Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: Continued committee stage de­bate, Bill 3.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 3 — FINANCE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 3; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Peace River South.

On clause 1 (continued).

M. Bernier: Thank you, Chair. Welcome to the chair for this afternoon, for your part and time in here, anyway.

I want to quickly go back to where we were just before the lunch break, before I turn it over to a colleague of mine — just to finish my train of thought here. The minister was acknowledging, rightfully so, her staff and the hard work that the staff do in preparing budgets and the work they do leading up to every budget cycle, in fact.

One of the questions, I guess, I want to find out from the minister…. She’s sitting there. She has been saying that staff have been working diligently on putting the budget together, which I commend them for. Obviously, they do that, and they do that throughout the year and every year, as they’re doing their planning.

Can the minister confirm for this House, then, who’s asking for this extension? Is it the minister and government, or is it the ministry staff and public servants that are asking for extra time to put a budget together?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and welcome to the chair.

The member asked about the public service and their role in building out a budget. I know that the member knows that they have a very significant role in working with government to build out a budget. I just learned…. The magical AirPods, the voices in my head, are telling me that, in fact, we’re one of the few governments that requires all components of a budget to be presented on budget day.

[1:40 p.m.]

That includes not just the budget and fiscal plan but the estimates, the supplement to the estimates, the budget bill, all the service plans — there’s the legislation with all the service plans, including the Crowns — and the strategic plan for government. It’s a massive, massive undertaking that is absolutely comprehensive.

Of course, recognizing that with COVID, staff have been working flat out. I know that the member opposite knows that. Staff have absolutely been working flat out for months and months and months to deliver for British Columbians. So yes, it would be helpful to our staff, the people who are building these out, for them to have a few extra weeks so that they perhaps don’t have to work through weekends and late into the night.

This is about recognizing that the people that do the work on behalf of all of us are human beings and having a few extra weeks to build out a responsible budget that takes care of people, now and into the future, would be most beneficial to the folks who do the work on behalf of all of us.

M. Bernier: Well, I don’t think there’s any argument from anybody, first of all, that the staff are doing an amazing job in difficult times, and we commend them for that.

The minister didn’t answer my question, though. I’m just curious, again. Of course, if we gave them more time, I’m sure they’d be appreciative in this time. Has staff asked for the extra time, or is this government saying that they need extra time in order to give information to staff?

Hon. S. Robinson: It is on their recommendation that it would be most helpful to them to do the work that we need them to do, if they had a few extra weeks to get that work done.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that. Before lunch, the minister acknowledged that there’s no other province or jurisdiction that has legislation that they’re putting forward to extend the timelines required for the transparency act and the accountability that takes place when putting together a budget.

I know the minister has her magic AirPods in, which will help in this one then. Those same public servants that we met with a few short months ago, just prior to the election being called, confirmed with us that the fourth week of March would be more than adequate for them to be able to put a budget together. At that time, that was when it was brought again to this House, just prior to that, that government was asking for a 30-day extension. The same public servants said that that would be more than adequate to put a budget together to show in front of this House by the end of March.

Now we’re looking for yet another 30-day extension and change to the legislation requirements for this government. I’m just kind of curious what advice, I guess, staff is giving the minister — and the minister to clarify, again, what really and truly has changed, then, other than we lost two months politically because of an election. Staff was supposedly still working through that time. Those same staff members told us just a few short months ago that they would be able to meet the timelines under legislation to put a budget forward.

The minister has been unable to answer what’s really changed, other than saying “COVID,” but we knew about that back then. I’m wondering if the minister can give a more succinct answer of what the challenges are putting a budget together for this government.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The folks at the other end of the AirPods, who were in the briefing, were really clear that in briefing discussions with members about the changes that were made this summer, what they were solving for was for a typical election year with a fall election date. A fall election was changed back in 2018. Making sure that any government had the time that it needed to prepare a budget, with a fall framework, would have until, I believe, the end of March to deliver a budget. That was adopted by the House. That was for a fall election framework.

Well, we also have, now, and we had it then too, but we weren’t anticipating that we would actually be in an election…. Here we are, a new government, and we have a COVID situation that has really created some significant challenges. We have a staff that have been working non-stop since the last budget was tabled in February because, recall, we went right from budget into a COVID challenge. Their advice to us now is that we are obligated to table a budget, absolutely. We’re obligated to do one that is well thought out, one that meets the needs of British Columbians now and into the future.

If we’re going to be doing this and moving forward at government’s direction and building out all those various components — the budget and fiscal plan, the estimates, the supplement to the estimates, the budget bill, the legislative framework and all the service plans, including service plans for the Crowns and a strategic plan for government, all of that within the context of COVID — what we’re saying and what they are saying is that having a few extra weeks to do it justice is what they need in order to demonstrate to British Columbians that we have a budget that will work now and into the future.

M. de Jong: I think, with the greatest respect, what the minister is encountering is some skepticism on the part, at least, of the opposition around the rationale that she is providing insofar as it seems to rely almost exclusively on circumstances that were known the last time, just a few short months ago. These questions were being pursued, and a legislative instrument was before the House. I expect that my colleague and the minister are going to pursue that matter further.

I have a series of questions that relate to the bill and section 1 and the impact of section 1, its genesis, and the impact it is going to have not so much on government, but some of the other agencies that government deals with. My colleague from Peace South, I think, is going to have a conversation, discussion, with the minister about some of those agencies, like school boards, like local government.

It’s sufficient for my purpose here simply to ask for confirmation from the minister that she and the government understand that by pushing the date for the tabling of the provincial budget back…. She keeps saying “a few weeks.” In the span of a few months, we are altering the tabling of the budget by some 2½ months, and the minister keeps saying “a few weeks.”

[1:50 p.m.]

It is sufficient for my purpose here simply to ask the minister….I think she will acknowledge that that, at a minimum, will have an effect or influence or impact some of those other agencies — their timing around the finalizing of their budgets. Does the minister agree with that?

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I do want to remind the member that this House did pass legislation for a fall election cycle and that there was another piece of legislation passed in March to, when there is a fall election, move the tabling of the budget to the end of March. So that was passed, and what we’re saying is just a few more weeks. We’re not saying 2½ months. I know that the member prefers to go back, but that’s actually not the case — what we’re asking for right here, right now. I just want to get that on the record.

In terms of the question, recognizing that there are other agencies and service delivery agencies that provide services on behalf of government, part of this bill is to look at delivering either interim supply or special warrant that will provide security to those agencies, knowing that they will have the resources needed to carry on delivering services for people, making sure that our school boards can remain whole. That would be based on the previous year’s estimates to carry us through until we can pass another budget.

M. de Jong: I fear the minister has misunderstood. Maybe I phrased the question clumsily, and if I did, I apologize. She has spoke, looking back, and in so doing, has acknowledged that there will now be a gap in terms of a budget, which will no longer be presented prior to the end of a fiscal year. It will be presented as much as a month, four weeks, into the next fiscal year. The nature of my question related to their ability to budget going forward and the ability to….

[1:55 p.m.]

Just as the minister has made the point that it is helpful for her and the government to have a better idea about what the federal government is doing, presumably, the same argument holds true — with one exception. My colleague, I think, will pursue this in greater detail.

The nature of my question is simply this. In terms of budgeting going forward, those agencies, the ones I mentioned — school boards, health authorities — will not know by the end of the fiscal year what their budgetary allocations, or even global budgetary allocations, are for the next fiscal year — some weeks later, or up to four weeks later. Is that a fair statement on my part?

Hon. S. Robinson: I know the member knows that we do have the authority to produce a supply bill, should we not have a budget passed in sufficient time. Again, we know it is important for these authorities to know that there is actually cash in the bank, that they have the resources they need to keep operations going. And we can certainly plan on doing that to make sure that business proceeds as normal going forward.

M. de Jong: All right. Fair to say that those agencies will not know with certainty what the budgeted allocation is for the entire fiscal year until such time as the full budget is tabled?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: What school districts and health authorities need to know is that they are going to be able to continue delivering services. We will make sure that they have the resources they need in order to do that, and they, too, will see the full scope of the budget when it is tabled.

M. de Jong: Okay. Well, I think we’re getting somewhere now. The only point I was trying to make is….

When the minister stands up eventually to deliver her first budget, there will be budget day. There will be a lockup, and there will be all of that anticipation and excitement that is part and parcel of the budget day exercise. It’s because people are interested. It does impact them, especially agencies, not just governmental agencies but agencies that receive funding.

Is that a fair statement?

Hon. S. Robinson: If I understood the member’s question, it was really around the excitement of the budget and: “Won’t that change it?”

By my calculations, we’ll still be in some sort of a pandemic phase. I think everything about this year has been particularly challenging. Everything. With British Columbians having to make significant changes to their lives and their lifestyles, people losing their jobs, people not seeing loved ones. I expect that Budget ’21 will also look very different as a result of COVID, including when we have budget day and, in all likelihood, what that looks like.

I’m not expecting lockup to look like it has in the past. We’ll have to figure out a different way of doing that in order to keep everyone safe.

M. de Jong: Well, you can call it lockdown, and people can bring their own food.

Look, I think the minister has made the point. Whatever shape it takes, it’s because the budget matters. It is of interest to people. It speaks to government initiatives. It speaks to funding that flows from government to other agencies. I don’t hear any disagreement with that proposition.

I want to talk about one group in particular and ask the minister some questions about one group in particular who, following along the lines of that discussion, will be interested in any changes to the budgeting process and the impact it might have on their budgeting process. I’m talking about Indigenous peoples and First Nations.

I went to the budget documents for the fiscal year we’re in, the budget tabled by the minister’s predecessor for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2021. If this legislation passes, there won’t be a new budget in place by the time this document expires.

One of the votes that comprises the budget is for the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. I just wanted to very quickly read into the record a portion of what Vote 32 involves. I’m quoting now from the budget documents, the negotiations and regional operations division.

[2:05 p.m.]

“The subvote provides for the participation in the negotiation of treaties, incremental treaty agreements, revenue-sharing agreements, reconciliation agreements and other agreements with First Nations, Indigenous peoples and organizations. This subvote will support the negotiation of emerging policy directives and strive to achieve rights, recognition and reconciliation outcomes…. This subvote also provides for cross-government coordination and engagements with First Nations and Indigenous peoples….”

Then secondly there is, under the strategic partnerships and initiatives division, this descriptive:

“This subvote provides for the support and enhancement of the government’s approach to reconciliation with First Nations and Indigenous peoples through negotiations both inside and outside the treaty process considered strategically important to furthering the sociocultural and socioeconomic priorities of government, including revenue-sharing and shared decision-making, supporting Indigenous self-government and by liaising with key Indigenous business groups and organizations.”

Then further along:

“The subvote also provides for initiatives to close the socioeconomic gaps between Indigenous peoples and other British Columbians, including the identification of opportunities, the removal of barriers, the cross-ministry coordination of resources and services provided to Indigenous peoples.”

Further along:

“…support to Indigenous leadership and advisory bodies and for administration of the first citizens fund, the First Nations clean energy business fund special account and related transfers.”

So a whole lot included in that vote description.

Fair to say that until…. This is one of the reasons for the secrecy associated with the budget. Until the budget is actually tabled and the minister stands up, in whatever format that takes next year…. Until that is actually tabled, no one knows for certain what the budgeted allocation will be for fiscal year ’21-22.

Is that correct?

Hon. S. Robinson: We are certain that we will continue to fund government for a 13th month — that’s, I think, the best frame to look at it — and until we table a budget a few weeks later that will contain the full fiscal framework for the full year and going forward.

M. de Jong: The message, I think, from the minister is for those organizations, those First Nations, Aboriginal, Indigenous organizations who heretofore would have been in a position to know in March what certain budgetary allocations were….

[2:10 p.m.]

They’ll just wait. They’ll need to wait. In terms of setting their own budgets for fiscal year ’21-22, they’ll just have to wait the three or four weeks until the provincial budget is set, but they shouldn’t worry about that three or four weeks because the government will ensure that there is funding in place.

Have I got that right?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to reassure the member that funding will be in place for that 13th month for all organizations that rely on government funds. What’s interesting, I just learned, through the magic AirPods, is that First Nations have varying year-ends. It’s not even consistent, so they always have to adapt, which I didn’t always know. I think the member is making the assumption that everybody operates on a similar year-end. That’s not the case.

The short answer to all of this is that funding will be there. It’ll be there through to when we table the next budget. We are talking about an additional few weeks to make sure that the public service has the time that they need to put the entire package…. I know the member knows full well how significant the work is to put together the entire package for budget day. They have said that it would certainly be beneficial on their end to have the additional time, given the COVID context, so that they can do right by the people of this province.

M. de Jong: Two things flow from that answer. The first thing is, if I haven’t made this abundantly clear, for the purpose of this conversation, I’m not worried about the 13th month. I’m concerned about the instrument the minister and the government have chosen to use to address that 13th month, but that is not the focus of my question with respect to section 1 that we’re discussing at the moment.

Secondly, though, the minister, I think, has made the point, and I’m happy that she did, for organizations…. I’m going to, in a moment, ask about, by way of example, one organization. Any of those organizations that have become accustomed to receiving news from the provincial government about budgetary allocations in February or March — March is the case now, although no one has had to do that; it’s always been February previously — will just have to adapt. I expect they will.

By way of example, the leadership council. It historically has received some capacity funding from the provincial government. It has tended to vary from year to year. I think the point the minister is making is they shouldn’t worry about what she has termed “the 13th month,” but with respect to learning about provincial contributions for the next fiscal year, they’ll just have to wait the three or four weeks until the budget is tabled.

Have I got that right?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: As the member well knows, when you’re building a budget, you engage with stakeholders as part of any budget development. That work has been going on and will continue to go on through the next number of months.

I want to point out to the member that we’re still several months away from an April date for tabling a budget. Making sure that they can adjust to a new timing is certainly going to be part of the work. It is part of the work. But we also recognize that COVID has turned everything, perhaps not upside down but a little bit unusual for all of us, including those stakeholders.

They, too, are looking to adjust — adjust their service delivery, adjust how they engage, using the technology now so that they can do so safely. I know that they, too, are looking forward to a budget, but I also know that they want a budget that is well-thought-out, that is meaningful and that makes a difference to the people that we collectively serve. Making sure that they can adjust their plans is certainly part of the work and part of the undertaking of delivering a budget several weeks after the current legislated requirement.

M. de Jong: That’s most helpful. I think the point that the minister is making is that stakeholder groups, the broad spectrum of society, will need to adjust to take these changes into account, to take into account the reasons that she has given for the changes.

But one of those stakeholders has a slightly different relationship with the government. I’ll come to that in a moment. Well, maybe I’ll come to it right now. Before making this change to the budgetary process, which is what this represents, in a way that does have an impact on numerous stakeholders, including Aboriginal groups, Indigenous Peoples, did the minister and the government discuss that change with the First Nations and, for ex­ample, the leadership council?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: There were no external consultations prior to tabling this bill, but we are months away.

Part of the plan, once we are finished debating this bill, is to reach out to these groups to reassure them that government is going to continue to be there for them, to explain to them how we’re going to continue to support them through, I guess, the 13th month — that seems to be the language that we have settled on here in this discussion — to make sure that they know that they are going to be kept whole until we can pass a budget, and that in these extraordinary times, taking an extraordinary measure is what’s needed.

I am confident that they’ll recognize the importance of the extra time that we need to prepare a proper budget.

M. de Jong: I’ve been listening. I am listening, as I always do, to the minister very carefully. The language here is important. What I thought I heard her say, and what I thought I heard her do, was to include First Nations and Aboriginal representatives within the broad spectrum of stakeholders. In a moment, I’m going to query the minister as to whether or not she feels comfortable doing that in light of the state of the law in British Columbia. But I’ll come to that in a moment.

What I think I heard the minister say is that there was…. Well, not what I think. I know I heard the minister say that there were no external discussions with respect to Bill 3.

I have a couple of technical questions about section 1, and Bill 3 in its entirety. Did Bill 3 go to legislative review committee?

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I want to acknowledge to the member opposite that in the course of this exchange, using broad language and talking about stakeholders, he’s choosing to talk about a particular stakeholder, a particular group. I certainly am talking about broader than that.

But I recognize, and this government recognizes, that First Nation governments are other governments. So to suggest somehow that we don’t recognize that, I think, is disappointing, because we do recognize that that is a particular group.

In terms of…. The member asked about the process for development of this bill. That is under cabinet confidentiality.

M. de Jong: Well, I won’t spend a lot of time on this. The conversations that take place at a cabinet committee are certainly privileged. In my experience in this House, the question about whether or not a bill has been reviewed by the legislative review committee is certainly not.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Given that the LRC is a committee of government, everything about it, including its agenda, is confidential. It is under the rubric of confidentiality.

M. de Jong: I have been here long enough to know that the minister has struck her position on this and is not likely to be dissuaded. That is the first time in over 25 years that a minister has refused, in my knowledge, to acknowledge to the House whether a piece of legislation has been reviewed by the legislative review committee of cabinet.

It is not a question of what was discussed. It is not a question of what advice was received. It is merely a question of whether or not the legislation that the minister is commending to this committee and ultimately the House to adopt has enjoyed the benefit of review by the legislative review committee.

I’m going to give the minister one more chance. I think I know what her answer is going to be, and that is astounding.

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, thank you for that.

The member knows full well that even agenda items are considered confidential. Agenda items for committees are considered confidential for government, and that is my final answer. The member could certainly take the time to continue to ask that, but the answer is going to be consistent.

M. de Jong: No, I think the record will speak for itself. I think we have, in the first session of this new parliament, embarked upon a new era of opaqueness when it comes to the workings of government.

Was there a request for legislation, and if so, who signed it?

[2:30 p.m.]

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member full well knows how budget legislation is treated through process. He knows full well that budget legislation typically, traditionally, doesn’t go through LRC. He knows that. He knows that really quite well.

He also knows what is required to be under cabinet confidentiality. I just find it really interesting, the pathway of questions, when I know that this member knows full well the process for dealing with budget legislation.

M. de Jong: Well, the minister, sadly, is incorrect. This is not legislation about a budget. This is a piece of process legislation.

[2:35 p.m.]

The minister is absolutely correct when it comes to taxation instruments and when it comes to the budget itself. There is great secrecy attached to that, and it does not weave its way through the usual processes.

But she is wrong — I think conveniently wrong — when she suggests that legislation of this sort…. And I am well positioned to tell her that she’s wrong, because this has nothing to do with a particular budget. This is about a process, this is about transparency, and this is about accountability.

Since the minister has invited discussion about the process, historically the process has been for there to be…. By the way, my question was about a request for legislation — it had nothing to do with LRC — and the minister didn’t answer that. Maybe I should give her a chance to answer the question. Was there an RFL, and who signed it?

Hon. S. Robinson: I was checking in with folks on the AirPods, and this, too, is under cabinet confidentiality.

M. de Jong: Was there a certificate of readiness, and if so, who signed it?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I think the member does know that his specific question does fall under cabinet confidentiality. But I also want to reassure the member that I received all of my advice from the legal services branch with the Attorney General’s office on this piece of legislation, and that we followed all recommended processes.

M. de Jong: For the throngs of people watching this exchange, the certificate of readiness that I was referring to has been, historically, the document that a sponsoring minister must secure and sign before proceeding with tabling of a bill in this chamber. It is confirmation that the bill is in a form suitable for passage and enactment. The minister has said that she is unwilling to provide, to the committee, confirmation that a certificate of readiness confirming its suitability for passage and enactment was secured prior to tabling the bill. Is that correct?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member knows this as well: before a bill goes into the House, it has to be satisfactory to the office of the legal services branch in the Ministry of Attorney General, and here we have it in the House.

M. de Jong: I want to move on to the matter that actually precipitated my asking these questions. Just to summarize, then — I do this so that the minister has an opportunity to correct me on the record if I get this wrong — what we have learned in the last little bit is that the minister won’t say who initiated the legislation with a request for legislation, or if there even was a formal request for legislation.

She won’t say if it was reviewed by the legislative review committee, the cabinet committee charged with the task of reviewing legislation before it comes to this chamber. She won’t even say if the prerequisite document, the certificate of readiness, was signed off on by someone — presumably someone in the executive council. Despite all that, she urges support for this piece of legislation from the committee and from the House. Did I get any of that incorrect?

Hon. S. Robinson: I was getting some legal advice. I was also listening very carefully, prior to getting legal advice, to the choice of words that the member was using in terms of asking the question. He seems to be insinuating — and he started with saying — that I won’t say. This isn’t about what I…. It’s what I can’t say. The member knows full well what cabinet confidence is and the requirement to maintain it. The questions he’s asking are under cabinet confidentiality, and my response is that I can’t say.

M. de Jong: Well, we will, then, agree to differ, because the questions I have asked, historically, have been very much in order and very much appropriate. I will conclude that the minister doesn’t want to answer, and we will simply agree to disagree on that point.

Just over a year ago, this chamber and the committee were involved in what was described — I think appropriately — as a historic debate. The bill was 41. It was the bill dealing with the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

[2:50 p.m.]

The then Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, in speaking to that bill in the lengthy conversation, the lengthy exchange, I think fruitful exchange that took place in committee, had some things to say about the obligations of government and about the impact that passage of that legislation would have on government.

He said this on December 19, about Bill 41: “This is enabling legislation. It provides direction to government to address existing laws and future legislation as it’s being contemplated to bring those in line over time with the principles of the UN Declaration.”

Does the minister agree with that statement?

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you very much, and of course I agree with that statement by my former colleague who did a heroic effort in getting us to UNDRIP, and it was a historic day when we brought forward that legislation. I’d like to find out from the member…. I await where he’s taking us in relation to this bill and what his thoughts are. It would be really helpful.

M. de Jong: Well it surely isn’t a mystery to the minister. She has described how the impact of this legislation will require agencies, groups, Indigenous groups, First Nations, to adjust. It has an impact as it relates to the budgetary link between the provincial government.

Bill 41 imposed some very specific obligations on the government. I’m interested to know whether or not the government fulfilled those obligations. The initial indication is that they did not. The minister made the point only a few moments ago that there were no discussions with anyone.

I’m going to query the minister, and I’m going to take her to section 3 of that historic piece of legislation, which says the following: “In consultation and cooperation with the Indigenous peoples in British Columbia, the government must take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the declaration.”

Does the minister agree that this Bill 3 before the committee is captured by the provisions of section 3 of Bill 41?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I think I understand where the member is wanting to take this line of questioning. I recognize the path that he’s trying to suggest here.

What I’m pointing out to this House and to the member in particular is that we are in an unprecedented time. Making sure that we keep things stable for the extra few weeks that are needed in order to build a budget benefits everybody — including Indigenous communities, including Indigenous governments — recognizing that there’s a lot of work for us to do collectively. There’s a lot of work for us to do in government, and a lot of work for the public service to do, to put together an entire budget framework that is churning as we speak, but it needs more time.

With that, I want to also recognize that the member is insinuating somehow that there is significant impact to these other groups — these First Nations as one of them, one of many — and we are reassuring everybody that we are going to continue extending what currently exists for everybody until we table a budget in April.

M. de Jong: Look, even if I accepted the minister’s argument on the general provisions of section 1, which I don’t, it doesn’t alter the fact that through introduction and passage — and, by the way, unanimous passage — of Bill 41, the government assumed some specific obligations — legal obligations.

The minister has demonstrated a great willingness to cite legal principles here. By the way, the legal obligations didn’t come with a caveat in Bill 41. They weren’t legal obligations when it was convenient for government to do so. Here’s what the then Minister of Indigenous Relations had to say. I cited section 3 of Bill 41.

He said this: “Then sections 3, 4 and 5…. That starts the process for a transparent and accountable process towards changes that can be made to bring laws into alignment and address new legislation, make sure they’re in alignment, with the UN declaration.” Then, further in the exchange: “We’ve stated our intention to amend laws and create new laws, ensuring that they’re in alignment with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.”

[3:00 p.m.]

I’ll ask the minister now. Based on the answers she has given so far, I am rapidly coming to my own conclusion. Does she believe the government has met its obligations with respect to Bill 41 and the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, with respect to Bill 3?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m just wondering if I can ask for a brief recess.

The Chair: We’ll have a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:01 p.m. to 3:08 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you very much. I appreciate the break.

In relation to the member’s question, the historic day and passage of the DRIPA was pretty significant, but I think we need to remember the intent of that legislation and the principles that are behind that legislation. The principles of that act are about rights and title and the UN declaration.

We have many laws, and many laws will certainly pass through this House. Many laws have been debated and will continue to be debated in this House. Our understanding is that this bill doesn’t have direct impact on rights and title. The path that I think the member is going down doesn’t apply to this bill, in terms of our understanding.

M. de Jong: Well, that’s very, very interesting and in­formative. The minister’s answer is on the record.

Bill 41. The reason we are able to use terms like “historic” is because it did more than just articulate a feeling. It created a law. In fact, Bill 41 says that the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples is now the law in B.C. It says that.

[3:10 p.m.]

I want to ask the minister, in relation to the bill and the section before the House that she happily has already established has an impact on a whole bunch of people, including Aboriginal peoples, in terms of the fiscal relationship with the provincial government…. She will un­doubtedly try to want to minimize that. I would say that creating an extra month of uncertainty around the coming fiscal year and budgetary allocations is not an insignificant impact, but she will characterize it differently, I’m sure.

Article 19 of the United Nations declaration says this. I’ll read it. “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the Indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.”

It sounds to me like Article 19 has application here. Does the minister agree?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m going to go back again to the legislation, DRIPA. Again, our bill doesn’t touch on the principles of rights and title and the UN declaration. Changing a budget date does not impact on those principles.

[3:15 p.m.]

M. de Jong: The minister’s argument now, on behalf of the government, seems to be that Bill 3 was not covered by the provisions of Bill 41. I’m not entirely sure what her reasoning is. It seems to be that according to her, the only things that are covered by that would be legislation dealing with rights and title — her phrase, not mine.

Except she’s wrong. My authority for suggesting to her and the committee that she is wrong is no less than the former Indigenous Relations Minister, who had the question put to him specifically.

Now, here’s what he said. Asked whether Bill 41 and the UN declaration applies to laws of general application, which is what we have before us here, the minister said: “Yes, it applies to the laws of general application, as it may affect them as referenced in the conditions within article 19.” Not just a question about the declaration in general, a question about the obligations that flow to government under article 19. Her colleague said that, yes, it applies to laws of general application.

He said further, on the same day, “This is intended to apply to British Columbia’s provincial legislation,” no qualifications. Does the minister accept that? Her previous statement suggests that she does not. Now would be a good time to clarify the ambiguity.

Hon. S. Robinson: Perhaps I can provide some clarity for the member. It does apply to a law of general application if that law affects Aboriginal title, and this law does not.

M. de Jong: That’s nonsense. Is the…? I mean, I am astounded by what I have just heard. In fact, I’m so astounded that I want…. Well, I don’t want. It doesn’t matter what I want.

I will provide the minister with an opportunity to consult with her staff again, because I just heard the Finance Minister of the province of British Columbia state Bill 41 and the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous people only apply to laws — bills introduced, laws passed in this chamber — that affect Aboriginal title.

I’ve got binders of authority from her own colleague stating otherwise. But before I get too worked up, I think the minister misspoke. I want to give her an opportunity to correct the record.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I did check with our legal team, and I did misspeak, because I left out “rights and title.” So I will, for the record, clarify that it applies to a law of general application if that law affects Aboriginal rights and title. This one does not.

M. de Jong: That will make for very interesting reading on the part of those that stood with the government, particularly those in the Indigenous, Aboriginal, First Nation communities who had something very different to say, and the minister’s colleague, who had something very different to say.

I don’t think the minister has read the UN declaration. The minister indicates that she has.

Here’s another quote from her colleague, the former minister, in the course of debating section 41. He said this: “I think it’s safe to say that there’s going to be deeper and more involved consultation between the province and First Nations — or those nations affected, certainly, or if nations are affected as a whole. That is what’s contemplated within the bill. The province is expected to ‘consult and cooperate in good faith,’ as called for in the UN declaration, when considering decisions that may affect Indigenous peoples.”

In the entire conversation that took place over the course of two weeks between the opposition and the minister representing the government, never once was the qualification added that the minister is now endeavouring to apply. I know why, based on her own answers to some of these questions, she is trying to apply the qualification: because the government didn’t talk to anyone. They didn’t talk to anyone.

Let me go back to article 19. You know, what’s interesting and why it’s frustrating and why it must be horribly frustrating….

The government wants to talk about the steps that were taken one year ago, Bill 41, and the declaration. They are less comfortable acknowledging the very real obligations that flow from that and, particularly, less comfortable when it appears that they did not meet those obligations.

Article 19: “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.”

There’s no qualifier there. The minister says that she’s read it. If she can find a place in the declaration or in the act that qualifies the application of these provisions in article 19, then she should tell the committee.

My question to the minister — and I’d like her to put it on the record — is: prior to introducing Bill 3, which alters the budgetary process in a way that will have some impact, some effect, on the Crown’s relationship with Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous groups, did she obtain their free, prior and informed consent before proceeding?

[3:25 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: We may have to agree to disagree on this point. Article 19 does direct government to engage in consultation when laws have a direct effect on Indigenous Peoples, absolutely. Changing a budget day does not have that kind of effect.

M. de Jong: We are happily, or unhappily, as the case may be, learning a great deal more as a result of this exchange about how the government regards the application of the UN declaration. I think that will come as news to many people. But it still wasn’t an answer to the question, and I’m not going to extrapolate.

My question to the minister was: did the government, pursuant to article 19, obtain the free, prior and in­formed consent of Indigenous Peoples prior to the intro­duction of Bill 3?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I have answered the question.

M. de Jong: We can get Hansard, and you will be hard-pressed to find an answer.

If I have to say it for her, I will. The minister’s position seems to be: “We didn’t talk to anyone. We didn’t talk to Indigenous peoples or their representatives because we didn’t have to.” So the answer to the question is no.

I’m not sure why…. The minister looks, candidly, very unsure of herself. I understand why. She’s breaking new ground for the government with respect to the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

I’m going to ask again. I’m going to present this proposition to the minister, I hope as fairly as I can, based on the answers that she has given. It is her and the government’s position that when changing budgetary procedural matters like the dates of the budget…. Even though that affects people that receive money from the government, including Aboriginal peoples, it is not something that triggers an obligation under the UN declaration, under article 19 specifically. Therefore, no attempt was made to secure free, prior and informed consent.

Is anything about that statement incorrect?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’ll state once again that changing a date for the budget, with no interruptions of funding and services, does not have an impact on Indigenous rights and title. That’s not to say…. There are other laws. There are many laws that affect Indigenous people that we have here in British Columbia. Government is absolutely committed to fulfilling our obligations to align those laws, as per DRIPA.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

[3:35 p.m.]

To the member, we’re still on section 1. I would just ask, having heard this debate back and forth considerably on this point, if the member might look to a new line of questioning. We’ve heard the minister’s response to this question now, and I know there are other questions that are still standing.

M. de Jong: Thanks, as always, for your guidance, hon. Chair. I think you missed the adjective “fascinating” debate, which I’m sure you would want to characterize it as. Rest assured that I am drawing near to the close of this line of questioning.

I’m sure that within government, the wheels are turning quickly, but the minister may wish to inform the newly minted Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation of the information and advice she has provided to the House and the committee today about the limited application of the UN declaration. It would not surprise me at all if that matter were to be pursued with him in due course.

I have the minister’s mandate letter. The second bullet — I don’t know if they’re listed in order of priority or not, but the fact that it appears in the mandate letter, No. 2 of five points — charges her with the task of effecting meaningful reconciliation and refers specifically to the UN declaration — including, of course, article 19. The minister has confirmed for the committee that she and her ministry and the government as a whole took no steps to engage with Indigenous peoples’ leadership on this matter in a way that I believe is required under article 19. She has offered a dramatically different opinion of that.

Is the minister satisfied that less than a month into her term as Minister of Finance, she is honouring the intent and the objectives set out by the Premier, in his mandate letter to her, with respect to the UN declaration?

Hon. S. Robinson: I believe I have answered all of these questions that relate to DRIPA.

M. de Jong: I would say answered in dramatic fashion, frankly. It will be instructive to many.

It is certainly instructive to me and instructive to learn how the fiscal relationship that derives from the budget and that links the provincial government with Indigenous governments would be characterized by the minister so dismissively. “Oh, it’s only a matter of a few weeks, a month.” That’s her story, and she’s sticking to it.

Just another quick couple of questions. We are talking, in section 1, about the budget, the dates for the budget and the budgetary process. The minister has talked about that.

That budgetary cycle historically has included a meeting between the Minister of Finance and the forecast council. Did that meeting take place, or is it scheduled to take place, presumably by Zoom or some other virtual means?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to assure the member opposite…. I was thinking about his closing comments, closing off the component part of the questions he was asking regarding our commitments to UNDRIP. I was thinking about the real impact to having more time to build a budget in a COVID context and thinking about how COVID has impacted Indigenous communities right around the province. Making sure that we have a robust and meaningful budget that addresses those very specific impacts, I think, is absolutely critical.

So I would argue with the member opposite that taking these extra days, these extra weeks, to build a budget that takes care of people, that takes care of Indigenous communities, is the absolute right thing to be doing. In relation to his question, I will be meeting with the forecast council prior to budget, and it will be a virtual meeting.

M. de Jong: Very quickly, not to revisit old ground, the point of it all, including the declaration and the applicable declarations, is that if that is the view of the government — I accept that that is the case, if the minister says so — then there is an obligation to have that discussion before taking action, not after. That’s the part that the government has conveniently missed.

The meeting with the forecast council. Has a date been scheduled, and will it — as it has been at least for the number of years that I was acquainted with it — be open to media and members of the public?

Hon. S. Robinson: A date has not been set just yet. Probably early in the new year is when we’re going to set it. It will be open to the public and media and will be the same format as we’ve provided in the past.

M. de Jong: Well, that’s good news. When the minister says “same format” — with the qualifier that, historically, it has been an in-person event — this will be, presumably, some kind of a virtual gathering. That’s good news. The trajectory of the past has been for the forecast council to meet in late November or early December and provide an update in January. Is the minister at all concerned that the information and the advice becomes stale the longer you push off the budget?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: It would be the same period of time as would normally be the case. In normal years, it’s a February budget. They get surveyed several months prior. It’ll be the same amount of time, with it bumped up in the calendar year.

M. de Jong: I think I’m drawing to the close. I asked about the forecast council because, of course, it’s a creation…. Well, I’m coming to my conclusion of my participation with respect to section 1.

What the minister, I think, has been confronted by is a concern, sometimes clumsily articulated by me, on the dismantling of a discipline and rigour around the budgeting process. She will want to explain, and has tried to explain, about how circumstances have made that essential. But this province has been served very, very well, through a series of administrations, by that discipline and rigour.

Ironically, the forecast council was a layer of discipline that, if I’m not mistaken, was essentially what was created in the dying days of the administration of the 1990s, in the aftermath of a horrible case of budgetary manipulation, where evidence arose of political interference, with the addition of added “optimism,” as I think the term was, in forecast numbers. It was scandalous.

The schedule that has been followed, and the discipline associated with that, in removing the ability of governments of various political stripes to tinker with and manipulate not just the numbers but the schedule…. We haven’t even come to the questions around quarterly reports. Over the five years I sat in that chair, I guess, by my calculation, we did 20 quarterly reports. They all came in on time. It wasn’t easy.

I think what the minister is confronted by is a genuine concern on the part of the opposition that all of that is being dismantled under the guise of responding to a one-off — albeit a significant one-off — situation. As we move forward through the bill, we’ll have an opportunity to discuss some of those matters.

I’m not sure I have some pithy final query for the minister, except to offer that as on observation for why she is being met by some very strong opposition and concerns around the first bill she has brought to this House as Finance Minister.

Hon. S. Robinson: I just want to respond that we’ll be using the same discipline and the same rigour that have been applied to the budgeting process. That’s our intent. The bill that’s before the House is to recognize that we have been, and we are in, unprecedented times and that we need a few more weeks to get the budget tabled here in this House, given the very extraordinary circumstances.

[3:50 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: I don’t have anywhere near the volume that the official opposition has in questions, but I’m just picking up on what the minister just said about being in unprecedented times and needing additional time — ultimately, two additional months — to bring forward a budget.

The minister has been speaking a great deal about COVID and the unprecedented times. However, we were here in August, until August 14. The budget implementation bill, Bill 4, passed on July 28, which gave the original 30-day extension. In between those two times, the unprecedented thing that happened was a snap election during a pandemic, which put government into caretaker mode for two months, which is exactly the amount of time that this government is now saying it needs, in addition, to present its budget for 2021.

I guess what I’m looking for is the minister’s take on how much of the need for this additional extension is related to the two months during which government was in caretaker mode because of the election.

Hon. S. Robinson: This got canvassed earlier, so I’ll repeat it for the record and for the member, who may not have been here in the chamber at the time. I don’t recall.

Back in 2018, legislation was changed for the election cycle to do a fall election. One of the things that wasn’t considered at the time was the budget timing related to a fall election, so this summer legislation was brought in to recognize the need for and the challenges of having a compressed time to put together an election, should there be a fall election. That’s just part of an election cycle framework that was put together back in 2018.

Now, in July — I know the member won’t necessarily agree with me — there was no recognition or…. I certainly wasn’t expecting a fall election. I knew that I would get some sort of reaction to that, but so be it. But that is the case. We were dealing with COVID and addressing some of the challenges that came with a significant pandemic.

Here we are, post–fall election and looking at what is before us, talking with the public service about what they need in order to put together this significant body of work that comes with putting together a budget, and the timeline is far too compressed, given the significant challenges, in order to do the work that needs to be done.

[3:55 p.m.]

I know that the members opposite, and this member in particular, want to make sure that you get all the information in, that you take the time to get it right. That’s a value that I know she has. I think it’s a value that everybody in this House has.

What we’re saying is that we need the time to get it right so that it works for British Columbians. It’s with that in mind that we are here saying to this House that we need, and the public service needs, an additional 30 days, because of the COVID challenges, in order to deliver a budget that works.

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister for that. I do think getting things right is really important. I also think, sort of, being really upfront and straightforward about things is also very important, especially at a time when governments everywhere need to be ensuring that people feel that they can trust.

In 2017, there was a May election. Then, in June of 2017, government changed. In September of 2017, a budget update was brought forward. In February of 2018, a budget was brought forward. Those are some pretty compressed times, and government had capacity to do it. I’m fully aware of the reason why Bill 4 had the clause in it to add the 30 days extension, or the end of March extension for the budget, because of the argument around the fall election.

In some ways, it’s…. We’re here, and as has been pointed out by the Official Opposition, the one piece of legislation we’re debating in the midst of this pandemic is this extension to the budget while people all over the province are struggling with all sorts of circumstances as a result of this pandemic.

One of the examples I brought up in my second reading speech was a business owner in Duncan who lost his business after decades and then can’t get an extension or can’t get a payment plan agreed to by the Ministry of Finance to pay the outstanding PST that he owes and now is faced with possibly losing his house on top of losing his business.

So on the one hand, the Ministry of Finance is saying to the people that are struggling right now because of COVID, because of the financial impacts: “Sorry, deadlines are deadlines.” Then, on the other hand, we’re in here, saying: “We need an extension.” I guess that’s a challenge for those of us on this side of the House.

I’ve reflected a lot in the last few weeks about what else was lost over the course of the two months that government was in caretaker mode and budgets weren’t being worked on and plans weren’t being made and things weren’t moving forward. Part of what was lost was that.

Of course, there was still opposition and there was a third party and there was a minority government. But there was a level of recognition that we all needed to rise above, in this moment that we were in, because it is unprecedented and the people in this province are experiencing difficulties unlike anything any of us have seen in our lives. That’s also lost.

I’ll get to a question. The minister has been suggesting that it’s because of the pandemic, because of COVID, that this additional extra time is needed for getting the budget completed. My question to the minister is: then why not make this a one-time extension instead of permanent?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: In a typical year, in a non-election year, the budget process typically starts in the summer and goes through the fall to a February budget date. That’s about a seven-month process.

[4:05 p.m.]

The legislation that was brought forward in the summer, recognizing a fall election date, will need a different kind of framework. The recommended option was 120 days at the time, recognizing that you needed to have some time identified for building a budget for any new government.

What COVID has taught us is that stuff happens. Stuff happens that makes things more complex, and in order to gather the information, in order to take a look at the forecasts, in order to engage with the economics community, it’s incumbent on us to be prepared for all inevitabilities. COVID has taught us that 120 days is just not efficient to do all the work that is necessary to build a budget that works for the people today and works for the people that the member is speaking about.

We’re here not just to do this budget. We’re here for supplementary estimates, as well, to get recovery money out to people so that they can continue to pay bills, continue to buy their kids winter coats if that’s what they need — recognizing that this is a difficult time for people.

We are here doing the people’s business because it is a difficult time for people, and it’s going to continue to be a difficult time. We know that things have been turned upside down for many, for many businesses and for many families and for many people, and we need to build a budget that continues to take care of people in the short term and in the long term.

Taking the time to get it right is, I think, really important. It’s for that reason that we are putting forward a bill that says 150 days is what’s needed in order to deliver a budget. However, if you aren’t in extraordinary times, you can certainly do it sooner. There is nothing that says you can’t do it sooner. April 30 is the end date that we’re proposing in this legislation.

S. Furstenau: I guess it’s just a challenge to be able to square what was said during the snap election and what’s unfolding here. During the election, the Premier and the NDP claimed over and over again that the snap election was not going to have any impact on programs and supports going out the door. But we’ve heard from lots of people and businesses and organizations that, indeed, there was an impact.

Then we heard over and over again that the reason the election had to happen was because the government needed stability to be able to deal with the pandemic. Yet we’ve come back, and instead of being able to move forward with all the work for those two months when we weren’t here and there was a caretaker government, we now find out that there is this long delay that’s going to be a part of the budget process, which will further delay the programs and supports that need to go.

I heard the minister. Yes, we are here. We are also going to be discussing the supplementary budget piece. I think that it’s…. It’s not impossible to say that yeah, the election slowed things down. It delayed things. It meant that those two months when the budgeting work could have been going on, it wasn’t happening, and now we need the delay. It’s okay to say that. I think it’s probably pretty accurate, that had there not been the election, we would not be needing to see this further extension to the budgeting process.

I’ll leave it there. I think that my question to end with is: how can the minister square these claims that were made with the reality and the experiences of people that are happening in businesses and organizations that are expressing concerns about delays that are happening? Maybe just being able to acknowledge and recognize, yeah, choices were made, and they had consequences, and here we are.

[4:10 p.m.]

We’re going to move forward, but it’s okay to say there were consequences for the choices that were made.

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I want to correct the record that programs and services continued in spite of an election. Programs that were announced in March, with the help of this House…. Getting a supplementary bill that helped put money in people’s pockets, that made sure that programs and services were there for people, making sure that Health had the budget it needed in order to keep doing the good work that it’s doing, taking care of our seniors and our vulnerable populations — that continued through the election period. I think it’s really important to understand that nothing stopped.

Yes, government might have been in caretaker mode, but the work of the public service was very externally focused, completely externally focused, to make sure that people had what they needed. The public service did a stellar, outstanding job. That was their number one focus for all of those months. Through the summer, absolutely through the summer, and right through the fall, that is what they did. We tasked them as a government. We gave them the tools and the resources that they needed in order to deliver for people. That’s exactly what they did.

It’s because of their work to be outward-focused that there really wasn’t, because of COVID, the energy being put into developing a budget. It was really a very, very difficult time to multi-task in that way. I think that there needs to be some recognition of the incredible work that the public service has been doing all of these months — non-stop, long hours — to make sure that the decisions that are made here in this House are carried out by those people.

This bill ensures that even with a few weeks’ delay in terms of tabling the budget, the programs and services will continue as they need to for the people that we serve. That’s certainly necessary for people and, I think, for government. I imagine that everybody in this House wants to see that continue.

To the member’s question, recognizing that we haven’t had to put together a pandemic budget ever. Ever. The pandemic hit after the last budget was tabled. We’ve all been working hard, everyone in this House, to take care of our constituents. That’s been the primary focus, in consultation with the public service. The folks that put together all the budget documents — all the estimates, the bills — are saying, and their advice to us as government is, that additional time is needed in order to get this right.

M. Bernier: Thank you to the other people that have asked some really good questions. I think it’s important as we move forward to really highlight some of the stresses, challenges, not only that people are facing but I think in the House here, as we’re trying to understand the top priorities of this government and why this came forward.

[4:15 p.m.]

I want to give the minister an opportunity here. I think we just need to clarify something, because it’s been mentioned so many times throughout the course of the day already. I just want to — maybe it’s semantics — get this on the record, and it’ll help the minister, maybe, in her dialogue going forward, because she’s used a couple of different terminologies of: “Don’t worry. This is only a couple of weeks.” Earlier today she said it’s only an extension of a couple of days.

I just want to make sure we’re all clear. This is not only for the House but for the public as well. Every single budget that we’ve had in the past has been delivered on the fourth Tuesday of February. The House is usually called back the second week of February for a Speech from the Throne. The work is done, and a budget is presented shortly thereafter.

Last summer, this summer that just passed, government came forward and asked for an extension of 30 days, which took us to March 30. The minister is now in front of us with this bill. Sorry, it wasn’t March 30; it was the fourth Tuesday in March. She’s now asking for an extension to April 30.

I just want the minister to correct me if my math is wrong. Next year, if we go with the bill, as it’s changed — fourth Tuesday in March, which is March 23; she’s now asking for this extension to April 30 — that’s actually, on the calendar, six weeks, 40 days. Will she agree with that comment?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to be really clear that this is only for election years when we have an election in the fall. When it’s not an election year, it is February — just standard practice, what we have always been doing in this House.

When you pull out the calendar, five weeks and three days is the difference.

M. Bernier: Okay. Appreciate the minister doing that. Maybe that’ll help going forward, because one of the things I also am wondering…. So it’s five weeks, three days. Doesn’t matter. We’ll talk about a month-ish, what­ever, for simplicity as we go forward.

Maybe the minister, then, can walk me through a little bit of a timeline of how she sees next year, which will be the budget cycle after an election year. We’re acknowledging and I acknowledge that that’s what this bill is changing — just an election year. I’ll ask, maybe, the minister more questions about that later. The assumption is every year, therefore, afterwards we’ll be back in February, unless it’s an election year. Agree with that.

Can the minister walk me through, then, how she sees, with the passage of this bill — and the assumption is government will be passing this bill, obviously — next year looking?

[4:20 p.m.]

The reason I ask that is that we’ve typically always been here in February, just so the minister knows where my headspace is on this. We typically come here. We have the budget in February, and then we start the estimates process based on what the Minister of Finance has presented after budget day, for each individual ministry, for us to be able to ask questions, dissect the government’s budget.

I’m just trying to understand how she sees that timeline looking and how that will now be stretched out further into next year as we go through an estimates process based on the budget presented.

Hon. S. Robinson: Just for clarification, you’re talking about what happens here in the House?

M. Bernier: Sorry. Just to clarify, yes.

Hon. S. Robinson: The member is thinking ahead, and he’s right. You need to build in the time to do a fulsome debate. Whether or not we have one, two, or three committees operating at the same time or how much time is allocated to each of the budget estimates, it’s really up to the House Leaders to determine how to best proceed to have a fulsome debate about the budget.

M. Bernier: Of course, the expectation will be, as the minister has been highlighting here in the House…. She is asking for an extension to be able to put a wholesome budget together. There would be an expectation of this House and all the members of this House that we would be granted that equivalent honour of extension and what’s required to make sure that whatever budget is put forward gets the proper scrutiny and the proper discussion and debate here in the House by the opposition, on behalf of the people in British Columbia.

Can the minister then maybe confirm for me…? I’m afraid I know the answer, but I think it’s an important question. Can the minister confirm that we’ll be back, as always, even though it’s an election year and we’re talking about the budget…? Will the House be back at the beginning of February for a Speech from the Throne and continuation of proper discussion of legislation in the House?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m going to ask for a five-minute recess. My technology has run out of juice.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. We will be taking a five-minute recess so we can get the juice back up.

The committee recessed from 4:23 p.m. to 4:33 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to extend some gratitude to the House for helping recognize that we’re having some technological challenges, and of course, the backups aren’t working either. We’re just trying to balance out, making sure the technology is working. So please bear with us.

I want to get to the member’s question, but I can’t remember it because I was running around trying to find my backups that don’t work. If the member would be so kind as to repeat the question, that would be great.

M. Bernier: It’s been a while. I almost forgot what my question was.

Actually, what we had discussed quickly was that we know that, through the estimates process, it’s going to be extended. My question was: does that mean all of this government and all of this House will be extended? Or will we still be expected — and will the minister confirm it — to be back here at the beginning of February to do the people’s work?

Hon. S. Robinson: It is really up to the House Leaders to make the determination about when the House sits and how long the House sits.

[4:35 p.m.]

M. Bernier: I assumed that would be the answer. But I think it’s also important just to recognize that this bill in front of us can and actually will have impacts on a multitude of things — how the House, maybe, functions, other delays that might take place.

The expectation will be, obviously, that the House comes back and sits, because even though the minister is asking for a delay in the work she has to do putting together her budget — we discussed some of the challenges that she’s trying to highlight in order to do that — that doesn’t stop the work of government in other areas.

The minister has highlighted the stresses and the challenges that people are facing right now in British Columbia. We’re with her. We agree. The people of B.C. right now are going through unprecedented times and challenges. The last thing, again, that most of them are expecting or wanting to see is a delay of knowing where the government is going, what the plan is. We’re going to ask questions later on, on what the actual plan is, because we haven’t really seen one.

But I’ll throw a carrot to the minister. She really wants to be standing here and saying she acknowledges that there are stresses and pressures for people, while we’re sitting here debating delaying the government putting forward a budget. We only have one bill right now in the House that we’re debating. This is it.

There’s a private member’s bill right now for the food and beverage delivery fees cap that was presented by the opposition. I think it could be another example of us working together, another example of taking politics out of this place and doing what’s right to help people. This is being called for extensively by service groups around the industry, around the province.

So the minister can help us out. I’m more than willing to quickly run through the rest of this bill if she finds that she could find a way to bring that bill forward before the House rises this week.

Hon. S. Robinson: I was listening carefully to the words that the member was using, and I think it’s important to get on the record that this is about taking the time to construct a COVID budget. We have been working through supplementary estimates to deliver programs and services to help people through this. But the last budget that was presented to this House was in February, before we really knew what was going to play out. We know so much more now, and we see the significant impacts.

I just want to remind the member that this isn’t about delaying anything. It’s about taking the time needed to build a budget, a COVID budget, that responds to the needs of British Columbians. That’s what we’re debating here. It’s absolutely COVID related, given the impacts that COVID has had on so many people’s lives, on our health care system, on our seniors care system, on our schools, on businesses. It just goes on and on and on.

Being responsive, it’s incumbent on all of us to gather that information and understand the impacts so that we can make sure that the resources are there for people and businesses and communities that need them. So this is really about taking the time to get it right.

M. Bernier: That wasn’t, obviously, an answer to the point that I brought forward of maybe bringing other legislation that’ll help people. But I know the member for Surrey–White Rock has been hearing loud and clear that that specific private member’s bill could do something almost today to help a sector out there.

I don’t want to debate the whole terminology around delay or whatever, but the minister is asking for more time. I mean, the actual wording in the explanatory notes in the bill is saying that the minister is asking to extend the deadline. I guess we could say extend the deadline, delay.

[4:40 p.m.]

To me, that’s pretty close to the same kind of terminology being used, not that we have to agree to disagree. I recognize that the minister is asking for more time to do the job that she says is needed. I will also acknowledge that the last time this House has seen a budget, as the minister said, was February.

The minister has continually said throughout the course of the debate, over the last few hours, anyway, that it’s about getting it right. It’s about listening to the people. Now, we also found out through the course of the discussion earlier today that that excluded discussions with First Nations in the province of British Columbia before any decision was made to put this legislation forward.

Can the minister, then, maybe let me know what groups she did meet with? Obviously, before this announcement was made that she needed more time…. She said that she’s listening to people. What groups has she met with that have asked for this delay as well, which means that the government needs more time?

Hon. S. Robinson: If I heard the member correctly, and I want to apologize if I didn’t because I was getting some feedback in the technology…. The technology is great until it isn’t, so I apologize if I didn’t quite catch the member’s question. It was around who is calling for this needed time.

Again, talking with staff around getting to work to build the budget, it became really clear from staff, from the public service, that have…. Again, I want to remind everybody — and I know that the members know that, but I think it’s important and it can’t be said enough — about how proud I am of our public service and the work that they did, turning on a dime back in March, developing programs, getting them out the door. I know that the member opposite knows this because he has been on this side. It can take a long time to get a program developed and out the door because you want to make sure that all of the pieces are perfectly placed.

We felt, and certainly the public service felt, that we didn’t have the luxury of time around the COVID crisis, that we needed to move quickly. We’ve done that. The federal government has done that. Governments all around the world have been doing that. It can’t be said enough how the public service has delivered for British Columbians in such a significant way.

They’re paying a price for that. They’re tired. They’re exhausted because they have been working right through. And we have been back in this House right after the…. I’ll say the crisis struck in March when things sort of changed dramatically for all of us, and we came back again in the summer to move more programs out the door, to help businesses with the recovery program, to make sure that we had the pieces in place to take care of British Columbians.

Here we are back again doing more of the same with the recovery benefit. It really is the work of the public service to push that out and to make those programs work for British Columbians. So here we are, saying: “Okay, and we have to get in to do budget.” Frankly, they’re exhausted. Time that would have been spent building the budget has been going into program delivery as a response to COVID.

[4:45 p.m.]

Really, what we’re saying is that the public service needs to work with us, as government. Government needs to work with the public service to build the budget. They are integral to putting that together, to working with government to do that. So it’s in collaboration with the public service that we’ve brought forward this bill saying that more time is needed in order to do it justice.

M. Bernier: Nobody’s arguing the fact that we have a crisis in front of us, and the great work and the hard work and the long hours, I’m sure, that the public servants in the ministry — this ministry, specifically, and I’m sure almost all of them — are going through right now.

I do find it interesting, though, that the minister, and the ministry, I guess, through the arm of the minister, had time to bring this bill forward, including such things as the Home Owner Grant Act and changing…. We’re going to get to that, I guess, in a little while, in section 4, clause 4. Again, those are some of the most important things forward that everybody was calling for — to deal with how we apply for a homeowner’s grant and bring more work into government. I digress, I think, on that. But we’ll get to that in a minute.

Well, I’ll put an easy question forward, first of all. Before the decision was made to have this delay, did the minister consult with the UBCM and local government?

Hon. S. Robinson: As I said before, there were no external consultations. The member can go through as many groups as he wants, and it will be the same answer.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that from the minister. She did say that they did not consult with anybody. They have made this decision up internally, that they expect more time.

Was there any analysis done, then, by the minister and the ministry and government: by extending and asking for an additional 30 days, over top of the 30 they already had, what impacts might that have to other agencies that rely on not only government funding but report to government in a timely manner, which they’re legislated to do?

Hon. S. Robinson: There are two components. We talked already about the funding, and we are going to with funding, as per this current year, over the extended period of time.

[4:50 p.m.]

In terms of reporting — I think that that’s what the member is talking about — it doesn’t create any problems for those that are obligated to report out. It’s standard. Nothing changes there.

M. Bernier: The minister says nothing changes. When do school districts have to submit a balanced budget to the government for approval and scrutiny?

Hon. S. Robinson: I was just checking with staff. This extended time won’t impact the school board reporting requirements.

M. Bernier: That’s good to hear. My question, though, was: when do they need to report by?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: June 30 is the date that a balanced budget needs to be provided that is approved by the school board.

M. Bernier: I asked the minister earlier if she would confirm that no groups, agencies, would be affected by this delay. I’m just curious. I never got a straight answer from her. Is she willing, then…?

When you look at groups like school districts who can’t put their budget together without knowing what they’re getting…. The minister just finished saying that they won’t be delayed. Maybe I should take away my excitement from her earlier answer, when I said I’m glad to hear that, because maybe I’m not glad to hear that they won’t be delayed.

Is the minister willing to stand in the House, again, and confirm that this delay that she is asking for, for implementing a budget in the House, will not in any way impact any other groups or agencies that rely on government funding? I know the minister said that funding will continue, but there are still reporting requirements, such as school districts, that have to also implement and put together their own budget.

They will now be delayed before they know what they will be getting, because they can’t build a budget based on what they thought they were getting, unless the minister wants them to put budgets together on what they hope to get — which, of course, we know is not what we expect. Is the minister willing to say that nobody will be negatively affected by her delay of implementing a budget?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member asked the question about reporting requirements for school boards. They report June to June. Other entities will have different year-end dates. So everybody is in a slightly different boat, given when their requirements are. That’s why we’re bringing this budget bill now so that people can plan their timing around knowing when the budget will happen and knowing how to make any adjustments that they need to make.

I want to be really clear. Everybody is going to continue to be funded, in the way that they have been funded, as we take the time to build out a COVID budget. That’s going to be absolutely critical for Budget ’21. Making sure that we have considered all of the challenges that COVID has brought forward to all of us and to all of these entities is absolutely critical.

We’ll certainly make sure that those that do have reporting requirements, that do develop budgets based on our budget, are familiar and are knowledgable about the fact that more time is needed to build the fiscal plan, the fiscal framework, and Budget ’21.

[5:00 p.m.]

We’re in a year of adapting, if I had to give a year of adapting, to significant challenges. I know that people are up for it because they’ve continued to demonstrate that throughout 2020.

M. Bernier: I’m just trying to really understand the process that government is thinking, how this is going to look on the ground. When this bill passes…. I assume, again, it will. Even though nobody from government spoke to it, I’m assuming they’re supporting it. It states that the minister must have a budget presented on or before April 30. Is she going to go right to April 30 and deliver it then? Is she thinking she might come earlier? When is the budget going to be presented?

Hon. S. Robinson: The budget extension that’s before the House looks at April 30 as sort of, I guess, a drop-dead date, the very last date that the bill can be introduced into the House. I’m working with staff right now to identify exactly how much time is needed within that time frame. I’ll be sure to let the member know as soon as we have finalized the date.

M. Bernier: Let’s work not necessarily backwards, but let’s put together how the process typically works right now. We get called in at the beginning of February. The Speech from the Throne. Shortly later, a week or two later, we have a budget speech. That’s the first time people have their eyes on a document that knows what the government’s plans are, what the funding will be.

There are a lot of agencies and a lot of groups, a lot of boards, people who rely on government funding, who are waiting to see that document. In every other year, it’s been February. Again, to recap, the government asked a few months back for a 30-day extension due to COVID. We are here today debating only this bill for another 30-day extension because of the uncertainties of COVID. I don’t have to rehash this. We went through it earlier today.

Again, typically we’d be here in February. We would then start scrutinizing the budget that’s in front of us. We’d go through an estimates process ministry by ministry. Again, it’s the first chance that a lot of people…. In some cases, I’m thinking, it’s the first time the ministers in different ministries have seen what allotment, what their budget, is going to be proposed. I say “proposed” because it has not been given the scrutiny of this House and royal assent. Typically, that takes a couple of months. That takes us to, usually, the third or fourth week in May before we’re in this House, royal assent, after the estimates on the budget. That truly is the first time people can say: “Now I know what I’m really getting because it has now been passed in the House.”

Now, if we use that same similar timeline…. The minister said earlier on today that obviously we’ll wait to see what the House Leaders decide, but we want to have the opportunity for this House to do a similar process and similar scrutiny ministry by ministry.

[5:05 p.m.]

If we used a similar timeline, we would not be getting royal assent now till July, possibly even August, depending on what kind of budget is in front of us. We have now passed the timelines where so many agencies have already had to submit their budget to government.

The minister says they are going to continue to get the same amount of money. Is she actually telling us now that there’s not going to be a change to the budget? I’d like to hear the minister say, then, if that’s the case. How are a lot of these groups supposed to submit a budget to this government when they don’t know what they’re going to be getting from government?

Now, I know the minister can probably stand up in this House and say they have a majority government, and don’t worry, whatever they present on April 30 is what you’ll be getting. That’s still not fair to this House. It’s not fair to the people and the accountability and transparency, which, by the way, is the act we’re discussing right now that we need to go through.

Back to my earlier question. Will the minister at least acknowledge that these delays might have impacts on timelines that other groups have to follow?

Hon. S. Robinson: Listening to the member’s query suggests to me that he seems to perhaps have forgotten July 2013 — I believe that was the year — when we did estimates debates through the month of July. It took us a month to get through all of the estimates because it hadn’t been done in that spring election. There were three Houses running, if I recall. One of them was very hot — it was upstairs — because it was July. There is tremendous adaptability in this Legislature, in this House.

I do think it is important to have full debate, estimates debate, and I will leave it to the House Leaders to make the determination about how to be efficient, how to be effective and how to deliver a budget that makes a difference to people. At the end of the day, what we’re talking about is taking a few weeks of extra time to build a budget that works for people now and works for people in the future.

We are in a…. We keep saying “extraordinary.” We keep saying “unprecedented.” I’m running out of words, because it really is. It really is. People deserve to have a government, all of us, working diligently to make sure that we are directing resources and making sure that we are taking care of the people that depend on us to do that.

Right now what we have before this House is the opportunity to say: “Let’s get it right. Let’s take the time.” Let’s take the advice of the public service that is informing us that they need more time. They’ve been run off their feet delivering services through the time that normally they would be spending putting together some of the budget documents. They need more time to get it right, and it’s incumbent on all of us to help facilitate that, I believe, and make sure that it does get through the House, that it does get the scrutiny it deserves. I have confidence in our House Leaders to help to us do that in a timely manner.

M. Bernier: Not to debate history with the minister…. Of course this House gets called back under extraordinary times. We’re in one right now, debating, which we’re going to get to later on, the government asking for more money. We recognize that typically doesn’t happen, but under this government, it has, and we’ll debate and talk about the reasons for that a little later.

[5:10 p.m.]

In 2013, if memory serves, there was actually a budget presented in February, and there was an election, and then there was a change to come back after the election to modify that budget. People actually knew what they were getting prior to an election, and then we came in and debated and changed that budget afterwards.

Regardless of that…. The minister can correct me if I’m wrong, and I might be, but the point is that people are going to be having to wait, and that’s what the minister says is fine.

There are still the statutory obligations of groups that have to respond to government. There’s legislation for other groups of when they have timelines. Is the minister acknowledging, then, that for local governments, school districts and others that are covered under legislation for requirements of reporting, the door is now open to change the legislation for them, as well, as the government sees fit to do for themselves?

Hon. S. Robinson: At this time, we don’t believe that there is any impact. We’ll certainly…. We’ve done a scan to identify if there are any, and at this point, we don’t believe that there are any impacts to statutory reporting, should this bill pass and we have the extension needed to deliver a robust and meaningful budget.

M. Bernier: The minister probably doesn’t need to ask her staff this one. When is the statutory requirement for local governments to report to government?

[5:15 p.m. - 5:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: They wanted to double-check some of the legislation. I was right. May 15 is when it has to be adopted. What’s interesting, though — and I know that the member has significant experience in local government — in Coquitlam we didn’t wait. We would adopt our budget, typically in December, because it felt important to have the knowledge of our fiscal framework earlier rather than waiting. So it’s the latest that you could do a budget, but you can certainly do one earlier. In the city of Coquitlam, they always chose to do it and adopt a budget in December.

M. Bernier: I don’t mean this as disrespect to the minister. I thought that was a softball I threw her, as the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, of the timelines required.

Look, I mean, I’m not trying to take the minister down a rabbit hole here. I’m not trying to highlight anything other than the government putting legislation forward to delay their budget to be in front of the public can, may and probably will have effects on other agencies.

Local governments have to put theirs together so they know what their tax rates are going to be. We’ve got lots of former local government officials and mayors here, and they understand that process where they need to know. The minister says the money is going to continue. That’s great. School districts aren’t going to officially know until close to the deadline for reporting, but they also have to give notice to union if there’s going to be layoffs due to cuts in April and May — again, before they even know what they’re officially going to be getting.

The minister has said numerous times today not to worry; the money they’re getting is going to continue so they can work forward for putting their budget process. Is she saying, then, that everybody next year can start putting their budgets together? Nobody is getting extra money?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to point out that the member is conflating different things. In local government, certainly when I was on council, we didn’t wait for the February budget to plan our budget for the city.

[5:30 p.m.]

We passed our budget every year when I was on city council — and I believe that they still do the practice — in December. It wasn’t contingent on a provincial budget. To suggest somehow that one naturally leads into the other isn’t accurate, in fact.

Local governments have their own responsibilities to budget appropriately and do so quite well. They do. In Coquitlam, they did it well, as well, and didn’t time it around the provincial budget.

So I think that’s not an accurate reflection of what an impact that he is suggesting.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

What we are saying, as well, is that in the time until we do table a budget, one that is well-thought-out, that considers COVID impacts, that makes sure that we take the time necessary to build an appropriate budget for the time…. What we’re saying to groups is that we will operate for that 13th month as if it was a 13-month year, so they will not be impacted by the extra time that we take to build a budget. We will continue to do the work that’s necessary to continue to take care of people, to continue to take care of businesses, to continue to take care of our communities so they can come through this pandemic as best as possible.

M. Bernier: I do find it somewhat ironic, though, that the minister is talking about the requirements of all these other groups putting together their budgets, yet they’re not willing to follow the same process for themselves of submitting and doing the work in a timely fashion.

The minister must know and have done the work of what she sees in the projections, going forward. I know she’s asking for a delay. Again, I want to stress that this is not about the staff and staff work. This is politics. I think this is politics — 100 percent. Will the minister maybe…? Actually before I get to that…. I think I’ll bring that up in the next section.

I just want to acknowledge that what government is doing here does have impacts, could have impacts. For the minister to say, “Don’t worry. Put your budgets together and keep going….”

I want to just remind this House of the employer health tax. Governments were in the middle of putting their budgets together and deciding how they would or would not increase property taxes as one of their only sources of revenue, and they get smacked with an employer health tax that they now have to budget for, that they didn’t know about, because this government brought that forward. So what government does and when they do it does actually have impacts on other groups, agencies and people, specifically, here in the province.

I’m just going to wrap up this section. I just want to highlight a few things. The minister has said throughout the course of this day that this is not going to have impacts — she’ll have an opportunity to correct me if I’m wrong on any statement I make here — on other groups or agencies. But at the same time, today we found out that she actually hasn’t talked, spoken with, consulted with any of those same people and same groups that she says are not going to be impacted. So how does she know?

We had a long discussion earlier of the fact that this government…. One of their very first chances to be in this House and to follow the legislation that they put forward around UNDRIP, and they’re not following that. The very first chance after an election to sit in this House and discuss legislation that is actually go to help people who are in dire need of that help right now in the province, and we have a bill to delay the transparency and accountability of this government.

[5:35 p.m.]

I think it’s important for this House, as an opposition, to bring these questions forward, to put this scrutiny on government, to really understand where government’s priorities are. People that are going to be watching this are going to really be baffled in so many ways that this is what’s in front of us, and this why we called to Victoria in the middle of what was discussed today as a second wave, a pandemic. It’s troublesome.

I’m going to end this section with just one question, I guess, to wrap up my comments. This entire House, I know, is excited that there is now a vaccine that’s coming that’s in front of us, that there is a shred of hope because of the vaccine. Is this budget being delayed to the point where a vaccine now is going to be more readily available, coincidently, around the end of April, from what this government has been talking about? I’m giving an easy one for the minister to wrap up this section, I think, by acknowledging and by saying: is there a coincidence between the COVID vaccine — not the COVID pandemic but the vaccine itself…? Are they waiting until the vaccine is more readily available before they put a budget forward?

Hon. S. Robinson: No, they are not related at all. Just like every member in this House, I heard the news with significant relief — was it last week, two weeks ago? — that it was coming. This is not at all related to that.

I think I just need to put on the record that the member seems to think that doing a robust, meaningful budget, taking the necessary time to put together one that works for people, that works for businesses and that works for communities is not important work to make a difference in people’s lives, that it’s not a significant piece of legislation.

I think the budget is the most important document that government brings forward in order to take care of the people it serves. The people need this government to keep doing what it has been doing. We need to take the time and make sure that we have the supports from a public service that is absolutely exhausted, that we can do right by the people of this province. It is for that reason that we are saying there is not enough time to get it right. That’s why this legislation is before the House.

The Chair: The member for Peace River South.

M. Bernier: Thanks, Chair, for indulging me, because I was not going to get back up until I heard that.

I just want also to be on the record that the minister just said the most important thing is presenting a budget to this House. Meanwhile, we’re debating a bill for her to do the exact opposite — for her to delay bringing a budget to this House. People expect that budget. The minister just acknowledged it’s probably one of the most important things this House could do. Yet we’re debating delaying, doing exactly the opposite. The minister can’t have it both ways.

I will acknowledge and agree with her, though, that the budget is the most important thing because it sets the framework for this House and for the province, which is why I’m asking the questions about delaying it. So I will acknowledge and agree with the minister. It is important. That’s why we’re asking these questions. That’s why we don’t think we need to delay the important work and the expectations that the people of the province have to see what the goals, plans and visions are and how it’s going to help the people of B.C. That, to me, is why we’re having this debate.

The Chair: Thank you, Members.

Did the minister want to respond?

Hon. S. Robinson: We’re going to keep this volley going, hon. Chair, mostly because I do think where we agree is on the importance of the budget. That is where we agree, absolutely.

That’s why it’s important to take the time to get it right and to make sure that we have a public service that can help us deliver a budget that works for people. It’s not about what he calls a “delay.” It is about taking the time, and that’s probably where we disagree.

[5:40 p.m.]

The Chair: Seeing no further questions on clause 1, we are going to have a vote taking place.

Shall clause 1 pass?

The vote does not carry.

Division has been called. There will be a deferred division tonight pursuant to a sessional order adopted December 7, 2020. The division will be deferred until six o’clock.

On clause 2.

The Chair: We’re going to be moving on to the second clause, for those following along at home. Big surprise, on to clause 2. Any questions on clause 2?

M. Bernier: Surprise. The Chair makes it sound like we’re playing a home game here, but this is actually quite important work we’re doing here.

I want to read something here from the actual Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, the actual act that we’re debating right now, which has a lot of green lines in it. For those who don’t know, green lines mean those were changes that were recently made this year, already, to the act. So there are a lot of changes that have already taken place when we had this act in front of us here a few months ago.

This section here that we’re talking about now is, again, about transparency. It’s about accountability. It’s about reporting. It’s about the duty of government and the minister, specifically, on her role and the expectations within that role.

Again, under the act, and talking about quarterly reports first. In section 10: “(1) Quarterly reports must be prepared in accordance with this section and with the accounting policies established by Treasury Board.” We discussed Treasury Board earlier, but I won’t get into that now.

“(2) Each quarterly report must include the following: (a) for the government reporting entity, statements of (i) the revenues and expenses, and the resulting surplus or deficit, for the period from April 1 in the fiscal year to which the report applies to the end of the quarter to which the report applies,” and also to report “(ii) the debt at the end of the quarter to which the report applies.”

Can the minister tell me when the last time her government submitted a quarterly report?

Hon. S. Robinson: September 10 was the last quarterly report, but I also want on record that there was also an update in July, recognizing the significant impacts of COVID. So there was the budget, and then July, and then September 10.

[5:45 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Can the minister then just confirm: were these, based on what I just read, full quarterly reports that were presented under the act, and did they meet all of the requirements under the act?

Hon. S. Robinson: The September 10 quarterly report did meet all the requirements of the act. The July report did, but it was not considered a proper quarterly report, given the status of what was being updated. It was an additional transparency report to let British Columbians know the status of the fiscal activities of government, given the extraordinary times and the extraordinary circumstances.

M. Bernier: Can the minister spend a few minutes and explain to this House, then, the requirements of section 2 — clause 2, I guess we’re going to refer to it?

Under the notes, it states that this is to extend the period for the exception for quarterly reports being required, and I’m just curious if the minister can explain the circumstances and why they brought this part forward.

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: In a non-election year, when you present the budget in February, with it comes a third quarterly report. It’s part and parcel of the work that goes into preparing a budget. The third quarterly is part of it.

In this instance, we recognize that, as part of the budget process, we want the third quarterly to continue to be attached to it. So this is part of making sure that we can continue to do the quarterly with the budget, recognizing that it’s the same public service that are continuing to deliver programs and services, continuing to manage the COVID impacts, continuing to build out the budget, continuing to do the quarterly reports. This is about keeping it all together and making sure that we can, in fact, deliver a budget in a timely way.

I will draw the member’s attention to subsection (6), which recognizes that this can create a gap between reporting out and the built-in requirement to make a public report in the intervening months.

I also note the hour, and I note that we will be called back into the chamber for a vote. I do need a break and want to make sure that I can take care of that. So with everyone’s indulgence….

The Chair: We’ll take a recess until six o’clock. Thank you, everybody.

The committee recessed from 5:52 p.m. to 5:59 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, we will proceed to the deferred division process on the question of whether clause 1 of Bill 3, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2020, shall pass. I would like to remind members participating remotely that they must now enable their video.

Pursuant to the sessional order regulating hybrid proceedings of the House adopted on December 7, 2020, the House will stand recessed until 6:10 p.m., when we will take the vote. Thank you, Members.

The committee recessed from 6 p.m. to 6:10 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, we will now proceed with the deferred division. The question is whether clause 1 of Bill 3, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2020, shall pass.

[6:15 p.m. - 6:20 p.m.]

Clause 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 53
Alexis	Anderson	Babchuk
Bailey	Bains	Beare
Begg	Brar	Chant
Chen	Chow	Conroy
Coulter	Cullen	Dean
D’Eith	Dix	Donnelly
Dykeman	Farnworth	Fleming
Glumac	Greene	Heyman
Horgan	Kahlon	Kang
Leonard	Lore	Ma
Malcolmson	Mark	Mercier
Osborne	Paddon	Popham
Ralston	Rankin	Rice
Robinson	Routledge	Routley
Russell	Sandhu	Sharma
Simons	Sims	A. Singh
R. Singh	Starchuk	Walker
Whiteside		Yao
NAYS — 29
Banman	Bernier	Bond
Cadieux	Clovechok	Davies
de Jong	Doerkson	Furstenau
Halford	Kirkpatrick	Kyllo
Lee	Letnick	Merrifield
Milobar	Morris	Oakes
Olsen	Paton	Ross
Rustad	Shypitka	Stewart
Stone	Sturdy	Tegart
Wat		Wilkinson

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:23 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:24 p.m.