First Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, March 15, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 30

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

Howe Lee

T. Wat

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Court of Appeal Act

Hon. D. Eby

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Mining industry

G. Begg

T. Shypitka

Community-supported agriculture and fisheries

K. Greene

West Vancouver Foundation and North Shore COVID-19 emergency response fund

K. Kirkpatrick

Social workers and COVID-19 response

H. Yao

Larry Shareski and Semiahmoo House Society

T. Halford

Oral Questions

Opioid crisis and Carrier-Sekani addiction treatment facility

S. Bond

Hon. J. Horgan

E. Ross

Hon. S. Malcolmson

Protection of old-growth forests

A. Olsen

Hon. K. Conroy

Addiction services in Interior Health Authority and status of Pathways Centre

T. Halford

Hon. S. Malcolmson

K. Kirkpatrick

COVID-19 response for disability and income assistance recipients

D. Davies

Hon. J. Horgan

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2021

Hon. S. Robinson

M. Bernier

A. Singh

K. Kirkpatrick

M. Dykeman

M. Morris

Hon. N. Simons

D. Davies

A. Olsen

B. Anderson

E. Ross

M. Elmore

MONDAY, MARCH 15, 2021

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

HOWE LEE

T. Wat: It is with sadness that I rise today to announce the passing of

one of B.C.’s greatest Chinese-Canadian community leaders, Col. Howe

Lee. Col. Howe Lee was the founder and president of the Chinese Canadian

Military Museum, which tells the story of Chinese-Canadian veterans in

both the First and Second World Wars.

As director of the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Vancouver,

Howe promoted the contributions of the veterans in the Chinese community

and in the community at large. Howe also promoted the cause of veterans

at the Asian Heritage Month Society by inviting speakers and organizing

panel discussions.

[1:35 p.m.]

He helped with the coordination of cadet programs, promoted

Veterans Week and Remembrance Day in public schools and planned and

participated in the local Remembrance Day ceremony, and he provided key

assistance to the organizers of the revitalization project of the

Vancouver cenotaph, in Victory Square.

On behalf of the Chinese-Canadian community and the riding of

Richmond North Centre, I would like to extend my most sincere

condolences to the Howe family and friends. He will be missed and

remembered.

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: Today, March 15, is the National Day of Hungary, also known as the

revolution and independence day, and marks the anniversary of the start of

the 1848 revolution against the Austrian Empire.

I’m pleased to introduce very dear family friends, Les and Yolanda

Tarnai. The significance of the celebration of the National Day of Hungary

was made clear to me when they recounted their experiences fleeing Hungary

during the 1956 uprising.

Les had just graduated as an engineer student. Yolanda was a very

talented photographer. They escaped with little more than the clothes on

their back and dreams and aspirations to settle and raise a family. They

found their way to Canada, and their son and daughter followed in their

father’s footsteps. Ray is an engineer. Kathy Tarnai-Lokhorst completed her

PhD in engineering.

I’d ask all members of the Legislature here to join me and everyone of

Hungarian descent in British Columbia to celebrate and mark the revolution

and independence day of Hungary.

D. Davies: I Just want to give a quick introduction to a couple of good friends

of mine. They moved from Ontario. They moved to Fort St. John, and then most

recently they made the move down to the Island here, where the weather is a

little bit milder than in Fort St. John. Hard to believe. They now live in

Nanaimo, and they’re in the area today touring the legislative grounds —

brought their family down just to enjoy some of the weather. Jeff and

Maggie, their two children, Jillian and Taryn Beau — would the House please

make them feel welcome.

T. Shypitka: Today I’m energized. I’m enthused. I’m excited because it’s my

favourite day here in the Legislature all year round. It’s because it’s

Mining Day. We have a star-studded cast of mining representatives from

across the province hanging out in the virtual gallery today, spreading the

word on how foundational mining is to B.C.’s success in being global leaders

in a low-carbon future.

Today in the gallery, we have John Schadan, president of Conuma Coal

Resources; John Davidson, with the Mining Suppliers Association of B.C.;

Richard Prokopanko, from Rio Tinto; Nat Adams, with Newcrest Mining; Sharon

Singh, partner with Bennett Jones; Kendra Johnston, the president and CEO of

AME; Kate Mueller, New Gold Inc.; Ryan Todd, with Artemis Gold. I think I

see Jason Jacob, president of the East Kootenay Chamber of Mines, hanging

out as well.

Would the House welcome them and the tens of thousands of people in

the province that make mining our foundational economic cornerstone here in

B.C.

M. Starchuk: Today I rise virtually in the House to wish my daughter, Shannon

Starchuk, a happy birthday. What makes this birthday a little bit more

special is that she’s halfway through her second trimester, so she’s

actually celebrating her birthday for two. Would the House join me in

wishing my daughter, Shannon, happy birthday.

C. Oakes: I’m delighted that it is UBC medicine advocacy week this week. We’ve

had the opportunity to meet with students from across British Columbia

studying at UBC, the faculty of medicine. I had the opportunity to meet with

them earlier today and will do so with some meetings later today. I know

that they are meeting with all the members in this Legislature. They have

four key asks that they want government to move forward with.

I just want to sincerely thank them for their thoughtfulness, the

information that they brought forward and for their personal stories. I just

really want to thank each of them and encourage everyone to take the time to

listen to their requests. Would the House please make these medical students

feel very welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

H. Yao: I would like to take a moment to introduce one of my constituents. Her

name is Ann Orange, and she celebrates her 100th birthday today. I would ask

the whole House to welcome her and wish her a happy birthday with

me.

T. Halford: With great pride today, I’m able to introduce my support group, my

family — my wife, Holly; my son Nicolas; and my daughter, Alexandra — who

are with me. I’d like the House to please make them welcome.

I would also like to point out that when I left this place as a

staffer a number of years ago, the best thing I left with was my wife, whom

I met in the building here. Again, I ask the House to please make them

welcome today.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — COURT OF APPEAL ACT

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Court of Appeal Act.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce the Court of Appeal Act. This bill

repeals and replaces the existing Court of Appeal Act.

The Court of Appeal is the highest court in the province of

British Columbia. It hears appeals from the Supreme Court — and from the

Provincial Court, on some criminal matters — and reviews and hears

appeals from some administrative boards and tribunals.

The Court of Appeal is constituted by the Court of Appeal Act. The

most recent revision of the act occurred in 1996. Over the years,

amendments have been made to the Court of Appeal Act, affecting its

organization and usability. The act currently includes practice and

procedural directions, which more appropriately belong in the rules of

the Court of Appeal.

Overall, the structure and content of the act do not reflect

modern legislation drafting standards. Importantly, the current

legislation is difficult for readers to understand, particularly given

the increased presence of self-represented litigants in civil appeals.

Litigants who wish to bring an appeal must refer to different resources:

the act, the rules, practice directions. This creates confusion, as we

were advised through feedback received during the public consultation

stage of this project.

This bill is the first step to consolidating and clarifying the

act, while simplifying procedures to create efficiencies. Developed with

a user-centred approach, this bill will modernize the Court of Appeal

Act and improve access to justice for litigants in the B.C. Court of

Appeal.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 11, Court of Appeal Act, introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

MINING INDUSTRY

G. Begg: It had its start in the mid-1800s with the coal mines here on

Vancouver Island and the famous gold camps of the Cariboo. Today British

Columbia has grown to become one of the world’s major mining regions.

Indeed, we’re now one of the world’s most prolific mining regions, and

we still have vast, untapped mineral reserves.

British Columbia, in fact, is Canada’s largest exporter of coal, a

leading producer of copper and only producer of molybdenum. We also

produce significant amounts of gold, silver, lead and zinc and over 30

industrial minerals. We’re world renowned for our excellence in mining

and mining-related fields due to our abundance of resources, our strong

labour force and our easy access to ports.

[1:45 p.m.]

The B.C. mining industry is a pillar of our economy and is playing

a key role in our province’s ongoing economic recovery. In 2019, B.C.

mining operations generated $11.4 billion in gross revenues, employed

11,784 workers, and made over $1 billion in payments to governments. It

accounts for approximately one-quarter of all of B.C.’s

exports.

Indigenous Nations shared directly in mineral tax revenues from

mines operating within their traditional territories, with $98 million

in mineral tax payments to 46 independent nations to date. In 2018,

B.C.’s mines and smelters spent $2.9 billion purchasing materials, goods

and services from more than 3,700 businesses located in 215 B.C.

municipalities, communities or Indigenous Nations. This includes $265

million in goods and services from 120 Indigenous-affiliated

suppliers.

Today is Mining Day in British Columbia. I know that all members,

of all sides of the House, will join me in celebrating the women and

men, in this important and growing industry, for their valuable

contributions to British Columbia, Canada and the world.

T. Shypitka: I want to thank the member before me for speaking to something

that I get excited about, as in my introductions, as the critic for

Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation. This is indeed my favourite day

of the year — Mining Day here in B.C. One of the cornerstones of our

provincial economy is, indeed, the mining industry. It employs over

30,000 British Columbians directly and hundreds of thousands more

indirectly.

At the recent 2021 AME Roundup, the co-chairman of Ivanhoe mines,

Robert Friedland, made some interesting comments. Mr. Friedland

predicted that a phenomenon he described only as “revenge of the miners”

would come soon to British Columbia. Mining is seeing a big comeback.

Investment that once fled the industry is now back with

determination.

I’ve heard some members in this House declare that mining is a

sunset industry. They say that the new tech economy will lead the

charge. However, people are starting to realize, like the member

previous to me, that these disruptive technologies rely heavily on

metals and minerals. At the risk of making a pun, Mr. Speaker, could it

be correct to say that the nickel has finally dropped?

If we are to invest in a green economy and electrification, then

before the end of the decade, some $100 trillion globally may be

invested, and metals and minerals will be at the centre of this shift.

But we need to be competitive with the rest of the world on carbon

leakage. Otherwise, our competition could benefit those other

jurisdictions — which is rightfully ours.

On this day, the mining world would like us to consider four main

points: (1) a change to the carbon tax to level the playing field for

B.C. mines so that it protects both the environment and jobs; (2) action

to improve the clarity, predictability and timeliness of B.C.’s

regulatory framework for B.C. mining; (3) sustainable and consistent

funding to earth sciences in order to advance knowledge, inform

responsible development, encourage investment and stimulate innovation;

and (4) for government to assist in reducing the stigma of mining and to

see it as a responsible sunrise industry once again.

To the MABC, AME, Geoscience B.C., the B.C. Stone, Sand and Gravel

Association, our chamber of mines and every person or company that

relies on mining: have a happy Mining Day.

COMMUNITY-SUPPORTED

AGRICULTURE AND

FISHERIES

K. Greene: Spring is arriving here in Richmond. Daffodils are up, crocuses

are blooming, and forsythia is erupting in its annual show of yellow

blooms. Farmers are already well underway for the coming year, and we

can be grateful for the excellent-quality local produce that supports

our good health and food security.

If you haven’t heard about CSA baskets, CSA stands for

community-supported agriculture. They’re important because they create

connection within a community and certainty for the producer. Certainty

for farmers is so important, because it helps them gauge how much to

plant and the price they’ll receive for their produce. CSA baskets also

help smooth out the effects of good or bad weather on the growing

season, which helps farmers’ long-term viability.

In Richmond, the Sharing Farm offers a CSA basket and also works

to grow fresh vegetables for the Richmond Food Bank. Sweet Digz Farm

also offers a CSA basket and will have market vegetables for sale as

well. FarmFolk CityFolk have a really great website that you can use to

find a CSA farm near you, no matter where you are in B.C.

[1:50 p.m.]

We also have the Kwantlen incubator farm project, which pairs new

agriculture grads like Vida and Allen Rose with a small parcel to start

their agriculture business. Kwantlen farm school and incubator farm

produce can be bought locally in Richmond.

Other farmers in Richmond-Steveston are Bob Featherstone, whose

strawberry stand is legendary and eagerly anticipated each year. Farmer

Harold Steves sells heirloom seeds at his farm gate, so we can grow

plants specially bred for the local conditions. Harold and his son Jerry

also sell beef and pork grown on farms that use regenerative agriculture

methods to build the soil and reduce GHGs.

We also need to support our local fishers. Some of these fishing

families have been feeding Richmond for generations. You can find them

at the docks in Steveston village, but purchases can also be made from

Skipper Otto, a CSF, community-supported fishery.

It’s so important to buy local, to support our local economies,

ensure food security and enjoy the delight of fresh food in our

community.

WEST VANCOUVER FOUNDATION

AND NORTH SHORE COVID-19

EMERGENCY RESPONSE FUND

K. Kirkpatrick: I acknowledge my riding of West Vancouver–Capilano. It resides on

the traditional lands of the Tsleil-Waututh, Squamish and Musqueam First

Nations.

The West Vancouver Foundation has been making make an impact in

our community and beyond since 1979 and is considered to be one of the

30 top community foundations in Canada. It’s a leader in community-based

philanthropy, working directly with families, individuals and other

charities on the North Shore for maximum impact. In 2020, we saw an

unprecedented year of need in our community. The foundation heeded the

call, and, since April, has contributed or distributed $750,000 to

essential charities and initiatives throughout the North Shore through

its COVID-19 response fund, as well as generous community grants from

the West Vancouver fund holders.

Through the North Shore COVID-19 emergency response, 35 grants

were provided for services, which included meal programs for low-income

and vulnerable seniors, crisis and counselling work and work supporting

at-risk youth. The foundation, through its leadership, scholarship,

community and microgrants, to name just a few, is working towards

creating and sustaining a healthy and vibrant West Vancouver and North

Shore community, where everyone is valued, contributes and feels they

belong.

Recently I was honoured to attend, virtually of course, the

foundation’s celebration for the responsive neighbourhood small grants

program, which was started in 1999 to combat loneliness and social

isolation by making communities stronger, safer and more welcoming. The

celebration is an opportunity to highlight and celebrate 25 projects

that ran in a very challenging year and the incredible people in the

community who came together to tackle the extraordinary social isolation

brought on by this pandemic.

I’m incredibly honoured to work to support the foundation and all

of their initiatives. I always close in these statements by reminding

everyone that non-profits rely on the generous donations of people in

their community.

SOCIAL WORKERS AND COVID-19 RESPONSE

H. Yao: I rise today to be able to speak about World Social Work Day. I do

want to acknowledge that I’m speaking from my riding, Richmond South

Centre. It’s on the Musqueam–Coast Salish territory. I thank them for

allowing us to live, work and play in the unceded traditional

territory.

Today I would like to talk about World Social Work Day, which is

actually March 16, 2021. I’m going to be borrowing a term, and if I do

mispronounce it, I do ask for everyone’s apologies. The term is called

ubuntu . Ubuntu means “I am because we are.” One

more thing we often don’t understand is that due to the COVID-19

pandemic, it has altered our normality for society today.

British Columbians, like many other citizens around the world,

cannot be coming together physically due to the pandemic. Also, we’re

not able to hug, hold hands or converse in close proximity. British

Columbians innovatively and resiliently found ways to stay connected.

Despite the fact that we are a year into a pandemic, the majority of

British Columbians are still going strong in our compliance with Dr.

Bonnie Henry’s order. For that, I thank them and thank

everybody.

We are also stronger because we’re stronger together. However, the

pandemic also amplified many social service challenges that we’re facing

today: addictions, domestic violence, mental health, youth at risk,

racism, income inequality and much more. Social workers are often the

ones who have to be on the front line to be taking on the first services

to serve British Columbians.

[1:55 p.m.]

The pandemic has amplified the challenge that we’re facing today.

From finding a shelter spot for domestic violence escapees to actually

helping an individual with addiction find proper counselling services,

we thank them, all of the social workers, for taking the time, often

after hours and days of being overworked, to serve British

Columbia.

LARRY SHARESKI

AND SEMIAHMOO HOUSE

SOCIETY

T. Halford: Today I rise in the House to give thanks to an integral, important

part of our community in Surrey–White Rock. That is Larry Shareski.

Larry has dedicated over 40 years with the Semiahmoo House Society.

Larry was a board member for three unity organizations: Semiahmoo House

Society, Peninsula Estates Housing Society and the Semiahmoo

Foundation.

He was a part of some very big projects during his five years on

the board, including the creation of Chorus, inclusive apartments that were completed in 2016. Larry

was a paid employee for UNITI, a partner of Semiahmoo Foundation. He

asked that I include the part “paid” in there. His position as

ambassador was created to take advantage of his incredible gift of

connecting people in the community.

Larry is a celebrity in our community. During his time as UNITI

ambassador, he volunteered at the Centennial Arena with the Surrey

Eagles. Furthermore, he dedicated 13 years of his time to be a guest

conductor at Southridge School. Many people in Surrey–White Rock know

Larry to be an all-around outstanding person. From those who know him,

I’ve been told that Larry has a very kind, generous and spirited

personality and has shown his dedication to enacting the positive change

through his 40 years involvement with the organization.

The Semiahmoo House Society is a non-profit organization situated

in my constituency of Surrey–White Rock. Its philosophy is to be

commended. The Semiahmoo House Society believes that people with

disabilities should be valued and included fully in their communities,

with the same rights and responsibilities of all people living in

Canada.

Larry is retiring from Semiahmoo House. I can say with absolute

certainty that our community is better off for Larry having served in

it. I wish Larry a very happy retirement. I hope that he stays active in

the community. I hope I see him at future Surrey Eagle hockey games

coming up.

I want to take this opportunity to say thank you to Larry for his

service, and we wish you good luck in retirement.

Oral Questions

OPIOID CRISIS AND CARRIER-SEKANI

ADDICTION TREATMENT

FACILITY

S. Bond: Mr. Speaker, 1,726 people died from an overdose last year. The

toll of this crisis is disproportionately affecting First Nations

people, who are almost six times more likely to die from an overdose

than others in our province.

Carrier-Sekani Family Services wants to build a medically based

and culturally appropriate 60-bed facility to respond to this growing

and devastating crisis. It seems unimaginable that the Premier and his

government wouldn’t do everything possible to ensure that this badly

needed facility moves forward. But a recent decision has made it

virtually impossible for the project, as designed, to move

forward.

In a recent letter to the government, Carrier-Sekani Family

Services says: “We are in the midst of a tragedy for Indigenous health

and well-being.” Chief Corinna Leween has written to the Minister of

Mental Health and Addictions: “This decision fails to uphold your

government’s commitment to address the opioid crisis on an urgent

basis.”

To the Premier, why has his government failed to support the

creation of this 60-bed treatment facility, designed to provide support

to First Nations, who are significantly impacted by the opioid

crisis?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her question. I share with her my sadness

and disappointment at the escalating cost of overdose deaths here in

British Columbia, not just in her community, but in fact, in every

community.

COVID-19 has made it even more difficult for us to deal with this

scourge, this epidemic within our communities. We find people are using

by themselves because of the restrictions that are in place as a result

of COVID. We’ve closed the borders with our federal partners, which has

led to even more toxicity in the drug supply. That’s why we’re looking

at a range of options.

[2:00 p.m.]

Certainly the option that the member raised, about making sure

that there are treatment and other capacities within communities, is

among our top priorities, but also dealing with the safe supply that’s

required to make sure that people are not losing their lives in

isolation alone, without a loved one nearby, without a friend to offer a

helping hand.

The member knows full well, from her time in government, there’s a

multi-faceted approach to addressing this issue — compounded, as I said,

by COVID. But our commitment and resolve is as strong as it has ever

been. I certainly will be prepared to work with the member to talk to

the community in Prince George, to find a way forward. I’m not aware

that the project has been stopped. I am aware that it has not yet begun.

But I certainly stand ready to work with her to get that objective that

both of us share.

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: I appreciate the Premier’s answer. I have no reason to doubt his

sincerity and concern for the people of British Columbia and beyond. But

what I am concerned about is that there is a lack of action and support

on behalf of this government related to a very specific project —

absolutely, desperately needed and brought forward by the Carrier-Sekani

Family Services group.

This is what the letter from Chief Leween says: “The province

stands in the way.” The government didn’t just stand idly by while the

ability to build this treatment facility was denied; they actually

participated in the process. Page 5 of the decision to block the project

is very clear: “Government staff submitted comments identifying

concerns.” So 1,726 people died from an overdose in 2020, but the only

comments on record from this government are not to support the project —

a desperately needed 60-bed treatment facility.

Will the Premier commit today to find a way to ensure that the

project moves forward so that the Carrier-Sekani Family Services can

provide desperately needed Indigenous health services?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I thank the member for her persistence on this issue in her

community. It affects not just the people that she represents but all

British Columbians.

I have not seen the document that the member refers to. I know the

Minister of Mental Health and Addictions is at the ready to answer

subsequent questions from the opposition. Suffice it to say, on my part,

again I make the overture to the member, who I have worked together with

since 2005, that I will be prepared to meet with her this afternoon to

look at the details of this application, to see what steps we can take

to move this forward.

If we are going to turn back the increase in opioid deaths which

we’ve seen since the pandemic started, we’re going to need to do it

together. Members from the Third Party have been talking about these

issues, about stigma. We’ve been talking about this on all sides of the

House for far too long without the type of progress I know the minister

wants to see in her community, on behalf of the Carrier-Sekani Family

Services organization. But we could go to every community of every

member in this House and find a similar challenge.

I know and I appreciate that we don’t have enough time in the day

to go through the need. But we have to have the resolve to work

collaboratively to get to the result that we all want, and that is a

safe place for people to deal with the challenges that they have and

enough front-line workers in place, trained here in British Columbia, to

provide those services.

People always help people. Programs need people. Facilities need

people. We all want that same objective, and I’m confident that if we

work together, we can get that done.

E. Ross: The time for working together and the time to look at the details

has already passed. You’ve already worked with the Carrier-Sekani Family

Services in reviewing this proposal. It’s a specific proposal for a

specific issue, yes. We’re in COVID. But I’m sure by now this House

knows that the issues that First Nations face aren’t just because of

COVID. It just didn’t materialize over the last year. This has been

going on for the last 40, 50 years.

The time for talk is over. The time to walk is now. We’ve got a

specific proposal asking for the NDP government to get out of the way

and stop blocking this project. This is a 60-bed treatment facility that

is being blocked by the NDP government.

[2:05 p.m.]

First Nations people represent just 3 percent of the population

but 16 percent of the overdose deaths. Chief Corinna Leween has said

this: “The steps taken by this government to address the opioid crisis

are not enough, and they exclude First Nations supporting and healing

their own people.”

Will the Premier reverse this decision and let First Nations build

this treatment facility?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: That the overdose crisis has lost so many lives in British

Columbia is a tragedy. That it has hit First Nations, Indigenous people,

disproportionately is a tragedy. It’s an embarrassment for our country

and work that is long overdue, something that our government has taken

up and is working in partnership with First Nations to

overcome.

We are counting on, as part of the provincial overdose response

and addictions treatment and recovery, working directly with First

Nations Health Authority. To that end, we’ve got a $20 million

commitment to two new and six replacement healing and treatment centres.

We were counting on the Carrier-Sekani proposal being one of

them.

Last week, on the ninth of March, I met with Chief Corinna Leween.

I expressed to her that I shared absolutely her disappointment that the

Agricultural Land Commission, an independent body, had rejected the

non-farm use on ALR land of the use that was proposed. That’s an

independent body. This is not an NDP government decision. The NDP

government decision was to fund the treatment and recovery centres. The

Agricultural Land Commission made a different decision, believing that

it is protecting farmland.

But we’re not leaving that there. I’m working with my counterparts

in cabinet. I’ve given my commitment to Chief Corinna Leween that we

will pursue this further. Our investment in Carrier-Sekani Family

Services re­mains. We are highly reliant on them as a deliverer of

services right now all across B.C.’s northwest.

We’re determined to continue to do the work with First Nations

Health Authority and with Indigenous leadership to make sure that we’re

designing treatment services to prevent and overcome the overdose crisis

in a way that’s designed by Indigenous people. We’ve got lots to learn

from them.

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

E. Ross: Well, that’s not what Chief Leween is saying in her letter. She

says,

part 5, the decision to block the project is very clear:

“Government staff submitted comments identifying concerns.” She doesn’t

make any differentiation between any of the programs or the different

ministries. She sees us as government. She sees us as a way — the

government — to stop the blocking of this project. She wants to see the

talking end. She wants to see ministers stop referring to their briefing

sheets. She wants to see the talk of reconciliation have some real

meaning in a time of crisis.

Not to say that the opioid deaths before COVID weren’t a crisis.

The substance issues that First Nations faced — and social issues faced

— before COVID were a crisis. Now it’s amplified. Now it’s magnified.

And all we hear about is more talk, more review: “Let’s work together.

But in the meantime, let’s block this 60-bed facility.”

Every minister’s mandate letter says: “Reconciliation is…a shared

responsibility for us all.” But these words are hollow when this

government blocks Indigenous people from tackling issues in their own

community — First Nations that want to address their own issues on their

own terms. All they need is some partnership, and all they need is for

government to get out of the way. And 16 percent of overdose deaths were

First Nations people.

My question is: where is the common sense in this decision? I just

don’t get it. It’s time the Premier stopped with empty words and

actually did something. Will he do it?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I share the member’s dismay at the decision that the Agricultural

Land Commission made about uses of agricultural land, land in the ALR. I

have given my word, when I met last week with the chief of the

Carrier-Sekani First Nation, that I will do what I can.

We are partners. We are investors in this addiction and treatment

and recovery healing centre. We were counting on them being able to

proceed with its development. The independent Agricultural Land

Commission made a decision based on different criteria. I share the

Chief’s discouragement. We met within days of me receiving the letter. I

will be in touch with her again as soon as I’ve been able to see how we

can find a way forward.

PROTECTION OF OLD-GROWTH FORESTS

A. Olsen: I heard the Minister of Forests’ response to my colleague last

week. Frankly, it was like Groundhog Day. If the Premier thinks British

Columbians will accept his minister simply recycling the previous

minister’s talking points from 2017 on old growth, he’s mistaken. The

Premier committed during the snap election to implement all of the

old-growth panel’s recommendations, including the panel’s call to

immediately halt logging in the most endangered old-growth forest

ecosystems.

As my colleague pointed out last week, we are now past the

six-month mark since government released the old-growth panel, and we

are coming up on a year since the government received that report.

However to date, we’ve seen almost zero action towards the Premier’s

promises. The only step taken so far, a set of deferrals announced in

September, include very little of the grandest, high-productivity,

old-growth stands at the heart of this debate. These are the monumental

trees that tower high above you, the majestic forests that provide homes

for so many species, including endangered species.

My question is to the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural

Resource Operations. What immediate steps is she taking to fulfil the

Premier’s response and halt logging in our highest-risk,

high-productivity old-growth forests?

Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the questions. We want old-growth forests

to be appreciated by people today and in the years to come. It’s also a

priority for our government to support good jobs for people in B.C.’s

forestry sector. That’s why our government asked an independent panel to

advise us on how we could do better when it comes to protecting our old

forests. Our government is dedicated to implementing the 14

recommendations to ensure a new holistic approach on how we manage

B.C.’s old-growth forests. That’s why as a first step — just a first

step, Member — in September, we collaborated with Indigenous governments

and protected old growth in nine different areas across B.C. That was

one of the recommendations that the panel put forward.

The very first recommendation was to make sure that we are working

with Indigenous nations across the pro­vince, and that’s what we

did. That’s our first step. There is more action to come, and we will be

doing this. We also brought in a special tree regulation, so 1,000 to

1,500 of those special trees the member referenced will be

protected.

We are moving ahead to protect old-growth forests in this

province. We are moving away from the divisive actions of the past

government to make sure that we are working together. We are working

with Indigenous nations. We are working with communities. We are working

with corporations, with labour, with environmental organizations and

communities that are dependent on the forest industry to ensure we can

move forward in this province.

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

supplemental.

A. Olsen: Unfortunately, while the talking continues, the logging continues.

Those trees, those monumental trees, are the ones that are being cut

first because they are the ones that the forestry industry sees as the

most valuable. They are the ones that they want access to. So while we

talk in this place, we log. And those trees are the ones that are

falling first.

This government is getting a failing grade from the lack of action

so far on old growth, from both environmental groups that the minister

talked about and conservationists. As experts have pointed out, the

steps taken to date have been highly problematic, leaving out those

monumental trees and at-risk valleys.

The government has seriously exaggerated how much old-growth

forest they have actually protected. Scientists have run the numbers and

have shown that this government has given interim protections to less

than 1 percent of the remaining high-productivity, big-tree stands left

in our province. So the clear-cutting is continuing in critical

old-growth stands across British Columbia, right under our noses, with

the direct approval of this Premier and his minister.

[2:15 p.m.]

My question again is to the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural

Resource Operations. When can we expect at least interim protections for

these rare ancient forests, or is the 1 percent all she’s

protecting?

Hon. K. Conroy: Well, the member just…. His numbers are inaccurate, so let’s just

clarify a few things.

In this province, there are 95 million hectares of land. Of that,

57 million hectares are forested. Of that 57 million hectares, 13.7

million hectares is old-growth forest. And of that, ten million hectares

is protected. That leaves 3.7 million hectares that may be harvested. I

didn’t say harvested — may be harvested.

Also, there is the special tree regulation. So if someone goes

into a stand and sees a special tree — the very tree the member

references — they are to protect that tree. That includes over 1,000 to

1,500 trees in our province.

We are committed to following the recommendations of the

old-growth report. I want to thank Al Gorley and Garry Merkel for the

work they did — the very thoughtful work they did as professional

foresters. Garry is a member of the Tahltan Nation.

We are moving forward to make sure that we have that

government-to-government discussion with Indigenous nations. That’s one

of the reasons we could defer those nine areas with that critical

old-growth forest in it, right off the bat, because there were those

discussions with the Indigenous nations that were affected.

That is critically important to us. We are moving forward. We are

making sure that we have the government-to-government discussions with

the First Nations. We are looking at what other old-growth forests we

can defer. We’re also working with the companies, with labour, with

environmental groups and with those communities that are dependent on

old-growth forests in this province.

It is not either-or. It is making sure that we have a sustainable,

well-managed forest industry while also protecting old-growth

forests.

ADDICTION SERVICES IN

INTERIOR HEALTH AUTHORITY

AND STATUS OF PATHWAYS CENTRE

T. Halford: The Premier stated today that every community is facing a

challenge on the file of mental health and addictions. He’s right.

Pathways addiction recovery centre has been a cornerstone of the

Penticton community, serving over 1,000 clients a year for 20 years. Two

weeks ago the Premier and this government decided to end that funding

and put 1,000 people’s treatment at risk. At a time when overdose deaths

are at an all-time high, it makes zero sense for this Premier to be

taking away a recovery option for local communities.

My question is to the Premier. Will he commit today to stop the

closure of the Pathways treatment centre?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Because addictions counselling is such an important part of

people’s path to treatment and recovery, the increase in investments of

all sorts of support for people in Interior Health is something that we

have funded, as a government. Pathways has been a critical part of that.

They’ve been providing service in Penticton for almost 20 years now — a

very valued member of the community. We’re really grateful for their

work as a contractee of Interior Health.

Interior Health tells us that they are now shifting their

substance use counselling to a different form of…. Instead of external

contract, they’re bringing it in-house. They assure us that when the

existing contract with Pathways ends on May 31, there will be no

disruption in service for people that are reliant on it. They say that

this will better support people on the whole continuum of care — not

just counselling, but treatment as well — and that it will also help

provide services more broadly in the whole South Okanagan, not only in

Penticton.

Interior Health is, as all the health authorities are, making

their own decisions about addictions, mental health and health delivery.

They start and stop contracts all the time. That this is coming in-house

is hoped to bring more stability of care for the people that need

it.

T. Halford: What’s clear to me today is that the minister responsible for

Mental Health and Addictions doesn’t have a lot of responsibility. It’s

a fact.

[2:20 p.m.]

Protesters gathered over the weekend to fight this Premier’s

decision to close the Pathways treatment centre. They included people

like Cyndy Ramsey, whose family member is among the thousands of clients

who receive life-saving treatment from Pathways. She says: “I have to

question this decision now, during this time of COVID, when people are

isolated, addictions are going up, and this is just one more nail in the

coffin.”

We just heard the minister say: “It’s not my responsibility. It’s

somebody else’s.”

Again my question is to the Premier.

Interjection.

T. Halford: Listen. That’s what she said. I didn’t say it.

My question is to the Premier. Will he step in and restore the

funding to the treatment centre?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Where the B.C. Liberal government failed to invest in mental

health and addictions treatment, our government is, and the health

authorities are the ones that deliver the service.

Here is some of what is newly available under our NDP government,

with Interior Health, to help people with mental health and addictions

treatment. In Interior Health alone, this is what is new and available.

We just this month added ten new government-funded youth treatment beds.

They’ve come online. They’re helping people right now.

Also this month, five new innovative, integrated treatment teams

are beginning to see clients throughout the southern Interior. Kamloops,

Cranbrook, West Kelowna, Enderby and Salmon Arm areas all have these new

teams that are helping people get addictions support, beating back

stigma, that couldn’t get it before.

We just opened a new urgent primary care centre in Penticton. It’s

opening at the end of March. It will provide long-term primary care so

people can get all their health care needs, including mental health and

addictions. It’s particularly focused on specialized services. And there

is more. These are all things that our government is choosing to fund,

where the previous government did not.

K. Kirkpatrick: Pathways is low-barrier. It offers a continuum of care that can

last years, as well as a drop-in centre. Anyone off the streets can come

in to see them.

This is not the case in an urgent care centre. People in Penticton

will be losing access to these drop-in services, which Interior Health

says will no longer be offered. People needing treatment will be forced

to wait in line at the local clinic instead of receiving specialized

services.

Why is the Premier eliminating drop-in services for those with

mental health challenges?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: When the existing external contract ends on May 31, Interior

Health assures us there will be no disruption in continuity of care for

people that need it. We are adding a multitude of ways, more and more

services, for people to be able to overcome stigma, to have services

that meet them where they are at.

This is an unprecedented expansion in access to addictions

treatment support, beyond anything British Columbia has ever seen, and

the need is deeper than anything British Columbia has ever seen. The

loss of life from the overdose crisis has meant that we have accelerated

British Columbia’s response enormously. We have more than 200

government-funded treatment beds in Interior Health. We’ve added Foundry

locations, peer-led for young people and young adults, in Kelowna and

Penticton to support young people with mental health and addiction

issues.

In every way, there are more services available and designed by

people that need the services most. I am assured by Interior Health that

there will not be any interruption to service for people in

Penticton.

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

supplemental.

K. Kirkpatrick: Having access to a drop-in centre and being able to meet people

where they’re at is such an important piece of supporting the mental

health of our communities.

The families who have benefited from Pathways disagree with this

government. Julie Gaal says: “Interior Health will not be able to meet

the same level of care that Pathways does.” Kim Row says: “The service

that Pathways provides is priceless. It is not a model that can be

copied by…Interior Health.”

[2:25 p.m.]

Why is the Premier taking away a trusted local treatment option,

closing this treatment centre and reducing services to those in

need?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The service that Pathways has provide for almost 20 years in

Penticton is appreciated. At a contract level, Interior Health has

decided not to renew the contract, which was known a couple months ago.

The contract will run until the end of May. Interior Health says once

the services are brought in-house and expanded, it will represent an

expansion of treatment services for people in the region.

Frankly, it’s dangerous for the opposition to suggest that there

are not treatment options for people. They are expanded in every part of

the province, more options for addictions treatment and support and

recovery than there have ever been before. The need is deeper than it

has been before.

Please, anybody that is watching, if you need support, whether

it’s virtual or in person, you can look at

gov.bc.ca/COVID19mentalhealthandaddictionsupports. There is a great

range, much of it designed for people with lived and living experience,

so that we can, as the member says, meet people where they are

at.

Information publicly made available from Interior Health says that

on a medical basis, there is not going to be any reduction in care for

people in need. There will be an expansion. I hope the member will get

behind that message from our health authority and let people know that

help is there for them.

COVID-19 RESPONSE FOR DISABILITY

AND INCOME ASSISTANCE

RECIPIENTS

D. Davies: The pandemic has been a very stressful time for British

Columbians. As the Premier has pointed out: “It’s a pandemic, dude.”

Well, in the middle of this pandemic, the Premier has heartlessly chosen

to cut $300 a month from those who need it the most: people living with

disabilities and low-income seniors.

It was the Premier who made this as complicated as possible for

people to apply for the COVID benefit. It’s the Premier who is making

them wait and stressing them out as he delays support. “I’m just one

voice” doesn’t cut it. These people deserve an honest answer from the

Premier. In fact, this week there is a group of advocates that are going

to be hosting an online rally.

Will the Premier restore the $300 that he cut from seniors and

those living with disabilities?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for the question. He’s got the facts a little

bit wrong. We didn’t cut the program; we created the program. We put

$300 in people’s pockets. After a decade of no increases to income

assistance, what did we do? We increased income assistance. The

emergency benefit that was to be for three months and then for six

months went to be nine months. We made it $150, and we made it so easy

for the $1,000 benefit that everybody got it automatically.

So if the hon. member from way the heck over there wants to stand

up and talk about the vulnerable in his community, do some history, man.

You did nothing for a decade.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Question period is over, Members. The bell ends question

period.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: All right. Calm down. That’s enough.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading, Bill 10, Supply Act, 2021.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

[2:30 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — SUPPLY ACT (N o . 1),

Deputy Speaker: Members, if I might ask, please take your conversations out to the

hallways or, even better, the open air — outside the buildings if you

need to do that. We will be proceeding with discussion of interim supply

act 2021.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 10, the Supply Act (No. 1), 2021, be read a

second time now.

Existing voted appropriations will expire on March 31, 2021. Bill

10 provides interim supply for ministry operations and other

appropriations for approximately the first three months of the 2021-2022

fiscal year, until the 2021-22 estimates are presented and the House

completes debate of the appropriations in those estimates. Interim

supply for ministry operations and other appropriations is required to

ensure continuation of government services until the final supply bill

comes into force.

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.

Bill 10 also provides one-third of the combined voted amounts in

schedules C and D of the 2020-2021 estimates for disbursements related

to capital expenditures, loans, investments and other financing

requirements. The one-third authorization provided for in relation to

these disbursements is higher than the proportion authorized in relation

to ministry operations, as the disbursements described in schedules C

and D are not evenly distributed throughout the year. Therefore, the

higher level of interim supply is required to accommodate the payments

that will be made under these schedules.

Bill 10 also authorizes one-half of the disbursements referred to

in

schedule E of the 2020-2021 estimates.

Schedule E of the estimates

outlines the revenue collected on behalf of and transferred to specific

programs or entities. There is no impact on the operating results,

borrowing or debt resulting from the collection and transfer of this

revenue.

These interim supply appropriations are based on the

accountabilities and allocations outlined in the 2020-2021 estimates and

will allow the government to remain funded until the main estimates for

2021-2022 are presented and passed. The final supply bill for the

2021-2022 fiscal year will incorporate these amounts to ensure it

reflects the sum of all voted appropriations to be given to government

in that fiscal year.

This bill is about making sure that we can continue to support

British Columbians. As a government, we have certainly seen the impacts

of the pandemic here in British Columbia and around the nation and

around the world.

I’m very proud of the fact that our government has provided the

most supports of any other government here in the nation to make sure

that British Columbians can take care of their families and can take

care of their loved ones, making sure that child care is there for those

who are on the front lines, making sure that doctors and nurses and lab

techs can go to work to make sure that they’re able to take care of our

loved ones who might be exposed to COVID or sick with COVID and making

sure that they are doing their jobs. We’re making sure that their

children are cared for.

We also want to make sure that those who are working in long-term

care, taking care of our seniors, who thankfully now are vaccinated….

They still need care. We need to make sure that they continue to be

paid, continue to operate and continue to take care of our

seniors.

We also need to make sure that those members that are living on

the margins, whether they find themselves without a home, live with

mental illness or addiction or live with a disability, continue to also

receive the government benefits that they rely on in order to have a

quality of life that allows them to take care of themselves.

[2:35 p.m.]

All of these things that we are able to provide, all of these

things that we know, through COVID, just how much more precious it is….

This bill is about making sure that that can continue to

happen.

I know that the members are going to probably complain about the

fact that they haven’t seen the budget yet, which is coming on April 20.

We have been in an unprecedented time, and making sure that we take the

time to hear from the various constituent groups about what their needs

are, making sure that we have a budget that responds to those unique

needs….

Dr. Henry has said…. Over the past year, she’s often referred to:

“We’re all in the same storm, but we’re in different boats.” It’s such

an apt description. Making sure that we are connecting with all the

various boats and understanding what their needs are so that we can have

a budget that responds to their needs — that’s absolutely

critical.

Taking the time to make sure that we hear from the tourism sector,

hear from the manufacturing sector, hear from people with disabilities,

hear from front-line workers, hear from the whole range of diverse

groups that make up British Columbia, that make us so special, and

understand their unique needs, because they are in different boats….

That’s what it means to be in different boats. Some are more stable in a

storm. They’re more flat-bottomed and can ride the waves more easily.

They’re more resilient. And others are certainly more fragile and need a

little bit more understanding and a little bit more, perhaps, budget

support in order to make it through this storm. That’s why we haven’t

seen budget estimates, as is normally the case. That is

coming.

In the meantime, we need to make sure that the supports are there

for people when they need it. We need to make sure that we continue to

pay our teachers, who are out there every day, making sure that our

children are learning. We need to make sure that we continue to pay

those conservation officers, especially, I would say…. The member from

Port Moody was here earlier, and, certainly, we’d been chatting about

cougar sightings in his community and making sure that conservation is

there to keep those folks safe. So there’s another….

Interjection.

Hon. S. Robinson: Oh, I see the member from Burke Mountain is here, and I know that

the cougar was up in his riding as well.

This supply bill is about making sure that those people that we

count on, those people that we don’t often even think about in terms of,

you know, how they are paid and how they come to be to take care of us,

who’s responsible for that…. This bill is about making sure that those

people can continue to do the important work that they do. I think it’s

also important to mention to everyone here in the House that this is

normal, to do a supply bill, because we often need more time to debate

estimates. It goes well beyond March 31, which is year-end, and we bring

forward supply bills every single year. Certainly — I’ve been here since

2013 — every single year there’s a supply bill that’s brought in that’s

debated, that’s passed, while we continue to do the important work of

going through estimates process and passing the budget so that we can

continue to do the important work that British Columbians count

on.

I know that there is going to be ongoing debate about this, but I

want to finish off my comments, as part of the second reading, about how

outstanding the public service has been in terms of their work in

helping us get through this extraordinary year.

I can remember, from my home office — which was my son’s old

bedroom, transforming it into a livable workspace — talking with the

public service a year ago, right through for months, just doing work

from that space and talking about how we were going to take care of

British Columbians, how we were going to address — certainly, as the

previous Housing Minister — the concerns that renters had, how we were

going to address the concerns that we had around people who were

homeless, how we were going to thin shelters, how we were going to find

more shelter space, how we were going to make sure that health care

could be delivered to those that were most on the margins, how we were

going to do that recognition when we didn’t understand how COVID,

frankly, was transmitted at the time and we knew we needed to

act.

[2:40 p.m.]

It was the public service and the people on the front lines and

their collaboration, and, frankly, their late nights, their weekend

work…. I don’t think the public would fully appreciate how hard the

public service worked to help us all get through this last

year.

This bill is about making sure that those people continue to get

paid, continue to do the important work that they are doing right now

during this pandemic. I want to preface that by saying the important

work that they’re going to have to keep doing.

We are not through this pandemic. Yes, there’s light at the end of

the tunnel. I see my colleagues across the way with sort of a smile in

their eyes, feeling the energy that we are getting there. We are getting

closer. A year ago, we did not anticipate that we would be vaccinating

people now. The talk at the time was it was going to be a couple of

years. Well, it’s a year. This is exciting, but we’re still in that

tunnel.

We know that there are parts of the economy that have not yet been

able to come back — particularly around tourism, for sure. But we also

need to make sure that we’re ready for a recovery when we’re able to be

out of this state of emergency.

The opportunities are there before us as well. It really is a

public service, doing a significant amount of work to help us all get

through this last part of the pandemic and move into the new phase once

we all have herd immunity and are able to see the Emergency Management

Act repealed so that we’re not in this state of emergency.

I look forward to that day. But for right now, I look forward to

the debate in this House. With that, I look forward to hearing what my

colleagues have to say.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that. I look forward to hearing everybody’s comments

as well. But let me just start by acknowledging a few things that the

minister said.

This is not normal. Now, there are a lot of things that aren’t

normal, as the minister highlighted, throughout the last year, when we

talk about the pandemic and we talk about some of the things, programs,

that government was trying to roll out. But what’s not normal is the

process that this government is going through right now.

I heard the minister stand up and say…. All of the great public

sector workers out there, all of the great work that’s being done — that

these funds that the government is asking for are to go to help those

people and the great work they’re doing. How do we know? Are we supposed

to now just take government’s word for it yet again? I’ll get into some

of the things a little later on in my speech of why this is not normal.

The process that government is going through, the laws that they’re

having to basically change in order to go through putting a supply act

forward as they are….

One of the things I’m hearing from people is that they’re actually

starting to get sick and tired of this government using the pandemic as

a shield for not doing their job, for not following timelines, for not

being accountable and transparent in the work that they are doing, which

is expected of them by the people of British Columbia and of this House.

People are getting frustrated. They’re getting frustrated, definitely,

with the pandemic, but they’re frustrated with the government and the

way they’re dealing with it.

This government has delayed quarterly reports. They’ve delayed the

budget. The minister acknowledged that, but that’s one of the reasons

why we’re going to have to discuss this bill in further detail today.

It’s because the budget has been delayed, and this government has been

unable to tell anybody where a dollar of it really is going.

This is another “trust us” exercise. We’ve seen how that’s played

out over the last three, four years with this government not being able

to fulfil the promises that they have made to the electorate. This

government is having to bypass transparency laws in order to put the

Supply Act forward.

[2:45 p.m.]

Now, in some ways, this should be no surprise to this House or the

general public if you think back now. It’s the current Premier, his

current chief of staff, the Health minister, and they were all around in

the 1990s during the fudge-it budget era. So in some ways, it’s no

surprise.

I know most people remember when the NDP Premier needed to resign

in disgrace because of the handling of the financial situation under an

NDP government. I know many people probably remember those TV cameras

rolling and filming the RCMP raiding the Premier’s house to find

documents while the now chief of staff in the Premier’s office looked on

and watched all that take place.

I think we also remember the Minister of Health having to resign

his job in the Premier’s office for backdating memos. So, yeah. Of

course we’re finding ourselves in the same situation with the same NDP

government. You’d think 20 years later, a few different faces, they

would have learned. But we’re back in the same scenario of this

government not being able to handle the finances of the province and now

trying to use the pandemic as a situation to hide behind for them

failing to do the jobs that they were elected to do.

You know, I look at this last year…. In good faith, I will say

that we had all three parties, all sides of this House who understood

that we were in the middle of a pandemic and that extra supports would

be needed to help people, especially vulnerable people in the province,

businesses that were hurting, people who lost their jobs. Obviously, we

all understood, we all empathized, and we all realized that we needed to

do something as elected members of this province to help those

people.

In good faith, we did that. We trusted this government. We took

them at their word because, at that time as well, they were unable to

put the documents in this House to say where all those dollars would be

going. Even if they did in some situations, they failed to fulfil that

promise to help people when we said that that money was going to go and

do just that.

In front of us today…. It is unfortunate when we’re in a situation

that this government, on their track record in the past, is once again,

in good faith, asking for trust — for us to give them now $13.4 billion,

to be exact, with no accountability. The minister says: “Don’t worry.

Don’t worry, this is normal.”

Well, actually, it’s not. I’ll explain some history on that in a

moment. But she also said: “Don’t worry. You’ll see the budget.” We’re

being asked to spend $13.4 billion, again, without knowing where a

single dollar of that is going. It’s another case of: “Don’t worry. Just

wait. Trust us.”

Because of what happened in the 1990s under an NDP government,

there’s a reason why laws were changed in the province of British

Columbia. Laws around accountability. Laws around transparency and

around the financial situations of how we report. We brought in the

balanced-budget legislation. We brought in fixed budget dates. For that

matter, we brought in fixed election dates, but we’ve seen how this

government fails to follow those rules as well. We brought in the

Economic Forecast Council to help guide the budgeting

process.

Because of all of those things, that’s why British Columbia was

considered a leader in Canada, a leader around transparency and

accountability, a leader around fiscal management. It’s because of those

laws that were brought in to ensure that that information was shared in

a timely way, in a legal way and in an appropriate way for the people of

British Columbia. Because at the end of the day, some people in this

House, especially the NDP government, forget it’s the taxpayers of

British Columbia’s money. It’s not theirs. They deserve to know where

that money is being spent.

[2:50 p.m.]

We’re back to the old playbook, 25 years later. A few new

characters in the book. History is repeating itself again. The fear we

have, and we are already starting to see, is that because of this lack

of accountability and transparency with this government, we’re also

losing credibility as a province in the financial world. They expect

better. The citizens expect better as well. Just because this government

did it in the past doesn’t mean they have the right to do it

again.

As the minister said, it’s a normal process to bring in a supply

bill. What she failed to mention is that every single time in the

history of the province of British Columbia when a supply bill is

brought to this House, it’s after a budget. There’s a reference point.

You can come forward and say: “We need $13.4 billion, and here’s our

budget for the next fiscal year. This is why we need this money, and

this is where it’s going to be allotted to in the three-month

transitional period while we go through an estimates

process.”

In the past, that was normal. In the history of this province,

that’s always the way it’s been done — until you have an NDP government.

Then, once again, the rules change to accommodate the fact that they

were unable to do their jobs.

The present situation of putting supply bills forward after a

budget started in 1974. This isn’t back in the B.C. Liberal era. It’s

not in the original NDP era. This is 1974 that this process started — to

put a budget in front of the House, put a supply bill forward, to talk

about the expenditures when you’re doing a Supply Act (No.

1).

What’s interesting, again, is that laws were brought in to

specifically outline how the process should work in this chamber. Now,

there have been times in the past where budgets were presented on the

same day as the Supply Act, or a few days later, maybe even a few weeks

later. But in every single case in the history that I could find, it was

never, ever presented in this House before a budget.

When the minister stands here and says this is normal, that’s a

facade. That is her trying to hide the fact that she was unable to — and

this government was unable to — put a budget forward in a timely manner

based on the criteria laid out in the legislation that requires them to

do so.

Now, last week we passed and discussed a few bills in this House.

In some of them, we talked about how simple they were — not a lot of

monetary change, just a few wordings. Well, some of those were 175

sections long, hundreds of pages long, took a lot of discussion and

debate on the minister’s side, on this side of the House. Yet we find in

front of us today the NDP government asking for $13.4 billion, no

strings attached, no idea where it’s going, on one piece of paper asking

this House for it. That’s it. One piece of paper. No idea what

ministries — what they’re receiving. No ideas what programs are going to

be allotted funds.

Now, we need to remember. We’re in a unique situation here. This

NDP government, this Premier and minister, last fall changed legislation

again to allow them to pass the budget late, but they’re bringing a

budget forward in an entirely new fiscal year with a 20-day gap. It

might not sound like a lot to some, but that means that we have a fiscal

year ending. We have a three-week window with no idea what the budget is

for the government, yet they say they need money to continually pay the

bills.

[2:55 p.m.]

None of us on this side of the House are naive. We know that the

government needs money. We’re not saying the government doesn’t need

money to continue after April 1. We know that. It would be absurd to

think otherwise. What’s also absurd is to come in front of this House

and ask for that money in good faith, with no explanation of where it’s

going to go.

What ‘s even more interesting — the minister acknowledged it in

her opening remarks, and it’s one of the few lines that’s in the bill —

is the fact that they were unable to put a budget forward in a timely

manner before the end of the fiscal year, like has always happened. But

because of that, they also have to, under the legislation for a supply

act, reference last year’s budget.

We have a government now who is saying, “We aren’t able to put a

budget forward. We can’t tell you where the money is going, but in order

to meet the criteria of law we have to reference some budget, so let’s

reference a budget from last March” — from pre-COVID, before any

supports were out to help people. The law says they have to reference a

budget. So yes, how convenient it is that they put in here for the

purposes of this act the main estimates for the previous fiscal year,

from the fifth session of the 41st parliament. They’re to be read as if

they are the estimates for the ’21-22 fiscal year.

I look forward to every minister in government standing up and

explaining, if they are getting any money, where that money is going.

But more importantly, what I’m wondering on behalf of the people of

British Columbia, who find themselves still in the midst of a pandemic,

who have been relying on some supports — those that have succeeded, from

this government, because as we all know, they all haven’t…. Do those

supports expire on April 1? According to what we have in front of us, it

sure sounds like they do.

If your small business recovery grant…. I know the government

tries to tout the fact that the applications are extended. There is

nowhere in this budget, though, that says there’s money there for you,

sorry to say. In fact, it’s a budget that’s referenced before those

announcements were even made, and that’s the budget that this government

is now referencing for the Supply Act.

There’s no $150. Of course, government has clawed back $150, but I

guess maybe there’s no continuation of the $150 to help people on

disability, people who have been frustrated as heck from this

government, waiting for their COVID recovery benefits. The government

tries to pat themselves on the back. They promised 3.7 million people

that they would receive this by Christmas. We know that didn’t happen.

The government, in their own admission, has said there are half a

million people who have applied that still haven’t received those funds.

We’re talking three months later. We have one million people who, for

the most part, have just given up on this government and haven’t even

applied, which is unfortunate, because so many of those people need

those funds.

Again, under this bill that we have in front of us…. I look

forward to the minister standing up and saying if those funds are

magically going to show up in their budget, because we don’t know. There

is nothing in this bill that tells us where the money is

going.

That’s why we raised this. This is a first. This is not normal.

This is a government who has been unable to meet their obligations as a

government under legislation. After the budget last March, another $8

billion was added. We have no idea, in detail, where that money has

gone, how much is left, if any is going to continue on. Again, the

assumption is, as of April 1, there’s no money there. It might

magically, hopefully, happen to show up in a budget on April 20. But how

do we know?

[3:00 p.m.]

This government’s ability to ask for people to trust them is

wearing thin. This House’s ability to continue to approve money to help

people during a pandemic, which we all want to do…. We all recognize

that, but it’s becoming harder and harder. What’s more frustrating is

when we finally have those discussions and we think we have some detail

of where the finances are going to go to help these people, it doesn’t

show up.

The minister says in her opening comments: “Well, you know, we’ve

been hearing the tourism sector, we’ve been hearing about the people who

are struggling, and we’ve been hearing about the challenges in small

business.” Are you really? Are they listening? Because we actually

approved finances in this House to go help those people in need. And the

government sat on the money.

That’s frustration for so many people. That’s frustration for the

opposition who, in good faith, trusted this government. Now, once again,

they’re asking us to do it again. The Premier even admitted that that

budget that was presented last March — a year ago now — was not really

worth the paper it was written on. So why would they reference that same

budget now to tell us where they’re going to be spending money? That’s a

frustration for a lot of people. Anybody who will be watching this, I

think, would appreciate and understand, as well, that government has a

job to do, that government has a tough job to do. But it’s still their

job to do.

This government has had no problem during a pandemic raising

taxes. They have no problem trying to get more money to come in, yet

they’ve failed giving out quarterly reports to say how much or where

it’s going. It’s unfortunate that we find ourselves in this situation.

Again, I want to say that we appreciate the fact that government needs

to continue, that bills need to be paid. Nobody is arguing those points

that the minister brought forward this morning.

What my issue is — and what my challenge back to the government is

— is the process. How can you stand up, as a government, and pat

yourselves on the back about transparency and accountability when you’re

breaking those exact same laws to put this bill on the floor? It is

going to be the obligation, I hope, of the NDP members to explain that

during this debate. It’s one thing to stand up and say: “We need $13.4

billion to move government forward.” I’m looking forward to hearing

government members stand up and say, “Trust us” — again with no

information. “I’m willing to stand and support this bill as an NDP

member, not knowing a darn thing.”

If they do know something, well, there’s a travesty all in itself,

because they should be sharing it with this House. We will find

ourselves right back in the 1990s fudge-it budget era, if that’s the

case. So government has a job to do, and so does opposition. Our job, on

this bill specifically, is to highlight and to call to the floor the

fact that, once again, the government is not living up to their roles

and responsibilities around accountability for this province.

[3:05 p.m.]

I mentioned the COVID recovery benefit, the small business

benefits that were out there trying to help people. I’m hoping some of

those ministers responsible for those files will stand up and tell me

I’m wrong — that they can point somewhere in a schedule, somewhere in a

budget that has not been presented to the floor of this House, to be

able to verify that I’m wrong, to be able to show the public that, yes,

money will be continuing on April 2 for anybody who applies for a grant,

and: “Here’s the line item in my budget to prove it.” If not, it’s

another example of “just trust us,” and we’ve seen how that’s worked

over the last couple of years, as this government has failed to roll out

programs to help people.

The government had no problem last Friday quietly, towards the end

of the day, announcing that on April 1 there are going to be tax

increases in certain areas, no problems with those press releases. I do

find it interesting that this same government and Premier have no

problem doing that. “We will announce….” They’ve found time to come up

with all of the work needed to raise taxes but not enough time to put a

budget forward for where those funds will be going or why they need

it.

Now, I can only expect that, on April 20, we’re going to be

hearing of a massive financial hole that this government has dug. I also

assume that this government and minister are going to then, in turn, try

to use the pandemic shield as the reason why. Unfortunately, the books

don’t verify that. This government was already in a solid fiscal decline

before COVID even started, and that was on top of increasing or bringing

in over 20 new taxes to the province to increase revenues. That’s on top

of increasing the carbon tax and getting rid of the revenue-neutrality

portion of it, to bring that into general revenues.

This government has had no problems finding money through taxes

out of the pockets of the people of British Columbia. Where they have a

problem is showing them where they’re spending it afterwards and why

they needed that money and why they continue to go into debt at the same

time. We’ve heard all the problems with the speculation tax and that

people are being targeted. Now, it’s mostly British Columbians who are

being targeted, as homeowners. We have numerous examples that we’re

going to bring forward during estimates to be able to get the Premier

and the minister on the record of why these British Columbians, who are

not speculators, are being targeted now and having to pay this extra

money.

We’ve heard all the stories of businesses over the last few years

under an NDP government that have shut their doors, prior to COVID — a

lot of them because of an employers health tax, that burden that was now

put onto the employers who never had to pay that before.

I hear chuckles. I’m looking forward to the members explaining to

me how I’m wrong on that. Because I can show the members hundreds of

businesses that have been shut down because they no longer could afford

the em­ployers health tax, and people lost their jobs because of

this government. What’s unfortunate is I’m being heckled for that, which

means they’re not even listening to those same businesses that are

telling the stories, that have been in the media, that have written to

the ministers. Shame on them for ignoring them. Shame on this government

for not acknowledging that those taxes and those policies have impacts

on people, on businesses, on livelihoods.

That’s appalling that I would get heckled on that, as they pretend

it doesn’t happen under their watch, when it does. I challenge them to

prove me wrong on that, that no business was shut down. People lost

their jobs because of that issue.

I’m just going to end by again acknowledging that the opposition

understands the process of the fiscal situation of this government and

how bills need to be paid. That is not what we are challenging. We

understand that. What we’re asking is why this government is asking for

$13.4 billion. That’s all. Just show us where that money is going to

go.

[3:10 p.m.]

What’s normal is that every other government in every other year

since the 1970s has followed a process of accountability and

transparency until the 1990s when that changed. Laws had to come in

after an NDP government to ensure that that process would continue on

behalf of this House and for the people in the province. How upsetting

it is to see this happening again under an NDP government, 25 years

later — that once again the laws are being broken to accommodate

them.

I look forward, again, to any government member standing up and

explaining where this money is going in detail, because as I mentioned,

the bill is one page. There’s no

schedule attached, like there’s always

been in history. If the government had put this on the floor, with a

budget telling us where that money is going to go, that would have been

normal.

A. Singh: I love it when my friends opposite have to dig back 25 years,

again and again, to find anything. They forget that they destroyed ICBC.

They raided coffers of Crown corporations to balance their budget.

They’re the architects of a financial election campaign regime that was

called the Wild West. Never mind the housing crisis. But let’s forget

that for now.

We’re going to talk about what the Minister of Finance was talking

about. When I came here and sat down today…. Actually, my friend from

Richmond South Centre earlier talked about ubuntu — I to I in

the we. I came here, and I sat down today. As he mentioned that, I

realized I’m sitting at seat 13. My spirituality is the Sikh

spirituality. The number 13 is really, really prominent and important in

that spirituality because the Punjabi-Gurmukhi word for 13 is

੧੩ ਤੇਰਾਂ /

تیراں , which also, coincidentally,

happens to be the same word for “yours.”

There’s this whole concept in Sikh spirituality that follows all

the spiritualities, whether they’re religious spiritualities or just

spiritualities that come from thousands of years. Christian spirituality

has that same thing: render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render

unto God what is God’s, God being the embodiment of the people. Yours,

੧੩ ਤੇਰਾਂ /

تیراں — the central concept of that is

that everything is shared. It’s a people’s. That’s why I’m proud to

stand on this side with a government that believes in that, that

believes in the people and believes that we work for the

people.

As has been mentioned again and again, this should not be unusual,

having an interim supply bill. Twenty days — really not that

substantial. I’m going to read the Minister of Finance’s statement on

the interim supply bill, right? It kind of says it all, but I’ll go into

more details afterwards, as well, because my friends on the other side

may want them.

She states: “Twelve months ago, COVID-19 turned our lives upside

down.” We all know that. We’re living in an unprecedented time, in a

time that we all hope we’ll never have to go through again. “Since then,

the province has invested over $10 billion in COVID-19 relief and

recovery measures, contributing more per capita to businesses and people

than any other province.”

I’ll pause there. We’re talking about businesses and businesses

closing down. This is a government that has brought British Columbia’s

economy to a place where economists all over agree again and again,

report after report — one of the best economies in the world, one of the

best economies in Canada. Incredible credit ratings. Unprecedented job

numbers, even at the end of a pandemic or towards the end of a

pandemic.

[3:15 p.m.]

I continue to read: “These measures have focused on protecting

people’s health” — something that everybody agrees on — “and livelihoods

through supports for workers, businesses, communities, health care and

other critical services. Next month” — about a month from now — “we’ll

be introducing Budget 2021, which will continue to be responsive to the

needs of people, businesses and communities to see them through the

pandemic and into a strong economic recovery that supports all British

Columbians.”

Again, the key in all of this message, the key in the concept

here, is people. This is for them, for all of us.

The interim supply legislation introduced today, a simple piece of

legislation, really, will provide bridge funding between the end of the

fiscal year on March 31 and the last day of the spring session, when the

provincial budget is formally passed. What is it, 20 days? Introducing

this kind of interim supply legislation is common practice. It’s been

done year after year after year.

COVID-19 has been an unprecedented challenge. While we can see the

light at the end of the tunnel, our government will continue to ensure

we keep people safe, while creating the foundation for a sustainable

recovery for everyone. That should say it all, but I have 25 more

minutes, so I’ll continue on.

It’s important that people, the businesses that they run and the

communities that they’re part of know that support is there, regardless

of the timing of the budget. We’ve come a long way together. It’s just

over a year since this pandemic hit us, but the road to recovery is

still ahead of us. The vaccines are here now — right? — but we all know

that economic recovery will take some time.

Again, I’m proud to sit opposite the Minister of JERI there, who

has done an incredible job during this time and will continue to do so.

I think my friend agrees.

Interjection.

A. Singh: Good karma.

As is common practice every year, the province passes an interim

supply bill to ensure current supports and services can continue while a

new budget is debated, thought out — a budget that, as the minister

stated earlier, responds to the very needs of the people that we’re here

for, that we’re elected to serve, not a budget that comes from nowhere

but a budget that responds to the needs of the people.

You need time to be able to do that. By moving the budget to

April, this gives us greater time to connect with businesses, to connect

with those very people and develop an effective, long-term strategy, a

long-term plan, that builds on the current supports that we’ve laid out.

That’s necessary during this time. We want to make sure that we come out

of this robust, we come out of this strong and we come out of this

united.

Budget 2021 will continue to focus on keeping people safe

throughout the pandemic. We’ll do this with an eye to how we position

our province to seize the opportunities that recovery will offer. We

don’t know what the future holds. We want to be able to be flexible and

to be able to seize on those opportunities and to move into the new

world.

What this essentially does is that it ensures that current

supports and services continue while the new budget is debated in the

Legislature. In the meantime, every day we’re continuing to announce new

and updated programs and substantiate many previously announced supports

that are still continuing. In fact, a few weeks ago Minister Cullen, the

minister across the way there, announced the extension of the small

business grants and loans and changed the criteria for that. That’s what

we want to be. We want to be a government that’s flexible, that listens

to businesses, listens to people and is able to respond to

that.

We’re helping people now. It’s not tomorrow; we’re helping people

now. Our $10 billion COVID-19 response is protecting people’s health.

It’s protecting their livelihoods, and it’s investing in stronger

communities and a brighter future for everybody. We’ll continue to be

responsive to those needs, to the needs of the people, to the needs of

businesses and the communities that they live in, to see them through

this pandemic and to, hopefully, build a strong economic recovery —

again, that supports and works for everybody, not just people at the

top, not just a few but for everybody.

This budget, Budget 2021, will continue to focus on keeping people

safe throughout this pandemic. You know, the path forward is not the

same for everyone. It’s not the same for all sectors of the economy, and

we recognize that. Our support for investment, our support for people

and our support for businesses should also recognize that.

This last year has been so unusual, so unusual. The amount of

uncertainty that we have, what was going to be impacted, what wasn’t

going to be impacted — no one really knew what was happening.

[3:20 p.m.]

This House came together, and I commend this House for coming

together for that. We invested with broad tools to quickly provide

support to as many people as possible. We continued through our pandemic

response and recovery to identify those who were most affected. Now, as

we’re a year into this, our support has become a lot more targeted to

address the specific needs of particular groups and sectors.

Much has been spoken this morning about mental health and

addictions, and we recognize that. So our Minister of Mental Health and

Addictions is working day in and day out, focusing on that, focusing on

providing the tools and the resources that the great people that work in

that sector need. You’ll see this flexibility reflected now in our

day-to-day decisions, as you’ll see it reflected in the budget as it

comes up.

Again, it’s not an unusual thing to have an interim supply bill.

It happens year after year after year at the end of the fiscal year to

allow for a debate on robust estimates. It’s common practice to ensure

that current supports and services continue while the new budget is

debated. As we know, things get debated for quite some time, and the

’90s get mentioned again and again because there is nothing else for

them to mention.

As in other years, the interim supply bill provides temporary

legal authority for the government to continue the programs and services

into the new fiscal year. Budget 2021 is an important part of a strong,

long-term — and that’s a key here: long-term — economic recovery. We’re

nowhere out of this pandemic. It’s going to take a long time to get out

of this. We’re going to need all the supports and services that we need

to get there to make sure that British Columbians, the people that live

here, have those supports and services that they need for success in a

post-pandemic world.

When you’re thinking long term, it’s really important that you

listen to the people that are going to be affected by this, that you

connect with those businesses, that you connect with the people out

there to develop a program that’s meaningful, a plan that takes into

consideration the things that you need for long-term planning and that

builds on what’s already happened, builds on the current supports that

already exist.

Again, the amount that’s required here is not in addition to

Budget 2021. It’s a portion of Budget ’21’s total support. It’s a

continuation of the programs and services during this interim period. As

in other years, this supply bill provides a temporary legal authority,

as I stated earlier, for the government to continue the programs and

services into the new fiscal year. My friends have spoken this morning

and on many days in this House on all of the wonderful programs that

have come up in the last few months — indeed, in the last

year.

Now, my friends said: “Will services stop on April 1?” Well,

that’s the whole point of having an interim supply bill, right? We’re

confident that this interim supply bill will have enough funding to fund

fully all of the programs that exist until the new budget is brought in,

until it’s debated and is passed.

Our supports for British Columbians that are so necessary at this

point, at this juncture in the pandemic — they won’t be impacted. We

want to make sure that people in British Columbia continue to get the

amount of care and the quality of care that they expect to get from this

government, and there are contingencies already built into this supply

bill, in case of an emergency. But British Columbians will continue to

get the amount of support that they have.

While some StrongerBC programs are designed to end with the fiscal

year, we’re going to continue to support people’s lives and livelihoods

through the pandemic. For example, up to 3.7 million of British

Columbians are eligible for the B.C. recovery benefit. We all know about

this, where individuals can apply and receive up to $500 and families up

to $1,000. We recently announced $20 million in grants through a

community economic recovery infrastructure program. We have the small

business grant program that can supply up to $45,000 in grants for

tourism-related businesses and $30,000 for non-tourism

businesses.

[3:25 p.m.]

These are grants. These are not loans. We’re not inflicting more

debt on people. People have enough debt at this point. We want to create

the supports and services and offer the services that are able to get

people out of the pandemic and give them the resources so that they can

dig themselves out of this collective hole that we’re all in right

now.

The development of our budget in 2021 includes looking at what

we’ve done so far to ensure that the province’s supports and services

are working for people, for businesses and for communities that they

were created for, as well as the supports that we’re going to need in

the future. Of course, more details will come when we get closer to the

release of Budget 2021.

Again, this has been a challenging year for all of us, and I’m

really proud to stand here in British Columbia to say that this House

has met that challenge incredibly well. We live in a province that’s

gifted. We have all of these people working together to help the people

of British Columbia come out of this with the supports and the services

that they need.

This is not an unusual tactic. This is not an unusual thing, an

interim supply bill. This whole year has been unusual, and this is but a

small part of it. There’s nothing unusual about having an interim supply

bill to get through those 20 days, to make sure that people have the

supports and the services that they require, to make sure people have

the supports and the services that they need until the full budget is

passed.

Again, almost astounded that we have to talk about this. It seems

that it should not be that unusual. We should really carry on and get to

so much of the other work that we need to do.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I was a bit scared to stand up that

time.

I look forward to continuing debate on the Supply Act before us

today. I don’t recall ever having been asked to agree to provide funding

with no transparency as to how something would be allocated, with no

spending plan.

I’ve heard a lot of platitudes from the other side of the House,

in terms of: “Why should we even be questioning this, because this

government is doing so many good things?” But it’s our responsibility to

question this. This isn’t about all the programs and supporting good

people in the community. This is about being accountable to British

Columbians. It’s about coming up with a clear, true, transparent plan so

British Columbians know that their money is being managed

well.

The Minister of Finance mentioned at the beginning as she spoke

about this bill that we are in unprecedented times, and that is why we

don’t have a budget yet: “We are in unprecedented times.” Well, we’re in

unprecedented times, and never more have we needed a budget to be on

time and as accurate as possible.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

There are many non-profit boards out there in the community who,

I’m sure, have made sure that they’ve got budgets in place because

they’re concerned and they’re worried and they’ve got to figure out how

they’re going to be spending their money this year. There are

organizations, businesses — they have fiduciary duty to make sure that

they’ve got budgets in place and that they know how they’re going to be

spending their money. So saying that these are unprecedented times, and

that’s why we don’t have a budget yet, makes no sense to me.

Government should have anticipated the issue with the supply bill

when they asked to delay the budget. This is not typical. We normally

would have a budget. It still would need to be debated, but we would

have an idea of where the money was going to be allocated.

To be clear, we want to make sure that the financial

ob­ligations of the province are met. We don’t want to shut things

down, but this is not the way to keep funds flowing. Having a budget

developed and presented in a timely manner is how we do this. As the

minister said, a supply bill should just generally sail through with not

much fanfare. It’s a basic function of the business of the

House.

[3:30 p.m.]

It is normally following due process, but it is not this time. It

would generally just allow the government to continue to function and to

serve its necessary purpose, but as we know all too well, this past year

very few things are unfolding as they usually do.

This supply act is very concerning, in that the government is

asking the House for $13.4 billion without an explanation as to how they

want to spend it. Over the past three years, amidst two simultaneous

health crises, we’ve watched as this government has returned to a

pattern that we’ve seen all too many times before. Under the cover of

COVID, this government is quietly and gradually undoing all of the

safeguards that the previous government put in place to ensure

transparency and responsibility around the budget in B.C.

To clarify, I guess I should not say “the previous government.” I

need to remind this government, as they like to point blame at the

previous government quite frequently, that they are the previous

government. Delaying budgets and quarterly reports and expanding the use

of special warrants are finding a way to bypass transparency.

Now, this government likes to walk down memory lane. So it

shouldn’t be surprising, given the fact that the current Premier, his

chief of staff and the Health minister were all around for the notorious

fudge-it budget years in the 1990s. This was a time, as my colleague

said earlier, when the then NDP Premier resigned in disgrace. A scandal

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

looked on. It was a time when the current Minister of Health was forced

to resign from his job in the Premier’s office for backdating a

memo.

This kind of behaviour is the reason our previous government had

to bring in the protections in the first place, measures that this

government is currently trying to circumvent with the bill before us

today. What did our government do when we were in office? We brought in

balanced-budget legislation. We set fixed budget dates. We cemented the

use of the Economic Forecast Council. These are all steps that made

British Columbia a leader in Canada for sound and transparent fiscal

management. This was all necessary to correct the mistakes of the

previous NDP government.

We can’t help but be reminded of the old NDP playbook of

corruption and secrecy that plagued them and nearly brought this

province and its finances to the brink. This is history repeating

itself, yet those of us on this side of the House have had to listen to

backbench NDPers repeatedly making accusations and irresponsible

statements about our budgetary practices while in government, including

revenue transfer policies with ICBC — something that these backbenchers

perhaps do not understand.

These practices — as members opposite know full well — were fully

disclosed in our annual budgets and quarterly reports and practices even

utilized by the NDP governments of the 1990s. While the members opposite

make accusations and irresponsible statements about these revenue

transfer policies, the facts are indisputable. Between 2012 and 2016,

$514 million was transferred from ICBC to government to support critical

government services such as health care and education.

Meanwhile, between 2012 and 2016, a total of $1.5 billion in

capital and $300 million in income was transferred from the optional

side of ICBC to the basic side of ICBC, all in an effort to keep rates

as affordable as possible for British Columbians. The members continue

to make their irresponsible statements to the contrary, while at the

same time their cabinet colleagues, bit by bit, dismantle the safeguards

that our previous government brought in to ensure

transparency.

[3:35 p.m.]

In light of all this, how can the NDP expect British Columbians to

trust a government that wants a blank cheque for $13 billion, without

giving us any indication or any transparency around how they’re planning

to spend this money? We know where this kind of behaviour has left us in

the past.

This government has already given itself the authority to delay

introducing next year’s budget by a month. That was in addition to the

extra month they had already given themselves last summer. This is an

issue for government transparency, just like not sharing the terms of

the Telus contract. It is for just this reason that the B.C. Liberals

brought in the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

We don’t even know what the financial position of the province is.

The budget should be setting the initial expectations for near-term

recovery, and we should now know the real trajectory of provincial debt

before being asked to spend more. Now, because of this government’s

decision to delay the budget until April, British Columbians are left in

the dark.

We know that the pandemic is certain to leave a much higher

provincial debt-to-GDP ratio. We know this will be burdensome to manage.

It’s even more reason that British Columbians need to know where the

money is going. I’m trying to think of a comparison of this — an analogy

to show how it might work in another situation — but I’m afraid I can’t,

really.

I don’t think I ever could have gone to my board of directors and

said: “Hey, guys. I know you haven’t seen our financial statements for

the end of the year, and I know we talked a little bit about the budget.

Yeah, I know that’s already two months too late. But could you trust me,

and could you provide the usual funds for the first quarter? I’ll get

back to you on the details.” Well, I think I’d be looking for a big fat

no from my board if that was the question.

The Financial Administration Act states: “A sum appropriated by a

Supply Act must not be spent for any purpose other than those described

in the estimates of revenue and expenditure….” Now, when that was

written, that was actually referring to the current incoming fiscal

year, not last year’s fiscal year. Under the Financial Administration

Act, it is legally required to present a budget first, but the

legislation that is before us today sets out a way to work around that

requirement from the Financial Administration Act.

As the member for Peace River South stated earlier, the last time

this government spent public funds without a proper budget was, again,

in the 1990s — a time which we, and most economists, will affectionately

refer to as the economic dark years for British Columbia.

This government has also moved away from multi-year contracts to

one-year contracts with social services providers. This was done several

years ago. The delayed budget has now put many non-profit service

providers at risk, without a guarantee of their funding continuing for

even another year. This has added stress and concern for their staff and

their boards of directors. How do we know that these funds we’re talking

about today are going to be supporting these vital services in the

communities? How do these non-profit organizations and service providers

know that these funds will be supporting them?

The NDP cut $225 per month in the emergency relief support fund

for children and youth with special needs last September. I understand

from families with children with autism that their annual autism funding

is being clawed back, although they can clearly demonstrate that their

children’s needs have increased during this pandemic, making it even

more important that they can afford the therapeutic and respite services

they need in the coming months and years. Many of these families had to

leave paid work to stay home with their young person because they did

not have that support.

[3:40 p.m.]

Now with this clawback of autism funding allowances, families who

are disproportionately feeling the pain of the pandemic are facing

additional hardship. Will they be getting any of this money? We want to

know what the NDP is planning on doing with this money also because we

have no confidence that they will spend this money well or that they

will spend it in the way that they tell us they will.

We are concerned about this legislation, because in the past year,

the government requested money, and the members of this House agreed in

good faith. Then the NDP did not spend the money how it had promised.

Last March, in spring of 2020, the members of this House unanimously and

cooperatively approved $5 billion for COVID recovery aid. We worked

cooperatively. We worked in the best interest of British Columbians, and

we took this government at its word when they said how they would use

these funds. Our expectation was that it would get out the door, and it

would get out the door quickly to support British Columbians.

Now, I don’t understand why this government took so long and sat

on that money for months, but then it coincidentally became part of

their election platform. When the NDP finally announced the small and

medium-sized business recovery grant, support was delayed in getting to

people because of the snap election and because of the constraints and

difficulty in applying for and qualifying for this money. In the more

than six months since it was announced and nearly a year after it was

approved, the government has still only been able to get $55 million out

of the $300 million set aside for these businesses in need. This means

that they have only managed to get out 16 percent of these funds to

businesses.

How can we trust a government that can’t even get $300 million in

promised funds out the door to businesses in need when they’re coming to

ask for approximately $13.4 billion, and now we don’t know what they’re

asking for?

In 2009, at the height of the economic crisis, when the B.C.

Liberals introduced a supply bill the day before the budget and for the

duration of the estimates, this Premier said: “When I go home and

someone in my constituency says, ‘What are you spending it on?’ I’d

rather not guess.” Well, I must admit that all MLAs should be concerned

about that now.

What do we tell our constituents when they ask what we are

spending this on? We have given this government ample opportunity to

prove themselves in this last year, but they’ve only proved their own

lack of financial acumen and a vague grasp on economic

principles.

This bill is just another reminder that this government is failing

to get relief to people. It speaks to them delaying the budget by months

and leaving British Columbians without additional relief as this

pandemic drags on. British Columbians need support. B.C. businesses need

support. We need a government that is open and honest and transparent

and manages its funds well and lets us know where everything is. We need

a government that will do what it says it’s going to do.

Now, we know that the bills need to get paid. We know that the

work of government needs to continue, but this isn’t the right way to do

it. It’s irresponsible.

M. Dykeman: I appreciate the opportunity to rise virtually in this House to

speak to this interim supply bill. Before proceeding, I’ll choose to

ignore the barbed shot by the previous speaker, insinuating that we were

uninformed backbenchers speaking to the bill. I assume that those

speaking notes were probably intended for somebody who’s been elected

longer than a few minutes.

[3:45 p.m.]

I myself wouldn’t have said that as a new member, especially

sitting in opposition.

It’s been enlightening this afternoon listening to all of the

members speak, in opposition, of their extensive experience governing

through a pandemic. Oh, wait. That would be right. Absolutely nobody

sitting here today has previous experience governing through a pandemic.

That’s good. We’re all starting from an even base, then, aren’t

we.

I agree that it’s unfortunate, as the member for Abbotsford West

had said earlier. People are sick of something, but they’re not sick of

what he’s characterized. They’re sick of the divisive politics. They are

sick of revisionist history being constantly spewed in this House.

They’re sick of hearing stories of the ’90s every time there’s a

disagreement. They are looking for people to actually govern. We saw

that with the results of the last election.

Sorry. I was wrong. I misspoke. It was the member from Peace River

who was talking about how unfortunate things were and people being

upset. It was actually the member for Abbotsford West — when the member

was Finance Minister, actually — who introduced interim supply bills

that totalled $65 billion over five years.

We, right now, are not presenting anything differently. We are

presenting a bill which is an interim supply bill for the upcoming

fiscal year of 2021 to 2022. It does not impact the current fiscal year.

It is intended to allow programs to continue during a pandemic. We are

attempting to keep the programs that people are relying on moving

forward during a pandemic.

These are unusual times. You’ve heard: “This or that is unusual.”

That’s right. That’s because we are literally in unusual

times.

Estimates debate will proceed after the budget’s presented in the

Legislative Assembly on April 20. In past, we’ve actually seen…. For

instance, the B.C. Liberals have actually passed interim supply bills

that gave themselves five months in 2009 and six months in 2005. We’re

looking to April 20 because we, as a government, believe in the

importance of consulting with organizations and people affected in order

to have a budget that recognizes a significant shift. We have to be able

to govern through a pandemic and figure out what the needs are for

people going in so that the budget presented actually meets people’s

needs.

Even though the budget is being tabled later than a regular year,

we’re actually not anticipating the final supply bill being delayed much

further than usual. The total amount being voted on, appropriated

expenses, is $12.3 billion. The amount, like I said earlier, is not in

addition to Budget 2021. It’s actually a portion of Budget 2021’s total,

allowing the continuation of programs and services in the interim

period.

As in other years, the interim supply bill provides temporary

legal authority for the government to continue the programs and services

in a new fiscal year. It’s because it’s important for people and

businesses and communities to know that that support will be there,

regardless of the timing of the budget. It is a common practice for the

province to pass an interim supply bill to ensure that those supports

and services can continue while the new budget is being debated. As we

mentioned, we’re looking at April 20.

This has been a challenging time. An economic recovery is

different than keeping status quo or looking at, say, growing the

economy under normal circumstances. These are unusual times.

[3:50 p.m.]

I find it rather humorous in that you have the opposition standing

in the House discussing financial transparency when part of the role

that this government has played is to deal with the complete and utter

apocalypse that ICBC was and the evisceration of an education system,

and we’re sitting here in this House today with the government talking

about transparency. Literally, giant surpluses were created and then

moved into general spending by just taking money out of Crown

corporations. It was a rainy-day fund. No, that’s not transparent.

That’s actually the exact opposite.

This is not a normal set of circumstances because, like I said,

it’s a pandemic. There is a requirement now to look and robustly consult

with those affected to ensure that the budget meets the needs coming out

of this pandemic, moving towards a road to recovery, to an economic

recovery for our province that, as you can see, is doing quite

well.

There are many groups that need further support, and those groups

are receiving support and will continue to receive support. But the

divisive politics in the House — people see through that. They don’t

find it to be endearing. It’s not helping, sitting there and rattling on

the same ’90s line. Everybody has the same speaking points in the House,

going on about the ’90s. It’s doing exactly nothing. It’s doing zero.

It’s not assisting. As opposition, there’s a role to hold government

accountable, but recycling the same divisive ’90s line shows exactly the

issue. It’s not bringing anything tangible to the table at

all.

Moving the budget to April gives this government greater time to

connect with businesses and people and develop an effective, longer-term

plan that builds on all of our current supports. Budget ’21 will

continue to focus on keeping people safe through the pandemic, which is

the goal here — to have a safe recovery.

When you ask why something takes longer, well, all of the

restrictions in place — those have a real tangible impact on things. It

makes it harder to consult with people. You know, there are less people

at work. People are working from home. Logistically, anybody from the

outside looking in can see that there would be a slowdown in the way

things usually were done. But the difference is that this government

will do it with an eye on how to position our province to seize

opportunities that recovery will offer. So instead of sitting there

looking backwards in our rearview mirror at the ’90s, we’re actually

looking at how to move the province forward.

Budget 2021 will be focused on keeping people safe and how to

position the government, how to position the province out of this into a

strong economic recovery. And you know what? The path forward is not

going to be the same for all people or sectors of this economy. We need

to recognize that and support investment that’s more targeted, which

means it’s going to be a really robust consultation.

At the start of the pandemic, with greater uncertainty about how

the impacts would be felt, there was an investment in broad tools, and

broad tools were able to quickly provide the support that was needed as

quickly as possible. But going through and moving towards the recovery

portion, it’s important to identify those most affected. Support has to

become more targeted because of that, to address those really specific

needs, groups and sectors. I mean, if your history was just cutting

everything and leaving it to starve, or just throwing it all in a

rainy-day fund and just pretending it’s a casino, it would be pretty

easy, wouldn’t it?

This government actually wants to target how there’s going to be a

strong economic recovery in a way that makes sense. It’s also an eye to

understand that maintaining flexibility must also be

possible.

[3:55 p.m.]

One of the things we’ve learned through the pandemic — because

none of us have been through a pandemic before, though you wouldn’t know

that today with the comments in the House — is we need to be able to

respond to changing circumstances and support people and businesses,

because there will be a continuance of change. We’ve seen

that.

We saw, recently, Minister Kahlon announce the extension of the

small and medium-sized business grants to August 31 and adjust the

requirement to show a revenue loss from 70 percent to 30 percent. That

is an example of being flexible and understanding that, as we receive

more information — which is something, during a pandemic, that is often

interrupted, the flow of information — we’re able to respond to that,

because we have a clear focus of an economic recovery. So we’re seeing

that flexibility in day-to-day decisions, and that will be reflected in

the budget.

As we’ve heard other speakers say, interim supply, well past the

end of a fiscal year, is in place to allow for a proper and robust

estimates debate. It’s a common practice. It ensures that the supports

and services can continue while the new budget is debated in the

Legislature.

It’s important that we took the time to connect with businesses

and people in order to develop meaningful and longer-term plans. That’s

something that needed to be done, and people appreciate that. They don’t

appreciate being steamrolled or being surprised. And our government has

worked closely….

We’ve heard members opposite talk about concerns with the school

district. Well, I can assure you, as somebody who’s served as a trustee

for a long time, I’m grateful that this government is taking the time to

properly consult and support in doing what needs to be done, because I

have lived through the shocking surprises of not knowing what’s going on

with one-time or this funding or whatever.

Our government is working very hard to ensure that those that are

affected have had the proper opportunity to be consulted. And those

estimates are coming as soon as the budget is presented in the

Legislative Assembly on April 20. This isn’t six or nine months. At the

end of the day, the final supply bill shouldn’t be delayed much later

than usual, which is pretty impressive, considering that we’re in a

global pandemic.

This isn’t something that’s just affected B.C., and the people of

B.C. deserve to have a proper consultation to reflect the unusual times.

The province works very closely with all of our government-funded

agencies to ensure that they have information they need to plan and

prepare for the upcoming fiscal year, and that year is no different.

This is meant to ensure that government-funded agencies have what they

need in the interim.

The current fiscal year is not impacted. This is for the upcoming

fiscal year, 2021 to 2022. At the end of the day, we’re confident that

we have enough of an interim supply to fund all programs and services

until Budget 2021.

Further, one of the things that I do find, as I mentioned earlier

in my opening statement, is how this has become, once again, a divisive

conversation. This isn’t about trust. The members opposite sat there and

said: “Oh, well, we’re expected to just trust this.” No. We’re sitting

here with an interim supply bill in front of the House in order to keep

the province moving forward to ensure that we’re able to navigate

through a pandemic.

This has become, from members opposite, an exercise in looking

back at history and rewriting it. That does not help. I agree. It’s

unfortunate because, at the end of the day, we need to work together to

ensure that this province comes out in the strongest way possible, that

people feel supported. The programs are there to support them as we go

forward, with a budget being tabled on April 20.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks.

[4:00 p.m.]

M. Morris: I listened to the member for Langley East speaking about history

and the past. Of course, that’s all I’ve heard from this government for

the last four years, is the history of the past 16 years or more. I

think it’s great to look back upon history from time to time to

reacquaint ourselves with how things work. I think future performance

could best be determined by past behaviour.

What we’re seeing from this government now, with this particular

bill, is reminiscent of the past be