First Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, March 25, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 42

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 10 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2021 (continued)

M. Bernier

Hon. S. Robinson

Standing Order 81.1

Schedule for Debate on Bill 10

Hon. M. Farnworth

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 10 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2021 (continued)

M. Bernier

Hon. S. Robinson

S. Furstenau

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2021

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 4 — Firearm Violence Prevention Act

Bill 5 — Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2021

Bill 6 — Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 2021

Bill 7 — Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

Bill 8 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 202

Bill 9 — Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

Bill 11 — Court of Appeal Act

Bill 12 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2021

Bill 10 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2021

THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2021

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

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

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 10 — SUPPLY ACT

(N o . 1), 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 10; N. Letnick in

the chair.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

On clause 2 (continued) .

M. Bernier: I’m just trying to recap a little bit. Of course, we had the lunch

break. Before the lunch break, we were just talking about process. We

were talking about the history, I guess we could say, and process around

how supply acts have come in, in the past and how we see this different

this time. This leads us into a lot of the questions that I’ve been

asking. I raised a bunch beforehand, before lunch — a lot of the

discussion around the increased taxes and the choices that this

government made.

The minister acknowledged that the government does make choices.

Even though we may differ on opinion on some of those choices, as she

acknowledged, they are government. They get to make those choices, and

then they’re accountable for those choices.

I am still, though, a little perplexed. The minister sounded like

she was saying in her comments right before lunch, if I can recollect,

that as of April 1, we have some taxes that are going to be going up

here in the province — taxes that the minister acknowledged were being

deferred because of the COVID-19 pandemic. But for some reason,

government feels that it’s now a good time to start raising

taxes.

Is the minister saying, because of that, that she feels that we

are substantially out of the pandemic now? I know that we are all

excited because the vaccine is starting. But for the minister to say

that yes, she’s okay with taxes going up in some areas on April 1, which

were deferred because of the pandemic…. Is she saying that we are

basically out of the pandemic now, which is why they’re okay to start

charging people more money?

Hon. S. Robinson: Budget 2020 included a couple of these measures. A tax on

carbonated sugary drinks is one of them. The other one is on digital

services, which the member alluded to.

In March, when the budget passed, these were to come into place

last April. Given that we were fresh into the pandemic, so many

unknowns…. I recall — I was the Housing Minister at the time — that the

unknown was really…. I’m sure the Speaker recalls how frightening it was

for everybody. We were all under…. It felt like a siege, I think is the

word. I see the member nodding. It felt like a siege. Hunkered, really,

in place, as best we could — those that could. Trying to make sure that

everyone was safe.

The House was called back — only those who sort of made their home

here or who could travel here in a safe manner — and did an incredible

job of trying to figure out how we support people to get through this.

It was a really, I’ll say, frightening time for everyone — not just here

in British Columbia, but certainly around the country and around the

world — because we knew so little. We didn’t know what the impacts were

going to be, whether physically, in terms of what our health was going

to look like…. We also didn’t know what it was going to do economically.

We didn’t know how long it was going to be.

I want to remind the member as well that, at the time, when there

was talk about needing a vaccine, it was going to be two to three years

away. That, I remember, was also frightening to think about. How do we

keep each other safe, keep our families safe?

[1:40 p.m.]

It was in that context that the previous Finance Minister said we

were going to defer on these taxes. We were going to wait until the

following year. We’ve learned a lot. We can see the resilience around

us. We see how this House is functioning. We’ve certainly learned a

lot.

I can appreciate the member sort of suggesting that maybe we’re

out of the pandemic. We’re not. We can see the light at the end of the

tunnel, as everyone calls it. We’re still in the tunnel. The member

agrees: we are still in the tunnel, and we are all hopeful for what

comes out when we all come out the other side of the tunnel.

It’s within that context that the extension to defer certainly

wasn’t taken, but we still have a long way to go. I look forward to

continuing to work with the members opposite, as we work together to

continue to help people get through this pandemic, and build out a road

to recovery.

M. Bernier: Although I want to acknowledge the comments that the minister just

made, we did come in here, collectively, because there were a lot of

unknowns. We did come in here and have that discussion. I would argue,

though, right now to the House, that we still have a lot of unknowns. I

would state that, from what I hear from people in the public, there’s

still angst. There’s still uncertainty. Yes, there is hope. But we don’t

know how long that tunnel is.

We’re in the middle of a process, without being able to give

people clear answers of when we will be back to whatever normal is. I’ll

reference, maybe, anything prior to COVID-19 as being “normal.” How we

get back to that and the changes that will be made are yet to be seen. I

do find it interesting, just because we are starting to see the light at

the end of the tunnel, that government is choosing, as of April 1, to

start raising taxes in certain areas.

It begs one to think that they’re doing that solely because of the

deficit that they find themselves in, in a situation where the minister

is going to be presenting a budget, just a short three weeks after that.

I won’t go into the whole discussion, before lunch, of really not having

a clear understanding of where the finances in the province are. We will

find out soon enough. There is that understanding out there that we are

in a deficit, that there is a hole, and that that hole continues to be

dug. At some point, government needs to start filling it in. We

understand that; at least, we hope that. We need to move

forward.

I do want to ask the minister, then, is she so certain that we are

now close to the end of that tunnel, that she feels confident enough to

start raising taxes on people, starting the end of next week, when we

still don’t know what the future holds?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member has suggested…. He keeps coming back to somehow not

having a sense of where our economic situation is. All he has to do is

go back to the economic update that I provided in December. There’s lots

of detail in there around what we’re facing fiscally, what the deficit

looks like, based on those December numbers. That’s certainly available

to the public. It’s available to the member, to provide him with the

details up until that time.

[1:45 p.m.]

We are continuing, of course, to monitor how things change and

evolve. If anything, I have to say this pandemic has taught us a lot.

I’m sure this is a shared experience by many British Columbians and

members of the House. It has certainly taught me about resilience. When

you think that things are not doing well, normal gets turned upside

down, and then you see how you adapt. I mean, I’m always

amazed.

I hope the Chair doesn’t mind that I hold up my mask and

acknowledge how quickly we have all adapted to carrying this with us,

putting it on when we move, making sure that we’re keeping each other

safe by using them, how we’ve learned to take off our glasses when we

put on our masks so that they don’t fog up — or, if they do fog up, how

to just live with it. I’m looking around at the members who pretty much

all wear glasses in here and all the nodding, except for the Chair, of

course — perfect vision.

It’s about how we’ve adapted to that. I remember a year ago

thinking: “We’re going to wear masks?” Then we’ve adapted. I think about

how businesses, as well, have adapted, how they’ve pivoted, some doing

incredibly well.

There’s a business in my community that transformed…. I remember

getting the phone call from them at the end of March last year. They

made those big dog beds, and have an assembly line for doing that

production. He realized that he needed PPE, and he was going to

transform his business to do that. We were able to help him identify who

he needed to speak to with the federal government. We were able to help

facilitate access to some capital. Lo and behold, in my constituency, he

is now producing medical-grade PPE and is growing his business by leaps

and bounds, because he’s been able to adapt and has demonstrated

resilience.

There are countless stories like that around the province and

around the nation. It’s something we can all be proud of. We’ve also

seen that it is different today than it was last March. Again, I want to

remind everybody about the huge job losses that were seen and felt last

spring, in March and April. They were significant, and it was

heart-wrenching for those that were, certainly, most impacted. It was

important that government step in to help those folks stay safe. That

was the most important thing I can certainly remember from those few

months.

What’s also interesting to note, because we’ve had a year of

living like this and adapting and demonstrating our resilience, is that

we are continuing to see ten consecutive months of job gains. The

numbers are 99.4 percent of pre-pandemic employment levels. What that

tells us is that we are a robust province with robust peoples, who are

incredibly resilient. In fact, we’re seeing that in some regions

employment is above pre-pandemic levels. In Prince George, it’s at 106.7

percent, and in Kamloops, it’s 103.3 percent. That just tells you that

in some places there’s some real action happening and activity

happening.

As the member rightly points out, we are not yet through the

tunnel. We know that there’s more to come, and that provides me with

incredible hope and incredible optimism about what’s to come. We are not

there yet; there’s certainly more work to do. We know that there are

certain groups that have been more greatly impacted by the pandemic than

other groups. We know that women, particularly women of colour, young

people and young women, in particular, have been more impacted by the

impacts of COVID. We also know that there are some industries that are

much more greatly impacted as a result of COVID.

[1:50 p.m.]

There’s a ton of work for us to do still, going forward. Again, I

want to come back to the fact that we have learned so much over this

last year. It’s based on all of that information that we are continuing

to do the important work.

Back in 2020 with the budget, there was an announcement of these

taxes. It was a decision of government, for sure, and it continues to be

a decision of government. We deferred it for the year. But again, I want

to point out that British Columbians have it better now, from a tax

regime, than they had back in 2017. That’s significant.

I want to provide one more detail, I guess, for the member in

terms of analysis. A family of four where the family income is about

$120,000 pays the lowest amount of provincial income tax in

Canada.

With that, I think it’s really important to recognize that British

Columbians are resilient. They have decided that they want a government

that puts them first and puts their needs first and is responsive to

making sure that they have the health care they need. They want to live

in a just society. We’re going to continue to deliver that.

M. Bernier: I was making a few notes while the minister was talking, giving a

response to my question. She keeps referencing the fiscal update last

December. I can reference that. But she’s asking for money now, four

months later, and asking me to use a reference point…. We mentioned

before lunch about history. This isn’t much different.

Back to the point of having a document tabled in the House that’s

relevant to that time and that date, it sounds like the minister is

trying to say to this House that nothing has changed in the province,

worse or better, that nothing has changed since last December. That’s

the document now she says that I can get my information from.

I’m well aware of that time, that day, that presentation, if we

can call it that, that the minister put forward in her fiscal update and

the fact that, in my opinion, we might have differences of opinion on

this. But it wasn’t a holistic quarterly report, as laid out in the act.

Even on that day, when the minister was giving her fiscal update, she

said: “The path forward is uncertain.” She said again, if I remember

from that day, that there’s a high degree of uncertainty around the

COVID economic impacts. Again, that was four months ago.

The minister, when she did her December update, I think was very

careful to say that these were approximations, estimates, because things

were evolving and things were changing. I can’t remember everything the

minister said that day, but that was the tone of that fiscal update. Now

the minister is asking me to use that update as a reference point of

certainty, when in the minister’s own words, she was saying we’re not

certain.

I do also find it interesting, in the minister’s last response,

where she is, in my opinion, insinuating that people can now afford a

tax increase because we’re at a point where…. Yes, they deferred

increases. They announced increased taxes. “But don’t worry. We won’t

charge you yet.” They now try to take credit for deferring them for a

year, as if that’s something the people of British Columbia are going to

applaud.

[1:55 p.m.]

“My taxes are going up, but thank goodness they didn’t go up 12

months ago. I’m okay if they go up now, even though we don’t know if the

pandemic is over.”

I mention those two taxes. Maybe I’ll ask another one. In the

document that we’re referencing from 13 months ago that we’re using as

the basis for the borrowing, for the spending, for the next three months

that government wants to do, it’s my understanding they also deferred to

announce that starting April 1, the carbon tax is going up again in the

province of British Columbia by another $5. Can the minister correct me

if I’m wrong? Is the carbon tax also going up in a short ten

days?

Hon. S. Robinson: Like I said before, in Budget 2020, there were a number of taxes

that were announced, that were debated in the House, that were discussed

in the House and that passed in the House. Based on the lack of

certainty and the fact that the landscape of what we knew to be true had

changed so dramatically, like I said in my previous response, is how

well we’ve adapted.

Again, I agree with the member opposite: we are not quite yet

through the pandemic. There is a ways to go. People are sort of, I

understand, placing bets on when emergency orders will be lifted. Is it

going to be August? Is it going to be September? Is it going to be

October? We don’t know, but people are hopeful. They can see and they

can start planning. That’s the thing that I’m noticing now is that

people are starting to plan. They’re starting to plan their lives. They

put so many things on hold. That feels good.

So we are in a different place. We’re in a very different place

than we were last March. We are, absolutely. There’s no more runs on

toilet paper. I see the member sort of questioning that, because

apparently there was a container ship in the Suez that got stuck and

apparently there might be another run on toilet paper because of that.

But that’s a different story around toilet paper shortages.

Again, this is what we were living with a year ago. It is

different today. It’s very different today. We need to also remember

that that, too, contributes to how governments make decisions. So it was

decided a year ago to delay implementing those taxes to April 1, 2021,

which is a week from now.

[2:00 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Not to put words in the minister’s mouth, I believe what she was

saying was yes. Yes, the carbon tax is going up at the end of next week.

Yes, there are additional taxes that are going to be implemented on the

people in the province of British Columbia while we still are uncertain

of when restrictions will be lifted, when more people can get back to

work — where businesses will actually know what their fate

is.

I also want to maybe just say, on the record, that I don’t think

the minister was trying to encourage people to run out and clean off the

shelves of toilet paper again just because of a tanker that might be

stuck. Just want to put that on the record. Please don’t go out and do

that again. That was an oddity that we saw.

But I do want to, again, just say…. I won’t argue the fact that 13

months ago we debated in this House the budget estimates for the fiscal

year of 2020-21. I won’t argue the fact that government came in shortly

thereafter and said that that document is already, in essence, obsolete,

because we are now finding ourselves in a global pandemic where

governments here, nationally and around the world have made choices

around how they will deal with the difficult situation. I won’t argue

the fact that all three parties came here in collaboration, worked

together to ensure there were more funds to help people who are

struggling through that.

I will, however, argue that there’s a lot of angst and a lot of

frustration added with the hope out there, because people don’t see when

restrictions will be lifted. People don’t know for certain — the next

month, two months, six months or, for that, the next year — how it’s

going to look. I don’t think the minister

herself, with all due respect…. She would acknowledge that she doesn’t

know, either, how it’s going to look economically in the province, how

people are going to deal with the lockdowns and the frustration that

they’ve…. Thankfully, the majority of the people have managed to adapt

through this, all in different ways, but the mental well-being of people

has definitely been pushed to the test through this.

So I find it interesting that the minister has acknowledged that

even though nobody, with certainty, can say how things are going to look

for the next year, the government is confident enough to say that they

can still start raising taxes, starting at the end of next week, on the

people here in the province.

We have been hearing from businesses, from the tourism sector and

from the small mom-and-pop operations, whether it be the little corner

grocery store or even a home-based daycare, that people are still

struggling. People are trying to figure out how to survive and pay the

bills. An increase in taxes at a time when people are still trying to

figure out if they can even stay in business seems a little

ill-thought-out at this time.

So maybe I’ll ask the minister, because I put a specific…. She’s

already acknowledged now that those are three taxes that are going to be

added or going up starting at the end of next week, before the budget is

being presented April 20. Are there any other increases, fees or taxes

that are going to be announced on April 1, or even between now and April

20, that people should be prepared for?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, first of all, I want to provide comment on the member’s

preamble to his question around people needing support. That’s why we

brought in the recovery benefit. It’s there for British Columbians. This

was for middle-income and lower-income British Columbians to get some

additional resources into their pockets as soon as humanly

possible.

I’m proud to tell the House that, as of March 25, 2,415,820

British Columbians have received the benefit. That’s

$1,184,368,126.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Robinson: The member asked me to repeat it. So I’m happy to repeat that

2,415,820 British Columbians have received the benefit. That amounts to

$1,184,368,126 that has not only gone into British Columbians’ pockets,

but more than that, they’ve taken that money out of their pockets, and

they are spending that money in our communities.

So when the member talks about the corner grocery store, when he

talks about the local florist or the neighbourhood pub or the other

merchants in communities right around the province, people are taking

that resource, and they are going out and they are spending

it.

I think back to the real impact that it has on people’s lives. I

heard from a friend who called me just after her 75-year-old mom went

online. She was nervous about going online to make her application. She

did it. She said it took 15 minutes. Within three or four days, lo and

behold, her $500 was in her bank account. My friend, who was telling me

about this, said the best part of all of that was that her 75-year-old

mom had reached out to two of her 70-plus-something friends. They were

having a Zoom meeting and developing a plan of where they were going to

go in their community, which merchants they were going to go to, to

spend this recovery benefit.

What that meant to them was that they were going to have an

outing, which they desperately needed for their own mental health and

well-being. They could get things that they needed around the house.

They could spend money in their communities, which was good for the

local businesses. That’s the choice that this government has made, and

it’s making a real difference in people’s lives.

M. Bernier: In all fairness to the minister, those were choices that all of us

made, all three parties made, when it came to the COVID recovery

benefit. That was supplementary estimates No. 3 that the minister

brought forward, that all three parties agreed that at this time we

needed to invest that extra money.

[2:10 p.m.]

I will, however…. And not to take away from the numbers completely

that the minister just presented in the House, our expectation was when

we approved those funds, that those funds would actually go out the

door. So I’m glad to hear that at least some of it, and a good

percentage of it, has.

I think it’s incumbent on me to remind the minister, though, of

the frustration that so many people had and are still having when it

comes to this COVID recovery benefit program. I still, to this day, am

getting hundreds of phone calls and emails from people who applied in

December, who have still not received those funds. That is

problematic.

My challenge, if I can word it that way to the minister, is for

her to take that back and look into this. There are people, like the

minister said, that took that $500 that they got and spent it in the

local economy, in their communities. That is great, but there’s a lot of

unfortunate stories of people who were expecting that money by

Christmastime so they could pay for Christmas, or people who actually

put money on their credit card for Christmas, thinking they were getting

the money and now they have to pay that back. They’re still

waiting.

There’s other people that told me that they used their rent money

for January, assuming they were going to have that $500 by Christmas,

and they’re still waiting. They’ve had to negotiate with their landlords

to not kick them out, or to not penalize them and to not keep going

after them, because they’re waiting for government money.

Although I do want to acknowledge that the program was there to

help people, it hasn’t been the 100 percent success that the government

tries to wave that flag about. There are still challenges. There are

still people waiting, and there’s people needing help still.

Now, back to my question, though, that the minister seemed to

avoid, as we went into her

preamble and her comments around the COVID

recovery benefit — which I was going to ask at a later date, but I won’t

bother now.

My question was…. The minister acknowledged that we have a carbon

tax, the carbonated water tax — I call it the Netflix tax; the minister

can call it by its technical term — going up April 1. My question was:

are there any other fees or taxes that are going to be going up between

now and April 20, before we see the budget, that people should be

prepared for?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to assure the member opposite that we continue to deliver

on the recovery benefit. It is available and open for application until

June 30.

I also want to let him know that 90 percent of all applications

are automatically approved. Sometimes there is information missing or

it’s not consistent with records, so we do need to confirm information.

So 78 percent of those, where we needed information, have been approved.

We continue to have hundreds of additional staff on the job to move

quickly through the process, so we’re continuing to do that.

I also will let the member know, in terms of his questions, that

there’s no additional taxes that will be brought forward before April

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:14 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted

leave to sit again.

[2:15 p.m.]

Standing Order 81.1

SCHEDULE FOR DEBATE

ON BILL 10

Hon. M. Farnworth: I had not expected or had not hoped to do this. I had hoped that

we would have been able to reach an agreement in terms of finishing

today, but we were not able to. So that is as it is. Therefore, I move

that:

[Pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 (2), all remaining proceedings

related to Bill (No. 10) intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 2021 , be

completed and disposed of at or before 4:00 p.m. today.

That, at 3:30 p.m., if Bill (No. 10) is at Committee stage, the

Chair shall forthwith put the question on all remaining clauses, the

preamble, and the title of the bill, without further amendment or

debate, which shall not be subject to a formal division call, but which

may be taken in accordance with Practice Recommendation No. 1. Once the

question on the title of the bill has been resolved, the Committee shall

rise and the Chair shall forthwith report the bill complete with or

without amendment, as the case may be, to the House.

That, once Bill (No. 10) has been reported to the House from

Committee, notwithstanding Standing Order 80, Standing Order 81, or any

Standing Order or Sessional Order relating to times and days of the

sittings of the House, the question on all remaining stages of the bill

shall be put forthwith without amendment or debate.

And that, if a division is called on the motion for third reading of

Bill (No. 10), notwithstanding sections 5 (2), (3), (4), (6) and (7) of

the Sessional Order adopted on March 1, 2021, the division shall proceed

forthwith 20 minutes after it is called.]

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

Member for Abbotsford West.

M. de Jong: My recollection….

Mr. Speaker: Just a second. Hold it.

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

that.

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

Division was called. Members, pursuant to the sessional order, the

division will be held in 15 minutes.

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

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

have already heard.

[2:35 p.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 51

Alexis

Anderson

Bailey

Bains

Beare

Begg

Brar

Chandra Herbert

Chant

Chen

Chow

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Dean

D’Eith

Dix

Dykeman

Eby

Elmore

Farnworth

Fleming

Glumac

Greene

Heyman

Horgan

Kahlon

Kang

Leonard

Malcolmson

Mark

Mercier

Osborne

Paddon

Ralston

Rankin

Rice

Robinson

Routledge

Routley

Russell

Sandhu

Sharma

Simons

Sims

A. Singh

Starchuk

Walker

Whiteside

Yao

NAYS — 24

Ashton

Banman

Bernier

Cadieux

Clovechok

Davies

de Jong

Doerkson

Furstenau

Kirkpatrick

Kyllo

Lee

Letnick

Merrifield

Milobar

Morris

Oakes

Olsen

Paton

Rustad

Shypitka

Stewart

Tegart

Wat

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

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 10 — SUPPLY ACT

(N o . 1), 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 10;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:39 p.m.

The Chair: Members, I’m just going to ask if we can take a recess.

There’s lots of action in the House right now. If you can finish

things up, that would be great, and we’ll get started in, shall we

say, six minutes.

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

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

On clause 2 (continued) .

The Chair: Members, we will be bringing this committee back into session.

Thank you for your patience. In this House, six minutes can feel

longer than that.

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

House.

Apologies to the minister’s staff. I appreciate them coming back

to assist through this little bit of miscommunication. Obviously, the

plan was to continue to ask questions on Bill 10 and in

section 2. I

have lots more that we could have done.

It’s unfortunate that the House Leader for government had to come

in and force time allocation, basically telling me I can no longer ask

all the questions I have because they want to move forward and go home.

This is unfortunate because I think, on behalf of the people of British

Columbia, I had a lot of questions that we wanted to continue asking.

The people of B.C. are still asking those same questions: what is the

plan of this government? They’re asking for $13 billion based on an old

budget. There is no plan going forward. The minister says we’re going to

see it April 20.

So, we just had a vote on this. Obviously, the opposition and the

Third Party voted against time allocation, because we collectively have

a lot of concern. It’s a little bit of a slap in the face of the

democratic system when we’re being told we can no longer ask questions

on behalf of constituents.

But with that…. Before that started and before we were interrupted

for time allocation, we were talking about the situation we find

ourselves in, in the province right now with COVID. The minister has

acknowledged that they feel that we are seeing the light at the end of

the tunnel, that we’re far enough through the tunnel that it’s okay to

add and increase taxes starting at the end of next week, even though we

haven’t seen the budget of why they need those taxes. We can all assume

we know why government needs that money, when you start looking at the

hole and the deficit that has been dug over the last couple of years

under an NDP government.

I’m worried also that the minister is setting a little bit of a

precedent here. The minister has been saying it’s because of COVID that

the budget is delayed. The minister has been saying it’s because of

COVID that all these other programs are ongoing, which is fine, but the

fact that we had to delay the transparency…. I know the minister will

argue that word. But we…. Again, I find it interesting that all of the

arguments that the government is using, the majority of that is because

of COVID.

My question then to the minister is…. We have both acknowledged in

this House that we’re not through the pandemic yet — that it is

continuing, that we don’t know when it’s going to end. We don’t know

when the restrictions are going to be lifted. So my fear is that we

might have a little bit of a precedent being set this year with the

delay of the budget.

Now, we can wordsmith that. The minister will say it’s not a

delay. She brought forward legislation to change the timeline, but the

delay is actually there from previous practice of this House.

[2:55 p.m.]

So, if we are still in the pandemic come next December, January,

February, if we are still in a situation…. The minister might say it’s

hypothetical, but I think it’s an important question to ask. If the

restrictions aren’t lifted, and if we’re still, possibly, even — God

forbid — going through a third wave, does this set a precedent now for

the minister to come next year and say: “We are still in a pandemic, so

I am going to be delaying bringing forward a budget. I’m going to be

changing the process again because we are still in a pandemic”? Or are

things going to revert back to somewhat a past practice?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to remind the member that the law was changed. It does say

April 30 in an election year. You have up till April 30. That’s to

provide the cushion, like we’ve seen here, where you have a pandemic,

and you do need the extra time. Now, we have taken a look at what we

needed to put together a budget, given the context of the pandemic, and

we’re able to get it done by April 20. That makes it ten days before the

deadline for presenting a budget.

The other part of the legislation says that in a non-election

year, the budget needs to be presented in February, which has been the

tradition of this place. So the member can expect a budget next year

according to the legislation.

M. Bernier: Those are very interesting comments from the minister, because

they a little bit contradict everything we’ve heard for the last three,

four days — that the budget was delayed because of the pandemic. Now the

minister is saying the budget was delayed because they changed the

legislation, because it’s an election year.

It would have been so much easier, as we were just talking about,

if the minister, four or five days ago, just came out and said: “Look.

We admit it. We chose to call an election. We knew that would create

delays. That’s a choice we made as a government, and we stand and

support those choices, and the voters have spoken.” I sound like I’m

giving the minister’s speech for her here.

Those are choices they made. But it’s hard for the minister and

this government to say: “We changed the legislation, in case of an

election year, to give us more time to present a budget.” The budget is

now being presented late, and when we’re questioning why it’s late, the

minister is saying: “Because we’re in a pandemic.”

[3:00 p.m.]

That’s actually not the case. The budget is late because of an

election. That’s what the legislation basically says, if I understand

the minister correctly. She says that next year, even if we’re in a

pandemic, the budget will be coming forward in February.

My question was: if we’re still in the middle of a pandemic, maybe

in the third wave, and things are the same next year as they are now and

the budget is able to come forward next February, one now has to assume

the only difference is an election? So, contrary to what the Premier has

said, an election did cause delays then.

I’m trying to understand. Which is it? The government can’t have

it both ways. If we’re going to have a budget next February and we’re

still in the middle of a pandemic, why couldn’t it have been done in

February of this year if the only difference — it sounds like — was an

election being called?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think that the member didn’t hear what I said in terms of what

the legislation says. The legislation says in an election year this is

the outer date. It’s based on that that we recognize that there was that

built-in buffer, and we said the pandemic is creating additional

pressures because the legislation from the summer said March in an

election year. We looked at that and said the pandemic is creating

additional pressures.

Future election years, out three more years, when our government

wins again the next election — the Minister of Finance will have the

opportunity to look at the legislation — take a look at the outer date,

which says that it must be delivered by April 30 — and can identify a

time before then to work with her new team, because I think women

finance ministers are a good thing, and work together with her cabinet

and with her caucus and with her team and put together a budget that

meets the needs of British Columbians in whatever context we are in four

years from now.

It is a buffer that we have seen that we needed because the

pandemic created additional extra pressures. You know what? In earlier

questions, the member raised the recovery benefit, and I shared with the

member the specific details as of…. I think it was March 24 that I

provided the latest numbers to all members of the House.

The amount of time it took staff to build that program, the

biggest program that this government has ever seen in its history, and

to deliver it…. Certainly, in the early days, there were some

challenges. We worked those out. We brought in extra staff. It’s those

same people who also need to work on building a budget. It’s the same

staff. That creates significant pressures internally to run all the

numbers, to gather all the data and to inform government about what’s

going on.

I’m sure the member can appreciate that it’s been a difficult year

for the public service. They have done an outstanding job. I know that

members in this House are grateful for their work. We also need to

acknowledge that we can’t break the very people who work for us. That

was also an important consideration. What would it mean to, in

recognition of all of the extra workload….

It’s not like any of us predicted this pandemic and we could

prepare for it and hire extra staff and make sure that they had the

resources, make sure that we had a robust enough Internet system that

would deliver in all the ways that we needed to — because we’ve

certainly struggled with that as well.

I know British Columbians, at times, have been frustrated, but I

also know that they’re appreciative of all of the extra work that’s gone

in, in order to make sure that people had what they need. Well, those

are the very same people that work with government to make sure that we

understand all the assumptions and all of the information that goes into

building out a budget.

[3:05 p.m.]

Putting in that buffer, because of the pandemic, was absolutely

critical to make sure that we didn’t have people off on stress leave, to

make sure that people could get accurate information that would inform

government about how to best proceed with the budget.

I know that the members care about the people that work in this

place. It’s for that reason that we said: “You know what? We need to

make sure that the legislation considers that.”

I’m very proud of the work that the people speaking into my ear —

the work that they’ve been doing, the work that the entire ministry has

been doing, and all the ministries have been doing in order to put

forward their best efforts to work with my staff, my team, to put

together a budget that will work for British Columbians.

It’s within that context…. I think that we need to recognize that

doing the budget instead of before the end of March, which was the old

legislation, and saying you had until the end of April in an election

year and the fact that, in consultation with staff, we determined that

we could do it by April 20 was a reasonable timeframe with which to

deliver a budget. It’s within that context that we landed on April

S. Furstenau: My colleague and I, the member for Saanich North and the Islands —

we’ve watched and listened and sometimes weighed in on this debate

several times over the last many days, and just noted some interesting

themes, I guess.

Going back to the first day, when the member for Peace River

South…. Really, the first question — and it’s back to the question

that’s being discussed right now, which is what impact did the snap

election have on this process, on the timing. We’ve been spending many,

many days kind of moving around that. I think what I’ve found

interesting is that the minister always has a choice in how she can

respond to or frame or create a narrative around everything that’s

happening.

We are, for the first time in a very long time, faced with an

interim supply bill, without a throne speech, without a budget. I think

we can agree on some of the…. It’s like a court case. We can agree on

some of the facts here. This is an unusual set of circumstances that we

are in, that we are looking at an interim supply bill based on a

previous year’s budget. That’s very unusual. It’s not a typical set of

circumstances, that we won’t have a throne speech or a budget until

after the end of the fiscal year. That’s also very unusual. Exceptional

circumstances.

Yes, we are in a global pandemic. Yes, there have been enormous

strains on everybody. But as has been pointed out — I think in December,

in the debates we were having as well — for a lot of people in British

Columbia, there was no opportunity for delays. You’re getting your taxes

filed, you’re getting your taxes paid to the province. You’re paying

your bills on time.

There is this capacity that a government has, as has been done, to

bring in changes to legislation, to change the kind of parameters that

we operate under. That’s what’s happened. That’s what has brought us

here to this debate over this interim supply bill, and both the official

opposition and we have raised our concerns about this.

I think in some ways it would be okay to acknowledge there were

political choices made. It’s a political realm we’re in. There was a

political choice made to call an election in the fall. For ten weeks,

there wasn’t work. The government was in caretaker mode. The work that

would have typically been done for those ten weeks in the fall — which

is budget preparation, which we’re well aware of and we’ve participated

in since 2017 — that came to a halt. Now we are ten weeks plus past what

would have been the typical deadline.

[3:10 p.m.]

I think in light of, again, our electoral system…. This shifted

the percentages between the parties — not by that much, actually — and

resulted in a majority for the NDP based on 45 percent of the popular

votes, and not the majority of voters. This is what our system delivers

— these false majorities. There’s a level of defensiveness about the

situation we’re in and a kind of unwillingness to just own

it.

“Yep, called an election. We got the majority we were hoping we

were going to get out of that election.” Be honest. You’re a political

party. That’s what happens with political parties. That’s the goal in

the system that we have. So much of my colleague from Peace River

South’s debate and his whole thread of questions would have actually

been curtailed at the very beginning of this had that been the first

response — just to say: “Yeah, actually, that is what

happened.”

I wonder at the kind of reluctance to be honest and upfront about

that. What story is being created instead of that story that the vast

majority of people can see and accept and recognize? That’s the

political system we live in. Because of our electoral system, parties

are motivated, just as we’re seeing right now. As we are apparently, it

looks like, moving into a third wave, the federal parties in a minority

are all jockeying. The Liberals want to go for an election and get that

coveted majority so that they don’t need to have to work with other

parties to move their agenda forward.

I guess my question is really to the minister about that

unwillingness over these many, many days to acknowledge that elephant in

the room. Yes, there are circumstances, but we’re also here because of

choices that were made in the fall. Had we not gone to an election, we

would have had a budget presented in February. We would be debating that

budget in estimates. We wouldn’t be having this lengthy debate on

this.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for her question, because it allowed me

to check in with staff around some dates and how decisions were made

last summer. I think some members may have forgotten about some of the

work that happened last summer that was about changing the legislation

to accommodate a fall election, an October election.

At the time, when the legislation was brought in…. And about how

much time would be needed, when there’s a fall election…. That’s what we

were debating at that time — how much time would be needed to bring in a

budget — and it was acknowledged that March would be

sufficient.

There was an election called in the fall. The pandemic created

additional pressures that were not anticipated in that initial debate

back in the summer. Staff were rolling out significant programs. Their

ability to work and get done what needed to get done was going to be

stretched considerably. People were already working 15- or 16-hour days,

working on weekends. I was getting emails. I know my colleagues were

getting emails from the hard-working public service on Sunday afternoon,

midnight on Tuesdays — significant work.

I know that the members care about the people doing the work. When

we talked about getting budget ready for March, which was required at

the time for a fall election, the message was: this is going to be

really hard. It’s going to break people. I know that nobody here in this

House wants to break the people that do the work that we ask them to

do.

It’s within that context that we recognize that the pandemic is

pushing everything to the limit. It could be four years from now…. There

could be something else that pushes people to the limit. Making sure

that there is appropriate time to do the important work, to get it

right, is something that we need to make sure that there’s room

for.

Now, I appreciate that the member acknowledges — and I acknowledge

— this is unusual. I’m not denying that. It’s absolutely unusual to be

asking for supply in this context, using last year’s estimates. But it

is an unusual time. It’s for that reason that we’re bringing in this

supply bill.

S. Furstenau: I want to ask a question, and I’ll pass it over to my colleague

from Peace River South. I just wanted to say that there is some irony in

the minister’s response that staff, in the fall, were already indicating

that they were pressed to the limit, that they were emailing late at

night, that they were expressing how stressful things were because of

the pandemic, and then the choice was made to throw in a whole new level

of turmoil in the form of an unnecessary election.

That is the nub of it — that we didn’t have to do that. That

didn’t have to have happen. In the midst of a global pandemic, when

staff were already in turmoil — and businesses and people in this

province were already hitting a level of stress and anxiety that

probably most of us have never felt in our lives — this was

added.

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

colleague.

[3:20 p.m.]

M. Bernier: I appreciate the comments that I’ve also just heard and how we are

just trying to get some answers but also bring a level of understanding

to…. Yes, things aren’t different. It seems like again, it is an example

of government — which has the right to do so; I’ll give the minister

this — of changing the rules as they go, to ensure the rules match the

objectives of what they’re trying to accomplish.

I want to bring us back to a comment that the minister made a

couple of days ago now, I believe. The minister said, “Of course, this

is going to pass” — they have a majority situation after the election,

so this bill is going to pass — basically insinuating: “Go ahead and ask

your questions, but this bill is passing regardless. You’re not going to

change our minds.” I get that. The minister also talked about this delay

being needed, because of the pandemic, for extra consultation and extra

communication with the public.

The Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services

tabled a fairly robust, informative document last August 21. It’s

interesting what would be different — that the minister is saying that

she didn’t appreciate or that was insufficient — in that report, to help

guide the budgeting process.

As she knows, there is extensive consultation that takes place on

a bipartisanship level — travelling around the province, talking with

stakeholders, meeting with groups. As a reminder, that was in the middle

of the pandemic, so people were aware of the stresses and challenges.

There would be many recommendations and asks in that document, from that

select standing committee.

The MLA for Langley East also stood in this House during her

second reading debate, was talking about the extra month and said:

“Moving the budget to April gives this government greater time to

connect with businesses and people.” I am never against — we need to do

a better job, frankly, all of us — connecting and listening to the

people in the province, who have a lot to say about how the province is

run, how it’s governed and how money should be spent on supports that

people need.

I find that an interesting quote from the member for Langley East,

combined with the minister herself, who said that this delay is to

better reach out, communicate and consult with the public. I looked into

it. I could not find one public ask, one document, from the minister or

the government since February 25 — when the budget would have been

tabled, before the changes were made to extend it for a month, by then

Minister Carole James — and now the other month.

So February 25 — we’ve gone a month. The minister is saying that

that month was needed to do consultation with the public, outside of

what the select standing committee had already done. I couldn’t find one

advertisement, one document. I could find nothing where this minister

and the government have reached out, asking for further public

consultation on framing the budget that we’re going to see in three

weeks.

Can the minister make a comment to that?

Hon. S. Robinson: I know that the member, once upon a time, sat on this side, and

understands that consultation takes many forms. With a significant

challenge with the pandemic and understanding needs, because these are

not normal times, we needed to make sure that we were engaging with our

stakeholder groups throughout this entire time.

[3:25 p.m.]

The member also, I know, knows that it does take a process — once

the ministers have done their consultations with their various

stakeholder groups, identified what their needs are — of putting

together the various submissions that they need to do, making sure that

it all fits within the plan, getting it through the processes internal

to government, and then making sure that there’s time to actually put

the estimates book together. It does take time.

I want to assure the member that there has been significant

consultation with various sectors around what their challenges are and

how government can, first of all, understand what was going on,

understand what was needed and how we can put together a program that

would best meet their needs. That’s the work that we have undertaken in

this time that we have had to put together this budget.

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

that.

I see the House Leader — who, I assume, is going to ask me to wrap

it up here very quickly and which, again, is unfortunate. I believe I

just heard through his mask, and my hearing’s bad…. I think he just said

I had another couple of hours. I’m sure he’ll correct me, if I was wrong

there, afterwards.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: I am just giving the minister and the House a hard time, because

there was, obviously, a motion, which I voted against, for time

allocation, saying that I had to be done by 3:30 so that government can

continue moving on with what they choose, in stopping the debate on this

bill. Maybe I’ll take the last minute or two…. I know the minister will

want to probably have the last word on this.

Even though I had many, many more questions that I could have

asked on this bill, such as…. Government is asking for a delay because

of the pandemic we’re in, but it sounds like, from what I’m hearing,

that everybody else — who’s dealing with the exact same pandemic — isn’t

afforded the same opportunity. They’re not going to be allowed to delay.

I can almost guarantee you that if school districts came to the minister

and said, “We need an extra two or three months because of the pandemic”

— I know what the answer would probably be.

I also know firsthand, with some authority, I can say, that if a

school district fails to hand in a balanced budget on time, as per

legislation, there are some very harsh realities that they will face and

that could be imposed on them from the minister, and from the

legislation, for not doing their job and getting in a balanced budget on

time. In this situation, though, the government is unable to do it.

Instead, all they do is change legislation to allow themselves more time

to do the work.

I just want to finish off by saying…. Well, actually, I want to

give a big thank-you to the minister’s staff, who have put up with a

barrage, a lot of questions, over the last few days. I thank them for

their time for that. I know that they’re probably watching and not just

listening through their earpieces. I want to thank them for the work

that they’ve been doing, as well, because I acknowledge what the

minister said. This has been difficult on all the staff in the public

service, no different — sometimes we forget about that — than for

everybody else in the public, who are struggling through these times. We

all hope and all wish that the supports will be there to help people

through this.

We have Bill 10, which is now going to pass — which, as we say, is

government asking for a lot of money, $13½ billion, referencing a

13-month-old document. I look forward to the rigorous debates that we’ll

go through in estimates when we finally get to see the plan and the

budget from this government for the ’21-22 fiscal year, albeit later

than traditionally taking place. I know the minister will have her

comments on that.

Again, I just want to thank the minister for her patience through

this. I respect the answers and the time that she has given, as well, as

we go through this process. Even though I don’t necessarily always agree

with the answers, I think the debate that we’ve gone through here has

been very productive and, hopefully, beneficial for people

watching.

[3:30 p.m.]

The Chair: Pursuant to the time allocation motion adopted earlier today,

all votes now have to be held. It is 3:30. I will give the minister

a short chance to say a word, but we do have the allocation motion

to get to.

Hon. S. Robinson: I do want to take a moment to thank staff who have been whispering

more than sweet nothings in my ear and helping us through this debate.

I, too, want to take a moment to thank, certainly, all the staff who

have been delivering but also to thank the member for Peace River South

for his respectful and thoughtful questions as we worked through this

and to all the other members who participated. I, too, want to thank

them for the process. I look forward to debating estimates in the weeks

ahead.

The Chair: Pursuant to the time allocation motion adopted earlier today,

all votes on Bill 10 will be held now.

Clause 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

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

Speaker.

Yes, Minister.

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

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

Speaker.

Interjection.

The Chair: Okay, so the member moved that the bill be reported. I just

heard her say that. The understanding of the House is that she moved

that it be reported complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:31 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — SUPPLY ACT (N o . 1),

Bill 10, Supply Act (No. 1), 2021, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I’m advised that her honour the Lieutenant-Governor

is in the precinct. Please remain seated while we await her

arrival.

Before we move forward, Members, there’s another step in between

that we have to take care of. As a result of the vote, Bill 10, Supply

Act (No. 1), 2021, is now carried. It has passed.

[3:35 p.m.]

Members, I’m advised that Her Honour is not here yet, but as soon

as she arrives, members will be advised. We’ll ring the bell.

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

shortly.

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

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I’m now advised that Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. Please remain seated while we

await her arrival.

[4:00 p.m.]

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested to attend the House, was

admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

Royal Assent to Bills

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly:

Firearm Violence Prevention Act

Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2021

Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 2021

Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

Court of Appeal Act

Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act,

In Her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent

to these acts.

Supply Act (No. 1), 2021

In Her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank

Her Majesty’s loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to this

act.

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

ÍY SȻÁĆEL NE SĆÁLEĆE.

It is really wonderful to see all of you today. I can see that you’ve

been extremely busy. As always, I would like to thank you for your truly

splendid work, conducted in this tireless fashion despite all of the

challenges of the pandemic. It means a great deal to me personally, as I

know it does to all British Columbians.

I do look forward to the time when I can host you all again at

Government House and we can share some personal time together, but I do

believe that it will not be long before we are in that place.

Once again, I thank you. I look forward to seeing you, and I wish you

every possible success in the time ahead.

HÍSW̱ḴE. Thank

you.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

a.m.

The House adjourned at 4:05 p.m.

Copyright © 2021 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.