First Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, March 23, 2021

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 38

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Spring freshet and flooding

J. Tegart

Resilience of arts sector

B. D’Eith

Salmon population and pinniped predation

J. Sturdy

Inclusive language

S. Chandra Herbert

Medical travel service for Tumbler Ridge

M. Bernier

Volunteers in Richmond

K. Greene

Oral Questions

Addiction services in Interior Health Authority and status of Pathways Centre

S. Bond

Hon. S. Malcolmson

T. Halford

Government involvement in Supreme Court case on rights of municipalities

A. Olsen

Hon. D. Eby

Impact of proposed U.S. legislation on cruise ship industry

M. de Jong

Hon. M. Mark

T. Stone

COVID-19 response for tourism industry and report recommendations

T. Wat

Hon. M. Mark

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 10 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2021

M. Bernier

Hon. S. Robinson

A. Olsen

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2021

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: K. Kirkpatrick.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

J. Tegart: We are joined in the House today by a dear friend to many members of

this House, Lynn Klein. Lynn is a long-serving public servant, former

paramedic, ambulance service employee, historian, author and champion of the

first cardiopulmonary resuscitation program in Canada. While living in

Victoria, Lynn had an exemplary attendance record in visiting the

proceedings of this House. Lynn and his wife, Sharon, now reside in the

Cowichan Valley. We’re so very happy to have Lynn join us here

today.

B. Stewart: It gives me great pleasure to wish my sister Andrea McFadden a happy

birthday on her 60th birthday today. Andrea is unique in the sense that she

is following in her grandfather’s footsteps. Her grandfather Richard John

Stewart was a horticulturalist, lover of roses and breeder of the Royal

Stewart.

Andrea founded and operates Okanagan Lavender Farm, which has received

global recognition for the products that it produces. She also is well known

as a world-class blogger, from eye rejuvenation pads to bug hotels that can

be built anywhere.

Andrea is an adventurer, risk-taker, mischievous, with a twinkle in

her eye, animal lover, kind and loves her family. Married to David McFadden,

children are Rory, and Alyssa and Lachlan; Keely, and Fabien and their

newborn son Sebastian, or “Sebby” for short; and Liam, who’s the new

proprietor of Steephouse products.

Andrea is business savvy, has incredible leadership skills and

minimizes her footprints in the world. I just want to wish Andrea a happy

60th birthday today.

C. Oakes: I, too, would like to recognize Lynn and just say how much I have

appreciated his contact and his emails over COVID. It means a lot that you

care so much about the Legislature and the MLAs in it, so thank

you.

Joining us today in the Legislature virtually is the Simon Fraser

Student Society, a student-led, non-profit organization that represents over

25,000 undergraduate students from across the three campuses of Simon Fraser

University in Burnaby, Vancouver and Surrey, British Columbia. Their mission

is to advocate for students, build student power and provide resources and

services that represent, connect and benefit their membership.

Would the

House please welcome all of the Simon Fraser University students in the

Legislature virtually today.

Hon. M. Mark: Joining us from the gallery today is my constituency assistant and

friend Amanda Bouchard. Amanda joined my constituency team last year. She

stepped up to support my constituents in a pivotal moment during this

COVID-19 pandemic. She has a long history as an advocate for women in the

Downtown Eastside as the founder of the Vancouver

chapter of PEERS, which

supported women exiting the sex trade. She is also an extremely successful

business consultant, supporting people to realize their entrepreneurial

dreams. I’m so honoured that she’s joining us today on her birthday. Amanda,

congratulations on this important milestone.

Would the House please join me in welcoming Amanda and wishing her a

very happy birthday.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SPRING FRESHET AND FLOODING

J. Tegart: I’m pleased to rise in the House today to talk about an event

which happens with yearly regularity throughout my riding and your

ridings too.

[10:10 a.m.]

It’s not an event that many in my riding are looking forward to,

due to the most recent experiences which have occurred in the

communities. The event is spring freshet. It is the time of year when

residents, community leaders and community volunteers watch the water

flow with keen interest. My riding has been severely affected over the

past five years by unusually high flows of spring runoff. There have

been many theories as to what the cause is, but whatever your theory is,

the reality is that every spring, people who live on or near a stream, a

river or a lake watch with trepidation as the water begins to

rise.

Mountain pine beetle logging, wildfires, climate change and land

usage have all affected the ability of the land to absorb water. Rules

about equipment use in waterways. Inability to clear blockages without

multiple levels of permission. Lack of recognition of the importance of

preventative work. Another year goes by, and we are into flooding season

again. It affects communities, waterfront communities, agricultural

areas, to name a few.

We all talk about climate change, but people in the riding of

Fraser-Nicola are asking for action from all of us in this House. We

lost a beloved fire chief in a flood. We are losing waterfront homes. We

are losing infrastructure, such as highways.

And still we only talk. We seem to have the dollars to react.

Let’s flip that over and start working on prevention.

RESILIENCE OF ARTS SECTOR

B. D’Eith: It’s very nice to rise in person in the House to highlight the

amazing resiliency the arts sector has shown during this difficult

time.

When the pandemic hit last spring, I was asked by the Premier to

talk to arts groups. One of those groups was the Cultch in East

Vancouver. The Cultch is a cultural hub that champions artistic

expression and diversity. They bring world-class performances to the

heart of East Vancouver. Like so many arts centres across the province,

they’re doing their best to respond to the new normal and keep people

safe. They stopped performances and closed the theatre. They told us

they needed to keep the lights on, and they also asked for flexibility.

We listened.

The B.C. Arts Council advanced operating funding to arts

organizations across the province and allowed organizations the

flexibility to pivot their programs to adapt to the pandemic. So did

Creative B.C., pivoting the Amplify B.C. $7.5 million program to sustain

and stabilize the music industry, including a program that provided

hundreds of microgrants to artists and musicians. Relief and support in

the right places allowed these resilient organizations to keep creating

incredible content and covering their overhead.

The Cultch was among many organizations that shifted their

presenting during the program. Actually, according to the Globe and

Mail , they’ve become the leading cultural organization to

provide streaming live performances in Canada. Heather Redfern — she’s

the executive director — said: “When we were faced with uncertainty,

getting support from the province was vital.”

The Cultch is not alone. So many organizations have found new and

innovative ways to connect with their audiences. As the Parliamentary

Secretary for Arts and Film, I’m honoured to be working with the

Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport to support this amazing

sector. Together we will help the arts and culture sector weather the

storm.

I’m so looking forward to the day that we can all enjoy

performances together again in person. But for now, I encourage

everyone, please, enjoy the virtual art that these amazing, resilient

organizations are presenting.

SALMON POPULATION

AND PINNIPED

PREDATION

J. Sturdy: Last week I explored the lack of a science basis for the federal

government’s ill-informed decision to curtail recreation fishing for

chinook around Howe Sound and the south coast during the 2020 season.

The concern remains that this restriction will be repeated again this

year, despite chinook stocks being virtually absent during this chinook

fishing prohibition. What is not absent, however, is the overwhelming

presence of pinnipeds.

[10:15 a.m.]

Seals and sea lions have been hunted by First Nations for

millennia and by others since contact. However, since the 1970s, they

have been protected. According to Rob Bison, fisheries stock assessment

biologist with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource

Operations, pinniped populations in the Strait of Georgia have increased

from, in the 1970s, less than 10,000 animals to more than 80,000 animals

today. Over that same period, chinook and coho salmon populations have

had a converse trajectory, with smolt survival during transition to open

ocean appearing to be tremendously affected.

According to Carl Walters, professor emeritus at UBC’s Institute

for Oceans and Fisheries: “Most of the drop in survival of chinook and

coho in Georgia Strait since the 1980s is likely due to seals eating

juvenile fish during their first summer in the ocean.” Estimates suggest

that seals may be consuming five million juvenile coho each year, or

about half the area’s annual juvenile population. Up to 15 million

chinook juveniles meet the same fate, or about a third of that juvenile

population.

In terms of returning spawners, any recreational fisher among you

will have the experience with pinnipeds when you have a fish on your

line. While freshwater conditions, ocean conditions and marine

competition for feed are very relevant, pinniped predation is by far the

most impactful variable on the survival of chinook and coho, from smolts

to spawners.

Predator management for critically endangered prey species, while

difficult to embrace, must be given serious consideration as a tool by

DFO as we collectively support the survival of resident orcas and the

traditional salmon culture of British Columbia’s First

Nations.

INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE

S. Chandra Herbert: I was in kindergarten, and I ended up in the principal’s office.

Why was I in the principal’s office? I said something which I shouldn’t

have. A kid had told me that I should call another kid “gay,” so I did.

The teacher, after the kid complained, said: “Well, gay means happy. Gay

means joyous. Don’t worry about it. But you still have to go to the

principal’s office.”

I don’t think I learned very much that day. My whole life would

have changed if we’d actually talked about many of these other issues.

But that being said, I want to talk about words: words we use, words

that matter, words that change cultures, words that invite inclusivity

and words that exclude. In the role of Deputy Speaker, I listen a lot,

as do you, hon. Speaker.

I speak personally, but some of the language I hear, I consider

probably ableist. I have asked friends with disabilities, and they

agree. Words like “lame,” a word that, I checked, we used 14 times in

the House in the last ten years. Not that much, but enough to suggest

that having a physical impairment, like lameness, is a bad thing. I

don’t think we should use that phrase. If we want to talk about

something that didn’t work, let’s say it didn’t work.

Other word we use. We often talk about people turning blind eyes,

deaf ears. We spoke about people who are actually blind 71 times in the

House. We used the word “blind” or “blind eye” 204 times in the last ten

years as a negative. If you’re blind, how do you think that makes you

feel?

If you’re deaf, we talked about the deaf community 92 times. We

used it as a negative 80 times. Again, probably not very helpful.

“Crazy,” we used 206 times. Again, we should be talking about mental

illness and not using someone’s physical or mental difficulties as

something to slam each other with.

We can do better. I hope we all work hard to understand that our

language matters and make sure it’s inclusive.

MEDICAL TRAVEL SERVICE

FOR TUMBLER

RIDGE

M. Bernier: After the coal mines shut down in Tumbler Ridge, many workers and

families moved away. But many also found this beautiful community to be

a great place to retire. That, however, has brought other challenges for

an area that has not kept up with the medical needs of its

citizens.

Around 20 years ago, a small group of people in Tumbler Ridge saw

their neighbours struggling to get to neighbouring communities like

Dawson Creek, Grande Prairie and Fort St. John for critical medical

appointments. So they stepped up to ensure that those that were sick or

elderly would not be forced to miss out on the services they so

desperately need.

[10:20 a.m.]

TR CARES was formed, and volunteers came forward to drive

community members that were unable to take themselves to their medical

needs in other communities, sometimes driving hundreds of kilometres in

a day, regardless of the weather or conditions. Over the years, they’ve

served hundreds of people who otherwise would have struggled or been

forced to even move away from the small community. As with most

volunteers for non-profit groups, they’re always spending time looking

for help and for donations.

One of my personal highlights as an MLA is taking

part in the

annual TR CARES charity golf tournament. Those who have golfed with me

know that I probably spend the majority of that time getting chased by

grizzly bears and looking for my ball in the bushes.

Tumbler Ridge, though, has survived so many setbacks over the

years thanks to the passion of the people who live there.

TR CARES is completely volunteer. I want to thank the over 100

people who have come forward over the years to give up their time,

especially the current board: Amanda Coulson, Christine Vandeburgt, Gail

Newman, Rose Snyder, Angie Robertson, Erin Wanvig and Floyd

Frank.

I want to give a big shout-out and a big thanks to all of them for

their dedication to the people in their community.

VOLUNTEERS IN RICHMOND

K. Greene: The Richmond Cares, Richmond Gives Volunteers Are Stars Awards are

just around the corner. Sadly, we are not able to join each other in

person this year, but there are no shortage of amazing volunteers who

not only uplift members of our community but also inspire

others.

The Nova Star Award nominees. Maisy Debray, Mamas for Mamas

Vancouver. Maisy has helped mothers, families and children in need with

supplies, food and emotional support. She’s also organized community

support to meet these needs.

Patricia Lang, auxiliary Richmond RCMP. Patricia has volunteered

over 4,800 hours to help Richmond residents in the areas of community

safety and property crime prevention.

Jat Puri, West Richmond Community Association board and RCRG

board. Jat is an RCRG Youth Now mentor for young board members. He has

trained hundreds of volunteers and is on the board of Heart of Richmond

AIDS Society. Jat’s optimism is uplifting.

Rowena Silver-Bridson, Kehila Society of Richmond and Beth Tikvah

Congregation. Early in the pandemic, Rowena started a weekly food

service delivery program for seniors and other isolated individuals in

need. She also supports families going through Jewish life-cycle

events.

Don Taylor, West Richmond Community Association board. Don is

president of WRCA and has helped organized all the signature events at

WRCC. Don is always the first to volunteer with a smile on his face, and

his upbeat attitude is contagious.

Ray Wang, RCRG board. Ray is on the RCRG board and also volunteers

with the Richmond Christmas fund. He also volunteers with the Better at

Home shop-by-phone program, where he fills grocery orders for seniors to

support their well-being.

Rosina Yip, Chimo Community Services. Rosina has helped over 400

vulnerable residents access community services and is known for

embodying Chimo’s vision. Rosina continues to volunteer, even after her

2018 ALS diagnosis.

I wish I had the time to say more about the great work these

amazing people have done. Please join me in thanking these star

volunteers for their contributions to Richmond. We are so fortunate to

have them.

Oral Questions

ADDICTION SERVICES IN

INTERIOR HEALTH AUTHORITY

AND STATUS OF PATHWAYS CENTRE

S. Bond: The mayor of Penticton feels that his community is being bullied

by this government. Here’s what he had to say: “My community went

berserk. The Attorney General instigating people to break the law.

That’s not right. That’s unethical. We are losing trust in our

ministers. I’d like to beg the Premier to please talk to the minister

and cool him down.”

That’s not all. Now it’s the Pathways Addictions Resource Centre

that is being defunded by this government. Here’s what Dawn Swanson had

to say: “Pathways has kept my body and my soul together for many years.

I thought I would lose my daughter, and I didn’t know how to cope. I

lost my son this July in Calgary to fentanyl. My husband, my daughter,

myself — they have kept us together. I just can’t have them go

away.”

The minister refuses to take responsibility, so perhaps the

Premier can stand up today and take some action.

Will the Premier today commit to maintaining the funding and

ensuring that the Pathways program, so desperately needed and so

effective, continues?

[10:25 a.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: That front-line organizations in the non-profit sector held

together British Columbia’s tenuous system of care for both mental

health and addictions for such a long time is a testament to their

service and their dedication to looking after people in their deepest

time of need.

Pathways has been a valued member of the Penticton community, and

we are grateful for their contracted service to Interior

Health.

As I’ve said last week and, I believe, the week before, Interior

Health is confident that no one is going to be left behind by the action

of bringing the services that Pathways used to provide in-house, making

them available along a much wider continuum of care and making them

available to people throughout the South Okanagan region. There will be

no disruption while the service is transferred in-house.

I’ll remind the members opposite that this is the call we hear

from people so often. We want to bring mental health and addictions

inside the health care system so that when people reach out for help,

whether it’s a physical injury or a psychic one, they’ll be able to get

the help they need. That is the work that is at hand.

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, it’s interesting. The minister stands in this House and

speaks in glowing terms about an organization that has been a lifeline

for people in Penticton and beyond. Instead of standing up and making a

decision to preserve those resources, she explains that Interior Health

may be confident. Well, the residents of Penticton are not, and it is

this member’s responsibility to stand up and do something.

Here’s what Gord Portman had to say. He has ten months clean. He’s

got a support group. He has a counsellor. Now this government has

decided, in the middle of a pandemic, to shift the services provided to

the people of Penticton. Here’s what Gord had to say: “I don’t like this

situation. I am happy with where I am at Pathways. There are good

services. I know the people, and I trust them.”

What Gord would say to the minister today is that it’s time for

her to stand up and ensure that the services that have made a difference

in his life and so many others are preserved — not stand and make a case

on behalf of Interior Health. It’s her job to stand up and take

responsibility for services provided to the people of

Penticton.

Pathways has been serving people for nearly 50 years. They serve

more than 1,200 people a year. Somehow this minister and Premier think

it’s appropriate, in the middle of a pandemic, to shut the doors on this

vital service.

It’s time for the Premier to stand up today and ensure that this

vital program, the Pathways program, continues.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: There will be no disruption to the service that people in

Penticton have been receiving for mental health and addictions

counselling. We, as a government, are doing the work to build up a

system of care where one did not exist before, where people can enter

the system and receive all of their primary care and mental health and

addictions services in one place.

This is going to benefit the South Okanagan region. Because the

population of the South Okanagan has grown, because we need to be able

to expand services and reach people in a new way, bringing it inside the

health authority is the evidence-based decision that the Interior Health

Authority has made.

I’ll remind the member, too, that we are expanding services in

that region in other ways. The urgent primary care centre that is

opening right now in Penticton is particularly dedicated. It has mental

health and addictions support as its primary focus.

This is the way we’re building a system of care. This is the way

we’re moving forward, knowing there is much more to do.

[10:30 a.m.]

T. Halford: The fact is that this minister is not expanding services. She’s

actually closing services.

The Premier said: “Trust me. The service is going to improve.”

Pathways is closing. Keremeos is not reopening. The Sequoia and Alder

youth recovery homes in Vancouver are closing, despite the government

actually promoting them as resources. Carrier-Sekani — stopped by this

government. There is a pattern here.

This government has reduced services and taken away treatment

options for people in need. The minister and this Premier say that

people in need and those suffering from addictions should be pleased

with the services brought in by this government. I disagree.

My question is to the Premier. Will he do the right thing and stop

the defunding of Pathways and unveil a plan that actually sees a real

expansion of services?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: This government is building a full system of care for mental

health and addictions where none existed four years ago.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The minister will continue.

Minister.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The opposition’s continued mischaracterization of the

to the people that are seeking care in a greater way than they ever

have. The pandemic has pushed more people into overdose crisis. It has

pushed more people into mental health crisis. Those people are reaching

out for help, and we are building and expanding services every year of

our four-year mandate and every year of our four-year mandate ahead —

both behind and ahead.

I’ll implore members to be very careful in a mental health and

It’s dangerous to suggest to people that help is not there for them when

they need it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.

T. Halford: A disservice is closing a facility that people are depending on.

That is a disservice, Minister.

I’m going to read you a quote. “Many of our clients who have

accessed service years ago will often need to access service again, as

the struggle is always present. To be able to call the same place, speak

to a familiar counsellor who worked with you in the beginning brings

comfort to those who struggle.” Those words are from Daryl Meyers, the

executive director of Pathways.

Minister, let’s talk about priorities. It costs this government

$500,000 a year for Pathways to stay open. That’s actually less than you

guys have spent on a toilet in Vancouver.

Instead of defunding Pathways, why doesn’t this Premier simply

keep the program operating and increase support for the Interior Health

so that there’s actually a net boost in services?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: In fact, as part of the work that is ongoing to build a system of

care for mental health and treatment support, here are the new services

that Interior Health is offering that have been…. Some of them just

opened this month.

Ten government-funded youth treatment beds came online in the

Interior. They’re helping people right now. Five new innovated

integrated treatment teams throughout the Interior — Kamloops,

Cranbrook, West Kelowna, Enderby, Salmon Arm areas — all moving out into

the community to meet people where they are at, people that haven’t been

able to access treatment because of shift work or lack of transportation

or daycare complications, for example. There are 200 government-funded

adult treatment beds in Interior Health, and the work

continues.

Is there enough? No, there is not. Are we adding more services

every month? Yes, we are.

[10:35 a.m.]

GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN

SUPREME COURT CASE ON

RIGHTS OF MUNICIPALITIES

A. Olsen: In 2018, the Ontario government unilaterally cut the Toronto city

council from 47 members to 25. Just last week the Supreme Court of

Canada heard the city’s arguments that the province infringed on the

Charter rights when they did that. The province of British Columbia is

the only province or territory in this country that intervened in the

case. We are the only province or territory that intervened in that

case.

Martha Jackman, professor of constitutional law at the University

of Ottawa, says: “The B.C. government’s position relies on an ‘extremely

regressive’ reading of the Constitution of Canada.” She goes on to say

that she’s disappointed to see a social democratic government proposing

the same very regressive, conservative and narrow reading of charter

rights that Ontario argued.

My question is to the Attorney General. The Attorney General

stated: “The relationship between provinces and municipalities is an

ongoing dialogue between the province and our cities. It’s an issue that

should be decided in discussions with cities rather than through the

B.C. Supreme Court or the Supreme Court of Canada.”

Does the Attorney General still believe this to be true, and if

so, why has the government decided to intervene in the case from

Ontario?

Hon. D. Eby: I read the same Tyee

article as the member did. The

member will know that it’s a difficult thing for an Attorney General to

comment on a case that’s in front of the court, which the member

acknowledges is the case.

I will certainly say that I agree with the quote from me that the

member read out…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: …that we are better off working with municipalities about how we

work together, rather than having the court decide that for us. It’s an

important issue that’s in that case. I look forward to the court’s

decision.

I’ll just note that we’re the only province intervening in favour

of the federal carbon tax as well. Simply because we’re the only

province is not an indication of the province’s position or the

progressiveness of that position. What is, is our arguments in front of

the court, and we look forward to the court’s decision.

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

supplemental.

A. Olsen: I remember the time that I was at the local government table. In

fact, I’m a member of this assembly because of the frustration that I

felt at the top-down relationship between municipalities and the

province.

Some will say that municipalities are creatures of the province

and that, as such, gives us the ability to kind of do whatever we want

from this tower that we sit in here. Municipalities are not our junior

partner, nor is local government the training ground for provincial or

federal politicians. They are our partners in delivering democratic

governance.

Brian Frenkel, president of the Union of British Columbia

Municipalities, has stated that B.C.’s argument is in conflict with the

“intent of the Community Charter and the Local Government Act, which

recognizes B.C.’s local governments collectively as an independent,

autonomous and accountable order of government within their

jurisdiction.”

This government has touted that it wants to build a better

relationship with local governments. Frankly, this is a remarkable way

to do that.

If the Attorney General is of the mind to sidestep my general

question about relationships with the municipalities, then perhaps it’s

best for me to simply ask my former colleague from local government

tables, the Minister of Municipal Affairs. What does this government’s

intervention mean to the relationships with local governments, and

should local governments be expecting an even more top-down approach

from this province going forward?

Hon. D. Eby: You know, the member does raise important questions about that

case and about the province’s involvement. I look forward to having that

discussion with the member once the court has issued its

decision.

I’ll note that the evidence for our province’s approach to

municipalities was best demonstrated this week in the city of Victoria,

where we entered into an MOU around our respective areas of

jurisdiction. This cooperative approach with a city is not unique. We’re

in similar discussions with Vancouver, Grand Forks, Hope, and we were in

Penticton. It doesn’t always go well, but our spirit of cooperation is

there, and for those cities that want to work with us on the difficult

issues of the day, we are there. I know my colleague the Minister of

Municipal Affairs is there as well.

I look forward to working with our partners in municipal

governments, wherever we can do it.

[10:40 a.m.]

IMPACT OF PROPOSED U.S. LEGISLATION

ON CRUISE SHIP

INDUSTRY

M. de Jong: In the U.S. Congress, legislation has been introduced that could

have a devastating impact on B.C.’s cruise ship–related tourism sector

even after borders reopen, as they most surely eventually will. The

Alaska Tourism Recovery Act would allow cruise ships from Seattle to

completely bypass B.C. ports like Victoria, Vancouver and Prince Rupert,

which would cost tourism operators hundreds of millions of dollars as a

result.

Tourism operators are hanging on by their fingernails already and

desperately looking forward to better days ahead. Those better days are

now facing an entirely new challenge.

What assurance has the Premier received from Alaska senator Lisa

Murkowski, who’s sponsoring the legislation in Congress, that rule

changes allowing cruise ships to entirely bypass B.C. ports will not

become permanent?

Hon. M. Mark: I appreciate the question from the member opposite. The member is

fully aware that the federal government is in charge of our borders. We

are working with the federal government to advocate for a robust return

to cruise ships and other industries when it’s safe to do so.

Right now our focus is on the rollout of our vaccinations, the

safety of British Columbians and our borders here in B.C. When it’s

safe, we’re going to open up international borders, but that’s not up to

me, and the member knows that. The member knows that it’s up to the

federal government. It’s their mandate and jurisdiction to manage border

control.

The advocacy….

Interjections.

Hon. M. Mark: I don’t know why the members are heckling about border control and

jurisdiction. We’re in a federal state.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Mark: Because we are not allowed…. It is not up to me as the provincial

minister to open up the borders. But the advocacy…. What we are doing in

British Columbia is advocating for the vaccination rollout, for people

to be safe and then to open up the borders.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.

M. de Jong: Well, that’s a troubling response on all kinds of fronts if the

minister doesn’t understand that the essence of the question is that

when borders eventually do open up, people won’t be coming here anymore.

They won’t be coming because of a legislative change being presented in

Congress, in Washington, D.C.

Alaska is our neighbouring state. I hope the minister knows that.

Alaska is our neighbouring state, and the Premier of British Columbia

received a copy of a letter written by the Alaska congressional

delegation almost a month and a half ago, seeking engagement on this

matter that is so important to B.C. tourism operators. Now they’ve upped

the ante. They’ve upped the ante by introducing legislation that could

cost our struggling tourism sector hundreds of millions of dollars every

year, on a permanent basis.

My question to the Premier: has he spoken to Senator Murkowski,

has he written to Senator Murkowski, has he written to the Alaska

congressional delegation, has he engaged with them, and if not, why not?

The stakes for B.C.’s tourism sector are incredibly high and require

engagement by this Premier and this government.

Hon. M. Mark: I appreciate the question from the member opposite. We will do

that advocacy with the federal government on borders reopening and

international travel. The member opposite knows full well that they have

made the decision about the cruise ships.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Mark: The member opposite wants to remind me about geography, and the

member opposite wants to remind me about cruise ships. It is an

international border. It is up to the federal government to make those

rules.

Interjections.

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

Hon. M. Mark: We are going to do the advocacy. The Premier and our government

will do the advocacy with the federal government to advocate that the

borders be open. We are on the best coast; we’re on the west

coast.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Mark: Yes, it is.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: The members opposite want a lesson in geography around Alaska and

B.C. They are two different countries. International rules apply around

international waters. The advocacy from the provincial government will

deal with the federal government and the Prime Minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. That question and answer are over. Let’s listen to the

next one.

T. Stone: Well, for the minister’s benefit, what we’re talking about here

today is called the Jones Act. She might want to go and look it up and

maybe read it or have her advisers tell her what it’s all about. This is

a significant threat to the tourism sector in British Columbia and to

the cruise sector in particular.

The nature of the questions here today is not about working with

the federal government to reopen the borders or not. The question is:

does the B.C. government have a plan for when the borders do reopen, so

that there’s still a cruise industry here in British Columbia? That’s

what we’re trying to get at here today, Minister. The issue is very

clear.

Alaska is sending some very strong signals — well, not even

signals. They’re being very, very upfront about it. They want to protect

their cruise industry. They were mystified at the lack of engagement on

the part of the B.C. and the Canadian governments, when the borders were

closed. They’re now saying that they’re prepared to move forward without

us.

The question to the Premier is this. Has the Premier sought

guarantees or assurances from his American counterparts that B.C. will

not be permanently bypassed as a cruise destination when the pandemic is

over?

Hon. M. Mark: What our government is going to do right now, in the middle of a

global pandemic, is focus on the vaccination rollout. We’re going to

focus on people being safe and being healthy. Then when we’re able to

open up the borders and have people come to the best destination in

B.C., we need….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just a second.

Hon. M. Mark: Hon. Speaker….

Mr. Speaker: No, Minister. Take your seat.

Members, you’re wasting your time.

The Minister will continue.

Hon. M. Mark: I was saying, before I got laughed at by the opposition, that of

course we care about the tourism sector. Of course we care about cruise

ships and Destination B.C., and being a destination for international

travellers to come here to British Columbia.

Right now we’re in the middle of a global health crisis. The focus

of the provincial health officer is to get the vaccinations rolled out,

so that we’re all safe to travel across B.C., across all the regions, in

all the area codes. We will do the advocacy with our federal partners

and our border partners. Of course, we’re going to do that work, but

right now, the focus is on the vaccination rollout.

T. Stone: I think there’s a reason — a very good reason — here to be

skeptical about the effectiveness of this government and this minister

in particular, when it comes to looking out for the tourism

sector.

The tourism sector asked for $680 million in support almost a year

ago. They got 50 million bucks. The tourism sector asked for tangible

actions to help them survive, and they got a task force report, which

has a bunch of recommendations that haven’t even been implemented yet.

They’ve asked for a relief on fixed costs, and they haven’t received

that.

Now, the cruise industry is saying: “We are seriously concerned

that we may not exist as an industry if the United States, Alaska in

particular, goes ahead in bypassing B.C.’s ports — specifically

Vancouver, Victoria and Prince Rupert.” Every cruise ship that pulls

into Vancouver is worth $3 million in economic activity. I’ll remind the

minister that this industry employs 20,000 British

Columbians.

Again, the question to the Premier is: does he have assurances?

Does he have guarantees? Has he had any recent conversations, with his

U.S. counterparts in Alaska, that would provide some comforts to the

cruise industry in British Columbia, to the thousands of people that

work in the sector that we will not be bypassed if the Alaskans move

forward with the plans that they have indicated they’re going to

do?

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: The member opposite talks about the task force. Our government

called together a task force. I hope that the member opposite is not

mocking their expertise and their advice to government. They gave

advice. They gave seven recommendations.

We received the report on December 9. On December 23, we rolled

out…. The member opposite is not quite accurate with his math. He says

$50 million; $100 million was devoted to the tourism industry. We value

the tourism industry. We listened. We’re moving on the

recommendations.

The industry is asking for certification, safety certification.

They’re asking for dedicated funds to the Indigenous tourism sector,

which was thriving before the pandemic. That work is

underway.

The members opposite can mock all they want about responding to

advocacy and implementing recommendations from a task force. We’re going

to continue doing the work. We’re going to continue valuing the tourism

sector and make sure that they’re better than ever after this pandemic

is over.

COVID-19 RESPONSE FOR TOURISM

INDUSTRY AND REPORT

RECOMMENDATIONS

T. Wat: Here’s another example to show the incompetence of this

government, this Premier and this minister. I hope the minister listens

carefully to my question.

Two weeks ago we asked the Premier why travel agencies who have

been shut down are still being forced to pay government licensing fees.

Instead of providing an answer to the hundreds of travel agencies who

are asking about these fees, the minister chose to quote Michelle Obama

and told us that implementing all the tourism task force recommendations

was “impossible.” So what was she talking about — the task force just

now?

Small businesses have been pleading for relief for

months.

My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier fix his Tourism

Minister in action and waive these fees?

Hon. M. Mark: The member opposite, if we go back to the transcripts, will hear

that you can’t do everything at the same time. The priorities of the

seven recommendations…. We moved on the first three. I can spell out the

math — one, two, three. The first three recommendations have been

implemented. We are working through the recommendations because we value

the task force. We value their advice.

The industry has had a direct seat at the table with our great Dr.

Bonnie Henry. She’s heard directly from the sector about their needs,

what the challenges are with this pandemic. The advocacy and work are

being done with the ministry….

Interjections.

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

The Minister will continue.

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

The member opposite is not accurately reflecting the actions that

our government has taken to implement the task force recommendations.

The experts asked our government to dedicate $100 million. Money has

gone out the door; $40 million has gone out to some of those tourism,

small business operators throughout this province.

It is not accurate for the member opposite and the members of the

opposition to reflect that action isn’t being taken, because we are

working with the sector. We’re at the table. Dr. Bonnie Henry is hearing

directly what the concerns are. We’re moving the dial slowly as this

vaccination is rolled out.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond North Centre on a supplemental.

T. Wat: The minister claimed two weeks ago that: “We can’t move any

quicker than we are.”

Dennis from Optimal Travel says: “The travel industry was hit the

most since the beginning of the pandemic, with zero revenue but

countless cancellations. We can’t sustain our business.” Thousands of

dollars in licence fees are due in just seven days. Just one

week.

Let me try the Premier one more time, on behalf of all of the

suffering travel agencies. Will the Premier waive these licensing fees,

or will travel agencies pay for his incompetence?

Interjection.

Hon. M. Mark: The member opposite’s yes or no….

[10:55 a.m.]

The members opposite think that…. They have their experience with,

you know, this idea of duffle bags and ATMs and $20 coming out of

nowhere. We are working with the budget process. We are doing the

advocacy to get the money out the door through treasury. There is a

process to advocate for those resources.

We are working closely with the industry. We value the tourism

sector. There are grants available to the tourism industry, up to

$45,000, which was a call to action — grants, not loans — and we’re

going to continue doing the work.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee on Bill 10.

[11:00 a.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 10 — SUPPLY ACT (N o . 1),

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 10; N. Letnick in

the chair.

The committee met at 11:01 a.m.

On clause 1.

M. Bernier: I didn’t know if the minister was going to start with the bill, so

I’ll jump right in here, as I am very eager to do so.

Let me just start off by maybe highlighting some of the comments

that we’ve heard over the last few days in this House. I’m going to get

to some in detail a little bit later throughout the proceedings here and

the debate in committee stage on Bill 10. But, really, why we’re here….

And some of the comments that have been made are quite not

factual.

But let me start with the fact that we are dealing with something

out of the normal. The minister and her colleagues have continually —

for good reason, I’ll give them that — over the last few weeks that

we’ve been sitting, continued talking about the challenges and the

stresses that the pandemic has brought on. Everyone on this side of the

House actually acknowledges that.

Through the course of the debate on Bill 10, I would have thought,

if the minister and the members opposite were listening to the comments

from opposition and even third-party members, that it was very evident

that we understood the unique situations that government is facing.

Throughout this entire debate, we also understood the fact that the

continuation of government is important, that spending in critical areas

is important.

Let me back up, though, by saying that we are in a situation

because of this government — their inability of getting a budget

presented in this House when it should have been, by legislation.

Granted, old legislation, because this government had to change it to

meet their needs of not being able to get a budget put forward in time,

but we’re in this situation because of their inaction.

We’re in a situation now where we have a bill in front of us where

they’re asking for almost $13.5 billion on one piece of paper. There is

no information about where it’s going to be spent. That’s kind of where

we’ve been going with our comments during debates, and our questions are

going to come up during estimates. It’s incumbent on us to ask these.

It’s incumbent on the minister to show transparency around

accountability of this House on how money is going to be

spent.

But let me say that every single member in opposition, when they

stood up, recognized that, yes, we’re in a sad situation of this

government not being able to follow the rules and get a budget presented

in time, so they’re here asking for money. We acknowledge that. We

understand that. We understand that they weren’t able to do their jobs.

And because of that, we also understand that they’re here having to ask

for money to continue paying the bills on April 1.

[11:05 a.m.]

I think every single person that spoke here acknowledged that. I

think every single person that spoke acknowledged with gratitude the

work of front-line workers, our caregivers, our teachers, our doctors —

everybody who has stepped up during this time, during this

pandemic.

I’m going to give the minister, I think, my first question. I’m

going to give the minister an opportunity maybe to correct, apologize or

withdraw, at her choice, some of her comments in her closing arguments

on this bill in

section 2, when the minister said that members on this

side of the House had said that we were against health care workers

getting paid on April 2, that we were against teachers getting paid on

April 2, that we were against doctors and other people who have stepped

up getting paid on April 2. I’ve looked through Hansard . I

haven’t heard that or seen that from one person on this side of the

House.

Can the minister start with my first question of giving me the

names of the members, or tabling in this House, during the course of the

debate on

section 2, the members that said that they don’t want to see

anybody get paid as of April 2?

Hon. S. Robinson: I certainly heard members opposite say that they did not support

the bill, so to me that indicates that they did not support people

getting paid. We certainly saw that during…. I had to call division

because there was certainly somebody on the other side who held up an X.

Unfortunately, I didn’t get to see who it was, but there was certainly

an X flashed on the screen, which suggested to me that I was confirmed

in my assessment that members on the other side had said that they did

not support the bill. To me, this bill is about making sure that people

get paid. To me, that’s quite clear.

Let me say that I’m looking back through history a little bit and

have had the opportunity to take a look at interim supply bills,

historically here in this chamber. Going back to 1986, the year of Expo,

Socred government, and a supply bill was passed in the House on March

27, for example, here in this House.

Then again in ’87, and ’88, March 24, another interim supply bill.

And then again in ’88, ’89, and so on and so forth. In fact, every year

a supply bill is passed in this House, recognizing that budget estimates

haven’t been done.

I recognize that the members are frustrated that a budget isn’t

being presented until April 20. I appreciate that. That’s why the supply

bill before us is based on last year’s estimates, so that people can see

and the members opposite can see exactly where spending will happen

until we present our budget, debate it and hopefully pass it in the

House.

M. Bernier: The minister made some interesting comments. Have no fear to the

minister because we’ll have lots of questions around the comments that

she just made around history, around what’s normal, around the process

of this House, the legalities and the legislation and the process that

guides this establishment, and how work is supposed to take place

here.

Again, I just want to go back, just for the record, to acknowledge

that the minister can try to put words in people’s mouths, and she can

try to guess what people on this side of the House said. But not one

person on this side of the House said that they were against anybody

getting paid on April 2. Not one person.

The minister can make assumptions all she wants, but her closing

arguments were very disingenuous. They were not accurate. We’ll get into

this a little bit later, in a second here, on some of the technicalities

of why I know she’s inaccurate.

I’ll give the minister one more chance, because every single

person on this side of the House when they spoke — and I listened very

carefully to those comments — they were speaking against the process.

They were speaking against the fact that this government has been unable

to do their jobs. They’ve been speaking out for transparency and

accountability.

[11:10 a.m.]

That’s what people were speaking for. That’s what people are

against, the fact that this government is not following through with

their obligation as an elected government — the roles and

responsibilities of putting a budget forward, the duty of being

accountable and transparent with that budget in a timely

manner.

That’s not for the benefit of opposition. We have a job to do on

behalf of the people of British Columbia, our constituents, to ask the

questions, to ask for that accountability — to do our jobs to make sure

that that’s presented here in the House, that it’s scrutinized, so the

public can see where money is being spent. It’s their money. We owe that

to them.

That’s why members on this side of the House were speaking against

the bill. Almost every member also said that they recognized that the

government has a majority, that they’re going to use that majority and

they’re going to push this through regardless of any conversation that

we have in here, unfortunately.

But her comments were not accurate. I’ll give her another chance

to clarify and withdraw them.

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, the member just said that people did not support the bill.

That’s what he just said — that people were speaking out against the

bill. That’s what this bill is about. It’s about paying

people.

While I appreciate the members opposite…. I can appreciate that

the member across the way feels defensive. I know that the member has

expressed some concern when I called the division yesterday, because I

did see an X on the screen. I wish I had documented exactly which of

their members was not interested in supporting the bill with their X

showing. I guess it’s the downside of the technology. You put the X up

in front of your face, and it’s too far away, the screen, for me to see

who it was.

Again, to me, that speaks volumes. I know that the member was a

little surprised by that. I was too, frankly. But it goes to show that

either members didn’t understand what we were debating…. I don’t for a

second believe that there are members in this House who don’t think that

people are doing good work on our behalf, keeping us safe, keeping our

children safe, keeping our seniors safe.

We need to remember what this bill is about. This bill is about

making sure those people get paid. So when I have heard members say,

“I’m speaking against this bill; I don’t support this bill,” that is

what I hear. I hear that they don’t believe that people should get paid.

That is what I spoke to.

Now, I haven’t gone through all of Hansard over the last

number of weeks. I could certainly do that. I understand we’re going to

be here for a few days. I would be happy to go over Hansard ,

should I find the time. For all I know, there might be people scurrying

around that are looking for Hansard right now.

But at the end of the day, making sure that the good people doing

the work on our behalf as citizens, that children have access to good

learning opportunities, that seniors are cared for in the homes in which

they find themselves, that people who are doing incredible work getting

millions of us vaccinated as quickly as possible so that we can get back

to normal…. We are the ones, government, that pays them to do that

important work.

I do believe the member opposite wants to make sure they get paid.

But in terms of the debate that I certainly heard in this House, I heard

members opposite saying that they don’t support the bill. Their vote

yesterday pointed that they did. I was really glad to see

that.

I do think it is incumbent on us as representatives of our

constituents to recognize that our constituents want these people to get

paid. They value that and they recognize that, so I’m pleased to see

that all members in the House supported it. Their words didn’t

necessarily suggest that that was the case, because I did hear members

say that they don’t support the bill. I’m glad that the members opposite

clarified the record with the voice vote yesterday.

[11:15 a.m.]

M. Bernier: Again, let’s be clear. There are obviously, for good reason, parts

of this bill that many members would say that they don’t support. My

point is that nobody said they don’t support the continuation of people

getting paid.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Pay attention. I’ll give you lots more information. You can heckle

on later.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please. Thank you.

M. Bernier: I always appreciate the fact that at the very beginning, one

question in, we already get the heckling. It obviously shows the

uncomfortableness that members opposite have with this bill as well. In

fact, I don’t know if they’ve even read the bill.

I listened to their speeches during the debate — their speeches

where they stood up and talked about this. Obviously, they didn’t read

the bill. You could tell during this. I always love the fact that we get

under their skin with one simple question around accountability, and

they get defensive. But I’ll move on, because I know I’ll bring up lots

more opportunity for the member to heckle me when I actually highlight

all of the flaws that he and his government have brought forward here

with this bill. He can stick around and enjoy the show because he’ll

have more to talk about.

Let me just continue on with the thought process that I have

around some of the minister’s answers as we talk about people getting

paid as of April 2, about a process that we have here, in the House, of

the government asking for money to do so. The confusion, obviously, with

some of the NDP members…. I want the minister to maybe help explain

process to the House here.

NDP ministers and MLAs during their second reading comments

claimed that not passing Bill 10 would cause government workers not to

be paid. The NDP members are the ones that said this — that if this bill

does not pass, workers will not get paid on April 2. We didn’t say that.

The NDP themselves said that. In fact, the Attorney General said we’re

seeing gamesmanship around supply bills like this in the United States

as well. “How does that end up? Government workers go unpaid. Essential

services are shuttered. The only people who hurt are the people in the

communities….”

The member for Courtenay-Comox said, “I’d like to recall the

recent experience south of the border,” also highlighting the United

States — under a different system, I’ll remind the minister — and some

of the issues they have. “I’d like to recall the recent experience south

of the border with the former leader of that nation. His refusal to

support paying of the bills with similar interim supply legislation,”

like this, “paralyzed a nation.”

My question to the minister: are those comments

accurate?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, the member knows that the interim supply bill provides

temporary legal authority for government to continue programs and

services into the new fiscal year. That’s what the purpose of this bill

is — to give government the authority to continue.

[11:20 a.m.]

It’s not just government workers but all of the transfers that are

made to the social service sector — all of those people doing amazing

work taking care of those most vulnerable; all of those in the housing

sector that are making sure that people continue to have a roof over

their heads; all of those workers that are supporting those with

developmental disabilities, frail seniors, home support

workers.

We’re talking about making sure that all of those services can

continue. That’s what a supply bill does. It’s certainly one that I

debated here in the House when the members opposite were on the

government side. Supply bills would come in. There would be debate. They

would pass so that all of that work could continue to happen. All of the

work that takes care of our citizens, that makes sure that they have

what they need — the services that government provides

continue.

I expect that this, too, will pass. We certainly had second

reading. It passed unanimously in this House, which was a good thing. It

certainly warmed my heart to see everybody supporting this

bill.

I look forward to seeing its enactment so that the people that are

doing the good work can continue doing that.

M. Bernier: You know, I don’t argue with most of what the minister just said —

the reason of bringing a supply bill forward. I’ll ask some questions

specifically around the supply bill a little later on, the

technicalities, the timing, etc. I know she’s well aware of that and

probably anticipating those questions when they come up. But this

specific question was: did she agree with the comments of NDP cabinet

ministers and MLAs who said that if this bill did not pass, that as of

April 2, front-line workers, doctors and services would not be

paid?

Is that actually what happens in this province if this bill was

not to pass — that people would not get paid?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, having the legal authority to do the work on behalf of the

people is why we’re here. It’s why we’re here. This bill gives

government the legal authority to make sure that those people — the

people that we all care about doing their work — continue to get

paid.

M. Bernier: It’s a very simple question. I’m unsure why the minister is not

willing to step forward and answer it. The simple question is: is the

member for Courtenay-Comox right? Will government not be able to pay its

bills on April 2? Is that actually what happens if this

fails?

Is the Attorney General right in his comments when he says that

we’ll turn into American-style systems if this bill does not pass, and

people will not get paid? That’s what I’m trying to understand here, on

behalf of the people in British Columbia, because they heard cabinet

ministers and they’ve heard government MLAs put the fear into people

that if this bill was not to pass, they would not get paid on April

I’m just trying to ask the minister if that’s factual. Were those

members in her government right?

Hon. S. Robinson: Once again, we bring forward a supply bill every year to make sure

that government has the legal authority. My understanding is that supply

bills pass — making sure that government has the legal authority to pay

the people doing the work.

This interim supply bill is no different. It provides temporary

legal authority for government to continue programs and services into

the new fiscal year.

[11:25 a.m.]

M. Bernier: Well, the minister has read, a few times now, her speaking notes

on what a supply bill is. We understand what a supply bill is. We

understand that supply bills are brought in, typically every year, for

the continuation of spending for government services. We’re not arguing

that. We’re very well aware of it. When we were in government, we

understood we had to bring supply bills forward for this exact same

purpose.

That’s not my question. I’m not asking the minister to explain to

me what a supply bill is. I’m asking her to explain to this House the

process if this supply bill was to fail. If the ministers and MLAs on

the government side of the House are right, does that mean that if this

was to fail…? I know the minister says it’s going to pass. I know they

have a majority government, and it’s going to pass. I know it’s going to

pass. So what happens if it fails? Do people not get paid on April

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I listened to the rhetoric on the other side. This place is

filled with rhetoric. We’ve got plenty of rhetoric, too. I’m not

castigating it all on that side of the House, but this is a piece of

it.

The member is throwing up hypotheticals. The member gets to do

that, I suppose. But what I’m here to do is to make sure that we

continue to deliver the services that people count on. That’s why, on

this side of the House, where we do have a majority, we’re going to make

sure that this bill passes.

Actually, after witnessing what I thought was an unusual move by

the opposition in seeing somebody throw up that they did not support

this supply bill, which surprised me, I thought: “Who’s not going to

support the supply bill?” Somebody did put it up on the screen. But when

we had the voice vote, we heard that everybody in this House supports

this bill.

I know that we’re in committee stage to get to some of the nuts

and bolts of this bill. I look forward to that. We’ve had our second

reading debate on this bill. Everyone supported it. That’s good. That’s

good for the people of British Columbia. I’m proud of this government

and, in fact, all members of the House for supporting it, because what

it means is that we care to make sure that everybody gets paid and

government can continue to deliver services.

M. Bernier: It’s unfortunate that the minister wants to consider good

questions on behalf of the people of British Columbia rhetoric, because

these are important questions. The minister — I’m not sure why — does

not want to explain the technicalities of a supply bill that we have

here in front of us. The whole point of having a supply bill is to have

the discussions around the process, the practicality, the information

that’s within it — in this case, very little.

I’ll assist the minister. I’ll make it very easy for her, then, to

say yes or no. If the supply bill was to fail, is that considered a

confidence motion, a confidence vote?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The members are certainly talking hypotheticals and what-ifs, but

the reality is we have a majority. This supply bill is going to pass,

because that’s what we’re elected to do.

We’re elected to do the good work on behalf of the people of this

province. It’s why I put my name forward. I know it’s why the other

members who are here in the House, those who are on the screen…. Even

yourself, Mr. Speaker — I know that’s why you put your name forward.

It’s to do the good work on behalf of the people of this

province.

We’re going to get the supply bill passed, because we do have a

majority. Every member on this side of the House knows that this is what

we need to do, in order to keep doing the good work. Based on what I saw

and witnessed here in this House yesterday, I know that members on the

other side, too, are going to be supporting this supply bill.

We all know how important it is to make sure that those services

continue for the people of this province.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for the response. I’m somewhat dismayed,

because in all of the conversation about rhetoric that’s just been

happening, the suggestion that — specifically, from the Third Party — I

and my colleague were doing anything but what the Minister just said….

That was our job — to ask questions about a supply bill which was not

the same as supply bills of the past, which have passed, but which does

have some differences in it.

The government was not readily forthcoming in the uniqueness and

the impact of that. It’s very challenging for me to hear that the

government is doing its job and that they’re going to pass this supply

bill. Yet the second reading speeches that we delivered, the concerns

that we raised in the minister’s closing comments yesterday, were

profiled that we were against supporting the good services that this

government produces.

There is a disingenuity, at least, in this — that the minister

would stand up and suggest that by asking the important questions in

this place about the differences, to draw out the uniqueness of the

supply bill, would then be misconstrued in the closing comments of that

debate as anything less than what it was.

Never once did I mention, never once did my colleague mention,

that we were against supporting these good services. In fact, we’ve been

in support of this government in developing many of those services that

were mentioned. It’s very, very difficult to sit in here and to digest

this, in that context.

Perhaps the minister can provide a little bit more detail on how

it is that we can reconcile the government doing its job by passing

this, almost no questions asked, and the work that we in the opposition

have to do — to ask the questions and then have those questions be

misconstrued as anything but what they are, which is an honest attempt

to understand what is going on — with this supply bill, with this budget

cycle, with this government in its first attempt to bring a budget

before the people of British Columbia.

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to qualify my response — my closing comments, second

reading — because I did hear from numerous members that they did not

support the bill. They said that. “We don’t support the bill.” “I’m

speaking against the bill.” I take that seriously.

[11:35 a.m.]

Now, if they said, “I’m going to support the bill, but I have

concerns about this and this, and I look forward to committee stage,

when I’m going to ask these questions,” I appreciate that. That is the

job of opposition. I spent four years doing that work. It is important

work.

When people say, “I don’t support the bill,” and then don’t

qualify it, or they say, “I like the bill. I like that it’s going to be

paying everybody, but I have questions,” I absolutely appreciate that.

They should have questions. But I did hear from a number of members

across the way that they did not support the bill, and I take that

wholesale. I take people at their word. Now, if they meant something

different, fair enough, and they should qualify that.

Again, I’m going to come back to the fact that I did…. I wish I

could go back and play rewind in my mind and identify the X that I saw

on the screen. But I did see somebody visually not support second

reading of Bill 10, which suggests to me that there’s at least one

member of the opposition that doesn’t support what this bill does. And

that’s disappointing. That is very disappointing.

I’m very happy to take members’ questions around how this supply

bill is different from previous years. It’s still a supply bill doing

the same thing that supply bills have done in the past, which is to keep

government services and programs going. I know that the member

appreciates how important that is. It is different, because the budget

for this upcoming year isn’t being presented until April 20. I

appreciate that. That’s why this bill is based on last year’s estimates

so that there is a basis for it that allows us to get through the

important work that we’re going to do here when we do present the

budget.

We have the process of estimates, and I’m sure all members of the

House will be asking questions of every minister around what they’re

going to be doing in order to continue to deliver services for British

Columbians, and they should do that, because that is their job. That is

about accountability. No one is disputing that.

But I’m going to come back again to the fact that there were

members…. Perhaps it’s new members, and I can certainly recognize that,

as new members would say, “I don’t support the bill” and then go to

their speaking notes and specify. But it’s the words when people say, “I

don’t support the bill” or “I’m speaking against the bill.” I hear that

as wholesale. If I misinterpreted it, I’ll take responsibility for that,

but that is what I heard here in this chamber from members opposite, and

I took that to mean that they don’t support folks getting

paid.

Perhaps they didn’t understand what the bill was about, and I can

appreciate that. I remember being a new member of this chamber in my

first supply bill debate and perhaps not really appreciating what it was

about and having to ask questions, because it is all new when you are

all shiny and not tarnished like…. Well, there are a couple of shiny

people that are still here, for different reasons, perhaps. So I do

appreciate that — if people did not understand what this bill is about.

I hope that through the process over the next, it sounds like, number of

days, they are going to get a real good understanding of the supply

bill.

But again, speaking directly to the member’s question, I know that

he understands the nature of supply bill and what it’s about. I’m here

to certainly answer any specific questions that the member might have

for the rest of the number of days that we’re going to be

here.

M. Bernier: It’s interesting listening to the minister’s comments about what

she heard and taking them at their word. So using that same analogy or

same thought process that the minister just said, I go back to my

comments, then, that we had a few moments ago, where the member for

Courtenay-Comox and the Attorney General…. Is the public supposed to

take them at their word? Does that mean if this bill does not pass on

April 2, the doctors, the nurses, the teachers and all the people of

British Columbia that rely on a paycheque from this government…. If this

bill does not pass, do they get paid or stop getting paid on April

[11:40 a.m.]

The members talked about — that it will turn into a U.S.-style

system, where people don’t get paid. So I’m just kind of curious if

that’s actually what happens, because that’s the feeling now that the

people in the province of British Columbia have, based on a minister of

the Crown’s comments here in this House. We have another minister of the

Crown, the Minister of Finance now, that can set the record

straight.

Is it possible that on April 2…? Let’s just say that we were in a

minority government situation. The minister has already said: “We’re in

a majority.” They’re going to push this through regardless. People are

going to continue to get paid. There’s no fear there. She has said that.

Yes, we might be talking about hypotheticals, but I’d like the answer,

on behalf of the people in the province, about that

hypothetical.

If we are in a minority government situation, then, if this bill

did not pass, like any other supply bill in the last previous years,

what happens on April 2?

Hon. S. Robinson: It sounds like the member wants to debate hypotheticals. Well, I’m

not here to debate hypotheticals; I’m here to debate reality. The

reality is that we have a bill before this House that provides

government with the legal authority to continue to pay for these

services and these programs. I look forward to continuing do that work

and making sure that we’re talking, grounded in reality, based on what’s

presented here in this House in Bill 10, to continue government’s

work.

We do this debate here, and the people outside of this chamber who

are doing the work — they’re also dealing in reality. For me, making

sure that government gets the legal authority so that they can do their

real work is the most important thing for us to be doing right

now.

M. Bernier: I’ll make it easy for the minister, then. I’ll ask a real

question. Is the supply bill a confidence vote?

Hon. S. Robinson: This bill is going to pass. We certainly have seen here in this

House yesterday the commitment from everybody in this chamber. I look

forward to taking the member’s questions, given that we are in committee

stage on this bill. I fully expect that we will be passing it later this

week.

M. Bernier: I’m not sure why the minister is not willing to answer just a

basic simple question around process in the House. She said it’s going

to pass. Last night we all acknowledged that it’s going to pass by

voting in favour to move forward to committee stage so that we could ask

these questions. We signalled, and we understand, that bills need to be

paid. I’m just asking a simple question. We have, every year, supply

bills. Are supply bills confidence votes?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, what we have here before the House at committee stage is a

bill that is to provide government with an appropriation to spend money.

I look forward to getting into the meat of the bill. I don’t believe

that dealing in hypotheticals is helpful. The member opposite has even

said that he fully expects all members of the House to support this

bill. I know, based on the voice vote that we heard yesterday, that it

has become apparent that every member in this chamber supports the

bill.

I do recognize that the member for Saanich North and the Islands

had some questions to ask about process. I look forward to those

specific questions. I think we need to recognize, at the end of the day,

the supply bill…. It happens every year in this chamber, albeit it’s a

little bit different this year because a budget hasn’t been presented

yet. It will be in three short weeks, a little over three weeks, and

that is unusual.

However, government, every year, brings forward a supply bill to

make sure that those people who do the good work continue to get paid

until the budget can be properly reviewed, estimates can happen and a

new budget adopted.

M. Bernier: Looking at the clock, it’s unfortunate. I thought I had asked a

very simple question, around process, about a bill that this minister

tabled in the House. I assumed that I was just going to get an easy

“yes” answer and that we were going to move on to the next questions.

Believe me, I have lots of questions around this.

Let me help the minister, then, and she can correct me if I’m

wrong. Supply bills are — from my understanding — a confidence motion, a

confidence vote. The minister, I assumed, would have just stood up and

said that, because those are the legislative facts of a monetary bill

like the supply act that we have here in front of the House.

I’m not sure why she’s not willing to just acknowledge that. It

wasn’t a trick question. It wasn’t a rabbit hole I was trying to take

the minister down. I was just trying to get it on the record: if we were

in a different situation, what are the processes that would take place?

Members on that side of the House, and cabinet ministers, have alluded

to people not getting paid on April 2 if this bill failed.

I was just trying to help the people of British Columbia and put

their fears to rest that those comments weren’t accurate and that,

actually, people will continue to get paid. Even if a supply bill fails

— this is where the minister will only have to spend a few moments to

correct me if I’m wrong — it’s a confidence motion. An order-in-council

through a special warrant would be used to continue paying for the

services of government, and the people’s paycheques would still flow,

but we would be going to an election if this were to fail.

Now, we know that’s not going to happen. The minister has

acknowledged that they’re going to use the majority government to push

this through. We’ve acknowledged that we want to ensure that people get

paid. I was just asking, for the technicalities, if that were factual.

Is what I said on the process…? If this were to fail, would people still

get paid on April 2, yes or no?

[11:50 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, you know, the member suggests that it’s not a rabbit hole,

that the question is out of curiosity, perhaps. Although, at the same

time, the member did say what he knows to be true. So if that’s the

case, the member can just put on the record what he knows to be true.

And that would be, I would imagine, sufficient.

Again, what we call money bills are about confidence. But, again,

that’s hypothetical. That’s a hypothetical perspective about whether or

not this bill is going to pass. Right? That’s a hypothetical because we

saw, in this House, after second reading, that everybody said they

support this bill, with a voice vote. That was good to hear. It was good

to witness. It’s not what we heard in second reading, so it was nice to

hear.

I appreciate that the members have questions as well around the

specifics of this bill. I look forward to getting into the specifics of

this bill. But, again, what is before this House is the legal authority

to continue to do the spending that government needs to do so that those

people who are doing incredible work continue to get paid. And I’m

really pleased. And I want British Columbians to know that everybody in

this House supported that. That’s really, really good to hear,

yesterday.

I know that all the members appreciate the work that people are

doing on our behalf, on our collective behalf, making sure that we’re

safe, making sure that our kids are being taught, making sure that our

seniors are cared for. That’s what governments do.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress

and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:54 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted

leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

Copyright © 2021 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.