British Columbia Committee Hansard (Blues) — 10 July 2020, p.m., Issue 8 (41st Parliament, 5th Session) (20200710pm CommitteeA n8)

20200710pm CommitteeA n8

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fifth Session, 41st Parliament REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY ,

SECTION A Virtual Meeting Friday, July 10, 2020 Afternoon Meeting Issue No. 8 Presiding Officers: RAJ CHOUHAN, DEPUTY SPEAKER SPENCER CHANDRA HERBERT, DEPUTY CHAIR, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ISSN 2563-3511

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Janet Austin, OBC Fifth Session, 41st Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Darryl Plecas EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................... Hon. John Horgan Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance............................................................................................................................Hon.

Carole James Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training..................................................................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Minister of Agriculture.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General.................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ............................................................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Minister of State for Child Care...................................................................................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Minister of Citizens’ Services...................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Anne Kang Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................ Hon. Rob Fleming Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ..................................................................................................... Hon. Bruce Ralston Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy............................................................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development ..............................................Hon. Doug Donaldson Minister of Health .....................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Adrian Dix Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon.

Scott Fraser Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness.............................................................................Hon. Michelle Mungall Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon. George Chow Minister of Labour ...................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Minister of Mental Health and Addictions............................................................................................................................ Hon. Judy Darcy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.................................................................................................................. Hon. Selina Robinson Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction..............................................................................................Hon. Shane Simpson Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture.....................................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................ Hon.

Claire Trevena LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition................................................................................................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Leader of the Third Party .................................................................................................................................................................Adam Olsen Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Assistant Deputy Speaker............................................................................................................................................................. Simon Gibson Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ................................................................................................................ Spencer Chandra Herbert Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ...........................................................................................................................................

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

Artour Sogomonian Clerk Assistant, Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..............................................................................................Susan Sourial Senior Research Analyst ................................................................................................................................................................. Jennifer Arril Senior Research Analyst ...................................................................................................................................................................

Karan Riarh Acting Sergeant-at-Arms..................................................................................................................................................................Greg Nelson

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal) ......................................................................... Penticton Bains, Hon. Harry (NDP)................................................................ Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) .....................................................Cariboo-Chilcotin Beare, Hon. Lisa (NDP)..............................................

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

Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .......................................Vancouver–West End Chen, Hon. Katrina (NDP)...................................................... Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Raj (NDP) .................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon. George (NDP).................................................Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal) ..................................Columbia River–Revelstoke Coleman, Rich (BC Liberal) ................................................................ Langley East Conroy, Hon.

Katrine (NDP)...........................................................Kootenay West Darcy, Hon. Judy (NDP) ............................................................. New Westminster Davies, Dan (BC Liberal) ........................................................... Peace River North de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal) ..............................................Abbotsford West Dean, Mitzi (NDP)................................................................ Esquimalt-Metchosin D’Eith, Bob (NDP) ................................................................Maple Ridge–Mission Dix, Hon.

Adrian (NDP)....................................................... Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Hon. Doug (NDP)...................................................................... Stikine Eby, Hon. David, QC (NDP).............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP).........................................................Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (NDP) ........................................................Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (NDP) ......................................................

Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal).............................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Hon. Scott (NDP) ..................................................Mid Island–Pacific Rim Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) .............................................Cowichan Valley Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ...................................................Abbotsford-Mission Glumac, Rick (NDP).........................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Heyman, Hon. George (NDP) ................................................Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon.

John (NDP) ................................................ Langford–Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ........................................................ Surrey-Cloverdale Isaacs, Joan (BC Liberal) .......................................... Coquitlam–Burke Mountain James, Hon. Carole (NDP).................................................... Victoria–Beacon Hill Johal, Jas (BC Liberal).................................................Richmond-Queensborough Kahlon, Ravi (NDP)............................................................................... Delta North Kang, Hon.

Anne (NDP)......................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal)..............................................................................Shuswap Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .............................................. Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Michael (BC Liberal) ........................................................Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (NDP) ..................................................... Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal).............................................

Kelowna–Lake Country Ma, Bowinn (NDP) .....................................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Malcolmson, Sheila (NDP) ........................................................................Nanaimo Mark, Hon. Melanie (NDP) .......................................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal)....................................................................... Chilliwack Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal)..................................... Kamloops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ........................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Hon.

Michelle (NDP)......................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal) ............................................................ Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (BC Green Party)............................ Saanich North and the Islands Paton, Ian (BC Liberal).......................................................................... Delta South Plecas, Hon. Darryl (Ind.) ........................................................... Abbotsford South Polak, Mary (BC Liberal) ............................................................................. Langley Popham, Hon.

Lana (NDP)............................................................... Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce (NDP) ............................................................Surrey-Whalley Redies, Tracy (BC Liberal) .......................................................Surrey–White Rock Reid, Linda (BC Liberal) ................................................. Richmond South Centre Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ............................................................................. North Coast Robinson, Hon.

Selina (NDP) .........................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal)................................................................................... Skeena Routledge, Janet (NDP) ....................................................................Burnaby North Routley, Doug (NDP) ................................................. Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, John (BC Liberal) ................................................................Nechako Lakes Shypitka, Tom (BC Liberal) ..............................................................

Kootenay East Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ......................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Hon. Shane (NDP)..................................................Vancouver-Hastings Sims, Jinny (NDP) ........................................................................ Surrey-Panorama Singh, Rachna (NDP) .........................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal) ................................................................. Kelowna West Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal)...............................................

Parksville-Qualicum Stone, Todd (BC Liberal)..........................................Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal)........................................ West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal)................................................ Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ...........................................West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ................................................................. Fraser-Nicola Thomson, Steve (BC Liberal)......................................................

Kelowna-Mission Thornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ...............................North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, Laurie (BC Liberal) .......................................................Chilliwack-Kent Trevena, Hon. Claire (NDP) ................................................................North Island Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal) ................................................. Richmond North Centre Weaver, Dr.

Andrew (Ind.)................................................Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal) ................................Vancouver-Quilchena Y ap, John (BC Liberal)............................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission............................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South....................................................................... Hon. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West......................................................................

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

Janet Routledge Cariboo-Chilcotin .............................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North.................................................................................... Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ............................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Kent ...............................................................................Laurie Throness Columbia River–Revelstoke .........................................................

Doug Clovechok Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................................. Joan Isaacs Coquitlam-Maillardville ...................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Courtenay-Comox................................................................... Ronna-Rae Leonard Cowichan Valley .............................................................................

Sonia Furstenau Delta North.............................................................................................Ravi Kahlon Delta South ..................................................................................................Ian Paton Esquimalt-Metchosin ..............................................................................Mitzi Dean Fraser-Nicola .........................................................................................

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

Steve Thomson Kelowna West ..........................................................................................Ben Stewart Kootenay East.......................................................................................Tom Shypitka Kootenay West........................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Langford–Juan de Fuca .............................................................. Hon. John Horgan Langley .....................................................................................................

Mary Polak Langley East.........................................................................................Rich Coleman Maple Ridge–Mission.............................................................................. Bob D’Eith Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows............................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim................................................................ Hon. Scott Fraser Nanaimo......................................................................................

Sheila Malcolmson Nanaimo–North Cowichan............................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes........................................................................................ John Rustad Nelson-Creston ................................................................... Hon. Michelle Mungall New Westminster........................................................................... Hon. Judy Darcy North Coast ...........................................................................................

Jennifer Rice North Island.............................................................................. Hon. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale................................................................... Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour........................................................Jane Thornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head............................................................Dr.

Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum.......................................................................Michelle Stilwell 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....................................................... Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie....................................................................Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ..................................................................

Shirley Bond Richmond North Centre..........................................................................Teresa Wat Richmond-Queensborough.........................................................................Jas Johal Richmond South Centre ......................................................................... Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ...................................................................................

John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .............................................................Adam Olsen Saanich South .............................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Shuswap...................................................................................................... Greg Kyllo Skeena........................................................................................................... Ellis Ross Stikine....................................................................................Hon.

Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................................ Marvin Hunt 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 Surrey–White Rock .............................................................................. Tracy Redies Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek........................................................................ Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview...............................................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings ............................................................... Hon. Shane Simpson 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 ....................................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill.................................................................. Hon. Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.................................................................... Hon. Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano...................................................................

Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky................................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC Liberal 42; NDP 41; Independent 2; BC Green Party 2

CONTENTS Friday, July 10, 2020 Afternoon Meeting Page Committee of Supply Proceedings in

Section A ......................................................................................................................................................... 127 Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture(continued) T. Wat Hon. L. Beare D. Clovechok A. Olsen M. Stilwell Estimates: Ministry of Citizens’ Services Hon. A. Kang S. Thomson B. Stewart L. Throness D. Barnett

FRIDAY , JULY 10, 2020 The committee met at 1:30 p.m. [M. Dean in the chair.] Committee of Supply Proceedings in

Section A ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM, ARTS AND CULTURE (continued) On Vote 42: ministry operations, $155,323,000 (continued). The Chair:I’ d like to start by recognizing that I’m speaking to you today from the traditional territory of the Lək̓ ʷəŋin̓ əŋ-speaking people, now known as the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations. I’m very appreciative to them for the honour of doing my work on their tradi- tional territory. We are today going to be continuing consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture.

Minister, did you have any opening remarks, or would you like me to go straight to members for questions? Hon. L. Beare:Straight to members. Thank you, Chair. T. Wat:Before the lunch break, the minister told us that she’s aware of the federal government’s pledge of over half a million dollars for a Chinatown storytelling centre. This announcement, she must know, was made by the fed- eral Minister of Small Business, on behalf of the Minis- ter of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, in August 2019 at the Sun Y at-Sen Classical Chinese Garden.

She also announced investment totalling more than $4.4 million for cultural infrastructure projects across B.C. by 46 arts, culture and heritage organizations. I wonder why the Chinese-Canadian museum is not included. Has the minister taken advantage of Ms. Ng’s physical presence in Vancouver to have a face-to-face meeting with her to seek the federal support and funding for this provincial-level museum? Hon. L. Beare:No, I did not meet with the minister while she was in Vancouver.

I meet on a regular basis with Minister Joly, from economic development and tourism, and I meet with Minister Guilbeault, Minister of Heritage from Canada. We have ongoing conversations. T. Wat:Does the minister think that she has missed the best opportunity for the Chinese-Canadian museum to be part of this year’s federal government’s cultural infrastruc- ture project, since she did not even try to secure a meeting with Minister Ng? Anyway, I move on.

The $1 million funding news release on November 8, 2019, said that establishing a Chinese-Canadian museum is part of the government’s partnership with the city of Vancouver to work together to pursue a UNESCO World Heritage Site destination for Vancouver Chinatown. The Chinese-Canadian museum is crucial for the UNESCO destination. How will the obvious disconnect between the province and the federal government be viewed by UNESCO? Will this disconnect be an obstacle to our pursuit for the UNESCO heritage site destination, not to mention that we don’t even have a detailed plan for the museum?

How can we expect the federal government to pursue this destina- tion project on behalf of the provincial government and the city of Vancouver? Hon. L. Beare:To the member’s question, there is no disconnect. I work very closely with my federal counter- parts, as we all do across government. I work particularly closely with my fellow ministers. As we said before the break, we have exciting news coming soon, and there will be more details then. [1:35 p.m.] T. Wat:Well, failing to secure any financial support from the federal government is obviously a disconnect. I disagree with the minister; I’ll put it on record.

The minis- ter again repeated that there would be exciting news in the near future, in the coming months. This comment is really cold comfort to the Chinese- Canadian community, as they have been waiting for the so-called exciting news since 2017. They expected more tangible details from the minister or the Minister of State for Trade, whom the Premier has tasked with this project. He said early this year that there would be a detailed plan. Since the Minister of State for Trade is not here but is tasked with that job, I’m sure the minister is responsible for this project.

Can the minister, once again — this is the last time I’m putting this on record — tell this House…? When she said, “in the near future, in the coming months, ” how near will that be? Two months? Three months? Four months? Next year? The year after? I’m sure that the community, the Chinese-Canadian leaders that are watching this debate, want a more tangible and not a general answer. That will be my last question. I know I cannot get any concrete response from the minister. Hon. L.

Beare:Chair, the member has had a number of responses from me that said that in the coming weeks there is very exciting information coming. It is weeks, Member. T. Wat:Now it’s in the coming weeks, so I’m really 127

excited. If it’s in the coming weeks, that means it’s within the next month. I wonder why the minister can’t give us some indication of when that will be. Anyway, we move on. Talking about the pursuit for the UNESCO heritage site designation for Vancouver Chinatown, I’m really shocked to note that on February 7 this year, the Chinese-Canadian heritage properties regulation was repealed. This regula- tion is a register of heritage properties.

In fact, just to refresh the memory of the minister, two years ago, back on February 1, 2018, an order-in-council was signed by the minister — together with the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development — to list 21 Chinese-Canadian heritage sites in the Chinese-Canadian heritage properties regulation. These 21 sites included the Vancouver Chinatown and the Victoria Chinatown. I simply cannot understand why….

Two years after the minister signed an order-in-council to recommend the inclusion of those 21 Chinese-Canadian heritage sites in this regulation, without consulting the community, without any announcement, at a time when the govern- ment has chosen Vancouver Chinatown as a hub for a Chinese-Canadian museum and given the recent increases in racism and hate against Asian-Canadians, why was this repealed? I am fully aware that this heritage act does not fall under the file of this minister. However, the minister is respons- ible for multiculturalism.

She should be fully aware that the repeal of this Chinese-Canadian heritage properties regulation will have a huge impact on her multiculturalism file and on the Chinese-Canadian community. Can the minister tell this House why, as the minister responsible for multiculturalism, she supports the Minis- ter of FLNRORD’s move to repeal this regulation? Hon. L. Beare:The member said it in her question. This is not a piece of legislation that fits in my ministry. She will need to pose the question to the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources, who hasn’t had his estimates process happen yet.

Her ability to ask that question to the minister is there. [1:40 p.m.] T. Wat:This minister co-signed the order-in-council with the federal minister back in February of 2018. This minister cannot shirk her responsibility. If she does not have any responsibility on this heritage site, on the recom- mendation of 21 Chinese heritage sites into this now repealed Chinese-Canadian heritage properties regula- tion, why did she sign it? The minister cannot just shirk the responsibility. The minister is responsible for multiculturalism. This has everything to do with multiculturalism.

I don’t understand why she can shirk her responsibility like that and just push it off to the other minister. Hon. L. Beare:Absolutely not shirking any responsib- ilities here. I don’t have details in front of me of that. I’m not the minister responsible for the legislation. I abso- lutely understand the member’s question, and the best place to pose that is to the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources. T.

Wat:I have to put it on record that the minister can- not say that she has nothing to do with the repeal of this regulation, as she co-signed an order-in-council on Feb- ruary 5, 2018, to recommend the inclusion of 21 Chinese heritage sites into this now repealed Chinese-Canadian heritage properties regulation. I know I cannot put it any- where, but I want to put it on record that, as the minister responsible for multiculturalism, she has every responsib- ility to talk to her colleague about at least having a con- sultation with the community.

I’m just quickly quoting a community member on how disappointed he is with this. He is the elected executive of the National Congress of Chinese Canadians, the NCCC, David Choi. Upon learning about this repeal, he said: “ Anything that is a deliberate act carried out blatantly to not honour or to whitewash B.C. ’s Chinese-Canadian her- itage is a dishonour and a disservice to B.C. Chinese- Canadian history and B.C. heritage. ” He continued to make some comment. I don’t think I have time to quote that here. I’m sure the minister would not have any response to it.

I just want to remind the minister that these 21 historic sites that she and her federal minister co-signed back in February 2018 to recommend the inclusion in the now repealed regulation of the sites nominated by British Col- umbians under the previous government’s program — the provincial historic recognition program to recognize the heritage value of the historic sites — had been chosen for their diverse heritage value. They would go to tell a more complete story of the people, places and events that have contributed to the development of B.C.

That’s why, I guess, the minister co-signed with the federal minister to include these 21 sites in this regula- tion. So to repeal this regulation two years later totally doesn’t make sense. Why is this government taking this damaging big step to stomp on B.C. ’s Chinese heritage when this government claims to respect the Chinese community’s undeniable contribution to the province? Hon. L. Beare:Thank you to the member. Absolutely, we value the input and the work of the Chinese-Canadian community. The question has been asked and answered.

The best place to pose this question is to the ministry that has the responsibility for the legislation, and that would be FLNRO. Thank you, Member. T. Wat:Thank you, Minister, for the non-answer again. 128 Committee of Supply,

Section A Friday, July 10, 2020

The minister has absolutely not responded to my question, but let’s move on. The Chair:Through the Chair, please, Member. Thank you. T. Wat:Through the Chair, to the minister. Thank you, Madam Chair. I understand that there is still $1.5 billion left in the COVID-19 relief fund allocated by this government. Can the minister confirm this? Hon. L. Beare:Y es, we can confirm that. T. Wat:Thank you, Minister. This fiscal year budget for multiculturalism shows a cut of $45,000, close to 2 percent.

Has the minister allocated some funding from the Finance Minister for the Chinese-Canadian museum, since there’s no financial support coming from the federal government? I don’t see any budget allocated for this museum. [1:45 p.m.] Also, has the minister requested funding for the anti- racism program, given what’s happening in the world and in B.C., as I stated earlier in my opening statement? Hon. L. Beare:To the member, as she knows, govern- ment is going through a process to allocate those $1.5 bil- lion. The Premier and the Minister of Finance announced this at the end of June.

We are going, ourselves as min- isters, sector by sector and assessing what the need is for recovery funding. The broader public has a chance to provide their input, too, through the online forum. I absolutely agree with the member’s priorities. We have the same priorities here at the ministry, and those are items we are contemplating in our recovery proposals for the $1.5 billion. T. Wat:I want to confirm that this minister has alloc- ated and requested additional funding for the minister’s multiculturalism and anti-racism programs, including the Chinese-Canadian museum and more programs for anti- racism. Hon.

L. Beare:The process is still ongoing. I agree with the member, particularly around the anti-racism piece. There are a number of priorities we’ll be looking at as gov- ernment and what submissions go forward. But the pro- cess is ongoing, so no final decisions have been made on what is going forward yet. I thank the member for her input. I suggest the member also fill out the online survey. We took the input here that the member has provided as well, and we will feed that into the entire process we’ve got going on for submissions. But thank you to the member for her passion on this sub- ject. T.

Wat: Will goal 3 in this year’s service plan be impacted due to COVID-19? Hon. L. Beare:We are looking up the answer as we speak. Did the member want to pose a second question at the same time while my staff is pulling out the service plans, and we can do both at once? T. Wat:Thank you to the minister for trying to speed up the process and trying to get more questions into this debate, because we only have one more hour to go.

So far, what kind of extra anti-racism work is being undertaken by Resilience B.C. in the face of the spike in race-motivated crimes since the outbreak of COVID-19 and all the other phenomena? [1:50 p.m.] Hon. L. Beare: I want to thank the member for the question. Question 1 is goal 3. No, goal 3 has not changed. It has not been impacted.

It remains the same. “The promotion of diversity and inclusion is the cornerstone of the new strategies to combat racism, to build understanding and respect for one another across British Columbia’s multicul- tural society as well as to reduce barriers and enhance a wide variety of sports and recreation activities. ” That goal does remain intact. Now, for the member’s second question, there’s a more substantive answer that I will give. I have been trying to be brief for the member, but I think the member will want to know all this information. So I’m going to read out a bunch of the amazing work we’ve been doing.

We absolutely believe that hate has no place here in Brit- ish Columbia. We want to make sure we are leading the way — and we are leading the way here in our province — in tackling racism. Some of the things that we’ve been doing. We estab- lished the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner. We implemented the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. We launched the new Resilience B.C. Anti- Racism Network. We announced our plans to review the Police Act. We initiated work on race-based data collection strategies. I mean, these are amazing accomplishments for our government.

We, through the pandemic, continued to actively engage communities and stakeholders on the subject of racism. We hosted a town hall in June, for example, on racism that had more than 6,000 participants. In response to the rise of anti-Asian racism, we launched a new Resilience B.C. Net- work website with information, in English and 12 addi- tional languages, for both victims and bystanders. I know that the member is extremely passionate about this subject.

We are doing everything we can, as a govern- ment, to ensure that all British Columbians live in a place that they can feel safe and they can feel welcome and they can feel free from discrimination. Friday, July 10, 2020 Committee of Supply,

Section A 129

T. Wat:Thank you to the minister for giving a detailed account of what is being undertaken. I’m glad that the minister has the same passion as I have. Since the ministry is facing…. Even though it’s a small cut, close to 2 percent of the multiculturalism program, I still want to go back and make sure…. Will the minister make her advocacy to the Finance Minister a top priority in her deliberations with other ministers? It’s very import- ant, at the cabinet table…. As I was once a minister, I know that you really have to speak out and make it a top priority, if you believe in your ministry and in your philosophy.

Hon. L. Beare:Y es. I can confirm for the member that this is not only a top priority for myself but for the Premier as well. We value this work here in the province. We want to make sure that everyone feels safe. T. Wat:I have to say…. Just now the minister cited a series of work that she has done on the multiculturalism file. I think the minister has nothing to tell the Chinese community. They desperately need a museum. I have to advocate for that on and on again and make sure the min- ister will make that a top priority. Now back to the renamed Resilience B.C. Anti-Racism Network program.

The ministry has awarded $240,000 to the Victoria Immigrant and Refugee Centre Society to serve as a provincial help, with the remaining $300,000 for the community groups all over the province that are involved in this program. The ministry can actually save $240,000 if the program is coordinated by the minister’s very capable and very pro- fessional staff. More community groups can be involved.

It’s what we did and what your ministry did in the previous OARH program. [1:55 p.m.] Can the minister tell this House the rationale for spend- ing an extra $240,000, at a time when your ministry is facing a budget cut, for the Victoria Immigrant and Refugee Centre Society? Hon. L. Beare: Thank you to the member for the question. So another fulsome answer to give here for the member, because I know this is something she’s very interested in. There are a number of reasons and a number of areas that the program differs from the OARH program that the member was referencing.

While we were having our input sessions out in the communities, what we heard strongly from the community is that they wanted a community- based input avenue with collaboration with the ministry but also arm’s length. Some of the differences of the OARH program are…. It’s expanded. It is a bigger program, and we do only have eight people in the ministry who work on the multicultur- alism file, doing amazing work. But there is a lot of really good work to do. The program is expanded.

It’s a hub-and-spoke model that’s been designed to address gaps in anti-racism pro- gramming that were identified during our consultations and previous discussions with the previous ministry’s OARH partners. The main difference is that individual communities will receive new supports from a centralized hub service pro- vider who has specialized expertise in addressing racism. T. Wat:I still disagree with the minister. We should not have spent $240,000 for this Victoria society. Instead, we should have distributed the money to more individual community groups in their location to parti- cipate in this program.

How many community groups are involved in this renamed program? Is the selection of the participating organizations decided by this Victoria society alone? Have contracts been awarded to the participating community groups? I would like to have more details on this. [2:00 p.m.] Hon. L. Beare:The program has been expanded to 40 communities. They are receiving an increase in funding as well. The communities were chosen by a call for applica- tions, and we expect to have the 40 communities in place later this month. T. Wat:I just want to figure out the allocation of the minister’s budget.

Y ou faced a cut of close to 2 percent, yet you increased $240K for this Resilience program, the former OARH program. This is extra spending for one community group as the so-called coordinator. How does it affect the other programs that are going on in the multi- culturalism file? Hon. L. Beare:I want to assure the member that the 2 percent reduction is being dealt with administratively within the ministry. No programs are being affected. It’s being covered through a reduction in travel, those types of things.

As well, it’s those same savings across the ministry where we were able to increase the budget to the Resilience B.C. program. T. Wat:Thank you, Minister. It’s good to know no pro- gram has been cut. I would like to put on the record that if there are contracts awarded — whichever organizations have been chosen — information can be given to me, so that I know, on how many municipalities are involved in this Resilience program. Going back to this Resilience program, it seems to be the outcome of the work done by the former Parliament- ary Secretary for Multiculturalism.

According to the news release on November 20, 2019, this network program is the result of a series of community dialogues, led by the former parliamentary secretary, in July and August in 130 Committee of Supply,

Section A Friday, July 10, 2020

2019. But there was no government release that listed the communities or any information about the former parlia- mentary secretary’s tour, other than what he himself pos- ted on his personal Twitter account. Since this consultation is so crucial for the government’s revamping of the former anti-racism program, the OARH, why did the ministry not promote the two-month-long consultation so that more people in different communities could attend? [2:05 p.m.] Hon. L. Beare:The consultation was targeted consulta- tion. We did use the previous OARH network.

They invited leaders from across their communities, and the previous parliamentary secretary went out and did the consultation to feed the work that we’re doing within the ministry. T. Wat:I am disappointed that it was not open to the general public who are involved in this anti-racism pro- gram. Their feedback is just as important as community leaders. ’ As far as we can gather from the former parliamentary secretary’s Twitter and other sources, the tour began on July 8, when the first stop was in Comox Valley, and was concluded in Cranbrook on August 28.

In the middle of the tour, on July 29, he was appointed as the Parliamentary Secretary for FLNRORD and began to visit communities around B.C. that were affected by the forestry crisis. Due to the lack of government publication on the anti-racism tour and the forestry meetings, the exact purpose of the com- munity visits was blurred. On September 10, 2018, in response to a question ask- ing the former Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural- ism to name the forestry communities that he visited, he responded: “I was in Prince George, Fort St.

James, Mack- enzie, Quesnel, Williams Lake, 100 Mile, Clearwater, vil- lage of Clinton, Merritt, Cranbrook and Castlegar over the last three weeks. ” Cranbrook was visited by the former parliamentary sec- retary as part of the anti-racism tour. So my question to the minister is: how much was spent on the anti-racism dialogue tour? Was the former parliamentary secretary using funding from this anti-racism tour to consult forestry communities? Hon. L. Beare:The parliamentary secretary’s work was for multiculturalism. It was for the anti-racism conversa- tions on the tour. The total cost of the tour was $32,780. T.

Wat:Thank you, Minister, but he was doing the work as the Parliamentary Secretary for FLNRORD. I wonder. Was it because he was already travelling in the province and rural consultations were needed? Was that why he was appointed as a Parliamentary Secretary for FLNRORD? Anyway, going to the next question. Our previous gov- ernment had entrusted $100K to the city of Vancouver for the establishment of a monument to commemorate the historic legacy of Vancouver’s Chinatown as part of the former multiculturalism ministry’s commitment to unveil a plaque in 15 historic sites throughout the province.

I have asked about the progress of this monument in the last three budget debates. The Agriculture Minister, who took on the 2018 budget estimates debate for this minister, provided me with a more positive response. She said: “We have been working with the city of Vancouver, and there is $100,000 put away in trust in order to facilitate the unveil- ing of the plaque in Vancouver.

I can assure the member that an invitation will be coming to her as soon as that is sorted out. ” Of course, being as passionate as I am, I’ve been wait- ing, waiting, waiting for the invitation to attend the unveiling ceremony — but no luck. Last year the response from the minister to my question was simply: “The money is still in trust. It’s with Vancouver, and the city of Vancouver is the lead. ” [2:10 p.m.] The minister’s response has given us an impression that this Vancouver Chinatown monument has nothing to do with her ministry. This is an extremely disappointing response.

The unveiling of this commemorating monu- ment is the wish of not only the Chinese-Canadian com- munity but many British Columbians who appreciate and value the historic significance of Vancouver Chinatown. This is this minister’s portfolio, and this is the money coming from this government. It’s the taxpayers’ money. Y ou cannot just say: “Oh, we entrust the money to the city of Vancouver, and they are the lead. I wash my hands of it. ” This is not a very responsible response. I think the min- istry should get on top of it and make sure that this is hap- pening.

I ask once again, for the fourth year, on the record. Has the minister followed up with the city of Vancouver and worked with the city of Vancouver to advance this project, which is anxiously awaited by the Chinese community and the bigger community? Hon. L. Beare:To the member, the answer is still the same. The money is still in trust with the city of Vancouver. We work very collaboratively with them on a number of things. And when the city is ready to move forward…. As we work with a number of projects with them, I’m sure the invitation will come from the city of Vancouver to the member when the time is right.

T. Wat:I have a feeling that every answer I get from the minister in today’s debate is to ask me to wait. It doesn’t matter that I’m waiting, but the Chinese community can- not afford to wait. This particular project was started way before this gov- ernment took power. It doesn’t make sense that three years afterwards the minister is telling this House and British Friday, July 10, 2020 Committee of Supply,

Section A 131

Columbians and the Chinese-Canadian community: “Well, just wait. It will be coming. ” When will it be com- ing? We’ve heard nothing. Zero. I’m asking the minister: can the minister, for once, give us a more tangible response? Because before I came to this debate, the Chinese-Canadian community, my sup- porters, my constituents, have been asking and trying to get an answer from this minister, because you never get an answer in the last debate that you have with this minister. Can I get some tangible answer, please, Minister? Hon. L.

Beare:As the member said, the work has been going on long before we were in government as well. So this is work that is ongoing. The money is in trust with the city of Vancouver. When the city of Vancouver is ready, as we are working on a number of projects with them, I’m sure the member will receive that fantastic invitation from the city when the time is right. T. Wat:Again, every answer is: “Wait. The news will come. ” I wonder whether the minister will make it a priority for the Chinese-Canadian museum and this particular monu- ment in Vancouver Chinatown. The Chinese-Canadian museum….

I can understand you have financial difficulty because there’s no budget allocated to your ministry. But for this project, it’s so easy. The money is there, and the plan is there. Can the minister just tell this House something? What’s the progress? Don’t just keep giving these same answers, saying to wait for the good news, to wait for the exciting news. How many years, how many months, do we have to wait for this exciting news? Hon. L. Beare:Asked and answered a few times now. T. Wat:I’ve been really disappointed — not only me, as I said.

I represent the community, and the community is extremely disappointed that I am not able to get any answer from this minister on the most looked-forward- to Chinese-Canadian museum, no tangible plan, nor this monument, which should have been in place now and part of the application for the UNESCO designation. The min- ister keeps saying: “Well, just wait for the answer. Just wait for the good news. I’ve given you the answer. ” [2:15 p.m.] I guess no matter how many questions I ask, I won’t get any answer. I have to move on.

But I have to put it on record that I have not got any substantial response from the minister on the Chinese-Canadian museum, as well as on this commemorative monument for Vancouver Chin- atown, even though the previous government has already allocated $100,000. Let’s move on. On June 12, a virtual town hall on racism was held on Facebook, hosted by the minister responsible for multi- culturalism, the member for Delta North. I applaud the government for hosting this event to discuss systemic racism in B.C.

Unfortunately, as the opposition critic for multiculturalism, this is, I think, the fourth time in the debate that I appeal to this minister to inform me — the same as for the $1 million announcement. I didn’t have the time to mention that.

Now that I’ve talked about this virtual town hall, I have to put it on record that for such a huge announcement, such a significant announcement of a Chinese-Canadian museum in the Chinese Cultural Centre, I wasn’t informed, even though I requested at the debate a few times to please inform me because I’m the opposition crit- ic for multiculturalism, and I’m really passionate about this file. Again, I was not notified or invited to participate. I only learned of it from Facebook.

The Minister of Health has done a far better job of invit- ing one government MLA and one opposition MLA to co- host a virtual town hall on COVID-19 in every region, to make this truly a non-partisan event. How come this min- ister did otherwise? Hon. L. Beare:This was the Premier’s town hall. He co- hosted it himself with Minister Kang, alongside the mem- bers of the Multiculturalism Advisory Committee. This was done in that frame. T. Wat:The minister has not responded to my question.

At the COVID-19 town halls, the virtual town halls — there have been so many going on — every time there’s one government MLA and one opposition MLA, to make it a non-partisan issue. I’m sure anti-racism and multicultur- alism should be non-partisan as well. The government MLAs had put forward a motion to discuss this issue. We, from our side, from the opposition, also stood up in the House to support that we all, together, should try to make British Columbia a truly welcoming, inclusive province.

For such an important virtual town hall, I really applaud the government for taking the initiative to talk to the pub- lic on systemic racism. How come the opposition multi- culturalism critic, who is a former multiculturalism min- ister and who has shown so much passion for this file, was not informed and wasn’t even invited as a co-host or to speak a few words at the virtual town hall? [2:20 p.m.] Hon. L. Beare: I agree with the member absolutely. Anti-racism is a non-partisan issue.

This town hall was specifically to speak on the actions that government was taking, that government has been doing, but, mainly, to hear from the experts. It was Minister Kang who hosted the town hall. To the member, I hear her point, and thank you for bringing them up. T. Wat:I want to go back to the minister’s earlier com- 132 Committee of Supply,

Section A Friday, July 10, 2020

ment saying that this virtual town hall was initiated by the Premier. By saying that, you’re giving an impression that the Premier is not inclusive. The Premier is just totally par- tisan. But I don’t think the Premier thinks that anti-racism, multiculturalism, is a partisan issue. Since the Minister of Health has set a very good example before this virtual town hall was held, it looks like it’s a deliberate effort to exclude the opposition from this virtu- al town hall. I know that I won’t get anywhere, but I have to put this on the record.

I also want to put it on the record that, hopefully, in future, for any events regarding multiculturalism — of course, including anti-racism — the opposition critic will be informed. In spite of the fact that I make this appeal every time in this budget, it never happens. I am putting on record that I hope next year, if we are going to have a debate, I don’t have to repeat this again. Moving on…. Hon. L. Beare:Sorry, Member. I had raised my hand there. I thought there was a question wrapping up in there. The member is right. I misspoke on the Premier. So I do retract that statement.

I was thinking of a different town hall that the Premier had done, and no, that was not the case. And of course, the Premier is inclusive. I was thinking of a different focus conversation that the Premier had with another community. So just to put on the record that I did misspeak, and that that was not the case. The Premier, of course, is very inclusive. T. Wat:Thank you to the minister for the for the clari- fication. The Minister of Citizens’ Services was appointed on January 22 this year.

A news release issued the following month, on February 10, announced that the Minister of Citizens’ Services retains her responsibility for multicul- turalism. But now that the Minister of Citizens’ Services is the minister, no longer the parliamentary secretary, that means that there are two ministers responsible for multi- culturalism at the cabinet table. Could the minister advise this House the line of author- ity between herself and the Minister of Citizens’ Services on the multiculturalism portfolio? Hon. L. Beare:Really, all ministers are responsible for multiculturalism.

This is a value and a priority of our gov- ernment. It’s a value and a priority of all our MLAs. So everybody is responsible. The way the work is delineated here, as the member was asking…. The budget has remained in my ministry, which is why I’m answering the questions during estim- ates. It’s because the budget has remained intact. That was the smoothest possible option. And the Minister of Cit- izens’ Services is taking the lead on the file. T. Wat:Thank you for the clarification.

If the Minister of Citizens’ Services is taking the lead on this file, I guess it may be more appropriate for the Min- ister of Citizens’ Services to be sitting here to respond to some of the questions. The questions that I asked, the crucial question about the Chinese-Canadian museum, the commemorating monument….

It looks like the Minister of Citizens’ Ser- vices is the face of multiculturalism, and this minister is actually at the back, controlling everything. [2:25 p.m.] I can see that ever since her appointment as Minister of Citizens’ Services, she attended multiculturalism events and issued news releases under her title as the minister responsible for multiculturalism. This Minister of Tour- ism, Arts and Culture is not included in the news releases nor attends any cultural events. That was quite different before, when she was the parliamentary secretary respons- ible for multiculturalism. So it’s really confusing.

The budget is in the hands of this Minister of Tourism. If the Minister of Citizens’ Services has a different opinion from this minister — for example, if she wants to see a budget coming for the start of the Chinese-Canadian museum — who is the lead? I want to know who the lead is for multiculturalism. Who can advocate for things that can happen for the multiculturalism file? Hon. L. Beare:For the member, this is good news. Y ou have two ministers who are strong advocates for multicul- turalism right now. What better place to be in the file? The estimates debate that we have here is based on the budget.

That’s what it’s supposed to be. The budget has remained in the TAC Ministry, and the Minister of Cit- izens’ Services is the lead for multiculturalism. T. Wat:According to the minister, this is good news. I guess we have to have two ministers for every portfolio. Then we’ll bump up the cabinet members. I’ve never seen this, in my experience. I’ve never heard of it, in my experi- ence, either. I truly don’t understand it. It’s confusing to the general public. This Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture is con- trolling the budget.

She makes all the calls, and the Min- ister of Citizens’ Services is the face of multiculturalism. By talking to the Minister of Citizens’ Services, who is responsible for multiculturalism, you won’t get anything done. She is not the one that’s the lead. She has to take the call from this minister. I think this creates a lot of internal fights and lots of confusion to the general public. Will the general public approach this minister if they want to advocate for any- thing or approach both ministers to make sure…? The Minister of Tourism controls the budget and will make things happen.

At the end of the day, the one who controls the budget will make things happen. How about staffing? I just want the minister to clarify Friday, July 10, 2020 Committee of Supply,

Section A 133

more, instead of saying that it’s good news to have two ministers advocating for one file. Hon. L. Beare:I’m very unclear if there was a question there. T. Wat:My question is: does the Minister of Citizens’ Services have any spending authority? Does she have to run the decision by the Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture whenever she has any initiative that she wants to advocate? Is she junior to this Minister of Tourism? Hon. L. Beare:Our government is extremely collab- orative. I don’t know what the member’s experiences were previously in government.

Our government works extremely collaboratively, breaking down silos across ministries, in the best way possible, so that we can all work together. The Minister of Citizens’ Services and I work extremely collaboratively. We all share one goal of government, of trying to advance the work on anti-racism and anti-hate and trying to work collaboratively to encourage increased supports for multiculturalism across the province. The member is painting a picture that just doesn’t exist. The spending authority is within TAC. The budget stayed in the ministry, as that was the smoothest trans- ition.

It was already there, so it remains here. The Minister of Citizens’ Services and I work very collaboratively. [2:30 p.m.] T. Wat:Thank you for the clarification, but it still doesn’t really make sense. From what I heard from the minister today…. Is the minister giving us an indication that because multicultur- alism is such an important file, we need two ministers to be overseeing this file? Does it mean that other files are not as important — like municipal affairs, housing, ICBC, child care, education and a whole lot of others?

Do we need to have two ministers for each file if we set the example of having two ministers for such an important file that the Premier pays a lot of attention to and values? I just want to be enlightened. Hon. L. Beare:I’m just absolutely baffled by this line of questioning here from the member. The member was the parliamentary secretary. She retained the lead on the file when she became the Minister of Citizens’ Services, which is excellent. She is a fantastic advocate and Minister for Multiculturalism. The budget is very closely entwined within the TAC ministry at the moment.

The simplest solution was to leave the budget intact and allow me and the minister to work collaboratively together. I understand the member wants to ask multiple ques- tions on this, but it’s been answered. We are working together collaboratively. The budget stays in TAC, and we’re all working together to advance the interests. D. Clovechok:I think the simple question to the min- ister is: does the Minister of Citizens’ Services have any budgetary authority in making independent decisions? Hon. L. Beare: Asked and answered. The budget remains in the TAC ministry. T.

Wat:From past experience, I know this government always does things very differently and very strangely. If the minister is responsible for multiculturalism…. I used to be the Minister of International Trade, and the multiculturalism file never fell under this ministry. But because the Premier appointed me as the Minister for Multiculturalism, all the budget decisions, all the resources, were moved into the Ministry of International Trade so that one minister could make the decisions.

It really creates a lot of confusion that the Minister of Citizens’ Services is the face of multiculturalism yet all the budgetary decisions are made by the Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture, who has no profile in the multicultural community. Because the Minister of Citizens’ Services is now the minister responsible for multiculturalism, this minister is not being seen at any events. Her name is not quoted in the news releases. So this minister is totally a non–minister for multiculturalism. And for this minister to be responding to the questions that I’m asking about multiculturalism, I think, is a joke. D.

Clovechok:To my previous question, then, your answer, Minister, is no. She does not have any decision- making ability independently in the budget. That’s all done through your ministry. Collaborative or not, does she have, yes or no? Hon. L. Beare:We collaborate on decision-making, and I have authority within the TAC budget. T. Wat:I guess we cannot get anywhere on this topic. Since I have a little bit of time, I want to go back to the commemorative monument. I just want to put it on record that from the minister’s response, the $100,000 is coming from this government.

Does her answer imply that it’s entirely the decision of the city of Vancouver whether they are going ahead with this monument or not and this ministry has nothing do with it? Just wash their hands of it? Give you the money, and you can do whatever you want to do? Hon. L. Beare:This has been canvassed before. [2:35 p.m.] T. Wat:I don’t think the minister has answered my 134 Committee of Supply,

Section A Friday, July 10, 2020

question. My question is: is it entirely the decision of the city of Vancouver to decide whether they go ahead with the monument? If they are not going ahead with the monument, will our government be putting some pressure on them? Three years have passed. That was started by the previ- ous government. More than three years have passed, and I’ve heard nothing from this debate about the progress. We have to be answerable to British Columbians for the taxpayers’ money. That $100K. If I left it in my ministry when I was a minister, I could have done a lot of things.

I could have unveiled many more plaques to commemorate the historic sites for the Chinese community. We purposely allocated $100K because we see Vancou- ver Chinatown as a very valuable legacy. This is the second-oldest Chinatown in North America, and there is so much history, so much legacy there. That’s why we pur- posely put aside $100K. One hundred thousand is not a small sum of money. Hon. L. Beare:As I said to the member before, we work collaboratively with the city of Vancouver. There is abso- lutely no indication that this is not happening. Y ou know, this is part of the ongoing work.

So the member’s specula- tion on what to do with the $100,000…. The plaque is in the works with the city of Vancouver, and I have answered this question a number of times. T. Wat:If, as the minister says, it’s in the works with the city of Vancouver, at least there should be something that this minister can inform this House of. Have they started the design of the monument? Who is going to design it? Before we left the government, we asked a very well-known architect — who, unfortunately, passed away — to design the monument. Can the minister even tell us whether the design of the monument has been com- pleted?

Not even any piece of detail? That’s why I think we need the Minister of Citizens’ Ser- vices to respond to this question. The Chair:Member, the minister has answered these lines of questioning. Do you have another line of question- ing for the minister? T. Wat:I guess I must say that I’m so disappointed that I could not get anywhere for the last hour or so.

I cannot go back to my constituents and tell them that this is the kind of response you want to get from the Minister of Tourism regarding the multiculturalism file, especially on the most important issue of the Chinese- Canadian museum and this commemorative monument in Vancouver Chinatown, now that the city of Vancouver and this provincial government have committed to work with the federal government to make this UNESCO world heritage destination of Vancouver Chinatown happen.

In the absence of this connect with the federal govern- ment, in the absence of any plans for the Chinese-Cana- dian museum, in the absence of any information on this commemorative monument…. It already has the budget right there, yet we get nothing from this minister. On that note, I guess, I don’t want to waste time. I want to leave the time for my two colleagues to probe on the Tourism file. I must thank the staff of multiculturalism for their dedication, for their hard work, for their profession- alism, to make British Columbia truly an inclusive and welcoming province.

We have to join hands, not take this issue as a partisan issue, and work together for the benefit of every single British Columbian in this province. I thank the minister for the time. A. Olsen: Thank you for the opportunity. I’ d like to thank my colleagues in the official opposition, the mem- bers for Parksville-Qualicum and Columbia River–Revels- toke, for giving me the time to ask a few questions in this important ministry.

I’m going to get to the tourism sector in just a second here, but there is a question, with respect, in a similar vein to the questions that have been asked previously by the member for Richmond North Centre. I met with the minister a few months back now, maybe a bunch of months back now, with respect to museums and the funding for First Nations Indigenous repatriations. I see that there was yet another announcement of another about $500,000, I think it was, to it. [2:40 p.m.] This is an important time.

We spoke about this privately, but it’s an important time for me to put on the record the challenges that I’ve heard. While there are a lot of Indigenous communities that receive $30,000 a year to do this work….

Y ou’re not going to hear complaints from Indigenous communities for receiving any funding to do this work, but I think it’s important to really acknowledge on the record here how, in the grand scheme of the work that needs to be done, this money actually impacts and the fact that a repatriation of ancestors, a repatriation of items of cultural significance, can cost upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars. When this work gets underway within an Indigenous community, there is an incredible impetus for it to con- tinue, meaning that those communities become commit- ted to this work.

That commitment often costs numbers of other budget line items in other budgets, because once the work has started, it cannot stop. That’s part of the cultural reality once the intention is set. I presented the ministry with some ideas about how it is that, perhaps, the process can be streamlined and how we can work with our museum systems here — primar- ily the Royal British Columbia Museum — to ensure that Indigenous communities are not starting this work with the incredible burden of having to continue it.

I’m just wondering if the minister has considered some of the other options to how this work can be funded, Friday, July 10, 2020 Committee of Supply,

Section A 135

recognizing that many Indigenous ancestors are still in displays in museums around the world. Many of our very sacred items of cultural significance are still in museums around the world, being viewed as artifacts rather than for their cultural significance. I’m wondering if the ministry has worked with the Min- ister of Indigenous Relations and the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to clear up some of the real challenges that Indigenous people have in the province with this area. Hon. L. Beare: I want to thank the member for the question.

I know this is something that the member is deeply passionate about. We have spoken about this on a number of occasions but one in particular, where the member was discussing his desire to see government move forward with funding, and we were able to provide the $500,000 in funding for repatriation. We recognize that the respectful return of cultural belongings and ancestral remains is essential to the preservation and the continuation of cultures all across our province and our communities.

We know Indigenous cultures rely on this for traditions and spiritual healing and for the work of Indigenous com- munities that is happening. So to the member’s question specifically, I will always look for ongoing and new ways to fund repatriation, and the member has my commitment to do that. This is a priority for us here in the ministry and in government. As the member knows, by adopting the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’sCalls to Action, we’re committing ourselves as a government, all of us, to do this work.

We are committing ourselves, alongside the Royal B.C. Museum, alongside the B.C. Museums Association, and our Indigenous communities to do this work together. It takes all of us to continue working together, as the member said, including MIRR, including FLNRO and including the Indigenous communities to work together as we advance the next steps on supports. But the member can rest assured I will constantly be looking for ways to fund this work. A. Olsen:Thank you for that commitment.

I look for- ward to continuing to work with the minister on this really important and critical issue to reconciliation and a very important signal to Indigenous people that this provincial government…. In addition to the various significant steps that we’ve all taken together, it’s a significant indication to Indigenous people that reconciliation is important work. [2:45 p.m.] Shifting gears a little here to tourism. It’s been an issue that I’ve also raised in question period. Acknowledging that in 2018, the tourism industry generated about $20.5 billion in annual revenue….

It’s a substantial amount of money for our province, a substantial industry for our province. The Premier said, on the record, that the gov- ernment is working with the tourism industry, working on a tourism recovery plan. The minister suggested, sim- ilarly, that she’s been listening to and working with the tourism sector. Many of the responses to questions that I and my col- leagues in the official opposition have been asking to this ministry and to other ministries have always been….

Well, the response has been: “Y ou know, dealing with the COV- ID-19 pandemic has slowed things down. ” There are lots of questions I could ask about tourism, but I’m asking this question today, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the government’s response to that recovery. The tourism sector has been one of the hardest hit, if not the hardest hit. It’s going to be one of the longest- lasting impacted industries in the province as well. Right now Destination B.C. is spending money on a campaign to promote B.C. tourism, aimed at British Columbia residents.

They’re the only people that can support the tourism industry right now. Domestic tourism is really the only option, as the borders remain closed between Canada and the United States, and international travel is very restricted. Look, I’ve talked with so many people in the tourism sector — I’ve got as old a relationship as any in this sec- tor — that are expressing deep frustration at the dir- ection of the funds going to marketing when the busi- nesses themselves have not received support.

Without supporting operators, unfortunately, many businesses will just fail, and there’s going to be a significantly shrunken tourism market. What is the minister doing to support provincial tour- ism businesses on the supply side of the business? Hon. L. Beare:The member kind of asked two ques- tions in there. He was asking about the Destination B.C. marketing funding being directed towards domestic — which, I know, is something he wants to ask about as well — and he asked about the supply side.

So I’ll go ahead and answer both for the member, in the interest of time, because I know that the Green Party has to do a lot of work to get to all the different estimates. I’ll start with the supply side. For the member, abso- lutely, we recognize how impacted tourism has been by COVID. They are arguably the industry hardest hit by the pandemic. We continue to work on a number of things with the tourism sector. We continue to work on the demand side, as the member was referencing.

Y ou know, we provided the $10 million in additional funds to CDMOs to ensure that they’re ready to welcome visit- ors across the province, as we did move into phase 3, for example. I’m not going to focus on the demand side. What the member wanted to know was on the supply side specific- ally, and I agree. We recognize that to grow and sustain 136 Committee of Supply,

Section A Friday, July 10, 2020

tourism, you have to do both. Y ou have to support both the demand, and generate the interest, and have the supply there, the products and services, for visitors to enjoy once they are travelling across our province. For the supply side of the sector, we want to make sure that they’re well posi- tioned. Our government is taking a number of actions that do help the supply side. On the hospitality sector portion of tourism, for example, we supported restaurants with their liquidity by ensuring that they had wholesale liquor pri- cing, the ability to sell liquor, off-sales.

We supported their expansion of patios to increase patrons, maintaining social distancing. [2:50 p.m.] We launched our Tourism Resiliency Network to help the tourism businesses navigate the sea of information and supports that are out there to ensure that we actually have businesses accessing the supports they need so that they can access liquidity and remain open. We are providing stimulus funding for organizations and communities to support tourism product. We do these through a number of funds and continue to do them for government. The best answer to the member’s question is…. I agree.

On the supply side, we are working with the sector. We have been and continue to. One of the priorities I have, moving into recovery, is on destination development. We have our 20 destination development plans that focus on the regional supply side of tourism. This has been the cul- mination of years of work, and this is the work we’re going to keep doing to make sure that the supply is there. To finally answer the member’s portion of this question, absolutely. As part of the ongoing recovery process and the $1.5 billion, I definitely view a need for supply support within those requests.

The tourism sector has been asking for that, and it’s something that we will be putting forward as a ministry. That was one of the member’s questions. Then, in his big opening there, he asked a second question about Des- tination B.C. marketing to British Columbians. Why is the money being spent there? British Columbians can only travel across the province. It’s really important, for the member, that we…. Destin- ation B.C. quickly pivoted, right from the beginning of the pandemic, and moved to an Explore B.C.

Later campaign to really ensure that British Columbians and visitors who are accessing Hello B.C. from all across the world knew that B.C. would be eventually open again and would want to welcome visitors but not for now. We waited till phase 3. We’re in phase 3. We’re back to our Explore B.C. campaign. We know that the domestic market is not a silver bullet for tourism operators, but it does provide that lifeline that tourism operators need for the summer, if we can get some of that summer. Destination B.C. did make sure they pivoted that mar- keting focus to a robust domestic travel program.

Their research shows that resident intention to travel within B.C. continues to grow in numbers, with 77 percent of people surveyed saying they’re intending to travel this summer within their own province. We, as a ministry, and Destination B.C. want to provide all the information available to the residents of British Columbia so that we’re encouraging dispersion across the province. People can travel far and wide, in every corner of the province, and access tourism opportunities — access experiences, if you will — that they’ve never done before.

There aren’t enough British Columbians who have gone grizzly bear viewing or who do sport fishing, for example. We want to make sure that British Columbians know about all these opportunities. We want to capture that $6.7 billion that British Colum- bians spent internationally on tourism. If we can capture a portion of that, we can provide tourism operators some relief over the summer. I will try to be more succinct in my next answers. The member had a lot of questions in that one opening sen- tence. So there you go. Thank you, Member. A. Olsen:I’ve seen the advertising.

I would say that if it was directing people towards specific experiences, that would be one thing. Unfortunately, those ads are very dis- connected. They’re very generic and just say: “Explore B.C. ” That’s about it. The other aspect of it is…. In talking to community leaders within tourism communities, community leaders whose communities rely on tourism…. That might be a clearer way of putting it. The businesses in those com- munities are in chaos right now. Many of them don’t have the workforce that they need. Some of them didn’t know whether they were coming back or not.

To market to that industry right now without providing a clear indication…. The minister continues to refer that there is a plan. I’m not sure what the plan is. There have not been any details provided for the plan. [2:55 p.m.] As the member for Parksville-Qualicum pointed out, one of our businesses here, Wilson’s Transportation, has noted to her, to me and to many others, I’m sure — to everybody that will listen — that every day that there isn’t a plan dealing with the next 18 to 24 months, clarity for the next 18 to 24 months…. The business owners that I’m talk- ing to are in turmoil right now.

They don’t know, because there has not been a plan that has been laid out. That’s a real challenge. We’re marketing to businesses that may or may not be there. We’re encouraging people to travel to communities that may or may not have it open. Many people are still concerned, and the businesses are in a marathon, not a sprint. Y et we’re dealing with it as a sprint. I’ll just move to my next question. My understanding is that tourism is guided by both the minister’s strategic framework for tourism and Destination B.C. ’s strategic Friday, July 10, 2020 Committee of Supply,

Section A 137

plan. Given the significant impact of the pandemic on tourism and tourism’s uncertain future, will both of these plans be reviewed and updated to reflect the changing real- ities of tourism? Hon. L. Beare:The short answer to the member is: yes, they will. Both the strategic framework within my min- istry and DBC’s strategic corporate plan continue to be the foundation for which the work has been done in the min- istry. But they definitely need to be updated. Y ou know, even without the impacts of COVID-19, you would want to update your strategic plans. But it’s import- ant in light of this, of course.

As part of that regular review, that would have happened. Of course, we will be doing it now to review those strategic plans to make sure that we’re supporting the sectors here in B.C. To the member’s question, yes, we are. A. Olsen:Thank you to the minister for that response. Will the minister be re-evaluating Destination B.C. ’s $50 million marketing budget, given that if many British Col- umbians travel this summer, and many won’t because of fear and anxiety, it won’t have a significant economic impact — and calls from the industry leaders for direct support to businesses? Hon. L.

Beare:Obviously, the marketing budget within Destination B.C. will have to shift according to COVID and what the plans are. Destination B.C. is always ongoing and updating their information and the work that’s being done within DBC. But their $50 million budget stays intact and will not be changing. As I mentioned before to the member, I know that he’s hearing some sentiment of British Columbians who don’t want to travel, and there will be a portion that don’t. But Destination B.C. ’s research has shown that 77 percent of people surveyed say they are intending to travel this sum- mer, across their own province.

I know I will be myself. I’m looking forward to it. I believe Dr. Henry is taking the weekend off herself to go do some exploring. In fact, I have my husband and my daughter here with me waiting for this process to finish, so we can go inject some much-needed tourism dollars into the Victoria community soon. While there will be people who won’t want to travel, 77 percent of British Columbians are indicating they do want to travel.

So Destination B.C. will be adjusting their mar- keting budget within that $50 million, which stays intact, to address those concerns, while, of course, we do also have to keep our eye on our international markets and make sure we protect our spaces in those markets, because we do know those bookings are made 18 months out, usu- ally, in general. There is work ongoing and being done, and Destination B.C. received an additional $6 million, as well, for mar- keting from the federal government through Destination Canada. So we’ll continue to support them.

We’ll continue to work with them so that they’re producing products, which they do so amazingly well, that are speaking to the need of the marketing here in B.C. A. Olsen:To my colleagues in Parksville-Qualicum and Columbia River–Revelstoke, just one, maybe two more questions, and then I’ll cede the floor to you. [3:00 p.m.] When will the leaders in the tourism industry here in British Columbia, the operator side, have some details in terms of how the provincial government is going to sup- port their businesses over the next 18 to 24 months, noting that what we see now is not necessarily what will…?

The fall and the winter are going to be incredibly hard for some of the operators, and other operators are going to be just getting going. So I’m just wondering when the sector will see the government’s plan for support on the supply side. Hon. L. Beare:As the member knows, we are in the process of consultation on the recovery funding, the $1.5 billion that the Premier and the Deputy Premier announced. On top of the consultation I’ve been having with the industry up until this point, we’ve had a very specific recovery consultation. The public is weighing in.

I’m continuing to meet with all the business leaders — TIABC, the RDMOs, the CDMOs. I’m continuing to meet with sector organizations, individual businesses, the entire tourism ecosphere. One of the big answers we need as part of what we will be doing, moving into the future for tourism, is what that recovery funding recovery will look like. That’s a big por- tion of that, and that work is ongoing right now. We will continue to work together. We are listening very closely to the tourism sector. We continue to hear the requests. We’ve been able to meet a number of them to date.

I have a whole list here that I know the member doesn’t want to hear right now; he wants to know what we’re going to do, moving toward. What we are going to do is continue listening to the sector and develop a plan that meets their needs and develop a path forward that meets their needs. A. Olsen:That’s been a consistent answer from the min- ister that normally I wouldn’t complain about. The min- ister is listening. I think that’s a really positive thing.

However, I’ve also been listening, and I’ve been hearing a very, very consistent message for maybe eight weeks now — ten weeks, 12 weeks — that the issues that…. The mes- sage has been very, very consistent from sector leaders of what’s needed to happen, what’s needed in order for sup- port for the industry. We approved $1.5 billion of recovery money months ago. I was in the Legislature and approved and was

part 138 Committee of Supply,

Section A Friday, July 10, 2020

of that very surreal day in the Legislature a number of months ago. So that money has been sitting there. I recognize that the tourism industry is one industry in a number of ministries and a number of different sec- tors in our economy. But it’s one in which, I think, the industry leaders have been consistent. They’ve been clear. Their message has not changed. It has not wavered. In fact, the situation for them has only gotten worse over the past number of weeks.

Again, I hope that, at some point, the minister will deliver to the industry a clear plan so that business owners — and the employees of those business owners — who are on the steps of Legislature, who are looking at what their life is going to look like, can make the decisions they need to make. Some of them are going to be making tra- gic decisions that they’re no longer going to exist. Others are going to be making decisions that they’re going to bear down and go for it. I’ll just ask this question one more time, and then I will cede the floor. What is the time frame?

The con- sultations go on; the message hasn’t changed. What’s the time frame? [3:05 p.m.] Hon. L. Beare:To the member, I appreciate everything he said. Y ou know, I could easily just say thank you and take the input. But there are a couple of things I want to say. I don’t want to leave the impression, by any means, that we have not been doing work to date. I know the member knows we have and that we’ve been working really hard. We continually receive requests from the industry.

We’ve been able to meet a number of the requests — for example, some of the TIABC requests submitted to sup- port a program that encouraged B.C. workers who have been laid off to find employment with local agribusiness tourism. We heard from industry that this was an oppor- tunity, and we developed a program with go2HR and cre- ated that opportunity to expand their job board and match up people. Industry wanted to allow restaurants and pubs to sell liquor products, takeaway services and have the hospitality pricing. We were able to meet that. They asked for deferral of hydro bills or relief on hydro bills.

We were able to meet that. They asked for deferral or relief on ICBC payments. We were able to meet that. We have a ton of work that has been done, to date, and we’re going to keep doing it. Every day I talk to the tourism sector, and every single day I hear the needs. And I know the member does too. He’s out there in his community. I hear the need. We have the process ongoing for that $1.5 billion. That’s a key component to decisions moving forward and what will be available for the sector. We’re just going to keep doing the hard work.

This is a sector that’s been deeply impacted, and I know he’s there alongside me in wanting to make sure we provide the best opportunities for the sec- tor moving forward, and we’re going to do that. Thank you so much to the member for the questions. I appreciate your time. M. Stilwell:Thank you, Minister. It’s nice to be here, back again to discuss some of the things that have happened in the tourism industry since the COVID pan- demic hit. As the minister knows, tourism is one of the B.C. ’s biggest industries. It brings in billions of dollars in annual revenue.

It provides hundreds of thousands of jobs to Brit- ish Columbians. It feeds families, builds communities and, really, fuels the economy. Since the pandemic, I know, as the minister has been hearing — we’ve been hearing daily, as the Leader of the Third Party said — how desperate they are. We have heard from businesses in the tourism sector that are facing crip- pling uncertainty and, in some cases, even bankruptcy — just like the Wilson’s Transportation business that the Leader of the Third Party mentioned.

There has, to date, been, really, little reassurance for the tourism operators from this government and from the Tourism Minister. For example, she’s probably going to talk to us about deferral payments and how that’s supposed to help businesses. But the problem with the deferral pay- ments is that after three months, even with the phased approach to reopening over the summer, the revenues may not be there to support these businesses enough to pay. Obviously, what they’ve been advocating for, what they’ve been asking for, are loans and grants and things that would be better suited for them.

As we move forward, I’ d just like to start discussing some of the general impacts that the pandemic has had on tourism and the ministry. We know that government has obviously had significant revenue gaps of its own as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. But what I’ d like to know is how that revenue gap has impacted the ministry’s expenses and how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted revenues within the scope of the Ministry of Tourism. [3:10 p.m.] Hon. L. Beare:The budget for ’20-21 remains the same for the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture.

There are two areas of impact of note for the member, being PavCo, for the loss of convention business and the closure of B.C. Place, and Royal B.C. Museum, which had some minor impacts due to a temporary closure as well. M. Stilwell:Are there any plans in place to support both PavCo and the museum with additional funds that they have lost out on and to move forward in the future? Hon. L. Beare:We are reviewing. We’re early in the pro- cess. We’re trying to review and understand the impacts Friday, July 10, 2020 Committee of Supply,

Section A 139

to the businesses. Obviously, we’ll be taking a look at the opportunities moving forward. D. Clovechok:Have there been job losses associated with both of those entities? Hon. L. Beare:At PavCo, there have been temporary layoffs, work-shares and some reductions of hours, which affect around 160 people. Other than the tempor- ary closure at Royal B.C. Museum, there was zero impact to the staff. M. Stilwell:Thank you, Minister. Has the ministry been given any additional funds due to the COVID-19 pandem- ic?

If they did receive any funds, how are those funds alloc- ated within the various departments within the ministry? Hon. L. Beare:The fiscal plan remains intact. In addi- tion, we received $10 million for community destination marketing organizations. There are a number of other asks we have within government. We’re going through the recovery process, and we will see what funds are allocated from that. To date, the fiscal plan remains intact, plus the $10 million. M. Stilwell:So that $10 million has all been allocated, and there’s nothing left unused to be re-appropriated? Hon. L.

Beare:Y es, the $10 million has been allocated. D. Clovechok:Could the minister detail the allocation of those dollars? Hon. L. Beare:It went to 59 community destination marketing organizations. I’m sure the member doesn’t want me to read the 59 communities on the list. I’ d be happy to send him the list of communities if he’ d like. [3:15 p.m.] D. Clovechok:Thank you to the minister. We would appreciate having a detailed breakdown, and the exact amount of dollars that went to each one of those organiza- tions, within a week. The Chair:The minister is indicating yes to that, Mem- ber. M.

Stilwell:When we look at the key service plan tar- gets for the ministry, what has been changed, or has any- thing been changed, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and will those targets be met? Hon. L. Beare:The service plans will be updated as part of next February’s budget. M. Stilwell: Obviously, there have been financial impacts within the ministry and within government. How is the ministry able to forecast the financial impacts going forward, when you look at PavCo or the Royal British Col- umbia Museum? Hon. L.

Beare:I just want to remind the member — of course, I know she’s well aware — that the pandemic is ongoing. So all the impacts are not known yet. The pan- demic is still here with us. Government is working with all of our Crowns. For the Royal B.C. Museum, we will be able to forecast their reven- ues, based on the attendance levels, of course. We’re work- ing with PavCo to assess what the impacts are for cancella- tions and deferrals. Fortunately, in PavCo, a number of the events were actually deferred and moved to a future date. So there’s a positive there.

We’re working with PavCo to address and take a look at mitigation. D. Clovechok:Working with PavCo on these issues, as well as other areas, requires strategic planning. Y ou men- tioned that strategic planning earlier on in this debate. I’m wondering if the minister can share with us the strategic planning strategies that have been applied and accomplished over the last four months since this pan- demic broke out. One would think that that strategic plan- ning is all ready to roll out. Hon. L. Beare:I had previously referred to Destination B.C. ’s corporate strategy and our tourism strategic frame- work.

I think the member might have misheard. But to answer the member’s question, 16 weeks is a very short amount of time to shut down parts of our economy and restart it to address the COVID pandemic. [3:20 p.m.] Government did allocate the $5 billion to address immediate impacts. That process is still going on, and we are daily working with industry and all sectors in respond- ing to policy and funding requests as are needed. D. Clovechok:Sixteen weeks seems like a long time, but for so many of the businesses in British Columbia that are associated with tourism, it’s becoming a lifetime.

That didn’t really answer my question, Chair. What spe- cific strategic planning has this ministry done in preparing a plan, going forward, for the tourism industry? Hon. L. Beare:Well, the member knows that we con- tinue to work with the sector very closely. We’ve been hav- ing that conversation, and we will be updating our tour- ism strategic framework to Destination B.C. ’s plan. We are working on addressing the requests that the industry has.

Once the recovery consultation process finishes, we will be able to have a better idea of what supports are available for the sector, for recovery for moving forward, and we’ll be able to address more needs then. 140 Committee of Supply,

Section A Friday, July 10, 2020

D. Clovechok:It would seem that there’s a timeline issue yet here again. Give us a specific time when this is going to roll out. People can’t wait much longer. What’s your timeline? Not next week, not a month. When is it going to happen? Hon. L. Beare: This is an unfair characterization of the work being done. Supports have been rolling out this whole time. We are continuing to do work with the sec- tor. We know that 16 weeks has felt like a lifetime to the tourism industry because we know how difficult…. They have been impacted.

We are going through our process here in government, and we will continue to go through that process. I will continue to work extremely closely with the tourism sector to address all of their needs. M. Stilwell:I recognize that there is a process in gov- ernment, but these are businesses that are struggling to maintain cash flow. With service industries — including restaurants, hospitality, tourism — among the hardest hit and the closure of borders, it’s had a dramatic impact on the industry. They need money to help the businesses survive. An estimated 41 percent will not be profitable this year.

Out of 200,000 small businesses in B.C., an estimated 10 to 15 percent won’t be around in 2021. The bulk of those are in the previously thriving tourism sector. The minister really just needs to describe what the recovery plan looks like. Will there be additional funds, coming from the $1.5 billion that government has set aside for the COVID pandemic, put into tourism? I know she mentioned it to the Leader of the Third Party, but this money was set aside months ago. The industry leaders have been clear, and they’ve been consist- ent. The situation is getting worse day by day.

The tourism operators expect some kind of relief, some kind of finan- cial support, to keep their cash flow going so that they can keep their doors open. When will the funds be available for things like tourism infrastructure projects or for businesses to keep their doors open? Hon. L. Beare:This characterization is just not accurate of what is happening in the sector. Of course there is going to be funding provided, of the $1.5 billion, towards tour- ism. I just don’t even understand the member’s question. The members don’t seem to think there was any support provided to date.

We know that the sector has been impacted greatly. I’m going to read now, for the member — in the interest of time, I’ve been trying to keep my answers brief — a long list of supports right now. We know more is needed. [3:25 p.m.] Members know that work is being done. We have been supporting the tourism sector, and we will continue to support the tourism sector. We included in the $5 billion of relief, which was provided in the action plan, a number of measures and supports that went to workers and busi- nesses, which includes tourism businesses. We provided the $1,000 B.C. emergency benefit for workers.

We provided a temporary rent supplement, freez- ing rents and ensuring no one is evicted as part of COV- ID-19. We enhanced payments through the B.C. climate action tax credit and delayed several tax filing payment deadlines, including for the MRDT accommodation tax. We cut commercial property tax bills for most businesses and gave businesses more time to pay their property tax bills. We were able to cut those bills by 25 percent.

We partnered with the federal government to provide commercial rent assistance of up to 75 percent and took the additional steps of protecting businesses and prevent- ing landlords who are eligible for rent assistance programs from evicting tenants. We supported commercial transportation, through ICBC, by deferring premiums, suspended insurance for idle commercial vehicles and increased flexibility around vehicle use. We’re providing small business customers three months of financial relief on their B.C. Hydro bills.

We’re ensuring no one can be terminated for COVID- related leaves or absences, including our tourism workers. We extended the temporary layoff period to 24 weeks for COVID-19-related reasons. WorkSafeBC is waiving premiums for employers who are approved and received the CEWS benefit for furloughed workers. We continue to work and champion the interests of the tourism sector. We’re supporting restaurants with liquidity by providing wholesale liquor pricing and the ability to sell liquor with takeout and delivery services.

We’re helping displaced tourism workers find work in other sectors, like agriculture, in cooperation with go2HR. We designated hotels and RV parks as an essential ser- vice to house essential service workers and returning res- idents in vulnerable populations, allowing them to contin- ue operating. We provided flexibility in the use of grant funding for organizations whose events were unable to take place. We supported patio expansions for the hospitality sec- tor to increase patrons while maintaining social distan- cing.

We provided stimulus funding for organizations and communities to support tourism products and destination development. I continue to meet weekly with my federal counterparts to ensure that B.C. has a strong voice at the table. I advoc- ate for more support, federal funding and improved pro- gram eligibility for B.C. businesses. We have a number of successes there. In the interests of time, I won’t read through those successes. We have supported, also, the tourism sector by accel- Friday, July 10, 2020 Committee of Supply,

Section A 141

erating disbursements of the 14 resort municipality initi- ative communities. We launched the Tourism Resiliency Network to help businesses navigate the supports available and adapt to the new normal. We provided $10 million to 59 B.C. community destination marketing organiza- tions so that they can retain critical staff and offset fixed expenses. Through Destination B.C., we were able to provide $400,000 to 15 tourism associations to put health and safety measures in place. We were able to provide $130,000 to 130 community-owned visitor centres.

We used the $6 million we received from Destination Canada for recovery marketing. There’s more here. In the interests of time, I’m not going to keep reading. For the member, the tourism sector has been impacted. We all agree on that. We all agree it’s a priority. We are doing the work. We are continuing to do the work. Tourism is going to be, obviously, contemplated in that $1.5 billion in recovery, and we will keep working with the sector to identify and address their needs moving forward. Any characterization that the work isn’t happen- ing or hasn’t been done simply isn’t there.

We know there’s more to do, and we are going to continue doing that. I thank the members for their support of the tourism sector. It is important here in B.C. M. Stilwell:Thank you to the minister. She did read off a lengthy list of supports, none that actually came from her own ministry. Many of those supports are still the supports that don’t actually help the businesses. The minister says that she’s out there listening to the community and to the industry. Is she not hearing what they’re saying? [3:30 p.m.] The COVID-19 impact report clearly articulates that this isn’t about marketing.

That’s not what businesses need to actually survive. Marketing shouldn’t be the focus; rather, financial assistance like grants or lowest- interest loans. Those are the things we’re talking about. They need liquidity. What is the point of tourism mar- keting if there are no companies around or left standing to actually market? By putting the money into marketing, you’ve only addressed the demand side of tourism. So what are your plans to support the supply side of tourism, to ensure that the businesses are still around to serve the tourists?

Now that we are in phase 3, and we’re starting to move about — and, hopefully, one day soon, we’ll be able to start welcom- ing international tourists — what is your plan, Minister, to support these businesses? Hon. L. Beare:I have recognized…. I did with the lead- er of the Green Party as well. I absolutely understand liquidity is important. A number of those supports that I read out did provide liquidity to businesses. For the mem- ber to say they don’t just simply is not accurate. We do understand that liquidity is arguably the number one request coming in from the tourism sector.

We under- stand that, and that is part of the ongoing process of the $1.5 billion. Respectfully to the member, we are working on this. We’re working closely with the tourism sector, and we are listening. D. Clovechok:With the money that was allocated to the DMOs through the MRDT tax, the minister…. If she doesn’t know, she should know, that the allocation to those 59 communities really did nothing but keep the lights on. What is the ministry’s plan to make up those shortfalls to those DMOs that basically have nothing other than to keep the lights on, through the amount of money that was given.

It’s appreciated, but it’s nowhere near enough. Hon. L. Beare:The member is correct that the intent of the funding was so that those organizations were able to keep the lights on and keep their staff employed. This was very important for us, so that those organizations would be ready to welcome visitors to their communities all across the province once we were able to move into phase 3, which we are. The CDMOs were very thankful of that support. We do realize they’re in a difficult position moving forward, as is the entire tourism sector. There’s a lot to address.

So for the CDMOs, some of the work to date being done, again, as with everything with the tourism sector, there is more to do. This has been 16 weeks. There’s a long road ahead of us as well. Today, to date, some of the work that’s been done is the $6 million from Destination Canada that we helped to secure will be divided up amongst the CDMOs — $1.5 million additional funds in co-op marketing has been provided through DBC to the CDMOs. Destination B.C. has shifted their marketing from international to just domestic to drive tourism into the areas and increase the revenues.

This is some of the work being done to date, and we will continue working with the sector. [3:35 p.m.] The Chair:Members, are there any more questions? The member for Parksville-Qualicum. M. Stilwell:Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for being understanding as we navigate this world where we are not working side by side in the same room and work- ing remotely from each other, and recognizing when we can take turns to speak. Obviously, there’s an estimated 70 percent revenue drop in the tourism industry.

Without that direct help from government — be it from the remaining $1.5 billion in COVID relief funding or a tax holiday from the EHT, PST, or some sort of incentive program to get more British 142 Committee of Supply,

Section A Friday, July 10, 2020

Columbians travelling within British Columbia — it’s still looking pretty grim for many of the tourism operators. I’m just wondering if the minister can advise the House what tax relief measures that the minister has advocated for the tourism industry to the Minister of Finance or to the Premier. Hon. L. Beare:As the member knows, I will continue to be a strong advocate for the needs of the tourism industry, including to all of my colleagues. Any tax questions she should be asking the Minister of Finance. I know she’s ask- ing what my advocacy is to the Minister of Finance.

Really, the member just needs to know I continue to advocate and will continue to advocate. I have heard the list of concerns and suggestions from businesses. The members opposite have put forward numerous letters to both myself and to the Premier with their thoughts. They are all part of the mix. So thank you, Member. D. Clovechok:My colleague just got kicked out of the system. She’s going to be coming back. I’ll carry along. I want to talk a little bit about planning. The minister talks about 16 weeks as being a very short period of time. It’s almost like an excuse that it’s been such a short period of time.

My questions are going to come around planning. Quebec, as a good example, just came out with a $750 million program that was going to be spread over two years, and that’s for both supply-and-demand tourism. Alberta has come out with what they call a cooperative investment program. The Atlantic provinces are well into this already. Y et here we are, 16 weeks later, and British Columbia does not have a formal tourism plan. I’ d like to get the minister’s perspective on what’s taking so long, aside from doing surveys, to present a plan to Brit- ish Columbians? Hon. L.

Beare:This is just reframing of a question I’ve already answered. A large part of the piece we are waiting for is the recovery process that’s ongoing. Member, the question is asked and answered, and I’ d love to keep talk- ing about some new subjects, please. D. Clovechok:I would strongly disagree it’s the same question. The question I’m asking is: why has there been no formal plan put forward? Here we are, 16 weeks later — and you can excuse it as you want — saying that it’s ongo- ing. We’re waiting for a survey after 16 weeks. Seriously, the question is simple.

What has your min- istry been doing in terms of putting a plan together over the past 16 weeks, aside from the survey that was just released? Hon. L. Beare:I have addressed this a couple times now. We are continuing to do the work. I have outlined that in previous answers. I’ll outline for the member some of the areas we’re focusing and have been focusing on to date. [3:40 p.m.] We have been focusing on response, recovery and resili- ence. We, as a government, provided the $5 billion in sup- port for businesses across B.C., for families and for people. Relief was an initial part.

We shifted marketing to domest- ic marketing campaigns, so we addressed the immediate needs of where our people could travel. We continue to protect our international spaces and the work being done there, in our international markets, to ensure that when we are in a position to welcome visitors again from outside the country, we will be able to do that. We continue to work closely with the sectors. We work towards recovery and what that looks like. That’s the pro- cess that’s ongoing right now. We continue to work on resi- lience in the tourism sector, as I addressed before in earlier questions.

We continue work on destination development and focusing on building our supply side in the area. Member, this is the same question, and I’m happy to keep giving these answers. Y ou know, 16 weeks is a short amount of time, I’m saying, in the long journey that is a pandemic. We have done a marathon and a sprint all in the same amount of time in those 16 weeks. We still have a long path ahead of us, and tourism is going to be part of that long, long journey. We are continuing to do the work. We will have more information when we know our supports coming out of recovery.

But this is just some of the work that’s ongoing. So to the member: thank you for asking your questions, but we will keep working with the sector directly to address their needs. D. Clovechok:To the minister, this is a couple times that you’ve spoken about the supply side and all the work that the ministry is doing in the supply side of tourism. We would be really interested if she could break down that work and what that actually looks like. I’ll be really hon- est with you.

That’s not what we’re hearing through the multiple regional town halls that we’ve held over the last 16 weeks, and that’s not what we’re hearing from the tour operators. Please share with us what you’ve actually done on the supply side of tourism. Hon. L. Beare:I gave a fulsome answer previously to the leader of the Green Party. I’ll provide some additional information for the member.

We did accelerate our disbursements of the 14 RMI community funding to make sure that we are increasing their capacity and revenues and making sure that they continue to work on the projects, which are supply side, within their communities. We provided $14 million to 150 projects to support eco- nomic development and recreational activities for British Columbians throughout the province. That’s through rur- Friday, July 10, 2020 Committee of Supply,

Section A 143

al community development grants. And 98 of those pro- jects supported tourism destination development initiat- ives totalling almost $9 million — for example, trade net- works, camping grounds, airport expansions, connectivity, cultural centres, signage, tourism master planning. We have active transportation grants providing $9 mil- lion to cost-share 23 infrastructure projects and 21 active transportation network plans provincewide. These devel- op multimodal transportation that benefits visitors and improves destination competitive advantage.

We have the MOG grants as well — community, culture and recreation projects which our government is a part of, rural and northern communities infrastructure grants. In CCR, we did $34.4 million in 39 projects. In RNC, we provided $8.1 million to 15 projects. And 90 percent of these funded projects…. Sport facilities that support our visitors. It’s arts and culture centres, recreation and sport centres, boat launch facilities, First Nation longhouses, art centres, trail systems. We have a cross-government approach to tourism, and we are supporting tourism.

We have our 20 destination development areas that we will continue to focus on and work on in the future. So there’s just a taste, to the member, of some of the supply. [3:45 p.m.] We know that there’s more to do. I will continue saying that to the members. This is to date. We have more to do. This is a long journey, as well, ahead of us, and we will con- tinue working with the sector. D. Clovechok:It is definitely going to be a long journey. That’s certainly something that we can attest to. But from what I’ve understood in some of the projects that you’ve just cited, there’s still no plan.

There is still no formal plan for tourism recovery. So we’ll just leave it at that and read that into the record. Some parts of the industry — like the seasonal operators and guide and wilderness viewing companies or ventures — have few options and very minimal supports from gov- ernment as they do not qualify for federal and/or pro- vincial assistance programs. If you talk to outdoor adven- ture tourism companies, and we certainly have throughout our town halls that we’ve hosted throughout the province, wildlife viewing tours are simply no replacement for those cancelled tours from European or American guests.

We’re talking a lot of potential bankruptcies in the future. How are they supposed to support themselves at this time with no federal or provincial support? What con- sideration has the minister given for these businesses, and what is her plan to support them? Hon. L. Beare:I am meeting with those organizations on an ongoing basis and numerous times over this pan- demic and continue to meet with them and hear from them directly — what they are saying to me directly. Obviously, liquidity is a huge part of that, as I have already addressed in our conversations over this past hour.

We will continue to work with the organizations and put that into the recovery process moving forward. We also continue, just for the member’s knowledge, to bring up liquidity as a key piece of the conversations that we have with our federal government counterparts to ensure that the programs that are being offered through the federal government…. Y ou know, members of those organizations are able to apply for. There have been dif- ficulties with the tourism sector in a number of areas of these programs — the ability to prove lost revenue, those types of issues. There’s been a number of them.

We contin- ue to work with the federal government as well. I understand the member’s concern about the adventure to

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20200710pm CommitteeA n8
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20200710pm CommitteeA n8
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3ed25022db37ade2fe0906857eea4334d78f07a6

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