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; N. Letnick in the chair.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

On clause 2 (continued).

M. Bernier: I’m just trying to recap a little bit. Of course, we had the lunch break. Before the lunch break, we were just talking about process. We were talking about the history, I guess we could say, and process around how supply acts have come in, in the past and how we see this different this time. This leads us into a lot of the questions that I’ve been asking. I raised a bunch beforehand, before lunch — a lot of the discussion around the increased taxes and the choices that this government made.

The minister acknowledged that the government does make choices. Even though we may differ on opinion on some of those choices, as she acknowledged, they are government. They get to make those choices, and then they’re accountable for those choices.

I am still, though, a little perplexed. The minister sounded like she was saying in her comments right before lunch, if I can recollect, that as of April 1, we have some taxes that are going to be going up here in the province — taxes that the minister acknowledged were being deferred because of the COVID-19 pandemic. But for some reason, government feels that it’s now a good time to start raising taxes.

Is the minister saying, because of that, that she feels that we are substantially out of the pandemic now? I know that we are all excited because the vaccine is starting. But for the minister to say that yes, she’s okay with taxes going up in some areas on April 1, which were deferred because of the pandemic…. Is she saying that we are basically out of the pandemic now, which is why they’re okay to start charging people more money?

Hon. S. Robinson: Budget 2020 included a couple of these measures. A tax on carbonated sugary drinks is one of them. The other one is on digital services, which the member alluded to.

In March, when the budget passed, these were to come into place last April. Given that we were fresh into the pandemic, so many unknowns…. I recall — I was the Housing Minister at the time — that the unknown was really…. I’m sure the Speaker recalls how frightening it was for everybody. We were all under…. It felt like a siege, I think is the word. I see the member nodding. It felt like a siege. Hunkered, really, in place, as best we could — those that could. Trying to make sure that everyone was safe.

The House was called back — only those who sort of made their home here or who could travel here in a safe manner — and did an incredible job of trying to figure out how we support people to get through this. It was a really, I’ll say, frightening time for everyone — not just here in British Columbia, but certainly around the country and around the world — because we knew so little. We didn’t know what the impacts were going to be, whether physically, in terms of what our health was going to look like…. We also didn’t know what it was going to do economically. We didn’t know how long it was going to be.

I want to remind the member as well that, at the time, when there was talk about needing a vaccine, it was going to be two to three years away. That, I remember, was also frightening to think about. How do we keep each other safe, keep our families safe?

[1:40 p.m.]

It was in that context that the previous Finance Minister said we were going to defer on these taxes. We were going to wait until the following year. We’ve learned a lot. We can see the resilience around us. We see how this House is functioning. We’ve certainly learned a lot.

I can appreciate the member sort of suggesting that maybe we’re out of the pandemic. We’re not. We can see the light at the end of the tunnel, as everyone calls it. We’re still in the tunnel. The member agrees: we are still in the tunnel, and we are all hopeful for what comes out when we all come out the other side of the tunnel.

It’s within that context that the extension to defer certainly wasn’t taken, but we still have a long way to go. I look forward to continuing to work with the members opposite, as we work together to continue to help people get through this pandemic, and build out a road to recovery.

M. Bernier: Although I want to acknowledge the comments that the minister just made, we did come in here, collectively, because there were a lot of unknowns. We did come in here and have that discussion. I would argue, though, right now to the House, that we still have a lot of unknowns. I would state that, from what I hear from people in the public, there’s still angst. There’s still uncertainty. Yes, there is hope. But we don’t know how long that tunnel is.

We’re in the middle of a process, without being able to give people clear answers of when we will be back to whatever normal is. I’ll reference, maybe, anything prior to COVID-19 as being “normal.” How we get back to that and the changes that will be made are yet to be seen. I do find it interesting, just because we are starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel, that government is choosing, as of April 1, to start raising taxes in certain areas.

It begs one to think that they’re doing that solely because of the deficit that they find themselves in, in a situation where the minister is going to be presenting a budget, just a short three weeks after that. I won’t go into the whole discussion, before lunch, of really not having a clear understanding of where the finances in the province are. We will find out soon enough. There is that understanding out there that we are in a deficit, that there is a hole, and that that hole continues to be dug. At some point, government needs to start filling it in. We understand that; at least, we hope that. We need to move forward.

I do want to ask the minister, then, is she so certain that we are now close to the end of that tunnel, that she feels confident enough to start raising taxes on people, starting the end of next week, when we still don’t know what the future holds?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member has suggested…. He keeps coming back to somehow not having a sense of where our economic situation is. All he has to do is go back to the economic update that I provided in December. There’s lots of detail in there around what we’re facing fiscally, what the deficit looks like, based on those December numbers. That’s certainly available to the public. It’s available to the member, to provide him with the details up until that time.

[1:45 p.m.]

We are continuing, of course, to monitor how things change and evolve. If anything, I have to say this pandemic has taught us a lot. I’m sure this is a shared experience by many British Columbians and members of the House. It has certainly taught me about resilience. When you think that things are not doing well, normal gets turned upside down, and then you see how you adapt. I mean, I’m always amazed.

I hope the Chair doesn’t mind that I hold up my mask and acknowledge how quickly we have all adapted to carrying this with us, putting it on when we move, making sure that we’re keeping each other safe by using them, how we’ve learned to take off our glasses when we put on our masks so that they don’t fog up — or, if they do fog up, how to just live with it. I’m looking around at the members who pretty much all wear glasses in here and all the nodding, except for the Chair, of course — perfect vision.

It’s about how we’ve adapted to that. I remember a year ago thinking: “We’re going to wear masks?” Then we’ve adapted. I think about how businesses, as well, have adapted, how they’ve pivoted, some doing incredibly well.

There’s a business in my community that transformed…. I remember getting the phone call from them at the end of March last year. They made those big dog beds, and have an assembly line for doing that production. He realized that he needed PPE, and he was going to transform his business to do that. We were able to help him identify who he needed to speak to with the federal government. We were able to help facilitate access to some capital. Lo and behold, in my constituency, he is now producing medical-grade PPE and is growing his business by leaps and bounds, because he’s been able to adapt and has demonstrated resilience.

There are countless stories like that around the province and around the nation. It’s something we can all be proud of. We’ve also seen that it is different today than it was last March. Again, I want to remind everybody about the huge job losses that were seen and felt last spring, in March and April. They were significant, and it was heart-wrenching for those that were, certainly, most impacted. It was important that government step in to help those folks stay safe. That was the most important thing I can certainly remember from those few months.

What’s also interesting to note, because we’ve had a year of living like this and adapting and demonstrating our resilience, is that we are continuing to see ten consecutive months of job gains. The numbers are 99.4 percent of pre-pandemic employment levels. What that tells us is that we are a robust province with robust peoples, who are incredibly resilient. In fact, we’re seeing that in some regions employment is above pre-pandemic levels. In Prince George, it’s at 106.7 percent, and in Kamloops, it’s 103.3 percent. That just tells you that in some places there’s some real action happening and activity happening.

As the member rightly points out, we are not yet through the tunnel. We know that there’s more to come, and that provides me with incredible hope and incredible optimism about what’s to come. We are not there yet; there’s certainly more work to do. We know that there are certain groups that have been more greatly impacted by the pandemic than other groups. We know that women, particularly women of colour, young people and young women, in particular, have been more impacted by the impacts of COVID. We also know that there are some industries that are much more greatly impacted as a result of COVID.

[1:50 p.m.]

There’s a ton of work for us to do still, going forward. Again, I want to come back to the fact that we have learned so much over this last year. It’s based on all of that information that we are continuing to do the important work.

Back in 2020 with the budget, there was an announcement of these taxes. It was a decision of government, for sure, and it continues to be a decision of government. We deferred it for the year. But again, I want to point out that British Columbians have it better now, from a tax regime, than they had back in 2017. That’s significant.

I want to provide one more detail, I guess, for the member in terms of analysis. A family of four where the family income is about $120,000 pays the lowest amount of provincial income tax in Canada.

With that, I think it’s really important to recognize that British Columbians are resilient. They have decided that they want a government that puts them first and puts their needs first and is responsive to making sure that they have the health care they need. They want to live in a just society. We’re going to continue to deliver that.

M. Bernier: I was making a few notes while the minister was talking, giving a response to my question. She keeps referencing the fiscal update last December. I can reference that. But she’s asking for money now, four months later, and asking me to use a reference point…. We mentioned before lunch about history. This isn’t much different.

Back to the point of having a document tabled in the House that’s relevant to that time and that date, it sounds like the minister is trying to say to this House that nothing has changed in the province, worse or better, that nothing has changed since last December. That’s the document now she says that I can get my information from.

I’m well aware of that time, that day, that presentation, if we can call it that, that the minister put forward in her fiscal update and the fact that, in my opinion, we might have differences of opinion on this. But it wasn’t a holistic quarterly report, as laid out in the act. Even on that day, when the minister was giving her fiscal update, she said: “The path forward is uncertain.” She said again, if I remember from that day, that there’s a high degree of uncertainty around the COVID economic impacts. Again, that was four months ago.

The minister, when she did her December update, I think was very careful to say that these were approximations, estimates, because things were evolving and things were changing. I can’t remember everything the minister said that day, but that was the tone of that fiscal update. Now the minister is asking me to use that update as a reference point of certainty, when in the minister’s own words, she was saying we’re not certain.

I do also find it interesting, in the minister’s last response, where she is, in my opinion, insinuating that people can now afford a tax increase because we’re at a point where…. Yes, they deferred increases. They announced increased taxes. “But don’t worry. We won’t charge you yet.” They now try to take credit for deferring them for a year, as if that’s something the people of British Columbia are going to applaud.

[1:55 p.m.]

“My taxes are going up, but thank goodness they didn’t go up 12 months ago. I’m okay if they go up now, even though we don’t know if the pandemic is over.”

I mention those two taxes. Maybe I’ll ask another one. In the document that we’re referencing from 13 months ago that we’re using as the basis for the borrowing, for the spending, for the next three months that government wants to do, it’s my understanding they also deferred to announce that starting April 1, the carbon tax is going up again in the province of British Columbia by another $5. Can the minister correct me if I’m wrong? Is the carbon tax also going up in a short ten days?

Hon. S. Robinson: Like I said before, in Budget 2020, there were a number of taxes that were announced, that were debated in the House, that were discussed in the House and that passed in the House. Based on the lack of certainty and the fact that the landscape of what we knew to be true had changed so dramatically, like I said in my previous response, is how well we’ve adapted.

Again, I agree with the member opposite: we are not quite yet through the pandemic. There is a ways to go. People are sort of, I understand, placing bets on when emergency orders will be lifted. Is it going to be August? Is it going to be September? Is it going to be October? We don’t know, but people are hopeful. They can see and they can start planning. That’s the thing that I’m noticing now is that people are starting to plan. They’re starting to plan their lives. They put so many things on hold. That feels good.

So we are in a different place. We’re in a very different place than we were last March. We are, absolutely. There’s no more runs on toilet paper. I see the member sort of questioning that, because apparently there was a container ship in the Suez that got stuck and apparently there might be another run on toilet paper because of that. But that’s a different story around toilet paper shortages.

Again, this is what we were living with a year ago. It is different today. It’s very different today. We need to also remember that that, too, contributes to how governments make decisions. So it was decided a year ago to delay implementing those taxes to April 1, 2021, which is a week from now.

[2:00 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Not to put words in the minister’s mouth, I believe what she was saying was yes. Yes, the carbon tax is going up at the end of next week. Yes, there are additional taxes that are going to be implemented on the people in the province of British Columbia while we still are uncertain of when restrictions will be lifted, when more people can get back to work — where businesses will actually know what their fate is.

I also want to maybe just say, on the record, that I don’t think the minister was trying to encourage people to run out and clean off the shelves of toilet paper again just because of a tanker that might be stuck. Just want to put that on the record. Please don’t go out and do that again. That was an oddity that we saw.

But I do want to, again, just say…. I won’t argue the fact that 13 months ago we debated in this House the budget estimates for the fiscal year of 2020-21. I won’t argue the fact that government came in shortly thereafter and said that that document is already, in essence, obsolete, because we are now finding ourselves in a global pandemic where governments here, nationally and around the world have made choices around how they will deal with the difficult situation. I won’t argue the fact that all three parties came here in collaboration, worked together to ensure there were more funds to help people who are struggling through that.

I will, however, argue that there’s a lot of angst and a lot of frustration added with the hope out there, because people don’t see when restrictions will be lifted. People don’t know for certain — the next month, two months, six months or, for that, the next year — how it’s going to look. I don’t think the minister herself, with all due respect…. She would acknowledge that she doesn’t know, either, how it’s going to look economically in the province, how people are going to deal with the lockdowns and the frustration that they’ve…. Thankfully, the majority of the people have managed to adapt through this, all in different ways, but the mental well-being of people has definitely been pushed to the test through this.

So I find it interesting that the minister has acknowledged that even though nobody, with certainty, can say how things are going to look for the next year, the government is confident enough to say that they can still start raising taxes, starting at the end of next week, on the people here in the province.

We have been hearing from businesses, from the tourism sector and from the small mom-and-pop operations, whether it be the little corner grocery store or even a home-based daycare, that people are still struggling. People are trying to figure out how to survive and pay the bills. An increase in taxes at a time when people are still trying to figure out if they can even stay in business seems a little ill-thought-out at this time.

So maybe I’ll ask the minister, because I put a specific…. She’s already acknowledged now that those are three taxes that are going to be added or going up starting at the end of next week, before the budget is being presented April 20. Are there any other increases, fees or taxes that are going to be announced on April 1, or even between now and April 20, that people should be prepared for?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, first of all, I want to provide comment on the member’s preamble to his question around people needing support. That’s why we brought in the recovery benefit. It’s there for British Columbians. This was for middle-income and lower-income British Columbians to get some additional resources into their pockets as soon as humanly possible.

I’m proud to tell the House that, as of March 25, 2,415,820 British Columbians have received the benefit. That’s $1,184,368,126.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Robinson: The member asked me to repeat it. So I’m happy to repeat that 2,415,820 British Columbians have received the benefit. That amounts to $1,184,368,126 that has not only gone into British Columbians’ pockets, but more than that, they’ve taken that money out of their pockets, and they are spending that money in our communities.

So when the member talks about the corner grocery store, when he talks about the local florist or the neighbourhood pub or the other merchants in communities right around the province, people are taking that resource, and they are going out and they are spending it.

I think back to the real impact that it has on people’s lives. I heard from a friend who called me just after her 75-year-old mom went online. She was nervous about going online to make her application. She did it. She said it took 15 minutes. Within three or four days, lo and behold, her $500 was in her bank account. My friend, who was telling me about this, said the best part of all of that was that her 75-year-old mom had reached out to two of her 70-plus-something friends. They were having a Zoom meeting and developing a plan of where they were going to go in their community, which merchants they were going to go to, to spend this recovery benefit.

What that meant to them was that they were going to have an outing, which they desperately needed for their own mental health and well-being. They could get things that they needed around the house. They could spend money in their communities, which was good for the local businesses. That’s the choice that this government has made, and it’s making a real difference in people’s lives.

M. Bernier: In all fairness to the minister, those were choices that all of us made, all three parties made, when it came to the COVID recovery benefit. That was supplementary estimates No. 3 that the minister brought forward, that all three parties agreed that at this time we needed to invest that extra money.

[2:10 p.m.]

I will, however…. And not to take away from the numbers completely that the minister just presented in the House, our expectation was when we approved those funds, that those funds would actually go out the door. So I’m glad to hear that at least some of it, and a good percentage of it, has.

I think it’s incumbent on me to remind the minister, though, of the frustration that so many people had and are still having when it comes to this COVID recovery benefit program. I still, to this day, am getting hundreds of phone calls and emails from people who applied in December, who have still not received those funds. That is problematic.

My challenge, if I can word it that way to the minister, is for her to take that back and look into this. There are people, like the minister said, that took that $500 that they got and spent it in the local economy, in their communities. That is great, but there’s a lot of unfortunate stories of people who were expecting that money by Christmastime so they could pay for Christmas, or people who actually put money on their credit card for Christmas, thinking they were getting the money and now they have to pay that back. They’re still waiting.

There’s other people that told me that they used their rent money for January, assuming they were going to have that $500 by Christmas, and they’re still waiting. They’ve had to negotiate with their landlords to not kick them out, or to not penalize them and to not keep going after them, because they’re waiting for government money.

Although I do want to acknowledge that the program was there to help people, it hasn’t been the 100 percent success that the government tries to wave that flag about. There are still challenges. There are still people waiting, and there’s people needing help still.

Now, back to my question, though, that the minister seemed to avoid, as we went into her preamble and her comments around the COVID recovery benefit — which I was going to ask at a later date, but I won’t bother now.

My question was…. The minister acknowledged that we have a carbon tax, the carbonated water tax — I call it the Netflix tax; the minister can call it by its technical term — going up April 1. My question was: are there any other fees or taxes that are going to be going up between now and April 20, before we see the budget, that people should be prepared for?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to assure the member opposite that we continue to deliver on the recovery benefit. It is available and open for application until June 30.

I also want to let him know that 90 percent of all applications are automatically approved. Sometimes there is information missing or it’s not consistent with records, so we do need to confirm information. So 78 percent of those, where we needed information, have been approved. We continue to have hundreds of additional staff on the job to move quickly through the process, so we’re continuing to do that.

I also will let the member know, in terms of his questions, that there’s no additional taxes that will be brought forward before April 20.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:14 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

[2:15 p.m.]

Standing Order 81.1

SCHEDULE FOR DEBATE
ON BILL 10

Hon. M. Farnworth: I had not expected or had not hoped to do this. I had hoped that we would have been able to reach an agreement in terms of finishing today, but we were not able to. So that is as it is. Therefore, I move that:

[Pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 (2), all remaining proceedings related to Bill (No. 10) intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 2021, be completed and disposed of at or before 4:00 p.m. today.

That, at 3:30 p.m., if Bill (No. 10) is at Committee stage, the Chair shall forthwith put the question on all remaining clauses, the preamble, and the title of the bill, without further amendment or debate, which shall not be subject to a formal division call, but which may be taken in accordance with Practice Recommendation No. 1. Once the question on the title of the bill has been resolved, the Committee shall rise and the Chair shall forthwith report the bill complete with or without amendment, as the case may be, to the House.

That, once Bill (No. 10) has been reported to the House from Committee, notwithstanding Standing Order 80, Standing Order 81, or any Standing Order or Sessional Order relating to times and days of the sittings of the House, the question on all remaining stages of the bill shall be put forthwith without amendment or debate.

And that, if a division is called on the motion for third reading of Bill (No. 10), notwithstanding sections 5 (2), (3), (4), (6) and (7) of the Sessional Order adopted on March 1, 2021, the division shall proceed forthwith 20 minutes after it is called.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, you heard the motion….

Member for Abbotsford West.

M. de Jong: My recollection….

Mr. Speaker: Just a second. Hold it.

M. de Jong: It’s not a debatable motion. I just seek clarification on that.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the vote is about to take place.

Division was called. Members, pursuant to the sessional order, the division will be held in 15 minutes.

[2:20 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, we will now proceed with the division. The question you have already heard.

[2:35 p.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 51
Alexis	Anderson	Bailey
Bains	Beare	Begg
Brar	Chandra Herbert	Chant
Chen	Chow	Conroy
Coulter	Cullen	Dean
D’Eith	Dix	Dykeman
Eby	Elmore	Farnworth
Fleming	Glumac	Greene
Heyman	Horgan	Kahlon
Kang	Leonard	Ma
Malcolmson	Mark	Mercier
Osborne	Paddon	Ralston
Rankin	Rice	Robinson
Routledge	Routley	Russell
Sandhu	Sharma	Simons
Sims	A. Singh	Starchuk
Walker	Whiteside	Yao
NAYS — 24
Ashton	Banman	Bernier
Cadieux	Clovechok	Davies
de Jong	Doerkson	Furstenau
Kirkpatrick	Kyllo	Lee
Letnick	Merrifield	Milobar
Morris	Oakes	Olsen
Paton	Rustad	Shypitka
Stewart	Tegart	Wat

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 2:39 p.m.

The Chair: Members, I’m just going to ask if we can take a recess. There’s lots of action in the House right now. If you can finish things up, that would be great, and we’ll get started in, shall we say, six minutes.

The committee recessed from 2:39 p.m. to 2:50 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

On clause 2 (continued).

The Chair: Members, we will be bringing this committee back into session. Thank you for your patience. In this House, six minutes can feel longer than that.

M. Bernier: Sometimes six minutes can feel like an eternity in this House.

Apologies to the minister’s staff. I appreciate them coming back to assist through this little bit of miscommunication. Obviously, the plan was to continue to ask questions on Bill 10 and in section 2. I have lots more that we could have done.

It’s unfortunate that the House Leader for government had to come in and force time allocation, basically telling me I can no longer ask all the questions I have because they want to move forward and go home. This is unfortunate because I think, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, I had a lot of questions that we wanted to continue asking. The people of B.C. are still asking those same questions: what is the plan of this government? They’re asking for $13 billion based on an old budget. There is no plan going forward. The minister says we’re going to see it April 20.

So, we just had a vote on this. Obviously, the opposition and the Third Party voted against time allocation, because we collectively have a lot of concern. It’s a little bit of a slap in the face of the democratic system when we’re being told we can no longer ask questions on behalf of constituents.

But with that…. Before that started and before we were interrupted for time allocation, we were talking about the situation we find ourselves in, in the province right now with COVID. The minister has acknowledged that they feel that we are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, that we’re far enough through the tunnel that it’s okay to add and increase taxes starting at the end of next week, even though we haven’t seen the budget of why they need those taxes. We can all assume we know why government needs that money, when you start looking at the hole and the deficit that has been dug over the last couple of years under an NDP government.

I’m worried also that the minister is setting a little bit of a precedent here. The minister has been saying it’s because of COVID that the budget is delayed. The minister has been saying it’s because of COVID that all these other programs are ongoing, which is fine, but the fact that we had to delay the transparency…. I know the minister will argue that word. But we…. Again, I find it interesting that all of the arguments that the government is using, the majority of that is because of COVID.

My question then to the minister is…. We have both acknowledged in this House that we’re not through the pandemic yet — that it is continuing, that we don’t know when it’s going to end. We don’t know when the restrictions are going to be lifted. So my fear is that we might have a little bit of a precedent being set this year with the delay of the budget.

Now, we can wordsmith that. The minister will say it’s not a delay. She brought forward legislation to change the timeline, but the delay is actually there from previous practice of this House.

[2:55 p.m.]

So, if we are still in the pandemic come next December, January, February, if we are still in a situation…. The minister might say it’s hypothetical, but I think it’s an important question to ask. If the restrictions aren’t lifted, and if we’re still, possibly, even — God forbid — going through a third wave, does this set a precedent now for the minister to come next year and say: “We are still in a pandemic, so I am going to be delaying bringing forward a budget. I’m going to be changing the process again because we are still in a pandemic”? Or are things going to revert back to somewhat a past practice?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to remind the member that the law was changed. It does say April 30 in an election year. You have up till April 30. That’s to provide the cushion, like we’ve seen here, where you have a pandemic, and you do need the extra time. Now, we have taken a look at what we needed to put together a budget, given the context of the pandemic, and we’re able to get it done by April 20. That makes it ten days before the deadline for presenting a budget.

The other part of the legislation says that in a non-election year, the budget needs to be presented in February, which has been the tradition of this place. So the member can expect a budget next year according to the legislation.

M. Bernier: Those are very interesting comments from the minister, because they a little bit contradict everything we’ve heard for the last three, four days — that the budget was delayed because of the pandemic. Now the minister is saying the budget was delayed because they changed the legislation, because it’s an election year.

It would have been so much easier, as we were just talking about, if the minister, four or five days ago, just came out and said: “Look. We admit it. We chose to call an election. We knew that would create delays. That’s a choice we made as a government, and we stand and support those choices, and the voters have spoken.” I sound like I’m giving the minister’s speech for her here.

Those are choices they made. But it’s hard for the minister and this government to say: “We changed the legislation, in case of an election year, to give us more time to present a budget.” The budget is now being presented late, and when we’re questioning why it’s late, the minister is saying: “Because we’re in a pandemic.”

[3:00 p.m.]

That’s actually not the case. The budget is late because of an election. That’s what the legislation basically says, if I understand the minister correctly. She says that next year, even if we’re in a pandemic, the budget will be coming forward in February.

My question was: if we’re still in the middle of a pandemic, maybe in the third wave, and things are the same next year as they are now and the budget is able to come forward next February, one now has to assume the only difference is an election? So, contrary to what the Premier has said, an election did cause delays then.

I’m trying to understand. Which is it? The government can’t have it both ways. If we’re going to have a budget next February and we’re still in the middle of a pandemic, why couldn’t it have been done in February of this year if the only difference — it sounds like — was an election being called?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think that the member didn’t hear what I said in terms of what the legislation says. The legislation says in an election year this is the outer date. It’s based on that that we recognize that there was that built-in buffer, and we said the pandemic is creating additional pressures because the legislation from the summer said March in an election year. We looked at that and said the pandemic is creating additional pressures.

Future election years, out three more years, when our government wins again the next election — the Minister of Finance will have the opportunity to look at the legislation — take a look at the outer date, which says that it must be delivered by April 30 — and can identify a time before then to work with her new team, because I think women finance ministers are a good thing, and work together with her cabinet and with her caucus and with her team and put together a budget that meets the needs of British Columbians in whatever context we are in four years from now.

It is a buffer that we have seen that we needed because the pandemic created additional extra pressures. You know what? In earlier questions, the member raised the recovery benefit, and I shared with the member the specific details as of…. I think it was March 24 that I provided the latest numbers to all members of the House.

The amount of time it took staff to build that program, the biggest program that this government has ever seen in its history, and to deliver it…. Certainly, in the early days, there were some challenges. We worked those out. We brought in extra staff. It’s those same people who also need to work on building a budget. It’s the same staff. That creates significant pressures internally to run all the numbers, to gather all the data and to inform government about what’s going on.

I’m sure the member can appreciate that it’s been a difficult year for the public service. They have done an outstanding job. I know that members in this House are grateful for their work. We also need to acknowledge that we can’t break the very people who work for us. That was also an important consideration. What would it mean to, in recognition of all of the extra workload….

It’s not like any of us predicted this pandemic and we could prepare for it and hire extra staff and make sure that they had the resources, make sure that we had a robust enough Internet system that would deliver in all the ways that we needed to — because we’ve certainly struggled with that as well.

I know British Columbians, at times, have been frustrated, but I also know that they’re appreciative of all of the extra work that’s gone in, in order to make sure that people had what they need. Well, those are the very same people that work with government to make sure that we understand all the assumptions and all of the information that goes into building out a budget.

[3:05 p.m.]

Putting in that buffer, because of the pandemic, was absolutely critical to make sure that we didn’t have people off on stress leave, to make sure that people could get accurate information that would inform government about how to best proceed with the budget.

I know that the members care about the people that work in this place. It’s for that reason that we said: “You know what? We need to make sure that the legislation considers that.”

I’m very proud of the work that the people speaking into my ear — the work that they’ve been doing, the work that the entire ministry has been doing, and all the ministries have been doing in order to put forward their best efforts to work with my staff, my team, to put together a budget that will work for British Columbians.

It’s within that context…. I think that we need to recognize that doing the budget instead of before the end of March, which was the old legislation, and saying you had until the end of April in an election year and the fact that, in consultation with staff, we determined that we could do it by April 20 was a reasonable timeframe with which to deliver a budget. It’s within that context that we landed on April 20.

S. Furstenau: My colleague and I, the member for Saanich North and the Islands — we’ve watched and listened and sometimes weighed in on this debate several times over the last many days, and just noted some interesting themes, I guess.

Going back to the first day, when the member for Peace River South…. Really, the first question — and it’s back to the question that’s being discussed right now, which is what impact did the snap election have on this process, on the timing. We’ve been spending many, many days kind of moving around that. I think what I’ve found interesting is that the minister always has a choice in how she can respond to or frame or create a narrative around everything that’s happening.

We are, for the first time in a very long time, faced with an interim supply bill, without a throne speech, without a budget. I think we can agree on some of the…. It’s like a court case. We can agree on some of the facts here. This is an unusual set of circumstances that we are in, that we are looking at an interim supply bill based on a previous year’s budget. That’s very unusual. It’s not a typical set of circumstances, that we won’t have a throne speech or a budget until after the end of the fiscal year. That’s also very unusual. Exceptional circumstances.

Yes, we are in a global pandemic. Yes, there have been enormous strains on everybody. But as has been pointed out — I think in December, in the debates we were having as well — for a lot of people in British Columbia, there was no opportunity for delays. You’re getting your taxes filed, you’re getting your taxes paid to the province. You’re paying your bills on time.

There is this capacity that a government has, as has been done, to bring in changes to legislation, to change the kind of parameters that we operate under. That’s what’s happened. That’s what has brought us here to this debate over this interim supply bill, and both the official opposition and we have raised our concerns about this.

I think in some ways it would be okay to acknowledge there were political choices made. It’s a political realm we’re in. There was a political choice made to call an election in the fall. For ten weeks, there wasn’t work. The government was in caretaker mode. The work that would have typically been done for those ten weeks in the fall — which is budget preparation, which we’re well aware of and we’ve participated in since 2017 — that came to a halt. Now we are ten weeks plus past what would have been the typical deadline.

[3:10 p.m.]

I think in light of, again, our electoral system…. This shifted the percentages between the parties — not by that much, actually — and resulted in a majority for the NDP based on 45 percent of the popular votes, and not the majority of voters. This is what our system delivers — these false majorities. There’s a level of defensiveness about the situation we’re in and a kind of unwillingness to just own it.

“Yep, called an election. We got the majority we were hoping we were going to get out of that election.” Be honest. You’re a political party. That’s what happens with political parties. That’s the goal in the system that we have. So much of my colleague from Peace River South’s debate and his whole thread of questions would have actually been curtailed at the very beginning of this had that been the first response — just to say: “Yeah, actually, that is what happened.”

I wonder at the kind of reluctance to be honest and upfront about that. What story is being created instead of that story that the vast majority of people can see and accept and recognize? That’s the political system we live in. Because of our electoral system, parties are motivated, just as we’re seeing right now. As we are apparently, it looks like, moving into a third wave, the federal parties in a minority are all jockeying. The Liberals want to go for an election and get that coveted majority so that they don’t need to have to work with other parties to move their agenda forward.

I guess my question is really to the minister about that unwillingness over these many, many days to acknowledge that elephant in the room. Yes, there are circumstances, but we’re also here because of choices that were made in the fall. Had we not gone to an election, we would have had a budget presented in February. We would be debating that budget in estimates. We wouldn’t be having this lengthy debate on this.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for her question, because it allowed me to check in with staff around some dates and how decisions were made last summer. I think some members may have forgotten about some of the work that happened last summer that was about changing the legislation to accommodate a fall election, an October election.

At the time, when the legislation was brought in…. And about how much time would be needed, when there’s a fall election…. That’s what we were debating at that time — how much time would be needed to bring in a budget — and it was acknowledged that March would be sufficient.

There was an election called in the fall. The pandemic created additional pressures that were not anticipated in that initial debate back in the summer. Staff were rolling out significant programs. Their ability to work and get done what needed to get done was going to be stretched considerably. People were already working 15- or 16-hour days, working on weekends. I was getting emails. I know my colleagues were getting emails from the hard-working public service on Sunday afternoon, midnight on Tuesdays — significant work.

I know that the members care about the people doing the work. When we talked about getting budget ready for March, which was required at the time for a fall election, the message was: this is going to be really hard. It’s going to break people. I know that nobody here in this House wants to break the people that do the work that we ask them to do.

It’s within that context that we recognize that the pandemic is pushing everything to the limit. It could be four years from now…. There could be something else that pushes people to the limit. Making sure that there is appropriate time to do the important work, to get it right, is something that we need to make sure that there’s room for.

Now, I appreciate that the member acknowledges — and I acknowledge — this is unusual. I’m not denying that. It’s absolutely unusual to be asking for supply in this context, using last year’s estimates. But it is an unusual time. It’s for that reason that we’re bringing in this supply bill.

S. Furstenau: I want to ask a question, and I’ll pass it over to my colleague from Peace River South. I just wanted to say that there is some irony in the minister’s response that staff, in the fall, were already indicating that they were pressed to the limit, that they were emailing late at night, that they were expressing how stressful things were because of the pandemic, and then the choice was made to throw in a whole new level of turmoil in the form of an unnecessary election.

That is the nub of it — that we didn’t have to do that. That didn’t have to have happen. In the midst of a global pandemic, when staff were already in turmoil — and businesses and people in this province were already hitting a level of stress and anxiety that probably most of us have never felt in our lives — this was added.

I’ll just end with that comment, and I’ll pass it to my colleague.

[3:20 p.m.]

M. Bernier: I appreciate the comments that I’ve also just heard and how we are just trying to get some answers but also bring a level of understanding to…. Yes, things aren’t different. It seems like again, it is an example of government — which has the right to do so; I’ll give the minister this — of changing the rules as they go, to ensure the rules match the objectives of what they’re trying to accomplish.

I want to bring us back to a comment that the minister made a couple of days ago now, I believe. The minister said, “Of course, this is going to pass” — they have a majority situation after the election, so this bill is going to pass — basically insinuating: “Go ahead and ask your questions, but this bill is passing regardless. You’re not going to change our minds.” I get that. The minister also talked about this delay being needed, because of the pandemic, for extra consultation and extra communication with the public.

The Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services tabled a fairly robust, informative document last August 21. It’s interesting what would be different — that the minister is saying that she didn’t appreciate or that was insufficient — in that report, to help guide the budgeting process.

As she knows, there is extensive consultation that takes place on a bipartisanship level — travelling around the province, talking with stakeholders, meeting with groups. As a reminder, that was in the middle of the pandemic, so people were aware of the stresses and challenges. There would be many recommendations and asks in that document, from that select standing committee.

The MLA for Langley East also stood in this House during her second reading debate, was talking about the extra month and said: “Moving the budget to April gives this government greater time to connect with businesses and people.” I am never against — we need to do a better job, frankly, all of us — connecting and listening to the people in the province, who have a lot to say about how the province is run, how it’s governed and how money should be spent on supports that people need.

I find that an interesting quote from the member for Langley East, combined with the minister herself, who said that this delay is to better reach out, communicate and consult with the public. I looked into it. I could not find one public ask, one document, from the minister or the government since February 25 — when the budget would have been tabled, before the changes were made to extend it for a month, by then Minister Carole James — and now the other month.

So February 25 — we’ve gone a month. The minister is saying that that month was needed to do consultation with the public, outside of what the select standing committee had already done. I couldn’t find one advertisement, one document. I could find nothing where this minister and the government have reached out, asking for further public consultation on framing the budget that we’re going to see in three weeks.

Can the minister make a comment to that?

Hon. S. Robinson: I know that the member, once upon a time, sat on this side, and understands that consultation takes many forms. With a significant challenge with the pandemic and understanding needs, because these are not normal times, we needed to make sure that we were engaging with our stakeholder groups throughout this entire time.

[3:25 p.m.]

The member also, I know, knows that it does take a process — once the ministers have done their consultations with their various stakeholder groups, identified what their needs are — of putting together the various submissions that they need to do, making sure that it all fits within the plan, getting it through the processes internal to government, and then making sure that there’s time to actually put the estimates book together. It does take time.

I want to assure the member that there has been significant consultation with various sectors around what their challenges are and how government can, first of all, understand what was going on, understand what was needed and how we can put together a program that would best meet their needs. That’s the work that we have undertaken in this time that we have had to put together this budget.

M. Bernier: Well, we are in a situation where we get to say: time will tell on that.

I see the House Leader — who, I assume, is going to ask me to wrap it up here very quickly and which, again, is unfortunate. I believe I just heard through his mask, and my hearing’s bad…. I think he just said I had another couple of hours. I’m sure he’ll correct me, if I was wrong there, afterwards.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: I am just giving the minister and the House a hard time, because there was, obviously, a motion, which I voted against, for time allocation, saying that I had to be done by 3:30 so that government can continue moving on with what they choose, in stopping the debate on this bill. Maybe I’ll take the last minute or two…. I know the minister will want to probably have the last word on this.

Even though I had many, many more questions that I could have asked on this bill, such as…. Government is asking for a delay because of the pandemic we’re in, but it sounds like, from what I’m hearing, that everybody else — who’s dealing with the exact same pandemic — isn’t afforded the same opportunity. They’re not going to be allowed to delay. I can almost guarantee you that if school districts came to the minister and said, “We need an extra two or three months because of the pandemic” — I know what the answer would probably be.

I also know firsthand, with some authority, I can say, that if a school district fails to hand in a balanced budget on time, as per legislation, there are some very harsh realities that they will face and that could be imposed on them from the minister, and from the legislation, for not doing their job and getting in a balanced budget on time. In this situation, though, the government is unable to do it. Instead, all they do is change legislation to allow themselves more time to do the work.

I just want to finish off by saying…. Well, actually, I want to give a big thank-you to the minister’s staff, who have put up with a barrage, a lot of questions, over the last few days. I thank them for their time for that. I know that they’re probably watching and not just listening through their earpieces. I want to thank them for the work that they’ve been doing, as well, because I acknowledge what the minister said. This has been difficult on all the staff in the public service, no different — sometimes we forget about that — than for everybody else in the public, who are struggling through these times. We all hope and all wish that the supports will be there to help people through this.

We have Bill 10, which is now going to pass — which, as we say, is government asking for a lot of money, $13½ billion, referencing a 13-month-old document. I look forward to the rigorous debates that we’ll go through in estimates when we finally get to see the plan and the budget from this government for the ’21-22 fiscal year, albeit later than traditionally taking place. I know the minister will have her comments on that.

Again, I just want to thank the minister for her patience through this. I respect the answers and the time that she has given, as well, as we go through this process. Even though I don’t necessarily always agree with the answers, I think the debate that we’ve gone through here has been very productive and, hopefully, beneficial for people watching.

[3:30 p.m.]

The Chair: Pursuant to the time allocation motion adopted earlier today, all votes now have to be held. It is 3:30. I will give the minister a short chance to say a word, but we do have the allocation motion to get to.

Hon. S. Robinson: I do want to take a moment to thank staff who have been whispering more than sweet nothings in my ear and helping us through this debate. I, too, want to take a moment to thank, certainly, all the staff who have been delivering but also to thank the member for Peace River South for his respectful and thoughtful questions as we worked through this and to all the other members who participated. I, too, want to thank them for the process. I look forward to debating estimates in the weeks ahead.

The Chair: Pursuant to the time allocation motion adopted earlier today, all votes on Bill 10 will be held now.

Clause 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We will await the arrival of the Speaker.

Yes, Minister.

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

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. Now we will await the arrival of the Speaker.

Interjection.

The Chair: Okay, so the member moved that the bill be reported. I just heard her say that. The understanding of the House is that she moved that it be reported complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:31 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2021

Bill 10, Supply Act (No. 1), 2021, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

Before we move forward, Members, there’s another step in between that we have to take care of. As a result of the vote, Bill 10, Supply Act (No. 1), 2021, is now carried. It has passed.

[3:35 p.m.]

Members, I’m advised that Her Honour is not here yet, but as soon as she arrives, members will be advised. We’ll ring the bell.

The House will be recessed for a few minutes, and we’ll notify you shortly.

The House recessed from 3:37 p.m. to 3:59 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I’m now advised that Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. Please remain seated while we await her arrival.

[4:00 p.m.]

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

Royal Assent to Bills

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly:

 

Firearm Violence Prevention Act

Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2021

Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 2021

Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

Court of Appeal Act

Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2021

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

Supply Act (No. 1), 2021

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

Hon. J. Austin (Lieutenant-Governor): Thank you very much, Ms. Ryan-Lloyd.

ÍY SȻÁĆEL NE SĆÁLEĆE.

It is really wonderful to see all of you today. I can see that you’ve been extremely busy. As always, I would like to thank you for your truly splendid work, conducted in this tireless fashion despite all of the challenges of the pandemic. It means a great deal to me personally, as I know it does to all British Columbians.

I do look forward to the time when I can host you all again at Government House and we can share some personal time together, but I do believe that it will not be long before we are in that place.

Once again, I thank you. I look forward to seeing you, and I wish you every possible success in the time ahead.

HÍSW̱ḴE. Thank you.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until Monday, April 12, at 10 a.m.

The House adjourned at 4:05 p.m.