Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS

(HANSARD)

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY,

SECTION A

Virtual Meeting

Friday, July 10, 2020

Afternoon Meeting

Issue No. 8

ISSN 2563-3511

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Committee of Supply

Proceedings in

Section A

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

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-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

traditional 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 federal Minister of Small Business, on behalf of the

Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, in August 2019 at

the Sun Yat-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 infrastructure 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 destination 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 counterparts, 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 minister 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 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 regulation 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 government

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 responsible 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 Minister 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 recommendation of 21 Chinese heritage sites into this now

repealed Chinese-Canadian heritage properties regulation, 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 responsibilities here. I don’t have

details in front of me of that. I’m not the minister responsible for the

legislation. I absolutely 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 cannot say that she

has nothing to do with the repeal of this regulation, as she co-signed

an order-in-council on February 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 anywhere, but I

want to put it on record that, as the minister responsible for

multiculturalism, she has every responsibility to talk to her colleague

about at least having a consultation 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 heritage

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 Columbians 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 regulation. 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. 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: Yes, 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, government is going through a process

to allocate those $1.5 billion. The Premier and the Minister of Finance

announced this at the end of June. We are going, ourselves as ministers,

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 allocated 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 government and what submissions go

forward. But the process 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 subject.

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

multicultural 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 British

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 established 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

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 government, 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.

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 important, 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: Yes. 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 minister

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 professional 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 spending 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 multiculturalism 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 programming 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 provider 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

participate 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 applications, 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.

You 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 multiculturalism

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 program 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 Parliamentary 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 2019.

But there was no government release that listed the communities or any

information about the former parliamentary secretary’s tour, other than

what he himself posted 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 consultation. 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 program. 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 community visits was blurred.

On September 10, 2018, in response to a question asking the former

Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism to name the forestry

communities that he visited, he responded: “I was in Prince George, Fort

St. James, Mackenzie, Quesnel, Williams Lake, 100 Mile, Clearwater,

village of Clinton, Merritt, Cranbrook and Castlegar over the last three

weeks.”

Cranbrook was visited by the former parliamentary secretary 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 conversations 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 government 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

unveiling 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 waiting,

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 monument is the wish of not only the Chinese-Canadian

community 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. You 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 ministry should get on top of it and make sure that this is

happening.

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 cannot afford to wait.

This particular project was started way before this government

took power. It doesn’t make sense that three years afterwards the

minister is telling this House and British Columbians and the

Chinese-Canadian community: “Well, just wait. It will be coming.” When

will it be coming? 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 supporters, 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 monument 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 minister 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 Chinatown, 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 multiculturalism, 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 critic 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 inviting 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 minister did otherwise?

Hon. L. Beare: This was the Premier’s town hall. He co-hosted it himself with

Minister Kang, alongside the members 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 multiculturalism 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 public on systemic

racism. How come the opposition multiculturalism critic, who is a former

multiculturalism minister 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 comment 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 partisan. 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 virtual 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

clarification.

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 multiculturalism. 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

multiculturalism at the cabinet table.

Could the minister advise this House the line of authority 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 government. 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 estimates. It’s because the budget has remained intact.

That was the smoothest possible option. And the Minister of Citizens’

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 Minister 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’ Services 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 Tourism, 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 responsible 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. You have two ministers who are

strong advocates for multiculturalism 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 Citizens’ 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 experience, either. I truly don’t understand it. It’s confusing to

the general public.

This Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture is controlling the

budget. She makes all the calls, and the Minister 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 anything 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 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 collaborative. 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 transition. 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 multiculturalism 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 questions 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 minister 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 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 previous

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 Vancouver 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 purposely 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 absolutely no indication that this is not

happening. You know, this is part of the ongoing work. So the member’s

speculation 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 completed? Not even any piece of detail?

That’s why I think we need the Minister of Citizens’ Services to

respond to this question.

The Chair: Member, the minister has answered these lines of questioning.

Do you have another line of questioning 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 government, in the

absence of any plans for the Chinese-Canadian 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 professionalism, 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 members for Parksville-Qualicum and

Columbia River–Revelstoke, 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…. You’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 continue, meaning that those

communities become committed 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 — primarily 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, 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 Minister 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 communities 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’s Calls 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 forward 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 government

is working with the tourism industry, working on a tourism recovery

plan. The minister suggested, similarly, that she’s been listening to

and working with the tourism sector.

Many of the responses to questions that I and my colleagues in the

official opposition have been asking to this ministry and to other

ministries have always been…. Well, the response has been: “You know,

dealing with the COVID-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 sector — that are expressing

deep frustration at the direction of the funds going to marketing when

the businesses 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 tourism

businesses on the supply side of the business?

Hon. L. Beare: The member kind of asked two questions 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, absolutely, 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. You know, we provided the $10 million in

additional funds to CDMOs to ensure that they’re ready to welcome

visitors 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 specifically, and I agree. We recognize

that to grow and sustain tourism, you have to do both. You 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 positioned.

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 pricing, 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

culmination 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 Destination 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…. Destination 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 marketing 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 Columbians 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 sentence. 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 disconnected. 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 communities 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 talking 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. Yet 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 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 realities of

tourism?

Hon. L. Beare: The short answer to the member is: yes, they will. Both the

strategic framework within my ministry and DBC’s strategic corporate

plan continue to be the foundation for which the work has been done in

the ministry. But they definitely need to be updated.

You know, even without the impacts of COVID-19, you would want to

update your strategic plans. But it’s important 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 Columbians 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

summer, 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 marketing 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, usually, in general.

There is work ongoing and being done, and Destination B.C.

received an additional $6 million, as well, for marketing 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 support 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 portion 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 minister that normally I

wouldn’t complain about. The minister 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 message has been very, very

consistent from sector leaders of what’s needed to happen, what’s needed

in order for support for the industry.

We approved $1.5 billion of recovery money months ago. I was in

the Legislature and approved and was part 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 sectors 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 tragic 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 consultations 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. You 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 support 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 opportunity, and we developed a

program with go2HR and created 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 sector

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 pandemic 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 British 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 crippling 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 payments 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 process. We’re trying to

review and understand the impacts 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

temporary 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 pandemic? If they did receive any funds, how

are those funds allocated within the various departments within the

ministry?

Hon. L. Beare: The fiscal plan remains intact. In addition, 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: Yes, 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 organizations, within a week.

The Chair: The minister is indicating yes to that, Member.

M. Stilwell: When we look at the key service plan targets for the ministry,

what has been changed, or has anything 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 Columbia 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 pandemic 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 revenues, based on the

attendance levels, of course. We’re working with PavCo to assess what

the impacts are for cancellations 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. You mentioned 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 pandemic broke out. One would think that

that strategic planning is all ready to roll out.

Hon. L. Beare: I had previously referred to Destination B.C.’s corporate strategy

and our tourism strategic framework. 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 responding 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 specific

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 continue to work with the sector

very closely. We’ve been having that conversation, and we will be

updating our tourism 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.

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 sector.

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 government, 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 consistent. The situation is getting worse day by day.

The tourism operators expect some kind of relief, some kind of financial

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 tourism. 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

businesses, which includes tourism businesses.

We provided the $1,000 B.C. emergency benefit for workers. We

provided a temporary rent supplement, freezing rents and ensuring no one

is evicted as part of COVID-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 preventing 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 service to house

essential service workers and returning residents in vulnerable

populations, allowing them to continue 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 sector to

increase patrons while maintaining social distancing.

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 advocate for more support,

federal funding and improved program 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 accelerating

disbursements of the 14 resort municipality initiative 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 organizations 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 happening 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 marketing 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 welcoming

international tourists — what is your plan, Minister, to support these

businesses?

Hon. L. Beare: I have recognized…. I did with the leader 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

member 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 understand 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 working 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

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 asking 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. Yet 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 British

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 talking 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

ongoing. We’re waiting for a survey after 16 weeks.

Seriously, the question is simple. What has your ministry 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 resilience. We, as

a government, provided the $5 billion in support for businesses across

B.C., for families and for people. Relief was an initial part. We

shifted marketing to domestic 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 process that’s ongoing

right now. We continue to work on resilience 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. You 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 honest

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 economic

development and recreational activities for British Columbians

throughout the province. That’s through rural community development

grants. And 98 of those projects supported tourism destination

development initiatives totalling almost $9 million — for example, trade

networks, camping grounds, airport expansions, connectivity, cultural

centres, signage, tourism master planning.

We have active transportation grants providing $9 million to

cost-share 23 infrastructure projects and 21 active transportation

network plans provincewide. These develop 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 continue 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 government as they do not qualify for federal

and/or provincial assistance programs. If you talk to outdoor adventure

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 consideration 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 pandemic 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…. You know, members of

those organizations are able to apply for. There have been difficulties

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 continue to work with the federal government as

well.

I understand the member’s concern about the adventure tourism

sector. They have been extraordinarily hard hit in this. We are working

with them directly. I am speaking with them directly. We will continue

to work with them and try to identify and address their needs through

the recovery process.

The Chair: Member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, I’ll ask you for one

more question, and then we’ll be taking a recess after the minister

has responded.

D. Clovechok: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that.

We do agree on one thing. Liquidity is an issue for all tourism

businesses and operators today. The minister just said that she’s

meeting with adventure tourism operators on an ongoing basis. If the

minister could take a minute and just explain some of the outcomes of

those conversations and what solutions that her ministry has offered to

these folks in those industries that would give them some reflection of

hope for the oncoming months.

Hon. L. Beare: There are a number of pieces I could pull off the list that I read

into the record before, but it’s on record. It’s in there.

If the member is asking if there has been a specific adventure

tourism package created, no, there hasn’t been — not yet, to date. There

is the recovery process that we’re going for. We know that the tourism

sector is very hard hit. We know all the concerns that the sector is

bringing forward. We’re feeding that into the process, and we will do

our best to address as many concerns as we can from the tourism

sector.

The Chair: Members, this committee will now recess for ten minutes. We’ll

resume at 4 p.m.

The committee recessed from 3:50 p.m. to 4 p.m.

[R. Kahlon in the chair.]

D. Clovechok: The minister has been talking today about open meetings and

relationships she has with her federal counterparts, which is good. But

I would like the minister to explain to us if she’s been an advocate for

federal dollars. I know that both Quebec and the Atlantic provinces just

received, I think it was, around $47 million in that area. Why has

British Columbia received none of that, and what is she doing to rectify

that?

Hon. L. Beare: Yes, our government works very collaboratively with the federal

government on a wide range of issues, including supports for tourism. We

were able to secure some supports from the federal government in early

June, which helped our tourism operators and workers in communities all

across the province, through the Tourism Resiliency Network.

We are working very closely with our federal counterparts to

ensure that B.C. receives additional support and its share of federal

dollars. I’m confident that the federal government appreciates that and

will continue to recognize the importance of tourism here in B.C. The

western ministers and I had a call with Minister Joly on Thursday to

discuss this specific issue, and I have another call with the minister

next week, so we continue.

The question was: can I assure the member that I have been

advocating? Yes, I have, and yes, I will continue.

D. Clovechok: So to this date, then, nothing.

One of the questions to the minister that we’ve heard throughout

our town halls, which were many town halls over the last 16 weeks, is

the absolute frustration from the tourism industry that on the Premier’s

economic recovery task force, there has been nobody on that task force

from the tourism industry. I would like the minister to tell this House

today why that is.

Hon. L. Beare: Tourism is very thoroughly represented on that council. There’s

representation of the Business Council of B.C., the B.C. Chamber of

Commerce, the Vancouver and Surrey boards of trade, which very broadly

represent the interests of the business communities all across our

province, including the tourism sector.

There’s no individual business sector that is singled out on the

Premier’s council. The broad business sector is represented. Tourism is

represented by all the organizations that I just mentioned. The Premier

and Minister James and I just held a specific roundtable on June 30. I

hosted a virtual meeting. The Premier and the Minister of Finance and I

hosted a roundtable discussion about tourism and how we’ll build a

recovery together.

[4:05 p.m.]

D. Clovechok: It would seem to me that the sector of business in the province of

British Columbia, which generates $20.5 billion to GNP in this province,

should not be looked upon as a broad base and that someone is

representing them. Again, I think it’s really a shame, to be honest with

you, that tourism was not considered to sit on that economic recovery

group.

I would like to know from the minister if she will go ahead and

advocate to the Premier immediately for someone to be put on to that

task force.

Hon. L. Beare: The ministers task force is already chosen. It has been meeting

and ongoing for months now. I’m confident that the tourism sector is

represented through all the business organizations that I

indicated.

I’m confident in the work that I am doing, as the minister, to be

out there engaging with the community and to make sure I am hearing

their concerns directly, as well as the Premier and the Minister of

Finance. We are all out there having these conversations.

I thank the member for the concerns. I will continue to do the

hard work in engaging with the sector.

D. Clovechok: From your answer there, I’m just going to make an assumption,

then, that the Premier’s economic task force is a closed shop, with no

opportunities for anyone else to participate, even though they would

like to participate.

Hon. L. Beare: The member is free to ask that question to the Premier.

D. Clovechok: I think we’re running out of time here, which is a shame. We could

go for a while on this.

Tourism in B.C. will look different than it’s looked since World

War II. There has never been anything like this before. It’s

unprecedented. In the impact that it’s going to have, it’s never needed

leadership more than it needs it now.

Frankly, this government and this minister should have done

better, and they should have acted faster. There’s a stark, stark lack

of leadership here. Frankly, I think this government is devoid of help

in this industry. It cared, seemingly, more about securing an NHL hockey

team in Vancouver. There was absolutely zero chance of that ever

happening, but they spent time and effort on that. In doing so, they

spent time on that and ignored guide-outfitters, fishing lodges and all

the people that are actually being hurt so desperately and needing help

in this province.

There’s no guarantee of consumer travel here. Consumer confidence

is not high. No matter what the statistics will tell you — I know; I

live in a tourism community — those tourism numbers are down.

I think it’s going to be a rough road. Without a plan…. That’s

what we’ve discovered here today. Whether it be multiculturalism,

whether it be tourism, there’s absolutely no long-term plan, after 16

weeks of being into this pandemic. The minister and the government,

quite frankly, need to do better.

I turn it over to my colleague for any other comments that she

has.

The Chair: I see the member shaking her head. No more

comments.

Are there any other members that have questions?

Seeing no further questions, can I ask the minister if she

would like to make any closing remarks before we call the

vote?

Hon. L. Beare: To the members and to all the members of the tourism sector across

British Columbia, I absolutely understand and my entire ministry and our

government understand how deeply impacted tourism has been by the

COVID-19 pandemic. We know the devastating impact it’s had on businesses

and families across the sector.

We have done a bunch of work to date and have worked incredibly

closely with the sector. We will continue to do the work, moving

forward.

Just for the member’s knowledge, on some previous comments. I do

have different parts of my ministry, some that work on sport and some

that work on tourism. We are able to do two things at once, which is a

good thing.

[4:10 p.m.]

We are going to continue to work very closely with the tourism

sector as we move towards recovery, now that we are on phase 3 and we

are able to move a little more freely across the province. I appreciate

the members’ concerns and their passion for the tourism

sector.

I want to thank all my staff who are here before me and virtually

for the assistance today but mainly thank them for the incredible work

that they have done during this COVID-19 pandemic — everybody has been

working full tilt — and all the staff and team at Destination B.C. for

all the hard work they’ve done as well.

Vote 42: ministry operations, $155,323,000 — approved.

The Chair: We’re going to take a two-minute recess. So please hold

on.

The committee recessed from 4:11 p.m. to 4:20 p.m.

[R. Kahlon in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

CITIZENS’

SERVICES

On Vote 20: ministry operations, $551,650,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. A. Kang: First of all, hi. Good afternoon to everyone. It is certainly a

great honour to be here today.

We have the great privilege to be gathered on the territory of the

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people,

including the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

I am honoured to be here today to speak on the ministry’s

estimates for the 2020-2021 fiscal year. I’m joined by Deputy Minister

Jill Kot as well as our ADM of corporate services and EFO Dean

Skinner.

Every day our staff dedicates themselves to making life better and

easier for people in B.C. Our team is on the front lines, helping people

access government programs at 65 Service B.C. centres and through the

Service B.C. contact centre. We’re charting government’s path into the

digital age and creating more ways for people and businesses to interact

with us securely online.

In fact, earlier this week, we announced a new feature for the

mobile B.C. Services Card. People now have two ways to activate a mobile

card: sending a video or making a live video call. The mobile version of

the B.C. Services Card helps people access services quickly, safely and

securely online.

We also maintain government’s IT network, including email, remote

access, video conferencing and other essential tools. Citizens’ Services

staff are government’s 24-7 defence against cyberattacks.

Our staff provides guidance to public servants on protecting

people’s personal information and storing records properly. Ministry

staff investigate information breaches and run the vital

freedom-of-information program. Our ministry is also responsible for

managing approximately 1,800 properties around the province. When it

comes to connectivity, we work hard to encourage the expansion of

high-speed internet in rural and Indigenous communities through our

Connecting B.C. program.

On top of it all, we’re also making meaningful improvements to the

way government purchases goods and services with B.C.’s first-ever

procurement strategy. This is a massive undertaking that involves around

$7 billion in spending every year. It maximizes opportunities for small

and medium-sized businesses while also creating social, environmental

and economic benefits for people.

Our ministry has had a key role in government’s response to

COVID-19. The arrival of COVID-19 really showed what our ministry is

made of as Citizens’ Services, and the first thing we did was to make

sure people had access to the information they needed. We created the

COVID-19 phone line to help relieve pressure from 811. We’ve been

providing daily updates to the province’s COVID-19 website.

[4:25 p.m.]

Our ministry is also providing support for other growing needs

during this time. We’re temporarily allowing access to new software

tools to help essential services respond to people’s urgent needs during

the COVID-19 pandemic. We are also helping procure PPE and hand

sanitizer and are working to establish a logistics warehouse in Metro

Vancouver. We continue to provide staff to assist with travel screening

and welcoming people back to British Columbia.

I also want to emphasize how important it is that we are doing the

good work that we are doing right now. I want to emphasize how proud I

am of the team at Citizens’ Services. Their positive attitude, expert

guidance and tireless dedication in making life better for the people of

British Columbia has resulted in a meaningful and powerful response to

one of the greatest crises we have. While the work is far from done, the

efforts of Citizens’ Services staff have helped flatten the

curve.

We continue to support people and their families through this

difficult time. As we move forward to a new normal, I know that the

people at Citizens’ Services will continue to go above and

beyond.

With that, I am pleased to take questions.

S. Thomson: Good afternoon, everybody. I appreciate the opportunity to begin

the estimates for the Ministry of Citizens’ Services.

Firstly, I want to congratulate the minister on her appointment to

this position and let her know that we fully understand the importance

of this ministry with its direct interface with so many of our citizens

in British Columbia. A very, very important role and important ministry,

and one that sometimes, or in a lot of cases, flies under the radar in

terms of the things that they do and they support. So I’m hoping, during

our process here, that we can bring some of this out.

Just to let the minister know, we will be sharing the questions

with my colleague MLA Stewart, who is the co-critic for the ministry.

Hopefully, we can manage that. We will be having a couple of

interventions from a couple of colleagues, probably just around or after

five o’clock. We’ve scheduled those, and we’ll let you know when that

intervention is going to come. They’ll have a few questions each — just

a couple of the colleagues at that time.

To let the minister know our schedule, we’re going to spend the

first part of questions on budget issues and general operational issues

— COVID impacts and those kinds of areas around the budget. Then move

into connectivity and the connectivity programming and agenda. Then into

privacy and the privacy issues — cybersecurity concerns. Then some

questions around Service B.C. and its operations. Then we will have a

section or an area around the FOI responsibilities of the

ministry.

Our anticipation is that, given the time that we’ve got today —

with, essentially, a couple of hours here for today — some of this will

move over to the 16th when we return to estimates. So our anticipation

is that the FOI portion of our questions would not take place until we

return on the 16th. So if there are specific FOI staff that you have

waiting and available, we probably…. In fact, I know we won’t be getting

to those today, so some people might be able to sneak home just a little

bit earlier today, on a Friday afternoon.

[4:30 p.m.]

That’s the agenda. We look forward to getting the questions

started. I appreciate the minister’s opening comments.

We had a technical briefing from your staff — we really appreciate

having that opportunity — and went through a lot of the budget ’20-21

that was tabled. I think it was very clear in that discussion, as has

been the case in other estimates, that the budget tabled is not the

budget that the ministry is, and will be, operating with. There are

going to be significant changes to the line items and to the operational

areas of the ministry as a result of the role and the response to

COVID.

The first question. During the technical briefing with your staff,

we were advised that there are a lot of costs and fiscal pressures on

your ministry in terms of responding to the COVID pandemic. I’m

wondering if the minister initially, to begin with, could advise where

those cost pressures are — the divisions or the operational areas that

are facing the most significant fiscal challenges in responding in terms

of the budget — and if she could quantify those cost pressures to

date.

We’ve had a quarter — April, May and June. Given the fact that

there has been significant engagement with the Ministry of Finance on

this, it would be our understanding that those cost pressures are known,

identified and quantified at this point. That would be our opening

question. If the minister could provide some comments and some

information there, in terms of cost pressures and fiscal pressures on

the divisions, and quantify those if she can.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: The pandemic happened in the last fiscal year, 2019-2020. So all

COVID costs were ab­sorbed last year.

For 2020-2021, the ministry is working closely with the Ministry

of Finance to ensure that costs related to the COVID-19 response are

managed within government’s overall fiscal plan. Costs incurred by

Citizens’ Services will be a combination of costs recoverable from other

ministries and those funded within the Citizens’ Services voted

appropriation. Citizens’ Services will continue to work with the

Ministry of Finance to monitor COVID-19-related costs throughout the

fiscal year.

S. Thomson: Yes, recognizing that there were some costs incurred in the

previous fiscal year, based on the timing of the start of the pandemic,

I wonder if the minister — just in terms of one part of this question; I

know it’s not in these estimates — would have an indication what that

amount was that had to be absorbed within the ministry’s general

operating for that current fiscal year.

Then the second part. Going forward, you’ve said that some of it

will be cost-recoverable, that some of it might have to come from voted

appropriations and that some may come from government’s overall fiscal

response. That’s a general answer. It doesn’t answer the question around

quantifying those amounts at this point and the question of where,

within the operating divisions, those cost pressures are being

incurred.

If you have to absorb them within operating portions of your

ministry, which are the ones that are facing the most significant

impacts? Can you quantify the amounts? To this point, you’ve said that

you’re monitoring them. There are active discussions with the Ministry

of Finance. If they’re being monitored, they must be known, even if it’s

obviously not a final total, for sure. This is an evolving situation,

but if you’re monitoring them, you should be able to have an estimate,

by the key divisions within your ministry, of those impacts on a

quantified basis.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: The costs incurred in 2019-2020 that were absorbed were $700,000.

We’re currently tracking what we’ve been spending right now, and it’s a

work in progress.

I just wanted to say that right now the pandemic is still going.

It’s only been three months into this fiscal year. So we are working

through this as we are speaking right now. We’re working with ministries

on what we can recover from them and also figuring out what we can

absorb.

Finally, I just wanted to emphasize, again, that we’re working

with Finance to estimate the remainder.

B. Stewart: My colleague’s computer has been giving him technical

difficulties. So I’m going to take our next question.

Thank you, Minister, for that response. You may have had some

impacts prior to your fiscal year-end. While not the direct focus of

these estimates, we’re just wondering about impacts on services and

programming, especially with the shutdown of the province in the middle

of March that may have curtailed an order to deal with this, whether

it’s hiring, employee replacement, capital investment or systems

upgrading.

Can you tell us about the impacts of COVID just on that tail end

of the last fiscal?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: For last fiscal year, I’m very happy to report that there was no

impact on operations.

S. Thomson: My apologies for whatever technical issue just happened.

Hopefully, it doesn’t happen again.

Just going back to the line of questioning previously…. Thank you

to the minister for the answer around the last fiscal year, recognizing

that it didn’t have an impact on operations and things. But again, we

know the situation is continuing. We know it’s evolving. But the core of

our question…. This has been a theme through the other estimates, where

ministers have not been forthcoming in terms of being able to provide us

with quantifiable or specific information on the fiscal impacts of the

current situation on their ministry operations to date.

With all the information that is in the discussions and the

briefings, and even in the direction from the Minister of Finance that

ministers are accountable vis-à-vis this funding, these amounts, it’s

our view that at this point they should be able to provide the

information on two things: where the major cost impacts are in the core

operations of the ministry — and the minister outlined, in her opening

comments, all the various work that Citizens’ Services is doing in

helping respond to the COVID crisis — and an estimate, to date, of those

costs.

The minister has said that they’re monitoring them — monitoring

means calculating and knowing what those numbers are — and that there

are ongoing discussions with the Minister of Finance and ongoing

discussions with other ministries in terms of looking for some

recoveries of those costs. So in terms of recovering costs, you must

know what those costs are that you’re trying to recover from other

ministries, if you are.

Again, the question would be: could the minister provide the

information on the key areas where the cost impacts are occurring and a

quantity, or a quantitative number, in terms of what those specific

impacts are? I think it’s important to get a sense of where those

impacts are, what the numbers are. And if there’s not recovery from the

other ministries, depending on how they’re being impacted, and in the

allocation of funding from the COVID response funding…. There are

obviously lots of pressures on that.

It is important for us to know that if the ministry has to absorb

a good portion or some of those costs, in quantifying those, then it has

the potential for impact on operations and services currently provided

by the ministry. The numbers that are in the current ’20-21 budget that

was tabled are obviously going to be significantly different than the

ones that we will be seeing when accounts are provided.

[4:50 p.m.]

It’s clear that the budget that was tabled is not the numbers that

are going to be there for the specific ministries unless there’s a

direct offset of everything that was being incurred that wasn’t planned

on pre-COVID.

Hon. A. Kang: A lot of the responses that Citizens’ Services had during COVID-19

are within existing operations. We have made several purchases. For

example, things such as cleaning supplies and PPE, some technology to

support remote work, as well as building the COVID-19 website and the

call centre.

[4:55 p.m.]

The items that we purchased and the things that we did were on

behalf of government. Some of these items will be recovered by the

ministries.

To give an example of how we are operating within the budget, we

have 65 Service B.C.s around British Columbia, and we remained open

during this time. It wasn’t doing anything different. We just pivoted to

a different way of offering services to make sure that all citizens are

supported during this time.

The long answer short is that a lot of our responses were done

during COVID-19 and were within existing operations.

S. Thomson: I get the sense that we’re not going to get the specific,

quantifiable answers to this.

The technical briefing advised us that there were significant cost

pressures on components of the ministry. What I’m hearing from the

minister is either one of two things. One is that she is saying that

it’s all going to be absorbed within the existing operating budget as

tabled in 2021, which would lead to the conclusion that there is going

to have to be some impact on services and operations of the ministry

because the budget was provided prior to COVID. Or they’re counting on

recoveries and a share of the COVID response fund.

Can I ask the minister: has there been any allocation of the

notional allocation of the COVID response funds, the $1.5 billion that

is currently left in the COVID response funds, to the ministry? Has

there been any allocation, any notional allocation, and if there has,

how much of that money has currently been spent?

Hon. A. Kang: The $1.5 billion economic restart fund…. The process has just been

announced by the Premier. So t