Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued committee stage on 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 2:33 p.m.

The Chair: Members, we are here for committee stage of Bill 3, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2020.

On clause 2 (continued).

Interjection.

The Chair: I’m ready to ask the question, but the member is ready to ask a question himself.

M. Bernier: Well, thank you, Chair, and welcome back. I was just trying to make eye contact with the minister to make sure I wasn’t jumping ahead of, maybe, some opening remarks she wants to make. But that’s not the case today. We’ll just continue on.

I’m going to just make some very quick, I think, pointed questions that will help move this section through. I found out — as, I think, most people found out just before lunch here — that the minister announced that she’s going to do a fiscal update tomorrow. Can she just confirm that for me?

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, that’s correct.

M. Bernier: Maybe she can help me out, then. I’ve looked through the entire act, and there’s no definition of what a fiscal update is. Could she explain what that will be?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member asked a good question. While it’s not required, we are choosing to do that. We think that’s an important piece to let British Columbians know the economic status. So we are choosing to do an update. It will provide the same information that you would normally get in a quarterly report, a second quarterly report.

M. Bernier: Maybe the minister can just quickly help me understand this, then, because that’s not an answer to what my question was.

When the ministers on this side of the House…. They used to criticize all the time when a bill was put forward, when something might be added and no definitions put to it. This might be a perfect opportunity for the minister to clarify the questions we had yesterday. Did this go through the legislative drafting process? I think they might have caught this. So my answer, probably, to my own question is: I don’t think they did, when they put this through.

Right in this section that we’re talking about, the minister is asking us to add a section that specifically says, and uses the terminology, that the minister will be able to now provide fiscal updates. I’m using that wording very carefully: “fiscal updates.” The minister has announced that tomorrow, she’s going to use a fiscal update. There’s no definition, no terminology and no qualifications anywhere in the act that I can find that defines what a “fiscal update” is.

Can the minister explain to me why, through the process of the drafting, then, if they’re going to be adding a whole new section in this section here…? Just so I know and put it on the record, in section 10, they’re adding a whole subsection (6) with the wording and terminology of a “fiscal update.”

Why was that not included in definitions so that people and future governments will know what the requirements are and what that means?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member knows that when this was debated in the summer, it didn’t exist. This piece did not exist in the legislation.

We recognize that by having this 150 days, as opposed to 120 days, it became an extended period of time. Recognizing that, part of what’s necessary to have happen in this time, and the reason for the extension, is that the public service needs the time to do its job in putting this all together. By creating a fiscal update that says you have to report out publicly to the state of affairs in some format, it does provide discretion. It recognizes that that extra 30 days is a little bit too long to go without anything.

The choice — and the member is smiling at me — is recognizing that part of the rationale for doing this is that the public service is absolutely exhausted and that we need to make sure that we have the resources necessary to develop a fulsome, meaningful budget that makes a difference in people’s lives. To require all that is required in a quarterly report would be completely overwhelming and sort of defeat the purpose of creating the space to do the budget.

This is sort of an interim step to make sure that there is a placeholder, a requirement for the Minister of Finance to report out what the status is, in broad perspective, so that everybody understands what the state of affairs is, what the forecast looks like, what the economic indicators are and what the fiscal status is for the province — so that there’s some understanding of what’s going on until the budget can be tabled before April 30.

M. Bernier: It still didn’t really, technically, answer my question, but it actually gives me a few more thoughts. I’m quite surprised, actually, that the minister is using the terminology that she is through this.

I’m going to give the minister an opportunity, obviously, to correct me again if I’m wrong, because she has the ability to have the public servants right there to be able to answer these questions for her. Again, there’s nowhere in the act that defines the legal requirements of what a fiscal update is. Is this another case of “take my word for it”? I’m not sure. This isn’t just for this minister, but the whole point of legislation is to put in parameters and guidelines for future ministers and governments as well.

[2:45 p.m.]

This minister might have an understanding of what she believes a fiscal update to be. But again, there’s nowhere that I can find…. They went through the trouble of bringing only this piece of legislation forward, and wanting to change this section to allow for a fiscal update, but not the trouble to define what a “fiscal update” is, other than what the minister just put on the record. That’s not in the act, that I can see, anywhere. I guess the question is: other than being in the act — fiscal update — what are the legal requirements, if any? What are the parameters and guidelines expected of a fiscal update, if any?

Not to sound demeaning in any way to the minister, but without that definition, the minister can stand up tomorrow and basically say: “Hey, everything is great. I’ll talk to you next June.” I’m not sure what the guidelines are. Can she be a little bit more specific? Obviously, her staff has an understanding of what the expectations are. I’m sure they’ve already briefed her on what she’s going to be doing tomorrow. That should give a good understanding of what a fiscal update is. Can she answer why it’s not put in the act for future governments to know?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to express gratitude to the member for his question, because, as it turns out, there’s nothing in the act that tells us what has to be in a budget either. It’s up to government to put one together, and that is what governments do.

I want to let the member know that when I was asked to be Finance Minister, this particular issue came before me — around the challenges of the time crunch that we’re facing and the fact that in this time of COVID, the public service has been run off their feet. They’ve been doing their best. They’ve been rolling out myriads of programs to get resources out into communities, out to businesses, out to individuals. They need time to put together a robust, meaningful budget. So we’re here before the House, looking for a 30-day extension to what our obligations are in terms of getting this important work done.

What was before me was a period of time when there actually wouldn’t be any reporting out, and that just wasn’t acceptable to me. It wasn’t acceptable to me as an MLA. It wasn’t acceptable to me as a Minister of Finance. I’m sure it wouldn’t be acceptable to the opposition and to the people of British Columbia. Having some sort of update would be wise, responsible and transparent.

Now, recognizing that Ministers of Finance have a responsibility to manage the fiscal affairs of government…. Keeping an eye on the economic outlook, providing a budget that delivers the services that people count on and making sure that the systems that we all count on are there for us, not just now but well into the future, is the responsibility of government. It’s a responsibility of the Finance Minister, and I take that responsibility very seriously. It’s for that reason that we put in this section, to say that you cannot go all of these months without reporting back to the people about what the state of affairs is, fiscally.

[2:50 p.m.]

It’s with that in mind that this subsection 10(6) — I think that’s what we’re referring to — is being put into legislation. I want to point out that it wasn’t there before. If we didn’t have this in there, you would go for quite a number of months without any required reporting of any kind.

M. Bernier: I just want to remind the minister of something. I mean, her opening comments and that answer is: there’s nowhere in the legislation on how to do a budget. Well, no kidding. That’s government’s job. That’s the minister’s job. That’s why they run an election with a plan. They do all that. But there are parameters. There is law put in place by government of how to frame a budget, how to report on a budget and what they’re supposed to do.

I’m not asking for the minister to tell me what she’s putting in the budget right now. We’ll get to those discussions. I’m talking about the parameters about reporting on what government’s obligations are, which is what’s in front of us right now. So for the minister to say that there’s no law about putting a budget together…. I expect the minister to do the due diligence. All sides of this House and the public want her to do due diligence. I’m specifically asking about the requirements and if, in this legislation, there are actually going to be legal parameters around the reporting obligations of the minister based on the budget that she puts together.

The minister just said just now that we’d go through this lengthy time without this section. Can the minister, then, maybe answer for me: what’s the difference between a fiscal update and a quarterly report?

Hon. S. Robinson: I do want to go back to an earlier question that the member asked about where there is a definition of a “fiscal update.” What’s interesting is that there’s no definition of “a budget” so that’s my comparator, although we do one every year.

With a fiscal update, this is about…. It could be as broad as a quarterly. It could be what my previous colleague, Carole James, did in July, which is less formal. It depends on the context. Remember, we’re putting this in because nothing exists, and it is important that there is a reporting of some kind — and that the contexts change.

Remember, this is only in an election year. I think it’s really important to remind the member and to remind anyone who’s watching that this is only when there’s an election year. Right now our elections happen in the fall. That’s part of the legislative calendar, that elections happen in the fall. This is to ensure that there is a relatively early opportunity for a Finance Minister to report out in some fashion about the state of affairs.

They could be very specific and get very detailed, like you would in a quarterly, which is much broader and it has various elements. Or it could be, essentially, just an update on a number of indicators or elements that you would see in a quarterly report. Again, it’s just dependent on what is happening and what is needed.

[2:55 p.m.]

M. Bernier: I’m listening very carefully to the words that the minister put forward, which appear to be very convenient.

I want to go back to not only some of the commentary we had yesterday but to the actual section here. When we look at quarterly reports in section 10 of the law, of the act that binds government and the process which government is to follow and, specifically, this minister is to follow…. It was determined yesterday, and the minister agreed, that quarterly means every three months. The minister also said yesterday that the last semi-report, unofficial, from the previous minister, came forward. So I’m not sure if that was a fiscal update or a quarterly report. We never got a clear answer. Maybe the minister can clarify that.

But it’s very specific in subsection 10(1) that the quarterly reports of government must be prepared in accordance with the section and established by Treasury Board and must include…. I read that stuff into the record yesterday. That’s a quarterly report. It doesn’t say anything about a fiscal update or whatever the minister or government chooses to put forward. It specifically says in law that the government must put forward, and this minister must put forward, a quarterly report to this House, to the public, for scrutiny, transparency and accountability, which is part of this act.

The minister did not define or confirm if tomorrow’s fiscal update is going to qualify as a quarterly report. Is the minister putting this section in now to exempt herself in some way from having to follow through with the present law requirement of a quarterly report for Q2? We have yet to find out when that would be, which we would assume, if we go every three months, would be this month.

Hon. S. Robinson: The people that are talking in my ear are teaching me a lot about the legislation. Just so the member can also learn, apparently, in section 12, the minister can provide, as needed, a fiscal forecast, and there’s no definition of a fiscal forecast. So there are other examples of opportunities for Finance ministers to provide information that are not defined specifically, and it provides opportunity to share information, be transparent, but it’s not as specifically defined as the member is somehow suggesting.

In terms of his question around…. I believe, if I recall, it was about the second quarterly. Right now it’s not required. The way the legislation reads, it’s not required. So there’s no obligation on government. Because we had a fall election…. That is what the legislation says. That is what exists on the books.

[3:00 p.m.]

To me, by going to an extra month, that’s too far a gap without the people of B.C. hearing what’s going on, getting some sense of what’s happening with the fiscal picture, what the forecast might look, what the fiscal challenges might be or the opportunities might be for government.

I hope the member supports this section, because I think it’s a good section. It’s about accountability. It’s about transparency, and it’s about making sure that we do more, not less. I look forward to seeing this section pass.

M. Bernier: I mean, obviously, I was asking those questions. I’m very well aware of the act and the requirements of the minister. So I appreciate the comments from her. Yes, I know that technically it’s not required because of an election being called. Because there’s a fall election, the obligation for the Q2 report does change for the minister.

Again, the whole point of me bringing up this line of questioning was to highlight the fact that here we have a government who’s putting legislation in front of us right after an election to extend the time before they put a budget. They’re also asking us to approve more money, and we’ll get to that, I guess, soon, later on today. Meanwhile, they haven’t put forward a Q2 report, conveniently, because the legislation allows it because of the election.

I guess the question I had was: is the minister, as she’s putting this change forward, going to be giving the equivalent of, tomorrow, a Q2 report? Is she justifying that as a Q2 report, technically, tomorrow? And will the Q3 report still be on time in the spring?

The Chair: If I might, Member, is this towards section 2, or is this just a greater question around finance? I’m just asking around clause 2.

M. Bernier: With all due respect, Chair, I’m aware that we’re still on clause 2, and my questions are appropriate to that.

The Chair: I would appreciate if the member would stick to the clause that we’re talking about. It seems to the Chair that the member is going a little outside of the realm of the clause. The member might want to debate it, but this is the opinion of the Chair. Thank you.

Hon. S. Robinson: The update will be tomorrow, and the member is welcome to listen to it. The third quarterly report will be included with the budget as it always is.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

M. Bernier: Now we’re on clause 3, and I’ll be speaking to that, the Financial Administration Act. Just a few questions to this.

[3:05 p.m.]

Can the minister explain — when we just talked about in the previous sections, or that we talked about in this bill, extending the time for government to put forward a budget — why there’s now this section around special warrants? Can she explain when the circumstances would be for her to use special warrants?

Hon. S. Robinson: So the fiscal year-end — of course, everyone knows in this House — is March 31. Special warrants provide an authority to continue spending past that date until you could bring forward a budget and 15 days past that to get a supply bill passed until the estimates process is finished. If in session, you use interim supply to help keep paying the services that people count on. A special warrant is if you can’t call the House back.

I want to remind the member, and all of the members, what happened in March. We had this pandemic and trying to figure out how to call everyone back when it didn’t feel safe, when we didn’t know how to get everyone into the House in a way that would be safe. And we didn’t have this tool to carry on keeping government going unless people could come back into the House.

Now, it was chaotic. It was stressful. Some would argue it was risky. It’s not what people wanted to do. I know that the decision was made to keep those on the Island, to give them…. So we would travel less. We come from all parts of the province, and we’re all told not to travel and that there’s risk with that. That created some significant challenges. Hats off to all those that brought the technology forward. It’s been a significant learning for everybody.

[3:10 p.m.]

That was just an example of what happens when you don’t have a fail-safe like the special warrant. It’s from that exercise that suggested that perhaps it should be part of the legislation, so that should something like that ever happen again, there is still this tool available to keep things going.

I want to draw the member’s attention…. He’s probably going to ask about the formula. It’s very prescribed about what is possible. That’s a fail-safe to make sure that it’s really about the continuation so that things can continue for those that rely on government services.

M. Bernier: Typically, as the minister was saying, we have interim supply, which typically has worked in the past. Way in the past, special warrants used to be used quite regularly. The minister also highlighted this spring and the difficulties of getting to the House and all of those issues. With all due respect, we’ve got the same warnings right now, but the government had no problem calling us back to do this bill, which seems to be so important to government.

My question around that, though, would be…. In March — March 23, if I remember — then minister Carole James said things were functioning great. Special warrants weren’t needed. There were opportunities for interim supply, that we could actually use all those systems. Was that minister wrong? Things worked fine under that minister to be able to do it that way. What’s changed?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, talking with staff who were on the ground working with the Finance Minister to call the Legislature back…. They’re saying that actually the member’s perception isn’t accurate — that the minister at the time, Carole James, was not happy about bringing the House back, but she had no other tool. It was not what she wanted to do. Remember this was at the end of March. We didn’t know anything about this virus. We didn’t have the technology the way that we’ve built it up over the last number of months.

She was quite apologetic about having to do this because she had no other choice. She had no other choice except to bring us back to keep government going. But it’s not what she wanted to do, because it put everybody at risk. It put all of our families at risk in terms of going home, and we didn’t know.

It was very instructive to government around the fragility of what could happen. We know that there are other risks. I don’t like to think about it because it makes me too anxious, and I don’t like to live life like that. I had a mother who lived like that, and I choose not to, because it can be very stressful.

But I think it is in our best interests and British Columbians’ best interests to have a tool that allows the continuation of government when stuff happens in a way that prevents us from coming to this place to do the work, and to only use it when we are prevented from coming to this place to do the work.

[3:15 p.m.]

We all talk about earthquake preparedness, for example. What happens if we can’t convene the House in that instance? What happens should some other impact — I don’t want to create more anxiety — some other disease, keep us from coming together? Or what happens if the technology completely fails us in some way, some different kind of virus happens? I mean, I think that the Legislature has experienced some of that. That’s created significant challenges. So this just shows us that there’s a piece of fragility around our ability to keep things going in a crisis, and this is a tool that will help keep things going.

S. Furstenau: I just wanted to weigh in a little bit on this conversation. It’s one that I think merits a lot of thought and discussion, because there are things that are fragile, and that includes democracy. In situations like we’re seeing right now, with a global pandemic and other disasters, there are precedents where governments have actually chosen to undermine the function of democracy as a result of disasters. Naomi Klein has a book called Disaster Capitalism, for example. That is the other side of this question around fragility.

Of course government needs to keep operating in the face of challenges and disasters. But I see 2020 as very different. We showed, all of us, that the commitment to parliamentary democracy, the commitment to accountability and transparency and legislative work was such that it motivated all of us to put that at the forefront — to come back in March, to come back in June. Extraordinary work was done by the staff and the IT department to achieve exactly what we’re achieving right now, which is that the vast majority of MLAs are not in this building, but we are proceeding with the work of the Legislature and the parliamentary work in a way that makes it work at a time like this.

The tool of special warrants, while there can be a case made, I think is one that also presents risk, because if a government isn’t motivated strongly to resume the work of the parliament and the Legislature, then it can be easier to simply proceed and make decisions without the oversight and accountability that is afforded with the work that we do here. So this is the worry that I have.

I guess I’ll put it to a question. Does the minister recognize that there can be a loss of transparency with the use of special warrants, and does she take into account the importance of maintaining transparency, particularly in the case of challenging conditions like we’re in this year?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question. I, too, read Disaster Capitalism. It’s a fascinating book. I do agree that democracy is fragile, and we need to protect it. And it’s for that reason that this special warrant is very narrow.

First of all, it’s a very restrictive formula. You can’t do any new programs; it’s just about continuing what currently exists. You can’t add anything new, can’t build anything new. It’s only up to 45 days that you can be within this special warrant framework. And it really is to be used in that crisis context. There are clauses in this act to protect it.

You also need to be accountable for it, so it needs to be built into the budget process and to the estimates. It’s not separate from. You just go backwards to when you had the warrant, when you use it. It needs to be included in the entire budget and estimates debate. So we’ve put, I would say, a cage around it, around how it needs to be accounted for and how it needs to be used.

The member had asked about transparency. With that use of the special warrant, you have to capture any spending that happened during that time. It needs to be accounted for in the estimates debate, in the budget process, so that gets voted on by the entire House. So that, too, is part of that.

The last thing I want to mention when we talk about transparency is…. That’s what the fiscal update piece in the previous section is about — making sure that there is some sort of update if we’re going to go a little bit longer in order to get a budget together. At a minimum, there needs to be some accountability to the people of this province, to this House, so that they understand where things stand fiscally for the province.

M. Bernier: I just want to finish off this section by trying to understand and put some timelines, I guess a thought process, around what the minister just said. Maybe she’ll appreciate and understand my skepticism — or maybe even my line of questioning, if she doesn’t want to understand my skepticism — on this issue.

The minister just said that she’s put this forward, these opportunities for special warrants, in the case of maybe, coincidentally, a pandemic situation where government can’t be called back. The minister, as part of the same act, has asked for a 30-day delay in putting a budget process forward. The minister also just said — and I will paraphrase: “Don’t worry; it’ll be built into the budget process.”

[3:25 p.m.]

What that sounds like is on paper we’re not going to have a budget by the end of May like we’re supposed to. We’re now going to make it go until April. But don’t worry. We’re giving ourselves special powers to be able to have special warrants for that month without having to have the scrutiny or justification of bringing that forward to the House for legislational discussion. But don’t worry. It’ll be built into the budget. We can debate it after the decision is already made.

What the minister is saying, and she’ll correct me if I’m wrong, is there’s a delay. She has the opportunity now to have special warrants to extend the financial situation of the government as she or cabinet so chooses, without coming to the House for a vote. Is that true?

Hon. S. Robinson: In a normal year, in a non-election year, when we bring forward our budget and our estimates books, we also table an interim supply, knowing full well that the budget isn’t going to pass until well after March 31. It’s how I’ve always experienced this place to operate. It’s the interim supply bill that helps us carry on with the normal activities of government until we can pass a budget. Oftentimes it wouldn’t be until May, even though the year-end was March 31. It just means that things continue on status quo until the budget passes.

This really isn’t any different. This is really not any different. It’s the same idea, to pass an interim supply until the budget is fully debated in the House, with estimates and the whole megillah, as my people like to say. Whether the budget passes in May or June, there is the opportunity to continue the status quo, keep things going.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

The special warrant is in that rare case, like we saw this last March, where there is a gap. There’s a risk. There’s a risk to not having the opportunity to get people in this House to pass an interim supply bill to make sure that government continues to operate. Again, we’ve created a cage around it.

Mr. Chair, welcome.

We’ve created a cage around it so that it’s very specific, it’s very narrow, and it’s, at most, 45 days.

[3:30 p.m.]

Clause 3 approved on division.

On clause 4.

M. Bernier: As discussed yesterday, I promised the minister that we probably wouldn’t get into too much detail on the nuts and bolts of this section, but I do have, obviously, a couple of questions.

I just want to frame this. This is on section 4 of the…. Again, I’ll sound like a broken record when I say the only bill that was so important to government to bring forward right now, in the middle of a pandemic, while everybody is asking for help. That aside, it will probably be the last time I get to say that during this bill.

This is around the homeowners’ grants. Can the minister explain why…? I won’t ask her to explain why she feels this is so important right now. Why is the minister bringing this section forward, if I understand this section of the bill correctly, for government to take on, save some questions here, the responsibility of gathering and garnering the information applications for homeowners’ grants? Presently, right now, people go, as most know…. You go down to your local city hall or go online. In rural areas, you have to actually go in personally in a lot of places.

Can the minister just answer why government wants to take on that responsibility now, away from local government?

Hon. S. Robinson: This was included in Budget 2020 to centralize the administration of this grant. It is burdensome to municipalities. I know that the member, I’m sure, would see the amount of work that would go in when this administrative requirement came into municipalities.

It is a provincial program, so it’s for that reason. Also, more so, it was to make sure that we had part of a tax-fairness understanding and that only those who are eligible — for example, if someone owned a home in Dawson Creek and another home in, let’s say, Vancouver, and perhaps they would apply for the homeowner grant in both communities — that wouldn’t be noticed, necessarily.

[3:35 p.m.]

This is a way to centralize it to make sure that there is tax fairness and, because it is a provincial program, to make sure that it’s more readily able to deliver on a program that is a provincial program.

M. Bernier: Well, I completely understand, as I know the minister does, this issue, as former local government people too.

She sparked an interesting thought in myself. If this is now going to be centralized, and they’re gathering this information, what other areas will they use this information for as far as tracking purposes? This is no longer, maybe, just collecting information around homeowners’ grants and eligibility on one or two or more homes that could or could not be wrongfully applied for.

Is government going to use this information for cross-referencing any other taxation or policies that the government has, right now, already put in place or future ones? I’m just kind of curious what they want to use that information for.

Hon. S. Robinson: All of the tax acts, as well as the Home Owner Grant Act, allow the ministry to share information and cross-reference.

[3:40 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: Just following up on that, the previous question, and wanting to get a little bit more detail. For example, will there be better capacity for data collection at the provincial level and tracking of home ownership, of tax compliance? Can the minister provide any kind of indication of the connection to the speculation tax and auditing people’s declarations? Will this change improve the capacity for the province to do that?

Hon. S. Robinson: I knew the answer, but I wanted to just double-check with the people who actually do the work about what the implications are for them. Yes, it will provide them with more data. It will provide them with more information. And yes, it will help with the audit and compliance work that they undertake.

Clauses 4 and 5 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:43 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 3 — FINANCE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

Bill 3, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2020, reported complete without amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. S. Robinson: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — FINANCE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

Mr. Speaker: Members, you heard the motion.

The motion carries.

Division has been called. According to the sessional order that we passed earlier, the third division will be taken today after six o’clock.

Members, the House will be in recess for ten minutes.

The House recessed from 3:45 p.m. to 3:52 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Presentation of Estimates

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING MARCH 31, 2021

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the message from Her Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, presented to this House on December 8, 2020, in the supplementary estimates (No. 3) fiscal year ending March 31, 2021, accompanying the same be referred to the Committee of Supply.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that this House forthwith resolve itself for this session into a committee to consider the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call Committee of Supply to consider the supplementary estimates.

Committee of Supply

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (No. 3):
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

The House in Committee of Supply; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 3:54 p.m.

On Vote 52(S): contingencies (all ministries), pandemic response and economic recovery, $2,000,000,000.

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m pleased to rise today to seek additional funding for COVID-19 response and recovery measures to serve the people of British Columbia. We are seeking approval to table additional supplementary estimates of $2 billion for further relief measures that will support British Columbians as we move through this pandemic.

[3:55 p.m.]

It is a stressful time. We want people to know that we will continue to do everything we can to support them through this pandemic. This additional $2 billion will help fund additional programs that will help our province recover from the pandemic. Just last week our government was proud to announce the B.C. recovery benefit, which will be available to up to 3.7 million British Columbians in just a few short days. People can start to apply for this on Friday. This money will give people a bit more breathing room and peace of mind to get them through the holidays and into the new year. The estimated cost for this program is $1.7 billion.

We are also adding a new recovery supplement to income and disability assistance clients whose previous crisis funding is set to expire at the end of this month. They will automatically receive an additional $150 a month, starting in January through to March. Coupled together, the recovery benefit and the recovery supplement will provide vulnerable families with more money in their pockets during this difficult winter season. The estimated cost for this program is $110 million.

Finally, this funding will help support a new refundable tax credit, the increased employment incentive that was announced in September as part of the Stronger B.C. economic recovery plan. The credit will be available to employers who increase their employment of low- to middle-income employees in the last quarter of 2020 and to employers who retain employees they hired in August and September. The estimated cost for this program is $190 million.

While the rebates won’t come until the spring, this is a tax rebate that businesses can bank on today. These businesses are supporting employment right now and betting on a brighter future as they move through recovery, especially now that we know we have a vaccine that is currently being deployed here in the province.

This is all part of the important work of supporting people now and building a robust and meaningful fiscal plan, a plan centred on looking out for people and their families, investing in health care and seniors care to protect people and fight COVID-19 and building a recovery that includes everyone, not just those at the top. While we do that work, we will continue to roll out new programs to help people and to help businesses recover.

M. Bernier: Let me just start by acknowledging, on behalf of the opposition, the recognition of the challenges that the people in British Columbia are going through right now — the fact that they are looking for help and the fact that they need help, whether that’s families, individuals, businesses. The minister spoke about where some of these supports are going, and we applaud that. We’re hearing the same things. We want to see people who are genuinely struggling, people who are genuinely in need right now, specifically because of COVID, which is what this extra money the minister has asked for appears to be earmarked for.

Through the course of the questioning that I’ll have and some of my colleagues will have, it is not to criticize government’s attempt to help people. It’s to better understand what that help will be, how people will apply and how it’ll genuinely affect the lives of people, which is what’s needed right now. We’re going to get into some questions and some details, more around process, at some point — with the acknowledgment, though, and understanding, hopefully, for people watching, that this is the technical side of making sure they get the help that they need.

[4:00 p.m.]

We want to make sure that if something is approved through the House, it’s genuinely going where that need is. That’s what this is about. These are extraordinary times, when the minister has had to come forward for the second time, to this House, to ask for more money. We’ll get into some of those discussions after.

Before I go into some of those details, though, we have a couple of people on Zoom. They’re going to ask a few questions. Maybe I’ll just help by advising the Chair that the next person up to ask questions, please, would be the member for Richmond North Centre.

T. Wat: The question to the minister is…. Many workers in the tourism sector need government to act fast and, in fact, to act now, if not yesterday, to provide them immediate support. Many of these tourism workers are not covered by the COVID recovery benefit that we are now discussing since this is based on 2019 income, which was before they were laid off. We all know how tough it has been in the last ten to 11 months.

Minister, will the tourism workers that operate have immediate access to support before the April budget?

Hon. S. Robinson: If I understand the member’s query accurately, we’ve allocated significant resources — over $1½ billion to support economic recovery measures, including $405 million for business supports, including the small and medium-sized business recovery grant and tourism supports.

I know that the member canvassed the minister about that earlier today in question period, and that this is a support program that was put in place in September. There is additional work that is being done with the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport and work that she’s doing with the tourism task force in order to better understand and respond more specifically to that sector given their unique needs. They have been especially hard hit. We recognize that, so tailoring a program that specifically meets their needs is absolutely a priority for this government.

T. Wat: I think the minister might not be understanding my question. My question is…. We are not discussing the $1.7 billion for the recovery benefit and the extra $300 million.

From what the minister said earlier, at the beginning of this discussion, it seems that tourism has been excluded from this recovery benefit — $2 billion. In the final report, the tourism task force admitted to this government on December 9, said in the executive summary….

[4:05 p.m.]

Let me quote. “This report is primarily about emergency funding needed now for the unique needs of our tourism industry in B.C. and, more specifically, its businesses and workforce.” Relief is necessary now.

The Premier said yesterday, when responding to a question from the media: “I’m one at the cabinet table. The Minister of Finance makes the ultimate decision on this. That’s how our system works. I’ve complete confidence in the Finance Minister to adjudicate over the various industry requests for funding that will come her way.” So the Minister of Finance has all the authority and power to rescue the dying tourism industry.

I’m sure many tourism operators and workers are watching now, and they would like to give the minister a thumbs up if the minister will now commit in this House to include the tourism industry in your $2 billion recovery benefit so that you can help this ailing industry.

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

Of course, through the Chair.

T. Wat: Oh, sorry. Through the Chair.

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you for the…. I have clarity now of the question. I want to remind the member that the recovery benefit that is being brought forward is open to everybody, regardless of where they work, including those who work in the tourism sector, in the restaurant sector, the services sector. That is for them and their families. That’s to get money into their pockets now. The application will go online. I want to encourage everyone to go online. I hope all the members of the House will encourage their constituents to go online. It is going to be the fastest way to get the supports.

They can get the supports that they need now so that they have money in their pockets, because we do hear from people that have suffered very significantly because there are significant challenges. We know that until global travel restrictions are eased, it’s going to be very significant for this sector. We are a beautiful place. It’s where people want to come, and because of this pandemic, people cannot travel here. They cannot come here, and we’re all being encouraged to stay home. That’s a good thing. It’s a good thing for our families. It’s a good thing for our seniors, in particular.

We do recognize that that hurts people. That hurts other people. They’re making sacrifices, too, and that hurts that industry the hardest. So we have set aside resources, through the StrongerBC recovery plan, which was developed over the summer and launched in September, that are specific for the business supports. That is there for that industry.

There is absolutely more to do. I know that my colleague the minister responsible for Tourism has been reviewing the recommendations and is already identifying ways to act on those recommendations, which is a good thing. Right now what we’ve got before us are additional supports for individuals who are impacted by the downturn.

I know that the member, if I recall in her early question, was querying about the 2019 tax returns. We looked at what would be the best way to deliver this benefit to the greatest number of people. If we were to wait for the 2020 returns, I know that the wouldn’t agree that this would be the best way because it’d mean that we wouldn’t be able to deliver until the summer, maybe fall, because we’d have to wait for those returns.

What we did in our analysis, though, is understand how to get this money into people’s pockets — those that need it most, those with low and moderate incomes.

[4:10 p.m.]

We had a significant threshold for families and for individuals, using the 2019 tax returns, so that we could make sure that it’s robust and fair in that respect and that we understand who’s eligible — because we do need to have criteria in that respect — and that would be fast. Waiting until June, July, August just is not acceptable.

It’s with all of those things in mind that we have designed the program this way so that 3.7 million British Columbians, who we know are eligible because we know what the returns are…. We know that they are eligible, and we want to ask them to make the application so that we can get money in their pockets as soon as possible.

D. Davies: Thank you very much for this. I do have a couple of questions for the minister around the supplement, of course, which we’ve been talking quite a bit about recently. What considerations were made when the government decided to cut the $300 supplement to $150?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think we need to recognize the challenges, certainly, from March. As a government, we responded, and everybody in this House responded. We all came together not knowing what we were facing, and I want to thank all the members for their willingness to work together on behalf of British Columbians. We still have some work to do.

In March, we brought forward a workers benefit, $1,000. We knew that people were getting severely impacted. The downside of having a workers benefit is that there are a number of people and families in British Columbia that wouldn’t be eligible. It was with that in mind — recognizing that they, too, would need some additional supports; given that perhaps it wasn’t safe to take transit and that they would need to take taxis, or other challenges they might face…. They may have had to lose out on some little bits of work that they were no longer able to do. So we brought forward a supplementary benefit to those on income assistance as well as those on disability assistance — brought forward a supplement to help them through the hardest days.

Now we have another opportunity to help British Columbians. That’s with the recovery benefit. The recovery benefit is eligible to those who, perhaps, have employment, had employment, as well as those that don’t. We made it eligible for everybody. But we also continued to recognize that there are still significant challenges, so we added an additional supplement. That original supplement expires this month, and we felt it was really important to bring an additional supplement to those people until March 31. So we made that addition to the program as well.

I want to point out that it will have some significant impact and significant benefit that will be really quite helpful for particular families. I think, for example, about single-parent families and the challenges when kids need new boots. They’ve outgrown their boots, and you have no choice. So between the recovery benefit and, in addition to that, the supplement, single parents will get $1,450, which is a significant benefit to them. They have significant challenges. That is $550 more than they would get alone just with the previous supplement program, which was $300 a month. It’s with that in mind that we made the decision to bump up the recovery benefit.

D. Davies: I mean, we’ve talked about this cut here in the last few weeks. Still, the language is not being used properly. It is a cut.

[4:15 p.m.]

The minister brought up a point. The supplement was brought in initially to bring those that need it through the hardest days. In reality, we’re still in those hardest days, and we’re not too sure when those hardest days are going to lighten up.

As far as my last question, I didn’t really get an answer about the considerations that government was making. In fact, the minister kind of argued a little bit about why we should keep it. Was the minister aware, though, with this, about the barriers B.C.’s most vulnerable might have in regards to accessing this $500 recovery benefit, through technology or just the ability of literacy in general to be able to get this benefit?

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, we’re quite aware of some of the challenges in terms of accessing technology. That’s why we’ve been very busy training up staff to — I want to say man the phones, but it doesn’t feel like it’s gender equity language; to person the phones? — answer the phones and to be available to help people through the process. They’ll be available starting December 21. We do want to encourage as many people, though, to use online. It is much faster.

Again, I want to thank the public service. We have been asking them for months now to craft, design, implement and carry out programs with record speed. I want to take another moment here, if I might, to thank them for their work. We are seconding people to make sure that we can answer phones and help people make their application for this benefit.

D. Davies: I do have one final question to the minister. In fact, my colleague from Richmond North Centre kind of alluded to it a little bit. Of course, the Premier, at a press conference yesterday, said he will be advocating for the permanent increase of this supplement that was brought in. “I am one at the cabinet table. The Minister of Finance makes the ultimate decision on this.”

I guess my question to the Minister of Finance is: will she be advocating for the permanent increase of this assistance?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member knows that there are normal budgeting processes. We’ve started that work already. I know that the Premier is a strong advocate, as well as all of our government, to address poverty in a big way. That’s why we put together the first-ever poverty reduction strategy for this province. One has never, ever existed in this province until we formed government. It’s now been around a year and a half ago, I think, when we brought in the poverty reduction strategy.

What that entails absolutely includes supports, but it also includes building affordable housing. It had been years and years and years since there had been a plan in place, and we’re pouring in billions of dollars to build affordable housing, because that, of course, weighs on families. If they have affordable rents, then life is easier on these families.

[4:20 p.m.]

The same thing with our investments in early childhood education and making sure that children have opportunities for quality care while their parents work or look for work or go to school.

These are all part of a poverty reduction strategy to make sure that people can have a good life, can have the opportunity to take care of their families in the ways that they need to do that.

Yes, social assistance is a piece of that. I look forward to the submission from the minister. I look forward to dialogue with my Treasury Board colleagues, because that is an important part of the process. I look forward to those meetings and to the budget process.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the minister indulging a few questions from Zoomland while we get back into the House here.

Now I want to maybe just wrap up and tidy up a few things here as we’re leading into the discussions — probably some very just short, quick questions. Can the minister let me know what the current budget deficit is right now in the province?

Hon. S. Robinson: The first quarterly report had $12.8 billion as the deficit. That was in September. So $12.8 billion — September, the first quarterly.

M. Bernier: That’s the first quarterly. It came out in September, but that’s based on the first quarter. What were — the same announcement, then — the provincial revenues to date?

Hon. S. Robinson: The revenues at first quarterly were $56 billion.

M. Bernier: What were the government expenses at that time too, please?

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s $67.8 billion.

M. Bernier: Through that process, is the minister able to say that we’re on projection to still meet the budget that was presented in this House earlier this year? Are we on projection to still meet the budget that was put forward, that was voted on — after the $5 billion — in the supplementals earlier? Are we still on track, then, to meet that budget?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I was just trying to parse out the question. The first quarterly report reported out on a $12.8 billion deficit, and there will be more to report out tomorrow.

M. Bernier: Just for the record for the House, when the minister says, “first quarter report,” can she tell the House, on record, what those dates actually encompass?

Hon. S. Robinson: The first quarterly report was released on September 10. It was forecast for the full fiscal year. It also included year-to-date spending ending June 30.

M. Bernier: The minister can just clarify for me if I misunderstood the answer. When she said we were already in a $12.8 billion deficit announced in September, based on first quarter data…. Now she’s saying in “projections for year.” I just want to clarify that. That $12.8 billion — is that year-end projected deficit or was that year-to-date deficit?

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: This is year-end projected.

M. Bernier: If it’s a $12.8 billion year-end projected deficit, is that including this $2 billion ask and the $5 billion that was already approved?

Hon. S. Robinson: It does include the $5 billion. It does not include the $2 billion.

M. Bernier: The minister said earlier today that tomorrow we’re getting a fiscal update. We won’t go into the discussions that were already canvassed at that time on what that is. Will we be getting…? I’m not going to ask the minister yet, unless she’s willing to share it. I’m wishing that she would. But are we getting more accurate data in tomorrow’s fiscal update, other than what she’s presented to me today based on Q1?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: It will be based on the six months that we have been doing this work. It will be up to date, and of course, once you have up-to-date data, you are certainly more accurate around your forecasting.

M. Bernier: I know the answer to the question, but I’m going to ask it anyway. Is the minister willing to share that information in the House today?

Hon. S. Robinson: We’re not ready to share it today, but we will be tomorrow morning.

M. Bernier: Let’s be clear. I just want to go back to my original comments. Of course we want to see help going to people in British Columbia that need it right now. But the minister is in front of this House asking for $2 billion without any justification of why she needs that $2 billion, other than to say she wants to roll out other programming. But we have not had anything in this House to show that the government actually needs that money.

We know the government is already projecting a $12.8 billion deficit. If this supplementary allotment passes, it’ll be a minimum, I’m assuming, of $14.8 billion — close to a $15 billion deficit. We’ll find out tomorrow what the revenues are and probably further projections for the remainder of the fiscal. We’re going to find out what the expenses are, I assume, tomorrow and the projections for the remainder of the fiscal. But the minister is in front of the House today asking for $2 billion more.

We went through this process quite a few months ago, where the then minister came and said they wanted $5 billion — $5 billion to roll out programs for people that were needing it due to the pandemic that we’re facing right now in the province — only to find out that the government held on to $1.5 billion of that to strategically announce right before an election. Now the minister is here asking for another $2 billion.

If the minister is not willing to tell this House today, then, what those exact revenues and expenses are and we have to wait until tomorrow, is she willing to at least say that the government is out of money and that’s why they’re here asking for $2 billion more?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member started his question off by saying he doesn’t know why government needs money. Yet we heard from the members earlier, speaking to the House on behalf of their constituents, about how people on assistance need help. We agree. We absolutely agree. They do.

We certainly heard from another member, who was talking about people who work in the tourism sector and the challenges that they’re having. Yes, their businesses are struggling. We are working to continue to tailor programs specifically for that industry. We’re going to keep doing that work.

[4:35 p.m.]

Also, what we’re hearing from people is that things are hard. Paying bills is hard. Buying food is hard. Getting your kids new shoes. I keep coming back to new shoes because one of my husband’s friends sent him a note saying, “Really looking forward to the recovery benefit because my kids have outgrown their winter boots,” and this will go a long way to helping to just keep the kids’ feet warm. So we know — and I know that all the members of this House know — families that can really benefit from this. It’s been really hard.

I know that all the members of this House know businesses in their communities that could really benefit from having a few more customers who might have a little bit of extra money in their pocket this holiday season to participate in the economy, to buy their kids new boots, to get gifts for their kids and for their loved ones. So this will help those businesses as well.

To suggest somehow that this isn’t going to help people, that it’s not needed, I think is not the case. I know that every member in this House has heard from people in their constituencies that need help, and that’s why we’re here before the House with this additional supplementary estimates.

M. Bernier: Let’s be clear here. Every single member in the opposition has been standing up and advocating on behalf of people in their communities, for businesses in their communities, because of the challenges that they are hearing. I’m not arguing the fact with the minister that people need help right now. We agree people need help.

What I’m actually asking, though, and trying to find out from the minister…. It sounds like they need help. The challenges that are being faced by the people in the province right now are genuine. We’re not arguing that. I’m not arguing that in this House. We’re not arguing that right now during this debate. What I am asking, when I say, “Is this money needed…?”

The minister is in front of us asking for $2 billion more. My assumption is — and we’ll find out tomorrow, we’re told — that she’s asking to increase the deficit in the province of British Columbia, which at some point somebody is going to have to pay for. But that’s not the point. The point is the minister is asking for $2 billion more, and my question is: is that because they have no money left? These programs, these announcements, as valid and needed as they are…. My question is: can they not come out of present government allotments?

I assume my answer is going to be that the government is broke and that’s why they’re here in front of us. But that’s for the minister to answer, not for me. That was the crux of my question. It’s not that people don’t need help. It’s: where are the government’s finances? And are they out of money and that’s why they’re here to ask for more?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The supplementary estimates that we’re debating right now is in recognition that the resources that have been allocated to government have been spent and are being spent as we speak, in supporting families and supporting businesses and supporting communities. We are before the House saying that we need more authority — not just more money, but more spending authority — and approval of these new programs in order to keep helping the folks who need it the most. So this is about continuing on the programs that we started delivering in March and to keep doing more, because it isn’t enough. What we started doing just isn’t enough. We need more in order to help people get through this pandemic.

I am absolutely hopeful that we don’t have to be back here again doing a supplementary estimate, that we can continue to help people through. The vaccines have arrived. The actions of British Columbians are serving us well, following the guidance of Dr. Henry and her team. I am hopeful that we will see this through until we have the herd immunity that will allow us to go back to a more normal activity level that will help us through to an economic recovery that works for everyone.

M. Bernier: The minister said that these are going to be targeted programs. The minister has asked for $2 billion without targeted information, other than what we’re kind of hearing outside this House of where this money is going to go.

The supplemental ask from this government just says “for all ministries.” It’s $2 billion, it says, for all ministries. But there’s no breakdown other than what…. I guess we’ll get into a discussion later. But the minister has highlighted, I believe, three, if I remember, specific programs where she thinks this money is best suited and allotted, which is government’s decision. Again, we applaud the fact that we need to work together to try to help the people of B.C. Again, there’s no argument there. But that help, again, is supposed to go to people who genuinely need it.

Can the minister…? I know she touched on this earlier. It might be somewhat repeating. I would like her to explain, then…. On the $2 billion, the minister has said there’s going to be $1.4 billion to $1.7 billion rolled out for a specific program. Can she give a little bit more detail in the House of what exactly that’s going to look like and how it’s going to roll out?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: We are providing a new benefit, $1,000 for families and up to $500 for individuals. Families with a net income below $125,000 will receive the full amount. Families with a net income between $125,000 and $175,000 will receive a reduced amount. Individuals with a net income below $62,500 will receive the full amount. Individuals with a net income between $62,500 and $87,500 will receive a reduced amount. Single parents who care for their children most of the time will receive the same amount as families.

Income used in the calculation is net income from their 2019 tax return. Households will be able to apply by computer on December 18. You have to have been a resident of British Columbia on December 18, filed a tax return for 2019 and be at least 19 years old at the date of application. As well, British Columbians will have until June 30, 2021, to apply for this benefit.

Telephone applications will be available starting December 21. I think I mentioned this at some point earlier today — I don’t remember if we were debating the bill or this; it’s all blending — but we’ve been training up staff and seconding staff to be available by phone to help people apply by telephone. Direct deposits will be issued through the main application system, recognizing that direct deposit is the best way to minimize fraud in this kind of program.

M. Bernier: I just want to ask the minister a question. She could probably acknowledge with a nod, if she chooses, and I can put it on the record.

Did the minister say that single parents, regardless of how many children they might have, qualify for the full $1,000 as well? The minister is acknowledging that yes, that’s the case. That’s one that I did not know. I’m glad we got that on the record.

The minister said, through the course of that, a few interesting things. I just want to go back to one point. It does seem to have changed. First of all, I want to acknowledge, again, that we respect the fact that we’re looking to help people that generally need help right now. But just a few short weeks ago…. I use that term, trying to be funny, from yesterday’s comments of weeks and months.

It’s actually a few months ago now — it feels like an eternity, for myself — that we had an election. During that election, the Premier stood up and said that if the NDP were to be elected, everybody in B.C. was going to get $1,000. There weren’t any caveats to that. It wasn’t $500 here, $1,000 here, or this threshold, that threshold. It was: everybody is going to get $1,000 if the NDP are elected.

The NDP are sitting in a majority government. I definitely don’t want to allude to the fact that that’s the only reason why. There was a commitment made at that time, and with that commitment from the Premier…. Again, it wasn’t that only the people that need it were going to get $1,000. The Premier said that everybody was going to get $1,000. “We’re going to spark the economy. This is going to happen. It will be direct-deposited into your bank account by Christmas.”

The minister just acknowledged that that’s actually not the case. I’m just kind of curious. When did that change?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, 3.7 million British Columbians are eligible. That’s 90 percent of British Columbians who are absolutely eligible for this benefit. Of that, 85 percent are eligible for the full amount. That’s a lot of British Columbians.

[4:50 p.m.]

Recognizing the member’s question. It sounds to me like he thinks that people who are millionaires and continue to be millionaires today should qualify. We think that those who need it most…. It should be targeted, and that’s how we’ve designed the program.

I want to point out…. The member was talking about the election. I recall their recommendation — their promise, should they be successful — was to eliminate provincial sales tax, a temporary elimination, and then reduce it. I remember shaking my head and thinking: the families that I know, the families that are struggling, they’re struggling to pay rent, they’re struggling to buy groceries, and they’re struggling to buy their kids winter boots. None of those things….

Removing or reducing the provincial sales tax wouldn’t help those people at all. You don’t pay provincial sales tax on rent. You don’t pay it on most of your groceries, and you don’t pay it on children’s items. However, you do pay it on luxury items. You pay the provincial sales tax on cars and boats and snowmobiles, and that’s who would benefit.

I appreciate that we tend not to get too political in this part of these debates, but the member certainly supported that idea, and it’s one that we absolutely do not support. People need money now, and it needs to be targeted to the people who need it the most.

M. Bernier: With all due respect to the minister, not once in my comments did I allude to the fact that we’re not trying to help people. Not once in my comments did I not recognize that there are people right now in the province of British Columbia that are struggling and that need help. For the minister to stand up and allude to the fact that I’m trying to help millionaires…. At what point today did I say that?

Every single comment I’ve made today, on behalf of the official opposition, is to help the people who need help right now in the province of B.C. That’s what this debate is about. The only one that’s really trying to make it political right now is the minister.

Now, I’m going to give her an opportunity here to acknowledge something. She just wanted to bring up a PST conversation. Well, the minister should know, as the Minister of Finance, that almost every economist that I’ve ever read…. She’ll correct me if I am wrong, which I know that I’m not, but most economists will agree that the provincial sales tax, PST, is actually a regressive tax that impacts the poorest people the most. Is she now saying that most economists are wrong?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I’m going to remind the member that what we’re debating here are the impacts of this program and the benefits of this program and who it benefits. We can’t lose sight of that. This is a program that will benefit most British Columbians; 90 percent of British Columbians are eligible for this. This is going to make a significant difference in their lives, and that’s why coming back to this House to do this estimate debate is to make sure that we can help people through the next number of months.

[4:55 p.m.]

We’re not through. I think we’ve adapted incredibly well. I look around this place, and I look around the city, and I see so many being respectful, taking extra steps to make sure that you give distance to other people, wearing masks. People are caring for each other. That’s really heart-warming. I know it’s heart-warming for all of us, because it is such a hard time.

We also know that the people who have the lowest incomes, the people who have modest incomes, are the ones who are struggling the most. They’re the ones who are trying to figure out: “Do we get the kids new running shoes, or do we spend it on coats, because we can’t do both.” It’s been hard. It’s hit families hard. It’s hit them hard in the pocketbook.

What we’re debating now is a program designed to get money into people’s pockets as soon as possible so that they can take care of their families. That’s what people want to do. They just want to take care of their families. They want to pay their bills. They want to get groceries on the table. They want to have a little holiday celebration, if they can, buy some gifts and make a nice holiday meal for themselves — alone and not inviting families over, because Dr. Henry has asked us to not do that this holiday season. I think it’s important that we support people in doing that.

Moving quickly with this program. Encourage people to get online on Friday so that within five working days, we could have this money in their bank account so that they can do the important job of taking care of themselves and their families.

M. Bernier: We’re in this House right now debating approving more funding, as the minister said, to help people. Meanwhile, earlier on today, and this government’s record so far…. We were debating slashing assistance to people with disabilities and their payments, and that’s what’s already happening under this government.

So the minister can talk about people wanting to buy shoes, while she’s out there…. The people who are actually affected are losing money based on decisions this government has made.

Let me just put something on the record here before I put my question. The minister said that cutting PST doesn’t help people. Now, it’s a bit of a moot point, I give that, in the sense that it was something we talked about during the election because we thought it would genuinely help people now and in the short term. Even though we did not win the election, the minister opened up the door by saying that it doesn’t help people.

Right off the ministry’s own website: PST is charged on natural gas in homes, vehicles, winter tires, toilet paper, diapers, any construction material, shampoo, soap, pet supplies, cleaning supplies for the house, dishes, cosmetics, coffee filters, toothpaste, garden supplies, toys for children, stationary, hardware, baby bottles again, clothing for adults, shoes for adults, blankets, sporting equipment for kids. The list goes on and on.

The minister somehow says that cutting PST or saving PST doesn’t help people. I guarantee you that the list I just read and what I could continue to read, if you don’t pay us PST on that…. That’s impacting a lot of low-income homes and a lot of middle-class families who are struggling right now to pay the bills. That would have had an immediate impact for them if PST was cut.

So yes, there were alternatives for helping people. Now government, which is a continuation, made their choice to help people. They put this one program that we’re debating right now forward.

Will the minister again confirm? Are all 3.7 million people that she keeps touting, and all of her colleagues keep touting in the media…? Will they be getting the full amount?

Hon. S. Robinson: As I said earlier, 90 percent of British Columbians are eligible, and 85 percent of that 90 percent are eligible for the full benefit.

[5:00 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: I just want to talk about poverty reduction strategy a little bit. It’s been brought up several times by both the Premier and the minister in response to questions about reducing the COVID benefit by half, as part of the direction the government is taking us right now.

So the poverty reduction strategy was part of the confidence and supply agreement. It was section 4(a), actually, of the confidence and supply agreement. It’s something that was agreed on by both caucuses in 2017 to proceed with. There are other parts that were also part of that poverty reduction strategy umbrella, which included a basic income pilot, which turned into a basic income task force, and, also, GPIs, genuine progress indicators.

So we made it partway on the basic income. I understand there is going to be a report at the end of this year from that task force. We didn’t make it very far with genuine progress indicators, but the poverty reduction strategy, ideally, as a strategy, has specific outcomes and goals and measurements attached to it. So I just want to start with a couple of questions here around this proposed spending.

As my colleague from Peace River South has indicated, of course people need help right now. A lot of people need help right now, but not all 90 percent of British Columbians that are eligible for this need help right now. There are a lot of people whose income hasn’t been impacted. A lot of people who have been able to work from home, maintain the same income they had pre-COVID and, in fact, have their expenses go down. There’s evidence and data around pretty significant savings for some segments of the population who don’t need extra money right now.

But the 200,000 British Columbians who qualify for income assistance and disability assistance need more money. Even with the $300 extra, that makes a big difference. We’ve seen lots of indications about the differences that that $300 has made for people, including being able to buy fresh fruit. I heard a woman on the radio just this afternoon talking about…. She’s on disability, and she can get access to massages. She’s never had that before, and she started to cry on radio, talking about the loss that she’s anticipating with the reduction.

So my question…. I’ll start here. In terms of planning this program or designing it, was there any input from the experts that have been working for a couple of years now on the basic income task force, looking at the ways in which poverty reduction strategies are working and not working in British Columbia, compiling an enormous amount of data on the programs and how they are delivering? Is there any attachment of this spending, between $1.3 billion and $1.7 billion, to outcomes that are specifically attached to poverty reduction strategies?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for her diligent work around this area. It’s important work.

The COVID-related moneys that we have come to this House for are temporary. It’s temporary, one-time money to help people right now, recognizing that these are long-term challenges that the member talks about. I know that the task force is doing some really important work. The report is expected shortly. That will require some, certainly, design work and looking at what the necessary inputs are that are needed to help to move people to a different place, a place that allows them the kind of quality of life that I think that we all are here trying to achieve for all British Columbians.

With that said, I think it’s important to make the distinction between temporary and one-time, versus ongoing and sustained efforts to make a difference in people’s lives.

S. Furstenau: I guess I see this in a different way from the minister and from the government right now, in that in the realm that we’re in right now, we have several overlapping crises. One of the biggest crises we have, and a crisis that has been exacerbated by COVID, is the crisis of inequality. Along with that comes growing poverty, including child poverty in this province. We know that COVID-19 is actually exacerbating growing poverty.

It seems to me that it would be incumbent on a government, when it is spending in the order of $1½ billion, that it ask itself the question, even if it’s a one-time payment or a one-time spend: does this actually address the overlapping crises we’re facing? Does it address the mental health, opioid, overdose crisis? Does it address growing poverty and inequality?

I just want to quote from one of the economists on the basic income task force, Dr. Lindsay Tedds. She put this out on Twitter on the weekend. “The implementation of this benefit,” she says, “shows me B.C. does not really care about poverty, about respect to vulnerable people or even the efficiency of benefit delivery.”

The challenge that I have right now is that $1½ billion is a lot of money, and it could do a lot towards alleviating the inequality crisis that we have in this province if it was applied in a way that we could see. You know, these are the things that we’re recognizing as lacking in our poverty reduction in British Columbia, and this is how we can spend that money in a way to (a) ensure that we don’t have more people falling into poverty and (b) that those who are in poverty can actually see a pathway out of it.

One thing that we have learned from the task force already and that I’ve seen in my constituency office over and over — and I’m sure all of us have seen this — is that people who are currently receiving income assistance or disability assistance express, fairly regularly, that they feel that the system is quite punitive and that it is one that does not reward or support entrepreneurship or efforts to get moving forward.

[5:10 p.m.]

One of the ways that we could, for example, be using this money in a more strategic poverty reduction approach is to — and this was our campaign promise — make this benefit, this additional $300…. Not only make it permanent but actually change how we approach the delivery of income assistance, and say that if you qualify, if you are indeed in need of this — that means that you’re in a pretty vulnerable, pretty difficult place; we can acknowledge that, I think — then let’s make it so that you qualify for 12 months, no questions asked. Go get a full-time job.

What that would give to people is a level of certainty and the capacity to plan, which is what is lacking in the income assistance programs right now. You can’t get ahead when every time you take a few steps forward, like the woman who was interviewed the other day who came $4 over in income and is now, therefore, denied the benefit…. So $4 of monthly income over the line and she was just told: “Sorry. The line is the line, and now you’re denied.”

What if we shifted the thinking on this? Imagine if we were saying, out of a recognition of what this pandemic has shown us about inequality and how serious it is, that we are going to spend this $1½ billion to actually achieve outcomes around alleviating poverty in this province?

It’s more of a comment than a question. I guess my question to the minister around the 200,000 people currently on income assistance and disability assistance, and the additional uncertainty that they now face, which would be reminiscent of all the uncertainty that exists, typically, in terms of their interactions with government….

Can the minister provide some sense of clarity around how and when we will start to see implementation of policies that are driven by evidence, driven by the input from the basic income task force and that have outcomes that are measurable in terms of actually addressing inequality and poverty in this province?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s passion and commitment to the issue. It’s one that she and I have had, historically, great discussions about. I look forward to the report. I think that will be very helpful.

There is a budget process. I mean, that is the piece…. When the member was talking about “comprehensive” and looking at big picture, that is part of what happens with the budget process. It’s where we consider all areas that contribute to the well-being and addressing inequality.

I will remind the member — and I know she knows this — that it’s around the housing plan we’ve put forward as well as the early childhood program we’ve put forward. All of these things feed in to address quality of life, to address inequality, just as the member, very passionately, talked about. All of those things need to be taken into consideration as we look at poverty reduction in a holistic way.

[5:15 p.m.]

We do use evidence. I do agree with the member. We can always do better at identifying those performance indicators. It’s always an ongoing challenge in measuring them. That’s something that, again, she and I have had discussions about, how hard that is to use them but how critical they are to making sure that we are staying on track. We’ll continue to do that.

Of course, this program is income-tested so that those that are on the bottom end get the full amount. We recognize that that’s how you deliver a program like this. That is why it is income-tested, so that those who do need it most can reap the benefits.

S. Furstenau: This will be my last question before I turn it back over to the official opposition.

Just in terms of that, this one-time payment, this one-time provision of funds to people in B.C. — has the government identified any specific or measurable outcomes with these funds at all? If so, what are they, and how would they be measured?

Hon. S. Robinson: One of the indicators — I have talked about this before — which I think is absolutely critical is delivering these resources to people. These are the very people that will spend their dollars here. Looking at the stimulus impact is going to be a really good indicator of how well used these resources are here in the province, remembering that retail has been hit and remembering that our service industries have been hit.

These are families, typically, that will spend it in their communities. They’ll spend it in their neighbourhoods. That will be one of the measurable outcomes that we’ll be able to monitor relatively easily, and we’ll be able to identify how well it’s being put to use.

I suspect the member is looking for a much more targeted measure. We’ll certainly be looking at, going forward, how it affects people who might be falling into poverty, and keeping them from doing that. That will also be another indicator that we can look at as we progress through the pandemic.

T. Stone: I’m happy to take my place and ask a few questions of the minister in this supplementary estimates process.

[5:20 p.m.]

My questions will largely revolve around economic recovery, some of which is clearly contained within the $2 billion supplementary estimates, and some questions on what appears to be missing from what’s in front of us.

The first question I would like to ask the minister is this. The election platform for the minister’s party, the NDP, provided for a costing of about $2.243 billion in total new expenses for the current fiscal year, so incremental additional expenses. We have before us a supplementary estimates total of $2 billion.

The minister has made several comments in answer to questions from my colleague from Peace River North about…. I think he asked her if the government is out of money. She didn’t quite say yes to that, but she did say that there is a need for these supplementary estimates because the program allocations in the existing fiscal have all been accounted for. So these are dollars that are above and beyond what was already provided in the budget.

My first question to the minister would be this. The NDP promised that there would be $250 million of incremental funds added to the current fiscal for “better access to affordable, quality child care.” I’m just looking for a clarification from the minister if, indeed, I am correct in saying that it would appear that this commitment — around $250 million of incremental child care funding dollars for the current fiscal year — is not actually contained within the supplemental estimates that are in front of us today.

Hon. S. Robinson: The member is correct. They are not contained in this supplementary estimate.

T. Stone: Thank you to the minister. Okay, so I’m correct.

Then I guess the follow-up question would be: for a government that has spent so much time talking about, and I think rightfully so, the importance of child care as a key economic investment, a key enabler of so many British Columbians to be able to enter the workforce, why, when presented with this opportunity through a supplementary estimates process, would the minister and the government not include a fulfilment of their commitment for an additional 250 million of incremental dollars — again, to provide better access and more affordable quality child care across British Columbia?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, as reported in Q1, over $250 million to the temporary emergency funding for child care providers was made available to keep child cares open. Remember, our front-line workers needed child care. We didn’t know what we were dealing with. We didn’t know how to provide care. So we came with additional resources to help child care providers stay solvent and keep their doors open to make sure that we can continue to provide the much-needed child care. In addition, there’s funding as part of StrongerBC, another $46 million on top of the base budget in order to keep things going and make sure that we can continue to have child care available.

It’s really, I would say, music to my ears to hear the member opposite talk about child care as an economic issue. It’s something that we’ve been screaming from the treetops for a very, very, very long time. I’m really pleased to hear that there’s recognition about the value it brings to the economy, making sure that our children are cared for while we do our work. It’s also good for children.

Making sure that people have the skills to deliver quality care and quality programs is vitally important. I look forward to continuing to invest in child care, making sure that child care providers are treated with the respect that they deserve for the important work that they do.

T. Stone: My question wasn’t about the top-up funding that was approved by this Legislature unanimously last March and that flowed in different increments over the forthcoming months.

[5:30 p.m.]

My question was in follow-up to the minister’s confirmation that her party’s commitment in the recent election, which she knows was only literally weeks ago, was to add incremental funding to the tune of $250 million to create, again, better access to affordable, quality child care.

It is very disappointing that she has confirmed that those dollars are not in these supplemental estimates, and it’s very disappointing that British Columbians are going to have wait, presumably until she tables a budget at some point at the end of April, and then have those dollars presumably flow through in the months thereafter. It just continues the waiting game here for British Columbians, which is unfortunate.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The next item I would like to ask the minister about. Her party committed to a recovery investment fund for infrastructure — I believe an additional $3 billion per year to build schools, hospitals and other critical infrastructure that’s creating thousands of net new jobs every year. I’m wondering if the minister, again, could confirm whether or not there is any allocation for the fulfilment of this critical commitment in the supplementary estimates that are before us.

Hon. S. Robinson: The $3 billion is capital, and it will be considered as part of Budget ’21.

T. Stone: Well, fair enough. So she has confirmed that these dollars will be delayed to April, May, which, again, is unfortunate.

The next question would be around tourism. I know that my colleague from Richmond asked a few questions earlier. As the minister knows well, the tourism task force has called upon the government to invest an additional $50 million in funding as well as allocate $95 million for a separate and, I believe, new grant program. I’m wondering if the minister could confirm whether or not the allocations, the dollars that have been requested here, with respect to tourism, are indeed included in the supplementary estimates before us.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The previous contingencies Vote 52 has set aside $50 million specifically for the task force. That has been set aside for tourism. The tourism sector asked to put together their own task force to make sure that that money can get targeted specifically for them.

My colleague, the Minister of Tourism received that report last week. I know that she has been going over it with her staff, looking at the recommendations. It’s a conversation that we have started, a preliminary conversation about how to continue to support this particular sector. We’re committed to doing that work that’s necessary to help them stay on their feet, so that they can be ready when the world opens up again.

T. Stone: If I’m hearing the minister correctly…. I did understand that the original $50 million commitment of government was accounted for from previous budget allocations. But the tourism task force call of government to provide an additional $50 million, as well as an additional $95 million to establish a new grant program…. Those dollars were not, obviously, contained in a previous budget allocation, and they’re not contained in the supplementary estimates that are in front of us today. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Robinson: In Vote 52, $1½ billion was set aside, and in there is $50 million that has been set aside specifically for the tourism sector. I want to remind the member that the task force brought forward their report after we tabled this bill, so there was certainly not sufficient time to acknowledge that.

I want to assure the member and assure the tourism sector that we recognize their challenges, and we have some additional significant capacity to continue to work with them to help them see their way through. That’s why we set aside specific dollars. That’s why we wanted to hear from them directly about what they needed.

We certainly can, based on contingencies Vote 52, take a look at how to best deliver for them so that they can…. Based on their evidence, based on their identification about what they need, we can deliver for them.

T. Stone: To the minister, when she talks about that there isn’t sufficient time to make investments to support the tourism sector…. I recognize that the tourism task force just came out with its recommendations days ago, but it’s a bit disingenuous to say there hasn’t been enough time.

The folks that are on the tourism task force are, for the most part, the same folks that came together and put a $680 million ask in front of government many, many months ago. This pandemic has been going on for about, what, nine or ten months? The government has, frankly, inexplicably, been ragging the puck on supports for the tourism sector.

[5:40 p.m.]

It is going to be disappointing, I think, to tourism operators and small businesses in the tourism sector ’\1 to basically have heard today that there are no additional funds in this continency that will be invested in the tourism sector. Furthermore, these tourism operators and small businesses — if not already out of business, they are barely hanging by a thread — are going to have to wait for the minister to table her budget, which, as we know well, is now going to be delayed by another month. So it will be the end of April before additional relief is really forthcoming for the tourism sector.

My next question relates to, again, very specific commitments in the NDP’s platform from the last election, around promising to create 2,000 new tech seats provincewide; promising more innovator skills initiative grants for start-ups provincewide; funds to implement a first patent program; funds to implement or to support innovation clusters being established around the province; and the commitment to re-establish the government film sector task force, which presumably would be to recommend the size and term of a new visual effects tax based on production costs.

I’m wondering if the minister could advise this House as to whether or not there are any funds allocated in this supplementary vote relating to these additional tech seats, ISI grants, first patent program, innovation clusters and the establishment of a government film sector task force.

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member is reading from a list of campaign promises, which is very good. I’m glad he’s been paying attention to how British Columbians are going to benefit from the fact that they’ve asked us to be here and to lead them through the next four years.

The supplements that are here right now are part of the Vote 52, which is very specific — very, very specific — to COVID-related issues. I’m not saying that there haven’t been impacts on business. There have absolutely been impacts on business, and we’re continuing to work with them. We’ve allocated $1½ billion to do that work. We’re here in this House right now to talk about how to help people get through, right now, a very difficult time.

While the member is asking and suggesting somehow that it should be in this vote, it would be an inappropriate place for those investments to be made. They will be going through the budget process.

T. Stone: I’m a bit astounded by the minister’s comments there. She’s essentially saying that a commitment that she and her colleagues made to investing an incremental amount of $250 million in child care in this province — that there’s no economic imperative to do that? The commitments around critical investments in the tourism sector, which has been absolutely decimated through this pandemic — that there’s no economic imperative to be dealing with that in this Vote 52 of these supplementary estimates? That the commitments that she and her colleagues made around investments in the tech sector — that these wouldn’t have an economic impact as part of an economic recovery strategy in this province?

I find it a bit odd that she would try to, in the name of deflecting attention away from broken promises and, essentially, trying to deflect attention away from a series of commitments that were made that are now being put off, at best…. I mean, we’ll pay close attention to see if these items make their way into her first budget, which is being delayed. British Columbians now have to wait until the end of April to understand if these incremental investments in child care, in the tech sector, in the tourism sector and others are actually going to show up.

My next question to the minister would be: how exactly does she explain this disconnect? I’ll try again. Surely to goodness — with the items that I’ve asked about here, which are detailed in the platform for her party in the election that just recently happened — she may want to rephrase her comments around child care in particular. I would also suggest around tourism. It’s, at best, disappointing to all British Columbians affected to not see these investments in this vote here that’s in front of us, and it’s, at best, disappointing that we and British Columbians will have to wait to see if the minister and her colleagues do good on these promises many months from now when she finally gets around to tabling her budget.

Does she want to take another stab at explaining the disconnect here between what was committed only months ago and what’s actually in front of us here today and her comments about these items not being here today because this vote is about addressing items of significant pandemic relevance? I would say all of these items…. There’s a strong case that they…. They absolutely are relevant to British Columbians in middle of this pandemic crisis.

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, we’ve been there for British Columbians throughout this entire pandemic, and we’re going to keep being there for British Columbians. We’ve allocated significant funds, and we’ll keep investing significant funds, into child care. This is the government that brought, and is bringing, child care right across this province. Even in the member’s own community, it’s growing, and it has grown significantly, since we’ve been in government. We’re going to keep doing that.

It’s the same thing when I listen to the member opposite somehow suggesting that we don’t care about these things. It’s disappointing. The fact is that we’ve identified 55 initiatives that have been funded through $1.5 billion that was set aside as part of the COVID-19 action plan in March. That continues, and we’re going to keep doing that work. It is happening in communities all around this province.

The plan includes measures to support job creation and training opportunities. It’s to support business, including the tourism sector. Yes, there’s absolutely more we need to do for the tourism sector, which is why they asked us, and we asked them, to help figure out exactly the tools that they needed, what would make the most difference. They came back to us last week, and we’re sitting down with them. We’re sitting down with the sector to identify exactly how to do that. Money has been set aside for them so that they can reap the benefits of that, of our commitment to work with them.

Additionally, we have provided funding to support community infrastructure projects, to improve food security in British Columbia and to support CleanBC and other technology and innovation programs and initiatives throughout this pandemic. That work continues today. It will continue tomorrow. It will continue right through, I would imagine, the next number of years as this work unfolds. But we’re not going to stop there.

We have another budget coming up. Yes, we do. A budget will be tabled before April 30 that will continue to build on the work…. We didn’t start it with COVID; we started it in 2017. Building out our child care plan is a significant undertaking. It’s one where we had a very scattered…. There was no plan; we didn’t inherit a plan. We put one together — rolling that out and building it out over time. That’s how you proceed.

It’s the same thing with pretty much anything. Our poverty reduction plan — the same thing. We’re being flexible; we’re being adaptable. We’re pivoting when we need to, because that’s what governments do. That’s what this government has done. That’s what we did with all the members of the House in March and then again in the summer. I imagine and I hope that we’re going to do that here again today, because British Columbians need their government to be taking care of them, paying attention to what their needs are. We’re going to keep doing that.

T. Stone: Well, I guess what’s perplexing throughout this discussion today and yesterday is also watching the government’s approach to supports on the business side.

The government has been quick to bring forward programs that are all about trying to get money into people’s pockets as quickly as possible. Why has it been so difficult to push money out of the door for business, for small business in particular? The tourism sector largely comprises small to mid-sized businesses. They’ve been begging the government for months and months on end — not just the last week, not just the last couple of weeks, but for months on end. For whatever reason — we don’t get it; the tourism sector doesn’t get it — this government just hasn’t moved very quickly.

[5:55 p.m.]

They appointed a task force instead, which has brought forward the recommendations which the same group of people brought forward back in March, April, May. Here we are today being told, the tourism sector is being told, and tourism operators are being told: “Don’t worry. We’ll have some money for you, but you’re going to just have to wait a little bit longer. You’re going to have to wait until a budget is tabled in April.” It’s not good enough.

The minister takes a great deal of time talking about child care. Well, they’ve actually opened about 3,500 net new spaces in almost four years. That’s not a track record, I think, that warrants throwing the parades every other week that they seem to do for themselves. Then they make a commitment to add another $250 million of incremental funding for child care — incremental funding. The first opportunity to do so is this Vote 52(S), these supplementary estimates.

They make a decision, a choice. It was theirs to make, for sure. But the choice was to not include the $250 million of incremental funding for enhanced access to child care, enhanced affordability for child care. Parents are going to have to wait for that until she tables a budget in April or May. The government’s approach on so much of this is head-scratching at best.

I want to ask a few questions about a few of the specific programs that relate to supports for small business. If I’m correct in understanding what makes up part of the $2 billion vote here in the supplementary estimates, $190 million relates to something called the increased employment incentive. Now, this is a tax credit that is provided on the basis of small businesses or mid-sized businesses hiring some additional people and/or increasing their payroll within a prescribed period of time.

On the surface of it, it sounds like a good idea, except that we’re hearing from lots of businesses that are trying to apply for funds. The period during which businesses have to demonstrate that they either have added people or have added to payroll is October 1 to December 30. Most of the businesses that are contacting us say they didn’t even know about this program. I suppose one of the reasons might have been because the government was spending more time campaigning in an election in the middle of this period than actually promoting the fact that this program exists.

We’re sitting here now on — what is it? — December 16 today. Presumably, we’re two weeks away from the December 30 deadline. Most businesses out there don’t even know that this increased employment incentive is actually in place. I’d like to ask the minister if she could, presumably because there’s $190 million of this $2 billion which we’re being asked to approve here today for this program….

We’d like to ask a few questions and understand the minister’s confidence in the effectiveness of this program. Could she tell us how many businesses have…? Do they anticipate actually applying for the tax credits on this? These would be payable, she said, earlier in the spring. How many businesses do they anticipate actually taking the government up on this, when very few seem to know about it?

Are the minister and government willing to extend the evaluation period — if I can call it that — beyond December 30 so that more promotion can be done within the small business sector to make sure that every possible business that’s struggling, where this might make a difference and help them out, actually finds out about the program, and they can do what they need to do, in terms of trying to increase their payroll or trying to add another body or two to their business, so they can take advantage of this particular tax credit?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: This is, of course, a new program, designed in a COVID context, looking to support businesses for retaining employees, bringing on employees, making sure that people can work and have jobs. Of course, our commitment is to provide as much opportunity for businesses to take advantage of a new program. There are thousands of businesses we expect to apply.

The member does raise a good point around uptake and timing — because it’s a new program — and getting word out and making sure that businesses understand that they’re eligible for this. We’re certainly always monitoring these new programs that we’re building to help, because at the end of the day, I think that’s what we all want here.

We’re always amenable to taking a look at what we need to do to continue helping. If we need to look at parameters, we’re eager to do that to make sure that it gets to the right businesses and that it gets out there as quickly as possible.

T. Stone: I think that’s important — to always be looking for ways to improve these programs. At the end of the day, it’s about pushing these resources, these supports, out to individuals, communities and businesses as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

[6:05 p.m.]

We’ll watch closely and continue to urge the government. That’s our job. We’ll continue to watch the government’s actions on this and call them on it if they don’t do it. But I, again, would encourage the minister, with her colleagues, to look at extending the period within which the measurement will take place as to whether a business meets the requirements or not beyond that December 30 deadline.

I’m wondering if the minister could also advise the House…. My understanding is that this credit would be applied, first, towards, or against, any EHT, employer health tax, that’s owing. Instead of asking small businesses to engage in all of this paperwork, all of this red tape, did the minister or officials in her department consider simply providing this benefit as an offset to EHT and just reduce the organization’s EHT obligations?

Related to that, there are other ways to get money into the pockets of small businesses quickly to support them. We’ve suggested a hardship grant with a very, very thin and flat application process, eligibility requirements — very minimal. We’ve suggested a refund of excess WorkSafeBC funds that have been collected from business. We’ve suggested that the government also help more directly to offset PPE costs that businesses, particularly small businesses, have had to incur.

Has the minister considered looking at those other avenues to try to push more supports out the door faster so that small businesses have that best shot possible to make it to the other side of this pandemic?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member is very passionate about the importance of finding ways, and some of them might seem like small ways, but it makes a big difference to small and medium-sized businesses. So I appreciate the generation of ideas for how we might be helpful. Staff did look at a variety of different mechanisms to help move resources out to small and medium-sized businesses.

In looking at reducing the EHT obligations, small businesses don’t have these obligations, so it wouldn’t get into their hands. So while that was a consideration, there was certainly recognition that it would target only certain businesses.

The other thing is that with the increased employment incentive, the member will note that it helps employers keep employees. It’s about keeping people employed. We need to remember that there have been significant impacts on employment numbers, so this is a way to help employers keep employees. It is applied as a credit against the EHT, for those larger companies. For smaller businesses, it’s money in their bank account. So we’ve been able to address helping both small and medium-size enterprises as well as create a program that’s about keeping people employed.

I want to assure the member that as we roll out this new program, we’re going to be paying close attention to see the uptake and to address any challenges or shortcomings that we may see as it’s unrolled.

T. Stone: One more question in line with what the minister was just talking about. The total EHT revenue, as I understand it, from businesses that have payrolls of $1½ million or less is about $145 million per year. That’s roughly the amount that government expects to collect on an annual basis, yet we have the government putting $190 million forward for a one-time tax credit. Wouldn’t it make more sense to simply eliminate the employers health tax obligation under that $1.5 million payroll threshold?

Hon. S. Robinson: This $190 million for this program is to incent businesses to increase employment. That’s the intent. We are seeing our unemployment numbers rising from pre-pandemic times, so the idea is to get people working. That’s what this is. It’s designed as an incentive. The idea is to create jobs in this fourth quarter, incent businesses — now is the time to hire, and we’re going to help you with that.

But also, I want to remind the member that for businesses with payrolls less than $500,000, they don’t pay EHT. So they wouldn’t get the benefit. This is a benefit that would actually go right to their business. We believe that this does a better job of targeting the places where we need it the most.

T. Stone: Well, I would just finish this particular piece by saying this: we’re going to watch closely. Let’s hope it works.

[6:15 p.m.]

I’ve been trying to reflect feedback that we’ve been receiving, that my colleagues have been receiving for many, many weeks now from many small businesses, some with payrolls under $500,000, many with payrolls well above that that still would consider themselves to be small. They’re saying: “Great concept. Of course we want to keep our best people.”

I’m an entrepreneur and a former business owner, a tech CEO. I’ve started businesses. I’ve grown businesses. I’ve had to meet payrolls. I understand exactly the pain that one feels when you have to say goodbye to any employee, but especially really good ones that have been with you for a tremendous time. They’ve been loyal to you; you want to be loyal to them.

It’s hard for that business to actually embrace a tax credit program, in many cases, when your revenues are falling as fast as they are and, in some cases — tourism, for example — have gone completely off the table.

I would hope that the government would be open to looking at other tools and other approaches that more fully take into account that we’re not talking, always — and very often, frankly — about small businesses in this pandemic that are hindered in being able to continue to grow, are hindered in being able to continue to add people to their payroll and expand. Rather, we’re dealing with thousands of businesses that aren’t sure they can keep the lights on. So a tax credit program is perhaps not going to work — well, it’s not working — for a tremendous number of those businesses. We have to find other ways.

Which moves me to my next question around the small and medium-sized business recovery program. The minister knows well that we’ve expressed some concerns recently about this program, having her colleague the Minister of Jobs confirm for us only days ago that, to date, only 1,400 businesses provincewide have actually even engaged a process. We don’t know how many have been approved. We don’t know how many dollars have been pushed out the door, but 1,400 businesses, according to the Jobs Minister, are in the process of taking advantage of the grants available through this program.

We understand that the poor uptake is because of challenges relating to eligibility requirements. The CFIB has detailed — I’m sure the minister has talked to them and has received the letters from them — very stringent eligibility requirements around revenue levels and so forth, thus freezing out a tremendous number of small and medium-sized businesses.

Is the minister prepared to take a look at this program in the context of economic recovery and to do so urgently? Perhaps if those eligibility requirements are fixed, if they’re broadened, it may make it much easier for many more small and medium-sized businesses to take advantage of the $300 million which is sitting in that program but isn’t going out the door any time soon to support these businesses.

Is the minister looking at that? Is she prepared to fix that? And maybe, finally, is she able to advise me today what the total dollar value is of commitments that have been allocated to specific businesses, those 1,400 businesses? How many dollars are we talking, of the $300 million in the program, that have actually been allocated to actual businesses?

Hon. S. Robinson: I feel like this is towards the end of the triathlon that I’ve been doing for a couple of days.

Again, I appreciate the member’s passion for this. I share it. And I recognize that, through the pandemic, many programs have been developed and designed very quickly.

[6:20 p.m.]

Again, I can’t thank the public service enough for their work to move quickly and to design programs that will meet the needs of British Columbians. This is another program that was designed over the summer and rolled out in September. I know that the Minister for Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation is currently reviewing the program.

Recognizing that there is always opportunity to improve programs, we’ve started preliminary conversations to move quickly to look at how to best deliver. The member is accurate. There are hundreds of millions of dollars available to small and medium-sized businesses, and they need to be in their bank accounts so that they can do the things that they need to do to keep their doors open and keep those loyal employees.

I know what that’s like as well. It’s so heartbreaking to have to let somebody go because you can no longer afford to keep them going. The impact not just to the business, but to your soul in doing that, is absolutely painful. It’s gut-wrenching. I know that many businesses are faced with that.

Our goal is to get that money out as quickly as possible. I know that the minister is exploring ways to expedite. We’ll certainly be seeing more work on that happening in the days and weeks ahead.

T. Stone: I’ll make this my final question. But having worked with the minister in previous incarnations, she’ll know that it’s going to be a two- or three-parter.

Just finishing off on the small and medium-sized business recovery grant program. I didn’t hear a number. If the minister could tell me how much of the $300 million has actually been allocated to specific businesses, I would appreciate that.

Again, I urge her to take a look with her colleague at the eligibility requirements of this program. Requiring businesses to have been operating in B.C. for at least three years prior to March 10 does not make sense. That cuts a lot of businesses out.

Requiring the business to have been positive in cash flow for their last financial statement…. Depending on the type of business, some are seasonal. Some ebb and flow. That cuts a lot of businesses out.

Expecting businesses to be eligible for this based on having experienced a revenue loss of at least 70 percent during March and April — that’s not reasonable. That cuts a lot of businesses out. Continuing to have a 50 percent drop in their revenue — these are all arbitrary. They serve to block a lot of businesses from accessing these funds.

The final piece, in the very few minutes that we have left here today…. You know, we’ve talked a lot about business, certainly in our interaction today. But business is people. I hope we can all agree on that. When we talk about a business staying, keeping the lights on, it’s about the ten, 15, 20, 100, 200 employees, the people that work for that business. So doing good by small and medium-sized businesses in this province is actually about doing good for hundreds of thousands of British Columbians who are engaged in the small business sector in one way or another.

One of the greatest challenges that these small businesses are facing right now is, obviously, with the health restrictions that are in place, their foot traffic is down. There are all kinds of other reasons that they’re not seeing as many people come through their doors and buying their food and their goods.

If you’re Amazon, you’re anticipating doing $100 billion of sales in the final quarter of 2020 — $100 billion. If you’re an online merchant, you are rocking it these days. But those online sales are, for the most part, coming at the expense of the small mom-and-pop shops in every one of our communities. Therein is the challenge for us, for government. It is to recognize that more must be done more quickly to get supports out the door for these small businesses that need it so they can stay alive, so those hundreds of thousands of people continue to have jobs.

I’ll leave it there. If the minister could provide me a number on how much of that $300 million in that program has actually been allocated to businesses, I’d appreciate that. If she has any comments about the importance of doing good by these small businesses, particularly against the backdrop of just how well online retailers like Amazon are doing…. Those revenues are all going down to the United States or are going elsewhere. We want those revenues to stay in our local communities.

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I’ll be quick to wrap up, given what’s coming next.

You know, the member across the way…. He and I often agree on many things, especially around when we’re talking small and medium-sized business. When we’re talking about the economy, we’re talking about people. It’s all people. If there were no people, there would be no economy. If there were no people, there would be no business. This is always about people.

I grew up in the home of a small business owner and know the impacts of being a small business owner and not having revenues that are sufficient, being put to work as a 12-year-old because bodies were needed, seeing the efforts of my dad and my mom and the sacrifices they made to put food on the table and use child labour as they did and build a successful business that gave them a good quality of life and me a good quality of life as a result of that, and the impacts and the risks that small business owners take to build out a business and employ other people and how important that is.

That is the backbone of what we have here in British Columbia. So I appreciate the member’s passion and commitment. I match him in that commitment as well as the commitment and the importance of getting money into people’s pockets sooner than later, as quickly as possible.

I, too, worry about the Amazons of the world sucking up all of that economy that really should be staying in our communities. I know that members right around this House have been urging people to shop local, support their local businesses. It is why these recovery dollars for the recovery benefit will, I hope, stay in communities. I want to urge everybody to encourage people to support their local merchants, to support their local businesses with those dollars, because we will all reap those benefits.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:28 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

[6:30 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: We will proceed with the deferred division process on the question of third reading of Bill 3, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2020.

Pursuant to the sessional order regulating hybrid proceedings of the House adopted on December 7, 2020, this House stands recessed until 6:40 p.m.

The House recessed from 6:31 p.m. to 6:39 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: I call the House back to order.

[6:40 p.m. - 6:45 p.m.]

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — FINANCE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

(continued)

Mr. Speaker: Members, we will now proceed with the deferred division. The question is third reading of Bill 3, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2020.

Bill 3, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2020, read a third time and passed on the following division:

[6:50 p.m.]

YEAS — 52
Alexis	Anderson	Babchuk
Bailey	Bains	Beare
Begg	Brar	Chandra Herbert
Chant	Chen	Chow
Conroy	Coulter	Cullen
Dean	D’Eith	Dykeman
Eby	Elmore	Farnworth
Fleming	Greene	Heyman
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
Ashton	Banman	Bernier
Bond	Cadieux	Clovechok
Davies	de Jong	Doerkson
Furstenau	Halford	Kirkpatrick
Kyllo	Lee	Letnick
Merrifield	Milobar	Morris
Oakes	Olsen	Paton
Rustad	Shypitka	Stewart
Stone	Sturdy	Tegart
Wat		Wilkinson

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until ten o’clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:51 p.m.