First Session, 42nd Parliament

(2020) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, December 15, 2020

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 11

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

Gary Steeves

Hon. B. Ralston

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

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

M. Bernier

Hon. S. Robinson

M. de Jong

S. Furstenau

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2020

The House met at 1:31 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

GARY STEEVES

Hon. B. Ralston: I wanted to say a few words of tribute to Gary Steeves, who passed

away last week.

Born and educated in Moncton, New Brunswick, he attended Mount

Allison University. His commitment to the labour movement started early.

He was a shop steward for Local 168 of the Tunnel and Rock Workers in

Stewart, B.C. in 1973 and 1974. In the ’70s, he went on to work in the

research departments of the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian

Union of Public Employees. Then he worked for six years in the House of

Commons as an executive assistant to Cyril Symes, an NDP Member of

Parliament.

He met Marina in 1978, and they married in October 1979. In the

same year, he joined the BCGEU, and he began a long career there. The

MLA for Vancouver-Fairview spoke about his time there this

morning.

Upon retirement, he ran and was elected to the Islands Trust,

where he served for ten years, nine years as the vice-chair. The MLA for

Nanaimo spoke about that part of his life on Thursday last.

Just this autumn he published a book entitled Tranquility

Lost . In 1983, BCGEU employees came together, ousted management

and ran the Tranquille School for people with developmental disabilities

in Kamloops. Gary was deeply involved with the union members leading

that occupation, and the book chronicles that time.

Gary was always quick with an anecdote, which often stretched into

a longer story. His infectious laughter and outgoing personality

brightened many a meeting and so­cial gathering. He was at his

most eloquent when he acted as emcee for our friend PEI native Dave

MacKinnon, at his celebration of life in 2016, a memorable

occasion.

Gary was truly an engaged and engaging loyal friend of working

people everywhere. He devoted his life to creating a better world for

everyone.

We will miss you, Gary.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: Continued committee stage de­bate, 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 1:35 p.m.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Peace River South.

On clause 1 (continued) .

M. Bernier: Thank you, Chair. Welcome to the chair for this afternoon, for

your part and time in here, anyway.

I want to quickly go back to where we were just before the lunch

break, before I turn it over to a colleague of mine — just to finish my

train of thought here. The minister was acknowledging, rightfully so,

her staff and the hard work that the staff do in preparing budgets and

the work they do leading up to every budget cycle, in fact.

One of the questions, I guess, I want to find out from the

minister…. She’s sitting there. She has been saying that staff have been

working diligently on putting the budget together, which I commend them

for. Obviously, they do that, and they do that throughout the year and

every year, as they’re doing their planning.

Can the minister confirm for this House, then, who’s asking for

this extension? Is it the minister and government, or is it the ministry

staff and public servants that are asking for extra time to put a budget

together?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and welcome to the

chair.

The member asked about the public service and their role in

building out a budget. I know that the member knows that they have a

very significant role in working with government to build out a budget.

I just learned…. The magical AirPods, the voices in my head, are telling

me that, in fact, we’re one of the few governments that requires all

components of a budget to be presented on budget day.

[1:40 p.m.]

That includes not just the budget and fiscal plan but the

estimates, the supplement to the estimates, the budget bill, all the

service plans — there’s the legislation with all the service plans,

including the Crowns — and the strategic plan for government. It’s a

massive, massive undertaking that is absolutely

comprehensive.

Of course, recognizing that with COVID, staff have been working

flat out. I know that the member opposite knows that. Staff have

absolutely been working flat out for months and months and months to

deliver for British Columbians. So yes, it would be helpful to our

staff, the people who are building these out, for them to have a few

extra weeks so that they perhaps don’t have to work through weekends and

late into the night.

This is about recognizing that the people that do the work on

behalf of all of us are human beings and having a few extra weeks to

build out a responsible budget that takes care of people, now and into

the future, would be most beneficial to the folks who do the work on

behalf of all of us.

M. Bernier: Well, I don’t think there’s any argument from anybody, first of

all, that the staff are doing an amazing job in difficult times, and we

commend them for that.

The minister didn’t answer my question, though. I’m just curious,

again. Of course, if we gave them more time, I’m sure they’d be

appreciative in this time. Has staff asked for the extra time, or is

this government saying that they need extra time in order to give

information to staff?

Hon. S. Robinson: It is on their recommendation that it would be most helpful to

them to do the work that we need them to do, if they had a few extra

weeks to get that work done.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that. Before lunch, the minister acknowledged that

there’s no other province or jurisdiction that has legislation that

they’re putting forward to extend the timelines required for the

transparency act and the accountability that takes place when putting

together a budget.

I know the minister has her magic AirPods in, which will help in

this one then. Those same public servants that we met with a few short

months ago, just prior to the election being called, confirmed with us

that the fourth week of March would be more than adequate for them to be

able to put a budget together. At that time, that was when it was

brought again to this House, just prior to that, that government was

asking for a 30-day extension. The same public servants said that that

would be more than adequate to put a budget together to show in front of

this House by the end of March.

Now we’re looking for yet another 30-day extension and change to

the legislation requirements for this government. I’m just kind of

curious what advice, I guess, staff is giving the minister — and the

minister to clarify, again, what really and truly has changed, then,

other than we lost two months politically because of an election. Staff

was supposedly still working through that time. Those same staff members

told us just a few short months ago that they would be able to meet the

timelines under legislation to put a budget forward.

The minister has been unable to answer what’s really changed,

other than saying “COVID,” but we knew about that back then. I’m

wondering if the minister can give a more succinct answer of what the

challenges are putting a budget together for this government.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The folks at the other end of the AirPods, who were in the

briefing, were really clear that in briefing discussions with members

about the changes that were made this summer, what they were solving for

was for a typical election year with a fall election date. A fall

election was changed back in 2018. Making sure that any government had

the time that it needed to prepare a budget, with a fall framework,

would have until, I believe, the end of March to deliver a budget. That

was adopted by the House. That was for a fall election

framework.

Well, we also have, now, and we had it then too, but we weren’t

anticipating that we would actually be in an election…. Here we are, a

new government, and we have a COVID situation that has really created

some significant challenges. We have a staff that have been working

non-stop since the last budget was tabled in February because, recall,

we went right from budget into a COVID challenge. Their advice to us now

is that we are obligated to table a budget, absolutely. We’re obligated

to do one that is well thought out, one that meets the needs of British

Columbians now and into the future.

If we’re going to be doing this and moving forward at government’s

direction and building out all those various components — the budget and

fiscal plan, the estimates, the supplement to the estimates, the budget

bill, the legislative framework and all the service plans, including

service plans for the Crowns and a strategic plan for government, all of

that within the context of COVID — what we’re saying and what they are

saying is that having a few extra weeks to do it justice is what they

need in order to demonstrate to British Columbians that we have a budget

that will work now and into the future.

M. de Jong: I think, with the greatest respect, what the minister is

encountering is some skepticism on the part, at least, of the opposition

around the rationale that she is providing insofar as it seems to rely

almost exclusively on circumstances that were known the last time, just

a few short months ago. These questions were being pursued, and a

legislative instrument was before the House. I expect that my colleague

and the minister are going to pursue that matter further.

I have a series of questions that relate to the bill and

section 1

and the impact of

section 1, its genesis, and the impact it is going to

have not so much on government, but some of the other agencies that

government deals with. My colleague from Peace South, I think, is going

to have a conversation, discussion, with the minister about some of

those agencies, like school boards, like local government.

It’s sufficient for my purpose here simply to ask for confirmation

from the minister that she and the government understand that by pushing

the date for the tabling of the provincial budget back…. She keeps

saying “a few weeks.” In the span of a few months, we are altering the

tabling of the budget by some 2½ months, and the minister keeps saying

“a few weeks.”

[1:50 p.m.]

It is sufficient for my purpose here simply to ask the minister….I

think she will acknowledge that that, at a minimum, will have an effect

or influence or impact some of those other agencies — their timing

around the finalizing of their budgets. Does the minister agree with

that?

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I do want to remind the member that this House did

pass legislation for a fall election cycle and that there was another

piece of legislation passed in March to, when there is a fall election,

move the tabling of the budget to the end of March. So that was passed,

and what we’re saying is just a few more weeks. We’re not saying 2½

months. I know that the member prefers to go back, but that’s actually

not the case — what we’re asking for right here, right now. I just want

to get that on the record.

In terms of the question, recognizing that there are other

agencies and service delivery agencies that provide services on behalf

of government, part of this bill is to look at delivering either interim

supply or special warrant that will provide security to those agencies,

knowing that they will have the resources needed to carry on delivering

services for people, making sure that our school boards can remain

whole. That would be based on the previous year’s estimates to carry us

through until we can pass another budget.

M. de Jong: I fear the minister has misunderstood. Maybe I phrased the

question clumsily, and if I did, I apologize. She has spoke, looking

back, and in so doing, has acknowledged that there will now be a gap in

terms of a budget, which will no longer be presented prior to the end of

a fiscal year. It will be presented as much as a month, four weeks, into

the next fiscal year. The nature of my question related to their ability

to budget going forward and the ability to….

[1:55 p.m.]

Just as the minister has made the point that it is helpful for her

and the government to have a better idea about what the federal

government is doing, presumably, the same argument holds true — with one

exception. My colleague, I think, will pursue this in greater

detail.

The nature of my question is simply this. In terms of budgeting

going forward, those agencies, the ones I mentioned — school boards,

health authorities — will not know by the end of the fiscal year what

their budgetary allocations, or even global budgetary allocations, are

for the next fiscal year — some weeks later, or up to four weeks later.

Is that a fair statement on my part?

Hon. S. Robinson: I know the member knows that we do have the authority to produce a

supply bill, should we not have a budget passed in sufficient time.

Again, we know it is important for these authorities to know that there

is actually cash in the bank, that they have the resources they need to

keep operations going. And we can certainly plan on doing that to make

sure that business proceeds as normal going forward.

M. de Jong: All right. Fair to say that those agencies will not know with

certainty what the budgeted allocation is for the entire fiscal year

until such time as the full budget is tabled?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: What school districts and health authorities need to know is that

they are going to be able to continue delivering services. We will make

sure that they have the resources they need in order to do that, and

they, too, will see the full scope of the budget when it is

tabled.

M. de Jong: Okay. Well, I think we’re getting somewhere now. The only point I

was trying to make is….

When the minister stands up eventually to deliver her first

budget, there will be budget day. There will be a lockup, and there will

be all of that anticipation and excitement that is part and parcel of

the budget day exercise. It’s because people are interested. It does

impact them, especially agencies, not just governmental agencies but

agencies that receive funding.

Is that a fair statement?

Hon. S. Robinson: If I understood the member’s question, it was really around the

excitement of the budget and: “Won’t that change it?”

By my calculations, we’ll still be in some sort of a pandemic

phase. I think everything about this year has been particularly

challenging. Everything. With British Columbians having to make

significant changes to their lives and their lifestyles, people losing

their jobs, people not seeing loved ones. I expect that Budget ’21 will

also look very different as a result of COVID, including when we have

budget day and, in all likelihood, what that looks like.

I’m not expecting lockup to look like it has in the past. We’ll

have to figure out a different way of doing that in order to keep

everyone safe.

M. de Jong: Well, you can call it lockdown, and people can bring their own

food.

Look, I think the minister has made the point. Whatever shape it

takes, it’s because the budget matters. It is of interest to people. It

speaks to government initiatives. It speaks to funding that flows from

government to other agencies. I don’t hear any disagreement with that

proposition.

I want to talk about one group in particular and ask the minister

some questions about one group in particular who, following along the

lines of that discussion, will be interested in any changes to the

budgeting process and the impact it might have on their budgeting

process. I’m talking about Indigenous peoples and First

Nations.

I went to the budget documents for the fiscal year we’re in, the

budget tabled by the minister’s predecessor for the fiscal year ending

March 31, 2021. If this legislation passes, there won’t be a new budget

in place by the time this document expires.

One of the votes that comprises the budget is for the Ministry of

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. I just wanted to very quickly

read into the record a portion of what Vote 32 involves. I’m quoting now

from the budget documents, the negotiations and regional operations

division.

[2:05 p.m.]

“The subvote provides for the participation in the negotiation of

treaties, incremental treaty agreements, revenue-sharing agreements,

reconciliation agreements and other agreements with First Nations,

Indigenous peoples and organizations. This subvote will support the

negotiation of emerging policy directives and strive to achieve rights,

recognition and reconciliation outcomes…. This subvote also provides for

cross-government coordination and engagements with First Nations and

Indigenous peoples….”

Then secondly there is, under the strategic partnerships and

initiatives division, this descriptive:

“This subvote provides for the support and enhancement of the

government’s approach to reconciliation with First Nations and

Indigenous peoples through negotiations both inside and outside the

treaty process considered strategically important to furthering the

sociocultural and socioeconomic priorities of government, including

revenue-sharing and shared decision-making, supporting Indigenous

self-government and by liaising with key Indigenous business groups and

organizations.”

Then further along:

“The subvote also provides for initiatives to close the

socioeconomic gaps between Indigenous peoples and other British

Columbians, including the identification of opportunities, the removal

of barriers, the cross-ministry coordination of resources and services

provided to Indigenous peoples.”

Further along:

“…support to Indigenous leadership and advisory bodies and for

administration of the first citizens fund, the First Nations clean

energy business fund special account and related transfers.”

So a whole lot included in that vote description.

Fair to say that until…. This is one of the reasons for the

secrecy associated with the budget. Until the budget is actually tabled

and the minister stands up, in whatever format that takes next year….

Until that is actually tabled, no one knows for certain what the

budgeted allocation will be for fiscal year ’21-22.

Is that correct?

Hon. S. Robinson: We are certain that we will continue to fund government for a 13th

month — that’s, I think, the best frame to look at it — and until we

table a budget a few weeks later that will contain the full fiscal

framework for the full year and going forward.

M. de Jong: The message, I think, from the minister is for those

organizations, those First Nations, Aboriginal, Indigenous organizations

who heretofore would have been in a position to know in March what

certain budgetary allocations were….

[2:10 p.m.]

They’ll just wait. They’ll need to wait. In terms of setting their

own budgets for fiscal year ’21-22, they’ll just have to wait the three

or four weeks until the provincial budget is set, but they shouldn’t

worry about that three or four weeks because the government will ensure

that there is funding in place.

Have I got that right?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to reassure the member that funding will be in place

for that 13th month for all organizations that rely on government funds.

What’s interesting, I just learned, through the magic AirPods, is that

First Nations have varying year-ends. It’s not even consistent, so they

always have to adapt, which I didn’t always know. I think the member is

making the assumption that everybody operates on a similar year-end.

That’s not the case.

The short answer to all of this is that funding will be there.

It’ll be there through to when we table the next budget. We are talking

about an additional few weeks to make sure that the public service has

the time that they need to put the entire package…. I know the member

knows full well how significant the work is to put together the entire

package for budget day. They have said that it would certainly be

beneficial on their end to have the additional time, given the COVID

context, so that they can do right by the people of this

province.

M. de Jong: Two things flow from that answer. The first thing is, if I haven’t

made this abundantly clear, for the purpose of this conversation, I’m

not worried about the 13th month. I’m concerned about the instrument the

minister and the government have chosen to use to address that 13th

month, but that is not the focus of my question with respect to

section

1 that we’re discussing at the moment.

Secondly, though, the minister, I think, has made the point, and

I’m happy that she did, for organizations…. I’m going to, in a moment,

ask about, by way of example, one organization. Any of those

organizations that have become accustomed to receiving news from the

provincial government about budgetary allocations in February or March —

March is the case now, although no one has had to do that; it’s always

been February previously — will just have to adapt. I expect they

will.

By way of example, the leadership council. It historically has

received some capacity funding from the provincial government. It has

tended to vary from year to year. I think the point the minister is

making is they shouldn’t worry about what she has termed “the 13th

month,” but with respect to learning about provincial contributions for

the next fiscal year, they’ll just have to wait the three or four weeks

until the budget is tabled.

Have I got that right?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: As the member well knows, when you’re building a budget, you

engage with stakeholders as part of any budget development. That work

has been going on and will continue to go on through the next number of

months.

I want to point out to the member that we’re still several months

away from an April date for tabling a budget. Making sure that they can

adjust to a new timing is certainly going to be part of the work. It is

part of the work. But we also recognize that COVID has turned

everything, perhaps not upside down but a little bit unusual for all of

us, including those stakeholders.

They, too, are looking to adjust — adjust their service delivery,

adjust how they engage, using the technology now so that they can do so

safely. I know that they, too, are looking forward to a budget, but I

also know that they want a budget that is well-thought-out, that is

meaningful and that makes a difference to the people that we

collectively serve. Making sure that they can adjust their plans is

certainly part of the work and part of the undertaking of delivering a

budget several weeks after the current legislated

requirement.

M. de Jong: That’s most helpful. I think the point that the minister is making

is that stakeholder groups, the broad spectrum of society, will need to

adjust to take these changes into account, to take into account the

reasons that she has given for the changes.

But one of those stakeholders has a slightly different

relationship with the government. I’ll come to that in a moment. Well,

maybe I’ll come to it right now. Before making this change to the

budgetary process, which is what this represents, in a way that does

have an impact on numerous stakeholders, including Aboriginal groups,

Indigenous Peoples, did the minister and the government discuss that

change with the First Nations and, for ex­ample, the leadership

council?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: There were no external consultations prior to tabling this bill,

but we are months away.

Part of the plan, once we are finished debating this bill, is to

reach out to these groups to reassure them that government is going to

continue to be there for them, to explain to them how we’re going to

continue to support them through, I guess, the 13th month — that seems

to be the language that we have settled on here in this discussion — to

make sure that they know that they are going to be kept whole until we

can pass a budget, and that in these extraordinary times, taking an

extraordinary measure is what’s needed.

I am confident that they’ll recognize the importance of the extra

time that we need to prepare a proper budget.

M. de Jong: I’ve been listening. I am listening, as I always do, to the

minister very carefully. The language here is important. What I thought

I heard her say, and what I thought I heard her do, was to include First

Nations and Aboriginal representatives within the broad spectrum of

stakeholders. In a moment, I’m going to query the minister as to whether

or not she feels comfortable doing that in light of the state of the law

in British Columbia. But I’ll come to that in a moment.

What I think I heard the minister say is that there was…. Well,

not what I think. I know I heard the minister say that there were no

external discussions with respect to Bill 3.

I have a couple of technical questions about

section 1, and Bill 3

in its entirety. Did Bill 3 go to legislative review

committee?

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I want to acknowledge to the member opposite that in

the course of this exchange, using broad language and talking about

stakeholders, he’s choosing to talk about a particular stakeholder, a

particular group. I certainly am talking about broader than

that.

But I recognize, and this government recognizes, that First Nation

governments are other governments. So to suggest somehow that we don’t

recognize that, I think, is disappointing, because we do recognize that

that is a particular group.

In terms of…. The member asked about the process for development

of this bill. That is under cabinet confidentiality.

M. de Jong: Well, I won’t spend a lot of time on this. The conversations that

take place at a cabinet committee are certainly privileged. In my

experience in this House, the question about whether or not a bill has

been reviewed by the legislative review committee is certainly

not.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Given that the LRC is a committee of government, everything about

it, including its agenda, is confidential. It is under the rubric of

confidentiality.

M. de Jong: I have been here long enough to know that the minister has struck

her position on this and is not likely to be dissuaded. That is the

first time in over 25 years that a minister has refused, in my

knowledge, to acknowledge to the House whether a piece of legislation

has been reviewed by the legislative review committee of

cabinet.

It is not a question of what was discussed. It is not a question

of what advice was received. It is merely a question of whether or not

the legislation that the minister is commending to this committee and

ultimately the House to adopt has enjoyed the benefit of review by the

legislative review committee.

I’m going to give the minister one more chance. I think I know

what her answer is going to be, and that is astounding.

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, thank you for that.

The member knows full well that even agenda items are considered

confidential. Agenda items for committees are considered confidential

for government, and that is my final answer. The member could certainly

take the time to continue to ask that, but the answer is going to be

consistent.

M. de Jong: No, I think the record will speak for itself. I think we have, in

the first session of this new parliament, embarked upon a new era of

opaqueness when it comes to the workings of government.

Was there a request for legislation, and if so, who signed

it?

[2:30 p.m.]

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member full well knows how budget legislation is treated

through process. He knows full well that budget legislation typically,

traditionally, doesn’t go through LRC. He knows that. He knows that

really quite well.

He also knows what is required to be under cabinet

confidentiality. I just find it really interesting, the pathway of

questions, when I know that this member knows full well the process for

dealing with budget legislation.

M. de Jong: Well, the minister, sadly, is incorrect. This is not legislation

about a budget. This is a piece of process legislation.

[2:35 p.m.]

The minister is absolutely correct when it comes to taxation

instruments and when it comes to the budget itself. There is great

secrecy attached to that, and it does not weave its way through the

usual processes.

But she is wrong — I think conveniently wrong — when she suggests

that legislation of this sort…. And I am well positioned to tell her

that she’s wrong, because this has nothing to do with a particular

budget. This is about a process, this is about transparency, and this is

about accountability.

Since the minister has invited discussion about the process,

historically the process has been for there to be…. By the way, my

question was about a request for legislation — it had nothing to do with

LRC — and the minister didn’t answer that. Maybe I should give her a

chance to answer the question. Was there an RFL, and who signed

it?

Hon. S. Robinson: I was checking in with folks on the AirPods, and this, too, is

under cabinet confidentiality.

M. de Jong: Was there a certificate of readiness, and if so, who signed

it?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I think the member does know that his specific question does fall

under cabinet confidentiality. But I also want to reassure the member

that I received all of my advice from the legal services branch with the

Attorney General’s office on this piece of legislation, and that we

followed all recommended processes.

M. de Jong: For the throngs of people watching this exchange, the certificate

of readiness that I was referring to has been, historically, the

document that a sponsoring minister must secure and sign before

proceeding with tabling of a bill in this chamber. It is confirmation

that the bill is in a form suitable for passage and enactment. The

minister has said that she is unwilling to provide, to the committee,

confirmation that a certificate of readiness confirming its suitability

for passage and enactment was secured prior to tabling the bill. Is that

correct?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member knows this as well: before a bill goes into the House,

it has to be satisfactory to the office of the legal services branch in

the Ministry of Attorney General, and here we have it in the

House.

M. de Jong: I want to move on to the matter that actually precipitated my

asking these questions. Just to summarize, then — I do this so that the

minister has an opportunity to correct me on the record if I get this

wrong — what we have learned in the last little bit is that the minister

won’t say who initiated the legislation with a request for legislation,

or if there even was a formal request for legislation.

She won’t say if it was reviewed by the legislative review

committee, the cabinet committee charged with the task of reviewing

legislation before it comes to this chamber. She won’t even say if the

prerequisite document, the certificate of readiness, was signed off on

by someone — presumably someone in the executive council. Despite all

that, she urges support for this piece of legislation from the committee

and from the House. Did I get any of that incorrect?

Hon. S. Robinson: I was getting some legal advice. I was also listening very

carefully, prior to getting legal advice, to the choice of words that

the member was using in terms of asking the question. He seems to be

insinuating — and he started with saying — that I won’t say. This isn’t

about what I…. It’s what I can’t say. The member knows full well what

cabinet confidence is and the requirement to maintain it. The questions

he’s asking are under cabinet confidentiality, and my response is that I

can’t say.

M. de Jong: Well, we will, then, agree to differ, because the questions I have

asked, historically, have been very much in order and very much

appropriate. I will conclude that the minister doesn’t want to answer,

and we will simply agree to disagree on that point.

Just over a year ago, this chamber and the committee were involved

in what was described — I think appropriately — as a historic debate.

The bill was 41. It was the bill dealing with the United Nations

declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

[2:50 p.m.]

The then Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, in

speaking to that bill in the lengthy conversation, the lengthy exchange,

I think fruitful exchange that took place in committee, had some things

to say about the obligations of government and about the impact that

passage of that legislation would have on government.

He said this on December 19, about Bill 41: “This is enabling

legislation. It provides direction to government to address existing

laws and future legislation as it’s being contemplated to bring those in

line over time with the principles of the UN Declaration.”

Does the minister agree with that statement?

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you very much, and of course I agree with that statement by

my former colleague who did a heroic effort in getting us to UNDRIP, and

it was a historic day when we brought forward that legislation. I’d like

to find out from the member…. I await where he’s taking us in relation

to this bill and what his thoughts are. It would be really

helpful.

M. de Jong: Well it surely isn’t a mystery to the minister. She has described

how the impact of this legislation will require agencies, groups,

Indigenous groups, First Nations, to adjust. It has an impact as it

relates to the budgetary link between the provincial

government.

Bill 41 imposed some very specific obligations on the government.

I’m interested to know whether or not the government fulfilled those

obligations. The initial indication is that they did not. The minister

made the point only a few moments ago that there were no discussions

with anyone.

I’m going to query the minister, and I’m going to take her to

section 3 of that historic piece of legislation, which says the

following: “In consultation and cooperation with the Indigenous peoples

in British Columbia, the government must take all measures necessary to

ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the

declaration.”

Does the minister agree that this Bill 3 before the committee is

captured by the provisions of

section 3 of Bill 41?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I think I understand where the member is wanting to take this line

of questioning. I recognize the path that he’s trying to suggest

here.

What I’m pointing out to this House and to the member in

particular is that we are in an unprecedented time. Making sure that we

keep things stable for the extra few weeks that are needed in order to

build a budget benefits everybody — including Indigenous communities,

including Indigenous governments — recognizing that there’s a lot of

work for us to do collectively. There’s a lot of work for us to do in

government, and a lot of work for the public service to do, to put

together an entire budget framework that is churning as we speak, but it

needs more time.

With that, I want to also recognize that the member is insinuating

somehow that there is significant impact to these other groups — these

First Nations as one of them, one of many — and we are reassuring

everybody that we are going to continue extending what currently exists

for everybody until we table a budget in April.

M. de Jong: Look, even if I accepted the minister’s argument on the general

provisions of

section 1, which I don’t, it doesn’t alter the fact that

through introduction and passage — and, by the way, unanimous passage —

of Bill 41, the government assumed some specific obligations — legal

obligations.

The minister has demonstrated a great willingness to cite legal

principles here. By the way, the legal obligations didn’t come with a

caveat in Bill 41. They weren’t legal obligations when it was convenient

for government to do so. Here’s what the then Minister of Indigenous

Relations had to say. I cited

section 3 of Bill 41.

He said this: “Then sections 3, 4 and 5…. That starts the process

for a transparent and accountable process towards changes that can be

made to bring laws into alignment and address new legislation, make sure

they’re in alignment, with the UN declaration.” Then, further in the

exchange: “We’ve stated our intention to amend laws and create new laws,

ensuring that they’re in alignment with the UN declaration on the rights

of Indigenous peoples.”

[3:00 p.m.]

I’ll ask the minister now. Based on the answers she has given so

far, I am rapidly coming to my own conclusion. Does she believe the

government has met its obligations with respect to Bill 41 and the UN

declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, with respect to Bill

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m just wondering if I can ask for a brief recess.

The Chair: We’ll have a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:01 p.m. to 3:08 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you very much. I appreciate the break.

In relation to the member’s question, the historic day and passage

of the DRIPA was pretty significant, but I think we need to remember the

intent of that legislation and the principles that are behind that

legislation. The principles of that act are about rights and title and

the UN declaration.

We have many laws, and many laws will certainly pass through this

House. Many laws have been debated and will continue to be debated in

this House. Our understanding is that this bill doesn’t have direct

impact on rights and title. The path that I think the member is going

down doesn’t apply to this bill, in terms of our

understanding.

M. de Jong: Well, that’s very, very interesting and in­formative. The

minister’s answer is on the record.

Bill 41. The reason we are able to use terms like “historic” is

because it did more than just articulate a feeling. It created a law. In

fact, Bill 41 says that the United Nations declaration on the rights of

Indigenous peoples is now the law in B.C. It says that.

[3:10 p.m.]

I want to ask the minister, in relation to the bill and the

section before the House that she happily has already established has an

impact on a whole bunch of people, including Aboriginal peoples, in

terms of the fiscal relationship with the provincial government…. She

will un­doubtedly try to want to minimize that. I would say that

creating an extra month of uncertainty around the coming fiscal year and

budgetary allocations is not an insignificant impact, but she will

characterize it differently, I’m sure.

Article 19 of the United Nations declaration says this. I’ll read

it. “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the

Indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative

institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent

before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures

that may affect them.”

It sounds to me like

Article 19 has application here. Does the

minister agree?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m going to go back again to the legislation, DRIPA. Again, our

bill doesn’t touch on the principles of rights and title and the UN

declaration. Changing a budget date does not impact on those

principles.

[3:15 p.m.]

M. de Jong: The minister’s argument now, on behalf of the government, seems to

be that Bill 3 was not covered by the provisions of Bill 41. I’m not

entirely sure what her reasoning is. It seems to be that according to

her, the only things that are covered by that would be legislation

dealing with rights and title — her phrase, not mine.

Except she’s wrong. My authority for suggesting to her and the

committee that she is wrong is no less than the former Indigenous

Relations Minister, who had the question put to him

specifically.

Now, here’s what he said. Asked whether Bill 41 and the UN

declaration applies to laws of general application, which is what we

have before us here, the minister said: “Yes, it applies to the laws of

general application, as it may affect them as referenced in the

conditions within

article 19.” Not just a question about the declaration

in general, a question about the obligations that flow to government

under

article 19. Her colleague said that, yes, it applies to laws of

general application.

He said further, on the same day, “This is intended to apply to

British Columbia’s provincial legislation,” no qualifications. Does the

minister accept that? Her previous statement suggests that she does not.

Now would be a good time to clarify the ambiguity.

Hon. S. Robinson: Perhaps I can provide some clarity for the member. It does apply

to a law of general application if that law affects Aboriginal title,

and this law does not.

M. de Jong: That’s nonsense. Is the…? I mean, I am astounded by what I have

just heard. In fact, I’m so astounded that I want…. Well, I don’t want.

It doesn’t matter what I want.

I will provide the minister with an opportunity to consult with

her staff again, because I just heard the Finance Minister of the

province of British Columbia state Bill 41 and the UN declaration on the

rights of Indigenous people only apply to laws — bills introduced, laws

passed in this chamber — that affect Aboriginal title.

I’ve got binders of authority from her own colleague stating

otherwise. But before I get too worked up, I think the minister

misspoke. I want to give her an opportunity to correct the

record.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I did check with our legal team, and I did misspeak, because I

left out “rights and title.” So I will, for the record, clarify that it

applies to a law of general application if that law affects Aboriginal

rights and title. This one does not.

M. de Jong: That will make for very interesting reading on the part of those

that stood with the government, particularly those in the Indigenous,

Aboriginal, First Nation communities who had something very different to

say, and the minister’s colleague, who had something very different to

say.

I don’t think the minister has read the UN declaration. The

minister indicates that she has.

Here’s another quote from her colleague, the former minister, in

the course of debating

section 41. He said this: “I think it’s safe to

say that there’s going to be deeper and more involved consultation

between the province and First Nations — or those nations affected,

certainly, or if nations are affected as a whole. That is what’s

contemplated within the bill. The province is expected to ‘consult and

cooperate in good faith,’ as called for in the UN declaration, when

considering decisions that may affect Indigenous peoples.”

In the entire conversation that took place over the course of two

weeks between the opposition and the minister representing the

government, never once was the qualification added that the minister is

now endeavouring to apply. I know why, based on her own answers to some

of these questions, she is trying to apply the qualification: because

the government didn’t talk to anyone. They didn’t talk to

anyone.

Let me go back to

article 19. You know, what’s interesting and why

it’s frustrating and why it must be horribly frustrating….

The government wants to talk about the steps that were taken one

year ago, Bill 41, and the declaration. They are less comfortable

acknowledging the very real obligations that flow from that and,

particularly, less comfortable when it appears that they did not meet

those obligations.

Article 19: “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with

the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative

institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent

before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures

that may affect them.”

There’s no qualifier there. The minister says that she’s read it.

If she can find a place in the declaration or in the act that qualifies

the application of these provisions in

article 19, then she should tell

the committee.

My question to the minister — and I’d like her to put it on the

record — is: prior to introducing Bill 3, which alters the budgetary

process in a way that will have some impact, some effect, on the Crown’s

relationship with Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous groups, did she

obtain their free, prior and informed consent before

proceeding?

[3:25 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: We may have to agree to disagree on this point.

Article 19 does

direct government to engage in consultation when laws have a direct

effect on Indigenous Peoples, absolutely. Changing a budget day does not

have that kind of effect.

M. de Jong: We are happily, or unhappily, as the case may be, learning a great

deal more as a result of this exchange about how the government regards

the application of the UN declaration. I think that will come as news to

many people. But it still wasn’t an answer to the question, and I’m not

going to extrapolate.

My question to the minister was: did the government, pursuant to

article 19, obtain the free, prior and in­formed consent of

Indigenous Peoples prior to the intro­duction of Bill

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I have answered the question.

M. de Jong: We can get Hansard , and you will be hard-pressed to find

an answer.

If I have to say it for her, I will. The minister’s position seems

to be: “We didn’t talk to anyone. We didn’t talk to Indigenous peoples

or their representatives because we didn’t have to.” So the answer to

the question is no.

I’m not sure why…. The minister looks, candidly, very unsure of

herself. I understand why. She’s breaking new ground for the government

with respect to the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous

peoples.

I’m going to ask again. I’m going to present this proposition to

the minister, I hope as fairly as I can, based on the answers that she

has given. It is her and the government’s position that when changing

budgetary procedural matters like the dates of the budget…. Even though

that affects people that receive money from the government, including

Aboriginal peoples, it is not something that triggers an obligation

under the UN declaration, under

article 19 specifically. Therefore, no

attempt was made to secure free, prior and informed consent.

Is anything about that statement incorrect?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’ll state once again that changing a date for the budget, with no

interruptions of funding and services, does not have an impact on

Indigenous rights and title. That’s not to say…. There are other laws.

There are many laws that affect Indigenous people that we have here in

British Columbia. Government is absolutely committed to fulfilling our

obligations to align those laws, as per DRIPA.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

[3:35 p.m.]

To the member, we’re still on

section 1. I would just ask,

having heard this debate back and forth considerably on this point,

if the member might look to a new line of questioning. We’ve heard

the minister’s response to this question now, and I know there are

other questions that are still standing.

M. de Jong: Thanks, as always, for your guidance, hon. Chair. I think you

missed the adjective “fascinating” debate, which I’m sure you would want

to characterize it as. Rest assured that I am drawing near to the close

of this line of questioning.

I’m sure that within government, the wheels are turning quickly,

but the minister may wish to inform the newly minted Minister of

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation of the information and advice

she has provided to the House and the committee today about the limited

application of the UN declaration. It would not surprise me at all if

that matter were to be pursued with him in due course.

I have the minister’s mandate letter. The second bullet — I don’t

know if they’re listed in order of priority or not, but the fact that it

appears in the mandate letter, No. 2 of five points — charges her with

the task of effecting meaningful reconciliation and refers specifically

to the UN declaration — including, of course,

article 19. The minister

has confirmed for the committee that she and her ministry and the

government as a whole took no steps to engage with Indigenous peoples’

leadership on this matter in a way that I believe is required under

article 19. She has offered a dramatically different opinion of

that.

Is the minister satisfied that less than a month into her term as

Minister of Finance, she is honouring the intent and the objectives set

out by the Premier, in his mandate letter to her, with respect to the UN

declaration?

Hon. S. Robinson: I believe I have answered all of these questions that relate to

DRIPA.

M. de Jong: I would say answered in dramatic fashion, frankly. It will be

instructive to many.

It is certainly instructive to me and instructive to learn how the

fiscal relationship that derives from the budget and that links the

provincial government with Indigenous governments would be characterized

by the minister so dismissively. “Oh, it’s only a matter of a few weeks,

a month.” That’s her story, and she’s sticking to it.

Just another quick couple of questions. We are talking, in

section

1, about the budget, the dates for the budget and the budgetary process.

The minister has talked about that.

That budgetary cycle historically has included a meeting between

the Minister of Finance and the forecast council. Did that meeting take

place, or is it scheduled to take place, presumably by Zoom or some

other virtual means?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to assure the member opposite…. I was thinking about his

closing comments, closing off the component part of the questions he was

asking regarding our commitments to UNDRIP. I was thinking about the

real impact to having more time to build a budget in a COVID context and

thinking about how COVID has impacted Indigenous communities right

around the province. Making sure that we have a robust and meaningful

budget that addresses those very specific impacts, I think, is

absolutely critical.

So I would argue with the member opposite that taking these extra

days, these extra weeks, to build a budget that takes care of people,

that takes care of Indigenous communities, is the absolute right thing

to be doing. In relation to his question, I will be meeting with the

forecast council prior to budget, and it will be a virtual

meeting.

M. de Jong: Very quickly, not to revisit old ground, the point of it all,

including the declaration and the applicable declarations, is that if

that is the view of the government — I accept that that is the case, if

the minister says so — then there is an obligation to have that

discussion before taking action, not after. That’s the part that the

government has conveniently missed.

The meeting with the forecast council. Has a date been scheduled,

and will it — as it has been at least for the number of years that I was

acquainted with it — be open to media and members of the

public?

Hon. S. Robinson: A date has not been set just yet. Probably early in the new year

is when we’re going to set it. It will be open to the public and media

and will be the same format as we’ve provided in the past.

M. de Jong: Well, that’s good news. When the minister says “same format” —

with the qualifier that, historically, it has been an in-person event —

this will be, presumably, some kind of a virtual gathering. That’s good

news. The trajectory of the past has been for the forecast council to

meet in late November or early December and provide an update in

January. Is the minister at all concerned that the information and the

advice becomes stale the longer you push off the budget?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: It would be the same period of time as would normally be the case.

In normal years, it’s a February budget. They get surveyed several

months prior. It’ll be the same amount of time, with it bumped up in the

calendar year.

M. de Jong: I think I’m drawing to the close. I asked about the forecast

council because, of course, it’s a creation…. Well, I’m coming to my

conclusion of my participation with respect to

section 1.

What the minister, I think, has been confronted by is a concern,

sometimes clumsily articulated by me, on the dismantling of a discipline

and rigour around the budgeting process. She will want to explain, and

has tried to explain, about how circumstances have made that essential.

But this province has been served very, very well, through a series of

administrations, by that discipline and rigour.

Ironically, the forecast council was a layer of discipline that,

if I’m not mistaken, was essentially what was created in the dying days

of the administration of the 1990s, in the aftermath of a horrible case

of budgetary manipulation, where evidence arose of political

interference, with the addition of added “optimism,” as I think the term

was, in forecast numbers. It was scandalous.

The

schedule that has been followed, and the discipline associated

with that, in removing the ability of governments of various political

stripes to tinker with and manipulate not just the numbers but the

schedule…. We haven’t even come to the questions around quarterly

reports. Over the five years I sat in that chair, I guess, by my

calculation, we did 20 quarterly reports. They all came in on time. It

wasn’t easy.

I think what the minister is confronted by is a genuine concern on

the part of the opposition that all of that is being dismantled under

the guise of responding to a one-off — albeit a significant one-off —

situation. As we move forward through the bill, we’ll have an

opportunity to discuss some of those matters.

I’m not sure I have some pithy final query for the minister,

except to offer that as on observation for why she is being met by some

very strong opposition and concerns around the first bill she has

brought to this House as Finance Minister.

Hon. S. Robinson: I just want to respond that we’ll be using the same discipline and

the same rigour that have been applied to the budgeting process. That’s

our intent. The bill that’s before the House is to recognize that we

have been, and we are in, unprecedented times and that we need a few

more weeks to get the budget tabled here in this House, given the very

extraordinary circumstances.

[3:50 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: I don’t have anywhere near the volume that the official opposition

has in questions, but I’m just picking up on what the minister just said

about being in unprecedented times and needing additional time —

ultimately, two additional months — to bring forward a

budget.

The minister has been speaking a great deal about COVID and the

unprecedented times. However, we were here in August, until August 14.

The budget implementation bill, Bill 4, passed on July 28, which gave

the original 30-day extension. In between those two times, the

unprecedented thing that happened was a snap election during a pandemic,

which put government into caretaker mode for two months, which is

exactly the amount of time that this government is now saying it needs,

in addition, to present its budget for 2021.

I guess what I’m looking for is the minister’s take on how much of

the need for this additional extension is related to the two months

during which government was in caretaker mode because of the

election.

Hon. S. Robinson: This got canvassed earlier, so I’ll repeat it for the record and

for the member, who may not have been here in the chamber at the time. I

don’t recall.

Back in 2018, legislation was changed for the election cycle to do

a fall election. One of the things that wasn’t considered at the time

was the budget timing related to a fall election, so this summer

legislation was brought in to recognize the need for and the challenges

of having a compressed time to put together an election, should there be

a fall election. That’s just part of an election cycle framework that

was put together back in 2018.

Now, in July — I know the member won’t necessarily agree with me —

there was no recognition or…. I certainly wasn’t expecting a fall

election. I knew that I would get some sort of reaction to that, but so

be it. But that is the case. We were dealing with COVID and addressing

some of the challenges that came with a significant pandemic.

Here we are, post–fall election and looking at what is before us,

talking with the public service about what they need in order to put

together this significant body of work that comes with putting together

a budget, and the timeline is far too compressed, given the significant

challenges, in order to do the work that needs to be done.

[3:55 p.m.]

I know that the members opposite, and this member in particular,

want to make sure that you get all the information in, that you take the

time to get it right. That’s a value that I know she has. I think it’s a

value that everybody in this House has.

What we’re saying is that we need the time to get it right so that

it works for British Columbians. It’s with that in mind that we are here

saying to this House that we need, and the public service needs, an

additional 30 days, because of the COVID challenges, in order to deliver

a budget that works.

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister for that. I do think getting things

right is really important. I also think, sort of, being really upfront

and straightforward about things is also very important, especially at a

time when governments everywhere need to be ensuring that people feel

that they can trust.

In 2017, there was a May election. Then, in June of 2017,

government changed. In September of 2017, a budget update was brought

forward. In February of 2018, a budget was brought forward. Those are

some pretty compressed times, and government had capacity to do it. I’m

fully aware of the reason why Bill 4 had the clause in it to add the 30

days extension, or the end of March extension for the budget, because of

the argument around the fall election.

In some ways, it’s…. We’re here, and as has been pointed out by

the Official Opposition, the one piece of legislation we’re debating in

the midst of this pandemic is this extension to the budget while people

all over the province are struggling with all sorts of circumstances as

a result of this pandemic.

One of the examples I brought up in my second reading speech was a

business owner in Duncan who lost his business after decades and then

can’t get an extension or can’t get a payment plan agreed to by the

Ministry of Finance to pay the outstanding PST that he owes and now is

faced with possibly losing his house on top of losing his

business.

So on the one hand, the Ministry of Finance is saying to the

people that are struggling right now because of COVID, because of the

financial impacts: “Sorry, deadlines are deadlines.” Then, on the other

hand, we’re in here, saying: “We need an extension.” I guess that’s a

challenge for those of us on this side of the House.

I’ve reflected a lot in the last few weeks about what else was

lost over the course of the two months that government was in caretaker

mode and budgets weren’t being worked on and plans weren’t being made

and things weren’t moving forward. Part of what was lost was

that.

Of course, there was still opposition and there was a third party

and there was a minority government. But there was a level of

recognition that we all needed to rise above, in this moment that we

were in, because it is unprecedented and the people in this province are

experiencing difficulties unlike anything any of us have seen in our

lives. That’s also lost.

I’ll get to a question. The minister has been suggesting that it’s

because of the pandemic, because of COVID, that this additional extra

time is needed for getting the budget completed. My question to the

minister is: then why not make this a one-time extension instead of

permanent?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: In a typical year, in a non-election year, the budget process

typically starts in the summer and goes through the fall to a February

budget date. That’s about a seven-month process.

[4:05 p.m.]

The legislation that was brought forward in the summer,

recognizing a fall election date, will need a different kind of

framework. The recommended option was 120 days at the time, recognizing

that you needed to have some time identified for building a budget for

any new government.

What COVID has taught us is that stuff happens. Stuff happens that

makes things more complex, and in order to gather the information, in

order to take a look at the forecasts, in order to engage with the

economics community, it’s incumbent on us to be prepared for all

inevitabilities. COVID has taught us that 120 days is just not efficient

to do all the work that is necessary to build a budget that works for

the people today and works for the people that the member is speaking

about.

We’re here not just to do this budget. We’re here for

supplementary estimates, as well, to get recovery money out to people so

that they can continue to pay bills, continue to buy their kids winter

coats if that’s what they need — recognizing that this is a difficult

time for people.

We are here doing the people’s business because it is a difficult

time for people, and it’s going to continue to be a difficult time. We

know that things have been turned upside down for many, for many

businesses and for many families and for many people, and we need to

build a budget that continues to take care of people in the short term

and in the long term.

Taking the time to get it right is, I think, really important.

It’s for that reason that we are putting forward a bill that says 150

days is what’s needed in order to deliver a budget. However, if you

aren’t in extraordinary times, you can certainly do it sooner. There is

nothing that says you can’t do it sooner. April 30 is the end date that

we’re proposing in this legislation.

S. Furstenau: I guess it’s just a challenge to be able to square what was said

during the snap election and what’s unfolding here. During the election,

the Premier and the NDP claimed over and over again that the snap

election was not going to have any impact on programs and supports going

out the door. But we’ve heard from lots of people and businesses and

organizations that, indeed, there was an impact.

Then we heard over and over again that the reason the election had

to happen was because the government needed stability to be able to deal

with the pandemic. Yet we’ve come back, and instead of being able to

move forward with all the work for those two months when we weren’t here

and there was a caretaker government, we now find out that there is this

long delay that’s going to be a part of the budget process, which will

further delay the programs and supports that need to go.

I heard the minister. Yes, we are here. We are also going to be

discussing the supplementary budget piece. I think that it’s…. It’s not

impossible to say that yeah, the election slowed things down. It delayed

things. It meant that those two months when the budgeting work could

have been going on, it wasn’t happening, and now we need the delay. It’s

okay to say that. I think it’s probably pretty accurate, that had there

not been the election, we would not be needing to see this further

extension to the budgeting process.

I’ll leave it there. I think that my question to end with is: how

can the minister square these claims that were made with the reality and

the experiences of people that are happening in businesses and

organizations that are expressing concerns about delays that are

happening? Maybe just being able to acknowledge and recognize, yeah,

choices were made, and they had consequences, and here we

are.

[4:10 p.m.]

We’re going to move forward, but it’s okay to say there were

consequences for the choices that were made.

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I want to correct the record that programs and

services continued in spite of an election. Programs that were announced

in March, with the help of this House…. Getting a supplementary bill

that helped put money in people’s pockets, that made sure that programs

and services were there for people, making sure that Health had the

budget it needed in order to keep doing the good work that it’s doing,

taking care of our seniors and our vulnerable populations — that

continued through the election period. I think it’s really important to

understand that nothing stopped.

Yes, government might have been in caretaker mode, but the work of

the public service was very externally focused, completely externally

focused, to make sure that people had what they needed. The public

service did a stellar, outstanding job. That was their number one focus

for all of those months. Through the summer, absolutely through the

summer, and right through the fall, that is what they did. We tasked

them as a government. We gave them the tools and the resources that they

needed in order to deliver for people. That’s exactly what they

did.

It’s because of their work to be outward-focused that there really

wasn’t, because of COVID, the energy being put into developing a budget.

It was really a very, very difficult time to multi-task in that way. I

think that there needs to be some recognition of the incredible work

that the public service has been doing all of these months — non-stop,

long hours — to make sure that the decisions that are made here in this

House are carried out by those people.

This bill ensures that even with a few weeks’ delay in terms of

tabling the budget, the programs and services will continue as they need

to for the people that we serve. That’s certainly necessary for people

and, I think, for government. I imagine that everybody in this House

wants to see that continue.

To the member’s question, recognizing that we haven’t had to put

together a pandemic budget ever. Ever. The pandemic hit after the last

budget was tabled. We’ve all been working hard, everyone in this House,

to take care of our constituents. That’s been the primary focus, in

consultation with the public service. The folks that put together all

the budget documents — all the estimates, the bills — are saying, and

their advice to us as government is, that additional time is needed in

order to get this right.

M. Bernier: Thank you to the other people that have asked some really good

questions. I think it’s important as we move forward to really highlight

some of the stresses, challenges, not only that people are facing but I

think in the House here, as we’re trying to understand the top

priorities of this government and why this came forward.

[4:15 p.m.]

I want to give the minister an opportunity here. I think we just

need to clarify something, because it’s been mentioned so many times

throughout the course of the day already. I just want to — maybe it’s

semantics — get this on the record, and it’ll help the minister, maybe,

in her dialogue going forward, because she’s used a couple of different

terminologies of: “Don’t worry. This is only a couple of weeks.” Earlier

today she said it’s only an extension of a couple of days.

I just want to make sure we’re all clear. This is not only for the

House but for the public as well. Every single budget that we’ve had in

the past has been delivered on the fourth Tuesday of February. The House

is usually called back the second week of February for a Speech from the

Throne. The work is done, and a budget is presented shortly

thereafter.

Last summer, this summer that just passed, government came forward

and asked for an extension of 30 days, which took us to March 30. The

minister is now in front of us with this bill. Sorry, it wasn’t March

30; it was the fourth Tuesday in March. She’s now asking for an

extension to April 30.

I just want the minister to correct me if my math is wrong. Next

year, if we go with the bill, as it’s changed — fourth Tuesday in March,

which is March 23; she’s now asking for this extension to April 30 —

that’s actually, on the calendar, six weeks, 40 days. Will she agree

with that comment?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to be really clear that this is only for election years

when we have an election in the fall. When it’s not an election year, it

is February — just standard practice, what we have always been doing in

this House.

When you pull out the calendar, five weeks and three days is the

difference.

M. Bernier: Okay. Appreciate the minister doing that. Maybe that’ll help going

forward, because one of the things I also am wondering…. So it’s five

weeks, three days. Doesn’t matter. We’ll talk about a month-ish,

what­ever, for simplicity as we go forward.

Maybe the minister, then, can walk me through a little bit of a

timeline of how she sees next year, which will be the budget cycle after

an election year. We’re acknowledging and I acknowledge that that’s what

this bill is changing — just an election year. I’ll ask, maybe, the

minister more questions about that later. The assumption is every year,

therefore, afterwards we’ll be back in February, unless it’s an election

year. Agree with that.

Can the minister walk me through, then, how she sees, with the

passage of this bill — and the assumption is government will be passing

this bill, obviously — next year looking?

[4:20 p.m.]

The reason I ask that is that we’ve typically always been here in

February, just so the minister knows where my headspace is on this. We

typically come here. We have the budget in February, and then we start

the estimates process based on what the Minister of Finance has

presented after budget day, for each individual ministry, for us to be

able to ask questions, dissect the government’s budget.

I’m just trying to understand how she sees that timeline looking

and how that will now be stretched out further into next year as we go

through an estimates process based on the budget presented.

Hon. S. Robinson: Just for clarification, you’re talking about what happens here in

the House?

M. Bernier: Sorry. Just to clarify, yes.

Hon. S. Robinson: The member is thinking ahead, and he’s right. You need to build in

the time to do a fulsome debate. Whether or not we have one, two, or

three committees operating at the same time or how much time is

allocated to each of the budget estimates, it’s really up to the House

Leaders to determine how to best proceed to have a fulsome debate about

the budget.

M. Bernier: Of course, the expectation will be, as the minister has been

highlighting here in the House…. She is asking for an extension to be

able to put a wholesome budget together. There would be an expectation

of this House and all the members of this House that we would be granted

that equivalent honour of extension and what’s required to make sure

that whatever budget is put forward gets the proper scrutiny and the

proper discussion and debate here in the House by the opposition, on

behalf of the people in British Columbia.

Can the minister then maybe confirm for me…? I’m afraid I know the

answer, but I think it’s an important question. Can the minister confirm

that we’ll be back, as always, even though it’s an election year and

we’re talking about the budget…? Will the House be back at the beginning

of February for a Speech from the Throne and continuation of proper

discussion of legislation in the House?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m going to ask for a five-minute recess. My technology has run

out of juice.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. We will be taking a five-minute recess so

we can get the juice back up.

The committee recessed from 4:23 p.m. to 4:33 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to extend some gratitude to the House for helping recognize

that we’re having some technological challenges, and of course, the

backups aren’t working either. We’re just trying to balance out, making

sure the technology is working. So please bear with us.

I want to get to the member’s question, but I can’t remember it

because I was running around trying to find my backups that don’t work.

If the member would be so kind as to repeat the question, that would be

great.

M. Bernier: It’s been a while. I almost forgot what my question

was.

Actually, what we had discussed quickly was that we know that,

through the estimates process, it’s going to be extended. My question

was: does that mean all of this government and all of this House will be

extended? Or will we still be expected — and will the minister confirm

it — to be back here at the beginning of February to do the people’s

work?

Hon. S. Robinson: It is really up to the House Leaders to make the determination

about when the House sits and how long the House sits.

[4:35 p.m.]

M. Bernier: I assumed that would be the answer. But I think it’s also

important just to recognize that this bill in front of us can and

actually will have impacts on a multitude of things — how the House,

maybe, functions, other delays that might take place.

The expectation will be, obviously, that the House comes back and

sits, because even though the minister is asking for a delay in the work

she has to do putting together her budget — we discussed some of the

challenges that she’s trying to highlight in order to do that — that

doesn’t stop the work of government in other areas.

The minister has highlighted the stresses and the challenges that

people are facing right now in British Columbia. We’re with her. We

agree. The people of B.C. right now are going through unprecedented

times and challenges. The last thing, again, that most of them are

expecting or wanting to see is a delay of knowing where the government

is going, what the plan is. We’re going to ask questions later on, on

what the actual plan is, because we haven’t really seen one.

But I’ll throw a carrot to the minister. She really wants to be

standing here and saying she acknowledges that there are stresses and

pressures for people, while we’re sitting here debating delaying the

government putting forward a budget. We only have one bill right now in

the House that we’re debating. This is it.

There’s a private member’s bill right now for the food and

beverage delivery fees cap that was presented by the opposition. I think

it could be another example of us working together, another example of

taking politics out of this place and doing what’s right to help people.

This is being called for extensively by service groups around the

industry, around the province.

So the minister can help us out. I’m more than willing to quickly

run through the rest of this bill if she finds that she could find a way

to bring that bill forward before the House rises this week.

Hon. S. Robinson: I was listening carefully to the words that the member was using,

and I think it’s important to get on the record that this is about

taking the time to construct a COVID budget. We have been working

through supplementary estimates to deliver programs and services to help

people through this. But the last budget that was presented to this

House was in February, before we really knew what was going to play out.

We know so much more now, and we see the significant impacts.

I just want to remind the member that this isn’t about delaying

anything. It’s about taking the time needed to build a budget, a COVID

budget, that responds to the needs of British Columbians. That’s what

we’re debating here. It’s absolutely COVID related, given the impacts

that COVID has had on so many people’s lives, on our health care system,

on our seniors care system, on our schools, on businesses. It just goes

on and on and on.

Being responsive, it’s incumbent on all of us to gather that

information and understand the impacts so that we can make sure that the

resources are there for people and businesses and communities that need

them. So this is really about taking the time to get it

right.

M. Bernier: That wasn’t, obviously, an answer to the point that I brought

forward of maybe bringing other legislation that’ll help people. But I

know the member for Surrey–White Rock has been hearing loud and clear

that that specific private member’s bill could do something almost today

to help a sector out there.

I don’t want to debate the whole terminology around delay or

whatever, but the minister is asking for more time. I mean, the actual

wording in the explanatory notes in the bill is saying that the minister

is asking to extend the deadline. I guess we could say extend the

deadline, delay.

[4:40 p.m.]

To me, that’s pretty close to the same kind of terminology being

used, not that we have to agree to disagree. I recognize that the

minister is asking for more time to do the job that she says is needed.

I will also acknowledge that the last time this House has seen a budget,

as the minister said, was February.

The minister has continually said throughout the course of the

debate, over the last few hours, anyway, that it’s about getting it

right. It’s about listening to the people. Now, we also found out

through the course of the discussion earlier today that that excluded

discussions with First Nations in the province of British Columbia

before any decision was made to put this legislation forward.

Can the minister, then, maybe let me know what groups she did meet

with? Obviously, before this announcement was made that she needed more

time…. She said that she’s listening to people. What groups has she met

with that have asked for this delay as well, which means that the

government needs more time?

Hon. S. Robinson: If I heard the member correctly, and I want to apologize if I

didn’t because I was getting some feedback in the technology…. The

technology is great until it isn’t, so I apologize if I didn’t quite

catch the member’s question. It was around who is calling for this

needed time.

Again, talking with staff around getting to work to build the

budget, it became really clear from staff, from the public service, that

have…. Again, I want to remind everybody — and I know that the members

know that, but I think it’s important and it can’t be said enough —

about how proud I am of our public service and the work that they did,

turning on a dime back in March, developing programs, getting them out

the door. I know that the member opposite knows this because he has been

on this side. It can take a long time to get a program developed and out

the door because you want to make sure that all of the pieces are

perfectly placed.

We felt, and certainly the public service felt, that we didn’t

have the luxury of time around the COVID crisis, that we needed to move

quickly. We’ve done that. The federal government has done that.

Governments all around the world have been doing that. It can’t be said

enough how the public service has delivered for British Columbians in

such a significant way.

They’re paying a price for that. They’re tired. They’re exhausted

because they have been working right through. And we have been back in

this House right after the…. I’ll say the crisis struck in March when

things sort of changed dramatically for all of us, and we came back

again in the summer to move more programs out the door, to help

businesses with the recovery program, to make sure that we had the

pieces in place to take care of British Columbians.

Here we are back again doing more of the same with the recovery

benefit. It really is the work of the public service to push that out

and to make those programs work for British Columbians. So here we are,

saying: “Okay, and we have to get in to do budget.” Frankly, they’re

exhausted. Time that would have been spent building the budget has been

going into program delivery as a response to COVID.

[4:45 p.m.]

Really, what we’re saying is that the public service needs to work

with us, as government. Government needs to work with the public service

to build the budget. They are integral to putting that together, to

working with government to do that. So it’s in collaboration with the

public service that we’ve brought forward this bill saying that more

time is needed in order to do it justice.

M. Bernier: Nobody’s arguing the fact that we have a crisis in front of us,

and the great work and the hard work and the long hours, I’m sure, that

the public servants in the ministry — this ministry, specifically, and

I’m sure almost all of them — are going through right now.

I do find it interesting, though, that the minister, and the

ministry, I guess, through the arm of the minister, had time to bring

this bill forward, including such things as the Home Owner Grant Act and

changing…. We’re going to get to that, I guess, in a little while, in

section 4, clause 4. Again, those are some of the most important things

forward that everybody was calling for — to deal with how we apply for a

homeowner’s grant and bring more work into government. I digress, I

think, on that. But we’ll get to that in a minute.

Well, I’ll put an easy question forward, first of all. Before the

decision was made to have this delay, did the minister consult with the

UBCM and local government?

Hon. S. Robinson: As I said before, there were no external consultations. The member

can go through as many groups as he wants, and it will be the same

answer.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that from the minister. She did say that they did not

consult with anybody. They have made this decision up internally, that

they expect more time.

Was there any analysis done, then, by the minister and the

ministry and government: by extending and asking for an additional 30

days, over top of the 30 they already had, what impacts might that have

to other agencies that rely on not only government funding but report to

government in a timely manner, which they’re legislated to

do?

Hon. S. Robinson: There are two components. We talked already about the funding, and

we are going to with funding, as per this current year, over the

extended period of time.

[4:50 p.m.]

In terms of reporting — I think that that’s what the member is

talking about — it doesn’t create any problems for those that are

obligated to report out. It’s standard. Nothing changes

there.

M. Bernier: The minister says nothing changes. When do school districts have

to submit a balanced budget to the government for approval and

scrutiny?

Hon. S. Robinson: I was just checking with staff. This extended time won’t impact

the school board reporting requirements.

M. Bernier: That’s good to hear. My question, though, was: when do they need

to report by?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: June 30 is the date that a balanced budget needs to be provided

that is approved by the school board.

M. Bernier: I asked the minister earlier if she would confirm that no groups,

agencies, would be affected by this delay. I’m just curious. I never got

a straight answer from her. Is she willing, then…?

When you look at groups like school districts who can’t put their

budget together without knowing what they’re getting…. The minister just

finished saying that they won’t be delayed. Maybe I should take away my

excitement from her earlier answer, when I said I’m glad to hear that,

because maybe I’m not glad to hear that they won’t be

delayed.

Is the minister willing to stand in the House, again, and confirm

that this delay that she is asking for, for implementing a budget in the

House, will not in any way impact any other groups or agencies that rely

on government funding? I know the minister said that funding will

continue, but there are still reporting requirements, such as school

districts, that have to also implement and put together their own

budget.

They will now be delayed before they know what they will be

getting, because they can’t build a budget based on what they thought

they were getting, unless the minister wants them to put budgets

together on what they hope to get — which, of course, we know is not

what we expect. Is the minister willing to say that nobody will be

negatively affected by her delay of implementing a budget?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member asked the question about reporting requirements for

school boards. They report June to June. Other entities will have

different year-end dates. So everybody is in a slightly different boat,

given when their requirements are. That’s why we’re bringing this budget

bill now so that people can plan their timing around knowing when the

budget will happen and knowing how to make any adjustments that they

need to make.

I want to be really clear. Everybody is going to continue to be

funded, in the way that they have been funded, as we take the time to

build out a COVID budget. That’s going to be absolutely critical for

Budget ’21. Making sure that we have considered all of the challenges

that COVID has brought forward to all of us and to all of these entities

is absolutely critical.

We’ll certainly make sure that those that do have reporting

requirements, that do develop budgets based on our budget, are familiar

and are knowledgable about the fact that more time is needed to build

the fiscal plan, the fiscal framework, and Budget ’21.

[5:00 p.m.]

We’re in a year of adapting, if I had to give a year of adapting,

to significant challenges. I know that people are up for it because

they’ve continued to demonstrate that throughout 2020.

M. Bernier: I’m just trying to really understand the process that government

is thinking, how this is going to look on the ground. When this bill

passes…. I assume, again, it will. Even though nobody from government

spoke to it, I’m assuming they’re supporting it. It states that the

minister must have a budget presented on or before April 30. Is she

going to go right to April 30 and deliver it then? Is she thinking she

might come earlier? When is the budget going to be presented?

Hon. S. Robinson: The budget extension that’s before the House looks at April 30 as

sort of, I guess, a drop-dead date, the very last date that the bill can

be introduced into the House. I’m working with staff right now to

identify exactly how much time is needed within that time frame. I’ll be

sure to let the member know as soon as we have finalized the

date.

M. Bernier: Let’s work not necessarily backwards, but let’s put together how

the process typically works right now. We get called in at the beginning

of February. The Speech from the Throne. Shortly later, a week or two

later, we have a budget speech. That’s the first time people have their

eyes on a document that knows what the government’s plans are, what the

funding will be.

There are a lot of agencies and a lot of groups, a lot of boards,

people who rely on government funding, who are waiting to see that

document. In every other year, it’s been February. Again, to recap, the

government asked a few months back for a 30-day extension due to COVID.

We are here today debating only this bill for another 30-day extension

because of the uncertainties of COVID. I don’t have to rehash this. We

went through it earlier today.

Again, typically we’d be here in February. We would then start

scrutinizing the budget that’s in front of us. We’d go through an

estimates process ministry by ministry. Again, it’s the first chance

that a lot of people…. In some cases, I’m thinking, it’s the first time

the ministers in different ministries have seen what allotment, what

their budget, is going to be proposed. I say “proposed” because it has

not been given the scrutiny of this House and royal assent. Typically,

that takes a couple of months. That takes us to, usually, the third or

fourth week in May before we’re in this House, royal assent, after the

estimates on the budget. That truly is the first time people can say:

“Now I know what I’m really getting because it has now been passed in

the House.”

Now, if we use that same similar timeline…. The minister said

earlier on today that obviously we’ll wait to see what the House Leaders

decide, but we want to have the opportunity for this House to do a

similar process and similar scrutiny ministry by ministry.

[5:05 p.m.]

If we used a similar timeline, we would not be getting royal

assent now till July, possibly even August, depending on what kind of

budget is in front of us. We have now passed the timelines where so many

agencies have already had to submit their budget to

government.

The minister says they are going to continue to get the same

amount of money. Is she actually telling us now that there’s not going

to be a change to the budget? I’d like to hear the minister say, then,

if that’s the case. How are a lot of these groups supposed to submit a

budget to this government when they don’t know what they’re going to be

getting from government?

Now, I know the minister can probably stand up in this House and

say they have a majority government, and don’t worry, whatever they

present on April 30 is what you’ll be getting. That’s still not fair to

this House. It’s not fair to the people and the accountability and

transparency, which, by the way, is the act we’re discussing right now

that we need to go through.

Back to my earlier question. Will the minister at least

acknowledge that these delays might have impacts on timelines that other

groups have to follow?

Hon. S. Robinson: Listening to the member’s query suggests to me that he seems to

perhaps have forgotten July 2013 — I believe that was the year — when we

did estimates debates through the month of July. It took us a month to

get through all of the estimates because it hadn’t been done in that

spring election. There were three Houses running, if I recall. One of

them was very hot — it was upstairs — because it was July. There is

tremendous adaptability in this Legislature, in this House.

I do think it is important to have full debate, estimates debate,

and I will leave it to the House Leaders to make the determination about

how to be efficient, how to be effective and how to deliver a budget

that makes a difference to people. At the end of the day, what we’re

talking about is taking a few weeks of extra time to build a budget that

works for people now and works for people in the future.

We are in a…. We keep saying “extraordinary.” We keep saying

“unprecedented.” I’m running out of words, because it really is. It

really is. People deserve to have a government, all of us, working

diligently to make sure that we are directing resources and making sure

that we are taking care of the people that depend on us to do

that.

Right now what we have before this House is the opportunity to

say: “Let’s get it right. Let’s take the time.” Let’s take the advice of

the public service that is informing us that they need more time.

They’ve been run off their feet delivering services through the time

that normally they would be spending putting together some of the budget

documents. They need more time to get it right, and it’s incumbent on

all of us to help facilitate that, I believe, and make sure that it does

get through the House, that it does get the scrutiny it deserves. I have

confidence in our House Leaders to help to us do that in a timely

manner.

M. Bernier: Not to debate history with the minister…. Of course this House

gets called back under extraordinary times. We’re in one right now,

debating, which we’re going to get to later on, the government asking

for more money. We recognize that typically doesn’t happen, but under

this government, it has, and we’ll debate and talk about the reasons for

that a little later.

[5:10 p.m.]

In 2013, if memory serves, there was actually a budget presented

in February, and there was an election, and then there was a change to

come back after the election to modify that budget. People actually knew

what they were getting prior to an election, and then we came in and

debated and changed that budget afterwards.

Regardless of that…. The minister can correct me if I’m wrong, and

I might be, but the point is that people are going to be having to wait,

and that’s what the minister says is fine.

There are still the statutory obligations of groups that have to

respond to government. There’s legislation for other groups of when they

have timelines. Is the minister acknowledging, then, that for local

governments, school districts and others that are covered under

legislation for requirements of reporting, the door is now open to

change the legislation for them, as well, as the government sees fit to

do for themselves?

Hon. S. Robinson: At this time, we don’t believe that there is any impact. We’ll

certainly…. We’ve done a scan to identify if there are any, and at this

point, we don’t believe that there are any impacts to statutory

reporting, should this bill pass and we have the extension needed to

deliver a robust and meaningful budget.

M. Bernier: The minister probably doesn’t need to ask her staff this one. When

is the statutory requirement for local governments to report to

government?

[5:15 p.m. - 5:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: They wanted to double-check some of the legislation. I was right.

May 15 is when it has to be adopted. What’s interesting, though — and I

know that the member has significant experience in local government — in

Coquitlam we didn’t wait. We would adopt our budget, typically in

December, because it felt important to have the knowledge of our fiscal

framework earlier rather than waiting. So it’s the latest that you could

do a budget, but you can certainly do one earlier. In the city of

Coquitlam, they always chose to do it and adopt a budget in

December.

M. Bernier: I don’t mean this as disrespect to the minister. I thought that

was a softball I threw her, as the former Minister of Municipal Affairs,

of the timelines required.

Look, I mean, I’m not trying to take the minister down a rabbit

hole here. I’m not trying to highlight anything other than the

government putting legislation forward to delay their budget to be in

front of the public can, may and probably will have effects on other

agencies.

Local governments have to put theirs together so they know what

their tax rates are going to be. We’ve got lots of former local

government officials and mayors here, and they understand that process

where they need to know. The minister says the money is going to

continue. That’s great. School districts aren’t going to officially know

until close to the deadline for reporting, but they also have to give

notice to union if there’s going to be layoffs due to cuts in April and

May — again, before they even know what they’re officially going to be

getting.

The minister has said numerous times today not to worry; the money

they’re getting is going to continue so they can work forward for

putting their budget process. Is she saying, then, that everybody next

year can start putting their budgets together? Nobody is getting extra

money?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to point out that the member is conflating different

things. In local government, certainly when I was on council, we didn’t

wait for the February budget to plan our budget for the city.

[5:30 p.m.]

We passed our budget every year when I was on city council — and I

believe that they still do the practice — in December. It wasn’t

contingent on a provincial budget. To suggest somehow that one naturally

leads into the other isn’t accurate, in fact.

Local governments have their own responsibilities to budget

appropriately and do so quite well. They do. In Coquitlam, they did it

well, as well, and didn’t time it around the provincial

budget.

So I think that’s not an accurate reflection of what an impact

that he is suggesting.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

What we are saying, as well, is that in the time until we do table

a budget, one that is well-thought-out, that considers COVID impacts,

that makes sure that we take the time necessary to build an appropriate

budget for the time…. What we’re saying to groups is that we will

operate for that 13th month as if it was a 13-month year, so they will

not be impacted by the extra time that we take to build a budget. We

will continue to do the work that’s necessary to continue to take care

of people, to continue to take care of businesses, to continue to take

care of our communities so they can come through this pandemic as best

as possible.

M. Bernier: I do find it somewhat ironic, though, that the minister is talking

about the requirements of all these other groups putting together their

budgets, yet they’re not willing to follow the same process for

themselves of submitting and doing the work in a timely

fashion.

The minister must know and have done the work of what she sees in

the projections, going forward. I know she’s asking for a delay. Again,

I want to stress that this is not about the staff and staff work. This

is politics. I think this is politics — 100 percent. Will the minister

maybe…? Actually before I get to that…. I think I’ll bring that up in

the next section.

I just want to acknowledge that what government is doing here does

have impacts, could have impacts. For the minister to say, “Don’t worry.

Put your budgets together and keep going….”

I want to just remind this House of the employer health tax.

Governments were in the middle of putting their budgets together and

deciding how they would or would not increase property taxes as one of

their only sources of revenue, and they get smacked with an employer

health tax that they now have to budget for, that they didn’t know

about, because this government brought that forward. So what government

does and when they do it does actually have impacts on other groups,

agencies and people, specifically, here in the province.

I’m just going to wrap up this section. I just want to highlight a

few things. The minister has said throughout the course of this day that

this is not going to have impacts — she’ll have an opportunity to

correct me if I’m wrong on any statement I make here — on other groups

or agencies. But at the same time, today we found out that she actually

hasn’t talked, spoken with, consulted with any of those same people and

same groups that she says are not going to be impacted. So how does she

know?

We had a long discussion earlier of the fact that this

government…. One of their very first chances to be in this House and to

follow the legislation that they put forward around UNDRIP, and they’re

not following that. The very first chance after an election to sit in

this House and discuss legislation that is actually go to help people

who are in dire need of that help right now in the province, and we have

a bill to delay the transparency and accountability of this

government.

[5:35 p.m.]

I think it’s important for this House, as an opposition, to bring

these questions forward, to put this scrutiny on government, to really

understand where government’s priorities are. People that are going to

be watching this are going to really be baffled in so many ways that

this is what’s in front of us, and this why we called to Victoria in the

middle of what was discussed today as a second wave, a pandemic. It’s

troublesome.

I’m going to end this

section with just one question, I guess, to

wrap up my comments. This entire House, I know, is excited that there is

now a vaccine that’s coming that’s in front of us, that there is a shred

of hope because of the vaccine. Is this budget being delayed to the

point where a vaccine now is going to be more readily available,

coincidently, around the end of April, from what this government has

been talking about? I’m giving an easy one for the minister to wrap up

this section, I think, by acknowledging and by saying: is there a

coincidence between the COVID vaccine — not the COVID pandemic but the

vaccine itself…? Are they waiting until the vaccine is more readily

available before they put a budget forward?

Hon. S. Robinson: No, they are not related at all. Just like every member in this

House, I heard the news with significant relief — was it last week, two

weeks ago? — that it was coming. This is not at all related to

that.

I think I just need to put on the record that the member seems to

think that doing a robust, meaningful budget, taking the necessary time

to put together one that works for people, that works for businesses and

that works for communities is not important work to make a difference in

people’s lives, that it’s not a significant piece of

legislation.

I think the budget is the most important document that government

brings forward in order to take care of the people it serves. The people

need this government to keep doing what it has been doing. We need to

take the time and make sure that we have the supports from a public

service that is absolutely exhausted, that we can do right by the people

of this province. It is for that reason that we are saying there is not

enough time to get it right. That’s why this legislation is before the

House.

The Chair: The member for Peace River South.

M. Bernier: Thanks, Chair, for indulging me, because I was not going to get

back up until I heard that.

I just want also to be on the record that the minister just said

the most important thing is presenting a budget to this House.

Meanwhile, we’re debating a bill for her to do the exact opposite — for

her to delay bringing a budget to this House. People expect that budget.

The minister just acknowledged it’s probably one of the most important

things this House could do. Yet we’re debating delaying, doing exactly

the opposite. The minister can’t have it both ways.

I will acknowledge and agree with her, though, that the budget is

the most important thing because it sets the framework for this House

and for the province, which is why I’m asking the questions about

delaying it. So I will acknowledge and agree with the minister. It is

important. That’s why we’re asking these questions. That’s why we don’t

think we need to delay the important work and the expectations that the

people of the province have to see what the goals, plans and visions are

and how it’s going to help the people of B.C. That, to me, is why we’re

having this debate.

The Chair: Thank you, Members.

Did the minister want to respond?

Hon. S. Robinson: We’re going to keep this volley going, hon. Chair, mostly because

I do think where we agree is on the importance of the budget. That is

where we agree, absolutely.

That’s why it’s important to take the time to get it right and to

make sure that we have a public service that can help us deliver a

budget that works for people. It’s not about what he calls a “delay.” It

is about taking the time, and that’s probably where we

disagree.

[5:40 p.m.]

The Chair: Seeing no further questions on clause 1, we are going to have

a vote taking place.

Shall clause 1 pass?

The vote does not carry.

Division has been called. There will be a deferred division

tonight pursuant to a sessional order adopted December 7, 2020. The

division will be deferred until six o’clock.

On clause 2.

The Chair: We’re going to be moving on to the second clause, for those

following along at home. Big surprise, on to clause 2. Any questions

on clause 2?

M. Bernier: Surprise. The Chair makes it sound like we’re playing a home game

here, but this is actually quite important work we’re doing

here.

I want to read something here from the actual Budget Transparency

and Accountability Act, the actual act that we’re debating right now,

which has a lot of green lines in it. For those who don’t know, green

lines mean those were changes that were recently made this year,

already, to the act. So there are a lot of changes that have already

taken place when we had this act in front of us here a few months

ago.

This

section here that we’re talking about now is, again, about

transparency. It’s about accountability. It’s about reporting. It’s

about the duty of government and the minister, specifically, on her role

and the expectations within that role.

Again, under the act, and talking about quarterly reports first.

section 10: “

(1) Quarterly reports must be prepared in accordance

with this

section and with the accounting policies established by

Treasury Board.” We discussed Treasury Board earlier, but I won’t get

into that now.

“

(2) Each quarterly report must include the following: (

a) for the

government reporting entity, statements of (

i) the revenues and

expenses, and the resulting surplus or deficit, for the period from

April 1 in the fiscal year to which the report applies to the end of the

quarter to which the report applies,” and also to report “(ii) the debt

at the end of the quarter to which the report applies.”

Can the minister tell me when the last time her government

submitted a quarterly report?

Hon. S. Robinson: September 10 was the last quarterly report, but I also want on

record that there was also an update in July, recognizing the

significant impacts of COVID. So there was the budget, and then July,

and then September 10.

[5:45 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Can the minister then just confirm: were these, based on what I

just read, full quarterly reports that were presented under the act, and

did they meet all of the requirements under the act?

Hon. S. Robinson: The September 10 quarterly report did meet all the requirements of

the act. The July report did, but it was not considered a proper

quarterly report, given the status of what was being updated. It was an

additional transparency report to let British Columbians know the status

of the fiscal activities of government, given the extraordinary times

and the extraordinary circumstances.

M. Bernier: Can the minister spend a few minutes and explain to this House,

then, the requirements of

section 2 — clause 2, I guess we’re going to

refer to it?

Under the notes, it states that this is to extend the period for

the exception for quarterly reports being required, and I’m just curious

if the minister can explain the circumstances and why they brought this

part forward.

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: In a non-election year, when you present the budget in February,

with it comes a third quarterly report. It’s part and parcel of the work

that goes into preparing a budget. The third quarterly is part of

it.

In this instance, we recognize that, as part of the budget

process, we want the third quarterly to continue to be attached to it.

So this is part of making sure that we can continue to do the quarterly

with the budget, recognizing that it’s the same public service that are

continuing to deliver programs and services, continuing to manage the

COVID impacts, continuing to build out the budget, continuing to do the

quarterly reports. This is about keeping it all together and making sure

that we can, in fact, deliver a budget in a timely way.

I will draw the member’s attention to subsection (6), which

recognizes that this can create a gap between reporting out and the

built-in requirement to make a public report in the intervening

months.

I also note the hour, and I note that we will be called back into

the chamber for a vote. I do need a break and want to make sure that I

can take care of that. So with everyone’s indulgence….

The Chair: We’ll take a recess until six o’clock. Thank you,

everybody.

The committee recessed from 5:52 p.m. to 5:59 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, we will proceed to the deferred division process on

the question of whether clause 1 of Bill 3, Finance Statutes

Amendment Act, 2020, shall pass. I would like to remind members

participating remotely that they must now enable their

video.

Pursuant to the sessional order regulating hybrid proceedings

of the House adopted on December 7, 2020, the House will stand

recessed until 6:10 p.m., when we will take the vote. Thank you,

Members.

The committee recessed from 6 p.m. to 6:10 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, we will now proceed with the deferred division. The

question is whether clause 1 of Bill 3, Finance Statutes Amendment

Act, 2020, shall pass.

[6:15 p.m. - 6:20 p.m.]

Clause 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 53

Alexis

Anderson

Babchuk

Bailey

Bains

Beare

Begg

Brar

Chant

Chen

Chow

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Dean

D’Eith

Dix

Donnelly

Dykeman

Farnworth

Fleming

Glumac

Greene

Heyman

Horgan

Kahlon

Kang

Leonard

Lore

Malcolmson

Mark

Mercier

Osborne

Paddon

Popham

Ralston

Rankin

Rice

Robinson

Routledge

Routley

Russell

Sandhu

Sharma

Simons

Sims

A. Singh

R. Singh

Starchuk

Walker

Whiteside

Yao

NAYS — 29

Banman

Bernier

Bond

Cadieux

Clovechok

Davies

de Jong

Doerkson

Furstenau

Halford

Kirkpatrick

Kyllo

Lee

Letnick

Merrifield

Milobar

Morris

Oakes

Olsen

Paton

Ross

Rustad

Shypitka

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Tegart

Wat

Wilkinson

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:23 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted

leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:24 p.m.

Copyright © 2020 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.