British Columbia Hansard — 23 March 2021, p.m., Issue 39 (42nd Parliament, 1st Session)

20210323pm-Hansard-n39

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

First Session, 42nd Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Tuesday, March 23, 2021 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 39 THE HONOURABLE RAJ CHOUHAN, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Janet Austin, OBC First Session, 42nd Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Raj Chouhan EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................... Hon. John Horgan Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Training...........................................................................................................Hon.

Anne Kang Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries......................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Housing .............................................................................................Hon. David Eby, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................................Hon.

Mitzi Dean Minister of State for Child Care...................................................................................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Minister of Citizens’ Services.....................................................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Education .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Jennifer Whiteside Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation ........................................................................................Hon. Bruce Ralston, QC Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy............................................................................................. Hon. George Heyman Minister of Finance .......................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Selina Robinson Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development ................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Minister of State for Lands and Natural Resource Operations................................................................................. Hon. Nathan Cullen Minister of Health and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs.............................................................................Hon.

Adrian Dix Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation .......................................................................................... Hon. Murray Rankin, QC Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation....................................................................................................... Hon. Ravi Kahlon Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon.

George Chow Minister of Labour ...................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Harry Bains Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.............................................................................................................. Hon. Sheila Malcolmson Minister of Municipal Affairs ............................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Josie Osborne Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................... Hon. Mike Farnworth Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction........................................................................................... Hon. Nicholas Simons Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport .................................................................................................................. Hon.

Melanie Mark Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................... Hon. Rob Fleming Minister of State for Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Bowinn Ma LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition...................................................................................................................................................Shirley Bond Leader of the Third Party .......................................................................................................................................................... Sonia Furstenau Deputy Speaker..........................................................................................................................................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Assistant Deputy Speaker..............................................................................................................................................................Norm Letnick Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole .......................................................................................................................... Ronna-Rae Leonard Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ...........................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel.............................................................................................................................. Seunghee Suzie Seo Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services........................................................................................................................... Artour Sogomonian Clerk of Committees.......................................................................................................................................................................

Jennifer Arril Clerk Assistant, Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..............................................................................................Susan Sourial Senior Research Analyst ................................................................................................................................................................... Karan Riarh Acting Sergeant-at-Arms..................................................................................................................................................................Greg Nelson

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Alexis, Pam (BC NDP) ............................................................Abbotsford-Mission Anderson, Brittny (BC NDP) .........................................................Nelson-Creston Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal Party) ............................................................... Penticton Babchuk, Michele (BC NDP)...............................................................North Island Bailey, Brenda (BC NDP).................................................. Vancouver–False Creek Bains, Hon. Harry (BC NDP).........................................................

Surrey-Newton Banman, Bruce (BC Liberal Party) ............................................ Abbotsford South Beare, Hon. Lisa (BC NDP) .......................................

Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry (BC NDP).................................................................Surrey-Guildford Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal Party) ...............................................Peace River South Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal Party).................................Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (BC NDP) ................................................................Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal Party) .............................................

Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (BC NDP).................................Vancouver–West End Chant, Susie (BC NDP) ..............................................North Vancouver–Seymour Chen, Hon. Katrina (BC NDP) ............................................... Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Hon. Raj (BC NDP).................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon. George (BC NDP) ..........................................Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal Party)........................Columbia River–Revelstoke Conroy, Hon.

Katrine (BC NDP) ....................................................Kootenay West Coulter, Dan (BC NDP) .......................................................................... Chilliwack Cullen, Hon. Nathan (BC NDP) ................................................................... Stikine Davies, Dan (BC Liberal Party)................................................. Peace River North de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal Party)....................................Abbotsford West Dean, Hon. Mitzi (BC NDP) ...............................................

Esquimalt-Metchosin D’Eith, Bob (BC NDP) .........................................................Maple Ridge–Mission Dix, Hon. Adrian (BC NDP) ................................................ Vancouver-Kingsway Doerkson, Lorne (BC Liberal Party) ........................................Cariboo-Chilcotin Donnelly, Fin (BC NDP) .......................................... Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Dykeman, Megan (BC NDP)............................................................... Langley East Eby, Hon. David, QC (BC NDP).......................................

Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (BC NDP) ..................................................Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (BC NDP) .................................................Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (BC NDP) ...............................................

Victoria–Swan Lake Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) .............................................Cowichan Valley Glumac, Rick (BC NDP) ..................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Greene, Kelly (BC NDP) ........................................................Richmond-Steveston Halford, Trevor (BC Liberal Party) .........................................Surrey–White Rock Heyman, Hon. George (BC NDP) .........................................Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon. John (BC NDP) ......................................... Langford–Juan de Fuca Kahlon, Hon.

Ravi (BC NDP) .............................................................. Delta North Kang, Hon. Anne (BC NDP) .................................................. Burnaby–Deer Lake Kirkpatrick, Karin (BC Liberal Party) ........................West Vancouver–Capilano Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal Party)....................................................................Shuswap Lee, Michael (BC Liberal Party) ..............................................Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (BC NDP)...............................................

Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal Party) .................................. Kelowna–Lake Country Lore, Grace (BC NDP)........................................................... Victoria–Beacon Hill Ma, Hon. Bowinn (BC NDP).....................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Malcolmson, Hon. Sheila (BC NDP)........................................................Nanaimo Mark, Hon. Melanie (BC NDP).................................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Mercier, Andrew (BC NDP) ........................................................................

Langley Merrifield, Renee (BC Liberal Party)......................................... Kelowna-Mission Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal Party) .......................... Kamloops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal Party) ................................. Prince George–Mackenzie Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal Party).................................................. Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (BC Green Party)............................ Saanich North and the Islands Osborne, Hon.

Josie (BC NDP)........................................Mid Island–Pacific Rim Paddon, Kelli (BC NDP) ................................................................Chilliwack-Kent Paton, Ian (BC Liberal Party) ............................................................... Delta South Popham, Hon. Lana (BC NDP)........................................................ Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce, QC (BC NDP) .............................................Surrey-Whalley Rankin, Hon.

Murray, QC (BC NDP) .............................Oak Bay–Gordon Head Rice, Jennifer (BC NDP) ...................................................................... North Coast Robinson, Hon. Selina (BC NDP)...................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal Party)......................................................................... Skeena Routledge, Janet (BC NDP) .............................................................Burnaby North Routley, Doug (BC NDP)...........................................

Nanaimo–North Cowichan Russell, Roly (BC NDP).................................................... Boundary-Similkameen Rustad, John (BC Liberal Party)......................................................Nechako Lakes Sandhu, Harwinder (BC NDP) .................................................Vernon-Monashee Sharma, Niki (BC NDP)..........................................................Vancouver-Hastings Shypitka, Tom (BC Liberal Party) .................................................... Kootenay East Simons, Hon. Nicholas (BC NDP).........................

Powell River–Sunshine Coast Sims, Jinny (BC NDP) ................................................................. Surrey-Panorama Singh, Aman (BC NDP) .............................................Richmond-Queensborough Singh, Rachna (BC NDP)...................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Starchuk, Mike (BC NDP) ......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal Party) .......................................................

Kelowna West Stone, Todd (BC Liberal Party) ...............................Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal Party) ............................. West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal Party)....................................................... Fraser-Nicola Walker, Adam (BC NDP) ....................................................... Parksville-Qualicum Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal Party) ....................................... Richmond North Centre Whiteside, Hon. Jennifer (BC NDP) .........................................

New Westminster Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal Party)......................Vancouver-Quilchena Y ao, Henry (BC NDP) ..................................................... Richmond South Centre LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission................................................................................. Pam Alexis Abbotsford South...............................................................................Bruce Banman Abbotsford West......................................................................

Michael de Jong, QC Boundary-Similkameen........................................................................ Roly Russell Burnaby–Deer Lake....................................................................... Hon. Anne Kang Burnaby-Edmonds......................................................................Hon. Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Burnaby North .................................................................................

Janet Routledge Cariboo-Chilcotin ..........................................................................Lorne Doerkson Cariboo North.................................................................................... Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ...............................................................................................Dan Coulter Chilliwack-Kent .................................................................................... Kelli Paddon Columbia River–Revelstoke .........................................................

Doug Clovechok Coquitlam–Burke Mountain...............................................................Fin Donnelly Coquitlam-Maillardville ...................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Courtenay-Comox................................................................... Ronna-Rae Leonard Cowichan Valley ............................................................................. Sonia Furstenau Delta North................................................................................... Hon.

Ravi Kahlon Delta South ..................................................................................................Ian Paton Esquimalt-Metchosin .................................................................... Hon. Mitzi Dean Fraser-Nicola .........................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Kamloops–North Thompson .............................................................Peter Milobar Kamloops–South Thompson..................................................................Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country .....................................................................Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission ...........................................................................

Renee Merrifield Kelowna West ..........................................................................................Ben Stewart Kootenay East.......................................................................................Tom Shypitka Kootenay West........................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Langford–Juan de Fuca .............................................................. Hon.

John Horgan Langley .............................................................................................Andrew Mercier Langley East....................................................................................Megan Dykeman Maple Ridge–Mission.............................................................................. Bob D’Eith Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows............................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim............................................................ Hon.

Josie Osborne Nanaimo.............................................................................Hon. Sheila Malcolmson Nanaimo–North Cowichan............................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes........................................................................................ John Rustad Nelson-Creston ............................................................................. Brittny Anderson New Westminster.............................................................. Hon.

Jennifer Whiteside North Coast ........................................................................................... Jennifer Rice North Island................................................................................... Michele Babchuk North Vancouver–Lonsdale......................................................... Hon. Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour...................................................................Susie Chant Oak Bay–Gordon Head..................................................Hon.

Murray Rankin, QC Parksville-Qualicum........................................................................... Adam Walker Peace River North ................................................................................... Dan Davies Peace River South ................................................................................ Mike Bernier Penticton ................................................................................................. Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam...................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam.......................................................................Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast..............................................Hon. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie....................................................................Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ..................................................................

Shirley Bond Richmond North Centre..........................................................................Teresa Wat Richmond-Queensborough..................................................................Aman Singh Richmond South Centre .......................................................................... Henry Y ao Richmond-Steveston ............................................................................

Kelly Greene Saanich North and the Islands .............................................................Adam Olsen Saanich South .............................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Shuswap...................................................................................................... Greg Kyllo Skeena........................................................................................................... Ellis Ross Stikine........................................................................................ Hon.

Nathan Cullen Surrey-Cloverdale .............................................................................. Mike Starchuk Surrey-Fleetwood.....................................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey–Green Timbers........................................................................Rachna Singh Surrey-Guildford......................................................................................Garry Begg Surrey-Newton ..............................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ...................................................................................... Jinny Sims Surrey South ................................................................................ Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Whalley ................................................................. Hon. Bruce Ralston, QC Surrey–White Rock .......................................................................... Trevor Halford Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek...................................................................... Brenda Bailey Vancouver-Fraserview...............................................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings ..............................................................................Niki Sharma Vancouver-Kensington....................................................................... Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..................................................................... Hon.

Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara................................................................................ Michael Lee Vancouver–Mount Pleasant..................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey ............................................................Hon. David Eby, QC Vancouver-Quilchena........................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Vancouver–West End .....................................................Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee .....................................................................

Harwinder Sandhu Victoria–Beacon Hill............................................................................... Grace Lore Victoria–Swan Lake.................................................................... Hon. Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano...........................................................Karin Kirkpatrick West Vancouver–Sea to Sky................................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC NDP 57; BC Liberal Party 28; BC Green Party 2

CONTENTS Tuesday, March 23, 2021 Afternoon Sitting Page Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House.............................................................................................................................................. 961 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 (No. 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 dur- ing 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 col- leagues also acknowledge that the continuation of govern- ment 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 get- ting 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 war- rant, to ensure that people continue to get paid and gov- ernment 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 legis- lative 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 min- ister 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 dis- pute that. What I am, however, disputing…. It’s interest- ing that none of the NDP members acknowledge this. It’s a little disingenuous to say this is normal. Putting a 961

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 sup- ply 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 sup- ply bill? What does it do? What does it mean? What’s the purpose?

But to stand up and say it’s normal, without actu- ally 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 hap- pens every year. The House, of course, comes together to approve tem- porary 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 inter- im 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 actu- ally in this predicament today and why this is not normal. The Minister didn’t answer my question. I wasn’t ask- ing 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 962 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, March 23, 2021

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 stom- ach.

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 every- body 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 mem- bers 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 gov- ernment from doing their jobs, though, that people expect. But if it truly is normal, there must be at least some preced- ent 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 govern- ment 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 cer- tainly 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 Tuesday, March 23, 2021 British Columbia Debates 963

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 doc- ument 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 presen- ted before a supply bill. So we had reference points.

I do find it interesting, then, that the minister is put- ting 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 pan- demic 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 Premi- er 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 try- ing 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 spend- ing. So what we’re bringing forward for debate and for dis- cussion is a request for appropriation to keep core oper- ations 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 dis- cussing 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 cor- rect 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 spent, of asking about gov- ernment’s priorities, about confirming and 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?

Y ou’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 acknow- ledged 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. 964 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, March 23, 2021

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 docu- ment that they’re doing their spending, that for the next 30 days there will be no government spending that’s not lis- ted already in this book, as the estimates that were presen- ted 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 dis- cussed and debated, it’s a very interesting point.

The Pre- mier himself said that it was not an accurate budget any- more, and there have been changes to government priorit- ies. [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 import- ant 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 appropri- ation, 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 mem- bers 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 con- tinues 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 pan- demic 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 fol- lowing 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 and to talk about government prior- ities then, that’s actually over a 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 acknow- ledged 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. Y ou’re going to see a budget on April 20. ” As the minis- ter just acknowledged, she didn’t say: “Don’t worry. ” My words, not hers. She has said: “Y ou 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 govern- ment spending and the new priorities, where they see the vision that they’ d like to see for the next three years, spe- cifically 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 acknow- ledged 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 inter- im 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. Y ou’ll be seeing the new budget on April 20, and we can start estim- ates 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?

Tuesday, March 23, 2021 British Columbia Debates 965

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 cer- tainly 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 under- stands 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 ques- tions 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 pro- cess 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 ref- erencing 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 acknow- ledging 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, accur- ate statements, if a member was willing to actually say it. Here’s the question I have. The minister keeps saying: “Y ou’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: “Y eah, 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 care- fully to what the member was saying, and if I recall cor- rectly, he said we are asking for money before we even dis- cussed 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: “Y es, 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. Y es, 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 remem- 966 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, March 23, 2021

ber 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 appropri- ation is in this estimates book. We are still referring to it, because it is the budget that was passed. There are addi- tional 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 chal- lenged 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 high- lighted…. It’s a necessary step for us to have a Speech from the Throne.

That provides the vision with which the gov- ernment 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 gov- ernment then comes with a supply bill. It’s on the premise that the work of the budget has been done that the mem- bers 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 col- our 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 high- lighting 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 mem- bers 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 pro- cess. 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 com- ing 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 num- ber. 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 con- text 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 mem- bers 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. Tuesday, March 23, 2021 British Columbia Debates 967

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 descrip- tion of process. The member and I have had many dis- cussions 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 contin- ue 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 ser- vice have been franticly and diligently working with gov- ernment 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 annu- ally 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 erod- ing 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 pro- cess 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 repres- enting 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 hon- ouring 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?

Y es, I’m drawing this out because I think that it is important to recognize that the members of this govern- ment 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 968 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, March 23, 2021

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:Y es, 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 tremend- ous appreciation for the processes of this House. That is why we had debate in December in recognition of the tim- ing 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 Min- ister — 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 fol- lowing 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 legislat- ive changes.

We had debate in the House about the realit- ies 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 sup- port it, and the budget, and I hope the members all sup- port 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 rep- resent 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 Columbi- ans 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 calen- dar — 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. Estim- ates won’t start until around May 10 because there are some legislative processes that have to take place. Y ou have to have time to debate a budget after it’s been presented.

Y ou’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 com- ponents 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 look- ing forward to. We certainly heard from the member for Saanich North Tuesday, March 23, 2021 British Columbia Debates 969

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 oper- ationally 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 ref- erencing 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 for- ward 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. Y es, I understand it goes to leg. counsel and all that stuff. I’ve been through this pro- cess 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 mem- bers 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 acknow- ledge 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) Des- pite

section 2 of the Financial Administration Act, a ref- erence 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. Gov- ernment 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 sec- tion 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 actu- ally 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. 970 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, March 23, 2021

[3:20 p.m.] Also, the member read into the record the interpret- ation, 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 try- ing to make it sound like this is just part of the interpreta- tion, 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 Administra- tion 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 of sec- tion 1, in order to accommodate the fact they didn’t pres- ent 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 try- ing 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 min- ister 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 Stat- utes 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 gov- ernment 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 sup- plemental bills that were brought forward, supplemental estimates and supplemental estimates No. 3. We came to this House and said: “Look” — at that time, even govern- ment acknowledged it — “this document is not working. This document is not accurate. We need to have supple- mental 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 Tuesday, March 23, 2021 British Columbia Debates 971

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 gov- ernment 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 doc- ument 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 vul- nerable 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 sup- plementary estimates — to ask for more money for min- istries 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. Govern- ment 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 pub- lic, 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 972 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, March 23, 2021

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 con- tinue 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 govern- ment, 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 under- stand 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 under- stand. 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 gov- ernment 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 doc- ument 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 COV- ID 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 sec- tion 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 situ- ation, 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. Some- times 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 sup- port everything that government is doing. Now, we have the Budget Transparency and Account- ability 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 Account- ability Act by having to change legislation because of their delay in presenting a budget? Tuesday, March 23, 2021 British Columbia Debates 973

[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 interpreta- tion 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 doc- ument, 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 put- ting 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 com- ments, 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 appropri- ations 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 pro- viders 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 descrip- tions 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 974 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, March 23, 2021

questions of the ministers and of the ministries around the decisions that government is making. That is their prerog- ative. I have confidence that the bill will pass and will con- tinue 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 say- ing 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 pro- cess 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 them- selves have said is irrelevant. [4:05 p.m.] The minister acknowledged that in her answers, by say- ing that we’ve had to come back two other times for sup- plemental 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 min- ister 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 refer- encing 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 guaran- tee that the numbers that she’s put forward are even accur- ate? 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 consider- ation the huge deficit that the province has found them- selves 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 import- ant 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 relev- ant. We follow this book to make sure that we are continu- ing 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 sup- plementary 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 Tuesday, March 23, 2021 British Columbia Debates 975

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 descrip- tions are in here. Of course they’re in here. The descrip- tions 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 sup- plementary 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 sec- tion 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 contin- ue 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 circum- stances, 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 govern- ment 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 ask- ing 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 propor- tion 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. Y ou 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. 976 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, March 23, 2021

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 alloca- tion 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 mem- ber 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 Devel- opment and Poverty Reduction was just over $3.6 billion. That was last year. A quarter of that, roughly, is $920 mil- lion. 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 develop- ment 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 minis- tries tend to be winter-heavier spending or summer-heav- ier 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 Min- istry…. 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.

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20210323pm-Hansard-n39
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20210323pm Hansard n39
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d5aa926bfcfa8b665389abab59a82d8702252329

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).