First Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, March 22, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 37

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Wild salmon protection and revitalization

F. Donnelly

International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

T. Wat

Covenant House

B. Bailey

Women of Distinction Awards

S. Cadieux

Kidney donation and transplantation

M. Starchuk

Italian community in Kelowna

R. Merrifield

Speaker’s Statement

Interjections during hybrid and virtual proceedings

Oral Questions

COVID-19 vaccination and restrictions in seniors care facilities

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

COVID-19 rapid testing program for long-term-care facilities

R. Merrifield

Hon. A. Dix

Data collection on long-term COVID-19 cases and support for patients

S. Furstenau

Hon. A. Dix

COVID-19 safety plans in schools

S. Furstenau

Hon. A. Dix

Child care facilities and spaces

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. K. Chen

T. Stone

J. Tegart

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

D. Clovechok

S. Furstenau

M. de Jong

P. Milobar

T. Stone

Hon. S. Robinson

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Firearm Violence Prevention Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 5 — Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2021 (continued)

M. Lee

Hon. M. Farnworth

Second Reading of Bills

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

Hon. S. Robinson

MONDAY, MARCH 22, 2021

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

H. Sandhu: Today I would like to wish happy belated birthday to one of my amazing

constituents, Dorothy Chura. Dora celebrated her 105th birthday on March 16.

This birthday was so special for Dora and her family, as Dora is believed to

be B.C.’s oldest COVID-19 survivor. Dora has survived two global pandemics

and lived through multiple world wars.

I have a fond memory of Dora when I used to visit her as a community

nurse. Dora would always save an orange or other snacks for us

nurses.

May I please ask all the members of this House to wish Dora a very

happy belated birthday and to congratulate her for her remarkable recovery

from COVID-19.

[1:35 p.m.]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

WILD SALMON PROTECTION

AND

REVITALIZATION

F. Donnelly: In November of last year, I was appointed Parliamentary Secretary

for Fisheries and Aquaculture. The Premier asked me to develop new

strategies to protect and revitalize B.C.’s wild salmon populations,

including working with the federal government to double the size of the

B.C. salmon restoration and innovation fund.

He asked me to work with the Minister of Environment to step up

protection of fish habitat and B.C.’s watersheds through our

biodiversity strategy and the new watershed security strategy and

fund.

He asked that I support the Minister of State for Lands and

Natural Resource Operations to develop a new provincial coastal marine

strategy in partnership with First Nations and federal and local

governments to better protect coastal habitat while growing coastal

economies.

He asked that I represent the province as the federal government

transitions B.C.’s salmon-farming industry to closed-containment

technology.

There are many challenges facing B.C.’s fisheries, seafood and

wild salmon, but the opportunities are just as great. The road ahead

won’t be easy. Wild salmon are in trouble. Many populations have been

declining for some time now. But it’s not too late.

Over the coming months, I will continue to meet with First

Nations, federal and local governments, the commercial sector, labour,

the sport and recreation sector, non-profit organizations, community

groups, scientists, researchers, innovative businesses and others to

develop a shared action plan to put British Columbia on a clear pathway

to recovering and revitalizing wild salmon.

With a concerted effort, enough resources and a shared desire to

see wild salmon populations rebound, these resilient animals will once

again return to B.C.’s watersheds.

INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE

ELIMINATION OF RACIAL

DISCRIMINATION

T. Wat: Across the world and here in British Columbia, we honour,

recognize and commit to the International Day for the Elimination of

Racial Discrimination.

This past year has been one of hardship and reflection on racial

injustice and discrimination for many. Racism and bigotry must be

opposed every day. Today we take the time to acknowledge the progress

that has been made, yet our mission to eliminate racism, prejudice and

hate here in British Columbia and around the world is far from over.

There are steps everyone in this province must take to further commit to

equity and acceptance in British Columbia.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the disturbing

anti-Asian racism and discrimination that happens in every corner of

B.C., evidenced by the troubling 717 percent increase in anti-Asian hate

crimes in Vancouver alone. Racial discrimination has no place in B.C. We

must ensure that our communities are safe for all.

Every citizen of B.C. has a moral obligation and a civil

responsibility to stop the spread of racial stereotypes, false

information, sinophobic fear-mongering and scapegoating that we have

seen in this province throughout the pandemic. This rise in racial

discrimination is unacceptable, and we must all work towards eliminating

bigotry within our communities. We must all work together. We must all

remain deeply committed to the elimination of racial discrimination on

this day and every day.

Together, through community support, tolerance and acceptance,

every British Columbian can feel safe and accepted in the province

regardless of race or ethnicity.

COVENANT HOUSE

B. Bailey: It was a number of years ago that I met Jesse. He’d just finished

high school a year early at age 16. Jesse and his mom were new

Canadians, having been in Canada for less than a year. They fled

violence in their home country to build a better life in B.C.

Unfortunately, Jesse’s mom suffered from severe mental illness

related to the trauma she’d experienced and was unable to care for

Jesse, who ended up, a week after graduation, alone, broke and on the

streets.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member, can you hold for a second? Your mike is very

staticky. We’re trying to see if it can be fixed.

[1:40 p.m.]

B. Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Okay. Continue, Member.

B. Bailey: I apologize for the noise, my colleagues.

When I met Jesse, he’d been arrested for shoplifting, and it was

so heartbreaking. He had stolen basic foodstuffs and deodorant. I was a

law student working in the volunteer LSLAP clinic at UBC, and we took

his case. Fortunately, the judge agreed to diversion, and Jesse was

directed to resources, one of which I’d like to speak of now: Covenant

House.

Covenant House got Jesse off the streets and into safety. I

shudder to think what would have happened to this bright, kind, gentle

young man had he not found the support an outstanding organization was

able to provide — not just the basics of food and shelter, of extreme

importance, but also a sense of community.

He was able to create a résumé, and through contacts I was able to

share with him and his counsellor, Jesse got a job as a video game

tester at one of our local studios in Vancouver. He was eventually able

to get his own apartment and began to build his life, which later

included studying computer science at UBC.

The youth who turn to Covenant House in Vancouver are extremely

vulnerable. This year keeping them safe has taken on a new level of

urgency. The street outreach team connected 551 individual youth, and

367 youth found safety and stability during their crisis time. Every day

an average of over 100 youth found support at Covenant House Vancouver.

The kitchen staff lovingly prepared and served more than 1,750 meals

every week, and 219 youth found and maintained employment.

I ask that members of this House join me in applauding the

incredible work of Covenant House for the youth of B.C.

WOMEN OF DISTINCTION AWARDS

S. Cadieux: The 2021 YWCA Women of Distinction Awards will be held on Monday,

June 7. The award aims to honour inspiring women and their achievements

in a variety of categories, including arts, culture and design;

community champion; entrepreneurship and innovation; health and

wellness; research, the sciences and technology.

Now, way, way, way back in 1995, I was nominated for one of these.

I didn’t win, and frankly, when I saw the other young women in my

category, I was in awe. The winner was absolutely exceptional.

Regardless, I was very honoured to be nominated and recognized for my

own achievements.

That’s why today in this House, I want to recognize and tell you

about the seven remarkable women from Surrey who are among the finalists

for awards this year.

They are Dr. Balbir Gurm, who is a professor for Kwantlen

Polytechnic University’s faculty of health and founder and chair of the

Network to Eliminate Violence in Relationships; Krista Milne, a member

of the Self-Advocates of Semiahmoo and of the Self Advocate Leadership

Network; Julia Chung, co-founder and CEO of Admin Slayer and Spring

Plans; Gurleen Brar, chairperson of the Youth Transforming Society;

Bremiella De Guzman, facilitator, social worker and ambassador for

Special Olympics British Columbia, B.C. Centre for Ability, and Anxiety

Canada; Rochelle Prasad, CEO and executive director of SPARK Foundation;

and Shakti Ramkumar, director of communications and policy at Student

Energy.

Congratulations, ladies. You are all deserving of this

recognition. Thank you for all you do to bring energy, innovation,

compassion and service to our community. Good luck to you all. Take a

moment to reflect on your achievements as others look to celebrate

you.

KIDNEY DONATION

AND

TRANSPLANTATION

M. Starchuk: I’m honoured today to stand in the House and speak about the

living organ donation program, which saves lives by reducing the wait

time for patients who need an organ.

[1:45 p.m.]

However, the two-minute speech I had prepared two days ago about a

kidney that a good friend of mine, Curtis Meyer, needed changed

immensely yesterday.

I’ve known Curtis for 30 years. My original ask was to have people

register for the living donor program at St. Paul’s and see if we could

find a match for Curtis, whose first transplant from his wife Shelley

began to fail in 2018. My original speech was going to explain my

journey as I tried to become a living kidney donor. While I was not

successful, I got the ultimate medical checkup and found out my heart,

my lungs and other organs were in pretty good shape.

When a miracle occurs, you must talk about the miracle. Yesterday

afternoon at two o’clock, Curtis was notified that there was a viable

kidney ready for transplant. At five o’clock, Curtis was in surgery, and

when I spoke to Shelley at 8:30 last night, the surgeon claimed it was a

success.

Until yesterday, Curtis was hooked up for eight hours a day on

peritoneal dialysis. He experienced debilitating symptoms such as

vision, nausea, joint pain, fatigue and immune suppression. Although

Curtis received his kidney from a deceased donor, the last few years on

dialysis were incredibly strenuous on his body.

My closing comments were to contact St. Paul’s at 604-806-9027 if

you wish to help out someone. Those comments remain the same. Although

Curtis does not need a kidney anymore, there are countless people like

him who do. I urge all British Columbians to register with the B.C.

Transplant living donor kidney program and become a living

donor.

I now ask you to join me in reflection on the person who has

passed on and provided a new life to someone they never met.

I also ask you to join me by sending your thoughts and prayers to

my friend Curtis as he recovers from this life-altering

surgery.

ITALIAN COMMUNITY IN KELOWNA

R. Merrifield: March 22 marks a special day in Kelowna history. It was the day

that the Kelowna Canadian Italian Club was founded back in 1966 by 21

proud members.

The Kelowna Canadian Italian Club is the social and cultural

centre of the Italian community in Kelowna. They are all good friends,

and they carry on our cultural traditions by promoting the Italian

language and culture through food, music and wine. Those of us that are

benefactors of their incredible dances are certainly grateful. But they

are so much more.

They are also a service club, giving back to the community through

the unselfish dedication of their members. An example of this giving

back is found in how they chose to celebrate their 55th anniversary. To

close off the online celebration, there was a public unveiling of their

latest project, Il Nostro Lascito . This video series documents

the experiences of Italian immigrants in the Central Okanagan as well as

the legacy that they have created.

I quote Gord Hotchkiss: “Since 1883, Italians have been

instrumental in building the foundations of the home we know today.

Whether it’s agriculture, the wine industry, tourism, sports or even the

very building of Kelowna’s landmarks, Italians have been there and done

that.” The Italian handiwork is seen in Kelowna in the concrete statue

of the Ogopogo, which was built by Orsi and Sons Contracting.

Hotchkiss goes on to say: “We hope this series is more than just a

simple documenting of Italian achievement. It’s also the story of

finding acceptance in a new home and the bridging of cultures. As such,

it is a great example of inclusivity and the celebration of ethnic

diversity.”

Please join me in celebrating with the Kelowna Canadian Italian

Club but also all three of the Kelowna ridings who are the beneficiary

of the club’s incredible contribution to our culture and

heritage.

Speaker’s Statement

INTERJECTIONS DURING

HYBRID AND VIRTUAL

PROCEEDINGS

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, before we begin this afternoon, I would like to make

a few remarks about members with remote participation in hybrid

proceedings.

[1:50 p.m.]

I draw members’ attention to the sessional order adopted on March

1, 2021, which outlines how this House will regulate its proceedings,

integrating the use of video conferencing technology with the physical

presence of members in the chamber and therefore enabling hybrid

proceedings.

The intention of the sessional order is to afford all members with

the means to fulfil their parliamentary functions and to safeguard the

rights, privileges and immunities of individual members, regardless of

their physical location. This House requires the cooperation of members

in complying with the procedures in place to ensure equal opportunity

for all members to listen to and participate in proceedings.

I have come to learn that last week, during oral question period,

some members participating remotely were unmuting their microphones to

speak, even though they had not been recognized by the Chair. Although

interjections are a recognized part of oral question period in the

chamber, interjections made by members participating remotely have the

effect of preventing all other members participating remotely from

hearing the proceedings taking place in the House, therefore putting

them at a serious disadvantage.

As you all know, you have the right to interject. Members on your

behalf here in the House interject very regularly and very efficiently.

I’m sure they will continue to do it. However, we encourage all of you

to make sure that you follow the proceedings that are outlined in the

sessional order.

As an established practice of hybrid proceedings, members must

only unmute their microphones when they have been recognized by the

Chair. Any contravention to this practice is, in essence, akin to

standing to interrupt a member who has the floor in the chamber. To

ensure full and equal participation, I caution all members that they

should only unmute their microphones to participate in proceedings once

they have been recognized by the Chair. Going forward, the Chair will

not hesitate to intervene, as required.

I also remind members that as provided for in

section 12 of the

sessional order, the Speaker is empowered to intervene on any matter of

decorum, including by muting a member’s microphone and excluding members

from the hybrid sitting in cases of serious misconduct. However, I

expect that with the guidance provided today, further intervention will

not be necessary.

I’m hopeful that members appreciate the spirit and intent of the

sessional order, with the understanding that its implementation is to

ensure the participation of all members during a time of significant

public health concerns. I appreciate the opportunity to work together to

continue the important work of the Legislative Assembly in these

unprecedented circumstances.

Thank you, Members, for your attention and cooperation.

Oral Questions

COVID-19 VACCINATION

AND RESTRICTIONS IN

SENIORS

CARE FACILITIES

S. Bond: The Premier has said that British Columbians can expect more

flexibility as they are vaccinated, but those who are living in seniors

care, those who have been vaccinated, are still experiencing the stress

of loneliness, and there is significant concern about their mental

wellness.

Anna van Blankenstein lives in a long-term-care facility. She’s

been vaccinated. Her husband, who lives in the same facility, has had

COVID and received his first vaccine, but she gets one 30-minute visit a

month with him. “The visit is grim. I have to be masked. My husband and

I cannot reach out for one another. There is a chaperone sitting about

14 feet away who can overhear everything we say, and she’s there to

prevent any kind of infraction.”

When will seniors see the flexibility the Premier has

promised?

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for her question — one

she knows that I’m very interested in and have been working on, the

provincial health officer as well. As we proceeded with our vaccination

plan, we made it clear that changes were coming with respect to

visitation in long-term care and in terms of activity in long-term

care.

[1:55 p.m.]

Some of those changes have already taken place within

long-term-care facilities. We will be announcing, before the end of

March, the changes to visitation in long-term care.

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: Thank you very much to the Health Minister. I know that I have

expressed my thanks to him on a number of occasions for the number of

issues that he’s tackling. But the issue of essential visitors has been

one that families across British Columbia have been grappling with for

months now.

The seniors advocate has been clear that the province needs to

change the visitation rules to protect the mental health of residents.

Isobel Mackenzie says: “Really, we should be able to return to in-room

visits.” The Centre for Disease Control has offered new guidelines, as

have many other jurisdictions.

Our most vulnerable population has suffered tremendously over the

last year. No one is asking for long-term-care homes to be thrown wide

open. Families just want and need to see their loved ones. As Cliff

Jones, whose mother-in-law is in a care home, said: “I call them inmates

because we feel that they are in confinement.”

When, specifically, will families in British Columbia who have

loved ones in long-term care receive the promised flexibility that the

Premier made?

Hon. A. Dix: That experience, the experience of families who have dealt with

the pandemic in long-term care, and all of its impacts…. They know its

significance to both the physical and the mental health of residents of

long-term care, of workers in long-term care and of family members, the

people and friends of people living in long-term care.

It’s why British Columbia gave such priority to vaccination in

long-term care, a vaccination that has been extraordinarily successful

and well implemented by our teams of health care workers. So 96 percent

of our workers, 95 percent of our residents have received their

first-dose vaccinations from COVID-19. In addition, thousands of

essential visitors have also been immunized in order to assist with

their role in long-term care.

I told the member, I think, specifically — today is March 22 —

that the changes will be announced before the end of March, meaning in

the next eight days. It’s our hope that these changes will return some

normalcy in long-term care.

I agree with her. It can’t be fully back to normal. Obviously, the

provincial health officer, the Ministry of Health, myself and many, many

other people want to see this change happen. I know the Leader of the

Opposition does. I expect to be briefing her on it within the next few

days — the new changes that will be put into effect to allow more visits

in long-term care.

COVID-19 RAPID TESTING PROGRAM

FOR LONG-TERM-CARE

FACILITIES

R. Merrifield: As seniors wait for the Minister of Health’s promised flexibility,

the demand for increased, widespread rapid testing in care homes is

increasing. While residents remain segregated, staff still go home and

are a part of their community.

Not all staff are choosing to vaccinate, which is their right, but

it remains baffling as to why the Premier won’t provide seniors with an

extra layer of protection by implementing widespread rapid testing in

long-term-care homes.

Will the Premier do the right thing and ensure long-term-care

homes have all the rapid tests that they need to protect

residents?

Hon. A. Dix: With respect to visitation in long-term care, I think I just

answered that question. Seniors can expect to see changes, residents in

long-term care can expect to see changes, within the week.

A couple of weeks ago we also announced changes to our approach to

rapid testing. The member will know that rapid testing has been used in

long-term care. But the key testing, the gold-standard testing that we

would all expect long-term-care residents to receive, the PCR testing,

has been in place for some time.

I would note to the member that priority was given to vaccination

in long-term care — I think something that she agrees with and everyone

agrees with. The consequence of that is there for all to see. As of

today, there are two long-term-care outbreaks in British Columbia

active. There were 42 on January 15. That shows the effectiveness of

those measures and why we are now able to proceed with opening up

long-term care to more visits.

[2:00 p.m.]

R. Merrifield: Well, I don’t know if the Minister of Health heard me. I’m not

just asking for some rapid testing; I’m asking for widespread rapid

testing.

You see, headlines such as “Outbreak at Kelowna Long-Term Home

Despite ‘High Uptake’ of Immunizations” serve as a warning. Seniors have

been vaccinated. But the virus is still finding its way into care homes.

Keeping our seniors in virtual lockdown is not the way forward,

especially when some simple steps the government could take to protect

them are available.

The B.C. Care Providers have been clear: “We have been talking

about the need for some sort of mechanism to ensure that unvaccinated

workers do not pose a risk to residents. This is an area that is still

weak, and we need to strengthen it.”

Again to the Premier, will he do the right thing to protect

seniors and increase rapid testing, widespread, at long-term-care

homes?

Hon. A. Dix: The reports in other jurisdictions will show what happens when

politicians, rather than people who are epidemiologists and involved in

public health, make decisions about testing programs. Decisions are made

to overturn the advice of those public health officials, and the

consequences are negative. We’ve seen that in other jurisdictions in

Canada.

Here in British Columbia, when rapid testing came to our province,

it was to be delivered on the advice of public health officials. They

have done their appropriate job using the gold-standard PCR tests,

especially in long-term care, and using rapid tests in an expansive way,

as required.

I followed their advice on this question, and with great respect

to the hon. member or others, I think that is the best approach to deal

with the issue of testing in British Columbia. We are using rapid

testing more, as we should. We are continuing to depend on testing in

our response to the pandemic in British Columbia.

I think the member would agree that the impact of the measures

we’ve taken in long-term care, all of the measures we’ve taken in

long-term care — the single-site order, the infection prevention — have

meant that we have had lower levels of infection than almost any other

equivalent jurisdiction in North America. That does not mean that we are

happy or satisfied or anything else. It means that our public health

officials have been doing their absolute best in doing a good

job.

Can we do better? Absolutely. We’re going to continue to follow

the guidance of public health officials with respect to

testing.

DATA COLLECTION ON

LONG-TERM COVID-19 CASES

AND

SUPPORT FOR PATIENTS

S. Furstenau: A few weeks ago I asked the Minister of Health if we had any

information about long-haul COVID rates in British Columbia and, if so,

where the data was being posted for the public. The minister said

information about infections and recoveries is shared daily.

Subsequent follow up with Dr. Henry and the BCCDC by the press has

clarified that we currently have no idea what proportion of patients

continue to experience symptoms, months after being diagnosed. Other

jurisdictions who are tracking and reporting this data have found that

at least 10 percent, if not closer to 30 percent, of COVID patients end

up developing chronic symptoms.

With the rolling average of over 500 — and last week rising —

British Columbians testing positive every day, this is a huge blind

spot. We could end up with tens of thousands of people needing long-term

support.

My question is to the Minister of Health. It is not accurate to

classify people as recovered if the virus has caused them to experience

chronic physical or neurological symptoms. When, specifically, can

British Columbians expect government to start reporting on rates of

long-haul COVID, and what policy work is being done to ensure people

with long COVID will get the supports they need?

Hon. A. Dix: Every case in British Columbia is important. Every case is

followed, and support is provided. We’ve put in place a number of

clinics across British Columbia for people dealing with continuing

conditions of COVID-19.

When we refer to people as having their condition resolved, what

we mean is that they’re no longer infectious. This has been repeated

again and again and again and again by Dr. Henry and myself. That is the

meaning of that term, when we use that term “recovered.”

I would say to people that COVID-19 is a vicious virus. It doesn’t

argue with us. It can have profound effects, whether you’re 25 or 85. We

know who has the most severe effects; that’s often people with other

medical conditions and our elders.

[2:05 p.m.]

We know that the ongoing effect of this virus can be profound. We

also know that the virus has only been around for a little more than a

year. We continue to work with and study it extensively. The number of

studies that are produced every day on this subject, and the work done

in British Columbia, is comprehensive.

I would say to the member that I’m going to continue, as I said in

the answer to the previous question, to rely on our public health

officials to ensure that information is available, particularly for

people at this time of high vulnerability to COVID-19, so that everyone

understands the potential impact of this virus and everyone takes every

step to ensure that this virus is not transmitted.

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

COVID-19 SAFETY PLANS IN SCHOOLS

S. Furstenau: The Health Minister identifies that people are being classified as

recovered if they’re no longer infectious. I think there are a lot of

people in British Columbia who feel that their ongoing struggle with

symptoms and them being lumped in as recovered is not actually capturing

the experience that they’re having, and they’re wondering about what

kinds of supports they will get from a government that isn’t

acknowledging them in the data and the reporting.

As we know, COVID long-haul patients report a wide variety of

symptoms, from pain to brain fog, to memory problems and insomnia, heart

problems. And data from other countries that are tracking long COVID

indicates that it affects more women than men.

The minister speaks about being as mindful as possible. We saw

last week, with case numbers rising and variants of concern spreading,

that there appears to be growing risk, with students going back to

classrooms next week and teachers not receiving vaccinations until

April. With a few weeks after that before immunity is conferred for

teachers, it’s hard not to be concerned about the prospect of teachers

making it to this point in the pandemic, only to be faced with the

potential for the infection and long COVID.

My question is to the Minister of Health. What adjustments is

government considering in light of the rising case numbers and the

continued call from teachers to implement a comprehensive mask mandate,

better distancing in classrooms and better ventilation?

Hon. A. Dix: I would say, to be very clear to the member — and we have been,

again and again and again, on this subject — that when we refer to

people having discontinued isolation, it doesn’t mean that the effects

of COVID-19 are over for a person, particularly people who are dealing

with other medical conditions.

This has been said from the beginning. To suggest in any way, as

the member just did, that that means that we are not concerned about it

is just wrong. To say that public health officials or medical health

officers aren’t concerned about it, because we provide this information,

is just incorrect. I just wanted to put that clearly and on the

record.

This is one of the most challenging times we face in our COVID-19

pandemic. We have an immunization campaign that I think is delivering in

an effective way, across the province, based on the amount of vaccine we

have. As of today, for example, in the Pfizer vaccine, 440,000 doses

have been delivered to health authorities, and 426,000 of them have been

put in people’s arms. That’s extraordinarily effective.

We laid our vaccination strategy out in detail for the hon. member

last week. We are going to continue to take steps, public health steps,

to ensure that people are as safe as possible around British

Columbia.

I would like to say to everybody in British Columbia that now is

the time when we need to continue to follow public health orders and

public health guidance in every workplace, including schools. We need to

follow robust public health plans and COVID-19 safety plans in every

workplace.

It’s more important now than ever, as we see hope on the horizon,

to ensure people are protected in a time of high transmission for

COVID-19. The provincial health officer and the Ministry of Health are

going to continue to deliver on that agenda.

I’m thankful to all British Columbians who are following that

guidance to this day and beyond.

CHILD CARE FACILITIES AND SPACES

K. Kirkpatrick: New child care regulations come into effect on April 1. They will

be responsible for the loss of thousands of child care spaces. The

changes will make many providers ineligible for government funding, and

this will result in less spaces for parents.

[2:10 p.m.]

As a provider in Surrey just told me: “As a result of this sudden

change, we feel helpless and face economic ruin as we watch our life’s

savings disappear because our dream to develop a child care centre, with

over 100 new spaces, has turned into a nightmare.”

Will the Premier press pause, sit down and talk to these operators

before they’re forced into bankruptcy?

Hon. K. Chen: Thanks to the opposition member for this very important

question.

We need to remember that our government introduced the fee

reduction program when we became government in 2017 and, in 2018,

introduced the child care budget with over three dozen initiatives to

bring affordable, quality, inclusive child care to B.C. families. The

fee reduction program currently has over 90 percent of providers joining

this program. It is the first time in B.C.’s history that we’ve brought

down the cost of child care for B.C. families.

That is why we need to continue to make sure we can bring

affordable child care to more B.C. families and also provide a level

playing field for providers that are currently in operation, joining our

fee reduction program, and also for new providers who are coming into

this field, and to be able to make sure that they can set their fees at

a reasonable amount.

This program, again, is to ensure that we can pass the savings and

the fee reduction for B.C. families. We are proud of the progress that

we’ve made to bring affordable child care to B.C. families, after years

and years of neglect of the child care crisis by the member opposite and

the former Liberal government.

Mr. Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–Capi­lano on a

supplemental.

K. Kirkpatrick: I would like to remind the minister that this government now is

the previous government. There comes a point where blaming things from

prior to your being here echoes hollow, and this is the time.

A new report was just released and highlighted that B.C. has,

unlike what I just heard, some of the highest child care fees in British

Columbia, and that is because there are not enough spaces. This

government is failing. For years, this NDP government has promised

$10-a-day daycare and more spaces.

What they’re doing right now is the opposite. Parents are paying

more, and now providers are cancelling a number of spaces that they had

on the books to open. This government’s April 1 changes are directly

responsible for putting 2,100 spaces on hold at CEFA Early Learning

alone.

Will the Premier pause the April 1 changes and sit down with these

child care providers?

Hon. K. Chen: I am proud of the progress that our government has been making on

child care and making sure we can bring affordable child care benefits

to tens of thousands of families. Again, I need to remind the member

opposite that our fee reduction program has over 90 percent of providers

joining this program and passing on the savings to tens of thousands of

B.C. families.

Already, in 3½ years, we have over 36,000 families benefiting from

$10-a-day child care, or less. We have been accelerating the creation of

spaces. We have never accelerated the creation of spaces in B.C.’s

history in this way. We’ve created over 20,000 spaces in 3½

years.

I need to remind the member opposite that we have a very

comprehensive child care program with over three dozen new initiatives

to bring affordable, quality, accessible child care to B.C. families,

after years and years of neglect by the previous government ignoring the

child care crisis. They had caused chaos for a lot of B.C. families, and

we are proud of the progress we have made.

Again, the new policies to make sure that there is a level playing

field for all providers…. We’ve heard from a lot of current and existing

providers about how they will love to see that there are accountability

mechanisms for new providers joining our new fee reduction program.

Again, over 90 percent of providers are working with us to bring the

cost down for B.C. families, and we are already making sure B.C.

families are benefiting from affordable child care.

T. Stone: Notwithstanding the minister’s bluster there, there is a huge

difference between rhetoric and action. This is the government which

promised to actually deliver 24,000 new child care spaces in three

years. To this point, they’ve delivered approximately 4,000 in four

years — 4,000 spaces that actually have kids in them.

[2:15 p.m.]

This is a government that promised to deliver universal $10-a-day

child care. That promise is missing in action. Now, the latest policy

choices of this government, which take effect on April 1, are also going

to serve to significantly reduce the number of new spaces that come

online and increase costs for parents. The largest operators in the

province were not consulted on these significant changes.

I’ll give another example to the minister of one major operator —

the decision that they’re taking. Willowbrae has made the decision to

not proceed at this point with 1,750 spaces, including 136 spaces in

Maple Ridge, 160 in Port Coquitlam, 166 in Richmond, 180 in

Burnaby.

Will the Premier stop these policy changes, which will only serve

to have the effect of reducing access to new spaces and increasing costs

for parents in British Columbia?

Hon. K. Chen: I am glad that the member talked about space creation. Let me

remind the member opposite that we have been accelerating the creation

of spaces across B.C. communities, the fastest ever in B.C.’s

history.

Let me put that in perspective. We have been creating spaces.

Again, over 20,000 spaces have been funded in 3½ short years. That is

over 4½ times more child care spaces than the former B.C. Liberal

government ever funded in their last four years in

government.

We definitely, definitely have more work to do to make sure more

parents can return to work after, again, years of the child care chaos.

That was neglected by the previous government. We need to make sure…. We

need to accelerate the creation of spaces. We are well on target. I

definitely have more good news coming in the coming weeks to make sure

that every single week, every single month, we are creating spaces, and

those spaces are coming into operation across B.C.

communities.

Speaking of the fee reduction program, again, 90 percent of

providers join in this very important program. We need to make sure of a

level playing field for all providers, whether they’re new or existing

providers.

T. Stone: Well, this is beginning to sound like the NDP’s housing program,

where they talk about these tens of thousands of spaces, tens of

thousands of units which have been created around the province. The only

catch is there are no people in them. Less than 4,000 new child care

spaces have actually opened up in the last four years, under this

government. That’s a terrible record.

Jennifer Ratcliffe is a mother of three children, and she’s also

the owner of a child care centre in South Surrey. Jennifer writes: “I

have spoken to several daycare owners who have cancelled expansions, at

Pebble Lane. I get six or seven calls daily from parents looking for

care. It’s heartbreaking having to turn them away. I find it greatly

disheartening that the government would do this. You are going to crush

the careers of so many women.”

Again, my question to the Premier is this. Will the Premier pause

these changes on April 1? Will he talk to providers in the child care

space, operators like Jennifer, about the very negative impacts that

this policy will have on the parents of British Columbia?

Hon. K. Chen: Let me remind the member opposite that we have been talking to

providers across the province during the past few years, since we became

government. We have been talking to parents and learned about their

struggles when the previous government neglected the child care crisis.

Women were unable to return to work. They were forced to give up their

career.

So many parents were struggling with the high cost of child care,

not having access to child care after years and years of neglect. We

have been working hard to put together a comprehensive program, with

over three dozen new initiatives to bring an affordable, quality,

inclusive early learning care system to all B.C. families.

Again, we have been talking to providers and getting the feedback

from existing providers about how they want to see a level playing

field. When they are joining our fee reduction program, passing up to

$350 in savings to parents, those savings mean a lot to parents. That’s

focused on the parents. That $350 means that a lot of families are sure

that they can put better food, healthier food on the table, making sure

they can pay for their daily expenses.

[2:20 p.m.]

We want to ensure those savings are passed to parents. That is why

we have set the new policy to make sure there’s a level playing field

for current providers and new providers who can set their fees at 70

percent as the other 70 percent of providers in their

community.

J. Tegart: Four years ago the Premier made a flashy promise of $10-a-day

daycare. He hasn’t delivered. All he did was pick winners and losers in

communities across British Columbia, with a handful of federal pilot

sites.

The federal funding expires on March 31. Can the Premier tell

parents what happens to the federal sites, and when will the province

actually deliver $10-a-day daycare, as he promised?

Hon. K. Chen: I hope the member opposite has heard my previous answers that we

have been delivering $10-a-day child care to over 36,000 families in

this province. There are more and more families that are benefiting from

lower-cost child care. We have brought down the cost of child care for

this province and B.C. families through our three

initiatives.

Again, we have dozens of new initiatives, including three major

affordability measures: the fee reduction program that has 90 percent of

providers joining this program; the affordable child care benefit that

has brought down child care costs significantly for a lot of parents who

are making $70,000, $80,000, that can benefit from $10-a-day; and up to

the income of $111,000, benefiting a lot of middle-income families. We

also have the prototype site that is testing what universal child care

can look like.

We already are getting a lot of positive reviews from families

sharing that they can return to work, especially mothers who have

historically struggled with child care, and that we have encouraged and

supported a lot more parents and women to return to the

workforce.

We will continue to do the work. I hope the member opposite will

take a moment to read our comprehensive child care plan that is bringing

costs down for tens of thousands of B.C. families.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Fraser-Nicola on a supplemental.

J. Tegart: Parents desperately need child care spaces across British

Columbia, but providers are cancelling thousands of new spaces because

of what this two-term NDP government is doing on April 1.

Ten-dollar-a-day child care was a central campaign promise four

years ago, but they haven’t delivered. We now have providers putting

thousands of spaces on hold, and parents are paying more — fewer spaces

and higher fees.

When will the Premier actually start delivering on his $10-a-day

daycare?

Hon. K. Chen: I know B.C. families and B.C. parents have been struggling with

the high costs of child care. As a parent with a young child myself, I

know that struggle. I know what that struggle is like, as I continue to

struggle with my own child care.

While it is very encouraging to hear the member opposite asking so

many questions about child care, let’s remember that it was their

neglect of the child care crisis that so many parents, like myself, have

been really struggling with — the cost of child care and not being able

to have access to the spaces that they deserve.

That is why I’m so proud, again, of our government putting over

$1.3 billion into the new investment into affordable, quality, early

learning and care services. We already have funded 20,000 spaces across

the province. We already have 36,000 families that have been benefiting

from $10-a-day child care, with tens of thousands more families that

have seen a reduction in their fees. At the same time, we are building a

comprehensive system. We are supporting early childhood educators who

are the workforce behind the workforce to make sure they get a wage

enhancement.

There’s a lot more work to do, but I’m proud of the progress we

have made today.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

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

Mr. Speaker: Members, one more thing I want to share with you. This morning I sent a

memorandum on the dress code. Some of the members have now contacted me, asking

for more clarification.

[2:25 p.m.]

I want to tell the members that I’ll be meeting with the three House

leaders, hopefully in the next day or so. Then we’ll provide further

clarification, if necessary.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — SUPPLY ACT

(N o . 1), 2021

(continued)

D. Clovechok: Mr. Speaker, it’s great to retake my place here. As you recall, we

were speaking of the lack of trust and misrepresentation exhibited by

this government when it comes to Bill 10. Again, this kind of behaviour

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

the first place — protections and laws around accountability and

transparency — measures, again, that this current NDP government are

trying to circumvent with Bill 10 in front of this House

today.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Now, for the benefit of the member for Stikine, let’s talk about a

little bit of history again and the government’s success, with us

helping over 16 very proud years. One of the many people-centred

programs was the brainchild of former Premier Christy Clark, and that

was the single-parent employment initiative.

This initiative was focused on giving people a life-changing hand

up, not a one-time NDP handout. It was a program that helped single

parents on income and disability assistance to get the supports they

needed to overcome barriers to employment and build a better future for

their families. Supports included up to 12 months of funded training for

demand jobs or paid work experience, transit costs to and from school,

and child care costs during the training and their first year of

employment.

This program was a smash hit, welcoming over 6,000 participants.

As one of the thousands of participants said of her experience: “I am

really proud of myself now. I am balancing school and motherhood.

Without this program, my new life would not have been

possible.”

This program is just one example of the many programs that we

offered British Columbians over 16 proud years — always giving them a

hand up, not a one-time handout. Knowing this, I am confident that the

member for Stikine will accept my challenge and retract his comments

about our government only caring about some fictitious 1

percent.

I could never in any good faith look my constituents in the eye

and say that I was okay giving a government like this a $13.4 billion

blank cheque without any checks and balances. That would just not be

acceptable, and nor should they have to accept that. As such, I cannot

support this bill.

It was President Reagan who said: “Don’t be afraid to see what you

see. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” We

all see Bill 10 for what it is, and in my discussion, I have done what

is morally right and exposed Bill 10 for what it is not. It is nothing

more than a veiled attempt at coercion by the NDP, with no moral base

that would inspire any modicum of trust.

Mr. Speaker, mark my words. Just like it was in the ’90s, it will

be the people of B.C. who will have to try and pick up the failed

pieces, which are always the legacy of the NDP.

S. Furstenau: I’m glad to have the opportunity to speak to this bill. We’ve

heard several days of debate on this bill, a supply bill that gives

government $13 billion to maintain spending until the budget is

approved.

What have been the overarching themes of this debate? We’ve heard

from the government members that this is a typical bill that is passed

in the Legislature every year, a bill that allows for spending on

salaries, essential programs, government initiatives to continue between

the time of the budget being introduced and the time that it’s passed in

the Legislature. Mostly true. Except this year, as we’ve heard from

official opposition members, this interim supply bill is being brought

forward before anyone in British Columbia has the opportunity to see

this year’s budget or even hear from government its intentions or vision

in a speech from the throne. Also true.

Finally, we’ve heard that in order for the $13 billion in spending

to be approved, the bill has to circumvent the Financial Administration

Act, tying the interim supply not to this year’s budget but to last’s.

Also true. Also worrying.

[2:30 p.m.]

How did we get here? A combination of a set of circumstances and a

series of choices. Yes, we are in a global pandemic that has created a

kind of upheaval and disruption beyond what many of us could have ever

imagined. This government made highly political choices while we have

been in the midst of this pandemic, choices that have had consequences

and that have ultimately brought us to this rather extended debate on

what is typically a very routine piece of legislation.

The NDP chose to go to an early snap election in September. We’ve

heard many excuses for why they chose this, but ultimately, we can

recognize that political parties make political choices. The NDP chose

to let go of the remarkable level of cooperation and collaboration that

had marked the first eight months of 2020, to try to return us to what

has been the status quo of the B.C. Legislature, a majority government

that does not need or, generally, choose to work collaboratively with

other parties. In doing so, the NDP put themselves into a position

where, for ten weeks, government was in caretaker mode.

In the critical fall period when budget preparation work is

typically underway, the ministers were not working with their staff to

prepare budget submissions. They were on the campaign trail, raising

election funds. So when we hear from government members that they want

to have the time to fully consult and prepare for this year’s budget,

let’s not forget that there were ten weeks of consultation and

preparation that were lost because of the snap election. That was a

choice, not a set of circumstances that were outside of their

control.

Let’s recall also that there were substantial consultation

processes, both from the Finance Committee and from government itself,

throughout the spring and summer months — consultations that were

ultimately used, in large part, to feed the NDP’s election

campaign.

Let’s also recognize that this government has demonstrated a

tendency to do extensive consultation and to seek input from experts. I

will point to the B.C. Utilities Commission report on Site C in 2017,

the Basic Income Panel report and the old-growth strategic review panel

report — extensive consultations seeking input from experts, and then

not heeding that input or recommendations that have been brought

forward.

This government has also made the choice to bring the Legislature

back in December of 2020 to pass a bill that changed the deadline for

the presenting of a budget, pushing it past the end of the fiscal year.

That choice is what brings us to the place we are today: debating a

two-page bill that in most years is neither controversial nor

problematic. The other implication of this choice to delay the budget

is, ultimately, a shortening of the time that we will have to ask the

ministers, in estimates, about the choices that are made in this year’s

budget, after last year’s short estimates.

Indeed, I think we should be concerned by a trend that we are

seeing in this Legislature’s ability to have thorough oversight of the

budget, with a diminishing number of weeks for estimates debate, year

over year. In 2018, the spring budget was introduced February 20, after

a fall introduction of a new government and after a budget update that

had been introduced in September. The election had been in 2017 in the

spring. That provided ten weeks of legislative sitting for members to

review, debate and question ministers on the budget.

In 2019, the budget was introduced February 19, and there were

nine weeks of sitting that followed. In 2020, the budget was introduced

February 18, weeks before our worlds closed down and everything changed.

We did have the hybrid summer setting, much thanks to the hard work of

the Clerks, Hansard and all of the staff here to pull that together. In

the end, there were a total of eight weeks of sitting, after the budget

was introduced.

[2:35 p.m.]

Here we are in 2021. The budget won’t be introduced until April

20, three weeks after the fiscal year-end, and we will have a grand

total of six weeks left in our spring session to debate and question the

budget in estimates. Ten, nine, eight, six.

Interjection.

S. Furstenau: As the former Minister of Finance is indicating, four

weeks.

It is a worrying trend, to say the least. Everyone, regardless of

which party they are in, should be concerned about this trend.

Transparency, accountability and being answerable to parliament are

essential to a healthy, functioning democracy. Diminishment of the role

of elected representatives — diminishment of the time that elected

representatives have to do their work in this chamber, diminishment of

parliament when it comes to oversight of government — is a diminishment

of democracy.

For the many hours and days of the debate that we’ve been hearing,

the government members have defended this bill and spent a lot of time

pointing to the misdeeds and missteps of the B.C. Liberal Party when

they were in government from 2001 to 2017, and the official opposition

members have spent a great deal of time pointing to the misdeeds and

missteps of the NDP when they were in government over 20 years

ago.

I imagine — which, as a relative newcomer to this place, isn’t

that hard to do — what it might be like for members of the public who

are watching this debate unfold, a debate that seems to be about the

past quite a bit more than it is about the present or, importantly,

about the future. The lines are being so clearly redrawn now that we’re

back in a majority government — lines and trenches that had been

softened, eroded and diminished not just in 2020, as all three parties

came together to meet the enormous challenge of the pandemic, but since

2017, when there were two parties in this Legislature that had to work

collaboratively.

What’s interesting in the debate that I’ve heard so far is that,

for the most part, this period — 2017 to 2020 and, particularly, the

period of 2020 when there was a lot of collaboration — has been held up

by both sides of the House as something to be proud of. Accomplishments

were made. Collaboration and cooperation happened. We rose to the

challenge. We were at our best.

Majority governments have no need to work collaboratively. They

can choose to do so, but they can also choose to operate completely

independently from the rest of the Legislature because they have no need

for the support of any members outside of their caucus. With the

trenches rebuilt and the lines redrawn, we’ve seen, in the debate around

this bill, both sides of this Legislature revert to the age-old,

time-honoured traditions of adversarial, conflict-driven debate so

typical of majority governments. I think we can do, and we have done, so

much better.

I look to New Zealand, which has had minority governments, with

two exceptions, since moving to a mixed-member proportional electoral

system in 1996. Interestingly, in the 2020 election, the Labour Party,

under Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, did win an outright majority —

unusual in a proportional representation system. But Ms. Ardern decided

to maintain a collaborative approach to governance and appointed two

opposition MPs as ministers outside of cabinet.

Ms. Ardern reflected what she had learned and what has been

learned in New Zealand over the last couple of decades, which is that

governments do better when they’re collaborating, when they’re

listening, when they’re taking in the perspectives of other parties.

Here is an example that we can look to: a recognition by this Prime

Minister that different perspectives contribute to better governance and

better outcomes and that collaboration contributes to better governance

overall.

I think that many of us around the world have looked to New

Zealand for their impressive leadership on so many fronts: climate

action, reconciliation, antiracism, banning assault weapons in the wake

of a horrific murder of 51 Muslims worshipping in their

mosques.

[2:40 p.m.]

It with great envy, I expect, that all of us have observed New

Zealand’s response to COVID-19, particularly when we’ve seen the images

of gatherings and concerts, while we have all had to spend so much time

away from those most beloved to us.

I don’t think that there is a disconnect between how people are

elected, how our parliaments are formed, how they operate and the

governance outcomes that we achieve. Needing the support of other

parties puts an onus on governments to consider those perspectives,

those insights and the wisdom of other political parties, which of

course represent the perspectives, the insights and the wisdom of the

people who voted for them.

As I watch and listen to and observe this debate, I lament what we

have lost: the collaboration. I also lament that 3½ years of a more

collaborative governance in this building does not seem to have had a

particularly lasting effect, although I remain hopeful and optimistic.

Ultimately, for me, this bill is a case of how we are not living up to

the expectations that the public should have of us

collectively.

Everybody has had to adjust to the set of circumstances, the

global pandemic that is well outside of our control. For so many people,

there have been enormous and life-changing losses and sacrifices. In a

time of crisis, they look to leaders to guide, to support, to shepherd

all of us collectively through these difficult times. This bill, the

delayed budget, the shortened time for the Legislature to properly

investigate that budget in estimates and the diminishment of

transparency and accountability all fall short of what the public should

expect of their government.

M. de Jong: Perhaps keeping with the theme that the Leader of the Third Party

was developing over the past few moments, I’ll make the observation that

it is certainly an interim supply debate unlike any that I have

participated in, in this place. I’ve participated in a few of them over

the years.

We have, as we’ve just heard, been treated to accusations from

both sides of the floor, with the government members that have chosen to

participate observing that there’s nothing unusual about what we are

engaged in here today, that interim supply is very much a part of the

parliamentary tradition and the budgeting tradition and that the

opposition needs to simply relax and accept that fact.

Conversely, my colleagues and I — and the members, in a slightly

different way, from the Third Party — have commented upon what we see as

a violation of some fundamental tenets of parliamentary democracy and

the budgeting process that is so much a part of that parliamentary

democratic tradition.

What is an observer to make of all this, who is watching, perhaps

confined to their home and, having run out of their Netflix offerings

for the day, has tuned in? What are they to make of those competing

views of what is taking place? Well, I do have a perspective on this

that I’ll share. I’m not overly optimistic that it’s going to change any

of the minds of people in this chamber or of those who have spoken.

Maybe, at the end of the day, that’s not the purpose of the exercise,

but merely to provide input, based on whatever insight I have, into

these matters.

[2:45 p.m.]

What I have thought…. As I’ve listened over the last number of

days, this question has emerged for me: are good intentions an excuse

for abandoning good practices? Are those two concepts, good intentions

and good practices, exclusive of one another? My answer, my proposition

for the House, is that not only can good intentions and good practices

coexist, they must coexist. One is a necessary prerequisite for the

other.

I was thinking the other day, sitting on the ferry and doing some

mental math, about the number of MLAs that I have worked with in this

place over the years. It’s somewhere between 250 and 300. I haven’t

counted each one. Some real characters, to be sure. I have to say, upon

reflection, that virtually all of them…. Maybe, if I’m not generous,

there might be one or two I might have my doubts about, but virtually

all of them were well-intentioned, motivated by a desire to serve, to do

good — do good for the province, do good for their

constituencies.

One of the sad realities of this legislative session since the

election is that, because of the nature in which it has to be conducted,

we haven’t really got a chance to get to know some of the newer members

of the chamber. We have learned about them from some of their speeches.

I have no reason to doubt that the newest members of this chamber are

any different in terms of coming here with good intentions. But good

intentions without good practices is what gets governments and,

ultimately, societies into trouble.

What is that in the context of budgeting? What are these, what I

would deem, necessary good practices, and are they important? Well, they

must certainly be important in this context. The parliament we are in —

that we have the honour to sit in, stand in, speak in — really exists

for two, maybe three reasons.

One is that we create laws. We create laws that govern people’s

behaviour and impose sanctions on them if they fail to abide by those

laws. That’s significant. That is important.

We provide spending authority to the Crown, in the context of our

constitutional monarchy, via the executive branch — the authority to

collect revenues and the authority to spend moneys.

A third function, I suppose, worthy of…. I got in trouble once for

not immediately recognizing this. It’s the role of the parliament via

the opposition to hold the government to account as it exercises those

constitutional authorities.

All of that is part and parcel of what goes on here and is really

the essence of why we gather and why people are asked to make selections

to send people here. The government seeks permission — we call it a

voted appropriation in this place — and in seeking that permission to

spend, it lays before the members of this chamber a detailed spending

plan and the details of what it expects to collect in revenues from

various sources.

Members get a chance to ask questions. They get to poke and prod

and critique. It takes time. Usually, as the Leader of the Third Party

mentioned, it takes a couple of months. At least historically, it has

taken a couple of months. As she has pointed out, and others, that time

frame is becoming more and more reduced, compacted. That is

troubling.

[2:50 p.m.]

While that exercise is taking place — while the members of this

chamber, on behalf of their constituents, are posing those questions,

seeking clarification about the grand plan, the grand spending blueprint

for the coming fiscal year — in the interim, as the fiscal year ends and

as spending authority ends, provision is made for the government to

continue to operate by granting it interim supply. This is simply a code

term we use for a portion of the budget that they have introduced before

this House, that is presently before the House, to ensure that the

operations of government can continue.

Of course, that’s what’s missing here. But it’s a pretty

fundamental piece of the puzzle when we are talking about the spending

plan and its absence and the government coming along and asking for

permission to spend a portion of a plan that they haven’t shared with

anyone. Therein lies the disconnect, and for us in opposition, a very

worrisome feature.

I realize that some do not reflect fondly, and I’m not always

reflecting fondly, on history. But to make the point, I went back, and I

looked, over the last number of years, at the budgets. I didn’t go back

far. I went back to 2017. I could have gone back much further than that.

I had a certain familiarity with some of the budgets between 2013 and

2017, but I didn’t go that far back. I went back to 2017, which was the

last one that I was intimately involved in.

This is the budget. These were the estimates that were tabled.

Then, sometime after that, there was an interim supply bill that was

tabled that sought permission to take a portion of what was contemplated

in these documents, in these spending estimates. It sought permission,

and it was granted to spend a portion of that. The same thing happened

in subsequent years — 2018, 2019.

Here’s the 2018-2019 budget, budget book, estimates — about 400

pages of material. Guess what. There was another that was tabled in

February, and then there was an interim supply bill. In 2020, same

thing. Budget estimates. Again, another 300 or 400 pages of material

that members could go through and had before them and could study in

considering the government’s request for interim supply.

What do we have this year? This is going back four years, most of

which were under the watch of the present party in power. Over the past

four years, we had this, as members of the House were considering

interim supply. We have this, versus this, for $13 billion. This is what

the government — the Premier and the Finance Minister — believe is

sufficient for members to have before them. It’s actually one page, if

it’s double sided. It’s one page, and that’s not enough. It’s not enough

for the opposition, but it’s not enough for British Columbians, whose

money it is in the first place.

[2:55 p.m.]

I thought to myself: if we applied that standard to circumstances

that might be more familiar to British Columbians, what kind of reaction

would we get? What about the family that goes in to negotiate the

mortgage for their first home purchase? They go into their credit union.

They sit down, and at some point, the loans officer at the credit union,

if they’re like my credit union, says: “Well, that’s all well and good,

but we’re going to have to get a bit of a picture. We’ve got to get some

information from you about your financial circumstances.”

That family says to the credit union loans officer or the manager:

“Yeah, well, we’ve had a bad year this year. We can’t get you all the

details just yet, but we think we’ll be able to get it to you in a month

or two. We promise we’ll bring it to you in a month or two, but in the

meantime, could you give us 25 percent of what we asked for? Could we

get an advance on the 25 percent? And we promise we’ll bring in the

other stuff that you want to look at.”

By the way, just because he’s here, the minister of Jobs and

Economic Recovery…. He is in charge of a program, a small business

support program. I just thought of this. I wonder if the government….

Now, he has received criticism — in my view, legitimate — for other

reasons relating to that program, but that’s for another day. We’ll talk

about that for another day.

How would the minister, the government and the people

administering the small business support program react to this scenario?

I’m a small business. I have certainly not had a very good year, and I’m

making an application for some funding support.

When the people running the program say to me, “We’d like to get a

complete picture of your financial situation for the past year and what

you’re forecasting for the year ahead,” I say to the program officials:

“Well, I don’t have that yet, but I promise to get it to you in the next

month or two. In the meantime, can I have 25 percent of what I’m asking

for? Can I have 25 percent of what I’m asking for? I promise you, I’ll

give you all the information you want a month from now.”

Well, I know what the response from the minister and his

colleagues would be. One of the minister’s colleagues, in fact, the now

minister from Powell River–Sunshine Coast, described Bill 10 as “nothing

more….” I wrote it down. “A bridge between the previous budget and the

new one.”

Well, he’s incorrect on both counts because, if we’re going to use

the bridge analogy, it’s a bridge from nowhere to nowhere. Now, some

governments have made a mistake of building a bridge that went from

somewhere to nowhere. But this would be the first government to build a

bridge from nowhere to nowhere, which is what we have.

I say that because if you go to this one- or two-page document, as

we heard a moment ago, you see the game that is being played. In

section

1(1), the “‘main Estimates for the previous fiscal year’ means the main

Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2021….”

Then, in sub 2, the “main Estimates for the previous fiscal year

are to be read as if they were the main Estimates for the fiscal year

ending March 31, 2022.” That, in legislative parlance, is the “let’s

pretend” clause. Those who draft these documents don’t want me to say

that, but that’s what it is. I can tell you, with some experience, that

is the “let’s pretend” clause. Let’s pretend there is a budget before

us.

Here’s what’s really astounding. What the government is saying is,

“Let’s pretend the budget that is before us is a budget that was

introduced over a year ago,” that the government itself acknowledged is

absolutely irrelevant today — by the way, in this case, for reasons

beyond the government’s control. I will acknowledge that, in fairness.

But absolutely irrelevant.

[3:00 p.m.]

We are to pretend that it exists, we are to pretend that it has

relevance, and now we are to pretend that it is justification in the

absence of any other detail than that one line. We are to pretend that

it is justification for granting the government authority to spend $13

billion. It’s astounding, really.

Talking about some of those MLAs that I used to work with, I was

thinking the other day about a fellow that I liked. I didn’t actually

like him as much when he was a political adversary. I respected him.

That guy’s name was Dan Miller.

He was an MLA for a number of years, from Prince Rupert. He became

a minister, became a premier, and a very worthy political adversary. For

those who don’t know, he became an NDP premier. Boy, he was tough to pin

down in debate or question period. He was good. I asked him once, after

he’d retired, how he accounted for that. You know what he told me? He

said: “Never overplay your hand.”

Governing’s tough. God knows, it’s tough. Sometimes you get a pair

of twos. When you’ve got a pair of twos, don’t bluff and pretend you’ve

got a full house.

The government’s bluffing here. The government is bluffing. The

difference is that, again, as we heard a few moments ago, they have

dealt themselves this hand. They have largely dealt themselves the hand

that is causing the consternation that we attempt to articulate today.

They have decided that they do not want to be bound by the same

discipline, the same timelines, the same reporting requirements that

have served this province well for about two decades.

When the previous, previous government embedded generally accepted

accounting principles into the budgeting process, it wasn’t easy. It

caused a lot of frustration at times, but it was the right thing to do.

It served this province very, very well.

The irony, as I see it, as I’ve listened to the debate, is that

government members continue to celebrate the benefits of the things that

developed out of that budgetary discipline — the triple-A ratings, the

budgetary strengths they inherited — but then they proceed, by virtue of

Bill 10 and some other things that have taken place, to do two things

that I find both frustrating and puzzling.

They do mock our claims of budgetary discipline in the governments

that I served in, the transparency that developed for British Columbia.

By the way, as I say this, that is not to discount the right of

oppositions to challenge, to chastise, to critique the contents of the

budgets and the decisions that were made. But the discipline around

timing, the reporting requirements, the transparency developed for B.C.

a reputation as the leader in Canada and North America.

That’s not me saying so, although I’m happy to, and I’m proud I

can. It is these other agencies who examine, observe and compare. When

they mock us, who instituted these rules, they aren’t actually mocking

us. They are mocking the auditors general, the rating agencies, the

lenders, the investors, who made those favourable assessments free of

any partisan considerations. They didn’t care which party we belonged

to.

[3:05 p.m.]

They just said that B.C., as a jurisdiction, has rules in place

that, procedurally, serve the public well, and they applauded us for

that. Now those rules are being flouted and dismantled. Secondly, as

they, the members on the government side, tout the benefits…. At the

same time they tout the benefits that resulted from budgetary and

procedural discipline, they are dismantling that very structure and the

safeguards that helped us achieve that enviable status.

I guess this is the biggest irony of all for me, and maybe it

derives from a more philosophical approach that I perhaps was not guilty

of years ago, when I first arrived here. But I have come to see the

cyclical nature of politics. What occurs to me is, ironically, that the

government, the Premier, the Finance Minister, the NDP colleagues are

ultimately sowing the seeds of their own demise. Sloppy, undisciplined

practices will once again be their undoing.

Sadly, the province will pay a huge price along the way, and we

will begin to see that very quickly, because we have seen it all before.

I had a ring-side seat. I didn’t want to come in here and read

chapter

and verse from the playbook of the last time the NDP held a majority

government in this place. We heard a few moments ago about how that

status has altered behaviour in the last few years.

I was around, sitting on this side of the House, the last time the

NDP had a majority. I could go through the descent into budgetary chaos

that unfolded as a result of that lack, or absence, of

discipline.

Maybe the more effective way or, ultimately, more convincing way

to do it is by referring to a number. The number is two, because when

all was said and done, that lack of discipline, that manipulation, that

behaviour left a proud party with two seats, and we’re going down that

road again. I suppose one could say, “Well, you should be cheering,”

except the price, the toll that exacted on the province, that descent

into budgetary chaos, took years to repair, and here we go

again.

It’s easy to blame COVID. No one in British Columbia needs to be

convinced of the impact that has had. But COVID didn’t force the

government to call an election. Quite the opposite. Any

reasonable-thinking person would have understood that that was precisely

the wrong time. The government thought otherwise. COVID has not forced

this government to delay the introduction of the budget. Not at all.

Those were decisions motivated by political expediency, nothing more.

Well, the government will ultimately be held to account for these

decisions.

[3:10 p.m.]

I will say this. In the past, this chamber has had the details,

the plan, the blueprint to study, to critique, to support. This

government wants us to do it with one page. I think that speaks volumes

about the regard the government, the Premier and the Finance Minister

have for this chamber.

Good intentions, Mr. Speaker, I would submit to you and the people

of British Columbia, are no excuse for bad practices. Bill 10, in my

view, represents horribly bad practice — horribly bad practice. If the

Premier, the Finance Minister and the NDP members don’t realize that,

then I truly do fear for the future of British Columbia.

P. Milobar: I’m glad to be able to rise and speak to Bill 10, the Supply Act.

I’ll build a bit on what my colleague from Abbotsford West was touching

on as well, because this bill is very concerning.

It’s not concerning, in and of itself, that the government is

asking for a supply bill. We understand that that is a regular course of

business. Listening to the debate, one would think that this was a

regular flow of work throughout this process right now this

spring.

I can appreciate that perhaps the newly elected members to this

chamber, being handed their speaking notes, would not have known any

different. I can understand that. There’s a lot to take in with new

information on process and procedure. You’d have no reason to think that

this was not something that normally happened. If you were just a

passing observer of what goes on in this chamber over the years, you

would always hear “supply bill” and you’d think: “Oh yeah, I remember

hearing something about a supply bill.”

As the previous speaker from Abbotsford West has pointed out so

well, a supply bill comes after a budget. A supply bill comes after

those 300 or 400 pages of detail. A supply bill comes as we’re sitting

there scrutinizing the budget to make sure that everyone understands how

and what programs are going to be initiated, where the spending will go,

what the priorities of the government are. Every government, regardless

of political stripe, has the ability to set their priorities within that

budget, and no one is disputing that. It happens all across

Canada.

All of Canada has had a pandemic underway for this last year. As

far as I know, all the other provinces have been able to stick to their

budgetary guidelines. That’s crucial when you consider that, in this

House, the previous Finance Minister asked this House to give the

ability after an election to extend the budget cycle by one month. We

said at the time that we didn’t understand why it was needed, but it was

approved. Fast-forward to just after the election that got called a year

in advance of when it was supposed to be called normally due to

legislation. Again, government overriding their own legislation: a fixed

election law.

We were met in December with a bill that asked us to approve

extending for another month when a budget should be implemented. We said

at that time that it wasn’t necessary. At that same time in December, we

had also been given a request for $2 billion by the Finance Minister —

$2 billion with no detail — to provide COVID relief money, mid-budgetary

year.

At the time, we said: “Where is the detail? Why do you need $2

billion for a program that, you openly admit, should only be in the $1

billion-to-$1.2 billion range, to push out the door to provide people

with their COVID relief money?” Many of them are still waiting for that

COVID relief money, I would point out.

At the time, we were told: “Oh, it’s for other COVID programs.

Don’t worry. Trust us.” Well, we heard in this House just two weeks ago,

as I believe it was, the Finance Minister, in one of her answers in

question period, explaining exactly why we should have concerns about

Bill 10, as we asked questions in question period about Bill

[3:15 p.m.]

She stood up in this chamber and indicated that the COVID relief

money was indeed at about $1.2 billion out the door — and sat down. We

still don’t know what happened to the other $800 million we approved. We

don’t know what program it went to. We don’t know if it’s going to just

get rolled into year-end spending and blown out the door in the next

week or week and a half, as a slush fund to make the Premier look like a

nice guy with a bunch of photo ops at the last second, bailing people

out. We don’t know, because there was no detail with that $2 billion.

That was in December.

Let’s go back to March 23, when a blank cheque for $5 billion was

given. “Trust us. We’re going to use it for all sorts of good COVID

relief programs” — to which this side of the House agreed.

An Hon. Member: One year ago tomorrow.

P. Milobar: Exactly. One year ago tomorrow.

Good faith, unanimous — $5 billion approved with no detail.

“Details to come.” And $1.5 billion of that was earmarked for

businesses. When did the detail for that come? Six months later, right

before the election, which was called a year ahead of when the fixed

election law said it would be — a date that this government actually

set.

It used to be May. Their first order of business in this House, as

a new government, was to pass new election laws to push it to October of

this year, to give themselves an extra six months — not to take six

months away from their mandate as a minority government but to add six

months to it. They changed that law.

This is the second time they’ve changed the budgetary timeline

laws. Why it’s concerning is that with Bill 10, the excuse is COVID.

COVID seems to be the excuse for a lot of things going on, on the

governmental side, these days.

Let’s look at what happened with the transition of power, of those

16 years that the other side likes to talk about so often. In July of

2017, the NDP take minority government status. You know what happened in

September? Two months later there was a full new budget presented by a

government which hadn’t been in power for 16 years previously, by a

Finance Minister that had to figure out how to work with the Finance

bureaucracy in a two-month window of time, to get a budget presented to

this House.

You know what we did in October, right on schedule, after the

budget was presented? We had full estimates debates on that

budget.

Instead, we now have a new Finance Minister, post an election,

that was triggered a year early by this government and by no one else,

and we’re told: “Just trust us.” Well, we’ve tried that over the last

year with several COVID initiatives, and we still can’t get any details.

We can’t get any straight answers about any of it. “Just trust us” seems

to be the line. For $13 billion, we have a bill with more

preamble and

whereas’s than actual clauses and descriptive language around the $13

billion it’s asking for — a bill that’s so light that we could probably

read it into the record, completely, in a two-minute

statement.

It’s simply not acceptable that the government feels that this is

what passes for adequate information and disclosure. As the member for

Abbotsford West said previously, it’s not adequate for this House to

properly know what the priorities and the spending is for this $13

billion without a full budget to account for it. I’ll take that one step

further. It’s totally inadequate for the general public, for the

taxpayers whose funds make up this $13 billion, to have any

accountability and transparency with Bill 10 and this government’s

actions.

[3:20 p.m.]

Now, the government will keep saying…. We heard member after

member: “This is routine. This is routine. This always happens.” It

simply does not.

We looked back. As best we could find, 1974 was when something

like this happened. When something similar to this happened, with

special warrants and budgetary shenanigans going on, it was in the ’90s,

in the fudge-it budget. It’s well documented what the now Health

Minister wound up having to do in his role as a staffer at the time,

needing to resign for backdating memos. We know the Premier was working

at that time in the Ministry of Finance. We know the current chief of

staff was working within government at a high level at that time. Yet

the other side seems to get offended that we bring it up.

The only reason people get their hackles up around the ’90s being

referenced, on both sides of the political spectrum, is because it was a

disaster. As we heard — wound up with two seats. That’s the electorate

speaking at that point. That’s the electorate remembering what happened

when the games, like we’re seeing now, started to get played with the

budgetary process.

We have a former Finance Minister that was able to deliver a full

budget and open it up for full scrutiny within two months of them taking

office, and we have a new Finance Minister that, five months after an

election, can’t deliver a budget on time. First act of business is

actually to call the assembly back in December to buy two more months’

time to deliver a budget.

I’ll point out that if you look at the calendar, yes, the budget

will be introduced on April 20. If you look at the parliamentary

calendar, those same budget estimates won’t start effectively until the

middle of May. The first real scrutiny, minister by minister, of the

budget that will be introduced on April 20 will not start until the

afternoon of the Thursday right before we go on a break. So estimates

will not start in earnest until May 10 of this year. I say that standing

here on March 22, where we should have been just about halfway through

estimates by now.

The scary

part is that the other side doesn’t seem to care. They

don’t seem to see the urgency. They just flat-out refuse to acknowledge

that on a budgetary scale, this is a train wreck. There is no detail.

This supply bill, Bill 10, is built on a pre-pandemic budget, so it’s a

quarter of what the government thought they were going to have to spend

before they needed COVID relief programs in place.

We’re told by the Finance Minister…. Talk about a shell game.

Well, that’s not how budgeting works. It’s not 1/12 and 1/12 and 1/12.

“Don’t worry. We can just pull money from the third month forward to

make sure we have enough money for the COVID relief payments in the

beginning of April.”

I understand that they have a healthy majority, but you wouldn’t

think it listening to the Attorney General talk about this bill. That,

or the Attorney General just fundamentally doesn’t understand at all how

budgets work in our parliamentary system. For the Attorney General to

stand in this House and tell people that if we voted against this bill,

which we’re not certain we’re going to yet…. We want to see people get

their COVID relief payments. We want to see programs move forward. We

also want to see some transparency and some disclosure. I don’t think

that’s asking too much on behalf of the public.

[3:25 p.m.]

For the Attorney General to turn around in this House, and other

members after him, and say that if we vote against this bill, we’re

trying a U.S.-style shutdown of government…. The fact that the Attorney

General doesn’t know that that’s not actually what would happen is quite

shocking. Very shocking that the Attorney General, who’s supposed to be

in charge of the laws of the province, is alluding to the fact that

government would shut down and grind to a halt if we were to vote

against this bill.

First off, if this bill was to be defeated, that would be a

confidence vote. One would think the other side, having to govern for

the last three and a half years with a one-seat majority based on a deal

with a third party, would understand how those work. That would be the

first thing. We’d be thrown into an election.

Why would we be thrown into an election? Why would this bill be

voted down and an election be triggered? It would only happen if half of

the other side decided to take a day off work. The math is pretty clear

in the House. I know if I’d said that in a normal chamber, with all 87

here, the thundering applause from the other side would be

great.

One only has to look at the plain numbers after the election. I’m

not denying it. The NDP have two seats for every seat we have. How did

the Attorney General think this bill was going to grind government to a

halt if the B.C. Liberals voted against it? Are they taking spring break

early?

It’s that type of statement, coming from other side of the House,

that gives pause about the confidence that anyone over there actually

has a good handle on what is happening. If I was a new member to the

House, from that side, I’d be a little embarrassed that the Attorney

General prompted you with speaking lines that are patently wrong. They

just are.

This Bill 10, as we’ve heard, has so little detail in it that all

we get told is that they want $12,305,108,000 towards defraying costs.

Wow, that makes sense. Perfectly clear.

You know, the interesting thing is that as the weather warms up in

B.C., government services tend to ramp up as well. So for the Finance

Minister to say, “Oh, well, it’s just a pot of money. We’ll spend more

in April, and then we’ll spend a little bit more in May. But don’t

worry. The June money can just cover that off. By then, we should have a

budget passed. We’ll still have enough money left in the kitty, and then

the rest of the budget will kick in….” That’s the logic for the other

side.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

The reality is that as parks start to open, more staff start to

get hired. As other programs start to ramp up in the summertime, more

staff start to get hired. This budget is so late, we’re actually talking

about the summertime. We’re talking about a budget being introduced

April 20 that won’t actually get any scrutiny in this House of any kind,

of questions to the ministers, until the middle of May instead of the

third week of February.

When we’re told, “Just trust us on Bill 10,” it’s kind of hard to.

It’s kind of hard to trust that they’re going to spend $13 billion

wisely, with accountability and transparency, when they give you a

one-page bill for that. The bill, I believe, in December, actually, for

$2 billion — it wasn’t even a bill. It was just a supply bill. We didn’t

debate it. We had some estimates on it. I think it had as much if not

more detail than this has in it.

You know what had a lot of detail in it and that was longer than

this in December? The legislation to extend the ability of when you

presented a budget. This government has spent more time and provided

more detail to legislation about how to delay things and avoid

accountability than they have to bring forward actual, factual

information that people can dig into and take a look at.

[3:30 p.m.]

Could you imagine, speaking of municipalities…. We’ve seen what

the Attorney General has been like to municipalities in the last couple

of weeks. Certainly, he’s not threatening them. You know, telling them

that the 42 people that need housing need 1,000 tents and 1,000 sleeping

bags provided by B.C. Housing. That’s not threatening at all — that

they’re trying to set up a larger encampment if the city doesn’t just be

quiet and do whatever the Attorney General says.

Can you imagine the Attorney General’s reaction to those same

municipalities if they tried budgeting like this? The Attorney General

has made it very, very clear that municipalities are a creature of and

exist at the will of the province. They get to do, and have to stay in

their lane, according to what the province tells them they may or may

not do.

Municipalities have been going through COVID; municipalities have

had to deal with COVID. I don’t see them delaying their budget process

by two months. I don’t see them saying to the province: “Yeah, well,

we’ll figure out our budget in a couple of months. Don’t worry about

it.” I know what the province would say to a municipality that tried

doing that. As a former mayor, I know the pressure we were under in a

municipality, in any given year, to bring forward a budget on time and

to have proper public scrutiny and proper public input at the same time,

which the province demands by municipalities when they’re developing

their budget.

It’s totally lacking in Bill 10 — no detail, no accountability.

Shrugs from the other side, telling us: “Don’t worry about it. It’s only

a couple of weeks. We only need the money for a couple of weeks.” Well,

if you only need the money for a couple of weeks, why did you ask for

three months? It simply doesn’t add up; it’s simply not good

enough.

When people are expecting COVID relief programs to continue on and

aren’t sure where the money is coming from, it’s not good enough. When

the Premier talks about a business grant program that has to have the

money out the door by March 31 or it’s going to end, and then we

magically hear two weeks later that it’s extended to August 31 — outside

the window of this bill, too, I would point out — where is the money

coming from? We don’t know.

Does the business support program only continue on if the supply

bill passes? Is it even part of the supply bill?

The business recovery grant is a COVID program that didn’t exist

when the very budget that this was built on, Bill 10, was first

introduced. It wasn’t part of the $49 billion budget that was introduced

last February and that Bill 10 is based on. The business grant program

didn’t exist. It existed as a result of a March 23 vote in this House

that gave a blank cheque for $5 billion to this government, which has

fiddled around and played games with it and won’t provide any

transparency on the $5 billion, and which came to this House again in

December, insisting they needed the money to be able to provide COVID

relief.

We agree with the COVID relief for people. We didn’t agree with

the $2 billion because we said that there wouldn’t be any

accountability. “Why do you need that much?” “Oh, don’t worry. Trust

us.” Well, we’ve seen what trust has gotten us a few times already, in

just a year. We’ve also seen that it’s totally possible for a Finance

Minister, in a two-month time frame, to go from being in opposition for

16 years to sitting in the Finance Minister’s chair, presenting a full

budget to this chamber and being able to have estimates at a normal

timeline for that budget.

Why that’s important is because the pre-budgetary work would have

started well in advance of that September election call by the Premier.

The bureaucracy of the Ministry of Finance would have been working

forward on what the Premier and ministers were advising was the

direction they were planning to set, on a February budget. That work

would have been underway.

[3:35 p.m.]

That staff is all still there. The only thing that changed is the

minister. The Premier is still there. The chief of staff is still there.

One would assume that that direction was going to continue in the same

way. They would have already been dealing with the pandemic for six to

nine months. But no, the first order of business by this new Finance

Minister is to delay yet another month and to blame COVID.

Unconscionable, completely unconscionable.

Without proper oversight, without the opposition having the

ability to properly scrutinize and question the priorities of a

government, it makes it very difficult for the public to have faith in

what the government is doing. You think back to 25 years ago, when the

infamous fudge-it budget happened. You think about the technology and

the public expectation around access to documents, access to

information, wanting to know what was going on, compared to what it is

nowadays, 25 years later.

Think about how all of us have to conduct ourselves with social

media, as part of our lives as elected officials, compared to what it

was like 25 years ago. Think of how much demand the public has for their

right to know, almost in real time, what is going on, and the ease that

they can call up our debates and go online and find things. They’re not

sitting there waiting for a dial-up anymore. A couple of clicks, and

they can call up all the history we’re talking about here. They’ll see

it’s all factual. They’ll see how dismal this bill is, in terms of lack

of disclosure and transparency.

It’s astounding that the government has been able to pull off this

level of hiding what they actually want to spend the taxpayers’ money

on, in this day and age. What’s more astounding is that member after

member on the government side just stands up and shrugs like it’s no big

deal.

There are some interesting quotes, previously, when we were the

party in charge, when there was the occasional special warrant brought

forward. I say occasional, but there was the occasional time they were

needed. They were brought forward with full disclosure and information

and vetting by the opposition.

The opposition didn’t like it. They didn’t have to like it. But

they had access to the information. They had access to actually ask

questions on behalf of the public that we all serve.

You know who stood up in this House and spoke against the use of

those special warrants? The now Premier, when he was in opposition. The

Minister of Energy and Mines spoke up pretty strongly against it; now

it’s just a shrug. The same Premier that was working in the Ministry of

Finance back in the fudge-it budget years as well, I might point out.

It’s amazing how his perspective keeps shifting as to what is actually

appropriate or not for how he conducts himself — more importantly, how

he demands his cabinet conduct themselves in terms of bringing things

forward, bringing information forward.

Bill 10, we have a lot of questions for. As I say, we do want to

see government continue to operate. It’s COVID. That’s why we didn’t

think there should be a caretaker mode middle-pandemic, in September,

for an election. Interesting how the Premier’s perspective changed on

that too. That’s fine. He made his choice. We’ll move forward. But we’re

moving forward with a whole lot of questions, and we’re expecting a

whole lot of answers.

Last I checked, the clock is ticking. This comes into effect with

royal assent. This is our last sitting week. This bill got delayed how

many times when it kept coming up? It was introduced right at the very

beginning. We could have been having this debate for quite some time

already. So we are not going to be bound by the clock on the wall,

seeking answers to our questions on behalf of constituents.

[3:40 p.m.]

We’ll move forward with this bill. We’re going to question the

heck out of clause 2, because that’s a $12.3 billion clause with no

information in it. I guess we’ll just see, at the end of the week, where

we land — if this government is prepared to offer actual answers in

detail, or if they’re going to continue with what their narrative has

been in the debate so far: “Don’t worry about it. You’ll see it in a few

weeks.”

Well, we do worry about it. This is $13 billion. The public has a

right to have answers to their questions. The public has a right to know

how programs are going to continue to be funded after April 1. We’ll

seek those answers out. I do hope the Minister of Finance has her team

ready to go as we move into committee stage on this bill, because there

are going to be a lot of questions. There’s a lot to answer for in a

one-page bill that asks for a blank cheque for $13 billion.

T. Stone: I’m pleased to take my place in the debate on second reading, Bill

10, the supply bill.

What an extraordinary couple weeks in the context of what the

government is bringing forward in Bill 10, the supply bill. I certainly

have listened, with fascination, through the many hours of debate that

has taken place from members on both sides of the House. The government

side generally has opted to focus on a “there’s nothing to see here”

theme, that “this is all standard; this is all normal,”

whereas on the

opposition side, we’ve said there’s actually nothing normal about

this.

I take a great amount of fascination in anyone on the government’s

side suggesting that coming to this place and asking for approval of

$13.4 billion in supplementary expenditures attached to last year’s

budget, with no details, no budget to reference that reflects current

circumstances, certainly no details — that anyone on the government side

would think that that makes sense. The member for Abbotsford West, a

colleague of mine in the official opposition and a former Finance

Minister, I think laid it out pretty well today, when he held up in one

hand the stack of documents that are typically associated with a budget

bill.

There’s the budget document itself. There’s a whole bunch of

estimates, details — all of the information relating to the Crown

corporations, all of the information relating to virtually every

projected penny of revenue and expense that the government anticipates

for the forthcoming year. It’s all provided in a great big bound

collection of paper every single year. Yet today, last week, presumably

through the balance of this week, we will be asked to approve the

expenditure of $13.4 billion that’s detailed in a single sheet of

paper.

Now, supply bills do serve a purpose. They certainly enable the

government to continue to function after a budget is introduced. But

that’s the key: after a budget is introduced. Usually, supply bills seek

appropriation for funds after the main estimates and the main budget

have been presented, not before.

[3:45 p.m.]

This bill — actually, saying it’s two pages is quite generous;

it’s really a page and a third — as I’ve mentioned, has no details. It

provides for deeming last year’s budget to be the budget that these

supplementary estimates will be attached to. As I said, it asks for the

defraying of costs, charges and expenses of the public service of the

province of $12.3 billion, and additional expenditures relating to

capital and other matters. But no detail.

The question, I think, fundamentally, needs to be, “Who does this

actually serve?” — coming to this House and saying: “Here’s a

1 ⅓ -page bill that would authorize the

expenditure of $13.4 billion. We’re not going to tell you any of the

details, as to what that spending actually is all about, what programs

and services of government will receive this funding and which ones

won’t, how this impacts the overall provincial budget. We’re not going

to provide any of that material, but let’s just all agree that we’re in

a pandemic, it’s not normal circumstances, and supply bills happen all

the time. Let’s just proceed with this blank cheque.”

I would suggest that this approach does not serve the people of

British Columbia well. It serves the government well. It serves the

purposes of the Finance Minister. It serves the members of the

government caucus. It certainly does not serve the citizens of British

Columbia well.

We, on this side of the House in the opposition, have tried to put

a fence around the protections, shine a bright light on the protections

that have been built over many years with respect to the budgetary

processes in this province. At the end of the day, it is the fundamental

responsibility of this place to approve expenditures of the

province.

I mean, right at the centre of our parliamentary democracy is the

respect for the people that are elected by the citizens who live here to

come to this place, to debate and to vote on bills that come in front of

this House, the most important of which is always matters relating to

the expenditure of the public’s money.That is absolutely fundamental to

our democracy.

It’s long established that the government cannot — should not —

change taxation rates, impose new taxes or spend public funds without

the Legislature’s approval. But also, as I said, there has been process

and rules that have been established around that, that dictate how a

government goes about doing exactly that. At the end of the day, it’s

about integrity in the budget process.

A number of government MLAs have suggested in some of their

comments that their party won the last election; therefore, the

government can proceed as it sees fit. This is normal practice. It

doesn’t much matter what the members of the opposition have to

say.

How dare we, in the opposition, ask questions? What kind of nerve

does one have in this place to stand up and ask focused questions of the

government that wants approval to spend $13.4 billion?

[3:50 p.m.]

I’ve spoken about my grandfather a number of times in this place.

He was a railroader in Port Coquitlam, very active in the Brotherhood of

Locomotive Engineers, a strong, ardent supporter of the CCF and the NDP.

With a great amount of pride, I credit my passion for public service, my

love of this place, my desire to want to serve the people that send me

here to my grandfather’s influence. But I remember, among many things,

my grandpa always said that a government is only as strong as the

opposition to it.

Now, it took me a number of years to really understand what that

meant. Having now sat on the government side of this place for four

years and on the opposition side of this place for four years, I have

some experience and understanding of both roles in this chamber. It is

imperative that tough, focused questions be asked by the opposition

members and by all members. I would hope that there would be members in

government that would be curious, be asking questions about the request

for the expenditure of $13 billion. But I guess we will see.

The government coming forward with this bill unfortunately adds

another proof point to a pattern that appears to be developing with

respect to the government’s approach to budget transparency. Certainly,

calling an election, a snap election that wasn’t necessary, was not

conducive to building trust. The NDP have then gone through this process

leading up to this supply bill, and now through this debate, by bringing

forward this 1 ⅓ -page supply bill. And a number of

other actions are systematically pulling apart at those safeguards that,

again, as I said earlier, were built up around our budgetary

process.

The Premier went so far as to suggest that the reason this supply

bill is needed, the reason the government couldn’t bring in a budget on

time, the reason the government needs to expand its use of special

warrants, the reason so many of these fundamental changes to the

safeguards in place relating to our budgetary practices…. The reason so

much of that has to change is because of the election that the Premier

called a year early. As a number of members in the opposition have said,

this was an election that wasn’t needed. The impetus for it was not

brought on by the COVID pandemic. The impetus for it was brought on by a

desire for this government to call an election at an opportunistic

time.

Well, I guess it worked. It worked for them. But how many British

Columbians have paid the price for that snap election? It certainly is

not accurate, nor would I suggest it is principled, to suggest that the

budget being delayed, the use of special warrants and a $13.4 billion,

1 ⅓ -page supply bill is all predicated upon a

snap election. As I said, the uniqueness of what the government is doing

here is not only asking us to support a $13.4 billion expenditure with

no details and no budget, but they’re attaching it to a budget that was

introduced in this Legislature almost a year ago.

[3:55 p.m.]

They’re probably one of the few governments — if not the only

government in the western world — that is using pre-pandemic 2020

revenue and expense projections a year later to ask a legislature for a

multi-billion-dollar supplementary expenditure of taxpayers’ money. I’m

not aware of this being needed in most other provinces, by the way.

There are many jurisdictions that have managed to introduce their

budgets on time. In fact, in most of these jurisdictions, they’ve said

the imperative for doing so was because of the need to get the supports

out to people and out to small businesses, in the context of the

pandemic. But here in British Columbia, the government made a very

different choice. The government decided to call a snap election and

delay the budget as a result.

As the member for Abbotsford West went through, families don’t get

to do this. Families don’t get to ask for a 25 percent advance on their

paycheques. Small businesses don’t get to ask for a 25 percent advance

from a financial institution on a loan that they might need. If you’re

in the non-profit sector or the service organization sector, you don’t

get to ask for a 25 percent advance from your donors. It doesn’t work

that way, certainly without having anything attached, any plan or any

details or any

summary of how the funding will be spent. I mean, even a

pawnshop requires you to put some collateral down.

Nobody could anticipate this pandemic. Nobody could anticipate the

impacts that it was going to have. I think most members in this chamber,

on all sides, agree with the statement that as unique as the pandemic

was, certainly in the early days and the unknown that it represented, it

was also a moment of uniqueness in the checking of partisan politics at

the door and all parties coming together and standing shoulder to

shoulder to ensure that this Legislature was doing everything it

possibly could, as quickly as it could, to be there for the people of

British Columbia. I was proud, as were all members in the opposition,

and I know in the government as well.

On March 23 last year, we came into this place in a very limited

fashion, and we unanimously approved a $5 billion aid package for

businesses and for people. Of that $5 billion, $2.8 billion was for

people and $2.2 billion was for business. The $2.2 billion was later

revised by the government down to $1.9 billion. We’ve asked for

accounting of that. We haven’t received those details. That plays into

trust.

We then consistently asked question after question, whether we

were in this place or outside of this place, for the government to tell

us when the economic recovery plan would be launched, the $2.2 billion

in supports for business, small businesses in particular, that had been

revised down to $1.9 billion. Where was that plan? When were we going to

see it? It was approved again on March 23 last year. Month after month

after month there was no response other than: “It’s coming. We’re

working on it.”

Then we get to August, and the NDP decides to pass legislation to

delay the budget from its usual introduction in February to March. The

then Finance Minister, Carole James, said: “These changes will allow

sufficient time for due diligence to be done by the good public servants

who work for all us in British Columbia.”

[4:00 p.m.]

At least in August of 2020, Carole James, the then Finance

Minister, had confidence in the ability of the government and the public

servants who really do the hard work behind the scenes in bringing

forward the budget, albeit not in February but in March.

Then we fast-forward to September. The Premier, along with the

then Finance Minister, hold a big press conference here in Victoria to

announce the economic recovery plan of the government. StrongerBC, it’s

called.

The only problem with this was this was a week before the

provincial election was then called. So it was hard not to look at this

as it was happening and realize that the StrongerBC plan that had taken

the government from March to September to presumably prepare…. It was

hard not to realize in that moment that this was really just an election

document. It was a springboard for the government to go into an election

campaign. That’s exactly what they did.

Again, trust. Trust is eroded. All through this time, from the

call of the election to the election itself to the period after the

election before a cabinet is sworn in and members are sworn in, we are

talking about several months of additional time, during which time there

weren’t supports and services rolling out. There wasn’t an active

government in place, other than in caretaker mode. I’ve been there, done

that. I know how that works. Cabinet only meets in matters of an

emergency.

You have all this money approved in March, an election called in

September, people still waiting for supports. Again, trust. The Premier

then makes the commitment during the election campaign that the recovery

benefit will be in everybody’s pockets by Christmas. We still have

people, thousands of people, that are waiting. They’re still trying to

navigate the system and work through the red tape. They’re still waiting

for their five hundred bucks.

The small business supports that were part of the economic

recovery plan that the government announced just before the election

only included one grant, only one item that represented putting cash

into the pockets of small and medium-sized businesses across British

Columbia — the small and medium-sized business recovery grant. I think

all members of this House can agree that small business has been hit

extraordinarily hard — in some sectors, a lot harder than others. But in

community after community, we all have the stories of people that just

can’t make it. They’ve already failed or they’re just barely hanging

on.

The government, presumably, had $1.9 billion to work with. They

come out with the small and medium-sized business recovery grant. Small

businesses initially get excited upon hearing that this program is

coming. After all, small businesses at that time were hit with all kinds

of added costs like making changes their floor plans to adhere to

WorkSafe and health requirements, rightfully so. The purchase cost of

personal protective equipment — we called upon the government to help

small businesses with the cost of that. There was no support

forthcoming. Small businesses had to shoulder all of that.

[4:05 p.m.]

You talk to businesses on a day-to-day business through those

really dark months, through the spring and into the early summer. You

hear the stories of revenues being down by 50 percent or 60 percent or

having to lay off dozens of employees. Small businesses were excited at

the prospect of a grant program, but nothing could have been more

botched than this particular program. I’m not sure that the government

could have botched it any worse than they did. I’m still trying to

figure out if this was by design or if this just truly reflects a level

of incompetence that is breathtaking.

The government announces a $300 million small and medium-sized

business recovery grant program. This grant program is announced, again,

in September, right before the election. It’s put on pause through the

election period, and so forth. We point out to the government that there

are some significant flaws with this program that need to be addressed

immediately. Surely the government was receiving the same emails and

frantic phone calls as we were receiving in the opposition from small

business owners worried that they’re not going to be able to keep their

lights on.

The eligibility criteria was originally set up so restrictively

that tens of thousands of small businesses just couldn’t apply

successfully, because they wouldn’t be deemed eligible. So we said to

the Minister of Jobs and to the Premier: “You need to make some

changes.” And we walked through what those changes are. Do away with the

requirement to have been in business for 18 months on the date of

application. Do away with the requirement for a 70 percent revenue loss

at some point in the months of March and April for 2020. Do away with

the requirement, under every circumstance, that you have to have been

profitable in 2019, no matter what, in order to be eligible for funding

under this grant program.

We said to the government: “You need to make these changes.” Did

they make the changes in those couple months leading up to Christmas?

No. Did they make the changes in December? Well, the Jobs Minister did

make a couple tweaks. It wasn’t enough. Inexplicably, the government

decided to waste another two months before further changes were made to

the program, along the lines of exactly what we were calling for, in an

effort to ensure that more small businesses — the true mom-and-pop

businesses in communities across our province — actually get the support

that they need, that they actually get that support in a timely

fashion.

We do know that the Jobs Minister doesn’t seem to want to tell us

directly how the numbers are progressing, so we piecemeal it together

based on media reports and so forth, but the latest count that I have,

to this point, is that only 25 percent of the program funding has

actually gone out the door.

You know, I’m sure it’s gone up a few million since the other day,

but somewhere in the $85 million-to-$90 million, maybe $92 million,

range, on a program with $345 million, from a program that was announced

six months ago, from money that was approved by this Legislature a year

ago — 25 percent of the money is out the door. Again, it’s a matter of

trust. This is why we’re having difficulty with a

1 ⅓ -page supply act that has no details attached

to it.

We’ve all talked, at times, in this place about the sectors that

desperately need help and that have been hit the hardest. I think of the

tourism sector. Tourism is a $20 billion industry in British Columbia.

Its greatest output in recent memory — $20 billion. One would think that

the government would move with a greater degree of urgency in supporting

the tourism sector.

[4:10 p.m.]

The tourism sector puts a proposal on the government’s table, like

last spring, and says: “We need $680 million to make sure that this

industry is able to survive.” This isn’t about nice-to-have stuff. This

is about must-have stuff to keep businesses afloat in this difficult

period when borders are closed and people can’t travel and you can’t eat

in a restaurant and you can’t go and stay in your favourite hotel,

wherever you happen to choose to vacation within British

Columbia.

The government takes a whole bunch of time and then comes back

with a $50 million proposal, a counter-proposal, a $50 million cheque,

and the launch of a task force — in the midst of a pandemic. There was

nothing new that came out of this task force in terms of recommendations

or ideas or solutions that the tourism industry and businesses within it

need. It’s all stuff that the tourism sector had already been pleading

with government to address, to put on the table.

They waste all this time and make all of these small businesses

and all of these hard-working British Columbians…. Not just those that

start these businesses, that take the risks and that step up every day

to pursue their dreams and create opportunity for themselves and for

other British Columbians. It’s about all of those other tens of

thousands of British Columbians in the tourism sector that are now not

working or are only working a much-reduced number of hours or shorter

amount of shifts.

It’s unfathomable why the government hasn’t done more to support

the tourism sector. No matt