British Columbia Hansard — 16 March 2021, p.m., Issue 32 (42nd Parliament, 1st Session)

20210316pm-Hansard-n32

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

First Session, 42nd Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Tuesday, March 16, 2021 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 32 THE HONOURABLE RAJ CHOUHAN, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Janet Austin, OBC First Session, 42nd Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Raj Chouhan EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................... Hon. John Horgan Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Training...........................................................................................................Hon.

Anne Kang Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries......................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Housing .............................................................................................Hon. David Eby, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................................Hon.

Mitzi Dean Minister of State for Child Care...................................................................................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Minister of Citizens’ Services.....................................................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Education .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Jennifer Whiteside Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation ........................................................................................Hon. Bruce Ralston, QC Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy............................................................................................. Hon. George Heyman Minister of Finance .......................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Selina Robinson Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development ................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Minister of State for Lands and Natural Resource Operations................................................................................. Hon. Nathan Cullen Minister of Health and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs.............................................................................Hon.

Adrian Dix Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation .......................................................................................... Hon. Murray Rankin, QC Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation....................................................................................................... Hon. Ravi Kahlon Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon.

George Chow Minister of Labour ...................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Harry Bains Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.............................................................................................................. Hon. Sheila Malcolmson Minister of Municipal Affairs ............................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Josie Osborne Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................... Hon. Mike Farnworth Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction........................................................................................... Hon. Nicholas Simons Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport .................................................................................................................. Hon.

Melanie Mark Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................... Hon. Rob Fleming Minister of State for Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Bowinn Ma LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition...................................................................................................................................................Shirley Bond Leader of the Third Party .......................................................................................................................................................... Sonia Furstenau Deputy Speaker..........................................................................................................................................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Assistant Deputy Speaker..............................................................................................................................................................Norm Letnick Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole .......................................................................................................................... Ronna-Rae Leonard Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ...........................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel.............................................................................................................................. Seunghee Suzie Seo Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services........................................................................................................................... Artour Sogomonian Clerk of Committees.......................................................................................................................................................................

Jennifer Arril Clerk Assistant, Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..............................................................................................Susan Sourial Senior Research Analyst ................................................................................................................................................................... Karan Riarh Acting Sergeant-at-Arms..................................................................................................................................................................Greg Nelson

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Alexis, Pam (BC NDP) ............................................................Abbotsford-Mission Anderson, Brittny (BC NDP) .........................................................Nelson-Creston Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal Party) ............................................................... Penticton Babchuk, Michele (BC NDP)...............................................................North Island Bailey, Brenda (BC NDP).................................................. Vancouver–False Creek Bains, Hon. Harry (BC NDP).........................................................

Surrey-Newton Banman, Bruce (BC Liberal Party) ............................................ Abbotsford South Beare, Hon. Lisa (BC NDP) .......................................

Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry (BC NDP).................................................................Surrey-Guildford Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal Party) ...............................................Peace River South Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal Party).................................Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (BC NDP) ................................................................Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal Party) .............................................

Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (BC NDP).................................Vancouver–West End Chant, Susie (BC NDP) ..............................................North Vancouver–Seymour Chen, Hon. Katrina (BC NDP) ............................................... Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Hon. Raj (BC NDP).................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon. George (BC NDP) ..........................................Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal Party)........................Columbia River–Revelstoke Conroy, Hon.

Katrine (BC NDP) ....................................................Kootenay West Coulter, Dan (BC NDP) .......................................................................... Chilliwack Cullen, Hon. Nathan (BC NDP) ................................................................... Stikine Davies, Dan (BC Liberal Party)................................................. Peace River North de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal Party)....................................Abbotsford West Dean, Hon. Mitzi (BC NDP) ...............................................

Esquimalt-Metchosin D’Eith, Bob (BC NDP) .........................................................Maple Ridge–Mission Dix, Hon. Adrian (BC NDP) ................................................ Vancouver-Kingsway Doerkson, Lorne (BC Liberal Party) ........................................Cariboo-Chilcotin Donnelly, Fin (BC NDP) .......................................... Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Dykeman, Megan (BC NDP)............................................................... Langley East Eby, Hon. David, QC (BC NDP).......................................

Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (BC NDP) ..................................................Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (BC NDP) .................................................Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (BC NDP) ...............................................

Victoria–Swan Lake Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) .............................................Cowichan Valley Glumac, Rick (BC NDP) ..................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Greene, Kelly (BC NDP) ........................................................Richmond-Steveston Halford, Trevor (BC Liberal Party) .........................................Surrey–White Rock Heyman, Hon. George (BC NDP) .........................................Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon. John (BC NDP) ......................................... Langford–Juan de Fuca Kahlon, Hon.

Ravi (BC NDP) .............................................................. Delta North Kang, Hon. Anne (BC NDP) .................................................. Burnaby–Deer Lake Kirkpatrick, Karin (BC Liberal Party) ........................West Vancouver–Capilano Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal Party)....................................................................Shuswap Lee, Michael (BC Liberal Party) ..............................................Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (BC NDP)...............................................

Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal Party) .................................. Kelowna–Lake Country Lore, Grace (BC NDP)........................................................... Victoria–Beacon Hill Ma, Hon. Bowinn (BC NDP).....................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Malcolmson, Hon. Sheila (BC NDP)........................................................Nanaimo Mark, Hon. Melanie (BC NDP).................................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Mercier, Andrew (BC NDP) ........................................................................

Langley Merrifield, Renee (BC Liberal Party)......................................... Kelowna-Mission Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal Party) .......................... Kamloops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal Party) ................................. Prince George–Mackenzie Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal Party).................................................. Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (BC Green Party)............................ Saanich North and the Islands Osborne, Hon.

Josie (BC NDP)........................................Mid Island–Pacific Rim Paddon, Kelli (BC NDP) ................................................................Chilliwack-Kent Paton, Ian (BC Liberal Party) ............................................................... Delta South Popham, Hon. Lana (BC NDP)........................................................ Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce, QC (BC NDP) .............................................Surrey-Whalley Rankin, Hon.

Murray, QC (BC NDP) .............................Oak Bay–Gordon Head Rice, Jennifer (BC NDP) ...................................................................... North Coast Robinson, Hon. Selina (BC NDP)...................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal Party)......................................................................... Skeena Routledge, Janet (BC NDP) .............................................................Burnaby North Routley, Doug (BC NDP)...........................................

Nanaimo–North Cowichan Russell, Roly (BC NDP).................................................... Boundary-Similkameen Rustad, John (BC Liberal Party)......................................................Nechako Lakes Sandhu, Harwinder (BC NDP) .................................................Vernon-Monashee Sharma, Niki (BC NDP)..........................................................Vancouver-Hastings Shypitka, Tom (BC Liberal Party) .................................................... Kootenay East Simons, Hon. Nicholas (BC NDP).........................

Powell River–Sunshine Coast Sims, Jinny (BC NDP) ................................................................. Surrey-Panorama Singh, Aman (BC NDP) .............................................Richmond-Queensborough Singh, Rachna (BC NDP)...................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Starchuk, Mike (BC NDP) ......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal Party) .......................................................

Kelowna West Stone, Todd (BC Liberal Party) ...............................Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal Party) ............................. West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal Party)....................................................... Fraser-Nicola Walker, Adam (BC NDP) ....................................................... Parksville-Qualicum Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal Party) ....................................... Richmond North Centre Whiteside, Hon. Jennifer (BC NDP) .........................................

New Westminster Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal Party)......................Vancouver-Quilchena Y ao, Henry (BC NDP) ..................................................... Richmond South Centre LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission................................................................................. Pam Alexis Abbotsford South...............................................................................Bruce Banman Abbotsford West......................................................................

Michael de Jong, QC Boundary-Similkameen........................................................................ Roly Russell Burnaby–Deer Lake....................................................................... Hon. Anne Kang Burnaby-Edmonds......................................................................Hon. Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Burnaby North .................................................................................

Janet Routledge Cariboo-Chilcotin ..........................................................................Lorne Doerkson Cariboo North.................................................................................... Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ...............................................................................................Dan Coulter Chilliwack-Kent .................................................................................... Kelli Paddon Columbia River–Revelstoke .........................................................

Doug Clovechok Coquitlam–Burke Mountain...............................................................Fin Donnelly Coquitlam-Maillardville ...................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Courtenay-Comox................................................................... Ronna-Rae Leonard Cowichan Valley ............................................................................. Sonia Furstenau Delta North................................................................................... Hon.

Ravi Kahlon Delta South ..................................................................................................Ian Paton Esquimalt-Metchosin .................................................................... Hon. Mitzi Dean Fraser-Nicola .........................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Kamloops–North Thompson .............................................................Peter Milobar Kamloops–South Thompson..................................................................Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country .....................................................................Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission ...........................................................................

Renee Merrifield Kelowna West ..........................................................................................Ben Stewart Kootenay East.......................................................................................Tom Shypitka Kootenay West........................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Langford–Juan de Fuca .............................................................. Hon.

John Horgan Langley .............................................................................................Andrew Mercier Langley East....................................................................................Megan Dykeman Maple Ridge–Mission.............................................................................. Bob D’Eith Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows............................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim............................................................ Hon.

Josie Osborne Nanaimo.............................................................................Hon. Sheila Malcolmson Nanaimo–North Cowichan............................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes........................................................................................ John Rustad Nelson-Creston ............................................................................. Brittny Anderson New Westminster.............................................................. Hon.

Jennifer Whiteside North Coast ........................................................................................... Jennifer Rice North Island................................................................................... Michele Babchuk North Vancouver–Lonsdale......................................................... Hon. Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour...................................................................Susie Chant Oak Bay–Gordon Head..................................................Hon.

Murray Rankin, QC Parksville-Qualicum........................................................................... Adam Walker Peace River North ................................................................................... Dan Davies Peace River South ................................................................................ Mike Bernier Penticton ................................................................................................. Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam...................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam.......................................................................Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast..............................................Hon. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie....................................................................Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ..................................................................

Shirley Bond Richmond North Centre..........................................................................Teresa Wat Richmond-Queensborough..................................................................Aman Singh Richmond South Centre .......................................................................... Henry Y ao Richmond-Steveston ............................................................................

Kelly Greene Saanich North and the Islands .............................................................Adam Olsen Saanich South .............................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Shuswap...................................................................................................... Greg Kyllo Skeena........................................................................................................... Ellis Ross Stikine........................................................................................ Hon.

Nathan Cullen Surrey-Cloverdale .............................................................................. Mike Starchuk Surrey-Fleetwood.....................................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey–Green Timbers........................................................................Rachna Singh Surrey-Guildford......................................................................................Garry Begg Surrey-Newton ..............................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ...................................................................................... Jinny Sims Surrey South ................................................................................ Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Whalley ................................................................. Hon. Bruce Ralston, QC Surrey–White Rock .......................................................................... Trevor Halford Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek...................................................................... Brenda Bailey Vancouver-Fraserview...............................................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings ..............................................................................Niki Sharma Vancouver-Kensington....................................................................... Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..................................................................... Hon.

Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara................................................................................ Michael Lee Vancouver–Mount Pleasant..................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey ............................................................Hon. David Eby, QC Vancouver-Quilchena........................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Vancouver–West End .....................................................Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee .....................................................................

Harwinder Sandhu Victoria–Beacon Hill............................................................................... Grace Lore Victoria–Swan Lake.................................................................... Hon. Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano...........................................................Karin Kirkpatrick West Vancouver–Sea to Sky................................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC NDP 57; BC Liberal Party 28; BC Green Party 2

CONTENTS Tuesday, March 16, 2021 Afternoon Sitting Page Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills ............................................................................................................................................................ 773 Bill 11 — Court of Appeal Act Hon. D. Eby M. de Jong Hon. D. Eby Bill 10 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2021(continued) D. Coulter T.

Wat Speaker’s Statement ................................................................................................................................................................... 778 Respectful language in debate Second Reading of Bills ............................................................................................................................................................ 778 Bill 10 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2021(continued) M. Starchuk R. Merrifield S. Chant C. Oakes K. Paddon T. Shypitka Hon. S. Malcolmson M. Lee G. Kyllo H. Y ao B. Banman Hon. N. Cullen A. Wilkinson

TUESDAY , MARCH 16, 2021 The House met at 1:32 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Orders of the Day Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading debate, Court of Appeal Act, Bill 11. Second Reading of Bills BILL 11 — COURT OF APPEAL ACT Hon. D. Eby:I move the bill be now read a second time. The Court of Appeal Act was enacted in 1982, with the most recent revision in 1996. Over the years, amendments have been made to the act that have affected its overall organization and usability. This has caused confusion for litigants trying to navigate the appeal system. [S.

Chandra Herbert in the chair.] Currently the act includes provisions that combine mat- ters of statutory nature with those of practice and proced- ural application, which fall more appropriately within the scope of the rules of the Court of Appeal. Changes to the act and the rules for the Court of Appeal are part of a user- centred approach to modernize, improve access to justice, and make the legislation easier to understand. The content of the act and the rules will be reorganized to have the gen- eral powers reside in the act, and all aspects of the proced- ure in the rules.

The language used in the act and the rules will also be harmonized for improved usability. With this bill, there will be increased clarity to sections in the act that were not previously articulated or were consistently misunder- stood. Increased profile will also be given to sections that are most frequently referred to. Feedback received through the public consultation was reviewed and considered in these amendments. The need to modernize the courts is not a new pursuit. It is an important and ongoing work in partnership with our courts to improve access to justice.

The impacts of COVID-19 have highlighted the necessity of embracing the flexibility of audio and video appearance methods and the importance of integrating remote and electronic op- tions within our court system. The act and rules amendments take a user-centered approach to provide a comprehensive, easier-to-follow guide for the appellate process. While there are benefits to the operations of the Court of Appeal, we believe that lit- igants will benefit the most from these changes.

M. de Jong:To the Attorney, the Court of Appeal, as he has pointed out, our highest court in this province, I think, is celebrating 111 or 112 years of operation. I remember that because when I sat in the Attorney’s chair some time ago, it was the centenary of the Court of Appeal. [1:35 p.m.] It has rendered decisions on some of the most import- ant questions — societal questions, legal questions — that have arisen in our society. It is one of the three branches of governance. I remember a former chief taking exception when I suggested that the judiciary represented one of the three branches of government.

He didn’t like that term. I changed it to governance. But he wasn’t particularly fond of that as well. I think it is a basic tenet of our parliamentary demo- cracy that between the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch, the three together are the agencies that our society relies upon to govern behaviour and ensure there is equality.

The objective that the Attorney has laid out in ensuring that the court is composed and operates and enjoys a jur- isdictional authority that is modern, organized and under- standable by those litigants who use it is, I think, a laudable one and deserving of support. There is no question that over time, as changes in technology, changes in procedures occur, it can become a bit of a labyrinth to navigate — not, by the way, just on the part of unrepresented litigants but even those who enjoy the assistance of able counsel and the support that exists for lawyers. It can, at times, be con- fusing.

The Attorney, in his brief remarks, spoke of — I think, legitimately — the emergence of new technologies and the adopting of new technologies. It’s hard to talk about or think about positive features associated with something as debilitating as an international worldwide pandemic, but the degree to which institutions, like the courts, have adap- ted and begun to use those technologies probably falls into that category.

As we look ahead to the committee stage debate that will take place, I likely will want to ask the Attorney the degree to which some of that technology will become, in his view, a permanent feature of the dispensation of justice. I think the Court of Appeal now does broadcast, if that’s the right term, some of its proceedings and the issuance of decisions.

It has always been my view that if we are to ask of the population a broader understanding and support for the work undertaken by the courts, we should be examin- ing ways to utilize technology to provide people with more of an opportunity to watch and observe the workings of the court, including the Court of Appeal. To the extent that this legislation and the subsequent rules that will become an important part of that package allow for that or facilitate that will be of interest to me.

When the Attorney introduced the bill, he spoke of — and I think he mentioned a few moments ago again — the increased phenomenon of self-represented individuals. It is a reality, to be sure, to what extent that is…. A phe- 773

nomenon that is the product of other challenges or prob- lems…. Access to legal representation is something that is very much the subject of debate. [1:40 p.m.] I may seek the Attorney General’s views on that in a general way when we contemplate the specific provisions of the legislation. The rules package and the rules that sub- sequently guide the operation of the court will, of course, be very important.

I think the Attorney General can anti- cipate some questions from this side of the House around the composition of the rules of practice committee and the degree to which he believes that that agency or that body will continue to bear responsibility for rule changes. All of this, of course, takes place in the context, it should be mentioned, of a white paper that the Attorney General and the government made available, I think, at the tail end of 2019, the fall of 2019, that followed in some work that had been initiated two or three years before that.

I should point out that I am grateful to the staff within the Min- istry of the Attorney General for the opportunity to speak with them earlier today and pose some questions about any significant differences between the content of the draft bill that was attached to the white paper and what we have before us today in Bill 11. They were very obliging in pointing out a few areas where there are some differences. At the moment, they don’t appear to me to be significant differences.

But I think the Attorney can anticipate perhaps several questions relating to any of the changes that were provoked by the publication of the white paper and the feedback that he and the ministry received. Always a bit tricky, of course, in dealing with the courts on these matters, for no other reason than to ensure that their independence from the executive and legislative branches are properly respected. But I expect to receive and anticipate receiving assurances from the Attorney General at the committee stage of this bill that significant discussions and consultation took place with the court.

And that he and, therefore, the House can be satisfied that the legislative product before us enjoys the support of the court — that it is designed to provide stat- utory governance around the act. What we have before us will speak to the powers that the court enjoys and the individual justices enjoy. The rules will speak ultimately to how litigants can access and operate to take advantage and receive the bene- fit of that jurisdictional authority. I will expect to pose sev- eral questions to the Attorney General about that interplay and the timing around the final publication of the rules.

I believe that that will be the extent of my comments at second reading for this bill. I look forward to the oppor- tunity to pose some of those, and perhaps a few other, questions to the Attorney when we get to the committee stage shortly. Deputy Speaker:Seeing no further speakers, I turn to the minister, the Attorney General, to close second read- ing debate. Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to my critic for his remarks and insights. I’m glad the staff was able to be of assistance to him in answering questions and helping him prepare for committee stage. With that, I move second reading. Motion approved. Hon. D.

Eby:I call continued second reading on Bill 10, Supply Act. [1:45 p.m.] Deputy Speaker:The member will have to move that into Committee of the Whole, Bill 11. This is in reference to the bill that just finished second reading. That must be moved to committee, Minister. Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the Clerk. I got ahead of myself there. I move that the bill — that bill being Bill 11 — be com- mitted to a Committee of the Whole House to be con- sidered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 11, Court of Appeal Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Deputy Speaker:Now we’ll move on to the next one. Hon. D. Eby:I call continued second reading on Bill 10, Supply Act. BILL 10 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2021 (continued) D. Coulter:I’m happy to continue debate here on Bill 10. Bill 10 is just going to allow us to continue to be responsive to the needs of people, business and com- munities and to see through the pandemic and into a strong economic recovery that supports all British Col- umbians.

It’s an interim spending bill in between now and our budget. It’s not uncommon for governments to have interim supply bills. I’ll just speak quickly about the budget and whether it will support people through COVID. Budget 2021 will continue to focus on keeping people safe through the pan- demic, and we’ll do this with an eye to how we position our province to seize the opportunities that recovery will offer. The path forward is not the same for all people or sectors of the economy.

Recognizing this, our support and invest- ment must be targeted now, which is why we so desper- ately need to pass Bill 10. 774 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, March 16, 2021

At the start of the pandemic, with greater uncertainty about how the impacts would be felt, we invested with broad tools to quickly provide support to as many people as possible. As we continue through our pandemic response and recovery and identify those most affected, our support has become more targeted to address the spe- cific needs of particular groups and sectors, and it’s sup- porting all sectors. At the same time, we’re maintaining the flexibility to respond to new and changing circumstances and to sup- port people and businesses across B.C.

Y ou’ll see this flex- ibility reflected now in our day-to-day decisions, and you’ll see that reflected in our budget, as well, when it comes next month. There’s been lots of talk about ICBC in this debate. I don’t really want to bring it up again and affect folks’ tender feelings over the disastrous management of ICBC under the last government. There have been comments from other members of the House that we’re calling them criminals. We’re certainly not calling them criminals. We don’t believe it’s criminal.

A lot of people are talking about ICBC, but not enough people are talking about the fire sale that the B.C. Liberals had when it came to land — selling land to many of their donors, actually. So $493 million worth of land to balance their budget. This is land that they could have gotten $860 million for. That’s $367 million worth of public assets that the B.C. Liberals forgo by selling off this land in a fire sale — just beyond the pale. Also, I think it’s easy to forget the draconian cuts that the B.C. Liberals made to our public services over the years. It brings me to tears, really. It’s, in many ways….

Not in many ways; it is shameful. I mean, this is…. Now we’re getting lectured about budgets and the like. I’m just…. As you can tell, Mr. Speaker, I’m almost speechless. [1:50 p.m.] We’re getting lectured about budgets and supporting people through COVID. Folks don’t want to pass this bill, which would be very irresponsible — very irresponsible — yet the record of the previous government is just shameful. I don’t know how you can keep a straight face and lecture us after that disastrous record. I was a school trustee for four years under the B.C. Lib- erals, and I remember the cuts — lots of cuts, no increases.

We had to cut busing. We had to cut supports for students that desperately needed these supports. Every year we were cutting educational assistant hours, which just affected the most vulnerable students and was really upset- ting to me. I’m still a little angry over it. Also, here in Chilliwack, very few capital projects. But in the last three years of my tenure as a school trustee, under a B.C. NDP government, we have two new schools on the way. We have business cases that have been accepted by the Ministry of Education for several expansions in our school system.

This is the difference that this government is mak- ing in the lives of British Columbians. This is why we need this interim supply bill today, so that we can continue to support British Columbians dur- ing this difficult time. I just don’t understand arguments from the other side. They’re not even arguing about whether we should support people. They’re arguing about things that have nothing to do with this bill. Like I said, I’m almost speechless. I’m having a hard time articulating my thoughts here, because it is so sort of bizarre to me that we are even debating this.

We’re debating whether we are going to pay nurses, doc- tors, teachers, social workers, whether we’re going to sup- port folks in poverty through our social programs. I know that the B.C. Liberals don’t want to pay people fair wages. They’re obviously against community benefit agreements, which ensure fair wages for local folks, Indigenous people, women and other underrepresented groups. I know they don’t want to pay people a fair wage, but now they don’t want to pay people at all. I’m probably going to end it there before I get angry.

I’ d just like to urge my colleagues across the aisle to vote yea for this bill. T. Wat:I rise in the House this afternoon to speak on Bill 10, Supply Act, 2021. I look forward to continuing the debate on this subject. Many colleagues on this side of the House have already eloquently spoken on why they are so, so disappointed at this bill. I feel it extremely crucial that I have to speak as well, even though I might be repeating some of the com- ments made by my colleagues earlier.

The typical proceed- ings that take place when debating a supply bill like this one, particularly one that would take such a substantial sum out of a budget, which we know is already under the strain of COVID, is for it to follow the unveiling of a new budget. This is my third term that I have the privilege and hon- our to serve the constituents of Richmond North Centre. I have to be responsible to my constituents to ensure that all the proceedings of the Legislature are proper and transpar- ent.

I honestly don’t know how my honourable colleagues on the other side of the aisle can explain to their constitu- ents that this government doesn’t follow the process in this people’s House. This is not unusual responsibility or irresponsibility, as suggested by the previous member from Chilliwack. This is a matter of transparency, which this NDP government is so proud of. Where is the transparency of this bill? I’m speechless too. [1:55 p.m.] Usually these supply acts pass with little debate. They allow the government to continue to function and serve a necessary purpose.

But as we all know too well, very few things in the past year have unfolded as they usually do. This order of business has been followed by govern- ments for decades, and it’s a key tenet for maintaining openness with the B.C. public, especially when we are talk- Tuesday, March 16, 2021 British Columbia Debates 775

ing about a government that burned through nearly all of the $2.7 billion budget surplus — just listen, a $2.7 billion budget surplus — left over by the previous government, even before the pandemic. Unfortunately, over the past three years, amidst two simultaneous health crises, we have watched as this gov- ernment has returned to a pattern that we have all seen before. This government has quietly and gradually undone all the safeguards that the previous government put in place to ensure transparency — this is a very important word, transparency — and responsibility around the bu- dget in B.C.

It’s no wonder we have ended up where we are today, given the fact that the current Premier, his chief of staff and the Health Minister were all around for the notori- ous fudge-it budget of the 1990s. I’m old enough to remember that. The fudge-it budget saw that the same Premier claimed the budget was balanced before the election, then sur- prised everyone with the fact that it wasn’t after the votes were counted. I’ d just emigrated to this beautiful province when I saw this unfold, and it was shocking. Now we have a Premier who called a snap election in the middle of the pandemic.

We haven’t had a proper quarterly report. Recovery pro- grams have been repeatedly mismanaged, yet the Premier comes before this House to ask for $13 billion, without a budget and without telling us how it will be spent. It is all eerily familiar. This kind of behaviour is the reason our previous government had to bring in the protections in the first place, measures that this government is currently try- ing to circumvent with the bill before us today.

Transparency is a fundamental part of government, and it is part of government’s duty to spend the budget entrus- ted to them by the B.C. taxpayers with openness and clar- ity on its intended purpose.

On this side of the House, many of whom were directly responsible for the practices that gave B.C. a glowing fin- ancial reputation and reputation for transparency, we have had to listen to backbench NDP members repeatedly and purposely tell a different story in this House about our budgetary practices while in government, including reven- ue transfer policies for ICBC, practices that the members opposite know full well were lawful, fully disclosed in our annual budgets and quarterly reports, and practices even utilized by the NDP government of the 1990s.

While the members opposite make accusations and irresponsible statements about these revenue transfer policies, the facts are indisputable. Between 2012 and 2016, a total of $514 million was transferred from ICBC to government to support critical government services such as health care and education. [2:00 p.m.] Meanwhile, between 2012 and 2016, a total of $1.5 bil- lion in capital and $300 million in income were transferred from the optional side of ICBC to the basic side of ICBC — all this in an effort to keep rates as affordable as possible for the average driver.

What did our government do when we were in office? We brought in balanced-budget legislation, fixed budget dates, the Economic Forecast Council — all steps that make B.C. the leader in Canada for sound, transparent fiscal management, all necessary to correct the mistakes of the previous NDP government. The members opposite make their misleading state- ments while, at the same time, their cabinet colleagues dismantle, bit by bit, the safeguards that our previous government brought in to ensure transparency.

Unfor- tunately, the NDP government has chosen to not only undo all the work of our government and delay the next budget for two months, but it is also utilizing this bill to circumvent a key principle, the one that ensures a gov- ernment cannot spend its supply bill appropriation like this without first presenting a budget. After 25 years, we can’t help but be reminded of the old NDP playbook of corruption and secrecy that plagued the previous NDP government. Deputy Speaker:Member, I would ask you to withdraw that statement.

We’re not casting aspersions or using such unparliamentary language against each other, even though it may be tempting. Please try to get the best out of each other. I would ask you do that on behalf of the people of British Columbia. T. Wat:Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Y es. I withdraw my statement. History is repeating itself.

There’s no concrete part of this supply bill’s funding or spending measures that we can debate on because, by choosing to spend the supply bill appropriations without first presenting a budget, this government is casting aside a process traditionally util- ized by this House to outline such spending measures. Before this government has successfully gotten all the supports promised to British Columbians nearly a year ago out the door, they are writing themselves anoth- er cheque, a massive cheque, and don’t even have the decency to tell us what it is for.

This bill offers even less transparency at a time when British Columbians are asking for more. Even if the inten- tion of this supply bill and spending plan are good, the entire way this administration is going about it feels like foul play. We see more hidden figures and shifting spend- ing from a government that is developing a reputation for not being honest and open with British Columbians, and incompetence. All of this we already know, as I’m certain that even the members on the government side are all too aware of the murky nature of this bill.

I am certain that many of my colleagues will continue to use their time to speak on this bill to diligently outline more of these points. In light of all this, how can the NDP expect British Columbians to 776 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, March 16, 2021

trust a government that wants a blank cheque for $13 bil- lion without giving any indication, without any measure of transparency, around how they plan on spending that money? We know where this kind of behaviour has led us in the past. We have seen this movie before, but the sequel is always worse. We don’t have any faith that the NDP will spend this money well. They have proven themselves incompetent. [2:05 p.m.] When we unanimously approved $5 billion in COVID recovery aid in March of last year, we did so in good faith.

Since then, the NDP have sat on that cash and failed to adequately deliver to people and local businesses. They have also delayed the provincial budget, meaning that businesses will have to wait longer for the relief they need. This includes the small business recovery grant, where just 16 percent of the funds have been provided to businesses, businesses who are in desperate need of assistance. I want to use my remaining time to look at this through the lens of those British Columbians who have entrusted me to bring their concerns forward in this House.

The countless small and independently owned businesses in Richmond are suffering due to the pandemic. Many are still waiting on the support promised to them through the small and medium-size business grant. To date, only $55 million of the $300 million approved nearly a year ago has made it out the door into the hands of these businesses. Are there any additional supports included in this budget for the thousands of businesses this government has failed to help so far? Even if there are, will they be able to get the funding out the door this time?

It doesn’t matter how much money this government promises to put aside for our businesses if they’re going to have to wait anoth- er year before they see any of it in their hands. Many have already and many more will be forced to close their doors permanently long before then. What about our tourism industry? As the critic for Tourism…. Is there any additional support for them in this funding? Tourism operators are currently enduring anoth- er season without being able to rely on the interprovincial or international tourism they need to keep their business afloat.

These operators have been doing their part to keep our community safe at a great cost to their livelihoods. They have very clearly outlined to this government what support they need to endure the economic challenges of COVID. Back in July, tourism operators asked for $618 million from this government in order to make a full recovery. Remember, this is an industry that has lost an estimated $16.8 billion in revenue due to COVID. What this govern- ment offered them was a fraction of this: $100 million. Not even all of it has made it out of the door into the hands of tourism businesses.

Many of our tourism businesses and cultural exhibits, like the Richmond Night Market and PNE, don’t even qualify for the business grant. Y et this government has ignored their calls to revise their criteria. The list of our landmark tourism venues and events that have not got any grants from this government is very lengthy. I can go on and on and on and on. The aquarium, Science World, the art gallery, etc. I don’t think I have enough time to cite all of them.

As it stands, only 2 percent of tourism operators have been able to access the supports offered by this gov- ernment. [2:10 p.m.] On top of this, government has made no effort what- soever to delay or offer any respite from the fixed costs and expenses that these businesses are still subject to. The travel agency industry has seen little to no revenue since travel was restricted a year ago due to the pandemic. Y et Consumer Protection B.C. chose to still charge them nearly $800 in licensing fees in March 2020 and again this month.

Every single dollar counts for the struggling travel agency and tourism-related business. Ontario and Que- bec’s consumer protection agencies have waived these fees until 2022. I don’t understand. Even after we brought it up in question period time and time again…. Y et this govern- ment is not listening. It’s not listening. They have chosen to do nothing, to do nothing. I thought this government was supposed to be listening to British Columbians. So disap- pointed.

Not only does this put B.C. tourism operators at a signi- ficant disadvantage to many of their counterparts in neigh- bouring provinces; this government’s inaction on the issue directly contradicts recommendations outlined by the tourism task force report — the task force this government commissioned. Recommendation 6 in the task force report is to defer and relieve the fixed costs of businesses. My office has received letters from 68 travel industries to express their dismay with this government’s poor hand- ling of relief for their business. I would like to read a few into the record here.

Lily Teo of Orient Travel: “Because of COVID-19, our travel agency lost all of our book- ings due to cancellations, which resulted in lost earned commis- sion. We haven’t had sales since March 2020. We have had zero in- come. The travel agencies need help. Every dollar of savings means a lot to our survival. “The Travel Industry Council of Ontario and consumer protec- tion office in Quebec have waived the mandatory fees.

Unfortu- nately, despite lobbying by ACTA and by travel agencies individu- ally, Consumer Protection B.C. has done nothing except refrain from moving ahead with the 2021 planned fee increases, but they are still collecting at 2020 rates. What is the point of protecting consumers who are not able to consume?” Let’s listen to another constituent of mine, Dennis Chung of Optimal Travel: “I would like to express that the travel industry was hit the most since the beginning of the pandemic.

With zero revenue but count- less cancellations and the recall of our earned commission from all airlines, it’s very difficult to survive or sustain our business. I’m Tuesday, March 16, 2021 British Columbia Debates 777

hoping that you can voice on our industry’s behalf, so that our pro- vincial government can do something to keep us going. ” These businesses, and thousands of businesses like them, have been waiting nearly a year for assistance from this government yet have been left to fend for themselves. [2:15 p.m.] While the announcement of additional funding is wel- come news, what good does it do when I cannot respond to the inquiries my office is getting from our many con- cerned businesses and outline to them what additional supports have been put aside for them?

When can they expect them, and what is this government doing differ- ently to ensure that they actually get the supports out the door this time? I sincerely hope that as we proceed, this government will answer these questions and proceed with a promise of greater transparency, accountability and competence so that we can ensure we don’t lose many of our beloved busi- nesses for good.

Speaker’s Statement RESPECTFUL LANGUAGE IN DEBATE Deputy Speaker:I watched the debate this morning, and reflecting on the most recent comments by the preced- ing member, I thought it might be useful for members to reflect on Standing Order 40. For those who haven’t read it, as they might be new to the House, or for those longtime members who have for- gotten or chosen not to follow the rule, the rule is around respectful language in debate. It states around unparlia- mentary language. So folks might want to pay attention and take a look at their speeches to see if they’re going to transgress.

We don’t want members to be imputing false motives, misrepresenting another member’s language or accusa- tions thereof — charges of uttering a deliberate falsehood, abusive and insulting language likely to create disorder. I really would like members to not have to have the Chairs intervene to remind you not to be abusive to other members in the use of your language. Let’s try to get the best out of each other for all British Columbians. Thank you, Members. Now we turn to the member for Surrey-Cloverdale. Debate Continued M. Starchuk: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for those words of wisdom.

As a new member, I will try to adhere to those words. With regards to Bill 10, I stand virtually to speak in favour of what is inside Bill 10. COVID-19 has been an unprecedented challenge, and the word “unprecedented” has been used an unprecedented amount of times. While we can see some light at the end of the tunnel, our gov- ernment will continue to ensure that we keep people safe, while creating the foundation for a sustainable recovery for everyone.

I think that’s one of the keys that our government is involved with, making sure that our citizens of British Col- umbia are safe during this time of the pandemic. The interim supply legislation that’s here today provides a bridge funding between the end of the fiscal year on March 31 and the last day of the spring session, when the provincial government budget is formally passed. Intro- ducing this kind of interim supply legislation is common practice in British Columbia every spring. We should be reminded that in 2017, on the second of March, there was a $22 billion bridge that was there.

Then, going back as far as March 5, 2013, there was a $19 billion bridge that was there. The bridges go back to even March 26th of 2012, where there was an $8 billion bridge. We know that COVID-19 has turned everybody’s lives upside down. It’s the same here in British Columbia as it is across Canada, as it is across North America and the globe. While the end of the pandemic is getting closer, we’ve still got a ways to go. We will need to get through this the way we always have when there’s an emergency and an urgency, and that’s looking out for each other.

People and the businesses across B.C. — we’re working hard to fight the virus and get back on track, and as the MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale, I’m telling my constituents that we’re there working for you. As I’ve said, our priority all along has been there to pro- tect the people’s health. That’s not going to change. [2:20 p.m.] I’ve been involved in public safety since a long, long time ago in 1980, when I stepped up to that plate to talk about public safety. That’s not going to change. We’ve come a long way together, and we know that we’ve got further to go.

Our government is investing in health care, schools, seniors care, to protect people unlike what’s ever happened in previous governments, where those large supplemental budgets went unchecked. Let’s never forget the cuts to schools, seniors programs and the health care sector, where social services were com- pletely gutted at the cost of who needed it the most. We watched as those social services were shrunk by over 10 percent, at the cost of those people that needed it most. When we also talk about health care cuts, let’s not forget about the lands that were set aside for a new hospital in Surrey. The B.C.

Liberals sold the land where the hospital was going to stand and serve all of us south of the Fraser. I’m pleased to be able to say that, in my riding of Surrey- Cloverdale, a new hospital is on its way in the future to take the place of those lands and that hospital that was sold back in 2014. When we think about schools, since 2018 there’s been more than 18 new schools, expansions and upgrades that have taken place in Surrey. That’s as a result of the prior six 778 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, March 16, 2021

years to 2017, when there was only one school — one, Mr. Speaker — that came to the city of Surrey. That’s at a time when the population is growing at 12,000 to 15,000 people on an annual basis. One school was set aside during that period of time. When we talk about the budget and we talk about what’s there…. I’m not sure why the constituents of Richmond North Centre are not able to access some of the funding that’s there.

When we take a look at the extension of the small and medium-sized business grants that have been extended to August 31 and adjusted the requirements for the businesses to demonstrate revenue loss from 70 per- cent to 30 percent, it shows that the government is listen- ing. It shows that the government cares about those people that are there. I know in my constituency that there’s a firm with accountants and that they’ve reached out to the clients on their list. They’re going down that list, and they’re provid- ing help to some of those people.

One of those people is a person that I know within the restaurant business. They do catering alongside that. They found this business and the program that’s in place, and they’re at the end of that process that they’ll see themselves in the neighbourhood of $45,000. Not only are they a small business in the restaurant industry, but they’re catering to those tourists that were coming. Because of the world pandemic and the travel restrictions that are there, those people can no longer come and utilize their services that are there.

When we take a look at the progress that we’re making to make life affordable for people, whether it’s building roads, homes, opening new schools or child care spaces, those are the things that I’m proud of with our government that’s there. These things give a head start on a strong recovery. The people of Surrey-Cloverdale are as diverse as it comes. There are many young families that are in my con- stituency, and these are the things that they need. When I look at the infrastructure investments that are coming to my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale…. We take a look at the SkyTrain expansion to Langley.

No longer is it going to be done in one stage and then a second stage that gets there. It’s going to be done in one continuous build all the way from Surrey centre, through my riding, into Langley. That in itself is going to provide high-end jobs for those families that are actually living inside of the riding. They won’t have to cross a bridge to get to work. They will not have to be in traffic. The project itself, SkyTrain, will lower the GHGs that we have that we have to take a look at when we’re talking about the planet. We’re building a recovery that includes everyone.

Every- one from the person that has the small business to the per- son that’s just making ends meet. It’s not just the people at the top. [2:25 p.m.] We’ve come a long way, and there’s lots to do. I think that’s why Bill 10 is so important for all British Columbians that we have this out there. When I think about Bill 10 and what’s happened and what we’re hearing in the rhetoric of what’s happened in the past, I think we have to go back down to the common practice of the interim supply legis- lation that we’re talking about today to provide that bridge funding. This is nothing new to British Columbians.

This is noth- ing new. In 2012, it was an $8 billion one. In March 15, 2013, it was $19 billion. March 6 of 2014, it was $8 billion. March 11, 2015, it was $8 billion, the same as what it was March 1, 2016, $8 billion. Then March 2, 2017, it was $22 billion. If I was good with math, I would add that all up for you to tell you how many billions of dollars, but I’m not that way. What I can say to you is it’s nothing new. It’s a practise that’s considered common in British Columbia each spring.

Rather than taking up the time of this House and speak- ing ad nauseam about certain things that are there, I simply just say that what we’re talking about with regards to Bill 10, and the importance that’s there to every British Columbian, is why I stand virtually in the House today in support of Bill 10 and hope other people do as well. R. Merrifield:I look forward to continuing the debate today on the Supply Act before us. I just heard from the member before us that this is typ- ical. This is usual. In fact, he read out all the different amounts that we’ve seen over the last years.

But what that member fails to recognize is that this is not usual, because in all of the other situations that he just mentioned, there was a budget already presented. We do not have a budget presented. Normally there wouldn’t be a large debate around this type of bill, because they do allow government to continue to function and they serve a necessary purpose. But as we know all too well, very few things in the past year have unfolded as they usually do. I’ve heard how much and how necessary this is, because of this extraordinary nature of this time, this pandemic.

Few alive today have seen a pandemic of this nature and significance. But this supply bill is not the making of a pan- demic. It is the making of an election — a snap election that was held in the fall — and a pattern of a lack of trans- parency and mishandling of the finances. Over the past three years, amidst these two simultan- eous health crises, we’ve watched as this government has returned to a pattern that we’ve seen before.

This gov- ernment has quietly and gradually undone the safeguards that the previous government put into place to ensure transparency and responsibility around the budget of B.C.: delaying budgets and quarterly reports, expanding the use of special warrants and then finding ways to bypass trans- parency. The member from Chilliwack talked about cuts. Let me remind that member why. Tuesday, March 16, 2021 British Columbia Debates 779

[N. Letnick in the chair.] It’s no wonder to me why we’ve ended up where we are today, given the fact that the current Premier, his chief of staff and the Health Minister were all around for the notorious fudge-it budget of the ’90s. Let’s remember what happened during that time that created the necessary cuts of the next government. Y ou see that time, during the last NDP government, was when the NDP Premier resigned in disgrace. [2:30 p.m.] It was a scandal that saw the RCMP raid his house while our current Premier’s chief of staff looked on.

This was a time when the current Minister of Health was forced to resign from his job in the Premier’s office for backdating a memo. The fudge-it budget saw that same Premier claim the budget was balanced before the election, and then, ta-da, after the election, it wasn’t — after the votes were counted. That’s all too similar to this Premier claiming that the election of 2020 would not have an effect on the people of B.C. — but then called a snap election in the middle of a pandemic. Well, since then, we haven’t had a proper quarterly report. Recovery programs have been repeatedly mismanaged.

Y et the Premier comes before this House to ask for $13.4 billion, without a budget, without telling this House how it will be spent. It’s all very familiar. This kind of behaviour is the reas- on that the previous government had to bring in the pro- tections in the first place, measures that the now NDP government is trying to circumvent with the bill before us today. What did our B.C. Liberal government do when we were in office? We brought in balanced-budget legislation. We fixed budget dates. We brought in the Economic Fore- cast Council. We brought in the Premier’s Women’s Eco- nomic Council.

All of these were steps that made B.C. the leader in Canada for sound, transparent fiscal manage- ment — all necessary to correct the mistakes of the previ- ous NDP government. After 25 years, wow, we can’t help but be reminded of the old NDP playbook of corruption and secrecy that plagued the NDP government and nearly brought the province and its finances to the brink. This is history repeating itself.

Y et those of us on this side of the House, many of whom were directly responsible for the practices that gave B.C. a glowing financial reputation, as well as the surplus of funds that the NDP government had when they took over government, have had to listen to back- bench NDP members repeatedly and purposely mislead the public and all British Columbians about our budget- ary practices while in government, including revenue transfer policies with ICBC. I’ve listened to these.

I’m kind of one of those keeners, you know, one of those that really likes to hear what other people have to say, especially the members of this House. I hold it somewhat sacred in that everyone here represents so many in British Columbia. As I’ve listened to the speeches in this debate, I’ve also listened to the slanderous labels and, I will say, the tales. So being a keener, I’ve done some investigation. I actually wanted to know what exactly happened. Y ou know what I found?

Well, I found out that practices that the members opposite know full well were lawful, fully disclosed and transparent, which were in our annual budgets and quarterly reports — oh, wait, here’s a shocker, even practices that were part of the NDP governments of the 1990s…. While the members opposite make accus- ations and irresponsible statements about these revenue transfer policies, the facts are indisputable. Between 2012 and 2016, a total of $514 million was transferred from ICBC to government to support critical government services, such as health care and education.

That is $514 million that didn’t need to come from a tax- payer. Meanwhile, between 2012 and 2016 a total of $1.5 billion in capital and $300 million in income was trans- ferred from the optional side of ICBC to the basic side of ICBC. [2:35 p.m.] Why? In an effort to keep rates as affordable as possible for drivers, not increasing rates by 40 percent, 50 percent, 60 percent, 100 percent in some cases for drivers of B.C. — meanwhile, giving them a pittance of a rebate back.

The members make their misleading statements otherwise and at the same time as their cabinet colleagues, bit by bit, dis- mantle the safeguards that our previous government put in place to ensure transparency. In light of this, how can the NDP government expect British Columbians to trust them with a blank cheque of $13 billion without giving any indication, any measure of transparency, around how they plan on spending that money? We know what this kind of behaviour has left us in the past.

We’ve seen this before — now the NDP demanding more time to create a budget then tabling this Supply Act bill, the government asking the House for billions of dol- lars — $13.4 billion, to be exact — but no indication of how they’re going to spend it. Well I, as a believer in demo- cracy and a holder of government to account, and as one who serves as the loyal opposition, I would say that all gov- ernments need to be held to more transparency than that. This issue, this whole debate, is usually completely avoided by a tabled budget, because then everybody knows exactly how government wants to spend it.

But we don’t have a budget. And the amount that’s before us isn’t even based on pandemic funds. It’s based on a pre- pandemic budget that was created before the pandem- ic was even declared. And then I’ve listened ad nauseam about how great the government is doing right now, how many different programs each of the ministries are rolling out so well. I’m not sure who they’re listening to, because people 780 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, March 16, 2021

in B.C. are struggling. They are struggling with mental health. They are struggling with low-paying jobs and part- time jobs that they’re just trying to substitute to make ends meet for their families. They are struggling with COVID fatigue and from a lack of socialization and interaction with those they love most. They’re looking for hope. They’re looking for a plan forward. They were promised relief funds by Christmas, and it’s March, with only 65 percent of people eligible receiving funds. Well, that’s actually not 65 percent of the people of British Columbia.

That’s 65 percent of eligible people, which means that’s really only 50 percent of British Col- umbians. And as a mother of five children, all in uni- versity, I can tell you 50 percent is a failing grade. Then let’s start on the small and medium business recovery grant, because they’ve so completely botched this one. They’ve only gotten 16 percent of the funds to the struggling businesses in B.C., and then they brag about how businesses are struggling and depending on govern- ment.

And they quote a report that talks directly about dependence on the federal government, not on the gov- ernment of B.C. [2:40 p.m.] We should all be concerned. Small and medium-sized businesses are the lifeblood of B.C. We are the entrepren- eurs of Canada, and we have a failing record today for how we are supporting our businesses. Well then, let’s talk about rentals. Wow. New rental rates come out today. Well, I have to say, I guess we pat ourselves on the back for making four out of the top six most expensive rental markets in Canada. Vancouver is No. 1. Burnaby is No. 3. Victoria is No. 4.

Kelowna, my home riding, is No. 6, with a 2.1 percent month-over-month increase and a 5.7 percent year-over-year increase. Is that what we want to be proud of? Is that what we want to pat ourselves on the back for? And the reason is because this government refuses to deal with rental sup- ply and instead goes head to head with developers on land, eating up, chewing up supply. Is that affecting us posit- ively? No, it’s not. Here are some headlines for you. This was after the bill that we had to pass last week. “B.C.

Rental Market Could See Further Squeeze Due to Rent Freeze” and “Rent Freeze, Construction Rules Fuel Housing Shortage. ” Suc- cess — 50 percent, 16 percent and the top four out of six of what the list is that you don’t want. We’re not going to receive a budget before this supply bill has to pass. In fact, thanks to their decision — the NDP’s decision in December to delay the budget until April — British Columbians are left in the dark. In reading this legislation…. This was quite interesting for me. As a keener, you actually read the bills.

It actually contains a workaround, a way of contorting the law and freeing themselves from the financial rules in the Financial Administration Act. The NDP are legally supposed to present a budget first. The last time this government spent public funds without a proper budget was in the 1990s, an era of budgets that I hope no one wants to revisit. We’ve been told: “We need extra time because of COV- ID. Don’t you understand, member for Kelowna-Mission? It’s COVID.

We’re in the middle of a pandemic. ” I assure you, I understand probably better even than government understands it, because I haven’t been in government for long. I’m newly minted. When March of 2020 hit, I was financially responsible and had a fiduciary responsibility to over 28 companies. I can assure you that I had sleepless nights trying to figure out how those budgets were going to work, which proto- cols were going to come at us and how it would affect us.

COVID-19 has been a reality for all businesses — every single non-profit, non-profits that feed kids every single morning, trying to figure out: “How are we going to feed children?” — and also every household, every person in B.C. So why should government not be held to the same standard? Why does government get to have a different set of rules than every other company in B.C., than every oth- er person in B.C.? Is the government above the law? “Oh wait. No, no, no. Let’s just change it. ” [2:45 p.m.] Every business, every organization, every single one that I was involved with before prepared budgets.

In fact, at one of the companies, we called it the doom budget — doom budget 1, doom budget 2, doom budget 3, doom budget 4. Different contingencies, different thresholds, different resistance. Why can those organizations, outside of these walls, somehow get it done with far fewer resources than we have in here, and we can’t? In fact, and this is ironic, the very documentation that the NDP government has required for all of its grants and programs, as well as from businesses applying, was all part of their budgets.

That was all part of the financial respons- ibility and accountability and transparency they had to show this House. Y et now, this government, this NDP gov- ernment, is asking for less transparency than they required of everyone else. Why? This is an issue. Maybe I’m Pollyanna. Maybe I’m just too new. But hon- estly, if I don’t stand up, if I don’t tell you how upset I am about this, I’m not doing a service to the citizens of British Columbia. Tell me: how will mistakes not repeat? How will the behaviours of those in charge of these funds, the very same people who did it in the ’90s, not do it again?

The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. The past behaviour of this NDP government shows nothing more than secrecy, incompetence and a lack of transparency. I was taught that trust has to be earned. It can be lost, and it’s incredibly difficult to regain. I don’t see, over the last 3½ years, anything that would give me confidence or have regained trust, because we’ve seen numerous examples in the past year alone of this government, this NDP government, requesting money.

The members of this House want desperately to support every British Columbi- Tuesday, March 16, 2021 British Columbia Debates 781

an going through the worst pandemic in history, and agree in good faith, and then the NDP does something very dif- ferent and very self-motivated. One year ago, last March, the members of this House unanimously approved $5 billion for COVID recovery aid. British Columbians took government at their word when they said how they’ d use it. We, as government, expected it would be put to use right away, helping British Colum- bians get through a difficult time.

But instead of using this relief, instead of providing this money to British Colum- bians, they sat on the money for months, using it as part of their election platform, consulting on how it should be used, which was actually part of their election intel. When the NDP did announce the small to medium- sized business grant, well, support was delayed in getting to people. Why? Because of the election. In the more than six months since it was announced, and nearly a year after it was approved…. Well, let’s go through those numbers again: $55 million out of $300 million set aside, out the door to businesses in need.

I’ll just review the failing grade of 16 percent. How can we trust a government that can’t even get $300 million in promised funds out the door to businesses in need? How can we trust them to appropri- ately spend $13.4 billion? I don’t know. The long-term care report was done in October, but it wasn’t delivered until March. Site C report was done in October, but it wasn’t delivered until March.

We have giv- en the government ample opportunity to prove themselves in the last year, but either it was incompetence that left those reports on someone’s desk — or what? [2:50 p.m.] This bill is just another reminder of this government failing to get relief to people. It speaks to them of delaying the budget by months, leaving British Columbians without additional relief as the pandemic drags on. We need this government to step up, to provide support to British Col- umbians and to provide transparency, accountability.

We need a government that’s open and honest about everything from how they’re spending our money to COVID-19 data or a vaccine rollout. We need a govern- ment that does what it says it will do. We’ve been told for the last year that we’re all in this together, but clearly, this NDP government is not with us. They have a different standard for themselves, a differ- ent expectation of transparency and reporting, and will change the rules of governance to suit themselves despite everyone else being held to a universal standard. Truly, that’s elitist behaviour.

Maybe that’s who they believe themselves to be, above all of the rest of us who just have to — I don’t know — provide budgets, create transparency, report on a quarterly basis. Or at least they’re willing to work around good governance and change it when it doesn’t suit them. We need a government that’s going to hold themselves to the same standards that organizations, households and, indeed, every single person that has a bank account in this province is upholding. And we’re doing it without needing to change the law. As far as I can tell, this bill represents exactly the opposite.

If we are all in this together, why isn’t the NDP gov- ernment giving us a budget? “Trust us, ” they say. Trust is earned, and this trust must be re-earned after being broken in the late ’90s. S. Chant:I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the group. I come speaking to you from the unceded territory of the Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish First Nations. I’m very grateful to have the opportunity to work, play and learn on these territories. I am absolutely thrilled that I’ve had the opportunity to actually see some live theatre. I haven’t seen any for ages.

Here I am in a Zoom environment, socially distanced, away from all the things that could do me damage, and I am getting the opportunity to see live theatre. It’s a won- derful thing, and I thank the opposition for that opportun- ity, because I haven’t had any for over a year. Mr. Speaker, I really do offer my thanks to the opposi- tion for this opportunity. I find it interesting, having been involved in govern- ment entities pretty much all of my life — in the world of health, in the world of the military, in the world of all sorts of things that we could go on and on to talk about. But we won’t.

Fiscal year comes to an end, and whenever fiscal year comes to an end, the budget comes after that time. And guess what. The province needs to continue. Now, this is a given, whether we’re in normal times….

Oh my good- ness, here we are in COVID times, where nothing is nor- mal, where nothing that has applied within our realms — none of the rules that we know, none of the plans that we make, none of those things — has been able to be followed because COVID has been the great unknown. [2:55 p.m.] When the great unknown comes along, you need some- body to take charge and take the steps — whatever group you’re responsible for, whatever group you’re accountable to — to move those people forward. We take that respons- ibility terribly seriously.

It is important for us to under- stand that health and safety — and I will say health and safety are what I live and breathe — come first. What would it have been like if COVID had come in 2015? Oh my goodness, I don’t even want to think about it. Health departments were in shambles, we were having problems getting people paid, and we cut back on many things. The government of the day had done all sorts of things to gut many, many of our social programs. Sadly, it’s the people that are dependent on those social programs that have the highest impact from COVID.

We all have impact — there is no question — but those people really have that impact. Had this been prior to 2017, had COVID come 782 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, March 16, 2021

prior to that time, we would have been in terrible condi- tion, absolutely terrible. However, we are extraordinarily fortunate, in my opinion, because COVID has followed no process what- soever. There has been no plan. I can guarantee that everybody in this room, virtually or otherwise, has nev- er been through a pandemic before. I know this because I’m probably amongst the oldest, in spite of what our Premier and a couple of other people will say about age. I’m amongst the oldest, and I have not been through a pandemic. I’m a health care provider. I’ d have noticed. Truly, I would have.

I am just really grateful that we had a government in place that rose to the challenge, put its experts in charge and kept the people of the province — their safety and their health — first and foremost. That’s what we have been doing, and that’s what we will continue to do. However, at this point, having been given a whole- hearted mandate by the province to continue the COVID management efforts, the interim supply bill should not require a great amount of discussion, debate or perhaps even a lot of thought. We have to keep the province going until we get a budget in place.

We have a situation that is completely unknown to everybody, that we have to keep revising our plans for because things change. The variables continue to change. We do the best we can. We get some plans in place. We are prepared to hear the data, the information. We’re prepared to change those plans as we need to, but we have to keep moving forward. The budget is a critical part; completely agree. The inter- im supply bill is also a critical piece.

We need it to allow us to get into the next phase, to allow us to get towards the budget presentation and to allow us to have solid, com- prehensive and robust conversation about what the budget needs to look like to allow our province to move forward, to allow us to continue to support our people, to allow us to hear where the needs are and move towards meeting their needs. To allow us to be nimble and move from place to place and go: “Oh my goodness, look at you. Oh my goodness, this is how it has affected you. ” How do we do that? As MLAs, we listen to all our people. We try really hard to listen to everybody.

We try really hard, even if they’re yelling at us at the top of their voices, trying to make sure that we hear the misery in their voice, or the unhappiness. We listen, we hear, we bring it forward, and we try to work as a group to do the best we can for everybody in this province. We also have to keep things going. COVID is not the only thing in the world. The health system is still there. We’re still trying to palliate people. We’re still trying to provide wound care. We’re still trying to provide all the things in hospitals that need to be done in spite of COVID, that still continue on.

COVID is another layer. [3:00 p.m.] In schools, we need to continue the work. The kids need to be in school. We know this. If I had been a parent with school-aged children and hadn’t been able to have them in school…. Oh, dear. I don’t even want to think about it. However, my children are adults, and I’m grateful. We need, we want, we think…. We hear all the things that go on in our province on a normal, day-to-day business time or a normal, day-to-day time. However, it is layered over with COVID, and that has taken it well out of the sphere of normal.

Now what we’re looking to do is to be able to respond to that ongoing threat — it’s a threat; we know it is — continuing, however, to keep the underpinnings, all the things that make our province what it is, what it was and what it will be. Those things have to keep going. That’s where we have to have an interim supply bill. It makes no sense to say no to it, no sense whatsoever. Discussion and debate are important — got it, understand that. However, the actual idea that the supply bill would not be supported at this point is, I would say, part of our drama.

Something that we can do in this pandemic is that we can forecast that the debate…. The budget debate, as I said, needs to be robust, comprehensive, and critical, because we want to ensure that all people, in all pockets of the province, have as much support as possible to come away from the horrendous turmoil that COVID has provided. We want to get through this trajectory, to another place, where we can think: “Oh, look at me. I can go to live theatre again. I don’t have to depend on my computer. ” We’ve been seeing resilience, strength, creativity and tenacity.

These are characteristics we want to maintain, ongoing, in our province. We will all do our bit towards that, including ensuring the province continues to func- tion while we establish a budget to take us through to the place that we want to be when we’ve achieved herd immunity and are actively recuperating. Mr. Speaker, thank you so much for allowing me the opportunity to speak in support of Bill 10, the interim sup- ply bill. I strongly believe that it promotes the capacities of all of B.C. to not only to survive but to thrive past COVID. C. Oakes:Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak virtually.

I’m speaking to you today from the Lhtako First Nation, with respect. I’m going to start my comments on, perhaps, some of the recent things that I’ve heard in the House. I actually have my copy ofParliamentary Practicebehind me. I think it’s critically important that I, as all members of this House, stand in firm respect for the practices and for the Legis- lature and for all those individuals that have come before us.

What is so incredibly troubling in the debate today is that this is a bill that is taking one more step, with the NDP government, of dismantling any form of transparency and accountability. [3:05 p.m.] Tuesday, March 16, 2021 British Columbia Debates 783

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour basically made a joke of the comments that we were bringing for- ward about our concerns of making sure that we’re fol- lowing transparency and accountability formulas. She talked about what would happen if, you know, 2015 rolled along and if that’s when COVID had happened. Well, I would remind the member that when the previ- ous administration, in 2017, left government, we left a $2.7 billion surplus. I think about that. I think about the enormous amount of money that has been left to really help people during this difficult time.

I also reflect on the fact that if members of government and the NDP backbenchers that I’ve been listening to in their debate to Bill 10 have such a disregard and lack of understanding of fiscal management to really understand what this bill is about…. I find it incredibly concerning and troubling. What we are asking is approval of $13.4 billion, to be exact, without telling anyone how the government is going to spend that money.

I think about all of the constituents in Cariboo North that I’ve been so blessed to represent, and all of the conver- sations over many years of listening to how hard the con- stituents of Cariboo North work. To even contemplate the numbers of $13.4 billion and to understand what that rep- resents, to understand the tax dollars of that family of four and how difficult of a time that they may have and how hard that family has to work so that they can pay taxes, so that we have the benefit and the privileges, as a society, to benefit from that tax base…. I think of all of the seniors that are so hard-working.

I think of the country, and I think of the province that has been built because of all of these citizens in our communit- ies and the enormous contributions that they have made. When I talk about these incredible individuals, when I talk about these pioneers, when I talk about these community- builders, when I talk about all of the heart and soul of our communities, I know it’s not just Cariboo North. I recog- nize that the investments that people have made to build this province, for generations and generations to come, exist in every single riding of this province. Then I ask myself….

As the MLAs who are representing these hard-working men and women, how can they be so disrespectful of understanding how hard-earned it is? For us to be sitting and having a discussion of approving $13.4 billion, without any budget from this government, without any understanding of the investments that were made to help the constituents in my riding…. I would like to start on the conversation of health care, because I know many members have talked about that. We have heard from nurses; we have heard from paramedics; we have heard from front-line care aides.

We have heard from so many organizations that absolutely need support. They need more support from this government. How are we to go back to these agencies, these organiz- ations and these hard-working front-line health care pro- fessionals and say: “Well, we just voted on a budget. I don’t know what it is. I don’t know what the needs of your par- ticular group or organization are, but look, the govern- ment told us to trust them. ” As an elected official, is it my due diligence just to trust somebody? No.

My due dili- gence is to ask the questions that my constituent members are asking me to bring forward. [3:10 p.m.] I think about all of those that have been impacted this past year. I want to offer my most sincere condolences to all of the families that have lost loved ones during this past year. I know that COVID has had such a significant impact on so many people’s lives. I also recognize that that impact goes much greater beyond that, because lives have changed so dramatically.

Can I assume, because I haven’t seen the budget of that $13.4 billion, that residents who live outside the Lower Mainland, people from Cariboo North who have to travel to the Lower Mainland for health care, surger- ies, health care appointments…? Are those costs now going to be covered by the NDP government? They say they’re looking after people. All of those health care costs that we incur as individu- als who live in rural ridings in British Columbia, who do not have access to that health care in our areas….

Are the NDP going to cover us for those costs and make sure that we do have an equitable health care system, that individu- als are not impacted by costs that perhaps people in oth- er parts of the province do not have to pay for? Am I to infer that of this $13.4 billion, there will be a dramatic shift in how government supports rural economies and health care needs for people living in Cariboo North? Am I to infer that of that $13.4 billion…? I have a list of roads. I’m inferring that…. The government told me to trust them, to sign off on this interim supply bill. I’m going to list the roads.

I’m going to assume, because I’ve heard all of the NDP members before: just trust them…. I mean, this is common practice. So obviously these roads must be included.

Let’s see: Soda Creek-McAllister Road, Horsefly Road, Hatchery Road in Horsefly, Likely road, Beaver Lake Road, Mountain House Road, Ransom Road, Knickerbocker, Pinnacles Road, Batnuni Road, Nazko Road, Marsh and Garner roads, Baker, Baker hill, Quesnel, Hydraulic, French Road, Bastin hill, Kersley Dale Landing, Garner and Webster Lake roads, Crystal Street, Highway 97 North at Cottonwood, Highway 97 North at Pinnacles Pellet, Highway 97 South at McLeese Lake, Borglen Road. Somebody just sent me a note that we’re having issues around Soda Creek.

So am I to assume that if we approve this bill today, those roads will be fixed by this govern- ment? Is that what I’m to assume? Of that $13.4 billion, how are guides and outfitters going to be supported? We’ve heard from the Premier that he certainly understands that businesses have been impacted by the fact that international travellers cannot come into the country. That impacts so many tourism-related busi- 784 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, March 16, 2021

nesses. Guides’ and outfitters’ businesses have been abso- lutely decimated, not just by the travel ban but by policy decisions that this government has put in place long before COVID. I mean, they’re waiting for a refund on changes and policies that the government made last year. They’re waiting for that money. They still haven’t seen it. Am I to assume — because we actually haven’t gone through estimates, and we haven’t actually seen the budget — that that is in this $13.4 billion? Is that what the govern- ment is asking me?

Is the government asking me today to, all of a sudden, now change their view on how they respect volunteer fire departments? I have certainly heard mem- bers in this House stand and make statements about the importance of volunteer organizations and search and res- cue and all of these so critically important organizations in our communities.

The truth is we’ve seen cuts for volunteer fire depart- ments in the Cariboo, the unincorporated volunteer fire departments that rely so much on community gaming grants and other programs that have been put forward. [3:15 p.m.] We’ve heard that there’s a reprioritization, and now volunteer fire departments don’t qualify for money. But we’re supposed to trust the government. We’re supposed to trust the government that they’re looking after the people of Cariboo North. These reprioritization exercises, where they shift the money….

The impact is on organizations in our regions, like the unincorporated volunteer fire departments that step up. Whether it was the wildfires we saw in 2017 and 2018, whether it’s the flooding that we’ve seen over the last two years, we depend so heavily on these organizations. I’ve brought it up in estimates before, and I get directed to go and look at these different programs or grants that are available. Guess what. They are not available for the unin- corporated volunteer fire departments.

We hear the government, time and time again, reflect and have programs that they put out, but the reality is that nobody, or very, very few people, is able to access any of the grants and the programs that the government is put- ting forward. The government talks about the success that they have in that. “Well, help your constituent apply for these grants. ” I have books that I would be happy to show the ministers on the support that we have certainly worked closely with constituents on, trying to work through the programs that the government has put forward.

The min- isters, during previous estimates processes, have said to go and look at that. The reality is that they do not qualify because the strict eligibility that the government is putting on all of these programs has created a significant challenge for organiza- tions and volunteer groups to be able to access any of these funds. Here would be something for reflection of this govern- ment. If you do not have volunteer groups, whether it’s the volunteer fire department, whether it’s the search and res- cue, whether it’s treatment, addiction, mental health treat- ment facilities that we’ve heard about last week….

If you don’t have the volunteers and the support organizations, and you’re doing a complete shift into government…. If you are looking at your attempts, within government, to move away from any kind of support on volunteers and to fund it all through government, I don’t even know what that thought process is. How are you going to afford that, and is that part of this $13.4 billion?

Are, all of a sudden, people in rural B.C. not supposed to have any sort of public safety access, because you’ve eliminated any ability for us to access any of the support for our volunteer organizations or our hard-work- ing volunteer fire departments? I know that this interim supply bill is based on the pre-pandemic budget, so maybe I’ll shift there a little bit. I am sharing with this House today, and I hope that they will take it to heart, that this will be an incredibly diffi- cult spring freshet for infrastructure in British Colum- bia.

Last year, when you looked at the Cariboo, we had one of the most impactful years on infrastructure that we’ve seen, with over 200 areas of road infrastructure that were damaged. I am hoping that the concerns that have been brought forward by incredibly informed individuals…. I’m hoping that we still have time to take steps to ensure that the type of damage that I am concerned we are going to see in the Cariboo this spring freshet…. There is still time for the government to take action. There is still time for the gov- ernment to do preventative work.

Whether that is going out and ensuring that we’ve got proper ditching, gravelling; making sure that we are doing culvert replacements, cleaning out the culverts; it’s making sure that we are doing the necessary work to ensure that we don’t find ourselves in the position that we have been in the last few years, where we’ve seen devastating con- sequences on our transportation corridors, the economic livelihood of the citizens of Cariboo North. [3:20 p.m.] Quite frankly, it has greatly impacted their quality of life. I heard earlier, somebody in the House mention about the investment in West Fraser Road.

I do want to thank the government for that investment. But I want to remind the member…. Perhaps the member is not familiar with the number of times I’ve had to raise and bring this issue for- ward. It’s a much larger story that needs to be told. I want to acknowledge that the disaster financial assist- ance came from the federal government, and we are grate- ful for that investment. I want to put on the table here today and to read into Hansard the fact that the regions in Cariboo North are still dealing with the devastating consequences of the wildfires in 2017 and 2018.

Just because we’ve moved from those times, those consequences still happen. But those invest- ments have not been made. It is as if we have forgotten that those wildfires happened. Tuesday, March 16, 2021 British Columbia Debates 785

We put some money into the communities, we’ve made some policy changes, and now we move on. Well, the fact is that we are dealing with significant damage to road infrastructures because we’re still trying to address the challenges from the wildfires, which have now led to sig- nificant watershed issues. We’re having issues with biod- iversity. We are having issues with flooding. All of those can be pointed back to the challenges that we had during the wildfires. This $13.4 billion — is that money that is actually going to respond to the needs that we’ve had for many years, fol- lowing the wildfires?

Is that money that we’re going to see invested in ensuring that we’re not going to have the flood- ing and the infrastructure? Are we going to see a signific- ant investment over the next couple of weeks to make sure that this damage doesn’t happen? I rose in the House in March of 2018, and I warned this House about the fact of the impacts of the wildfires and what we were seeing in areas such as Nazko, with flooding, which is usually one of the first areas that we see in our region that tends to flood.

And how, as the watersheds get impacted and back up into the streams of Narcosli, that is going to have devastating consequences. We were warning the government. We stood in the House and said: “Y ou need to get out there, and you need to put investments in some maintenance. ” This is not part of the maintenance contract that the government signed off on last year with maintenance contractors. They put forward what needed to be in those maintenance con- tracts. Let me be clear. This is separate.

This is the respons- ibility of the Ministry of Transportation and this govern- ment that needs to be investing in the public safety of Brit- ish Columbia. I again say that I raised it in March and April. We saw a significant impact to West Fraser Road. We lost the road through a landslide. Now, yes, it’s going to cost. The early estimate was $104 million. I know it’s gone out to tender. But consider the respective taxpayer money.

If we do the work on the preventative side of things, if we do the work on making sure that the ministry is investing in under- standing the hydrology reports, the geotechnical reports…. They all exist. If they were to invest in the preventative side of the equation, maybe we wouldn’t have such huge costs when we see the significant damage, which is bound to happen. I hope I’m wrong.

I hope that that $13.4 billion — that we do not need to see a significant amount of that put into infrastructure, rebuilding, because of the fact that this is a government that just isn’t investing in rural infrastructure on the preventative side. I hope I am wrong. I would be happy to stand in this House and say: “Look, we’ve had a great season. We haven’t seen any of the significant dam- age. ” I honestly hope that that is where I have the oppor- tunities to stand in this House. [3:25 p.m.] I do have a couple of comments from constituents.

When they knew that we were talking about this bill, they asked me to raise it. I have committed to them that most certainly, I take every opportunity I can, when the constituents want me to raise their concerns, to bring that forward. The government has talked a lot about the support of the programs and grants that they have and the announce- ments that they’ve had. The first comment I think I will make is that, again, people have had considerable chal- lenges meeting the eligibility of these programs.

Earlier today in question period, the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation talked about Science World. “ As an MLA, why aren’t you supporting these members in applying for these grants?” Well, so many of these organizations are non-profits and aren’t eligible to apply for the types of grants and programs and services that the member talked about in the House. Going back, again, to the member for North Vancou- ver–Seymour talking about the love of live arts, of course we love live arts.

We’ve been raising in the House repeatedly about the challenges that arts and theatre organizations are facing, because for so many of them, unless you belong to the Arts Council or certain organiz- ations, you’re just not able to access some of the financial grants that this government has made available. For all of those groups and organizations, for all of the individuals that have fallen through the cracks, we are wondering how the government is going to fix that.

If the government doesn’t actually provide us a budget, and they’re asking us to vote on $13.4 billion without under- standing or knowing where that money is going, it is doing a very strong disservice. Here are some of the constituents to whom I committed to raise their concern. Judy Kenneway applied for the B.C. recovery grant on December 22 and still has not received her money as of today.

I can share with you that while this is one constituent — and I want to thank Judy for allow- ing me to use her name in this House, because it actually points to a person — I’ve got a long list of individuals who have still not received their B.C. recovery grant. My message to everyone who may be watching this is to contact your MLA, especially if you have an NDP MLA. Please call them and let them know if you have not received your B.C. recovery benefit. I know that the government has put forward an MLA hotline that we call. We repeatedly are continuing to do that work.

But we’ve been working for months to try and help our constituents access these funds, and there is a dis- connect. There are a lot of individuals that continue to wait to get access to these funds. I think it’s important. I want to talk a little bit, too, about Phyllis Leblanc. Phyl- lis is fantastic. Phyllis, thank you so very much for…. Please know how much of a difference you make. As MLAs, often, especially in this hybrid fashion, we can have some difficult days. I like that you let us know very clearly what we, as MLAs 786 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, March 16, 2021

representing the Cariboo, should be doing. I absolutely appreciate your honesty. Phyllis is a senior. She said that the senior supplement that started last year has now been clawed back to $150. The way the announcement is worded led one to believe that you are eligible if you receive these benefits. So here’s the difference. The government’s great at posting all of these supports that supposedly are meant for all these people, but you’ve got to read the fine lines. [S.

Chandra Herbert in the chair.] It actually means that only those seniors on income assistance, disability assistance or hardship assistance and those in receipt of a comfort allowance or the B.C. seniors supplement — $50 monthly through SDPR — actually qualify. [3:30 p.m.] The government is telling seniors that you can be avail- able for this money. But actually, when we go and try and help our constituents with that, we find out that there’s a whole long list of eligibility. If you’re not on income assist- ance, if you’re not qualified on these, you’re just not avail- able. Or how about Tim Nellon?

Tim Nellon contacted me about the B.C. homeowner grant. “If we haven’t received notification of an accepted application for a grant before tax payment deadline, will we be made to pay taxes in full or wait for a reimbursement later? Being a senior citizen on a fixed income, this would be a huge blow to our fin- ances, and knowledge of what the process will be is very important. ” Clarity and process.

Again, we’re being asked to approve $13.4 billion with- out understanding what the budget is, without even understanding what any processes are. “Trust us. ” That seemed to have worked so well for Judy, who is still wait- ing, since December, for the B.C. recovery benefit. The government said, “Trust us, ” then. They said: “Hey, trust us. These grants are coming. Money is on its way. ” That seems to be the famous line that the Premier is saying. “Help is on the way.

We’re here to help all people. ” There are sure a lot of people that have fallen through the cracks — and 13.4 billion hard-earned taxpayer dol- lars. They want to know if they’re actually going to be eli- gible. When the government says, “Trust us; the money’s on the way, ” they’ d like to know. Again, we’ve got a lot of concerns. Aleta and Don Kennedy of Nazko. Nazko always floods first. Every single year it breaks my heart that…. Why do we continue to see a repeat of the challenges we have and lack of prepared- ness when they’ve been impacted every year?

They’re con- cerned about what happens to the roads if they’re flooded and they can’t get in for their vaccines. It’s a very real prob- lem. On the tourism side. I know I’m running out of time, but I committed to raise the New Pathways to Gold. They’re waiting for money, for an announcement from the government. Am I to assume that this $13.4 billion includes the money for New Pathways to Gold? How about Cottonwood House? Cottonwood House is such an incredible treasure in Cariboo North. They are in need of funds. Am I to assume the $13.4 billion has some money coming to Cottonwood House?

How about Bark- erville Historic Town? We’ve repeatedly heard the Premi- er talk about how important Barkerville Historic Town is, and it absolutely is. Are there resources for Barkerville Historic Town in this $13.4 billion? How about all of the other tourism operators that are across this province and are waiting? Y ou can get a grant to do an upgrade, when you’re really just trying to figure out how you’re going to pay your suppliers and keep your lights on. There’s a complete disconnect there. I’ve got lots of questions from constituents that they’ve asked me to raise during this period of time.

Non-profits again have been asking, small businesses who are nervous about trusting this government. This government is supposed to have a small business lens in every piece of legislation. It’s still supposed to apply a small business lens, yet I’m not sure we’ve necessarily seen that. Sixteen percent of money out the door to help small businesses isn’t a huge success. How many closed doors in every single community? Every single MLA needs to take a check of the fact that their communities are going to be impacted forever because of the decisions that this government is making today.

One needs to wonder what is in that $13.4 billion. How about students? Students need support. They’ve been left out of so many opportunities. I see that my time is up, but please don’t forget about students and all of the important initiatives and the investment in our post-secondary edu- cation. That is so incredibly critical to ensure that we are successful post-pandemic. K. Paddon: It’s an honour to be speaking from the unceded traditional territories of the Stó:lō people today. I want to take a moment as I express my support for Bill 10.

I realize, based on what I’m hearing today, that I may not have introduced myself in a way that can be under- stood. I’m very proud to be the member for Chilliwack- Kent, to be able to represent voices here, to carry forward the ideas and advocacy from this area and to bring forward the needs and the priorities from my area. [3:35 p.m.] I’m not only an MLA; I’m also a mother. I also am part of my community.

Today, during March break here in Chilliwack-Kent, as my children, my teenagers, were at home, I actually unfortunately had the opportunity to have to explain to them some of the thoughts and opinions being shared in the House. On the government side of the House, I’m known as a valued member. But today I had the opportunity to explain what the idea of a backbencher is and why that Tuesday, March 16, 2021 British Columbia Debates 787

language would be used. Now, I also heard “newly min- ted, ” but I believe I’m on the wrong side of the House to be called that. In the meantime, I will happily, as a backbencher, share these ideas. As an MLA, as a representative for Chilliwack- Kent, I work very hard. I get to work very closely, although we’re currently often apart, with members of my com- munity, to hear their struggles, to hear their good news, as well, which is fantastic, to celebrate and to mourn and to really try and carry the priorities.

I work with individuals and families, which is some- thing I’ve done throughout my career, previous to my time here. I do get to work with small businesses, medium- sized businesses, advocates across the community, busi- ness people across the community, whether it be in child care or agriculture, often in education, a lot of community service networks.

I think that one of the things that’s most important and one of the reasons I stand so strongly for this bill is because people and businesses and, I know, my com- munity need to know that the support they are depend- ing on and the services that they need and depend on will continue to be there. As many of my friends have mentioned, we do this every year. I do understand and have heard from other val- ued members that this is not like a normal year, that in their opinion, this is wrong somehow. I hear the frustra- tion at the idea that this is different because of COVID. Y et this is different because of COVID.

We understand that in order to prepare a budget that will respond to all of the things that have happened this past year and the things to come in the next and to make sure that that budget reflects the needs of British Colum- bians and to give us time for a hearty and healthy debate, where respect and positive language will be used to move things forward, I hope…. In the meantime, we do need to have this interim sup- ply. I understand, as well, that there’s some concern from the other side of the House that British Columbians aren’t going to know what’s happening or may not trust what’s happening.

I’ve also had the opportunity to explain today to my children that one of the ways — one of the many, many ways — our government listens to British Columbians is through consultation, is through being adaptive, like with the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation adjusting not only the timeline but the eligibility criteria for a grant to make it more responsive, based on the feed- back. But overall, the way that I understand what British Columbians are saying is that they have given our gov- ernment an overwhelming and stable mandate as we lead British Columbians through the pandemic.

COVID has challenged absolutely all of us. British Col- umbians are worried about their health and their liveli- hoods. They should not be worried about the timeline of our debates for the budget. We have to allow for that pro- cess to work the way it is intended. Just like every year, that requires the interim supply. The pandemic is changing so much in our province. Our government is working to make sure that they’re tak- ing care of people. As we move through this pandemic together, as we’ve seen, as we all understand, all of the val- ued members….

We understand that it’s also highlighting vulnerabilities and gaps that existed before. [3:40 p.m.] I can’t express enough how difficult it was to explain today to my children, as we watched the debate, why any- body would say that it’s unfortunate that they have to listen to the backbenchers, that they have to listen to the back- benchers say something. I also got to explain, which is a lesson that we often speak about in my home, that there’s a difference between not agreeing and not understanding.

What I would like to offer is my understanding, even though that means that I don’t agree with a lot of what I’m hearing during the debate. But that’s a good thing, in my mind. It means that we are having discourse. Now, it’s not necessarily in a way that moves things forward together, but it is important. I’m happy to hear the thoughts of the other valued members. We’ve come a really long way together, but the road to recovery ahead of us is very daunting. There is a lot of hope, and a lot of work has been done by our government.

The B.C. recovery benefit is helping families make ends meet, with payments up to $1,000. I understand from oth- ers that there are people who have not yet received their benefit. I know that my office works with them as well. I’m happy that once — not that there’s a delay — we’re able to work with them, they’re able to receive their benefit. We’re hearing the stories of the impact that that’s making. But for so many, they’re making the application and receiving their benefits in a matter of days.

Hard-hit small and medium-sized businesses are receiv- ing grants of up to $30,000 or up to $45,000 for tourism- related businesses. This helps keep people working. We understand the pain. Here in Chilliwack-Kent, there are tourism businesses, as well, that are very hard hit. We understand the pain of looking at a business that’s been your dream, that has been your work and often your life’s work, and feeling uncertain as to wheth- er things are going to be okay. Our government is offer- ing that grant and that hope. It’s not a loan. They don’t have to repay it.

That’s to keep the doors open and to keep the dreams alive until it’s safe for tourists to come back. We’re helping thousands of people upskill and re-skill and find in-demand jobs. I’m very excited about the micro-credentials at UFV here in Chilliwack-Kent. We’re going to keep improving fairness at ICBC. That helps make life more affordable. I know there’s been a lot of conversation about ICBC and the history. I don’t feel like I need to get into that. We’re going to increase transparency in real estate and 788 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, March 16, 2021

protect people and tackle fraud. This is something that we’ve taken on, and it’s something that we’re looking at. It all has to do, as well, with money laundering and driving up the prices of homes. We’ve taken action to stop gun violence. That was done here, not so long ago. These are things that I feel we can be proud of. So when we’re discussing things that we have to then explain, not only to our constituents but to our children and to every- one that we serve, I suppose I ask for some clarity from the other valued members.

I find that some of the questions in question period versus some of the comments during the debate on this bill are incongruous. They don’t fit. Are we to spend more money and help more British Columbians or are we to spend less money and not continue to support the services and supports that we need until the budget is passed? Are we to be certain that we’re being responsive to the needs or are we to rush a budget that may not address the issues that have developed over the last year — and before? We always have an interim supply, well past the end of the fiscal, to allow for robust estimates debate.

I feel that those contradictions are not intentional. I do appreci- ate conversations around transparency and how important that is. [3:45 p.m.] I also find it dangerous when we stray into language and commentary that could be misleading. I understand that it’s important to make sure that our thoughts are heard. For some, it’s important to make sure that those thoughts are captured in a way that can demonstrate their passion for sticking it to them. In this case, I’m focused in my sup- port on this bill because I’m concerned about people. I’m concerned about Britis

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20210316pm-Hansard-n32
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20210316pm Hansard n32
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ca822c65e93f550a4bcaeb709d8504592f723a2e

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).