First Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, March 18, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 35

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

S. Cadieux

J. Routledge

I. Paton

N. Sharma

J. Sturdy

H. Sandhu

J. Rustad

Point of Order (Speaker’s Ruling)

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2021

(continued)

B. D’Eith

J. Tegart

D. Clovechok

THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2021

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

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

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — SUPPLY ACT

(N o . 1), 2021

(continued)

S. Cadieux: I am pleased to take my place to speak to Bill 10

today.

A typical supply act passes without much debate, and the purpose

is simply to allow government to continue to function and serve the

necessary purpose. But things have been anything but typical this past

year, and nothing these days is simple.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

The past three years, while juggling two simultaneous health

crises, the government has slipped into an old pattern which we’ve all

seen before: grow government, raise taxes, blame anyone and everyone and

everything else for your broken promises. Now, those things I expected

from government. The fact that they claimed to have all the solutions to

all the intractable issues while they were in opposition only

highlighted their naivety and lust for office that had been fueled by 16

years in the trenches of opposition.

But what really worries me is that this returning NDP government

has, in their brief tenure, already stealthily reversed the safeguards

that were in place to ensure transparency and responsibility around the

budget in British Columbia — safeguards put in place by the previous

government, I might add, after a financially disastrous NDP era gone

by.

It should be no surprise to anyone that we’ve ended up here today.

Most of the front bench were here for the notorious fudge-it budget. The

Premier and the chief of staff were all behind the scenes when an NDP

home. The current Minister of Health was forced to resign from his job

in the Premier’s office for backdating a memo, yet he’s here

today.

Now we’ve got a Premier who calls a snap election in the middle of

a pandemic. We haven’t had a proper quarterly report in a year. Recovery

programs, one after another, are unworkable, edited on the fly and not

getting relief where it needs to go. And despite all of this, the

Premier comes before this House and asks for $13 billion without telling

us how it’ll be spent.

It’s all a little familiar. This kind of irresponsible behaviour

is the very reason our government brought in the protections — the same

measures that this government is currently trying to

circumvent.

[1:35 p.m.]

What exactly did our government do when we were in office? Well,

we brought in balanced budgets. That was a first. We brought in fixed

budget dates, we engaged an Economic Forecast Council, and we took all

the steps that made B.C. the Canadian leader for sound, transparent

fiscal management. All of them were necessary to correct the mistakes of

the previous NDP government.

All of those things were lauded, and noted, and amplified by the

previous NDP Finance Minister during their first couple of years in

office as things to be proud of. Proud of British Columbia’s fiscal

position. Proud of our leadership in Canada. Proud of our

balanced-budget legislation. But the NDP have since dusted off the old

NDP playbook. History is now repeating itself.

Now, just before me, and just before lunch, the Attorney General

had the gall to suggest that he’s disappointed in what he deems to be

hyper-partisan hyperbole. I hope he remembers that all of these debates

are recorded and that he might watch himself. Because he certainly

provided some great examples of hyper-partisan hyperbole in his

speech.

The Attorney General suggests that we are here to debate this bill

because government needs more time to complete a thorough budget and

include all of the impacts of the pandemic. He says that revenues have

been deeply affected, that we should be pleased that they’re going to

take more time to figure things out and that we shouldn’t be asking for

an earlier budget, that that’s somehow un­reasonable.

But no, Minister, we don’t want an earlier budget. We want it on

the already extended timeline you legislated yourself last year in

preparation for a fall election. The AG fearmongers that were trying to

make the situation like the U.S., where supply bills paralyze government

services — that failing to pass a supply vote would lead to a U.S.-style

shutdown.

What did he say exactly? “We see gamesmanship around supply bills

in the United States. How does that end up? Government workers go

unpaid. Essential services are shuttered. The only people who hurt are

the people in the communities that don’t get the services. Nothing is

gained by it.” Well, it’s blatantly false.

It’s true for the States, but here, if a supply bill fails, it’s a

loss of confidence. And we go to an election. In that case, if a budget

hadn’t yet passed, a special warrant would be justified. Cabinet could

pass an OIC and simply procure the money needed in the interregnum.

Section 24 the Financial Administration Act sets that out.

It’s not surprising that the Attorney General would suggest

something false, probably in error, all just to grandstand and suggest

that our debate of this bill is somehow a crisis for the province. So

I’m happy to help the AG out with a little bit of parliamentary process.

But, again, we know he’s quite often wrong in his

interpretation of

things. So there you have it.

No, it won’t be like that in British Columbia. It can’t be like

that. Government will use their majority to ensure this bill passes and

they give themselves a blank cheque. It also won’t happen because we

don’t want government services to grind to a halt any more than the

government does. What we are doing right now is simply our opposition

duty, to point out what government is doing, question their decision to

keep B.C. in the dark, question their priorities and alert the public to

the fact that this is anything but normal. It signals a very, very

arrogant government, prepared to treat the public purse like a private

piggy bank, willing to change the law and obfuscate to do

that.

The minister stood here today and said that government needs more

time to figure out what to do, so they can present a plan on time. Why

should we be surprised? All we’ve seen from this government is plans to

make plans. But for the minister to suggest that a blank cheque should

be given to his government — to his government — when his own government

can’t provide education services to his own constituents….

[1:40 p.m.]

The Education budget is the second largest in government. And we

should just agree silently to keep throwing the money, at last year’s

rates, for services that aren’t being delivered? His constituents should

be worried about that. My constituents, in the largest district in the

province, are getting their education. Why can’t his district do it? Why

isn’t his government ensuring that it’s happening?

Those of us on this side of the House, many of whom were

responsible for the positive practices that gave B.C. a glowing

financial reputation, have had to listen to government suggest that

we’re asking too much and being unreasonable when we ask for a budget

before we approve money. Facts never get in the way of an NDP narrative,

just like good governance isn’t getting in the way for them now. How can

the NDP possibly expect British Columbians to sign over a blank cheque

for $13 billion to a government that gives no indication, no measure,

around how they plan to spend that money?

When we look at what normally happens…. What’s normal? Well,

government would present a plan through a throne speech. Then they’d

present a budget, which is like the how — how they’re going to implement

all of those great things in that throne speech. Then a supply bill,

like this one, is put up against that plan — the budget — to hold over

until we’ve done the line-by-line debate of the budget and the plan

through the estimates. That’s what’s normal.

That’s what governments have done for decades. That’s how a

competent government presents its plan to the people and provides

transparency into their actions. That’s how oppositions are able to do

their job — to hold government to account.

This year it’s very different. As the Finance Minister said

herself: “This bill is different from interim supply bills that are

usually presented to the House each year. This interim supply bill is

being presented before the main estimates have been presented.

Therefore, the calculation of the amounts required for government

operations and services is based on the appropriations for the previous

fiscal year, as this is considered a good approximation.”

This supply act is notable for that very reason and for the fact

that the House is being asked for $13.4 billion based on appropriations

from a budget from last year — which, the Premier admitted, not even a

month after the budget was presented, really wasn’t worth the paper it

was printed on because of the changes that were inevitable as a result

of the pandemic. We have seen no update. We don’t know where the budget

is at. We don’t have a clue where things are at from last year. We don’t

know. Was it enough? Was it not enough? Where are they spending the

money? Where are they not spending the money?

We spent the estimates last summer trying to figure out where they

were going to spend the $5 billion in COVID relief funds. It took all

summer to find out that indeed, the money that had been promised to

business was in fact not being spent on businesses. It was being moved

to other programs. I’m not saying some of those things weren’t necessary

or essential. But we had to pull it out of government. They weren’t

transparent about it. They weren’t upfront about it. They kept us in the

dark about the last $1½ billion right through into September. Why did

they do that? I wonder. Maybe it’s because they wanted to hold that

money for an election promise.

The fact that we don’t have a budget to hold this supply bill up

to is an obvious problem for anyone who values government transparency.

Generally, the problem is avoided because the budget has already been

tabled. So we know what government plans to do with the money. But as a

result of the NDP’s snap election and their decision to delay the budget

until April, British Columbians, and the opposition, are left in the

dark. It’s not good enough, by my standards, or the standards of the

constituents I represent. I believe in transparency. I believe that this

government’s financial decisions should be scrutinized.

[1:45 p.m.]

I’m the first one to admit that I don’t disagree with all of the

decisions government makes or wants to make, but when I rise to tell

this House and the people of this province that the legislation before

us actually contains a workaround from the financial rules and the

Financial Administration Act and that the NDP are legally supposed to

present a budget first, clearly this is an issue.

The members of this House and the people of B.C. want to know, and

deserve to know, what the NDP is planning to do with the money. Frankly,

we on this side of the aisle have no confidence that they’ll spend the

money well or even in a way that they tell us they will. They argue that

they aren’t ready and that they couldn’t possibly present a budget on

time. Yet they can make a $400 million ongoing structural spending

commitment. They’re ready for that.

They’re hiding, though, from the public and the opposition, how

that’s accomplished. They’re taking the bows, but how do we know that

the people of B.C. can afford the decision? We have no glimpse into the

financial picture for the province. We have seen multiple examples, in

the past year alone, of this government requesting money, the members of

this House agreeing in good faith, and then the NDP doing something

different.

One year ago, last March, the members of this House unanimously

approved $5 billion for recovery. We took the government at their word

when they said how they’d use it, and we expected it would be put to use

right away helping British Columbians through a difficult time. That’s

what all legislators expected. But instead of immediately using the

money to provide relief, they sat on the money for months and, as I

said, later decided to use it as a part of their election platform.

Promises made and promises broken. That’s really what this government is

good at. Lots of talk; very little action. Lots of big plans; then lots

of blame everywhere but on themselves, when they don’t

deliver.

I’ll go back again to the minister’s comments in her opening

statement. The minister said in her opening comments that we’ve been

hearing from the tourism sector, that we’ve been hearing about the

people that are struggling, that we’ve been hearing about the challenges

in small business. Really? Are they? Well, what are they doing about

it?

We’ve been hearing these issues for a year. We’ve been raising the

issues for a year. We’ve been making suggestions for a year — not

suggestions on how to hold money but on how to spend it, how government

should be helping at this time and not quibbling about the fact that

it’s going to mean a deficit. But in the election, when the NDP finally

announced that small and medium-sized business recovery grant, support

was delayed because of the election. In the more than six months since

it has been announced, nearly a year after the money was approved, today

they’ve only managed to get 25 percent of the funds out to

businesses.

In over six months — over a year after we approved the spending of

funds to support business recovery — only 25 percent of the fund has

actually landed at a struggling business. How can we trust a government,

which can’t even get $300 million in promised funds out the door to

businesses in need, to spend $13.4 billion responsibly and

appropriately, when they can’t present a budget on time and can’t get

proper quarterly reports presented?

We have given the government ample opportunity to prove themselves

in the last year. They sure haven’t risen to the occasion. We know they

have no trouble raising taxes. They’ve done it 23 times. The newest are

just settling in: Netflix and pop taxes.

Making life more affordable, one little thing at a time. Under the

cover of the pandemic, they want you to forget that they promised you

the moon. They promised to make life more affordable. I’ll give them a

couple of things. For people who travelled over the Port Mann Bridge,

the removal of tolls probably made life a little more affordable. I’ll

give them that.

But they promised everyone cheaper housing, and that’s a big fat

no. Housing prices, overall in the Lower Mainland, are up 16 percent

last year alone. They promised renters rebates and cheaper rent, yet

rent is up almost everywhere as people are fleeing the city of

Vancouver.

[1:50 p.m.]

Car insurance — smoke and mirrors, up so much in the last three

years that now they’re promising to give you a little of that back. And

10 percent more British Columbians are relying on income assistance than

when the NDP took office. I don’t think life is any more affordable for

them.

Now, none of us are naive. We know that government needs money and

needs authority to spend it. We’re not saying that government doesn’t

need money to continue to flow after April 1. But what is disheartening

is that this government has so little respect for this House that they

would come here, change the law, refuse to put in a budget but bring a

supply act in and say: “Oh, by the way, we want $13 billion. Just sign

off.” I can’t do that. It’s not responsible.

These are taxpayer dollars. We’re responsible for how they’re

spent. I want to, and of course will, ensure that money continues to

flow. People need to be paid, government services need to be delivered,

and hospitals need to be open — all of those things. Of course. It’s

ridiculous for the NDP to even suggest that we would try to stop that.

But this is a lazy government. All questions are met with an answer of:

“It’s a pandemic; don’t you know?” All requests for clarity around

programs or why decisions are made are: “Well, we can’t provide that.

We’re just too busy with the pandemic.”

You know what? It’s pathetic, and it’s disrespectful to voters.

The government doesn’t have to like me, and they don’t have to like my

questions. But it’s part of the deal. If they want to make the decisions

and to govern, then they also have to answer the questions. They are the

questions I am obligated to ask by virtue of the fact that I was

elected. That’s how it works. I come here to ask questions on behalf of

my constituents.

When emergency arose around the world last year, here in our

Legislature, collectively, we did what was needed. We agreed to

emergency spending of epic proportions, because we understood it

couldn’t have been planned and needed to be flexible. But the government

didn’t do what they said they would. They refused transparency. They

held money back. They hid their plans, and they still haven’t come clean

or clear on where the money went or didn’t. They used money that was

provided in good faith to support British Columbians through the

pandemic as an election platform. Think about that. We’re still waiting

for the accounting.

Businesses are still waiting to see if that support will arrive,

if their government will be there for them, to help them survive through

this. Through debate, I heard a minister say he was concerned about what

he thought the opposition was politicizing — some of the aspects of

re­covery. What? Because we’re pointing out problems, suggesting

solutions, and asking for answers to questions? Are you kidding me? How

can he say that with a straight face? We are asking the questions that

the people of British Columbia are asking of us.

The NDP called an election in a pandemic and used COVID recovery

funds as an election platform. Who’s politicizing the pandemic? And now

we’re debating a bill that changes the law around budgets and government

finances because they can’t be bothered to do their job. They can’t meet

a deadline they set — well, that they moved and set six months ago. Yes,

I’m concerned about that. We’re concerned that government is asking for

a blank cheque. Yet member after member of the government benches

suggests: “Nothing to see here. It’s all good. All is normal.” But it is

not that.

This is a self-serving group of people who chose to call an

election and put governing aside, to halt the processes of government by

thrusting it into caregiver mode. Then they couldn’t get their act in

gear, and they fumble around with relief programs and bungle the

supports for people with disabilities.

[1:55 p.m.]

This bill is just another reminder of this government failing and

flailing. We need a government that is open and honest about everything,

from how they are spending our money to COVID-19 data and vaccine

rollouts. We need a government that does what it says it will. But as

far as I can tell, this bill just continues to suggest the

opposite.

I am deeply troubled by this bill. I am deeply troubled that

government can make spending decisions to the tune of $400 million for

every year going forward without presenting us with a plan that says how

they’re going to pay for it. I’m not arguing that the $400 million

they’ve provided and announced as support for people on income

assistance is a bad decision. I’m suggesting I want to see the

books.

Show me how this is going to be paid for. Where is it coming from?

What’s got to give to make that happen? We need to know. If government

is so confident they can afford to spend $400 million a year in

perpetuity, then clearly, they have enough information to be presenting

their budget today.

That’s the problem. This is a smoke-and-mirrors kind of decision

on behalf of government to give themselves some flexibility to do some

more things before they have to show the books. That’s a problem,

because if it’s not that, then it’s incompetence. Either way, it’s not

good enough for British Columbians. We deserve better.

J. Routledge: I’m speaking to you from the traditional, unceded territory of the

Coast Salish people: the Mus­queam, the Squamish and the

Tsleil-Waututh Nations. I do acknowledge that I’m here as their

uninvited guest.

It had not been my intention to rise to speak to Bill 10. It is,

after all, an interim supply bill meant to provide bridge funding

between the end of the fiscal year on March 31 and the passage of a new

budget a month from now.

I wasn’t going to speak, because I thought it was a no-brainer and

it would pass quickly. I didn’t think Bill 10 needed defending. Then I

started listening to the high drama unfolding during debate, and I

realized it did need defending.

We’ve been living in unprecedented times. It has been a year since

the World Health Organization declared COVID a pandemic. Who knew a year

ago what that even meant in real terms? Who knew a year ago how it would

change our lives, our daily practices, our customs — yes, even our

legislative timelines?

It has even affected the way we govern ourselves. So many things

have been slowed down, been put on hold, resources redirected, while we

took stock and asked ourselves: “What is safe to do? What is no longer

safe to do?” Our answers to these questions have been evolving as we

learned more about the virus itself, how it’s transmitted, how we behave

collectively and as individuals, and in the face of this crisis, how we

protect ourselves and each other.

Who would have imagined a year ago that I would be speaking to the

chamber by Zoom? I’m not sure a year ago I really even knew what Zoom

was. Now I find out that not only am I an MLA, but today, I’m a Zoom

LA.

Thank goodness we in British Columbia have such an experienced,

calm, compassionate public health officer to lead us through this

crisis. Thank you, Dr. Bonnie Henry. And thank goodness we have a

Premier and a Minister of Health who had the humility and integrity to

let a medical expert lead us and let medical science, not politics,

shape our response.

[2:00 p.m.]

In light of the aspersions that have been cast on their characters

during this debate, I want to make a special point of thanking the

Premier and the Minister of Health for being such positive and dignified

role models. Not all jurisdictions have been as fortunate as British

Columbia, and that cost lives and livelihoods unnecessarily. But British

Columbia is not an island unto ourselves, and in spite of our efforts,

our excellent leadership and social solidarity here, too many lives have

been lost, either directly from COVID or indirectly due to the

disruptions that led to skyrocketing overdose deaths. We mourn their

loss, and our hearts go out to their loved ones.

The pandemic disrupted life as we know it, life as we expect it,

and that includes the presentation of the 2021 provincial budget. Hence,

today, we find ourselves here debating an interim supply bill. Why?

Because the pandemic not only disrupted lives, it disrupted the business

of this House, and the 2021 budget was delayed.

The Minister of Finance is asking for bridging funds so that we

can continue to pay the people that keep our schools open, to pay the

people that provide health care, child care workers; so that we can

continue to build more child care centres, more hospitals, new

hospitals, new schools; so that we can fund homeless shelters; and so

that we can fund second- and third-stage housing for women and their

children fleeing violent relationships, continue to open more urgent and

primary care networks, reduce wait times for surgeries and life-saving

tests. Blank cheque? I don’t think so.

In spite of the repeated claims to the contrary, the opposition

speakers know exactly that these are the kinds of critical, community,

nourishing expenses that the interim supply bill will fund, yet they

dismissively call it an NDP piggy bank.

The government is doing good work for the people of British

Columbia, work that is too important to be disrupted. The interim supply

bill should have been a no-brainer, yet here we are, still debating it.

I’m puzzled by the high drama being played out by opposition members. As

this debate has gone on and on, I am becoming ever more shocked and

disappointed to hear members opposite use this debate as an opportunity

to try to undermine social unity and try to plant seeds of distrust in

the government, to try to drive a wedge between the government and the

people we are working so hard to protect today and into the

future.

So, yes, I do feel compelled — during a pandemic that isn’t over

yet, during a time when we need to trust each other and depend on each

other as British Columbians to survive this pandemic, both in body and

economically — to rise and respond to the smear campaign being launched

from across the aisle. I feel compelled to set the record

straight.

When I was a newly minted MLA, an experienced opposition member

volunteered the information that what was said in the chamber was all

theatre. She advised me not to take it seriously. Well, I rejected that

advice. I do take it seriously. This is not theatre. It’s real life. And

real people in our communities can become collateral damage of

overheated rhetoric.

I listened to the debate on Tuesday. I think I heard every single

speaker from the opposition benches toss in the phrase “fudge-it budget”

at least once. Again, I heard it this afternoon. Well, what does that

even mean? It’s clearly code. It’s clearly supposed to trigger some

vague impression of government corruption and deceit. It’s clearly meant

to make our government look bad and call our integrity into question.

It’s clearly meant to undermine trust in the government that is leading

us out of this pandemic.

[2:05 p.m.]

Few British Columbians will know or remember what “fudge-it

budget” means. They just know it’s bad. So I decided to look it up to

remind myself, and I am so glad I did. The first thing that came up was

this. This is a newspaper

article from July 12, 2010. I’ll just read the

first couple of sentences.

“Released on Thursday, B.C.’s public accounts for the fiscal year

2009-2010 conclusively prove that the pre-election fiscal plan foisted

on British Columbians by Premier Gordon Campbell and his B.C. Liberals

on Feb 17, 2009, was the worst, the most egregious, the most deceptive

fudge-it budget in provincial history.

“The public accounts show that Campbell Liberals inflated revenues

in Victoria’s main operating account, the consolidated revenue fund by a

stunning $2.558 billion” — and I’m still quoting — “yes, billion, with

taxation receipts alone overstated by $2.1 billion. Even under the

broader GAAP, generally accepted accounting principles, presentation,

the Campbell government exaggerated last year’s expected revenues by a

whopping $1.3 billion.

“The result: a gargantuan shortfall of $1.779 billion for fiscal

2009-2010, nearly four times higher than Campbell’s oft-repeated

pre-election pledge of a deficit no bigger than $495 million.”

Billions. We are talking billions. Now compare that with the

so-called fudge-it budget that they want to invoke. Compare that with

the $703 million that the Glen Clark government was accused of

miscalculating. It pales by comparison.

The members opposite may be regretting that they read out their

talking points with such gusto. Maybe they should have checked their

facts first. Maybe the next speaker might want to think twice before

they remind the public about fudge-it budgets and government piggy

banks. Glass houses.

During the debate on Bill 10, the B.C. Liberals have been engaging

in the worst form of dog whistle politics. It feels like déjà vu. They

are trying to rewrite history and paint a distorted picture of the

present. Why? Because it worked for them before. What won’t they do or

say to get back into power? They are past masters at tricking people

into voting against their own best interests.

I want to add my voice to the voices of my colleagues who have

been rising one after another to answer the distortions, distractions,

and disinformation perpetuated by speakers from the official opposition.

Here are some truths I want the people of my community of Burnaby North

to remember.

Let’s look at our job numbers. One year into this pandemic,

British Columbia has returned to 99.4 percent of pre-pandemic employment

levels. B.C.’s economy remains one of the strongest in Canada, having

created jobs in each of the past ten months. The labour force survey for

February shows B.C. added 26,600 jobs, with the majority of those jobs

going to women. This dropped B.C.’s unemployment rate to 6.9 percent

from 8 percent in January, the month before. Employment in parts of the

province is above pre-pandemic levels. In Prince George, it’s at 106.7

percent. In Kamloops, it’s at 103.3 percent.

[2:10 p.m.]

We know that not all sectors are back to full strength. We know

they continue to need our support to thrive. We know that child care

plays a huge role. According to the Conference Board of Canada, for

every dollar that we spend on child care, $6 are returned to the

economy. Since the beginning of the pandemic, our government has

invested more than $320 million to support 4,500 child care centres.

Close to $600 million has gone back to parents in reduced fees and

benefits. More than 36,000 children are receiving $10-a-day child care.

More than 13,000 early childhood educators are receiving wage

enhancement — and that’s in Burnaby alone.

In Burnaby alone, our government has invested almost $24 million

in child care. More than $7 million has been returned to the pockets of

parents — $7 million that they can spend in their communities and help

keep struggling businesses open. And 41 local early childhood educators

have received almost $300 million in wage enhancements.

Affordable housing is something that matters to my community as

well. I live in a community that wants every­one to have a roof

over their heads and a door that locks. We have already built 52 units

of supportive housing and another 43 are on the way, as well as 45 new

shelter spaces.

Construction has started on a brand-new Burnaby North Secondary

School. It will make a big difference when it is built and operational.

Once complete, it will provide students with a modern facility designed

for the 21st century — learning, for generations to come. The

re­placement will also feature a new neighbourhood learning centre

that will offer adult basic education as well as a stand-alone child

care centre funded through the childcare B.C. new spaces fund and the

city of Burnaby. Together these facilities will create more than 120 new

licensed child care spaces, including before- and after-school

care.

Members opposite keep complaining that they don’t know how we will

spend the funds we’re requesting in the interim supply bill. Well, I

think they do. I think the complaints are all part of their theatre. But

if they don’t remember, if it doesn’t come to mind, I hope that these

examples will help refresh their memories.

In the course of debate over the last few days, I’ve heard members

opposite say that government needs to get out of the way. I find those

chilling words. That’s more dog whistle politics. It’s code for letting

the market do our thinking. It’s code for survival of the fittest. That

was a statement first coined by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan

about 50 years ago and repeated more recently by the likes of Donald

Trump. It is code for an ideology that has crippled public services,

destroyed lives and turned thriving communities into ghost towns all

around the world. There is a direct line between that statement, first

made 50 years ago, and the storming of the U.S. Capitol on January

I would urge opposition debaters to be careful about what they may

be unleashing with their overheated, repeated rhetoric. The people of

British Columbia soundly rejected that kind of thinking in the last

provincial election. They chose a government that will act proactively

to make life better for even the most marginalized and vulnerable. Yet I

heard opposition members state earlier in this debate that the B.C. NDP

bought the election. Those are dangerous and hateful words. They insult

the intelligence and the integrity of voters.

[2:15 p.m.]

The people of British Columbia freely chose a government that will

say yes to the following kinds of questions.

Does everyone have the right to a job that pays a living wage?

Yes.

Does everyone have the right to quality health care and social

supports when they need it? Yes.

Does everyone have the right to a complete education?

Yes.

Does everyone have the right to affordable housing?

Yes.

Does everyone have the right to a clean environment?

Yes.

Does everyone have the right to a secure retirement?

Yes.

Those are the principles that my government stands for. We know

that we are far from realizing them all, but we are working hard to get

there. Some would say we aren’t moving fast enough. Well, anyone

watching this debate will appreciate what one of our biggest obstacles

has been.

The interim supply bill is part of keeping up the momentum in the

right direction. Those are the principles we stand for. After listening

to the smear campaign and vicious hysteria that made up the B.C. Liberal

debate points, one wonders what they stand for.

I. Paton: I’m not sure if I’ve been up before to actually thank the citizens

of Delta South since the election, to say thank you so much for getting

me back here. I did very well, and I certainly appreciate all their

support.

As my colleague from Surrey-Panorama recently said, sure, we’re

debating Bill 10, but it’s our job. It’s what we do in opposition. From

the last speaker, it sounds like they’re absolutely terrified that

they’re going to lose this vote. I’m not sure if that will happen. But

boy, they’re pretty worried right now about possibly losing the vote on

Bill 10.

But I would like to thank the people of Delta South. Boy, it’s so

important to me: our Delta Hospital; our Delta Hospice, which is going

through some real changes right now; and lots of other things that are

very important to me in Delta, including dredging, farmland and, of

course, protecting Brunswick Point, which is 600 acres of prime farmland

that is still owned by the Crown. We really need to figure out how we

can get that back into the hands of the former families that owned those

properties before they were expropriated in 1969 for the expansion of

the Roberts Bank coal port and terminal port. They never did need that

600 acres.

I’m here today, and I rise to speak to Bill 10, although I should

note that normally, these supply acts pass with little debate because of

the nature of them. They serve a necessary purpose and simply allow the

government to continue to function. Normally, it wouldn’t attract much

attention. But as we know too well, very few things in the past year

have unfolded as they usually do.

Now, I had a very interesting note dropped to me yesterday morning

by a good friend. It really sums up — in the words of, actually, a very

seasoned media person — what’s happening with Bill 10. It goes like

this. He sent me this note yesterday morning. He said that the

Vancouver Sun columnist, Vaughn Palmer, gets it. He gets

it. He calls it brazen, as the Premier and his Finance Minister ignore

the very budget laws, brought in decades ago, to stop the financial

shell game perpetrated against the taxpayers by the NDP in the 1990s

from happening again.

Yet as the member for Abbotsford West stated in the House last

week, here the B.C. NDP go again. The NDP have delayed the introduction

of our provincial budget that usually takes place in February. While

taxpayers have no idea what our current provincial finances are, the NDP

are tabling a request for a blank $13 billion cheque. And furthermore,

to do this before actually introducing a budget, the B.C. NDP have given

themselves an exemption to another provincial statute, the Financial

Administration Act, to get the funds.

[2:20 p.m.]

The request is a major departure from the usual practice in the

B.C. House since budget legislation and accountability were tightened

two decades ago. Usually the government introduces a budget and spending

program in February, well before the April 1 start of the financial

year. It then seeks approval to spend a quarter of the money in advance,

while MLAs spend several months scrutinizing spending estimates for

individual ministries. But this year the New Democrats delayed the

budget until April 20, while bringing in a $13 billion supply bill, with

next to no detail about how it will be spent. Pushing back, we have

pointed out how the budget law now being trampled was enacted in

response to NDP budgetary shenanigans of the 1990s.

Over the past three years, amidst two simultaneous health crises,

we’ve watched as this government has re­turned to a familiar

pattern — no accountability, no transparency, fixed election dates that

have been changed, fixed budget dates that have been changed. Little by

little, it has undone a number of the safeguards put in place by the

previous B.C. Liberal government to ensure transparency and

responsibility around the budget.

I’d like to tell a story about my dad, who is no longer with us. I

became a partner with my dad in the farm auction business and the farm

cattle business. We would buy and sell cattle. We exported cattle around

the world. My dad always told me that if you can’t shake a farmer’s hand

and make a contract with a handshake with that farmer, it’s not worth

the paper it’s written on.

I can remember deals we made with people where we’d go in and buy

$75,000 worth of cattle and say we were going to pick those cattle up in

three weeks, because they were going to go to Mexico or they were going

to go to Saskatchewan or wherever. Or we’d make a deal on milk quota. We

used to buy and sell milk quotas for hundreds of thousands of dollars. I

can always remember shaking a hand with a farmer in the Fraser Valley or

whatever part of the province it was, and that was a deal. You shook his

hand, and you didn’t have to write it down on paper.

What I’ve learned as an MLA, coming here to Victoria, representing

Delta South…. I have seen so many things since the election on May 9 of

2017, where this government changes the rules. There’s no such thing as

a handshake, where a deal is a deal. No transparency. No accountability.

What about fixed election dates? What happened to fixed election dates?

What happened when they suddenly said to us, “There’s going to be an

election on October 24,” a year in advance of what was to be a fixed

election date?

I’d watch TV every night. I always remember the Premier saying:

“We’re really not sure. Jeepers. We just don’t know if we’re going to do

this or not. It’s pretty tricky. We’re in the middle of a pandemic.”

Suddenly he said: “Yeah, let’s go ahead. We’re going to have an election

on October 24.”

Well, isn’t it funny how, almost immediately, we saw television

ads? So you’ve got to believe that somebody was making television ads

and radio ads well in advance of this date, where they said: “Jeepers,

we’re not sure if we’re going to have an election or not. But we’ve got

all sorts of ads on television that are ready to go.” What about fixed

budget dates? That’s supposed to be down as legislation. I don’t see

that happening.

What about the deal with the Third Party? You know, I thought:

there’s a handshake deal. There’s a deal that’s written down on paper.

That was a solid deal with the Third Party, the Green Party, and they

broke that agreement. There’s No. 3 of agreements that they broke, among

other things that I’ve witnessed since I’ve come here.

Instead of transparency, we see delayed budgets and quarterly

reports. We see an expansion of the use of special warrants. We see

various methods and ways of bypassing transparency, which is extremely

disappointing.

Let’s talk about the delayed budget. I came over here in December,

just before Christmas. I think we were all kind of excited about the

Christmas season coming. We had gotten through the election. Some of us

weren’t overly happy with the way things turned out. We certainly

weren’t happy with the fact that the election was called in the middle

of a pandemic, one year before the deal, the handshake deal, the written

contract that said: “There will not be an election until the fall of

2021.”

[2:25 p.m.]

Back in December, we were brought back here. I came over here in

December, and we thought we were here simply to debate one of the gifts.

It was a Christmas gift — with the election. Out of the $5 billion, the

NDP government suddenly had a bunch of that $5 billion saved. They

hadn’t spent it. They saved it up. So just before the election, let’s

get some ads in the newspaper. Let’s get ads on TV. Let’s get ads in the

media. We’re going to give away to every family in this province $1,000,

just before the election.

Does that sound like electioneering? Does that sound like a gift,

a handout? Every single person in this province is going to get $500,

but every family is going to get $1,000. You’ll get it before Christmas.

What a Christmas present.

An election. We’ve got a whole bunch of money we saved up. We

threw it out at you during the election to make sure we got elected

during a pandemic. We said we’d get it to you before Christmas. Well,

guess what? People all over this province are still waiting and figuring

out how they can get their $500 or $1,000. Another bungled

situation.

They can’t seem to get it right. They can’t get it right with

campsites. They can’t get it right with vaccination rollout. They can’t

get it right with the money. They can’t get it right with the $300

million that was going to go out to businesses and, of course, only 25

percent of that has even gone out so far. I think $87 million out of

$345 million has actually gotten out the door to all these small

businesses and tourism outfits that really, really need that

money.

We came here in December. We thought we were debating the $1,000,

the Christmas gift, the election gift. However, we were told on December

8 that a bill passed called Bill 3. It was a bill to delay the

budget.

We were quite shocked by that — delay the budget. The budget is

supposed to happen in early February. So a budget delayed is help denied

to those who need it the most. A budget delayed hurts small businesses

that are looking for help to keep the doors open. A budget delayed hurts

the tourist sector, which is still waiting for any assistance from the

NDP.

The NDP had no reason to delay introducing a budget for four

months. The NDP already passed legislation giving themselves an extra 30

days following an election. Now they are getting even more time — more

than what they originally had brought forward as legislation to take it

all the way into April. Well, there was one reason for the delay — so

the NDP can avoid scrutiny on spending and their lack of a coherent

plan.

About the delayed budget. We all thought to our­selves…. We

debated this Bill 3 back in December. We debated, because what about

government programs? What about grants? What about different user groups

that were waiting to find out about the money that was going to come to

them with a budget that was going to come down in early

February?

What about programs such as agricultural programs for weed

control, for crop insurance, for risk management, for the damage from

wildlife, the tree replant program, farmers markets, the coupon program?

What about fairs and rodeos? We just had a great conversation yesterday

with the Rodeo Association of B.C. These small-town rodeos are the

lifeblood, the economic dri­vers of small towns all over this

province. They are desperately waiting for word, for grant money to

upkeep their infrastructure of their rodeo grounds, but also to get word

of how they can move forward.

They don’t need word two or three weeks before the date of the

rodeo. They need word now so they can plan and get the wheels moving to

get going with their rodeo, which is so important to our small towns

throughout British Columbia.

Sadly, it reminds us of a troubling time in B.C.’s history, a time

the RCMP raid his house while our current Premier’s chief of staff

looked on, at a time when another minister was forced to resign from his

job in the Premier’s office for backdating a memo.

I’m talking about the notorious fudge-it budget fiasco of the

1990s, which saw the same Premier claim the budget was balanced before

the election. But then, after all the votes were counted, surprised

everyone with the news that it actually wasn’t.

[2:30 p.m.]

Fast-forward to today, and we have a Premier who called a snap

election back in the fall in the middle of a global pandemic that set in

motion another series of unfortunate events.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

We haven’t had a proper quarterly report. Recovery programs that

are supposed to help British Columbians have been bungled over and over,

yet the Premier comes before the House to ask for $13 billion without a

budget and without telling us how it will be spent. Again, I reiterate

how disappointed I am about the things I have witnessed since coming

here as an MLA — of broken deals, broken legislation, broken acts that

said there would not be an election until the fall of 2021, fixed budget

dates that have been broken.

This kind of behaviour is the very reason our previous B.C.

Liberal government had to bring in protections in the first place. So

what did we do? We brought in balanced-budget legislation. We brought in

fixed budget dates, and we cemented the use of the Economic Forecast

Council. These were all steps that made B.C. the national leader for

sound, transparent, responsible fiscal management, and it was all

necessary in order to fix the numerous mistakes of the previous NDP

government.

More than two decades later, we can’t help but be reminded of the

old NDP playbook secrecy that plagued the previous NDP government and

nearly brought this province and its finances to the brink. We cannot

let that happen again.

I have to ask how the NDP expect British Columbians to trust a

government that wants a blank cheque for $13 billion without giving any

indication how they plan to spend that money. Let’s look at the

overwhelming number of taxes that have been added, through legislation,

since I came here in May of 2017. I’m astounded that we have a

government that thinks we can move our way into economic prosperity by

taxing the people of British Columbia in 23 new and different ways to

create income in this province.

Let me read some of them: the employer health tax — I’ll get back

to that, as far as how our farmers and our agricultural sector handle

the employer health tax; the Victoria gas tax; the Vancouver gas tax;

the Airbnb tax; the tobacco tax; the foreign buyers tax; the additional

school tax; the speculation tax; photo radar; carbon tax; parking sales

tax; development cost charge increases; property tax; cannabis tax;

income tax; corporate tax; ICBC unlisted driver premium and ICBC learner

premium; the hydro crisis fund tax.

I go across the page, and we’re just coming to this. Wow — the

latest one, the newest, the latest. Do you like Netflix? I guess we all

do, because during the pandemic, pretty much all we have to do at night

is try and find a new series we haven’t yet seen. But it’s on Netflix,

and we’re going to have to pay a tax to watch television now, at

night.

Then, if your kids want to have a sugary drink, which I don’t

think they should have…. I think they should have milk, because I was a

dairy farmer for a great part of my life. There is a tax now on sugary

drinks. So we’ve pretty much hit everything we possibly can, as far as

taxes go.

I want to talk for a minute about agriculture, which is very dear

to me, and how delaying the budget and throwing at us $13 billion worth

of spending that nobody seems to know…. There are no lines that say,

“This is how we’re going to spend this money in the first quarter,”

because generally, that would come out after the budget is done. As a

farmer, I’m thinking of analogies of how crazy this is.

Would you go to the bank as a farmer and say: “I’d like to borrow

$1 million, because I’m going to expand. I want to increase my milk

quota. I want to buy some more cattle. I need to build a new barn. I

need a couple new tractors”? And the banker says: “Well, you want $1

million. Okay, so tell us what you’re going to spend it on. Tell us if

you have some sort of a financial plan in place, and give us,

line-by-line, how you’re going to spend this $1 million so, as a bank,

we feel safe by lending you this money.”

[2:35 p.m.]

But the farmer says: “Well, I don’t really know. I haven’t really

thought about it. I just think I need $1 million.” Well, the bank says:

“Forget it. We’re not going to give that to you.”

If you were a bank, and the farmer wanted to borrow some money,

they would say: “Well, do you have a bud­get?” All businesses,

including farms nowadays, would have a budget they could present to the

bank so the bank could see exactly where this money is going to be

spent.

If you were a rancher, and you were waiting to find out about

tenure or lease on some ranchland for grazing cattle, would you go out

and purchase 100 bred cows — put the money down and purchase those cows

— not knowing if you’re actually going to get that tenure because you’re

waiting to find out if that tenure is going to be given to you? That’s

kind of what’s happening here.

If you were a farmer, would you purchase your seed and your

fertilizer, and have it all stockpiled, if you didn’t know for sure that

you were getting the land that you were planning to rent from a

neighbour down the road — an extra 100 acres? You wouldn’t do

that.

That’s what I see with this $13 billion. It’s not accounted for.

There’s no line-by-line item to say: “This is where we’re planning to

spend this money.”

As far as government programs, there have got to be government

agencies scratching their heads, going: “What is happening here? Why

aren’t we seeing a budget?” The Agricultural Land Commission. The

provincial lab in Abbotsford that is so important to the livestock and

fishing industry in this province. The Farm Industry Review Board.

There’s another program. The Investment Agriculture Foundation. The

SPCA. They’re all wondering and waiting.

I’m so attached to all these good rural things that we have in the

way of fairs and rodeos. The Pacific National Exhibition is not a rural

thing by any means, but I’ve been on a committee, on a board of

directors for agriculture at the PNE, for in excess of 30 years now.

It’s so important for our young people throughout the province to come

to the PNE with their 4-H projects. It’s one of the most exciting weeks

of their entire year — to come to the PNE with their 4-H project and

experience the big city, the excitement of the PNE.

The PNE is slowly dying. These poor folks in there…. I’ve been so

involved with the PNE for so many years. They’re waiting to find out if

there is going to be any money coming through to them.

All the little fairs all over this province. The Armstrong fair —

the IPE, as it’s called. The Cloverdale Fair. The Chilliwack Fair. The

Abbotsford fair. The rodeos all over this province, in Falkland, in

Williams Lake, in Fort St. John. All these different rural economic

drivers are waiting to find out if there is going to be money for them,

yet no budget. No budget until the middle of April.

That leads me to something that got brought up just today in

question period. I think of the mandate that has been handed down to

our….

I digress. I’m sorry. I’m going off topic a little bit. I’ll just

quickly talk about a little lake called Tachick Lake just up by

Vanderhoof.

First Nations want to deal with addiction and the issues of

people, and they found this great little old resort on the side of

Tachick Lake. Can you picture it? These cabins are 60 years old. And

just today in question period, we said: “What is going on with the

mandates that you’ve given to the Agricultural Land Commission where

they would turn down a piece of land on the side of a lake that hasn’t

had any farming on it in history — turn that down as an application to

put in an addiction and treatment centre by the Carrier-Sekani Family

Services organization?”

We simply don’t have any faith that the NDP will spend this money

well. Their track record speaks for itself. Last March, all parties came

together — I remember that; I was actually asked to come over here as

one of the three of us, I think, that came over here last March — to

approve $5 billion in COVID recovery aid. We did that in good faith.

They sat on the money for months, using as part of their election

platform the $1,000 Christmas present that still is not

complete.

[2:40 p.m.]

Then we saw a series of delays and bungling by the government.

We’ve seen very few dollars actually get into the hands of British

Columbians who need it. The small and medium-sized business recovery

grant program has been botched from the start.

Just yesterday there was an announcement that only…. After all

this time, I cannot believe this. You know, what’s the easiest thing

anybody could do? How about at Halloween? The easiest thing to do is

give away candy to the kids when they come to the door. But this

government has only been able to hand out $87 million, out of $345

million, in COVID recovery money for small businesses and non-profits in

this province that need that money. They’re still trying to figure out

how to get it, because it’s the most complicated system anyone has ever

come across.

In my riding, people constantly come to me. “How much money do I

have to put out to a lawyer, an accountant or someone who can figure out

the paperwork for me to actually apply for this money?” Only 25 percent

of $340 million has been handed out so far. It had to undergo multiple

changes due to complaints from businesses and communities, because this

government cannot get it right.

One thing I’ve noticed since I came here to Victoria is that as

opposition, we have pounded away and pounded away on issues that we

thought needed to be fixed. Surprisingly, it’s amazing how many times

the NDP has picked up on what we’ve said and actually fixed the

situation.

Here’s one of them, where they made a fix, just the other day, to

extend the period of time — beyond March 31, I think it was — for people

to still try and figure out the red tape and the paperwork to get their

portion of the $345 million. Still, today, only a fraction of the funds

has gone out the door. Meanwhile, we have more and more businesses being

forced to close their doors because they can’t afford to wait any

longer. It’s shameful, and it’s embarrassing. The NDP government has yet

to prove it can manage important programs like these, and the

significant dollars behind them.

One other thing I’d to bring up while I’m here. It’s kind of

something I’d like to get into question period or a two-minute

statement, but I’ve got to do this. It has to do with money going out.

The NDP government, just about a year ago, said that they were going to

shut down the Delta Hospice. They were going to take over, through

Fraser Health, to run the Delta Hospice.

I’m good with that. We had a board that wasn’t really working out

for us, a society. We’re kind of happy that this is going to happen. But

I cannot get anyone — as an MLA for Delta, my office is a two-minute

drive from the Delta Hospice — to tell me what is going on. On February

25, the funding ended to the Delta Hospice, and we’re all waiting to

find out what’s going on.

When can we get people that are in dire need going into this

wonderful hospice? Please, can someone from the ministry or from Fraser

Health get in touch with me so that I can let my people know what is

happening with the funding and with the employees that are going to go

back to work at this Delta Hospice?

In closing, I want to reiterate that it was a B.C. Liberal

government that put in a number of precautions that were necessary

because of the former NDP government’s incompetence and secrecy around

finances. The current NDP administration is trying to skirt the rules,

find workarounds and leave everyone in the dark about the current

financial picture and about its plans for the huge amount of money it’s

now asking for.

The last time this government spent public funds with­out a

proper budget was back in the 1990s, a fudge-it budget era, a dark

chapter indeed. We saw it happen once, and we cannot let it happen

again.

N. Sharma: I’m happy to rise today to speak in support of Bill 10, the

interim supply bill. I’m on the unceded traditional territory of the

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ people, also known as the Songhees and Esquimalt First

Nations, and I’m very grateful for that.

Over 12 months ago, COVID-19 came into B.C. and changed everything

for families, business and government. What was clear was that

government had to act quickly to support people, invest in health care,

and keep people safe. What has also been clear over these last 12 months

is that B.C. can count on their government.

[2:45 p.m.]

We’ve invested over $10 billion in COVID-19 relief and recovery

measures, contributing more per capita to businesses and people than any

other province. These measures have focused on protecting people’s

health and livelihoods through support of workers, businesses,

communities, health care and other critical services. British Columbians

can know that their government is looking out for them — all of them,

not just the people on top.

One of these programs is the small business grants, unique in all

of Canada. Not long ago, I had the chance to connect with small

businesses in my riding and speak with them about the grant program. I

heard from a hair salon owner who was so grateful for the grant program

that would help them build a bridge across this pandemic. It’s one of

the many examples of government supports that have been supporting

people through this recovery, including the pandemic relief payment,

which is not a gift. It’s badly needed for people that are going through

the worst outcomes of this pandemic, and we’ve heard nothing but great

stories about its impact in people’s lives.

But it doesn’t stop there. We’ve made investments to support child

care, build up our health care response to COVID, and they’re just some

examples of the choices that we’ve made at the time of this pandemic. We

know we have more work to do, and we will do it. But there are signs of

hope. One year into this pandemic, British Columbia has returned to 99.4

percent of pre-pandemic employment levels. B.C.’s economy remains one of

the strongest in Canada, having created jobs in each of the ten past

months. The labour force survey for February shows B.C. added over

26,000 jobs with unemployment rates to 6.9 percent from 8 percent in

January, the month before.

Employment in some parts of the province is above pre-pandemic

levels. In Prince George, it’s at 106 percent, and in Kamloops, it’s 103

percent. We know that we’ll take time to recover, especially for those

hardest hit during the pandemic, like the tourism and hospitality

sector. But these signs of hope are a sign of the choices that our

government has made to be on the side of people as we move towards a

pandemic recovery.

This interim supply bill is a continuation of our commitment to

British Columbians. It’s bridge funding until we get to the budget just

a month from now. This interim supply agreement will help our government

do two things: ensure that people, businesses and communities know that

support will be there for them regardless of the timing of the

budget.

Despite the opposition characterizing this as a unique practice,

it’s very common to have an interim supply bill. The province passes an

interim supply bill to ensure that current supports and services can

continue while the new budget is debated in the Legislature. That will

be only a short month away. It allows for robust estimates debate at the

time of the budget and the transparency that British Columbians expect

of a budgetary process. It also gives us greater time to connect with

businesses and people and develop an effective long-term plan that

builds on all of our current supports.

I can assure you that Budget 2021 will continue to focus on

keeping people safe through the pandemic. It will continue to be

responsive to the needs of people, businesses and communities to see

them through this pandemic and into a strong economic recovery that

supports us all.

During this debate, we’ve heard a lot from opposition, from the

other side, on this bill. Quite frankly, I’m confused why anybody would

oppose a bill that will ensure that vital programs and services will

continue. Essential workers need to be paid. People delivering our vital

vaccine program need to be supported in their work, now more than ever.

The opposition seems to be against supporting these people as we move

towards a transparent and open debate when the budget is

introduced.

During this debate, I’ve also heard talk about what happened in

the ’90s. Now, I wasn’t there in the ’90s. I’m sure I was busy listening

to boy bands and doing the things that people did in the ’90s. What I

can say is that I am proud to be in a government that is focused on the

time we are in right now and responding to the needs of British

Columbians at their highest need in this unprecedented time.

[2:50 p.m.]

While the opposition remains focused on the past — bringing up

terms like fudge-it budget that, quite frankly, I’ve never heard of

before — we will remain focused on the needs of British Columbians

today.

I’ll just end by saying that this government, in its response to

the pandemic, has been relying on British Columbians working together.

We’ve made it this far through this difficult time by all of us working

together to keep each other safe, to invest in the things that we need,

to support our front-line workers and to bridge our economy through the

recovery. I’m so proud of the work that this government has done to get

us there, and I’m looking forward to a budget that continues to address

the needs of British Columbians.

J. Sturdy: I am pleased to take my place in the debate on Bill 10, the Supply

Act. An interim supply act is generally a pretty mundane affair, as I

think we all understand. It provides an opportunity for government to

continue to operate and function in the first quarter of the year. But

like many pieces of legislation, or certainly this year, it’s notable in

many ways.

One of those ways is that in this case, I think virtually for the

first time ever, there is, frankly, no explanation of how the billions

and billions and billions of dollars that are being asked for are

intended or planned to be spent. The response from government seems to

be: “Just trust us.” “Trust us,” they say. “It’s all going to be fine.

Just trust us.” But there’s no submitted spending plan, no

budget.

I think we all understand that the usual process would be throne

speech — we saw a throne speech of sorts in December — then budget and

then interim supply request. Then, of course, into estimates, where we

go into the line-by-line details of a multi-billion-dollar budget. It’s

a complicated operation.

That would be the usual process. This provides clarity to the

public and understanding of where we’re going and what the intention of

government is. It provides clarity and understanding to the members of

this Legislature — not as we’re seeing right now. I was going to call it

a blank cheque, but it’s not a blank cheque. It’s a cheque for $13.4

billion with no invoice, with no details, with no context. It’s a

trust-us thing. “Don’t worry about it. It’ll all work out.”

It should be alarming. It should be concerning to all of us in the

House. It includes workarounds to avoid the rules, to avoid the

regulations, to avoid the constraints that are put in place by the

Financial Administration Act, which legally requires government to

submit a budget in advance of an interim supply bill.

This should be concerning to all of us. Some of these rules and

policies and processes were put in place some 20 years ago in response

to what the previous member referred to, in terms of some of the

terrible untruths of the 1990s, as the big fudge-it. If the member for

Vancouver-Hastings hasn’t heard of the fudge-it budget, she may well

want to look it up and understand what that term means and who was

involved.

[2:55 p.m.]

The B.C. Liberal government that came after those NDP governments

of the ’90s put in place policies and laws to ensure that there was

transparency, to ensure that government was responsible and was

accountable for these budget numbers, for the expenditures. And while

the Attorney railed on earlier about a number of the decisions that were

made…. Well, that’s fair. You don’t have to like the decisions; you

don’t have to agree with the decisions. But at least they were written

out. They were on paper. They were accounted for, unlike what is being

proposed right now with an interim supply bill without any

accountability, without a budget associated with it.

The previous Liberal government of the early 2000s also put in

place requirements for balanced budgets. I recognize that this year is

an exceptional year and that’s not going to be the case. But certainly

that was something that earlier governments put in place — and the

requirement for quarterly reports. These, I think, were very positive

things. They were positive actions. They served the public, and they

held government accountable. They have stood the test of time until

recently, where there seems to be an initiative, a desire, to dismantle

them — actually, frankly, at a bit of an alarming rate. In this case,

we’re talking about a requirement to put in place a budget and then

request this interim supply bill, but this government doesn’t want to do

that — no budget, an unprecedented amount of money without

accountability.

Avoidance and delay really shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.

It really began…. Well, it began a number of years ago, but certainly

last year we saw a request by the previous Finance Minister, last

summer, to delay a budget submission by a month in a year after an

election. That was at the NDP’s request, and I believe we all,

essentially, agreed to it at the end of the day. You’d have to wonder

why we would agree to it.

This was really about a delay of a month in the case of an

election year to recognize that there’s a possibility of a transition.

There’s often a transition of government to a new government, and it

takes time to understand what’s in the books, what the situation looks

like and what the current state of affairs is and move on to put forward

another budget. So it didn’t seem unreasonable to look at a one-month

delay. But in the case of a fall election — you know, that fall election

— well, this is what caused the whole thing in the first

place.

The NDP changed the fixed election dates from a date in….

Typically, ever since the 2000s or before, it was a fixed date, put in

place by the B.C. Liberals for early May. That had been the practice for

a long time. But there was a desire to change those election dates to

the fall. The rationale, theoretically, was around the Auditor General’s

report being made available in the summertime. So going into an election

with a clear third-party assessment of what the financial situation was

— that was the rationale around the change in the election

date.

There was some speculation in some part, in some places, that it

was more about UBC students being in class in a traditionally tight

riding, but no evidence of that. Be that as it may, the dates were

changed. I think the point is that this is not a new

government.

[3:00 p.m.]

We had a fixed election date, which, frankly, wasn’t lived up to.

But we had a fixed election date and a fall election, a request to

extend the date to submit a budget. This is a continuation of the

existing government. This is not a new government. This is a government

that should have been able to hit the ground running.

In December, the NDP decided they needed another month. They

really shouldn’t need any amendment to the time, because this, as I say,

was a government that was a continuation of an existing one and should

have really been able to hit the ground running.

Then we were brought back to the House late. Normally we come back

in early February. That didn’t happen. It was the beginning of March. We

needed a delay, and then we get called back late. Then we see we have,

really, a pretty darn light legislative agenda, and now no budget but a

request for an awful lot of money.

Budgets really are where the rubber hits the road. It’s the plan.

It lays out the path. In this case, we don’t have one. We just have a

request for $13.4 billion. By the time we do get around to a budget —

two months late for a government that’s been around for four years and

can’t get it in even remotely on time. But hey: “Trust us. Trust us.” No

budget, $13.4 billion, but: “Trust us. Trust the Premier.”

This is where the member for Vancouver-Hastings may want to pay

attention. Trust the Premier. Trust his chief of staff, Geoff Meggs.

Trust his current Health Minister. All intimate insiders in the fudge-it

budget and memo-gate. But: “Trust us. Trust us.”

No quarterly reports — there was an interim quarterly report — but

expanded use of special warrants. Then, of course, we’ve got the snap

election, in the middle of a pandemic. The Green Party has certainly

described their concern with that, that basically we’re getting stabbed

in the back. There was a coalition, a confidence and supply agreement.

Government was operating. There was cooperation, and then treachery.

This was purely political opportunism. But, “Trust us,” they

say.

“Trust us,” even though there was what looks like a demonstrable

disregard for public health. I think many members will have seen a graph

of the fall, where there is the election call, and a week to two weeks

after the election is called — after the writ is dropped — COVID

infections just spike. Correlation? Absolutely. Causation? Okay, I get

that correlation is not causation. But it’s more than coincidence. More

than coincidence. This was just a cynical grab for power with a

disregard for the public. But: “Just trust us.” Well, why?

Let’s look at some other examples. Program mismanagement. The B.C.

election benefit bribe — or the B.C. election benefit? What? Like: “Vote

for us, and we’ll give you $1,000.” Whatever it was called. “Vote for

us, and we’ll have $1,000 in your stocking for Christmas.” But I have

reports of constituents in my constituency who still haven’t got the

money. Maybe they didn’t vote for them.

[3:05 p.m.]

What about the small and medium business recovery grant? Twelve

months — no delivery. Twelve months ago, in a cooperative fashion, we

were, as the member again…. The previous speaker was talking about all

of us cooperating and working together. That was, in fact, happening,

starting in March. We put aside…. We all agreed on it. I think it was a

$5 billion fund, of which $1½ billion was going to small and medium

businesses or to business, recognizing that this is a catastrophic

situation. That was supposed to…. That was in March. And what happened

in April? Well, nothing. May, nothing. June, July, nothing. August.

Businesses are reeling, and no support.

So then September rolls around, and there’s an

an­nouncement. Ah, yes. There’s finally going to be a business

recovery grant made available. And was it the next day the election was

called? This was simply an election…. The government used this fund,

that we all agreed to, all parties in the House agreed to…. I think it

was a unanimous vote. The government used it as an election campaign

carrot while we have the tourism and hospitality industries

reeling.

Just as an aside here, my wife’s birthday was a couple of weeks

ago. We went to Whistler, which is just down the road from where I live,

by the way, so I wasn’t travelling. We went to Whistler for dinner for

her birthday, and walking around in the village, it was eerie. There was

nobody there. The patios, which would normally be packed…. The village

stroll, which would normally be shoulder to shoulder, was

empty.

I said to her that it reminded me very much of what it was like in

the ’90s in November, when there was no shoulder season. There was

nothing. There was nobody there. It was eerie, frankly. And this is an

international destination. The international border is closed. You know,

papered windows like I’ve never seen before. This is catastrophic. And

the money was put in place to support businesses like these in March.

And you know what? It still hasn’t essentially been

delivered.

What did I hear today? Twenty-four percent of the $300 million has

been allocated so far. The program parameters have been changed. The

deadlines have been extended. It’s just a disaster. And a year later….

We’re a year into it, a year after the money was approved, and it’s

still not in the hands of the businesses and the families that need

it.

So a promise made, a promise not delivered. Sound familiar? A $400

renter rebate. Does that remind anybody of anything? Well, it should.

“Trust us,” they say. Trust. “Nothing to see here.” Dismantle

accountability, use special warrants, rule by fiat — that certainly

seems the intention. And then we have to listen to NDP backbenchers heap

scorn on B.C. Liberals. For what? For bringing in balanced-budget

legislation and then actually balancing the budget. For fixing budget

dates. Whoa. Terrible thing. For the Economic Forecast Council. For

enhanced transparency through quarterly reports.

Combined, all of these initiatives made B.C. a leader for sound,

transparent fiscal management. We’re the envy of the country. All,

frankly, initiatives necessary to repair British Columbia’s damaged

reputation from the ’90s.

[3:10 p.m.]

By the way, I think I mentioned we put in these fixed election

dates — dates that we lived with, that B.C. Liberal Premiers lived with

and that the NDP ignored at the first possible opportunity. In fact,

they couldn’t even get through one election cycle — not one — before

breaking that fixed election date. They couldn’t even live with their

own legislation rules. It’s phenomenal.

“Trust us,” they say. “Trust us.” Well, $13 billion is what they

ask for now. Frankly, that’s a whopper, especially when we have to

listen to NDP backbenchers rail on — when we met our responsibilities.

We presented lawfully, we fully disclosed annual budgets and quarterly

reports, and we balanced the budgets. We paid down the debt, eliminated

the operating deficit. Members across the aisle might want to understand

what that is, as well. We were not borrowing to do daily operations. We

reduced the debt-to-GDP, which reduces borrowing costs.

This government has simply coasted on the foundations that B.C.

Liberals built: a record investment in infrastructure. “Terrible,

terrible, terrible” is what the NDP backbenchers — and, frankly, some of

the frontbenchers — would say. “They gutted everything; they gutted it.

They gutted education, gutted health care, gutted it,” they say. I don’t

know how many times I’ve heard them say that.

Well, how about some facts? One day, when a budget gets presented,

eventually, there will be accompanying estimates books. Well, the

previous ones are online. They might want to look it up. Some of these

backbenchers might want to pay attention and look it up. Pull up the

budgets; pull up the estimates — which I did last night, just because

this is particularly irksome.

The health care budget, 2002-2003, of $10.2 billion; 2017 budget,

submitted in February of 2017, $18.8 billion. So 2002-2003, $10.2

million; 2017-18, $18.8 billion. That does not sound gutted to me. Let’s

talk about education, because that is the favourite one: “Education

gutted.” Budget 2002-03, $1.9 billion. I think I had K-to-12, $1.9

billion, 2002-2003; ’17-’18, $5.8 billion. So $1.9 million to $5.8

billion — what’s that? It’s pretty much a tripling of the

budget.

That is what these backbenchers call gutted. It just seems to me

that they’re so lazy that they just believe everything that they hear.

Just because you say it, it doesn’t make it true. Facts don’t

lie.

Deputy Speaker: Member, if I might….

J. Sturdy: I just read them out, so….

Deputy Speaker: Member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky.

J. Sturdy: So if facts don’t lie, who is? But “Trust us,” they say. “Trust

us.”

Deputy Speaker: Member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. Member?

J. Sturdy: No budget….

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, the Speaker is trying to get through to

you.

J. Sturdy: Give us the money.

Deputy Speaker: Member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, please listen to the words

of the Speaker. I’m trying to reach you.

I understand the temptation to target certain members within the

House and call them names if you disagree with them. I would ask the

member to withdraw. I don’t believe any member in this House is lazy,

and I would ask the member to withdraw that statement.

J. Sturdy: Fair enough, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw the accusation of laziness,

although I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the accusation that an

education budget was gutted when it was in fact….

Deputy Speaker: I’m not interested in having a debate with the member. I asked the

member to withdraw his statement. That is what I requested.

J. Sturdy: I believe I did withdraw the statement, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw

the accusation of laziness.

[3:15 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Please proceed.

J. Sturdy: We have a request — an interim supply bill request. “Just give us

the money,” is what it comes down to. “Trust us,” they say, “What have

we ever done?” Well, we have seen this movie before, and it doesn’t end

well. I don’t believe the trust is justified.

H. Sandhu: Before I speak to Bill 10, I would like to acknowledge that I am

joining this session virtually, from the unceded territory of the

Okanagan Indian Nations. I thank them for their stewardship of this

land.

I wholeheartedly speak in favour of Bill 10, Supply Act, as I am

confident and assured that this much-needed money will help British

Columbians to thrive during and after the pandemic. I would like to make

one thing very clear to the members of the opposition — that I am

speaking to this bill by carefully reading and re-reading this bill, as

I always do my research.

I am an educated and well-informed adult, so I am aware about my

decision to support what I strongly believe in, as this bill is solely

meant to help British Columbians. As an elected representative for

people in Vernon-Monashee, who put their trust and support behind me, it

matters to me to do my research behind every bill in order to see if

this will benefit my constituents. I am also a mother of three children

in university to high school, one getting ready for elementary

school.

I can appreciate the sincere efforts and improvements our B.C. NDP

government has made in order to support people during the pandemic at

every front, whether it was health care, keeping schools safe, helping

individuals by giving them the B.C. recovery benefit — plus a one-time

$1,000 to many British Columbians who had lost jobs in 2020 when the

pandemic started — small and medium-sized business recovery grants, and

additional mental health and recovery beds. Our government also made the

single largest investment in the housing sector, and much

more.

It is important for people, businesses and communities to know

that this support will be there, that it will be there for them,

regardless of the timing of the budget. We’ve come a long way together,

but the road to recovery is still ahead of us. Our support will continue

for British Columbians. We need to address the pandemic, as this is the

biggest challenge and reality that the entire world is

facing.

I’m not sure why some members of the opposition are expressing

their concerns when we mention that we are dealing with the pandemic. We

have to mention that, because every decision we are making, every action

we’re taking, is linked to the pandemic. So I’m not sure what the

reluctance is of accepting that — that we shouldn’t mention it or we’re

making an excuse. No. It is a serious reality that we all have to deal

with.

We all know that it is a common practice every year that the

province passes an interim supply bill to ensure that current supports

and services can continue while the new budget is debated in the

Legislature. We always have interim supply, well past the end of the

fiscal year, to allow for a robust estimates debate. As previously

mentioned by our hon. Finance Minister, moving the budget to April gives

us greater time to connect with the businesses and people and develop an

effective long-term plan that builds on all our current

supports.

I am confident that Budget 2020 will continue to focus on keeping

people safe during the pandemic. We will do this with an eye to how we

position our province to seize the opportunity that recovery will

offer.

[3:20 p.m.]

It was heartwarming for me to walk into my office at the

Legislature on March 8, the first day of me being there, and see a

beautiful thank-you card from one of my constituents, thanking our

government for the B.C. recovery benefit. I’ll quickly read that

beautiful sentiment. “Greetings from Vernon. Recently I received my B.C.

recovery benefit. I was able to share that money with my daughter and

her young family. I am sure they can put that money to very good use in

these unusual and difficult times. Thank you very much for all your

efforts. Happy new year.”

I won’t mention names, as I haven’t asked their permission — if I

was allowed to do so. There were several other emails, and also, I

personally talked to the small and medium-sized business owners here in

my community when I went there to share the business recovery grant.

Everybody is so appreciative. Not only that; I have been regularly

getting some cards here in Vernon.

I come from the health care sector and worked at the front lines,

even shortly after my election. My husband is also working in health

care, and we talk often, since COVID started. We don’t even want to

think or imagine what we would have done if we had the B.C. Liberal

government in power. These same sentiments are being shared by many

health care workers in the staff and break rooms. We are so grateful for

the work that the B.C. NDP government has done, and we are grateful that

they are in power.

I’m not saying the previous government. I am saying the B.C.

Liberal government. Given what we have witnessed over 16 years of

experience in a variety of health care settings and with two health

authorities, you cannot find a better person to contrast than the ones

who faced these challenges and witnessed the direct effects of the cuts

and addition to the services. So we can contrast it really

well.

We don’t need to read any books. We have lived through this and

are still living through this. One can desperately run around to search

for the quotes, trying to relate. I would suggest to the members of the

opposition: rather than speaking to the people who have been away from

health care for over a decade and are out of touch, go talk to the ones

who have lived through your government’s cuts and austerity, and even

lost loved ones, clearly due to the lack of resources, like I did — my

late husband.

This bill will help to continue the efforts of B.C.’s recovery. We

can come out of this pandemic stronger, and it will help us with the

transition. If members of the opposition want to talk to people at the

front lines, I have hundreds of names. I can connect you with those

people so you can clearly know what it meant — all the supports that the

B.C. NDP government has added since COVID started or since they were

made government.

This money will help the health care sector, the mental health and

addiction crisis, housing, much-needed child care centres,

infrastructure, our schools and teachers. I am so proud of our B.C.

government’s commitment and work every day to reduce poverty, to make

life more affordable, and for fulfilling more than 79 percent of our

promises within 3½ years. We continue to do so.

A few examples are: eliminating the MSP premiums; freezing rental

rates; large cuts to ICBC rates, despite having to fix the dumpster fire

that was created by the B.C. Liberal government; the largest increase in

the disability benefit for the first time since 1987; and making the

largest investment in student housing in B.C. to help our students to

succeed.

I am proud to share that, in the Okanagan, we just received $66

million for the Okanagan College campuses in Vernon, Kelowna and Salmon

Arm, where 276 beds are being added. This is the first time in B.C.’s

history for Vernon to receive student housing. This will help to free up

the rental housing in the community. Students will be able to save time

and money, as these rental rates are going to be 25 to 30 percent lower

than the rental market.

[3:25 p.m.]

One year into this pandemic, British Columbia has returned to 99.4

percent of pre-pandemic employment levels. B.C.’s economy remains one of

the strongest in Canada, having created jobs in each of the past ten

months. The labour force survey in February shows that B.C. added almost

2,700 jobs, with the majority of those jobs going to women. This dropped

B.C.’s unemployment rate to 6.9 percent from 8 percent in January and

the month before.

I don’t know why members of the opposition don’t see those facts.

We’re not making stuff up. These are the facts. These are everywhere. If

you do your research, you’ll find them, and you’ll be happy to know

that.

Employment in some parts of the province is above pre-pandemic

levels. Prince George, for example, is at 106.7 percent, and Kamloops is

at 103.3 percent. While this does not mean that all sectors are back to

full strength, it does mean that even as our tourism and hospitality

sectors continue to struggle, our economy is growing. It also means that

our approach is working — to support businesses, to operate safely. It

means that businesses have stepped up to this challenge with hard work

and dedication.

This pandemic has affected every British Columbian, but we

recognize that some people and businesses have been impacted more

severely than others. People of colour, especially, continue to

experience higher rates of unemployment. We are committed to addressing

the needs of the hardest hit and ensuring recovery works for

everyone.

A couple of days ago I heard from a member of the opposition that

the B.C. Liberals left us with the surplus budget. I chuckled at that

statement, because I don’t agree with this statement. As the majority of

British Columbians now know, that so-called surplus budget was not a

surplus budget. It was the biggest deception.

How? Let me clarify and explain it to you: by taking millions of

dollars away from Crown corporations like ICBC, mismanaging B.C.

Hydro,money laundering, clawing back the disability bus passes and

privatizing many services to avoid taking responsibility. It’s not a

surplus budget. I am amazed by the audacity of the members of the

opposition talking about transparency, given their very own track

record. It is a big deception.

Why do members from the opposition forget to mention or highlight

the $72 billion debt that was acquired under the B.C. Liberals’

government? Let me remind you of some of those numbers. Total provincial

debt was around $45.2 billion when Ms. Clark took office in 2012. That

was swollen to $65.3 billion. Then, according to the quarterly report at

the time, it reached $72 billion in 2019. Talk about fiscal

responsibility.

B.C. Liberals also completely gutted — yes, they gutted…. I’m

sorry some members think these words are harsh, but that was the

reality. I just can’t help it, not to mention…. Health care is the

sector you don’t touch, or you shouldn’t touch, because people’s lives

depend on how it is budgeted. So, yes, B.C. Liberals also completely

gutted the health care system by laying off many — largely female —

health care workers. Making the fewest buildings, having no staff and

cutting existing health care staff is not called improving the health

care services.

How would opposition members justify that so-called surplus budget

that they’re referring to, to many of the health care colleagues who

struggled financially due to the large 10 percent wage rollbacks under

the B.C. Liberals? And many job losses with the privatization of

services, like long-term care centres, food services and laundry — that

was a recent one, especially in Interior Health, as well. Laundry was

privatized and sold to one of their biggest donors from

Alberta.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

I was so relieved that big money is taken out of politics, which

helped us to remove a reputation of the wild west of Canadian political

cash, where people were totally forgotten and the top 2 percent were the

influencers on B.C. Liberals’ government’s decision-making.

It is a harsh reality. I’m sorry I have to mention it, but it’s

good to contrast once in a while so voters know. To be clear, I’m not

saying previous government. I am saying B.C. Liberals, as I’m more than

happy to remind people of B.C. Liberals’ track record.

[3:30 p.m.]

Members from the opposition are also stuck in the ’90s and are so

obsessed with the ’90s, yet they don’t like it when we mention 2016 to

contrast. Let me remind you of the impact of the B.C. Liberals’ cuts and

the consequences we have faced — as a young parent whose kids are in the

education system and, as I mentioned, as health care professionals — in

the delayed diagnosis and the error. Their direct impact was placed on

kids seeking, like my daughter…. She had to wait for six to seven years

for the service that she needed for her learning disability because

those current services were cut. Finally, in 2017, some of the resources

were added, and that’s when she accessed those services. But by then, it

was too late. She was ready for high school.

Again, to the previous member, we don’t need to read any books if

you are going through those lived experiences. If the member wants to

discuss the ’90s track record, then I don’t think it’s unfair to reflect

on the Social Credit’s history, where only the party name was changed

but some cases remained the same. There should be no need to change

party names to hide the track record in order to mislead

voters.

It is so disappointing to hear the members of the opposition

calling the recovery benefit “vote by money”. By making such statements,

you are questioning the integrity of our voters and pretty much saying

that British Columbians sell their votes. This is such a shame for any

elected official, including myself, to make such statements or

allegations.

There was also a comment made during a media interview, after the

elections, from one of the B.C. Liberal candidates, saying that people

were confused between the federal Liberals and the B.C. Liberal

government, and that was the reason for losing some seats. Again,

questioning voters’ intelligence and IQ level — I can’t even imagine.

Voters and longtime B.C. Liberal supporters who talked to me — yes,

talked to me — were so frustrated and disappointed at such statements.

Wow. Just wow.

I want to remind the members of the opposition that when you

baselessly point a finger towards others, three fingers get pointed at

you. The B.C. NDP presented three consecutive balanced budgets until

February 2020 and maintained a triple-A credit rating. This was achieved

despite heavily investing in public services like health care, mental

health, child care spaces, education, housing, eliminating the MSP. The

list is long.

I know that there is much more to do, and it will take a while to

fix and address 16 years of neglect. Yes, 16 years of neglect. I’m not

going into the ’90s, just the recent 16 years before 2017. There is a

reason I am proudly standing on this side of the House and continue to

be part of the B.C. NDP. Even before, despite knowing the odds of my

victory, there was no way, after witnessing and having to live through

the hardships and seeing the direct impact on many of my patients due to

the B.C. Liberals gutting the services that would be able to support

them, that I could stand on that side.

It is no secret that when the pandemic struck, B.C. was an

economic leader. We were one of Canada’s fast-growing economies with one

of the lowest unemployment rates. Our strengths remain. We still have a

skilled workforce, vast natural resources and our gateway to

Asia.

We are still committed to unlocking the huge economic potential of

reconciliation and tackling the climate crisis. We were already making

great progress on keeping life affordable for people, building roads and

homes and opening new schools and child care spaces. These things give

us a head start on a strong recovery.

B.C.’s recovery won’t happen overnight, but by focusing on people

and working for them, we are making progress. We have had British

Columbians’ backs since the beginning. We will take the same approach

during the recovery. December’s Speech from the Throne was a plan to

keep supporting people through the winter, with direct support for

health care, families, renters and businesses.

I have seen the direct positive impact of all these efforts in my

riding in Vernon-Monashee. The B.C. recovery benefit is helping families

make ends meet with payments of up to $1,000.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hard-hit small and medium businesses are receiving grants of up to

$30,000, or up to $45,000 in a tourism business, to help keep people

working. We are helping thousands of people to upskill, reskill and find

in-demand jobs. We are going to keep improving fairness at ICBC and make

life more affordable. We are going to increase in real estate — to

protect people and tackle fraud.

Next month we will introduce Budget 2021, which will keep making

health care better, support people and businesses and build stronger

communities. The bottom-line reality is that the pandemic brought

unexpected challenge faster than anyone could imagine. We are finding

ways to support people, B.C. businesses are finding ways to pivot, and

government is finding ways to help them.

In response to huge demand by B.C. businesses, we’re more than

tripling the funding for the launch online program, to $42 million, to

help more businesses develop e-commerce. The pandemic has

disproportionately affected Black and Indigenous communities and people

of colour, as I mentioned previously, which is why 30 percent of the

grants will be reserved for BIPOC businesses and rural

businesses.

Our government remains committed to helping businesses build back

stronger so that people in the province have good jobs and more secure

futures. I appreciate the announcement to provide millions to child care

providers, school boards and health authorities to help them deliver

COVID-safe care and renovate to create more spaces.

Our government has delivered hundreds of affordable, supportive

and accessible housing units in Vernon alone, and these have changed

many people’s lives. People from Vernon-Monashee are so appreciative of

the recent announcements of more affordable housing for Vernon and area.

This is going to benefit many more people by helping them to find a

home. I thank our government for paying attention to this

long-overlooked and -ignored issue of affordable housing in

Vernon-Monashee. Bill 10, Supply Act, will help our government to

continue these great initiatives to further support British

Columbians.

With this, I would like to end my remarks and urge all the members

of this House to think by putting people at your heart. There should be

no place for ego or personal agendas in politics, because the people of

British Columbia have put their trust and hopes in us. When they elected

us, they were fully trusting. So let’s serve them well with selfless

service. We are here working for people, and Bill 10, Supply Act, is

aimed directly to helping people. It is okay to appreciate what’s done

right, and it’s also okay to take accountability for what was not done

right.

With that, I am closing, once again saying that I fully support

this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to

share my thoughts.

J. Rustad: I don’t know if we can really say it’s a pleasure to speak to Bill

10, but it is certainly a pleasure to continue to represent the people

of Nechako Lakes and to make sure that their voice is brought forward in

this Legislature.

It’s interesting, looking outside…. I’m speaking today from my

home at Cluculz Lake in my riding. The weather has been nice. There has

been a little bit of the lake that has opened up in front of our place,

because it’s shallow. The first of the Canadian geese have arrived,

which is always a pleasure for my wife and me to see. They’ve come up on

our lawn. We’ve got a little bit of grass showing because we’ve got some

southern exposure, and they’re nibbling on the grasses and doing what

geese do: fertilizing the grass, which is not always quite so welcome,

but it happens.

I have to admit that it made me wonder. It made me think, when I’m

listening to some of these speeches here today, just how much fertilizer

is really being spread around. Some of this stuff is pretty crazy that

is being said, but I’ll get to that in a bit.

[3:40 p.m.]

The member for Vernon-Monashee, who just spoke up on Bill 10, said

that she had read and reread the bill, that in the bill there’ll be

money to help health care and there’ll be money to help with housing.

Well, I read the bill, too. It’s one page, and there’s no mention of any

of that. It’s simply a mention of a blank cheque. I guess this might be

a difference between reading and comprehension. But I tell you, when I

look through the bill, and when I look through at what was being

offered, $13.4 billion is being asked for with no explanation about how

it’s being spent.

Let’s take a look at some of these things that this government’s

record has been. We’ll talk about the current government, first, before

I go back to some of the greatest hits of the ’90s. We have a government

who signed an agreement with the Green Party that clearly outlined that

the election would be a set date.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Nechako Lakes, excuse me for a moment. Someone wants to

raise a point of order.

Point of Order

Hon. N. Cullen: I do listen with great interest to my friend from Nechako Lakes. I

know his constituency well. Beautiful part of the world with some incredible

people with an enormous amount of dignity.

I think…. He started his speech, and I’m new to this place,

so….

Deputy Speaker: What’s your point of order?

Hon. N. Cullen: Perhaps you can guide me. It’s that he referred to comments made by

other members as “manure,” I believe, and spreading manure about the

discussion and debate. Again, I’m new to this chamber. But in other

parliaments, that type of language and reference to other members is

certainly deemed unparliamentary at the very least, if not outright

offensive, and not representative of the people we hope to

represent.

I’m wondering if the member would consider retracting his comments and

replacing them with something a little bit more appropriate for this chamber

and the people he represents.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister, for bringing up the point of order.

Member for Nechako Lakes can continue, please.

Debate Continued

J. Rustad: Just to be clear: I did not use the word “manure,” so I will

continue on with my speech.

As I said, we have a government that entered an agreement with

the Green Party that laid out a fixed election date and broke their

promise. They broke their promise. Does that mean the government

should be trusted?

We have a government, when we hit the pandemic, that all

parties came together to help, because we knew the people of British

Columbia needed help. We signed over a blank cheque of $5 billion in

good faith. We signed that over, because we knew that the people

would need help, and we put some trust in the government to actually

to be able to do that. What happened? They didn’t end up using the

money accordingly. They used some of it, $1.5 billion, for their own

election purposes. How can that be a government that can be

trusted?

This Christmas the government came together after an election

and asked for a blank cheque for $2 billion that we debated so that

they could hand out cheques. They promised that the people in this

province would all receive a $1,000 cheque before Christmas. Well,

clearly, that promise was broken.

But more so…. We tried hard, and there was no explanation

exactly as to how all that $2 billion was going to be spent, because

it wasn’t all going to be needed for those cheques. So how was that

money going to be spent? Well, guess what? We still don’t know.

Personally, I think part of that is going to end up being a slush

fund for this government, for money to go out the door to their

friends and to other purposes around the province.

That, to me, also doesn’t build any trust. So now we’re in a

situation where we have government asking, once again, for a blank

cheque, $13 billion, to run what government needs to do, without any

explanations for that. Now I get that it is normal for there to be a

supply bill that comes in to help government get through the period

of time when a budget is debated. That’s normal. But what is not

normal is to put a supply bill in without a budget being

introduced.

Last summer I did have to chuckle when the government, the

NDP, decided to call back the Legislature so they could clear the

deck for their fall election and pass the budget. The budget that

was passed was completely irrelevant. It was already out by at least

$5 billion, because we gave the $5 billion in addition.

[3:45 p.m.]

But with all the other changes and challenges of COVID, it

was, quite frankly, farcical to be debating that budget, because of

its irrelevancy. Yet we had to do it.

We debated the budget — went through the estimates, passed it

— and now we’re being told that that budget that was completely

irrelevant last summer…. Not completely, I suppose. There were still

the operations of government, but that was obviously off, in terms

of the overall budget, last summer. That’s the basis for asking for

$13 billion, going forward. Once again, how does this bring any type

of sense of accountability or trust in the pattern that this

government has shown? Let’s not even bother mentioning the $10

daycare or the 100,000 supportive housing units or the $400 rebate

or these other promises that government made and that clearly either

had no intention or were somewhat erroneous in the way that they

presented them to the voters.

I have in my riding, in my office, a sign that I put up above

my desk. Every time I’m in my office, I always look at this sign.

It’s an important reminder of who we are and what we’re doing as

politicians. The sign says: “Think like a taxpayer.” It’s important

to do that: to think like a taxpayer. How would a taxpayer look at

this current bill?

You start talking about big numbers, like in the billions, and

things like that, and people just glaze over because it’s hard to

comprehend just what that actually means. So let’s put it in other

terms. If somebody were to go out and want to buy a new vehicle.

They went in, and the dealer sold him on all the things that were

going to be in this vehicle but then said to him: “I want you to

write a cheque for $13 billion. Or let’s make it $13,000, a number

that is far easier to comprehend. Then once you get the vehicle and

start driving it around a little bit, I’ll give you the rest of the

bill.” You don’t even know how much of a down payment it is on that

total price tag. You don’t know all the details on it. You’re just

being asked to agree to an amount of money, with the rest of the

bill and the rest of the details on it to come later.

Well, I can tell you there wouldn’t be a person in the

province that would make that deal to buy that vehicle. Yet this

government seems to think it’s okay to present that very same deal

to the people of this province, to say: “Give us $13 billion, and

we’ll tell you how much more it’s going to cost later.” So, yeah,

I’ve got a problem with how this government is operating. It’s not

good.

But it’s surprising to hear all of the members that have

presented on the government side talking about how this is just

normal. Well, I’ve got to tell you that if this is what the NDP

think is normal, good God, we are in for a tough four years, because

this is not normal. And it shouldn’t be recognized as normal. It

shouldn’t even be thought of as normal — that the government would

be asking for blank cheques, that the government would be moving

forward, ignoring the rules and laws, asking for extensions, can’t

even get it together to bring a budget in.

Do you know that every G7 country, with the exception of

Canada — but you know, let’s not bother talking about what’s going

on in Ottawa — has presented a budget? How difficult is this? And

the worst part about this is that the budgets are predominantly

driven by the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy, of course, is keeping

track of all the numbers. They keep track of it on a monthly basis,

if not a weekly or daily basis. I haven’t been the Minister of

Finance. I don’t know for sure. But all of that information is there

and available, so why can’t the government put it

together?

I think back to when we were in government and we hit the

largest financial crisis, the largest recession since the Great

Depression. Yeah, we presented a budget. We had to go to election.

We came out of that election, and the economy absolutely fell off a

cliff, and our budget was off.

[3:50 p.m.]

So what did we do? We didn’t hide it. We didn’t drag it out

and not put out quarterly reports. We came out and laid it out very

clearly for people. This is what the problem is. This is the budget.

These are the updates. This is where we need to go. It was clear.

People could see it.

Why did we do that? We did that because the laws were brought

in to show transparency and to make sure that the people of the

province could have trust in a government because they’re being

straight up with budgets. They were being straight up with what the

numbers were.

And why did we bring in those laws? All of those laws were

introduced by the B.C. Liberals. We brought them in because of

fudge-it budgets under the NDP in the ’90s, because of the

shenanigans that were played — the lack of transparency, the

gamesmanship that happened. The people of the province were sick and

tired of it.

Here we are with the same old crowd playing the same old music

of the ’90s. They didn’t get it. They didn’t get it then, and they

don’t get it now. They’re proving that they don’t get it, because

every one of their members has stood up and said that this is

normal.

I remember, famously, one of the members from the NDP cabinet,

a minister, back in the ’90s, who said: “We’re government. We can do

anything.” The arrogance and disrespect of that type of a statement

are brutal. These are taxpayers. Like I say with that sign that’s

over my desk, these are the taxpayers.

You have to think about this. This isn’t just some pot of

money coming out of the air. These are people who work hard, trying

to provide for their family, trying to put a house over their head,

and who give money to the government through taxation so that

government can be there for the services that are needed. But they

also deserve to be respected. They deserve to know and not to have

to write blank cheques. They deserve to see what’s

happening.

You know, I listened to the Attorney General give his speech

earlier today. I was quite shocked, quite frankly, that the Attorney

General — the person who is supposedly the top person in terms of

the law and understanding of the rules; the head of legislative

review, I suspect — would come out and say that if this budget were

not to be passed, it would shut down government and people would not

be paid. How misleading can you be? How much of a lack of

understanding of how government works could one person have, who is

in that top seat and has been there for a while?

If this supplementary budget were not to pass, it’s a

confidence motion. You go to an election. Special warrants get

issued so government gets paid, and the work carries on. It doesn’t

cause people to have to be paid. This isn’t like the United States,

as the Attorney General referenced. It’s absolutely ridiculous for

him to even bring that up.

Then he went on and talked about deferral accounts for B.C.

Hydro. If my memory is correct, those deferral accounts, I believe,

were used in the 1990s. If my memory is correct, those deferral

accounts are even being used today on Site C, with the total

mismanagement by this government to double the budget. Somehow it

was wrong for the deferral accounts, which are, by the way, used by

utilities around the world…. Somehow that was wrong for the B.C.

Liberals to do it, but it’s okay when the NDP do it? What nonsense,

absolute nonsense, that the Attorney General would bring up such

things.

Then he goes and talks about ICBC. There’s been a lot of talk

about ICBC. What I find most interesting…. The last budget that we

brought in was reviewed by the Auditor and signed off. That included

ICBC’s numbers — reviewed by the Auditor and signed off. What did we

see when the NDP came? Well, suddenly it changed from a $300 deficit

to, a few months later, a $600 deficit to, a few months later, a $1

billion deficit.

How is it that the Auditor General of the province could sign

off on that and suddenly, within a few months, there’s $1 billion in

ICBC? How could that have been if it wasn’t shifting in terms of how

some of the accounting was done and how the actuarials were done in

ICBC?

[3:55 p.m.]

I mean, I’m not in government. I don’t know exactly how they

looked at it. They haven’t been transparent with it. But I can tell

you something. I trust the Auditor General far more than I trust

this government, especially with the way it has acted.

The member for Vernon-Monashee also mentioned bringing in a

balanced budget in 2020. Well, the budget that was currently…. It

obviously wasn’t balanced. The budget that was introduced was

farcical. It wasn’t even close. Now yes, the pandemic hit. You

couldn’t have seen it coming. There’s no way you could have

anticipated the full depth of it. But it’s somewhat misleading or

inaccurate to say that the budget that was brought in was balanced.

It wasn’t.

I gave a speech in February of 2020 about this very thing,

about how those numbers were likely off and wrong and that the

budget wouldn’t be balanced. I remember getting heckled by the NDP

members that were in the House at that time. Well, who ended up

being right? The challenge that we have here, with this interim

supply bill, is that we don’t know. We don’t know what government is

going to be spending the money on. The government has had four years

now to make these plans.

One of the previous members speaking talked about the fact

that we need to take time to build an effective, long-term plan.

Wait a second here. Were you running your election on a wing and a

prayer? Did you not even think about having a budget and what needed

to be done? Was there no plan or thought? Here you are, now that

you’ve become government, and you’re out celebrating. Now you’re

sitting down, thinking: “Well, what do we do now? We don’t really

have a plan. I guess we’d have to take time to build a

plan.”

That’s all part of what goes into an election. It’s all part

of what goes into your platform. That’s going to go into your action

plan when you come out of an election and the bureaucracy is there

with all of the background and information ready to go. Why,

suddenly, is it taking extra months for time to build an effective

long-term plan? It makes no sense whatsoever, unless you use the

word incompetence or an inability to actually be able to manage

numbers.

We’ve always known that the NDP struggles with math. I get

that; that’s fine. Math isn’t everybody’s strong suit. But when you

think about this, what we’re debating here today, Bill 10, a supply

budget is normally something that wouldn’t take up any time

whatsoever. It’s normally something that is based on a budget that

is already into estimates, and that is just a simple process of

laying out spending for the next couple of months until the budget

gets done. But this isn’t normal. There is nothing about this past

budget year that is normal. I suspect strongly there won’t be a

whole lot about this future budget year that will be

normal.

Yes, we’ve got the vaccines coming. I was really pleased the

other day to have been able to go in and help my mom, who is 99, and

my dad, who is turning 94, to get their vaccine shots. I’m really

happy that that has happened and that their immunity, their chance

to be able to survive COVID, if it were ever to come around, has

been increased and will increase for the next two or three weeks

until it gets its maximum effect. That was great.

But we don’t know for sure exactly how all this is going to

play out and whether or not tourism is going to come back, how the

business sector is going to be able to recover and respond, whether

it’s going to be a spike up and then back down. We don’t know yet,

so 2021 is not going to be an average year either. It’s going to be

unusual. That is still no excuse for not being able to bring in a

budget and not being able to put in a supply bill that reflects the

spending of that budget.

As I sit here, and I go through and think about the speeches

that have been given and think about this process, I really do hope

that people would just stop reading their speaking notes that have

been handed down, all of the buzz lines and stuff, and think about

what they’re actually doing here.

[4:00 p.m.]

It’s shameful to call it normal, because it’s not. I really

hope that this government understands that its pattern from the

1990s, which is being repeated today, leads to a lack of confidence

for companies to invest in this province. A lack of confidence for

individuals to want to start up business and want to come forward. A

lack of confidence in the ability for this province to be able to be

successful, for families to be able to put their food on the table

and support their children, and even be able to support their

grandchildren.

It’s only through that transparency, and it’s only through

being direct and straight up with people, that you can build

confidence and that people will look at the province and say: “Yeah,

I can do business there. Yes, I can create jobs there. Yes, I can

support families there.”

Unfortunately, that pattern from the 1990s, which led to

British Columbia becoming a have-not province, is on its way again,

led by some of the very people that were involved in the 1990s

debacle. I remember back a few years ago it was said — I can’t

remember exactly who said this, but they said: “The NDP seem to be a

party consisting of politicians from the 1990s solving problems from

the 1950s.” I suspect that rings just as true today as it did back

then. It’s unfortunate; it really is.

I had the opportunity to be the critic for Forests, Lands and

Natural Resource Operations, and our forest sector is doing very

well right now, because we have high prices, because we’re receiving

$850 to $1,000 U.S. board feet. Industries in my riding are working

well.

People are at work. People aren’t paying a whole lot of

attention to what is going on here today. I can understand that.

With COVID going on, with work going on, with everything that’s

happening, I can understand why people don’t pay a whole lot of

attention to this, but they should, because at the end of the day

this does matter.

At the end of the day, the size of the deficit — which is

really just taxation on children — matters. The size of the deficit

has an impact in terms of where we’ll be as a province and what

we’ll be able to do down the road in terms of continuing to be able

to offer services. But that transparency, that ability for a budget

to be able to come forward, to be straight up, to be able to be

scrutinized and then to be able to ask for the supplement that’s

needed — that’s missing here, and it’s really a shame. As I

mentioned already, those rules were brought in place because of what

the NDP did in the ’90s, and they’re doing the same stuff

again.

Like I say, it’s always an honour to be able to stand up and

speak — or sit down and do this virtually, of course — on behalf of

my constituents in Nechako Lakes.But it’s not a great pleasure to

rise to speak to a bill like this because of these challenges and

issues that we see.

I know the following speakers from government will come out,

and they will rehearse all of the buzz lines and words that have

been said. It is unfortunate, but that’s politics. You’ve been

around this House long enough, you hear these speeches and you know

how those things go. But it is unfortunate, because I do not think

it serves the people of this province well. I don’t think it serves

them well today, but most importantly it does not serve the province

well for its future.

What this province needs is some