First Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, March 23, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 39

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

A. Olsen

D. Davies

R. Merrifield

T. Stone

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2021

The House met at 1:32 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;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 1:33 p.m.

On clause 1 (continued) .

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Peace River South.

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

anyway.

Let me just start the afternoon session here by recapping a little

bit of the morning session before I move on.

The minister and I agree, all sides of this House agree, that

there’s important work that government does. There are amazing people

that rely on government funding. They rely on this bill to be passed.

They rely on the continuation of that in order to do the good work. Now,

especially during a pandemic, we’ve been highlighting the amazing work

that people in the province have been doing, how they’ve been stepping

up.

One of the big discussions in the morning session, though…. There

was no argument around that. It was just around process. We’re trying to

establish a process. The question that I’ll lead into in a minute will

really start framing a process.

[1:35 p.m.]

I just want to acknowledge, again, after the morning’s

conversation…. The minister, for whatever reason — maybe she’s being

advised not to — was unwilling to state the factual progression of what

happens in Canada, in British Columbia, in a legislature when a supply

bill is put on a floor, the progression of what takes place if it was

not to pass.

Now, the minister, rightfully so, stood up in this House and said:

“Well, we don’t have to have that discussion.” Her government holds a

majority, and they’re going to pass this. She also acknowledged last

night that our colleagues also acknowledge that the continuation of

government funding needs to continue, which is what a supply act, in

general, does.

There were some very confusing comments that came from some of the

minister’s colleagues that insinuated that if this bill was not to pass,

people would not get paid. In fact, they were using those comments to

try to target members of the opposition who are opposed to parts of this

bill or the structure of the bill or the way it has been presented — to

use that as a political tool and to say: “Oh, holy cow. The B.C.

Liberals are obviously against you getting paid, and if this bill

doesn’t pass, you won’t get paid.”

Now, the minister knows that’s not true. For whatever reason, she

wasn’t willing to or able to acknowledge that prior to lunch.

I did, however, put on the record the progression of what would

take place in the case of a supply bill not passing. It is a confidence

vote, which means there would be funds approved through council, through

a special warrant, to ensure that people continue to get paid and

government continues to run. But, yes, that means we’d go to an

election.

Now, we know that’s not going to happen, and in no way was I

insinuating that that actually will happen. All I was trying to do was,

for clarification, go through the process. The minister has put a bill

on the floor. So I’m asking that simple question.

She didn’t, for whatever reason — again, either didn’t want to or

unable to — acknowledge that what I said into the record was accurate or

factual. I was hoping that she would at least acknowledge that. I think

the point was made, before lunch, that comments from the NDP were not

factual, or the way they insinuated those comments was not

factual.

We are not like the United States. In fact, we have legislative

tools to ensure that doesn’t happen. In the — what would this be? — 153

years of Canada, it’s never happened once, never, in a legislature, in

parliament, because there are actual tools in place to ensure that

doesn’t happen.

The conversation, obviously, needs to be around the bill now that

we’ve established — unless the minister stands up and corrects me later,

that anything I’ve said is false…. If she doesn’t, then I’m going to

assume, for the record, that everything I’ve said is accurate. This bill

will pass. People will get paid.

Now, members on the government side, in most of their speeches,

stood up and said that this is normal. The minister herself has said

that what we’re doing here is normal. There is a caveat to that.

Obviously, it’s normal to have a supply act that comes forward into this

House to ensure, at the end of the fiscal year, that people can continue

to get paid and government can continue to operate while we go through

estimates.

The minister has acknowledged that, and I don’t dispute that. What

I am, however, disputing…. It’s interesting that none of the NDP members

acknowledge this. It’s a little disingenuous to say this is normal.

Putting a supply bill is. The process by which this government and this

minister are doing it, however, is not normal. I stand to be

corrected.

[1:40 p.m.]

Maybe my first question, then, to start off the afternoon session,

is: what was the process that we followed, under this government, last

February? What was the process? Did we have a budget and then a supply

bill referencing that, or was it reversed like we have this

year?

Hon. S. Robinson: To answer the member’s question, last year we did bring in a

budget first and then the supply bill.

M. Bernier: I’m only smirking because I do realize that through the afternoon

here, the conversation piece might be a little bit more weighted

one-sided when it comes to the discussion piece, compared to the answers

that we may or may not receive from the minister. But the minister just

acknowledged, obviously, a bit of that process.

I’m curious then. NDP members, through their speeches, kept on

saying that this is normal. Everything we’re seeing here is normal. In

fact, many of them went as far as to almost insult members in the

opposition that were actually stating anything contrarian to

that.

Now, I know a lot of the new NDP backbenchers…. Just like the

minister acknowledged before lunch, some have been around here longer

than others. It’s also fair to say that many of them may have just been

reading speaking notes prepared for them by a staff member down in the

basement, without actually understanding.

I don’t say that disrespectfully. I remember being in this House

as well, asking those questions about: what is a supply bill? What does

it do? What does it mean? What’s the purpose? But to stand up and say

it’s normal, without actually doing the research and understanding the

history of whether it’s normal or not and then being as crass as to

insinuate that we are not even allowed to ask questions on this, I

think, was not fair.

If this is normal, maybe I’ll ask the minister: when was the last

time that a supply bill was presented in this House prior to a

budget?

Hon. S. Robinson: What’s interesting is a year ago March is when we brought in

interim supply. It typically comes in, in March, which is standard,

which is normal. Approving of an interim supply bill is a practice that

has been followed for many years. I went back to I think it was 1986 and

looked at every year. That was normal. That happens every

year.

The House, of course, comes together to approve temporary funding

for government, so that we can continue to operate and deliver the

services that are important to people, while the Legislature takes the

time to debate the budget, as well as the individual ministry estimates.

That’s normal, and that’s going to happen again this year as

well.

[1:45 p.m.]

Typically, interim supply bills are passed in advance of detailed

reviews of ministry estimates for the new year. That, too, is normal.

That happens pretty much…. Well, it happens every year. This year those

processes are the same. Everyone here in the House knows that interim

supply bills form part of the ministry estimates that are debated in

Committees of Supply and are part of the final supply act passed by the

House.

This year, as in previous years, that process is the same, except

there is one change. There is one change. We won’t have a new set of

estimates for ’21-22 to accompany interim supply, because those

estimates will be tabled April 20.

Everything else, including the month that we’re bringing in

supply, is the practice of this House. It has been for months. I think

there were a couple — I was looking through my notes — that were done in

February. I can point those out to the member. In 2011-12, February. In

2008 and ’09, it was February. What was interesting was in 1999-2000, it

was April 1. But really, for the most part, it happens in

March.

M. Bernier: Interesting answer. I’m not debating the fact that government had

to come in December. Pretty well the only thing that they put on the

agenda, after calling a snap election in the middle of a pandemic, was

to delay presenting a budget to the House, which is why we’re actually

in this predicament today and why this is not normal.

The Minister didn’t answer my question. I wasn’t asking for a

rundown of supply acts. We have supply acts in the House almost every

year, almost every budget. Sometimes we have a No. 2 supply bill, a No.

3 supply bill, presented depending on the year, depending on budgets and

changes.

What I was asking the minister is: when was the last time a supply

bill No. 1 has been presented to this House prior to a budget being

presented for debate?

Hon. S. Robinson: I am not aware of any time when that’s happened, but these are

also very unusual times as well.

M. Bernier: I’m assuming the Minister is willing to say that actually, yes,

this is not normal.

The process, as we’ve talked about in our second reading debate….

As the Minister is well aware of, through her time here in the

Legislature, that maybe some of the new MLAs are not aware of, which was

evident by some of the speeches that we heard through second reading

from NDP members….

The process has always been…. Since 1974, since the process of

bringing bills into the House, supply bills like this, and budgets….

Since the founding of that process in 1974, there has been a budget

presented, and then after the budget is presented to this House, a

supply bill is then presented.

Granted, in history…. I have looked into it. I had some amazing

people in the library dig it all up, so I had a lot of fun historical

reading to do. Since 1974, that’s been the process. Sometimes the supply

bills come on the same day, sometimes a couple days later, sometimes a

week or so later.

[1:50 p.m.]

In every single case since 1974 of doing this process, the supply

bill has followed a budget and referenced that budget in order to meet

all of the requirements under transparency and

accountability.

Now, there are times that we talked about, back in the 1990s, when

this was not followed, but in a different way. Instead of the government

of the day at that time coming forward with a supply bill and being

accountable, they just went out through an order-in-council, went out

through a special warrant and just borrowed money and didn’t bring it to

the House. So I give credit to at least the minister and government for

bringing a bill forward for debate in the House and not just

steamrolling it through behind closed doors.

In saying that, this is the first time, again, that we could find

since 1974 where government is not referencing a tabled budget. Now, why

is that important? It is incumbent on not only the opposition, but it’s

a requirement and an expectation of the citizens of British Columbia

that if we are spending their money, they know where that money is being

spent.

During our second reading debate, when some of us were saying, “I

have a hard time supporting this bill,” it was with that notion, with

that idea that this is hard to stomach. It is hard to acknowledge that

for the first time since 1974, government is saying: “Give me a blank

cheque.” Government is saying: “Trust us.”

We saw how that’s played out over the last year or so, when we

tried to work together collectively, all three parties, for the

betterment of society, for the betterment of the people of British

Columbia, as we were collectively tackling and facing the pandemic, only

for government, as we’ve acknowledged in the past, to basically throw

everybody under the bus, call an election and hold onto that money only

to try to pad their announcements to get re-elected.

I think it’s fair to say, unlike the NDP members who read their

speaking notes given to them by staff that this is normal…. In fact,

it’s not. Normal would mean that this is the same process we’ve always

followed. Normal would mean that we’ve at least done it a few times in

the past.

I think it would have been a lot more practical if members had

stood up in this House and acknowledged what was actually happening.

They called an election. They didn’t get their house in order. They

asked this House to delay the requirements under the act to submit a

budget in February, because they weren’t ready. Those are the

facts.

Now, there’s a lot more that I could add to that as part of the

facts as well. The minister basically acknowledged this. But if there

has never been a situation like this…. I know the minister and MLAs and

government keep trying to say the pandemic. “It’s a pandemic, and we

acknowledge there are challenges with a pandemic.” That doesn’t exclude

government from doing their jobs, though, that people expect. But if it

truly is normal, there must be at least some precedent that the

minister, the Premier and her staff that have been advising her can

point to, to say that this is normal.

The minister acknowledged it has never happened before. What would

the precedent be, then, for the government to do this?

[1:55 p.m.]

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

interim supply.

The member did his homework, which is good. I only went back to

1986. He went further back, to 1974. So that is certainly normal. I know

that the member can agree that that’s absolutely normal. It is not usual

practice. He certainly has demonstrated, by the nature of his question,

the fact that it hasn’t been done in the order that he refers

to.

I want to point out to the member the fact that we are absolutely

sharing with the public where this money goes and how it’s being spent

because we are referring to last year’s estimates. It’s right here. I’ve

got it right here. I know that the member has access to it as

well.

In fact, last year the members opposite spent 171 hours and 41

minutes on estimates. They did a thorough going-over of budget, as they

should. It is the responsibility of the opposition to do that important

work, and I look forward to doing it again this spring.

It is well known what is in that book. They’ve gone over it with a

fine-tooth comb. They have asked ministers many questions over those 171

hours and 41 minutes. Answers were provided, and we had a budget that

was passed based on that very important work.

When I reflect back to the decisions that we made here in this

House back in December, one of the pieces was to have a special warrant,

should we need it, in order to make sure that there was supply to pay

the people doing the important work on the front lines. I know that we

all agree in this House…. And there’s no dispute on that. That work is

really important, and it’s very valued by all members.

We have chosen to not do that. We have chosen to bring in a supply

bill based on last year’s estimates — they’re here in this book;

everyone can read it; everyone can see it — saying: “Based on these

estimates that are here” — these are published; these have been debated;

these have been adopted — “we’re going to use this to make sure that we

have supply to carry us through for the next few months until we can do

the important work of delivering a budget, debating it here in this

House, because it’s important that we do that, until it can be passed.”

That is not unusual.

[2:00 p.m.]

M. Bernier: I know the minister and the government have had to change the laws

of this Legislature in order to do this. The minister has all but

acknowledged, for the most part, that how I’ve presented this is

accurate through the historical way that this House has been

managed.

I do find it interesting that she is putting so much credence, so

much weight, into last year’s budget, a document that she herself

acknowledged we spent hundreds of hours debating, scrutinizing, going

through, to ask how that money is being spent on behalf of the people in

British Columbia. I remind this House again that this was presented

before a supply bill. So we had reference points.

I do find it interesting, then, that the minister is putting so

much weight on this document from last year that we’re going to be using

this as a reference point for government spending going forward for this

interim supply period of three months that they’re asking for when,

within a few weeks of this being presented and debated, the Premier

himself said that it pretty well wasn’t worth the paper it was written

on because a pandemic hit and these numbers no longer make sense — that

these numbers are no longer factual and that these numbers no longer

meet the requirements of spending for the government of British

Columbia.

I’m trying to square this circle. Either the minister is right, or

the Premier is right. I’m trying to figure out which it is, because we

can’t reference a document that the Premier himself said is irrelevant.

So why is the minister saying that’s the document we’re going to use

now, going forward for the next three months, for spending?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think the member might be sort of conflating things here — two

separate components. I fully appreciate the politics around this that

the member is trying to do, around creating divisions. But I want to be

clear that what we’re doing here is making sure that we have supply,

making sure that we can continue to provide the core services that

people depend on.

[2:05 p.m.]

What we’re talking about today, right here, is supply for the next

three months to carry us through, because in about four weeks, there

will be a budget presented in this House that will determine the rest of

the year’s spending. So what we’re bringing forward for debate and for

discussion is a request for appropriation to keep core operations going,

keep services going. We’re basing it on last year’s estimates so that we

can have three months of supply to move forward. We’re using last year’s

estimates so that everyone can see what the appropriations would be for

the three months while we continue to do the important work.

The member knows full well there’ll be a new set of estimates

that’ll be tabled in about four weeks, on April 20. I invite everybody

to tune in so that they can see what this government is committed to, to

help us get through the pandemic, because we’re not through the

pandemic. The member, in an earlier question, suggested that somehow,

well, the pandemic was then, and this is now.

There’s hope on the horizon for sure. Vaccines are being rolled

out faster than any of us anticipated. We see the gratitude in people’s

faces, that I see on the Twitter feed, or just in talking with my dad

and hearing about how he and his friends are all excited about getting

their appointments and getting their shots and what that means to them,

but we are still in a pandemic.

We are preparing for recovery, and I know that the member knows

that. I know full well that the member knows that. So given the

extraordinary times that we are in, it does make sense for us to make

sure that we have the appropriations that we need, moving forward, and

that we deliver a budget that recognizes the unusual times that we’re

in. We will have opportunity for debate on that budget, and I look

forward to that after April 20.

M. Bernier: I think the minister acknowledged earlier that, typically, by

around this time in March, we would already be debating a budget. We

would already be discussing the estimates of that budget, minister by

minister, line by line, as we see fit to go through. But I’m again a

little perplexed by the way the minister is presenting this.

A few moments ago she said: “Nothing to see here, other than this

book. This is what we’ll be following for the next three months.” But in

her second reading speech, the minister went on to say that actually

everything will be an approximation, because we don’t know. She used the

words in her second…. She can correct me if I’m wrong; I’m going off

memory here. “It’s an approximation.” Now she tries to tell this House

that it’s all right here in black and white on how the dollars will be

spent. The reason why this supply bill isn’t passing in two or three

questions and five or ten minutes is because we don’t have a reference

point.

As I mentioned earlier, in every single other year, the

opposition, whether it was the B.C. Liberals or NDP — it doesn’t matter

— was able to look at a budget. They were able to reference that budget.

They could look at the supply act, which typically is one-quarter of the

budget, for continuation of expenses of government for that three-month

period while we go through the legislated process of estimates, of

asking the questions, of wanting to know where that money is being

getting on the record where those dollars are being spent on behalf of

the people of British Columbia.

[2:10 p.m.]

Now, the minister just acknowledged again, basically: “Why are you

asking these questions? You’re going to see a budget in a month.” But

that’s not normal. The minister is asking for a blank cheque. We have

agreed. We’ve acknowledged that government spending needs to continue.

We’ve agreed and acknowledged that we’re still in a pandemic — albeit

there is light at the end of that tunnel that we’re seeing. Government

has been unable to say how long that tunnel is, but there is light at

the end of it. There is hope. I think everybody in this House is excited

about that.

I ask the minister again, because it’s incumbent on us to do so:

we need some factual information here of how this money is being spent.

Am I to take, from the minister’s response or answer, when she

references this as the document that they’re doing their spending, that

for the next 30 days there will be no government spending that’s not

listed already in this book, as the estimates that were presented last

February? That’s what the minister is referencing, to try to get

approval from this House for the supply bill.

Hon. S. Robinson: The answer is that on spending for core services, everything is

described in the estimates book from last year, as the member pointed

to.

M. Bernier: Is it fair to say, then…? I’ll get into more detail later, when we

get to

section 2. While we’re on this right now….

Section 2 will be the

appropriation part and the actual dollar amount. I’ll get into more

detail there, but from the minister’s answer, it’s still a little

confusing about that.

Does that mean, again, that if I flip to any ministry that’s in

here — Office of the Premier, $11.3 million — I can take one-quarter of

that and that that’s all the Premier is going to be getting for the next

three months? If the minister wants to keep referencing this, which has

already been discussed and debated, it’s a very interesting point. The

Premier himself said that it was not an accurate budget anymore, and

there have been changes to government priorities.

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, the estimates book is the basis from which the interim

supply bill was developed, recognizing that we have to make sure that

core operations continue. Using this book formed the basis for what the

appropriation request is.

Again, the book was debated. The numbers were reviewed. It was

passed. We are going back to that important work that we did last year

and saying: “Okay, we need to keep things going.” All members in this

House agree that we need to keep things going. We need to continue to

pay for core services. We need to continue to make sure that the

important front-line workers, who are doing a yeoman’s job of keeping us

all safe and healthy, continue. There’s no debate about that.

In order to make sure that we have the right appropriation, we

have gone to our estimates book. I know that we’re going to move on to

section 2, at some point, to talk about that — maybe tomorrow, maybe not

today. It’s based on that that we’ve put together this supply bill that

members can refer to and that helps us continue going for the next few

months while we debate a new budget that I hope will be passed

unanimously in this House, because it continues to deliver for British

Columbians. Members will be seeing that in a month.

For now, we need supply to make sure that we can keep government

going, keep the services going and make sure that we can continue to get

through this pandemic together.

M. Bernier: I think what the minister is failing to acknowledge is that that

was then; this is now.

[2:20 p.m.]

We’ve acknowledged through the course of this debate already —

different times — that government is not following the standard, typical

and always-used process of putting a supply bill on the floor after a

budget and being able to reference it.

Although I agree with the minister that a lot of good work was

done last year on this to debate it, to reference the actual spending

year ago now. That was February of 2020, before people were really

talking about, even, COVID-19, before government came back to this House

asking for an additional $5 billion plus $1 billion plus $2 billion — $8

billion of extra funding, which is not included in this.

The minister is now led to a lot of line of questions that I’m

going to be asking in

section 2 around this. It also makes me wonder,

again, since the Premier has acknowledged he might as well have used a

napkin in his office and written down some numbers and used that….

That’s about as much value as this book has, as we’ve heard. The

minister has mentioned many times today: “Don’t worry. You’re going to

see a budget on April 20.” As the minister just acknowledged, she didn’t

say: “Don’t worry.” My words, not hers. She has said: “You know, you’re

going to see a budget on April 20.”

I guess that leads to the question. If we’re going to see a budget

on April 20, and then we’re going to be starting to do estimates debates

— because we will see a book like this in just three or four weeks from

now, with the new government spending and the new priorities, where they

see the vision that they’d like to see for the next three years,

specifically though in the next year, for the ’21-22 fiscal — we can

debate that then.

My question, first of all, then, is: why did the minister need

three months of interim supply? She just acknowledged in this House

that, my words: “Don’t worry. It’s in just three, four short weeks from

now.” Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate, then, for the minister to

come to this House and say: “We only need a month worth of interim

supply. We recognize we didn’t put a budget forward. We need to

continue, because we delayed the budget after an election. We need this

month, but don’t worry. You’ll be seeing the new budget on April 20, and

we can start estimates then”?

Why did the minister have to ask for three months and not just one

to bridge to us that point?

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

month?

We are bringing a budget in on April 20. The answer is: because

the House needs time to debate it. The House needs time to go through

its estimates process so that it can pass the budget. Now, if the member

is saying that they don’t need to do that, they don’t want to do that,

and we can pass a budget by April 30, that would be great. I’ll

certainly speak to the House Leader about that.

I jest somewhat, because I know that the members opposite want to

debate the budget. They want to debate it. They want to go through it,

and they should go through it. It’s their job as opposition to review

the budget, to speak with the ministers, to ask questions, to go through

it and make sure that it is delivering for people in this

province.

[2:25 p.m.]

I sat on that side of the House for four years. I recognize the

value of going through that, so that everyone understands where

government’s priorities are. I look forward to April 20 and sharing with

British Columbians where we’re going, especially given these unusual

circumstances.

The member knows full well that it takes several months to go

through the budget, to make sure that the opposition has time to prepare

for the estimates debate. It’s a lot of work to sit on that side of the

House. I appreciate all the work that they do over there, going through,

doing your best to understand what the line items mean. Making sure you

understand what the new programs are. Asking questions of the minister

and, of course, the minister’s staff that are typically sitting behind

them, but in this day and age, they’re just talking in our ears. I long

for those days, Mr. Speaker. I have to say that I do long for those

days. I look forward to that.

It does take time. I haven’t experienced, in my time here in this

House, a budget process and an engagement process around the budget that

was shorter than the time needed to actually go through the budget.

Typically, in my understanding, it’s three months. We usually, under

other circumstances in the past…. The budget was brought in, in

February, and the budget didn’t pass, typically, until May.

It’s within that context, Mr. Speaker, that we are before the

House talking about three months’ appropriation, so that we have a good

process here in the chamber to get the next budget passed.

M. Bernier: The minister just acknowledged one of the fundamental flaws of

what government has presented here today, with the fact that we don’t

get to have estimates right now. We don’t get to debate the spending,

other than referencing a year-old document, obsolete document, which we

already debated at the time. Since then, we’ve had two other supply

bills, if I remember correctly, for additional funding, and we debated

those.

Times have changed. What the minister is not acknowledging is that

the government has come forward asking for funds without giving us the

opportunity to truly ask the questions of how that’s being spent. Now,

the minister also acknowledged that typically, by now, we would be going

through the estimates process on a tabled budget in the House, probably

after a supply bill had already easily passed referencing that. But we

are delayed.

Even though the Premier himself said that by calling an election,

nothing would be delayed, it would sure be a lot more genuine of NDP

members if they had stood up and said: “Look, you know what? The budget

is delayed. We’re in this situation. So be it. We caused it, but let’s

move on.” That would actually be some pretty incredible, accurate

statements, if a member was willing to actually say it.

Here’s the question I have. The minister keeps saying: “You’re

going to see a budget on April 20. Then we’ll go through an estimates

process on that budget.” Meanwhile, we’re spending money on last year’s

budget. I think the public…. I know the media have called me on this as

well, saying: “None of this makes sense. They’re asking for money before

you’ve even discussed it.”

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

I’m like: “Yeah, well, you’ll have to talk to the Finance Minister

for that.” I don’t agree with the process. I wouldn’t have done it this

way, but that’s what they chose to do. We’re in this position, and we’re

going to debate it. But since we would typically be going through the

estimates process as we speak, we wouldn’t be debating this bill right

now. We would actually be debating the estimates of an actual tabled

budget.

Can the minister, then, I guess, to help me out on this side of

the House for planning…? What day will estimates start on her tabled

budget after April 20?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s interesting. I was listening carefully to what the member was

saying, and if I recall correctly, he said we are asking for money

before we even discussed it. That is how supply bills work. That’s how

the supply bill worked last year and the year before that and the year

before that. We’re in the process of discussing, and we say we need

supply in order to carry through past the end of the year.

I can think back as a minister, or even as the critic, passing a

supply bill before we get to the estimates of my ministry when I was the

minister, or when I was the critic, and saying: “Yes, we’re going to get

to our estimates. We’ll get to go through it, until the budget is

passed.” This isn’t any different in that respect.

I think that we need to recognize this idea of, again, as the

member said, asking for money before we go through the estimates. Yes,

that is what we do. That is what happens every year. Now, the member

might argue, “Well, we’ll have started estimates,” or “We’ll have seen

the budget,” and that I’m not going to dispute. But before we discuss

it?

The number of times when I’ve been the critic and a supply bill

has passed before I got to ask my minister questions, it was like: “We

need to keep going.” I remember asking as a newbie, saying, “I don’t

understand,” and having it explained to me. In fact, it was the current

House Leader, surprised that I didn’t understand — but when you’re new,

you don’t understand — explaining to me how important it is to keep

things going. That’s how governments operate.

I also want to point out to the member — again, I want to remind

him — that each ministry’s appropriation is in this estimates book. We

are still referring to it, because it is the budget that was passed.

There are additional spending appropriations because of supply in the

pandemic context. But again, there is good and useful information in

here, and based on that, we are bringing forward this supply

bill.

A. Olsen: I think it’s important at this point to just acknowledge that

process and protocol matter. I think, as I’m listening to this debate

unfold, what I’m being challenged with is kind of a wholesale rewrite of

an important process. Each step is an important part of an unfolding

story of the year for this province.

I think a member in their second reading debate highlighted…. It’s

a necessary step for us to have a Speech from the Throne. That provides

the vision with which the government is going to then govern the

province. The next step of that is the plan.

[2:35 p.m.]

The plan is outlined in that budget. “This is how we are going to

see that vision through.” At that point, the government then comes with

a supply bill. It’s on the premise that the work of the budget has been

done that the members of this place…. Whether there’s a majority here or

not shouldn’t matter. That shouldn’t matter. There are 87 MLAs elected

by their constituents to come here and care about the budget and care

that the government is managing our province’s fiscal reality with

prudence. So whether more than half of them, a strong majority of them,

wear one colour or carry one flag or not shouldn’t matter.

What should matter is that process that unfolds in a very

deliberate way. I think my colleague has been highlighting this. I

think, for me, where I’m so troubled, and where many have been so

troubled, is that the government has said: “Don’t worry about the

process. Don’t worry about the protocols of this place.” And I think one

of the starkest introductions for me, coming from a culture that has a

lot of protocols, is that this culture in here has a lot of

protocols.

They’ve evolved over a long period of time, and it’s important

that the vision gets laid out. Then the plan gets laid out. And then the

Minister of Finance asks the members of this place — based on the work

being done, of the budget on the table in front of us, that we can look

at and review: “Now forward us the money. Now allow us the opportunity

for this place, this government and all of the administration of the

government and all the programs and services to be able to roll out and

continue without delay.”

We grant the government the ability to continue that work through

the budget estimates process based on the fact that we are looking at

the budget in front of us. We might not like it. There might be parts of

the budget we disagree with. Now, those are the questions that happen,

and that’s the part of the process that comes later. However, we grant

collectively the…. And as the minister has repeated several times,

normally there isn’t a question about supply, because the government

honours the process. Because the government follows its own process

that’s it’s put in place.

The process is not to refer back to a budget that is coming to an

end. The process is to refer the supply acts to the budgets that exist.

So what I’m most concerned about is a deliberate sidestep from a process

that has steps missing. We haven’t heard…. It’s not just the budget that

we haven’t seen, the plan. We don’t know how that plan relates to a

throne speech which is coming, and that throne speech is the vision of

that.

In the middle of this process, government stands up and announces

a $400 million announcement for support for poverty reduction and

supports for people in this province. It is that announcement I agree

with. I like the announcement. I support the announcement. It’s totally

out of context of a budget, of a process, that is supposed to be coming

just a couple of weeks from now. I don’t know where that money sits. I

don’t know where it comes from. I don’t know what context it

is.

As I was saying to my colleague downstairs yesterday, I don’t

know…. I would like to be able to argue for more money for people, for a

greater increase in supports for poverty reduction. I can’t do that

because I have no context for that money. I don’t know if $400 million

is a good number. It could be larger. Maybe it should be smaller. I

don’t know what else is being cut.

I’ve been a big critic of the subsidies to oil and gas. I know

some of my colleagues aren’t going to like that. However, those are

discussions that happen in the context of the process, in the context of

the vision and in the context of the plan.

[2:40 p.m.]

I’m wondering, from the minister…. As you defend the process that

is undertaken today, don’t you see the fact that there is, in

sidestepping the long-established processes of this place, an

overturning of steps in an order that needs to happen, or else actually,

the protocols of this place have been fundamentally undermined; and that

we, as members of this place, need to defend those steps?

They

necessarily need to follow one another and not put the cart before the

horse, not put one step out of place, in front of another and just say:

“Well, it’s okay. That process was done last year.” But the process that

was done last year doesn’t exist anymore, because now the end of the

budget year has happened.

I’m just hoping the minister can help me reconcile this a little

bit, because while it’s easy to defend: “Well, we’re doing this in order

to tide us over, and we don’t want the ball to stop rolling….” Of course

not. However, there are steps that are missing in this, and it actually

damages the integrity of the work that we do here on an annual basis and

that has been going on in this place since long before us.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s description of process. The member and I

have had many discussions over the years around that. We had robust

debate in December around process, when the laws were changed that

provided us with the opportunity to bring a budget in later than has

been, historically. So I continue to appreciate that.

I want to assure all members that there will be a throne speech in

2½ weeks, three weeks — I’m losing track; we are in March still, I

believe — and a budget that follows. I expect robust debate in this

House around the estimates process. I look forward to that, because I do

think it is a valuable process in terms of recognizing government’s

direction.

Here we are in a time when…. It is an unusual time. Government and

all of our staff and all of the public service have been franticly and

diligently working with government to deliver for the people of British

Columbia, under very difficult circumstances, and putting together

several supply bills over the year, recognizing the unusual

circumstance. We need to make sure that we have a robust budget going

forward. The reality is there are so many unusual things happening that

we need to make sure that we can continue to do a good job.

[2:45 p.m.]

Again, I appreciate the member’s commitment to good process — and

frustration when it doesn’t feel right and doesn’t work for the member,

given what he’s been used to. I also believe very much that we are going

to have good process here. The members are going to see a throne speech

that lays out government’s vision. They will see the plan through the

budget, and they will get to ask those questions around: “Why this and

not that? How much only this and why not more of that? How did you

decide that this was more important than that?”

That’s the stuff that I think we all value, and there will be lots

of opportunity to be doing that throughout the spring, once the budget

is delivered.

A. Olsen: As a former partner to the government through the confidence and

supply agreement, I was annually reminded of the confidence measures in

government. I was constantly reminded of the areas that I needed to take

great care in to ensure that I was not undermining or eroding the

confidence in this government.

Now, there are a couple of aspects of this which trouble me, and

that is that if the people of British Columbia see their elected

officials simply changing the processes to suit them, that has an equal

impact as a single MLA or a small caucus of MLAs — three of us at the

time — that we could undermine and erode the confidence in this

government.

This was to the comments that I left during the speech, during my

second reading speech — that it is necessary for us in here to

demonstrate a willingness to follow that process that we’ve set up. That

is the structure with which the people of British Columbia…. It’s the

contract that we have with British Columbians as they allow us to govern

them on their behalf, not on our behalf. I think that that’s what’s

creeping into this debate — that the government position on this is that

it’s their votes to be confident in.

Actually, we shouldn’t be pretending in this House that any single

vote from any single one of these seats representing the communities of

this province, named all the way along on the front of these desks,

should be taken for granted. That’s what’s happening in this when you

say: “Let’s put this cart before the horse. Let’s put the supply act

ahead of the throne speech.”

I have a very recent experience, three and a half years ago, where

the minister and I stood together when we amended a throne speech

because we didn’t like what it said and because we had a relationship

and because we stood together.

My colleagues, now on this side of the House that I make my

current home, remember that day exactly like the minister and I remember

it. It was both bitter and sweet. But it was only through that process

and us honouring that process and the bitterness on this side of the

House accepting that that process is legitimate that allowed us to have

the confidence and supply agreement mean something.

If this side of the House — or it was that side of the House at

the time — decided to change the rules in order to benefit them and

change the process, we wouldn’t have had the certainty that we had to be

able to sit down with both sides and have the conversation. So the very

process that allows us to be where we’re at today is the process that

we’re talking about, and it’s not one that we should be taking for

granted. Not one vote in this House should be taken for

granted.

[2:50 p.m.]

The members of the government side of the House should be given

the opportunity, as unlikely as it might seem, to vote down their own

throne speech. Otherwise, what’s the point in having it? Just not do it.

They should be able to have the ability to vote down the supply bill

that’s tied to that budget. Otherwise, why even go through the

process?

Yes, I’m drawing this out because I think that it is important to

recognize that the members of this government are where they are as a

result of process. The minister is correct. I do honour the processes of

this place, because it is the thing that creates the certainty. It’s the

thing that creates the reliability. It’s the thing that my colleagues on

this side of the House might talk about that we can invest in. It’s the

things that my friends on that side of the House might talk about. It’s

the thing that provides the certainty and the supports in a democratic

government.

I think that what’s important is that we don’t get too far ahead.

I think what this bill does…. In this part of the debate, when we’re

talking about the process of all of this, we are actually, and the

government is actually, arguing that certain really important parts of

this process are a foregone conclusion. Doesn’t the minister see that?

[Applause.]

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

Interjection.

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

I want to acknowledge the member’s commentary, and I want to point

out that no one here is taking anyone or anything for granted. As a

government, we have tremendous appreciation for the processes of this

House. That is why we had debate in December in recognition of the

timing challenges. That is why we brought legislation forward to debate

back in December, so that we had engaged in a process and in a robust

debate around providing the time needed to put together the budget,

given the context.

That was debated in this House. It was voted on in this House, and

it’s based on that that we have put together the various component parts

and the timing for the throne speech that is coming in a couple of weeks

and then a budget that will be brought forward a week later.

In the interim, we have, notably, interim supply, which has a

pragmatic component to it. It’s based on the realities of taking the

needed time to put together a robust budget, putting together the

vision. But I will argue that the budget probably is — I would think,

because I’m the Finance Minister — more important. The throne speech is

important too, but I have my own lens as the minister.

It’s based on that good process back from December that this work

is flowing, so to suggest that we’re not following process is not

accurate. We are following process. We’re following law. We are doing as

we said we would do back in December, when we brought forward the

legislative changes. We had debate in the House about the realities of

what we were faced with.

[2:55 p.m.]

Having said that, again, I want to assure the member and all

members of the House that they will see and hear a throne speech that

sets out government’s vision. They will see and read government’s

budget, which is the plan for the vision, as the member so eloquently

placed it. There will absolutely be robust discussion and debate in this

House about the throne speech, and I hope the members all support it,

and the budget, and I hope the members all support it.

I expect that they’re going to say, “Why don’t you do more of this

or less of that, and how come you picked this one over that one?” as

they should, because we all represent the diversity of our province. We

all have different ideas about what would get us to where we want to go.

But at the end of the day, there is a process in place, and I look

forward to that.

In many ways, the highlight of my time here is the opportunity to

go back and forth with my colleagues here in the House, making sure that

everyone understands how government is spending dollars to help British

Columbians get through what is a very difficult time and prepare us for

a recovery that is before us.

M. Bernier: I’m just going to start off by acknowledging my colleague from the

Third Party. My tongue-in-cheek comment will be that I have no

confidence in this supply bill. Now, that being said…. I try to have a

little bit of fun in here in a difficult time.

I think it’s also back to some of the questions that I had

earlier. Again, the minister keeps saying that we’re going to see a

budget on April 20. Quickly looking at the calendar — and I looked into

this — estimates won’t start…. The minister didn’t answer this one. I’ll

acknowledge for her. I just checked. She can correct me if I’m wrong.

Estimates won’t start until around May 10 because there are some

legislative processes that have to take place. You have to have time to

debate a budget after it’s been presented. You’re not allowed to start

your estimates until after that, but supply bills can come during that

time.

Back to my question, the minister continues to state that they

need the three months for continuation while we’re debating, during

estimates, that future budget. I still respectfully say that the process

could have been easily handled if the minister had tabled a supply bill

for one month, presented a budget and presented a subsequent supply bill

referencing that budget. That would cut down a lot of angst.

Is that actually an option to consider?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m prepared to provide a response, and then I’m wondering if we

could take a five-minute break after my response. Hopefully, that will

be okay with the House.

I appreciate the member’s question. And I’m thinking about the

amount of work that it would take to do all of that and then the work

that it would require of us here in the House, in terms of the debate

time that it would take, to debate all of those various bills. In

needing to balance out the accountability, transparency and efficiency

components that I think we all value, we made the decision to do supply

this way so that we had more time to do the estimates debate, which I

know that the member is looking forward to.

We certainly heard from the member for Saanich North and the

Islands just how eager he is to roll up his sleeves to get into

estimates debate. Really, this is about balancing out the need for

transparency, for making sure that operationally things can continue and

making sure that we’re running the House efficiently, because all of

those things are really important.

The last thing I want to say before I take my seat is the amount

of work that it requires of the public service. This has been an

extraordinary year, with additional supply bills, recognizing that their

time is valuable and important, and wanting to be respectful of their

time as well. Using their knowledge and expertise efficiently is also

critically important to government.

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

break.

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

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

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

M. Bernier: Right before the break, the minister was just answering my

question about why we couldn’t have just had a one-month bridge, if we

want to call it that, of interim supply, allowing this House the

opportunity to have more wholesome debate on the actual tabled budget

that would be presented April 20.

The minister’s comments were that it would be too much work, too

much effort. With all due respect, the minister also said earlier that,

mostly, supply bills are never really debated because they’re

referencing a budget that’s tabled. So if there was one that actually

came forward in April, in the third week referencing that budget, I

could guarantee you, because I just spoke to my House Leader, that there

wouldn’t be debate on it, because it would be referencing a

budget.

For it to be too much work…. Again, with all due respect, and this

is not meant in any way…. I hope the minister doesn’t take that as a

slight of the incredible hard-working staff within the ministry, but to

put this bill forward wasn’t really, technically, a lot of work, because

we’re not referencing anything where it’s been done already.

If the minister had said, “We’re putting this bill on the floor,

and we’re referencing a budget” — and I completely acknowledge work is

going on behind the scenes for the next budget — that’s fine. But this

supply act that is in front of us right now is referencing a document

that did not require any work. It was basically pull a number out of the

air, pick a document, throw it into this legislation. I maybe sound like

I’m over simplifying it. Yes, I understand it goes to leg. counsel and

all that stuff. I’ve been through this process before. It’s not much

more difficult than that, the way this bill is being

presented.

[3:15 p.m.]

I think at this crossroads it’s important to also really talk

about

section 1,

Interpretation. It’s what we’ve been talking about for

the last couple of hours. I want to read into the record what we’re

doing, because I’ve heard many members from the government side, the NDP

members, who said they read this bill. I’m not sure, with all due

respect, if they understood what was going on. To read this bill is one

thing, but to understand the technicalities of the bill and the changes

— because this is not normal — that are required in order to fulfil the

wishes of the government, because of their delayed budget.

Let me read in here, if I may: “

(1) In this Act, ‘main Estimates

for the previous fiscal year’ means the main Estimates for the fiscal

year ending March 31, 2021….” That’s already been brought up in the

House. We acknowledge that. But for “the purposes of this Act, the main

Estimates for the previous fiscal year are to be read as if they were

the main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,

2022.”

That is an interesting dynamic that’s thrown into this bill. I

will acknowledge and understand why it’s there. The Minister has said

they have to reference something in order to meet the legislation. What

the Minister has failed to do is the next part, talking about how: “

(3) Despite

section 2 of the Financial Administration Act, a reference in

section 23 of that Act is to be read in relation to this Act as a

reference to the main Estimates for the previous fiscal

year.”

I’m going to put that in somewhat layman’s terms. Government

hasn’t presented a budget. The law states you have to present a budget

if you want to have a supply act in this House. That supply act is

supposed to reference that budget. That didn’t happen. So what’s the

workaround? Well, the workaround that this government once again has had

to do is to change the rules of this House, the process of this

House.

Maybe before I move to my next question, I’ll give the Minister an

opportunity to correct anything I might have just said, because the way

the

interpretation comes in

section 1, this is not normal, contrary to

what most of the NDP members said in their speeches. Government is

changing the rules. Government is changing the laws to accommodate the

fact that they did not get a budget in on time. To try to meet

legislative requirements, they’ve actually changed the legislative

requirements, in order to be fulfilling and having a supply

act.

Does the Minister agree that she, her government, have now had to

change the intent and the wording and the regulations that are in the

Financial Administration Act because of their failure to present a

budget on time?

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I want to just correct the member. We have until

April 30 to present a budget on time. So this budget will be on time. It

will be April 20, ten days before we’re legally obligated to present a

budget. I look forward to that day.

[3:20 p.m.]

Also, the member read into the record the

interpretation, and what

this says is that this is a consequential change to allow us to refer to

last year’s estimates for the case of interim supply. What this says is

that because the different acts have different language, in this one, it

allows us to pull up those estimates and use that for this supply bill.

That’s what this little piece of

interpretation that he read into the

record means.

M. Bernier: I read that into the record to try to make a point that the

minister is not acknowledging, that they’re changing the rules. This is

not normal. The minister is trying to make it sound like this is just

part of the

interpretation, because it’s from all different

acts.

No, in fact, they’re changing the intent in the wording in the act

to accommodate the fact that they have not presented a budget on time

but require a supply act in order to have the continuation of funding

for government, which we’ve acknowledged earlier today and in our second

reading debates. Obviously, we understand, appreciate and acknowledge

that that funding needs to continue.

What the minister is not acknowledging, which I’m hoping she will,

is the fact that the Financial Administration Act…. The intent of that

is to reference a budget in that year, not in a previous year. Is it

fair to say they’re changing the intent in the act, within the wording

section 1, in order to accommodate the fact they didn’t present the

budget on time? We warned government about it a while ago, that this

would happen, that there would be other consequences. This seems to be

just one of them.

Hon. S. Robinson: “On time” means to April 30. We have until April 30 to present a

budget, and we will be presenting a budget on April 20. It will be on

time.

Now, I know that the member is having a hard time with that, but

it will be on time. Now as…. It is a consequence of that, of the changes

that were made late last year, that we have to add this additional piece

in here that affords us the opportunity to be transparent and base off

of this blue book the supply bill for the next few months. It’s in

there, so that it is about being accountable, so that it is clear about

what we’re referring to, so that everyone can get an old copy that’s

kicking around, pull it up, take a look at it, and understand what it is

that we’re asking before this House.

M. Bernier: The minister skirted over very quickly in her answer the reason

why we’re here today. She keeps trying to say that the budget is on

time. Well, it’s only on time because this minister changed the

goalposts. She widened them. She allowed and changed the laws of this

Legislature that says a budget has to be presented in February every

year, which, by the way, it always has been, every February in the

past.

For the minister to now say that I’m being inaccurate…. It’s a

technicality, mind you. The only reason why the minister has until April

30 is because right after the NDP called the snap election, the only

order of business they wanted to really accomplish was Bill 3, the

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, in December, which gave them until April

20, which added two months for government to be able to put a budget

together.

I’m not going to debate the previous Bill 3. We went through that.

The minister, at that point, put on the record her reasons why

government was asking for two months extra. We’ve had that debate —

agree or not agree — and that’s where we’re at.

[3:25 p.m.]

I think it’s also fair to highlight the reason why we are at this

point today. It’s because of Bill 3 in December, which allowed

government two more months. It’s always easy to say if you’re on time

for something if you have control of when that timeline is. It’s always

easy to say you’ve met your goals when you change what those goals are

right before you announce them.

Now, in

section 23 of the Financial Administration Act, which the

minister is referencing, which is part of

section 1 of the Supply Act

that we’re debating today, it seems to be quite specific on how funds

are to be appropriated.

Section 23 says that “a sum appropriated by a

Supply Act must not” — must not — “be spent for any purpose other than

those described in the estimates of revenue and expenditure….” Which the

minister has acknowledged, I believe, is this.

That leads me to a question that I have, then. The government

called back this House after they acknowledged that this document was

not worth anything, even though they choose to use that right now as the

reference point. Under

section 23 of the act, if the minister is going

to be following the act, and it’s my understanding of this…. Okay, fine.

Government has acknowledged they’re only going to be spending and

following this book from 13 months ago.

That leaves me to wonder, then, about the other supplemental bills

that were brought forward, supplemental estimates and supplemental

estimates No. 3. We came to this House and said: “Look” — at that time,

even government acknowledged it — “this document is not working. This

document is not accurate. We need to have supplemental estimates. We

need to ask for more money. We need to have further debate. We need to

have more acts and estimates to come forward around

spending.”

Now, before the minister accuses me, maybe, of not understanding

why we did that…. We all voted in favour of those supplemental

estimates. Those were because of the unprecedented situation that

government is in, the fact that we acknowledged that extra spending and

supports needed to go out to assist people. We’ve had debates on whether

that’s actually been working or not and whether that money has gone out

the door or not.

The crux of my…. Where I’m going with this line of questioning

is…. I’m just concerned and have questions around how this is going to

work. Because if the minister is referencing an old budget that did not

include all of the COVID spending, those supplementary estimates that we

debated state right on the front page that they end March 31, 2021.

Trying to understand this now, because the government continues to try

to say that there’s going to be money on April 1. They are announcing

programs that we supported, whether they’re COVID recovery benefits or

small business grants. But those were approved through supplemental

estimates that said they expire on March 31.

The minister has also said that we’re referencing, through the

supply act, a document that did not include these. So will there be any

funding on April 1 for all of these other programs that were announced

after this document was debated and passed in the House?

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

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member sort of asked…. I think it was two questions that I

heard. I’m not 100 percent sure. But I want to provide clarity, because

the member is not correct around how it’s always a February budget.

That’s actually not the case.

When there were spring elections, a budget would be presented, but

there’d be an election. Then there would be another…. Ninety days, I

believe, is what they had to bring in another budget. So you would go

right from February, because it wouldn’t be passed, right through the

spring. Then you wouldn’t actually pass a budget until the fall. In the

olden days, that was sort of how the process went.

Then we had a debate here in this House, and everyone agreed to

change the date to a fall election. That was a decision of this House.

That permitted a new budget date for March. I believe that was a year

and a half or two years ago. I’m losing track of time, but it was some

time ago. Then along came COVID. We recognized that in order to deliver

a meaningful budget, we did need more time in order to make that happen,

hence the extra three weeks for this current budget.

It’s not accurate to suggest that budgets only ever happened in

February. There were plenty of budgets that were presented in this House

at different dates because of elections. I think it’s really important

to get that on the record.

The other part of the member’s question was around using the

estimates from last year, given that we’ve had several supply bills,

which were for requests for significant resources in a significant time.

The need for that extra supply was because the estimates weren’t

sufficient for the entire year, on top of the COVID

experience.

We have the right vote descriptions in here. They’re here.

Certainly, if you were to flip to the descriptions in there — for

example, around health — you’ll certainly see a range of descriptions.

The challenge was there wasn’t enough supply to get us through, because

of COVID. We’re using the book to help us get through the next three

months, to make sure that there is sufficient supply, given that the

descriptions that are in here are helpful to us in continuing

again….

I want to remind everyone that this is about continuing to deliver

the services that British Columbians need, whether it’s getting a

vaccine or health care for a senior or making sure that housing

providers continue to do the important work that they do for those who

are most vulnerable in our communities.

M. Bernier: My comments originally were around the fact of the legislative

requirement. I’m not talking about when budgets were passed, where they

extended through debate or when elections were. But budgets are

presented early in the year, around February.

[3:40 p.m.]

This government then changed it, not that long ago — I thought it

was early last year, but I could be wrong, by then Finance Minister

Carole James — to add an extra month. The fourth Tuesday of March was

the deadline.

At that time, the minister was quoted as saying: “Even if there

happens to be a fall election” — because that was the discussion around

that — “that extra month is needed.” That still would’ve been presented

to the House before the end of a fiscal. Now we’re actually in this

problem and this debate. Again, supply bills normally don’t get debated

like this because of the process of this House. There’s no real

requirement, because you get to have those debates and those questions

asked during the estimates of the actual budget that’s

presented.

I just want to go back to the question I had here, if the minister

can maybe give it in a bit more detail so I understand. She actually

said that all we have to do is go out and get an old copy of the book,

and that says it all. Now, in this last answer, she just acknowledged

that it actually doesn’t say it all, that government was called back,

that we were called back, because of COVID, and extra expenditure is

needed in a couple of different supplementary estimates — to ask for

more money for ministries to be spent to help people.

There was no debate in this House around that intent of why extra

money was needed. It was needed because it was not in the budget.

Government said that. Government acknowledged that this budget didn’t

work anymore because of COVID.

Again to the minister, that’s why I’m asking this line of

questioning. I’m trying to ensure…. If we’re being told to reference

only this book, how do we tell people in the public, especially ones

that are much needed, supports right now that are needed…? We’ve all

said that. I’m not trying to discredit that. My concern is: how do we

tell them that funds will be there on April 1 for government programs

that were announced in supplementary estimates when the minister, in her

own words, said that we’re not referencing that for this supply act?

We’re referencing a 13-month-old document that does not have the extra

spending.

I’m hoping the minister can understand why I’m asking this line of

questioning. I’m hoping she can just clarify where I’m wrong, because

it’s not in the one-page supply bill. They’re referencing the estimates,

March 31, 2021. So what’s happening with all the $8 billion approved

COVID money that is set to expire under the fiscal year, March 31,

because that was approved last year and not included in this supply act

for the first three months, from what I can tell?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: This is, perhaps, where the member doesn’t quite appreciate that

the supplemental estimates, where we came back to the House, were for

additional funds, not additional descriptions — additional

funds.

COVID certainly threw us all for a loop — personally, for sure.

Certainly, as government and all members of the House, we’ve had to

change a lot of things. I appreciate that the members opposite

recognized the challenges that, certainly, health care as well as the

support systems that people needed as a result of COVID…. I want to take

a moment to express gratitude to all members of the House for coming

together as they did to make sure that we continue to take care of

people.

That was us coming together to say the funds that we had approved

in the estimates book, the amount, wasn’t sufficient in order to help

British Columbians get through the pandemic. So that’s why we came back

to the House. What we’re saying is we need funds to get through the next

few months. The descriptions are here. Again, it is to carry us through,

to make sure that we continue as a government, all of us representing

government, to take care of people. That’s what this supply bill is. We

are referring to descriptions in estimates to make sure that people

understand how we’re operating.

There will be a new budget April 20 that will provide any

additional new programs and direction of government going forward. It

will be happening then.

M. Bernier: Obviously, the intent — completely understand. Completely support

the intent of the supplementary estimates that came in front of this

House. We spoke to those. We supported them, endorsed them because we

understood the situation that the government, but more importantly, the

public, the citizens were in — the stress they were under, the impacts

that they were facing.

I’m trying to get a bit more clarity because, in my mind, that was

a very confusing answer. As the minister said, we came back to this

House to pass supplemental estimates to give supports to people. It’s

funds. It’s money for government for supports for people. But those

supplemental estimates reference a budget that expires next

week.

Then the minister went on to say in her last answer: “That’s why

we’re referencing, because we have to, a document from 13 months ago.”

That has no reference at all to any of the extra COVID spending that we

just talked about. So the reason why I’m asking the question…. Maybe the

minister can’t answer this. If she can…. I know she can’t point to

anywhere in the supply act, I don’t think, that explains it for

me.

By reading through the supplementary estimates that were brought

into this House and that expire in a mere ten days…. Does that mean,

since the minister said the next budget is not until April 20, that

there now is no COVID funding under that $8 billion approved in this

House between March 31 and April 20? That’s not included in this book

that the minister says we need to reference of why they need to spend

the $13 billion.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member is expressing concern about supports for what I’ll call

COVID spending. That’s how I heard his particular question.

All of the descriptions that are in the estimates book provide us

with the necessary appropriations to ensure that all of the programs

continue and make sure that we have the health dollars available to keep

doing what we’re doing, and the supports in place to keep doing what

we’re doing, until we can table the budget and have a robust debate

about any changes.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that, except I think it just really highlights the

challenges that we’ve been addressing through our second reading

discussions, debate, and that we’ll continue to highlight, especially

once we get to

section 2 — around some of the monetary appropriations

that government chooses to do — when we’ve got conflicting documents,

really.

Let me just highlight and stress the fact that of course we want

to see those extra funds spent where they need to be spent. But again,

it’s all around the transparency and accountability aspect, which I

would argue is, in this situation, very lacking. It’s not a normal

process. We’ve had to change the regulations, legislation in this House

in order to accommodate government.

I should remind the minister, too, that even though in some of her

other ones, when the minister says we all show up here and we all pass

it, that’s not always the case. Sometimes we vote against things, but

they do still pass in the House because government has a majority. Fair

enough. But just a reminder that that doesn’t mean we always support

everything that government is doing.

Now, we have the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. It’s

a very prescriptive act that lays out a lot of the expectations of

government, of ministries, and even around budgets. So is it fair to say

to the minister: does she feel, then, that we’re not actually following

the wording and intent under the Budget Transparency and Accountability

Act by having to change legislation because of their delay in presenting

a budget?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: We’re not changing any laws here, and we are following the law. If

the member seems to think that that’s not the case, it would be really

helpful to hear more specifically about what he’s referring

to.

M. Bernier: Does the present Financial Administration Act say anywhere in

there that you can reference a 13-month-old document, or is the minister

having to change, under this supply act, the wording of the act in order

for her to be able to do so?

Hon. S. Robinson: We’re not proposing, here, any amendments to the Financial

Administration Act. That’s not what’s happening here. No one is changing

any laws here. So, again, I’m still not sure what the member is

referring to.

M. Bernier: Well, we can agree to disagree. I know the minister is probably in

a position where she doesn’t want to acknowledge it, but it’s pretty

well right in black and white.

When you read the Financial Administration Act on how it’s

supposed to reference the budget…. The minister, in her own supply act

here, has had to put the

interpretation and change the

interpretation to

reference last year’s budget in order to have a supply act. Maybe she

can point to me the place….

I don’t want it go back and forth and waste a whole bunch of time

on this, but I don’t think the minister can point to a place in the

Financial Administration Act that actually says it can reference an old

budget, one that’s 13 months old. It’s not in there that I can find,

which is why the minister has had to put in the

interpretation,

changing: “Despite

section 2 of the Financial Administration Act, a

reference in

section 23…is to be read in relation to the Act as a

reference to the main estimates for the previous” — not the present, the

previous — “fiscal year.”

Under the same

interpretation, it’s listed that they’ve had to use

the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2021. I’m only

highlighting that to remind the minister and this House that we’re

looking at an old document, and the minister has had to put wording into

a bill to accommodate the fact that we’re looking at an old

document.

I’ll get into it in clause 2 — almost said

section 2 — in a little

bit, where we can actually talk about some of the specifics that I’ve

brought up in more detail around the financial aspects of the spending,

because, again, there’s no

schedule attached to this. There’s no

schedule because there hasn’t been a present budget put in front of this

House, which, again, is why the minister has had to change the

interpretation of the acts to accommodate them putting this budget

forward later than expected.

Is it fair to say that we’re going to be passing a supply act in

this House, to go with the minister’s earlier comments, completely on

the basis of the estimates debate that’s not going to happen now on this

monetary amount? It happened last year. I’m assuming the minister is

going to be able to acknowledge that, because the estimates that are

going to happen in two, three months from now will be based on a budget

that is tabled in this House on April 20.

[4:00 p.m.]

We’re not going to be debating last year’s budget in three months.

We’re going to be debating the new tabled budget, whatever that may be.

But we’re not going to get a chance to debate anything, other than now,

during a supply act, because the minister is saying that we’re going to

take this money based on the discussion, the debates, that we had a year

and a bit ago. Is that a fair comment?

Hon. S. Robinson: We passed a budget last year based on these estimates. The member

might prefer to call it a

schedule for the supply bill, if that makes it

any easier for him.

And here it is. It is in black and white. The appropriations are

listed for each ministry. It is a document that has been used, as well

as coming back here to the House to get supplementary supply, because of

COVID. We needed more resources in this document. The House supported

that, recognizing the unusual circumstances that we were living in and

delivering services in.

What is before the House is a bill based, again, on what we had

used last year to say: “We need to continue these programs. We need to

continue these appropriations that are clearly listed out

here.”

This is what it amounts to, over the next number of months, to

make sure, again — I think it’s really important to not lose sight of

what we’re saying here — that we can continue to pay the teachers and

the support staff in our schools, that we can continue to pay our

conservation officers, that we can continue to pay the health care

providers and that we can continue to deliver the services that people

count on here in British Columbia.

That’s what we’re debating here, right now. What we are saying is:

“These are the appropriations. The descriptions are here about where

money is going to be going and how we’re going to carry on.” A new

budget will be presented here in the House on April 20. There will be —

and I look forward to — robust discussion about how government is

addressing the ongoing needs of British Columbians into the

future.

That’s what we’re debating here in the House right now: getting us

through to when we can adopt a new budget. At this point, my

understanding is that the House is likely to go until the third week of

June. If the members opposite want to pass the budget sooner, that would

be lovely. I see nods from some of my colleagues.

At the same time, I recognize we have important work to do. It’s

important to hear from members opposite. It’s important to hear from as

many members that want to ask questions of the ministers and of the

ministries around the decisions that government is making. That is their

prerogative. I have confidence that the bill will pass and will continue

to deliver important services to British Columbians going

forward.

M. Bernier: Let me just say that it is unfortunate that the minister again had

to digress the point where she’s saying that this bill is about making

sure that it has to pass — to pay teachers, nurses, etc. We talked about

that earlier today. That whether this bill passes or not, they continue

to get paid.

What we’re here talking about today, though, is the process of how

that is going to go out. The process to which the fact that government

has not tabled a budget yet, is asking to spend upwards of $13 billion,

and the minister continues to say that we should just trust them. That

we’re going to use an old document that the government themselves have

said is irrelevant.

[4:05 p.m.]

The minister acknowledged that in her answers, by saying that

we’ve had to come back two other times for supplemental additions and

estimates for more money, because the government didn’t get it right.

Now, I’m saying that it’s because of COVID. I’m not trying to say that

they could have planned for that in any way. But they didn’t have enough

money. The government needed more.

The minister still hasn’t answered my question, though, if we’re

basing it off of that old document that doesn’t include the $8 billion,

whether people still get paid. If they still have funding for COVID

relief programs after April 2, then we truly are not following the book

that the minister keeps referencing: the estimates from last year. It

sounds to me like it’s a combination of all.

On behalf of this side of the House, on the record: of course we

want, again, to see funds continue. In a perfect world, those funds that

were approved in this House would actually already have been spent. If

more was needed, the government would be here in front of the House

asking for it.

I hope the minister can at least acknowledge the fact that this is

where some of the questions come from, some of the confusion. When we’re

referencing a document that’s irrelevant…. We know there is more money

that was needed, so it was passed in the House.

Now, in the meantime, even though we never…. I’ll get to it in

more detail probably later, tomorrow maybe, around the fact that we have

not really had adequate quarterly updates to really give a fiscal state

of where we’re at. Typically, we have a budget presented, where the

minister stands up with great detail and says: “These were our plans and

priorities from last year. Here’s where we spent the money, here’s our

budget surplus/deficit, and here’s our next one for ’21-22.” Very open,

very transparent.

There can be debates about how the money is spent — the minister

has acknowledged that — and we will do that in great detail when the

time comes. But there’s always been a process to follow that is open and

transparent.

One of the concerns that I also have now is we’re referencing an

old document. More money has been asked for, for COVID programming, and

in the last fiscal update, if we want to call it that — because it

wasn’t truly a quarterly update — the minister talked about the $13

billion plus of deficit that this government finds themselves in. A

deficit that it actually started before COVID, I would argue.

The minister announced that deficit after the debates on these

estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, just a week and a half

from now. Another example of the ever-changing world that this

government sees themselves in. It does raise the question, and why some

are perplexed, that through this supply act they continue to reference

an old document that is not relevant.

I ask the minister, then, maybe this: how can we guarantee that

the numbers that she’s put forward are even accurate? It sounds like it

was a guess. If she’s referencing the numbers — when I did the math, it

sounds like they are referencing just this document; she can correct me

if I’m wrong — that means there is no extra COVID spending attributed to

this. They’re also not taking into consideration the huge deficit that

the province has found themselves in.

With that, how can the minister guarantee that there will be

enough funding going forward, since she’s relying on old

information?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I think it’s really important to recognize that this

document is completely relevant. We have absolutely needed additional

supplementary spending because of COVID.

To suggest that this document from last year, that the estimates

book from last year, is irrelevant is completely inaccurate. The

descriptions in here are absolutely relevant. We follow this book to

make sure that we are continuing to deliver the appropriations that we

needed.

We came back to this House because we didn’t have enough

appropriation. We didn’t have enough resource to do the spending that

was needed. If you think about the Health line items in here, it’s not

that we were doing things that we’d never done before. They were in

here. It just needed more resource given to it, and that’s what the

supplementary estimates were about.

The descriptions are here, and they’re accurate, so this document

is relevant. It’s based on this document, based on the estimates book,

that we are coming forward with this supply bill asking for three

months’ supply — based on this. We have looked at the pattern of

spending, and our request in this supply bill will meet that need over

the next three months. It’s based on that pattern of

spending.

M. Bernier: I think I’m just going to ask one more question on

section 1,

because we can save a lot of the monet­ary stuff. We have a lot of

questions around the appropriations. But I do want to just say that I

find it interesting, again, the way the minister is framing this. From

what it sounds like, it’s still a guess. The descriptions are in here.

Of course they’re in here. The descriptions of how money will be spent

are always in the fiscal plan. They’re always in there.

[4:15 p.m.]

The dollar amounts, however, change. The minister just

acknowledged that they had to come back for supplementary estimates

because more money was needed, which is why the Premier himself said

this document was irrelevant. The Premier himself said that’s why we

couldn’t use this document as the basis of the spending of the

ministries of this government. So although the characterization that the

minister puts forward, that the descriptions are in the book, and

they’re there for us to look at — that’s a fair comment — the dollars

themselves maybe aren’t necessarily there.

I asked this earlier on today. I think I even referenced the

Premier’s office, if I remember, about $11 billion. The minister just

acknowledged that more money was needed, but she’s acknowledging we

should use this book as the guide, it sounds like, and not the full

plan.

Is it fair to say that it is a guess? That the descriptions here

of how ministries allot proportions, how ministries are appropriated a

certain amount of money, and then how that is descriptively spent, as an

approximation? We always know that it is, to a certain extent, but it’s

always presented in a document to the public, so they see where

government is going.

Again I ask the minister, then, before we move into

section 2,

which will talk about the actual spending: which is it? Is this just a

guide and description, or is it the factual determination of how the $13

billion is going to be spent? Can I flip to any page in this book, find

a line item within a ministry, divide it by four and assume that’s how

much they’re getting for the next three months? If so, we’re going to

have some more serious questions to ask later, because none of that

accommodates any of the changes around deficit or any additional money

the government has asked for, for COVID spending.

Hon. S. Robinson: As the member well knows, of course, this is an approximation.

Just like any other year when we, or any government, brings in a supply

bill, it is an approximation, and it’s a lump sum amount to facilitate

the ongoing programs, making sure that they can continue while the

debate of the budget continues and gets sort of reset with the new

budget. This is how supply bills are developed every year.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

[4:20 p.m.]

M. Bernier: On clause 2, it’s going to be an opportunity for a few of my

colleagues to come forward at the start here because we have some

specific questions that we want to ask of the minister.

I think she would acknowledge that in normal processes we would

have been doing this, under different circumstances, debating and

discussing a tabled budget. But from what I’ve seen, and what I’ve heard

in the course of today and through second reading debate, is truly the

government doesn’t seem to know. They have a document they’re

referencing that’s old. They are asking for a blank cheque for the

continuation of government spending, which we acknowledged is

important.

We know that a budget will be presented in three or four weeks

from now. But under

section 2, government is asking us now to approve

$12.3 billion without really showing any updated plan. I’m not going to

rehash the debate we’ve just had for the last hour, 90 minutes, although

I’ve never been accused of not being able to fill time when I talk. So I

could do so, but I won’t.

I think it’s important, before I turn it over, Mr. Chair, to a few

colleagues…. Just for his reference, the first one will be the member

for Peace River North, who’s on a screen.

Is it fair to say before we get into those questions, though, that

there again is no updated plan; that the minister is referencing old

documentation; that she’s asking for $12.3 billion in good faith for

this House to pass with no determinations of specific dollar amounts of

where that’s going to go, without a chance for us to scrutinize or

debate it?

Again, with the adage that, obviously, we understand that there is

the extra COVID spending and dollars that are needed, how do we know

where it’s going? Can the minister point to anything of where this $12.3

billion specifically will be going other than a 13-month-old

document?

Hon. S. Robinson: Just like I’d said in my earlier response, this supply bill is

like other supply bills in that they approximate a lump sum amount based

on a proportion of the year. That’s what this is. This is what supply

bills look like, so it’s certainly based on that.

I think it’s really important to recognize this: the member keeps

referring to a blank cheque. It’s not a blank cheque. We’re asking for

$12.3 billion. We’re very specific. It’s very inaccurate to suggest

that’s not the case. A blank cheque suggests that there’s no amount put

in. You just sign it and offer it up. Back in the days when we had

cheques…. I can’t remember the last time I actually wrote

one.

[4:25 p.m.]

This one is not blank. It’s very, very specific. In fact, it’s

$12,305,108,000. So it’s very specific. It is based on an estimates book

which is right here, and it is for three months supply to help us get

until we can pass the next budget.

D. Davies: I appreciate and want to thank my colleague for his riveting

dialogue, over the last little while, on clause 1 of this

bill.

Diving into some of, I guess, the finer details, we heard the

minister talk about how the numbers are approximate and where they’re

being put toward. A lot of my comments here, or my questions, are going

to be around the Social Development and Poverty Reduction

piece.

As everyone knows, the social services are being more heavily

relied on right now than, probably, any other time, certainly in memory.

Looking at how the allocation of this previous budget, the 13-month-old

budget, and accurately capturing the financial needs then to how they

are now….

My question to the minister is: how are you capturing the

financial needs of Social Development and Poverty Reduction today based

off an irrelevant 13-month-old budget?

[4:30 p.m.]

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question. I had staff just do a quick

calculation, just to give the member some comfort. In fiscal year

’19-20, in the first quarter, we spent between 23 and 24 percent of the

annual budget. Last year, because of COVID spending, it was slightly

more than 25 percent.

We recognize that we expect this upcoming budget to pass a little

bit sooner, middle of June. Staff are certainly comfortable with the

requested appropriation that we have here before the House in this

supply bill to carry us through on all of our spending commitments till

we pass this budget.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister. That kind of moves toward answering a piece

of my next question. Maybe we can get that firmed up a little bit

more.

Last year the budget of the Ministry of Social Development and

Poverty Reduction was just over $3.6 billion. That was last year. A

quarter of that, roughly, is $920 million. Can we assume, then, that

that is approximately the amount that is going to be used for this first

quarter?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to thank staff, who are whispering sweet nothings in

my ear about social development spending. I thank the member for his

question.

Again, this is an approximation. This is how all supply bills have

worked. There is an estimation based on amount of time needed to cover

the expected spending. As a result, we put together an

approximation.

There is, of course, flexibility, because it’s considered a lump

sum. The member may not appreciate — I continue to appreciate it; it’s

certainly my new role — that spending changes throughout the year. It’s

not every month…. It’s an equal amount of spending in each ministry.

Some ministries tend to be winter-heavier spending or summer-heavier

spending or first-quarter-heavier spending or third-quarter-heavier

spending.

[4:35 p.m.]

This really is just about getting us through the first few months.

Then we’ll have a new budget in place that will guide spending

throughout the rest of the year.

D. Davies: With that being said, though, to the minister, some ministries are

heavy in the winter, spending, or light in the winter or summer, first

quarter.

Obviously, we know the Social Development Ministry…. I’m not sure

where they are in that category. There must be some sort of idea of the

amount that is going to be earmarked for this ministry for the first

quarter, even based on a five-year average of what the first quarter

looks like. That’s kind of what I’m looking at.

I completely understand that this is an approximate amount. I

guess that is the amount that I’m looking for: the approximate amount,

based upon the last year’s budget, of what Social Development and

Poverty Reduction might be receiving.

Hon. S. Robinson: Listening very carefully to the member’s question, that’s a great

question for estimates debate, in terms of understanding exactly

specific….

In supply, what we’re looking for here is using all of government

spending and asking for a lump sum that permits us to continue to pay

the people that do the work. I know that the member is really proud to

be the critic, because he gets to see the amazing work that front-line

folks are doing for the most vulnerable population.

This supply bill is about saying we need to continue the

operations of government and in working with staff and taking a look. As

they always do with every single supply bill, they take a look at the

appropriation amount that they’re going to need, based on, generally,

how much time we need to cover ongoing costs, and that works quite well.

It’s worked really well in the past, and it will continue to work well

for us in the future.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister. I mean, the entire premise of asking these

questions is on behalf of these front-line workers, these organizations,

the vulnerable people that are quite curious, obviously, as to where

they’re going to fit into this first quarter and the funding specific to

each of these groups.

My next question, I guess, is a little more specific around

Community Living B.C. The previous budget for last year: approximately

$1.37 billion went to Community Living B.C. The approximate — again, I’m

comfortable using that language — amount of the first quarter, if you

were to break this down into four, would be $285 million.

Can the minister tell me if this would be the approximate amount

that would be going to this organization, which delivers an incredible

amount of services to these front-line workers? Will they be receiving

that amount or approximately that amount?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, that’s a great question for estimates debate. I know that

the minister responsible for Social Development and Poverty Reduction is

listening closely and writing down these questions as the member asks

them, because this will give him advance notice of where the member’s

interests are. I am sure that he’ll be happy to provide those specific

answers.

Again, I just want to remind the member that this supply bill is

about making sure that we can continue to pay these folks who do this

great work, making sure that that continues for a period of time until

we can pass the upcoming budget.

[4:40 p.m.]

D. Davies: Again, not specifically getting the answers, but I’ll move on and

try and ascertain a little more detail.

I get that the minister is trying to, again, deflect this to the

budget estimates. But as my colleague from Peace River South has

mentioned numerous times, we should be in the budget estimates right

now, asking these questions. But here we are, well into the first

quarter, and we don’t have these numbers. This is why we’re asking for

these numbers.

I’ll move on just to a couple more questions here, as I know I do

have a couple more colleagues that do want to ask some questions. Again,

we’ve talked about…. These are incredibly trying times for so many

people across the province.

Employment services had $29 million set aside, which is

desperately needed. Things have certainly changed since Budget 2019-20,

but it works out to $7.2 million a quarter. Can the minister tell me,

and preferably not to say, “Ask that during budget estimates…”? These

are people that are wondering: “Wow. Am I going to be getting some

employment services right now?” So roughly $7.2 million, $7.3 million

set aside per quarter is what it would work out to. Is that roughly what

is going to be set aside for this first quarter?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member…. I do want to correct him. He says we are in the first

quarter. We’re not yet in the first quarter. We still have a little

while, a few more days, anyway, a week or so.

The member is asking very specific questions. I appreciate the

question, and I’m sure, again, that the minister responsible is writing

this down so that he is well prepared with an answer when it does come

to budget estimates.

Again, I want to remind the member that this is a normal

approximation that we do with supply bills — making sure that we have

the resources necessary to continue the important work that these folks

that he’s describing are doing. That’s what I’m sure everybody here in

this House…. That’s why I think everyone supported second reading,

because we appreciate the work that they do. I look forward to seeing

this bill through to committee stage and getting it passed in this House

so that we can carry on our work.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister. Yeah, I think we’re five days away or six

days away from the fiscal year-end’s first quarter, which ties into, of

course, the recent announcement regarding the income and disability

payment and questions around: is there…? I’ll just do a two-part

question. If you can answer both of these, I’ll let my colleague from

Peace River South know that I’ll be wrapping up after this question,

then.

Is extra money being set aside due to the announced increase to

the income disability assistance payments in this first quarter out of

this $12.3 billion? And the second piece of the question is: how much

more would have been needed to lock in the $300 that initially was

clawed back and of course only returned half? How much more would have

been needed to facilitate the entire $300 a month?

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

accommodate those increases.

[4:45 p.m.]

I want to take a moment to thank the minister for being such a

tremendous advocate to make sure that we continue to deliver for people

who are some of the most financially challenged in our province. It’s

the largest increase that any government has ever provided ever — pretty

significant and building on increases over the last number of years.

It’s pretty significant, so I want to thank the member for acknowledging

that. That was quite significant.

In terms of the member’s second question, as soon as the budget is

tabled and the member wants to ask the minister what could have been or

should have been — that’s happening in a little over three weeks — the

member is certainly welcome to ask the minister.

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

far.

On March 15, 2021, the Finance Minister said that we’re “making

sure that doctors and nurses and lab techs can go to work to make sure

that they’re able to take care of our loved ones who might be exposed to

COVID or sick with COVID and making sure that they are doing their jobs.

We’re making sure that their children are cared for.”

I don’t have which ministry he’s from. I can’t say his name, so I

won’t. But I’ll look it up. One of the members from the other side — I

wish I had your flash cards here, Mr. Speaker — said on March 16, in his

expression on the debate, that it is just a bill that will continue

supporting people, businesses and communities “up until we pass our next

budget. These supports include nurses, doctors, teachers, social workers

and other social programs that help out people in poverty,” about which

my hon. colleague just asked.

I’ll remind the Minister that just today you said: “It sounds to

me like the B.C. Liberals oppose spending on health care workers who are

undertaking the largest mass immunization program in our province’s

history. Based on what I’ve heard from the B.C. Liberals, they oppose

spending on the doctors and nurses and other health care workers who are

making significant progress in eliminating the backlog of surgeries from

the early months of this pandemic.”

I just want to say for the record that the B.C. Liberals strongly

support payments to all of the workers who work on our behalf. However,

we do not support….

Interjection.

R. Merrifield: You’re right, Minister. We are not giving a blank cheque. We’re

giving a cheque that is written out for $12.3 billion, but we don’t know

what it’s going to be spent on.

I’m just going to go through, and I won’t digress into the 171

hours and 41 minutes because, really, that was irrelevant three weeks

after that was finalized. What I will say is that, in that particular

estimate, $24 billion out of the $60 billion was allocated towards the

Ministry of Health, which is 40 percent. So 40 percent of $12.3 billion

— let’s round to $12 billion — is actually $4.8 billion.

If I take into account all of the comments around COVID and why

we’re delaying estimates in the first place, well, we have a $15

billion, $14 billion, $13 billion overage because of COVID this last

year, or so we’ve been told.

If I add that back into the previous estimate, now we’re talking

about an allocation of $7.5 billion towards health care — $4.8 billion

to $7.5 billion. That’s a big swing. If I was sitting as a board member

around a table and my CFO brought that to me, I would say that’s a huge

risk for any organization to take, especially when it’s government

taking taxpayer dollars.

To the Minister, is it $4.8 billion, roughly, or is it $7.5

billion because the pandemic is still here?

[4:50 p.m.]

The Chair: I just want to remind all members to make their comments

through the Chair and not address the ministers directly, once or

twice, in the discussion. Thank you.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member clarifying for everybody in this House

that B.C. Liberals do support continued support for those on the front

lines.

It is unfortunate that there were members who spoke about not

supporting the bill, so I would imagine that there could be some

understanding around how that would be interpreted. Certainly, when it

came to a vote, there was somebody who did not support the bill passing.

But I’m really grateful, very grateful, to hear the clarifi­cation

from the member opposite around their support to ensure that folks

continue to get paid.

I also want to point out that the estimates book is relevant. It

outlines where government spends money. It does. It lists all the

various component parts that are in the budget. It’s in here. so that’s

still quite relevant.

Certainly, over time, this last year we had to come back to this

House to ask for more to make sure that we could continue to provide the

health care that people needed, to make sure that we could take care of

the mass vaccination program. The line items are here, and that’s what’s

relevant. That tells you what we’re spending on, and that’s what I think

really, really matters to British Columbians. We are using this to

inform people about what we’re spending on. Now, how much we need is the

$12.3 billion that’s laid out here.

Now, the member does ask a really interesting question. What if

you need more? What if it’s not enough? Well, we certainly saw what

happened this last year. The pandemic threw everybody for a loop, not

just us here in British Columbia but around the world and around the

country. I mean, everyone has had to respond.

If by some chance we needed to come back to the House to say

things have gone sideways and we need to make sure that we continue to

support British Columbians, we would come back to this House. We would

call all the members, just like we did last year, and have the

discussion and the debate about what we needed more resources for, to

make sure that British Columbians had what they need so that they could

be safe in their homes. That’s what we would do.

R. Merrifield: Okay. What I’m hearing is that if there’s not enough in this, the

minister will come back and ask the House for more, another blank

cheque. Hmm. Okay. Of the COVID funds that are in this $4.8 billion, how

much is attributable to personal protection equipment?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to remind the member that there’s nothing blank here. We’re

very specific. When we came back for supply, we were again very

specific. There’s no such thing here as a blank cheque.

It is a cheque, perhaps. I don’t use cheques anymore. But we are

very clear. There’s nothing blank here. It’s $12.3 billion. In fact,

it’s $12,305,108,000. That’s not blank; that’s very specific. I want to

just, I guess, remind the member that the details are right here in the

bill. If she wants, I’m sure the critic could supply her with the page

which the numbers are on so that she has it. She doesn’t have to suggest

that it’s blank. It’s not.

Now, the member did ask about a very specific line item. I’m sure

the Minister of Health is also jotting down this note and expecting that

it will be asked in estimates around how much money — I believe it was

for personal protective equipment — is being designated. That’s a very

fine, specific line item. We will ensure that we can continue to provide

that important equipment to everyone on the front lines, everyone in the

health care front lines.

Again, this supply bill is providing a lump sum to government to

continue doing what we have been doing, which is to keep people safe.

The member can certainly reach out to the Minister of Health, who I’m

sure would provide — probably to the penny, knowing the Minister of

Health — exactly what’s being spent on personal protective

equipment.

R. Merrifield: Perhaps the minister could indicate exactly how much we’ve got

allocated to the vaccination program, as the vaccination program will

have to be…. Oh, wait. We’re already in the midst of the vaccination

program. Perhaps the minister could indicate how much we’ve got of this

$12.3 billion, or four or five — I lost count — that is

allocated.

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

Again, I know that the minister would be very happy to report out

in estimates exactly how much the vaccination program is costing

specifically. Again, this supply bill provides us with a lump sum so

that government can continue the operations, continue those vaccinations

that are happening as we speak.

the phone calls I’m getting from my dad and some of his friends around

their excitement about getting their vaccinations are joyful and provide

so much hope to so many. It is for that reason that we are before the

House saying we need supply to ensure that we can continue to roll this

out. I look forward to all the members of this House supporting this

bill going forward so that that important work can continue.

R. Merrifield: I guess I’m curious. What happens if we get more vaccine allocated

to us? If our supply suddenly increases, how does the minister

anticipate that eroding the $12.3 billion?

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

not anticipating any challenges with that.

R. Merrifield: So that vaccine is actually articulated in this budget already,

the vaccine rollout. Whatever progress we make, however fast it goes or

however slow it goes, it’s all articulated within this $12.4

billion?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The specificity with which the member is asking the questions is

certainly more appropriate for an estimates debate, to understand

exactly how much is spent on very specific programs.

I have every confidence that what we have before us, in terms of

this request, will be able to continue the vaccine rollout and continue

to provide services to British Columbians. Again, if the member is

suggesting that somehow things don’t go as anticipated…. God forbid

there is another big surge or things go sideways. If we have learned

anything from this year, it’s about how unexpected things happen, and

you need to be responsive.

If we needed more resource to take care of British Columbians,

we’d be back in this House, having more discussion. Right now we know

that this is our best estimate for what we need to carry through those

next few months. It is a process that has been used historically, that

helps us to make a best guess, and I look forward to having this pass in

the House.

A new budget will be brought in April 20. I’m sure we’re going to

have robust debate. I’m sure the Minister of Health will have many, many

questions asked by the member from Kelowna, who will, I’m sure, have

lots to ask him. I’m sure he’s looking forward to providing her with the

details for every single program, and I’m sure he will give her the

specific details that she will be asking about.

R. Merrifield: The minister makes an interesting worst-case scenario. I have one

question here, and that is: what if there is a third wave? Oh, wait.

What if we’re in the middle of a third wave? Hospitalizations are up,

our ICU count is up, our case count is up, and our positivity rates are

up? So what if we are in the middle of a third wave?

At the same time, we are getting more vaccine than we previously

expected, we are booking more people than we previously expected, and we

are employing other positions and people to give vaccines than

previously expected. It all, to me, sounds like we’re already in the

middle of some pretty big numbers.

Again I’ll ask: have these increased costs — the ones that would

take us to the $7.5 billion or the $8 billion number — been counted in

this $12.4 billion?

Hon. S. Robinson: Like I said earlier, this is a best guesstimate, estimate, based

on what we know to be true in this moment. We’ve also learned, and this

last year has taught us, that we need to be flexible and adaptable. It

has kept us in a good place here in British Columbia.

The fact that everyone came to the House, the fact that we put up

TV monitors so that we could do our work safely, showed British

Columbians that 87 individuals can come together and make decisions with

their best interests in mind. If we needed to, we would do it

again.

R. Merrifield: The minister brings up a really good point about being flexible

and adaptable. It’s an excellent point, and I would agree.

[5:05 p.m.]

I would also, then, ask: how much of the $12.4 billion is

flexible, adaptable, and part of a contingency plan that British

Columbia needs to get us through a third wave and a vaccine

rollout?

Hon. S. Robinson: Like I said, this request for $12,305,108,000 is a lump sum

request based on three months of spending. That, based on what we know

to be true today, will carry us through.

In 3½ weeks, we’ll be presenting a budget, and the member can —

she’s already writing down her questions, I’m sure — ask the minister as

soon as the budget is tabled. We’ll have opportunity set aside to ask

the minister specific questions about spending on different parts of the

plan.

In the meantime, what we are asking the House to do in terms of

supporting this supply bill is to make sure that we have the ability to

spend on the things that the member has read off of her notes that are

important — the mass vaccination that’s going on; paying for the nurses,

the doctors and the health care workers on the front lines; making sure

that we can continue the work of government.

If things should go sideways — it’s happened, and we have all

experienced sideways; I’m tired of sideways, and I know that everybody

here in this House is tired of sideways — we are prepared to come back

to this House and do the work that we need to do in order to continue to

take care of the people of this province.

R. Merrifield: One of the biggest costs of this last year — or increases of

costs, I would say — outside of COVID-related specific aspects of the

Health budget was the surgical restart program, $250 million allocated

to restarting B.C.’s surgical program. We’ve got $187.5 million of that

spent, with more coming in this next year. But that was exceptional.

That was moneys that were not anticipated in the budget

previous.

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

budget?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again I’ll say to the member that the $12,305,108,000 that is in

the supply bill is a lump sum that allows government to continue the

work that it is currently doing so that the items that the member is

referring to can continue over the next few months. I’m sure she will

have ample opportunity, as part of estimates…. I know the member has yet

to experience her first estimates. She’ll have tremendous fun, I am

sure, and learn a lot.

[5:10 p.m.]

I have been in that role, and I learned tons when I was a critic.

I learned a lot, as will she and any other new member of the House. I

would encourage those to watch other people’s estimates because it’s a

real opportunity to see how other people do it. She will get the

specific answers from the minister, who I am sure will have a very

detailed and full response for her.

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

as my last question.

I do agree with the minister. I have taken great pleasure in

note-taking through six years of Health estimates, so I want to commend

those of you on that side of the House for the job that you did in

estimates.

I definitely want to go back to — and I’m going to take this full

circle — what I started with, and that is I’m going to talk about the

front-line workers. We haven’t talked about COVID fatigue funding for

any of the front-line workers. We haven’t talked about the health care

professionals that are still yet to be hired and should be hired within

the next six weeks in terms of where we’re at. We haven’t talked about

how much of this budget is relating to the nursing staff, and we

certainly haven’t talked about the training that’s necessary for the

ICUs.

I recognize that the minister has shuffled me over to the Minister

of Health and estimates, but these are issues that are going to have to

be addressed within the next six weeks, not six months. So I ask my

final question. How much of the $12,304,108,000 is allocated to the

increase that was necessary in terms of providing for front-line

workers?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member continues to ask about how things are portioned out. I

have explained how things work with the supply. I want to point out to

her…. She seems to think that the budget is being presented in…. I think

she said six months. It’s actually 3½ weeks that the budget will be

presented. She will certainly have ample opportunity to ask those very

good questions to the Minister of Health.

T. Stone: I’m pleased to stand now and ask a number of questions of the

Minister of Finance as well. I intend to focus my questions on a range

of issues that relate to economic recovery, jobs recovery, with a

particular emphasis on programs and supports for people and for small

businesses.

I think that the minister would agree that we all came together to

support an extensive package a year ago of $5 billion. We then all

supported supplementary estimates in the summer. We supported the need

to ensure that these critical supports and programs were

funded.

The challenge that we have been trying to highlight as an

opposition is the reality that a lot of the economic recovery programs

that the government has brought forward, for lack of a better word, have

been botched. They’ve either been far too late to make a difference for

a lot of small businesses in particular or the funding has been

structured in a way with eligibility requirements that meant a lot of

organizations, a lot of small businesses were not eligible to receive a

lot of this money.

I guess as just an initial general question — I’ll ask more

specific ones in a moment — as a general sort of starter question here,

the small business recovery grant has had to be retooled several times.

It’s been a year. We did approve $2.2 billion for business supports back

a year ago. That was then reduced down to $1.5 billion in September, of

which the small business recovery grant was a $300 million

component.

[5:15 p.m.]

An election then got called, which further delayed getting these

supports out the door — and, as I mentioned, really stringent

eligibility criteria wrapped around that program.

My question to the minister would be this: in light of the fact

that a number of these economic recovery programs have been so

significantly bungled and botched, what rationale does the minister

think makes sense for British Columbians to trust that the government

knows what it’s doing with this, in this particular

section 2

appr