First Session, 42nd Parliament

(2020) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, December 16, 2020

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 12

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Duane Earle

S. Chant

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Ron McLeod

Hon. B. Ma

William King

Hon. K. Conroy

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

High-speed Internet access and Connected Coast project

M. Babchuk

Kelowna Chamber of Commerce business award recipients

R. Merrifield

Richmond community response to COVID-19

K. Greene

Squamish Chamber of Commerce business award recipients

J. Sturdy

International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers

G. Lore

South Vancouver Seniors Network

M. Lee

Oral Questions

COVID-19 response for tourism industry and report recommendations

S. Bond

Hon. M. Mark

T. Wat

Access to information on COVID-19 in schools and school safety plans

S. Furstenau

Hon. J. Whiteside

COVID-19 response for small businesses

T. Stone

Hon. R. Kahlon

COVID-19 response for restaurant industry and cap on delivery service fees

T. Halford

Hon. R. Kahlon

Child care funding

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. K. Chen

Tabling Documents

Statement of 2019-20 borrowings

Office of the Human Rights Commissioner, annual report, 2019-20, and service

plan, 2020-21–2022-23

Report pursuant to the COVID-19 Related Measures Act regarding Order-in-Council 620/2020

Office of the Merit Commissioner, merit performance audit, 2019-20

CleanBC climate change accountability report, 2020

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 3 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2020 (continued)

M. Bernier

Hon. S. Robinson

S. Furstenau

Reporting of Bills

Bill 3 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2020

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2020

Presentation of Estimates

Supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2021

Committee of Supply

Supplementary estimates (No. 3): Other appropriations

Hon. S. Robinson

M. Bernier

T. Wat

D. Davies

S. Furstenau

T. Stone

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2020 (continued)

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2020

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: N. Letnick.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

B. Anderson: Today I would like to wish my dad, Terry Anderson, a very happy

birthday, and I want to tell you a little story.

Two weeks ago, my dad felt shortness of breath. This is a man who

plays hockey three days a week, cross-country skis hundreds of kilometres

every winter and has built one of the most impressive river rock walls in

Nelson. But due to his shortness of breath, he had a COVID test, which we

found out was negative.

The next morning his condition had worsened significantly. My mom had

to call the ambulance, and my dad was rushed to Kootenay Lake Hospital. He

was admitted right away and underwent a series of tests. Friday night, we

found out my dad was okay. He had a blood clot in his lung, it was

treatable, and he was able to come home.

When my dad and I were talking about his experience, I asked if I

could share it publicly, and he agreed. We wanted to share it because if the

hospital had been overrun by COVID patients, he would have not received the

excellent treatment that he did receive. If our medical system was overrun

by COVID patients, he might not have even gotten an ambulance. Without

prompt diagnosis and treatment, he may be in a very different situation

today. We might not be celebrating his birthday.

So on behalf of my family, I would like to thank the health care

workers — everyone in that building from the cooks and the cleaners to the

nurses, doctors, techs and specialists. Thank you. I would like to extend my

family’s gratitude to every essential service worker in the province. Thank

you for keeping things ticking along and for keeping people safe.

All my dad wants for his birthday is for everyone to follow Dr. Bonnie

Henry’s orders so that we can keep our communities, our families and

ourselves safe.

Today, Dad, happy birthday, and to my mom, Debi Anderson, whose

birthday is on December 26, happy birthday. I love both of you so

much.

Please, I ask everyone in this House to wish my parents a very happy

birthday.

Tributes

DUANE EARLE

S. Chant: I would like to sadly acknowledge and introduce Master Sailor

Duane Earle. Master Sailor Duane Earle is posted on HMCS

Winnipeg . On Monday, he was declared missing from the boat,

when the boat was 500 miles off the west coast of San Francisco,

steaming home to Victoria.

He is a member of the Royal Canadian Navy. The navy is something

that we don’t think about all that often, even though we are a massive

maritime province. Our coastal waters are managed by our Coast Guard, by

our navy, by our fisheries people, by our streamkeepers. Sailors are

posted to either of the two main areas, which are Halifax and Victoria.

The sailors that are posted to the ships in Victoria and to the base in

Victoria call Victoria home, even though they may be from all parts of

Canada.

The naval folks put their days in at sea. We don’t see them very

often. We don’t know what they do. But we need to remember them, because

in a time of need, they are available to us. When COVID started out,

there were ships sent off to sea for six and eight weeks at a time to

make sure that we had people that were COVID-free, ready to act and

ready to go into action so they could bring those ships in and have

skilled workers available to do whatever.

I express my deep sadness and my support to the family of Master

Sailor Duane Earle. I hope we get a good answer back to this story, but

I’m not sure that that will happen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the time.

[1:40 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

M. Dykeman: I rise to recognize Donna Gabriel Robins, who is a member of the

Kwantlen First Nation. Donna Gabriel Robins recently retired as district

coordinator of the Aboriginal program for the Langley school district, after

26 years as an educator. She played a significant role in growing the

Langley school district Aboriginal program into the robust program it is

today.

Last night in her honour, the Langley board of education announced

that the new elementary school currently being built in the fast-growing

Willoughby area of Langley will be named Donna Gabriel Robins

Elementary.

Would the House please join me in congratulating Donna Gabriel Robins

on this well-deserved honour.

Tributes

RON M c LEOD

Hon. B. Ma: It is my honour to introduce a 90-year constituent of my riding of

North Vancouver–Lonsdale to the House today, Ronald Crawford James

McLeod. Born on January 17, 1930, Ron began working at the grain

elevator on the North Vancouver waterfront at the age of 15 and retired

52 years later at the age of 67. He spent his entire life in British

Columbia and explored all corners as a logging truck driver, welder,

millwright and property manager. His second home was on Green Lake in

the Cariboo, where he taught his grandchildren to chop wood and fix

outboard engines.

Sadly, Ron passed away this morning. A caring father, grandfather

and husband, Ron joins the love of his life, Mary McLeod, and is

survived by his three children — Ryan, Diane and Vicki; and four

grandchildren — Ross, Neil, Marianne and Scott Andrews, who is also the

ministerial adviser for the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and

Sport.

WILLIAM KING

Hon. K. Conroy: I have some sad news to share, as well, today. Former MLA William

“Bill” King died on December 3 at the age of 90. He was born in

September 1930 in Tisdale, Saskatchewan. He married Audrey Lennard on

October 10, 1953, and he had two children, Linda and William Jr. He

attended Nelson High School in Nelson and the Labour College of Canada

at the University of Montreal in ’67.

He actually entered into politics in 1943, when he acted as a

runner between polling stations and the campaign headquarters of Bert

Herridge, CCF MLA for Rossland-Trail. He continued to be involved. He

was first elected as MLA to the B.C. provincial Legislature in the

Revelstoke-Slocan constituency on July 15, 1968, in a by-election but

was defeated in ’69. He was re-elected in 1972 when the New Democratic

Party became government.

Premier Dave Barrett appointed Bill as the Minister of Labour.

During his time as Minister of Labour, Bill introduced B.C.’s first

labour code and human rights legislation. He was the first to appoint

women to key civil service positions in B.C. In the general election of

’75, NDP Leader Dave Barrett lost his seat in the Legislature, so Bill

stepped up and served as Leader of the Opposition until Dave returned to

the House when he won a by-election in June of ’76. He was then elected

as MLA for the new riding of Shuswap-Revelstoke in the 1979 general

election.

When he retired, he moved from Revelstoke to the Trail area to be

closer to his family, eventually living at the Mountain Side Village in

Fruitvale.

As a widower, he got a second chance at love when he married his

second wife, Glenna, four years ago. He was very pleased with that, at

86, when he told me he was getting married again. They loved to travel.

They shared a lot of laughter.

In fact, Bill was infamous for not only telling many labour

stories of labour history, but he was also famous for his inability to

tell a joke. He would start laughing so hard as he told the joke that he

never could get the punchline out. He will be sadly missed by his

family, by his many, many friends and his extended family at Mountain

Side.

I ask the Speaker to please extend condolences to his family on

the House’s behalf.

[1:45 p.m.]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

HIGH-SPEED INTERNET ACCESS

AND CONNECTED COAST

PROJECT

M. Babchuk: I rise in the House to congratulate chair Brad Unger and the

Strathcona regional district board; the mayor of Prince Rupert, Lee

Brain, and his council; and the board of CityWest telecommunications, a

company wholly-owned by the city of Prince Rupert, on a very successful

collaboration. They’ve recently signed and finalized a joint venture

contract and procurement contracts that will allow the Connected Coast

project to physically begin its important work in the spring of

The Connected Coast project is an initiative to bring high-speed

sub-sea broadband fibre to 148 landing sites in rural, remote and

Indigenous coastal communities. The project will circumnavigate

Vancouver Island, reach the Gulf Islands and the Sunshine Coast, as well

as communities along the central and north coast, including Haida Gwaii.

Connecting directly into the Vancouver Internet Exchange means coastal

communities and those east of Prince Rupert to Prince George will have,

for the first time, reliable Internet with the required redundancy. This

British Columbia through the Connecting B.C. program.

We have learned from living with the COVID-19 pandemic how much of

a necessity connectivity is to British Columbians. It truly has become

our virtual highway. It is very frequently the way we need to connect

these days, not only between friends and family but also for small

business and industry. It affects so many parts of our lives.

Closing the digital divide is essential to ensure people in rural,

remote and Indigenous communities can enjoy the immense benefits of

modern connectivity, including the ability to learn and work from home,

grow a business or access modern services.

These places are home to vibrant people who care deeply about

their community. I’m excited to see the incredible benefits high-speed

Internet will bring to these regions. I ask the House to congratulate,

once again, our local government leaders for their vision and their

persistence in seeing this initiative finally come to

fruition.

KELOWNA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

BUSINESS AWARD

RECIPIENTS

R. Merrifield: Kelowna — the Okanagan — is an incredible place for entrepreneurs.

The ethos is incredible, but the life of an entrepreneur is not always

easy. In a year when business has been more difficult than ever before,

in dealing with COVID shutdowns; protocols; and, mostly, keeping our

public safe, there have still been some businesses that have not only

succeeded but thrived and some entrepreneurs that have cut through and

innovated. They employed people and made sure that we were on the

cutting edge.

Recently, the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce announced its Business

Excellence Awards. I wanted to give them further recognition here in the

House of their hard work, dedication and celebration of their

resilience. These winners have shown grit, innovation and generosity of

spirit toward their employees and, moreover, their community.

The winners of the Business Excellence Awards of 2020 were: Arts

and Entertainment Award to the Kelowna Pride Society; Rising Star

Business of the Year to Shambhu’s Spice House Cuisine of India;

Marketing Campaign of the Year to Okanagan Bucketlist; Social Leadership

Award to Secure-Rite Mobile Storage; Ethics in Business Award to Inspire

Property Management Ltd; Not-for-Profit Excellence Award to the Bridge

Youth and Family Services Society; Technology Innovator of the Year to

Hybrid Elevator Inc.

Our Young Entrepreneur of the Year was Brandon Panopoulos from TKI

Construction Ltd. Excellence in Tourism went to Big White Ski Resort

Ltd. Inclusive Workplace went to Hampton Pools and Landscape. Small

Business of the Year was Portia-Ella. Mid-size Business of the Year went

to Secure-Rite Mobile Storage, and Large Business of the Year was

Highstreet Ventures Inc. For the second time ever in Kelowna’s history,

the Business Leader of the Year was a woman, Laurel Douglas.

Congratulations to these winners and to all of the businesses in

Kelowna and the Okanagan. I am so proud of who you are and all that you

do.

RICHMOND COMMUNITY

RESPONSE TO

COVID-19

K. Greene: This year has been exceptionally hard on British Columbians, but

the effects have not been felt equally. We may all be in the same storm,

but we are not in the same boats. Over the months since “normal” was

thrown out the window in March, so many caring people have stepped

forward with a helping hand for friends, neighbours and people they have

never met. I am so proud of my community. They have come together in a

time of need.

[1:50 p.m.]

Let’s look to the helpers. Karina Reid started a Facebook group,

Coming Together Richmond. Through the page, people have connected with

resources, donations and countless volunteer hours. When the Richmond

food bank needed volunteer drivers for home deliveries for those with

health concerns or seniors, members of the group stepped up to

help.

In particular, Chris Dinnell, who’d relied on the food bank when

he was a young father, was eager to give back to the community. The

executive director of the food bank has called the volunteers from

Coming Together Richmond a godsend. Nurses from Richmond Hospital have

expressed their thanks for the painted kindness rocks from Steveston

Rocks that lifted their spirits. Shane Dagan, owner of the Steveston

Seafood House, has donated meals to the oncology unit at B.C. Children’s

Hospital and $2,000 to the Richmond Food Bank.

Michael Sachs realized that there was a need for COVID-safe

delivery of challah for families to have at dinners, and started

delivering 40 challah each week with his children. Two children in the

Seafair neighbourhood recently delivered 100 care packages to neighbours

to lift people’s spirits and show how we’re all in this together. St.

Joseph the Worker Parish has created an interactive map of homes with

Christmas light displays to build community and bring cheer to

all.

There are so many more who have worked to lift up those in our

community who need help. Donations and volunteers for our non-profits

are so important, especially in a year of crisis like this one. In these

times of need, we look to the helpers but are inspired to be the helpers

too. I encourage everyone to think about how they can be helpers in

their community too.

SQUAMISH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

BUSINESS AWARD

RECIPIENTS

J. Sturdy: As here in the Legislature, we have had to adapt to virtual

circumstances, so have organizations right across all of our

communities. The Squamish Chamber of Commerce, for example, recently

hosted, online, very successful Business Excellence Awards. The chamber

felt it important to shift award categories to better reflect current

business realities in Squamish: resilience, collaboration and

determination were highlighted. If the nominees are any indication,

there is no doubt that the Squamish business community has adapted to

change and kept on keeping on.

The winner this year for innovation and resilience was Alice and

Brohm for Real Fruit Ice Cream. They somehow managed to adapt their

business model to support ice cream pint delivery. The community

collaboration award went to Under One Roof, an organization that truly

defines collaboration. The team has evolved, over the years, an amazing

project that supports the homeless with food, shelter and community and

encourages participation, because they know that everyone has something

to offer.

The award for youth champion went to Sara Constantin and the

Squamish Dance Centre for supportive and healthy youth engagement and

adaptation to online participation. The Bill Manson Citizen of the Year

Award went to Christine Baker for her work on Squamish Nation affordable

housing and economic development.

Finally, the Sea to Sky Gondola was recognized with the Business

of the Year award. It is truly remarkable what this business has had to

endure, and they’re not out of it yet. Sabotage of the gondola cable —

not once but twice, on top of COVID tourism impacts — is hard to work

into any business plan. The Sea to Sky Gondola is an experience that is

iconic to Squamish and British Columbia, and it’s imperative that we

understand and find resolution to these repeated and targeted acts of

vandalism.

Tough times, but these businesses, amongst many right across

British Columbia, have demonstrated resilience, perseverance and

creativity in the face of significant adversity. Congratulations to all

and a wish for a better 2021.

INTERNATIONAL DAY TO END

VIOLENCE AGAINST SEX

WORKERS

G. Lore: December 17 is the International Day to End Violence Against Sex

Workers. Gender-based violence exists in every corner of our province,

but some folks are more likely to be targeted than others. Eighty

percent of sex workers have experienced harassment. They face higher

rates of domestic violence, and one in five has been physically or

sexually assaulted.

Sex workers who are Indigenous, racialized, two-spirit, trans or

queer, as well as those who work at street-level sex work are more

likely to be vulnerable. When they seek supports, they often face

stigma, are dismissed or blamed. During COVID-19, sex workers have

experienced more violence, have been exposed to the virus while working

indoors, and have lost revenue from live venues. The increased risks

associated with our toxic drug supply have also disproportionately hit

this community.

[1:55 p.m.]

Like so many in our province, however, organizations that work

with and for sex workers have risen to the challenge of the pandemic and

found ways to support their community, while reducing

transmission.

In my community, Peers offers outreach and harm reduction. They

offer drop-in, education and employment. Their work is done with, by and

for sex workers. The Victoria Sexual Assault Centre has recently

received funding to ensure that their one-of-a-kind clinic — which

reduces barriers to access and increases trauma-informed care — stays

open. In Vancouver, WISH, an organization I volunteered with in a

previous life, worked with B.C. Housing to open the first low-barrier

shelter in Canada for women and two-spirit street-level sex workers.

It’s been open for two months now, and it’s open 24-7.

I stand today to recognize Red Umbrella Day and to stand in

solidarity with sex workers, who, like all British Columbians, deserve

to live and work free from violence.

SOUTH VANCOUVER SENIORS NETWORK

M. Lee: As the MLA for Vancouver-Langara, I work with the South Vancouver

Seniors Network, an umbrella group of community organizations serving

seniors. It focuses on strengthening collaborations and initiatives that

support seniors, including mental and physical health supports, grocery

and meal delivery, elder abuse and neglect, caregiver support, and

advocacy, information and referrals.

Participating partners include Marpole Oakridge Family Place, the

Jewish Seniors Alliance, Marpole Neighbourhood House, Sunset Community

Centre, Langara College, South Vancouver Neighbourhood House and more

than 25 other organizations. The network partners meet regularly to

share information and collaborate on initiatives such as seniors forums,

weekly webinars and support for volunteer teams to reach out to isolated

seniors.

With COVID-19, partner organizations have doubled down on

supporting each other’s efforts, including moving more services online

with help from Langara College students, working together to support

food distribution and providing wellness supports through peer groups.

Since the pandemic, the network has hosted over 30 webinars to enable

seniors and caregivers to connect and receive information to deal with

its impacts. The webinars are facilitated by Andrea Krombein, the

seniors outreach coordinator at the Marpole Oakridge Family Place, and

Grace Hann, the trainer and supervisor of peer support services at the

Jewish Seniors Alliance.

COVID-19 has shown us how communities can come together to support

each other, and the South Vancouver Seniors Network is a great example

of it. It’s through on-the-ground, community networks of organizations

like these that we are best able to ensure that seniors, the elderly and

caregivers can get the help they need.

A heartfelt thank-you to Andrea Krombein, Grace Hann and the all

hard-working and caring staff and volunteers with the South Vancouver

Seniors Network — who, in these past months, have been so giving of

their time, effort and compassion to support others. We are a better and

a stronger community because of your efforts.

Oral Questions

COVID-19 RESPONSE FOR TOURISM

INDUSTRY AND REPORT

RECOMMENDATIONS

S. Bond: Yesterday when the Premier was asked to alleviate the anxiety and

concern of thousands of low-income British Columbians, including seniors

and persons with disabilities in our province, by ending the clawback

and in fact confirming that the cuts that he made would be restored and

made permanent, the Premier said the most unbelievable thing. He said

that he would be advocating for that to happen. Well, if that’s the

case, then just who is in charge over there?

Last week we had the Tourism Minister say she’ll advocate for

support for the tourism sector, which they desperately need. Royce

Chwin, of Tourism Vancouver, put it simply when describing the sector’s

position: “The timeline is now. In fact, the timeline is

past.”

To the Premier, when will the tourism sector finally receive the

financial support that they were promised and so desperately

require?

Hon. M. Mark: I appreciate the question from the member opposite. I did receive

the report on December 9. There are seven key

recommendations.

[2:00 p.m.]

When I describe “advocating,” it’s going to work at the cabinet

table. Approval needs to go through a process through treasury. The

member opposite knows that, as a former member of cabinet. Help is on

the way, and we’ll be giving an update soon.

I want to acknowledge that the task force went to work quickly.

They gave us recommendations….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Carry on.

Hon. M. Mark: The task force worked around the clock to get us a report, and I

am working around the clock with the public service and our team to

deliver on those recommendations. Stay tuned. We will have news coming

shortly.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: It’s apparent the task force worked quickly. But apparently, the

minister and the government can’t figure out how to do that. I’m sure

the Premier and the minister have the statistics.

These are small businesses. Many of them are family-run. They lost

their summer, they lost their fall, and now they’re losing their winter.

They are in desperate need of support.

For the minister to suggest she’s working around the clock and is

advocating…. What the sector wants the minister to do is accept the

report, accept the recommendations and deliver the support that the

tourism industry needs — not just today. They needed it

yesterday.

This Premier’s own task force said — their own task force — this

government needs to do a better job of getting the help directly into

the hands of the tourism sector.

The minister has the opportunity today to stand up in the

Legislature and to say yes, to move from advocacy to action. Here’s her

chance to show the sector that she actually means business.

Hon. M. Mark: What the member opposite forgot to mention in the question was

that we are still in the middle of a global pandemic. And right now

everyone….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s hear the answer, please. Members, we heard the

question.

Minister.

Hon. M. Mark: The member opposite is saying that they are desperate. I recognize

that. I recognize that this is a difficult time for everyone across the

province. It is difficult for Dr. Bonnie Henry to deliver a message that

we need to flatten our curve and do our part. We are managing that while

we take sacrifices. The action for the report….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. M. Mark: I am moving as quickly as I can with the public service to move on

the recommendations.

The first recommendation is to match some funds with the work of

my colleague behind me, the Minister for Jobs, Economic Recovery and

Innovation. We are working together.

Stay tuned, Member. News is coming to the industry that I believe

they are going to feel very optimistic about.

T. Wat: Tourism operators need the money now. The word is “now.” They need

help to survive into 2021.

Established in 2000, Super Vacation is one of the largest tour

operators in the province, but the company has had to lay off staff and

are down to only two people in their office. The company just renewed

its Richmond office lease this month and cannot seek rental assistance

from the landlord nor the government. The owner jokingly says his only

task every day is to water the plants. But this is no joke to the men

who face losing their livelihood.

The question is to the Premier. The Premier has a in the cabinet,

and the Tourism Minister has a in the cabinet. The Jobs Minister has a

in the cabinet. When will the tourism sector see the promised

money?

Hon. M. Mark: I appreciate the question from the member opposite. We are working

around the clock with the public service.

It’s not about just reviewing the report. I know that the members

opposite are rolling their eyes that we have to review the report. We

are reviewing and acting. There are seven key recommendations, and we

are working as quickly as possible together. I’m working with my

colleague, the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation, to

get results out the door as quickly as possible.

[2:05 p.m.]

We are here in the chamber, and there is good news coming to this

sector as soon as possible.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Mark: Trust me, . There is good news on the way to the sector. But more

importantly, I want to go back to the fact that the sector gave us

advice. They worked with government. They’ve given us counsel. They want

us to invest in Indigenous tourism. That’s the second recommendation.

We’re listening. We’re reviewing, and we’re going to act as quickly as

possible. Good news to come to the sector in the coming days.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond North Centre on a supplemental.

T. Wat: Listening, listening, listening. We have heard that time and time

again. Let me try to refresh the newly appointed minister about the

chronology of the tourism sector’s request for help. They submitted a

report on the 21st of July asking for $680 million. And what do they

get? They have to wait three months for this government because of a

snap election. A few days before that, they only promised $15 million.

So it’s not just last week that they submitted the report.

What are the Premier and the minister waiting for? Tour operators

have been begging for months, and no assistance has come. The minister

says: “Wait, wait, wait.” But for how long, and for what? The next

budget, which the NDP is delaying until May?

Again, to the Premier or maybe to the minister, will he or she

stop refusing assistance to the men and women who need it now and start

getting the help directly into the hands of the small business

owners?

Hon. M. Mark: I would like to point out to the member opposite one of the

actions that our government has taken was to give a portion of the $10

million in the member’s riding to help with tourism while we’re going

through the pandemic.

I’ll remind the member that we’re trying to support the tourism

sector, to keep the lights on and the workforce intact. Some of that was

to build infrastructure, build some of the space on the outside of their

community. Destination development funds went out the door in the middle

of this pandemic, not just last week. It’s not just talk. It’s not just

last month — since the beginning of the pandemic.

One of the first actions that we took was to dedicate $50 million

to the task force. We received the report from the task force last week.

We are committed to act on the recommendations. There is good news to

come to the sector.

For the member opposite to suggest that we don’t care about how

hard this is — that is not accurate. We know how hard it is to all of

our communities, all across the regions, which is why we’ve invested in

the destination development funds across the province, and there’s more

to come.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

ON COVID-19 IN SCHOOLS

AND

SCHOOL SAFETY PLANS

S. Furstenau: A letter sent yesterday from the Surrey Teachers Association,

B.C.’s largest school district, talks about severe overcrowding in

classrooms and reads: “We are not safe…. Our daily levels of stress are

almost unbearable…. Every day we continue to put ourselves, our loved

ones and communities at risk. It is dangerous and unfair to be expected

to continue in this way without appropriate measures to ensure our

safety.” We are not safe.

Yet from government, what teachers hear is: “Don’t worry. You

should feel safe.” Teachers deserve to feel respected. Teachers deserve

to feel safe, and they deserve to feel heard by their employer, the

government. School communities aren’t even afforded clear and consistent

information about what is unfolding around them.

My question is to the Minister of Education. The most extensive

and up-to-date database about COVID cases in schools is being managed by

parents through the B.C. school COVID tracker on Facebook, which over

40,000 people turn to for information. Will this government begin

providing school communities with comprehensive, clear and timely data

about exposures in B.C. schools, as is done in other

provinces?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: Thank you to the member for the question. I know that we all share

concern for what is happening across our school system. Of course, I’ve

seen the letter from the Surrey Teachers Association. I think there’s no

question that what’s happening for folks, and the anxiety, reflects the

fact that we’re in the middle an unprecedented public health

crisis.

We have, in fact, been listening to teachers. We’ve been working

with teachers, support staff, principals, superintendents, school

trustees and parents all throughout the summer to develop the safety

plans that are now in place in our school districts. We continue that

work with all of our education partners, including our rights holders.

Our districts have been very responsive to issues as they’ve arisen on

the local terrain. For example, in Surrey, we’ve seen the Fraser Health

Authority introduce a new notification system to try to be more

responsive.

Acting under the direction of the provincial health officer, we

have seen the development of a rapid response team so that health

authorities can work more closely and be more responsive with school

districts when there are changes or developments in COVID transition in

the communities that affect schools. We’ll continue to work with our

partners in that regard.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: I appreciate the minister’s response and a recognition that

there’s always work to do to do better in the moment that we’re in. We

are in this global pandemic. It is impacting everybody.

What we are hearing and, I think, what the public is seeing — and

I know that I expect government is also seeing — is that there is still

a significant number of teachers who feel their anxiety levels and their

worry and their stress are having health and mental health impacts. It

only takes a quick perusal of Twitter or Facebook to see teachers

talking about it. I saw one this morning, breaking down into tears at

8:15 in the morning. This is a significant impact to people’s well-being

and health.

The tracker’s administrator, Kathy Marliss, said on The Mike

Smyth Show yesterday: “It’s been a rough few days. You can see

the progression happening over the last couple of weeks.” As Dr. Henry

points out, school transmissions often reflect community transmissions.

Both have been rising. “But it’s been a big peak in the last two days,

where we recorded over 50 schools each day — a lot of messages to sift

through, a lot of really concerned parents and families. Exposure

notices are becoming more and more complicated and

confusing.”

My question again is to the Minister of Education. From Kathy’s

database, we can see that over 1,500 COVID school exposure notices have

been sent out in B.C. since September, with a significant spike in the

last few days. With a growing number of exposure notices, can we expect

to see government take additional steps to ensure that teachers and

parents can feel more confident in their classrooms?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Again, thank you to the member for the question. I want to

acknowledge that I think the work that’s being done on the front lines

of our education system is nothing short of extraordinary.

The fact that we have 90 percent of kids who returned to the

classroom in September — that 80 percent of those are actually in a

seat, in a classroom — and the fact that we are seeing a good adherence

to kids coming to school, showing up at school, is a real testament to

the work that everybody is doing across the sector to keep kids in

school and to do our utmost to keep them safe.

Again, I appreciate the anxiety that is out there. We’ve invested,

so far, just this fall, over $150 million to fund additional teachers,

additional counsellors, additional custodians and more educational

assistants and to invest in the PPE to support the safety plans that

have been developed.

Obviously, we’re watching the numbers very closely. We’ve had some

recent changes to the notification system, particularly in Fraser

Health. We’re looking at the impact of how that new notification system

is landing.

We’re going to be working with our partners. In fact, our

provincial steering committee is meeting this afternoon. I’m going to be

on that call with all of our partners, where we will discuss issues such

as this — how these kinds of processes are working and where we need to

be making adjustments and improvements. We’ll continue to be responsive

to that.

[2:15 p.m.]

COVID-19 RESPONSE FOR

SMALL

BUSINESSES

T. Stone: Countless tourism operators, restaurants and mom-and-pop shops

have had to make the painful decision to lay off employees and close

their doors. As every day goes by that this government fails to act,

regrettably, many more are making this same decision as we

speak.

The government has had nine months — not nine days, not nine

weeks. Government has had nine months to provide direct supports to

these businesses. But instead, delays, red tape and a snap election have

gotten in the way.

Now, the other day, the Minister of Jobs and Economic Recovery

told this House that only 1,400 businesses had actually made it into the

process of applying for the small and medium-sized business recovery

grant program. The minister also, at that time, failed to acknowledge

that this program has been riddled with restrictive eligibility

requirements.

My question to the Premier is this. Will he step up, will he fix

this flawed program, and will he throw small businesses that lifeline

that they need now, not months from now but now, in order to survive

through the coming months?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you to the member for the question. We know that it’s a

tough time. We know many small businesses are struggling. This is not a

surprise to anyone in this House. I’ve been listening to small business

owners for the last few weeks giving suggestions on how we can improve

our systems, how we can make the program more accessible to additional

businesses. It’s been really fruitful, and I really appreciate their

feedback. We’ve been actioning on that.

What we’ve done is we’ve taken the opportunities, the suggestions

that have been made by stakeholders, and we’ve been working with them

all last week to make sure that we get it right. That work continues,

and there will be some positive news on that.

I do want to say to the member that we have one of the most

comprehensive plans in Canada. If you compare us to many of the other

provinces, you’ll see that we’ve made significantly more investments in

supporting small businesses.

Hon. Member, you’ll know that there’s $190 million of tax credits

for small businesses to be able to hire new employees but also bring

back employees that they had — $190 million.

We also know that just recently, the federal government stepped up

with a rent support program for small businesses. So the supports are

there. We are going to continue to try to make the supports more

flexible and make sure that more businesses have an opportunity to

access the resources that we have put on the table.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a

supplemental.

T. Stone: Mr. Speaker, 1,400 businesses across the entire province of

British Columbia. That’s it. That’s the total number that have been able

to access this particular program, the small and medium-sized business

recovery grant program.

Many words come to mind when I think of the government’s track

record on this. “Pathetic, insufficient, regrettable.” I’ll go with

“pathetic” as well. The minister needs to own up to a failure on his

government’s part to actually provide direct supports to small

businesses.

He says he’s talked with small business organizations. He says

that he’s met with small business organizations. The reality is this.

Very little of the support that his government has announced has

actually made its way to small businesses. That’s a big problem, and

these businesses are closing. They’re closing all over the province.

Sadly, once that clothing shop that’s been open for 25 years closes its

doors, it’s never coming back. It’s hollowing out our

downtowns.

Now, the government talks about…. The minister just mentioned the

tax deferrals. He talks about supports for businesses to hire more

people or to purchase new machinery. Businesses can’t even consider

hiring more people or increasing their payroll or buying new equipment

when they can’t afford to keep the lights on, with all due respect to

the minister. Small businesses really need that direct

support.

My question, again to the Premier, is this. How many more small

businesses have to fail before this government fixes their flawed

business economic recovery program so all of those local pizzerias,

those local clothing shops, those local boutiques have the supports that

they need in order to stay in business, make it through these months

ahead and come out on the other side stronger than ever

before?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, we know it’s a challenging time. The world is dealing with

a pandemic. This is not only a B.C. problem. This is a problem across

the country.

[2:20 p.m.]

We have one of the most comprehensive plans to support small

businesses. We’ve been supporting them all year. We’re going to continue

to do that. Recently a survey came out. Two-thirds of all businesses in

B.C. are getting supports either from the provincial government or the

federal government, and 98.5 percent of jobs…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: …that we lost from before COVID hit have come back. We’re

fortunate to see those numbers.

We know a lot of those supports that we brought in as a province

have supported the jobs returning. We also know there are challenging

times ahead. We understand that with the new health restrictions and not

being able to have meals with people outside of your household, it’s

going to have an impact on families. It’s going to have an impact on

jobs. It’s going to have an impact on restaurants. We know

that.

The $300 million in grants is available for small businesses. I

urge anyone watching today…. I urge the members of the opposition as

well as of the Third Party to suggest to small businesses that are

struggling to apply. We are open. We are open.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Hon. R. Kahlon: We encourage businesses to continue to apply. We’re going to

continue to be nimble. The problems we encountered in March are

different than the ones we have in June, are different from the ones in

September and are different now.

We can continue to adjust our programming accordingly, and we will

continue to do that, .

COVID-19 RESPONSE

FOR RESTAURANT INDUSTRY

AND CAP

ON DELIVERY SERVICE FEES

T. Halford: I just heard the minister speak about the impacts on restaurants.

I’m going to speak about that too.

Yesterday I spoke with a local restaurant owner. He’s blowing

through his life savings right now trying to stay open. He doesn’t think

he’s going to make it into January. He has been open 25 years. I don’t

think he’s going to make it into January. And what’s this government’s

response? Nothing. Silence. Two campaign commitments, both broken. He’s

financially broke, but he’s not going to qualify for the recovery

benefit, because it’s based on his 2019 tax return.

The other promise that was made? A cap on delivery fees, charges

for restaurants.

My question to the Premier: will he keep that promise?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you to the member for a second time asking questions in

question period.

I would say to the member that if he would like, I’m happy to

speak to that business owner and his community. I think it’d be great

for him to chat and for me to hear the challenges that he’s facing. I

know that the piece around when businesses were in operation and how

they can qualify is an important issue to many small businesses, one

that we hope to have positive news on in the coming days.

I would say to the member that we have been nimble all the way

through. We want to support as many small businesses in B.C. as

possible, and we’re going to continue to do that work.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.

T. Halford: You can be responsible by actually doing what you say you’re going

to do. You made a commitment on October 9; we also made that commitment.

We have followed through on our commitment. I’ve tabled a bill yet

nothing, crickets. This government is sitting on its hands while people

are losing their jobs. They’re losing their livelihoods.

Last week this Premier stood in the House, and he proudly said

that politics are behind us. Prove it.

My question is to the Premier. Call the bill.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again I’ll say to the member that we have one of the most

comprehensive small business plans across the country. We continue to

provide supports for them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: If the members would like to hear the answer, maybe they

can….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Any further comments from the opposition? No.

The minister will continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: A very hostile bunch today, hon. Speaker.

I’ll just say to the member that we did have a commitment. We did

make a commitment to bring a 15 percent cap in. We are committed to

that. It’s in the mandate letter for the minister. Staff have been

meeting with app-based providers.

[2:25 p.m.]

I appreciate that the B.C. Liberals wanted to intervene in the

market. I think that it’s nice to see there’s a unity….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: No more free-market, free-enterprise coalition over

there.

I will say to the member that this is a serious issue. Staff are

in conversations with these app providers about the importance for

action.

You’ll hear more information in the coming days,

Member.

CHILD CARE FUNDING

K. Kirkpatrick: We know that child care is a concern for parents as they struggle

to survive economically during this pandemic. The lack of child care

impacts women and their employment disproportionately during this

time.

The NDP made a promise to those parents. They committed to

spending an additional $250 million this fiscal year on child care. It’s

not in the bill that you’ve brought us today, and the government doesn’t

plan to deliver a budget for an additional five months.

To the Premier, where is the money that has been promised to these

parents?

Hon. K. Chen: As a mother myself, I know that many parents and families in B.C.

have really been struggling with early learning and care opportunities,

especially during this pandemic. So many families are struggling with

the decision to return to work or to count on the very important child

care services.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank early childhood

educators and child care providers who have been working really hard on

the front lines supporting family needs.

Our government, ever since 2017, has been starting the work. After

years and years of neglect of the child care crisis by the previous

government, we have started the work to build an inclusive, universal,

quality child care system for B.C. families. That includes over three

dozen initiatives to bring down the cost of child care, to accelerate

the creation of spaces and, also, to support early childhood

educators.

As we’ve seen how child care is really key to families, to

children and to the recovery of our economy during this pandemic, we are

committed to continue that work. We have rolled out the temporary

emergency funding to support child care providers and families and to be

able to maintain the services. We have supported child care providers

with an additional $40 million of health and safety grants.

All of our programs are continuing to support and to bring relief

to families and to bring down child care costs, and we will continue

that work.

Mr. Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–Capi­lano on a

supplemental.

K. Kirkpatrick: I appreciate your comments. They’re quite aspirational. But this

is a government that seems unable to deliver for parents now.

The Representative for Children and Youth asked the Premier to

extend support for families with children and youth with special needs,

and that request was denied. Now parents, particularly stressed-out

moms, are wondering where that promised $250 million more for child care

this year is.

To the Premier, will this government keep its promise to parents

and deliver the money that it promised?

Hon. K. Chen: I thank the member for raising this very important question. But

let’s remember. We inherited a broken system in 2017. We have been

taking action since day one, since we became government in

We’ve been taking action and making sure we can fund child care

services to bring down the cost of child care and to accelerate the

creation of spaces. We have been doing that work non-stop since day one,

since we became government in 2017. We will continue that

work.

That is why we are the only province in Canada, during this

pandemic, to provide temporary emergency funding to support providers

who are open and also who are closed. We’re the only province to support

providers who are closed so they can come back and continue to maintain

the important services.

We have a lot of work to do to build an inclusive, universal,

quality child care system. We will continue to do that,

whereas the

members opposite, when they were in government, ignored the child care

crisis for 16 long years.

[2:30 p.m.]

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Robinson: Pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I’m pleased to present

reports for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2020, on all amounts borrowed by

government and all amounts loaned to government bodies. These reports

provide an overview of the province’s borrowing activity in fiscal

’19-20.

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour to present the following

reports.

Laying the Foundations , annual report 2019-20 and service

plan ’20-21–’22-23, from the Office of the Human Rights

Commissioner.

The report made on December 14, 2020, regarding a regulation made

under the COVID-19 Related Measures Act, from the office of the Attorney

General and the Minister Responsible for Housing.

The 2019-2020 Merit Performance Audit Report , Upholding Fair

Hiring in the Public Service, from the Office of the Merit

Commissioner.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I table, on behalf of the Ministry of Environment, the 2020

Climate Change Accountability Report .

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued committee stage on Bill 3.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 3 — FINANCE STATUTES

AMENDMENT

ACT, 2020

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:33 p.m.

The Chair: Members, we are here for committee stage of Bill 3, Finance

Statutes Amendment Act, 2020.

On clause 2 (continued) .

Interjection.

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

a question himself.

M. Bernier: Well, thank you, Chair, and welcome back. I was just trying to

make eye contact with the minister to make sure I wasn’t jumping ahead

of, maybe, some opening remarks she wants to make. But that’s not the

case today. We’ll just continue on.

I’m going to just make some very quick, I think, pointed questions

that will help move this

section through. I found out — as, I think,

most people found out just before lunch here — that the minister

announced that she’s going to do a fiscal update tomorrow. Can she just

confirm that for me?

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

M. Bernier: Maybe she can help me out, then. I’ve looked through the entire

act, and there’s no definition of what a fiscal update is. Could she

explain what that will be?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member asked a good question. While it’s not required, we are

choosing to do that. We think that’s an important piece to let British

Columbians know the economic status. So we are choosing to do an update.

It will provide the same information that you would normally get in a

quarterly report, a second quarterly report.

M. Bernier: Maybe the minister can just quickly help me understand this, then,

because that’s not an answer to what my question was.

When the ministers on this side of the House…. They used to

criticize all the time when a bill was put forward, when something might

be added and no

definitions put to it. This might be a perfect

opportunity for the minister to clarify the questions we had yesterday.

Did this go through the legislative drafting process? I think they might

have caught this. So my answer, probably, to my own question is: I don’t

think they did, when they put this through.

Right in this

section that we’re talking about, the minister is

asking us to add a

section that specifically says, and uses the

terminology, that the minister will be able to now provide fiscal

updates. I’m using that wording very carefully: “fiscal updates.” The

minister has announced that tomorrow, she’s going to use a fiscal

update. There’s no definition, no terminology and no qualifications

anywhere in the act that I can find that defines what a “fiscal update”

is.

Can the minister explain to me why, through the process of the

drafting, then, if they’re going to be adding a whole new

section in

this

section here…? Just so I know and put it on the record, in

section

10, they’re adding a whole subsection (6) with the wording and

terminology of a “fiscal update.”

Why was that not included in

definitions so that people and future

governments will know what the requirements are and what that

means?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member knows that when this was debated in the summer, it

didn’t exist. This piece did not exist in the legislation.

We recognize that by having this 150 days, as opposed to 120 days,

it became an extended period of time. Recognizing that, part of what’s

necessary to have happen in this time, and the reason for the extension,

is that the public service needs the time to do its job in putting this

all together. By creating a fiscal update that says you have to report

out publicly to the state of affairs in some format, it does provide

discretion. It recognizes that that extra 30 days is a little bit too

long to go without anything.

The choice — and the member is smiling at me — is recognizing that

part of the rationale for doing this is that the public service is

absolutely exhausted and that we need to make sure that we have the

resources necessary to develop a fulsome, meaningful budget that makes a

difference in people’s lives. To require all that is required in a

quarterly report would be completely overwhelming and sort of defeat the

purpose of creating the space to do the budget.

This is sort of an interim step to make sure that there is a

placeholder, a requirement for the Minister of Finance to report out

what the status is, in broad perspective, so that everybody understands

what the state of affairs is, what the forecast looks like, what the

economic indicators are and what the fiscal status is for the province —

so that there’s some understanding of what’s going on until the budget

can be tabled before April 30.

M. Bernier: It still didn’t really, technically, answer my question, but it

actually gives me a few more thoughts. I’m quite surprised,

actually, that the minister is using the

terminology that she is through this.

I’m going to give the minister an opportunity, obviously, to

correct me again if I’m wrong, because she has the ability to have the

public servants right there to be able to answer these questions for

her. Again, there’s nowhere in the act that defines the legal

requirements of what a fiscal update is. Is this another case of “take

my word for it”? I’m not sure. This isn’t just for this minister, but

the whole point of legislation is to put in parameters and guidelines

for future ministers and governments as well.

[2:45 p.m.]

This minister might have an understanding of what she believes a

fiscal update to be. But again, there’s nowhere that I can find…. They

went through the trouble of bringing only this piece of legislation

forward, and wanting to change this

section to allow for a fiscal

update, but not the trouble to define what a “fiscal update” is, other

than what the minister just put on the record. That’s not in the act,

that I can see, anywhere. I guess the question is: other than being in

the act — fiscal update — what are the legal requirements, if any? What

are the parameters and guidelines expected of a fiscal update, if

any?

Not to sound demeaning in any way to the minister, but without

that definition, the minister can stand up tomorrow and basically say:

“Hey, everything is great. I’ll talk to you next June.” I’m not sure

what the guidelines are. Can she be a little bit more specific?

Obviously, her staff has an understanding of what the expectations are.

I’m sure they’ve already briefed her on what she’s going to be doing

tomorrow. That should give a good understanding of what a fiscal update

is. Can she answer why it’s not put in the act for future governments to

know?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to express gratitude to the member for his question,

because, as it turns out, there’s nothing in the act that tells us what

has to be in a budget either. It’s up to government to put one together,

and that is what governments do.

I want to let the member know that when I was asked to be Finance

Minister, this particular issue came before me — around the challenges

of the time crunch that we’re facing and the fact that in this time of

COVID, the public service has been run off their feet. They’ve been

doing their best. They’ve been rolling out myriads of programs to get

resources out into communities, out to businesses, out to individuals.

They need time to put together a robust, meaningful budget. So we’re

here before the House, looking for a 30-day extension to what our

obligations are in terms of getting this important work done.

What was before me was a period of time when there actually

wouldn’t be any reporting out, and that just wasn’t acceptable to me. It

wasn’t acceptable to me as an MLA. It wasn’t acceptable to me as a

Minister of Finance. I’m sure it wouldn’t be acceptable to the

opposition and to the people of British Columbia. Having some sort of

update would be wise, responsible and transparent.

Now, recognizing that Ministers of Finance have a responsibility

to manage the fiscal affairs of government…. Keeping an eye on the

economic outlook, providing a budget that delivers the services that

people count on and making sure that the systems that we all count on

are there for us, not just now but well into the future, is the

responsibility of government. It’s a responsibility of the Finance

Minister, and I take that responsibility very seriously. It’s for that

reason that we put in this section, to say that you cannot go all of

these months without reporting back to the people about what the state

of affairs is, fiscally.

[2:50 p.m.]

It’s with that in mind that this subsection 10(6) — I think that’s

what we’re referring to — is being put into legislation. I want to point

out that it wasn’t there before. If we didn’t have this in there, you

would go for quite a number of months without any required reporting of

any kind.

M. Bernier: I just want to remind the minister of something. I mean, her

opening comments and that answer is: there’s nowhere in the legislation

on how to do a budget. Well, no kidding. That’s government’s job. That’s

the minister’s job. That’s why they run an election with a plan. They do

all that. But there are parameters. There is law put in place by

government of how to frame a budget, how to report on a budget and what

they’re supposed to do.

I’m not asking for the minister to tell me what she’s putting in

the budget right now. We’ll get to those discussions. I’m talking about

the parameters about reporting on what government’s obligations are,

which is what’s in front of us right now. So for the minister to say

that there’s no law about putting a budget together…. I expect the

minister to do the due diligence. All sides of this House and the public

want her to do due diligence. I’m specifically asking about the

requirements and if, in this legislation, there are actually going to be

legal parameters around the reporting obligations of the minister based

on the budget that she puts together.

The minister just said just now that we’d go through this lengthy

time without this section. Can the minister, then, maybe answer for me:

what’s the difference between a fiscal update and a quarterly

report?

Hon. S. Robinson: I do want to go back to an earlier question that the member asked

about where there is a definition of a “fiscal update.” What’s

interesting is that there’s no definition of “a budget” so that’s my

comparator, although we do one every year.

With a fiscal update, this is about…. It could be as broad as a

quarterly. It could be what my previous colleague, Carole James, did in

July, which is less formal. It depends on the context. Remember, we’re

putting this in because nothing exists, and it is important that there

is a reporting of some kind — and that the contexts change.

Remember, this is only in an election year. I think it’s really

important to remind the member and to remind anyone who’s watching that

this is only when there’s an election year. Right now our elections

happen in the fall. That’s part of the legislative calendar, that

elections happen in the fall. This is to ensure that there is a

relatively early opportunity for a Finance Minister to report out in

some fashion about the state of affairs.

They could be very specific and get very detailed, like you would

in a quarterly, which is much broader and it has various elements. Or it

could be, essentially, just an update on a number of indicators or

elements that you would see in a quarterly report. Again, it’s just

dependent on what is happening and what is needed.

[2:55 p.m.]

M. Bernier: I’m listening very carefully to the words that the minister put

forward, which appear to be very convenient.

I want to go back to not only some of the commentary we had

yesterday but to the actual

section here. When we look at quarterly

reports in

section 10 of the law, of the act that binds government and

the process which government is to follow and, specifically, this

minister is to follow…. It was determined yesterday, and the minister

agreed, that quarterly means every three months. The minister also said

yesterday that the last semi-report, unofficial, from the previous

minister, came forward. So I’m not sure if that was a fiscal update or a

quarterly report. We never got a clear answer. Maybe the minister can

clarify that.

But it’s very specific in subsection 10(1) that the quarterly

reports of government must be prepared in accordance with the

section

and established by Treasury Board and must include…. I read that stuff

into the record yesterday. That’s a quarterly report. It doesn’t say

anything about a fiscal update or whatever the minister or government

chooses to put forward. It specifically says in law that the government

must put forward, and this minister must put forward, a quarterly report

to this House, to the public, for scrutiny, transparency and

accountability, which is part of this act.

The minister did not define or confirm if tomorrow’s fiscal update

is going to qualify as a quarterly report. Is the minister putting this

section in now to exempt herself in some way from having to follow

through with the present law requirement of a quarterly report for Q2?

We have yet to find out when that would be, which we would assume, if we

go every three months, would be this month.

Hon. S. Robinson: The people that are talking in my ear are teaching me a lot about

the legislation. Just so the member can also learn, apparently, in

section 12, the minister can provide, as needed, a fiscal forecast, and

there’s no definition of a fiscal forecast. So there are other examples

of opportunities for Finance ministers to provide information that are

not defined specifically, and it provides opportunity to share

information, be transparent, but it’s not as specifically defined as the

member is somehow suggesting.

In terms of his question around…. I believe, if I recall, it was

about the second quarterly. Right now it’s not required. The way the

legislation reads, it’s not required. So there’s no obligation on

government. Because we had a fall election…. That is what the

legislation says. That is what exists on the books.

[3:00 p.m.]

To me, by going to an extra month, that’s too far a gap without

the people of B.C. hearing what’s going on, getting some sense of what’s

happening with the fiscal picture, what the forecast might look, what

the fiscal challenges might be or the opportunities might be for

government.

I hope the member supports this section, because I think it’s a

good section. It’s about accountability. It’s about transparency, and

it’s about making sure that we do more, not less. I look forward to

seeing this

section pass.

M. Bernier: I mean, obviously, I was asking those questions. I’m very well

aware of the act and the requirements of the minister. So I appreciate

the comments from her. Yes, I know that technically it’s not required

because of an election being called. Because there’s a fall election,

the obligation for the Q2 report does change for the

minister.

Again, the whole point of me bringing up this line of questioning

was to highlight the fact that here we have a government who’s putting

legislation in front of us right after an election to extend the time

before they put a budget. They’re also asking us to approve more money,

and we’ll get to that, I guess, soon, later on today. Meanwhile, they

haven’t put forward a Q2 report, conveniently, because the legislation

allows it because of the election.

I guess the question I had was: is the minister, as she’s putting

this change forward, going to be giving the equivalent of, tomorrow, a

Q2 report? Is she justifying that as a Q2 report, technically, tomorrow?

And will the Q3 report still be on time in the spring?

The Chair: If I might, Member, is this towards

section 2, or is this just

a greater question around finance? I’m just asking around clause

M. Bernier: With all due respect, Chair, I’m aware that we’re still on clause

2, and my questions are appropriate to that.

The Chair: I would appreciate if the member would stick to the clause

that we’re talking about. It seems to the Chair that the member is

going a little outside of the realm of the clause. The member might

want to debate it, but this is the opinion of the Chair. Thank

you.

Hon. S. Robinson: The update will be tomorrow, and the member is welcome to listen

to it. The third quarterly report will be included with the budget as it

always is.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

M. Bernier: Now we’re on clause 3, and I’ll be speaking to that, the Financial

Administration Act. Just a few questions to this.

[3:05 p.m.]

Can the minister explain — when we just talked about in the

previous sections, or that we talked about in this bill, extending the

time for government to put forward a budget — why there’s now this

section around special warrants? Can she explain when the circumstances

would be for her to use special warrants?

Hon. S. Robinson: So the fiscal year-end — of course, everyone knows in this House —

is March 31. Special warrants provide an authority to continue spending

past that date until you could bring forward a budget and 15 days past

that to get a supply bill passed until the estimates process is

finished. If in session, you use interim supply to help keep paying the

services that people count on. A special warrant is if you can’t call

the House back.

I want to remind the member, and all of the members, what happened

in March. We had this pandemic and trying to figure out how to call

everyone back when it didn’t feel safe, when we didn’t know how to get

everyone into the House in a way that would be safe. And we didn’t have

this tool to carry on keeping government going unless people could come

back into the House.

Now, it was chaotic. It was stressful. Some would argue it was

risky. It’s not what people wanted to do. I know that the decision was

made to keep those on the Island, to give them…. So we would travel

less. We come from all parts of the province, and we’re all told not to

travel and that there’s risk with that. That created some significant

challenges. Hats off to all those that brought the technology forward.

It’s been a significant learning for everybody.

[3:10 p.m.]

That was just an example of what happens when you don’t have a

fail-safe like the special warrant. It’s from that exercise that

suggested that perhaps it should be part of the legislation, so that

should something like that ever happen again, there is still this tool

available to keep things going.

I want to draw the member’s attention…. He’s probably going to ask

about the formula. It’s very prescribed about what is possible. That’s a

fail-safe to make sure that it’s really about the continuation so that

things can continue for those that rely on government

services.

M. Bernier: Typically, as the minister was saying, we have interim supply,

which typically has worked in the past. Way in the past, special

warrants used to be used quite regularly. The minister also highlighted

this spring and the difficulties of getting to the House and all of

those issues. With all due respect, we’ve got the same warnings right

now, but the government had no problem calling us back to do this bill,

which seems to be so important to government.

My question around that, though, would be…. In March — March 23,

if I remember — then minister Carole James said things were functioning

great. Special warrants weren’t needed. There were opportunities for

interim supply, that we could actually use all those systems. Was that

minister wrong? Things worked fine under that minister to be able to do

it that way. What’s changed?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, talking with staff who were on the ground working with the

Finance Minister to call the Legislature back…. They’re saying that

actually the member’s perception isn’t accurate — that the minister at

the time, Carole James, was not happy about bringing the House back, but

she had no other tool. It was not what she wanted to do. Remember this

was at the end of March. We didn’t know anything about this virus. We

didn’t have the technology the way that we’ve built it up over the last

number of months.

She was quite apologetic about having to do this because she had

no other choice. She had no other choice except to bring us back to keep

government going. But it’s not what she wanted to do, because it put

everybody at risk. It put all of our families at risk in terms of going

home, and we didn’t know.

It was very instructive to government around the fragility of what

could happen. We know that there are other risks. I don’t like to think

about it because it makes me too anxious, and I don’t like to live life

like that. I had a mother who lived like that, and I choose not to,

because it can be very stressful.

But I think it is in our best interests and British Columbians’

best interests to have a tool that allows the continuation of government

when stuff happens in a way that prevents us from coming to this place

to do the work, and to only use it when we are prevented from coming to

this place to do the work.

[3:15 p.m.]

We all talk about earthquake preparedness, for example. What

happens if we can’t convene the House in that instance? What happens

should some other impact — I don’t want to create more anxiety — some

other disease, keep us from coming together? Or what happens if the

technology completely fails us in some way, some different kind of virus

happens? I mean, I think that the Legislature has experienced some of

that. That’s created significant challenges. So this just shows us that

there’s a piece of fragility around our ability to keep things going in

a crisis, and this is a tool that will help keep things

going.

S. Furstenau: I just wanted to weigh in a little bit on this conversation. It’s

one that I think merits a lot of thought and discussion, because there

are things that are fragile, and that includes democracy. In situations

like we’re seeing right now, with a global pandemic and other disasters,

there are precedents where governments have actually chosen to undermine

the function of democracy as a result of disasters. Naomi Klein has a

book called Disaster Capitalism , for example. That is the other

side of this question around fragility.

Of course government needs to keep operating in the face of

challenges and disasters. But I see 2020 as very different. We showed,

all of us, that the commitment to parliamentary democracy, the

commitment to accountability and transparency and legislative work was

such that it motivated all of us to put that at the forefront — to come

back in March, to come back in June. Extraordinary work was done by the

staff and the IT department to achieve exactly what we’re achieving

right now, which is that the vast majority of MLAs are not in this

building, but we are proceeding with the work of the Legislature and the

parliamentary work in a way that makes it work at a time like

this.

The tool of special warrants, while there can be a case made, I

think is one that also presents risk, because if a government isn’t

motivated strongly to resume the work of the parliament and the

Legislature, then it can be easier to simply proceed and make decisions

without the oversight and accountability that is afforded with the work

that we do here. So this is the worry that I have.

I guess I’ll put it to a question. Does the minister recognize

that there can be a loss of transparency with the use of special

warrants, and does she take into account the importance of maintaining

transparency, particularly in the case of challenging conditions like

we’re in this year?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question. I, too, read Disaster

Capitalism . It’s a fascinating book. I do agree that democracy

is fragile, and we need to protect it. And it’s for that reason that

this special warrant is very narrow.

First of all, it’s a very restrictive formula. You can’t do any

new programs; it’s just about continuing what currently exists. You

can’t add anything new, can’t build anything new. It’s only up to 45

days that you can be within this special warrant framework. And it

really is to be used in that crisis context. There are clauses in this

act to protect it.

You also need to be accountable for it, so it needs to be built

into the budget process and to the estimates. It’s not separate from.

You just go backwards to when you had the warrant, when you use it. It

needs to be included in the entire budget and estimates debate. So we’ve

put, I would say, a cage around it, around how it needs to be accounted

for and how it needs to be used.

The member had asked about transparency. With that use of the

special warrant, you have to capture any spending that happened during

that time. It needs to be accounted for in the estimates debate, in the

budget process, so that gets voted on by the entire House. So that, too,

is part of that.

The last thing I want to mention when we talk about transparency

is…. That’s what the fiscal update piece in the previous

section is

about — making sure that there is some sort of update if we’re going to

go a little bit longer in order to get a budget together. At a minimum,

there needs to be some accountability to the people of this province, to

this House, so that they understand where things stand fiscally for the

province.

M. Bernier: I just want to finish off this

section by trying to understand and

put some timelines, I guess a thought process, around what the minister

just said. Maybe she’ll appreciate and understand my skepticism — or

maybe even my line of questioning, if she doesn’t want to understand my

skepticism — on this issue.

The minister just said that she’s put this forward, these

opportunities for special warrants, in the case of maybe,

coincidentally, a pandemic situation where government can’t be called

back. The minister, as part of the same act, has asked for a 30-day

delay in putting a budget process forward. The minister also just said —

and I will paraphrase: “Don’t worry; it’ll be built into the budget

process.”

[3:25 p.m.]

What that sounds like is on paper we’re not going to have a budget

by the end of May like we’re supposed to. We’re now going to make it go

until April. But don’t worry. We’re giving ourselves special powers to

be able to have special warrants for that month without having to have

the scrutiny or justification of bringing that forward to the House for

legislational discussion. But don’t worry. It’ll be built into the

budget. We can debate it after the decision is already made.

What the minister is saying, and she’ll correct me if I’m wrong,

is there’s a delay. She has the opportunity now to have special warrants

to extend the financial situation of the government as she or cabinet so

chooses, without coming to the House for a vote. Is that

true?

Hon. S. Robinson: In a normal year, in a non-election year, when we bring forward

our budget and our estimates books, we also table an interim supply,

knowing full well that the budget isn’t going to pass until well after

March 31. It’s how I’ve always experienced this place to operate. It’s

the interim supply bill that helps us carry on with the normal

activities of government until we can pass a budget. Oftentimes it

wouldn’t be until May, even though the year-end was March 31. It just

means that things continue on status quo until the budget

passes.

This really isn’t any different. This is really not any different.

It’s the same idea, to pass an interim supply until the budget is fully

debated in the House, with estimates and the whole megillah , as

my people like to say. Whether the budget passes in May or June, there

is the opportunity to continue the status quo, keep things

going.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

The special warrant is in that rare case, like we saw this last

March, where there is a gap. There’s a risk. There’s a risk to not

having the opportunity to get people in this House to pass an interim

supply bill to make sure that government continues to operate. Again,

we’ve created a cage around it.

Mr. Chair, welcome.

We’ve created a cage around it so that it’s very specific, it’s

very narrow, and it’s, at most, 45 days.

[3:30 p.m.]

Clause 3 approved on division.

On clause 4.

M. Bernier: As discussed yesterday, I promised the minister that we probably

wouldn’t get into too much detail on the nuts and bolts of this section,

but I do have, obviously, a couple of questions.

I just want to frame this. This is on

section 4 of the…. Again,

I’ll sound like a broken record when I say the only bill that was so

important to government to bring forward right now, in the middle of a

pandemic, while everybody is asking for help. That aside, it will

probably be the last time I get to say that during this bill.

This is around the homeowners’ grants. Can the minister explain

why…? I won’t ask her to explain why she feels this is so important

right now. Why is the minister bringing this

section forward, if I

understand this

section of the bill correctly, for government to take

on, save some questions here, the responsibility of gathering and

garnering the information applications for homeowners’ grants?

Presently, right now, people go, as most know…. You go down to your

local city hall or go online. In rural areas, you have to actually go in

personally in a lot of places.

Can the minister just answer why government wants to take on that

responsibility now, away from local government?

Hon. S. Robinson: This was included in Budget 2020 to centralize the administration

of this grant. It is burdensome to municipalities. I know that the

member, I’m sure, would see the amount of work that would go in when

this administrative requirement came into municipalities.

It is a provincial program, so it’s for that reason. Also, more

so, it was to make sure that we had part of a tax-fairness understanding

and that only those who are eligible — for example, if someone owned a

home in Dawson Creek and another home in, let’s say, Vancouver, and

perhaps they would apply for the homeowner grant in both communities —

that wouldn’t be noticed, necessarily.

[3:35 p.m.]

This is a way to centralize it to make sure that there is tax

fairness and, because it is a provincial program, to make sure that it’s

more readily able to deliver on a program that is a provincial

program.

M. Bernier: Well, I completely understand, as I know the minister does, this

issue, as former local government people too.

She sparked an interesting thought in myself. If this is now going

to be centralized, and they’re gathering this information, what other

areas will they use this information for as far as tracking purposes?

This is no longer, maybe, just collecting information around homeowners’

grants and eligibility on one or two or more homes that could or could

not be wrongfully applied for.

Is government going to use this information for cross-referencing

any other taxation or policies that the government has, right now,

already put in place or future ones? I’m just kind of curious what they

want to use that information for.

Hon. S. Robinson: All of the tax acts, as well as the Home Owner Grant Act, allow

the ministry to share information and cross-reference.

[3:40 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: Just following up on that, the previous question, and wanting to

get a little bit more detail. For example, will there be better capacity

for data collection at the provincial level and tracking of home

ownership, of tax compliance? Can the minister provide any kind of

indication of the connection to the speculation tax and auditing

people’s declarations? Will this change improve the capacity for the

province to do that?

Hon. S. Robinson: I knew the answer, but I wanted to just double-check with the

people who actually do the work about what the implications are for

them. Yes, it will provide them with more data. It will provide them

with more information. And yes, it will help with the audit and

compliance work that they undertake.

Clauses 4 and 5 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:43 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 3 — FINANCE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 3, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2020, reported complete

without amendment.

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

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

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — FINANCE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Mr. Speaker: Members, you heard the motion.

The motion carries.

Division has been called. According to the sessional order that we

passed earlier, the third division will be taken today after six

o’clock.

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

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

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Presentation of Estimates

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES FOR THE

FISCAL YEAR ENDING

MARCH 31, 2021

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the message from Her Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor,

presented to this House on December 8, 2020, in the supplementary

estimates (No. 3) fiscal year ending March 31, 2021, accompanying the

same be referred to the Committee of Supply.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that this House forthwith resolve itself for this session

into a committee to consider the supply to be granted to Her

Majesty.

Motion approved.

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

estimates.

Committee of Supply

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (N o . 3):

OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

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

the chair.

The committee met at 3:54 p.m.

On Vote 52(S): contingencies (all ministries), pandemic response and

economic recovery, $2,000,000,000.

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m pleased to rise today to seek additional funding for COVID-19

response and recovery measures to serve the people of British Columbia.

We are seeking approval to table additional supplementary estimates of

$2 billion for further relief measures that will support British

Columbians as we move through this pandemic.

[3:55 p.m.]

It is a stressful time. We want people to know that we will

continue to do everything we can to support them through this pandemic.

This additional $2 billion will help fund additional programs that will

help our province recover from the pandemic. Just last week our

government was proud to announce the B.C. recovery benefit, which will

be available to up to 3.7 million British Columbians in just a few short

days. People can start to apply for this on Friday. This money will give

people a bit more breathing room and peace of mind to get them through

the holidays and into the new year. The estimated cost for this program

is $1.7 billion.

We are also adding a new recovery supplement to income and

disability assistance clients whose previous crisis funding is set to

expire at the end of this month. They will automatically receive an

additional $150 a month, starting in January through to March. Coupled

together, the recovery benefit and the recovery supplement will provide

vulnerable families with more money in their pockets during this

difficult winter season. The estimated cost for this program is $110

million.

Finally, this funding will help support a new refundable tax

credit, the increased employment incentive that was announced in

September as part of the Stronger B.C. economic recovery plan. The

credit will be available to employers who increase their employment of

low- to middle-income employees in the last quarter of 2020 and to

employers who retain employees they hired in August and September. The

estimated cost for this program is $190 million.

While the rebates won’t come until the spring, this is a tax

rebate that businesses can bank on today. These businesses are

supporting employment right now and betting on a brighter future as they

move through recovery, especially now that we know we have a vaccine

that is currently being deployed here in the province.

This is all part of the important work of supporting people now

and building a robust and meaningful fiscal plan, a plan centred on

looking out for people and their families, investing in health care and

seniors care to protect people and fight COVID-19 and building a

recovery that includes everyone, not just those at the top. While we do

that work, we will continue to roll out new programs to help people and

to help businesses recover.

M. Bernier: Let me just start by acknowledging, on behalf of the opposition,

the recognition of the challenges that the people in British Columbia

are going through right now — the fact that they are looking for help

and the fact that they need help, whether that’s families, individuals,

businesses. The minister spoke about where some of these supports are

going, and we applaud that. We’re hearing the same things. We want to

see people who are genuinely struggling, people who are genuinely in

need right now, specifically because of COVID, which is what this extra

money the minister has asked for appears to be earmarked for.

Through the course of the questioning that I’ll have and some of

my colleagues will have, it is not to criticize government’s attempt to

help people. It’s to better understand what that help will be, how

people will apply and how it’ll genuinely affect the lives of people,

which is what’s needed right now. We’re going to get into some questions

and some details, more around process, at some point — with the

acknowledgment, though, and understanding, hopefully, for people

watching, that this is the technical side of making sure they get the

help that they need.

[4:00 p.m.]

We want to make sure that if something is approved through the

House, it’s genuinely going where that need is. That’s what this is

about. These are extraordinary times, when the minister has had to come

forward for the second time, to this House, to ask for more money. We’ll

get into some of those discussions after.

Before I go into some of those details, though, we have a couple

of people on Zoom. They’re going to ask a few questions. Maybe I’ll just

help by advising the Chair that the next person up to ask questions,

please, would be the member for Richmond North Centre.

T. Wat: The question to the minister is…. Many workers in the tourism

sector need government to act fast and, in fact, to act now, if not

yesterday, to provide them immediate support. Many of these tourism

workers are not covered by the COVID recovery benefit that we are now

discussing since this is based on 2019 income, which was before they

were laid off. We all know how tough it has been in the last ten to 11

months.

Minister, will the tourism workers that operate have immediate

access to support before the April budget?

Hon. S. Robinson: If I understand the member’s query accurately, we’ve allocated

significant resources — over $1½ billion to support economic recovery

measures, including $405 million for business supports, including the

small and medium-sized business recovery grant and tourism

supports.

I know that the member canvassed the minister about that earlier

today in question period, and that this is a support program that was

put in place in September. There is additional work that is being done

with the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport and work that

she’s doing with the tourism task force in order to better understand

and respond more specifically to that sector given their unique needs.

They have been especially hard hit. We recognize that, so tailoring a

program that specifically meets their needs is absolutely a priority for

this government.

T. Wat: I think the minister might not be understanding my question. My

question is…. We are not discussing the $1.7 billion for the recovery

benefit and the extra $300 million.

From what the minister said earlier, at the beginning of this

discussion, it seems that tourism has been excluded from this recovery

benefit — $2 billion. In the final report, the tourism task force

admitted to this government on December 9, said in the executive

summary….

[4:05 p.m.]

Let me quote. “This report is primarily about emergency funding

needed now for the unique needs of our tourism industry in B.C. and,

more specifically, its businesses and workforce.” Relief is necessary

now.

The Premier said yesterday, when responding to a question from the

media: “I’m one at the cabinet table. The Minister of Finance makes the

ultimate decision on this. That’s how our system works. I’ve complete

confidence in the Finance Minister to adjudicate over the various

industry requests for funding that will come her way.” So the Minister

of Finance has all the authority and power to rescue the dying tourism

industry.

I’m sure many tourism operators and workers are watching now, and

they would like to give the minister a thumbs up if the minister will

now commit in this House to include the tourism industry in your $2

billion recovery benefit so that you can help this ailing

industry.

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

Of course, through the Chair.

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

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you for the…. I have clarity now of the question. I want to

remind the member that the recovery benefit that is being brought

forward is open to everybody, regardless of where they work, including

those who work in the tourism sector, in the restaurant sector, the

services sector. That is for them and their families. That’s to get

money into their pockets now. The application will go online. I want to

encourage everyone to go online. I hope all the members of the House

will encourage their constituents to go online. It is going to be the

fastest way to get the supports.

They can get the supports that they need now so that they have

money in their pockets, because we do hear from people that have

suffered very significantly because there are significant challenges. We

know that until global travel restrictions are eased, it’s going to be

very significant for this sector. We are a beautiful place. It’s where

people want to come, and because of this pandemic, people cannot travel

here. They cannot come here, and we’re all being encouraged to stay

home. That’s a good thing. It’s a good thing for our families. It’s a

good thing for our seniors, in particular.

We do recognize that that hurts people. That hurts other people.

They’re making sacrifices, too, and that hurts that industry the

hardest. So we have set aside resources, through the StrongerBC recovery

plan, which was developed over the summer and launched in September,

that are specific for the business supports. That is there for that

industry.

There is absolutely more to do. I know that my colleague the

minister responsible for Tourism has been reviewing the recommendations

and is already identifying ways to act on those recommendations, which

is a good thing. Right now what we’ve got before us are additional

supports for individuals who are impacted by the downturn.

I know that the member, if I recall in her early question, was

querying about the 2019 tax returns. We looked at what would be the best

way to deliver this benefit to the greatest number of people. If we were

to wait for the 2020 returns, I know that the wouldn’t agree that this

would be the best way because it’d mean that we wouldn’t be able to

deliver until the summer, maybe fall, because we’d have to wait for

those returns.

What we did in our analysis, though, is understand how to get this

money into people’s pockets — those that need it most, those with low

and moderate incomes.

[4:10 p.m.]

We had a significant threshold for families and for individuals,

using the 2019 tax returns, so that we could make sure that it’s robust

and fair in that respect and that we understand who’s eligible — because

we do need to have criteria in that respect — and that would be fast.

Waiting until June, July, August just is not acceptable.

It’s with all of those things in mind that we have designed the

program this way so that 3.7 million British Columbians, who we know are

eligible because we know what the returns are…. We know that they are

eligible, and we want to ask them to make the application so that we can

get money in their pockets as soon as possible.

D. Davies: Thank you very much for this. I do have a couple of questions for

the minister around the supplement, of course, which we’ve been talking

quite a bit about recently. What considerations were made when the

government decided to cut the $300 supplement to $150?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think we need to recognize the challenges, certainly, from

March. As a government, we responded, and everybody in this House

responded. We all came together not knowing what we were facing, and I

want to thank all the members for their willingness to work together on

behalf of British Columbians. We still have some work to do.

In March, we brought forward a workers benefit, $1,000. We knew

that people were getting severely impacted. The downside of having a

workers benefit is that there are a number of people and families in

British Columbia that wouldn’t be eligible. It was with that in mind —

recognizing that they, too, would need some additional supports; given

that perhaps it wasn’t safe to take transit and that they would need to

take taxis, or other challenges they might face…. They may have had to

lose out on some little bits of work that they were no longer able to

do. So we brought forward a supplementary benefit to those on income

assistance as well as those on disability assistance — brought forward a

supplement to help them through the hardest days.

Now we have another opportunity to help British Columbians. That’s

with the recovery benefit. The recovery benefit is eligible to those

who, perhaps, have employment, had employment, as well as those that

don’t. We made it eligible for everybody. But we also continued to

recognize that there are still significant challenges, so we added an

additional supplement. That original supplement expires this month, and

we felt it was really important to bring an additional supplement to

those people until March 31. So we made that addition to the program as

well.

I want to point out that it will have some significant impact and

significant benefit that will be really quite helpful for particular

families. I think, for example, about single-parent families and the

challenges when kids need new boots. They’ve outgrown their boots, and

you have no choice. So between the recovery benefit and, in addition to

that, the supplement, single parents will get $1,450, which is a

significant benefit to them. They have significant challenges. That is

$550 more than they would get alone just with the previous supplement

program, which was $300 a month. It’s with that in mind that we made the

decision to bump up the recovery benefit.

D. Davies: I mean, we’ve talked about this cut here in the last few weeks.

Still, the language is not being used properly. It is a cut.

[4:15 p.m.]

The minister brought up a point. The supplement was brought in

initially to bring those that need it through the hardest days. In

reality, we’re still in those hardest days, and we’re not too sure when

those hardest days are going to lighten up.

As far as my last question, I didn’t really get an answer about

the considerations that government was making. In fact, the minister

kind of argued a little bit about why we should keep it. Was the

minister aware, though, with this, about the barriers B.C.’s most

vulnerable might have in regards to accessing this $500 recovery

benefit, through technology or just the ability of literacy in general

to be able to get this benefit?

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, we’re quite aware of some of the challenges in terms of

accessing technology. That’s why we’ve been very busy training up staff

to — I want to say man the phones, but it doesn’t feel like it’s gender

equity language; to person the phones? — answer the phones and to be

available to help people through the process. They’ll be available

starting December 21. We do want to encourage as many people, though, to

use online. It is much faster.

Again, I want to thank the public service. We have been asking

them for months now to craft, design, implement and carry out programs

with record speed. I want to take another moment here, if I might, to

thank them for their work. We are seconding people to make sure that we

can answer phones and help people make their application for this

benefit.

D. Davies: I do have one final question to the minister. In fact, my

colleague from Richmond North Centre kind of alluded to it a little bit.

Of course, the Premier, at a press conference yesterday, said he will be

advocating for the permanent increase of this supplement that was

brought in. “I am one at the cabinet table. The Minister of Finance

makes the ultimate decision on this.”

I guess my question to the Minister of Finance is: will she be

advocating for the permanent increase of this assistance?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member knows that there are normal budgeting processes. We’ve

started that work already. I know that the Premier is a strong advocate,

as well as all of our government, to address poverty in a big way.

That’s why we put together the first-ever poverty reduction strategy for

this province. One has never, ever existed in this province until we

formed government. It’s now been around a year and a half ago, I think,

when we brought in the poverty reduction strategy.

What that entails absolutely includes supports, but it also

includes building affordable housing. It had been years and years and

years since there had been a plan in place, and we’re pouring in

billions of dollars to build affordable housing, because that, of

course, weighs on families. If they have affordable rents, then life is

easier on these families.

[4:20 p.m.]

The same thing with our investments in early childhood education

and making sure that children have opportunities for quality care while

their parents work or look for work or go to school.

These are all part of a poverty reduction strategy to make sure

that people can have a good life, can have the opportunity to take care

of their families in the ways that they need to do that.

Yes, social assistance is a piece of that. I look forward to the

submission from the minister. I look forward to dialogue with my

Treasury Board colleagues, because that is an important part of the

process. I look forward to those meetings and to the budget

process.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the minister indulging a few questions from Zoomland

while we get back into the House here.

Now I want to maybe just wrap up and tidy up a few things here as

we’re leading into the discussions — probably some very just short,

quick questions. Can the minister let me know what the current budget

deficit is right now in the province?

Hon. S. Robinson: The first quarterly report had $12.8 billion as the deficit. That

was in September. So $12.8 billion — September, the first

quarterly.

M. Bernier: That’s the first quarterly. It came out in September, but that’s

based on the first quarter. What were — the same announcement, then —

the provincial revenues to date?

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

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

please?

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s $67.8 billion.

M. Bernier: Through that process, is the minister able to say that we’re on

projection to still meet the budget that was presented in this House

earlier this year? Are we on projection to still meet the budget that

was put forward, that was voted on — after the $5 billion — in the

supplementals earlier? Are we still on track, then, to meet that

budget?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I was just trying to parse out the question. The first quarterly

report reported out on a $12.8 billion deficit, and there will be more

to report out tomorrow.

M. Bernier: Just for the record for the House, when the minister says, “first

quarter report,” can she tell the House, on record, what those dates

actually encompass?

Hon. S. Robinson: The first quarterly report was released on September 10. It was

forecast for the full fiscal year. It also included year-to-date

spending ending June 30.

M. Bernier: The minister can just clarify for me if I misunderstood the

answer. When she said we were already in a $12.8 billion deficit

announced in September, based on first quarter data…. Now she’s saying

in “projections for year.” I just want to clarify that. That $12.8

billion — is that year-end projected deficit or was that year-to-date

deficit?

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

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

M. Bernier: If it’s a $12.8 billion year-end projected deficit, is that

including this $2 billion ask and the $5 billion that was already

approved?

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

billion.

M. Bernier: The minister said earlier today that tomorrow we’re getting a

fiscal update. We won’t go into the discussions that were already

canvassed at that time on what that is. Will we be getting…? I’m not

going to ask the minister yet, unless she’s willing to share it. I’m

wishing that she would. But are we getting more accurate data in

tomorrow’s fiscal update, other than what she’s presented to me today

based on Q1?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: It will be based on the six months that we have been doing this

work. It will be up to date, and of course, once you have up-to-date

data, you are certainly more accurate around your

forecasting.

M. Bernier: I know the answer to the question, but I’m going to ask it anyway.

Is the minister willing to share that information in the House

today?

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

morning.

M. Bernier: Let’s be clear. I just want to go back to my original comments. Of

course we want to see help going to people in British Columbia that need

it right now. But the minister is in front of this House asking for $2

billion without any justification of why she needs that $2 billion,

other than to say she wants to roll out other programming. But we have

not had anything in this House to show that the government actually

needs that money.

We know the government is already projecting a $12.8 billion

deficit. If this supplementary allotment passes, it’ll be a minimum, I’m

assuming, of $14.8 billion — close to a $15 billion deficit. We’ll find

out tomorrow what the revenues are and probably further projections for

the remainder of the fiscal. We’re going to find out what the expenses

are, I assume, tomorrow and the projections for the remainder of the

fiscal. But the minister is in front of the House today asking for $2

billion more.

We went through this process quite a few months ago, where the

then minister came and said they wanted $5 billion — $5 billion to roll

out programs for people that were needing it due to the pandemic that

we’re facing right now in the province — only to find out that the

government held on to $1.5 billion of that to strategically announce

right before an election. Now the minister is here asking for another $2

billion.

If the minister is not willing to tell this House today, then,

what those exact revenues and expenses are and we have to wait until

tomorrow, is she willing to at least say that the government is out of

money and that’s why they’re here asking for $2 billion more?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member started his question off by saying he doesn’t know why

government needs money. Yet we heard from the members earlier, speaking

to the House on behalf of their constituents, about how people on

assistance need help. We agree. We absolutely agree. They do.

We certainly heard from another member, who was talking about

people who work in the tourism sector and the challenges that they’re

having. Yes, their businesses are struggling. We are working to continue

to tailor programs specifically for that industry. We’re going to keep

doing that work.

[4:35 p.m.]

Also, what we’re hearing from people is that things are hard.

Paying bills is hard. Buying food is hard. Getting your kids new shoes.

I keep coming back to new shoes because one of my husband’s friends sent

him a note saying, “Really looking forward to the recovery benefit

because my kids have outgrown their winter boots,” and this will go a

long way to helping to just keep the kids’ feet warm. So we know — and I

know that all the members of this House know — families that can really

benefit from this. It’s been really hard.

I know that all the members of this House know businesses in their

communities that could really benefit from having a few more customers

who might have a little bit of extra money in their pocket this holiday

season to participate in the economy, to buy their kids new boots, to

get gifts for their kids and for their loved ones. So this will help

those businesses as well.

To suggest somehow that this isn’t going to help people, that it’s

not needed, I think is not the case. I know that every member in this

House has heard from people in their constituencies that need help, and

that’s why we’re here before the House with this additional

supplementary estimates.

M. Bernier: Let’s be clear here. Every single member in the opposition has

been standing up and advocating on behalf of people in their

communities, for businesses in their communities, because of the

challenges that they are hearing. I’m not arguing the fact with the

minister that people need help right now. We agree people need

help.

What I’m actually asking, though, and trying to find out from the

minister…. It sounds like they need help. The challenges that are being

faced by the people in the province right now are genuine. We’re not

arguing that. I’m not arguing that in this House. We’re not arguing that

right now during this debate. What I am asking, when I say, “Is this

money needed…?”

The minister is in front of us asking for $2 billion more. My

assumption is — and we’ll find out tomorrow, we’re told — that she’s

asking to increase the deficit in the province of British Columbia,

which at some point somebody is going to have to pay for. But that’s not

the point. The point is the minister is asking for $2 billion more, and

my question is: is that because they have no money left? These programs,

these announcements, as valid and needed as they are…. My question is:

can they not come out of present government allotments?

I assume my answer is going to be that the government is broke and

that’s why they’re here in front of us. But that’s for the minister to

answer, not for me. That was the crux of my question. It’s not that

people don’t need help. It’s: where are the government’s finances? And

are they out of money and that’s why they’re here to ask for

more?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The supplementary estimates that we’re debating right now is in

recognition that the resources that have been allocated to government

have been spent and are being spent as we speak, in supporting families

and supporting businesses and supporting communities. We are before the

House saying that we need more authority — not just more money, but more

spending authority — and approval of these new programs in order to keep

helping the folks who need it the most. So this is about continuing on

the programs that we started delivering in March and to keep doing more,

because it isn’t enough. What we started doing just isn’t enough. We

need more in order to help people get through this pandemic.

I am absolutely hopeful that we don’t have to be back here again

doing a supplementary estimate, that we can continue to help people

through. The vaccines have arrived. The actions of British Columbians

are serving us well, following the guidance of Dr. Henry and her team. I

am hopeful that we will see this through until we have the herd immunity

that will allow us to go back to a more normal activity level that will

help us through to an economic recovery that works for

everyone.

M. Bernier: The minister said that these are going to be targeted programs.

The minister has asked for $2 billion without targeted information,

other than what we’re kind of hearing outside this House of where this

money is going to go.

The supplemental ask from this government just says “for all

ministries.” It’s $2 billion, it says, for all ministries. But there’s

no breakdown other than what…. I guess we’ll get into a discussion

later. But the minister has highlighted, I believe, three, if I

remember, specific programs where she thinks this money is best suited

and allotted, which is government’s decision. Again, we applaud the fact

that we need to work together to try to help the people of B.C. Again,

there’s no argument there. But that help, again, is supposed to go to

people who genuinely need it.

Can the minister…? I know she touched on this earlier. It might be

somewhat repeating. I would like her to explain, then…. On the $2

billion, the minister has said there’s going to be $1.4 billion to $1.7

billion rolled out for a specific program. Can she give a little bit

more detail in the House of what exactly that’s going to look like and

how it’s going to roll out?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: We are providing a new benefit, $1,000 for families and up to $500

for individuals. Families with a net income below $125,000 will receive

the full amount. Families with a net income between $125,000 and

$175,000 will receive a reduced amount. Individuals with a net income

below $62,500 will receive the full amount. Individuals with a net

income between $62,500 and $87,500 will receive a reduced amount. Single

parents who care for their children most of the time will receive the

same amount as families.

Income used in the calculation is net income from their 2019 tax

return. Households will be able to apply by computer on December 18. You

have to have been a resident of British Columbia on December 18, filed a

tax return for 2019 and be at least 19 years old at the date of

application. As well, British Columbians will have until June 30, 2021,

to apply for this benefit.

Telephone applications will be available starting December 21. I

think I mentioned this at some point earlier today — I don’t remember if

we were debating the bill or this; it’s all blending — but we’ve been

training up staff and seconding staff to be available by phone to help

people apply by telephone. Direct deposits will be issued through the

main application system, recognizing that direct deposit is the best way

to minimize fraud in this kind of program.

M. Bernier: I just want to ask the minister a question. She could probably

acknowledge with a nod, if she chooses, and I can put it on the

record.

Did the minister say that single parents, regardless of how many

children they might have, qualify for the full $1,000 as well? The

minister is acknowledging that yes, that’s the case. That’s one that I

did not know. I’m glad we got that on the record.

The minister said, through the course of that, a few interesting

things. I just want to go back to one point. It does seem to have

changed. First of all, I want to acknowledge, again, that we respect the

fact that we’re looking to help people that generally need help right

now. But just a few short weeks ago…. I use that term, trying to be

funny, from yesterday’s comments of weeks and months.

It’s actually a few months ago now — it feels like an eternity,

for myself — that we had an election. During that election, the Premier

stood up and said that if the NDP were to be elected, everybody in B.C.

was going to get $1,000. There weren’t any caveats to that. It wasn’t

$500 here, $1,000 here, or this threshold, that threshold. It was:

everybody is going to get $1,000 if the NDP are elected.

The NDP are sitting in a majority government. I definitely don’t

want to allude to the fact that that’s the only reason why. There was a

commitment made at that time, and with that commitment from the

Premier…. Again, it wasn’t that only the people that need it were going

to get $1,000. The Premier said that everybody was going to get $1,000.

“We’re going to spark the economy. This is going to happen. It will be

direct-deposited into your bank account by Christmas.”

The minister just acknowledged that that’s actually not the case.

I’m just kind of curious. When did that change?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, 3.7 million British Columbians are eligible. That’s 90

percent of British Columbians who are absolutely eligible for this

benefit. Of that, 85 percent are eligible for the full amount. That’s a

lot of British Columbians.

[4:50 p.m.]

Recognizing the member’s question. It sounds to me like he thinks

that people who are millionaires and continue to be millionaires today

should qualify. We think that those who need it most…. It should be

targeted, and that’s how we’ve designed the program.

I want to point out…. The member was talking about the election. I

recall their recommendation — their promise, should they be successful —

was to eliminate provincial sales tax, a temporary elimination, and then

reduce it. I remember shaking my head and thinking: the families that I

know, the families that are struggling, they’re struggling to pay rent,

they’re struggling to buy groceries, and they’re struggling to buy their

kids winter boots. None of those things….

Removing or reducing the provincial sales tax wouldn’t help those

people at all. You don’t pay provincial sales tax on rent. You don’t pay

it on most of your groceries, and you don’t pay it on children’s items.

However, you do pay it on luxury items. You pay the provincial sales tax

on cars and boats and snowmobiles, and that’s who would

benefit.

I appreciate that we tend not to get too political in this part of

these debates, but the member certainly supported that idea, and it’s

one that we absolutely do not support. People need money now, and it

needs to be targeted to the people who need it the most.

M. Bernier: With all due respect to the minister, not once in my comments did

I allude to the fact that we’re not trying to help people. Not once in

my comments did I not recognize that there are people right now in the

province of British Columbia that are struggling and that need help. For

the minister to stand up and allude to the fact that I’m trying to help

millionaires…. At what point today did I say that?

Every single comment I’ve made today, on behalf of the official

opposition, is to help the people who need help right now in the

province of B.C. That’s what this debate is about. The only one that’s

really trying to make it political right now is the minister.

Now, I’m going to give her an opportunity here to acknowledge

something. She just wanted to bring up a PST conversation. Well, the

minister should know, as the Minister of Finance, that almost every

economist that I’ve ever read…. She’ll correct me if I am wrong, which I

know that I’m not, but most economists will agree that the provincial

sales tax, PST, is actually a regressive tax that impacts the poorest

people the most. Is she now saying that most economists are

wrong?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I’m going to remind the member that what we’re debating

here are the impacts of this program and the benefits of this program

and who it benefits. We can’t lose sight of that. This is a program that

will benefit most British Columbians; 90 percent of British Columbians

are eligible for this. This is going to make a significant difference in

their lives, and that’s why coming back to this House to do this

estimate debate is to make sure that we can help people through the next

number of months.

[4:55 p.m.]

We’re not through. I think we’ve adapted incredibly well. I look

around this place, and I look around the city, and I see so many being

respectful, taking extra steps to make sure that you give distance to

other people, wearing masks. People are caring for each other. That’s

really heart-warming. I know it’s heart-warming for all of us, because

it is such a hard time.

We also know that the people who have the lowest incomes, the

people who have modest incomes, are the ones wh