Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call Committee of Supply, supplemental estimates of Ministry of Finance, Bill 3.

Committee of Supply

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (No. 3):
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

(continued)

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

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

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

M. Bernier: Hope everybody had a good, quick break over lunch. Looking forward to getting back into, as I was alluding to beforehand, some specifics that we want to cover off in the time that we have.

First, I want to ask the minister…. We left off talking about 3.7 million people eligible to apply for this grant. The minister has said…. Actually, she started saying last week, but again today in the House, that, starting tomorrow, for encouraging people to apply….

Just wondering what work was done and what backups might be in place. As I think a lot of public knows, when they opened up the system for parks reservations, how the system crashed. We promised to get this money out by Christmas. We’ve kind of left it to the eleventh hour. So one of the concerns I have is: what are the alternatives, or is there a guarantee from the minister that we’re not going to have any technological issues tomorrow when this rolls out?

Hon. S. Robinson: In developing a program like this, the member asks a good question, because the volume could be considerable.

Our ministry does have considerable experience with massive uptake programs, if I could use that word to describe what this is. The emergency benefit for workers is an example where they processed many, many applications a day through that system. It’s using a similar sort of framework. Staff have done additional testing of the system, as well as have acquired extra server capacity to deal with the volumes.

M. Bernier: Many a day is not quite 3.7 million. Maybe it was thousands a day, as the minister just said, but again, that’s not 3.7 million.

Let’s be clear. I mean, I don’t want it to have any problems. The government made a commitment to have this to everybody by Christmas. The last thing we need is to see any issues. So I hope that there are no technological issues. I hope that all goes smoothly. That’s what we want to see on this side of the House as well.

I just was raising the question, obviously, because we want to ensure that if we have to, there are other alternatives to make sure people get these funds by Christmas, as was promised. Let me get a couple of detailed questions out of the way, because inquiring minds do want to know on some of this. It’s very important, because there has not been a lot of information that’s been put out by the minister, by government, on a lot of the application qualifications or criteria specifically.

[1:40 p.m.]

Let me just start with the first one. When we’re putting in the spreadsheet, when people have to put in on the application online…. As the minister said, we’re hoping most people will do it online, as it’ll run smoother and help them meet the deadlines that they’ve put forward. When people are filling this, the 2019 data that the government is asking for, is the line application that they’re putting forward before- or after-tax income from last year?

Hon. S. Robinson: In putting this together, we determined that it’s best to use standard requirements for determining income and determining eligibility, based on other tax credit eligibility criteria — for example, other programs where you need to determine income. So we used the net income, which is line 236. I didn’t know this. It was line 236 where you fill out your form.

You start with your total income, which apparently is line 150. Then you make a number of deductions, and that results in net income, and it’s on that basis. People are going to be asked to put in their net income in terms of determining eligibility.

M. Bernier: Just to confirm, because the minister has said it outside the House…. I don’t know if she said it inside the House. Apologies if she has.

The application that people go through for this process…. Whatever they qualify for, whether it’s the $500 or the $1,000, is tax-free

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, it is.

M. Bernier: With that, I’m just going to ask a few questions, then, around that. First, do people on EI or social assistance qualify for the full amount, then?

Hon. S. Robinson: Providing they meet all the requirements, they are absolutely eligible.

[1:45 p.m.]

M. Bernier: We’ll dive into that answer. That’s an interesting answer from the minister. We’ll dive into that one in just a second, around whether they are eligible or not.

Can the minister confirm, then…? Discussions obviously took place, and she has verification through the federal government around it being tax-free, or non-reportable even, through their point?

I mentioned EI as an example. As the minister is well aware, I’m sure, anybody who is on EI must claim any other sources of income that they might have acquired in the previous reporting period. Have the approvals from the federal government happened that she can justify here — that they won’t have to report that and be deducted off their EI?

Hon. S. Robinson: This benefit will not be used to reduce eligibility for EI.

M. Bernier: Just to confirm, then, using that language…. I want to go back to more simplistic terms for people who are sitting at home right now on EI. If they qualify under the parameters and guidelines that the minister has put in, they will not have to report it to the federal government.

It’s non-taxable, as we’re saying in B.C. So that means it will be non-taxed federally when people file next year their income tax for 2020, because they’ll have to report that they received these funds. Have they confirmed with the federal government that this is not taxable?

Hon. S. Robinson: I just want to confirm for the member that it will not be taxed federally or provincially.

M. Bernier: People in that situation, obviously, are going to be happy to hear that.

We’re hearing today of all of the letters that are going out from the federal government to people who applied for and received COVID funding and who are now being told by the federal government that they did not qualify and have to pay it back. That’s part of that confusion, which is why we’re asking some of the questions today — to make sure that we have a fairly fair and robust program going out that is going to people that need assistance.

With the information that people have, and with the qualifications that the minister has talked about, what about an example of somebody that maybe doesn’t have a fixed address? How will they be treated through this?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: As we said earlier, the goal is to move this benefit out to people as quickly as possible. As a result, doing it online is the fastest way to get money into people’s accounts. These payments will be online, and banking information will allow the system to flow sooner.

We do recognize that there are people without fixed address, and they, too, need this resource. We are in the process of building a system for early in the new year, where those without fixed address can receive these cheques. We just did not have the time to build two systems simultaneously. But it’s only for…. The system for people without fixed address is for people on income assistance and disability assistance, so that we can make sure that they get the resources that they need.

M. Bernier: I hope the minister — I think she is, maybe — is just as disappointed with that as I am. I say that only because people on disability, people with no fixed address, maybe somebody that doesn’t have an actual bank account…. I would argue that those are probably some of the most vulnerable people. I think the minister would agree with that.

The whole point of this exercise, I thought, when we started, was to say: how do we get out and help the most vulnerable people? The minister just said that they were in a hurry to put this program together. They weren’t able to deal with that portion of it. So unfortunately, it sounds like a lot of the people that are the most vulnerable people aren’t going to have assistance by Christmas and not until the new year.

I know, genuinely, the minister is probably not happy with that either. We want to get it out, and the commitment was to help people by Christmas. She says early in the new year. To all of those people that are struggling right now looking for help — early in the new year, first week, second week. They’re going to miss the Christmas deadline. I guess that’s something the ministry is working on right now to roll out as quickly as possible.

Can the minister be a little bit more specific for those people?

Hon. S. Robinson: Yeah, it is disappointing. I mean, for sure. Making sure that we have supports for people is very important to this government, and I think it’s important to everybody in this House. I certainly know that people from all sides want to take care of those who are most vulnerable.

It is for that reason that the crisis supplement, which includes December, is there for those people. It’s why we’ve added an additional supplement that will continue to be part of people’s assistance for January, February and March — an additional $150. Again, we’re working as quickly as we can developing a parallel system for those that don’t have, perhaps, a bank account. That is a challenge. It very much is a challenge. We’re working hard to get people to get a bank account, because it means we can flow resources much more easily.

The other part that certainly has been identified to me, and I know the members opposite would find is important, is making sure that we also have checks and balances for fraud. We’ve certainly heard that the federal government program also had some…. There were issues of people fraudulently claiming benefits that they weren’t entitled to. So making sure that we have these checks and balances is absolutely critical. Staff are working diligently to develop the parallel system that has all the checks and balances like an online system, and the goal is to work as quickly as we can to get these resources into people’s hands.

[1:55 p.m.]

M. Bernier: I completely appreciate that checks and balances need to be there to stop fraudulent activity. The whole point of the exercise that we’re going through and what government is trying to achieve as their statement on this is to get money in the hands of the most vulnerable people that need it.

We also canvassed earlier, to the minister…. Interesting that she brought it up just now, in her answer, because it doesn’t quite match some of the things that we’ve been hearing earlier. The minister just said that vulnerable people and people with disabilities are going to be getting $150 a month for a few more months, into the new year — not all the way to the end of when they’re going to be putting a budget forward, it sounds like. It’s only for a few more months, because there is a deadline, unless the government is going to extended that $150. But they’re getting $300 right now.

The minister, in responses yesterday, today and throughout the week, has been: “They’re not going to lose out, because they’re going to be able to have this $500 by Christmas.” So even though they’re clawing back the $300 to $150…. “Don’t worry. You’re getting $500.” Now we’ve just found out that most of them, or a lot of them, are not going to get that until the new year.

Is the minister willing today, then, to say that nobody will be clawed back until it’s confirmed that they’ve received the $500?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, I think it’s not an accurate assessment to say that everybody on income assistance or disability assistance isn’t going to be able to access the recovery benefit online. In fact, most of those folks will be able to do that. Most of those folks have bank accounts, and most of those folks will see their benefit as soon as within five days after applying, ideally.

Five days is what we’re looking at, in terms of the online banking system. It’s sort of the average. The sooner people apply, including those on income assistance and disability assistance, the sooner the resource will be available to them. That is most of those recipients.

I want to clarify again that in 2017, our government increased — for the first time, I think, in a decade — income assistance by $100. It had been a decade since there’d been an increase. Then in 2019, we increased it again, another regular $50. We’ve put together a poverty reduction plan and a whole host of other measures to help people, to lift them out of poverty. There’s more work to be done. I’m not saying for a second that we are not done with that work.

Then a worker benefit was made available for those who found they had lost their jobs. What that meant is that people on income assistance and disability assistance weren’t eligible for that benefit. So we put together a program for this particular group, to help back in March, because we wanted to make sure that people had some additional resources to help them through the toughest times — getting extra sanitizer, masks, things that they needed to keep themselves safe. We recognized that.

Here we have a recovery benefit that everyone is eligible for, including those on income and disability assistance. That’s a key element here. Not like the worker benefit — again, that separated out different people. This is for everybody. On top of that, we are adding an additional $150, because that is the right thing to do, additional help.

I know the member is trying to suggest somehow that this is a clawback. The program, the crisis supplement, ends. It ends. It ends this month. There is nothing beyond that. Rather than just have the program end, we’re saying let’s do another supplement on top of the recovery benefit so that people can have some support over the next number of months.

We are certainly continuing to do the work. I know that my colleague the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction is doing the work and addressing what other ways we can act to help reduce poverty in this province.

M. Bernier: I acknowledge that the government put forward a program that ends this month. But it also ended three months ago, and they extended it when it ended. The reason why they extended it, and what they told the public, is that the crisis is still here. “We’re going through a COVID pandemic, and the crisis is still here.”

[2:00 p.m.]

The minister has now said that it ends this month. Does that mean the crisis has ended? No, we know it hasn’t. I’m not asking that as a question of the minister. What I’m saying…. I’m asking the minister to acknowledge that this program was put into place because of the COVID crisis, and people were genuinely needing supports and helps, which we supported earlier this year in this House. The government extended it because the crisis was still ongoing. They have the opportunity to say: “The crisis is still ongoing. We’re still hearing from everybody that the crisis is still ongoing. So we’re going to extend that $300 for another three months.”

Instead, what they’re saying, at Christmastime, is: “We’re not going to. We’re reducing it from $300 to $150.” They’re trying to pat themselves on the back by saying: “It’s not a clawback, going from $300 to $150, because — look at us — we’re putting in a new program.” People aren’t asking for a new program. They’re asking for the minister and the government to extend the existing program that was put in place this year.

I acknowledge it’s a new program. I acknowledge that it’s because people are looking for supports that, maybe, they didn’t have in the past, and we’re in a crisis situation. People are asking for help right now from this minister and government, because the crisis is still ongoing.

It’s $150 for a few more months, while they’re now waiting, for some, to be able to apply and get the $500. Meanwhile, we just passed a bill in the House — after we voted against it, government passed a bill — to extend having to put a budget forward now until the end of next April.

This $150 is going to expire — or the program will be over — well before that, a couple of months, unless the minister is willing to say that it’ll be extended until then. Meanwhile, the Premier is saying: “Don’t worry. There might be future hope for you in the next budget, but we don’t know what that’ll be.”

We can bicker on the terminology of a reduction or a clawback. That’s not what we’re here for today. We’re here to put money into the pockets of people who need help. It’s disappointing that there are some people…. I’m glad to hear what the minister is saying — that the majority of the people in that situation are going to be able to apply and will get help. We all want to see that.

Before I get into some other questions that I want to, on some of the answers the minister said earlier…. Actually, no. I’m going to go to those now. The minister and I had a discussion around EI and people on social assistance. The answer from the minister was that, absolutely, they get the money if they qualify. That’s an interesting choice of words from the minister. Why would somebody be on EI right now? Somebody’s on EI right now because they lost their job this year. Arguably, they lost their job because of COVID.

This COVID relief funding — I’ll use those terms for now — to help people and that we’re trying to approve here in the House is supposed to go to those people, because they have lost their jobs. They’re in dire need. They’re trying to figure out how to pay their mortgages, put food on the table, buy the shoes for their kids. They’re on EI. Thankfully, they’re on EI and have some income coming in right now. They’re on EI and qualify for EI. Why? It’s because they worked in 2019.

It’s disingenuous to say that people on EI are actually going to be able to qualify, because arguably, a lot of them won’t, based on what the minister and the government has put forward. If I have a welder in my riding, or somebody working in the mill, that made $65,000 or $70,000 last year, or $80,000 last year, they were doing okay. A single guy, probably bought a little pickup. He was paying the expenses on that, saving up some money, maybe even lucky enough to buy his first home. Things were doing okay.

[2:05 p.m.]

COVID hits. He loses his job and is trying to figure out how to get by right now. I thought the whole point of this exercise was to look at people that were affected by COVID, not to look at what happened in 2019. So in a scenario like I just mentioned, would that person qualify for this benefit, and should they be applying tomorrow?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think what the member is getting at, if I’m reading into the question, is…. He’s suggesting that we target those who have lost their income this year, in 2020 — that we target those who’ve lost income in 2020. In order to make that determination, we would have to wait for the 2020 tax returns. We wouldn’t really see those until the end of the summer or maybe into the fall.

One of the things that we did as a government in determining the criteria was to have a significantly high enough threshold to capture those people who likely need it the most. In our modelling, we are blanketing 3.7 million British Columbians that we already know meet that threshold. This is about having a broad program to capture those who are struggling the most and likely to struggle the most, given what we know at the time.

If we were to wait…. We could have chosen to do that. We could have chosen to wait to determine who would be eligible based on…. Again, tax return is the simplest and most efficient way to go. But if we’re still in the 2020 tax year, and people aren’t going to start filing until later, in the new year, they won’t have been processed.

This is about choices, and I recognize that the member is going to recognize that we made a choice. We made a choice to have a high enough threshold to capture as many people as possible that could use the help, so that we can act now instead of having to wait six or eight or ten months from now.

M. Bernier: I do, obviously, recognize that the minister and government made a choice. We’re just discussing whether it was the right choice for people at this time to match up not only with an election promise but to match up with helping people that are in need.

I’m just kind of curious, though. The minister said this was the easiest way to roll out the money. People on disabilities and some seniors, vulnerable people that were receiving the $300 monthly payment from the government that’s now going to roll down to $150 — did they have to go through a whole application process based on 2019 data?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I was trying to discern the question. It sort of got a little bit confusing, as I was asking staff for clarification. I ask the member to forgive me if I don’t quite hit the mark with an answer. I suspect he’ll just ask again.

People on income assistance and disability assistance do have to apply for the recovery benefit. The recovery supplement is included in their assistance cheques.

M. Bernier: Maybe be a bit more specific to go along with this. We were just talking about the $300 top-up, additional supports that a lot of vulnerable people have been receiving.

Did they have to apply for that? Was there a process for them to apply, based on what they made in 2019, as we are trying to do with this program? Or are all the people that are on disability right now — payments or maybe assistance payments from the government — who received that $300…? Was that just automatically given to them or deposited to them because the government already knew they qualified?

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, it was automatic.

M. Bernier: The minister has known me long enough, so she probably knows where I’m going now after this, then.

If it was automatic for those people, because government had the data that they were people that were vulnerable and they would need it and the government has that information, why do they now have to apply for the $500? At the same time, the government has the information of people who are on EI right now because they lost their job this year. Why don’t they just get the money directly deposited into their account tomorrow? Why do they have to apply?

If it’s about helping the people who need it right now, government has lots of information at their fingertips to get. People don’t have to go through an application process, especially a lot of these people that are vulnerable. They received the $300. It’s going down to $150. They should be able, tomorrow, to get that $500 deposit, no different than the $300 that was automatically deposited because the government had the information.

There are choices made by government. Why are these people, who are struggling right now and vulnerable…? Why do they have to apply? Will the minister change that today and say tomorrow…? “You’re right. These people that we’re hearing from don’t have to apply. If you’re on EI, you qualify. Here’s your $500. If you’re on any form of disability assistance from the government right now, we know you qualify. Here’s your $500.”

Will the minister change that so they don’t have to apply tomorrow?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s intent to try to make something as simple as possible. I want to assure the member that we had — I had — similar questions about how we make this as simple as possible to help as many people as possible. Certainly, with a program of this size, it’s administratively challenging. It’s challenging to put together a program and make sure that it gets where it needs to go as quickly as possible.

The member had raised the challenge that the federal government is seeing now — having to ask for money back because people weren’t really eligible. Money went out, and they didn’t meet the requirements.

One of the concerns that was raised when you have a broad application program for British Columbians that has an income threshold and there’s one group that already receives benefits from the province…. The risk of a double application — for example, if it’s automatic, and then you’re invited to apply online, and you get an application online, and they receive, automatic through their income assistance process or the disability process — was also very great that it would be considered, I guess, an overpayment or a doubling up.

We didn’t want to create that confusion. That was seen to be a greater risk. Because it is such a broad program that is for all British Columbians with a certain income threshold, it was felt that it would be administratively better and more accountable to run it this way.

I want to thank the member for his questions. They are questions that I asked and others have asked around: “How do we keep this as simple as possible and get money into people’s hands as quickly as possible.”

This was a challenging piece that we wrestled with and felt, at the end of the day, that this was the best route to go from an administrative framework.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that answer. The government has the information. There wouldn’t be a duplication that I could see. If the government is already giving the $300 to help these people, they already have the information of who’s on EI. We could have, then, in my thought process, actually saved a lot of time here and even had a parallel process.

If you’re already receiving EI, if you’re already on disability from the government, if you’re already in the system — if I can loosely say that — with that information, no need to apply. The Premier made a promise that you would have this money by Christmas. Here it is.

If you are not in any of these systems, to be able to prove that you’re in need right now, there could be an application process. Or even more simplistically, follow through with the promise that the Premier made and just everybody get the money. I know it sounds funny saying that. But at the time, going by the Premier’s comments, there were no parameters. There was no application. There was no need to justify to access the money. The announcement was that if you vote for us and we win the election, you’ll get it by Christmas.

Now I do appreciate where the minister was going, though, with the intent of making sure, I guess, that they changed the promise that people who didn’t need it didn’t get it. So they put a process in place. That was the choice that they have made. Again, it’s disappointing on some of the choices, though, on how they’re rolling this out. We are now hearing that there are going to be some vulnerable people who were expecting this and hoping for it and needing it that might not get it. I believe there could have been a more simplistic approach to make sure those people received it.

The minister has chosen, and the government has chosen, to use 2019 data, which we’ve highlighted, we’ve heard and I’ll maybe even ask another question on that, which is pre-pandemic, pre-crisis. Did they every think…? Maybe this will be my question.

[2:20 p.m.]

Did the minister ever think: why don’t we put this money out…? I’ll give the government the choice to say it could still be through an application process, maybe, like many other things. If you qualify under these parameters — it’s not 2019 data; apply here; and you will get the funding. The minister is worried about fraudulent access to that funding. Would that not be captured when somebody files their 2020 taxation?

For instance, my child turns around and says, “Oh, I’m going to apply and get that $500,” even though they might have worked all year long and they didn’t qualify. When they file their taxes next year, it would be caught by government that they applied for the $500 and they did not qualify based on their 2020 tax return, and that $500 would be deducted from any tax refund or they’d owe it back to the government.

And if the government puts specific criteria in place and information, so people know “Don’t bother to apply or you will have to pay it back,” which maybe the federal government should have done a better job doing, I’ll give them that…. Was that not considered an option? It truly could have been out by Christmas, truly gone to people that need it now, and anybody who didn’t qualify would have to pay it back next year, not based on 2019 data.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to express appreciation for the member trying to find an alternate framework. In talking with staff, many options were certainly explored. There are a number of rationales for why the system that the member is proposing would not work.

First of all, with large payment programs like this one, there is always concern about fraudulent claims. I guess it’s a target for fraudulent claims when they’re this large. It would be a challenge, without unverified information, to look to make sure that it met the risk assessment for that. And it would be very difficult, once payment is made, to then recover it. One of my staff even suggested that if somebody then moved to Ontario, we would never be able to recover that payment. So it would be very, very hard to manage if they file taxes outside of British Columbia.

The other thing is that when we have this kind of program, it has to undergo the financial risk and controls review at the office of the OCG to make sure that we are managing the risks to the significant funds that are going to be delivered to British Columbians. This was the framework that got supported, using the 2019 returns.

Finally, there was a call made to CRA to find out if there were any possibilities and what it would look like. CRA is absolutely swamped and unable to adjust their program to accommodate any changes that we would be making, so it was a given that that was off the table. It wouldn’t have been possible to actually make that happen.

With all of those things taken into consideration…. I appreciate the member’s commitment to try to drive the resource as expediently as possible. We did the same. This was the best outcome and the best tool, framework, that we could put together that would deliver to the people that need it most, do it in a timely way and also have the risks mitigated when you have such a significant undertaking.

M. Bernier: Cognizant of the time, I’m going to ask…. I guess it might be more of a statement based on the minister’s answer just now, and then we’ll come back, probably, for some closing remarks.

I just want to highlight, back then, what the government and the minister have chosen to do as far as the criteria. I appreciate that she acknowledged the fact that this side of the House is trying to help them meet their commitment on getting the money out right away, by Christmas, because that’s what we want to see too. That’s the commitment they made. We applaud the fact that there are people right now that need help and want to get it, and we applaud that we want to get it to them.

Here are some of the challenges with what the minister just said and with the program: the confusion around who qualifies and who doesn’t. If you’re on EI right now, lost your job this year because of COVID, and you made too much money last year when things were okay in your livelihood and your family and your workplace, you probably or may not qualify this year. If your financial circumstances were great and your business was doing good last year — you know, a mom-and-pop operation — and you haven’t got the supports you needed through the small business grants but you’re hoping to because your income is really low this year due to struggling business, you might not qualify.

I’ve heard stories out there, and I’m sure the minister has heard the same ones, of the confusion around how this is going to roll out. If you’re a married couple and you were making $175,000 last year — you both had really good jobs — and then earlier this year, through troubling circumstances…. Maybe a separation took place in the house, in that family. You now have a single mom with a couple of kids and hardly any income, maybe, at all, trying to figure out how this Christmas is going to go, who probably won’t qualify because it’s based on last year’s income.

[2:30 p.m.]

An extreme circumstance could be somebody in Vancouver, I’ll use, who has a $10 million or $15 million home. Everything runs through their business. Because of accounting on paper, they didn’t make much money last year, even though they’re living in this multi-million-dollar mansion. Guess what. They can apply. They do get it.

I’m raising these as just some, maybe, extreme examples, but it’s to highlight the fact that there are flaws in this process rolling out to ensure that the money actually goes where government and the opposition was intending, if the minister wants this bill in front of the House, this supplemental estimates portion, to pass, to make sure it gets out tomorrow.

I think the point, though, again, is to…. Maybe I’ll end with this, because noting the time, I might not get an opportunity to stand back up, it looks like. We’ve been asking questions for the last few days of this minister, as the only bill that came forward, the only supplemental change that came forward, to actually ensure that not only is government going to be transparent and accountable but that the supports are going to people. Because this is people, again, that we’re talking about. The minister said that yesterday, and we agree. It’s how we help people.

There are people struggling right now all throughout the province. As the opposition, we want to see them get the supports they need too. The line of questioning over the last few days, and yesterday and today specifically, around the $2 billion, is to just make sure that…. We want to see it get out. We want the minister and government to be thinking of every opportunity to make sure that money does get out to people.

My concern is, though, based on some of the answers from today and how this is rolling out, that that’s not going to happen. The commitment to make sure everybody has money in their accounts by tomorrow and by Christmas is not going to happen. There could have been alternatives. There could have been different ways of rolling this out to meet that election promise, which, more importantly, means to help people.

The minister has given her choices today and the government’s choices of how they choose to roll this out. I just hope the minister acknowledges…. From my very first question almost, when I stood up in the House and we started this debate, I said: is there anybody right now in the province of British Columbia who has been negatively affected by COVID, who is struggling in their life right now to make ends meet? Is this government willing to guarantee that they will have the money by Christmas to help them out? The minister wasn’t able to answer that. Now I see why. Because there are a few flaws.

Now, I will give this minister credit that she is genuinely trying to meet the obligations that have been put in front of her, based on a promise during an election from the government and, I’ll say, because of this crisis situation we’re in and the needs of the people. I think the House also needs to acknowledge, though, that it’s not going to quite meet the bar.

I’ll end by just saying that we encourage everybody who is struggling, everybody who feels they qualify, to apply. If you need help, apply for the help. We want to see that. If you don’t, please don’t, because there are many people that need help right now.

I look forward to coming back in this House, hopefully early in the new year, where the minister can actually stand up in this House and report. I’m hoping she won’t wait till then to report how many people have applied and how it’s helped people. We haven’t been able to get that on the business side yet from government. I’m hoping we will get it on the people side for this $2 billion that government wants to pass here very shortly.

[2:35 p.m.]

I will end by wishing everyone a merry Christmas, hoping everybody gets through the struggles of 2020 that we all have talked about, and we wish everybody the best 2021 and look for a brighter future next year.

Hon. S. Robinson: I thank the member for a good series of questions. I know that it’s hard being on that side and doing the work yourself. I want to commend the fine job that he has done in crafting questions and helping everyone. British Columbians understand what government is trying to do, what our intent is and how we’re developing programs to deliver that.

I want to also remind everyone that starting tomorrow…. The official launch of the recovery benefit is tomorrow morning. Our commitment is to get money out as quickly as possible to as many people as possible.

I also, again, want to take a moment to thank the public service. The series of questions that the member had asked were questions that I put forward and others have put forward to them around trying to craft a framework that would move money out as quickly as possible to as many people as possible who needed it. I want to thank them for their hard work, for being on the other end of my earpiece and refreshing my memory and identifying some areas where the member asked a question that I didn’t know the answer to. They were helpful to me. Mostly, I want to thank them for working so quickly and so diligently to get this program together, to get it together so that we can support British Columbians.

I look forward to this House passing these estimates, recognizing that people really do need their government and they need their government to be responsive and that we all get to do that together on all sides of the House.

With that, I, too, want to wish everyone a safe holiday, a brighter future for 2021, and I look forward to seeing everybody again in the near future.

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

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:38 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of Supply reported resolution.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call for the consideration of the reports of the resolution from the Committee of Supply.

[2:40 p.m.]

Supply Motions

REPORT OF RESOLUTION FROM
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

Hon. S. Robinson: I move:

[That the report of resolution from the Committee of Supply on December 17 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.]

Motion approved.

FUNDS GRANTED FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Hon. S. Robinson: I move:

[That there be granted to Her Majesty, from and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the sum of 2 billion dollars towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2021. This sum is in addition to that authorized to be paid under section 1 of Supply Act, 2020–2021.]

Motion approved.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — SUPPLY ACT, 2020–2021
(SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES No. 3)

Hon. S. Robinson presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2020–2021 (Supplementary Estimates No. 3).

Hon. S. Robinson: This supply bill is introduced to authorize additional funding for the operation of government programs for the 2020-21 fiscal year. The House has already received, taken as read and agreed to the report of the resolution from the Committee of Supply after consideration of the supplementary estimates. In addition, the House is resolved that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the necessary funds towards defraying the charges, expenses and disbursements of the public service of the province for fiscal year ending March 31, 2021.

It is the intention of the government to proceed with all stages of the supply bill this day.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, would you move the motion that the bill be read a first time.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

[2:45 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, in keeping with the practice of this House, the final supply bill will be permitted to advance through all stages in one sitting.

Bill 2, Supply Act, 2020–2021 (Supplementary Estimates No. 3), introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — SUPPLY ACT, 2020–2021
(SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES No. 3)

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 2 be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 2 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Bill 2, Supply Act, 2020–2021 (Supplementary Estimates No. 3), read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 2 — SUPPLY ACT, 2020–2021
(SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES No. 3)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 2; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:49 p.m.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble 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 2:50 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — SUPPLY ACT, 2020–2021
(SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES No. 3)

Bill 2, Supply Act, 2020–2021 (Supplementary Estimates No. 3), reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, her honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. Please remain seated while we await her arrival.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

[2:55 p.m. - 3:05 p.m.]

Royal Assent to Bills

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly:

 

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2020

In Her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to this act.

Supply Act, 2020–2021 (Supplementary Estimates No. 3)

In Her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty’s loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to this act.

Hon. J. Austin (Lieutenant-Governor): Thank you very much.

As always, I want to thank all of you for your truly, truly splendid work and also to wish you much happiness this holiday season. I do hope you’ll all be able to spend some personal time with your immediate households but also to find those opportunities to connect via Zoom or telephone with the others in your life who are important to you.

Obviously, this time will be different for all of us, but I so very much look forward to the chance when we can all gather together once again. I’m hoping to host a fabulous party at Government House, and don’t we so need it. When the renovations are done at Government House, I promise you it will definitely be a party to remember and a way for me to visibly express my appreciation for all that you do.

I wish you peace and every possible happiness and success for the season and for the new year.

Thank you all so much. HÍSW̱ḴE.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. Farnworth: Before I move the adjournment motions, I seek leave to table a document. It doesn’t usually appear until early in the new year, but given the nature of this session and this year and everything that we’ve been coping with in terms of COVID, I thought it appropriate to table the calendar for next year.

Leave granted.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the first session of the 42nd parliament of the province of British Columbia. The Speaker shall give notice to all members that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and date;

That, by agreement of the Speaker and the House Leaders of each recognized caucus, the location of sittings and means of conducting sittings of this House may be altered if required due to an emergency situation or public health measures, and that such agreement constitute the authorization of the House to proceed in the manner agreed to. The Speaker shall give notice, to all members, of the agreement and shall table it for it to be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of the House at the next sitting;

That, in the event of the Speaker being unable to act, owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order; in the event of the Deputy Speaker being unable to act, owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order; and in the event of the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole being unable to act, owing to illness or other cause, another member, designated collectively by the House Leaders of each recognized caucus, shall act in her stead for the purpose of this order.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’d like to take this opportunity for all of us in the House to thank the staff in the buildings who make this place work so well and so efficiently, particularly during this COVID time. We should all give them a big round of applause. [Applause.]

I hope everyone has safe travels home and enjoys some time off.

With that, hon. Speaker, I move the House do now adjourn.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Members, again, I also would like to say thank you for your trust and your friendship. It was a short session, but it was a very fruitful and productive session. I hope you have a wonderful time with your family — only with your family. Be safe. I hope to see you soon. Thank you very much. Take care.

Now this House stands adjourned, per the motion we passed.

The House adjourned at 3:13 p.m.