Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, June 16, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 96

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2021

Hon. M. Farnworth

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Q’waxsem Place and support by Carihi Secondary School students and staff

M. Babchuk

Rachel Shepard volunteer work and western toads project

J. Sturdy

Surrey-Cloverdale community stars bursary program and recipients

M. Starchuk

Guidance for graduates of 2021

J. Tegart

Lori Greyell and community gardens in Port Moody

R. Glumac

Mining industry and Blackwater project in Prince George area

T. Shypitka

Oral Questions

Activation of Aboriginal Affairs Committee

S. Bond

Hon. M. Rankin

E. Ross

Oil and gas industry royalties and status of LNG industry

S. Furstenau

Hon. B. Ralston

COVID-19 relief grant eligibility for Royal Canadian Legion branches and ANAVETS club

B. Banman

Hon. R. Kahlon

Anchor attractions program funding for Pacific National Exhibition

T. Stone

Hon. M. Mark

Petitions

C. Oakes

Tabling Documents

Speculation and vacancy tax, annual report, 2019 tax year

B.C. Arts Council, annual report, 2020-21

Report pursuant to the COVID-19 Related Measures Act regarding Ministerial Order

M242/2021, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor

General

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier (continued)

S. Bond

Hon. J. Horgan

T. Stone

T. Wat

M. de Jong

P. Milobar

S. Cadieux

S. Furstenau

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

Hon. A. Dix

R. Merrifield

T. Stone

J. Sturdy

T. Wat

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued)

M. Lee

C. Oakes

Hon. R. Fleming

L. Doerkson

J. Rustad

D. Davies

M. Bernier

I. Paton

T. Halford

G. Kyllo

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 2021

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: J. Tegart.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Whiteside: I have to say it is such an honour and a pleasure today to rise in

this House to celebrate the birthday of a wonderful member of our New

Westminster community, Eileen Glavin, who turns 100 years old

today.

Born in England to Irish parents in 1921, Eileen has led a remarkable

life. She worked in the RAF as a code breaker for the Bletchley project

during the Second World War. She then emigrated to Vancouver in 1957,

raising four sons as a single mother and taking in many of her sons’ friends

along the way. She then worked for a rabbi’s family in Vancouver, helping to

raise their nine children.

Eileen has been a treasured member of the community, always active in

New West. She sang with the choir at Century House, always has a smile on

her face and is beloved by her family and her community.

Would the House please join me in wishing Eileen a very happy 100th

birthday.

T. Shypitka: Not so much an introduction but, more or less, a recognition of great

service. My beloved constituency assistant Heather Smith will be retiring on

June 25. I often referred to Heather as my boss to many people, because she

was just that. She kept me on time. She kept me organized, and if anybody

knows me personally, that’s a pretty tall order.

She was my constituency assistant right from day one, when I was

elected in 2017. Before that, she was my predecessor Bill Bennett’s

constituency assistant from 2013.

Before that, Heather had a long career. She worked 31 years with

Service B.C. She’s very well respected in our community. Everybody loves

Heather. She’s a fountain of information, always happy to help anybody that

comes through the door no matter what your political stripe — the way it

should be. She’s going to be sorely missed.

She and my part-time assistant, Christy Wheeldon, will both be

retiring, Actually, Christy has already left.

I want to just really recognize all of the hard work they’ve done over

the years. We all love them. I just want to let the House know this and join

me in sending them a really big thank-you for all of the work that they’ve

done.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Mr. Speaker, I encourage this Legislature to send a hearty

congratulations to graduating students in Nanaimo from Vancouver Island

University, Nanaimo District Secondary School, Tsawalk Learning Centre,

Wellington Secondary School, the career technical centre, Island ConnectEd,

Nanaimo Christian School, Vast Centre and Dover Bay.

These are extraordinary graduating students entering their next

chapter at an extraordinary time. Please join me in extending our

congratulations.

A. Olsen: After a little break yesterday, I want to introduce Fred and Lesley

Mussett today. They’ll be joining us in question period.

They’ve shared their story with me, yet another family that is part of

the Holding Hope group. The story of their daughter Heather, who is 33 years

old and is almost living in the Vancouver Downtown Eastside.

Her story took a turn when her doctor refused to continue prescribing

the medication that she needed to keep her anxiety at bay. She began

self-medicating with street drugs and is now addicted to heroin and

fentanyl.

In February of 2020, Fred and Lesley’s life took a turn. They were

called by the hospital. They thought the news was the worst news that they

could possibly hear — that their daughter had succumbed to her addiction.

Instead, they learned that their daughter had been pregnant. They now have a

lovely granddaughter they’re raising whose name is Hope.

Today I think, like the days of the past that I have been introducing

these stories, that it’s important to acknowledge that they continue to flow

in, and they’re all around us.

Today we keep Fred and Lesley in our thoughts, as we have every family

that has shared their story with us.

[1:40 p.m.]

M. Dykeman: I have two very brief introductions.

The first one. I was wondering if the House could please join me in

wishing John Kromhoff, a constituent of mine…. It is his 100th birthday. If

the House could join me in congratulating him on this very special

birthday.

My second introduction. I wanted to know if the House could please

join me in congratulating all of the graduates from Langley schools this

year on this incredible achievement.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — INSURANCE (VEHICLE)

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. M. Farnworth presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act,

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I am pleased to introduce Bill 12, the Insurance (Vehicle)

Amendment Act, 2021. The bill makes several amendments to the Insurance

(Vehicle) Act related to the new enhanced care insurance model to

address technical issues identified during the drafting of the enhanced

care regulations and to address litigation that would undermine the

efficacy of our public vehicle insurance system.

This bill also amends the Motor Vehicle Act.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill 12, Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2021, introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Q’WAXSEM PLACE AND SUPPORT BY

CARIHI SECONDARY SCHOOL

STUDENTS AND STAFF

M. Babchuk: I’d like to share with you a story of how one young person, driven

by kindness, compassion and acceptance, brought together hundreds of

people to make a difference in his community. On February 5, I had the

privilege of attending the opening of Q’waxsem Place, a 50-unit, fully

serviced supportive housing development that offers a safe and secure

home for the community’s most vulnerable.

Q’waxsem Place is a beautifully designed facility that was created

out of a partnership between the city of Campbell River, the Vancouver

Island Mental Health Society and B.C. Housing. During its development

stage, many residents voiced their concerns about the project —

proximity to nearby schools, risk to children, potential increase in

crime and impact on property values.

One young man didn’t understand why there was so much negativity

around this project and wanted to lend his support. Trent Perras, a

grade 12 student at Carihi Secondary School, took the initiative,

prepared a presentation and communicated to his classmates and teachers

why he believed that this project was so important to its community, the

residents and the facility.

As it turned out, he was not alone. Together, more than 300

students and teachers created and signed a poster welcoming their

neighbours. Trent and fellow grade 12 student Heidi Schulte walked over

to Q’waxsem Place and presented the poster to the residents, some of

whom had been unhoused for a decade. This simple gesture warmed their

hearts and gave them that feeling of acceptance.

This is a shining example of how important it is to open our

hearts and our minds to accept people for who they are and where they

are at in their lives. It demonstrates how one small gesture can make

such a big difference. And isn’t it wonderful that these young people

are going to be the leaders going forward in the future?

Would this House please join me in recognizing Trent Perras, the

staff and students of Carihi Secondary School for making people feel

welcome and demonstrating what it means to be part of a

community.

RACHEL SHEPARD VOLUNTEER WORK

AND WESTERN TOADS

PROJECT

J. Sturdy: In British Columbia, we’re fortunate to benefit from hundreds of

dedicated groups and individuals who donate their time and efforts to

provincial parks and protected areas across our province. The annual

B.C. Parks Volunteer Awards are an effort to recognize volunteers who go

above and beyond in their contributions.

[1:45 p.m.]

This year B.C. Parks has chosen to recognize a Squamish resident,

Rachel Shepard, as provincial Volunteer of the Year for her outstanding

work as project coordinator of the Alice Lake western toad monitoring

project. The endeavour is an ongoing citizen science project, in

collaboration with B.C. Parks and the Squamish Environmental Society,

that monitors western toads in Alice Lake Provincial Park.

The project seeks to reduce human impacts on toad populations by

informing B.C. Parks and the public of their vulnerable breeding and

migration seasons.

Rachel has donated an extraordinary amount of time and effort

since she became project coordinator in 2019. She has excelled in her

role, coordinating with volunteers, B.C. Parks and the media, conducting

field surveys and writing detailed and informative reports for B.C.

Parks using scientific protocols.

While Rachel is not a trained biologist, her curiosity and devoted

research have allowed her to contribute insights that have greatly

improved the scientific aspects of the project.

The western toad is a federally listed species of special concern

and is yellow-listed in British Columbia. A similar research project

undertaken in Whistler has allowed the municipality to better inform the

public about mitigating human disruption of toads in that

region.

I congratulate Rachel Shepard on her award and her outstanding

contribution to protecting local ecosystems.

I’m sure the House will join me in acknowledging her and all of

the other award recipients and nominees around the province and the many

volunteers whose dedication and commitment are vital to the stewardship

of our parks.

SURREY-CLOVERDALE COMMUNITY STARS

BURSARY PROGRAM AND

RECIPIENTS

M. Starchuk: Today I stand virtually to announce the inaugural

Surrey-Cloverdale MLA Starchuk’s community stars bursary

program.

With the assistance of the Surrey Fire Fighters Charitable

Society, we were able to create three community-based bursaries, one for

each of the three high schools in my riding. These bursaries are awarded

to the students that are active in their schools and

communities.

Students graduating in 2021, during the pandemic, will have years

to embellish the stories of their high school days. We have all endured

the stories of our parents and grandparents, when they told us they had

to walk ten miles to school each day in the snow, in their bare feet,

looking for cow pies to warm their frozen toes. Of course, it was uphill

in both directions.

To all of you that are graduating in B.C. this year, be prepared

to explain to your children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews just

exactly what Zoom was and how it felt every time your teacher called you

out and said: “You’re on mute.”

With the help of Aaron Cyr and the Surrey Fire Fighters Charitable

Society, we were able to find three outstanding community stars, and

they are as follows.

Joanne Dahyeon Park from École Salish Secondary has over 950 hours

of volunteer experience in the community and with her church. She’ll be

studying kinesiology at UBC in the fall.

Adam Pederson of Lord Tweedsmuir Secondary is the school’s

valedictorian. He was on the student and grad councils. He was a PE

school leader, and in the community, he volunteered at the Ocean

Athletics Track Club and the neighbourhood art studio. Adam would like

to become a doctor.

Animesh Loura is from Clayton Heights Secondary and is an active

member in his religious and cultural community and a member of his

school’s robotics team. Not surprisingly, Animesh will be attending the

faculty of engineering at the University of Victoria in

September.

Would the House join me in sending congratulations to these

community stars, as the bright future that they have is in front of

them.

GUIDANCE FOR GRADUATES OF 2021

J. Tegart: It’s a pleasure to stand in this House today and talk about a

subject that is near and dear to my heart, that being education. I’ve

had the pleasure of delivering many speeches to graduating

classes.

I share the words of Robert Fulghum:

“All I really needed to know about how to live and what to do and

how to be I learned in kindergarten…. These are the things I learned.

Share everything. Play fair. Don’t hit people. Put things back where you

found them. Clean up your own mess. Don’t take things that aren’t yours.

Say you’re sorry when you hurt somebody. Wash your hands before you eat.

Flush. Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you. Live a balanced life

— learn some and draw and paint and sing and dance and plan and work

every day some. Take a nap every afternoon. When you go out into the

world, watch out for traffic, hold hands, and stick together.”

[1:50 p.m.]

As we come into graduation season, I wish all students a

successful learning experience, some joy, some laughter, maybe a few

tears, but all in all a great experience. This is just the beginning of

your journey. You have the tools, and no, that isn’t for the new car we

bought you. Use them wisely, and remember to practise lifelong

learning.

To teachers, parents, support staff: thank you for all you do to

make every child feel important, supported and cared for.

Congratulations to the class of 2021.

LORI GREYELL AND COMMUNITY

GARDENS IN PORT

MOODY

R. Glumac: If you were to walk by the arts centre in Port Moody today, you

might see a little bit more than art. You might see kale or lettuce

growing on the front lawn, and you might ask: “Why are there vegetables

growing on the front lawn of the arts centre?”

At least one of my constituents is asking: “Why not? Why not grow

vegetables in many places in our community?” That constituent is Lori

Greyell, and she helped create this demonstration garden in this

high-profile location so that we can all think a little bit more about

the places where we can grow food.

Back in 2013, she helped to organize over 50 garden plots on the

grounds of the Port Moody police station. In these gardens, a community

has come together and been cultivated. Alongside the plants and

vegetables, people have come together. They had work parties, potlucks,

movie nights. They made stone soup from the vegetables that they grew.

Groups of children would come and learn about growing food.

Four of the plots are dedicated and used by the food bank and

three by the SHARE community kitchen. It’s been such a great success

that the wait-list has grown to over 80 families.

Now Lori is working on her next project, a new community garden at

the Art Wilkinson Park in Port Moody, with another 60 accessible

plots.

If you’ve been thinking about growing some food but you don’t have

a garden of your own, you might want to think about putting your name on

the wait-list or attending one of the many gardening workshops that are

being held throughout the summer on topics from edible flower gardens to

composting 101. Sign up at portmoody.ca.

Thank you, Lori, for helping bring our community together in our

community gardens.

MINING INDUSTRY AND BLACKWATER

PROJECT IN PRINCE GEORGE

AREA

T. Shypitka: As our province looks to economic recovery from the COVID-19

pandemic and to furthering partnerships and benefits with our First

Nations governments, mining can play a lead role. With commodity prices

high and six mines in B.C. close to final permitting, we all need to do

everything possible to get these projects over the finish line. These

mines represent more than $4 billion in capital spending and thousands

of high-paying and highly-skilled jobs.

There is no project better suited than Artemis Gold’s Blackwater

project located southwest of Prince George. Blackwater is an open-pit

gold and silver mine that has a 23-year mine life with proven and

probable reserves of 8 million ounces of gold and 62 million ounces of

silver, making it one of the largest new mines in British Columbia in

decades. Artemis expects to invest approximately $600 million in initial

capital in order to commence operations, along with 825 workers per year

over the five years of construction, which includes the two expansion

phases and 457 full-time workers during its operations.

To support local contracting, the Blackwater project office has

developed a directory of local businesses and suppliers. The economic

spinoffs to the project region are in the tens of millions per year. The

project is expected to generate $73 million in municipal taxes, $2.29

billion in provincial taxes and $1.5 billion in federal taxes. The

project is designed to meet high environmental standards, which include

the protection of water, wildlife and sensitive species.

In conclusion, B.C. is home to about half of Canada’s 31 critical

minerals that will launch us to a low-carbon future and secure the

national security of our country and our allies. On top of that,

projects like Artemis Gold’s Blackwater project represent a clear way to

a post-pandemic economic recovery.

[1:55 p.m.]

Let’s all make a conscious effort to realize the potential and

benefits that these mine projects represent. It’s time we turn the page

and get these projects moving.

Oral Questions

ACTIVATION OF

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

COMMITTEE

S. Bond: The critical work of advancing reconciliation can’t be left to a

minister, a Premier, even a government. It needs to involve everyone in

British Columbia and to include all of us, as elected

representatives.

Three weeks ago, in response to the MLA for Skeena, the Premier

committed to “whatever steps we can take, whatever resources need to be

brought to bear…. With his help and with the help of other members of

this House, I’m confident that we can bring together a plan that all of

us can be proud of.” Important words that would bring to life an

important step that would begin the work. It would allow all of us to

hear directly from First Nations, if the Premier were to do what he

could do today, and that is activate the Select Standing Committee on

Aboriginal Affairs.

Now, with just two days left in this session and four months

before we’re back here again, it’s a simple ask. It would mean that the

Premier meant what he said. It would engage all of us in this absolutely

critical path to reconciliation.

To the Premier, will he do what he said he would, make sure that

we’re bringing resources and opportunity to the table, and commit today

to reactivating the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs?

Hon. M. Rankin: First of all, to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I very much

appreciate the spirit of the question.

It seems to me that she rightly points out the non-partisan nature

of this issue. This has been a difficult period, as the member has

pointed out, and our thoughts are with the people who are grappling with

the implications of the Kamloops residential school. I think the House

unanimously stood up and supported the Declaration on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples Act and indicated that it is non-partisan in

nature.

This issue involves all of us. My door, as minister, is open to

all members who have constructive suggestions on how we can work

together to address this challenge of reconciliation.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. While I appreciate that answer, now

more than ever, words are not enough. People in this chamber need to

send a strong signal about how absolutely critical it is that we work

together to listen, to learn, to work constructively with First

Nations.

One of the ways that we can do that is by taking a small but

significant step. Yesterday the Premier told me: “Committee work is

onerous; it’s time-consuming. It takes up work to read the report,

complete the report, prepare the report.” Well, of course, it does. That

is exactly the point. As legislators, we need to take the time to do

that critical work. There are two days left in this session. It will be

four months until the next time we will be together in this Legislature.

Work can and must be done during that period of time.

Again, it is bigger than a single minister. It is bigger than a

Premier. It is bigger than a government. It is time for us to send a

clear message and to create a place where together we can listen. We can

learn and do the work that tells First Nations in British Columbia that

we are prepared to move beyond words and take action.

Will the Premier honour the commitment that he made to move beyond

words and to take action? It’s simple. He could do it today. He could

reactivate and begin that work with every person represented on that

committee. Will the Premier today commit to activating the Standing

Committee on Aboriginal Affairs?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I much appreciate what the hon. Leader of the Opposition has said.

She has said that words are not enough. I completely agree. She asks

that we work constructively in a non-partisan way. I think that’s

absolutely true. I agree with her, as well, that this issue is much

bigger than a particular government.

I think the idea of a standing committee of the Legislature on

Aboriginal affairs being reinvigorated is definitely an idea worthy of

consideration, and I will ask my government to consider that as we go

forward. But a standing committee is but one vehicle to do the work of

which the hon. member has spoken. There are many vehicles that we need

to work on together to achieve reconciliation.

As we come out of this pandemic together, there may be

opportunities for a more normal functioning of the Legislature, where

this type of activity would be appropriate. So I think it’s an idea very

worthy of consideration. I thank the hon. member for her

suggestion.

E. Ross: In relation to the request to strike up a legislative committee,

it’s not just an idea. It’s a process where members of this Legislature

can come together and actually breathe life into what the Premier

promised. Those are nice words coming from the minister of Indigenous

affairs or Aboriginal affairs. But that’s all they are. They’re just

words.

These empty words and these empty speeches are what got me into

politics in 2003 in the first place. I heard so many speeches about

reconciliation and closing the gap of the standard of living, but

nothing ever changed — not until our council took matters into our own

hands and actually started working with industry and government. We got

tremendous progress.

I’ve said it before. My band is not talking about poverty any

more. There are many other bands that need help. Canadians need help in

healing from what was discovered in Kamloops. The commitment that was

made by the Premier was pretty clear. We will do what we can together as

a legislative body and work together.

There’s no need to think about anything unique or extravagant.

You’ve got a process already. It’s called a legislative committee, which

hasn’t been enacted in the four years that I’ve been here. Now is the

time to act and stop talking. Canadians and British Columbians are the

ones now asking for action.

My question is to the Premier. This is not the time for rhetoric

or for empty speeches. Will he get down to business and activate the

select standing committee on Indigenous affairs?

Hon. M. Rankin: To the hon. member for Skeena, it is not just words. These are not

empty words. Our government has released a consultative draft just on

Friday last with 79 concrete, achievable actions to achieve what we all

committed to in this place when the Declaration on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples Act was enacted.

These are concrete actions in social areas, in resource areas, in

revenue-sharing. The government has spent considerable sums of money on

housing, for example, on reserves. Something which is not done in other

parts of Canada, since it’s primarily a federal responsibility. Three

billion over 25 years is to be shared with the 204 nations of British

Columbia, with gaming revenues. These are not mere words. These are

examples of the concrete actions we need to take together to make lives

better for Indigenous People.

Whether the particular vehicle that’s been proposed by the member,

mainly resurrecting and reinvigorating that particular committee, would

be part of that solution is an idea that is worthy of consideration. But

to suggest that these are merely words is a complete misstatement of

what this government has done successfully and will continue to do

throughout its mandate.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Skeena on a supplemen­tal.

E. Ross: A misstatement of words? Who do you think you’re talking to

here?

Mr. Speaker: Through the Chair, Member.

[2:05 p.m.]

E. Ross: Through the Chair, who does the minister think he’s talking to? I

was born on a reserve. I still live on a reserve today.

The incident that happened in Kamloops affects 203 bands. It

affects me directly. There are people in Canada that are in pain. They

want to do something about this. You’ve got a vehicle ready to go.

What’s the delay? What’s the fear?

A commitment was made by the Premier that the members of this

legislative body could actually address something together. We’re at a

historic moment where Canadians and British Columbians are asking the

leaders to do something — in real terms, not just talking.

At least respond to the citizens of B.C. Don’t take any

condescending remarks with me in relation to First Nations issues in

B.C., and don’t hide behind an UNDRIP speech or hide behind a stump

speech. This is not an election. We are dealing with people’s

lives.

We talk about the initiatives that are possible here. We talk

about protocols and respect, but the committee hasn’t sat a single day

in the four years that I’ve been here. Maybe the Premier can hear this,

hear his own words and what he said in relation to me and what we could

do in cooperation with everybody in this legislative body. “Activate the

committee.” That’s the request from the member from Saanich North.

That’s the request from myself. That’s the request from this side of the

House.

I’m hoping the Premier isn’t actually delaying the

an­nouncement simply to use it as a prop when he goes to visit

Lower Post.

Interjections.

E. Ross: Yeah, let me hear your groans. Based on the minister’s response to

what I just asked, the previous question, let me hear your

groans.

I’ve been listening to this my entire life — politicians making

promises and empty speeches — but nothing happens unless it’s for a

political agenda that doesn’t serve Aboriginal interests. Delaying this

standing committee for politics is unacceptable.

Again, my question to the Premier. Stop the lecturing. Get off the

rhetorical….

Interjections.

E. Ross: I can’t hear you. Members on that side of the House, I can’t hear

you. Can you speak up?

Mr. Speaker: Member, continue.

The member has the floor.

E. Ross: I’m waiting for the laughing to stop.

Mr. Speaker: Just ignore it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

E. Ross: Come on. Let’s hear it.

Interjections.

E. Ross: Yes, I agree with you. Let me hear the groans, then.

My question to the Premier. The lectures have to stop. You have to

get off the rhetorical high horse, stop the delay and allow British

Columbians to start healing together. Will the Premier activate the

select standing committee on Indigenous affairs?

Hon. M. Rankin: I very much respect the member for Skeena and the pain that he

refers to. I really don’t believe that our government can be accused of

wordsmithing or simply making political statements on an issue like

this. I don’t think there’s any reasonable suggestion that that is the

case.

We acknowledge the healing together, of which the member has

spoken. We have been in touch, for example, with Kúkpi7 Casimir of the

Tk’emlúpsemc people, who is apparently working on submitting a budget

and a proposal to specifically address the issue of the Kamloops

school.

We are listening to other nations that have come forward in

respect of this particular issue of bringing home the lost children,

calls for action 71 to 76. I’m working in close coordination with the

minister, Marc Miller, at the federal level to address this critically

important issue.

It’s not words. There’s a budget available. We are standing by for

specific requests from different nations, and we will take them as they

come forward. But only taking our lead from those particular nations,

all of whom, in the diversity of the Indigenous community in British

Columbia, will have a different path forward. We want to be respectful

of that. We believe that concrete actions are required.

[2:10 p.m.]

I very much reject the idea that this is rhetoric or that it’s

words. I think the actions we have taken as a government since 2017,

inside and outside the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Act, show we are putting the resources there to deal with the legacy of

colonialism that is reflected in the Indian Act. We need to make

concrete changes in our system of government, as a province, to address

those realities.

OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY ROYALTIES

AND STATUS OF LNG

INDUSTRY

S. Furstenau: Yesterday Stand.earth released a report that finds that this NDP

government has doubled oil and gas subsidies since they took power in

2017. The report found that by 2023, this government plans to spend

almost $1.8 billion on fossil fuel subsidies, more than triple what the

B.C. Liberals spent in the last year that they were in office. Let’s be

clear what this means. Billions of dollars of public money is driving

the expansion of fracking and LNG terminals in B.C.

This government likes to say that B.C. has the best climate plan

in North America. They sell British Columbians the idea that we’re

somehow climate leaders. Yet they pump billions of dollars into the

fossil fuel sector, which is making it impossible to meet our climate

targets.

Meanwhile, the United States is eliminating fossil fuel subsidies

altogether, replacing them with clean energy incentives. The reason,

according to the U.S. Treasury…. The subsidies, they said, undermine

energy independence, undermine the fight against climate change and harm

air and water quality in communities.

These are not lofty goals. They are the very least we should

expect from government in a climate emergency to protect water, air and

our future.

My question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon

Innovation. How can the minister explain his government’s massive and

increasing handouts to fracking companies when the rest of the world is

going in the other direction?

Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for her

question.

I’m very proud of the work our government has done and the Green

caucus and the former member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head did when it came to

creating CleanBC. Together, we developed the strongest climate action

plan in North America. Our government has a plan to fight climate

change, build a clean energy economy and make life better for British

Columbians. We are dedicated to keeping B.C. on track to meet our

emission reduction targets.

My mandate from the Premier provides direction to me to undertake

a comprehensive review of B.C.’s oil and gas royalty system, an action

that the old government refused to take. This review will be done to

ensure the system meets our goals for economic development, a fair

return on our resources and continued environmental

protection.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: Wow. The member for Skeena mentioned rhetoric, and that answer

certainly summed it up.

I’m sure that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon

Innovation is proud of the $1.3 billion in fossil fuels in 2021. He’s

proud of the deep-well royalty program for fracking operators that cost

taxpayers $421 million. He’s proud of the outstanding liability that has

grown, under this government, to $3.1 billion from those

royalties.

Is he proud of the fact that this government is giving more to oil

and gas companies, by a wide margin, than what they’re receiving back in

revenue and that the people of this province, including the youth, in

particular, who are going to inherit this climate-changed world, are on

the hook to pay for these royalties for decades? It’s not a lot to be

proud of.

Spending billions of dollars to subsidize the fossil fuel sector

isn’t just terrible for the climate. It’s terrible for B.C. taxpayers.

It’s moving our economy in the wrong direction.

A month ago I asked the Minister of Energy and Mines about a

landmark report from the International Energy Agency which forecasted a

deep decline in the global market for oil and gas and said that we don’t

need any new LNG projects, warning they could become stranded assets in

a world that is moving on.

[2:15 p.m.]

At the time, the minister said he couldn’t speak to the report

because he hadn’t had time to digest it. It’s been a month now. I

assume, on a file as important as this one, analyzing this report and

its implications for B.C. and our economy has been a priority for this

government.

My question, again, is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low

Carbon Innovation. Will the minister acknowledge that it’s now clear

that LNG is not the way forward for our economy, and can he please tell

us what he is doing to urgently change course and fix this government’s

mistake on LNG?

Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for her

question.

I’m afraid the member has mischaracterized the way the program

works, and that is disappointing. Credits are not paid or owed by the

government to producers. They partially reduce royalties that must be

paid when production occurs.

To speak to the review, which is underway, the ministry has

commissioned an independent review of the royalty system. That will be

undertaken by two experts from academia and will be released publicly

once complete. The report will examine how the royalty system works

today and consider whether it is positioned to achieve B.C.’s goals into

the future.

After the independent review is made public, the ministry will

conduct public outreach to ensure that all British Columbians have a say

about the future of resource development in our province. After

collecting public input, the ministry will review the royalty system to

ensure that it meets B.C.’s goals for economic development, a fair

return on our resources and environmental protection.

COVID-19 RELIEF GRANT ELIGIBILITY

FOR ROYAL CANADIAN

LEGION BRANCHES

AND ANAVETS CLUB

B. Banman: The Premier, for reasons only known to himself, is playing

favourites when it comes to which veteran groups to support. It took

repeated questioning for the Premier to finally provide support for the

legion. Yet he chose to deny the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans that

same respect.

Randy Williams, the president of ANAVETS in British Columbia, has

written another letter to the Premier: “All 16 of our units in B.C. have

endured exactly the same financial stresses as the legion during our

periods of mandated shutdowns as we struggle to pay operating

ex­penses, insurance premiums and property taxes.”

My question to the Premier is: can he tell us if he will finally —

finally — do the right thing and treat these veterans the same as

legions and provide them the funding they need and deserve?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think we can all agree that every member in this House supports

our veterans. We certainly respect the work that these organizations

do.

As I shared with the member last week, we have received the

request from the organization. In fact, staff have found that there are

multiple other organizations, as well, that serve veterans that didn’t

request dollars. We’ve proactively reached out to them, as well, to see

what their needs are. We’ll have some more information for the members

once those discussions are complete.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford South on a supplemental.

B. Banman: Well, the Premier managed to give his office a boost of almost $4

million this year. The cost to treat the ANAVETS equally as the legions

is under $200,000.

While it’s great that the minister has given us words that he’s

looking at others, Randy Williams, the president of the ANAVETS in B.C.,

has written in his letter: “Both entities provide invaluable

contributions and assistance and support to our esteemed veterans. So to

only choose one rather than both to receive the funding is essentially

saying that our members and services are not as worthy or valuable in

your government’s opinion and thought process.”

[2:20 p.m.]

Last week the minister said: “We received the request. We’re

working on it, and we’ll have more to say soon.” There are two days

left. Two days left.

Again, will the Premier…? Will this minister admit right now and

give a yes and provide the exact same funding to the ANAVETS as he did

to the legions?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate that the member has got a piece of paper that he’s

got to read off of. I just gave him an answer, which is that there are

other organizations, as well, that haven’t requested dollars that are

serving veterans. We have proactively reached out to them to assess

their needs and to ensure that we can support as many organizations as

we can.

We’re proud, on this side of the House, that we have the highest

per-capita supports for people and businesses in this country. We’re

going to work with all of the organizations that need supports to find

ways to ensure that they can have the dollars they need.

We continue to talk to the federal government as well. We believe

that Veterans Affairs Canada can do more to support the important work

that our veterans organizations do here in British Columbia.

ANCHOR ATTRACTIONS PROGRAM FUNDING

FOR PACIFIC NATIONAL

EXHIBITION

T. Stone: Well, when bungling isn’t enough, the Premier moves straight to

botching it. The PNE has been crying out for months and months, noting

that they need significant financial support to survive. The Premier

then goes and bungles this file by playing jurisdictional

games.

He did finally decide to announce a program. He unveiled the

program, and he said: “It’s attractions like the PNE that we had in mind

when we developed the program. This was designed for the PNE.” Those

were the Premier’s words. And then the Premier botched it. It turns out

that the PNE does not qualify for the funding in this

program.

Can the Premier please tell us why he designed a program to help

out events like the PNE, only to then develop criteria which events like

the PNE can’t meet?

Hon. M. Mark: The Premier and I did make an an­nouncement. We announced

$50 million to support anchor attractions across the province, across

the ecosystem. We worked with industry leaders, targeted funding up to

$1 million for some folks, up to $500 million for others in rural

communities, up to $500 million for tour bus operators. The ministry is

reviewing applications as we speak, with good news to come, hopefully in

July. Well, definitely in July. That was the announcement that we

made.

I just want to put it on the record, because the Liberals like to

kind of play their games with technicalities. The PNE is an independent,

not-for-profit organization wholly owned by the city of Vancouver and

governed by a board of directors.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, come to order.

Hon. M. Mark: In addition, both the PNE and the city of Vancouver make annual

capital investments. There’s the PNE Fair. There’s the Playland

amusement park.

Let’s emphasize the amusement park, because this anchor attraction

was intended for amusement parks and big things that you can’t move. And

good news is going to come in the coming weeks. I’m very proud of that

announcement that we made with the Premier.

Thank you so much to the member opposite for the question. It’s

one thing that we’ve done, in addition to the other efforts that we’ve

put out there, to provide relief to the tourism sector, which has been

hit by this global pandemic.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson, supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, where to begin with that? “Good news is yet to come.” Just

like, I suppose, what’s happening in B.C.’s cruise ship

sector.

This minister kept saying: “Good news is coming. Good news is

coming.” She says it all the time. Here we have a minister who says one

thing and does another when creating programs. They announce a program

that they say is intended for events like the PNE, only to then have

eligibility criteria that the PNE can’t meet. That’s not a technicality.

It’s also not a technicality that this government is No. 8 in the

country at getting direct grants and relief out to businesses and

organizations. That’s not a technicality.

[2:25 p.m.]

This is another attempt of this Premier, who has a pattern of

showing up, making a splashy announcement, and then he disappears. The

minister can do her darndest to rewrite history, like claiming that this

particular fund was never intended to support events like the PNE. But

if that’s, indeed, the case, then the Premier shouldn’t have included

the PNE in his comments when he announced the creation of this

program.

This from Shelley Frost, the president of the PNE: “The B.C.

anchor attraction program excluded applications from ‘events and

festivals.’ As a result, the PNE was not able to apply for support for

the largest part of our business, the PNE Fair. During the program

launch, the Premier said this program was designed to support

organizations like the PNE. However, we were disappointed that the most

significant part of our business is not eligible.”

Again to the Premier, why did he say one thing then do another

thing and, in the process, completely botch this file?

Hon. M. Mark: What we’ve done is we’ve worked with the tourism sector. We took

counsel from those that work in the tourism industry. What we announced

was $50 million to support anchor attractions across the ecosystem.

That’s in addition to the 4,100 tourism businesses that received a grant

— grants, not loans — which was also a call to action.

We’ve met with the PNE. We value the PNE. I’ve been going to the

PNE since I was a kid. There is more to the PNE than just the PNE Fair.

There’s Playland and all of their grounds. That’s the part that the

member opposite wants to dismiss and overlook.

I’ve talked to the mayor of the city of Vancouver, and I’ve talked

to my federal counterparts about supporting the PNE and us working

together, all hands on deck, all levels of government working

together.

There’s $400 million on the table from the federal government.

We’re going to make sure B.C. gets its share of those funds. We’re going

to continue working with the sector to support them. Good news is going

to come in July.

[End of question period.]

C. Oakes: I rise to present a petition of 78 signatures….

Mr. Speaker: Member, just a second.

Is leave granted?

Leave granted.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

C. Oakes: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition of 78 signatures to request to repave

Likely Road this year. The road is getting worse by the day, and action is

needed immediately.

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m pleased to table before the Legislature the second annual

speculation and vacancy tax report. This report is for the 2019 tax year.

The 2019 report shows that our government’s housing investments and

policies, like the speculation and vacancy tax, help to bring much-needed

rental units back to the market.

For the second straight year, more than 99 percent of British

Columbians are exempt from paying the tax. There is clear evidence that the

tax is turning empty housing into homes, in particular, in greater

Vancouver, where more than 18,000 condo units have been added to the

long-term rental market in 2019 and 2020. This tax is also supporting

affordable housing measures in regions where it’s applied.

As with any new program, we recognize there can be opportunities for

improvement. That is why the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act requires annual

consultation with the mayors, followed by a report on the key

outcomes.

I’m very pleased to table the report here today.

Hon. L. Beare: On behalf of the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport, I have

the honour to present the 2020-2021 B.C. Arts Council Annual

Report .

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour of tabling a report for the Minister of

Safety and Solicitor General pursuant to the COVID-19 Related Measures

Act.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I seek leave to move a motion to appoint the special committee to

review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The full

text of the motion has been provided to the two other House

Leaders.

Leave granted.

[2:30 p.m.]

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO

REVIEW THE FREEDOM

OF INFORMATION

AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move:

[That a Special Committee be appointed to review the Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c.

165) pursuant to

section 80 of that Act.

That the Special Committee shall have the powers of a Select

Standing Committee and in addition be empowered to:

a. appoint of its number, one or more subcommittees

and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the

Special Committee and to delegate to the subcommittees all or any of its

powers except the power to report directly to the

House;

b. sit during a period in which the House is

adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following

Session and during any sitting of the House;

c. conduct consultations by any means the Committee

considers appropriate;

d. adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

and

e. retain such personnel as required to assist the

Special Committee.

That the Special Committee report to the House by June 15, 2022; and

that during a period of adjournment, the Special Committee deposit its

reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, and upon resumption

of the sittings of the House, or in the next following Session, as the

case may be, the Chair present all reports to the House.

That the Special Committee be composed of the following Members:

Rick Glumac (Convener), Susie Chant , Janet

Routledge , Henry Yao , John Rustad , Tom

Shypitka , and Adam Olsen .]

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate on the estimates for the

Premier’s office.

In the Douglas Fir Room,

Section A, I call continued estimates for the

Ministry of Health.

In

Section C, in the Birch Room, I call continued estimates debate on the

Ministry of Transportation.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE

PREMIER

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B);

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

The Chair: While we get ready for this next set of estimates, we’ll take

a short recess. Thank you, Members.

The committee recessed from 2:32 p.m. to 2:36 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

On Vote 11: Office of the Premier, $14,678,000

(continued) .

The Chair: I’d like to call this committee into session for

estimates.

Recognizing the Leader of the Official Opposition.

S. Bond: Thank you very much. Recognizing the constraint on time that we

have, I’m going to get started right away. We have a number of issues to

canvass this afternoon, and I want to start by just letting the Premier

know that the estimates process, I think it’s fair to say, I can

describe as fairly frustrating for the opposition this

session.

Obviously, the delay of the budget has meant that we are cramming

time to ask important questions. I will just point out that getting

answers to questions has been difficult, including from the Premier.

When we look at how often he has responded to questions directly asked

of him, the percentage is not stellar.

I think even more frustrating for me has been watching the

estimates process, where we have ministers of the Crown…. When there is

precious little time, ministers have taken, at points in this process….

Over the course of an hour, maybe, they have answered two, three or four

questions.

Today I’m going to begin by asking some questions. There are a

number of unanswered questions, so I have asked a number of critics to

join me this afternoon to get to the bottom of some of the issues that

matter to the opposition and to British Columbians. I’ll get started,

and we’ll work our way through some of those critical issues. It’s

unfortunate there were not more forthcoming answers during an estimates

process, which is designed to do exactly that. The Premier would well

know that, considering the time he spent on this side of the

aisle.

Yesterday the Premier confirmed that his budget has increased 63

percent since he took office. That includes, this year alone, a 30

percent increase for ten new positions for a planning and priorities

secretariat. I’d like the Premier, if he could, to confirm that that

includes an ADM, four executive directors, four director positions and

an executive coordinator. Could the Premier confirm that,

please?

Hon. J. Horgan: Hon. Chair, I’ll just pick up on some of the comments the Leader

of the Opposition made. I’m advised by the House Leader that the hours

for estimates this year are consistent with past years. I am also

advised that it has been quite collaborative throughout the session up

until today, and I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to carry through that

for this session as well.

[2:40 p.m.]

I can confirm that there are ten positions at the planning and

priorities secretariat. There were, in total, as part of the budget

increase, going from 86 FTEs to 103 FTEs: one is cabinet operations; two

admin positions; four outreach and engagement positions, which I

canvassed yesterday; and the ten priorities and planning staff, which

consists of one associate deputy minister, one executive coordinator,

four executive directors, four directors overseeing portfolios for

social initiatives, reconciliation, economic initiatives and skills

training, as well as DRIPA, education, equity, anti-racism and

multiculturalism, inno­vation, skills training, transportation and

other related issues.

S. Bond: According to the subvote description: “This subvote provides for

coordination of government caucus committees.” Can the Premier describe

what is meant by “coordination of NDP caucus committees”?

Hon. J. Horgan: The Leader of the Opposition may well be…. And the member for

Abbotsford West. They were both part of the government of 2001 to

It was a very large caucus, and an innovation in that caucus was

to create government caucus committees, which allowed representatives

from the government caucus to participate at the cabinet level, getting

access to subject and content professionals within the public service.

They were bound by cabinet confidentiality.

There is a requirement to coordinate that activity, because it

does involve cabinet operations staff. It does involve ensuring that

everyone on the committees, which includes cabinet ministers and

government members, are fully briefed and fully understand the material

that they’re discussing so that there can be a better outcome at the end

of the day.

As I say, I poached that idea from the former chief of staff to

the former Premier. We discussed it at length. I found it was a good

idea. It seems to be working very well for us, as it did, I understand,

for the former government.

S. Bond: Could the Premier describe how often the NDP caucus committee

meetings take place, and if they’re regularly scheduled, with agendas,

would the Premier be prepared to share those agendas

proactively?

Hon. J. Horgan: There are two committees — a social initiatives and an economic

initiatives committee. They meet every three weeks. The agendas are

subject to cabinet confidence, because it is part of the cabinet

process.

Again, this is not an innovation by me. It was an innovation

brought in by the former B.C. Liberal government.

S. Bond: Can the Premier confirm that Donna Sanford, the former head of the

NDP-Green confidence and supply agreement secretariat, is now the ADM

responsible for a $1.6 million secretariat?

Hon. J. Horgan: I can confirm that Donna Sanford does head the unit.

S. Bond: So perhaps the Premier can explain how he has taken what was a

secretariat to serve the unique circumstances of a minority government

and interactions specifically with the Third Party and, in essence, has

now turned it into a much larger, more expensive secretariat to support

the majority NDP caucus.

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, the role and function of the planning and priorities

secretariat was outlined yesterday, and it is not exclusive. It is not

confined to one component of cabinet operations. It’s involved in a

whole host of issues and initiatives that are not just government

caucus–​related. That’s a misrepresentation of what I said

yesterday, and it’s a misrepresentation of what’s actually happening

with the secretariat.

Of course, the secretariat is not unlike others in jurisdictions

like Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Alberta. We have

had similar secretariats in British Columbia in the past. The objective

is to coordinate activity, ensure that the information that’s flowing

into the executive council is coordinated and ensuring that the outcomes

are also dispersed to line ministries, as I said yesterday, so there’s

coherence for the professional public service in terms of the direction

of the government that’s consistent with the mandate letters, that’s

consistent with directives from cabinet.

That’s the objective. That’s the undertaking. It’s a

mas­sive undertaking, one that requires coordination. That’s why

the body exists not just here but in many other

jurisdictions.

S. Bond: Well, let’s start with being clear. I wasn’t misrepresenting

anything. I was asking a question for clarity.

I think the Premier actually knows he’s going to be asked those

kinds of questions when he has a 63 percent increase in his office

budget since he took office. It’s fairly transparent that the person who

headed up the confidence and supply agreement secretariat is now the

head of the larger, more expensive secretariat in the Premier’s office.

So I wasn’t implying anything. I was simply asking the Premier a

question.

Let’s ask this question. As members of the public service, are

employees of the secretariat bound by the B.C. public service

Standards of Conduct , which says…? Let’s remember that

we’re talking about the NDP caucus here, and the Premier would know the

NDP caucus…. We’re talking about coordination of the caucus

committees.

Interjection.

S. Bond: Perhaps I could finish asking my question. Let’s try that again.

As members of the public service, are employees of the secretariat bound

by the B.C. public service Standards of Conduct , which says:

“Employees must not engage in political activities during working hours

or use government facilities, equipment or resources in support of those

activities”? Can the Premier confirm or make comment on that?

Hon. J. Horgan: All employees within the secretariat and all of those that work in

the Office of the Premier under the Public Service Act are bound by that

code of conduct.

S. Bond: In 2017, the comptroller general directed the government to work

with the B.C. Public Service Agency to develop written terms of

reference for the confidence and supply agreement secretariat to ensure

consistency with B.C. public service standards of conduct. Those terms

of reference were made public.

Has the Premier consulted with the comptroller general about this

new secretariat, which is coordinating NDP caucus committees?

Hon. J. Horgan: The secretariat that was put in place following the minority

government of 2017 included opposition members. Therefore, we went to

the comptroller to get clarity. I think it might have even been at the

request of the official opposition that there be clarity on the

institution that was established to have smooth, consistent and, for a

period of time, stable government here in British Columbia.

Completely counter to that would be the priorities and planning

secretariat, which is a component of the professional public service

designed to ensure that cabinet gets timely information and that

decisions are then dispersed to line ministries so that the objectives

and the direction of government can be implemented.

S. Bond: There is an additional expense, and there is an additional set of

responsibilities that…. While the Premier wants to talk about how smooth

cabinet is going to run, we are talking about NDP caucus

committees.

Interjection.

S. Bond: Well, the Premier can shake his head all he wants. The subvote

describes this as “coordination of government caucus

committees.”

[2:50 p.m.]

Can the Premier, then, at least tell me whether or not there are

written terms of reference and whether or not he is willing to lay out

and make public the details about the expenditure of those dollars

related to that subvote?

Hon. J. Horgan: I guess I’m taking issue with the Leader of the Opposition calling

them NDP committees. They’re government caucus committees, and this

isn’t the first time they’ve existed in British Columbia. The first time

they existed was under the B.C. Liberals’ watch in 2001 to

These are committees that are populated by a third of the members

being cabinet ministers and others from the caucus to have better

coordination of activity within cabinet. They’re cabinet committees.

They’re not caucus committees. They’re cabinet committees. They’re

staffed by professional public officials, and that’s what happened in

2001 to 2005, and it’s exactly what we’re doing right now.

S. Bond: Might I just remind the Premier that I’m simply reading the

description of the subvote. He can be sensitive about the title, but the

subvote description says: “This subvote provides for the coordination of

government caucus committees.” So he can continue to have that

debate.

The question was: are there written terms of reference, and is he

prepared to lay out publicly what the government caucus committees do

and what their agendas include? We’re talking about an increase in the

Premier’s office budget of 30 percent, and that at a time when we are

constantly raising issues that the Premier has chosen not to fund. I

think it’s important we actually get the specifics of why he has a 63

percent increase in his office budget since he took office.

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I appreciate that maybe we’re just speaking across each

other. It is a cabinet caucus committee. It is not unlike any other

cabinet committee. The guidelines have been well established over long

periods of time about how cabinet committees operate: what the terms of

engagement are and what the responsibilities of the membership are in

terms of confidences, in terms of a host of other initiatives. The

member knows that full well.

I’m taking issue with her calling it an NDP caucus committee.

Because it is a cabinet-first — cabinet-first — caucus committee. It’s

an important distinction, and I’m confident that the member knows that,

because she was a member of cabinet caucus committees in her time as a

member of this place.

S. Bond: I hope we’re not going to spend the afternoon with this kind of

back and forth from the Premier. The subvote description calls it

government caucus committees. It doesn’t mention the word cabinet. So

we’re not going to have a debate about that.

We’re talking about a substantive increase in dollars to this

Premier’s budget. Let’s hear what the Premier had to say in 2017. He

received an additional $2 million in 2017, and he said, “We do have, as

I said, an increase in resources available…to make sure that we’re

driving” our agenda and the priorities. That was in 2017. The Premier

has a significant number of advisers and specifically added staff to

give him advice on the priorities as part of a $2 million lift to his

budget in 2017.

[2:55 p.m.]

What do we see now? He is adding $3.44 million for more of the

same thing. What happened and what changed since 2017?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, again, this is the budget estimates for the budget of

’21-22, not 2017, but I’m happy to go back and revisit those

issues.

We were a new government. We had come to power with a CASA

agreement with the members of the Third Party. We put in place

structures to make sure that we could implement the objectives of

government, which is the right and priority of government.

Every year we came into this place and defended those estimates.

There was a one-time increase in 2017 and a modest increase of previous

year to pay for a Francophonie summit, I’m advised, by some $250,000,

and then there would have been COLA increases or whatever increases were

required because of collective agreements. That was it.

Fast-forward to 2021-2022 — new government, new challenges, global

pandemic, increasing concerns about issues like climate change,

increasing concerns about how we take our forest sector, which, in my

opinion, had been neglected, but that’s another point.

We had serious issues that were not the fault of the government.

The mountain pine beetle decimated the Interior forest sector.

Successive fire seasons further decimated the Interior forest sector.

Challenges abound. So to create, as other jurisdictions in Canada have,

a planning secretariat to streamline the activities of government to

make sure that every component part of the government understands the

mandate and the purpose and the function is, I believe, appropriate. If

it’s appropriate in Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Alberta,

Saskatchewan, I don’t see why it wouldn’t be appropriate

here.

S. Bond: We’re certainly not debating the estimates of the government of

Alberta or Saskatchewan, but we are debating the Premier’s office

estimates. The Premier makes commentary about previous increases. The

reason for these questions is the fact that when you add them all up,

the Premier’s budget has increased substantively since 2017, in

consecutive ways.

Let me outline for the Premier. He may want to correct me here.

But after adding ten new staff in 2017, the Premier actually continued

to add new political staff positions in his office from 2018 to

Let’s walk through a few of them here: October 22, 2018, a new

position of policy director, salary $125,000; April 1, 2019, two new

positions — director of executive operations and director of strategic

outreach, salaries up to $125,000; November 1, 2019, a new position of

communications manager with $100,000 salary; January 24, 2020, a new

position of executive adviser, project and strategic liaison, with

$100,000 salary.

Given the Premier’s office budget has already increased almost 30

percent from 2017 to 2020, why does the Premier need an additional $3.5

million this year, a further increase of 30 percent? It is an over 60

percent increase in his office budget since he took office.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, let me just go through the FTE count. From 2017, there were

20 FTEs; April 2018, 21 FTEs; May 2019, 22; May ’20, 21; and now with

this bud­get, an increase of FTEs within the Premier’s office of

27. The individuals you talked about were repurposed and reassigned, and

salaries move along. Again, this is not a surprise to the Leader of the

Opposition, having spent 16 years in government.

I would just say: “The cabinet government caucus committees we

have implemented today will open up decision-making, create new

opportunities for public input and involve all government MLAs in

developing solutions to the challenges that we face…. The government

caucus committees will review policies, programs and legislation and

make recommendations to cabinet.” That’s from June 2001, a press release

from the then Premier’s office.

I note that the member, the Leader of the Official Opposition, was

a member of the economy committee, and the member for Abbotsford West

was a member of the natural resources committee.

Again, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. It was a

good idea then. It’s a good idea now. That’s why we implemented

it.

S. Bond: “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” Well, you

know, the Premier is here to answer questions, and not all of them are

going to be comfortable.

I just want to remind the Premier that the reason this question is

relevant is because he…. When asked directly if he would continue

increasing his budget, his answer was: “We don’t anticipate any further

increases.” Yet that is exactly the opposite of what’s happened — a 63

percent increase in his budget since he took office. Our concern is that

staffing is…. Certainly, I understand the flow of the Premier’s office,

the cabinet office. I actually had the privilege of serving for a number

of years in my career. But I also know that the Premier has, without

having….

As recently as today, we asked in this Legislature about funding

to support the ANAVETS, army, navy and air. The answer is: “Well, you

know, it might happen. We’ll wait and see.” We’re talking about hundreds

of thousands of dollars, not millions of dollars. So it is an issue of

priority.

These questions are important, and they’re relevant. And British

Columbians understand that there’s been a 63 percent increase in the

Premier’s office budget.

With that, hon. Chair, I am going to ask my colleague to ask

several questions at this point.

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ll just conclude this component and again say that the quote

that was referred to was from 2017. We were a new government. I didn’t

anticipate a global pandemic. I didn’t anticipate the changes that we’ve

seen over those three years. This is a new government, with new

challenges, new responsibilities. We’re in the midst of a global

pandemic.

On average, the FTE count in the Premier’s office, between 2017

and 2020, did not change. It did not change. The budget from 2017 to

2020 did not change. Every year we came into this place, and we debated

those estimates. There were opportunities for all members of the House

to ask questions about who these people were, how they got here, what

they were doing. Absolutely appropriate.

Mischaracterizing the situation four years ago to today, I think,

misses the point. We’ve explained — I’ve explained — why we’ve increased

the component of FTEs in the Premier’s office and the cost of

implementing that. I’ve made it clear. We followed some of the good

ideas that came out of the former government. Again, as I’ve said in my

mandate letters — and I was criticized for this yesterday — good ideas

come from a variety of places. In the case of government caucus

committees, not my idea but a good one, and I was happy to adopt

that.

T. Stone: I’m pleased to participate in the Premier’s estimates for a little

while here. The first line of questioning that I would like to canvass

with the Premier involves what, arguably, is one of the most

disappointing and, frankly, pathetic aspects of government support for

businesses during the pandemic, and that’s just how difficult it seems

to be for this government to get money out the door.

[3:05 p.m.]

The three grant direct-relief programs that I’m speaking of are

the circuit breaker grant, which was launched two months ago, and 40.4

percent of the dollars are out the door. The launch online grant was

announced four months ago. Only 37.9 percent of the dollars are out the

door. The big one is the small and medium-sized business recovery grant,

which was announced fully eight months ago. To this point, only 49.8

percent of the dollars are out the door.

The obvious question to the Premier is: why has it taken so long,

and why has it proven to be so difficult to get much-needed supports out

to small businesses in a timely fashion?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for the question. I welcome him to this

debate.

I will say again that he, also, in the past has been a member of

the executive council, and he understands full well the challenge of

creating programs from scratch, from nothing. We did not anticipate….

None of us — not just in this room, not just in this province, not just

in this country but internationally — anticipated the gravity and the

magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The impacts on British Columbia have been profound, but the

response, I believe, has been equally profound. It’s abundantly clear,

based on other province’s efforts in this regard, that B.C. has provided

more per-capita direct supports to businesses and people than any other

province in the country.

There was $234 million provided to small business recovery grants,

up to $45,000. That continues to run through to July 2. The circuit

breaker was wildly successful and was expanded again because the case

counts were unacceptably high to the public health team that had been

assembled to guide us all through these challenging times.

I appreciate there will be a series of other questions on the

various programs we put together, but I just want to, as a foundation

for the questions to come, make it clear that these programs did not

exist until they were created. That in and of itself is a herculean

effort by the professional public service, aided by multiple engagements

with the business community, whether it be local chambers of commerce,

the B.C. chamber as an umbrella organization, boards of trade, the B.C.

Business Council, the B.C. Federation of Labour, multiple engagements

with municipalities across the board.

By continuously meeting with Premiers and the Prime Minister, we

were able to get a significant amount of resources from Ottawa. One-time

money, to be sure. We would have preferred a more focused approach by

the federal government on issues like the Canada health transfer. I hope

that we’ll be able to discuss that today. But those dollars came to

British Columbia because of advocacy by ministers on this side of the

floor.

We created these programs because of the hard work of professional

public servants who worked overtime for months and months to put in

place the foundation and the criteria. Were there blips in the criteria?

Were there deficiencies in the criteria? Over time, those were

discovered. Those were corrected, and we’ve had good outcomes. We’re

going to continue to have good outcomes until the programs

expire.

[3:10 p.m.]

T. Stone: I would point out to the Premier that British Columbia is actually

No. 8 in the country when it comes to direct relief, direct grants for

small business, and fully 68 percent of the supports that have been

provided to small businesses here in British Columbia have come in the

form of liquidity supports, which, as the Premier I’m sure would know,

are deferrals and loans. These are moneys that ultimately have to be

paid back. They have to be paid by small business.

The Premier said in his previous response that there were

challenges creating support programs from scratch. Was it that, or was

it the challenges that were brought on by the Premier calling an

election in the middle of the pandemic, which threw a bit of a wrench in

the spokes of the wheel in terms of actually getting the programs out

the door to support small businesses desperately in need?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, the majority of the moneys that we talked about, whether it

be the circuit breaker or whether it be the small business recovery

grants, were just that: grants, cash.

The major attractions funding was cash, grants, not loans, not

deferred expenses — in other words, a component part of that, to be

sure. But there was a host of other initiatives, whether it be B.C.

Hydro waiving hydro cost for months, whether it be a range of other

initiatives that we put in place — establishing paid sick leave. Again,

this was done by the Legislative Assembly upon advice from the Minister

of Labour and others through a consultation with a host of others to get

to a place where we could make progress.

Again, I suppose we can spend the rest of the afternoon talking

about: at what point did we discover there was a deficiency in the

program? But I recall that member, particularly, talking about the

approach of maybe just putting a hockey bag full of cash on the ground

and seeing who wants to come and take some out. You have to have

criteria, and as the criteria is tested by applicants, you’ll find

deficiencies. That’s the nature of a new program. That’s the nature of a

new initiative.

As we discovered deficiencies, we put in place amendments, and

that came as a direct result of input from small and medium-sized

businesses who were very anxious and pleased to work with us to get

these programs right. That’s what we undertook to do, and I think we’ve

hit the mark, by and large, as we come to starting stage 2 of our

restart plan and hopefully getting to stage 3 by July 1.

T. Stone: Well, it’s a little bit early in the day to be as engaged in

hubris as the Premier seems to already be when it comes to this line of

questioning. This is happening on his watch. It’s his government that is

bungling the rolling out of direct relief for small businesses across

the province.

Let’s take a look at the timeline here. I know that this timeline

represents a bit of an inconvenient truth for the Premier. This

Legislature unanimously approved billions of dollars of supports,

including for small businesses. That was on March 23 of 2020. The

Premier says they had challenges creating programs from scratch. Well,

he didn’t even roll out his StrongerBC program for six months after this

Legislature approved the funding. That was StrongerBC, announced on

September 17.

Then four days later we discover what the real reason was for the

six-month delay. It was that he decided to call an election on September

21. The small and medium-sized business recovery grant then gets rolled

out on October 9. Then it takes another eight months to bring us to

where we are today.

[3:15 p.m.]

We’re sitting here looking at, as I said earlier, less than 50

percent of the dollars out the door in the small and medium-sized

business recovery program. If we actually go back to when the funding

was approved, we’re talking about 15 months that it’s taken for this

government to get to a point of only 50 percent of the dollars in this

program out the door.

The question to the Premier would be this. How can he justify to

small businesses that are barely hanging on across this province that

there’s so much money, still fully 50 percent of each of these grant

programs that I’ve just mentioned? So 50 percent of the dollars in these

programs, months and month after the programs were created, are still

sitting in the government’s treasury as opposed to being put out into

the pockets of small businesses that need the support.

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, the member will know that the initial program was a $300

million program, and that has been oversubscribed. That’s why it’s now a

$534 million program. We increased the program over the past number of

months, and we’re continuing to get applications up until July

Now, I have been engaging widely in conversations with business

owners and operators, as well as with umbrella organizations like the

chambers and the B.C. Business Council. I don’t hear the concerns that I

hear from the member for Kamloops–South Thompson. I hear from them a

sense of relief that there’s a plan, a sense of relief that they can

call on government.

Every time they want to bring up issues, we’re there, whether it

be through the Minister of Finance or through the Minister of Jobs,

Economic Recovery and Innovation, whether it be any member of executive

council or even caucus members. If there are concerns, we hear those

concerns, we adapt, and we move on.

It’s that adaptability and flexibility that I think separates us

from other jurisdictions in the country. We’ve been focusing on trying

to get people, businesses and communities to a place where they can come

out of the pandemic stronger than they went into it. When we look,

almost 99 percent of the employment that we had pre-pandemic is

back.

We’re hearing now from businesses, as one would expect. We were

hearing that call before the pandemic of labour shortages. That’s what

I’m hearing from the hospitality sector. That’s what I’m hearing from

various other components in the economy. “We don’t have enough

people.”

That’s the challenge of the day. It’s not liquidity. It’s not

grants. It’s how do I find the people to meet the demand in the

community? That’s the challenge that we all have, going forward. I’m

happy to have a dialogue with the member on that any time.

T. Stone: Well, I suppose the Premier hasn’t spoken to any of the 8,000

business owners that are no longer in business in Metro Vancouver,

through this pandemic.

The Premier talks a lot about adaptability and flexibility and so

forth. The reality is billions of dollars were approved in this House 15

months ago. So I would suggest that the adaptability and flexibility

that the Premier talked about was actually his decision to call an

election in the middle of this pandemic, which resulted in small

business owners paying the ultimate price, not receiving funding in a

timely fashion.

If it wasn’t the calling of an election that delayed

every­thing on the small and medium-sized business recovery grant

being 15 months since the dollars were approved, what the heck was it

that resulted in us being here today, where his Minister of Jobs said

earlier in the estimates process that only 49.8 percent of the small and

medium-sized business recovery grant program dollars have been actually

paid out?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, the average turnaround for grant applications for the

circuit breaker grant, which is the most recent program that we

announced and then extended because of the high case counts through the

third wave: applications received, 12,000; applications adjudicated,

5,000. Incorrect banking information — there was about 20 million in

that regard. Applications submitted for adjudication with all documents,

90 percent. Program staff turnaround time, eight business

days.

What’s the response been from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce? “We

applaud the B.C. government’s quick action to provide financial support.

This announcement is a win for business and demonstrates what can be

achieved while private and public sectors adapt to collaboration in an

approach to problem-solving.”

[3:20 p.m.]

Also, the executive director of ABLE-BC: “This is a lifeline.” A

restaurant owner here in Victoria: “This helps us stay open and keep

employees.” It goes on. There’s no shortage of affirmation of how

businesses have been responding to the programs that we’ve put in place.

I’m happy to continue reading those if the member has more

questions.

T. Stone: Well, the sad reality is there are businesses that are gone

forever because of how slow this government has been in getting supports

out the door, and there are many, many more that are just hanging by a

thread because of eligibility requirements, which make it very

restrictive and very difficult for businesses that should be eligible

for support but do not get that support. But I’m going to move

on.

On September 6, 2017, the Premier cancelled construction of the

George Massey Tunnel replacement. At the time, the NDP promised

immediate actions to “find the best solution” for the George Massey

corridor. That was four years ago.

The obvious question to the Premier is, four years later, four

years after cancelling the George Massey Tunnel replacement project: why

can he not stand up today and tell British Columbians whether there’s

going to be a new tunnel or a new bridge to replace the existing

structure? What is taking so long?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, again, I’ll go back…. The member will be very familiar with

this. He was the minister at the time.

Of the some 28 municipalities in the Metro Vancouver region, only

one supported the former Premier’s bridge. There was a lot of anxiety

and apprehension in Richmond, which, of course, is where much of the

civil works would have taken place. They were opposed to the bridge, as

were a number of other municipalities.

When we came to government, we consulted widely, and it was

abundantly clear that there was only one jurisdiction that thought it

was a good idea. Everyone else thought we needed a better plan than

that. That involves consultation; that involves time.

I believe that in very short order, the people in the region who

depend on that Massey crossing…. Of course, as a Vancouver Islander,

it’s the primary crossing for those who are coming from the ferry, so I

know it full well. You don’t have to live in Delta to understand the

need for improvements in this piece of infrastructure. Before too long,

we’re going to be seeing improvements on the approaches on both sides of

the access point.

I will also advise, hon. Chair, that if the member wants to get

more detailed answers, the Minister of Transportation’s estimates are

happening right now.

T. Stone: Well, nice try, I say to the Premier. He’s the head of government;

he’s ultimately responsible. This is a massive infrastructure project

that was cancelled. He cancelled it.

I will remind him that it had received environmental assessment

approval, ALC approval. It addressed critical seismic concerns. First

responders were on board with it. It was anticipated to significantly

reduce collisions. It was going to provide for 9,000 jobs. It included a

$500 million component for transit. The project came in at $900 million

under the original project budget, yet the Premier cancelled

it.

It’s been four years, Premier. It’s been four years, and the

people who live in this corridor are still waiting for an end to the

gridlock. It’s a massive impact on their quality of life. It shouldn’t

have taken four years to be asking questions today about: is it going to

be a bridge, or is it going to be a tunnel?

Now, the MLA for Delta North, who’s now the Jobs Minister, is

quoted as saying: “As MLA, I will make sure that this gets done.” He

also, as part of that, said that he preferred a tunnel.

The question, again to the Premier: is it going to be a bridge or

a tunnel? If it’s a tunnel, is the Premier aware of the fact that the

Tsawwassen First Nation does not support a tunnel? They do not want a

tunnel, in which case if this government….

The Chair: Sorry, Member. We’re having some technical issues with Zoom. I

really apologize.

I’m going to have to ask…. In order to involve all members to

have their democratic right to be part of this place, we’re going to

have to take a short recess. Apologies. It just wasn’t coming

through, as I’m advised. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 3:25 p.m. to 3:28 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: Thank you, Members. Apologies to all for that.

Thank you to our team at Hansard for working so quickly to try

and get that resolved.

I’m not quite sure where it cut out for the member for

Kamloops–South Thompson, but I’m sure he’ll give it another

go.

T. Stone: Well, as a former tech CEO, you’ve just got to snap the fingers,

make the technical problems go away.

My question to the Premier, again related to the George Massey

Tunnel. I had said that it’s been four years. This is a decision he made

to cancel it. It’s equally his decision to move forward. I quoted the

Minister of Jobs, who is on the record numerous times saying that he

supports a tunnel.

Then my question to the Premier. The Tsawwassen First Nation does

not support a tunnel. Is a tunnel or a bridge the preferred option of

this government? If it’s a tunnel, how does he reconcile opposition of

the Tsawwassen First Nation with that position?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I thank the member for his patience. He will know that

this…. On his watch, this was proposed to be a ten-lane tolled bridge,

not supported by the vast majority of the people in the region at that

time.

We’ve been working on the business plan. He will know — well,

certainly, those who are in the budget estimates for the Minister of

Transportation will know — that Budget 2021 does include funding for the

approaches to ease congestion on Highway 99 going into the George Massey

crossing area.

[3:30 p.m.]

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

We’re still in consultation on the business case with the federal

government. Unlike the former government, we’re hopeful that we can have

federal participation in this piece of infrastructure. Because of its

importance to our trade corridors, we believe that this is an important

piece not just for the Lower Mainland and British Columbia but also for

Canada. We are committed to not having tolls on public infrastructure.

That’s, again, a departure from the former government.

As we finalize discussions with the federal government and other

stakeholders, we’ll have something to say on what the preferred option

is.

The Chair: Kamloops–South Thompson.

T. Stone: Thank you, Chair. Welcome to the chair.

Well, the Premier made some comments about the project that

would’ve replaced the George Massey Tunnel on my watch, or the watch of

the former government. I would remind the Premier that if the Premier

hadn’t cancelled the project, this ten-lane bridge that he speaks of

would be opening up next year. British Columbia’s number one choke

point, most congested corridor in the province, would be alleviated.

We’d be providing relief to all of the residents and the businesses that

rely on this corridor every single day.

On May 23, 2019, the Premier said: “I think we can get going on

this quite quickly. Minister…Trevena is seized with this opportunity.”

Again, we’re two years later — two years since the Premier said the

government was “seized with this opportunity.” I guess the most

important question here…. The Premier wants to talk about tolls. He

wants to talk about which mayors supported or didn’t support the

project. The project was widely supported by the public.

The fundamental question that I think matters the most is: when is

the Massey Tunnel going to be replaced? What is the date, even the

target date, for this government’s replacement of this critical piece of

infrastructure that would uncork the number one clogged traffic artery

in the province of British Columbia? When will the tunnel be

replaced?

Hon. J. Horgan: The member may well remember that when we took the tolls off the

Port Mann Bridge, congestion in the entire region was eased. People

started using that bridge because they didn’t have to pay for it. That

was a step in the right direction to ease congestion while we

consulted.

I am obliged — and I regret this very much — to read some of the

learnings from the former minister that he articulated back in October

of 2017. I don’t know if people were placing bets on that, but somebody

is winning some money here. This is what the member said at that time:

“A lesson for me that I really want to apply, moving forward: I think we

had our elbows up a bit too much with the mayors. I think the tone of

the conversation was not always one of partnership and working

together.”

I, like the member opposite, like to learn as life goes by. I

believe that a more aggressive approach with the mayors in the region

was not the right way to go.

We’ve been working hand in hand with elected representatives in

the region and with the First Nations to find a way forward that meets

everybody’s needs. We’re very close, in the final stages of discussion.

We don’t want to foreclose on federal participation in this project,

which is something that the former government chose to do. The former

government wanted tolls. The former government did not get agreement

from the federal government. They had multiple mayors.

I’ll just read one more quote, hon. Chair, because I had some

quotes thrown back to me. The chair of the Mayors Council on September

2017, after we announced that we were moving in a different direction:

“It’s exactly what Metro Vancouver regional district called for. We

acknowledge there’s a traffic issue along that corridor, and something

needs to be done. But the scope of the ten-lane bridge was too big, and

they needed to work with local governments around the whole region,

including Metro Vancouver, to find the appropriate solution.”

[3:35 p.m.]

What I chose to do, when I was given the privilege and honour of

holding this position, was to engage with as many people as possible to

try and find that triple-word score where everyone who was involved

could come away feeling that this was the best outcome possible. That’s

the value of being an early, new government.

When the member was having to make those decisions, it was in the

latter stages of a fourth term. I appreciate that at that point,

perhaps, the elbows-up mentality that he now concedes was the wrong

approach may well be the status quo. It’s not today; It won’t be, going

forward. We want to make sure that we’ve got buy-in. We’re very, very

close. I appreciate that the member would like an announcement today,

but it’s not going to happen.

T. Wat: I’d like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for giving me some

time to canvass the Premier on the Tourism file, for which I have the

privilege to be the critic.

When I had the debate with the Tourism Minister on her file, the

anchor attractions grant had not been announced. I would like to ask the

Premier today: how many applications have been approved under the anchor

attractions grant? How much has actually been paid out and/or will be

paid out?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for Richmond North Centre for her

question.

The program closing date was last week. So far, we have reviewed

130 major attractions applications. This is a $50 million grant program,

up to $1 million for major attractions in urban areas and up to $500,000

for attractions in rural areas. I know the member will be quite familiar

with that information. I guess the new information for her is that 130

major attractions have made application.

T. Wat: Thank you to the Premier for the information.

How many of them are rural, coming from rural areas, and how many

are from urban areas? Is the number according to expectations from the

government?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: The application deadline was June 7, so we’ve had just over

a week. I can give you the global number of 130. I can’t break them out

at this time. Again, I will undertake to get you that number as

estimates close and the Legislature rises.

At this point, I think the time it would take to determine that

number could be better spent on other questions. I will commit to get

you that number, if we can disaggregate those as quickly as

possible.

T. Wat: Thank you to the Premier for committing to following up with the

breakdown.

When we asked about the Quesnel rodeo, the North Thompson Fall

Fair, the IPE and the others, the Tourism Minister encouraged them to

apply under the anchor attraction grant. But when they tried to apply,

the response was: “As noted in the program guidelines, festivals and

events are ineligible”

I would like the Premier to explain why groups were told by the

minister to apply for funding they were not eligible to

receive.

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, I appreciate, again, that these are specific questions that

have or would be better asked of the minister responsible. I understand

that I have an obligation to try and get you the best answer possible,

so I hope you’ll accept this in the spirit with which it was

offered.

The Quesnel rodeo did not fit the criteria. But there were other

areas of government where they could have accessed resources, as I

understand it. Animal care, for example, which would be critically

important to the rodeo — they were able to access dollars for that

purpose through the Ministry of Agriculture. As I understand it, the

member for Cariboo North has been consulted on these issues with respect

to that particular event.

Again, I expect that these questions would have been better asked

to the minister. But the program for events had a period of 60 days of

operation. Not knowing how long the Quesnel rodeo required to conduct

its business on the front end of the program and then the rollup at the

end, it was appropriate to ask them to apply to get a better

understanding of the business model, the business plan, what their

requirements were, and then to find other areas within government so we

could assist.

That appears to be what happened in this case. The Ministry of

Agriculture did have resources available to assist that particular

event. But the only way you can determine if you meet the criteria is to

apply. Not everyone is successful, and that is regrettable. But that

does give an opportunity for government to look across the various

opportunities for funding and to find those places where a program might

fit. That appears to have happened in the case of the Quesnel

rodeo.

[3:45 p.m.]

T. Wat: Thank you for the Premier’s response, but unfortunately, as I told

the Premier earlier on, my debate with the Tourism Minister took place

before this program was announced. There’s only one more day in this

legislative session, so we have to ask the Premier.

There has been confusion and frustration since the funding was

announced. This is what the IPE fair says: “We understand the ministry’s

position that the IPE doesn’t qualify. Of course, this frustration is

compounded, given the minister’s comments in question

period.”

Why was there this confusion? And would the Premier please extend

the eligibility to include these groups, as the Premier has the final

say in the government?

Hon. J. Horgan: The member will know that festivals and events were not eligible

for the major attraction program, but there has been recently announced

by the federal government a $200 million program for festivals and

events — the minister is advocating with her counterpart in Ottawa to

secure those resources for events like the Armstrong exposition — as

well as community fairs and festivals, another $200 million, and $500

million for tourism relief.

These are initiatives that we’ve been advocating for through the

intergovernmental relations program in my office to try and make sure

that we are supplementing the work that we’re doing here by making sure

that we attract our per-capita percentage of federal expenditures on

these types of initiatives. I’m confident that we’ll be successful with

some, perhaps not with all of them. But this is a challenging time. We

want to hear from people. We want to know what their challenges

are.

The Leader of the Opposition made reference to the ANAVETS, for

example. When we responded to a not-for-profit not being able to access

a circuit breaker grant with respect to legions, we inadvertently left

out ANAVETS. That’s being done. But we’re going a step further than

that, to make sure that there are no other veterans organizations that

were not eligible for resources but could desperately use them. We’re

trying to be as fair and equitable as we can across the

board.

I know in my own constituency, the Luxton Rodeo and the Luxton

Fall Fair were not eligible, but they’re major attractions, major

anchors in the rural component of my community, and they’re not going to

be able to proceed effectively. The rodeo season is gone. The fair in

the fall may well be there, but these are community events that are

always, year to year, struggling to get volunteers, struggling to get

sponsors, struggling to get the resources to carry on.

Larger undertakings I’m sure we’ll talk about in a moment. We’ve

tried our level best to make sure we have got the resources to help

people bridge this most difficult of times, but we can’t satisfy

everyone. That’s why we’re looking to the federal government to make

sure that we get our per-capita percentage of the funding for tourism

initiatives landing here as quickly as possible.

[3:50 p.m.]

T. Wat: When the program was announced on May 18, the Premier said: “It’s

attractions like the PNE that we had in mind when we developed the

program. This was designed for the PNE.” But last week the minister

directly contradicted the Premier. She said: “It wasn’t designed for the

PNE.” Can the Premier clarify who is right?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I thank the member for the question. I hope that I will

clarify the issue rather than further complicate it for the member and

for members of the House who are participating today.

The member, I’m sure, will know that the corporate structure of

the PNE is entwined with the city of Vancouver. There is a permanent

structure there at Hastings Park, Playland, which also has a racetrack

and has a pseudo-casino attached to it. Then there are the events of the

PNE. The events are not eligible for the major attractions grant, but

Playland is. Again, it’s a not-for-profit run municipally but also has

commercial interests through the Hastings racetrack.

There are complexities upon complexities when it comes to us

generously saying “the PNE.” The Pacific National Exhibition is an

event; it’s not a major attraction. The major attraction is Playland,

and part and parcel of its mandate is to deliver the PNE. So they are

eligible to apply for a component of their activity. We’re hopeful that

they will. We’re hopeful they’ll be successful.

We also are engaged in discussions with the city of Vancouver, the

owner of the facility, to try and find ways to make sure that this

major, major event/attraction has the resources it needs to continue

on.

T. Wat: Thank you to the Premier. The thing is…. I just want the Premier

to know the Tourism Minister was the one that caused all the confusion.

She raised hopes, and then she contradicted the Premier. This is exactly

the kind of issue that’s so confusing to the tourism sector and causing

anxiety and upset for the already struggling organization.

I’m just trying to…. Earlier on, I asked about all of those

organizations that applied. They were told by the minister, in question

period, to please apply. If she had known that they are not even

qualified — as the minister, she should know the file in and out, really

well — then she shouldn’t have asked them to apply, raising their hopes

and anxiety. And now, they were told that they are not eligible. So you

raise people’s hopes high and then drop them down. Is that fair to

them?

Coming back to the PNE, the Premier was saying that it’s a federal

program, which is true. But is the Premier aware that it is actually not

true — that the PNE actually was not eligible for the federal program?

Even the Premier’s buddy, the mayor, Kennedy Stewart, said in a

statement that the $1 million in provincial funding for the PNE is

disappointing. He said that when the Premier said the PNE should apply

and that Victoria will see what it needs and what he can do. The mayor

said: “I take him at his word.”

[3:55 p.m.]

The Premier should have known that the PNE is not qualified for

any federal program. For the provincial government to give them just $1

million just doesn’t cut it. We don’t want to see this century-old icon

to be gone.

My question is to the Premier. Has he considered…? I understand

that there’s a $100 million contingency fund to try to help the tourism

industry recover. Now, we just allocated $15 million. We still have $15

million. We don’t know how much of this $15 million has been

allocated.

Would the Premier consider providing more funding to the PNE so

that they can survive through this crisis?

Hon. J. Horgan: I did raise with the opposition member from Richmond North Centre

the corporate structure of the PNE and Playland.

The door is not closed on federal funding. There is a CRA ruling

that has complicated this issue because of that corporate structure. So

we are advocating with the federal government on behalf of the PNE,

Playland, the city of Vancouver to ensure that that federal money will

flow.

Again, I believe that the minister, appropriately so — I would

have done the same thing — erred on the side of caution. If you don’t

understand the business model of those that are seeking assistance, you

ask them to apply so that you can review their business plan, see where

it fits and then maybe shift it over to a place which would have been a

better starting point. I think that’s appropriate.

With respect to the PNE, Playland, Hastings Park, all of that had

to be taken into consideration. It continues to be under consideration

actively here, actively in the city of Vancouver and actively in

Ottawa.

M. de Jong: I’d like to canvass a couple of issues with the Premier involving

our bilateral relationship with the U.S. Neither issue will come as a

big surprise to the Premier. Time is always at a premium in these

proceedings, so I’ll try to keep the editorializing to a minimum and put

my questions to him.

Firstly, the unfolding debacle with the cruise ship sector. I will

say — only in my view — it has not represented the finest hour in the

life of his government and his time as Premier.

The government became aware in February of a looming issue. There

was an exchange in this House, dating back to March, focusing on the

potential for a legislative change that would, on a temporary basis at

least, change the rules. The Premier, at the time, was pretty dismissive

of that initial legislative challenge in the U.S. Congress. He used

words like “blip” and described the prospects of passage as being

remote. His minister used language even more dismissive than

that.

Well, he was wrong. We know that now. His minister was wrong. But

my question today is: why did he say those things, almost taunting the

other side? Was it on the basis of advice, and if so, from

who?

Hon. J. Horgan: If “debacle” and “dismissive” aren’t editorializing, I don’t know

what it is. I’ll appreciate that’s a minimalist approach to

editorializing. I will follow suit.

I want just to remind the member of where British Columbia was in

February of this year. We were coming out of the second wave and heading

into the third wave. We had an uncertain supply of vaccines. We had an

absolute desire by the people in my community, Victoria, to keep people

away. We wanted to ensure that we kept people safe. Whether they were

businesses, whether they were communities, whether they were

individuals, our focus was on keeping people safe.

The member says the members of the opposition brought to our

attention a legislative process in another jurisdiction that had not yet

even determined who had won the election that was held in

November.

[4:00 p.m.]

They couldn’t agree on night or day. We had an insurrection in the

capital of the United States of America. The member thinks that if I had

done something other than said, “We’re going to do our best to get

through this,” it would have changed the course of events. I just

disagree with that.

I believe we’re on the right track now. We have the best record in

Canada for vaccinations for first doses. We’ve seen our case counts

plummeting. We’re at the second stage of our reopening. Tomorrow, with

the goodwill of the Leader of the Opposition — and I thank her very much

for that — I’ll be participating in a first ministers conference about

reopening the borders so we can have a genuine discussion about

welcoming the world back to British Columbia, which every member of this

House wants to do. I know that the member on the opposite side does. I

know that I do.

Here’s the challenge. The borders are closed. Did I do that? I

encouraged it, to be sure, hon. Member. I absolutely encouraged it, and

I insisted upon it. But I did not close the borders, nor can I open

them. That is the exclusive responsibility of the federal government.

I’m going to do my best over the next 24 hours to make the case for an

early reopening when it is safe to do so, and I believe that’s the

overwhelming desire of not just all British Columbians but the tourism

sector as well.

I don’t call this a debacle. I don’t call it dismissive. I call it

prudent. I call it the space in time where we were at when you raised

the issue and where we are today — very positive engagements with the

harbour authority, very positive engagements with the minister of

intergovernmental relations in Ottawa as well as the foreign minister

about how we can best have that legislation sunsetted, which is what

Senator Murkowski said would happen once we open our borders.

M. de Jong: We’ll get to the follow-up in a moment.

With the greatest respect, all very interesting. It didn’t answer

the question. The Premier chose to use language, and he chose to proffer

an opinion — not, by the way, in February but at the end of March —

about the prospects for a piece of legislation passing the U.S. Congress

that has significant ramifications for the tourism industry in B.C. He

proffered that opinion and claimed that there was no prospect of that

legislation passing. His minister echoed those remarks.

The Premier has got more files on his plate that engage

negotiations with the U.S. I think the committee and the House are

interested to know what the basis for his intel was. A few days later,

the legislation passed unanimously. So the Premier, on the one hand,

says it has no prospect of passing. It actually passes

unanimously.

Now, I don’t actually believe that the Premier just proffered that

opinion out of the blue. He must have been advised by someone about what

was taking place in Congress. He must have been advised by someone

before he made those remarks. He must have someone advising him on

issues that engage international attention involving British Columbia —

in this case, the Congress of the U.S. He wasn’t just a little bit

wrong; he was wildly wrong.

Who gave him the advice, and who was he relying upon in these

matters?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, I have a seat in this Legislature. I can engage in debate

and discussion. I can move legislation. I can work with others on all

sides of the House to pass legislation.

I have a seat at the Council of the Federation. I can sit with

Premiers across the country, and we can engage on what the best possible

outcomes are for British Columbians and Canadians. And I have a seat at

the first ministers table where I can engage with the government of

Canada, who, in February, put in an order to suspend cruise ships for 12

months.

We had no vaccines. We had ridiculously high case counts. We had

hospitalizations that were unacceptably high. And the United States was

coming out of an election that was uncertain to some. I will admit that

I missed a call in an institution that I do not sit in, where I have no

authority, where I have no ability to effect the outcome, particularly

in what the member acknowledges was a unanimous decision.

What I can do, hon. Chair and other members of the House, is try

to effect change now in those areas where I have the ability to do so,

and that’s what I’m going to do, going forward, starting tomorrow, or

hopefully concluding tomorrow, when we start to get to a place where we

can reopen our borders and welcome the world back to British Columbia,

whether it be on a cruise ship, whether it be on a bus, whether it be on

a bicycle.

[4:05 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Well, the Premier shouldn’t sell himself short. He may have

already effected change.

Just a couple of days ago, in the follow-up to the unanimous

passage of that piece of legislation, asked about a subsequent piece of

legislation that is now winding its way through Congress to make the

change permanent, the Premier again very purposely — and he’s now

experienced in the role of Premier, and he’s certainly experienced in

the role of a publicly elected official — chose to refer to the junior

senator from Utah, a landlocked state.

Now, that’s not accidental language. The Premier was poking. He

was also wrong, by the way, at least half-wrong. I wonder what the

Premier’s

interpretation of those remarks would have been if they had

been made by a foreign leader about him. He just finished lecturing the

House about how these are processes that fall outside of our control —

he’s right about that — and he’s poking the very people who control

those processes, misdescribing them, describing them

inaccurately.

Again, my question to the Premier is…. He chose to use that

language. That was completely within his control. He chose to describe

the senator who is the senior senator from Utah as the junior senator.

He chose to — for whatever purpose, he did — point out that Utah is not

a coastal state. Is this part of some grand strategy that the Premier is

developing for fostering closer relations with the Congress that is

going to rule on these matters?

Hon. J. Horgan: I know that the member is not unfamiliar with hyperbole in the

Legislature. If he wants to take issue with the words I used, he

certainly has a right to do that. I’m going to focus on solving the

challenges that face us in this Legislature and in Ottawa with the

federal government, to get our borders open so that we can welcome the

world back to B.C.

M. de Jong: Mr. Chair, I didn’t make the statement. The Premier made a

statement, directly relative to an issue that engages the attention of

British Columbians, about people who will play a direct role in the

resolution of the matter. I didn’t make the statement; he

did.

What was the purpose? What was the purpose of belittling the

senator who is advancing a piece of legislation that could very well

make a change — permanent — that will have negative impacts on British

Columbia? It’s his language, not mine. Is it part of a strategy, or did

he just misspeak?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I appreciate that the member for Abbotsford West is now

fixated on language that was used in the back-and-forth in this place

and in other parts of our daily activities here at the Legislative

Assembly in the province of British Columbia. Today the objective, in

the time we have available, is to canvass the budget estimates for the

Office of the Premier.

M. de Jong: You can always tell when a member of the executive council doesn’t

want to talk about something. I can’t say I blame the Premier. I think

he’s a bit embarrassed about the language he used, and he should be. It

wasn’t smart; it wasn’t smart at all.

He also had something to say about the head of the Greater

Victoria Harbour Authority. He called him a federal appointee. He was

wrong. I don’t know if he’s called him and apologized. But on an issue

that is of paramount importance, the Premier seems to be awfully

flippant, awfully dismissive and awfully prepared to poke people who can

make decisions that will impact British Columbia in a very, very

negative way. We’ve this question. We found out the other day that, for

all of the protestations to the contrary, the government….

Oh, I was going to ask this. Who’s the minister in charge of this

file? Who’s the lead minister on this file?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, there is a Transportation component. There is a Tourism

component. There is an intergovernmental relations component. We’ve been

working methodically through these various component parts, the minister

responsible for Transportation with the Transportation Minister in

Ottawa, about the prospect of technical stops, which was one of the

suggestions that was made to us. We’ve brought that forward. We raised

that with the federal government. It is in their hands.

I engage with the Prime Minister on borders and on how we conduct

our relationships between international foreign bodies, whether it be

the United States, the U.K., the EU — you name it. I’ve worked with the

federal government in that regard, and the Minister of Tourism engages

with those who want to bring more people to British Columbia.

For my part, I engaged in a very good discussion with Senator

Murkowski, who did sponsor and pass the legislation that I missed on

back in February and March. She is a neighbour of ours, in Alaska. She

knows full well the importance of stopping in Prince Rupert. She

reminded me, in fact, in our conversation, that as a young person,

whenever she was leaving the Alaska panhandle to come down south, she

came through Rupert. She knows the important relationship we have

between Alaska and British Columbia.

I’ve engaged on this question with the governor of Washington.

Again, positive working relationships with our neighbours — that’s what

I’m doing to try and resolve this issue. I believe that over time, once

we’ve opened our borders, we’ll get back to normal and go from

there.

What I took issue with, with the opposition’s approach, quite

frankly, was that this is largely a federal issue. Not once have I heard

the opposition say: “What about Canada opening up the borders? What

about Canada making overtures to the ambassador in Washington?”

International relations are the responsibility of the federal

government. I have not heard one member on the other side raise that

question. It’s all our fault. It’s all a debacle. It’s

dismissive.

The issue is a federal issue with respect to the borders, and it’s

an international relations question that is handled by GAC, the external

affairs ministry and minister in Ottawa. I would love to hear any

suggestions that the opposition has on how we can better manage those

relationships between Ottawa and Washington.

The Chair: Before I recognize Abbotsford West, just a reminder to our

colleagues on Zoom. No conversations using electronic devices,

please. I appreciate that.

M. de Jong: Thanks. Here’s a suggestion for the minister. When a matter like

this is raised, when the question of technical stops had been brought to

the government’s attention back in February, it’s probably a good idea

for the B.C. Minister of Transportation not to wait until the end of May

to pursue the matter with his federal counterpart.

Surely the Premier is prepared to stand up today and acknowledge

that a four-month delay between the time an issue, and possible

solution, is brought to his government’s attention and the time his

minister finally commits pen to paper and writes to his federal

counterpart is not acceptable.

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, we did discuss technical stops. I was told explicitly…. Do

you really think at that time we felt…? We were advised through Homeland

Security officials that a technical stop would require people to

disembark from the vessel. Do you think that would’ve gone over well in

Victoria? I don’t. That’s why we didn’t pursue it.

M. de Jong: Yeah, the Premier will forgive me. I’m not really trusting of his

instincts on these matters any longer, given the track record. Here

we’ve got a situation today where there is the introduction of U.S.

legislation that would eliminate, on a permanent basis, the requirement

for a cruise ship travelling from the lower 48 states to Alaska to stop

at a B.C. port of call.

Now, the Premier’s response to that threat is interesting. It has

shifted from: “It won’t happen” to “Well, even if it does, the impact

will be minimal.” I disagree with that.

My question on this one for the Premier is: can he alert the

committee to the analysis that he and his government have done today to

consider the impact that this change on a permanent basis would have for

the cruise ship sector and tourism in B.C.? What studies has he

commissioned to answer that particular question?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ll be speaking with Ambassador Hillman tomorrow morning about

this issue, and I’ll have more to say to the member once I’ve consulted

with the Ambassador to the U.S., who is, of course, paid to address

these issues, to monitor them, to do that research. I may well have more

tomorrow.

Again, my responsibility here, not just today, which is the budget

estimates for my office, is to take care of the business of British

Columbia within the confines of our province. If there are external

factors, that’s the responsibility of the federal government. We have a

very positive working relationship. I raise these issues. I leave it to

the responsible authorities to manage them.

M. de Jong: Right. Thanks. I accept responsibility for the…. I think the

Premier misunderstood my question. I