First Session, 42nd Parliament

(2020) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, December 9, 2020

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 5

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

John Fryer

Hon. G. Heyman

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Prevention of violence against women and COVID-19 impact on women

J. Routledge

Finnley Goddard

S. Bond

Reopening of schools in Surrey

J. Sims

Fundraising activities for Halle Krawczyk

M. Morris

Community services in Maple Ridge–Mission during holiday season

B. D’Eith

Staffing and services at Menno Place during COVID-19

B. Banman

Oral Questions

COVID-19 impact on services for special needs children and youth and report recommendations

S. Bond

Hon. M. Dean

K. Kirkpatrick

COVID-19 response and mental health services

S. Furstenau

Hon. S. Malcolmson

COVID-19 response for disability and income assistance

recipients

D. Davies

Hon. N. Simons

C. Oakes

Activation of Health Committee

M. de Jong

Hon. A. Dix

Reports from Committees

Selection Committee, report, December 9, 2020

Hon. M. Farnworth

Motions Without Notice

Powers and role of Children and Youth Committee

Powers and role of Finance Committee

Powers and role of Public Accounts Committee

Appointment of Special Committee to Review the Personal Information Protection Act

Appointment of Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act

Hon. M. Farnworth

Tabling Documents

B.C. ferries commissioner, annual report, fiscal year ending March 31, 2020

Environmental Appeal Board, annual report, 2019-20

Gaming policy and enforcement branch, annual report, 2019-20

Labour Relations Board, annual report, 2019

Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia, annual report,

2019-20

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2020

Hon. S. Robinson

M. Bernier

S. Furstenau

T. Stone

J. Rustad

M. de Jong

M. Lee

T. Wat

E. Ross

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2020

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. S. Malcolmson.

[1:35 p.m.]

Tributes

JOHN FRYER

Hon. G. Heyman: On November 1, John Fryer died suddenly while watching TV at the

side of his wife, Penelope Roy, an abrupt end to the life of someone who

was used to shaking things up and making change, a native of England,

who until recently had called Canada and British Columbia his home for

49 years.

While most members of today’s B.C. Public Service and most B.C.

workers would not recognize his name, his creativity, his organizing

skills, his strategic ability and his sheer drive forever changed their

working conditions and their ability to have the value of their work and

their ideas recognized and respected.

John Fryer began his career on this continent with the

Packinghouse Workers of America, where his job was to fully integrate

Black workers into local unions, a job that resulted in his leaving a

small Alabama town, hidden in a car trunk for protection.

At age 30, John took over leadership of the B.C. Government

Employees Association, whose members were the only Canadian provincial

employees with no bargaining rights, and he turned it into a full union

in both name and spirit. The BCGEU demanded and won recognition,

collective voice and legislated bargaining rights. Along the way, he

infuriated then Premier Bennett by submitting the traditional

unilaterally imposed wage

schedule to a highly public membership

ratification vote.

The union that John Fryer envisioned and shaped, along with a

cadre of committed young activists and organizers who influenced the

labour movement in British Columbia to today, took its full place in the

labour movement and began to influence the growing social unionism that

became commonplace in the 1980s onward. He reorganized the structure of

the union to ensure that the voices of women were heard and their

workplace issues taken seriously by ensuring those occupations where

women predominated had their own elected representatives.

John worked to create a modern, strong, socially active union that

I was honoured to lead. While our paths crossed just briefly, I was

regularly reminded of what he accomplished, often with controversy,

often with grudging respect, always with strategy and

effectiveness.

My condolences to his family and to all those whose lives he

helped improve.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I have two introductions to make today.

One is to my awesome nephew Ben, who is turning six today and

celebrating with his big brother, Ross.

Secondly, I want to acknowledge how hard our tech support teams are

working on both sides of the House, the Legislature and government. They

pulled off Canada’s first fully hybrid Legislature this summer flawlessly,

and I know they’re working very hard for all of us right now.

We’re grateful. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vernon-Monashee.

H. Sandhu: Good morning, Hon. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Afternoon.

H. Sandhu: Yes, good afternoon. I’m sorry.

Is this the response to the throne speech after the

introductions?

Mr. Speaker: Please proceed.

H. Sandhu: It’s just a point of clarification. I don’t have two minutes

introduction….

Mr. Speaker: Member, hold it. Hold it.

H. Sandhu: Okay.

Mr. Speaker: Sorry, Member. I didn’t hear what you were asking. We’re only asking

members to make introductions. Throne speech will be dealt with sometime

later but not now.

Introductions, member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

[1:40 p.m.]

D. Clovechok: Thank you very much, Hon. Speaker.

December 9 is a very special day for me. I’ve got two grandchildren

who are turning…. Their birthdays are today. Shea MacDonald is watching and

celebrating her seventh birthday in Saskatoon. Parker Dubnyk is turning five

today and is watching from Minnesota. I wish them the very best birthdays. I

wish I could be there. Thank goodness for FaceTime.

Would the House please join me in wishing them both a very happy

birthday.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

AND COVID-19

IMPACT ON WOMEN

J. Routledge: Tomorrow is Human Rights Day, the last of 16 days of activism

against gender-based violence. It started on November 25, the

International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. In

Canada, we also recognize December 6, that day 31 years ago when 14

women were killed at École Polytechnique. The Montreal massacre remains

the deadliest mass shooting in Canadian history.

Separating men from women, the gunman screamed, “I hate

feminists,” while methodically executing only women. I still remember

how I felt when I heard about it on the news that night. I was

overwhelmed with grief and fear. But I sought comfort and strength with

other outspoken women, strong women who dared to make their mark in a

man’s world. Every year since 1989, feminists come together to remember

those who died and to recommit to a future in which our lives won’t be

threatened simply because we are women.

Safety is top of mind during this pandemic. We are reminded to

stay home to stay safe. But for too many women, home is not a safe

place, and the pandemic has made it worse. One local crisis centre

reports getting close to 100 calls a day since the start of the

pandemic, an increase of 300 percent.

We have a lot more work to do to keep women safe, and that’s why I

support an important resource in my community: Dixon Transition Society.

Dixon House offers transitional housing, counselling and resources to

women and their children fleeing domestic violence. Other years, I’d be

looking forward to their annual Christmas jazz concert. But the pandemic

won’t stop me from donating so that they can support even more

vulnerable women. I hope others will do the same.

FINNLEY GODDARD

S. Bond: I’m very pleased today to recognize an inspirational young man. On

October 24, Finnley Goddard and his family were travelling on a back

road covered in compact snow. The Goddard family’s Toyota was unable to

make a corner, hit an embankment and rolled off the road into a

field.

The crash left Finn’s parents, Blake and Kristi, stuck and

dangling from their seats and his eight-year-old brother, Oliver, pinned

in the vehicle. Springing into action, 11-year-old Finnley lifted the

door open, freeing his younger brother, and immediately went to help his

parents. Blake was able to get out of the vehicle with his son’s help.

With some additional assistance from local farmers, who had heard the

crash, they were able to remove Kristi as well.

While Finn did an amazing job lifting the heavy doors and helping

his family, what was remarkable was how calm and reassuring Finn was

during the entire ordeal. He kept encouraging his mom by telling her

that she could do it and by repeating: “You’ve got this,

Mom.”

Finn has been honoured for his heroic efforts by the Prince George

Cougars. He was recognized by Prince George Highway Rescue and by our

local MP, Todd Doherty. Both Finn and his brother, Oliver, received

gifts and gift certificates from many generous donors. Finnley told

reporters: “I didn’t want anyone to get hurt, so I stayed calm. I just

took a deep breath, and I tried not to freak out.”

[1:45 p.m.]

Well, Finnley, we want you to know that we are proud of you for

showing bravery and courage beyond your years. Your calm attitude and

quick thinking stand as a powerful example to all of us.

In difficult times like these, stories like Finn’s give us hope

and a reason to celebrate.

Well done, Finnley Goddard.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey-Panorama.

REOPENING OF SCHOOLS IN SURREY

J. Sims: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and congratulations.

To say that the start-up of the new school year has been

challenging would be an understatement. Today I would like to thank

everyone who has helped open our schools for our kids.

Surrey is the largest school district in our province, and I’m in

awe of how everyone has worked collaboratively to open our schools

safely, develop teaching models that meet the needs of students and

families and establish some sort of normalcy in a world that is anything

but normal. When the decision was made to open schools in September,

there were questions and concerns and a lot of uncertainty.

I want to thank the Surrey Teachers Association, CUPE 728, and all

of their members. These have been extraordinarily challenging times, and

you have our utmost respect and gratitude. You are our front-line

workers and heroes in our schools. I want to thank the administrators,

who have worked to keep our schools safe and have overseen the

implementation of our new protocols.

Thank you to Superintendent Jordan Tinney, a true hero in the eyes

of many, and his staff, who have worked tirelessly since schools closed

at spring break last March. Surrey school district, led by Jordan

Tinney, developed a creative, thoughtful plan that allowed families to

choose in-person classes, virtual learning or a hybrid model. All

partners have worked to ensure that student cohorts are safe and

consistent.

COVID has taught us that nothing is perfect in the new normal and

that we are learning new things every single day. In response to

feedback and in collaboration, changes need to be made. Through videos,

communications with students, parents and the community. By no means has

this been an easy fall for anyone in education.

I want to thank everyone for everything. Nothing is perfect. These

plans are not perfect. They are a work in progress. But together we can,

and we do.

FUNDRAISING ACTIVITIES

FOR HALLE

KRAWCZYK

M. Morris: She is only 12 years old, but Halle Krawczyk has already been

through more than most people endure in a lifetime. Three years ago the

Salmon Arm girl was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer.

Poorly differentiated chordoma affects just one in 20 million

people. Halle and her family have endured countless stays at Ronald

McDonald House while Halle undergoes surgeries, chemotherapy,

immunotherapy, a trial drug, regular testing and the incredible

emotional and mental side effects that go along with this disease — her

parents, Matt and Carolyn, tirelessly by her side.

Doctors have told them that the best chance of controlling the

disease is surgery and proton beam radiation. The surgery needs to take

place in Pittsburgh, with a team skilled in pediatric neurosurgery.

Unfortunately, this procedure and all that goes along with it will cost

well in excess of $100,000.

Mark Neudorf, a local Prince George hunter, took it upon himself

48 hours, Mark’s Facebook page, called Hunting Auctions for Halle,

exploded with donations from around North America. From Mennonite

sausage to fully guided fishing charters to baked goods from grandma’s

kitchen to a baseball bat Halle herself has donated, people have stepped

up to help.

Halle’s bat sold for $24,000, and to knock it out of the park,

that $24,000 donation was matched, for a total of $48,000. As of last

Saturday night, not even 48 hours after starting this movement, over 400

donations had come in, and over $100,000 has been raised. The strongest

bonds are formed by the will to make a difference. Hunters, trappers,

anglers and guides and those that have just felt the need to help have

all contributed.

[1:50 p.m.]

Friends, family and complete strangers came together with the

compassion and the will to change the lives of people they have never

met.

Halle, from all of us in this House and around B.C., we know that

you will beat this.

COMMUNITY SERVICES IN MAPLE RIDGE–

MISSION DURING

HOLIDAY SEASON

B. D’Eith: I rise in the Legislature today — figuratively, of course — in

these difficult times. I wanted to speak about notable community

organizations that are operating holiday services to support those in

need in my riding of Maple Ridge–Mission. Although things look different

this year due to COVID-19, the need for support is even greater than in

past years. Now we’ve seen community service organizations stepping up

to meet this need.

This year marks the 48th anniversary of the Mission Community

Services Society’s Christmas Bureau. Since 1972, the society has made a

difference in thousands of lives, vulnerable families, by providing

festive food ham­pers and toys at Christmas time. This year,

through the generosity of a community of individuals and businesses, the

Christmas Bureau is continuing this tradition.

Another wonderful organization, the Maple Ridge–​Pitt

Meadows Christmas Hamper Society, was established in the late ’60s. This

year they’ve partnered with the Katzie Nation, Ridge Meadows Salvation

Army, school district 42, Friends In Need Food Bank and the community

services for their Christmas hamper program. The Christmas hamper

program will serve over 400 families, providing gift cards for Christmas

dinners and children’s gift cards. These are from local Ridge Meadows

stores, so it’s supporting families but also local businesses during

this difficult time.

Of course, it’s very important at this time, when we’re talking

about vulnerable populations, to talk about our senior population.

Community services in Maple Ridge is putting on a Christmas dinner

drive-through where registered seniors will receive a pre-made Christmas

dinner and an amazing goody bag full of lots of wonderful things. It’s

all prearranged and scheduled to accommodate appropriate safety

measures.

I want to thank all of the community organizations in my community

and, of course, across British Columbia who are doing such an amazing

job to support individuals and families in need this holiday season and

year-round.

Happy holidays, everyone.

STAFFING AND SERVICES

AT MENNO PLACE DURING

COVID-19

B. Banman: As we all know, care homes have been the epicentre of much of

COVID-19. Seniors around our province are facing the brunt of this

disease as they’re not only the most susceptible but also the most

affected by visitation restrictions. One of the other challenges facing

long-term-care homes, brought on by COVID-19, is staffing shortages,

especially as both staff and residents test positive.

In Abbotsford, one such care home has found a novel solution to

these issues. Menno Place, which is one of the largest senior care

campuses in B.C., is governed by the Mennonite Benevolent Society. It

cares for nearly 700 seniors. So when staff and residents began to test

positive, Karen Biggs, the CEO of Menno Place, decided to find a

solution to continue the needed level of care the residents

deserve.

Menno Place is not alone with the challenges they face. Due to

restrictions, family visits are severely limited, volunteers are banned,

and finding staff is becoming increasingly difficult. Karen Biggs’s idea

was to reach out to families with loved ones who reside at Menno Place

to see if they would want to temporarily work in areas like

housekeeping, laundry and dietary services. Within days of the job

posting, nearly 50 passionate family members rose to the task at hand,

eager to support Menno Place and have the opportunity to work and care

for the residents, with the added bonus of being able to see their loved

ones.

My understanding is that care facilities in B.C. and across the

country are watching closely. Menno Place is working hard to ensure

safety training protocols are being met. I hope that other care homes

can take a cue from Menno Place to better serve their residents and

their family needs during these trying times. I am proud of this

long-standing Abbotsford tradition, and I am pleased to share their

story here in the House today.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and congratulations on your

election.

[1:55 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, we’re going to commence question period in a moment. To

maximize full participation in question period, I urge all members to

watch the length of your questions and answers. I really appreciate your

cooperation. Thank you.

Oral Questions

COVID-19 IMPACT ON SERVICES FOR

SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN

AND YOUTH

AND REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

S. Bond: “It is the representative’s view that many families and caregivers

are reaching the breaking point. The disruption of the pandemic

continues to reverberate in the lives of children and youth with special

needs.” These are the words of the Representative for Children and Youth

in the report entitled Left Out , which was delivered last week.

The stories shared by families are powerful and painful. The report

calls for urgent and immediate action from this government.

To the government members today, will they commit to extending for

one year all pandemic-related benefits and processes that are

desperately required for children and youth with special

needs?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question.

I’d just like to start by saying I’m thrilled and honoured to have

been appointed as the Minister of Children and Family Development. I’d

like to thank all of the front-line staff, all of the staff at our

partner agencies, delegated agencies, for all of their hard work and

especially during this really, really difficult time of this

pandemic.

I thank the Representative for Children and Youth for her report

and her team for all of the work that, again, in such difficult

circumstances has been completed.

I thank the families. Thank you for sharing your stories. Thank

you for taking the time. Thank you for taking part. My heart goes out to

you.

I share the concerns of the representative. For too long, the

system has been extremely fragmented. And that’s why, Member, you will

have seen in my mandate letter that the Premier has asked me to move

forward with the framework for supporting families with children and

youth with support needs. Already I have instructed ministry staff to

move forward with the recommendation related to an advisory panel, and

I’ve already asked them to accelerate work towards implementing the

framework.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, first supplemental.

S. Bond: I appreciate the compassion and the caring in the minister’s

answer, but what I didn’t hear was an answer to the question. The

answer, in fact, the minister provided will provide little comfort and

certainly no direct support that is desperately needed by these

families.

The report outlines in detail the devastating impact that the

pandemic has had on these families. Funding approval processes fell

apart. Contact with professionals and CYSN workers became more

difficult. And families themselves said there was a lack of meaningful

communication.

The report and families across the province are calling for

immediate action to meet these urgent needs. An advisory committee is

one step. But today we need the government to respond to the critical

needs of these families. Will the minister commit to the extension of

pandemic-related benefits until the fall of 2021?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you again to the member. I appreciate her passion and

advocacy on behalf of children and families across our province as

well.

Through the course of the pandemic, we have been improving our

systems of communication with families. You will know that some measures

were put in place. That included measures like increased flexibility of

use of benefits, which families have told us have actually been really,

really helpful. That continues through until March. There are other

benefits and grants that are being announced that will be available to

all families, depending on eligibility criteria, across the whole of the

province.

This is really important work, and we have to get it right. We

have to put children and youth at the centre of this system, and that is

the work that I’ve asked the ministry staff to accelerate and expedite.

We will be doing that alongside the voices and experiences and stories

of families with children and youth with support needs.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, second supplemental.

[2:00 p.m.]

S. Bond: Well, the report is painful to read. Families shared their most

personal stories about the impact of the pandemic on their families, and

what needs to be expedited is an answer to these families. It is very

clear that an election during a pandemic impacted these families in a

significant way. In fact, when pandemic-related benefits for children

and youth with special needs expired in September, there was no recourse

for them for months. The report specifically calls on this government to

extend all pandemic-related benefits and processes for special needs

families until the fall of 2021.

Again to the minister, families deserve an answer, and they

deserve support — not in the future, not two months from now. They

deserve an answer now. Will the minister accept the recommendation and

extend benefits to these families for one year, yes or no?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you again to the member. As she will know, we will be going

into very intense planning processes to make sure that we actually build

a system for children and youth. Some of the measures that were put in

place because of the pandemic have been extended until March. We’re

going into a lot of hard work to make sure that we plan for a system

that puts children and youth at the centre of these services.

The member will know, because the member was actually part of

government itself, when the cutbacks were made to this ministry and to

families such as these, who have shared their very powerful and worrying

stories with us. I’m very proud to be part of a government that’s

actually looking at changing the system that has let down these families

for so very long.

K. Kirkpatrick: One of the respondents to the CYSN survey that formed the basis of

the Representative for Children and Youth’s report is Victoria O’Connor.

Victoria is a mother of twin sons, both of whom are non-verbal and have

been diagnosed with autism. This is what Victoria said about her

experience: “We are very much a family in crisis. I just sort of feel

like it doesn’t matter how bad your situation is. You’re still going to

have to jump through a million hoops.”

To government: when will you implement the recommendations in the

report so that parents like Victoria can get the support that they so

desperately need?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question, and thank you to people

like Victoria who have shared their stories. There are so many families

out there who have such a variety of experiences. Of course, in this

pandemic, the struggle of caring for children with high levels of needs

and with children and youth who have support needs has really put added

pressure on them. I can assure the member that the staff in the ministry

take this matter very seriously, and they themselves have worked really

hard to be able to pivot and to be able to continue providing

services.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I have to say this system is fragmented, and

it has been for a very long time. Colleagues of this member were members

of government that actually cut back services to this ministry. I’m very

proud that in my mandate letter from the Premier I’m being asked to

transform the system of support for children and youth with support

needs and to put them and their needs at the centre of the

system.

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

supplemental.

K. Kirkpatrick: Minister, I appreciate the commitment you say you’re making, but

families are still waiting on this NDP government to follow through on

the recommendations made in the Representative for Children and Youth’s

2018 report. The NDP government promised to have a comprehensive plan in

place by the fall of 2019, and they failed to deliver this.

One of the consequences of this NDP failure was that the majority

of these families did not know they were even eligible for the now

expired monthly emergency benefit.

[2:05 p.m.]

The minister mentioned the increased flexibility of benefits. Some

of these families did not know that they had alternative ways to use

those benefits.

To the government: will you admit the failings of this government

and implement these recommendations im­mediately?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you again to the member. This is such an important matter.

We know that families have been struggling. They were already struggling

because the system was so fragmented, and then with the pandemic on top,

that really exacerbated the issues for many families. So the ministry

staff and services really pivoted as much as they could to offer support

and services, to provide reliefs as far as possible and to make sure

that we heard the stories and were able to create that flexibility,

which is what families were asking us for.

It is really important that we actually create a system that’s

fair and that supports children and youth with the needs that they have

and puts them at the centre of the system, and that’s the work that

we’re already doing. That is recommended by the Representative for

Children and Youth.

Another recommendation was to have an advisory council and to very

quickly bring together stakeholders and families and advocates. We’re

already doing that. We’ve already acted on that. And there are more

grant programs that will be available for families across British

Columbia.

I encourage any family that’s still struggling to please reach out

to your local MCFD office or reach out to your worker if you have one

allocated, and please find out how much we can help you

further.

COVID-19 RESPONSE AND

MENTAL HEALTH

SERVICES

S. Furstenau: We know that the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting people in many

ways. We are also, at this mo­ment, in an overwhelming and

worsening mental health crisis that’s been called a shadow

pandemic.

The overdose emergency is continuing at a horrifying rate.

Domestic violence rates are up; people are more isolated, more anxious

and more depressed than ever; and we are now headed into the

highest-risk season of the year. We know that our public health care

system as currently configured, despite the best intentions, cannot

adequately respond to this crisis.

My question is to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.

Before the snap election was called, the former minister committed to

working with the B.C. Psychological Association on a pilot project that

would better integrate psychologists into primary care, allowing them to

work alongside their medical colleagues to provide much-needed mental

health care to all British Columbians, regardless of income. Will the

new minister confirm that the reforms needed to allow psychologists to

become eligible providers through the government-funded billing system

will go forward provincewide?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Thank you to the member for the continued advocacy in this area. I

share the member’s concerns about the double impact of the pandemic and

exacerbating an already alarming mental health system.

Anybody who’s watching, anybody who has family who is feeling

isolated or anxious, please reach out.

Since yesterday’s questions in the House, I have been able to

confirm, through my colleagues within the mental health support system,

that the online supports that we built up since the pandemic started

have capacity. If you phone 811, if you go to gov.bc.ca/covid, there are

links to online mental health supports so you can stay safe at home,

still have that access to the counselling that we need.

I’m encouraged by the direct invitation in the mandate letter that

the Premier gave me to expand access to mental health supports and to

use all tools. So I welcome the conversation with the Green Party. The

tool that they mentioned is certainly one of the ones that we can talk

about. We need all the best ideas to be able to bring relief to

families.

Maybe I’ll just finish by saying — going into the Christmas

holiday and into the holiday season and solstice, where the hours are

the shortest — that I just urge all of us to reach out, especially to

friends and those who are isolated. It’s going to be a difficult time in

the next month ahead, and all the support that we can give as

individuals for our communities is going to make a

difference.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on her first

supplemental.

[2:10 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: Just to be clear, this is not a tool of the B.C. Green caucus.

This is a tool of the B.C. Psychological Association that had been

working with government before the snap election and had been creating a

pathway to ensure that all British Columbians could have access to

mental health care through the provincial billing system. I’m going to

hope that the minister can respond to that.

As well, the B.C. psychological first aid call line that used to

be in place as a result of the earlier stage of the pandemic had

registered psychologists volunteering to support British Columbians with

mental health issues, free of charge. It was closed in July.

So my additional question — in addition to the first question,

which I’m hoping I can still get an answer to — is: will the minister

also commit not only to working with the B.C. Psychological Association

to provide mental health care to all British Columbians but to ensure

that this psychological first aid line can reopen immediately and

provide evidence-based psychological care to anybody who needs it,

particularly as we go into this most stressful time of the

year?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: People are hurting, and although we’ve made progress pulling

together a mental health and overdose system — having inherited, in

2017, not much of a system at all — we’ve got a long way to

go.

I’ll say again to the member that the Premier asks me

specifically, in my mandate letter, to continue to build a comprehensive

system of mental health and addictions support, especially to support

people through COVID-19. He invites me specifically to expand access to

counselling using new e-health and other virtual technologies. I’ve

confirmed that for that system — were people to need help today,

tomorrow, in the weeks ahead — both our 811 line and the government

COVID site are the best way to access that.

I’d be very happy to return to the member with an update on the

specific consultation that was happening back in September. We need all

tools applied to the crisis at hand. All options are on the table. I

look forward to picking up that work again, to carry on the work of my

predecessor, Judy Darcy.

COVID-19 RESPONSE FOR DISABILITY

AND INCOME ASSISTANCE

RECIPIENTS

D. Davies: This is a stressful time for everyone, but especially for those

who struggle to put food on the table at the best of times. In his first

major policy announcement, the new Minister of Social Development and

Poverty Reduction has chosen to slash disability income assistance.

That’s awful — awful. Yesterday he cut the COVID-19 crisis supplement in

half.

Can the Premier tell British Columbians why he chose to claw back

income assistance now?

Hon. N. Simons: I thank the member from Peace River for the question, and I’m

pleased to offer a response.

Quite clearly, this is a concern to everyone. We know that people

who have been struggling are struggling a lot during this pandemic.

That’s why our government, unlike the previous government, takes poverty

reduction very seriously.

On this specific issue, we recognized that in April, the

government instituted a workers benefit. Since that was not open to

people on income or disability assistance, the government decided at the

time to institute a supplement. That supplement was extended until the

end of this month, in fact. So people on disability or income assistance

or seniors receiving the supplement will, in fact, receive the full $300

crisis supplement, in addition.

What we’ve done, because of the…. We’ve instituted a new benefit,

a recovery benefit, which will go to everyone, including people on

disability assistance and on income assistance. In addition to that,

we’ve created a supplement of $150 for January, February and

March.

[2:15 p.m.]

Quite frankly, if the member did his research, he would realize

that, in fact, all those in receipt of this assistance will be getting

more than they otherwise would have.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Peace River North on a supplemental.

D. Davies: Well, it certainly doesn’t sound like this government is taking

this seriously. A cut is a cut — from $300 a month down to $150

less.

We know that low-income people are disproportionately affected by

this pandemic. I’ll use a quote here. Michael Richards receives

disability assistance, and he had this to say: “Today’s announcement

frustrates me. It speaks of a government that is out of touch with the

realities of disability and poverty.”

Again to the Premier, why is our most vulnerable population the

target of this cut?

Hon. N. Simons: Well, I could just reiterate, in fact, that this is a government

that not only increased rates as soon as we formed government in 2017,

after ten years of the member’s party ignoring the issue completely….

Not only did we increase it in 2017; we increased it again.

With the onset of the pandemic, sure, this has definitely caused

things to be more difficult for everyone, especially those who are

already vulnerable. That’s why we ensured that when the workers benefit

was not made available to people on assistance, we instituted a

supplement.

The new benefit, the recovery benefit, is open to 3.7 million

British Columbians. Considering that…. We’ve not only done that, not

only brought in that — a promise that we’ve made — but we’ve also kept a

supplement, albeit at a reduced rate — $150 for January, February and

March. But that will result in everyone receiving assistance to receive

more than they otherwise would have.

C. Oakes: The fact is that the NDP government is cutting supports for our

most vulnerable populations in the middle of a pandemic, and it’s

shameful. This minister’s hypocrisy is shocking.

This is incredibly worrying for people who are concerned about

paying their bills and putting food on the table when the government is

actually cutting their assistance by $150 a month.

Can the Premier please explain why he’s clawing back $150 a month

from vulnerable people in the middle of a pandemic?

Hon. N. Simons: Well, I thank the member for her question. I’m not sure if she

heard my previous responses.

The citizens benefit, the recovery benefit that was

an­nounced yesterday, will be a benefit to 3.7 million British

Columbians, including those who are on social assistance and disability

assistance. In addition to that, they will be receiving $150 as a

supplement to that amount.

I don’t think that the member has any reason to be so cynical with

her approach. I think that she’s quite aware of the fact that this

government has done more for people living in poverty than her

government had done in the previous 16 years.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo North, supplemental question.

C. Oakes: The NDP chose to announce this cut in disability income assistance

on the same day that they announced the one-time recovery benefit.

Government framed it in such a way that, apparently, vulnerable people,

and those with disabilities, should be celebrating this

clawback.

Vulnerable people are already sharing their frustration with this

NDP government on Twitter using #300Clawback.

Will the Premier stop the clawback?

Hon. N. Simons: This is not how the member has characterized the situation. Quite

clearly, if she’d done the calculations, she would see that people on

income assistance and disability assistance will be receiving the

recovery benefit as well as a supplement of $150 above the rate of their

assistance.

[2:20 p.m.]

In fact, the member’s premise is incorrect. Her question is based

on that incorrect premise. The long and short of it is that with the

supplement plus the recovery benefit, people receiving income assistance

and disability assistance will, in fact, have more in their pocket at

the end of March.

ACTIVATION OF HEALTH COMMITTEE

M. de Jong: We are obviously in the midst of the worst health crisis in our

province’s history. The good news is that we also, I think, are on the

verge of deploying the fruits of science, with the vaccines that are

coming online very shortly.

On the first day of this new parliament, the Premier did two

notable things. He asked for the collaboration of the members of this

chamber as we move through this second wave of the pandemic, and he also

introduced the motion creating a standing committee on

health.

This House will likely adjourn next week. We don’t know when it

will reconvene. The Finance Minister and the government have introduced

legislation that would allow it to remain adjourned until the end of

April next year. We know also that there will be a host of issues

associated with the distribution of the vaccine. Who better to assist

with resolving those issues than the members and the talent in this

chamber?

My question is to the Premier. Will he activate the Standing

Committee on Health so that it can assist with the work of ensuring that

all British Columbians have equitable and reasonable access to the

vaccines that are coming online?

Hon. A. Dix: What I can assure the member of, and he knows this…. Today, as has

happened many times during the pandemic, Dr. Henry — in this case, Dr.

Brown — and others have shared briefings. I want to say to the

opposition how much we’ve appreciated and respect their approach, which

has been to keep those confidential briefings, which are really often

cabinet-level briefings, confidential and work with us and get a chance

to ask directly to the leaders of this effort the appropriate questions.

And we’re going to continue to do that.

There’s a new Health critic, a new critic for long-term care, also

the Leader of the Opposition. I can provide him with my personal

assurance that as we go through the period, and not just on the issue of

vaccines but on the issues related to provincial health orders and other

supports and other responses in the health care system, we’ll continue

to reach out every day or close to every day to opposition critics and

opposition parties to have their voice heard in the process, their

suggestions heard. As he knows, their suggestions are frequently

adopted.

That’s been our approach from the beginning, and that will

continue to be our approach with the new critics and with the new

opposition and the new Legislature.

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

M. de Jong: The Standing Committee on Health exists for a reason. I cannot

think of a more appropriate time, especially in the aftermath of the

words we heard from the Premier, to activate the talent and the goodwill

that exists on that committee to assist with the challenge that lies

before us. Surely no one in this chamber is under health critic any

illusions about the extent of that challenge.

The good news is that vaccines are coming online. I think the

minister and Dr. Henry will have more to say about that this afternoon.

But that is going to give rise to a host of questions and a host of

issues about where, when and how people are going to be able to access

that vaccine. There is an opportunity here to breathe life into those

words “collaboration and cooperation” by formally activating the body

within this body that can meet throughout and provide assistance in

answering those questions.

[2:25 p.m.]

This chamber will adjourn and may not come back together again for

months, during which time these issues will be front and centre for

British Columbians. I cannot think of a reason why the government or the

Premier would be hesitant about accepting the invitation to activate the

Health Committee.

I hope the premier will stand here today — or if not today,

tomorrow — and indicate his willingness to do so.

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you, again, to the member for his question.

I think the work that we have done together…. All parties — the

Liberal Party and the Green Party; the previous critics, the member for

Kelowna–Lake Country and the member for Cowichan Valley; and the current

critics, the member for Kelowna-Mission and the member for Prince

George–Mount Robson and the member for Saanich North and the Islands —

have worked together very closely on this and other issues. I think

we’ve broken new ground with respect to the work we’ve done together on

health professional colleges.

What I can assure the member is — certainly, his suggestion, I’m

sure, will be taken into account by the Premier — that in the coming

days and weeks, we will act together with all members of the

Legislature, ensure that all members of the Legislature’s voices are

heard. How does he know that? Because that is how we’ve acted from day

one of this pandemic, and that has been reciprocated, has been responded

to positively by members on all sides of the House. This is our effort

collectively.

I agree with him. The extraordinary work of public health on

issues of a vaccine, as on all other issues, is something to be

respected and supported, and we need the support of all voices, and all

voices in the Legislature, for what’s going to be a remarkably

challenging immunization campaign and a remarkably important one. It’s

not just immunization; it’s all elements of our pandemic response.

The member will know that it is my commitment to work with every

single member of this House, not just a few but every single member, to

ensure that we get the best possible response and that the whole country

continues to admire the way that British Columbia has dealt with this

issue.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

SELECTION COMMITTEE

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I have a number of things that we’ve got to get

through before we get to the formal orders of the day.

I have the honour to present the interim report of the Special

Committee of Selection for the first session of the 42nd

parliament.

I move that the interim report be taken and read as

received.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I seek leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the interim

report.

Leave granted.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the interim report be adopted.

Motion approved.

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I seek leave of the House to move motions to activate three select

standing committees and two special committees. The full text of these

motions has been provided to the two House Leaders.

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

POWERS AND ROLE OF

CHILDREN AND YOUTH

COMMITTEE

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move the first motion regarding the Select Standing

Committee on Children and Youth:

[That the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth be

empowered to foster greater awareness and understanding among

legislators and the public of the BC child welfare system, including the

specific needs of Indigenous children, youth, families and communities,

and in particular to:

1. Receive and review the annual service plan from the

Representative for Children and Youth (the “Representative”) that

includes a statement of goals and identifies specific objectives and

performance measures that will be required to exercise the powers and

perform the functions and duties of the Representative during the fiscal

year;

2. Be the Committee to which the Representative

reports, at least annually;

3. Refer to the Representative for investigation the

critical injury or death of a child;

4. Receive and consider all reports and plans

transmitted by the Representative to the Speaker of the Legislative

Assembly; and

5. Undertake, pursuant to

section 30(1) of the

Representative for Children and Youth Act , (S.B.C. 2006, c.

29), a comprehensive review of the Act or portions of the Act before

April 1, 2022 to determine whether the functions of the representative

described in

section 6 are still required to ensure that the needs of

children and young adults as defined in that

section are

met.

That, in addition to the powers previously conferred upon Select

Standing Committees of the House, the Select Standing Committee on

Children and Youth be empowered to:

a) appoint of its number one or more subcommittees and

to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the

Committee and to delegate to the subcommittees all or any of its powers

except the power to report directly to the House;

b) sit during a period in which the House is

adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following

Session and during any sitting of the House;

c) conduct consultations by any means the Committee

considers appropriate;

d) adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

and

e) retain personnel as required to assist the

Committee.

That the Committee shall report to the House as soon as possible, or

following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case

may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the

Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment, and upon resumption

of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the

Legislative Assembly.]

Motion approved.

POWERS AND ROLE OF

FINANCE

COMMITTEE

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move the second motion, regarding the Select Standing

Committee on Finance and Government Services:

[That the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government

Services be empowered to:

1. Examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect

to the budget consultation paper prepared by the Minister of Finance in

accordance with

section 2 of the Budget Transparency and

Accountability Act (S.B.C. 2000, c. 23) and, in particular,

to:

a) conduct public consultations across British

Columbia on proposals and recommendations regarding the provincial

budget and fiscal policy for the coming fiscal year by any means the

Committee considers appropriate; and

b) prepare a report no later than November 15, 2021,

on the results of those consultations.

2. Consider and make recommendations on the annual reports,

rolling three-year service plans and budgets of the statutory officers,

namely, the:

(

i) Auditor General

(ii) Chief Electoral Officer

(iii) Conflict of Interest

Commissioner

(iv) Human Rights Commissioner

(

v) Information and Privacy

Commissioner

(vi) Merit Commissioner

(vii) Ombudsperson

(viii) Police Complaint Commissioner;

and

(ix) Representative for Children and

Youth

3. Inquire into and make recommendations with respect to other

matters brought to the Committee’s attention by any of the

aforementioned statutory officers.

That the Committee be designated as the Committee referred to in

sections 19, 20, 21 and 23 of the Auditor General Act (S.B.C.

2003, c. 2) and that the report in

section 22 of the Auditor General

Act (S.B.C. 2003, c. 2) be referred to the Committee.

That, in addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select

Standing Committees of the House, the Select Standing Committee on

Finance and Government Services be empowered to:

a) appoint of its number one or more subcommittees and

to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the

Committee and to delegate to the subcommittees all or any of its powers

except the power to report directly to the House;

b) sit during a period in which the House is

adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following

Session and during any sitting of the House;

c) adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

and

d) retain personnel as required to assist the

Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any

adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to

deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative

Assembly during a period of adjournment, and upon resumption of the

sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the

Legislative Assembly.]

Motion approved.

[2:35 p.m.]

POWERS AND ROLE OF

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

COMMITTEE

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move the third mo­tion, regarding the Select

Standing Committee on Public Ac­counts:

[That all reports of the Auditor General of British Columbia

transmitted to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly be deemed

referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts. For

greater certainty, the following exceptions are provided:

a) the report referred to in

section 22 of the

Auditor General Act (S.B.C. 2003, c. 2) shall be referred

to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services;

and

b) reports of the Auditor General respecting the

Legislative Assembly prepared under the provisions of the

Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act (R.S.B.C.

1996, c. 258) shall be referred to the Legislative Assembly Management

Committee.

That the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts be the

Committee referred to in sections 6, 7, 10, 13 and 14 of the Auditor

General Act (S.B.C. 2003, c. 2).

That, in addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select

Standing Committees of the House, the Select Standing Committee on

Public Accounts be empowered to:

a) appoint of its number one or more subcommittees and

to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the

Committee and to delegate to the subcommittees all or any of its powers

except the power to report directly to the House;

b) sit during a period in which the House is

adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following

Session and during any sitting of the House;

c) adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

and

d) retain personnel as required to assist the

Committee

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any

adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to

deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative

Assembly during a period of adjournment, and upon resumption of the

sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the

Legislative Assembly.]

Motion approved.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

TO REVIEW THE

PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION ACT

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move the fourth motion, regarding the Special

Committee to Review the Personal Information Protection Act:

[That a Special Committee be appointed to review the Personal

Information Protection Act (S.B.C. 2003, c. 73) pursuant to

section 59 of that Act and that the Special Committee shall have the

powers of a Select Standing Committee and, in addition, be empowered

to:

a) appoint of its number one or more subcommittees and

to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the

Special Committee and to delegate to the subcommittees all or any of its

powers except the power to report directly to the

House;

b) sit during a period in which the House is

adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following

Session and during any sitting of the House;

c) conduct consultations by any means the Special

Committee considers appropriate;

d) adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

and

e) retain personnel as required to assist the Special

Committee.

That any information or evidence previously under consideration by

the Special Committee appointed by order of the House on February 18,

2020 be referred to the Special Committee.

That the Special Committee shall submit a report, including any

recommendations respecting the results of the review, to the Legislative

Assembly within one year of this motion being adopted by the House; and

shall deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the

Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment, and upon resumption

of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the

Legislative Assembly.

That the said Special Committee be composed of the following

Members: Mable Elmore (Convener), Garry Begg , Rick

Glumac , Rachna Singh , Dan Ashton , Andrew

Wilkinson , and Adam Olsen .]

Motion approved.

[2:40 p.m.]

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

ON REFORMING THE

POLICE ACT

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move the fifth motion, regarding the Special Committee

on Reforming the Police Act:

[That a Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act be

appointed to examine, inquire into, and make recommendations to the

Legislative Assembly on the following:

1. Reforms related to independent oversight,

transparency, governance, structure, service delivery, standards,

funding, training and education, and any other considerations which may

apply respecting the modernization and sustainability of policing under

the Police Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 367) and all related

agreements.

2. The role of police with respect to complex social

issues including mental health and wellness, addictions, and harm

reduction; and in consideration of any appropriate changes to relevant

sections of the Mental Health Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c.

288).

3. The scope of systemic racism within British

Columbia’s police agencies, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,

independent municipal police and designated policing units, and its

impact on public safety and public trust in policing.

4. Whether there are measures necessary to ensure a

modernized Police Act is consistent with the United Nations

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), as required by

section 3 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Act (S.B.C. 2019, c. 44).

That the Special Committee undertake the above examinations as it

deems appropriate with regard to relevant reports, studies, and

examinations.

That any information or evidence previously under consideration by

the Special Committee appointed by order of the House on July 8, 2020 be

referred to the Special Committee.

That the Special Committee have all the powers of a Select Standing

Committee and in addition is empowered to:

a) appoint of its number one or more subcommittees and

to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the

Special Committee and to delegate to the subcommittees all or any of its

powers except the power to report directly to the

House;

b) sit during a period in which the House is

adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following

Session and during any sitting of the House;

c) conduct consultations by any means the Committee

considers appropriate;

d) adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

and

e) retain personnel as required to assist the

Committee.

That the Special Committee report to the House by October 8, 2021,

or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the

case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of

the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment, and upon

resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all

reports to the Legislative Assembly.

The Special Committee is to be composed of Doug Routley

(Convenor), Garry Begg, Rachna Singh, Grace Lore, Rick Glumac,

Harwinder Sandhu, Dan Davies, Trevor Halford, Ian Paton and

Adam Olsen .]

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. Farnworth: On behalf of the Attorney General, I rise to table the British

Columbia ferries commissioner Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ending

March 31, 2020 .

On behalf of the Attorney General, I rise to table the Environmental

Appeal Board 2019-2020 Annual Report .

On behalf of the Attorney General, I rise to table the Gaming

Policy and Enforcement Branch Annual Report for the year ending

March 31, 2020.

On behalf of the Attorney General, I rise to table the 2019 annual

report of the Labour Relations Board.

Finally, on behalf of the Attorney General, I rise to table the Public

Guardian and Trustee 2019-2020 Annual Report .

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading on Bill 3, Finance Statutes Amendment Act,

[2:45 p.m.]

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Could those leaving please do so? Thank you.

Minister of Finance.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — FINANCE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and welcome to your new

role.

I move that Bill 3 be read a second time now.

This bill includes amendments to the Budget Transparency and

Accountability Act, the Financial Administration Act and the Home Owner

Grant Act. This bill amends the Budget Transparency and Accountability

Act to set a budget date no later than April 30 in a fiscal year

following an October election to allow additional time for the budget

and estimates development process.

The amendment extends the current date for presenting a budget and

estimates from the fourth Tuesday in March to no later than April 30.

The amendments also extend the timelines for presenting a budget and

estimates when an election is held on dates other than the third

Saturday in October. These rules will allow an incoming government up to

150 days, from the current 120 days, to present a budget and estimates

to the Legislative Assembly if they have not already been

presented.

This allows a modest amount of additional time to present a budget

and fiscal plan, as well as the estimates. For consistency, the same

up-to-150-days provision will also apply when there is a delay in the

constitution of a final government following an election. This would

apply in cases where the first government after an election is replaced

so that the period of up to 150 days for tabling a budget is available

to both the first as well an immediately subsequent government

constituted after an election, like we saw in 2017.

The amendments extend the release dates for a quarterly report up

to 60 days from the current 30 days if that report is to be included

with the budget and estimates presented with 60 days. This change will

maintain the current practice of including the third quarterly report

with the budget, even though the budget and estimates are being

presented by April 30 following an October election date. With October

election dates, it is possible that the second and third quarterly

reports may not be required to be made public by their due dates due to

the exemptions available under the Budget Transparency and

Accountability Act.

We recognize the importance of timely fiscal updates and

reporting. With these amendments, we are now introducing a new rule that

requires a post-election government to make public a report that

provides a fiscal update within 90 days after the final cabinet is sworn

in following the general election.

The Financial Administration Act is proposed to be amended to

complement the proposed amendments to the Budget Transparency and

Accountability Act. First, the amendment extends the available special

warrant spending authority while the Legislature is not in session

during an election year to 150 days, from 120 days, after the

constitution of a new government. The amendment also extends special

warrant spending authority into a new fiscal year, until the date that

the main estimates for next fiscal year are presented in accordance with

the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, plus an additional

approximately half a month to allow time for a new supply bill to be

enacted for that fiscal year.

Again, the special warrant spending authority would only apply

after general elections where the budget and estimates for the new

fiscal year are presented very close to or after the start of the new

fiscal year and where a supply act has not been enacted for the new year

before April 1, or when there are unforeseen circumstances.

The proposed amendment limits the amount of spending authority to

a portion of the voted appropriations of the previous fiscal year. It is

not intended to provide for new program spending but, rather, to provide

for continuation of the operations of government until a supply act can

be passed by the Legislative Assembly. Any spending authorized by the

special warrants will be fully and transparently included in the final

supply act approved by the legislative assembly. It will also be debated

as part of the Committee of Supply.

The amendments to the Home Owner Grant Act are the first step in

ensuring that the province will meet its commitment to centralize the

homeowner grant program, as included in Budget 2020. The amendments to

the Home Owner Grant Act will remove the burden from the municipalities

of processing homeowner grant applications. Beginning in 2021, all

applications, including retroactive applications, will be made directly

to the province.

[2:50 p.m.]

These amendments respond to concerns raised by

muni­cipalities and do not change the eligibility criteria for the

grant.

With that, I look forward to additional debate here in the

House.

Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Peace River South.

M. Bernier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and congratulations again.

I also want to congratulate the minister on her appointment. I’m

also honoured to be appointed as the Finance critic during such a time

when scrutiny and accountability of government spending and government

plans are going to be so important and so paramount.

As this is the first time I’m rising after the election, I hope

the House will indulge me. As kind of practice, I just want to start by

thanking a few people.

I’ll first start by thanking the people of Peace River South, who

have instilled their faith in electing me again to represent them,

represent their issues and their concerns here in Victoria. I also want

to thank my outgoing constituency assistant, Terri Ketner, for the

amazing work that she has done, representing and helping the people of

Peace River South over the last four years in the riding. She did an

amazing job. We formed such a great friendship supporting each other as

well. We’ll miss her in the office, as I’m sure the people in the

community will as well who came forward and asked for her help and our

help in the office.

With that, I’ll welcome, as well, Shawna Clay, who is going to be

my new assistant in the office going forward. I’m looking forward to

working with her as we continue to represent the people in the South

Peace.

Finally, on my thank-yous for now, I want to thank all my friends

and family who have supported me through all of the years. It’ll be

about 15, 16 years now as an elected official. I wish to thank all of

them for their support and their grace, especially my wife, Valerie, of

almost 30 years, who has put up with me and all my travels away from

home as I represent the area.

I’m glad to be rising in the House today. I think it’s important

that we continue this discussion on the bill. The minister has presented

the bill and put it on the House here. We didn’t hear a lot of details,

but I know we’ll have a chance, when we get to committee stage, to

digest some of the actual wording within the bill, ask some very

paramount and important questions that we will have on behalf of the

people here in British Columbia, because, frankly, the bill that was put

in front of us doesn’t have a lot of substance. But what it does have,

obviously, is an expectation from the people of British Columbia that

this government actually do their job, the job that they have been

elected to do.

The main expectation of government is to be open and transparent.

It’s to ensure that they’re reporting to the people of British Columbia

the financial state of government, the plans that government has going

forward. In fact, the main portion that they’re changing, ironically, is

called the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. Now, normally I’d

say that’s perfectly named, but unfortunately, what this bill is doing

is actually taking away a lot of that transparency and accountability

that people are asking for now, especially in the midst of an

unprecedented pandemic.

People need help. People need answers. People need a plan. The

bill before us today, though, is offering nothing but a delay in what

people are asking for from this government, which is that help. The

government is actually saying that they are not going to come forward

with a plan and with what the future will look like for the people of

British Columbia now until next April. The problem with that is people

need to know now. People have expectations.

This actually could end up being the longest period that we’ve

gone without a fiscal update or a plan from a government since — well,

I’ll let you guess, Hon. Speaker — the last time the NDP were in

government in the 1990s. It’s unacceptable. People expect this

now.

[2:55 p.m.]

When I read through the bill…. And, frankly, it was quite easy to

read through, if people choose to do it, because it’s only four pages

long, not a lot of substance in there. But the only thing we see in this

bill, for the most part, is that it benefits the NDP. It benefits the

NDP government. I see nowhere in this bill where it really benefits the

people of British Columbia, which is what we want to see.

This bill, unfortunately, is limiting the amount of accountability

and transparency that the bill is supposed to actually be bringing to

this House. It’s actually limiting it. It’s extending the time where

government has to actually be accountable to the people of British

Columbia. I’ll talk about that a little bit further on.

But we’re at a time right now where people are demanding more

transparency from their governments. They expect more transparency and

accountability of their elected officials. We are at a point here, after

a snap election, where government has called us back during the height

of a pandemic, during the crisis that we’re hearing and the expectations

from people all over British Columbia that are looking for help. They

call us back to the Legislature, and the one bill — looks like the only

bill — that they are going to bring forward is to actually give them

more time to hide, more time to not be accountable to the people of

British Columbia.

Of all of the things that are going on right now in the province

of British Columbia, this should be one of the last things that’s

brought to this House. People need to know what’s going on. We want to

know what the fiscal situation is for the people here in British

Columbia. They deserve that. The taxpayers of B.C. deserve to know

what’s happening.

Now, we know we’re in the midst of a pandemic. I’ll talk about

some of the financial issues afterwards. But let’s talk about what’s

most important, which is talking to, listening to and understanding the

concerns of the people of the province of British Columbia right now,

not hiding away from the responsibility that is expected of a

government.

We’re less than three weeks away from Christmas. We’re a few weeks

away from a holiday season where most of the time, in most years, it’s

been a time of celebration. It’s been a time for family. It’s been a

time to get together and a time to celebrate. Celebrate the year that

passed and welcome in the future. Welcome in what’s exciting for the

next year. It should be a time of comfort by and for so many people in

the province.

We all recognize that it’s going to look different this year. We

understand the challenges of making sure people stay safe. We support

recommendations that are put forward to ensure that we can do our very

best to slow down the COVID-19 outbreak here in the province so we can

get back to whatever normal will be in the province and work together.

We know it’s going to look different.

This government has been asking the people of British Columbia to

make sacrifices for the greater good. With that, the people of B.C. have

been asking government for a plan. That’s all they want. People have

been willing to make these sacrifices that have been asked of them, but

they want to know what is on the other side. What is the plan that

government has put forward so people know there’s an end? They want to

see government offering solutions. They want a government that’s

offering hope.

More importantly, people are expecting a government to offer a

plan, a clear plan, and a vision of how we’re going to get through this

and how we’ll get through this together.

We know that, for 2020, this has probably been one of the hardest

years in many generations for many people, one of the worst years a lot

of people have ever gone through. I know many people are thinking:

“Thank God 2020 is almost over, and we’ll get to 2021.”

This has been a tough year. Many people have lost family members.

They’ve lost loved ones. I know everybody in this House, all of us,

supports those grieving, and we send our prayers to those who have lost

loved ones. There are also so many people who have lost their jobs, jobs

they had that were supporting their families. Many businesses have had

to close. People have lost their dreams, the dreams of owning a small

business, seeing it grow and employing people. They’ve seen those dreams

shattered.

[3:00 p.m.]

We truly feel for all those that have been affected by this

pandemic, but the fear I’m hearing from many people is that government

has not provided any hope. They’ve not provided any plan. People are

wondering if 2021 is actually going to be better than 2020 under this

government. Where is the plan? Where is the end? Where are the true

supports that the people of British Columbia need to help get through

this crisis?

Unfortunately, at this holiday season, all the government has to

offer British Columbians is the assurance that help — well, help if it’s

coming at all — will now be delayed by a few more months. It’ll be

further away before people know what’s going on. Again, the people of

the province…. Everybody deserves more than this from the government.

People need to know what the plan is. They want to know where, when and

how help will be coming and what those supports will be.

It’s our responsibility as this House, and it’s the government’s

responsibility as the leading body here, to give people hope. They had

an opportunity, in calling this House back, to do that, hon. Speaker.

Instead, it’s a bill in front of us, unfortunately, just to delay what

needs to be done.

I recognize and acknowledge that we have a new minister and again

congratulate her on her role. As the official opposition, though, our

job is tasked with holding the government and the minister to account,

to ensure that they’re doing their best on behalf of the people of

British Columbia and that they are serving the interests of the people

of this province.

It’s no surprise to anybody here, to any elected official — or to

anybody, actually, in British Columbia — that people need help now. We

all know that. In fact, they needed our help months ago. Unfortunately,

instead of that help coming, government chose to call a self-serving

election. The people now have to wait for a minister to put together a

plan, to put together a budget, right in the middle of a crisis. They

don’t need delays right now.

The people of British Columbia need leadership. They need a

government that understands what people are saying and that there

actually is a crisis. They need to hear those issues and address them

here in the Legislature. They need those supports now, not next April

when a budget will be presented. We need to do everything in our power

as elected officials, whether it’s government or opposition, to bring

those supports out now, to have those helping hands out for people who

genuinely need it and truly need it right now.

It’s no surprise to the minister, obviously, that we’ll be raising

some questions and concerns around the bill later on, not only during

the debate — as we hear from a multitude of other critics from our side

of the House that are going to stand up with their concerns and comments

on what they’ve heard — but also during committee stage, when we get

into some of the actual lines of the bill to clarify what it actually

means.

Because the bill does not have any detail and it does not have any

information, the only information we have right now is that the minister

has presented a bill. A few ministers and the Premier have gone out in

front of the media and said, “Guess what. We have a one-time payment

coming to help you out. You’d better be careful how you ration that,

though, because it’s a one-time payment, and we’re not going to do

anything else for you. You’re not going to know what the plans are now

until next April,” if this bill passes.

Now, I’ll talk a little bit about that afterwards as well because,

as the minister puts this bill forward — as we know in the House, and as

the public will find out — it comes with a supp bill, a supplementary

bill, which is going to allow the government to have more money — money

that they’re asking for now, to come good on a last-minute election ploy

that just came out during the campaign.

[3:05 p.m.]

We’ve seen the supplementary estimates, where the Premier and the

minister are asking for another $2 billion. Putting that in context,

that’s going to be putting us close to a $15 billion deficit, that we

know of. I say “that we know of” because we never did get a Q2 report

from this government. There was an election called, and we never got

into the process that past governments used to always put out in the

fall so that the public knew when and how their money was being spent

and what the fiscal state of the province was.

Instead, in the middle of a campaign, a snap election that the NDP

called, the Premier stands up and announces that everybody is going to

get $1,000. At the time, he said everybody was going to get $1,000,

direct deposit. “Don’t worry; it will be in your bank account by

Christmas. Vote for us.”

The results of the election, obviously, are obvious. What’s also

obvious is how election promises by this government seem to change after

they get elected. It’s no longer $1,000 that’s a direct deposit in your

bank account. It’s now $500 — if you apply. If you qualify.

I’ll talk about some of that after, because that’s more around the

financial part of the supplemental bill. But I also find it interesting

at the same time, actually, that they took the opportunity to say, “We

only need $1.4 billion to $1.7 billion to come good on this election

ploy that we had to buy votes, but we’re actually asking for $2

billion,” with, again, no detail at all of why they need that money or

where that money is going to go on behalf of the people of British

Columbia. The supp bill is literally one page long, saying: “Please,

trust us. Please give us $2 billion.”

What scares me when I look at actual Bill 3 is that, yes, they’re

asking for more money, but they’re also, again, asking for a delay in

the accountability of how they spend that money. There’s no transparency

in that.

What it shows me, and it probably shows most people in British

Columbia, is that this government has no plan. This should not be a

surprise to anyone. Have they had a plan at all? I don’t know. I have

yet to see any kind of fiscal economic growth plan from this government

that is substantial and that will actually work and help the province

grow.

The only thing I saw was, in the middle of an election campaign,

the Premier stand up and say that he needed to announce $1,000 for

everybody in their bank accounts because he needed something to counter

the B.C. Liberals’ proposal of removing PST for one year to help the

people of British Columbia — to put money back into people’s pockets to

help spark investment, to give some confidence and to actually help

small business in any way possible.

You know, issues around that — we’re going to raise some of those

during the debate and during the estimates. However, it’s important to

mention the fact that the eligibility, again, on this will be based on

2019 criteria — before we were even talking about, before anybody even

had a name for COVID-19 or this world pandemic and crisis we’re in. The

government is putting forward now this, I would say, weird proposal that

we’re going to base your eligibility on a time in space where there

was….

Actually, people were working. Some people were working, and they

might have lost their jobs afterwards. I’ll give some examples of that

afterwards. But to base it on that time comes in complete contrast to

what the minister and the Premier said not only during the election but

afterwards — that this money was to go into the pockets to help people

that were affected, truly affected, by COVID-19, who maybe lost their

jobs, businesses suffering. This isn’t going to do that for so, so many

people. For the government to stand up and say that it will is just

wrong.

[3:10 p.m.]

We have a chance right now, while the House is sitting, to

actually talk about and for government to bring forward ideas and

supports for what we are hearing right now: people that are pleading for

help. What about the hospitality sector that’s in crisis? What about the

tourism sector, which was, for the most part, abandoned by the NDP

government this year? What about the seniors that are pleading for help

right now? What about the teachers that are asking for more supports, or

the front-line health care workers who need help?

People are suffering right now during this pandemic and are

reaching out to government for answers. They’re not asking government to

delay responsibility and transparency. They are saying: “Look, all three

parties, from what we saw prior to this call of a snap election, were

working together.” We all recognized that this was unique times. These

were times when we needed to roll up our sleeves, put partisan politics

aside, work together for the people of British Columbia. All three

parties in this House did that. We knew it was the right thing to

do.

What we didn’t agree to was, right in the middle of all of that

work together, government calling a snap election. At the same time,

they’re saying how great it is we’re working together, “but let’s call

an election and put partisan politics behind us.” Sounds a little

contrarian. Sounds a little odd to me how those go together.

Again, people are asking for supports now. So many people are

saying, “Good. Get that election out of the way. We didn’t want it

anyway,” a lot of people. But they’re calling the House back. Let’s see

some substance. Let’s see how we’re going to be actually rolling up our

sleeves again to put programs together, to put ideas together, to put a

plan together for the people of British Columbia, who are asking for it

and who need it now.

Now, this bill was put in front of us asking for a delay in when

the minister has to respond and come forward to this House, which means

coming forward to the public, with a proposed budget for next year. What

makes it interesting for me, listening to the minister when she

presented the bill today….

I’ll have to go back and double-check Hansard , but it

sure sounded darned familiar, because last year we sat in this House

with then Finance Minister Carole James, who read out almost the exact

same speech that said we need to change the Budget Transparency and

Accountability Act to give government, “Whether it’s us or another

government,” time in the future after an election, an extra 30 days,

because this government changed the election cycle from being in the

spring to being in the fall. They wanted to change this act to give them

or any new government that extra 30 days to be able to present the

budget in the House, instead of the third week of February, which it

normally has been.

When that bill was put forward, they said: “We’re doing this

because we might need extra time after an election. We may need a little

bit of extra time instead of the third week of February.” So they asked

this House to support that legislation to give them that little bit of

extra time that they said they needed in case, just in case. Ironically,

there was a snap election called in the fall, which they said they had

no idea they were going to do, ironically, and did it right

afterwards.

But the problem is we just heard the minister now come forward and

say: “I guess that wasn’t good enough.” This is not a new government.

These are the same people. It’s the same NDP. I’m going to assume a lot

of the same bureaucrats, well-trained, well-versed bureaucrats within

the ministry and within government. I don’t see what’s changed here. The

only thing that I see changing is that government is saying: “Give us

another 30 days where we don’t have to be accountable to the public for

how we’re spending our money.”

[3:15 p.m.]

Again, it’s not a new government. I’m sure if the House was full

right now, they’d be applauding at that, but they’re not

here.

My question is: why do they need more time? Again, I do find it

quite a coincidence that the government, the NDP government, put forward

the original bill to change the Transparency Act right before a snap

election that came forward in September, just a month or two later. That

could be a whole other speech on its own. I don’t know how much time I

have, so I probably won’t get into that topic today.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: I have lots of time. Good to know.

But how is that fair to the millions of people in British Columbia

that want answers and that need help, more importantly?

This government, again, passed legislation to give them until the

end of March, instead of the third week of February, to introduce a

budget. Now that’s not good enough. Six months ago, not even six months

ago, that was more than good enough. “We need 30 days, just in

case.”

Now they’re in the House today. This is most important piece of

legislation that they could bring forward in the middle of a pandemic,

mind you. The most important thing that we have to discuss and debate

right now in this House is how do we look at a bill that they just

passed six months ago…. I keep saying six months ago. It seems like it.

It was probably only four.

S. Furstenau: An eternity.

M. Bernier: It feels like an eternity ago. Thank you to the leader of the

Green Party. You are correct. It does feel like that sometimes with this

government.

But of all of the things, you bring forward a delay. Really? I

would have expected the minister to stand up in the House in her opening

comments, the chance that she had to speak to this bill before we get to

committee stage — maybe she’ll do it in closing comments — to actually

justify this. To actually say: “Look, we understand. We’re in a crisis.

But we need this extra time, and this is why. This is how it’s going to

benefit the people of British Columbia, and this is what we’re going to

do for you.”

There’s none of that in the bill. There was none of that in the

opening remarks. Everything so far is: “Well, don’t know what I’m doing

yet, so give me an extra 30 days to figure it out.”

How do we say that with a straight face to the people of British

Columbia that are losing their jobs? We’re going into Christmas and

businesses don’t know if they’re going to be able to reopen January 1,

if they’re even lucky to get people through their doors right now.

People who are suffering right now with the mental anguish and

separation from their loved ones — that are making those sacrifices

because of this pandemic to try to figure out how to get to the other

side so we can get back to what we enjoy, which is being with our

friends, our families and our loved ones.

Of all of the things to debate, it’s this. I don’t understand, in

the midst of all of this, why we would be debating and having to bring

forward only a bill that’s about delay, delay, delay. Again, this is not

a new government. There’s nothing new. I don’t think there are any

surprises that are going on. If there are surprises, that’s because

we’re not listening, because people are speaking loud and clear of what

some of the challenges are. I think it’s really important that we

listen.

If I was, and I used to be, a minister on that side of the House

right now, I know I’d be at the cabinet table banging my fist wondering

what the heck is going on. I, as a minister, would be hearing loud and

clear right now from people in the public. Whatever ministry you have,

you’d be hearing from people in those sectors saying: “We can’t wait. We

need help now.”

As a minister of the Crown, it’s your duty and responsibility to

go to that cabinet table and say that this is unacceptable. We need to

give answers. We need support. Not a one-time $500 payment. We need to

look at a plan to rebuild our economy. We need a plan to have supports

for people who need them.

[3:20 p.m.]

But there are also so many other sectors out there that have their

own deadlines and expectations from government, where we ask them to

bring forward their plans and their budgets by February or March to show

to us. Well now, how do they do that? They don’t even know what they’re

going to be getting. How does a school district put together their

budget now for next year when they won’t even know until after they have

to present their budget if they’re getting more or less and what the

expectations will be?

Again, I sure hope, as we go through this debate, that the other

ministers and the other members on that side of the House, in

government, are going to be standing up and actually saying what they

have done to make sure that they get those supports out right away. Now,

we know they’re probably going to all stand up, obviously, and support a

bill to delay the transparency and delay the answers, but that’s not

fair to the different sectors, to the people in the province.

Again, we could have…. If we were going to bring this House back

together in the height of the pandemic, which I know a lot of people

right now are shaking their head at…. With all of the restrictions

around travel, around being close to people, that government would call

this House back — I’m sure people would have looked at this and said,

“You know what? It’s important to call it back if we’re going to be

actually having those hard multiparty discussions of how we’re going to

help people.” How we’re actually going to roll up our sleeves again and

bring forward those supports that people need, not put a bill forward

that dodges and weaves and hides from the exact things that people are

asking for, which is accountability and a plan from this

government.

This legislation, when I read through it again, the only people I

see it helping is the NDP. It’s delaying the chance for them to actually

respond to the people of British Columbia on what the fiscal state is

here in the province. And I’m sure, as the ministers across heckle….

Maybe they know what the fiscal plan is. Maybe they should be telling

people. Maybe they should be letting the people of British Columbia know

the financial state of the province. It’s their responsibility. Their

first piece of legislation and the only piece this session, and this is

what they come up with.

Look, we know that people are being hit hard from this pandemic,

one of the worst pandemics in a few generations. I don’t think anybody

in this House is going to argue that. But what we will argue is that it

is completely wrong for government not to be accountable and transparent

of what they’re doing with the tax dollars for the people of British

Columbia and why they’re not putting forward a legitimate plan to

support people.

What the government is putting forward is that they want absolute

authority just to delay the budgets and to be able to spend without

scrutiny for the next few months, without any accountability of that and

without any reporting of what they plan on doing for the people of

British Columbia. Again, all of us — not just this House, but the people

of B.C. — deserve better.

We should have actually just been finishing a fall session. We

could have had two, 2½ months of continued discussion, debate and

support together in this House to help the people in British Columbia.

In fact, two parties — I know the B.C. Liberal Party and the Green Party

— for the most part assumed that’s where we were going, because we had

agreed to that. We had agreed that we would work together to help the

people of British Columbia through these difficult times.

Instead, we had to put everything on hold for the last two months

while the NDP decided to call an unnecessary snap election —

self-serving, I should say. I guess they looked at the polls and knew

what the outcome would be. “Don’t worry about it, everybody who’s

suffering out there. This is about making sure we secure our majority

government for the next four years, and then we’ll get back to not

having a plan and trying to figure it out.”

[3:25 p.m.]

When you look at this delay, again, that they’re asking for and

the way this government is putting budget delays forward, this brings us

right back…. I hate to use the ’90s approach of budgeting, but this is

not how it’s been done for the last 20 years. And again, the question

is: why? What’s changed? What’s the difference? There is none. There are

no surprises. The only surprise, again, was an election being called

that nobody was expecting.

But as far as the economic state over the last two months — well,

we all know what that is. As far as the people who are needing supports

— well, we all know what that is. So why do we need more time? The cynic

in me or the critic in me would say we need more time because this

government still does not have a plan. They continue to come to this

House and ask for more money, with a “trust us” approach but, at the

same time, are unwilling to say where the money is going, how they’re

spending that money and have any substantive reporting that shows that

it’s actually benefiting people who need it.

All we’re seeing is that the NDP are digging and digging a huge

financial hole for this province. And what did they do? They called

legislation back to ask for more shovels. That’s what they’ve done.

Ironically, this all comes on the heels of the Premier saying that we’re

going to put politics behind us. “This is going to allow government to

operate more effectively during a pandemic,” I believe was kind of one

of his quotes. In fact, one of the exact quotes from the Premier: “I’m

grateful for all British Columbians that we have put the election behind

us and we can get back to focusing on the things that matter to most to

you.”

In the same breath, he talked about how we were working together

and there were no politics. So I’m trying to figure out which it was. If

we were all working together and there were no politics, why did we need

the election? And then to have the election and win a majority

government and say, “Thank God we did that. We can now put politics

behind us” — sorry, Mr. Premier. You can’t have it both ways. It just

shows that it was a self-serving call to have an election, and truly,

unfortunately, it was all about politics rather than the people of

British Columbia.

It also is becoming very apparent and very clear to everybody that

the election did nothing of the sort to stop any of the negative

long-term implications. It did nothing to help affect the daily lives of

people right now in our province that are suffering. In fact, all it did

was delay it again.

Let me remind the government. You know, it’s great to come forward

with this supplemental portion of this bill asking for more money to try

to make good on an election ploy to get re-elected. But at the same

time, where are the rent supports that were promised for people? I

haven’t seen those. How come some front-line workers are still waiting

for their pandemic pay that was promised to them? I don’t even know if

we want to get into the debate about the $400 rebate that was promised

and, I think, promised again, but yet we see nothing to actually help

people.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Yeah, three times a charm, maybe? I don’t know. That means we’re

still waiting, regardless.

Look, we know that budgets take a lot of work. We know there’s a

lot of prep that goes into that. We have members on this side of the

House who sat in that Finance Minister’s seat. We were able to put

together five consecutive balanced budgets because of a lot of work that

goes in to ensure that we have the right budgets put forward that are

going to benefit the people of British Columbia. Through that whole time

of putting budgets together on time, we also ensured that we were

reporting to the people of British Columbia — their money, where it was

going, how it was being spent — and having that discussion of how we do

that.

[3:30 p.m.]

I’m not arguing that care shouldn’t be taken to put the budget

together. Of course, it needs to. We’re talking about the financial

state for the province here. I encourage and implore the government to

get it right. Of course, that’s what we want to see.

Again, though, this bill is about delaying what should be done.

Again, it’s not a new government. I think I’ve said that a few times,

because I think it’s important to stress that things have not changed. I

guess the only thing that’s really changed is people that were waiting

for hope and waiting for support are now just going to have to wait

longer, which, again, is unacceptable.

Unless the minister stands up and contradicts me on this, they’re

not starting from square one. We’re not reinventing the wheel here.

Budgets have been done before. People have put them together. People

have presented them here in the House on time. So why the need for the

delay? Especially in a time, a very difficult time, where people again

are asking for help. Remember, this is their job. This is the job they

asked to have, so it’s their job to do.

More importantly, they need to do it because the people of British

Columbia deserve it and deserve it now. There’s an expectation. There’s

some anxiety. We need to give people an understanding and a hope of what

we’re doing.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I think last summer, again, to describe the changes that were

made…. Just to put this again back into context, last year, when then

Finance Minister Carole James was putting the budget together, she said:

“At this time….” Again, this was only a few months ago.

The Finance Minister, when she asked for an extra 30 days after an

election, if one was to be called…. No foreshadowing at all was in that

bill when it came forward. But just in case an election was called in

the fall: “We need an extra 30 days.” The minister at the time was

quoted as saying: “These changes will allow more than sufficient time

for due diligence to be done by all our good public servants who work

for all of us in British Columbia.”

So again, I’m asking what has changed. Just a few months ago, the

Finance Minister, who I have a lot of respect for, held that seat with

incredible class and dignity, and she stood up in this House and said:

“The 30 days extra — please approve this. This will be more than enough

time for what we need going forward to do the due diligence that’s

required to present a proper budget in this House after an election, if

one was to be called.” That was just a few months ago.

I’m hoping the minister again can stand up and tell us what has

changed. Other than the election, what’s changed, especially when the

Premier said: “Don’t worry. Nothing will change because we’ve called an

election. Work will continue. People’s supports will still be there.

Nothing will change.” They win the election. The first bill to hit the

floor is: “Oops, things changed, I guess. We’re not going to tell you

what it is, but we need more time to get our act together.”

If the minister truly expects this side of the House to support

her bill, I would have expected this bill to have more information, for

the minister to be more forthright and explain why this extra time is

needed, why more money than what we thought was needed and, more

importantly, what the impacts will also be because of that

delay.

I’m sure, and I hope, the Premier and the minister and cabinet

have sat down and had numerous consultation calls around the province to

say: “We are considering delaying the budget, and how will that impact

you? We need to know.” Because it’s going to impact people. It’s going

to impact a lot of sectors.

Back to my previous comments, we know it’s going to negatively

affect people, so I sure hope ministers have been speaking up at the

cabinet table saying: “We shouldn’t do this. We shouldn’t delay. We need

to get supports out there now.” Unfortunately, I don’t know if we’ll

hear that, but I sure hope we do.

[3:35 p.m.]

I think the main part, though, is this delay that government is

asking for…. The concern that I have, and I know so many people have, in

the middle of this crisis is it’s going to just perpetuate the

uncertainty that we have right now in the province for peoples’ lives,

their futures, for investment.

Again, we had a chance to be here right now, today, with a plan in

front of us that this government could have put forward that everybody

could have looked at and supported to help people. That’s what I thought

we were going to be doing when we showed up here in the Legislature in

the middle and the height of a second wave of a pandemic, that we would

be discussing the genuine concerns that we’re hearing from people and

how we’re going to support them.

Interestingly, what I heard yesterday, though, from the minister

was kind of to the point where I think it just confirms the fact there’s

no plan. What we heard from the minister yesterday is: “Don’t worry.

Next year we’re going to go out and do some consulting. Next year we’re

going to go out and consult with people to see what their concerns are

and how we can help.”

Really? What have you been doing for the last year? Please tell me

it’s not just the opposition that has been hearing from the people of

British Columbia of their concerns and the challenges that they’re

facing. If they are, we’ve got bigger problems in government.

This government has not put forward a plan. That needs to be

addressed. They have the opportunity to call this House back at any

time. But now we’ve got a bill saying: “Don’t fret, everybody. We might

not even call the House back, maybe, until next April. We know we gave

up on the fall session, and now we’re going to delay even longer before

we come here.”

Let’s turn our minds, then, to the next budget. Look, I support

and I hope this government…. I encourage this government to put forward

a good budget, a good plan, something that’s actually going to be

helping the most vulnerable people in British Columbia, the people who

have lost their jobs because of this pandemic, those who have lost loved

ones, who need supports, those who have businesses that are on the verge

of bankruptcy. That’s what I’d like to see. That’s what the people of

B.C. would like to see, but instead, we don’t know. Government has put a

bill forward to not have to tell us, to not have to show us what they’re

going to do for a few more months.

I don’t know how, in good conscience, we can stand in this House

and support a bill that’s going to tell people in British Columbia that:

“Your concerns really don’t matter, and we’re willing to wait.” That’s

not good enough.

People right now…. I hope government recognizes this. Thirty days,

as was kind of mentioned earlier, can feel like an eternity in the

middle of a crisis, when people don’t know if they’re going to have a

job. And if they have a job, are they going to keep their job? If they

have their loved ones close by, how much longer are they going to be

able to see them? If they’re not able to see them, when will they be

able to see them?

These are some of the heartstring issues that we’re hearing about

that we need to deal with. We have exhausted front-line workers out

there, asking for more support. We’ve had delays in our long-term-care

homes for people to get in and out because of the challenges of COVID.

We’ve got struggling small businesses and families who have lost a good

portion — in some cases, all — of their income and are looking for

help.

[3:40 p.m.]

That brings me to the supplemental portion that the minister

brought forward, asking for another $2 billion from this House. So $2

billion. Some of the questions we’re going to have, again, are, first of

all: why $2 billion? The minister has stood up, even as early as

yesterday, and said that they’ll need anywhere between $1.4 billion and

$1.7 billion to roll out this support, they say, for people suffering

under this COVID crisis, after their election promise that they’re

trying to make good on. We’re going to have lots of questions about

that.

Let me make it very clear. Our side of the House completely, 100

percent, supports anything right now that this government is going to

put forward that is genuinely and truly going to help people who are in

crisis and that need it now. We were working on that before the

election. I think we were making some headway at that before the

election. In fact, all three parties stood in this House when government

came forward and said: “We need $5 billion more to help people in the

province of British Columbia.”

They didn’t present much of a plan, but they said: “Trust us. We

would like to have $5 billion more so we can go out and support people

during this time of crisis.” Of course, everybody in this House said:

“We need to do that. We need to look at this.” There was a lot of good

faith presented, I think, by the other two parties, outside of

government, that that money was going to be going, truthfully, to help

people in crisis, in need then.

Even though the Premier said, “We’re putting politics behind us,”

and that it had nothing to do with politics, I do find it ironic that

the government held on to $1.5 billion, of that $5 billion that

everybody had approved in this House, to announce, a day or two before

the election, that they planned on rolling it out for a recovery plan,

although people had been begging for it for months before. “Let’s just

hold onto it until the timing is right, because we’re calling an

election.”

But we still haven’t seen the results of that. We’ve got $1.5

billion that the government has, or had. We don’t know. We’re waiting

for the reporting of where that money went. But instead of reporting,

“This is the value we got for that money, here are the people we helped,

and here’s why it was important that we work together and approve this

$5 billion,” we’ve got crickets. “We don’t have any information. We have

no plan with that. But trust us again, and give us another $2

billion.”

Now, again, of course we want to support the people who genuinely

need help. But let’s talk for a minute about this pandemic relief

program that the minister has put forward. We know it’s $1.4 billion to

$1.7 billion. My assumption is…. Well, we know that they asked for more

because they are broadening the scope of people they want to be able to

help. I commend that. I applaud that, if that’s where it truly

goes.

We don’t know, and we’ll ask later, why it’s now $2 billion,

especially when $1.4 billion to $1.7 billion — I assume the work was

done by the civil servants — is if absolutely every single person

applies and receives the money. I’d like to see the reporting come back

afterwards of how many people actually did respond, apply and receive

that money. To go back to the point that was made earlier, I’ve heard

the Premier say that the reason why she put the criteria forward that

it’s based on 2019 information is because we don’t want to wait for 2020

information.

As a Finance Minister, maybe that sounds logical. From somebody in

crisis, that does not. I’ll give you some examples. Of course, I think

we’ve all heard them. As I said, the Premier announced that $1,000 will

be deposited into everybody’s bank account if you vote for the NDP.

Well, they get in, and now it’s $500 a person. It’s $500 a person only

if you apply. It’s $500 a person only if you meet the criteria, based on

what you made in 2019.

[3:45 p.m.]

Wrap your heads around this for a second. Before anybody knew,

again, about COVID-19, before the term was invented, before we had a

pandemic, before people were losing their jobs in crisis because of this

pandemic, many people were working. Maybe an oil and gas worker up in my

riding was out working on a pipeline, making $80,000 to $90,000 a year

as an individual. It’ an okay living, putting food on the table, paying

his truck payment, maybe even a mortgage on a house, or maybe hoping for

that family that he’d have someday.

COVID hits us, and in February or March, he loses his job. For the

last seven months, he has been unemployed. For the last seven months, he

has been wondering: “When is the end? Am I going to be able to keep my

house that I just bought? Am I going to make that truck payment? Can I

even put food on the table? Can I afford Christmas presents for people

in my family?”

How excited he was when the NDP said: “Vote for me, and I’ll give

you a thousand bucks.” How shocked he was when he found out. “Wow, last

year, when I was making money, that was fine. I’ve been unemployed now

for almost an entire year, and this government says I don’t qualify. I

was 100 percent affected, impacted and hurt because of COVID-19.” We say

that this money is supposed to go help people that were affected, but

yet it’s based on a time when this was not even discussed. How is that

actually going to help people?

Now, sure, there are people who were struggling last year, who are

continually struggling and still struggling, that it will help. We

support that. But to come to this House and say, “Give us $2 billion to

help a bunch of people that need it,” with no real substantive plan to

show that it’s going to get to those exact people who need it, I have

problems with that.

Now, I don’t completely blame the minister for this. because

they’re making it up on the fly. It was an election promise just a month

or so ago, and they have to figure out how to come good for that. It’s

probably something the civil servants weren’t planning on doing. They

didn’t have a plan in place for this, but they were told after the

election: “Man, we better figure out how to roll these cheques out or

get this money because we promised it if we got elected.”

Ironically, most of the other election promises they’ve done…. I

guess what they should have said was: “Vote for us, and we’ll do it.”

Instead, they just kind of say they’ll do it. But with this one here,

they said: “Vote for us, and we’ll give it to you.” Now they’re trying

to figure out how to make it happen.

I do also find it interesting how they’ve put the criteria forward

that it’s means-tested. That somebody — I’m curious to see if this will

actually happen — making $175,000 a year can apply for COVID relief

funding and will get $10. That will be interesting stats, to see who

actually does that. I’m sure most people making that kind of money will

say: “Keep my $10 and give it to somebody who needs it.” This is a

bizarre program.

How could we not have put something together that would generally

put money into the pockets of people that need it right now? It would

have put us back in a place like we were just four or five months ago

where all three parties would stand up here and support the initiatives

and the ideas that government was trying it put forward, if it were

truly going to help people.

Now, the minister has said that 3.7 million people are eligible.

I’m curious where that comes from, especially since we’re hearing now,

with the criteria, that so many people won’t be eligible. But I assume

that under that 3.7 million is the person that gets ten bucks. I

understand where some of the numbers kind of sound good in a sound bite

for the media, but will they actually and genuinely be supports for the

people in the province?

[3:50 p.m.]

We’re going to have a lot of questions around this. I mean,

obviously, the minister — who I appreciate, again, in her new role —

will be listening to the concerns that people have brought forward,

hoping that we’ll actually hear some answers to those concerns. I look

forward to committee stage because in committee stage, we get to ask

those tough questions and, hopefully, get some answers.

I also look forward, again, to members on the other side of the

House standing up and speaking to this bill and explaining to their

constituents why, of all the things that could’ve been brought forward

to the House right now, this is the most important and why we’re here

and “why I support this.”

I can only assume that government has put so much weight behind

this being the most important thing that every single member on the

government side will be standing up and speaking to it, cheering it on,

touting it, and saying: “Yes, we don’t have a plan, but trust us. You’re

going to get help.”

I’d assume that’s what we’re going to hear, anyway. I guess we’ll

have to wait and see. But I do know that a lot of people on the

opposition side of the House are going to stand up as critics in their

respective roles to talk about what they’re hearing. I know the

ministers are hearing the same thing, so I hope they stand up and speak

about what they’re hearing and what they’re going to do in the short

term to help people, not next April but now. Our critics are going to

stand up and do that, because they’re listening to people. They’re

hearing those concerns, and they’re going to bring those concerns to the

House, because that’s our job.

It’s government’s job to be accountable and transparent with what

they’re doing, not put a bill on the floor that delays, I guess, the

inevitable — but still delays it. To bring forward a $500 cheque…. Let’s

remember that this is a one-time election payout for the NDP, this $500.

We truly, from our hearts, hope that people apply for what they’re

entitled to, the people that need it, and that it genuinely goes to help

them.

They should’ve had it by Christmas. That was the promise. It

sounds like it’s going to be pretty tough now, when the minister

announced that you can’t even start applying until the Friday before

Christmas. We’ll see how well that works and rolls out. If it’s anything

like some of the pandemic pay, for months and months, that people are

still waiting for, I’m not optimistic, but I hope it works. I hope it

happens.

I think it’s important to remember that this is one time, with no

plan for what it’s going to look like afterwards for people that are

struggling right now. I know I’ve heard from lots of groups that’ve

said: “Look, we hate seeing government go into debt, but we understand

that maybe there are times that we need to look at this. But we also

want to know why and how it’s happening and what the outcomes are and

when it’s going to end.”

Imagine being a person right now who’s excited to hear about this

$500, and it might help them pay a portion of their rent. Of course, we

know that under the NDP, in the last three years, rents have

skyrocketed. People are struggling, and they never got their rent

supports. But this money will go to help in whatever they

choose.

My ploy is please don’t just use it on Amazon, because that

doesn’t help anybody locally, but I’m afraid people will do that.

There’s no criteria that says that this money has to be spent locally.

Even though the minister said this is going to boost the economy,

there’s nothing that says it has to. People get to choose to do with it

what they want. Again, that criteria is bizarre and odd if it’s truly

supposed to go to help people who have been affected, literally

affected, by COVID-19 — financially impacted.

[3:55 p.m.]

I know I had some seniors call me that said to me: “This is crazy.

I’m on a fixed income. Before COVID-19 even happened, I was on a fixed

income, and I made just enough to pay my bills. Come 2020, under

COVID-19, guess what. I’m on that same fixed income. In fact, my pension

went up a little bit. I’m still trying to get by. Ironically, my life

was not actually financially impacted at all by COVID-19, but I’m going

to qualify for $1,000 for the household or $500 a person. So thank you

very much. I wasn’t impacted, so I guess I’ll take money from the

NDP.”

Meanwhile, we have people who are genuinely impacted who are out

there saying: “What do you mean I don’t qualify?” What do you mean that

people that were not financially impacted will get money? And for people

who were losing their jobs, closing businesses, some of them won’t get

the financial support that’s being touted by this government. It’s this

last-minute approach of trying to come good on an election promise that

concerns so many people.

Again, I’ve heard from a lot of businesses out there, from

different sectors, from the tourism sector and others, that are saying:

“Hey, we don’t want to take away from the individuals that are hurting.”

But there’s also a bigger plan out there. If you’re going to put another

$2 billion to truly spark the economy, to truly help people in crisis….

I’ve heard from a lot of people that said: “Don’t give me the $500. Give

it to my boss in the small business who might have to shut their doors

in January. I would far rather have a job for another ten years working

for this great little company than lose my job but get a $500 one-time

payment from the NDP.”

I guarantee you that if the choice were a one-time payment or

keeping a job, I know what people would choose. But they don’t get that

choice, because there’s no information and no plan put forward on how

this money will really be distributed in a fair way to help the people

who truly need it at this time. That’s all we’re asking for on this side

of the House. Government has an opportunity to just be transparent, to

be truthful, to tell us what their goals are and what their plans are.

We all deserve that.

So again, I’m looking forward to the minister giving us those

answers, because many of our critics and people on this side of the

House are going to want specific answers on behalf of the sectors that

they are listening to and representing as critics.

I know that shortly after myself, the leader of the Green Party —

it’s, by the way, my first public chance to congratulate her on her role

and re-election as well — I’m sure will have some opinions on this. I

look forward to hearing from them. I also look forward, where possible,

to continuing to work together. It shouldn’t always, necessarily, take a

crisis for that to happen.

We have seen that when we work together, we continue to do better

for the people of British Columbia when that can work. But there are

times, especially as an official opposition of the Crown, where we have

to stand up and say, “This isn’t good enough. We can’t work with this,

because you could do better as a government. You should have planned.

You should have had more supports. You should have been more

transparent,” so we can support it and, more importantly, so the people

of British Columbia know what to expect from their

government.

I’m just going to end my remarks by saying, on behalf of this side

of the House…. Again, everyone is going to get up and speak that chooses

to, but I want to give our heartfelt thanks to all of the people who are

working so hard during this pandemic and, a lot of times, not with the

supports that they need.

[4:00 p.m.]

Our hearts go out to people, again, who have lost family members

this year due to this COVID crisis. Our hearts also go out to the people

who feel isolated, who feel stuck at home, who are doing their part,

they hope, to put an end to this, to put some kind of shining light,

hopefully, going into 2021 that things will be better. We all want

that.

As an opposition, all we’re asking of government is to do their

job to bring forward that hope — not a one-time payment only — to bring

forward some ideas, to bring forward a plan of how they’re going to

rebuild the economy, how they’re going to ensure that we don’t have more

businesses close in the new year, that we don’t have more people

suffering because of COVID, that we can get people back to seeing their

families face to face.

Friends going out for a beer — that’s what we want to see. We all

want to see that. I commend and applaud the people that are making the

sacrifices right now and not doing that, to make sure we get through

this as quickly as possible. I thank them.

I will end by wishing all of you, all of them and everyone, a

merry Christmas and, hopefully, a bright, new prosperous 2021, where we

can all work together, put this horrible 2020 COVID year behind us and

work together for a proper