Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, April 29, 2021

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 62

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

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

Hon. M. Farnworth

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Williams Lake Stampede Royalty program

L. Doerkson

Joy Thorkelson and fishing industry

F. Donnelly

Business accomplishments of Franco Annicchiarico

T. Stone

Cellular service along Highway of Tears

J. Rice

Work of local government and supportive housing project in Central Saanich

A. Olsen

Young leaders in Snuneymuxw First Nation

D. Routley

Oral Questions

COVID-19 response and paid sick leave

S. Bond

Hon. H. Bains

G. Kyllo

Supportive housing project in Central Saanich

A. Olsen

Hon. D. Eby

COVID-19 vaccination plan and role of pop-up clinics

R. Merrifield

Hon. A. Dix

K. Kirkpatrick

COVID-19 travel restrictions and enforcement

P. Milobar

Hon. M. Farnworth

Government plan on opioid crisis

T. Halford

Hon. S. Malcolmson

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

J. Brar

P. Milobar

Motions Without Notice

Division on motion to go into Committee of Supply to

proceed forthwith

Hon. M. Farnworth

Budget Debate

(continued)

THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 2021

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: M. Starchuk.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

B. Stewart: It was 39 years ago today that our middle son, Kitson, was born in the

Okanagan. It was an interesting time in my life because we were farming

orchards. Our first child…. It took a couple of days for the whole event to

be over in terms of the birth of our daughter. But with Kitson, he came

slowly and very methodically. As I was spraying each tank, I’d check back

with Ruth to see how she was doing in terms of the labour. Anyway, later

that evening, he was born.

I just wanted to say that I’m so proud of him, what he’s turned into

and the fact that he became a winemaker. He went to New Zealand to get

schooling, because it’s still not provided anywhere in western Canada.

Needless to say, he’s just finished completing an addition to his house for

his two children.

Happy birthday, Richard Kitson Whitworth Stewart, on your 39th

birthday.

A. Mercier: I’d just like to introduce someone who’s near and dear to my heart,

and that’s my daughter Charlotte. Charlotte’s watching from home today.

She’s turning three next week, so will the House join me in congratulating

Charlotte and wishing her a happy birthday.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — PUBLIC SAFETY AND

SOLICITOR GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Hon. M. Farnworth presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Safety and Solicitor General

Statutes Amendment Act, 2021.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 8, the Public Safety and Solicitor

General Statutes Amendment Act, 2021. This bill amends the Cannabis

Control and Licensing Act to make permanent some provisions previously

enacted by regulation to improve the effectiveness of the act and

clarify language. The amendments are primarily housekeeping in nature

and do not change government policy with respect to cannabis.

This bill also amends the Liquor Control and Licensing Act to

authorize the Vancouver park board to designate specific public places

under its jurisdiction as places where liquor may be

consumed.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill 8, Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act,

2021, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

WILLIAMS LAKE STAMPEDE

ROYALTY

PROGRAM

L. Doerkson: The Williams Lake Stampede Royalty program has seen many young

women run to become royalty of the world-famous Williams Lake Stampede,

which, by the way, is a massive undertaking. The contest includes being

judged on stampede knowledge and history, public speaking and equestrian

skills, to name only a few categories.

The contest itself is daunting, but becoming royalty is when the

hard work of being ambassadors for Williams Lake and the

Cariboo-Chilcotin begins. Past stampede princess Chantelle Wessels

currently heads the program, which has been happening in our community

since 1931. This year, we’ll see three young ladies vying for the right

to become stampede royalty.

Bayley Cail, Miss M.H. King Excavating, is 17 years old and has

lived in the Cariboo for most of her life. She has many passions, such

as hockey, 4-H, hunting, riding and, most of all, agriculture. She has

recently been accepted to Olds College in Alberta, to their agricultural

management program.

[10:10 a.m.]

Karena Sokolan, Miss Peterson Contracting Ltd., a 19-year-old

raised in Williams Lake, says she’s blessed to live in the Cariboo. She

grew up riding horses, raising 4-H beef, fishing, hunting, hiking,

quadding and skating. Karena spent 12 years in the Chimney Valley 4-H

Club. She loves to play hockey, ride her dirt bike, and she also has

applied at Olds College for the equine science program.

Finally, Kennady Dyck, Miss Williams Lake Lions. Kennady’s family

moved to Williams Lake seven years ago. Living in Williams Lake has

completely changed her life and given her the opportunity to grow up in

a small town that she absolutely adores. Fishing and hunting are a big

part of her life. She loves to ride her dirt bike and ski on the local

mountains.

Congratulations to all of you ladies, and good luck.

JOY THORKELSON AND FISHING INDUSTRY

F. Donnelly: I pay tribute to Joy Thorkelson, who has been active in B.C.’s

commercial fishing industry for over 40 years. As a resident of Prince

Rupert, Joy joined the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union as a

shoreworker in 1974. She soon became the union’s northern representative

and served in that capacity until 2017, when she was elected president.

Over those decades, Joy waged countless campaigns to improve conditions

for workers in the fishing industry.

Joy says one of the union’s major achievements was the passage of

the Fishing Collective Bargaining Act in 1996, which enabled collective

bargaining for the same fishing fleet. Another was the fight to

eliminate different rates of pay and seniority call-out rules for male

and female shoreworkers, which was finally achieved in 1988.

Recently Joy stepped down as president, saying, “It’s time for

young people to take control of their future,” placing full confidence

in newly elected president, James Lawson, who she believes will make

changes that will benefit all active fishermen.

Joy will stay active negotiating upcoming collective agreements

for same-boat operators, shoreworkers and tendermen. I have known Joy

over the years as a knowledgeable, passionate, hard-working UFAWU

representative. The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries recently

said: “Joy is one tough customer.”

She will continue to represent workers in B.C.’s fishing industry,

while we acknowledge, with great appreciation, all she has accomplished

in the past.

I ask all members of the House to please join me in acknowledging

Joy Thorkelson’s contribution to the B.C. fishing sector.

BUSINESS ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF

FRANCO

ANNICCHIARICO

T. Stone: It was a typically cold winter day, January 8, 1967, when a young

man of just 24, overflowing with hopes and dreams, arrived in Kamloops

wearing his finest Italian suit, shoes and coat, all of which were no

match for a biting Canadian winter.

It was, according to Franco Annicchiarico, a culture shock, but

after serving a compulsory 15 months in the Italian army, and against

the advice of his mother, Franco was determined to seek a better life

and new opportunities in a faraway land. He was also confident that his

education from one of the best auto mechanic schools in Italy would

provide a launching pad for his adventure into a country he knew little

about. And he was right.

Within a few short months, Franco began showing off his expertise

in a Kamloops gas station, which only four years later led to the

opening of Torino Motors, named after the Italian city where he had

taken his mechanical training. With the support of his wife, Cathy,

Franco’s reputation helped develop the family business into an

automotive force, with over 50 employees and drawing the attention of

several major brands, including BMW and Honda. In fact, Franco proudly

boasts that Torino Motors sold the very first Honda Civic in Kamloops

for 1,480 bucks.

Franco also became active in the Kamloops community and had a

direct role in establishing the auto mechanic apprenticeship program at

Cariboo College, now known as Thompson Rivers University. Now

ap­proaching retirement from Franco’s Auto Service, Fran­co

Annicchiarico recently celebrated 50 years in busi­ness in

Kamloops by giving back.

Calling it the smallest thing he could do, Franco, with the help

of the Colombo Lodge, a Kamloops Italian cultural centre, provided over

1,000 authentic Italian-made meals to first responders and their

families on April 16, referring to those who have worked tirelessly to

serve others during the pandemic as true heroes.

Franco Annicchiarico, yet another selfless British Columbian in

the face of a crisis.

Franco, grazie . Ti salutiamo. Franco, thank you.

We salute you.

[10:15 a.m.]

CELLULAR SERVICE ALONG

HIGHWAY OF

TEARS

J. Rice: Driving to Terrace from Prince Rupert in the summer of 2014, I

pulled over on the side of the road and took my dog out for a pee. I

also accidently locked my keys in my truck. There I was, at this pullout

on the Highway of Tears, locked out of my vehicle and alone in the woods

along the river with nothing but trees, rocks and river. I was really

frightened. My cell phone didn’t work. It would have been less scary had

there been continuous cell service from Print Rupert to Prince George,

because I did have a cell phone with me. Had there been cell service, I

could have called for help.

My friend Marlene Swift drove taxi in Prince Rupert. She was once

held at knifepoint and kidnapped in her cab where she was brutally

raped. She was left for dead in a ditch in the woods along the Highway

of Tears. Naked and bleeding, she crawled through that ditch until she

felt far enough away from danger to flag a passing vehicle. She lived to

tell her story, but sadly, passed away in 2019.

She was thrilled when this government was able to add

intercommunity bus transportation along Highway 16, and she would have

been thrilled to know that earlier this month we announced that cellular

service will soon be available along the entire stretch of Highway 16.

Through provincial and federal government investments, the entire

725-kilometre route from Prince Rupert to Prince George will soon be

serviced by cellular.

Solving the problem of cellular gaps between communities along

Highway 16 was recommended in 2006 for enhancing safety for Indigenous

women and girls at the Highway of Tears Symposium. This recommendation

was echoed six years later in the report from the national inquiry into

missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. Rural connectivity is

important for everyone travelling northern highways, but this investment

is key to ensuring women, especially Indigenous women, are

safer.

Thank you to all the partners and the Ministry of Citizens’

Services for finally filling these important gaps. For us in the north,

our lives depend on it.

WORK OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND

SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROJECT

IN CENTRAL SAANICH

A. Olsen: I learned in my time at the Central Saanich council table that the

important work of local government is to create and maintain safe and

secure neighbourhoods. As dry as comprehensive zoning bylaws and

official community plans are, they are an agreement that if followed,

enables individuals to peacefully live collectively. Building form,

heights and siting are some of the policy measures that provide

certainty that applies to all people that live in a

neighbourhood.

Communities are not just all about built form. They’re also

defined by the people who live in them. Safe, secure, supportive and

compassionate communities are a result of leadership that clearly

articulates expectations and delivers fair, equitable and consistent

application of the rules. When communication lacks or breaks down, or

when lea­ders act with a heavy hand, the trust between neighbours,

the community and their decision-makers is eroded.

Just and correct decisions are undermined when a

neigh­bourhood’s valid questions go unanswered. When there is a

lack of information, the difficult job of governing a community is

increased. Even more troublesome is that people will inevitably fill in

the blanks with their own information, and the challenging

communications are made unnecessarily more arduous.

In Central Saanich, there is an unfortunate situation that has

been unfolding over the last month with the Prosser Road

supported-housing project. Deep down I believe we all know that we have

a role in supporting our friends and relatives who are in desperate

need. I believe that diverse and inclusive and welcoming communities are

more vibrant and interesting.

Just as I ask my friends and neighbours to keep their minds and

hearts open to support the disadvantaged in our society, I ask my

colleagues in this chamber to show compassion in their actions for the

people and neighbourhoods their decisions are impacting. This means we

need to improve communication and show the respect for people,

neighbourhoods and communities that they de­serve.

YOUNG LEADERS IN

SNUNEYMUXW FIRST

NATION

D. Routley: I’m joining you, with respect, from Malahat territory. I want to

talk about the excellence of the Snuneymuxw First Nation. I’m going to

do that by describing three young leaders.

[10:20 a.m.]

Douglas White III, Queen’s Counsel attorney. His Coast Salish name

is Kwul’a’sul’tun. Doug is a practising lawyer. He’s also a negotiator

for various First Nations across the country. He is the chair of the

B.C. First Nations Justice Council. He has addressed the United Nations,

and he has been closely involved with negotiations across the country

for various First Nations. Doug is an amazing person with amazing

qualities.

The second person is Hunqwiithiye’, and that is Erralyn Joseph.

Erralyn is married to Josh Joseph. She’s 35 years young, a lawyer, a

negotiator for the Snuneymuxw First Nation and recent mom — I think

about a year ago, or maybe it was a year plus one — to Joshua Jr. Seeing

Erralyn as a very pregnant young mom, doing the work she did, was

amazing.

Then finally, Darcy Good. He is the Snuneymuxw Doogie Howser. This

young man, who looks like he’s about 18 years old, graduated medical

school in his early 20s and is a genius and an amazing

person.

Now, in context, Douglas White I was Douglas White of White and

Bob, one of the first rights decisions in the province. Mr. Bob was also

a relative of the member for Saanich North and the Islands.

For these generations of activists who have fought for rights and

recognition, this is a beautiful time where, finally, they are being

recognized and these great talents and great potentials are coming in to

being. For them, in the words of Swizz Beatz: “Plan B ain’t no

plan.”

These people are determined, and I so respect them.

Oral Questions

COVID-19 RESPONSE AND

PAID SICK

LEAVE

S. Bond: We have known for months that sick pay would help prevent

workplace outbreaks during the pandemic. One thing I know we can all

agree on in this House is that British Columbians are going to do

whatever it takes to take care of their families, even if that means

going to work when they’re not feeling well. We also know that lack of

paid sick leave disproportionately impacts front-line workers,

marginalized workers and 20-to-39-year-olds.

So far, all we’ve seen from this Premier is bungling and delay.

Yesterday the Premier finally promised that a sick pay program will be

introduced, but this comes 14 months into the pandemic and, in fact, a

year after the Premier promised a provincial program and in fact told

everyone: “We’ve got a plan. We’re ready to go.”

Can the Premier today provide some details? How many sick days

will be available to workers, and how will the program be

funded?

Hon. H. Bains: I’m happy to answer this question, and I thank the Leader of the

Opposition for asking this question.

One thing is clear. We all agree that when workers are sick, they

should not have to go to work. It’s good for the workers’ health and

safety, their families, and it is good for the businesses so that we can

stop the transmission of COVID in workplaces.

We made a number of changes to support the workers, to support

them when they are sick. They have to stay home. First, we gave them….

We brought in legislation. We made changes to the Employment Standards

Act so that they don’t lose their job if they decide to stay home when

they’re sick. Then, we are the only jurisdiction in Canada that provides

benefits if workers become sick at the workplace with COVID, from day

one for as long as they’re sick. Now, recently, we have passed

legislation so that workers will have time to go get vaccinated without

loss of pay.

We’ve been working with the federal government. I’m proud of the

work that the Premier has done working with the federal government to

ensure that there’s a national solution to this problem. We had the

indication they would fix the gaps that were brought to their attention

by me, by the Premier, by others.

They failed to do that. Now it’s up to us. We will have a

made-in-B.C. sick benefit program that all workers will be proud of, and

I’m happy that the opposition will be supporting us with

that.

[10:25 a.m.]

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, thank you very much to the Minister of Labour and the way

that he wandered his way through the answer. He studiously avoided the

specific question. Let’s be clear. While we do believe that a national

program is important, what matters today and what mattered 14 months ago

is making sure that British Columbians are taken care of and that there

is a paid sick leave program in place.

Let’s just remind the members opposite. The Premier delayed, and

then, what did he do? He blamed the federal government for their broken

promise. Well, welcome to how British Columbians feel about the growing

list of broken promises from this Premier.

The time for “trust me” has passed. That’s what the Premier said:

“I’m going to put a sick pay program in place, and by the way, I’ve got

a plan to do it.” Here we sit, 14 months later, no sign of anything.

Workers and, more importantly, employees need to know how the program

would work. The Premier said he had a program, so let’s hear about the

details.

I also want to remind the members opposite of what the Premier

said about who should pay for it, because that’s going to be a very

critical point of discussion when we finally see legislation. Here’s

what the Premier said. We’ll do it “in a seamless way without putting

more burden on businesses at a time when businesses can least afford

it.”

We can set that worry aside today with one answer from the

Premier. Will he get up today and confirm that the program he intends to

introduce will be completely funded out of the $3.1 billion contingency

fund and that these costs will not be transferred to already struggling

businesses in British Columbia?

Hon. H. Bains: I really want to emphasize here that the workers of British

Columbia are proud of the work that their government has done to support

them, pre-pandemic and during the pandemic. We brought in changes to

support them.

At the same time, we weren’t sitting idly by. The Premier, myself

and other colleagues of our government were working with the federal

government to fix the gaps that they left behind. We had the indication

that they would do it. That was about a week ago. Now it is up to us. We

will have a made-in-B.C. program as a sick leave program. Details that

the member can debate and the other members can debate when they are

before the House.

A lot has changed during this pandemic. I hope that B.C. Liberals’

attitudes toward B.C. workers is one of them. I have not seen one yet.

Hypocrisy oozes out of these members when you look at their track

record.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. H. Bains: British Columbia’s workers know that this government has their

back. We will continue to work to support them. Details will be coming

in the coming days. I’m looking forward, for this member and her caucus

to support us.

G. Kyllo: Well, let’s be clear that this government and this minister

stalled on the implementation of the paid leave program for vaccinations

for over 14 months. Here we are today, in the Legislature, and again,

we’re not getting clear answers from this minister.

With over $3 billion currently sitting in the pandemic contingency

fund, there’s no reason why the Premier cannot commit today to providing

the money to help sick workers in British Columbia. This is a public

health emergency, and costs for public health should not be put on the

backs of employers, either directly or indirectly through WorkSafeBC

surplus and premiums.

To the Premier, will he commit that government will cover the full

cost of the program for as long as it’s in place?

Hon. H. Bains: As I said before, since the outset of this pandemic, we have led

the way in pushing for and developing increased support for workers so

that they don’t have to go to work when they’re sick, so that they don’t

have to choose between a paycheque and staying home sick. They deserve

nothing less.

We have been working hard for 14 months now, working with the

federal government, bringing our own programs in place. I have listed a

number of them. We are working with the federal government.

[10:30 a.m.]

The federal government failed to deliver, to fill the gaps that we

identified for them. There are gaps out there, and they do not help when

workers have to stay home when they’re sick because they will be losing

money.

More needs to be done, and I can assure this House that we will

have a made-in-B.C. sick pay plan, and I’m hoping that the opposition

will be supporting us in that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Shuswap on a supplemental.

G. Kyllo: It’s been a year since the Premier promised that he had plans for

a provincial program. British Columbians need to hear the details of

what specifically those government programs are. Today in Ontario, 20-

to 39-year-olds are waking up knowing that they don’t have to choose

between rent or going to work sick. In B.C., the Premier is blowing it

for them.

Will the Premier use the over $3 billion in pandemic contingency

funds to cover the full cost for as long as a sick pay program is in

place?

Hon. H. Bains: Let’s be clear. This member and all B.C. Liberals never missed an

opportunity to trample on workers’ rights when they had the opportunity.

We are going to support workers. We supported them pre-pandemic. We are

supporting them now. They know that their government will continue to

support them past the pandemic.

Our track record is clear that we’re on the side of the workers.

We understand it’s the workers and the employer working together that

move the economy, unlike the previous government. They took sides. They

showed nothing but contempt towards working people. The history is full

of their track record.

You know what? Workers know these are crocodile tears that they’re

watching. They know when it is crocodile tears. They worry, actually.

When the B.C. Liberals, any member of them, stand up in the House or

outside to talk about workers’ rights, they worry that they are coming

after their rights.

They know that this government is on their side. We will protect

them because they deserve nothing less from their government.

SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROJECT

IN CENTRAL

SAANICH

A. Olsen: When the supportive housing development at Prosser Road in Central

Saanich was announced, there was very little information made available

to the public. That was a month ago. I first heard about the project in

the media at the time of the announcement and just had my first briefing

this week. There are many questions still to be answered.

For the last month, the fear and anxiety in the community has been

increasing, and where information lacks, people are filling the gaps on

their own. Every day this government is losing ground, not just in the

neighbourhood but also for the potential future residents of this

project. This project was supposed to help marginalized people. Instead,

the process has further stigmatized people who do not need more

obstacles put in their way.

Interjection.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the Minister of Social Development and Poverty

Reduction. I appreciate it. You’re a minister.

We’re not just in the business of building housing units, but

rather, we should be committed to nurturing community. Our effort must

be more than just buying hotels and dropping units in the ground. The

government must do the difficult work of building

neighbourhoods.

My question is to the Minister Responsible for Housing. Does he

believe the process his ministry has undertaken in Central Saanich has

created a safe and supportive atmosphere for the surrounding

neighbourhood and the future residents of his project?

Hon. D. Eby: I look to all members in this House when government is opening new

housing for vulnerable people to work with us to address misconceptions,

to address myths and concerns but also, when there are real problems, to

bring them to our attention so that we can address them. I don’t pretend

for a second that this is not incredibly challenging work and that there

will not be problems. Sure there will be problems, but all of us have to

work together to address them.

The member talks about building neighbourhoods, building

community. I heard him, in his two-minute statement, talk about, even

before a single person has been identified to move into this building,

the impact that it is going to have on the surrounding

community.

[10:35 a.m.]

Data shows really clearly, when you look at the most obvious

metric about what the impact of a supportive housing unit would be, the

impact on the value of housing around it, the price people are willing

to pay to move next door to one of these units, the values are not

impacted. When people are voting with their dollars where they want to

live, they’re happy to live beside supportive housing, because it

works.

It doesn’t mean that there are never problems. It doesn’t mean we

don’t have to work together to address them. But even before a single

person is identified, to talk about the impact? That’s not

helpful.

I’m asking the member to work with me — I’m glad to work with him;

he had his briefing — to get people inside, to get them good,

high-quality housing, out of tents. This is our priority. We’re in

reactive mode right now. We’re moving into proactive mode with the

homelessness stra­tegy. I will need his support, and I’m counting

on it.

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

supplemental.

A. Olsen: I appreciate the minister’s response. However, I think it needs to

be pointed out that had the minister truly wanted to have my support on

this project, he would have offered me an opportunity to learn about the

project that they were proposing in advance of making the

an­nouncement.

If this minister has his arms truly open, he would have had that

conversation with us in advance so that we could have learned about

exactly what is going to be built in the neighbourhood. This government

knows, and there need not be any suggestion otherwise, that I’m nothing

less than supportive of supported housing. This is the work that I’ve

been doing, along with my colleagues on the other side, over the last 4½

years, so it’s absurd to suggest anything otherwise.

This is the exact kind of stigmatization that happens. You raise

questions about this, and you get called…. You get suggested that you’re

opposed to it. The reality of it is that the neighbourhood is filling in

the gaps on their own because the information is not forthcoming. We

know that when we’re building communities, information flow is

critically important.

My question…. You can continue to chirp at me all you want,

Minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Member, please continue.

Members will come to order.

A. Olsen: What is the minister going to do to accommodate the needs of the

neighbourhood, regain the confidence of the community that he’s

proposing a project in? Of course these projects need to go in

communities, and I support that. I support diversity. I support

inclusion. The suggestion otherwise is ridiculous.

What are we going to do in order to prepare the way for the

proposed future residents of this community and this neighbourhood to

feel welcome? The gap has already been created in a month-long situation

where there’s been a lack of information.

Hon. D. Eby: The member should note who is cheering along with him. The members

of the opposition, who built this crisis, who said that addressing

homelessness through units that they were providing…. The units they

were providing were mats on the floor. The member should be aware of

who’s cheering along with him in his questions today.

This housing is supportive housing. There’s a challenge. It’s a

new project. There needs to be community engagement. B.C. Housing is

doing that community engagement. Service providers haven’t been chosen.

Residents haven’t been chosen. The engagement is a legitimate engagement

with the community.

So you have to announce that the project is coming before you can

engage on it. And to suggest that we would just show up and say, “Here’s

exactly what’s going to happen. Sorry. We’re going to engage, but we’ve

already made the decisions,” would be problematic. The member wants all

the information in advance. The information doesn’t exist yet. B.C.

Housing is still building it.

We’re moving as quickly as we can to get people into real

supported housing. I know that the member and I agree on this. That’s

why I’m frustrated, in some respects, with the tone of his question and

some of his suggestions, because we’re on the same page. We want to get

people into good-quality supportive housing. That’s what builds

neighbourhoods and communities.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: That’s what makes a difference. It’s not mats on the

floor.

If the members of the opposition are cheering along with you,

Member, that should be a yellow flag.

COVID-19 VACCINATION PLAN

AND ROLE OF POP-UP

CLINICS

R. Merrifield: The Premier’s pop-up clinics are somewhat out of The Hunger

Games . Take the words of Paven Dhaliwal from Surrey: “Is this

real life? Is this a third-world country? This is not Canada, where we

have come to a park to line up like this.”

[10:40 a.m.]

The Premier claimed yesterday that he couldn’t interfere. Well,

the confusion, anger and the lineups continue today in

Surrey.

Will the Premier stand up and apologize for the chaos that he’s

caused communities like Surrey?

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for her question. The member will know

that we identified community health service areas around B.C., in the

last two weeks, where there was a high level of transmission of COVID-19

and a low level of immunization. Those communities included communities

such as in the Columbia Valley, in Dawson Creek and, of course, in the

community of Surrey.

Different health authorities have tried different

stra­tegies to address the situation. Over the last couple of days

in Surrey and in Coquitlam, Fraser Health worked with pop-up clinics.

Now, they immunized a lot of people in those clinics, but I think it’s

fair to say that they were not a success, certainly from a

communications or a confidence perspective. So Fraser Health is taking

the lessons from that.

I’d just remind everybody that more than 1.7 million immunizations

have taken place. Very precisely, people who are clinically vulnerable

have been immunized. We’re working through, especially in high

transmission areas, front-line workers, who are getting immunized as

well. I think our program, overall, has been very successful and, I

think, acknowledged as such.

These pop-up clinics have not been successful because they’ve

undermined confidence in the process while immunizing a lot of people in

critical neighbourhoods. We’ve got to learn the lessons, and we’ve got

to do better, and Fraser Health will do so.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kelowna-Mission on a supplemental.

R. Merrifield: Well, I do appreciate that the Minister of Health suggested that

the vaccinations that we did yesterday were a success, but taking a hot

spot with the highest levels of virus, gathering thousands of people and

then waiting them in lineups and congregating for hours but not getting

their vaccines is somehow less than a success. And this morning hundreds

of people lined up again for a pop-up clinic that wasn’t actually in

existence at Newton Athletic Park.

The Premier already has the contact information and postal codes

through the vaccine registry. He could have prevented this. And I’ll go

on to say that there are actually pharmacies that could have distributed

the vaccines equally, if not more, effectively. One person in line said:

“My cousin knew someone in Fraser Health, and they said they might be

here today, so we just showed up. There’s still no information around

whether you’re getting a vaccine.”

Why is the Premier not using the vaccine registry that people were

told to use?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, to the hon. member, the answer is we are, and we did in this

case, but the communications, obviously, of the pop-up clinics led to

long lineups yesterday that everybody saw. So Fraser Health is learning

the lessons from that and making changes in their approach to that, and

that seems fair enough.

The registry has been profoundly successful. Two million people

registered, more than 900,000 appointments booked. We are going to

continue to use that system. I want to encourage everyone, because there

will be more vaccine next week and more vaccine the week after — 1.1

million doses of Pfizer vaccine over four weeks — to get registered now.

It is essential that people get themselves registered so that at the

first possible moment, they can book their appointments.

Last night people who are 58, born in 1963 or before, were able to

book their appointments, and those age groups are going to move down

through the age-based program quickly over the next two to three

weeks.

I want to encourage all MLAs to encourage their constituents to

get registered for the COVID-19 vaccine. This is a crucial moment in the

pandemic. Thirty percent of people have been vaccinated up to now, and

there will be significantly more in the month of May.

left behind by this Premier’s pop-up vaccine clinics. One person in

Surrey said: “We just registered an auntie and uncle who don’t have cell

phones and who didn’t know how to register, so we hand-wrote down all

the information for them.”

The Hunger Games approach is unacceptable.

Will the Premier ensure that there is proper advance notice of

these clinics with proper translation services?

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: There are two ways to register. One is online, and the other is

through the telephone line, where translation is available. This is how

we immunize 180,000 clinically vulnerable people.

In the hon. member’s constituency, 45 percent of people have been

immunized in this period when we’ve had a relatively limited supply of

vaccine. I think that that reflects, in her community and other

communities around B.C., the extraordinary work of doctors and nurses

and everyone else in immunizing British Columbia.

Our registration system has been very effective so far. More than

80 percent of people over 70 have been immunized so far in B.C., and

more than 60 percent of people over 60, on a program that was

fundamentally aimed at people who are older and more vulnerable to

COVID-19; people who are clinically vulnerable, 180,000 of them and

more; and Indigenous people. Those programs have continued to be

successful. I’d encourage the member to encourage her constituents to

get registered, and they will be given the opportunity to book at the

soonest possible moment.

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

supplemental.

K. Kirkpatrick: The pop-up vaccine clinic that we referenced was in the Minister

of Labour’s own riding. You’d think he would’ve done a better job

ensuring that Surrey constituents had the information they needed,

including properly translated materials. Here’s what they said: “I wish

they had it more organized.”

What is the Premier doing to ensure that local communities have

properly translated materials in advance of these pop-up

clinics?

Hon. A. Dix: I thank the member for her ideas and suggestions. It’s important

that we deliver services so that people understand them, and it’s why

translation services are available and materials are available in

multiple languages.

With respect to Surrey, we’ve given Surrey priority in some

important ways. All education workers in Surrey: immunized. Frontline

workers in Surrey: immunized. We’re moving on to other groups of

workers, such as child care workers and others, to support our effort in

Surrey.

It is different in different communities, and we’ve worked with

people in communities such as Dawson Creek, where there were high levels

of transmission, low levels of immunization. Now, Dawson Creek has

returned to close to the provincial average in terms of immunization.

We’ve worked with members of this House, with respect to the Columbia

Valley and Revelstoke, to see the same thing happen in Prince Rupert and

other communities.

I think that the immunization effort in British Columbia is

overall going very well. Sometimes we try things and they’re not

successful, and we may learn the lessons and move on. That is the case

with respect to pop-up clinics in Fraser Health.

COVID-19 TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS

AND

ENFORCEMENT

P. Milobar: It’s now day 11 since the Premier bungled his announcement about

travel restrictions, and there’s still no clarity for people trying to

travel across the boundaries what they will or will not be needed to

provide to continue on their travels. Yesterday, the Solicitor General

and the Premier had a good laugh after our last question around this.

But it’s a serious matter.

If you’re travelling from Northern Health or Interior Health or

Island Health to take your child to Children’s Hospital for a medical

appointment that you’ve been waiting for to see a specialist for the

last four or five months, you kind of want to know what you can do on

Monday, or not, legally. You kind of want to know if you get stopped at

a checkpoint, and the police officer doesn’t agree with why you’re

going, do you get a $575 fine, pay the premium to the Crown and get to

go on to your medical appointment for your child? Or do you get turned

around, and your child misses their medical appointment?

Can the Solicitor General confirm: what type of documentation will

people need to provide to be able to prove to police officers — who

otherwise have to make a sole judgement at the side of the highway —

whether those people can continue on for their medical treatments or

not?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’d like to make it clear to the hon. member that when the

announcement was made last Friday, and the details, I said, about

enforcement were coming out later this week — and I know that his caucus

was briefed on that — we also made it clear that essential travel is

absolutely included….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: And, if the member would let me finish, it was made clear then

that when you’re going to a medical appointment, it is essential travel,

and you do not have to approve….

Interjections.

[10:50 a.m.]

GOVERNMENT PLAN ON OPIOID CRISIS

T. Halford: Mr. Speaker, 158 — that’s the number of overdose deaths last

month. That ties the highest March ever. Teena Clipston is worried that

her son might be on that list next month, and she’s fighting to get him

the support he needs.

It took three days of phone calls by the mom before her son was

finally put on methadone. “When we finally got there, they did not take

the intake, but we were told to come back another day to get his

prescription. It’s not Interior Health’s fault. They’re stretched too

thin, but where else do they go for help?”

What we’re getting from this government month after month in their

news releases are cut-and-paste answers. We’re seeing that from this

Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. We are seeing, in Quesnel, 17

lives lost this year. Maple Ridge has lost 38. Nanaimo has lost 42. In

Surrey, in the last seven days, we’ve seen seven deaths. These

cut-and-paste news releases are not good enough from this

government.

My question is to the Premier. What is this government’s plan to

ensure that this mother and other mothers don’t have to see their sons

or daughters in next month’s news release?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: To have lost another 158 British Columbians to the increasingly

toxic drug supply this past month is tragic. I express, on behalf of the

government, my condolences to the family, the friends, the peers and

everybody working on the front line who has worked so hard to keep

people alive. This is a tragic spike that has resulted from the pandemic

measures. This has been felt across the country, felt very hard in

British Columbia.

Let me remind the member that we’re the only province who has

scaled up our response to the crisis across the full continuum of care.

We have doubled the number of supervised consumption sites. We’re the

only province that’s offering prescribed safe supply as a way to

separate people from the toxic drug supply. And further expanding that,

we have built more treatment beds, doubled the number of youth treatment

beds. We are supporting, in every way that we can, to try to overcome

this tragic loss of life.

Honestly, I’m surprised — with great respect to those families who

have lost loved ones, and with great respect to those working hard to

save lives — that the member would raise this question. Questioning our

commitment to addictions treatment and response to the overdose crisis,

in this week that the media is alleging that the B.C. Liberals used a

publicly funded addictions recovery centre for partisan purposes, is

troubling and questionable. I hope the member does not question our

commitment.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the Chair would like to hear the answer,

please.

The minister will continue.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I’ve finished my answer.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

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

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Budget Debate

(continued)

J. Brar: I will continue my speech from where I left yesterday, to support

Budget 2021.

First, I would like to begin by acknowledging the traditional

territories of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking

peoples, especially the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

[10:55 a.m.]

Coming back to the budget, Budget 2021 continues to provide measures

to help businesses adapt and prepare to seize the opportunities that

recovery will bring. We didn’t wait to get support into the hands of

businesses that needed help, and Budget 2021 builds on the support we have

continued to provide over the last year.

This includes the StrongerBC tax incentive for employers that have

hired or increased compensation in the last part of 2020 compared to the

previous quarter; more funding for the Grow B.C., Feed B.C., Buy B.C.

programs in this budget; the PST exemption for selected machinery and

equipment to help businesses expand operations; and ongoing funding for the

small and medium-sized business recovery grant program.

Budget 2021 includes supports targeted at the hardest-hit sectors,

like tourism, arts and hospitality. This includes $100 million through

Budget 2021 to support tourism recovery starting in 2021 to 2022, supporting

14,000 restaurants, bars, wineries, gyms and fitness centres through the

most recent health restrictions — through circuit breaker business recovery

grants as well. We will continue to support businesses through this

challenging time and help them prepare for recovery. That’s good news for

the people of B.C. and particularly for the small and medium-sized

businesses of B.C.

CleanBC. Climate change is one of the most pressing issues facing

British Columbians, and we must make sure that the post-COVID future is a

greener and more sustainable one. CleanBC is our plan to build a cleaner and

more sustainable future, and Budget 2021 includes an additional $506 million

in new investments to continue to reduce emissions and create new

opportunities and promote affordability. Budget 2021’s investment brings the

total funding for CleanBC to nearly $2.2 billion over five years. That’s

good news too. We are really committed to make our environment better for

our next generation.

Infrastructure. Budget 2021 provides a record level of capital

spending, with $26.4 billion over three years. This is a $3.5 billion

increase when compared to Budget 2020, which was the last budget. These

investments in this budget will create 85,000 jobs for the people of British

Columbia. These investments support a strong and sustainable economy, with

investments in roads, transit, schools, housing and hospitals.

In Surrey alone, the new investments include Surrey’s new hospital,

the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain extension, new schools and additions to schools

in Surrey — and the Pattullo is already under construction. There are a lot

of activities going on in Surrey.

The other good news for the people of Surrey — which they have been

waiting for, for a long, long time — is that this budget moves forward a

B.C. NDP commitment to build a new hospital in Surrey that was cancelled by

the B.C. Liberals. The Budget 2021 capital plan allocates $1.6 billion to

build a new hospital in Surrey — a promise that the B.C. Liberals abandoned

when the government sold off the original plan site.

[11:00 a.m.]

Just for absolute clarity for the members sitting on the other side,

the Budget 2021 capital plan, on page 59 — on page 59, five nine, 59 —

specifically mentions the name of the hospital, “New Surrey Hospital and

Cancer Centre,” and the cost of the hospital, $1.6 billion. So our

government is putting up money to get a second hospital built and to make it

easier for people in Surrey to get good health care. This is an important

step towards delivering on our commitment to the people of

Surrey.

In 2014, the B.C. Liberal government sold public land near Highway 10

and 152 Street in Surrey. The B.C. NDP had acquired that site in 1990 for a

second Surrey hospital. The B.C. Liberals decided that they would rather

sell off good public land to donors than deliver the hospital that people in

Surrey needed then and still need today. Gordon Campbell — we know Gordon

Campbell, the former Premier — of the B.C. Liberals, held a campaign event

on that property in 2005, during the middle of the election, promising the

people of Surrey to build a new hospital.

That happened during the election, but after the election the Liberals

forgot everything they promised to the people of Surrey. The B.C. Liberals

broke that promise with the sale of the land, in 2014, for $3 million below

market value, to Fairborne Lands, the company. Christopher Philps, the

company’s owner, later donated $25,000 to the B.C. Liberals. I will leave it

to people to connect the dots on what it means. Our government acquired new

land for the hospital in 2019 — beside the Kwantlen Polytechnic University

campus at 5500, 180 Street in Cloverdale — that is in Surrey.

It is shocking to know that some of the opposition members are

claiming that the provincial budget has no money for the new hospital in

Surrey. It is even more shocking that one of their colleagues has said that

the $1.6 billion of money allocated in this budget is not enough for the

hospital. Clearly, opposition members are contradicting themselves. They’re

all over the place. I understand the role of the official opposition. I’ve

been there for a long time. But in this case, members of the official

opposition are clearly misleading and misinforming the people of Surrey for

their narrow political gains. That is wrong.

With due respect, I would like to urge the members of the opposition

that the people of Surrey understand what the effects are. Please go check

the result of the last election if you have any doubts. That will tell you

what people understand. You can never win the people of Surrey by pretending

to fight for them. That’s what the people on the other side are trying to

do. In fact, they have to put forth a real vision for Surrey, and they

failed to do that during the 16 years they were in power. That was a

tragedy.

Other new capital investments in Surrey through Budget 2021 — I will

quickly go through some of the items. Budget 2021 provides funding for the

following new projects to build new schools or additions to

schools.

[11:05 a.m.]

South Newton area, new elementary school to provide 655 student spaces

with a neighbourhood learning centre, $43.9 million total cost; $38.9

million provincial funding; $5 million will be a school district

contribution. Sunnyside Elementary, addition to provide 250 new student

spaces, $11.4 million, all provincial money. Morgan Elementary, addition to

provide 190 more student spaces, $10.4 million, all provincial

money.

K.B. Woodward Elementary, addition to provide 240 more student spaces,

$4.2 million, all provincial money. Prince Charles Elementary, seismic

upgrades, $11.8 million, all provincial money. Queen Elizabeth Secondary,

seismic upgrade, $13.8 million, all provincial money. White Rock Elementary,

addition to provide 195 more student spaces, $7.6 million, all provincial

money.

On B.C. Housing. B.C. Housing is providing $12 million from the

community housing fund program for the purchase of a 91-unit project at

10626 City Parkway. This project aims to provide affordable rental to

seniors and individuals with disabilities. B.C. Housing is also providing

$16 million from the homeless action plan program for a 61-unit project at

14706 104 Avenue, Surrey.

The other exciting news is that we are fully committed to provide the

Surrey-Langley SkyTrain. The Surrey-Langley SkyTrain and this project are

referred to in the

section on community infrastructure on page 26 of the

budget, in case of any doubts.

Budget 2021 is good for the people of Surrey. There are good things

happening in Surrey. We have, indeed, made huge progress. Let me tell you

what we have accomplished in the last four years. Ready?

One, B.C. Liberals forced the people of Surrey to pay bridge tolls

when they were in power. We eliminated the tolls on Port Mann Bridge and

Golden Ears Bridge. Two, B.C. Liberals doubled the MSP premiums, and we

eliminated MSP, saving individuals around $800 and families up to $1,800.

B.C. Liberals refused to fund the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain. We are building

the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain. Four, we are building the Pattullo Bridge,

which was completely ignored by the B.C. Liberals for 16 years.

Five, we have eliminated interest on B.C. student loans, making

education more affordable for our students. The B.C. Liberals failed to do

it. In fact, tuition fees went up, in some cases, about 300 percent under

them. Six, we have built two new urgent primary care centres in Surrey to

reduce the wait times. Seven, 7,500 new seats for Surrey students in schools

have been built or are under construction during the first four years. That

is equivalent to about 12 new elementary schools. On the other hand, the

B.C. Liberals only funded one school in their last four years, between 2013

to 2017.

Eight, Budget 2021 also includes free public transportation for

children under 12, in time for classes in September. Examples of saving for

families: Lower Mainland families that rely on TransLink can save up to $672

per child per year; families using B.C. Transit can save up to $400 per

child. That’s good news for families in the province of British

Columbia.

[11:10 a.m.]

This is not the end of the list. The list goes on. Clearly, Surrey has

made huge progress during the last four years. The people of Surrey know

that.

I would like to conclude. It has been a tough year. COVID-19 has

challenged and changed British Columbia in ways we never could have

imagined. But British Columbians are resilient. We look out for each other.

We know recovery won’t happen overnight. But by focusing on the things that

matter most to people, we will keep making progress. Government will

continue to be here for British Columbians.

Budget 2021 supports people now to stay safe and heal­thy, and

it looks to the future, a future with opportunities for everyone to be part

of a strong economic recovery in this province.

Thanks for the opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

P. Milobar: I’m pleased to rise to speak to Budget ’21. Certainly, the previous

speaker was touching on and accusing the B.C. Liberals of misleading voters.

So perhaps I’ll start my comments by correcting a few things, if we are

talking about misleading voters, and what this budget lacks and what voters

were expecting.

When you do look at the budget, although the members for the

government like to point out that the Surrey hospital is in the budget…. The

Surrey hospital is actually in the budget and referenced. However, it has

one completion date of 2027 and one completion date of 2028.

When you actually look at projects over $50 million — right now, it’s

estimated at $1.6 billion — one would think that would actually make it into

the projects over $50 million chart. It’s not in there for this year. It’s

notionally referenced in the projects over $50 million for this year, with

an end date of 2028. But there’s no actual dollars in this year that we can

find. Certainly, the members are struggling to point to any page in this

document that it holds.

If you want to talk about misleading voters, let’s talk about a

commitment made four years ago by the Premier to the residents of Surrey

that there would be no portables in four years and that in two years they’d

be cut in half. Let’s talk about how that commitment has totally disappeared

out of Budget 2021. In fact, Surrey has a record number of portables that

we’ve never seen before. They can’t keep up with the portables fast enough

in Surrey. Sounds like a bit of a broken promise, where the voters would

understandably feel that they had been misled in two different

campaigns.

If we want to talk about the Massey Tunnel replacement, which was

lauded in the recent throne speech and referenced with great fanfare in the

budget…. Let’s talk about misleading voters. Let’s talk about the fact that

when you look for that project, it’s worded the exact same way it was worded

in the budget last year. We’re no further along. Let’s talk about the fact

that the so-called decision on whether it was going to be a bridge or

another tunnel still hasn’t been made, even though that’s late. Let’s talk

about the fact that it’s still literally a footnote in the

budget.

When you go to the page that references the Massey Tunnel replacement,

it’s part of a broader number of projects, and it literally has the little

No. 1, as when you’re reading on some sort of legalese disclaimer, where

they have the little No. 1 or little No. 2. It’s got a little No. 1, I

believe. It might be a No. 2. Probably a No. 2 — that would be more fitting,

I guess. At the bottom of it, it says that some money is allocated for the

Massey Tunnel replacement in this pot of $300-some-million. I don’t think

they’re replacing the Massey Tunnel for a portion of a $300-some-million

line item.

[11:15 a.m.]

If we want to talk about other promises that have been broken, that

they made in an election, and if we want to talk about how voters might feel

misled, I’m totally on side with that, with what the previous member was

talking about. There’s a long list from this Premier, as recently as

October. We don’t even have to go back to the commitments they made in 2017

to not find them in this budget. Commitments made in October aren’t in this

budget.

Specifically, I want to talk about Kamloops, where I’m from. The

member for Kamloops–South Thompson and myself made it very clear. We spoke

to our leader at the time, as we were getting our platform ready. We had

assurances. It was costed in our budget for our platform that we would have

radiation therapy in Kamloops at the cancer centre.

The Premier made an announcement about a provincial cancer centre plan

the next day — a ten-year plan. The Premier was the only politician that

actually referenced Kamloops as a bit of an add-on. The Health Minister…. I

couldn’t find anywhere in the media reports that the Health Minister

acknowledged Kamloops as part of a ten-year provincial cancer centre

plan.

We were a little skeptical in Kamloops, because we’d been misled as

voters before. The time we were misled was when the NDP were running, and it

was then Premier Harcourt with the promise of a cancer centre in Kamloops.

The election was over, and the cancer centre wound up in Kelowna. Now, I

know it sounds like sour grapes, and a whole bunch of NDP backers

continually try to challenge myself and the member for Kamloops–South

Thompson: “Well, you were in government for 16 years.” Sixteen years because

the voters didn’t want the NDP back in government for 16 years. But 16

years, nonetheless. “Why didn’t you solve that problem in

Kamloops?”

Well, the funny thing is there’s a finite number of dollars, public

taxpayer dollars for resources. So once you build a cancer centre that has a

life expectancy to it, you don’t just automatically build a second one — I

know in the NDP thinking that’s what they think you do — and start replacing

equipment that hasn’t hit its end of life. But over the years that the

cancer centre in Kelowna has been operating, it’s provided great service.

The people from Kamloops are now driving there five days a week for

treatment. Two of those five machines’ time is booked by people in Kamloops

and the surrounding area — two of the five. But all five need to be replaced

now.

That’s why we made the commitment in the election. We made that

commitment in the election because it made fiscal sense, but it made good

public health sense, as well, to make sure that as new equipment needed to

be purchased, it was actually located in the centres that were developed to

be actually using it based on their population base and population

growth.

So the next day, the Premier, off the side of his desk, announces that

Kamloops gets one too, part of a ten-year plan. Jump forward a week later.

The Premier makes a snap trip to Kamloops in the election. Great fanfare —

stands at the podium, gets a city councillor to stand next to him at the

podium, who actually had to go through the challenges of accessing cancer

care and making that drive back and forth to Kamloops five days a week. He

makes the commitment to Kamloops.

The Premier’s own words — there’s lots of media coverage on this:

“There will be a full cancer centre in Kamloops in four years.” In four

years, not ten — four. The Premier’s words. It wasn’t the Health Minister’s

words. I acknowledge that, and I see him on the screen. It wasn’t the Health

Minister’s words. It was the Premier’s words, though. It was the Premier’s

commitment to Kamloops.

In February, myself, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, the

member for Shuswap, the member for Fraser-Nicola and for the Cariboo sent a

joint letter to the Premier asking very straightforward questions about that

cancer centre. Where will it be located in Kamloops? Who is going to pay?

Will the health board be expected to come up with some form of their 40

percent of capital or not? Because, typically, cancer centres aren’t funded

by local taxpayers. They’re a combination of B.C. Cancer Agency and the

province.

But we just wanted to know. Will the foundation be expected to

fundraise for the hospital for this centre? Very straightforward questions.

What is the timeline? What is the scope that the Premier had envisioned when

he made that commitment to Kamloops?

The only answer we’ve gotten back to that letter, since February, is a

standard boilerplate response from the Premier’s office telling us that he’s

passed it along to the Health Minister. The Health Minister was cc’d on that

letter. We had a very long list. We engaged all of the local governments in

that wide area, from Williams Lake down to Salmon Arm to Merritt, all the

regional districts involved, all the hospital boards involved, all the

hospital foundations involved. They were all cc’d on that letter. That’s the

only response we’ve gotten officially to that letter.

[11:20 a.m.]

The Premier then goes on radio in Kamloops in February and recommits

to a four-year time frame. Yet every answer from the Health Minister to the

Kamloops media has been that it’s in a ten-year plan.

It does make one wonder — when the member from Surrey, before me, was

going on about voters feeling misled — how misled the voters in Kamloops and

the surrounding areas must feel around something as important as cancer

care. Simple math would say that if it hasn’t already started planning,

they’re not making the four-year window. We’re already six months into that

four years. It’s not in this budget.

That means, of the 3½ years left on the clock, we’re down to 2½ years

if it actually shows up in next year’s budget. If we want to talk about

misleading voters, we can do that, but it’s really unfortunate, because

there’s a long list of promises that have been flung out, over the course of

October till now, by the Premier.

Oh, and one other thing about the Premier’s interview in February.

This might be of interest to the Health Minister and, certainly, to the

members of the government that are on Treasury Board. The Premier said, on

radio in an interview, that the cancer centre was already at Treasury Board.

I don’t know of any government project that could already be at Treasury

Board with zero answers to how anything has been identified, and how

Treasury Board could make any determination on any project like that. If

that’s how this government is running the books, that’s a pretty scary

proposition moving forward, when you look at multi-billion-dollar projects

that are needed over the next several years.

This budget is interesting, in that it comes in with a $9½ billion

deficit. It’ll be very interesting as we get into estimates, because last

year, in that budget that was pre-pandemic, the revenue projections for this

year are about $3½ billion more than they were projecting in this year’s

budget. So it’s understandable why they would have a $3½ billion deficit,

and it’s understandable, with COVID, that they would have a slightly higher

deficit, as well, for some of the programs and services that needed to be

provided to support people during the pandemic.

However, we’re hard-pressed to find $6 billion worth of pandemic

supports. In fact, when you consider that they already have a $3 billion

slush fund built into this budget, simple math would say that they have

about $3 billion worth of COVID supports actually identified in their budget

at best.

I say “at best,” because a large cost item for any government is

always the public sector workers. They do great work. I’m not in any way

trying to diminish the work that our public sector women and men do to

provide services for people in British Columbia — not for one second. They

do excellent work. They get hired, when job openings happen, to fill those

positions, and it’s up to government to decide whether or not job openings

happen or not.

We’ve talked at length, several of our members, about how the public

service jumped from 430,000 in 2020 to 490,000 in the 2021 budget. It’s an

increase of 60,000 public sector employees. If we’ve added 60,000 employees

this year alone in this budget, we have a $3 billion slush fund, a $3.4

billion drop in revenue, there’s sure not a lot of money sitting there for

direct COVID supports for businesses and individuals in this

budget.

I was a little curious, leading up to speaking today, so I asked staff

to pull some public sector numbers for me. In terms of numbers, this is a

movie we’ve seen before, I think, and it’s probably why the NDP wound up

with two seats the last time they were finished and took 16 years to still

be in opposition and in fact didn’t even win the election after 16

years.

[11:25 a.m.]

I thought: “Well, what was the public service when the transition

happened? What was the number of the public service when the NDP took over

government from us?” Granted, it was in July, so it’s going to be a bit of a

strange year.

If we go back to 2017, the public sector was 310,000. Okay, 2018:

310,000 — makes sense. The government is still finding its way. It’s a new

government — fair enough. Again, these numbers are all coming directly from

government budget documents. In 2019: from 310,000 to 326,000. So we added

about 16,000. Based on ideology, differences and things of that nature, that

seems, probably, not too far-fetched, I would say. And 60,000 this year

seems like a pretty large number.

Let’s look at what happened in the budget document that would have

been tabled, pre-pandemic, for 2020, because a lot of what we hear from this

government is all about the pandemic, the pandemic, the pandemic. “We’re

doing it because of the pandemic.” What happened between the 2019 budget and

the 2020 budget, which was delivered pre-pandemic? Public sector workers

went from 326,000 to 430,000. Pre-pandemic, last year, this government added

104,000 public sector employees. They added 33 percent to the public sector

roles, pre-pandemic.

Then in the middle of a pandemic, they added 60,000. The push-back we

get from the Finance Minister is: “Oh, you must be opposed to us hiring

people to help in the pandemic.” Absolutely not. They actually added almost

half as many for the pandemic as they did pre-pandemic.

This government has added 180,000 public sector employees to the

payroll in British Columbia in three years, and 130,000 of those were

pre-pandemic. That’s starting at a base of 310,000. That’s like a 60 percent

increase in the public sector in three years. No wonder they’re saying

they’re not going to be out of deficit for nine years. No wonder there’s no

private sector job plan in this budget. They can point to InBC, and I know

we’re going to debate that later. It’s $100 million in this year in InBC.

It’s only $200 million next year and $200 million the following

year.

Given that the government couldn’t figure out how to push out $345

million of business supports in one year and had to suddenly make it a

two-year program, I’m highly doubtful they’re going to have any success

trying to push out $500 million to any great effect for the economy. At the

same time, just in this year alone, we know we’ve seen about 45,000 private

sector jobs disappear. It’s a false economy right now. Taxpayers are not a

bottomless pit able to fund things at will that are all things government.

They just aren’t. At a certain point, you need a healthy, strong, thriving

private sector to be able to pay the bills.

Again, this is not directed at any one of those 490,000 public sector

employees, let alone the 180,000 extra that were added to get to 490,000.

Those people are doing their jobs. Those people are doing what they’ve been

asked by the government to do. It’s this government that has decided that

somehow adding 60 percent to the public payroll is a way to move forward.

It’s this government that decided that somehow adding 30, 35 percent to the

government payroll, before the pandemic even hit, was a good

idea.

The reason I raise this is that it raises concerns. It raises concerns

about how much time we’re going to have to actually delve into estimates,

because normally in a 12-week session the budget gets introduced, and two

weeks later we’re into estimates.

[11:30 a.m.]

Well, this year, out of the 12-week session, the first four weeks was

taken up because there was no budget. We have now lost, as an opposition, as

the public, to have proper scrutiny on the government’s books — on the

highest-spending, highest-deficit budget in B.C. history — four extra weeks

of scrutiny and oversight on just what the heck has been happening under

COVID and how money is being spent and how it’s going to be spent in this

fiscal year. We’ve lost that opportunity. It’s quite shameful,

actually.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We have a government that keeps trying to say they’re the most

transparent in Canada. Nothing could be further from the truth. It’s like

pulling teeth to get proper COVID data. It’s like pulling teeth to try to

get a proper explanation of where the money is going that gets approved

unanimously in this House for COVID supports. It’s like pulling teeth to

find out: is the Premier going to live up to his word that sick pay will

actually not be borne by businesses — and the costs associated with that? Or

will it be paid out of the $3 billion slush fund they’ve built into this $9½

billion deficit?

They even tap danced around that today. The government wouldn’t even

answer a very clear question about whether the Premier would hold his word

that sick pay should not be on the backs of businesses. They’re already

stretched thin enough. Couldn’t even get a clear answer on that.

We’ve lost four weeks of estimates time, four weeks of scrutiny.

That’s a third of a session gone. But we’re supposed to just take the

Premier at his word. “Trust me. It’s fine. Nothing to see here, folks. Move

along.” Again, it sounds pretty familiar.

When I see things like a 60 percent increase in the public service,

when I see things like a record deficit, record spending, questionable

dollars towards actual pandemic response and a tightening up of the time

frame that we’re actually going to have to properly scrutinize the books on

behalf of every taxpayer in this province, it makes you wonder what they’re

hiding. It makes you wonder why, if they’re so proud of Budget ’21, they’re

refusing to answer the most basic questions and trying to find ways to put

the screws to time frames so that proper assessment of budgetary documents

can happen.

This budget was delivered two months late because they needed time to

deliver it. Two months late. I happened to be in the lockup. So was our

Finance critic. So was the member for Kamloops–South Thompson. Some of the

documents still weren’t ready on this budget when we were in lockup, so we

weren’t provided them. We couldn’t actually do proper scrutiny on budget

day, to have our re­sponse to the budget properly prepared.

After a two-month delay, we couldn’t get something as simple as the

estimates book. The estimates book, when you read through, gives much more

detail than the marketing document, which is the budget book. We were given

the budget book. It’s got some nice pictures. Hopefully, these ones are from

people from B.C. I note that InBC is using stock photos from people that

aren’t in B.C. But I digress.

Two months late to have half the information needed to provide proper

scrutiny as an opposition. Two months late. Now we’re told: “Don’t worry

about it. The budget was two months late. We weren’t able to give you proper

information on the day of the budget.” In fact, the Finance Minister was ten

minutes late for the budget speech. Such pride in the budget. Such

pride.

We’re told: “Well, your time is restricted for estimates because of

the way the legislative calendar works.” Well, I know this side of the House

is more than happy to invest the time that the taxpayers are paying us to do

to fully look at every ministry and figure out just where the heck all this

money is being spent, to figure out which ministry is actually seeing the

big jump in staffing.

[11:35 a.m.]

That’s not really clear in these documents. That’s why estimates are

so important — so that we can actually dig in as critics and ask each

minister: where is the growth in the public sector?

Obviously, there’s going to be some growth in Health with COVID.

That’s understandable, and that’s expected. What’s the growth in some of the

other ministries? Certainly, if you talk to people in rural B.C., they’re

not seeing it in the conservation officer service. They’re not seeing it on

the ground through FLNRORD. They’re not seeing it in a whole wide range of

things.

Just where did these 180,000 people get hired to go work? We know

there’ll be a few added because of class size and COVID protocols in

schools. That’s understandable too. We look forward to getting those

answers. Those are important questions and answers for the public to know.

But it’s equally as important for the public to know where all the other

ones that the government doesn’t want to talk about have gone, because this

is not sustainable.

This rate of hiring is not sustainable. But again, when information

gets hidden, when information is very hard to access, when information needs

to be dug through and dug through and you sit and wait and wait for

documents that are already two months late and they don’t show up until it’s

too late, that’s not acceptable.

There are a lot of members in the government that were in opposition

for those 16 years they like to chant back at us. They were in opposition

for 12 of those 16 years. Some were in for all 16. I would ask every one of

those members to ask themselves what they would be thinking in their head

right now if our side of the House had dared to bring in a budget two months

late, after changing the law twice to make that happen in the space of six

months — two months late, with record spending, a record deficit.

Now, of course, that would never happen with our government. But let’s

imagine it did. Two months late, and you’re sitting in lock-up, and the

response back from the Finance Ministry is, “Oh, well, those documents

aren’t ready yet,” on the day of the budget, an hour and a half before the

budget speech. “But don’t worry. Trust us. Oh, by the way, we’ve delayed

this so much, a third of the normal time you would have to scrutinize this,

on behalf of the public, has disappeared, because we’re introducing it a

month later,” after four weeks of debate has already happened in the House

on other random things.

I would ask the members opposite that were in those opposition chairs

for all those years what they would actually be thinking before they get

ready to come at me with their next partisan attacks and tweets and

everything else, which is fair enough. I understand how it works. But just

ask yourself if you’re not just selling off a little bit of your soul as you

do that.

This is about openness and transparency. That’s what the budget is

supposed to be about. That’s what we’re supposed to be looking for in

estimates. That’s what the taxpayers in this province pay an opposition to

do.

Mr. Speaker, I know my time is coming near an end. I know the Finance

Minister is supposed to come and provide closing comments. I’m not sure what

will happen if she’s ten minutes late to the closing comments, like she was

to her speech, but we’ll see what happens, I guess. I only have three

minutes on the clock.

This is about a record level of spending, record levels of deficit,

revenues lower than they should be right now because of the pandemic, record

levels of hiring happening across government and us as an opposition simply

striving to get answers. So it will be interesting to see, as the

legislation finally starts to move forward in this chamber on other bills,

what types of answers we actually get from the government.

It will be interesting to see when a sick pay plan comes forward,

because it’s not in this budget, even though the Premier said a year ago he

had one ready to go. There’s no sick pay plan in here. The other thing the

Premier made very clear was that it should not be on the backs of

businesses. The Labour Minister wouldn’t even answer that basic question

today, despite a $3.1 billion slush fund sitting there for the NDP. It’s

going to be very interesting to watch how that $3.1 billion — and we’re

going to track it very closely — gets doled out.

[11:40 a.m.]

We saw last night the emotional toll and devastation of what’s

happening in the Cariboo and how few resources this government is providing

for flood control, fire remediation, groundwater works, runoff. It would be

a rounding error for them to deal with it properly out of that $3.1 billion

slush fund.

So we’re going to see if things like that, which are truly impactful

to people’s lives, are going to be dealt with by this government — that

claims they’re for the people — or if they’re going to run and trot around

to various NDP ridings and sprinkle $20 million there and $50 million there

to try to change the channel on a bad-news day, because they’re having a lot

of bad news days lately.

That’s what we need to see. That’s what we’re going to hold the

government to account on as an opposition, because that’s our job. But our

job is supposed to be able to do it with a proper level of transparency and

openness from government.

We’re not looking for some big aha moment where we’re going to

overthrow the government. We get it. You’re government for the next 3½

years. But I think the taxpayers of this province are owed the respect of

open, clear and concise answers from ministers on how their tax dollars are

being spent when they get asked. Because that’s who we’re asking the

questions on behalf.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time on this budget. I wish the

budget was better than it is. But I was glad to be able to speak to a few

things that I have concerns around.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. Seeing no other members seeking to be recognized to speak, the

question before the House is that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the

House to go into Committee of Supply.

Division has been called.

Motions Without Notice

DIVISION ON MOTION

TO GO INTO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

TO PROCEED FORTHWITH

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move:

[That, notwithstanding sections 5 (2) and (3) of the Sessional Order

adopted on April 12, 2021, that the division called on the motion “That

the Speaker do now leave the Chair” for the House to go into Committee

of Supply proceed forthwith, and that the deferred division process

commence with the timing set out in

section 6 (

b) of the Sessional Order

adopted on April 12, 2021, after the Speaker rings the bells.]

Leave granted.

Mr. Speaker: Members, now you heard that leave has been granted. On the motion

now, the vote will take place in five minutes.

Motion approved.

[11:45 a.m. - 11:50 a.m.]

Budget Debate

(continued)

Mr. Speaker: The question is that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House

to go into Committee of Supply.

[11:55 a.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 56

Alexis

Anderson

Babchuk

Bailey

Bains

Beare

Begg

Brar

Chandra Herbert

Chant

Chen

Chow

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

D’Eith

Dix

Donnelly

Dykeman

Eby

Elmore

Farnworth

Fleming

Furstenau

Glumac

Greene

Heyman

Horgan

Kahlon

Kang

Leonard

Lore

Malcolmson

Mark

Mercier

Olsen

Osborne

Popham

Ralston

Rankin

Rice

Robinson

Routledge

Routley

Russell

Sandhu

Sharma

Simons

Sims

A. Singh

R. Singh

Starchuk

Walker

Whiteside

Yao

NAYS — 26

Ashton

Banman

Bernier

Bond

Davies

de Jong

Doerkson

Halford

Kirkpatrick

Kyllo

Lee

Letnick

Merrifield

Milobar

Morris

Oakes

Paton

Ross

Rustad

Shypitka

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Tegart

Wat

Wilkinson

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.

Copyright © 2021 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.