids in our

community and families in our school district fed, both before and

during COVID-19.

The foundation had learned that more than 3,000 of the school

district’s 19,000 students were going to school hungry every day, and

reached out to the community. Thanks to the generosity of the community,

our school district has breakfast, lunch, snack, backpack and food tower

programs in many of our schools — which are sadly necessary in our

community, because unfortunately Canada is ranked 37th out of the

world’s 41 wealthiest nations for access to healthy food, and it’s the

only G7 country that does not have a national food program for

schools.

[1:50 p.m.]

In a normal year, the Langley School District Foundation raises

over $200,000 to support these food programs, but all of this came to a

screeching halt on March 17 as a result of COVID-19. Suddenly, there was

no chance to hold major fundraisers. Unfortunately, though, the needs of

those students did not cease when classes ended and, in fact, expanded

and continued to grow, as we all know that hunger is not a Monday to

Friday matter.

The foundation, with the help of community partners, committed to

providing $50 gift cards every week to 650 families and have agreed to

do so as long as the coronavirus pandemic persists. Further, they also

provided grab-and-go bags. This was funded with a kindness campaign by

selling T-shirts, which I believe is a very timely campaign to remind

everyone that kindness is needed right now.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kootenay East.

CALVIN DOMIN AND

FUNDRAISING FOR FOUNDRY

CENTRE

T. Shypitka: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and congratulations on your new

role.

Who would dare run from Sparwood to Cranbrook in the frigid Rocky

Mountain region, travelling over 175 kilometres? Well, that someone is

Calvin Domin, who is collecting pledges for the starlite Not Alone

campaign. The starlite Not Alone campaign, which is a partnership

between the East Kootenay Foundation for Health and the

Ktunaxa-Kinbasket Child and Family Services Society, is working hard to

raise the $1.4 million needed to bring a new Foundry East Kootenay

centre to the riding of Kootenay East.

The B.C. Foundry was created through funding in part from the

government of British Columbia in 2015. In that same year, the B.C.

government announced eight new Foundry centre locations, which

significantly improved access to health and wellness resources, services

and supports for young people, ages 12 to 24, and their

families.

One in five British Columbian youth need mental health or

substance-use services, but only one-quarter of these receive the care

they need. Another FYI is that 75 percent of all mental health and

substance abuse issues start before the age of 25. So the new Foundry

East Kootenay centre will be very much welcomed in our small southeast

corner of the province.

Calvin successfully raised well over $30,000 on that brisk

morning, but his leadership has catapulted the pledges to over $170,000

in just over one month from when the campaign was launched on November

1. If I know Kootenay East residents, and I dare say that I do, our $1.4

million goal that has been given 18 months to deliver on will be smashed

in half that time.

Thank you so much to Brenna Baker for all the work you do in

fundraising coordination for the EKFH, as well as all the generous

donors from around the East Kootenay area. If you want to donate, please

visit the EKFH’s website at ekfh.ca.

Oral Questions

COVID-19 RESPONSE FOR

DISABILITY ASSISTANCE

RECIPIENTS

S. Bond: Well, last week the Premier had nothing to say when we asked why

his government was cutting support to some of the most vulnerable people

in British Columbia, and the Minister of Social Development dutifully

stuck to his speaking notes.

Since then — and I’m sure the Premier has as well — we’ve heard

from those who will bear the brunt of this NDP cut. Cynthia Breden

writes: “People receiving PWD need support…in these trying times.” To

offer $500, and then claw back $450 from PWD all in the same

announcement, “sends a very strong message to all of us about your lack

of understanding of people’s needs.”

Perhaps today the Premier will stand up and explain to Cynthia why

he is clawing back this very-much-needed support.

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her question. She will remember that in

2017, my government gave the first increase to people with disabilities

in over five years.

She’ll remember, quite vividly, that we replaced the clawback of

transportation passes that were taken away by the former government,

taking bus passes away from people with disabilities.

When the pandemic hit, we introduced a new $300-a-month benefit

for a three-month period, extended it for another three months and have

only recently reduced that so that we could get into the budget process

and make any increases permanent in the years going forward. I would

have thought someone who spent 16 years in government would understand

how government makes decisions.

[1:55 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on first

supplemental.

S. Bond: While I appreciate the Premier standing up today, it’s simply not

good enough. What the Premier needs to do…. He may want to continue to

look back, but what the Premier needs to do is stand up and look in the

mirror, because this decision wasn’t made five years ago or ten years

ago. It was made last week. The responsibility for the decision lands

squarely on his shoulders.

Kristy writes: “The $300 supplement has made an absolute world of

difference to many disabled folks, including myself. Yet you chose to

cut it in half, prior to cancelling it in the middle of a

pandemic.”

In the middle of the pandemic, this government is making it harder

for those living with disabilities, instead of making life just a little

bit easier.

Instead of promising maybe, somewhere down the road, some budget

process, somebody will look at it, the Premier has the opportunity to

stand up today, rethink that decision and give assurance to the most

vulnerable in British Columbia that he’s actually paying attention to

their concerns.

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, we are paying attention to people with disabilities. That’s

why we returned the bus pass that that government took away. That’s why

we gave the first increase in over five years, when we had the

opportunity. When we had the opportunity in the midst of a pandemic, we

put $300 a month into the pockets of vulnerable people for a three-month

period. Then we doubled it again for another three months.

Through the remainder of this fiscal year, which means nothing to

the people back at home, but should mean something to the Leader of the

Opposition, we’ve ensured that those same people have the same amount of

money. In fact, they’ll have 50 bucks more as we go through the budget

process and make permanent changes to reduce poverty in British

Columbia.

I’ll also remind the member, before I take my seat, that British

Columbia was the last province in the country to have a poverty

reduction plan, because that member sat on it for 16 years and did

nothing. To stand up today and profess she cares is a little bit

rich.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second

supplemental.

S. Bond: I absolutely do. What’s a little bit rich is that the Premier

seems to have forgotten that today, not three months from now, not

during a budget process…. By the way, which this government brought

everyone to the Legislature to discuss pushing off that budget, longer

and longer and longer from when it should be in this House.

So the Premier has the opportunity today. He actually won the

right to be the leader of his party and of government. He doesn’t have

to wait. He can take that worry off the minds of British Columbians, who

have enough to worry about. Listen to what T.J. had to say. Here’s what

T.J. had to say: “My stomach just dropped, and I became nauseous.

Because what I read into this is that they will be taking it all away

very soon.”

It’s not about waiting for a budget process. It’s not about

letting people worry and be concerned and be upset. They have enough to

worry about. The Premier can stop looking in the rearview mirror, and

start taking responsibility for decisions that he and his government

made last week.

Will the Premier do the right thing? Will he get up today, right

now, and end the clawback?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, it’s absolutely gobsmacking to hear the Leader of the

Opposition — of a party that took away money from vulnerable people,

took away their bus pass, did not increase income assistance or

disability pension for people for half a decade — to now be indignant

because we continue to keep the dollars going through the pandemic, as

we prepare for the budget process, to meet the needs of all British

Columbians.

Now, Her Majesty’s Official Opposition is supposed to have a

modicum of common sense. After 16 years in government, I would have

thought that the Leader of the Opposition would understand how budgets

are made. We are going to make the budget, and we will be mindful of all

British Columbians, particularly those that are vulnerable at this

extraordinary time in our history.

I appreciate the member needs to stand up and say something. I

would have thought that she would have come at this from a perspective

where she had some stable ground to stand on.

D. Davies: The minister last week veered off script for a moment and talked a

little bit about his “reduced rate.” Which sounds fancy, or like a fancy

way of saying “a cut.”

[2:00 p.m.]

Paula writes: “Saying that it balances out with the $500 doesn’t

make sense. Everyone else in B.C., below a certain income, gets $500, so

it shouldn’t be counted as extra for people on PWD. Also, the fact that

people need to apply for this and go through hoops will be a huge

barrier for a lot of people, and many will not receive the

$500.”

Again to the Premier, talking about the decision last week, will

he end the clawback?

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction.

I also want to tell members that the minister is online, but his

Wi-Fi may not be working properly.

Hon. N. Simons: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. I appreciate the member’s

question. It’s a repeat. The answer is obvious and clear. In March, the

province introduced a workers’ benefit for people in the province. Since

not everyone was eligible, a $300 supplement was added to those in

receipt of income assistance and disability assistance, as well as those

receiving the seniors’ supplement. That was renewed after the first

three-month period for another three months and then another three

months.

This month the province introduced a recovery benefit. Unlike the

workers’ benefit, the recovery benefit is open to everyone under a

certain income threshold. So people on income assistance and disability

assistance will be eligible and can apply for this recovery benefit. In

addition, starting in January, there is a supplement of $150 for three

months.

I would suggest that if one were to do the math, one would realize

that everybody, in receipt of income assistance or disability

assistance, will be receiving more. To give an example….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. N. Simons: You’re welcome.

Mr. Speaker: The member on a supplemental.

D. Davies: The fact remains that this cut will hurt people. It doesn’t matter

how you slice it. The minister talks about a $150 increase. It isn’t.

of people that are signing the petition say also the other

way.

Danni Lamb started this petition to fight the NDP cut and is

asking the Premier to go back to the drawing board and do better for

those that are vulnerable and most at risk. Victor is one of hundreds of

British Columbians who have already signed the petition. He says: “The

most vulnerable should not be the ones paying for this

pandemic.”

Again to the Premier, will he do the right thing and stop this

clawback?

Hon. N. Simons: I appreciate the opportunity to carry on with my response, and I

have the opportunity to tell the member for Peace River North that, in

fact, someone receiving income assistance or disability assistance

previously, as a single parent, they would be receiving $900 for three

months.

Under the new system, which is being used for January, February

and March and which includes the benefit available to 3.7 million

British Columbians, that single parent will be receiving $1,450 versus

the $900.

SITE C POWER PROJECT

A. Olsen: This government has been keeping the public in the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, that question is over. Next one.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government has been keeping the public in the dark about the

costs and the public safety risks of Site C. The Premier has known since

at least January and probably much earlier about the significant

geotechnical problems at Site C. Yet it wasn’t until the end of July,

seven months later, that he chose to come clean with the public about

the massive problems facing this dam and that project.

[2:05 p.m.]

My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier inform this House

when he and his ministers in the cabinet first learned about the very

serious issues facing Site C, and can he explain why he chose not to

inform the public or take any action until the middle of this past

summer?

Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the member for the question. When discussing Site C, it’s

important to reflect back on the genesis of this project and remember

that the old government, the Liberal government, set out to push this

project forward past what the then Premier, Premier Clark, described as

the point of no return.

They refused to let the BCUC, the independent watchdog, examine

the project. They signed off on a design that included geological risks,

and they spent billions of dollars without proper oversight in pushing

the project forward.

Clearly, there were cost pressures on the project, but the

government has been managing them. COVID created unforeseen challenges

for the project, and we are now facing geotechnical challenges in the

design that the old government approved.

As a result of that, I asked and brought on Peter Milburn, a

former deputy minister to the member for Abbotsford West, as a special

adviser. He has been playing a major role in examining the project. He

will provide me and our government with independent advice and a fresh

perspective. I’m expecting that report shortly, and we will go from

there. I don’t really want to prejudge the results of his

review.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands for a

supplemental.

A. Olsen: I think it’s important to note that this is not just a Liberal

project at its genesis. This is an NDP project, as they picked it up and

have been carrying the water on this for the last 3½ years.

Also, I think it’s important to point out that I did not ask a

question about the project. I asked a question about what the Premier

knew and when he knew it. I’m not sure why that minister stood up and

answered the question.

The government has known about the project risk and the

significant geotechnical problems for a very long time. Yet the Premier

and his cabinet have kept this information from the public, racing ahead

with construction, even during the COVID-19 pandemic. It’s reckless in

the extreme that instead of pausing the project, this government is

barrelling ahead, even diverting a river in the middle of an

election.

Still we have no answers about the public safety, no answers about

the stability of the dam site, no answers about what the final cost will

be. The Premier won’t stand up and answer a question about what he knew

and when he knew it.

My question again is to the Premier. Why has the Premier allowed

B.C. Hydro to go full speed ahead on construction this year, even

diverting the river to begin construction of this earth-filled dam,

while keeping British Columbians in the dark about the serious risks

facing this project?

Hon. B. Ralston: It’s disappointing to hear this member spread misinformation. B.C.

Hydro has been clear. It wasn’t until December 2019 that engineers

confirmed the significant foundation challenges associated with the

right bank. In January 2020, further analysis on the foundation and

potential enhancements was initiated, and this work continued into the

spring. That’s one of the items on which we’ll expect further comment

from Mr. Milburn.

S. Furstenau: I’ll say what is disappointing is that the NDP government won’t

actually stand up and give accurate information to the public or to this

House on this project. This is really starting to look like a cover-up,

when the Premier won’t even stand up and answer the question posed to

him by my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands.

There is a shocking amount of secrecy around Site C. This is the

single most expensive infrastructure project in B.C.’s history, and the

Premier is deliberately keeping the public in the dark while spending $3

million per day continuing construction. This is public money, and

people have a right to far more transparency and accountability on this

project than they are getting.

My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier commit to

releasing the full, unedited, unredacted Milburn report and the terms of

reference, as well as the reports from the technical advisory committee,

all Site C project assurance board records and all reports from the Site

C independent engineer?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: As I mentioned, I’ve brought on Mr. Milburn, who is a professional

engineer and a former deputy minister. He has been examining the

project, playing a very important role. It’s because we take this

situation very seriously that he has been brought on, and he will

provide advice. He will give myself and our government independent

advice and a fresh perspective.

I am not in a position to prejudge the results of his review and,

therefore, am not able to answer some of the detail in the member’s

questions.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: My colleague and I have asked a series of questions of government

today about the single largest infrastructure project in B.C.’s history,

and we have not received a single straightforward answer. We’ve seen, in

this question period, what is reminiscent of what we have seen around

Site C for the last three years: few answers, very little information

and no transparency from this government.

Peter Milburn’s appointment is an exercise that appears to serve

as political cover for this government to avoid answering questions for

anything else. Milburn doesn’t have the right technical expertise to

even recommend a fix to the site, and he is — like every other expert

that this government brings forward — far from independent from this

project.

My question is to the Premier. Will he finally do the right thing,

suspend construction of this dam and appoint an independent panel of

actually internationally recognized experts to undertake a review to see

if this project can be built safely and at what cost?

Hon. B. Ralston: I have full confidence in Mr. Milburn, and I don’t share the view

that’s expressed of his expertise and his qualifications. I’m looking

forward to the report and the advice that he will provide to myself and

to the government. I think it will be very helpful in assessing the path

forward for this project.

MASSEY TUNNEL REPLACEMENT PROJECT

M. Lee: On September 6, 2017, the NDP cancelled construction that had

already begun on the replacement of the George Massey Tunnel. That

decision cost taxpayers $100 million and stopped a replacement that

would have been open in 2022.

At the time, the NDP promised immediate actions to “find the best

solution for the George Massey corridor.” It has been nearly 3½ years,

or 1,195 days, since then.

After 1,195 days, can the Premier tell us the best solution and

when it will be built?

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. I’m very pleased to

report that, in the coming days, government will receive a business case

on the crossing replacement project, with recommended options,

timelines, costs, all of those sorts of things. I had a meeting last

week with leaders in Metro Vancouver to advise them of this, of what an

engagement plan will look like, immediately beginning in the new year,

in 2021.

Of course, the member will know that what this government has done

— this was, of course, not done previously when they were in power — is

that we have actually created a budget to replace this key piece of

infrastructure. That is in our fiscal plan. That is part of what we

would like to do. We will get to a Massey crossing that has the support

of Metro Vancouver mayors. That was critically important to them. Our

engagement with First Nations leaders, as well, is critically

important.

What is really critically important to all Vancouverites and to

people who will use the new Massey replacement is that it be free of

tolls, quite frankly.

[2:15 p.m.]

While we’re spending much of this week debating a measure in an

extraordinary time to help 3.7 million British Columbians put more money

in their pockets, we had a plan that would have taken hundreds, if not

thousands, of dollars out of Metro Vancouver residents’ pockets each and

every year, forever. That’s an approach we reject. We will build

infrastructure that will serve the future of this region. We will do it

by continuing to consult with mayors, working with First Nations

communities, and get the right project.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Langara on a supplemental.

M. Lee: Well, that answer is simply not good enough. It’s not good for the

commuters, the thousands of commuters who come from Richmond, South

Surrey, Langley, Delta, ferry users, longshore workers, truck drivers —

all who continue to wait in traffic, waiting on this government day

after day after day. They need an answer from this government, not more

empty promises of timelines to come.

On May 23, 2019, already two years after promising to find the

best solution, the Premier told British Columbians: “I think we can get

going on this quite quickly. Minister Claire Trevena is seized with this

opportunity.” Yet here we are, 571 days after the Premier promised to

act quickly. Instead, all we get from this NDP government is delay after

delay after delay.

Last week the Minister of Transportation was asked about a

potential timeline for this project. He couldn’t even say if a

replacement for the George Massey Tunnel would be done by the year

After 1,195 days of delay, can the Premier tell us when a

replacement will be built?

Hon. R. Fleming: One of the critically important things that the business case is

going to advise us — especially as we look to recover our economy after

we get through the COVID-19 pandemic, make critical investments, invest

an additional $3 billion over the most ambitious capital plan that this

province has ever had — is to see how we can accelerate timelines for

exactly that.

We wanted to get to the right decision. This is a tremendously

technical review. It, of course, involves key pieces of federal

legislation. We’re talking about the Fraser River here. We’re talking

about the fisheries acts, the Navigable Waters Act. This has to be done

right from an environmental perspective. This has to be done right in

terms of how it serves the region for decades to come into the future.

So the review is critically important.

I’ve told the mayors that the timeline is there. The timeline is

being adhered to. We’re going to get to this in the new year, as a

government. We have a budget to be able to do this. This is a critically

important and exciting piece of infrastructure.

I would maybe ask the member, if he wanted to do something

constructive to work with the government, to join us in reminding the

federal government, our friends there, where we’ve successfully

negotiated many partnership agreements, that this would be an excellent

candidate for a partnership agreement. This is a national trade corridor

that is significant for the economic health of British

Columbia.

Wouldn’t it be great if every member in this House agreed with

that and that we all had a common voice to Ottawa to urge that this be a

candidate for investment in British Columbia, to get people working, to

solve the congestion and to build a replacement that is worthy of

British Columbia.

I. Paton: Speaking of working together with government, I would say we’ve

worked quite well with the other side of the House, with $100 million

that we spent during our time of 3½ years of getting the bridge to where

it was — with the sand, with the pilings, with all of the different

things that we put in place to give them the opportunity to keep going

on it. But they killed the project.

People are trying to get home from work, get their kids to

practice and seniors to medical appointments. They can’t wait another

decade, stuck in traffic in the largest traffic bottleneck in British

Columbia. If the Premier hadn’t played petty politics 3½ years ago, we’d

have a bridge almost two-thirds complete. Every month, for 39 months,

there seems to be a new excuse.

To the Premier, my constituents want to know when a replacement

will be built. At the very least, can he give a specific date when a

business case will be made and a decision made about what to

build?

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. As I’ve said in my

previous answers, the business case being delivered to government is

literally days away. I’ve given a heads-up to Metro Vancouver mayors,

including the mayors of Richmond and Delta, of that and how we need

their time and attention immediately in the new year, once government

has had the ability to digest that crucially important business

case.

[2:20 p.m.]

What I would remind the member opposite of is that, in actual

fact, this government has avoided playing politics. It was the then

government that played politics with the Massey crossing project. We’ve

avoided that studiously by working with mayors, by integrating this

project into the regional transportation plan.

If the member doesn’t want to take my word for it, well let me

read the words of the MLA for Kamloops–South Thompson. He reflected on

why the Massey Bridge was so universally unpopular in the host

communities, in which it was being built a few years ago when he was

licking his wounds after they lost that election. I think the wisdom

carries on for today, if the member wants to go for a stroll down memory

lane.

The member said: “A lesson for me that I really want to apply

moving forward is that I think we had our elbows up a bit too much with

mayors. I think the tone of the conversation was not always one of

partnership and working together.” Well, the tone on this side of the

House and the business case that we look forward to receiving in a few

days is all about partnership. It’s all about moving forward, and it’s

all about getting the project that the Massey crossing

deserves.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Delta South on a supplemental.

I. Paton: There’s no money in the budget. There’s no date for completion and

not even a business case, which is now overdue. In the campaign, the NDP

promised a business case this fall and federal funding by the end of the

year. None of what was promised has happened. All we get is delay after

delay after delay. This government can’t even tell us: will it be a

bridge, or will it be a tunnel? Despite stacks of studies and reports

that lay out all of the options.

Regarding a bridge or a tunnel, I’ve been told recently, in the

media, by our member for Delta North, that it’s going to be a tunnel. I

spoke to the Chief of Tsawwassen First Nation just other day, and I

certainly hope that they’ve had consultations with First Nations,

because the Tsawwassen First Nation wants nothing to do with a massive

concrete tube sunk into the bottom of the Fraser River.

Again to the Premier, it is really a simple question. When will

the business case be made public and a decision made about what they’re

going to build?

Hon. R. Fleming: Again to the member, I’ve said a few times now, I think, this

afternoon and certainly on other occasions, that the business case is

coming any day now. This is an extensive technical review about the

preferred option. This is something that government will consume and use

to make an investment decision. In the meantime, we’ve already budgeted

for a massive infrastructure project to replace the Massey Tunnel

currently.

I think what my good friend the member for Delta North forgot to

mention, as he was speaking to the media, is that under no

circumstances, when we build this piece of critical infrastructure, will

there will be tolls that take money out of the pockets of working

families in Metro Vancouver. It’ll be a toll-free bridge that is for the

people of B.C.

P. Milobar: Well, it’s interesting. The minister has referenced a few times

now that they have money budgeted, have a plan ready to go, that there

are moneys identified. Yet our recollection is that the first order of

business from this government in their first fiscal plan was to

completely remove the Massey crossing from the budget. In fact, we are

hard-pressed to find any budgets moving forward where that has been

referenced. Yet the minister is telling us that they have moneys

identified for a yet-unknown business plan and a yet-unknown style of

crossing, but they have a big, big budget he’s identified.

Can the minister provide to this House today…? Or the Premier

perhaps. Maybe the Premier would like to answer this question. How much

money is identified in which budget? Which fiscal plan are they

operating off of? After this House breaks, we won’t see a budget in this

House until May, instead of in February. The only reason we’re here is

not to debate the $2 billion of relief payments; we’re here to debate

whether they can delay a budget for an extra two months.

Again to the Premier, how much money, then, has the government

identified for the Massey crossing, and how are they able to do that if

they don’t know what type of crossing they’re going to do and what the

timeline for that crossing is?

Hon. R. Fleming: I think all of these questions this afternoon are going to be a

critical part of the business case. That’s why government has done that,

in terms of the technology of the crossing, the high level of costing

detail that will be done with it, the timeline at which it can be built

and hopefully accelerate even further in a post-pandemic recovery

period.

[2:25 p.m.]

All of those sorts of things are why we are getting the level of

advice that we are getting. That’s why we’ve had the engagement. That’s

why we’ve had a task force with mayors in Metro Vancouver. That’s why

we’ve had engagement with the Tsawwassen First Nation and others. All of

those things…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s listen to the answer, please.

Hon. R. Fleming: …are important to moving the project forward, including the fiscal

space we’ve created to build an infrastructure project that will replace

the Massey Tunnel.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Robinson: I’d like to present the approved guarantees and indemnities report for

the fiscal year ended March 31, 2020, in accordance with the Financial

Administration Act,

section 72(8).

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO

REVIEW THE FREEDOM

OF INFORMATION

AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

Hon. L. Beare: I seek leave to move a motion to activate the Special Committee to

Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy

Act.

Leave granted.

Hon. L. Beare: By leave, I move:

[That a Special Committee be appointed to review the Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c.

165) pursuant to

section 80 of that Act.

That the Special Committee have the powers of a Select Standing

Committee and in addition be empowered to:

a) appoint of its number, one or more subcommittees and to

refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Special

Committee and to delegate to the subcommittees all or any of its powers

except the power to report directly to the House;

b) sit during a period in which the House is adjourned,

during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and

during any sitting of the House;

c) conduct consultations by any means the Committee

considers appropriate;

d) adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

and

e) retain such personnel as required to assist the Special

Committee.

That the Special Committee submit a report, including any

recommendations respecting the results of the review, to the Legislative

Assembly within one year of this motion being adopted by the House; and

shall deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the

Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment, and upon resumption

of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the

Legislative Assembly.

That the said Special Committee be composed of the following

Members: Rick Glumac (Convener), Susie Chant ,

Janet Routledge , Henry Yao , John Rustad ,

Tom Shypitka , and Adam Olsen .]

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: I have the honour to present the Complaint Handling Guide: Setting

Up Effective Complaint Resolution Systems in Public Organizations

from the Office of the Ombudsperson.

Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: I call continued second reading of Bill 3.

[2:30 p.m.]

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — FINANCE STATUTES

AMENDENT

ACT, 2020

(continued)

K. Kirkpatrick: I appreciate the opportunity to rise and continue my comments from

last week regarding the Finance Statutes Amendment Act. I’ll start again

by saying that I don’t understand why we are here looking at this today.

Forgive me if I repeat myself from my previous comments.

In this, the NDP’s first piece of legislation in this session, it

does not deal with the issues that British Columbians are experiencing

today. Rather, this government is not coming here to look for ways to

support small business, the hospitality sector, teachers, front-line

workers, the families of children and youth with special needs. We have

been called to Victoria instead because this NDP government appears not

to be able to account for its finances. As I shared previously, my own

experience with the impact of my small business from 9/11 was

devastating, financially and emotionally. It was only a blip compared to

what those small business owners are dealing with today.

The budget forms the legal basis for government spending, and

timely budgets enacted before the new fiscal year are an integral part

of good governance. The Premier said today that this House…. He expects

that he knows how good budgets are made. This pandemic has hit British

Columbians and our economy in a sudden and dramatic manner. It has

required both federal and provincial spending to keep the lights on.

Prior to the calling of this unnecessary election, all the parties in

this House were working together in supporting the best interests of

British Columbians. Now this government is asking to go it alone and no

longer involve or share its plans with this House.

The bill you have brought us is very concerning. From what we can

see, this is a bill to limit government transparency and accountability

while also delaying needed supports into the hands of British

Columbians. The bill before us will effectively allow government to

delay introducing the next budget until the end of next May. The NDP

government already came to us for an amendment to delay the budget by an

initial 30 days, and now government returns to the House to ask for yet

another extension.

In June of this year, government’s previous Finance Minister said:

“These changes will allow sufficient time for due diligence to be done

by the good public servants who work for all of us in British Columbia.”

Clearly, that was not the case. A 60-day delay in delivering a budget is

unacceptable. Either this government knows or does not know its numbers.

If it does not know its numbers, then why isn’t it being transparent?

And if it doesn’t know its numbers, how can we have any confidence in

this government’s ability to manage the money of British Columbians and

to know how to build a substantive economic recovery plan?

This will give government an additional 60 days to decide what new

taxes they’re going to add or policies to enact to inhibit economic

recovery and growth. NDP governments do not have a good history of sound

economic planning. We have seen this in the past. I’d like to read a

quote by economists Jason Clemens and Joel Emes in a 2001 report,

Returning British Columbia to Prosperity . “Undisciplined

government spending was one of the root problems of B.C.’s fiscal and

economic woes during the 1990s, the other being uncompetitive tax rates.

The root of the economic problems in British Columbia was poor policy,

founded on a belief in the efficacy of a more activist and

interventionist government.” This is the NDP’s way of budgeting and

managing the economy. Economists referred to this last time the province

had a majority NDP government as “the lost years” for British Columbia’s

economy.

Now, I’m an accountant, but you don’t need to be an accountant to

know that this is not a responsible way to manage the budget of British

Columbians. I’ll remind this House that this will leave the longest

stretch in 20 years without a scheduled fiscal update. Now is not the

time to keep hidden what has been and what is planned to be spent. We

need financial transparency now more than ever before. You are asking

for an amendment to a bill that is meant to ensure transparency which

will then result in making things less transparent.

[2:35 p.m.]

I have seen this government bring in policies on the fly over the

last three years and then scramble to figure out what the actual impact

of their actions is on British Columbians, on businesses and on

non-profits. This is another example of this government deciding an

action without understanding its consequences.

For example, the introduction of the EHT was announced with no

information on how it would impact non-profits, because government

didn’t know, and it was announced after annual budgets for organizations

had already been planned. Has this government consulted with any of the

myriad other organizations that will be impacted by the delay that it’s

asking for?

There are many organizations that rely on this government to have

its budget in order before the end of the fiscal year. This delay has a

trickle-down effect, and these organizations do not have the opportunity

to delay their budgets. In fact, some of them have statutory obligations

they need to contend with, with their budgets.

With the financial impact of COVID, non-profits that provide

services on behalf of this government — like mental health counselling,

family preservation, supervised access, programs for children and youth

with special needs, detox centres for youth — are unaware if they’re

going to get contract renewals. How will these organizations know if

they have funding?

Making matters worse, this government decided to do away with

multi-year contracts with these service providers, meaning that when

there is no budget, they have absolutely no security for funding for

these next years. So this government is asking to push financial risk to

those organizations. They either lay off staff and begin to wrap up

programs, which would be devastating for everyone, or they take the

financial and reputational risk of continuing to provide services and

simply hoping that there’s money for the contract to be

renewed.

This delay may in fact result in people losing their jobs as

funding remains unsure. It will likely result, as it did with the

introduction of the low-wage redress, in non-profits having to use lines

of credit to cover payroll. Boards of directors of these non-profits

will be forced to make very difficult decisions. This is only one

example of what the government is asking them to do by not putting

forward a budget in a timely manner.

While we can see how this bill would benefit government, it is

very hard to see how it would benefit the people of British Columbia. I

wonder again: why are we here to discuss this? Why aren’t we looking at

the other things we need to be doing to ensure that people are safe and

healthy and have jobs and that we can move this economy forward? What

about the other promises that this government has made? What about the

commitment the government made on October 9 to the restaurant sector to

cap 15 percent commission fees for food delivery services?

You heard the bill introduced by the member for Surrey–White Rock

to actually come true on that, to actually take action and make that

very thing happen. Because of the promise this government made to voters

on this issue, I see no reason why it would not be in full support of

its passing.

Now we are less than two weeks away from Christmas, and those

front-line workers who have been working for all of us since this

pandemic broke have yet to be paid their promised pandemic pay. Is this

how we demonstrate how we value these heroes? Where is their money? The

holidays that are usually a time of celebration and comfort for so

many…. We know that this year is going to look very different. But

government is asking everyone in B.C. to make sacrifices for the greater

good.

The people of B.C. are looking for this government to have a plan

and to take action, and that does not involve delaying their budget for

an additional 30 days so they can figure things out.

[2:40 p.m.]

The NDP made a hollow promise, short on details, that led the

people of British Columbia to believe that they would be receiving a

$1,000 benefit direct-deposited into their bank accounts by Christmas.

Now that we are getting the details, this is not in fact the case. It is

clear once again that there was little thought or planning put into this

announcement. Rather, this government thought it was a good sound bite

during an election campaign.

In fact, the elimination of the PST for one year would have had a

more substantive financial impact for British Columbians, with more

benefit to those with lower incomes, than this one-time “maybe you’ll

get it, maybe you won’t get it, and we’re not sure how much you’re going

to get” benefit that is now being put before us. It would have been

infinitely less complicated to administer and calculate. There would be

no application process, and it would have an immediate impact that would

result in savings in excess of this one-time payment from this

government.

Now people must apply. They need to base it on their 2019 income.

As my colleagues, the media and analysts have pointed out on multiple

occasions, the pandemic began after we filed our 2019 tax returns. I

heard the Minister of Finance say last week that her government is

rolling out this benefit to help those who are most in need. How does

her government know who is most in need if they don’t know anything

about the impact to their income since the end of 2019?

I’ve heard multiple members of government stand up and say the

same thing. They have also said that this pandemic benefit will help

those who most need it. But that is not accurate. It is not targeted to

those who most need it. It is a broad shotgun approach to providing a

benefit to as many people in British Columbia as they can during an

election.

Surely, in the two months since this benefit was announced during

a snap election, government would have had ample time to ensure it was

designed in a manner that made it fair, easy to access and substantive

enough to make a difference. The ability to buy a $5 latte is not

substantive. And what about those who are not avid followers of the

news? Do they know now that they need to apply? What if they don’t have

a computer or, as my northern colleagues often experience, access to

stable Internet?

This holiday season, in the middle of the most extreme emergency

that our province has dealt with in a century, all the government has to

offer British Columbians is the assurance that help is at least two

months further away, and even that’s not clear.

As the official opposition, we are tasked with holding the

government to account and with doing our best to ensure that this

government is serving the interests of the people of this province. We

know that British Columbians need and want support right now. We want to

do everything in our power to get those supports into their hands as

soon as possible. An example of just how much this help is needed is

demonstrated in the report issued two weeks ago by the Representative

for Children and Youth with special needs.

Now, I appreciate that the Ministry of Children and Families was

faced with an unprecedented event when COVID hit. So were all of the

social services providers, front-line staff and families that were

impacted. But cutting services provided to the families of children and

youth with special needs without prioritizing interim services and

without communicating to those families about what was happening and

what was available to them….

Well, this government has failed in its responsibility. In any

emergency, in any change like this, communication is absolutely key, and

that was not part of the changes that were made.

Now, we know it’s difficult to develop a budget. The thousands of

organizations who rely on this government also know it’s difficult to

prepare a budget. It takes a lot of work. We know this as opposition

because we were involved in preparing five consecutive balanced budgets

which were all delivered on time.

[2:45 p.m.]

When this government refers to the last government, I would also

like to remind them that they are now referring to themselves. This is

not a new government. The NDP has been in power for more than three

years and should understand and know how to deliver a budget on time —

one that is able to provide support for the people in this province

during these very difficult circumstances.

In the spring, this government, with the help of all parties in

the House, pivoted quickly to address the first wave of COVID-19. Since

then, we have been waiting to see from them an economic recovery plan.

Instead, we got a survey. This government decided to delay the supports

for exhausted front-line workers, for long-term-care homes, for

struggling small businesses and for families who have lost significant

portions of their income.

I shall also quote from the recent throne speech: “The way to get

through this difficult time is by following the same approach we used

during the first wave.” Well, we’re not in the first wave. We now see

the consequences on people and businesses. We are in the second wave,

with a vaccine on the horizon, which is exciting and something for to us

look forward to. This is a different time with different

circumstances.

This is when we need to look at a new approach. We need to have

plans. We can’t do the same thing. We need innovation. We need a

government that understands budgeting and economics. We need a

government that will not attempt to tax its way out of British

Columbia’s growing deficit, which will be a sure way to cripple economic

recovery.

This government has been given the trust of British Columbians,

and I ask that they do not take advantage of this. This government has

already broken trust by using the cooperation of the B.C. Liberals and

the B.C. Green Party in the last session to leverage its own success in

a snap election. Don’t break trust again by using a majority government

to avoid transparency when this province needs it more than

ever.

I end where I began. I do not know why we are being asked this

question by this government.

L. Doerkson: I’d like to start by offering my most sincere thanks to all of the

people on the front lines serving us every day. I, along with British

Columbians, am grateful, to say the least. Thank you to our health care

workers, our first responders, the retail workers and, of course, all

the people that keep our food systems working every day. We are, for

sure, extremely grateful to all of you for your unwavering

commitment.

I must say, as a new MLA, that I’m surprised that the very first

bill that I would get a chance to debate would be a bill that would

delay help to millions of people in our province. I, of course, had

hoped that the work that we would do here in this House would be work

that would benefit all of British Columbia. We’re here to debate this

one bill. I really had hoped that we could have spent these valuable

hours inventing solutions for small business, solutions for tourism,

solutions for rural British Columbia and, of course, solutions for our

families.

On behalf of my constituents in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, it is with

great pride and interest that I rise today to debate my first bill since

being elected by my constituents only a few short weeks ago. You can be

assured, Mr. Speaker, that I intend to represent all of the people who

live in the riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin, regardless of whether or not

they voted for me in the last election. As elected representatives, it’s

our obligation to put the interests of the people of British Columbia

first. We may have differing opinions on various sides of this House,

but I’m certain that each member of this House feels the exact same

way.

Most of us enter public life with the goal of serving the public,

of course, and this pandemic has certainly placed the focus on just how

important that is. We all want to emerge out of this stronger and more

resilient. In order for us to succeed during a pandemic, the people of

British Columbia expect our elected representatives to come up with

solutions. Callous rhetoric will only go so far in one of the greatest

health threats in the modern age.

[2:50 p.m.]

During this session of the Legislature, it is my sincere hope that

we can put partisanship aside. Instead, we must pursue goals that will

see our province emerge from this in the best possible shape we can. We

are not a province where any one of us should be left behind. Certainly,

we must mourn those who we have lost over the past nine months, but we

also have an obligation to care for the living as we move forward

through the second wave.

This is especially true in rural communities and even more for

small First Nation communities along the coast. People are scared.

They’re extremely fearful. So it’s up to us, as elected representatives,

to show some leadership.

As I mentioned earlier, this is the first piece of legislation

that I am addressing as a new member of this Legislature, while the

whole purpose of this short two-week session is just to pass this one

single bill. We therefore have to question exactly what the purpose of

this legislation is. To answer that, I have the following information on

Bill 3, the Finance Statutes Amendment Act.

This bill will extend the deadline for presenting the budget and

the main estimates for the fiscal year to April 30. That’s one month

into the 2021 fiscal year. The bill also allows for special warrants to

be authorized for the beginning of 2021, the fiscal year, meaning no

legislative approval will be required. These changes are permanent with

respect to the general elections that trigger the delayed budget

provisions in the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

As a new member of this House, I have to ask: what is the purpose

of making any bill or legislation into law? To answer that, we need to

examine the following: why is it necessary for the government to ask for

an extension on its budget obligations? Why does the government need

special warrants that will give it spending powers without proper

accountability? And why are all of these last-minute changes necessary

in the first place?

British Columbians were initially told that the purpose of this

relatively short two-week session was for one reason and one reason

alone: to give the government the authority to issue every British

Columbian a one-time pandemic benefit. The purpose, one might expect, is

to deliver relief to British Columbians who have lost their job because

of the pandemic. The other purpose, according to the Premier, is to give

consumers money necessary to start the economy. Those are all laudable

goals, but when we hold Bill 3 up to the light, we begin to see some

rather serious defaults that will ultimately put money in the hands of

people who don’t necessarily need it. That, for sure, is a

problem.

There are thousands of British Columbians now out of work. Their

normal way of making a living has been impossible during these COVID

pandemic restrictions. In 2019, most of these people had a good job.

They had steady income. They were solid contributors to our economy. In

the Cariboo-Chilcotin, we’re talking about those in the tourism sector,

small businesses, the restaurant industry. All of those industries have

been ravaged by this pandemic. The forest industry, ranchers, guides and

outfitters — you name it. Yet today these people desperately need our

help.

However, we’re learning that many British Columbians will be

ineligible. Yet far worse, those with uninterrupted income in 2019 and

2020 will be fully eligible for the pandemic payment.

[2:55 p.m.]

This is a quote from one of my constituents that I received

yesterday: “The money that the province announced is nonsense. We don’t

need it, but we qualify. My son hasn’t worked since March, and he

doesn’t. He made, in 2019, $85,000. But this year, in 2020, I plan to

apply for the money and give it to him.” That’s Bill

Carruthers.

It’s disturbing, and definitely worrisome. At a time when the

Finance Minister is pushing our province deeper and deeper into debt,

doesn’t it make more sense to put the money into the hands of the people

who need it? We know it is simply because our new Minister of Finance is

insisting that eligibility be based on income tax returns filed in 2019.

We’re talking about income levels that were generated long before anyone

even heard of COVID-19. This is a serious misgiving, not to mention a

serious disappointment, to those who are in dire need right

now.

As legislators, we have the responsibility to pass laws and

authorize spending that ultimately will benefit the entire province. The

B.C. recovery benefit of $500 for individuals and up to $1,000 for

families was promised by the NDP as part of their election platform just

a few short months ago. However, let’s be blunt about this. We, as the

official opposition, fully understand that the recovery benefit will be

useful to many British Columbians that are in need, but in no way does a

one-time benefit payment constitute a comprehensive economic renewal

plan for the whole province.

We need to emerge out of this global pandemic the way we were

before. We need to be entrepreneurial. We need to be innovative. We need

to be not afraid to take on the world and all the challenges that we

would normally have before us. To arrive at that destination, we need

just one thing: we need a solid economic recovery plan to get this

province back on the path of economic prosperity. This will involve bold

measures for all sectors of our economy.

The private sector needs tax relief. Small businesses need less

regulation and the freedom to adapt and innovate during this pandemic.

Finally, the province needs a long-term economic strategy to get us back

to the point where the private sector is once again at the heart of our

economy. I’m talking about the ones who actually need help. If we give

them the help, the tools that they need to succeed, they will once again

be in a position to better help themselves. Yet the approach of this

government is to promise this universal payment to all British

Columbians.

Blowing up record deficits will just land this government and this

province back into the 1990s, when the NDP went on a spending spree. It

took years to finally balance the budget and finally have the money to

make investments into people of this province. What we need is to target

the people in need. What we don’t need is a Finance Minister that’s

speculating on how people should be using their benefit payment on $5

lattes or buying something special for themselves during this holiday

season.

Moving forward, taxpayers’ money should only be targeted to those

in need. I will speak more about this in the context of the

Cariboo-Chilcotin, but before I do, let’s talk about the special

warrants.

On occasion — and I do mean on rare occasions — our government

requires special warrants that give them the authority to spend, in the

event of an emergency, without the usual budget scrutiny that is a

function of this Legislature. Special warrants are meant to be just a

temporary expenditure to get past the unexpected, of course. They are

not to be used wilfully to shut down the Legislature and override our

democratic principles.

Special warrants are just a tool in a pinch, nothing more. The

government would have to make a pretty convincing argument as to why any

of this would be necessary, yet we haven’t heard one significant or

substantial argument from the Premier or our government.

[3:00 p.m.]

As you’re aware, Mr. Speaker, last March all of the parties came

together for a special meeting with the Premier. In the face of this

pandemic, the B.C. Liberals and the Green Party agreed to put politics

aside and give the Premier and his cabinet the authority to spend up to

$5 billion worth of emergency funding. All of this was done in just one

single day — unprecedented from a historical perspective — and $1.5

billion was set aside for six months, from March till

September.

Yet none of this money was deemed necessary for the economic

recovery, as thousands of British Columbians joined the ranks of the

unemployed. As history shows, the Premier thought it more necessary to

hold an early election. We could have had this money out the door months

ago and in the hands of the people who really did need it. The Finance

Minister and the Premier, by the way, now face the embarrassing prospect

that this benefit may not reach British Columbians until into the new

year.

The government says the money will be used to stimulate the

economy. Now we’re learning that none of this might happen during the

holiday season, when most of our retailers need it the most. The Finance

Minister is saying that a week from now British Columbians will be able

to find out if they actually qualify for the pandemic benefit payment.

That is just 13 days before we can kiss 2020 goodbye.

I can’t help but stress this — that we could have had this money

out the door months ago. But no, the Premier had more important things

in mind, like breaking his own government’s fixed election date. I

wasn’t a member of this House when the NDP said it was necessary to

change the fixed election date from the spring of 2021 to the fall.

That’s fine. But when the government goes to all of the effort of

bringing in the legislation that fundamentally alters our democratic

process, at least they could stand behind their own

convictions.

There was no reason for the Premier to call a snap election in the

middle of a global health crisis — none. But as we know, this government

is more interested in its own vitality than the vitality and health of

British Columbians. It’s true; we know that for a fact. When we emerge

from this pandemic, history will record exactly how the past few months

all went down, but in the meantime, we in the official opposition will

do our part to keep the mind of this province focused where it needs to

be.

Having been recently named as the official opposition critic for

Rural Development, I would like to serve the following notice. Rural

B.C. does matter, and when our new Finance Minister finally gets around

to tabling a budget — it could be in late spring or early summer,

because this is what this legislation is calling us to do — you can be

assured that we will be looking for a budget that will benefit all

British Columbians.

Rural B.C. has been taken for granted by this government since it

was first elected, over three years ago. One of the NDP’s first moves

was to eliminate the ministry known as Rural Economic Development. In

doing so, you’ve told British Columbians that only NDP ridings in the

Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island are eligible for assistance. Now we

know that this Premier and his government have officially put rural

British Columbia on notice. The NDP intends to continue ignoring rural

British Columbia and to concentrate instead on its political ambitions

in the Lower Mainland. I wish the Premier and his caucus good luck with

that.

In the meantime, the official opposition will insist on an agenda

that puts the well-being of British Columbians first, from Vancouver

Island to the Lower Mainland, from the Peace region to the Kootenays.

Yes, even the Cariboo-Chilcotin will be placed at the top of the agenda.

When historians look back at how British Columbia really emerged out of

this pandemic, I can assure you of one thing. Those who put people above

politics will always carry the day.

I’d like to close by offering my most sincere condolences to all

of those who have lost loved ones during this awful pandemic. My

thoughts are certainly with all of you. On behalf of the people of

Cariboo-Chilcotin, I thank you for this opportunity to address these

issues in this Legislature.

[3:05 p.m.]

T. Halford: I am glad to rise today to continue discussion of this bill, one

that will have a profound impact on British Columbians in the midst of

the COVID-19 pandemic. The bill before us will effectively allow

government to delay introducing the next budget until April of next

year. Let me say that one more time: it will allow us to delay the next

budget until April of next year. That’s hard to believe. While we can

see how this bill would benefit government, it’s hard to see how it will

benefit the people of B.C.

From what we can see, this is a bill that will limit government

transparency and accountability while also delaying the needed supports

from getting into the hands of British Columbians. We are less than

three weeks away from Christmas — shorter than that now. People were

looking to this government for something, for help, for assistance, for

a little bit of sacrifice. Here we are in Victoria debating legislation

that would move our budget back, that will move support for some of

these vital ministries back, that will delay many vulnerable British

Columbians from getting back the assistance they need. We have to think

about that.

During this holiday season, all the government has to offer

British Columbians in assurance is that help is on the way — not now,

not in February, when we usually see the budget tabled. It’s going to be

a little bit further away. We deserve more from this government. The

people of British Columbia deserve more from this government.

As the official opposition, we are tasked with holding the

government to account and doing our best to ensure that this government

is serving the interests of the people of this province. We know that

British Columbians want and need the support right now. As opposition,

we want to do everything in our power to get those supports in their

hands as soon as possible. That is why you’re seeing some very important

questions and concerns about this bill being raised. I think that’s a

good thing.

The bill comes almost as a package, supporting supplementary

estimates that will allow the promised B.C. recovery benefit that the

Premier so proudly promised during the campaign. But if you look

closely, in the bill and in the supplementary estimates that have been

released, we are already starting to see things change from how they

promised during the campaign to what they’re actually putting forward in

legislation.

One example that we’ve talked about, and will continue to talk

about as opposition, is that the government is asking for more money to

increase the scope of the payment. Now, we obviously want as many people

as possible who need this benefit to receive it, but it’s clear that

this is a government that is making up policy on the fly.

When we debate this, it’s important to mention the fact that the

eligibility for the recovery benefit is based on 2019 income. The

pandemic began in 2020. Unemployment has skyrocketed in 2020. Businesses

— small businesses, big businesses — have shut down in 2020.

I recently heard from a now single mother who left a marriage with

her children in April of this year. She left under some very, very

trying circumstances. She explained to me that one of the things she saw

during the election was a bit of hope that this recovery benefit would

give her family a boost at Christmastime. She will not qualify for this

benefit. She will not be able to provide her kids with Christmas gifts

with this benefit.

[3:10 p.m.]

Now, I think that [audio interrupted].

Deputy Speaker: If the member for Kootenay East is ready, would you please do your

speech now, and we’ll go back to the member for Surrey–White Rock when

he’s able to reconnect.

T. Shypitka: All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and congratulations on

your new appointment, or your new role in the Legislature.

I haven’t had a chance to talk yet to the throne speech, so before

I debate Bill 3, the Finance Statutes Amendment Act, I’d like to put a

few shout-outs. It gives me distinct pleasure, of course, to be

representing the hard-working and easy-living constituents of Kootenay

East and on the traditional territory of the Ktunaxa First

Nation.

Speaking of the Ktunaxa, I want to give some recognition to

Nasuʔkin Joe Pierre, who was just

recently elected as chief of the beautiful Aq’am community. For those

that don’t know where the Aq’am community is, it’s not too far from

Cranbrook. It’s about a five- or ten-minute drive outside of

town.

Before I give my response today, I really need to give some

special mentions to some special people. First, I want to recognize the

Clerk of the Legislature. Not many have done so, but I know everybody

feels the same way. The Clerk was appointed back in March, I believe,

just before the pandemic hit. Since that time, I believe she has earned

her keep in more ways than one. She’s probably gotten more than she

bargained for with COVID and some other IT problems in the Legislature,

so I wanted to give her a special shout-out.

Here, more locally, I want to give a special recognition to

Heather Smith and Christy Wheeldon, my CAs here in Cranbrook; and also

Krystal D’Sa in Victoria, who is my legislative assistant; Ryan Mitton

and John Hennenfent in research; Doug Secord in communications; and also

to the team that helped me in the campaign. It was a really concerted

effort. Normally we’d have 200 volunteers, and we were down to about 30

this time around. John Zimmer, my campaign manager, was excellent. I

couldn’t have done it without him. Wes Rogers, our riding president and

the rest of the campaign team…. There are too many to mention — probably

30 of them, like I said — but also J.R. Rowley, who is in the hospital

Kirsten Armleder.

Of course, special thanks go to my mom and dad, who are always

supportive and probably watching right now, as we speak. And to my

beautiful wife, Carrie, my daughter, Allie, my youngest son, Adam, and

my oldest son, Dustin, along with his wife, Julie, and my grandson of

just over a year, Hudson, who live in Kelowna. I have only gotten to see

Hudson maybe three times since he was born. This COVID is really putting

a cramp on the old grandpa handing out the goodies, but we’ll double

down on that as soon as this crisis is over.

I really want to thank all the constituents and the 32,162 voters

in the Kootenay East riding for putting their trust in me for a second

term. Being elected a first term was a very special thing for me, but

earning the trust to represent a second time is very humbling and

something I’m honoured by. Thank you to everybody in Kootenay

East.

Also, congratulations to all the MLAs in the Legislature right now

for being elected. I know you’re all proud of your

accomplishments.

Turning to Bill 3, I want to do a little bit of a history on this.

The first thing I’d like to start off with is the question: why are we

as MLAs debating a bill in the 42nd parliament — not the 41st but the

42nd parliament — two weeks before Christmas in the year 2020, and why

have we had two throne speeches in the same year?

Well, the reason for this is obviously for the historians to

decide, but was it because our Premier found government so unstable, so

unworkable and so uncertain that a snap election was the only recourse

to get through this global pandemic?

[3:15 p.m.]

Or maybe it was because the popularity of our beloved Premier was

riding high due to the great work of our front-line workers and health

professionals, as well as the sacrifices made by our small businesses,

especially our tourism sector, during the first three phases of the

pandemic.

There was also the unprecedented collaboration by all three

parties, during the first three phases of the pandemic, to flatten the

curve. We did it. We all did it. We all did it together. We even gave

government the latitude to access $5 billion in economic relief back in

March, I believe, March 23. No questions asked, carte blanche, an olive

branch of trust to use immediately to provide support for those

suffering.

Some news publications wrote that this partnership was comparable

to “lions and hyenas” getting along. I would suggest the NDP were the

hyenas, as they scavenged the remains of what was once the historical,

trusted and much-valued confidence and supply agreement between the NDP

and the Greens, which, I might add, was promptly torn up by the NDP on

September 21, 2020.

The new Green leader, the member for Cowichan Valley — we heard

her earlier in the debate — just days before the Premier called the

election, told him that they had a solid agreement, as originally

promised, until the agreed election in October of 2021.

The people of B.C. were impressed by the three parties working

together. I had constituents in my riding that I’ve never spoken to

before who came up to me — their party stripes unknown, and I didn’t

really care — and said they were super impressed by the way the three

parties were working earnestly beside each other for what was best for

British Columbians. Actually, that was a pretty special thing for me. It

was probably one of the best moments I’ve had in the last 3½ years as an

MLA. I might add it takes a lot for opposition to side with government

sometimes. But the B.C. Liberals did it. We put partisanship aside, only

to be stabbed in the back later.

But here we sit, with the debate on a bill to get to the business

that was so urgent that it needed an election during a time when British

Columbians needed government most. A time when the second wave was

hitting us hard, putting people in jeopardizing situations at polling

stations. A time when parents, teachers and students were confused and,

quite frankly, scared about how going back for a new school year was

going to work. A time when businesses and the tourism sector had not

realized the revenues anticipated during that usual high summer season —

and now finding themselves close to or filing for bankruptcy. A time

when the people of B.C. really needed government the most.

The urgency of an unnecessary snap election that brought us to

this drastically reduced two-week session that caused all this animosity

for just one bill, from what I can see. This is what was so crucial,

instead of looking after the concerns of British Columbians when they

needed government most — a bill that ironically delays the budget for

two months. What is normally the end of February is now the end of

April.

Simply put, we delayed the work of this parliament by two months

in order to delay the budget by another two months. Talk about ragging

the puck in order to kick the can down the road. These ridiculous delays

are killing British Columbians, figuratively and literally. This is four

months of good work our government could’ve been doing to get to the

critical business at hand of addressing the important work we all here

in the Legislature are entrusted to do by the people who have elected

us.

If you’re a small business owner hoping for help, none is coming

just yet. If you’re a parent with special needs hoping for extra

support, you’re out of luck for the moment. If you’re a family

struggling to have ends meet, nothing until May at the earliest. The

Premier said his snap election wouldn’t get in the way of pandemic

relief, and that’s proved to be completely untrue. He said we just need

to get the election behind us and we can get moving. He was

wrong.

However, part of this bill suggests that help is on the way. It

was a campaign promise, done in the middle of the election, to buy

votes, plain and simple. “A thousand dollars for everyone,” he declared.

“We will pop it into your account by direct deposit. Have a great

Christmas.” Well, now we know it’s changed to $500 if you made less than

$62,500 in 2019.

[3:20 p.m.]

What on earth does your income in 2019 have to do with what you

have suffered in 2020 due to COVID? Can anyone from the government side

answer this pretty basic and fundamental question? Apparently not,

because not even [audio interrupted] government’s side has debated this

only bill from the government at a time when we need some

clarity.

Can anyone from the government side answer this pretty basic and

fundamental question? Apparently not, because not even [audio

interrupted] on the government side has debated this only bill from the

government at a time when we need some clarity. Case in point, and here

are a couple of examples.

Mary, who owns a nice little boutique down in downtown, on Second

Avenue, has a very decent business in the booming town of Fernie. She

had a good, decent 2019, as her business continued to grow. All of a

sudden she gets smacked by COVID in 2020 and misses her summer season,

which is normally her biggest revenue months in order to keep the bills

paid. She is a sole proprietor, and her revenues are down by 70 percent

in 2020, which is fairly typical, in my area, for a tourist town. Not

only is she getting little to no business support, but she doesn’t

qualify for the NDP benefit.

Here’s another real story. Jesse, who owns a guide-outfitting

business, who always depends on business outside the province and

country, had a good, growing business. And 2019 was decent, although not

as good, since the government took the grizzly bear management away from

him. But in 2020, he saw his revenues go down 100 percent, and he is not

entitled to any support that the government is offering up.

The third example, on the other side of the coin, is that of a

person unemployed for the most part of 2019, or maybe a low-income

earner, perhaps a student at a local college who did not make a lot of

income in 2019. But in 2020, there have been some incredible work

opportunities here. They’re doing some renovation work or maybe even

liquidating the furniture from Mary’s boutique shop. He is making a ton

of money, and now he is doubly blessed by the extra $1,000 the

government sent him, or his family anyway.

Nobody here in the House is debating the ability of providing

resources and funding to those that are vulnerable. But this $2 billion

political stunt to buy British Columbian votes is unacceptable, because

it falls flat on the Premier’s promise to address the needs of British

Columbians during this COVID crisis.

There’s an old proverb that says: “Give a man a fish, and you feed

him for the day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.”

Although not entirely politically correct, it makes a point on the lack

of an economic recovery plan by this government and how that plan would

be more fruitful than what has already been prescribed with this bill as

a one-time benefit.

Government accessed $5 billion back on March 23, 2020 — ten months

ago. The provincial economic recovery plan for most provinces in Canada

was rolled out in June during the longest days of the year. We now sit

just days from the shortest days of the year, and B.C. is in the dark,

just like the winter solstice. The $1.5 billion economic recovery

spending measures that respond to immediate needs could have helped a

lot of businesses and the tourism industry across the province, many of

which have closed their doors for good.

In a press release on March 26, the Premier was quoted. “The

COVID-19 pandemic challenges our health, our economy and our way of

life. People and businesses urgently need support. Our action plan gives

immediate relief to people and businesses, and plans for B.C.’s economic

recovery over the long term.”

However, we all know that’s not what happened. The government held

on to this money and only released it mere days before calling an

election, further delaying any real rollout. This move has proved

devastating to many B.C. businesses. Many have lost their businesses,

knowing that financial support was there, but they could never access

it.

In the supplemental estimate in this bill, the government is

looking for $2 billion, just like the way they went looking for the $5

billion back in March. The government fooled us once without any

transparency, and now they’re trying for the daily double.

The government themselves said that this election payout would

cost between $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion, and that was at a time when

we didn’t understand how limited this rollout was going to be. Instead

of $1,000 for everyone, it is now $500, and that is only for those that

apply online December 18. Gee.

With an estimated 3.4 million applicants, I wonder how that’s

going to turn out. Do you think, quite possibly, the system may get

jammed up, or the government will not have enough resources in place?

This government couldn’t handle the online reservations for public

camping for mere thousands of applicants. How will they handle 3.4

million looking for money to survive on and to get before Christmas?

Only time will tell, but I bet anyone who thinks it will go smoothly a

wet willy.

[3:25 p.m.]

At any rate, here we are sitting with the government asking for $2

billion when, perhaps, only half of that is needed. But let’s be fair;

let’s call it $1.5 billion. Nice. When my daughter asks me for fifty

bucks for a $30 pair of jeans, I ask questions. The first is: why are

you asking for $50 when you’re only needing $30? The second is: what are

you planning on spending the extra $20 on?

Now, anyone who is a parent of a teenage daughter can immediately

recognize how concerning this is. I love my daughter, Allie. She’s

smart. She’s beautiful. But she likes to spend quite a lot, like this

government does. Like most teenagers, she does not care too much where

the next dollar is coming from. If I’m concerned about my 15-year-old

daughter overspending on God knows what, then I would certainly think

the people of British Columbia would be exponentially concerned about

what this government is up to.

What is equally sinister is that, in this bill, there are

provisions to execute special warrants that will allow for no

legislative approval necessary, for funds to be spent without the

scrutiny of the Legislature. This is essentially a blank cheque for our

government. I would not give one for my daughter — or my son, for that

matter — and I certainly will not be supportive of a blank cheque to our

government. I dare say the people of British Columbia would share my

concerns as well.

Just for some fun, I looked up and found statements showing

special warrants signed by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, together

with the expenditure incurred, in March of 1880, 140 years ago — mostly

sundry items, such as assistance for the printing for sessional work.

That was a cost of $45. One entry was for one constable and one jailer

for two days, a cost of $8, $2 a day for a constable back then. Times

have changed. One expenditure was freight on medicine to the Kootenays,

a cost of $10.49. It was good to see that the Kootenays were represented

by Victoria, and they were looked after by Victoria back then. I wish it

was the case today.

Well, I’m hopeful that the proposed amendment that extends the

available special warrant spending authority will only allow access to

spending for sundry-type items, but I think we all know the spending is

likely for more costly items, with no transparency whatsoever and no

accountability to the taxpayer.

As the Finance Minister stated, the Financial Administration Act

is proposed to be amended to complement the proposed amendments to the

Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. Creating less transparency

and accountability in the Financial Administration Act with special

warrants is quite ironic, considering the act that it is aligning itself

with is entitled the Budget Transparency and Accountability

Act.

The Finance Minister also stated the special warrant spending

authority would only apply after general elections where the budget and

estimates for the new fiscal year are presented very close to or after

the start of the new fiscal year and where the Supply Act has not been

enacted for the new year before April 1 or when there are unforeseen

circumstances.

This gives me a reasonable concern, and I would certainly like to

know the definition of what “unforeseen circumstances” could include.

The whole budget is made up of unforeseen circumstances. This is why we

go through a process called estimates for the budget, because they are

estimated expenditures to what may be unforeseen. If this is not good

enough, then we go through supplementary estimates. The government’s own

website says that “supplementary estimates grant approval to one-time

expenditures to cover additional spending on items that were unknown at

budget time” — or in other words, unforeseen. This process is what we’ve

been doing for many years, especially since 2001.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The election, by the Premier’s words, was to get to the business

at hand. The business of two months of a fall session would have

addressed the real issues and not a money payoff to voters. But instead

of two months of debate and hard work on those serious issues, we have

two weeks debating a bill that allows government to delay any real plan

for another five months.

We should be working on many plans. I’ve got a whole list of them

here. I think we all know some of the problems we’re going through in

the province with health care. We’re talking about rapid testing for

long-term care facilities. Maybe work on some of those promises, like

$10-a-day daycare, 114,000 affordable homes, renters rebates.

[3:30 p.m.]

What about the forestry sector? The longest forestry strike in

B.C. history. Numerous mills are shutting down. People unemployed. Cost

structure is one of the highest in North America. No economic recovery

plan in sight. Maybe we should be working on things like that. Our

opioid crisis is taking three to four people a day, and we should be

working on those issues as well. So much to do, but we’ve been given two

weeks for one bill.

Personal health from COVID-19 is real and needs to be met head-on.

However, this government needs to juggle more than one ball at a time.

Mental health, spiritual health, economic health — all are equally

important, and this government can’t seem to lift themselves to this

challenge.

What really grinds my gears is this bill represents what was so

important for this government to address before this Legislature breaks

on Thursday until what could be until May, just one bill that no one on

the government side wants to even talk about.

What are the MLAs from the government side afraid of? Have they

all been whipped not to speak about what their election was based on? I

see a lot of giggly members on the other side that pulled a fast one on

the Green Party, with new government positions; new ministries; and

bigger government with, obviously, more pay. There will be plenty of

eggnog and chestnuts this Christmas for these members, yet many of the

people of B.C. sit at home throwing the last log on the fire. Well

done.

This budget needs to be as scheduled. If anything, you would think

a government that meant business would bring forward a budget ahead of

time. Wouldn’t that be something. Talk about putting your money where

your mouth is. Instead, we see it kicked down the road. Many groups,

including health authorities, regional districts, municipalities,

not-for-profit organizations, school districts — they depend on the

budget coming in on time so they can in turn plan their budgets. What is

going to happen to those folks?

Maybe I’m wrong on all this stuff, but because there is no one

from the opposition to correct me, I have to think that all 28 of my

colleagues are bang on the mark, and that this is a major concern for

all British Columbians.

I’m not going to belabour this anymore, as a lot of my colleagues

have done a lot better job than me to explain the concerns, the

mistrust, the shock and the audacity that this government has displayed

with this bill as being the only thing of concern we all are facing

going through this pandemic. If this is the Premier’s answer to getting

down to business for the folks of B.C., then we’re all in a lot of

trouble. British Columbians deserve better and a government that rolls

up its sleeves and works hard.

I reluctantly admit that I was a ’70s child, but I’m not reluctant

to say that the rock band Styx was one of my favourites. They had an

album and a song called “The Grand Illusion,” and that is what this bill

represents: a grand illusion. It appears to be helpful but falls flat on

the benefit to some of those who truly need it. The bill asks for

supplemental spending of $2 billion, yet no one knows exactly where it’s

all going. The government talks about transparency and accountability,

yet this bill opens the door for the opposite and the privilege of

special warrants.

Now, in the spirit of the Christmas season, I would like to

perform my rendition of the old Christmas classic “‘Twas the Night

Before Christmas.” Now, depending on which author you believe wrote it,

I will give credit to both Clement Clarke Moore and Henry Livingston Jr.

The poem was written on December 23, 1823, almost 200 years ago. I hope

to do it proud.

‘Twas the night before Christmas and all through the Leg,

not a creature was stirring, not even Geoff Meggs.

The Premier

himself all tucked in his bed

was pleasantly dreaming of the years

lay ahead.

‘Twas three months prior an election was called.

“It

was quite unnecessary,” the critics all bawled.

But the Premier, so

smug, thought of something obscene.

He’d win a snap vote based on

COVID-19.

He stated the province could not continue this

way.

It’s very unstable,” so the Greens he betrayed.

J.H. also

stated: “We must get on with this mission

to save our dear province

from major recession.

Our tourism sector and small businesses,

too,

are needing a plan, so we all can renew.

This election will

not impede my bold action.

We will get straight to work; there will

be no protraction.”

But the Liberals were tough with Wilkinson’s

flash:

“I must win the vote; I’ll promise folks cash.”

thousand dollars,” he said, “if you vote for my party.”

As he

snickered and grinned, sipping his rum and Bacardi.

So here we are

now. The Premier got his way.

A majority government, Libs and Greens

blown away.

But at least we can all get on with the plan

recover the province in this short two-week span.

So now we look

forward to the Premier’s bold action.

We heard of him brag:

“Guaranteed satisfaction.”

[3:35 p.m.]

Instead we get no budget till May,

no biz plan in sight,

a further five-month delay.

The people of the province all pray to

the moon

in hopes that a cheque from the Premier came

soon.

“From 1,000 to 500,” is now what he quoted.

And you will

only get paid if you suffered pre-COVID.

Yes, ‘twas the night before

Christmas, the Premier’s nestled in bed.

And there are many things

he thinks inside that large head.

“With majority government,” the

Premier thinks, with elation,

“time to put up my feet and plan a

vacation.”

And to state for the record that with only Bill 3,

members from government did debate to agree.

To conclude, Mr.

Speaker, no matter what your political stripe,

merry Christmas to

all, and may your dreams be centre right.

I want to thank all front-line workers and those businesses and

workers who have suffered greatly. My sincerest condolences to those

families and friends who lost loved ones to the pandemic and to any

other tragedy, for that matter.

Deputy Speaker: We’re going to try again with the member for Surrey–White Rock, if

he has got connectivity again. He does.

T. Halford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do apologize for that. I’m sitting in my

Victoria office, so I’m not sure what happened, but I’m here again.

Unfortunately, I do not have any rhymes or songs, so I apologize for

that ahead of time. I will try and pick up where I left off.

That was around my concerns over using 2019 income in order to

determine who is going to get the recovery benefits. I had stated before

I’ve got a lot of concerns, as do all of my colleagues, on using this

because 2019 was materially different than what we’re seeing in 2020. We

have never seen anything like what we’ve experienced in 2020. Our small

business sector, our restaurants, people that served in the hospitality

industry have experienced nothing like they’re experiencing in 2020. Our

health care workers, our teachers, our students have experienced nothing

like they’ve experienced in 2020.

Yet this Finance Minister, this Premier, this cabinet, this

government are going to use 2019 income to determine whether or not

British Columbians will receive the $1,000 or $500. And I find that

completely unfair. Given the fact that the Premier was elected on a

campaign promise that British Columbians were going to be receiving this

benefit and to now put such an important asterisk on that, that it will

be based on your 2019 income, to me, that is a very, very big hit to our

credibility.

I’ll tell you a story of why. A local business…. I won’t identify

them, but they are in the South Surrey–White Rock area. They’ve been in

business for 25 years. They employ a majority — I’d say about 90 percent

— of students. They have to have people in their facility in order to

make a profit, and the provincial health orders have pretty much made

that impossible. Not entirely impossible, but it’s made it very

tough.

What has this family done? They have gone through their life

savings to try and keep their business going, because they do see light

at the end of the tunnel. They do see a day when people will be coming

into their business, coming in with their families and friends. They see

a day when people will be enjoying their nights out. They will not

qualify for this benefit, because this government is going to use 2019

income.

[3:40 p.m.]

We’re telling a husband and wife who have built their entire

livelihood on a business: “Hey, 2020 was a bad year. We know you were

looking at this in terms of receiving a benefit. We’re not going to do

that because you didn’t meet the threshold based on your 2019 income.

But thank you for blowing through your life savings to keep the students

employed, but it doesn’t matter. We’re going to look at your 2019

income.”

I don’t know…. Even as an opposition MLA who strongly disagrees

with that logic, I have a tough time looking them in the eye and giving

them that information. For a lot of people, when they go to apply for

this in a few days, I think it’s going to be a surprise. I think they’re

going to say, “I gave the Premier and this government the opportunity to

set a new track and do politics differently in British Columbia,” and on

one of the most significant campaign promises, they put forward

legislation that pretty much says: “If you had a decent 2019, well,

we’re not going to help you in 2020.” I don’t think that’s

right.

This past summer the NDP also introduced legislation designed to

give the Finance Minister more time to pass a budget in case we had a

fall election. We all know how that turned out. Now, the coincidence of

such legislation being passed only a few months before the NDP called a

snap election, which they say they only decided in September, would be

enough to discuss in a speech of its own. But for our purposes today, it

clearly shows that this government can’t plan.

So instead of pushing the budget off a month, we’re now asking

British Columbians to bear with us while this government gets its act

together — to push it off another couple of months. I don’t agree with

that. When you have ministries such as the Ministry of Mental Health and

Addictions that has a budget smaller than the Premier’s office…. I think

we need to look at ways to increase those resources.

We’ve got two pandemics going on right now. We have two crises

going on in British Columbia right now. One is COVID-19. We see that

every night dominating the newscasts. The other one is one that we’ve

known for quite a while, and that’s the opioid crisis. We need to look

at serious ways on how we are going to tackle these issues, how we are

going to tackle mental health, yet this government is putting forward

legislation that will deny British Columbians a budget in February. I

don’t agree with that.

This is the NDP’s first piece of legislation in this new session,

and to me, it hits hard at credibility. They campaigned on transparency.

They campaigned on giving British Columbians support. We don’t see it.

The support that the Premier promised is not coming to all British

Columbians. It’s coming to some British Columbians based on your 2019

income. But as I stated before in a previous speech, the newly single

mother who is trying to find every way to give her family a decent

Christmas — she’s not going to qualify for this recovery

benefit.

[3:45 p.m.]

We are here in Victoria to deal with one piece of legislation. I

think we can do better. I put forward a bill last week that will cap

third-party deliveries for the restaurant sector. It is something that

we agreed on during the campaign. Both parties — the NDP and the B.C.

Liberals — agreed on it. We put forward this bill last week.

The restaurant sector is crying for help. People are losing their

jobs daily. Restaurants are shutting down daily. This is usually their

best time of year — Christmas parties, holiday parties, New Year’s

parties. They’re asking for a lifeline.

We, as an opposition, followed our commitment. We tabled that

lifeline, one that we know this Premier and this government agree on.

Yet they refused to support it. I don’t understand why. I do not

understand that logic. How you can go into these businesses, where they

do not know if they’re going to have money in their accounts to pay

their employees…. We say, “We’re going to put politics aside,” but we’re

not going to support this private member’s bill.

I don’t get it, and I don’t want to get it. I think people

understand, and people look to us, to come to Victoria and do something

different. As the Premier said, we are going to do politics differently.

Okay, well then let’s prove it. Support the bill. We can do more. We’re

all here. Let’s do government a different way. Let’s lead. But he

refuses to do that. This cabinet refuses to do that. This Finance

Minister refuses to do that. Instead, we are in Victoria to see a budget

get delayed again.

After this week, I don’t know when I’m going to be back in

Victoria to sit in this House, whether it’s in the House or on Zoom, to

represent my constituents and put forward ideas that will better the

lives of British Columbians. I don’t have an answer on when we’ll be

back. Now, the Premier may know, and I suspect that he does, but I

fundamentally struggle and disagree with that logic.

This government needs to do better. This is not a new government.

It’s not. The lack of transparency, the lack of accountability and the

lack of planning is staggering. Did they not think about the single mom

who would not qualify for this recovery benefit? Did they not think

about the senior who would not qualify for this benefit? Did they not

think that if we’re going to put forward this legislation, maybe there

are some other things that we can do? How do we make life better for

British Columbians? How do we maximize the time of this

session?

It’s only been opposition MLAs that have spoken to this bill. Now,

what does that say? Are government MLAs not supportive of the bill? Do

they have questions about the bill? I would. I have. I put them forward

today.

There has been a saying, and I agree with it, that we are all in

this together. I believe that to be true. I think there’s another saying

with this government: never let a crisis go by without taking advantage

of it. Unfortunately, we’ve seen that during the snap election. I find

that very unfortunate.

There are opportunities in front of us. I know my colleague from

Surrey South put forward a private member’s bill today. Let’s support

that. That’s something we can all agree on. We have to agree on those

things. They’re important. They’re important to my daughter. They’re

important to every British Columbian.

[3:50 p.m.]

Why not do it now? Why wait? Why not show British Columbians that

we can work together? This is our opportunity. I think we have to take

advantage of it. I know we’re here, ready to put in the work. We’re

doing the work. I don’t care how it gets done. I don’t care who takes

credit for it. But let’s do it.

I think, at the end of the day, British Columbians — and I know

this to be true in my riding — just want to see stuff get done. That’s

all. They just want to see a government that functions and is

transparent. I think this government got off to a very rocky start over

the last month. Our job as opposition is to hold them to account, but

I’ll tell you, when we’re talking about legislation that delays a budget

until May, there are some transparency issues there, and there are some

accountability issues there.

When we’re talking about an economic recovery package that is

going out to British Columbians and we say, “Well, only some British

Columbians, and here’s how we’re going to define it,” that’s either a

lack of transparency or a lack of planning. Or maybe it’s a bit of both,

but they’re equally concerning.

I would ask the Finance Minister: did you think about that single

mom? Did you think about the families that are going through separation

right now in 2020 and whether or not they would qualify? Did you think

about the senior who’s watched their entire investment portfolio go down

in 2020? Did you think if they would qualify? I don’t know the answer to

that, but they do, and I think they have to give us those answers,

because I know I am being asked in my riding what those answers

are.

As a wrap-up here, I do want to say that having the ability to be

in Victoria to talk about legislation, albeit one piece of legislation,

is incredibly important and incredibly special. But I do want to stress

something that I’ve continuously repeated and will say again. We can do

more, and we’ve offered to do more. But this government has to be

willing to also put in the work.

Now, the Premier has stated numerous times — and I’ve echoed it —

he wants to do politics different. Then let’s prove it. Let’s do it

different.

S. Cadieux: I’m going to quote the Finance Minister on the introduction of

this legislation. “We recognize the importance of timely fiscal updates

and reporting. With these amendments, we’re introducing a new rule that

requires post-election government to make a public report that provides

a fiscal update within 90 days after the final cabinet is sworn in

following the general election.” Translation for the general public: “We

know transparency is important, so we’re amending legislation to prevent

that from happening.”

When the NDP won the election, it was clear that we’d be returning

to provide government the ability to make good on their cash-in-hand

promise to voters. When we were presented with the bill last Tuesday, I

can honestly say I have never been more disappointed by this government.

And that’s saying something.

That is an absolutely brazen, underhanded sleight of hand that

they’re attempting to pull on B.C. residents. They aren’t here to help

people; they’re here to help themselves.

In the summer, we debated a bill that gave government extra time

to prepare a budget in a year when an election is held in October.

Little did we know that only a few months later, that would

happen.

[3:55 p.m.]

We were assured by the Finance Minister of the time that it was

not a self-serving move — call me cynical for not believing that is

totally truthful — but, instead, a reasonable change, in case of a new

government, to allow for enough time for preparations.

The Finance Minister of the day was much lauded. She’s still an

adviser, I understand. Yet just months later, the new Finance Minister

is so unprepared for this role that she needs to give herself an extra

month or so to prepare a plan, an extra month or so to even prepare a

current state of affairs fiscal update.

Let’s put that in context. This isn’t a new government. It’s the

same government that hasn’t yet, ten months into a pandemic, been able

to articulate a semblance of a coherent economic plan for the province

or roll out the door any significant supports for struggling businesses.

This is a government who thought, instead, they would call an

unnecessary election and leave government rudderless for two months only

to come back to the House, under the guise of needing to provide urgent

support to people, to instead present this legislation and further

obfuscate and delay, propped up by a litany of excuses that these are

unforeseen circumstances; a government that promised everyone $1,000

dollars in your bank account by Christmas, only to learn now that

they’ve screwed this up too. We haven’t even debated it yet, and I’ll

get to that later.

For now, I’d like to explain some of the hypocrisy that this bill

is. For my first eight years in office I sat on the other side of this

House and was treated daily to the self-righteous condemnation delivered

by the members of the opposition at the time about transparency — the

lack of transparency, the affront to democracy that was occurring

because the House wasn’t going to sit, the recitation of the number of

days it had been since the opposition had been able to ask questions.

Oh, how times have changed.

The now Premier was probably the most vocal on these issues, but

he seems to, like so many others in his flock, now be of the mind, “Do

as I say, not as I do,” because since February of this year, we will

have sat for less days in an abbreviated fall session that this is, into

December, and his government is looking to give themselves another

nearly five months without the scrutiny of this place, and that has got

to be a record. Really, it’s a farce.

As our capable Finance critic noted — a