Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued committee stage, Bill 10.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 10 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 10; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 1:33 p.m.

On clause 1 (continued).

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Peace River South.

M. Bernier: Thank you, Chair. Welcome to the seat — for the next little while, anyway.

Let me just start the afternoon session here by recapping a little bit of the morning session before I move on.

The minister and I agree, all sides of this House agree, that there’s important work that government does. There are amazing people that rely on government funding. They rely on this bill to be passed. They rely on the continuation of that in order to do the good work. Now, especially during a pandemic, we’ve been highlighting the amazing work that people in the province have been doing, how they’ve been stepping up.

One of the big discussions in the morning session, though…. There was no argument around that. It was just around process. We’re trying to establish a process. The question that I’ll lead into in a minute will really start framing a process.

[1:35 p.m.]

I just want to acknowledge, again, after the morning’s conversation…. The minister, for whatever reason — maybe she’s being advised not to — was unwilling to state the factual progression of what happens in Canada, in British Columbia, in a legislature when a supply bill is put on a floor, the progression of what takes place if it was not to pass.

Now, the minister, rightfully so, stood up in this House and said: “Well, we don’t have to have that discussion.” Her government holds a majority, and they’re going to pass this. She also acknowledged last night that our colleagues also acknowledge that the continuation of government funding needs to continue, which is what a supply act, in general, does.

There were some very confusing comments that came from some of the minister’s colleagues that insinuated that if this bill was not to pass, people would not get paid. In fact, they were using those comments to try to target members of the opposition who are opposed to parts of this bill or the structure of the bill or the way it has been presented — to use that as a political tool and to say: “Oh, holy cow. The B.C. Liberals are obviously against you getting paid, and if this bill doesn’t pass, you won’t get paid.”

Now, the minister knows that’s not true. For whatever reason, she wasn’t willing to or able to acknowledge that prior to lunch.

I did, however, put on the record the progression of what would take place in the case of a supply bill not passing. It is a confidence vote, which means there would be funds approved through council, through a special warrant, to ensure that people continue to get paid and government continues to run. But, yes, that means we’d go to an election.

Now, we know that’s not going to happen, and in no way was I insinuating that that actually will happen. All I was trying to do was, for clarification, go through the process. The minister has put a bill on the floor. So I’m asking that simple question.

She didn’t, for whatever reason — again, either didn’t want to or unable to — acknowledge that what I said into the record was accurate or factual. I was hoping that she would at least acknowledge that. I think the point was made, before lunch, that comments from the NDP were not factual, or the way they insinuated those comments was not factual.

We are not like the United States. In fact, we have legislative tools to ensure that doesn’t happen. In the — what would this be? — 153 years of Canada, it’s never happened once, never, in a legislature, in parliament, because there are actual tools in place to ensure that doesn’t happen.

The conversation, obviously, needs to be around the bill now that we’ve established — unless the minister stands up and corrects me later, that anything I’ve said is false…. If she doesn’t, then I’m going to assume, for the record, that everything I’ve said is accurate. This bill will pass. People will get paid.

Now, members on the government side, in most of their speeches, stood up and said that this is normal. The minister herself has said that what we’re doing here is normal. There is a caveat to that. Obviously, it’s normal to have a supply act that comes forward into this House to ensure, at the end of the fiscal year, that people can continue to get paid and government can continue to operate while we go through estimates.

The minister has acknowledged that, and I don’t dispute that. What I am, however, disputing…. It’s interesting that none of the NDP members acknowledge this. It’s a little disingenuous to say this is normal. Putting a supply bill is. The process by which this government and this minister are doing it, however, is not normal. I stand to be corrected.

[1:40 p.m.]

Maybe my first question, then, to start off the afternoon session, is: what was the process that we followed, under this government, last February? What was the process? Did we have a budget and then a supply bill referencing that, or was it reversed like we have this year?

Hon. S. Robinson: To answer the member’s question, last year we did bring in a budget first and then the supply bill.

M. Bernier: I’m only smirking because I do realize that through the afternoon here, the conversation piece might be a little bit more weighted one-sided when it comes to the discussion piece, compared to the answers that we may or may not receive from the minister. But the minister just acknowledged, obviously, a bit of that process.

I’m curious then. NDP members, through their speeches, kept on saying that this is normal. Everything we’re seeing here is normal. In fact, many of them went as far as to almost insult members in the opposition that were actually stating anything contrarian to that.

Now, I know a lot of the new NDP backbenchers…. Just like the minister acknowledged before lunch, some have been around here longer than others. It’s also fair to say that many of them may have just been reading speaking notes prepared for them by a staff member down in the basement, without actually understanding.

I don’t say that disrespectfully. I remember being in this House as well, asking those questions about: what is a supply bill? What does it do? What does it mean? What’s the purpose? But to stand up and say it’s normal, without actually doing the research and understanding the history of whether it’s normal or not and then being as crass as to insinuate that we are not even allowed to ask questions on this, I think, was not fair.

If this is normal, maybe I’ll ask the minister: when was the last time that a supply bill was presented in this House prior to a budget?

Hon. S. Robinson: What’s interesting is a year ago March is when we brought in interim supply. It typically comes in, in March, which is standard, which is normal. Approving of an interim supply bill is a practice that has been followed for many years. I went back to I think it was 1986 and looked at every year. That was normal. That happens every year.

The House, of course, comes together to approve temporary funding for government, so that we can continue to operate and deliver the services that are important to people, while the Legislature takes the time to debate the budget, as well as the individual ministry estimates. That’s normal, and that’s going to happen again this year as well.

[1:45 p.m.]

Typically, interim supply bills are passed in advance of detailed reviews of ministry estimates for the new year. That, too, is normal. That happens pretty much…. Well, it happens every year. This year those processes are the same. Everyone here in the House knows that interim supply bills form part of the ministry estimates that are debated in Committees of Supply and are part of the final supply act passed by the House.

This year, as in previous years, that process is the same, except there is one change. There is one change. We won’t have a new set of estimates for ’21-22 to accompany interim supply, because those estimates will be tabled April 20.

Everything else, including the month that we’re bringing in supply, is the practice of this House. It has been for months. I think there were a couple — I was looking through my notes — that were done in February. I can point those out to the member. In 2011-12, February. In 2008 and ’09, it was February. What was interesting was in 1999-2000, it was April 1. But really, for the most part, it happens in March.

M. Bernier: Interesting answer. I’m not debating the fact that government had to come in December. Pretty well the only thing that they put on the agenda, after calling a snap election in the middle of a pandemic, was to delay presenting a budget to the House, which is why we’re actually in this predicament today and why this is not normal.

The Minister didn’t answer my question. I wasn’t asking for a rundown of supply acts. We have supply acts in the House almost every year, almost every budget. Sometimes we have a No. 2 supply bill, a No. 3 supply bill, presented depending on the year, depending on budgets and changes.

What I was asking the minister is: when was the last time a supply bill No. 1 has been presented to this House prior to a budget being presented for debate?

Hon. S. Robinson: I am not aware of any time when that’s happened, but these are also very unusual times as well.

M. Bernier: I’m assuming the Minister is willing to say that actually, yes, this is not normal.

The process, as we’ve talked about in our second reading debate…. As the Minister is well aware of, through her time here in the Legislature, that maybe some of the new MLAs are not aware of, which was evident by some of the speeches that we heard through second reading from NDP members…. The process has always been…. Since 1974, since the process of bringing bills into the House, supply bills like this, and budgets…. Since the founding of that process in 1974, there has been a budget presented, and then after the budget is presented to this House, a supply bill is then presented.

Granted, in history…. I have looked into it. I had some amazing people in the library dig it all up, so I had a lot of fun historical reading to do. Since 1974, that’s been the process. Sometimes the supply bills come on the same day, sometimes a couple days later, sometimes a week or so later.

[1:50 p.m.]

In every single case since 1974 of doing this process, the supply bill has followed a budget and referenced that budget in order to meet all of the requirements under transparency and accountability.

Now, there are times that we talked about, back in the 1990s, when this was not followed, but in a different way. Instead of the government of the day at that time coming forward with a supply bill and being accountable, they just went out through an order-in-council, went out through a special warrant and just borrowed money and didn’t bring it to the House. So I give credit to at least the minister and government for bringing a bill forward for debate in the House and not just steamrolling it through behind closed doors.

In saying that, this is the first time, again, that we could find since 1974 where government is not referencing a tabled budget. Now, why is that important? It is incumbent on not only the opposition, but it’s a requirement and an expectation of the citizens of British Columbia that if we are spending their money, they know where that money is being spent.

During our second reading debate, when some of us were saying, “I have a hard time supporting this bill,” it was with that notion, with that idea that this is hard to stomach. It is hard to acknowledge that for the first time since 1974, government is saying: “Give me a blank cheque.” Government is saying: “Trust us.”

We saw how that’s played out over the last year or so, when we tried to work together collectively, all three parties, for the betterment of society, for the betterment of the people of British Columbia, as we were collectively tackling and facing the pandemic, only for government, as we’ve acknowledged in the past, to basically throw everybody under the bus, call an election and hold onto that money only to try to pad their announcements to get re-elected.

I think it’s fair to say, unlike the NDP members who read their speaking notes given to them by staff that this is normal…. In fact, it’s not. Normal would mean that this is the same process we’ve always followed. Normal would mean that we’ve at least done it a few times in the past.

I think it would have been a lot more practical if members had stood up in this House and acknowledged what was actually happening. They called an election. They didn’t get their house in order. They asked this House to delay the requirements under the act to submit a budget in February, because they weren’t ready. Those are the facts.

Now, there’s a lot more that I could add to that as part of the facts as well. The minister basically acknowledged this. But if there has never been a situation like this…. I know the minister and MLAs and government keep trying to say the pandemic. “It’s a pandemic, and we acknowledge there are challenges with a pandemic.” That doesn’t exclude government from doing their jobs, though, that people expect. But if it truly is normal, there must be at least some precedent that the minister, the Premier and her staff that have been advising her can point to, to say that this is normal.

The minister acknowledged it has never happened before. What would the precedent be, then, for the government to do this?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member is wanting to talk about normal. It is normal to do interim supply.

The member did his homework, which is good. I only went back to 1986. He went further back, to 1974. So that is certainly normal. I know that the member can agree that that’s absolutely normal. It is not usual practice. He certainly has demonstrated, by the nature of his question, the fact that it hasn’t been done in the order that he refers to.

I want to point out to the member the fact that we are absolutely sharing with the public where this money goes and how it’s being spent because we are referring to last year’s estimates. It’s right here. I’ve got it right here. I know that the member has access to it as well.

In fact, last year the members opposite spent 171 hours and 41 minutes on estimates. They did a thorough going-over of budget, as they should. It is the responsibility of the opposition to do that important work, and I look forward to doing it again this spring. It is well known what is in that book. They’ve gone over it with a fine-tooth comb. They have asked ministers many questions over those 171 hours and 41 minutes. Answers were provided, and we had a budget that was passed based on that very important work.

When I reflect back to the decisions that we made here in this House back in December, one of the pieces was to have a special warrant, should we need it, in order to make sure that there was supply to pay the people doing the important work on the front lines. I know that we all agree in this House…. And there’s no dispute on that. That work is really important, and it’s very valued by all members.

We have chosen to not do that. We have chosen to bring in a supply bill based on last year’s estimates — they’re here in this book; everyone can read it; everyone can see it — saying: “Based on these estimates that are here” — these are published; these have been debated; these have been adopted — “we’re going to use this to make sure that we have supply to carry us through for the next few months until we can do the important work of delivering a budget, debating it here in this House, because it’s important that we do that, until it can be passed.” That is not unusual.

[2:00 p.m.]

M. Bernier: I know the minister and the government have had to change the laws of this Legislature in order to do this. The minister has all but acknowledged, for the most part, that how I’ve presented this is accurate through the historical way that this House has been managed.

I do find it interesting that she is putting so much credence, so much weight, into last year’s budget, a document that she herself acknowledged we spent hundreds of hours debating, scrutinizing, going through, to ask how that money is being spent on behalf of the people in British Columbia. I remind this House again that this was presented before a supply bill. So we had reference points.

I do find it interesting, then, that the minister is putting so much weight on this document from last year that we’re going to be using this as a reference point for government spending going forward for this interim supply period of three months that they’re asking for when, within a few weeks of this being presented and debated, the Premier himself said that it pretty well wasn’t worth the paper it was written on because a pandemic hit and these numbers no longer make sense — that these numbers are no longer factual and that these numbers no longer meet the requirements of spending for the government of British Columbia.

I’m trying to square this circle. Either the minister is right, or the Premier is right. I’m trying to figure out which it is, because we can’t reference a document that the Premier himself said is irrelevant. So why is the minister saying that’s the document we’re going to use now, going forward for the next three months, for spending?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think the member might be sort of conflating things here — two separate components. I fully appreciate the politics around this that the member is trying to do, around creating divisions. But I want to be clear that what we’re doing here is making sure that we have supply, making sure that we can continue to provide the core services that people depend on.

[2:05 p.m.]

What we’re talking about today, right here, is supply for the next three months to carry us through, because in about four weeks, there will be a budget presented in this House that will determine the rest of the year’s spending. So what we’re bringing forward for debate and for discussion is a request for appropriation to keep core operations going, keep services going. We’re basing it on last year’s estimates so that we can have three months of supply to move forward. We’re using last year’s estimates so that everyone can see what the appropriations would be for the three months while we continue to do the important work.

The member knows full well there’ll be a new set of estimates that’ll be tabled in about four weeks, on April 20. I invite everybody to tune in so that they can see what this government is committed to, to help us get through the pandemic, because we’re not through the pandemic. The member, in an earlier question, suggested that somehow, well, the pandemic was then, and this is now.

There’s hope on the horizon for sure. Vaccines are being rolled out faster than any of us anticipated. We see the gratitude in people’s faces, that I see on the Twitter feed, or just in talking with my dad and hearing about how he and his friends are all excited about getting their appointments and getting their shots and what that means to them, but we are still in a pandemic.

We are preparing for recovery, and I know that the member knows that. I know full well that the member knows that. So given the extraordinary times that we are in, it does make sense for us to make sure that we have the appropriations that we need, moving forward, and that we deliver a budget that recognizes the unusual times that we’re in. We will have opportunity for debate on that budget, and I look forward to that after April 20.

M. Bernier: I think the minister acknowledged earlier that, typically, by around this time in March, we would already be debating a budget. We would already be discussing the estimates of that budget, minister by minister, line by line, as we see fit to go through. But I’m again a little perplexed by the way the minister is presenting this.

A few moments ago she said: “Nothing to see here, other than this book. This is what we’ll be following for the next three months.” But in her second reading speech, the minister went on to say that actually everything will be an approximation, because we don’t know. She used the words in her second…. She can correct me if I’m wrong; I’m going off memory here. “It’s an approximation.” Now she tries to tell this House that it’s all right here in black and white on how the dollars will be spent. The reason why this supply bill isn’t passing in two or three questions and five or ten minutes is because we don’t have a reference point.

As I mentioned earlier, in every single other year, the opposition, whether it was the B.C. Liberals or NDP — it doesn’t matter — was able to look at a budget. They were able to reference that budget. They could look at the supply act, which typically is one-quarter of the budget, for continuation of expenses of government for that three-month period while we go through the legislated process of estimates, of asking the questions, of wanting to know where that money is being spent, of asking about government’s priorities, about confirming and getting on the record where those dollars are being spent on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

[2:10 p.m.]

Now, the minister just acknowledged again, basically: “Why are you asking these questions? You’re going to see a budget in a month.” But that’s not normal. The minister is asking for a blank cheque. We have agreed. We’ve acknowledged that government spending needs to continue. We’ve agreed and acknowledged that we’re still in a pandemic — albeit there is light at the end of that tunnel that we’re seeing. Government has been unable to say how long that tunnel is, but there is light at the end of it. There is hope. I think everybody in this House is excited about that.

I ask the minister again, because it’s incumbent on us to do so: we need some factual information here of how this money is being spent. Am I to take, from the minister’s response or answer, when she references this as the document that they’re doing their spending, that for the next 30 days there will be no government spending that’s not listed already in this book, as the estimates that were presented last February? That’s what the minister is referencing, to try to get approval from this House for the supply bill.

Hon. S. Robinson: The answer is that on spending for core services, everything is described in the estimates book from last year, as the member pointed to.

M. Bernier: Is it fair to say, then…? I’ll get into more detail later, when we get to section 2. While we’re on this right now…. Section 2 will be the appropriation part and the actual dollar amount. I’ll get into more detail there, but from the minister’s answer, it’s still a little confusing about that.

Does that mean, again, that if I flip to any ministry that’s in here — Office of the Premier, $11.3 million — I can take one-quarter of that and that that’s all the Premier is going to be getting for the next three months? If the minister wants to keep referencing this, which has already been discussed and debated, it’s a very interesting point. The Premier himself said that it was not an accurate budget anymore, and there have been changes to government priorities.

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, the estimates book is the basis from which the interim supply bill was developed, recognizing that we have to make sure that core operations continue. Using this book formed the basis for what the appropriation request is.

Again, the book was debated. The numbers were reviewed. It was passed. We are going back to that important work that we did last year and saying: “Okay, we need to keep things going.” All members in this House agree that we need to keep things going. We need to continue to pay for core services. We need to continue to make sure that the important front-line workers, who are doing a yeoman’s job of keeping us all safe and healthy, continue. There’s no debate about that.

In order to make sure that we have the right appropriation, we have gone to our estimates book. I know that we’re going to move on to section 2, at some point, to talk about that — maybe tomorrow, maybe not today. It’s based on that that we’ve put together this supply bill that members can refer to and that helps us continue going for the next few months while we debate a new budget that I hope will be passed unanimously in this House, because it continues to deliver for British Columbians. Members will be seeing that in a month.

For now, we need supply to make sure that we can keep government going, keep the services going and make sure that we can continue to get through this pandemic together.

M. Bernier: I think what the minister is failing to acknowledge is that that was then; this is now.

[2:20 p.m.]

We’ve acknowledged through the course of this debate already — different times — that government is not following the standard, typical and always-used process of putting a supply bill on the floor after a budget and being able to reference it.

Although I agree with the minister that a lot of good work was done last year on this to debate it, to reference the actual spending and to talk about government priorities then, that’s actually over a year ago now. That was February of 2020, before people were really talking about, even, COVID-19, before government came back to this House asking for an additional $5 billion plus $1 billion plus $2 billion — $8 billion of extra funding, which is not included in this.

The minister is now led to a lot of line of questions that I’m going to be asking in section 2 around this. It also makes me wonder, again, since the Premier has acknowledged he might as well have used a napkin in his office and written down some numbers and used that…. That’s about as much value as this book has, as we’ve heard. The minister has mentioned many times today: “Don’t worry. You’re going to see a budget on April 20.” As the minister just acknowledged, she didn’t say: “Don’t worry.” My words, not hers. She has said: “You know, you’re going to see a budget on April 20.”

I guess that leads to the question. If we’re going to see a budget on April 20, and then we’re going to be starting to do estimates debates — because we will see a book like this in just three or four weeks from now, with the new government spending and the new priorities, where they see the vision that they’d like to see for the next three years, specifically though in the next year, for the ’21-22 fiscal — we can debate that then.

My question, first of all, then, is: why did the minister need three months of interim supply? She just acknowledged in this House that, my words: “Don’t worry. It’s in just three, four short weeks from now.” Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate, then, for the minister to come to this House and say: “We only need a month worth of interim supply. We recognize we didn’t put a budget forward. We need to continue, because we delayed the budget after an election. We need this month, but don’t worry. You’ll be seeing the new budget on April 20, and we can start estimates then”?

Why did the minister have to ask for three months and not just one to bridge to us that point?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member asks a good question: why three months? Why not one month?

We are bringing a budget in on April 20. The answer is: because the House needs time to debate it. The House needs time to go through its estimates process so that it can pass the budget. Now, if the member is saying that they don’t need to do that, they don’t want to do that, and we can pass a budget by April 30, that would be great. I’ll certainly speak to the House Leader about that.

I jest somewhat, because I know that the members opposite want to debate the budget. They want to debate it. They want to go through it, and they should go through it. It’s their job as opposition to review the budget, to speak with the ministers, to ask questions, to go through it and make sure that it is delivering for people in this province.

[2:25 p.m.]

I sat on that side of the House for four years. I recognize the value of going through that, so that everyone understands where government’s priorities are. I look forward to April 20 and sharing with British Columbians where we’re going, especially given these unusual circumstances.

The member knows full well that it takes several months to go through the budget, to make sure that the opposition has time to prepare for the estimates debate. It’s a lot of work to sit on that side of the House. I appreciate all the work that they do over there, going through, doing your best to understand what the line items mean. Making sure you understand what the new programs are. Asking questions of the minister and, of course, the minister’s staff that are typically sitting behind them, but in this day and age, they’re just talking in our ears. I long for those days, Mr. Speaker. I have to say that I do long for those days. I look forward to that.

It does take time. I haven’t experienced, in my time here in this House, a budget process and an engagement process around the budget that was shorter than the time needed to actually go through the budget. Typically, in my understanding, it’s three months. We usually, under other circumstances in the past…. The budget was brought in, in February, and the budget didn’t pass, typically, until May.

It’s within that context, Mr. Speaker, that we are before the House talking about three months’ appropriation, so that we have a good process here in the chamber to get the next budget passed.

M. Bernier: The minister just acknowledged one of the fundamental flaws of what government has presented here today, with the fact that we don’t get to have estimates right now. We don’t get to debate the spending, other than referencing a year-old document, obsolete document, which we already debated at the time. Since then, we’ve had two other supply bills, if I remember correctly, for additional funding, and we debated those.

Times have changed. What the minister is not acknowledging is that the government has come forward asking for funds without giving us the opportunity to truly ask the questions of how that’s being spent. Now, the minister also acknowledged that typically, by now, we would be going through the estimates process on a tabled budget in the House, probably after a supply bill had already easily passed referencing that. But we are delayed.

Even though the Premier himself said that by calling an election, nothing would be delayed, it would sure be a lot more genuine of NDP members if they had stood up and said: “Look, you know what? The budget is delayed. We’re in this situation. So be it. We caused it, but let’s move on.” That would actually be some pretty incredible, accurate statements, if a member was willing to actually say it.

Here’s the question I have. The minister keeps saying: “You’re going to see a budget on April 20. Then we’ll go through an estimates process on that budget.” Meanwhile, we’re spending money on last year’s budget. I think the public…. I know the media have called me on this as well, saying: “None of this makes sense. They’re asking for money before you’ve even discussed it.”

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

I’m like: “Yeah, well, you’ll have to talk to the Finance Minister for that.” I don’t agree with the process. I wouldn’t have done it this way, but that’s what they chose to do. We’re in this position, and we’re going to debate it. But since we would typically be going through the estimates process as we speak, we wouldn’t be debating this bill right now. We would actually be debating the estimates of an actual tabled budget.

Can the minister, then, I guess, to help me out on this side of the House for planning…? What day will estimates start on her tabled budget after April 20?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s interesting. I was listening carefully to what the member was saying, and if I recall correctly, he said we are asking for money before we even discussed it. That is how supply bills work. That’s how the supply bill worked last year and the year before that and the year before that. We’re in the process of discussing, and we say we need supply in order to carry through past the end of the year.

I can think back as a minister, or even as the critic, passing a supply bill before we get to the estimates of my ministry when I was the minister, or when I was the critic, and saying: “Yes, we’re going to get to our estimates. We’ll get to go through it, until the budget is passed.” This isn’t any different in that respect.

I think that we need to recognize this idea of, again, as the member said, asking for money before we go through the estimates. Yes, that is what we do. That is what happens every year. Now, the member might argue, “Well, we’ll have started estimates,” or “We’ll have seen the budget,” and that I’m not going to dispute. But before we discuss it?

The number of times when I’ve been the critic and a supply bill has passed before I got to ask my minister questions, it was like: “We need to keep going.” I remember asking as a newbie, saying, “I don’t understand,” and having it explained to me. In fact, it was the current House Leader, surprised that I didn’t understand — but when you’re new, you don’t understand — explaining to me how important it is to keep things going. That’s how governments operate.

I also want to point out to the member — again, I want to remind him — that each ministry’s appropriation is in this estimates book. We are still referring to it, because it is the budget that was passed. There are additional spending appropriations because of supply in the pandemic context. But again, there is good and useful information in here, and based on that, we are bringing forward this supply bill.

A. Olsen: I think it’s important at this point to just acknowledge that process and protocol matter. I think, as I’m listening to this debate unfold, what I’m being challenged with is kind of a wholesale rewrite of an important process. Each step is an important part of an unfolding story of the year for this province.

I think a member in their second reading debate highlighted…. It’s a necessary step for us to have a Speech from the Throne. That provides the vision with which the government is going to then govern the province. The next step of that is the plan.

[2:35 p.m.]

The plan is outlined in that budget. “This is how we are going to see that vision through.” At that point, the government then comes with a supply bill. It’s on the premise that the work of the budget has been done that the members of this place…. Whether there’s a majority here or not shouldn’t matter. That shouldn’t matter. There are 87 MLAs elected by their constituents to come here and care about the budget and care that the government is managing our province’s fiscal reality with prudence. So whether more than half of them, a strong majority of them, wear one colour or carry one flag or not shouldn’t matter.

What should matter is that process that unfolds in a very deliberate way. I think my colleague has been highlighting this. I think, for me, where I’m so troubled, and where many have been so troubled, is that the government has said: “Don’t worry about the process. Don’t worry about the protocols of this place.” And I think one of the starkest introductions for me, coming from a culture that has a lot of protocols, is that this culture in here has a lot of protocols.

They’ve evolved over a long period of time, and it’s important that the vision gets laid out. Then the plan gets laid out. And then the Minister of Finance asks the members of this place — based on the work being done, of the budget on the table in front of us, that we can look at and review: “Now forward us the money. Now allow us the opportunity for this place, this government and all of the administration of the government and all the programs and services to be able to roll out and continue without delay.”

We grant the government the ability to continue that work through the budget estimates process based on the fact that we are looking at the budget in front of us. We might not like it. There might be parts of the budget we disagree with. Now, those are the questions that happen, and that’s the part of the process that comes later. However, we grant collectively the…. And as the minister has repeated several times, normally there isn’t a question about supply, because the government honours the process. Because the government follows its own process that’s it’s put in place.

The process is not to refer back to a budget that is coming to an end. The process is to refer the supply acts to the budgets that exist. So what I’m most concerned about is a deliberate sidestep from a process that has steps missing. We haven’t heard…. It’s not just the budget that we haven’t seen, the plan. We don’t know how that plan relates to a throne speech which is coming, and that throne speech is the vision of that.

In the middle of this process, government stands up and announces a $400 million announcement for support for poverty reduction and supports for people in this province. It is that announcement I agree with. I like the announcement. I support the announcement. It’s totally out of context of a budget, of a process, that is supposed to be coming just a couple of weeks from now. I don’t know where that money sits. I don’t know where it comes from. I don’t know what context it is.

As I was saying to my colleague downstairs yesterday, I don’t know…. I would like to be able to argue for more money for people, for a greater increase in supports for poverty reduction. I can’t do that because I have no context for that money. I don’t know if $400 million is a good number. It could be larger. Maybe it should be smaller. I don’t know what else is being cut.

I’ve been a big critic of the subsidies to oil and gas. I know some of my colleagues aren’t going to like that. However, those are discussions that happen in the context of the process, in the context of the vision and in the context of the plan.

[2:40 p.m.]

I’m wondering, from the minister…. As you defend the process that is undertaken today, don’t you see the fact that there is, in sidestepping the long-established processes of this place, an overturning of steps in an order that needs to happen, or else actually, the protocols of this place have been fundamentally undermined; and that we, as members of this place, need to defend those steps?

They necessarily need to follow one another and not put the cart before the horse, not put one step out of place, in front of another and just say: “Well, it’s okay. That process was done last year.” But the process that was done last year doesn’t exist anymore, because now the end of the budget year has happened.

I’m just hoping the minister can help me reconcile this a little bit, because while it’s easy to defend: “Well, we’re doing this in order to tide us over, and we don’t want the ball to stop rolling….” Of course not. However, there are steps that are missing in this, and it actually damages the integrity of the work that we do here on an annual basis and that has been going on in this place since long before us.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s description of process. The member and I have had many discussions over the years around that. We had robust debate in December around process, when the laws were changed that provided us with the opportunity to bring a budget in later than has been, historically. So I continue to appreciate that.

I want to assure all members that there will be a throne speech in 2½ weeks, three weeks — I’m losing track; we are in March still, I believe — and a budget that follows. I expect robust debate in this House around the estimates process. I look forward to that, because I do think it is a valuable process in terms of recognizing government’s direction.

Here we are in a time when…. It is an unusual time. Government and all of our staff and all of the public service have been franticly and diligently working with government to deliver for the people of British Columbia, under very difficult circumstances, and putting together several supply bills over the year, recognizing the unusual circumstance. We need to make sure that we have a robust budget going forward. The reality is there are so many unusual things happening that we need to make sure that we can continue to do a good job.

[2:45 p.m.]

Again, I appreciate the member’s commitment to good process — and frustration when it doesn’t feel right and doesn’t work for the member, given what he’s been used to. I also believe very much that we are going to have good process here. The members are going to see a throne speech that lays out government’s vision. They will see the plan through the budget, and they will get to ask those questions around: “Why this and not that? How much only this and why not more of that? How did you decide that this was more important than that?”

That’s the stuff that I think we all value, and there will be lots of opportunity to be doing that throughout the spring, once the budget is delivered.

A. Olsen: As a former partner to the government through the confidence and supply agreement, I was annually reminded of the confidence measures in government. I was constantly reminded of the areas that I needed to take great care in to ensure that I was not undermining or eroding the confidence in this government.

Now, there are a couple of aspects of this which trouble me, and that is that if the people of British Columbia see their elected officials simply changing the processes to suit them, that has an equal impact as a single MLA or a small caucus of MLAs — three of us at the time — that we could undermine and erode the confidence in this government.

This was to the comments that I left during the speech, during my second reading speech — that it is necessary for us in here to demonstrate a willingness to follow that process that we’ve set up. That is the structure with which the people of British Columbia…. It’s the contract that we have with British Columbians as they allow us to govern them on their behalf, not on our behalf. I think that that’s what’s creeping into this debate — that the government position on this is that it’s their votes to be confident in.

Actually, we shouldn’t be pretending in this House that any single vote from any single one of these seats representing the communities of this province, named all the way along on the front of these desks, should be taken for granted. That’s what’s happening in this when you say: “Let’s put this cart before the horse. Let’s put the supply act ahead of the throne speech.”

I have a very recent experience, three and a half years ago, where the minister and I stood together when we amended a throne speech because we didn’t like what it said and because we had a relationship and because we stood together.

My colleagues, now on this side of the House that I make my current home, remember that day exactly like the minister and I remember it. It was both bitter and sweet. But it was only through that process and us honouring that process and the bitterness on this side of the House accepting that that process is legitimate that allowed us to have the confidence and supply agreement mean something.

If this side of the House — or it was that side of the House at the time — decided to change the rules in order to benefit them and change the process, we wouldn’t have had the certainty that we had to be able to sit down with both sides and have the conversation. So the very process that allows us to be where we’re at today is the process that we’re talking about, and it’s not one that we should be taking for granted. Not one vote in this House should be taken for granted.

[2:50 p.m.]

The members of the government side of the House should be given the opportunity, as unlikely as it might seem, to vote down their own throne speech. Otherwise, what’s the point in having it? Just not do it. They should be able to have the ability to vote down the supply bill that’s tied to that budget. Otherwise, why even go through the process?

Yes, I’m drawing this out because I think that it is important to recognize that the members of this government are where they are as a result of process. The minister is correct. I do honour the processes of this place, because it is the thing that creates the certainty. It’s the thing that creates the reliability. It’s the thing that my colleagues on this side of the House might talk about that we can invest in. It’s the things that my friends on that side of the House might talk about. It’s the thing that provides the certainty and the supports in a democratic government.

I think that what’s important is that we don’t get too far ahead. I think what this bill does…. In this part of the debate, when we’re talking about the process of all of this, we are actually, and the government is actually, arguing that certain really important parts of this process are a foregone conclusion. Doesn’t the minister see that? [Applause.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member applauding.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, that was robust; it was robust applauding.

I want to acknowledge the member’s commentary, and I want to point out that no one here is taking anyone or anything for granted. As a government, we have tremendous appreciation for the processes of this House. That is why we had debate in December in recognition of the timing challenges. That is why we brought legislation forward to debate back in December, so that we had engaged in a process and in a robust debate around providing the time needed to put together the budget, given the context.

That was debated in this House. It was voted on in this House, and it’s based on that that we have put together the various component parts and the timing for the throne speech that is coming in a couple of weeks and then a budget that will be brought forward a week later.

In the interim, we have, notably, interim supply, which has a pragmatic component to it. It’s based on the realities of taking the needed time to put together a robust budget, putting together the vision. But I will argue that the budget probably is — I would think, because I’m the Finance Minister — more important. The throne speech is important too, but I have my own lens as the minister.

It’s based on that good process back from December that this work is flowing, so to suggest that we’re not following process is not accurate. We are following process. We’re following law. We are doing as we said we would do back in December, when we brought forward the legislative changes. We had debate in the House about the realities of what we were faced with.

[2:55 p.m.]

Having said that, again, I want to assure the member and all members of the House that they will see and hear a throne speech that sets out government’s vision. They will see and read government’s budget, which is the plan for the vision, as the member so eloquently placed it. There will absolutely be robust discussion and debate in this House about the throne speech, and I hope the members all support it, and the budget, and I hope the members all support it.

I expect that they’re going to say, “Why don’t you do more of this or less of that, and how come you picked this one over that one?” as they should, because we all represent the diversity of our province. We all have different ideas about what would get us to where we want to go. But at the end of the day, there is a process in place, and I look forward to that.

In many ways, the highlight of my time here is the opportunity to go back and forth with my colleagues here in the House, making sure that everyone understands how government is spending dollars to help British Columbians get through what is a very difficult time and prepare us for a recovery that is before us.

M. Bernier: I’m just going to start off by acknowledging my colleague from the Third Party. My tongue-in-cheek comment will be that I have no confidence in this supply bill. Now, that being said…. I try to have a little bit of fun in here in a difficult time.

I think it’s also back to some of the questions that I had earlier. Again, the minister keeps saying that we’re going to see a budget on April 20. Quickly looking at the calendar — and I looked into this — estimates won’t start…. The minister didn’t answer this one. I’ll acknowledge for her. I just checked. She can correct me if I’m wrong. Estimates won’t start until around May 10 because there are some legislative processes that have to take place. You have to have time to debate a budget after it’s been presented. You’re not allowed to start your estimates until after that, but supply bills can come during that time.

Back to my question, the minister continues to state that they need the three months for continuation while we’re debating, during estimates, that future budget. I still respectfully say that the process could have been easily handled if the minister had tabled a supply bill for one month, presented a budget and presented a subsequent supply bill referencing that budget. That would cut down a lot of angst.

Is that actually an option to consider?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m prepared to provide a response, and then I’m wondering if we could take a five-minute break after my response. Hopefully, that will be okay with the House.

I appreciate the member’s question. And I’m thinking about the amount of work that it would take to do all of that and then the work that it would require of us here in the House, in terms of the debate time that it would take, to debate all of those various bills. In needing to balance out the accountability, transparency and efficiency components that I think we all value, we made the decision to do supply this way so that we had more time to do the estimates debate, which I know that the member is looking forward to.

We certainly heard from the member for Saanich North and the Islands just how eager he is to roll up his sleeves to get into estimates debate. Really, this is about balancing out the need for transparency, for making sure that operationally things can continue and making sure that we’re running the House efficiently, because all of those things are really important.

The last thing I want to say before I take my seat is the amount of work that it requires of the public service. This has been an extraordinary year, with additional supply bills, recognizing that their time is valuable and important, and wanting to be respectful of their time as well. Using their knowledge and expertise efficiently is also critically important to government.

With that, I’m hoping we can take a few minutes to break.

The Chair: The committee will recess until ten after three.

The committee recessed from 3:02 p.m. to 3:12 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

M. Bernier: Right before the break, the minister was just answering my question about why we couldn’t have just had a one-month bridge, if we want to call it that, of interim supply, allowing this House the opportunity to have more wholesome debate on the actual tabled budget that would be presented April 20.

The minister’s comments were that it would be too much work, too much effort. With all due respect, the minister also said earlier that, mostly, supply bills are never really debated because they’re referencing a budget that’s tabled. So if there was one that actually came forward in April, in the third week referencing that budget, I could guarantee you, because I just spoke to my House Leader, that there wouldn’t be debate on it, because it would be referencing a budget.

For it to be too much work…. Again, with all due respect, and this is not meant in any way…. I hope the minister doesn’t take that as a slight of the incredible hard-working staff within the ministry, but to put this bill forward wasn’t really, technically, a lot of work, because we’re not referencing anything where it’s been done already.

If the minister had said, “We’re putting this bill on the floor, and we’re referencing a budget” — and I completely acknowledge work is going on behind the scenes for the next budget — that’s fine. But this supply act that is in front of us right now is referencing a document that did not require any work. It was basically pull a number out of the air, pick a document, throw it into this legislation. I maybe sound like I’m over simplifying it. Yes, I understand it goes to leg. counsel and all that stuff. I’ve been through this process before. It’s not much more difficult than that, the way this bill is being presented.

[3:15 p.m.]

I think at this crossroads it’s important to also really talk about section 1, Interpretation. It’s what we’ve been talking about for the last couple of hours. I want to read into the record what we’re doing, because I’ve heard many members from the government side, the NDP members, who said they read this bill. I’m not sure, with all due respect, if they understood what was going on. To read this bill is one thing, but to understand the technicalities of the bill and the changes — because this is not normal — that are required in order to fulfil the wishes of the government, because of their delayed budget.

Let me read in here, if I may: “(1) In this Act, ‘main Estimates for the previous fiscal year’ means the main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2021….” That’s already been brought up in the House. We acknowledge that. But for “the purposes of this Act, the main Estimates for the previous fiscal year are to be read as if they were the main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022.”

That is an interesting dynamic that’s thrown into this bill. I will acknowledge and understand why it’s there. The Minister has said they have to reference something in order to meet the legislation. What the Minister has failed to do is the next part, talking about how: “(3) Despite section 2 of the Financial Administration Act, a reference in section 23 of that Act is to be read in relation to this Act as a reference to the main Estimates for the previous fiscal year.”

I’m going to put that in somewhat layman’s terms. Government hasn’t presented a budget. The law states you have to present a budget if you want to have a supply act in this House. That supply act is supposed to reference that budget. That didn’t happen. So what’s the workaround? Well, the workaround that this government once again has had to do is to change the rules of this House, the process of this House.

Maybe before I move to my next question, I’ll give the Minister an opportunity to correct anything I might have just said, because the way the interpretation comes in section 1, this is not normal, contrary to what most of the NDP members said in their speeches. Government is changing the rules. Government is changing the laws to accommodate the fact that they did not get a budget in on time. To try to meet legislative requirements, they’ve actually changed the legislative requirements, in order to be fulfilling and having a supply act.

Does the Minister agree that she, her government, have now had to change the intent and the wording and the regulations that are in the Financial Administration Act because of their failure to present a budget on time?

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I want to just correct the member. We have until April 30 to present a budget on time. So this budget will be on time. It will be April 20, ten days before we’re legally obligated to present a budget. I look forward to that day.

[3:20 p.m.]

Also, the member read into the record the interpretation, and what this says is that this is a consequential change to allow us to refer to last year’s estimates for the case of interim supply. What this says is that because the different acts have different language, in this one, it allows us to pull up those estimates and use that for this supply bill. That’s what this little piece of interpretation that he read into the record means.

M. Bernier: I read that into the record to try to make a point that the minister is not acknowledging, that they’re changing the rules. This is not normal. The minister is trying to make it sound like this is just part of the interpretation, because it’s from all different acts.

No, in fact, they’re changing the intent in the wording in the act to accommodate the fact that they have not presented a budget on time but require a supply act in order to have the continuation of funding for government, which we’ve acknowledged earlier today and in our second reading debates. Obviously, we understand, appreciate and acknowledge that that funding needs to continue.

What the minister is not acknowledging, which I’m hoping she will, is the fact that the Financial Administration Act…. The intent of that is to reference a budget in that year, not in a previous year. Is it fair to say they’re changing the intent in the act, within the wording of section 1, in order to accommodate the fact they didn’t present the budget on time? We warned government about it a while ago, that this would happen, that there would be other consequences. This seems to be just one of them.

Hon. S. Robinson: “On time” means to April 30. We have until April 30 to present a budget, and we will be presenting a budget on April 20. It will be on time.

Now, I know that the member is having a hard time with that, but it will be on time. Now as…. It is a consequence of that, of the changes that were made late last year, that we have to add this additional piece in here that affords us the opportunity to be transparent and base off of this blue book the supply bill for the next few months. It’s in there, so that it is about being accountable, so that it is clear about what we’re referring to, so that everyone can get an old copy that’s kicking around, pull it up, take a look at it, and understand what it is that we’re asking before this House.

M. Bernier: The minister skirted over very quickly in her answer the reason why we’re here today. She keeps trying to say that the budget is on time. Well, it’s only on time because this minister changed the goalposts. She widened them. She allowed and changed the laws of this Legislature that says a budget has to be presented in February every year, which, by the way, it always has been, every February in the past.

For the minister to now say that I’m being inaccurate…. It’s a technicality, mind you. The only reason why the minister has until April 30 is because right after the NDP called the snap election, the only order of business they wanted to really accomplish was Bill 3, the Finance Statutes Amendment Act, in December, which gave them until April 20, which added two months for government to be able to put a budget together.

I’m not going to debate the previous Bill 3. We went through that. The minister, at that point, put on the record her reasons why government was asking for two months extra. We’ve had that debate — agree or not agree — and that’s where we’re at.

[3:25 p.m.]

I think it’s also fair to highlight the reason why we are at this point today. It’s because of Bill 3 in December, which allowed government two more months. It’s always easy to say if you’re on time for something if you have control of when that timeline is. It’s always easy to say you’ve met your goals when you change what those goals are right before you announce them.

Now, in section 23 of the Financial Administration Act, which the minister is referencing, which is part of section 1 of the Supply Act that we’re debating today, it seems to be quite specific on how funds are to be appropriated. Section 23 says that “a sum appropriated by a Supply Act must not” — must not — “be spent for any purpose other than those described in the estimates of revenue and expenditure….” Which the minister has acknowledged, I believe, is this.

That leads me to a question that I have, then. The government called back this House after they acknowledged that this document was not worth anything, even though they choose to use that right now as the reference point. Under section 23 of the act, if the minister is going to be following the act, and it’s my understanding of this…. Okay, fine. Government has acknowledged they’re only going to be spending and following this book from 13 months ago.

That leaves me to wonder, then, about the other supplemental bills that were brought forward, supplemental estimates and supplemental estimates No. 3. We came to this House and said: “Look” — at that time, even government acknowledged it — “this document is not working. This document is not accurate. We need to have supplemental estimates. We need to ask for more money. We need to have further debate. We need to have more acts and estimates to come forward around spending.”

Now, before the minister accuses me, maybe, of not understanding why we did that…. We all voted in favour of those supplemental estimates. Those were because of the unprecedented situation that government is in, the fact that we acknowledged that extra spending and supports needed to go out to assist people. We’ve had debates on whether that’s actually been working or not and whether that money has gone out the door or not.

The crux of my…. Where I’m going with this line of questioning is…. I’m just concerned and have questions around how this is going to work. Because if the minister is referencing an old budget that did not include all of the COVID spending, those supplementary estimates that we debated state right on the front page that they end March 31, 2021. Trying to understand this now, because the government continues to try to say that there’s going to be money on April 1. They are announcing programs that we supported, whether they’re COVID recovery benefits or small business grants. But those were approved through supplemental estimates that said they expire on March 31.

The minister has also said that we’re referencing, through the supply act, a document that did not include these. So will there be any funding on April 1 for all of these other programs that were announced after this document was debated and passed in the House?

[3:30 p.m. - 3:35 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member sort of asked…. I think it was two questions that I heard. I’m not 100 percent sure. But I want to provide clarity, because the member is not correct around how it’s always a February budget. That’s actually not the case.

When there were spring elections, a budget would be presented, but there’d be an election. Then there would be another…. Ninety days, I believe, is what they had to bring in another budget. So you would go right from February, because it wouldn’t be passed, right through the spring. Then you wouldn’t actually pass a budget until the fall. In the olden days, that was sort of how the process went.

Then we had a debate here in this House, and everyone agreed to change the date to a fall election. That was a decision of this House. That permitted a new budget date for March. I believe that was a year and a half or two years ago. I’m losing track of time, but it was some time ago. Then along came COVID. We recognized that in order to deliver a meaningful budget, we did need more time in order to make that happen, hence the extra three weeks for this current budget.

It’s not accurate to suggest that budgets only ever happened in February. There were plenty of budgets that were presented in this House at different dates because of elections. I think it’s really important to get that on the record.

The other part of the member’s question was around using the estimates from last year, given that we’ve had several supply bills, which were for requests for significant resources in a significant time. The need for that extra supply was because the estimates weren’t sufficient for the entire year, on top of the COVID experience.

We have the right vote descriptions in here. They’re here. Certainly, if you were to flip to the descriptions in there — for example, around health — you’ll certainly see a range of descriptions. The challenge was there wasn’t enough supply to get us through, because of COVID. We’re using the book to help us get through the next three months, to make sure that there is sufficient supply, given that the descriptions that are in here are helpful to us in continuing again….

I want to remind everyone that this is about continuing to deliver the services that British Columbians need, whether it’s getting a vaccine or health care for a senior or making sure that housing providers continue to do the important work that they do for those who are most vulnerable in our communities.

M. Bernier: My comments originally were around the fact of the legislative requirement. I’m not talking about when budgets were passed, where they extended through debate or when elections were. But budgets are presented early in the year, around February.

[3:40 p.m.]

This government then changed it, not that long ago — I thought it was early last year, but I could be wrong, by then Finance Minister Carole James — to add an extra month. The fourth Tuesday of March was the deadline.

At that time, the minister was quoted as saying: “Even if there happens to be a fall election” — because that was the discussion around that — “that extra month is needed.” That still would’ve been presented to the House before the end of a fiscal. Now we’re actually in this problem and this debate. Again, supply bills normally don’t get debated like this because of the process of this House. There’s no real requirement, because you get to have those debates and those questions asked during the estimates of the actual budget that’s presented.

I just want to go back to the question I had here, if the minister can maybe give it in a bit more detail so I understand. She actually said that all we have to do is go out and get an old copy of the book, and that says it all. Now, in this last answer, she just acknowledged that it actually doesn’t say it all, that government was called back, that we were called back, because of COVID, and extra expenditure is needed in a couple of different supplementary estimates — to ask for more money for ministries to be spent to help people.

There was no debate in this House around that intent of why extra money was needed. It was needed because it was not in the budget. Government said that. Government acknowledged that this budget didn’t work anymore because of COVID.

Again to the minister, that’s why I’m asking this line of questioning. I’m trying to ensure…. If we’re being told to reference only this book, how do we tell people in the public, especially ones that are much needed, supports right now that are needed…? We’ve all said that. I’m not trying to discredit that. My concern is: how do we tell them that funds will be there on April 1 for government programs that were announced in supplementary estimates when the minister, in her own words, said that we’re not referencing that for this supply act? We’re referencing a 13-month-old document that does not have the extra spending.

I’m hoping the minister can understand why I’m asking this line of questioning. I’m hoping she can just clarify where I’m wrong, because it’s not in the one-page supply bill. They’re referencing the estimates, March 31, 2021. So what’s happening with all the $8 billion approved COVID money that is set to expire under the fiscal year, March 31, because that was approved last year and not included in this supply act for the first three months, from what I can tell?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: This is, perhaps, where the member doesn’t quite appreciate that the supplemental estimates, where we came back to the House, were for additional funds, not additional descriptions — additional funds.

COVID certainly threw us all for a loop — personally, for sure. Certainly, as government and all members of the House, we’ve had to change a lot of things. I appreciate that the members opposite recognized the challenges that, certainly, health care as well as the support systems that people needed as a result of COVID…. I want to take a moment to express gratitude to all members of the House for coming together as they did to make sure that we continue to take care of people.

That was us coming together to say the funds that we had approved in the estimates book, the amount, wasn’t sufficient in order to help British Columbians get through the pandemic. So that’s why we came back to the House. What we’re saying is we need funds to get through the next few months. The descriptions are here. Again, it is to carry us through, to make sure that we continue as a government, all of us representing government, to take care of people. That’s what this supply bill is. We are referring to descriptions in estimates to make sure that people understand how we’re operating.

There will be a new budget April 20 that will provide any additional new programs and direction of government going forward. It will be happening then.

M. Bernier: Obviously, the intent — completely understand. Completely support the intent of the supplementary estimates that came in front of this House. We spoke to those. We supported them, endorsed them because we understood the situation that the government, but more importantly, the public, the citizens were in — the stress they were under, the impacts that they were facing.

I’m trying to get a bit more clarity because, in my mind, that was a very confusing answer. As the minister said, we came back to this House to pass supplemental estimates to give supports to people. It’s funds. It’s money for government for supports for people. But those supplemental estimates reference a budget that expires next week.

Then the minister went on to say in her last answer: “That’s why we’re referencing, because we have to, a document from 13 months ago.” That has no reference at all to any of the extra COVID spending that we just talked about. So the reason why I’m asking the question…. Maybe the minister can’t answer this. If she can…. I know she can’t point to anywhere in the supply act, I don’t think, that explains it for me.

By reading through the supplementary estimates that were brought into this House and that expire in a mere ten days…. Does that mean, since the minister said the next budget is not until April 20, that there now is no COVID funding under that $8 billion approved in this House between March 31 and April 20? That’s not included in this book that the minister says we need to reference of why they need to spend the $13 billion.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member is expressing concern about supports for what I’ll call COVID spending. That’s how I heard his particular question.

All of the descriptions that are in the estimates book provide us with the necessary appropriations to ensure that all of the programs continue and make sure that we have the health dollars available to keep doing what we’re doing, and the supports in place to keep doing what we’re doing, until we can table the budget and have a robust debate about any changes.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that, except I think it just really highlights the challenges that we’ve been addressing through our second reading discussions, debate, and that we’ll continue to highlight, especially once we get to section 2 — around some of the monetary appropriations that government chooses to do — when we’ve got conflicting documents, really.

Let me just highlight and stress the fact that of course we want to see those extra funds spent where they need to be spent. But again, it’s all around the transparency and accountability aspect, which I would argue is, in this situation, very lacking. It’s not a normal process. We’ve had to change the regulations, legislation in this House in order to accommodate government.

I should remind the minister, too, that even though in some of her other ones, when the minister says we all show up here and we all pass it, that’s not always the case. Sometimes we vote against things, but they do still pass in the House because government has a majority. Fair enough. But just a reminder that that doesn’t mean we always support everything that government is doing.

Now, we have the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. It’s a very prescriptive act that lays out a lot of the expectations of government, of ministries, and even around budgets. So is it fair to say to the minister: does she feel, then, that we’re not actually following the wording and intent under the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act by having to change legislation because of their delay in presenting a budget?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: We’re not changing any laws here, and we are following the law. If the member seems to think that that’s not the case, it would be really helpful to hear more specifically about what he’s referring to.

M. Bernier: Does the present Financial Administration Act say anywhere in there that you can reference a 13-month-old document, or is the minister having to change, under this supply act, the wording of the act in order for her to be able to do so?

Hon. S. Robinson: We’re not proposing, here, any amendments to the Financial Administration Act. That’s not what’s happening here. No one is changing any laws here. So, again, I’m still not sure what the member is referring to.

M. Bernier: Well, we can agree to disagree. I know the minister is probably in a position where she doesn’t want to acknowledge it, but it’s pretty well right in black and white.

When you read the Financial Administration Act on how it’s supposed to reference the budget…. The minister, in her own supply act here, has had to put the interpretation and change the interpretation to reference last year’s budget in order to have a supply act. Maybe she can point to me the place….

I don’t want it go back and forth and waste a whole bunch of time on this, but I don’t think the minister can point to a place in the Financial Administration Act that actually says it can reference an old budget, one that’s 13 months old. It’s not in there that I can find, which is why the minister has had to put in the interpretation, changing: “Despite section 2 of the Financial Administration Act, a reference in section 23…is to be read in relation to the Act as a reference to the main estimates for the previous” — not the present, the previous — “fiscal year.”

Under the same interpretation, it’s listed that they’ve had to use the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2021. I’m only highlighting that to remind the minister and this House that we’re looking at an old document, and the minister has had to put wording into a bill to accommodate the fact that we’re looking at an old document.

I’ll get into it in clause 2 — almost said section 2 — in a little bit, where we can actually talk about some of the specifics that I’ve brought up in more detail around the financial aspects of the spending, because, again, there’s no schedule attached to this. There’s no schedule because there hasn’t been a present budget put in front of this House, which, again, is why the minister has had to change the interpretation of the acts to accommodate them putting this budget forward later than expected.

Is it fair to say that we’re going to be passing a supply act in this House, to go with the minister’s earlier comments, completely on the basis of the estimates debate that’s not going to happen now on this monetary amount? It happened last year. I’m assuming the minister is going to be able to acknowledge that, because the estimates that are going to happen in two, three months from now will be based on a budget that is tabled in this House on April 20.

[4:00 p.m.]

We’re not going to be debating last year’s budget in three months. We’re going to be debating the new tabled budget, whatever that may be. But we’re not going to get a chance to debate anything, other than now, during a supply act, because the minister is saying that we’re going to take this money based on the discussion, the debates, that we had a year and a bit ago. Is that a fair comment?

Hon. S. Robinson: We passed a budget last year based on these estimates. The member might prefer to call it a schedule for the supply bill, if that makes it any easier for him.

And here it is. It is in black and white. The appropriations are listed for each ministry. It is a document that has been used, as well as coming back here to the House to get supplementary supply, because of COVID. We needed more resources in this document. The House supported that, recognizing the unusual circumstances that we were living in and delivering services in.

What is before the House is a bill based, again, on what we had used last year to say: “We need to continue these programs. We need to continue these appropriations that are clearly listed out here.”

This is what it amounts to, over the next number of months, to make sure, again — I think it’s really important to not lose sight of what we’re saying here — that we can continue to pay the teachers and the support staff in our schools, that we can continue to pay our conservation officers, that we can continue to pay the health care providers and that we can continue to deliver the services that people count on here in British Columbia.

That’s what we’re debating here, right now. What we are saying is: “These are the appropriations. The descriptions are here about where money is going to be going and how we’re going to carry on.” A new budget will be presented here in the House on April 20. There will be — and I look forward to — robust discussion about how government is addressing the ongoing needs of British Columbians into the future.

That’s what we’re debating here in the House right now: getting us through to when we can adopt a new budget. At this point, my understanding is that the House is likely to go until the third week of June. If the members opposite want to pass the budget sooner, that would be lovely. I see nods from some of my colleagues.

At the same time, I recognize we have important work to do. It’s important to hear from members opposite. It’s important to hear from as many members that want to ask questions of the ministers and of the ministries around the decisions that government is making. That is their prerogative. I have confidence that the bill will pass and will continue to deliver important services to British Columbians going forward.

M. Bernier: Let me just say that it is unfortunate that the minister again had to digress the point where she’s saying that this bill is about making sure that it has to pass — to pay teachers, nurses, etc. We talked about that earlier today. That whether this bill passes or not, they continue to get paid.

What we’re here talking about today, though, is the process of how that is going to go out. The process to which the fact that government has not tabled a budget yet, is asking to spend upwards of $13 billion, and the minister continues to say that we should just trust them. That we’re going to use an old document that the government themselves have said is irrelevant.

[4:05 p.m.]

The minister acknowledged that in her answers, by saying that we’ve had to come back two other times for supplemental additions and estimates for more money, because the government didn’t get it right. Now, I’m saying that it’s because of COVID. I’m not trying to say that they could have planned for that in any way. But they didn’t have enough money. The government needed more.

The minister still hasn’t answered my question, though, if we’re basing it off of that old document that doesn’t include the $8 billion, whether people still get paid. If they still have funding for COVID relief programs after April 2, then we truly are not following the book that the minister keeps referencing: the estimates from last year. It sounds to me like it’s a combination of all.

On behalf of this side of the House, on the record: of course we want, again, to see funds continue. In a perfect world, those funds that were approved in this House would actually already have been spent. If more was needed, the government would be here in front of the House asking for it.

I hope the minister can at least acknowledge the fact that this is where some of the questions come from, some of the confusion. When we’re referencing a document that’s irrelevant…. We know there is more money that was needed, so it was passed in the House.

Now, in the meantime, even though we never…. I’ll get to it in more detail probably later, tomorrow maybe, around the fact that we have not really had adequate quarterly updates to really give a fiscal state of where we’re at. Typically, we have a budget presented, where the minister stands up with great detail and says: “These were our plans and priorities from last year. Here’s where we spent the money, here’s our budget surplus/deficit, and here’s our next one for ’21-22.” Very open, very transparent.

There can be debates about how the money is spent — the minister has acknowledged that — and we will do that in great detail when the time comes. But there’s always been a process to follow that is open and transparent.

One of the concerns that I also have now is we’re referencing an old document. More money has been asked for, for COVID programming, and in the last fiscal update, if we want to call it that — because it wasn’t truly a quarterly update — the minister talked about the $13 billion plus of deficit that this government finds themselves in. A deficit that it actually started before COVID, I would argue.

The minister announced that deficit after the debates on these estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, just a week and a half from now. Another example of the ever-changing world that this government sees themselves in. It does raise the question, and why some are perplexed, that through this supply act they continue to reference an old document that is not relevant.

I ask the minister, then, maybe this: how can we guarantee that the numbers that she’s put forward are even accurate? It sounds like it was a guess. If she’s referencing the numbers — when I did the math, it sounds like they are referencing just this document; she can correct me if I’m wrong — that means there is no extra COVID spending attributed to this. They’re also not taking into consideration the huge deficit that the province has found themselves in.

With that, how can the minister guarantee that there will be enough funding going forward, since she’s relying on old information?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I think it’s really important to recognize that this document is completely relevant. We have absolutely needed additional supplementary spending because of COVID.

To suggest that this document from last year, that the estimates book from last year, is irrelevant is completely inaccurate. The descriptions in here are absolutely relevant. We follow this book to make sure that we are continuing to deliver the appropriations that we needed.

We came back to this House because we didn’t have enough appropriation. We didn’t have enough resource to do the spending that was needed. If you think about the Health line items in here, it’s not that we were doing things that we’d never done before. They were in here. It just needed more resource given to it, and that’s what the supplementary estimates were about.

The descriptions are here, and they’re accurate, so this document is relevant. It’s based on this document, based on the estimates book, that we are coming forward with this supply bill asking for three months’ supply — based on this. We have looked at the pattern of spending, and our request in this supply bill will meet that need over the next three months. It’s based on that pattern of spending.

M. Bernier: I think I’m just going to ask one more question on section 1, because we can save a lot of the monet­ary stuff. We have a lot of questions around the appropriations. But I do want to just say that I find it interesting, again, the way the minister is framing this. From what it sounds like, it’s still a guess. The descriptions are in here. Of course they’re in here. The descriptions of how money will be spent are always in the fiscal plan. They’re always in there.

[4:15 p.m.]

The dollar amounts, however, change. The minister just acknowledged that they had to come back for supplementary estimates because more money was needed, which is why the Premier himself said this document was irrelevant. The Premier himself said that’s why we couldn’t use this document as the basis of the spending of the ministries of this government. So although the characterization that the minister puts forward, that the descriptions are in the book, and they’re there for us to look at — that’s a fair comment — the dollars themselves maybe aren’t necessarily there.

I asked this earlier on today. I think I even referenced the Premier’s office, if I remember, about $11 billion. The minister just acknowledged that more money was needed, but she’s acknowledging we should use this book as the guide, it sounds like, and not the full plan.

Is it fair to say that it is a guess? That the descriptions here of how ministries allot proportions, how ministries are appropriated a certain amount of money, and then how that is descriptively spent, as an approximation? We always know that it is, to a certain extent, but it’s always presented in a document to the public, so they see where government is going.

Again I ask the minister, then, before we move into section 2, which will talk about the actual spending: which is it? Is this just a guide and description, or is it the factual determination of how the $13 billion is going to be spent? Can I flip to any page in this book, find a line item within a ministry, divide it by four and assume that’s how much they’re getting for the next three months? If so, we’re going to have some more serious questions to ask later, because none of that accommodates any of the changes around deficit or any additional money the government has asked for, for COVID spending.

Hon. S. Robinson: As the member well knows, of course, this is an approximation. Just like any other year when we, or any government, brings in a supply bill, it is an approximation, and it’s a lump sum amount to facilitate the ongoing programs, making sure that they can continue while the debate of the budget continues and gets sort of reset with the new budget. This is how supply bills are developed every year.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

[4:20 p.m.]

M. Bernier: On clause 2, it’s going to be an opportunity for a few of my colleagues to come forward at the start here because we have some specific questions that we want to ask of the minister.

I think she would acknowledge that in normal processes we would have been doing this, under different circumstances, debating and discussing a tabled budget. But from what I’ve seen, and what I’ve heard in the course of today and through second reading debate, is truly the government doesn’t seem to know. They have a document they’re referencing that’s old. They are asking for a blank cheque for the continuation of government spending, which we acknowledged is important.

We know that a budget will be presented in three or four weeks from now. But under section 2, government is asking us now to approve $12.3 billion without really showing any updated plan. I’m not going to rehash the debate we’ve just had for the last hour, 90 minutes, although I’ve never been accused of not being able to fill time when I talk. So I could do so, but I won’t.

I think it’s important, before I turn it over, Mr. Chair, to a few colleagues…. Just for his reference, the first one will be the member for Peace River North, who’s on a screen.

Is it fair to say before we get into those questions, though, that there again is no updated plan; that the minister is referencing old documentation; that she’s asking for $12.3 billion in good faith for this House to pass with no determinations of specific dollar amounts of where that’s going to go, without a chance for us to scrutinize or debate it?

Again, with the adage that, obviously, we understand that there is the extra COVID spending and dollars that are needed, how do we know where it’s going? Can the minister point to anything of where this $12.3 billion specifically will be going other than a 13-month-old document?

Hon. S. Robinson: Just like I’d said in my earlier response, this supply bill is like other supply bills in that they approximate a lump sum amount based on a proportion of the year. That’s what this is. This is what supply bills look like, so it’s certainly based on that.

I think it’s really important to recognize this: the member keeps referring to a blank cheque. It’s not a blank cheque. We’re asking for $12.3 billion. We’re very specific. It’s very inaccurate to suggest that’s not the case. A blank cheque suggests that there’s no amount put in. You just sign it and offer it up. Back in the days when we had cheques…. I can’t remember the last time I actually wrote one.

[4:25 p.m.]

This one is not blank. It’s very, very specific. In fact, it’s $12,305,108,000. So it’s very specific. It is based on an estimates book which is right here, and it is for three months supply to help us get until we can pass the next budget.

D. Davies: I appreciate and want to thank my colleague for his riveting dialogue, over the last little while, on clause 1 of this bill.

Diving into some of, I guess, the finer details, we heard the minister talk about how the numbers are approximate and where they’re being put toward. A lot of my comments here, or my questions, are going to be around the Social Development and Poverty Reduction piece.

As everyone knows, the social services are being more heavily relied on right now than, probably, any other time, certainly in memory. Looking at how the allocation of this previous budget, the 13-month-old budget, and accurately capturing the financial needs then to how they are now….

My question to the minister is: how are you capturing the financial needs of Social Development and Poverty Reduction today based off an irrelevant 13-month-old budget?

[4:30 p.m.]

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question. I had staff just do a quick calculation, just to give the member some comfort. In fiscal year ’19-20, in the first quarter, we spent between 23 and 24 percent of the annual budget. Last year, because of COVID spending, it was slightly more than 25 percent.

We recognize that we expect this upcoming budget to pass a little bit sooner, middle of June. Staff are certainly comfortable with the requested appropriation that we have here before the House in this supply bill to carry us through on all of our spending commitments till we pass this budget.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister. That kind of moves toward answering a piece of my next question. Maybe we can get that firmed up a little bit more.

Last year the budget of the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction was just over $3.6 billion. That was last year. A quarter of that, roughly, is $920 million. Can we assume, then, that that is approximately the amount that is going to be used for this first quarter?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to thank staff, who are whispering sweet nothings in my ear about social development spending. I thank the member for his question.

Again, this is an approximation. This is how all supply bills have worked. There is an estimation based on amount of time needed to cover the expected spending. As a result, we put together an approximation.

There is, of course, flexibility, because it’s considered a lump sum. The member may not appreciate — I continue to appreciate it; it’s certainly my new role — that spending changes throughout the year. It’s not every month…. It’s an equal amount of spending in each ministry. Some ministries tend to be winter-heavier spending or summer-heavier spending or first-quarter-heavier spending or third-quarter-heavier spending.

[4:35 p.m.]

This really is just about getting us through the first few months. Then we’ll have a new budget in place that will guide spending throughout the rest of the year.

D. Davies: With that being said, though, to the minister, some ministries are heavy in the winter, spending, or light in the winter or summer, first quarter.

Obviously, we know the Social Development Ministry…. I’m not sure where they are in that category. There must be some sort of idea of the amount that is going to be earmarked for this ministry for the first quarter, even based on a five-year average of what the first quarter looks like. That’s kind of what I’m looking at.

I completely understand that this is an approximate amount. I guess that is the amount that I’m looking for: the approximate amount, based upon the last year’s budget, of what Social Development and Poverty Reduction might be receiving.

Hon. S. Robinson: Listening very carefully to the member’s question, that’s a great question for estimates debate, in terms of understanding exactly specific….

In supply, what we’re looking for here is using all of government spending and asking for a lump sum that permits us to continue to pay the people that do the work. I know that the member is really proud to be the critic, because he gets to see the amazing work that front-line folks are doing for the most vulnerable population.

This supply bill is about saying we need to continue the operations of government and in working with staff and taking a look. As they always do with every single supply bill, they take a look at the appropriation amount that they’re going to need, based on, generally, how much time we need to cover ongoing costs, and that works quite well. It’s worked really well in the past, and it will continue to work well for us in the future.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister. I mean, the entire premise of asking these questions is on behalf of these front-line workers, these organizations, the vulnerable people that are quite curious, obviously, as to where they’re going to fit into this first quarter and the funding specific to each of these groups.

My next question, I guess, is a little more specific around Community Living B.C. The previous budget for last year: approximately $1.37 billion went to Community Living B.C. The approximate — again, I’m comfortable using that language — amount of the first quarter, if you were to break this down into four, would be $285 million.

Can the minister tell me if this would be the approximate amount that would be going to this organization, which delivers an incredible amount of services to these front-line workers? Will they be receiving that amount or approximately that amount?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, that’s a great question for estimates debate. I know that the minister responsible for Social Development and Poverty Reduction is listening closely and writing down these questions as the member asks them, because this will give him advance notice of where the member’s interests are. I am sure that he’ll be happy to provide those specific answers.

Again, I just want to remind the member that this supply bill is about making sure that we can continue to pay these folks who do this great work, making sure that that continues for a period of time until we can pass the upcoming budget.

[4:40 p.m.]

D. Davies: Again, not specifically getting the answers, but I’ll move on and try and ascertain a little more detail.

I get that the minister is trying to, again, deflect this to the budget estimates. But as my colleague from Peace River South has mentioned numerous times, we should be in the budget estimates right now, asking these questions. But here we are, well into the first quarter, and we don’t have these numbers. This is why we’re asking for these numbers.

I’ll move on just to a couple more questions here, as I know I do have a couple more colleagues that do want to ask some questions. Again, we’ve talked about…. These are incredibly trying times for so many people across the province.

Employment services had $29 million set aside, which is desperately needed. Things have certainly changed since Budget 2019-20, but it works out to $7.2 million a quarter. Can the minister tell me, and preferably not to say, “Ask that during budget estimates…”? These are people that are wondering: “Wow. Am I going to be getting some employment services right now?” So roughly $7.2 million, $7.3 million set aside per quarter is what it would work out to. Is that roughly what is going to be set aside for this first quarter?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member…. I do want to correct him. He says we are in the first quarter. We’re not yet in the first quarter. We still have a little while, a few more days, anyway, a week or so.

The member is asking very specific questions. I appreciate the question, and I’m sure, again, that the minister responsible is writing this down so that he is well prepared with an answer when it does come to budget estimates.

Again, I want to remind the member that this is a normal approximation that we do with supply bills — making sure that we have the resources necessary to continue the important work that these folks that he’s describing are doing. That’s what I’m sure everybody here in this House…. That’s why I think everyone supported second reading, because we appreciate the work that they do. I look forward to seeing this bill through to committee stage and getting it passed in this House so that we can carry on our work.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister. Yeah, I think we’re five days away or six days away from the fiscal year-end’s first quarter, which ties into, of course, the recent announcement regarding the income and disability payment and questions around: is there…? I’ll just do a two-part question. If you can answer both of these, I’ll let my colleague from Peace River South know that I’ll be wrapping up after this question, then.

Is extra money being set aside due to the announced increase to the income disability assistance payments in this first quarter out of this $12.3 billion? And the second piece of the question is: how much more would have been needed to lock in the $300 that initially was clawed back and of course only returned half? How much more would have been needed to facilitate the entire $300 a month?

Hon. S. Robinson: To answer the member’s first question, yes, we’re able to accommodate those increases.

[4:45 p.m.]

I want to take a moment to thank the minister for being such a tremendous advocate to make sure that we continue to deliver for people who are some of the most financially challenged in our province. It’s the largest increase that any government has ever provided ever — pretty significant and building on increases over the last number of years. It’s pretty significant, so I want to thank the member for acknowledging that. That was quite significant.

In terms of the member’s second question, as soon as the budget is tabled and the member wants to ask the minister what could have been or should have been — that’s happening in a little over three weeks — the member is certainly welcome to ask the minister.

R. Merrifield: I’m just going to read a couple of quotes that I’ve heard so far.

On March 15, 2021, the Finance Minister said that we’re “making sure that doctors and nurses and lab techs can go to work to make sure that they’re able to take care of our loved ones who might be exposed to COVID or sick with COVID and making sure that they are doing their jobs. We’re making sure that their children are cared for.”

I don’t have which ministry he’s from. I can’t say his name, so I won’t. But I’ll look it up. One of the members from the other side — I wish I had your flash cards here, Mr. Speaker — said on March 16, in his expression on the debate, that it is just a bill that will continue supporting people, businesses and communities “up until we pass our next budget. These supports include nurses, doctors, teachers, social workers and other social programs that help out people in poverty,” about which my hon. colleague just asked.

I’ll remind the Minister that just today you said: “It sounds to me like the B.C. Liberals oppose spending on health care workers who are undertaking the largest mass immunization program in our province’s history. Based on what I’ve heard from the B.C. Liberals, they oppose spending on the doctors and nurses and other health care workers who are making significant progress in eliminating the backlog of surgeries from the early months of this pandemic.”

I just want to say for the record that the B.C. Liberals strongly support payments to all of the workers who work on our behalf. However, we do not support….

Interjection.

R. Merrifield: You’re right, Minister. We are not giving a blank cheque. We’re giving a cheque that is written out for $12.3 billion, but we don’t know what it’s going to be spent on.

I’m just going to go through, and I won’t digress into the 171 hours and 41 minutes because, really, that was irrelevant three weeks after that was finalized. What I will say is that, in that particular estimate, $24 billion out of the $60 billion was allocated towards the Ministry of Health, which is 40 percent. So 40 percent of $12.3 billion — let’s round to $12 billion — is actually $4.8 billion.

If I take into account all of the comments around COVID and why we’re delaying estimates in the first place, well, we have a $15 billion, $14 billion, $13 billion overage because of COVID this last year, or so we’ve been told.

If I add that back into the previous estimate, now we’re talking about an allocation of $7.5 billion towards health care — $4.8 billion to $7.5 billion. That’s a big swing. If I was sitting as a board member around a table and my CFO brought that to me, I would say that’s a huge risk for any organization to take, especially when it’s government taking taxpayer dollars.

To the Minister, is it $4.8 billion, roughly, or is it $7.5 billion because the pandemic is still here?

[4:50 p.m.]

The Chair: I just want to remind all members to make their comments through the Chair and not address the ministers directly, once or twice, in the discussion. Thank you.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member clarifying for everybody in this House that B.C. Liberals do support continued support for those on the front lines.

It is unfortunate that there were members who spoke about not supporting the bill, so I would imagine that there could be some understanding around how that would be interpreted. Certainly, when it came to a vote, there was somebody who did not support the bill passing. But I’m really grateful, very grateful, to hear the clarifi­cation from the member opposite around their support to ensure that folks continue to get paid.

I also want to point out that the estimates book is relevant. It outlines where government spends money. It does. It lists all the various component parts that are in the budget. It’s in here. so that’s still quite relevant.

Certainly, over time, this last year we had to come back to this House to ask for more to make sure that we could continue to provide the health care that people needed, to make sure that we could take care of the mass vaccination program. The line items are here, and that’s what’s relevant. That tells you what we’re spending on, and that’s what I think really, really matters to British Columbians. We are using this to inform people about what we’re spending on. Now, how much we need is the $12.3 billion that’s laid out here.

Now, the member does ask a really interesting question. What if you need more? What if it’s not enough? Well, we certainly saw what happened this last year. The pandemic threw everybody for a loop, not just us here in British Columbia but around the world and around the country. I mean, everyone has had to respond.

If by some chance we needed to come back to the House to say things have gone sideways and we need to make sure that we continue to support British Columbians, we would come back to this House. We would call all the members, just like we did last year, and have the discussion and the debate about what we needed more resources for, to make sure that British Columbians had what they need so that they could be safe in their homes. That’s what we would do.

R. Merrifield: Okay. What I’m hearing is that if there’s not enough in this, the minister will come back and ask the House for more, another blank cheque. Hmm. Okay. Of the COVID funds that are in this $4.8 billion, how much is attributable to personal protection equipment?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to remind the member that there’s nothing blank here. We’re very specific. When we came back for supply, we were again very specific. There’s no such thing here as a blank cheque.

It is a cheque, perhaps. I don’t use cheques anymore. But we are very clear. There’s nothing blank here. It’s $12.3 billion. In fact, it’s $12,305,108,000. That’s not blank; that’s very specific. I want to just, I guess, remind the member that the details are right here in the bill. If she wants, I’m sure the critic could supply her with the page which the numbers are on so that she has it. She doesn’t have to suggest that it’s blank. It’s not.

Now, the member did ask about a very specific line item. I’m sure the Minister of Health is also jotting down this note and expecting that it will be asked in estimates around how much money — I believe it was for personal protective equipment — is being designated. That’s a very fine, specific line item. We will ensure that we can continue to provide that important equipment to everyone on the front lines, everyone in the health care front lines.

Again, this supply bill is providing a lump sum to government to continue doing what we have been doing, which is to keep people safe. The member can certainly reach out to the Minister of Health, who I’m sure would provide — probably to the penny, knowing the Minister of Health — exactly what’s being spent on personal protective equipment.

R. Merrifield: Perhaps the minister could indicate exactly how much we’ve got allocated to the vaccination program, as the vaccination program will have to be…. Oh, wait. We’re already in the midst of the vaccination program. Perhaps the minister could indicate how much we’ve got of this $12.3 billion, or four or five — I lost count — that is allocated.

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, $12,305,108,000 is what’s being requested here.

Again, I know that the minister would be very happy to report out in estimates exactly how much the vaccination program is costing specifically. Again, this supply bill provides us with a lump sum so that government can continue the operations, continue those vaccinations that are happening as we speak.

I want to say that the posts that I’m seeing in social media and the phone calls I’m getting from my dad and some of his friends around their excitement about getting their vaccinations are joyful and provide so much hope to so many. It is for that reason that we are before the House saying we need supply to ensure that we can continue to roll this out. I look forward to all the members of this House supporting this bill going forward so that that important work can continue.

R. Merrifield: I guess I’m curious. What happens if we get more vaccine allocated to us? If our supply suddenly increases, how does the minister anticipate that eroding the $12.3 billion?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m not quite sure what the member is trying to get at, but I’m not anticipating any challenges with that.

R. Merrifield: So that vaccine is actually articulated in this budget already, the vaccine rollout. Whatever progress we make, however fast it goes or however slow it goes, it’s all articulated within this $12.4 billion?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The specificity with which the member is asking the questions is certainly more appropriate for an estimates debate, to understand exactly how much is spent on very specific programs.

I have every confidence that what we have before us, in terms of this request, will be able to continue the vaccine rollout and continue to provide services to British Columbians. Again, if the member is suggesting that somehow things don’t go as anticipated…. God forbid there is another big surge or things go sideways. If we have learned anything from this year, it’s about how unexpected things happen, and you need to be responsive.

If we needed more resource to take care of British Columbians, we’d be back in this House, having more discussion. Right now we know that this is our best estimate for what we need to carry through those next few months. It is a process that has been used historically, that helps us to make a best guess, and I look forward to having this pass in the House.

A new budget will be brought in April 20. I’m sure we’re going to have robust debate. I’m sure the Minister of Health will have many, many questions asked by the member from Kelowna, who will, I’m sure, have lots to ask him. I’m sure he’s looking forward to providing her with the details for every single program, and I’m sure he will give her the specific details that she will be asking about.

R. Merrifield: The minister makes an interesting worst-case scenario. I have one question here, and that is: what if there is a third wave? Oh, wait. What if we’re in the middle of a third wave? Hospitalizations are up, our ICU count is up, our case count is up, and our positivity rates are up? So what if we are in the middle of a third wave?

At the same time, we are getting more vaccine than we previously expected, we are booking more people than we previously expected, and we are employing other positions and people to give vaccines than previously expected. It all, to me, sounds like we’re already in the middle of some pretty big numbers.

Again I’ll ask: have these increased costs — the ones that would take us to the $7.5 billion or the $8 billion number — been counted in this $12.4 billion?

Hon. S. Robinson: Like I said earlier, this is a best guesstimate, estimate, based on what we know to be true in this moment. We’ve also learned, and this last year has taught us, that we need to be flexible and adaptable. It has kept us in a good place here in British Columbia.

The fact that everyone came to the House, the fact that we put up TV monitors so that we could do our work safely, showed British Columbians that 87 individuals can come together and make decisions with their best interests in mind. If we needed to, we would do it again.

R. Merrifield: The minister brings up a really good point about being flexible and adaptable. It’s an excellent point, and I would agree.

[5:05 p.m.]

I would also, then, ask: how much of the $12.4 billion is flexible, adaptable, and part of a contingency plan that British Columbia needs to get us through a third wave and a vaccine rollout?

Hon. S. Robinson: Like I said, this request for $12,305,108,000 is a lump sum request based on three months of spending. That, based on what we know to be true today, will carry us through.

In 3½ weeks, we’ll be presenting a budget, and the member can — she’s already writing down her questions, I’m sure — ask the minister as soon as the budget is tabled. We’ll have opportunity set aside to ask the minister specific questions about spending on different parts of the plan.

In the meantime, what we are asking the House to do in terms of supporting this supply bill is to make sure that we have the ability to spend on the things that the member has read off of her notes that are important — the mass vaccination that’s going on; paying for the nurses, the doctors and the health care workers on the front lines; making sure that we can continue the work of government.

If things should go sideways — it’s happened, and we have all experienced sideways; I’m tired of sideways, and I know that everybody here in this House is tired of sideways — we are prepared to come back to this House and do the work that we need to do in order to continue to take care of the people of this province.

R. Merrifield: One of the biggest costs of this last year — or increases of costs, I would say — outside of COVID-related specific aspects of the Health budget was the surgical restart program, $250 million allocated to restarting B.C.’s surgical program. We’ve got $187.5 million of that spent, with more coming in this next year. But that was exceptional. That was moneys that were not anticipated in the budget previous.

I would ask: where are those funds located in this $12,304,108,000 budget?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again I’ll say to the member that the $12,305,108,000 that is in the supply bill is a lump sum that allows government to continue the work that it is currently doing so that the items that the member is referring to can continue over the next few months. I’m sure she will have ample opportunity, as part of estimates…. I know the member has yet to experience her first estimates. She’ll have tremendous fun, I am sure, and learn a lot.

[5:10 p.m.]

I have been in that role, and I learned tons when I was a critic. I learned a lot, as will she and any other new member of the House. I would encourage those to watch other people’s estimates because it’s a real opportunity to see how other people do it. She will get the specific answers from the minister, who I am sure will have a very detailed and full response for her.

R. Merrifield: I do know that my other colleagues are waiting, so I will use this as my last question.

I do agree with the minister. I have taken great pleasure in note-taking through six years of Health estimates, so I want to commend those of you on that side of the House for the job that you did in estimates.

I definitely want to go back to — and I’m going to take this full circle — what I started with, and that is I’m going to talk about the front-line workers. We haven’t talked about COVID fatigue funding for any of the front-line workers. We haven’t talked about the health care professionals that are still yet to be hired and should be hired within the next six weeks in terms of where we’re at. We haven’t talked about how much of this budget is relating to the nursing staff, and we certainly haven’t talked about the training that’s necessary for the ICUs.

I recognize that the minister has shuffled me over to the Minister of Health and estimates, but these are issues that are going to have to be addressed within the next six weeks, not six months. So I ask my final question. How much of the $12,304,108,000 is allocated to the increase that was necessary in terms of providing for front-line workers?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member continues to ask about how things are portioned out. I have explained how things work with the supply. I want to point out to her…. She seems to think that the budget is being presented in…. I think she said six months. It’s actually 3½ weeks that the budget will be presented. She will certainly have ample opportunity to ask those very good questions to the Minister of Health.

T. Stone: I’m pleased to stand now and ask a number of questions of the Minister of Finance as well. I intend to focus my questions on a range of issues that relate to economic recovery, jobs recovery, with a particular emphasis on programs and supports for people and for small businesses.

I think that the minister would agree that we all came together to support an extensive package a year ago of $5 billion. We then all supported supplementary estimates in the summer. We supported the need to ensure that these critical supports and programs were funded.

The challenge that we have been trying to highlight as an opposition is the reality that a lot of the economic recovery programs that the government has brought forward, for lack of a better word, have been botched. They’ve either been far too late to make a difference for a lot of small businesses in particular or the funding has been structured in a way with eligibility requirements that meant a lot of organizations, a lot of small businesses were not eligible to receive a lot of this money.

I guess as just an initial general question — I’ll ask more specific ones in a moment — as a general sort of starter question here, the small business recovery grant has had to be retooled several times. It’s been a year. We did approve $2.2 billion for business supports back a year ago. That was then reduced down to $1.5 billion in September, of which the small business recovery grant was a $300 million component.

[5:15 p.m.]

An election then got called, which further delayed getting these supports out the door — and, as I mentioned, really stringent eligibility criteria wrapped around that program.

My question to the minister would be this: in light of the fact that a number of these economic recovery programs have been so significantly bungled and botched, what rationale does the minister think makes sense for British Columbians to trust that the government knows what it’s doing with this, in this particular section 2 appropriation request, $12 billion and change?

How can the government be trusted with this when we still don’t…? I think the confidence of a lot of British Columbians is shaken, that they’ve been able to effectively and efficiently push dollars out the door quickly to those who really need it, particularly on the business side, with the billions of dollars that have already been approved by this Legislature.

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, the member starts with a starter question. I thought: “Well, I’ve been here for hours. I don’t know. Maybe he’s starting, but I’m certainly not starting.” I do appreciate the smiles all around, and I appreciate the member’s question.

Again, we have looked at, in this bill before us…. We have identified how much resource we need going forward with existing programs. This is what we’re asking the House to support us on in terms of continuing to deliver.

I don’t agree with his assessment, but that’s not what we’re here to debate right now in this very moment. He’ll have lots of opportunity to talk with the minister responsible, who I suspect is taking notes right now in anticipation of what’s to come once the budget is tabled April 20. I’m confident that the member will ask that very question of the minister responsible.

T. Stone: In terms of a number of these programs, which have been seriously lacking in their effectiveness and their speed at delivery of dollars to businesses that really need it….

I’ll go through a number of scenarios, or a number of the concerns, that we’ve heard. I’m keen to understand if the $12.3 billion in section 2 that we’re being asked to appropriate, if any of these dollars will help fix some of the problems that are being encountered in these programs.

The first question would be this. We’ve heard from a number of summer tourism businesses that typically don’t operate in March. They don’t have an operating period to compare to when it comes to qualifying for the small business recovery grant. Will these funds that we’re being asked to support here be, in part, used to perhaps trigger an eligibility change that would enable a broader range of summer tourism-related businesses to actually become eligible for the funding that still remains in this program?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I’ll say to the member that the bill before us is about making sure that we can continue to roll out programs that British Columbians depend on. Whether they’re….

The previous member was most interested in the front-line workers in the health care system. This member is interested in making sure that programs are there for those businesses that have been hard hit by COVID. This bill before the House is about ensuring that we can continue to deliver the important programs that people have come to count on.

With that, Mr. Chair, can I ask for a five-minute break?

The Chair: Yes, you may. We will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:21 p.m. to 5:25 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

T. Stone: I appreciate the minister’s high-level response, which we’ve heard a few times now today. But I do think it’s fair and right for us. She keeps saying she remembers being a critic, and she acknowledges the importance of asking the questions. I think it’s valid for us to understand the best that we possibly can and for the minister to be as forthcoming as possible with details in response to the questions that we’re asking.

I’m particularly concerned about a range of government supports, economic recovery supports for small businesses, that have really been lacking. I just asked about the seasonal tourism businesses. I certainly will check in with the minister in estimates when a new budget is brought in, but we don’t have that new budget in front of us. We have the old budget in front of us, and we have supplementary estimates attached to it, so I can only ask the Finance Minister these questions, and I think they’re entirely appropriate.

I’ll try again. We continue to hear from a number of small businesses around the province which are not eligible — still, to this day — for dollars in the small business recovery grant program because there are still two eligibility requirements in place that restrict them from accessing the funds. One, they must still have been in business for 18 months as of date of application. And two, they have to also demonstrate that they were profitable in 2019 in order to be considered eligible for funding in this current fiscal year.

The problem with that is, on the first point, there are a lot of businesses that, if you kind of wind back 18 months from now…. I mean, the pandemic has only been with us for a year. I say only. I mean, it’s been a long year. But it’s been 12 months, not 18 months.

There were a lot of entrepreneurs and small business folks that pursued their dreams and invested everything that they had to start a business, whether that be a deli or a boutique or some other business, and they started it just before the pandemic hit, or a few months before the pandemic hit us in February, March last year. They have suffered the economic consequences of this pandemic, from a business perspective, as much as anyone else, and it seems to me and to them that this line has been drawn in the sand that leaves them on the wrong side of the line insofar as receiving the supports that they need.

Likewise, the requirement to be profitable in 2019 puts every business into the same box. It says that the circumstances that relate to each business are all the same. Well, that’s not true. If you were a hotel, for example, that undertook a major renovation in 2019, looking forward to reopening, with great fanfare, likely, in 2020, only to then not have had the foresight to know that a pandemic was coming…. So you’ve incurred all this cost. You’ve shown a loss on your financials for 2019. You’ve got a shiny new product ready to go for 2020. The pandemic hits, and you have no customers and no revenue. That business is not eligible to access the funding.

Again to the minister, is there a component of this $12.3 billion that we’re being asked to support here today, in section 2, that is intended to assist, to broaden the scope of these programs, of this program in particular, to enhance the eligibility in the manner that I’ve suggested here and that I’ve highlighted such that a whole bunch of businesses out there that have been hit just as hard as others would subsequently be eligible to receive the much-needed funding that they need in order to survive for the months ahead?

[5:30 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: Member.

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome back to the chair.

If I could just pause for a moment and reflect, it reminds me of when I was in labour with my daughter, and I went through three different changes of nursing staff because it was a day and a half of labour. It feels like this is a day and a half of ever-changing Chairs. It just sort of dawned on me how long we’ve been here.

I want to thank the member for the question. Again, what we’re debating here in front of the House is a supply bill. It’s a supply bill that asks for an appropriation to give government the authority to continue to support British Columbians. The member speaks to this support that our government has been delivering for businesses. This question before the House now in section 2 of this supply bill, which is to ask for $12,305,108,000, is to provide government with an appropriation to continue to roll out those programs.

We are eager to pass this supply bill, to get it through committee, so that we can continue to provide services and we can continue to provide supports. I know that the members are looking forward to April 20, when we have a budget tabled here in the House and all members can ask very specific program-related questions of the appropriate ministries.

T. Stone: I find it interesting that the minister uses a phrase like “the supports for business” that this government has rolled out. I mean, it’s been a year. We were in this very place, a select group of us, on March 23, 2020, and signed off on a $5 billion support package for people and business — $2.8 billion, if I remember correctly, for people and $2.2 billion for businesses.

We then waited and waited and waited for the government to finally launch its StrongerBC economic plan in September, one week before the election was called. The $2.2 billion in supports for business also got downgraded to $1.9 billion. There’s been no full accounting of that discrepancy. Then the Premier calls an election and delays everything for several more months. So let’s not suggest that this government has been expeditious and effective in its support of small business.

British Columbia has taken longer than almost every other jurisdiction in the country to roll out direct supports, cash in the jeans, for small business owners so they can keep their lights on. Then you get into the actual details of the programs. The small business recovery grant had an initial budget of $300 million — again, approved in September of last year, a week before the election was called.

Of course, the government only existed nominally, so it’s not like there was a grand advertising or marketing campaign to let businesses even know that this program existed. Those that did find out about it quickly determined that the eligibility criteria were very restrictive, with very restrictive revenue-loss requirements, very restrictive requirements across the board that left a lot of businesses out.

[5:35 p.m.]

I remember being in this chamber in December and asking the Minister of Jobs and the government questions about the eligibility requirements and urging the government to change those requirements. They did make some minor modifications to the requirements in December. We said: “It’s not going to be enough.” Fast-forward another couple months, and a few more changes were made — again, changes that we had been calling for.

All the while, there are all kinds of businesses out there that haven’t made it. They’ve actually failed. They’ve closed. They’ve shut their lights off forever. One wonders how many of those businesses could have made it if supports had actually been rolled out in a timely fashion.

I want to ask the minister’s view on this. All through that process of us urging the government to loosen the eligibility criteria of the small business recovery grant as well as extend the original deadline — because, the minister knows well, the original deadline was March 31 — for the expiry of the program, we were trying to shine a bright light on the fact that in December or January, we were sitting at about 10 to 15 percent of the total $300 million funding in this program actually having been sent out the door, with the obviously overwhelming balance still sitting in the program accounts.

One of the things we urged government to do was to extend that deadline from March 31 to whatever date into the future. That would ensure, as the fundamental principle here, that every single dollar in this program was to get pushed out the door as quickly as possible. Having an artificial deadline of March 31 didn’t make sense.

The Premier is on the record, for a heck of a lot of January and February, saying: “Nope, the deadline cannot be extended.” He lectured us on accounting rules. “The deadline has to remain firm on March 31. Let’s all tell small businesses about the program and encourage everyone to apply, but we can’t move the date for this program. If there are any funds still there at the end of the day on March 31, the funds get sucked back into general revenues.” The Premier said that over and over again.

Then, magically, as if to spot a unicorn on the front lawns of the Legislature, poof, that all of a sudden disappeared. The Jobs Minister and the Premier announced that the application date has been pushed out to August 31, I believe. Maybe it’s September, but it was pushed out significantly.

My question to the minister is: how was that able to be done when the Premier said that it couldn’t be done? Are the funds for this program…? It is now at $345 million, I will acknowledge — $345 million total in the recovery grant program — of which I understand only 25 to 30 percent is out the door as of today. It’s tough to get numbers on a regular basis, but when we get them, we get them.

Are those dollars contemplated within this $12.3 billion? Or the extension of this program, pushing it out — is that part of previous supplementary appropriations? Could the minister provide some clarification on that, please?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member started out by talking about how small business owners put everything on the line. They do.

I come from a small business family. My mom and dad started a small business here in British Columbia — brought us out here from Montreal. I remember, certainly, the experience, as a young teenager, of having the office at the back of the so-called den, which wasn’t the den — it was sort of the semi-office — and how we all worked and helped build a business that was successful enough to certainly support my siblings and I. Now my sister owns and runs a business. So her family is benefiting from that.

I certainly do appreciate how families put everything on the line and that when the global pandemic hit, it was and is precarious for many business owners. But I want to be really clear that from the outset, we were clear, as a government, that we would support small businesses. Right away, we brought in immediate relief.

We cut property taxes and deferred others to reduce the pressure. We prohibited commercial evictions. We forgave three months of hydro bills. We worked with the federal government to provide a wage subsidy and commercial rent program. We are providing non-repayable grants, because businesses have been clear. They’ve been telling us that they can’t afford to take on more debt. We’re offering incentives for businesses that bring back or create jobs. We’re waiving sales tax on new equipment and machinery to help businesses adapt and grow. We’re helping businesses pivot online and sell their products through e-commerce.

Since this pandemic began, our government has been working with the business sector to identify the most effective and efficient ways to support businesses through an unprecedented time, one that none of us, frankly, anticipated in any meaningful way or really understood — how this pandemic would turn our lives upside down. The fact remains that our government has provided more in per-capita contributions to businesses and people than any other province in the nation. And we’re going to keep doing what we need to do to support individuals, to support businesses and to support communities.

It’s within that context that I think it’s important to recognize that we have continued to be there for businesses. We’re going to continue being there for businesses. More pointedly, to the member’s question around this bill in front of us and the $12.3 billion appropriation that is before the House right now, which the members on the other side have supported — they’ve already said that they support the bill, with their voice vote on second reading — the dollars for that specific program are absolutely considered in this request.

T. Stone: I would be curious to know where the minister is getting the data to make the claim that British Columbia is supporting businesses at a greater level than any other province in the country. I will throw some data points out for her to chew on that I believe demonstrate that British Columbia is a laggard in the level of support that it provides to business.

The latest StatsCan numbers indicate very clearly that the level of support for business in Canada…. When you look at the major provinces, Alberta has invested, to this point, $1,387 per capita on business supports. Ontario, to this point, has invested $486 per capita in business supports.

[5:45 p.m.]

British Columbia, according to Stats Canada, has invested $291 per capita in business supports. I don’t know how that makes us a leader in the country at standing shoulder to shoulder with small businesses.

Here’s a different set of data in the same time period. This looks just at direct grants-in-aid. This one is put out by that right-wing, free enterprise, capitalist-loving organization, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives: Ontario, $507 per person in direct grants-in-aid to business; Alberta, $485 per person in direct grants-in-aid to business; Saskatchewan, $454 per person in grants-in-aid to business; and British Columbia, $196 per person in direct grants-in-aid.

Grants-in-aid is really where it’s at for a small business. The minister can tout all of the tax credits and deferred taxes that she wants. Obviously, she’s entitled to do so. But coming from a small business background myself…. And the minister says she grew up in a family of small business people as well. She knows, and I know, that what matters in a small business is cash. Cash is king. If you don’t have revenue coming in, you can’t pay property taxes. You can’t pay for your utility bills.

Deferring those items may be a good gesture, and it may work for some. It doesn’t work for a heck of a lot when you have no revenue coming in. And that is certainly what we’ve been seeing, obviously in hospitality and tourism and restaurants and events businesses, and on and on the list goes. I know we’re going to continue to challenge the government, urge the government in the days, weeks, months, years ahead to focus on that direct aid, that direct support that is so desperately needed by small businesses.

With that in mind, I’m just wondering if the minister can…. She just mentioned, in response to my previous question, that the small business recovery grant program, the funding for that carrying on, is indeed part of the $12 billion and change that we’re being asked to support here today. So can the minister please provide a current update on how many dollars of the $345 million in this program, as of today, are actually out the door and in the hands of small businesses that are struggling across the province?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question. It is a question that is most appropriate to the minister responsible for that program. The member knows that full well. I don’t have up-to-date numbers here because we are debating a supply bill, a supply bill that says to this House that we are asking for an appropriation to continue these very programs over the next number of months.

I am sure that the member is going to continue to support this bill moving forward. The sooner we can do that, the sooner we know and have confirmation from everyone here in this House that we have the supply needed to continue doing the work to support businesses, to support people.

I think it’s important to remember that it’s people that are behind businesses. So when we talk about supports to businesses, we also need to remember supports to people too, that that also helps people in their business. So it’s in that context that I think it’s important to acknowledge the amount of resource that this government has provided to people here in British Columbia.

I just want to remind the member that he has an opportunity every day to ask that very question in question period of the minister, to get the specific numbers. So there’s easy access. I look forward to…. Perhaps tomorrow in question period, that’s what’s going to be asked.

[5:50 p.m.]

T. Stone: Well, we are here in supply, being asked to support $12 billion that, in part, by the minister’s own acknowledgment, is to fund or continue the funding of critical programs like the small business recovery grant.

She has an earpiece, and she has a whole battery of officials that are listening to every word of this back-and-forth. So the answer to the question is at the member’s fingertips. It’s in the member’s ear. I’m, frankly, disappointed that she would refer me back to the Jobs Minister on a piece of information that she should have readily at her fingertips.

I will ask this question, though. As the Minister of Finance, as the person who is ultimately responsible for every penny this government collects and every penny this government spends — knowing full well the small business recovery grant program was funded with money from a year ago, was launched as a program six months ago and has $345 million in it, of which, to the best of our understanding, only 25 percent has actually been pushed out the door — is the minister satisfied that the performance of this program is appropriate and adequate, and if not, what is she prepared to do? What is she doing to get the balance of these dollars out the door as quickly as possible?

Hon. S. Robinson: The ministry that the member refers to — the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation — is doing everything they can to make sure that they are supporting businesses with this grant program. It is my expectation, as the Minister of Finance, that they will be doing so in a responsible way, making sure that it gets out to those who need it and can make use of it. That’s the expectation.

I have every confidence that that work continues and will continue for a number of months, making sure that we continue to support businesses. It’s with that in mind that we have this supply bill in front of us so we can keep doing that work. That’s my expectation.

[5:55 p.m.]

T. Stone: Well, not exactly a resounding statement of confidence in the effectiveness of the program. I would suggest that the focus be unrelenting in this ministry, and in hers, on making sure that the couple of hundred million dollars that are still in this program actually get out the door. Not this late spring, summer, fall, but get it out the door.

Is the minister in the process of ramping up the folks that are evaluating applications in this ministry, that are providing whatever assistance the Minister of Jobs says may be required to expedite approvals faster to actually get through a larger volume in a shorter period of time? My understanding is that there’s a significant backlog of applications, which, on one hand, is a good thing. Obviously, there’s been a lot of awareness about the program now, so there’s a lot of businesses that are applying.

There have been some changes to the eligibility. It would seem that the main challenge now, aside from those few items I mentioned earlier on eligibility, is figuring out how to push these applications through the system as fast as possible. I heard again, this morning, from a number of businesses that said that if they aren’t successful — they’ve been waiting for, in some cases, four to six to eight weeks — they’re not going to make it to the summer. They really need this support.

What measures is the minister either undertaking or prepared to undertake to ensure that every resource that could possibly be thrown at this is so that these dollars are actually pushed out the door to support these struggling businesses?

Hon. S. Robinson: I know that the minister and his team are working diligently and quickly to get these dollars into the hands of those that need them. That is certainly the expectation of the Premier. It’s my expectation as Minister of Finance.

It’s also the expectation of the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation to deliver as quickly and as responsibly and as efficiently as possible. He’s doing everything he can. He has certainly demonstrated, and the ministry has demonstrated, flexibility in terms of, as the member opposite alluded to earlier, changing the criteria — and then, of course, notes that the applications sort of flooded.

They are moving as quickly as they possibly can and making the changes that they need. They have that flexibility to do that. However, they do that internally to make sure that these dollars get out the door as quickly as possible.

T. Stone: I want to turn our attention to a couple of other pieces quickly. The increased employment incentive, which was announced last year…. It was mentioned again in the throne speech in December. It hasn’t yet opened up for applications. Its stated application opening date is March 2021.

Well, we’re three-quarters of the way through the month of March, and the program is still not open. So I would like to know if the minister can confirm that funds remain for this program, that no program funds have been repurposed and that the estimated cost of the program, which I understand to be about $190 million — that that budget remains unchanged.

I guess wrapped around all of that is: could the minister confirm that this particular program, this $190 million, is included within the $12 billion we’re being asked to support here in section 2?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The funds for this program are part of the appropriation.

T. Stone: The minister can confirm that there will be no repurposing of funds from this particular program and that the budget remains as it was announced previously, $190 million?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, this program was announced and received funding back in December. We are continuing to be committed to the program, and this bill before us is about making sure that we can deliver on that program.

T. Stone: Appreciate that. Can the minister confirm that the PST rebate on machinery and equipment — which, again, is set to kick in on April 1 — is still intact and that that is fully accounted for?

Hon. S. Robinson: I guess the short answer is that that is still a program that we’ve announced and we’re committed to.

I want to remind the member that we are debating an expenditure bill, and what he’s asking is a revenue-side query. I’m not quite sure how that fits into this bill. If the member has another question, I would be happy to hear it.

T. Stone: Well, the supplementary estimates are supposedly attached to a budget. We think that we should be debating a current budget, not the budget from a year ago. But, yeah, entirely appropriate.

I’d like to move to the community economic recovery infrastructure program. This is a program that has provided a wide range of investments in community-based infrastructure.

[6:05 p.m.]

When you certainly look at the most current list of all of the investments that have been made, certainly, it’s hard to quibble with a roof for a community centre or a boardwalk or critical infrastructure. You do see the broad gambit of infrastructure need across the province.

The unfortunate reality, however, with this program is that it’s fully tapped out and no longer accepting applications. The program is closed. Millions of dollars were allocated to a wide variety of projects, including, to our astonishment — and, I think, a lot of British Columbians’ — a $645,000 single-use toilet in the city of Vancouver.

Now, I completely agree and support the investments in additional public washrooms. No question about that. Furthermore, far be it from me or anyone in this chamber, frankly, to dive into the spending decisions of the city of Vancouver. I think that’s an issue for the taxpayers of Vancouver and the city of Vancouver to discuss amongst themselves.

It does, I think, rankle a lot of people that, in the context or against the backdrop of so much need — when you hear of all kinds of non-profits and large organizations like Science World, the Vancouver Aquarium, the art gallery, many worthwhile organizations that are still waiting for support, that were promised support and haven’t received anything — this program is now closed. Even against the backdrop of the overdose crisis in Vancouver and the massive need there.

Then you find out that this exact toilet, which is called the Portland Loo, has actually been purchased and installed in several other municipalities in British Columbia. Esquimalt, I believe, put one in, in 2019, at a cost of $150,000. That included all the utilities — the sewer, the water, the foundation and the landscaping. The city of Prince Rupert, I believe, has secured one for even less than that. Maybe it’s a little bit more than that, but in the range of $150,000. And then you look at a $645,000 cost for a toilet in Vancouver.

The question is this, I guess — twofold. Are there no evaluation criteria, when going through the multitude of applications that come in from organizations, that would red flag a request from an organization for an expenditure that is extremely hard to justify when other municipalities have purchased the same toilet and installed it for one-third of the cost? You have all of this other need out there. What controls are in place in the assessment, the review and the ultimate determination of a go or no go on applications that are submitted in this particular program?

Again, if we’re talking about $12 billion here of additional supplementary estimates…. The minister keeps saying that this is because the need is there. I understand that. I agree with that. I support it. I voted in favour of this bill, of this supply act. But I just don’t think that many people understand how a $645,000 single-use toilet, against the context that I’ve just described, could possibly be ap­proved.

Maybe the minister could outline, kind of, that evaluation process and what controls are in place to prevent this from happening. What changes has she ordered across government for different programs, many of which are funded out of this $12 billion? What changes has she directed be implemented to make sure that these kinds of funding decisions are not made, moving forward?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s queries in terms of accountability.

I know that the ministers responsible, all the ministers, are eagerly awaiting estimates debate — queries about their programs, queries about how they deliver for British Columbians, queries about why they’re choosing this program and not that program, queries about how come it’s this much money for that program and only that much money for this program. That is certainly the work of the opposition, to query the ministers about their specific programs, and I know that they look forward to that conversation.

The member does ask good questions. I know that the minister would be happy to answer those questions, whether it’s in question period or whether it’s as part of the estimates debate. Right now, what’s before the House is part of committee, and clause 2 is whether or not the government has access to $12.3 billion in order to keep the important work going, whether it is making sure that teachers are there to support our children learning in this challenging environment or taking care of those folks who find themselves without a roof over their head and need shelter.

That’s what’s before the House. I look forward to ongoing debate once we present the budget and have the opportunity to go through these programs line by line.

T. Stone: We did ask these questions in question period the other day, and we weren’t given an answer. The minister skated right past the question.

As I said a few questions ago, ultimately, the Finance Minister is responsible for the public’s finances — every line item of every budget. At least, that’s how it worked under us. I know that the Finance Minister, now the member for Abbotsford West…. There wasn’t a single penny that he wasn’t completely aware of and on top of. Those accountabilities existed and were very, very important.

If the minister is suggesting that’s not the same kind of relationship that she has in the context of her colleagues, I would find that very interesting, but it’s why I’m keen to understand the minister’s view on this. Believe me, these questions will get asked in estimates once we have an actual budget in front of us with current information, reflective of current circumstances.

[6:15 p.m.]

I think taxpayers have the right to know — again, in the context of this supply bill today, as the minister says, a continuation of government services — what controls are in place to ensure that there is some level of evaluation being undertaken that takes into account the type of expenditure that we’re talking about here today. Even in non-pandemic times, even at a time when we’re not talking about supplementary estimates in the billions — to flow dollars as quickly as possible to businesses and people — very few people would say $645,000 for a single-person toilet in a park makes much sense. Maybe a $200,000 toilet makes sense. It did in Prince Rupert. Or a $150,000 toilet in Esquimalt. But $645,000?

The Finance Minister is responsible for the finances of this province. The minister sets the tone. The minister directs the others to adhere to a level of expectation around budgeting that every minister must adhere to.

Again, I’d like to know what the minister’s view is on this particular project. Does the minister feel that $645,000 was a good expenditure of provincial taxpayers’ money? If not, has the minister made a clear direction to her colleagues that she expects there to be a much greater degree of diligence and oversight on this wide range of grant programs, including this one that we’re talking about specifically, to ensure that these kinds of expenditures just don’t happen, particularly when there’s so much need that is not being met.

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, as a Finance Minister, I make it very clear to all of my colleagues about what my expectations are, in terms of how spending happens under my watch as Finance Minister. I make it very clear that my expectations are that they do their work diligently, that they do it thoughtfully, and they only spend as necessary. That is the expectation, I think, of every Finance Minister. I don’t think I’m unique in that way. I think any Finance Minister would expect that of the ministers.

The member provided context around: “Given that there’s such great need, you would think that there would be a certain kind of balance.” I would argue that regardless of need, the expectation is that we’re good stewards of the public purse. I think I certainly have that frame. I, too, watch very carefully every penny that gets spent, because it’s not our money as government. It’s our money as a province. It belongs to the people.

The expectation is that every program that is administered by this province and by this government — that every dollar that is spent is spent wisely and spent thoughtfully and that there is a reasoned approach to how grants are delivered. For all of our grant programs, whether it’s community gaming grants, or through infrastructure grants, or even through the jobs recovery grants, there is due diligence put in place. Grants are reviewed. They are assessed against selected criteria. Determinations are then made based on those criteria.

[6:20 p.m.]

I expect that the member is going to continue to ask the minister for the specifics on this grant and other grants, I would imagine. That’s the job of opposition — to hold government to account, to make sure that we’re using the criteria that we established and that the administration of these grants is done fairly as well as with good oversight. I want to assure the member that that is very much in place and will continue to be in place. But if we don’t get through this committee stage, it will certainly be challenging to continue delivering for British Columbians.

I look forward to additional questions as we proceed through…. I hope we’ll get through clause 2 in short order. Perhaps not. We’ll be back tomorrow to do the remainder of this bill.

T. Stone: The community economic recovery infrastructure program is one of a number of programs that haven’t been continued, or at least they’re closed at the present time. The minister acknowledges that there’s a tremendous amount of need that’s still out there.

I’m curious if the minister could explain what the rationale is. What are the decision points that have come into play to determine which programs are to be renewed and replenished and which programs are just left closed? This community economic recovery infrastructure program is a pretty significant piece of economic recovery and resilience in every corner of the province. It’s closed.

Could the minister provide some details on what goes into that rationale in determining which programs will be extended and replenished and which ones are to remain closed?

Hon. S. Robinson: I certainly appreciate the question and the query, having had the file as the minister, working with local governments. I know the member opposite was the critic on that file and can appreciate that communities look forward to opportunities to deliver. Local governments look forward to opportunities to deliver for their constituents.

We’ll be tabling a budget on April 20, and there will certainly be opportunities to discuss new programs and opportunities that lie ahead as part of getting through the pandemic and looking forward toward a recovery.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:23 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:24 p.m.