First Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, March 16, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 32

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Court of Appeal Act

Hon. D. Eby

M. de Jong

Hon. D. Eby

Bill 10 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2021 (continued)

D. Coulter

T. Wat

Speaker’s Statement

Respectful language in debate

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2021

(continued)

M. Starchuk

R. Merrifield

S. Chant

C. Oakes

K. Paddon

T. Shypitka

Hon. S. Malcolmson

M. Lee

G. Kyllo

H. Yao

B. Banman

Hon. N. Cullen

A. Wilkinson

TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 2021

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

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

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — COURT OF APPEAL ACT

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be now read a second time. The Court of Appeal Act

was enacted in 1982, with the most recent revision in 1996. Over the

years, amendments have been made to the act that have affected its

overall organization and usability. This has caused confusion for

litigants trying to navigate the appeal system.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Currently the act includes provisions that combine matters of

statutory nature with those of practice and procedural application,

which fall more appropriately within the scope of the rules of the Court

of Appeal. Changes to the act and the rules for the Court of Appeal are

part of a user-centred approach to modernize, improve access to justice,

and make the legislation easier to understand. The content of the act

and the rules will be reorganized to have the general powers reside in

the act, and all aspects of the procedure in the rules.

The language used in the act and the rules will also be harmonized

for improved usability. With this bill, there will be increased clarity

to sections in the act that were not previously articulated or were

consistently misunderstood. Increased profile will also be given to

sections that are most frequently referred to. Feedback received through

the public consultation was reviewed and considered in these

amendments.

The need to modernize the courts is not a new pursuit. It is an

important and ongoing work in partnership with our courts to improve

access to justice. The impacts of COVID-19 have highlighted the

necessity of embracing the flexibility of audio and video appearance

methods and the importance of integrating remote and electronic

op­tions within our court system.

The act and rules amendments take a user-centered approach to

provide a comprehensive, easier-to-follow guide for the appellate

process. While there are benefits to the operations of the Court of

Appeal, we believe that litigants will benefit the most from these

changes.

M. de Jong: To the Attorney, the Court of Appeal, as he has pointed out, our

highest court in this province, I think, is celebrating 111 or 112 years

of operation. I remember that because when I sat in the Attorney’s chair

some time ago, it was the centenary of the Court of Appeal.

[1:35 p.m.]

It has rendered decisions on some of the most important questions

— societal questions, legal questions — that have arisen in our society.

It is one of the three branches of governance. I remember a former chief

taking exception when I suggested that the judiciary represented one of

the three branches of government. He didn’t like that term. I changed it

to governance. But he wasn’t particularly fond of that as

well.

I think it is a basic tenet of our parliamentary democracy that

between the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial

branch, the three together are the agencies that our society relies upon

to govern behaviour and ensure there is equality.

The objective that the Attorney has laid out in ensuring that the

court is composed and operates and enjoys a jurisdictional authority

that is modern, organized and understandable by those litigants who use

it is, I think, a laudable one and deserving of support. There is no

question that over time, as changes in technology, changes in procedures

occur, it can become a bit of a labyrinth to navigate — not, by the way,

just on the part of unrepresented litigants but even those who enjoy the

assistance of able counsel and the support that exists for lawyers. It

can, at times, be confusing.

The Attorney, in his brief remarks, spoke of — I think,

legitimately — the emergence of new technologies and the adopting of new

technologies. It’s hard to talk about or think about positive features

associated with something as debilitating as an international worldwide

pandemic, but the degree to which institutions, like the courts, have

adapted and begun to use those technologies probably falls into that

category.

As we look ahead to the committee stage debate that will take

place, I likely will want to ask the Attorney the degree to which some

of that technology will become, in his view, a permanent feature of the

dispensation of justice.

I think the Court of Appeal now does broadcast, if that’s the

right term, some of its proceedings and the issuance of decisions. It

has always been my view that if we are to ask of the population a

broader understanding and support for the work undertaken by the courts,

we should be examining ways to utilize technology to provide people with

more of an opportunity to watch and observe the workings of the court,

including the Court of Appeal.

To the extent that this legislation and the subsequent rules that

will become an important part of that package allow for that or

facilitate that will be of interest to me. When the Attorney introduced

the bill, he spoke of — and I think he mentioned a few moments ago again

— the increased phenomenon of self-represented individuals. It is a

reality, to be sure, to what extent that is…. A phenomenon that is the

product of other challenges or problems…. Access to legal representation

is something that is very much the subject of debate.

[1:40 p.m.]

I may seek the Attorney General’s views on that in a general way

when we contemplate the specific provisions of the legislation. The

rules package and the rules that subsequently guide the operation of the

court will, of course, be very important. I think the Attorney General

can anticipate some questions from this side of the House around the

composition of the rules of practice committee and the degree to which

he believes that that agency or that body will continue to bear

responsibility for rule changes.

All of this, of course, takes place in the context, it should be

mentioned, of a white paper that the Attorney General and the government

made available, I think, at the tail end of 2019, the fall of 2019, that

followed in some work that had been initiated two or three years before

that. I should point out that I am grateful to the staff within the

Ministry of the Attorney General for the opportunity to speak with them

earlier today and pose some questions about any significant differences

between the content of the draft bill that was attached to the white

paper and what we have before us today in Bill 11.

They were very obliging in pointing out a few areas where there

are some differences. At the moment, they don’t appear to me to be

significant differences. But I think the Attorney can anticipate perhaps

several questions relating to any of the changes that were provoked by

the publication of the white paper and the feedback that he and the

ministry received.

Always a bit tricky, of course, in dealing with the courts on

these matters, for no other reason than to ensure that their

independence from the executive and legislative branches are properly

respected. But I expect to receive and anticipate receiving assurances

from the Attorney General at the committee stage of this bill that

significant discussions and consultation took place with the court. And

that he and, therefore, the House can be satisfied that the legislative

product before us enjoys the support of the court — that it is designed

to provide statutory governance around the act. What we have before us

will speak to the powers that the court enjoys and the individual

justices enjoy.

The rules will speak ultimately to how litigants can access and

operate to take advantage and receive the benefit of that jurisdictional

authority. I will expect to pose several questions to the Attorney

General about that interplay and the timing around the final publication

of the rules.

I believe that that will be the extent of my comments at second

reading for this bill. I look forward to the opportunity to pose some of

those, and perhaps a few other, questions to the Attorney when we get to

the committee stage shortly.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I turn to the minister, the Attorney

General, to close second reading debate.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to my critic for his remarks and insights. I’m glad the

staff was able to be of assistance to him in answering questions and

helping him prepare for committee stage.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

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

[1:45 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: The member will have to move that into Committee of the Whole,

Bill 11. This is in reference to the bill that just finished second

reading. That must be moved to committee, Minister.

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

I move that the bill — that bill being Bill 11 — be committed to a

Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Bill 11, Court of Appeal Act, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the

House after today.

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

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

BILL 10 — SUPPLY ACT

(N o . 1), 2021

(continued)

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

Bill 10 is just going to allow us to continue to be responsive to

the needs of people, business and communities and to see through the

pandemic and into a strong economic recovery that supports all British

Columbians. It’s an interim spending bill in between now and our budget.

It’s not uncommon for governments to have interim supply

bills.

I’ll just speak quickly about the budget and whether it will

support people through COVID. Budget 2021 will continue to focus on

keeping people safe through the pandemic, and we’ll do this with an eye

to how we position our province to seize the opportunities that recovery

will offer. The path forward is not the same for all people or sectors

of the economy. Recognizing this, our support and investment must be

targeted now, which is why we so desperately need to pass Bill

At the start of the pandemic, with greater uncertainty about how

the impacts would be felt, we invested with broad tools to quickly

provide support to as many people as possible. As we continue through

our pandemic response and recovery and identify those most affected, our

support has become more targeted to address the specific needs of

particular groups and sectors, and it’s supporting all

sectors.

At the same time, we’re maintaining the flexibility to respond to

new and changing circumstances and to support people and businesses

across B.C. You’ll see this flexibility reflected now in our day-to-day

decisions, and you’ll see that reflected in our budget, as well, when it

comes next month.

There’s been lots of talk about ICBC in this debate. I don’t

really want to bring it up again and affect folks’ tender feelings over

the disastrous management of ICBC under the last government. There have

been comments from other members of the House that we’re calling them

criminals. We’re certainly not calling them criminals. We don’t believe

it’s criminal.

A lot of people are talking about ICBC, but not enough people are

talking about the fire sale that the B.C. Liberals had when it came to

land — selling land to many of their donors, actually. So $493 million

worth of land to balance their budget. This is land that they could have

gotten $860 million for. That’s $367 million worth of public assets that

the B.C. Liberals forgo by selling off this land in a fire sale — just

beyond the pale.

Also, I think it’s easy to forget the draconian cuts that the B.C.

Liberals made to our public services over the years. It brings me to

tears, really. It’s, in many ways…. Not in many ways; it is shameful. I

mean, this is…. Now we’re getting lectured about budgets and the like.

I’m just…. As you can tell, Mr. Speaker, I’m almost

speechless.

[1:50 p.m.]

We’re getting lectured about budgets and supporting people through

COVID. Folks don’t want to pass this bill, which would be very

irresponsible — very irresponsible — yet the record of the previous

government is just shameful. I don’t know how you can keep a straight

face and lecture us after that disastrous record.

I was a school trustee for four years under the B.C. Liberals, and

I remember the cuts — lots of cuts, no increases. We had to cut busing.

We had to cut supports for students that desperately needed these

supports. Every year we were cutting educational assistant hours, which

just affected the most vulnerable students and was really upsetting to

me. I’m still a little angry over it.

Also, here in Chilliwack, very few capital projects. But in the

last three years of my tenure as a school trustee, under a B.C. NDP

government, we have two new schools on the way. We have business cases

that have been accepted by the Ministry of Education for several

expansions in our school system. This is the difference that this

government is making in the lives of British Columbians.

This is why we need this interim supply bill today, so that we can

continue to support British Columbians during this difficult time. I

just don’t understand arguments from the other side. They’re not even

arguing about whether we should support people. They’re arguing about

things that have nothing to do with this bill. Like I said, I’m almost

speechless. I’m having a hard time articulating my thoughts here,

because it is so sort of bizarre to me that we are even debating

this.

We’re debating whether we are going to pay nurses, doctors,

teachers, social workers, whether we’re going to support folks in

poverty through our social programs. I know that the B.C. Liberals don’t

want to pay people fair wages. They’re obviously against community

benefit agreements, which ensure fair wages for local folks, Indigenous

people, women and other underrepresented groups. I know they don’t want

to pay people a fair wage, but now they don’t want to pay people at

all.

I’m probably going to end it there before I get angry. I’d just

like to urge my colleagues across the aisle to vote yea for this

bill.

T. Wat: I rise in the House this afternoon to speak on Bill 10, Supply

Act, 2021. I look forward to continuing the debate on this

subject.

Many colleagues on this side of the House have already eloquently

spoken on why they are so, so disappointed at this bill. I feel it

extremely crucial that I have to speak as well, even though I might be

repeating some of the comments made by my colleagues earlier. The

typical proceedings that take place when debating a supply bill like

this one, particularly one that would take such a substantial sum out of

a budget, which we know is already under the strain of COVID, is for it

to follow the unveiling of a new budget.

This is my third term that I have the privilege and honour to

serve the constituents of Richmond North Centre. I have to be

responsible to my constituents to ensure that all the proceedings of the

Legislature are proper and transparent. I honestly don’t know how my

honourable colleagues on the other side of the aisle can explain to

their constituents that this government doesn’t follow the process in

this people’s House.

This is not unusual responsibility or irresponsibility, as

suggested by the previous member from Chilliwack. This is a matter of

transparency, which this NDP government is so proud of. Where is the

transparency of this bill? I’m speechless too.

[1:55 p.m.]

Usually these supply acts pass with little debate. They allow the

government to continue to function and serve a necessary purpose. But as

we all know too well, very few things in the past year have unfolded as

they usually do. This order of business has been followed by governments

for decades, and it’s a key tenet for maintaining openness with the B.C.

public, especially when we are talking about a government that burned

through nearly all of the $2.7 billion budget surplus — just listen, a

$2.7 billion budget surplus — left over by the previous government, even

before the pandemic.

Unfortunately, over the past three years, amidst two simultaneous

health crises, we have watched as this government has returned to a

pattern that we have all seen before. This government has quietly and

gradually undone all the safeguards that the previous government put in

place to ensure transparency — this is a very important word,

transparency — and responsibility around the bu­dget in

B.C.

It’s no wonder we have ended up where we are today, given the fact

that the current Premier, his chief of staff and the Health Minister

were all around for the notorious fudge-it budget of the 1990s. I’m old

enough to remember that.

The fudge-it budget saw that the same Premier claimed the budget

was balanced before the election, then surprised everyone with the fact

that it wasn’t after the votes were counted. I’d just emigrated to this

beautiful province when I saw this unfold, and it was shocking. Now we

have a Premier who called a snap election in the middle of the

pandemic.

We haven’t had a proper quarterly report. Recovery programs have

been repeatedly mismanaged, yet the Premier comes before this House to

ask for $13 billion, without a budget and without telling us how it will

be spent. It is all eerily familiar. This kind of behaviour is the

reason our previous government had to bring in the protections in the

first place, measures that this government is currently trying to

circumvent with the bill before us today.

Transparency is a fundamental part of government, and it is part

of government’s duty to spend the budget entrusted to them by the B.C.

taxpayers with openness and clarity on its intended purpose.

On this side of the House, many of whom were directly responsible

for the practices that gave B.C. a glowing financial reputation and

reputation for transparency, we have had to listen to backbench NDP

members repeatedly and purposely tell a different story in this House

about our budgetary practices while in government, including revenue

transfer policies for ICBC, practices that the members opposite know

full well were lawful, fully disclosed in our annual budgets and

quarterly reports, and practices even utilized by the NDP government of

the 1990s.

While the members opposite make accusations and irresponsible

statements about these revenue transfer policies, the facts are

indisputable. Between 2012 and 2016, a total of $514 million was

transferred from ICBC to government to support critical government

services such as health care and education.

[2:00 p.m.]

Meanwhile, between 2012 and 2016, a total of $1.5 billion in

capital and $300 million in income were transferred from the optional

side of ICBC to the basic side of ICBC — all this in an effort to keep

rates as affordable as possible for the average driver.

What did our government do when we were in office? We brought in

balanced-budget legislation, fixed budget dates, the Economic Forecast

Council — all steps that make B.C. the leader in Canada for sound,

transparent fiscal management, all necessary to correct the mistakes of

the previous NDP government.

The members opposite make their misleading statements while, at

the same time, their cabinet colleagues dismantle, bit by bit, the

safeguards that our previous government brought in to ensure

transparency. Unfortunately, the NDP government has chosen to not only

undo all the work of our government and delay the next budget for two

months, but it is also utilizing this bill to circumvent a key

principle, the one that ensures a government cannot spend its supply

bill appropriation like this without first presenting a

budget.

After 25 years, we can’t help but be reminded of the old NDP

playbook of corruption and secrecy that plagued the previous NDP

government.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I would ask you to withdraw that statement. We’re not

casting aspersions or using such unparliamentary language against each

other, even though it may be tempting. Please try to get the best out of

each other. I would ask you do that on behalf of the people of British

Columbia.

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

History is repeating itself. There’s no concrete part of this

supply bill’s funding or spending measures that we can debate on

because, by choosing to spend the supply bill appropriations without

first presenting a budget, this government is casting aside a process

traditionally utilized by this House to outline such spending measures.

Before this government has successfully gotten all the supports promised

to British Columbians nearly a year ago out the door, they are writing

themselves another cheque, a massive cheque, and don’t even have the

decency to tell us what it is for.

This bill offers even less transparency at a time when British

Columbians are asking for more. Even if the intention of this supply

bill and spending plan are good, the entire way this administration is

going about it feels like foul play. We see more hidden figures and

shifting spending from a government that is developing a reputation for

not being honest and open with British Columbians, and

incompetence.

All of this we already know, as I’m certain that even the members

on the government side are all too aware of the murky nature of this

bill. I am certain that many of my colleagues will continue to use their

time to speak on this bill to diligently outline more of these points.

In light of all this, how can the NDP expect British Columbians to trust

a government that wants a blank cheque for $13 billion without giving

any indication, without any measure of transparency, around how they

plan on spending that money?

We know where this kind of behaviour has led us in the past. We

have seen this movie before, but the sequel is always worse. We don’t

have any faith that the NDP will spend this money well. They have proven

themselves incompetent.

[2:05 p.m.]

When we unanimously approved $5 billion in COVID recovery aid in

March of last year, we did so in good faith. Since then, the NDP have

sat on that cash and failed to adequately deliver to people and local

businesses. They have also delayed the provincial budget, meaning that

businesses will have to wait longer for the relief they need. This

includes the small business recovery grant, where just 16 percent of the

funds have been provided to businesses, businesses who are in desperate

need of assistance.

I want to use my remaining time to look at this through the lens

of those British Columbians who have entrusted me to bring their

concerns forward in this House. The countless small and independently

owned businesses in Richmond are suffering due to the pandemic. Many are

still waiting on the support promised to them through the small and

medium-size business grant. To date, only $55 million of the $300

million approved nearly a year ago has made it out the door into the

hands of these businesses.

Are there any additional supports included in this budget for the

thousands of businesses this government has failed to help so far? Even

if there are, will they be able to get the funding out the door this

time? It doesn’t matter how much money this government promises to put

aside for our businesses if they’re going to have to wait another year

before they see any of it in their hands. Many have already and many

more will be forced to close their doors permanently long before

then.

What about our tourism industry? As the critic for Tourism…. Is

there any additional support for them in this funding? Tourism operators

are currently enduring another season without being able to rely on the

interprovincial or international tourism they need to keep their

business afloat. These operators have been doing their part to keep our

community safe at a great cost to their livelihoods. They have very

clearly outlined to this government what support they need to endure the

economic challenges of COVID.

Back in July, tourism operators asked for $618 million from this

government in order to make a full recovery. Remember, this is an

industry that has lost an estimated $16.8 billion in revenue due to

COVID. What this government offered them was a fraction of this: $100

million. Not even all of it has made it out of the door into the hands

of tourism businesses.

Many of our tourism businesses and cultural exhibits, like the

Richmond Night Market and PNE, don’t even qualify for the business

grant. Yet this government has ignored their calls to revise their

criteria. The list of our landmark tourism venues and events that have

not got any grants from this government is very lengthy. I can go on and

on and on and on. The aquarium, Science World, the art gallery, etc. I

don’t think I have enough time to cite all of them. As it stands, only 2

percent of tourism operators have been able to access the supports

offered by this government.

[2:10 p.m.]

On top of this, government has made no effort whatsoever to delay

or offer any respite from the fixed costs and expenses that these

businesses are still subject to. The travel agency industry has seen

little to no revenue since travel was restricted a year ago due to the

pandemic. Yet Consumer Protection B.C. chose to still charge them nearly

$800 in licensing fees in March 2020 and again this month.

Every single dollar counts for the struggling travel agency and

tourism-related business. Ontario and Quebec’s consumer protection

agencies have waived these fees until 2022. I don’t understand. Even

after we brought it up in question period time and time again…. Yet this

government is not listening. It’s not listening. They have chosen to do

nothing, to do nothing. I thought this government was supposed to be

listening to British Columbians. So disappointed.

Not only does this put B.C. tourism operators at a significant

disadvantage to many of their counterparts in neighbouring provinces;

this government’s inaction on the issue directly contradicts

recommendations outlined by the tourism task force report — the task

force this government commissioned. Recommendation 6 in the task force

report is to defer and relieve the fixed costs of businesses.

My office has received letters from 68 travel industries to

express their dismay with this government’s poor handling of relief for

their business. I would like to read a few into the record

here.

Lily Teo of Orient Travel:

“Because of COVID-19, our travel agency lost all of our bookings due

to cancellations, which resulted in lost earned commission. We haven’t

had sales since March 2020. We have had zero income. The travel agencies

need help. Every dollar of savings means a lot to our survival.

“The Travel Industry Council of Ontario and consumer protection

office in Quebec have waived the mandatory fees. Unfortunately, despite

lobbying by ACTA and by travel agencies individually, Consumer

Protection B.C. has done nothing except refrain from moving ahead with

the 2021 planned fee increases, but they are still collecting at 2020

rates. What is the point of protecting consumers who are not able to

consume?”

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

Optimal Travel:

“I would like to express that the travel industry was hit the most

since the beginning of the pandemic. With zero revenue but countless

cancellations and the recall of our earned commission from all airlines,

it’s very difficult to survive or sustain our business. I’m hoping that

you can voice on our industry’s behalf, so that our provincial

government can do something to keep us going.”

These businesses, and thousands of businesses like them, have been

waiting nearly a year for assistance from this government yet have been

left to fend for themselves.

[2:15 p.m.]

While the announcement of additional funding is welcome news, what

good does it do when I cannot respond to the inquiries my office is

getting from our many concerned businesses and outline to them what

additional supports have been put aside for them? When can they expect

them, and what is this government doing differently to ensure that they

actually get the supports out the door this time?

I sincerely hope that as we proceed, this government will answer

these questions and proceed with a promise of greater transparency,

accountability and competence so that we can ensure we don’t lose many

of our beloved businesses for good.

Speaker’s Statement

RESPECTFUL LANGUAGE IN DEBATE

Deputy Speaker: I watched the debate this morning, and reflecting on the most

recent comments by the preceding member, I thought it might be useful

for members to reflect on Standing Order 40.

For those who haven’t read it, as they might be new to the House,

or for those longtime members who have forgotten or chosen not to follow

the rule, the rule is around respectful language in debate. It states

around unparliamentary language. So folks might want to pay attention

and take a look at their speeches to see if they’re going to

transgress.

We don’t want members to be imputing false motives,

misrepresenting another member’s language or accusations thereof —

charges of uttering a deliberate falsehood, abusive and insulting

language likely to create disorder.

I really would like members to not have to have the Chairs

intervene to remind you not to be abusive to other members in the use of

your language. Let’s try to get the best out of each other for all

British Columbians.

Thank you, Members.

Now we turn to the member for Surrey-Cloverdale.

Debate Continued

M. Starchuk: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for those words of wisdom. As a new

member, I will try to adhere to those words.

With regards to Bill 10, I stand virtually to speak in favour of

what is inside Bill 10. COVID-19 has been an unprecedented challenge,

and the word “unprecedented” has been used an unprecedented amount of

times. While we can see some light at the end of the tunnel, our

government will continue to ensure that we keep people safe, while

creating the foundation for a sustainable recovery for

everyone.

I think that’s one of the keys that our government is involved

with, making sure that our citizens of British Columbia are safe during

this time of the pandemic.

The interim supply legislation that’s here today provides a bridge

funding between the end of the fiscal year on March 31 and the last day

of the spring session, when the provincial government budget is formally

passed. Introducing this kind of interim supply legislation is common

practice in British Columbia every spring.

We should be reminded that in 2017, on the second of March, there

was a $22 billion bridge that was there. Then, going back as far as

March 5, 2013, there was a $19 billion bridge that was there. The

bridges go back to even March 26th of 2012, where there was an $8

billion bridge.

We know that COVID-19 has turned everybody’s lives upside down.

It’s the same here in British Columbia as it is across Canada, as it is

across North America and the globe. While the end of the pandemic is

getting closer, we’ve still got a ways to go. We will need to get

through this the way we always have when there’s an emergency and an

urgency, and that’s looking out for each other.

People and the businesses across B.C. — we’re working hard to

fight the virus and get back on track, and as the MLA for

Surrey-Cloverdale, I’m telling my constituents that we’re there working

for you.

As I’ve said, our priority all along has been there to protect the

people’s health. That’s not going to change.

[2:20 p.m.]

I’ve been involved in public safety since a long, long time ago in

1980, when I stepped up to that plate to talk about public safety.

That’s not going to change. We’ve come a long way together, and we know

that we’ve got further to go.

Our government is investing in health care, schools, seniors care,

to protect people unlike what’s ever happened in previous governments,

where those large supplemental budgets went unchecked.

Let’s never forget the cuts to schools, seniors programs and the

health care sector, where social services were completely gutted at the

cost of who needed it the most. We watched as those social services were

shrunk by over 10 percent, at the cost of those people that needed it

most.

When we also talk about health care cuts, let’s not forget about

the lands that were set aside for a new hospital in Surrey. The B.C.

Liberals sold the land where the hospital was going to stand and serve

all of us south of the Fraser. I’m pleased to be able to say that, in my

riding of Surrey-Cloverdale, a new hospital is on its way in the future

to take the place of those lands and that hospital that was sold back in

When we think about schools, since 2018 there’s been more than 18

new schools, expansions and upgrades that have taken place in Surrey.

That’s as a result of the prior six years to 2017, when there was only

one school — one, Mr. Speaker — that came to the city of Surrey. That’s

at a time when the population is growing at 12,000 to 15,000 people on

an annual basis. One school was set aside during that period of

time.

When we talk about the budget and we talk about what’s there…. I’m

not sure why the constituents of Richmond North Centre are not able to

access some of the funding that’s there. When we take a look at the

extension of the small and medium-sized business grants that have been

extended to August 31 and adjusted the requirements for the businesses

to demonstrate revenue loss from 70 percent to 30 percent, it shows that

the government is listening. It shows that the government cares about

those people that are there.

I know in my constituency that there’s a firm with accountants and

that they’ve reached out to the clients on their list. They’re going

down that list, and they’re providing help to some of those people. One

of those people is a person that I know within the restaurant business.

They do catering alongside that. They found this business and the

program that’s in place, and they’re at the end of that process that

they’ll see themselves in the neighbourhood of $45,000.

Not only are they a small business in the restaurant industry, but

they’re catering to those tourists that were coming. Because of the

world pandemic and the travel restrictions that are there, those people

can no longer come and utilize their services that are there.

When we take a look at the progress that we’re making to make life

affordable for people, whether it’s building roads, homes, opening new

schools or child care spaces, those are the things that I’m proud of

with our government that’s there. These things give a head start on a

strong recovery.

The people of Surrey-Cloverdale are as diverse as it comes. There

are many young families that are in my constituency, and these are the

things that they need. When I look at the infrastructure investments

that are coming to my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale…. We take a look at

the SkyTrain expansion to Langley. No longer is it going to be done in

one stage and then a second stage that gets there. It’s going to be done

in one continuous build all the way from Surrey centre, through my

riding, into Langley.

That in itself is going to provide high-end jobs for those

families that are actually living inside of the riding. They won’t have

to cross a bridge to get to work. They will not have to be in traffic.

The project itself, SkyTrain, will lower the GHGs that we have that we

have to take a look at when we’re talking about the planet.

We’re building a recovery that includes everyone. Everyone from

the person that has the small business to the person that’s just making

ends meet. It’s not just the people at the top.

[2:25 p.m.]

We’ve come a long way, and there’s lots to do. I think that’s why

Bill 10 is so important for all British Columbians that we have this out

there. When I think about Bill 10 and what’s happened and what we’re

hearing in the rhetoric of what’s happened in the past, I think we have

to go back down to the common practice of the interim supply legislation

that we’re talking about today to provide that bridge

funding.

This is nothing new to British Columbians. This is nothing new. In

2012, it was an $8 billion one. In March 15, 2013, it was $19 billion.

March 6 of 2014, it was $8 billion. March 11, 2015, it was $8 billion,

the same as what it was March 1, 2016, $8 billion. Then March 2, 2017,

it was $22 billion. If I was good with math, I would add that all up for

you to tell you how many billions of dollars, but I’m not that way. What

I can say to you is it’s nothing new. It’s a practise that’s considered

common in British Columbia each spring.

Rather than taking up the time of this House and speaking ad

nauseam about certain things that are there, I simply just say that what

we’re talking about with regards to Bill 10, and the importance that’s

there to every British Columbian, is why I stand virtually in the House

today in support of Bill 10 and hope other people do as well.

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

before us.

I just heard from the member before us that this is typical. This

is usual. In fact, he read out all the different amounts that we’ve seen

over the last years. But what that member fails to recognize is that

this is not usual, because in all of the other situations that he just

mentioned, there was a budget already presented. We do not have a budget

presented.

Normally there wouldn’t be a large debate around this type of

bill, because they do allow government to continue to function and they

serve a necessary purpose. But as we know all too well, very few things

in the past year have unfolded as they usually do.

I’ve heard how much and how necessary this is, because of this

extraordinary nature of this time, this pandemic. Few alive today have

seen a pandemic of this nature and significance. But this supply bill is

not the making of a pandemic. It is the making of an election — a snap

election that was held in the fall — and a pattern of a lack of

transparency and mishandling of the finances.

Over the past three years, amidst these two simultaneous health

crises, we’ve watched as this government has returned to a pattern that

we’ve seen before. This government has quietly and gradually undone the

safeguards that the previous government put into place to ensure

transparency and responsibility around the budget of B.C.: delaying

budgets and quarterly reports, expanding the use of special warrants and

then finding ways to bypass transparency.

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

member why.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

It’s no wonder to me why we’ve ended up where we are today, given

the fact that the current Premier, his chief of staff and the Health

Minister were all around for the notorious fudge-it budget of the ’90s.

Let’s remember what happened during that time that created the necessary

cuts of the next government. You see that time, during the last NDP

government, was when the NDP Premier resigned in disgrace.

[2:30 p.m.]

It was a scandal that saw the RCMP raid his house while our

current Premier’s chief of staff looked on.

This was a time when the current Minister of Health was forced to

resign from his job in the Premier’s office for backdating a memo. The

fudge-it budget saw that same Premier claim the budget was balanced

before the election, and then, ta-da, after the election, it wasn’t —

after the votes were counted.

That’s all too similar to this Premier claiming that the election

of 2020 would not have an effect on the people of B.C. — but then called

a snap election in the middle of a pandemic. Well, since then, we

haven’t had a proper quarterly report. Recovery programs have been

repeatedly mismanaged. Yet the Premier comes before this House to ask

for $13.4 billion, without a budget, without telling this House how it

will be spent.

It’s all very familiar. This kind of behaviour is the reason that

the previous government had to bring in the protections in the first

place, measures that the now NDP government is trying to circumvent with

the bill before us today.

What did our B.C. Liberal government do when we were in office? We

brought in balanced-budget legislation. We fixed budget dates. We

brought in the Economic Forecast Council. We brought in the Premier’s

Women’s Economic Council. All of these were steps that made B.C. the

leader in Canada for sound, transparent fiscal management — all

necessary to correct the mistakes of the previous NDP

government.

After 25 years, wow, we can’t help but be reminded of the old NDP

playbook of corruption and secrecy that plagued the NDP government and

nearly brought the province and its finances to the brink. This is

history repeating itself.

Yet those of us on this side of the House, many of whom were

directly responsible for the practices that gave B.C. a glowing

financial reputation, as well as the surplus of funds that the NDP

government had when they took over government, have had to listen to

backbench NDP members repeatedly and purposely mislead the public and

all British Columbians about our budgetary practices while in

government, including revenue transfer policies with ICBC.

I’ve listened to these. I’m kind of one of those keeners, you

know, one of those that really likes to hear what other people have to

say, especially the members of this House. I hold it somewhat sacred in

that everyone here represents so many in British Columbia. As I’ve

listened to the speeches in this debate, I’ve also listened to the

slanderous labels and, I will say, the tales. So being a keener, I’ve

done some investigation. I actually wanted to know what exactly

happened.

You know what I found? Well, I found out that practices that the

members opposite know full well were lawful, fully disclosed and

transparent, which were in our annual budgets and quarterly reports —

oh, wait, here’s a shocker, even practices that were part of the NDP

governments of the 1990s…. While the members opposite make accusations

and irresponsible statements about these revenue transfer policies, the

facts are indisputable.

Between 2012 and 2016, a total of $514 million was transferred

from ICBC to government to support critical government services, such as

health care and education. That is $514 million that didn’t need to come

from a taxpayer. Meanwhile, between 2012 and 2016 a total of $1.5

billion in capital and $300 million in income was transferred from the

optional side of ICBC to the basic side of ICBC.

[2:35 p.m.]

Why? In an effort to keep rates as affordable as possible for

drivers, not increasing rates by 40 percent, 50 percent, 60 percent, 100

percent in some cases for drivers of B.C. — meanwhile, giving them a

pittance of a rebate back. The members make their misleading statements

otherwise and at the same time as their cabinet colleagues, bit by bit,

dismantle the safeguards that our previous government put in place to

ensure transparency. In light of this, how can the NDP government expect

British Columbians to trust them with a blank cheque of $13 billion

without giving any indication, any measure of transparency, around how

they plan on spending that money?

We know what this kind of behaviour has left us in the past. We’ve

seen this before — now the NDP demanding more time to create a budget

then tabling this Supply Act bill, the government asking the House for

billions of dollars — $13.4 billion, to be exact — but no indication of

how they’re going to spend it. Well I, as a believer in democracy and a

holder of government to account, and as one who serves as the loyal

opposition, I would say that all governments need to be held to more

transparency than that.

This issue, this whole debate, is usually completely avoided by a

tabled budget, because then everybody knows exactly how government wants

to spend it. But we don’t have a budget. And the amount that’s before us

isn’t even based on pandemic funds. It’s based on a pre-pandemic budget

that was created before the pandemic was even declared. And then I’ve

listened ad nauseam about how great the government is doing right now,

how many different programs each of the ministries are rolling out so

well.

I’m not sure who they’re listening to, because people in B.C. are

struggling. They are struggling with mental health. They are struggling

with low-paying jobs and part-time jobs that they’re just trying to

substitute to make ends meet for their families. They are struggling

with COVID fatigue and from a lack of socialization and interaction with

those they love most. They’re looking for hope. They’re looking for a

plan forward.

They were promised relief funds by Christmas, and it’s March, with

only 65 percent of people eligible receiving funds. Well, that’s

actually not 65 percent of the people of British Columbia. That’s 65

percent of eligible people, which means that’s really only 50 percent of

British Columbians. And as a mother of five children, all in university,

I can tell you 50 percent is a failing grade.

Then let’s start on the small and medium business recovery grant,

because they’ve so completely botched this one. They’ve only gotten 16

percent of the funds to the struggling businesses in B.C., and then they

brag about how businesses are struggling and depending on government.

And they quote a report that talks directly about dependence on the

federal government, not on the government of B.C.

[2:40 p.m.]

We should all be concerned. Small and medium-sized businesses are

the lifeblood of B.C. We are the entrepreneurs of Canada, and we have a

failing record today for how we are supporting our

businesses.

Well then, let’s talk about rentals. Wow. New rental rates come

out today. Well, I have to say, I guess we pat ourselves on the back for

making four out of the top six most expensive rental markets in Canada.

Vancouver is No. 1. Burnaby is No. 3. Victoria is No. 4. Kelowna, my

home riding, is No. 6, with a 2.1 percent month-over-month increase and

a 5.7 percent year-over-year increase.

Is that what we want to be proud of? Is that what we want to pat

ourselves on the back for? And the reason is because this government

refuses to deal with rental supply and instead goes head to head with

developers on land, eating up, chewing up supply. Is that affecting us

positively? No, it’s not.

Here are some headlines for you. This was after the bill that we

had to pass last week. “B.C. Rental Market Could See Further Squeeze Due

to Rent Freeze” and “Rent Freeze, Construction Rules Fuel Housing

Shortage.” Success — 50 percent, 16 percent and the top four out of six

of what the list is that you don’t want.

We’re not going to receive a budget before this supply bill has to

pass. In fact, thanks to their decision — the NDP’s decision in December

to delay the budget until April — British Columbians are left in the

dark.

In reading this legislation…. This was quite interesting for me.

As a keener, you actually read the bills. It actually contains a

workaround, a way of contorting the law and freeing themselves from the

financial rules in the Financial Administration Act. The NDP are legally

supposed to present a budget first. The last time this government spent

public funds without a proper budget was in the 1990s, an era of budgets

that I hope no one wants to revisit.

We’ve been told: “We need extra time because of COVID. Don’t you

understand, member for Kelowna-Mission? It’s COVID. We’re in the middle

of a pandemic.” I assure you, I understand probably better even than

government understands it, because I haven’t been in government for

long. I’m newly minted.

When March of 2020 hit, I was financially responsible and had a

fiduciary responsibility to over 28 companies. I can assure you that I

had sleepless nights trying to figure out how those budgets were going

to work, which protocols were going to come at us and how it would

affect us.

COVID-19 has been a reality for all businesses — every single

non-profit, non-profits that feed kids every single morning, trying to

figure out: “How are we going to feed children?” — and also every

household, every person in B.C. So why should government not be held to

the same standard? Why does government get to have a different set of

rules than every other company in B.C., than every other person in B.C.?

Is the government above the law? “Oh wait. No, no, no. Let’s just change

it.”

[2:45 p.m.]

Every business, every organization, every single one that I was

involved with before prepared budgets. In fact, at one of the companies,

we called it the doom budget — doom budget 1, doom budget 2, doom budget

3, doom budget 4. Different contingencies, different thresholds,

different resistance. Why can those organizations, outside of these

walls, somehow get it done with far fewer resources than we have in

here, and we can’t?

In fact, and this is ironic, the very documentation that the NDP

government has required for all of its grants and programs, as well as

from businesses applying, was all part of their budgets. That was all

part of the financial responsibility and accountability and transparency

they had to show this House. Yet now, this government, this NDP

government, is asking for less transparency than they required of

everyone else. Why? This is an issue.

Maybe I’m Pollyanna. Maybe I’m just too new. But honestly, if I

don’t stand up, if I don’t tell you how upset I am about this, I’m not

doing a service to the citizens of British Columbia.

Tell me: how will mistakes not repeat? How will the behaviours of

those in charge of these funds, the very same people who did it in the

’90s, not do it again? The best predictor of future behaviour is past

behaviour. The past behaviour of this NDP government shows nothing more

than secrecy, incompetence and a lack of transparency.

I was taught that trust has to be earned. It can be lost, and it’s

incredibly difficult to regain. I don’t see, over the last 3½ years,

anything that would give me confidence or have regained trust, because

we’ve seen numerous examples in the past year alone of this government,

this NDP government, requesting money. The members of this House want

desperately to support every British Columbian going through the worst

pandemic in history, and agree in good faith, and then the NDP does

something very different and very self-motivated.

One year ago, last March, the members of this House unanimously

approved $5 billion for COVID recovery aid. British Columbians took

government at their word when they said how they’d use it. We, as

government, expected it would be put to use right away, helping British

Columbians get through a difficult time. But instead of using this

relief, instead of providing this money to British Columbians, they sat

on the money for months, using it as part of their election platform,

consulting on how it should be used, which was actually part of their

election intel.

When the NDP did announce the small to medium-sized business

grant, well, support was delayed in getting to people. Why? Because of

the election. In the more than six months since it was announced, and

nearly a year after it was approved…. Well, let’s go through those

numbers again: $55 million out of $300 million set aside, out the door

to businesses in need. I’ll just review the failing grade of 16 percent.

How can we trust a government that can’t even get $300 million in

promised funds out the door to businesses in need? How can we trust them

to appropriately spend $13.4 billion? I don’t know.

The long-term care report was done in October, but it wasn’t

delivered until March. Site C report was done in October, but it wasn’t

delivered until March. We have given the government ample opportunity to

prove themselves in the last year, but either it was incompetence that

left those reports on someone’s desk — or what?

[2:50 p.m.]

This bill is just another reminder of this government failing to

get relief to people. It speaks to them of delaying the budget by

months, leaving British Columbians without additional relief as the

pandemic drags on. We need this government to step up, to provide

support to British Columbians and to provide transparency,

accountability. We need a government that’s open and honest about

everything from how they’re spending our money to COVID-19 data or a

vaccine rollout. We need a government that does what it says it will

do.

We’ve been told for the last year that we’re all in this together,

but clearly, this NDP government is not with us. They have a different

standard for themselves, a different expectation of transparency and

reporting, and will change the rules of governance to suit themselves

despite everyone else being held to a universal standard. Truly, that’s

elitist behaviour. Maybe that’s who they believe themselves to be, above

all of the rest of us who just have to — I don’t know — provide budgets,

create transparency, report on a quarterly basis. Or at least they’re

willing to work around good governance and change it when it doesn’t

suit them.

We need a government that’s going to hold themselves to the same

standards that organizations, households and, indeed, every single

person that has a bank account in this province is upholding. And we’re

doing it without needing to change the law. As far as I can tell, this

bill represents exactly the opposite.

If we are all in this together, why isn’t the NDP government

giving us a budget? “Trust us,” they say. Trust is earned, and this

trust must be re-earned after being broken in the late ’90s.

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

I come speaking to you from the unceded territory of the Musqueam,

Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish First Nations. I’m very grateful to have the

opportunity to work, play and learn on these territories.

I am absolutely thrilled that I’ve had the opportunity to actually

see some live theatre. I haven’t seen any for ages. Here I am in a Zoom

environment, socially distanced, away from all the things that could do

me damage, and I am getting the opportunity to see live theatre. It’s a

wonderful thing, and I thank the opposition for that opportunity,

because I haven’t had any for over a year.

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

this opportunity.

I find it interesting, having been involved in government entities

pretty much all of my life — in the world of health, in the world of the

military, in the world of all sorts of things that we could go on and on

to talk about. But we won’t.

Fiscal year comes to an end, and whenever fiscal year comes to an

end, the budget comes after that time. And guess what. The province

needs to continue. Now, this is a given, whether we’re in normal times….

Oh my goodness, here we are in COVID times, where nothing is normal,

where nothing that has applied within our realms — none of the rules

that we know, none of the plans that we make, none of those things — has

been able to be followed because COVID has been the great

unknown.

[2:55 p.m.]

When the great unknown comes along, you need somebody to take

charge and take the steps — whatever group you’re responsible for,

whatever group you’re accountable to — to move those people forward. We

take that responsibility terribly seriously. It is important for us to

understand that health and safety — and I will say health and safety are

what I live and breathe — come first.

What would it have been like if COVID had come in 2015? Oh my

goodness, I don’t even want to think about it. Health departments were

in shambles, we were having problems getting people paid, and we cut

back on many things.

The government of the day had done all sorts of things to gut

many, many of our social programs. Sadly, it’s the people that are

dependent on those social programs that have the highest impact from

COVID. We all have impact — there is no question — but those people

really have that impact. Had this been prior to 2017, had COVID come

prior to that time, we would have been in terrible condition, absolutely

terrible.

However, we are extraordinarily fortunate, in my opinion, because

COVID has followed no process whatsoever. There has been no plan. I can

guarantee that everybody in this room, virtually or otherwise, has never

been through a pandemic before. I know this because I’m probably amongst

the oldest, in spite of what our Premier and a couple of other people

will say about age. I’m amongst the oldest, and I have not been through

a pandemic. I’m a health care provider. I’d have noticed. Truly, I would

have.

I am just really grateful that we had a government in place that

rose to the challenge, put its experts in charge and kept the people of

the province — their safety and their health — first and foremost.

That’s what we have been doing, and that’s what we will continue to

do.

However, at this point, having been given a wholehearted mandate

by the province to continue the COVID management efforts, the interim

supply bill should not require a great amount of discussion, debate or

perhaps even a lot of thought. We have to keep the province going until

we get a budget in place.

We have a situation that is completely unknown to everybody, that

we have to keep revising our plans for because things change. The

variables continue to change. We do the best we can. We get some plans

in place. We are prepared to hear the data, the information. We’re

prepared to change those plans as we need to, but we have to keep moving

forward.

The budget is a critical part; completely agree. The interim

supply bill is also a critical piece. We need it to allow us to get into

the next phase, to allow us to get towards the budget presentation and

to allow us to have solid, comprehensive and robust conversation about

what the budget needs to look like to allow our province to move

forward, to allow us to continue to support our people, to allow us to

hear where the needs are and move towards meeting their needs. To allow

us to be nimble and move from place to place and go: “Oh my goodness,

look at you. Oh my goodness, this is how it has affected you.” How do we

do that?

As MLAs, we listen to all our people. We try really hard to listen

to everybody. We try really hard, even if they’re yelling at us at the

top of their voices, trying to make sure that we hear the misery in

their voice, or the unhappiness. We listen, we hear, we bring it

forward, and we try to work as a group to do the best we can for

everybody in this province.

We also have to keep things going. COVID is not the only thing in

the world. The health system is still there. We’re still trying to

palliate people. We’re still trying to provide wound care. We’re still

trying to provide all the things in hospitals that need to be done in

spite of COVID, that still continue on. COVID is another

layer.

[3:00 p.m.]

In schools, we need to continue the work. The kids need to be in

school. We know this. If I had been a parent with school-aged children

and hadn’t been able to have them in school…. Oh, dear. I don’t even

want to think about it. However, my children are adults, and I’m

grateful. We need, we want, we think…. We hear all the things that go on

in our province on a normal, day-to-day business time or a normal,

day-to-day time. However, it is layered over with COVID, and that has

taken it well out of the sphere of normal.

Now what we’re looking to do is to be able to respond to that

ongoing threat — it’s a threat; we know it is — continuing, however, to

keep the underpinnings, all the things that make our province what it

is, what it was and what it will be. Those things have to keep going.

That’s where we have to have an interim supply bill. It makes no sense

to say no to it, no sense whatsoever. Discussion and debate are

important — got it, understand that. However, the actual idea that the

supply bill would not be supported at this point is, I would say, part

of our drama.

Something that we can do in this pandemic is that we can forecast

that the debate…. The budget debate, as I said, needs to be robust,

comprehensive, and critical, because we want to ensure that all people,

in all pockets of the province, have as much support as possible to come

away from the horrendous turmoil that COVID has provided. We want to get

through this trajectory, to another place, where we can think: “Oh, look

at me. I can go to live theatre again. I don’t have to depend on my

computer.”

We’ve been seeing resilience, strength, creativity and tenacity.

These are characteristics we want to maintain, ongoing, in our province.

We will all do our bit towards that, including ensuring the province

continues to function while we establish a budget to take us through to

the place that we want to be when we’ve achieved herd immunity and are

actively recuperating.

Mr. Speaker, thank you so much for allowing me the opportunity to

speak in support of Bill 10, the interim supply bill. I strongly believe

that it promotes the capacities of all of B.C. to not only to survive

but to thrive past COVID.

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

virtually.

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

respect.

I’m going to start my comments on, perhaps, some of the recent

things that I’ve heard in the House. I actually have my copy of

Parliamentary Practice behind me. I think it’s critically

important that I, as all members of this House, stand in firm respect

for the practices and for the Legislature and for all those individuals

that have come before us. What is so incredibly troubling in the debate

today is that this is a bill that is taking one more step, with the NDP

government, of dismantling any form of transparency and

accountability.

[3:05 p.m.]

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour basically made a joke of

the comments that we were bringing forward about our concerns of making

sure that we’re following transparency and accountability formulas. She

talked about what would happen if, you know, 2015 rolled along and if

that’s when COVID had happened. Well, I would remind the member that

when the previous administration, in 2017, left government, we left a

$2.7 billion surplus.

I think about that. I think about the enormous amount of money

that has been left to really help people during this difficult time. I

also reflect on the fact that if members of government and the NDP

backbenchers that I’ve been listening to in their debate to Bill 10 have

such a disregard and lack of understanding of fiscal management to

really understand what this bill is about…. I find it incredibly

concerning and troubling. What we are asking is approval of $13.4

billion, to be exact, without telling anyone how the government is going

to spend that money.

I think about all of the constituents in Cariboo North that I’ve

been so blessed to represent, and all of the conversations over many

years of listening to how hard the constituents of Cariboo North work.

To even contemplate the numbers of $13.4 billion and to understand what

that represents, to understand the tax dollars of that family of four

and how difficult of a time that they may have and how hard that family

has to work so that they can pay taxes, so that we have the benefit and

the privileges, as a society, to benefit from that tax base….

I think of all of the seniors that are so hard-working. I think of

the country, and I think of the province that has been built because of

all of these citizens in our communities and the enormous contributions

that they have made. When I talk about these incredible individuals,

when I talk about these pioneers, when I talk about these

community-builders, when I talk about all of the heart and soul of our

communities, I know it’s not just Cariboo North. I recognize that the

investments that people have made to build this province, for

generations and generations to come, exist in every single riding of

this province.

Then I ask myself…. As the MLAs who are representing these

hard-working men and women, how can they be so disrespectful of

understanding how hard-earned it is? For us to be sitting and having a

discussion of approving $13.4 billion, without any budget from this

government, without any understanding of the investments that were made

to help the constituents in my riding….

I would like to start on the conversation of health care, because

I know many members have talked about that. We have heard from nurses;

we have heard from paramedics; we have heard from front-line care aides.

We have heard from so many organizations that absolutely need support.

They need more support from this government.

How are we to go back to these agencies, these organizations and

these hard-working front-line health care professionals and say: “Well,

we just voted on a budget. I don’t know what it is. I don’t know what

the needs of your particular group or organization are, but look, the

government told us to trust them.” As an elected official, is it my due

diligence just to trust somebody? No. My due diligence is to ask the

questions that my constituent members are asking me to bring

forward.

[3:10 p.m.]

I think about all of those that have been impacted this past year.

I want to offer my most sincere condolences to all of the families that

have lost loved ones during this past year. I know that COVID has had

such a significant impact on so many people’s lives. I also recognize

that that impact goes much greater beyond that, because lives have

changed so dramatically.

Can I assume, because I haven’t seen the budget of that $13.4

billion, that residents who live outside the Lower Mainland, people from

Cariboo North who have to travel to the Lower Mainland for health care,

surgeries, health care appointments…? Are those costs now going to be

covered by the NDP government? They say they’re looking after

people.

All of those health care costs that we incur as individuals who

live in rural ridings in British Columbia, who do not have access to

that health care in our areas…. Are the NDP going to cover us for those

costs and make sure that we do have an equitable health care system,

that individuals are not impacted by costs that perhaps people in other

parts of the province do not have to pay for? Am I to infer that of this

$13.4 billion, there will be a dramatic shift in how government supports

rural economies and health care needs for people living in Cariboo

North?

Am I to infer that of that $13.4 billion…? I have a list of roads.

I’m inferring that…. The government told me to trust them, to sign off

on this interim supply bill. I’m going to list the roads. I’m going to

assume, because I’ve heard all of the NDP members before: just trust

them…. I mean, this is common practice. So obviously these roads must be

included.

Let’s see: Soda Creek-McAllister Road, Horsefly Road, Hatchery

Road in Horsefly, Likely road, Beaver Lake Road, Mountain House Road,

Ransom Road, Knickerbocker, Pinnacles Road, Batnuni Road, Nazko Road,

Marsh and Garner roads, Baker, Baker hill, Quesnel, Hydraulic, French

Road, Bastin hill, Kersley Dale Landing, Garner and Webster Lake roads,

Crystal Street, Highway 97 North at Cottonwood, Highway 97 North at

Pinnacles Pellet, Highway 97 South at McLeese Lake, Borglen

Road.

Somebody just sent me a note that we’re having issues around Soda

Creek. So am I to assume that if we approve this bill today, those roads

will be fixed by this government? Is that what I’m to assume?

Of that $13.4 billion, how are guides and outfitters going to be

supported? We’ve heard from the Premier that he certainly understands

that businesses have been impacted by the fact that international

travellers cannot come into the country. That impacts so many

tourism-related businesses. Guides’ and outfitters’ businesses have been

absolutely decimated, not just by the travel ban but by policy decisions

that this government has put in place long before COVID. I mean, they’re

waiting for a refund on changes and policies that the government made

last year. They’re waiting for that money. They still haven’t seen

it.

Am I to assume — because we actually haven’t gone through

estimates, and we haven’t actually seen the budget — that that is in

this $13.4 billion? Is that what the government is asking me? Is the

government asking me today to, all of a sudden, now change their view on

how they respect volunteer fire departments? I have certainly heard

members in this House stand and make statements about the importance of

volunteer organizations and search and rescue and all of these so

critically important organizations in our communities.

The truth is we’ve seen cuts for volunteer fire departments in the

Cariboo, the unincorporated volunteer fire departments that rely so much

on community gaming grants and other programs that have been put

forward.

[3:15 p.m.]

We’ve heard that there’s a reprioritization, and now volunteer

fire departments don’t qualify for money. But we’re supposed to trust

the government. We’re supposed to trust the government that they’re

looking after the people of Cariboo North.

These reprioritization exercises, where they shift the money…. The

impact is on organizations in our regions, like the unincorporated

volunteer fire departments that step up. Whether it was the wildfires we

saw in 2017 and 2018, whether it’s the flooding that we’ve seen over the

last two years, we depend so heavily on these organizations. I’ve

brought it up in estimates before, and I get directed to go and look at

these different programs or grants that are available. Guess what. They

are not available for the unincorporated volunteer fire

departments.

We hear the government, time and time again, reflect and have

programs that they put out, but the reality is that nobody, or very,

very few people, is able to access any of the grants and the programs

that the government is putting forward. The government talks about the

success that they have in that. “Well, help your constituent apply for

these grants.” I have books that I would be happy to show the ministers

on the support that we have certainly worked closely with constituents

on, trying to work through the programs that the government has put

forward. The ministers, during previous estimates processes, have said

to go and look at that.

The reality is that they do not qualify because the strict

eligibility that the government is putting on all of these programs has

created a significant challenge for organizations and volunteer groups

to be able to access any of these funds.

Here would be something for reflection of this government. If you

do not have volunteer groups, whether it’s the volunteer fire

department, whether it’s the search and rescue, whether it’s treatment,

addiction, mental health treatment facilities that we’ve heard about

last week…. If you don’t have the volunteers and the support

organizations, and you’re doing a complete shift into government…. If

you are looking at your attempts, within government, to move away from

any kind of support on volunteers and to fund it all through government,

I don’t even know what that thought process is.

How are you going to afford that, and is that part of this $13.4

billion? Are, all of a sudden, people in rural B.C. not supposed to have

any sort of public safety access, because you’ve eliminated any ability

for us to access any of the support for our volunteer organizations or

our hard-working volunteer fire departments?

I know that this interim supply bill is based on the pre-pandemic

budget, so maybe I’ll shift there a little bit. I am sharing with this

House today, and I hope that they will take it to heart, that this will

be an incredibly difficult spring freshet for infrastructure in British

Columbia. Last year, when you looked at the Cariboo, we had one of the

most impactful years on infrastructure that we’ve seen, with over 200

areas of road infrastructure that were damaged.

I am hoping that the concerns that have been brought forward by

incredibly informed individuals…. I’m hoping that we still have time to

take steps to ensure that the type of damage that I am concerned we are

going to see in the Cariboo this spring freshet…. There is still time

for the government to take action. There is still time for the

government to do preventative work.

Whether that is going out and ensuring that we’ve got proper

ditching, gravelling; making sure that we are doing culvert

replacements, cleaning out the culverts; it’s making sure that we are

doing the necessary work to ensure that we don’t find ourselves in the

position that we have been in the last few years, where we’ve seen

devastating consequences on our transportation corridors, the economic

livelihood of the citizens of Cariboo North.

[3:20 p.m.]

Quite frankly, it has greatly impacted their quality of life. I

heard earlier, somebody in the House mention about the investment in

West Fraser Road. I do want to thank the government for that investment.

But I want to remind the member…. Perhaps the member is not familiar

with the number of times I’ve had to raise and bring this issue forward.

It’s a much larger story that needs to be told.

I want to acknowledge that the disaster financial assistance came

from the federal government, and we are grateful for that

investment.

I want to put on the table here today and to read into

Hansard the fact that the regions in Cariboo North are

still dealing with the devastating consequences of the wildfires in 2017

and 2018. Just because we’ve moved from those times, those consequences

still happen. But those investments have not been made. It is as if we

have forgotten that those wildfires happened.

We put some money into the communities, we’ve made some policy

changes, and now we move on. Well, the fact is that we are dealing with

significant damage to road infrastructures because we’re still trying to

address the challenges from the wildfires, which have now led to

significant watershed issues. We’re having issues with biodiversity. We

are having issues with flooding. All of those can be pointed back to the

challenges that we had during the wildfires.

This $13.4 billion — is that money that is actually going to

respond to the needs that we’ve had for many years, following the

wildfires? Is that money that we’re going to see invested in ensuring

that we’re not going to have the flooding and the infrastructure? Are we

going to see a significant investment over the next couple of weeks to

make sure that this damage doesn’t happen?

I rose in the House in March of 2018, and I warned this House

about the fact of the impacts of the wildfires and what we were seeing

in areas such as Nazko, with flooding, which is usually one of the first

areas that we see in our region that tends to flood. And how, as the

watersheds get impacted and back up into the streams of Narcosli, that

is going to have devastating consequences.

We were warning the government. We stood in the House and said:

“You need to get out there, and you need to put investments in some

maintenance.” This is not part of the maintenance contract that the

government signed off on last year with maintenance contractors. They

put forward what needed to be in those maintenance contracts. Let me be

clear. This is separate. This is the responsibility of the Ministry of

Transportation and this government that needs to be investing in the

public safety of British Columbia.

I again say that I raised it in March and April. We saw a

significant impact to West Fraser Road. We lost the road through a

landslide. Now, yes, it’s going to cost. The early estimate was $104

million. I know it’s gone out to tender. But consider the respective

taxpayer money. If we do the work on the preventative side of things, if

we do the work on making sure that the ministry is investing in

understanding the hydrology reports, the geotechnical reports…. They all

exist. If they were to invest in the preventative side of the equation,

maybe we wouldn’t have such huge costs when we see the significant

damage, which is bound to happen.

I hope I’m wrong. I hope that that $13.4 billion — that we do not

need to see a significant amount of that put into infrastructure,

rebuilding, because of the fact that this is a government that just

isn’t investing in rural infrastructure on the preventative side. I hope

I am wrong. I would be happy to stand in this House and say: “Look,

we’ve had a great season. We haven’t seen any of the significant

damage.” I honestly hope that that is where I have the opportunities to

stand in this House.

[3:25 p.m.]

I do have a couple of comments from constituents. When they knew

that we were talking about this bill, they asked me to raise it. I have

committed to them that most certainly, I take every opportunity I can,

when the constituents want me to raise their concerns, to bring that

forward.

The government has talked a lot about the support of the programs

and grants that they have and the announcements that they’ve had. The

first comment I think I will make is that, again, people have had

considerable challenges meeting the eligibility of these

programs.

Earlier today in question period, the Minister of Jobs, Economic

Recovery and Innovation talked about Science World. “As an MLA, why

aren’t you supporting these members in applying for these grants?” Well,

so many of these organizations are non-profits and aren’t eligible to

apply for the types of grants and programs and services that the member

talked about in the House.

Going back, again, to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour

talking about the love of live arts, of course we love live arts. We’ve

been raising in the House repeatedly about the challenges that arts and

theatre organizations are facing, because for so many of them, unless

you belong to the Arts Council or certain organizations, you’re just not

able to access some of the financial grants that this government has

made available.

For all of those groups and organizations, for all of the

individuals that have fallen through the cracks, we are wondering how

the government is going to fix that. If the government doesn’t actually

provide us a budget, and they’re asking us to vote on $13.4 billion

without understanding or knowing where that money is going, it is doing

a very strong disservice.

Here are some of the constituents to whom I committed to raise

their concern. Judy Kenneway applied for the B.C. recovery grant on

December 22 and still has not received her money as of today. I can

share with you that while this is one constituent — and I want to thank

Judy for allowing me to use her name in this House, because it actually

points to a person — I’ve got a long list of individuals who have still

not received their B.C. recovery grant.

My message to everyone who may be watching this is to contact your

MLA, especially if you have an NDP MLA. Please call them and let them

know if you have not received your B.C. recovery benefit.

I know that the government has put forward an MLA hotline that we

call. We repeatedly are continuing to do that work. But we’ve been

working for months to try and help our constituents access these funds,

and there is a disconnect. There are a lot of individuals that continue

to wait to get access to these funds. I think it’s important.

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

is fantastic.

Phyllis, thank you so very much for…. Please know how much of a

difference you make. As MLAs, often, especially in this hybrid fashion,

we can have some difficult days. I like that you let us know very

clearly what we, as MLAs representing the Cariboo, should be doing. I

absolutely appreciate your honesty.

Phyllis is a senior. She said that the senior supplement that

started last year has now been clawed back to $150. The way the

announcement is worded led one to believe that you are eligible if you

receive these benefits. So here’s the difference. The government’s great

at posting all of these supports that supposedly are meant for all these

people, but you’ve got to read the fine lines.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

It actually means that only those seniors on income assistance,

disability assistance or hardship assistance and those in receipt of a

comfort allowance or the B.C. seniors supplement — $50 monthly through

SDPR — actually qualify.

[3:30 p.m.]

The government is telling seniors that you can be available for

this money. But actually, when we go and try and help our constituents

with that, we find out that there’s a whole long list of eligibility. If

you’re not on income assistance, if you’re not qualified on these,

you’re just not available.

Or how about Tim Nellon? Tim Nellon contacted me about the B.C.

homeowner grant. “If we haven’t received notification of an accepted

application for a grant before tax payment deadline, will we be made to

pay taxes in full or wait for a reimbursement later? Being a senior

citizen on a fixed income, this would be a huge blow to our finances,

and knowledge of what the process will be is very important.” Clarity

and process.

Again, we’re being asked to approve $13.4 billion with­out

understanding what the budget is, without even understanding what any

processes are. “Trust us.” That seemed to have worked so well for Judy,

who is still waiting, since December, for the B.C. recovery benefit. The

government said, “Trust us,” then. They said: “Hey, trust us. These

grants are coming. Money is on its way.” That seems to be the famous

line that the Premier is saying. “Help is on the way. We’re here to help

all people.”

There are sure a lot of people that have fallen through the cracks

— and 13.4 billion hard-earned taxpayer dollars. They want to know if

they’re actually going to be eligible. When the government says, “Trust

us; the money’s on the way,” they’d like to know.

Again, we’ve got a lot of concerns. Aleta and Don Kennedy of

Nazko. Nazko always floods first. Every single year it breaks my heart

that…. Why do we continue to see a repeat of the challenges we have and

lack of preparedness when they’ve been impacted every year? They’re

concerned about what happens to the roads if they’re flooded and they

can’t get in for their vaccines. It’s a very real problem.

On the tourism side. I know I’m running out of time, but I

committed to raise the New Pathways to Gold. They’re waiting for money,

for an announcement from the government. Am I to assume that this $13.4

billion includes the money for New Pathways to Gold?

How about Cottonwood House? Cottonwood House is such an incredible

treasure in Cariboo North. They are in need of funds. Am I to assume the

$13.4 billion has some money coming to Cottonwood House? How about

Barkerville Historic Town? We’ve repeatedly heard the Premier talk about

how important Barkerville Historic Town is, and it absolutely is. Are

there resources for Barkerville Historic Town in this $13.4

billion?

How about all of the other tourism operators that are across this

province and are waiting? You can get a grant to do an upgrade, when

you’re really just trying to figure out how you’re going to pay your

suppliers and keep your lights on. There’s a complete disconnect

there.

I’ve got lots of questions from constituents that they’ve asked me

to raise during this period of time. Non-profits again have been asking,

small businesses who are nervous about trusting this

government.

This government is supposed to have a small business lens in every

piece of legislation. It’s still supposed to apply a small business

lens, yet I’m not sure we’ve necessarily seen that. Sixteen percent of

money out the door to help small businesses isn’t a huge success. How

many closed doors in every single community? Every single MLA needs to

take a check of the fact that their communities are going to be impacted

forever because of the decisions that this government is making

today.

One needs to wonder what is in that $13.4 billion. How about

students? Students need support. They’ve been left out of so many

opportunities. I see that my time is up, but please don’t forget about

students and all of the important initiatives and the investment in our

post-secondary education. That is so incredibly critical to ensure that

we are successful post-pandemic.

K. Paddon: It’s an honour to be speaking from the unceded traditional

territories of the Stó:lō people today.

I want to take a moment as I express my support for Bill 10. I

realize, based on what I’m hearing today, that I may not have introduced

myself in a way that can be understood. I’m very proud to be the member

for Chilliwack-Kent, to be able to represent voices here, to carry

forward the ideas and advocacy from this area and to bring forward the

needs and the priorities from my area.

[3:35 p.m.]

I’m not only an MLA; I’m also a mother. I also am part of my

community. Today, during March break here in Chilliwack-Kent, as my

children, my teenagers, were at home, I actually unfortunately had the

opportunity to have to explain to them some of the thoughts and opinions

being shared in the House.

On the government side of the House, I’m known as a valued member.

But today I had the opportunity to explain what the idea of a

backbencher is and why that language would be used. Now, I also heard

“newly minted,” but I believe I’m on the wrong side of the House to be

called that.

In the meantime, I will happily, as a backbencher, share these

ideas. As an MLA, as a representative for Chilliwack-Kent, I work very

hard. I get to work very closely, although we’re currently often apart,

with members of my community, to hear their struggles, to hear their

good news, as well, which is fantastic, to celebrate and to mourn and to

really try and carry the priorities.

I work with individuals and families, which is something I’ve done

throughout my career, previous to my time here. I do get to work with

small businesses, medium-sized businesses, advocates across the

community, business people across the community, whether it be in child

care or agriculture, often in education, a lot of community service

networks.

I think that one of the things that’s most important and one of

the reasons I stand so strongly for this bill is because people and

businesses and, I know, my community need to know that the support they

are depending on and the services that they need and depend on will

continue to be there.

As many of my friends have mentioned, we do this every year. I do

understand and have heard from other valued members that this is not

like a normal year, that in their opinion, this is wrong somehow. I hear

the frustration at the idea that this is different because of COVID. Yet

this is different because of COVID.

We understand that in order to prepare a budget that will respond

to all of the things that have happened this past year and the things to

come in the next and to make sure that that budget reflects the needs of

British Columbians and to give us time for a hearty and healthy debate,

where respect and positive language will be used to move things forward,

I hope….

In the meantime, we do need to have this interim supply. I

understand, as well, that there’s some concern from the other side of

the House that British Columbians aren’t going to know what’s happening

or may not trust what’s happening.

I’ve also had the opportunity to explain today to my children that

one of the ways — one of the many, many ways — our government listens to

British Columbians is through consultation, is through being adaptive,

like with the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation

adjusting not only the timeline but the eligibility criteria for a grant

to make it more responsive, based on the feedback. But overall, the way

that I understand what British Columbians are saying is that they have

given our government an overwhelming and stable mandate as we lead

British Columbians through the pandemic.

COVID has challenged absolutely all of us. British Columbians are

worried about their health and their livelihoods. They should not be

worried about the timeline of our debates for the budget. We have to

allow for that process to work the way it is intended. Just like every

year, that requires the interim supply.

The pandemic is changing so much in our province. Our government

is working to make sure that they’re taking care of people. As we move

through this pandemic together, as we’ve seen, as we all understand, all

of the valued members…. We understand that it’s also highlighting

vulnerabilities and gaps that existed before.

[3:40 p.m.]

I can’t express enough how difficult it was to explain today to my

children, as we watched the debate, why anybody would say that it’s

unfortunate that they have to listen to the backbenchers, that they have

to listen to the backbenchers say something. I also got to explain,

which is a lesson that we often speak about in my home, that there’s a

difference between not agreeing and not understanding.

What I would like to offer is my understanding, even though that

means that I don’t agree with a lot of what I’m hearing during the

debate. But that’s a good thing, in my mind. It means that we are having

discourse. Now, it’s not necessarily in a way that moves things forward

together, but it is important. I’m happy to hear the thoughts of the

other valued members.

We’ve come a really long way together, but the road to recovery

ahead of us is very daunting. There is a lot of hope, and a lot of work

has been done by our government.

The B.C. recovery benefit is helping families make ends meet, with

payments up to $1,000. I understand from others that there are people

who have not yet received their benefit. I know that my office works

with them as well. I’m happy that once — not that there’s a delay —

we’re able to work with them, they’re able to receive their benefit.

We’re hearing the stories of the impact that that’s making. But for so

many, they’re making the application and receiving their benefits in a

matter of days.

Hard-hit small and medium-sized businesses are receiving grants of

up to $30,000 or up to $45,000 for tourism-related businesses. This

helps keep people working.

We understand the pain. Here in Chilliwack-Kent, there are tourism

businesses, as well, that are very hard hit. We understand the pain of

looking at a business that’s been your dream, that has been your work

and often your life’s work, and feeling uncertain as to whether things

are going to be okay. Our government is offering that grant and that

hope.

It’s not a loan. They don’t have to repay it. That’s to keep the

doors open and to keep the dreams alive until it’s safe for tourists to

come back.

We’re helping thousands of people upskill and re-skill and find

in-demand jobs. I’m very excited about the micro-credentials at UFV here

in Chilliwack-Kent.

We’re going to keep improving fairness at ICBC. That helps make

life more affordable. I know there’s been a lot of conversation about

ICBC and the history. I don’t feel like I need to get into

that.

We’re going to increase transparency in real estate and protect

people and tackle fraud. This is something that we’ve taken on, and it’s

something that we’re looking at. It all has to do, as well, with money

laundering and driving up the prices of homes.

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

so long ago.

These are things that I feel we can be proud of. So when we’re

discussing things that we have to then explain, not only to our

constituents but to our children and to everyone that we serve, I

suppose I ask for some clarity from the other valued members.

I find that some of the questions in question period versus some

of the comments during the debate on this bill are incongruous. They

don’t fit. Are we to spend more money and help more British Columbians

or are we to spend less money and not continue to support the services

and supports that we need until the budget is passed? Are we to be

certain that we’re being responsive to the needs or are we to rush a

budget that may not address the issues that have developed over the last

year — and before?

We always have an interim supply, well past the end of the fiscal,

to allow for robust estimates debate. I feel that those contradictions

are not intentional. I do appreciate conversations around transparency

and how important that is.

[3:45 p.m.]

I also find it dangerous when we stray into language and

commentary that could be misleading. I understand that it’s important to

make sure that our thoughts are heard. For some, it’s important to make

sure that those thoughts are captured in a way that can demonstrate

their passion for sticking it to them. In this case, I’m focused in my

support on this bill because I’m concerned about people. I’m concerned

about British Columbians.

Please don’t be confused. As backbencher or valued member or newly

minted, my role here is to represent Chilliwack-Kent. By supporting this

bill, I’m supporting the services and the families and the people who

need these supports, while we have vigorous debate on our

budget.

There are a lot of thoughts that I’ve had as I’ve listened to the

other valued members today. My colleague from Richmond North Centre said

that it’s no wonder we end up where we are today. Although I may not

agree with their sentiment in saying it, I think it’s no wonder we end

up where we do today — where we have hope of a vaccine, where we have

plans and money going out the door for small businesses and families and

individuals, where we recognize and we see we have a government that is

committed to supporting people who are most vulnerable.

I look at my team, I look at the other valued members, I look at

my friends, and I think: “It’s no wonder.” I see the work that’s been

done. One of the things that I’m focused on moving forward is making

sure that at the end of the day, I come back to my constituents, and I

can say: “This is how I’ve worked for you. This is how I’ve carried your

voices.” It’s not my voice that is heard in this place. It’s the voices

of my constituents.

I understand that there are many opinions about how we should

agree or disagree. I think we can do it respectfully. I think we can do

it in a way where we move forward, even when we disagree. But that

doesn’t represent a lack of understanding, and that doesn’t discount the

value of each and every member who comes and who speaks on behalf of

their constituents, who is elected by their constituents and whose

mandate is clear.

I am very happy to speak in support of this bill so that we can

move forward together and all valued members can contribute to the

debate around the budget in a way that ensures we’re being responsive

not to an idea about what things might be, because we have a deadline,

but that has been thoughtfully considered and has incorporated the

knowledge that we’ve gained in the last year, with a slight

delay.

That is what I have to share. I appreciate very much the words and

the things I have to think about from the other valued members of the

House. But I do urge them: Budget 2021 needs to continue to focus on

keeping people safe through the pandemic and into recovery. We need to

do this with an eye on how we position our province to take advantage of

the opportunities that recovery will offer and to grow from the lessons

that the pandemic has taught us. All along the way, we need to make sure

that we’re focusing on people.

T. Shypitka: It gives me great pride and honour to speak today and rise in this

House, albeit virtually, and speak to Supply Act, 2021.

First, I want to mention that I am speaking from Kootenay East and

the traditional territory of the Ktunaxa First Nation.

I look forward to this continuing debate on the Supply Act that’s

before us today. I just want to kind of go back on some of the comments

that have been made mention by members on the other side, on the

government side of the House.

[3:50 p.m.]

It’s to the point that we’re not debating this bill that’s in

front of us to stop it from happening. We know it’s going to pass. We

know it’s going out there. We have no problem with that. What we have a

problem with is the transparency that this Supply Act

contains.

The member before me, for Chilliwack-Kent, says we need this money

for our public service workers. Absolutely. We support all those. We

have some of the greatest people in the world in our communities right

now taking on a crisis, the COVID-19 crisis. Our health care workers,

our paramedics, our ambulance service, our police — we need to keep the

lights on for those folks. We need to keep them assured that funding

will continue. And it will. This bill will pass.

What we’re concerned with is the fact that there’s a lack of

transparency tabling this act before a budget comes out. Now, the member

from Vancouver-Seymour said this is normal. He said: “We always put out

a supply act before the budget.” We don’t. We put out a budget so we can

make some line items for the supply bill. That’s a total reversal. It’s

nothing new, and it’s nothing normal. I should say it is new. Well,

maybe not. In the ’90s we did it. We did it during the fudge-it budget

years of the NDP government. It isn’t completely new, but it is new in

the last couple of decades at least.

This is $13.4 billion that we’re allocating and just signing off

on. This isn’t the first time. This isn’t something that’s brand-new to

the members of this House. As a matter of fact, this is the fourth time

this has happened. Last March, we had $5 billion roll out.

Let me just say that the collaboration and the work together that

happened between all three sides of the House — the Greens, the NDP and

the B.C. Liberals…. If you want to talk about unprecedented times, that

was fairly unprecedented. We all knew we had to get together and work

together to look out for the best interests of British Columbians in

what, at that time, a year ago, we had no idea was coming down. We were

in the early stages of the pandemic, so we hunkered down and we got

together, and we signed off on $5 billion to go to economic recovery and

to help the people of British Columbia.

Well, what happened? Not all that money got spent right away. As a

matter of fact, most of that money didn’t get spent right away. As a

matter of fact, some of that money still has yet to be spent. Largely,

it’s arguable that a lot of that $5 billion went to an election

campaign. That’s kind of sad. We worked collaboratively together. We

all, like I said, hunkered down, and we tried to do what was best for

British Columbians. But at the end of the day, it was a political stunt,

in my opinion. That money was lying there, waiting — $1.5 billion to

business recovery.

As of September…. As a matter of fact, it was two days before the

election was called — the snap election, the unnecessary snap election,

I might add. Two days before it was called, there was an offering from

government that $1.5 billion would soon be in your hands. Then there was

$300 million to go to B.C. business recovery. We’ve only seen about 15

percent of that roll out, and here we are a year from when it was first

promised.

This is not good governance. This is not transparency. This is not

collaboration. This is not partnership. And I think everybody knows

that. I don’t think I’m speaking out of the side of my mouth here. I

think it’s pretty obvious what’s been going on, and it’s a little

maddening.

Then in July, we signed off on another billion. That was

legitimate. That was matching funding from the feds on transportation

support. That’s what these types of supply and some of these special

warrants that we need to get some of this money out the door…. That’s

legitimate. That was well served for British Columbians. I think Surrey

will benefit from that a lot, and that’s helpful. But then here we are.

We went into a snap election — unnecessary. A lot of people could argue

that it was taking advantage of COVID, of the situation.

[3:55 p.m.]

We were assured at that time…. The Premier said that this would

not impede government. This would not impede the safety or put in harm’s

way the safety of the people of B.C. This election would…. Government

would carry on. Dr. Bonnie Henry just recently said that she may have

made an error in not clamping down on….

So here we are. We’re in the election. Government has promised

that this is not going to hamper all the good work that government does.

But what did we see? We saw a shortened fall session. What normally

would be two months’ work went to two weeks. That certainly got in the

way of support for B.C. businesses and B.C. people at large. We didn’t

see any rollout, at that time, of any of the money.

Now here we are, the fourth time to the trough, and it’s $13.4

billion. Of course, this money will be spent, I’m sure, largely on what

it’s intended for. But as the member that preceded me, from

Chilliwack-Kent…. She wants it to go out to our support workers. Of

course we do. But which ones? We have no idea. There are no line items

attached to this supply bill that identify where this $13.4 billion is

going to go. That’s the whole idea of having a budget in front of

handing money out. We have to be assured. Government hasn’t assured us

on that.

Like I said, the $300 million…. Let’s be clear. There was also….

Sorry, I forgot the last piece. In December, we handed out the third

allocation. That was $2 billion. That was to go to a recovery grant for

British Columbians. That time we debated…. That was the only bill that

went forward. As a matter of fact, there was only one bill. So we went

from two months to two weeks, and only one bill passed. That was on

delaying the budget.

It’s kind of funny. A lot of the excuses…. There are two excuses

that governments use. One, if they can’t answer the question, it’s

either the fault of the previous government or the B.C. Liberals.

Actually, the NDP are the previous government now. So if they can’t

answer a question, it’s either the previous government’s fault or the

B.C. Liberals’ fault. Or it’s COVID’s fault. In this example, they’re

largely using COVID, because it’s unprecedented — never been done

before. “We’re kind of off our wheels a bit here. We have to delay the

budget, because we’re not on full deck here.” I don’t know what the

excuse really is.

This is the second time. The debt to GDP has only been worse once

before in our Canadian history. The worst time was in World War II. Now

we’re suffering the second-largest time in history. But there’s a

glaring difference between what happened in World War II and

now.

In World War II, the leaders of the day hunkered down. They didn’t

run away. They didn’t delay budgets. They made sure they were on time so

they could get the resources out when they needed to. We went from one

of the biggest deficits in Canadian history to one of the biggest

surpluses only a few short years later, because people did the right

thing. Government did work. They did get ahead of the curve.

We’ve heard the Premier saying: “We want everybody in B.C. to find

another gear. The end is almost here. Let’s find another gear.” “Let’s

lean into the wheel,” is, I think, his actual quote.

into the wheel a little bit and put a budget on time? That’s not a big

ask. You look around every corporate business in British Columbia right

now, and every municipality, every regional district. Their budget is on

time. They do due diligence, and they’re facing the same challenges —

with less resources, I might add, than what provincial governments have.

But they get it done. A lot of it’s volunteer work. Yet in a time of

crisis, in unprecedented times….

[4:00 p.m.]

We hear it all the time. It’s true, but it’s getting a little

overused, I think. And I think it’s used as an excuse more than

anything. You’d think, in a time of unprecedented crisis, that the

government would want to step it up and lean into the wheel and get the

budget out and not delay. But this government seems to think it’s okay

to sit back and, you know…. “It’s COVID’s fault. We’ll just delay it.

We’re going to ask for $13.4 billion, and we’re not going to tell you

where it’s going.”

It’s not the fact that we’re arguing that funds should be released

and the Supply Act should pass. Of course it has to pass. Of course

we’ve got to keep the lights on. This is what the other side doesn’t

understand. We’re not arguing whether this bill should pass or not.

We’re arguing on government’s responsibility to the taxpayer. I

mentioned this to a friend of mine today, that $13.4 billion is going

out the door and we have no reason. They went white in the face. They

couldn’t understand how that could happen. I think a lot of people in

the House can’t understand how this can happen. But it is, and here we

are.

There are a lot of good things that that $13.4 billion could go

to. I could think of a whole bunch right off the top of my head. We have

a wildlife issue in British Columbia right now. It’s never been really

addressed properly. It’s not a partisan issue. All the governments have

failed. We’ve never put any sustainable funding in towards wildlife.

We’ve never put a priority on wildlife.

Everybody likes to talk about how iconic and how symbolic some of

our creatures are, some of our great, magnificent animals that we have

this province, yet they don’t put their money where their mouth is. I’d

love to see some of that $13.4 billion going to a proper wildlife

management plan. That would be awesome. I think it would make a lot of

people happy. I don’t think anybody would be against that. I don’t think

you could look at any party in our Legislature right now that would not

agree that we should be putting wildlife as a priority, and I’d love to

see some of that money go towards that.

Mining and exploration — obviously near and dear to my heart. I

live in a pretty industrious part of the province. We have four of the

five top mines in the province here, but we’re in fear of losing our

natural resources. Right now we’ve got 14 operating mines, two smelters,

and if we don’t get on board…. We have not seen a new mine come online

since this government has come into play, and if we don’t get a new mine

on board, we’re down to five mines by the year 2030 or 2040, somewhere

around there.

That’s devastating. That’s $1 billion into government coffers

every year. That’s $7 billion spent annually throughout the province.

That’s a big hole, and we’d never fill it. And if we don’t get our

permitting addressed, if we don’t get clarity and certainty in our

permitting processes, if we don’t address certain things that make us

uncompetitive, like the carbon tax, for example…. I think industry

actually, for the large part, supports a carbon tax, but how it rolls

out and how to protect those emission-intensive, trade-exposed

industries that we have globally…. We need to make sure that those

industries are protected.

Access to health care is another big one I’d love to see some

money go towards, in my neck of the woods, anyways. We have a really

great relationship with Alberta, yet we’ve seen over the last couple of

years that that access has been radically restricted, to the point now

where I’ve got people in my riding that are making game-changing,

life-changing decisions on whether or not they can have radiation

treatment because they’re being slotted in Vancouver, which is a 13-hour

drive in the best of times. In winter, it’s almost impossible

sometimes.

They’re sitting around the dinner table saying: “Hmm, jeez, I

don’t know if dad’s going to be able to get his radiation treatment

because we can’t afford it. We have no support there. Mom can’t take

time off work like she could if we were going to Calgary, where it’s

only a couple-hour drive.” These conversations are happening right now

around British Columbia, in my area.

When we talk about the bill and we talk about the money, we’re not

talking about: “We don’t want it going out the door.” We’re saying: “Who

is it going out to?”

[4:05 p.m.]

This is a big issue, and it really speaks to the legacy that this

government is really working hard on. I don’t know why they’d be working

that hard on this, but let’s look at some of the other legacy items that

this government has really been putting forward, like taxation,

unprecedented taxation by this government. I can’t even remember the

number now. I don’t know if it’s 26 new or increased taxes. It was 21,

and I think we’re up to 26 or 27. Billions of dollars at any

rate.

Assault on homeowners. We’ve seen that as a legacy issue here with

this government — spec tax, ALR changes, Bill 15 and Bill 52, taking

away the rights of landowners on secondary homes. Now we’re seeing

something with the homeowner’s grant where they’re shifting that, taking

people’s personal information, their SIN numbers, where it’s never been

done before. They say it’s fair and say it’s simpler, but I don’t know

what’s simpler and more fair than going down to your city hall and

checking a couple of boxes off and handing over a cheque. That’s an

assault, I think, quite honestly.

Residential Tenancy Act being reformed. It’s giving those home

investors a real hard time to be sustainable. I’ve talked to a few

people who have taken the chance — no guarantee, put the money down,

mortgaged to the hilt — to maybe provide themselves with a little bit of

a retirement income. These are innocent, everyday British Columbians,

wanting to provide for themselves. Not everybody has a pension, let me

tell you.

I come from the private sector. I’ve employed literally thousands

of people, and I can tell you, for every business owner, there is no

guarantee. For every employee, there is no guarantee. Some of those

employees do squirrel away enough money sometimes. It’s hard, but they

do. They put the money down for a…. “Let’s maybe get a second home and

rent it out. Maybe if we’re lucky and the markets are correct and luck

is on our side and we get good renters…. Maybe in 20 years we can pay it

off, and that can be our retirement.” That’s a big deal.

Now with some of these changes, that’s just not going to happen.

I’ve talked to numerous people who were considering it, and they say

there is just no way. There are good landlords and there are bad

landlords, I’m not going to argue with that. But there are good tenants

and there are bad tenants as well.

Deputy Speaker: If I might draw the member’s attention to Bill 10, the Supply Act.

I think the legislation he’s speaking to was passed earlier in the

session. We don’t debate legislation that is in the current session.

Just to bring the member back to the Supply Act.

T. Shypitka: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that. I don’t want to

get too far off track here. We’re talking about a Supply Act where money

is supposed to be going, and we’re unsure.

Transparency is kind of what I’m touching on here. Transparency is

something we’ve seen this government not do a lot of. We saw the caribou

recovery program for example. No transparency, no consultation. So

botched in fact that they had to call it back. They had to extend it.

They had to bring a special person in to look after it. That didn’t go

over very well. It still doesn’t.

ALR reform — I said earlier — on eliminating regional agricultural

decision-making. We took away the regional ALC, the regional

agricultural land committees, put it into provincial executive, but

there was no consultation with anyone on that.

Land use planning out here in my area — shutting down access. I

agree. We need to control access. There is no question. But let’s

include people. Let’s talk to stakeholders. Everybody is not going to

always agree on what they hear. But the biggest argument you’ll always

get when a decision is made is they were never spoken to, and there is

no excuse for that.

That’s what we’re seeing from this government, and that’s what

we’re seeing from this bill. If I can tie it all back to that, this is a

huge epic fail on government’s part as far as showing a lack of

transparency. They can dress it up any way they want. They can say it’s

COVID-related, or they can blame us somehow. I’m not sure how they spin

that one, but they’ll probably find a way. The fact of the matter is

we’re handing out $13.4 billion of taxpayer money, and we have no clue

where it’s going.

[4:10 p.m.]

I’m not going to be a conspiracy theorist, as much as to say it’s

going into nefarious programs or anything like that. I’m sure most of it

will go in the right places. But it is the responsibility of government

to table that so we can debate those in estimates and other avenues.

Before we pass it, we need to see the budget line items, where they’re

attached to, so we know where it’s going, so we can assure British

Columbians.

The member for Chilliwack-Kent said: “Business needs to know the

support will be there.” I think that was her exact quote. But where is

it going? “Business needs to know that the supports will be there.”

Well, sure. Of course. Who doesn’t agree to that? That’s what we’re

saying. We want business to know the supports will be there. But there

is no identification on where it’s going.

There are lots of things that we can talk about here on this bill

and what it represents. But I think, at the end of the day, what it

really means is that we need government to step up a bit here. We are in

a major crisis. Everybody is counting on one another to get us through

this. We see hope. You see the vaccine rollout, although that’s another

topic on how that’s going. But we need government to step up. Government

really wants…. They ask us all the time to find another gear. Where is

government’s

part in doing the same?

I think it would have been great if government would have said:

“You know what? We’re going to work around the clock.”

We had a two-week session in December, which was terrible, in my

opinion. We went from a two-month session to a two-week session, after

the Premier said: “Oh, the snap election’s not going to change anything.

Business as usual. We’ll still be looking out for British Columbians.”

Yet we went to a two-week session to pass one bill, which was to delay

the budget by two months. Wow. If that’s looking out for British

Columbians, then wow. I don’t even know what to say. I don’t want to

commit myself into something unparliamentary, but it’s

frustrating.

Just to close, I want to say that both sides of the House have to

really look deep, and they have to look in the mirror. Don’t read off of

your speaking notes, I urge those on the other side, because I think you

almost believe what you’re reading sometimes. We’re not arguing about if

the money should pass, if we should be handing out the money to keep the

lights on. We’re saying British Columbians deserve better. They deserve

to know government is working for them, and they need to have some

assurance and trust that it’s spent in the right places. That’s what

this bill doesn’t represent.

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

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Given the year that British Columbians have had and the impact of

the pandemic on every single part of our lives — the lives lost in

long-term care homes, the lives lost in the overdose crisis, the

terrible strain on people’s mental health, the isolation people have

experienced while trying to keep each other safe and the terrible impact

on small business — I so appreciate how business has stepped up and

modified their operations, recognizing the imperative to keep people

safe. But that has been at a very tough cost.

It is the least that a government could do to create the

stability, the investment and the solidity of the constancy of flow of

government investments — the dollars flowing so that teachers can

continue to do their work, so that Nanaimo General Hospital can continue

to operate and save lives and keep people safe.

The imperative in this year, as has been the common practice in

this Legislature, is that you pass an interim supply bill so that you

have the time to do the budget development, the transparency, the debate

in the House, and the work in the lower houses, which is usually

happening parallel to this chamber, where cabinet ministers come,

sometimes for weeks on end, to answer questions from the opposition and

defend their program spending.

[4:15 p.m.]

This process is all about transparency. And this bill that I speak

in favour of today, Bill 10, the interim supply legislation, is to

support the continued flow of government funds, taxpayers’ funds into

the services that support British Columbians. It is for the purpose of

transparency that this legislation is tabled.

Honestly, to hear from the opposition that they are now concerned

about transparency…. I was watching the former B.C. Liberal government

for 16 years that more often than not decided, “We don’t need a fall

legislative session. It’s fine. We’ll just do our own work without any

view of the public into operations of government” — without any feeling

that there had to be legislation passed or tabled or

presented.

Again and again, this Legislature, under the member that just

spoke before me, under his party’s government, sometimes sat for 30 or

35 days a year. Even in the course of a pandemic, when so many people

had to stay home and this place had to completely modify