Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, June 14, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 93

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

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Sikh community in Surrey and response to recent events

R. Singh

Blood donation and opening of plasma clinic in Kelowna

N. Letnick

Action against racism, discrimination and hate

H. Yao

Role of public servants during COVID-19

G. Kyllo

Granville Island

B. Bailey

Richmond Hospital Foundation fundraising for care tower project

T. Wat

Oral Questions

Government response to U.S. legislation on cruise ship industry

S. Bond

Hon. J. Horgan

T. Wat

Report on death of Indigenous child in care and Indigenous role in child protection system

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Dean

Government response to U.S. legislation on cruise ship industry

T. Stone

Hon. J. Horgan

M. de Jong

M. Lee

Petitions

Hon. R. Fleming

Orders of the Day

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2021

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance

Hon. S. Robinson

M. Bernier

S. Furstenau

A. Olsen

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2021 (continued)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation (continued)

T. Stone

Hon. R. Kahlon

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

Hon. A. Dix

R. Merrifield

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (continued)

M. Morris

Hon. M. Farnworth

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

Hon. R. Fleming

M. Lee

MONDAY, JUNE 14, 2021

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

A. Olsen: Today I rise to continue what I’ve been doing over the

last….

Interjections.

[1:35 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The member will continue.

A. Olsen: You got going very quickly this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

Today I would like to honour the story of Michelle. Michelle’s

daughter Rachel is 26 years old, struggled with mental health and addiction

for over half of her life and shared her story of not being able to access

the supports that she needs and the challenge of accessing private

counsellors, costing over $200 per hour that, unfortunately, drugs have

become the therapy that Michelle’s daughter has turned to.

I think it’s important to acknowledge the distress that this is

causing for Michelle and her family, often battling anxiety and depression

themselves. So this is not just a sit­uation that Michelle’s daughter

faces, but it’s a situation that her entire family faces.

Today I’d like to acknowledge Michelle and the families that were part

of the group of Holding Hope that I met with a few weeks back and honour

their stories here in introductions.

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, today as I was getting ready for the day, I took a look at what

we were going to be doing to­day, and I saw the date at the top of the

list. I thought: “Oh. It’s June 14.” It’s my wedding anniversary, Mr.

Speaker.

I feel bad, because, of course, I’m not with my husband. But I do want

to take a moment to wish Dan Robinson a very happy, happy 34th wedding

anniversary.

I had the opportunity to just reflect back on when we were 21, and he

thought that it was a good idea to get married. I wasn’t convinced, because

21 is certainly very young, as I know some members in this House would

agree. The reason that I didn’t want to get married is be­cause I was

really worried he would just get in my way.

So I do want to take a moment to just thank who I think is the

greatest spouse in the world, because he’s never gotten in my

way.

Mr. Speaker: Members, before I recognize the members to make statements, this is

our last week. Let’s start with a positive note and end with a positive on

Thursday. I hope all of the statements that people will be making will be

celebratory, positive and celebrating with each other.

Thank you very much.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SIKH COMMUNITY IN SURREY

AND RESPONSE TO RECENT

EVENTS

R. Singh: The last few weeks have been very tough for all of us. The entire

country has been grappling with the horrifying discovery of 215 children

buried in an un­marked grave on the ground of the former

residential school in Kamloops and also grieving the senseless brutal

killings of Madiha Salman, Salman Afzaal, Yumna Afzaal and Talat Afzaal

in London, Ontario last week.

I see the pain being felt by the communities, by the residential

school survivors and their families, and by people right across the

country. During this tough time, we have seen communities step up and

hold space for one another.

I want to recognize the Sikh community in Surrey. The values of

solidarity, selfless service and social justice are the goals of

Sikhism. On June 4, the Sikh community org­anized a vigil for the

215 deceased children outside of the Surrey city hall, while several

Sikh activists associated with different motorcycle clubs drove to

Kamloops on June 5 to express their solidarity with Tk’emlúps te

Secwépemc communities.

The Sikh community stood in solidarity at a vigil in Surrey to

honour the Afzaal family. I saw people from all walks of life grieving

with their Muslim brothers and sisters. My Muslim constituents have

shared stories with me of their neighbours bringing meals. One mentioned

that her neighbour’s dal was the first meal she had in three

days.

All of our struggles are connected. When one of us hurts, others

feel the pain too. But moments of solidarity and checking up on one

another make it easier to get through it all.

[1:40 p.m.]

BLOOD DONATION AND OPENING

OF PLASMA CLINIC IN

KELOWNA

N. Letnick: Today in Canada and around the world it’s World Blood Donor Day,

the day when we recognize the incredible value of blood donors to our

health care system and proudly thank the many donors, volunteers and

health care workers for everything they do to carry out this important

task and encourage others to donate themselves.

This year it’s especially important to recognize this

in­credible work as our health care workers and donors have faced

the many challenges of COVID-19 and have done everything they can to

establish COVID-safe donor stations and encouraging people to donate

their blood. Our health care system is always in need of donors, and

COVID has made this year even more important for all of to us do our

part and give, if we are able to do so. Donors of blood, plasma, stem

cells or cord blood are a vital link in Canada’s lifeline.

In addition, this month British Columbia will see its first plasma

clinic open — guess where? — right in Kelowna. To mark the occasion and

encourage public participation, Kelowna’s three local MLAs will be

rolling up our sleeves and donating plasma next Tuesday at the new

centre located in the Orchard Park mall, which offers more convenient

hours and parking.

Plasma is the protein-rich liquid in our blood responsible for

circulating blood cells and platelets throughout our bodies. For many

patients with a wide range of diseases, plasma can save or improve their

lives. As a healthy person, and any healthy person, who meets the

eligibility criteria, please donate plasma as frequently as every two

weeks. To become a plasma donor, having a history of making regular

blood donations helps but is not always necessary. You should weigh over

50 kilograms, be in general good health and 17 years of age and

older.

All members know that blood donations can be life-changing for

someone in need, so let’s encourage those around us to become donors and

show British Columbia how we can do our part to help to save

lives.

ACTION AGAINST

RACISM, DISCRIMINATION AND

HATE

H. Yao: On June 8, while attending Richmond’s commemoration for the 215

children found at the Kamloops residential school, I was interrupted by

an individual who notified me that someone wrote a racist remark in

Chinese with chalk.

Chalk was initially provided by community members to give others

an opportunity to express their sorrow, reflection and support.

Unfortunately, the message written de­monized Jewish and Black

Canadians. The event hosts, community leaders and myself quickly erased

the message. However, it was a dreadful reminder that hate and systemic

discrimination exist in our society in many forms.

Since COVID-19 was identified in B.C., hate crimes against Asian

Canadians rose exponentially. Many have become victims of despicable and

unprovoked violence. On May 17, the International Day against

Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia reminded us that there are people

who still attempt to deny Canadians their right to be themselves and

love who they love.

The horrific discovery of Indigenous children’s remains found at

the Kamloops residential school spotlighted the abuse, pain and

suffering experienced by Indigenous Peo­ple in Canadian history.

This month, a pre-meditated at­tack triggered by Islamophobia took

the lives of a family of Muslim Canadians in London, Ontario.

These events all share the same root — racism and hatred. As

Canadians, we take pride in being kind, polite and generous, and we

don’t want to believe this is who we are, but we cannot ignore that

systemic racism exists in our society.

On this upcoming Canada Day, I’m asking every British Columbian to

stand up for the country we wish to be. Let us commit ourselves to

defend every person’s right to be who they are and live free from fear

and hate. Please join us in allyship for all in the fight against

systemic racism, discrimination and hate.

Together we can build a fair, just and equitable Canada for

all.

ROLE OF PUBLIC SERVANTS

DURING

COVID-19

G. Kyllo: I rise today in recognition of National Public Service Week, a

time to celebrate and acknowledge the incredible hard work and

commitment of our public servants. The work ethic, commitment to the job

and dedication of public servants in Canada, but especially here in

B.C., never ceases to amaze. This year’s theme is “Proudly serving

Canadians,” and every day, federal and provincial public servants rise

to the huge challenge of delivering important and effective programs and

services to support the needs of Canadians and British

Columbians.

As COVID-19 devastated our province over the past year, public

servants remained dedicated to their service and effectively implemented

new government policies, programs and initiatives.

[1:45 p.m.]

This was no small task, but through hard work and commitment, the

federal and provincial public service supported our governments in their

attempts to minimize the public health crisis. In British Columbia,

public servants helped with the delivery of financial relief to

individuals, families and small businesses; COVID-19 testing and

tracking efforts; public health policies; and now, vaccination

efforts.

There’s no doubt in my mind that the hard work, leadership and

resilience displayed by public servants made a tremendous impact on

B.C.’s response to the COVID-​19 pandemic.

I ask the members of this House to join me in thanking all public

servants for their continued dedication to our province and to our

country.

GRANVILLE ISLAND

B. Bailey: As we embrace further reopening of our economy in the province,

many are beginning to contemplate where in B.C. we plan to travel this

summer. I’d like to re­mind folks to visit one of my favourite

places in the riding of Vancouver–False Creek — Granville

Island.

Many people know it as a tourist destination, and it is. But it’s

also so much more. The island is home to 275 businesses and facilities

that employ more than 2,500 people and generates more than $215 million

in economic activity in a normal year. Granville Island provides

amenities such as a large public market, an extensive marina, a hotel,

the Arts Umbrella, False Creek Community Centre, various performing arts

theatres — including Vancouver’s only professional improvisational

theatre company, Vancouver TheatreSports League; the Arts Club Theatre

Co.; and the Carousel Theatre — fine arts galleries and a variety of

shopping.

The fisherman’s wharf provides access to fresh halibut, spot

prawns and Dungeness crab. You can take some home or stop in to one of

the many fish restaurants to enjoy these local offerings. I’m sure there

are many listening who miss attending theatre as much as I do, and we

long for the day when we, once again, will be able to enjoy the

wonderful experiences the talented folks in this sector of our economy

create for us. I’m dying to check out the new location of the Arts Club

Theatre in the old Emily Carr building, and we’ll know that as soon as

it’s safe, productions will be on offer.

At the Granville Island Public Market, there’s more than just the

farmers market, where you can get the finest B.C. produce, cheese, meat

and fish. There are 50 permanent retailers and, typically, more than 100

day vendors in stalls throughout the market, selling a variety of

artisan cottage industry foods and handmade crafts on a rotating

schedule.

If travel is on your docket this summer, don’t forget to visit the

wonderful world under the Granville Street Bridge. Come enjoy the local

beer, food, theatre and arts and crafts on offer.

It is my hope that even with the pandemic, which will soon be

behind us, we’ll continue the excellent habit of shopping

local.

RICHMOND HOSPITAL FOUNDATION

FUNDRAISING FOR CARE TOWER

PROJECT

T. Wat: In growing communities like Richmond, the need for more hospital

beds is becoming ever more urgent. Thankfully, the people of Richmond

have a fantastic team at the Richmond Hospital Foundation, who are doing

everything they can to ensure that the Richmond Hospital acute care

tower will be built. This will be a crucial step to improve health care

in Richmond.

Despite facing incredible obstacles like COVID-19 and delays in

the business plan approval, the incredible Richmond Hospital Foundation

has worked tirelessly and has reached the incredible milestone of

raising $50 million through the Act Now campaign.

I was honoured to join the virtual, joyful giving celebration on

June 8 to celebrate this incredible achievement. Of course, our work is

not done until we actually see the tower built. We can always do more to

support this incredible project, which will bring much-needed hospital

spaces and services to Richmond. No amount is too small, and I encourage

you all to visit the Richmond Hospital Foundation website to learn how

we can all do our part to help see this tower built.

I would also like to personally thank Rick Ilich, chair of the Act

Now fundraising campaign; foundation president Natalie Meixner; board

chair Chad Peterson; all of their committee and board staff; and the

more than 130 individuals, families and businesses that have shown

leadership with major gives during this campaign, led by the Yurkovich

family, for whom the tower will be named.

Mr. Speaker: We missed one introduction.

[1:50 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

S. Chant: Recognizing that it is World Blood Donor Day, I would like to

introduce Rick Chant, my husband. He is a universal donor who has donated

over 90 units of blood through both the Canadian Blood Services and other

agencies while we were living and working overseas.

He has also donated bone marrow, at the time allowing a young lady

named Ashley, who was 22 years old at the time, to live, subsequently marry

and watch her children grow up.

I would like the House to join me in appreciating my hero and my

husband, Rick Chant.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO

U.S. LEGISLATION ON

CRUISE

SHIP INDUSTRY

S. Bond: For months, the people who work in the tourism industry have been

telling the Premier to take the threat of American cruise ships

permanently bypassing our ports seriously. But the Premier dismissed it.

He said that it would never happen. In fact, he called it a blip. Now he

says: “This new overture by the junior senator from Utah is certainly a

complicating factor, to be sure, but not one that we could have

predicted” and “not one that I was aware of until late

yesterday.”

Frankly, to the Premier, that just doesn’t cut it.

The opposition told him. The industry told him. In fact, the

Americans told him he needed to do something about it.

Can the Premier stand up today and tell us what exactly he is

doing to clean up the mess that he created on this file?

Hon. J. Horgan: I see that the official opposition continues down a path of just

condemning and complaining about absolutely everything under the sun,

even if it’s legislation passed in other jurisdictions. I mean, it’s

tough enough to get them to agree with the progressive, positive

legislation happening in this place. Yet they now are the only people in

Canada that are focused on the Senate and the Congress in the United

States on issues, quite frankly, that are not yet active.

The Canadian….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: The U.S. Centers for Disease Control are working with the cruise

industry to put in place processes and procedures to protect the

travelling public.

I’m pretty sure…. I might be wrong on this, but I’m pretty

confident that the official opposition understands that the borders are

controlled and regulated by the federal government. The issues with

respect to boarding or disembarking in Canada are the responsibility of

the federal government. Now, I’m not seeing any shock and surprise on

any faces over there. So I think they get it.

What have we been doing? I reached out to Senator

Murkowski.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: I talked to her about the importance of the relationships between

Alaska and British Columbia, and she concurs. Her legislation will

sunset….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. J. Horgan: If the member from Vancouver doesn’t want to hear the answer….

This is a pattern. They ask a question, and then they heckle, heckle,

heckle without getting the answer.

I spoke to the sponsoring minister of the bill that passed. She

confirmed that it will sunset when the borders open. She confirmed that

the relationships between Alaska and British Columbia are

strong.

I work with the governor of Washington all the time. More

importantly, the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Tourism

are working with the sector to prepare for the reopening of British

Columbia.

Here’s a note. There are no cruise ships today, and there will be

no cruise ships tomorrow, but we’re preparing for that day when the

borders open and we can welcome people back to British

Columbia.

I will just quote Donna Spalding from the Cruise Lines

International Association, who says: “Victoria is a marquee destination.

We will continue to come here as soon as we’re able.”

That’s where the industry is. Why doesn’t the Liberal caucus get

behind the cruise ship industry and support a reopening of British

Columbia when it’s safe to do so?

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: I think it’s pretty rich that the Premier stands up and talks

about who should be getting behind the cruise industry in British

Columbia. This Premier has been missing in action since day

one.

This issue was brought to his attention, and there were absolutely

blank stares on the faces of both him and his minister when we raised

this issue with him months ago. In fact, this is a Premier who refused

to do anything. He said: “B.C. is in a good place on this file. This is

just a new wrinkle.”

[1:55 p.m.]

Well, let’s talk about quotes. How about Ian Rob­ertson, the

CEO of the Greater Victoria Harbour Auth­ority? “It’s more than a

wrinkle. I absolutely think more could have been done.” The Premier

should have reached out, but there was no communication with the Premier

and the industry.

Let’s be clear. The Premier can bluster all he wants over there,

but what he did was ignore the warnings. He ig­nored the proposals

of technical stops that would’ve safeguarded our cruise ship industry.

Where did he hear that first? On this side of the

Legislature.

He instead chose to actively mock U.S. actions and those people

who tried to warn him. What did he say? “Never going to happen. Not

going to pass. Not going to be signed off by the President of the United

States.” Well, guess what. He was wrong then, and he is wrong

now.

It is time for him to get up and explain to British Columbians why

he has been missing in action on this file since day one, putting

thousands of jobs at risk and billions of dollars to the economy of

British Columbia.

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I’ll confirm for those on the other side that there are no

cruise ships going up and down the coast of North America today, and

there won’t be for the foreseeable future. Prior to the pandemic,

700,000 people came to Victoria on a cruise ship. One million people

came to Vancouver on a cruise ship. This is all very positive news, and

it is not at risk. It is suspended because we’re in a global

pandemic.

Some days I think we’re living in a crazy universe where only the

B.C. Liberals think that we can snap our fingers and the world will be

healed, a global pandemic will be over, and we will be welcoming

everyone to British Columbia. That will happen when it is safe to do

so.

Seriously, I am perplexed at the fixation of the people on the

other side, when we are doing the technical work. We wrote to the

federal government asking for exactly those stops.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members will listen to the answer.

Hon. J. Horgan: We wrote to the federal government doing that. I talk to the Prime

Minister about the borders on a weekly basis. Perhaps I’ll tie in the

Leader of the Op­position after the call on Thursday. I’ll let her

know when the borders are going to be opening.

That sort of dialogue used to be in this place until something

happened over there. Maybe it’s the leadership campaign. I don’t

know.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: But thank goodness we’ve got eight more months of reasonable

questions from the Leader of the Opposition. Eight more

months.

T. Wat: Well, the Premier has the gall to tell us that he talked to the

Alaskan delegation. He only talked to them when the legislation was

passed. Isn’t it a bit too late? It is really hard to take this Premier

seriously after he has repeatedly bungled as usual. His tourism minister

rejected a briefing from the cruise sector and instead accused the

opposition of fearmongering.

She said the NDP was “arrogant in our confidence.” In­stead

of arrogance, the cruise sector needs a clear answer about when or even

if they can expect business once again. This mess is clearly the

Premier’s fault.

Can the Premier confirm what steps he is now taking to clean up

his own mess?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, Canadian federalism is a complicated subject. I appreciate

that. The federal government is responsible for the borders. The federal

government has a division, Transport Canada, that regulates people

coming in and out of our ports. They have determined that the cruise

ship industry will be suspended until February of 2022 — not the

provincial government, not the municipal government of Victoria, not the

municipal governments in Prince Rupert but the federal

government.

Now, I appreciate there’s not a lot to say in Richmond that’s

negative because we’re building a new hospital. We’re putting money into

the night market. Three out of the four members from that community are

sitting on this side of the House because the people of Richmond

understand that a progressive, positive government starts with having

progressive, positive ideas, not hanging on and weaponizing an issue

that is a federal issue.

We have been working to try and break this logjam, trying to get a

way forward. I spoke to the senator who sponsored the bill. She’s a

neighbour of ours from Alaska — positive discussion. Sunset clause is

there to protect everybody up and down the coast. Guess what. The

industry is championing Victoria, Vancouver and Prince Rupert as marquee

destinations.

[2:00 p.m.]

I don’t know why that’s not good enough for the peo­ple on

that side, but I guess another 3½ years of opposition and lame questions

is not much to get up in the morning for.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond North Centre on a supplemental.

T. Wat: For the Premier to keep saying that it is a federal jurisdiction

doesn’t cut it. Doesn’t he understand that the Alaskan delegation has

been copied to the Premier asking for a technical stop? This Tourism

Minister, when we raised this issue, she didn’t have a clue what a

technical stop was about. If we could have responded and urged the

federal government…. The federal government was waiting for us to say

yes to a technical stop.

The Minister of Tourism kept claiming that all hands are on deck

but couldn’t say what anyone was doing. Now we know why. The province

didn’t work with the Alaskans. The Premier didn’t work with anyone in

the file until it was way too late.

On Friday, the Premier said: “I don’t regret not yelling louder at

people who would not have been listening.” So instead, he did nothing,

and B.C. faces a real crisis that is of the Premier’s making.

Can the Premier tell us what steps — not just words but actions —

he is taking to protect the thousands employed in the cruise ship

industry?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, the federal government closed our borders. At that time, we

were unanimous and supported that position, because COVID-19 was a

global pandemic that would have had a negative effect not just on the

cruise ship sector but our entire economy. Everyone supported that, and

we’re continuing to work to find a safe way to reopen our borders. Part

of that will include our marine borders that the member refers

to.

The technical stop she’s asking about…. We said to the federal

government, “We encourage you to allow that to happen” — in writing. I

don’t know what part of that they don’t understand.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: Now, I appreciate the member for Kamloops…. A lot of cruise ships

go through Kamloops. I understand that he would be concerned about this.

I live in Victoria. I understand the importance of the cruise industry

to British Columbia, perhaps better than many of the people on that side

of the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, listen to the answer.

Hon. J. Horgan: We’re committed to making sure that when the borders are safe to

open, we’re 100 percent there. The Minister of Transportation, the

Minister of Tourism are engaged with the sector.

More importantly, the free-enterprisers on the other side should

look at what the market is saying. The market is saying Victoria,

Vancouver — marquee destinations. People want to come here, because they

don’t watch question period and listen to Liberals.

REPORT ON DEATH OF INDIGENOUS

CHILD IN CARE AND

INDIGENOUS ROLE

IN CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM

A. Olsen: Last week the Representative for Children and Youth released a

report on the tragic circumstances that led to the death of an

Indigenous child, Skye. Skye’s story is tragic and reflects the stories

of many others under the care of the Ministry of Children and Family

Development.

The institution that should be protecting these children is,

instead, taking Indigenous children away from their families and

perpetuating the colonial child welfare policy. The report’s

recommendations of more training and more conversations are just more of

the status quo that is failing Indigenous children and families. They

don’t go far enough to ensure that children won’t experience the same as

Skye.

The consultation draft of the action plan on the Declaration on

the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act was released on Friday. None of the

actions in the plan are surprising. These are all actions that we’ve

been talking about for years. The plan calls for the province to, at

minimum, reduce the number of Indigenous children in care, support

family preservation and to create long-term change for Indigenous-led

child care.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development.

The story of Skye is all too familiar in this House. Will the minister

commit to ending this colonial legacy of taking children away from their

communities by giving Indigenous communities full authority over the

systems that provide care for their children and families?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question. I would also like to

thank the representative for this report, and I want to say thank you to

all of the family and friends and everyone who was involved in this

amazing young person’s life for stepping forward and sharing their

stories and helping us understand her story as well.

I agree with the member, and I agree with the representative that

on top of what we’re already doing, we have to do more to ensure that

children and youth from Indigenous communities are no longer

overrepresented in the system.

[2:05 p.m.]

Since we formed government in 2017, it has been a priority of ours

to directly tackle and address the over­representation of

Indigenous children and youth in the child welfare system, working with

Indigenous communities and Indigenous nations to make sure that we can

achieve that.

This is part of a long history and legacy of overinvolvement of

the government in the lives of Indigenous children and youth in care. We

have changed budgets, and we have changed provincial legislation to make

sure that we’re achieving that goal — specifically, to supporting

nations exercising their jurisdiction so that they can take care of

their children, and their children are not overrepresented in the child

welfare system.

We are working with nations and with communities. We had started

this work previously, under provincial legislation and regulation. Now,

we have a federal act, and we can work together with nations and

communities to support them in exercising their jurisdiction in the ways

that they want to, to take care of their children and best meet their

needs.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a

supplemental.

A. Olsen: I’m encouraged by at least the second half of that answer. I think

it gets to the point.

The report states that Skye had a total of 18 social workers from

when she first came into care until her death 12 years later. That’s

more than one social worker a year for the duration of her

life.

I hear similar stories of instability from constituents in my

riding. Children in care, especially Indigenous children, are removed

from their communities and placed into an unstable system of care that

leaves children falling through the cracks.

The provincial government has committed, through the action plan

that was released on Friday, to change the system of care, and the

minister spoke to that. The third action of the draft action plan is to

develop a B.C.-specific fiscal framework that supports Indigenous

jurisdiction over child and family services. We need to ensure that that

new system provides the stability for children that the current system

failed to provide for Skye. A stable system requires stable funding not

just this year and next, but every year going forward.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development.

What work has the ministry done to prepare a sustainable, fiscal

framework to support Indigenous jurisdiction over child and family

services?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you again, to the member. This matter is a high priority, a

top priority, for our ministry. As I said earlier on, for far too long

there has been an overinvolvement of government in the lives of

Indigenous children and youth and overrepresentation of Indigenous

children and youth in care.

We need to be working in partnership with Indigenous communities

and Indigenous partners. We are starting that work. We’ve already taken

steps, and we know that there’s a lot more to do.

We changed provincial legislation to be able to allow social

workers to reach out to community and ask communities, “Is there an

auntie? Is there a grandma? Is there someone who is able to take care of

an Indigenous child or youth while we work out a long-term plan?” —

hopefully, rehabilitation back to family, because we know that keeping

Indigenous children and youth connected to family and community and

culture is leading to better outcomes for them.

We are trending now that we’re getting lower numbers of Indigenous

children and youth coming into care. We have the lowest number of

Indigenous children and youth in care in 20 years. That’s also because

we’re supporting that financially. We’re providing funding for carers at

the same level as foster carers so that Indigenous children and youth

can stay in community.

This year, Budget 2021, we committed $13 million to supporting

this approach, which is leading to reductions of Indigenous children and

youth in care. We are committed, and I am committed, to continuing that

work and working on a fiscal framework so that we can continue to

provide for Indigenous children and youth to be cared for in

community.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO

U.S. LEGISLATION ON

CRUISE

SHIP INDUSTRY

T. Stone: Earlier in question period, we saw some energy from the Premier on

the tourism sector. If only we’d have seen that energy eight months ago,

the cruise ship sector wouldn’t be in the crisis that it is today. The

Premier should have — he should have — been all over the cruise ship

sector from day one, and that was as of last October. But instead of

standing up for our tourism sector, the Premier went and called an

unnecessary pandemic election, which essentially froze government for a

number of months.

[2:10 p.m.]

Now, the Premier says that he couldn’t possibly have predicted

what has happened in B.C.’s cruise ship sector. Ian Robertson from the

Victoria Harbor Authority says: “There is always that risk. That’s how

things become permanent. They start with a temporary measure, and then

they become permanent.”

Could the Premier please tell us, after ignoring the issue for

eight months, what immediate steps he has taken to protect B.C.’s

multi-billion-dollar cruise ship sector?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m sure the member from Kamloops will know that the two acts in

question in the United States are over 100 years old. It’s not

surprising that the United States Senate wants to modernize some of its

archaic practices. Fair enough.

The marketplace tells people that British Columbia is a good place

to come to. People who sell tickets and passage on cruise ships want to

do that. The industry wants to come here. Eight months ago, as the

member goes back…. Eight months ago, how could we have predicted this

would have been a problem? It was pretty easy to predict. The borders

were closed. Even Liberals could have understood that that would have

negative impact on tourism and that would have had a negative impact on

the cruise ship sector.

Here’s the good news. Of course it’s good news that’s perpetuating

on this side of the House, because we’re focused on a positive step

forward. Today we announced going to step 2 in our restart plan, lauded

by the industry, lauded by the tourism sector. In another two weeks, as

we go through another incubation period, we’re going to probably move to

stage 3, which will mean even more opportunity for people to come to

British Columbia, to see the splendour here, to maybe, if cruise ships

are running again….

This is the U.S. Centers for Disease Control that are putting

these restrictions in place. It’s not me. Pardon me, it’s not this

government. It’s someone else. I appreciate it’s easy to blame me for

all of the problems in the world. Bring it on. I’m happy to hear from

you, Member.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a

supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, news flash for the Premier. It is the Premier’s job to

defend the thousands and thousands of British Columbians who work in the

cruise ship sector. It is the Premier’s job to stand up for the sector

and everybody who works in it.

The Premier has been sleeping at the switch. He was first notified

of the issues that were building in the cruise ship sector — and the

concerns that the Alaskan delegation in particular had — eight months

ago. He did nothing at that time. He did nothing up until literally, it

seems, days ago. He’s put the entire cruise ship sector in British

Columbia at grave risk.

While the Premier was pretending that everything was fine in the

sector last Friday, industry experts had differing views of the state of

the sector. The very next day, the Premier was contradicted by Ian

Robertson of the Victoria Harbour Authority, who said: “I’m incredibly

concerned. This was always my fear that this legislation, while being

talked about as being temporary, could become permanent. Quite honestly,

I don’t think government, both the provincial and federal level, took

this seriously enough when this all started.”

Again the question to the Premier is this. Will the Premier do at

least one thing right and tell British Columbians what he’s doing

besides shrugging and hoping to protect the thousands of cruise ship

sector jobs that are at risk because of his inaction?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, again, the port authorities are federal jurisdiction. Mr.

Robertson was appointed by the federal government. I would have thought

that he could have reached out to the people who closed the borders and

asked them about reopening them. That’s what I would have done if I was

a federal appointee. And I’ve done that anyway, because I believe

British Columbians, when we’re ready to open up our borders, will

welcome the world back here, because we have, as the cruise ship

industry says, a marquee destination.

Again, I would have thought the free-enterprisers on the other

side would have allowed the market to speak on these questions rather

than following the debates and deliberations of the U.S. Senate, which

seems to be a preoccupation. Maybe you don’t have enough to do on that

side of the House anymore.

M. de Jong: Well, the Premier has been dismissive of this issue from day one.

Today he has reverted to being insulting. He has also, by the way, been

wrong every step of the way. He has been wrong every step of the way.

The price will be paid by those working in B.C.’s tourism sector, in the

cruise ship sector.

[2:15 p.m.]

He says at one point: “Well, we’ve been working quietly behind the

scenes.” Well, apparently more quietly than he wants to admit, because

when we FOI’d those agencies at the federal level, including Transport

Canada, and when we FOI’d the provincial government to determine exactly

what records exist of the contacts he claims to have made defending the

interests of B.C.’s tourism sector, do you know what we came up with?

Nothing — nothing about the letter in February, about the legislation

that the Premier said could never pass. And now we’re on to a second

piece of legislation that threatens to make it a permanent state of

affairs.

How does the Premier want British Columbians to have any

confidence whatsoever that they can (

a) believe him; or (

b) trust him to

defend their interests when there isn’t a single record — a single

record — of contact between his office, his government and those federal

authorities that he insists are responsible for this?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, it’s a bit rich to hear someone on the official opposition

say that we’ve denigrated to insults. I’ve been listening to them —

those on the other side — for a number of months, and every question

starts with several insults before you get to the issue that you’re

trying to explode into a bigger issue than it really is.

I’m not dismissive of the cruise ship industry or the challenge;

I’m dismissive of the official opposition. There’s a big difference

between those two.

What we have been doing is focusing on what British Columbians

want us to focus on: protecting communities, people and businesses as we

come through a global pandemic. I feel like I have to highlight that.

It’s as if they have not been on the same planet as the rest of us on

this side of the House.

There are no cruise ships going up and down the coast of North

America right now, and there won’t be in the foreseeable future. But

that has not stopped us from engaging with the industry, engaging with

the federal government and getting to a place, as we go from stage 2,

which we announced today…. I thought that might have been a cause for

celebration on the other side. But no good news from that side — only

negativity. The nabobs of negativity are alive and well in British

Columbia, and they all sit over there.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: Well, thank you, Spiro Agnew.

The story is changing, as it has throughout this sad episode in

our history. The Premier began….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s listen to the question, please.

M. de Jong: The Premier began…. When we raised this issue in the House,

sounding the warning, he began by saying even a temporary measure had no

chance of passing the U.S. Congress. Then it passed. “Oh,” he said,

“that’s not a big deal. They’ll never, ever consider making something

like that permanent.” That is now under active consideration and deemed

likely to pass as well. Response from the Premier: “Well, it doesn’t

really matter. It doesn’t really matter.”

It matters a lot, and the Premier needs to be answerable for the

fact that despite claiming, after the fact, that he and his government

have been lobbying on behalf of this sector, there is not a single

record — not from his office, not from his government, not from the

federal authorities, not from Transport Canada — that reinforces or

supports the story that the Premier is trying to tell. British

Columbians need to know what this government has been doing to defend

their interests in a multi-billion-dollar industry.

So far, all the Premier has had to offer are insults and

dismissive comments. He’s got to do better than that in this

House.

Hon. J. Horgan: After a deluge of insults from the op­posite side, I will

again go back to the basic principles.

The sponsor of the bill that did pass in the U.S. is a neighbour

of ours, Senator Murkowski from the great state of Alaska. I’ve had a

good discussion with her about what her plans would be for the

legislation. She told me it will sunset when the borders open or when we

get to February, whichever comes first.

I would suggest that the vast majority of British Columbians that

aren’t looking desperately for something to do for half an hour during

question period are good with that. The sponsor is a neighbour. To the

south of us in Washington state, Governor Inslee also understands that

the extraordinary relationship we have in British Columbia….

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: “Thank you,” says the member from the other side. Thank you for

bringing up the issues that you asked me to bring up. You asked me what

I did. I’ve talked to our neighbours. I’ve said: “We need to keep these

things going.” They agree with that.

[2:20 p.m.]

I’ll remind the members that the member for Kamloops–South

Thompson was talking about eight months ago. I remember 15 months ago

cruise ships tied up in San Francisco with not anyone allowed to get off

them because we were in a global pandemic. They seem to have forgotten

that part of the equation.

This is a serious business. What we have going for us is British

Columbia — not left, not right, not government, not opposition, but a

spectacular, as the industry says, marquee destination.

The governor from Utah may have trouble with a 100-year-old bill

in his jurisdiction. Fair enough. Change it. That’s what you should do.

What we should do here in British Columbia is celebrate how fortunate we

are to have a robust tourism industry that’s going to come roaring back

the minute we open up the doors.

As of tomorrow, we can travel all over this province, each and

every one of us. That’s good news. We should be celebrating the fact

that the reopening starts tomorrow and the future is bright for British

Columbians — maybe not for B.C. Liberals, but it’s bright for British

Columbians. That’s for sure.

M. Lee: All we’ve heard today from the Premier is just bluster. Eight

months ago the Alaskan delegation wrote to the Prime Minister and copied

the Premier on that letter. What was the Premier doing? He was in the

middle of an unnecessary snap election in the pandemic. What happened

from there was that this government failed to correspond with that

Alaskan delegation.

By February, the Alaskan delegation, Senator Mur­kowski, was

saying there had been a complete lack of outreach, a complete lack of

engagement with this province to find a solution to deal with temporary

stops, which is what was put forward. We know the Alaskans wrote

multiple letters asking for us to work together, and the response from

the Premier was silence. We know the Tourism Minister was offered a

briefing and only belatedly, after being publicly shamed, accepted one

from the industry.

We know the Premier didn’t believe the Alaskans could get the

votes to pass the temporary measure. His record is to ignore, ridicule

and belittle. Now he has put thousands of jobs at risk. Botching and

bungling seems to have been the only thing that this Premier knows how

to do. He has personally managed to threaten tens of thousands of jobs

and seems unclear about how bad the damage is.

If the current measures become permanent, Victoria would be hit

the hardest. Its sizeable cruise ship business is permanently based on

being a port of call rather than a home port, like Vancouver. The

Premier’s response to the jobs of these workers being threatened? “We’re

in good shape.” No one thinks we’re in good shape except the Premier.

Even the Transportation Minister seems to understand, finally, the

seriousness of this situation.

Can the Premier table today any written correspondence from the

Prime Minister that shows the Premier actually stood up and advocated

for the cruise ship sector?

Hon. J. Horgan: I don’t know if that was a question or the opening speech on a

leadership campaign, but I’m grateful that the member from Langara got

to his feet to ask a question that was consistent with what we’ve heard

from the opposition today — invective, insult, ridicule about an issue

that’s critically important to all of us, absolutely.

But let’s put it into some context. Again, news flash for Langara:

global pandemic. Not a lot of cruise shipping going on. Borders closed,

not by this side but from that side.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s listen to the answer, please.

Hon. J. Horgan: Now, “Liberal” is in the name of the party on the other side.

Liberal is in the name. Maybe you have some contacts in Ottawa that are

Liberals that you might want to call, because you’re not getting any

traction here in British Columbia, because most people in B.C. are

happy…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …that we’re at stage 2, and we’re going to stage 3 by Canada

Day.

[End of question period.]

Hon. R. Fleming: I seek leave to introduce a petition.

Petitions

Hon. R. Fleming: I’m very pleased today to present a petition on behalf of a group of

students from Reynolds Secondary School on the subject of low-carbon

transportation solutions. These students have been engaged in their school

year all year long at Reynolds Secondary with their teacher in the flex

studies program, Mr. Brad Cunningham. It’s great to see young people looking

ahead to the future, looking at what a COVID recovery will mean.

[2:25 p.m.]

I want to salute these students, particularly…

Mr. Speaker: Member, just present the petition, please.

Hon. R. Fleming: …Hamza Dari, who may be in the gallery with us here today, who

collected the petition signatures. He is here — fantastic. Welcome,

Hamza.

I look forward to a time when he and all his classmates can come here

and attend the legislative gallery. I know I’m joined by members on all

sides of the House who are used to groups of students coming here to the

Legislature.

Hamza, thank you very much for introducing this petition and giving it

to me as your MLA.

Would the House please make Hamza and Mr. Cunningham most

welcome here.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call third reading of Bill 7.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby: I move third reading.

Mr. Speaker: The question is third reading of Bill 7, the Electoral Boundaries

Commission Amendment Act, 2021.

Division has been called. According to the sessional orders of

April 12, this division is deferred until this evening.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call the estimates for the Ministry of

Finance.

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued

es­timates debate for the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Recovery and

Innovation. When that is done, I will recall the Ministry of

Health.

In

Section C, the Birch Room, I call the estimates of the Ministry

of Public Safety and Solicitor General, and when that’s done, estimates

for the Ministry of Transportation.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); N. Letnick in the

chair.

The committee met at 2:30 p.m.

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $307,466,000.

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you for the opportunity to just make a few remarks before

taking questions from the members opposite. I look forward to the

questions and to the discussion that we will have.

I just want to say that it’s certainly quite an honour to be the

Minister of Finance and that the Premier and the province of British

Columbia have confidence in me to do that work. The Minister of Finance,

for sure, in this time, is certainly a challenging role. It’s also been

difficult for British Columbians right around the province. I’m not the

only one. COVID-19 has impacted us in ways that I don’t think any of us

could have imagined.

It’s also not my first time through the estimates process. It’s a

process that I quite enjoy, and I recognize that the members opposite

have an important job to do: to make sure that British Columbians are

well aware of how government is making choices and that they are living

up to their commitments.

I want to just say how grateful I am to follow in the shoes of

Carole James, our previous Finance Minister. It’s certainly a privilege

to now stand in her place. I’m grateful for the work that she’s done and

the service that she has given to the people of British Columbia. She’s

certainly set a high bar, and I hope that I can live up to

that.

I want to acknowledge my team today, if I can take a moment to do

that. The people supporting me are passionate and remarkable. They show

their dedication to the people of British Columbia every single

day.

I have Heather Wood, my Deputy Minister of Finance. I have a

number of ADMs — Richard Purnell, Steve Hawkshaw, Jordan Goss, Tiffany

Ma, Jim Hopkins, Doug Scott, Bobbi Sadler and Don Zadravec — who are

supporting me here today. A whole host of other people are in various

rooms around this building and in various offices around Victoria, all

feeding in through the technology to help make sure that we can provide

answers to the members opposite questions.

I want to begin with a deliberate emphasis on people rather than

numbers. I know that in the Ministry of Finance, we talk about numbers

an awful lot, and we will get to them soon enough. It’s just, I think,

really important to remember that the true focus of our work here in

government is really about people. It’s about making sure that people

have the opportunities to live their lives fully, to take care of their

families and to age with dignity.

I want to just say that the recovery benefit — I know we’re likely

to get into that — has two big numbers. Over $1.3 billion in relief has

been delivered to over 2.6 million British Columbians. That’s about 2½

million people who’ve benefited from relief in a very, very difficult

time. One grateful recipient from Kamloops put it this way: “The bills

don’t go away, but our family still needs to have food on the table.”

They were grateful for that support.

The business recovery grant is expected to deliver a big number —

$300 million — to thousands of businesses, like the tourism operator

from Barry Island who said that he was out of options when he applied

for the business recovery grant. He told us: “This grant gives us hope:

hope by showing that our community and our government care about us, our

region and our sector.”

The numbers that we debate here in the House are really about

lives — lives that we touch with the decisions that we make. I know that

others in this House who have been in this role can also attest to the

weight that comes with the responsibility for how numbers on the page

impact the people of this province.

[2:35 p.m.]

Our core commitment as government has always been and will

continue to be to put people first. It guides all of our decisions. It

is the heart of my mandate as minister, and it’s been front and centre

as we face the challenges that COVID-19 has presented to all of us and

the challenges that we as a government have faced head-on.

The numbers show that our government is providing more COVID

support per capita than any other pro­vince, and the numbers show

that our approach is working. We currently lead all major provinces in

job recovery. Again, it’s the people that tell the story better, of how

British Columbians have risen to the challenge with resilience. We have

proven that we are stronger together. From day one, our government has

had people’s backs. We will continue to do so, through this pandemic,

right through to the end.

We began, with the pandemic, with bold and broad measures to

provide relief quickly. If you recall, in those early days, we weren’t

quite sure which way this pandemic was going to go and what the impacts

were going to be. To date, we’ve invested over $10 billion in supports

and services to help people, businesses and communities — to help them

all get through this pandemic. And $10 billion is a big number that goes

by in a breath. But again, there are millions of people who have

benefited from that number.

There are smaller numbers with a big impact, like the 50 community

sport organizations in the Interior who got a helping hand from the

local sport relief fund. The executive director of the Okanagan

Gymnastics Centre told us that the grant means that they will be able to

“weather the storm and continue to offer safe programming both now and

into the future.”

We are realistic about the long road ahead, and we’ve witnessed

how quickly the situation can change. That’s why Budget 2021 allocates

$3.25 billion in ’21-22 to continue to support pandemic response and

economic recovery. It’s also why we’ve budgeted $4.6 billion, over three

years, to maintain the pandemic and recovery contingencies to support

measures related to the pandemic. We will continue to be responsive to

the needs of people, to the needs of businesses and to the needs of

communities and to see them through the pandemic and into a strong

economic recovery that supports all British Columbians.

As we look ahead, we consider the province’s own re­turn to

a balanced budget. Fiscal responsibility remains a priority of this

government. The impacts and uncertainty of the pandemic make it too

early to accurately forecast when we will have a balanced budget. We are

working on a sustainable path forward, and we will have a detailed

timeline, approach and plan ready for Budget 2022.

Within my own ministry, we are delivering programs to help

businesses adapt and respond in their recovery from COVID-19. In the

budget consultation process, we asked the business community what

measures would help them get back on their feet and strengthen their

recovery. The increased employment incentive and the PST rebate on

select machinery and equipment were the result. The increased employment

incentive supports employers that hired new people or brought people

back who’d lost their jobs during the last three months of 2020. The PST

rebate on select machinery and equipment can help B.C. businesses emerge

from the pandemic stronger and better than before.

As part of the StrongerBC economic recovery plan, eligible

businesses can recover 100 percent of the PST they pay on select

machinery and equipment, furniture, computer hardware and software, and

other important investments. That includes zero-emission vehicles and

charging infrastructure. By providing a rebate on tools and equipment

that help businesses grow, we are encouraging investments and helping to

reduce the cost of growth for businesses in every sector and helping

them prepare for recovery and seize the opportunities of a post-COVID

economy.

Also within my ministry is the PST exemption on e-bikes. This may

seem like a small item, but again, it has a big impact. I know that the

owner of an electric bike centre in the Tri-Cities welcomed the

exemption. This business is the oldest bicycle shop in the province. The

owner’s father started the business in 1932. He told us that removing

the PST had an immediate impact on his sales and noted that e-bikes have

expanded the range, flattened the hills and brought equality for riders.

I prefer to call it the invisible hand of dad helping you ride up that

hill.

I paused slightly a little earlier, when I talked about a

post-COVID economy. In some ways, it’s hard to believe it has been 15

months — 15 long, difficult months and a long, difficult road for many

people. We can now see that brighter days are ahead, with moving into

stage 2 tomorrow.

[2:40 p.m.]

This summer will feel a lot different than last summer. I welcome

the warmth of brighter days. The people of this province, for sure, have

proven their resilience time and time again throughout this

pandemic.

The numbers we will discuss here today are really about one thing.

It’s about supporting the people of this province. I know that together,

we will recover. Together, we will build back stronger. I look forward

to the members’ questions today.

Before I turn the floor over to the member, I just want to take a

moment, if I might. This week is B.C. Public Service Week. It’s

interesting that we begin the Ministry of Finance budget estimates

debates today.

So it’s a good opportunity for me, with your indulgence, to really

thank the members of the public service for the dedication and passion

they bring to this work. I know this to be true every day in any year,

but I do have to pause and take a moment about how hard they have worked

this past year.

With government moving quickly to deliver services, to

provide supports to people in a crisis, I have to give kudos and

acknowledge the hard work of the public service, who worked long days,

who worked weekends. I was getting — and I know my colleagues were

getting — reports and ideas and submissions Sunday afternoon at two

o’clock, knowing full well that they were working right through the

weekend.

The members of the public service have put their minds and their

hearts and their commitment into delivering extraordinary services and

supports that people have needed throughout the pandemic. I just want to

offer my heartfelt thanks and gratitude for their hard work over,

certainly, these past 15 months.

The Chair: Happy anniversary.

M. Bernier: I’ll echo the Chair’s opening comment during the debate here. I,

obviously, want to also wish a happy anniversary to the minister and her

husband and the lengthy time that they’ve spent together, which almost

mirrors the same as my wife and I.

I will go on the record and say my wife, too, has not gotten in

the way, as your husband hasn’t for you — for the minister. You know, in

today’s society, I think it’s important to acknowledge those successes

as well, which talks about people.

I appreciate the minister’s opening comments. Let me just say that

a good majority of what the minister said, obviously, I don’t take issue

with. Everything government does or is should be about people. That’s

why we’re here. That’s why we exist.

I think I could be as bold as to say I don’t think there is one

person that’s elected in this chamber that didn’t run with the idea of

wanting to make things better for people. We have a difference of

opinion sometimes of what better is. We have different ideas around the

province, sometimes because of geography or location or population base,

of what is important. But at the end of the day, we all come to this

place to try to make things better for people. So there is no debate

around that. I don’t think there’s any argument at all.

I also want to congratulate and acknowledge the minister. She did

take over for — I can use her name now — Carole James, who, I would say,

also did an exemplary job. She was an amazing Finance Minister. As this

minister says, big shoes to fill.

I know it’s a huge learning curve, as I can say I jumped in as the

critic around the same time. One difference is I don’t have a big office

and lots of staff to help me through that process. But I do have Ryan

Mitton downstairs, my researcher right now, and the interns, who have

done a great job helping me out during this time as I try to fulfil my

duties as opposition Finance critic.

I think, as well, the minister in her opening comments

acknowledged some of the things government has been doing. We’re going

to dive into some of that a little bit later as we go through the

process over the next few days, as well as remembering again: yes, it’s

around people. Sometimes people want to understand the decisions — as I

think the minister acknowledged — that government is making around

that.

Let me just maybe get into this, I guess, and say… You know what?

I’m going to go through some segments probably fairly quickly, because

there is lot to cover in a short period of time. The majority of my

commentary…. I think the minister will appreciate my style. She knows me

well enough. This is not going to be about “I got you” politics. This is

about trying to put things on the record. This is about the factual

spending of the ministry’s money, government’s money and sometimes the

decision-making processes that go into that.

[2:45 p.m.]

When we look at the Q3 report — let me just go to that. The 2020

budget posted a deficit of $5.5 billion less, lighter than original

projections. When the minister originally announced what the deficit

would be, she was, I think, quite — I don’t know if “excited” is the

word — proud to say the deficit is not as large by $5.5 billion as they

anticipated. But that came because of, notably, some tax increases that

came in, some increased revenue. We’ll get into some of that maybe a

little later. That won’t be the basis of my question right now. When we

talk about property transfer tax and other things, I’ll probably get

into those later on.

My question is more around contingencies. As we’re going into this

budget cycle, there’s still the unspent $300 million, I believe, under

Vote 52 from the pandemic contingencies — $300 million, and $330 million

in general contingencies.

My question, as we’re going into…. I just want to spend a few

moments on this side of things. As the minister said, sometimes we can

work together, which we did for $7 billion, $8 billion of approved money

last year. But some of that money didn’t get out the door. Maybe there

are reasons for it, and we might get into some of that a little bit

later.

Can the minister maybe just highlight for me…? We have these

contingencies, money that was allotted, money that was not spent. Can

she maybe give some explanations of why that money didn’t get

spent?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for his opening comments. First of all,

I think it’s important to recognize what was spent from the pandemic

contingencies vote — $6.7 billion of spending happened as a result of

our collective commitment, as a government, to support people. I

appreciate the support from members across the way to make sure that we

could support people through an unusual crisis and to make sure that

people could pay the bills as best they could.

We also spent $810 million, which is the provincial component of

the safe restart program. So significant spending did occur. The $630

million that the member is referring to was around some of the programs

not getting fully expended in the time allotted. For example, the

recovery benefit — we extended it to June 30.

Initially, actually, we knew that in terms of getting to five

million British Columbians, making sure that they understood that they

could access this support, we would need to extend beyond the fiscal

year. Also, I think what’s really important to recognize is that these

programs and the development of these programs were happening very, very

quickly.

I would say, again, this is where I want to express tremendous

gratitude to the public service, because they’d never done that before.

They’d never been tasked with de­veloping a program where billions

of dollars were going to be delivered to British Columbians, where the

checks and balances haven’t been thought through 10,047 different ways,

making sure that there was accountability built into the system, making

sure that people that really were entitled to it were getting it. The

pressure on them to get it right the first time was pretty significant.

To turn around a program in a matter of weeks and, in some cases, days

was, I think, a yeoman’s undertaking.

Certainly, there were, in some cases, some programs where it

really didn’t quite hit the mark. It was hitting some of the folks that

we knew needed supports but not all of the folks. As a result, we took

it upon ourselves as government to then tweak those programs to make

sure that they were hitting the mark and that these resources were

getting out to people — which is why we extended the programs, to ensure

that people could get the support and that the right people could get

the support that they needed, beyond that fiscal year.

M. Bernier: I won’t follow through on any quotes from the minister on 10,047

ways of looking through. I do understand and appreciate the challenges —

I think everybody in the House does — as we’re going through the

pandemic, having to make policy changes quite quickly, and directing

staff to follow through with those. I, too, should acknowledge the

minister’s staff and government staff for that work, because I used to

be on the minister’s side. I appreciate and know the work that goes on

behind the scenes when that happens.

Obviously, there’s some frustration when there is money there,

when we announced that, and when not everybody has access to it or are

able to get it in a timely way. We’ll follow through with some of that a

little later. More just on the numbers is what I’m worried about, on

behalf of the people, as we talked about in the opening.

Can the minister explain to the House then, because of things

changing and because of, maybe, extensions and applications…. We have a

contingency of $630 million. What happens to that money? Does it get

clawed back? Does it get carried over? What happens with those funds?

The programs, as the minister highlighted, are still ongoing. Does that

money now get carried over, by the minister, into the next fiscal?

What’s the process for that?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member’s question, if I understand it correctly…. Again, it’s

always sort of making sure you understood it correctly, because the

answer is based on what I thought I heard the member ask. He wanted to

know what happens if money isn’t fully allocated by the end of fiscal.

What happens to that money? It gets addressed against the deficit, but in this case,

because the programs weren’t fully expended, we’ve built them into the

following fiscal year, to make sure that the program can get fully

allocated.

M. Bernier: Thank you. Quickly, so that I understand, then, the minister was

on the right track with my question. Within the ’21-22 fiscal year, some

of the programs that have been announced, then, are partially funded

from contingencies from last year that have basically been carried over

into this year? I’m assuming that it’s not new money that we’re asking

for, I’m wondering, in this year’s budget, some of it. We have $630

million of contingencies, as we’ve talked about, and $300 million, which

was part of the Vote 52.

[3:00 p.m.]

Those programs are still ongoing. The minister highlighted one of

them, in the opening, around the COVID recovery benefit. That’s still

ongoing, and some of the other ones are still ongoing. Just because a

fiscal is a hard end and a hard start…. Money doesn’t always work that

way, although from an accounting perspective, it does.

Maybe it’s a little convoluted the way I’m asking it. Again, I’m

just trying to understand. In this year’s fiscal, some of that money in

these programs is — I will use the term — carried over, for a lack of

better words, if I understand correctly, then, from last year since it

was part of the same program and not completely allocated last

year.

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to just thank the staff. They are scattered around

the city trying to be helpful and bumping into each other occasionally

in my earpiece. So you’ll bear with me as we try to

coordinate.

The member touched on accounting principles. Here we live in a

world…. I live in a world now surrounded by amazing accountants.

Grateful for all of them.

When March 31 comes around, it is a hard end to the previous

budget, and a new budget takes over. Whatever was not spent of the

previous budget is…. It’s over. The budget is technically over and done.

So what you see in this budget, the one that we’re debating now…. You

see that built into our pandemic and recovery contingencies, the

carryover from those programs, so that we could continue to deliver on

the things that we’re all here for and to make sure that those people

can get the supports that they need.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the minister’s answer. A bit of a learning exercise,

also, as we go through this. We’re trying to understand just some of the

processes that take place.

With that answer…. I know that there’s legislation that requires….

Now, this is not a surplus, but I know there’s legislation…. If there is

a surplus at the end of the year, it goes to debt recovery.

In this case, I’m trying to understand…. If it’s contingencies,

per se, that are on the books as money not spent, I would assume, then….

I’m looking for clarification from the minister. I would assume that

means, technically, since we’re in a deficit situation, that’s money

that was just never borrowed. It doesn’t…. That would also come

off….

When I’m reading the budget documents, that $630 million, which

was booked as money that the ministry thought they would spend and that

ended up not being spent…. So that’s $630 million less, then, of the

projected deficit. Is that fair to say? So the projected, not the

reported, due to the fact that that money would not now need to be

borrowed.

Then, going into the ’21-22 year, we’re now in that same situation

of…. If that $630 million was now subscribed and needed, the ministry

can access that, then, through borrowing or whatever means they need,

into the next fiscal. I’m wondering if that makes sense, my question to

the minister.

Again, I would see that $630 million as money, basically, that was

never borrowed. So it’s not really there, to begin with. Is that, maybe,

accurate?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member is correct that what it means if we don’t…. Because we

are in deficit, and we do have to borrow money, it means that we have to

borrow less.

M. Bernier: I just want to turn a little bit, when we talk about borrowing and

programs, to talk about the StrongerBC program as well. There are quite

a few programs that have been rolled out over the last year, 18 months.

This one specifically, though, was originally ap­proved in March

of 2020, in the budget cycle there, then announced in September of 2020.

But from what we see then, only around 40 percent of the supports were

actually paid out in that program in the 2020 fiscal year. Sixty percent

of businesses are still experiencing, though, struggles.

When you look at these programs that were put together….

Obviously, businesses, in essence, are people as well. We all agreed

that it was critical to get those pandemic supports out the door. I’m

not going to get into an exercise with the minister, which I think she

would appreciate. On most cases here, she and I could go back and forth

on reading quotes from people who are happy with the supports or people

who are not happy with the supports. I mean, we could spend a lot of

time doing that.

I think it’s fair to acknowledge, and I will acknowledge, that the

reason why we supported a lot of these programs is because we knew that

they would help people. So of course there’s going to be a lot of

people, a lot of companies, a lot of groups that were able to access

them and are going to be happy, in most cases. But that didn’t happen

right across the board, as the minister can appreciate. I probably have

a stack, just like she does, of people who are either disappointed,

frustrated or maybe have questions, still, around accessing

opportunities and grants.

So if only 40 percent of the supports were paid out so far, why is

that? We’re over a year into the pandemic. I’m going to maybe ask some

specific ones on specific programs in a second. But just in general, I’m

looking for the minister’s commentary, I guess, on where the struggles

were. Some were able to access things quickly, as I said, and there are

other groups that are continually being frustrated and not being able to

access programs. I don’t want to get into the debate on eligibility

requirements and all that. But just in general, even with those who have

qualified, there’s been a lot of angst out there around the time that it

has taken to get the supports out the door.

It’s a bit of an opportunity just for the minister, maybe, to

acknowledge, as she sees fit, where some of the challenges might have

been. I think it’s fair to say there were challenges. I’m not expecting

the minister to say every­thing was…. I know she’d like to say

everything worked great. But, yeah, these were new programs. There are

new initiatives. Things don’t always work, and things have to be

changed.

The reason why I’m asking it is…. Where were some of the

struggles? Going into this fiscal, because we’re still going through

some of the challenges with the pandemic, especially with the business

community, what can we learn from that? How do we make things better to

get money out the door this year to help people?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: When I reflect back on the last 15 months, and we take a look at

what we in this House de­cided to do collectively, in terms of

supporting people and supporting businesses, it’s certainly, I think,

become evident…. Certainly, we had…. The Third Party took a look at the

amount of supports that the province was delivering for people and for

businesses.

We know that B.C. ranks No. 1 in the provinces for support for

businesses on a per-capita basis, which is a significant amount of work.

Again, I want to thank the public service for their tremendous heavy

lifting on this. What that means is that, certainly in my ministry — the

Ministry of Finance — they were delivering on the recovery benefit right

through Christmas, which was a significant amount of work. Even the

telephone glitches — I know that the member had asked me some questions

about that back in the day, which feels like a million years ago now —

did get resolved. Millions of British Columbians have been receiving

their support.

As well, I want to acknowledge that the ministry staff were also

doing the top-up to the federal CERB, which we decided, collectively,

that we would continue, to support British Columbians.

[3:15 p.m.]

Additional supports for business, like the IEI, the

in­creased employment incentive program — as well as the PST

relief program — got started a little bit later.

So there might be a perception that programs coming out of my

ministry are a little bit delayed, which started after we got the

recovery benefit rolling and while we were doing the top-up to the

federal CERB. But these programs continue to roll right through. In

fact, the PST relief goes right through to September to make sure that

we can continue to support businesses that are choosing to invest and to

grow their businesses.

M. Bernier: Thank you. I’m looking forward, I guess, to reading this document

that the minister and other ministers keep referring to,

because….

[Interruption.]

It sounded like somebody just won the lotto. That’s

exciting.

But I’m looking at the updated report that I have right here in

front of me, for direct supports. British Columbia is ranked No. 8 for

direct supports for business. This is the updated thing. So I’m not sure

— the government likes to keep touting, “No. 1, No. 1” all the time —

what report they’re looking at, what evidence they have to back that up.

I’m looking at the report right here that has us listed, for direct

supports for business, at No. 8 for provinces in Canada.

That aside, though…. We could probably go back and forth and

debate that. I look forward to the minister maybe pointing me in the

direction of the most recent updated report that verifies what they’re

saying for the direct supports to business, because that’s not the one

that I’m reading. But a question I have, then, is: when we look at

StrongerBC — again, it was approved last March — why did it take the

government until September, at election time, when they called the

election, to actually start coming up with the programs to put the money

out the door?

This is kind of a concern that I’m hearing from a lot of

businesses, because businesses were starting to be shut down last March,

April. They were asking for help last March, April, as the pandemic was

just in its infancy, really. But it took until September, right at the

election, before the government actually started announcing that they

would put the money out the door.

Personally, I think that a lot of people would agree that that

maybe hinges on why only 40 percent of the money got out the door,

because they didn’t allow the access to that for a full fiscal — rather,

only the last six months of the fiscal. So I’m just kind of curious what

decision-making would have gone in from the Ministry of Finance when

they had the money and they had the approval to wait all the way until

September to start allowing businesses to access it.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I know it feels like a million years ago for me, last

March, and I suspect it might feel like that for the member and maybe

for all British Columbians, because we’ve been through so much. It just

almost feels like a lifetime ago. I’m just so excited that we are in the

vaccination phase and all that kind of stuff.

In going back, I think it’s important to remember that in March,

when things did shut down, as a government, we took very broad measures.

Remember, back then, we didn’t know what was going to happen. We didn’t

know how long we were going to be in this state of not knowing. We were

washing down our groceries. We didn’t understand how this virus was

transmitted.

We took very broad measures, and that includes, certainly, a

number of measures to support individuals. That includes the emergency

benefit for workers as well as a number of steps like the climate action

tax credit enhancement. But I just want to speak to businesses, because

this is what the member was asking.

I just want to refresh his memory that we extended the tax filing

and payment deadlines, which was really important to businesses. These

were, certainly, in the early days. Even doing the paperwork was one of

the things that we heard. For businesses to get all that done was

overwhelming. So we extended tax filing and payment deadlines to provide

some relief.

We also reduced and delayed property taxes. I think this is a

really important component of our broad support for businesses that, I

suspect, isn’t getting counted in the member’s commentary when he talks

about direct supports. This was significant — $700 million that went to

businesses as broad-based relief. Business and light and major industry

property classes saw their school property tax reduced for the 2020 tax

year to achieve an average 25-percent reduction in the total property

tax bill for most businesses. That’s significant. That’s in five

different classes — classes 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 — and government absorbed

those costs. It allowed commercial landlords to pass these savings on to

tenants in a triple-net lease, and the tax break automatically appeared

on the property owner’s tax bill.

Again, I’d be happy to share with the member the report about our

commitment to supporting businesses, as the province that has provided

the most for businesses. All relief mattered.

[3:25 p.m.]

I know the member keeps calling it direct relief, and I suspect

that the reduced and delayed — mostly reduced — property tax component

is not likely in his list. But I know that businesses certainly felt the

relief of not having to pay their full share of property taxes, and

that’s made a significant difference in their ability to get through

what was a very, very difficult year for them.

M. Bernier: Thank you. There are quite a few things on my list that we’ll

probably get to. Obviously, when we’re talking about direct, and we’re

saying No. 8…. I think the minister needs to also acknowledge that 68

percent of the supports that this government has put forward is actually

just in deferrals, not direct supports. They’re deferrals.

I’m not going to argue the fact that those deferrals are not of

assistance during this time, and I’ll ask questions later on, I’m sure,

today or tomorrow, when we get into what the minister even brought up

around the school tax. We’ll ask questions later on some of the

decisions that the minister and ministry are making around that, because

we’re still in the pandemic that everybody says, yet now we’re seeing

maybe an increase this year. I’ll get into those maybe more directly

when we get to that point, but I just wanted to highlight that since the

minister just brought that up during her commentary.

Maybe I’m going to lump these two together. I do acknowledge that

it might take the minister a moment with her staff, and that’s fine. I’m

not worried about that.

How much has been paid out, then, to businesses currently? I’m

going to put two together here — the small business recovery grant and

the circuit breaker grant. How much has actually gone out the door to

help these groups?

Hon. S. Robinson: That program runs through the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Recovery

and Innovation. They would be in a much better place to give the member

up-to-date specifics around how much has gone out to the program. It’s

not a program of the Ministry of Finance.

M. Bernier: I’m sorry. Did the minister just say it’s not supported by the

Ministry of Finance? I believe that might have just been a misuse of

words there, because of course, everything is supported through the

Ministry of Finance.

The minister is saying “operated through.” Well, what about…?

Well, can the minister tell me this then? I know we’ve been asking some

questions to the other ministers as well. Ironically, in a lot of

circumstances, those ministers tell us: “Sorry. You’ll have to ask the

Minister of Finance.” So it turns into a little bit of a “nobody wants

to answer” scenario in some of these areas.

I know the minister did give us some numbers. Can the minister…?

Just maybe for the simplistic one, for now, how much money was allotted

from the Ministry of Finance to these ministers for these

grants?

I also would be curious, then, on…. And she can answer — for the

PST rebate and the increased employment incentive — because some of

those actually run through the Ministry of Finance. So maybe we could….

Just maybe if the minister can tell me how much was in the budget for

those other two grants that she’s saying are under the other ministries

and then how much has gone out the door for the PST rebate and the

increased employment incentive.

[3:30 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and welcome. Welcome to the

chamber.

The member will recall, and can also find on page 20 of the

budget, that the IEI program, the increased employment incentive — $190

million has been set aside for this program. I do have some updated

numbers that I got this morning. I get them pretty much twice a week. I

get updated numbers. The member will also appreciate, I am sure, that we

just started these programs. They just started at the beginning of

fiscal.

The number of existing employees at IEI recipient businesses with

increased remuneration is 13,796 employees. That’s, again, the people,

which we keep coming back to. The number of net new employees on

payrolls of IEI recipient businesses is 4,163. So that’s just over 4,000

people in the last couple of months who have benefited from this

program. At this point in time, it’s about $5.5 million that has gone

out to support this program.

The PST program — $470 million is allocated to this program. We

have received just over 700 applications, and $19 million has been

approved and is out the door. Again, I want to qualify: it just started.

I want to encourage all members of the House and anyone watching to know

that there are opportunities here for businesses.

I think as we move into recovery…. These are recovery programs.

They’re not necessarily relief programs. This is about getting through

to this next phase and supporting businesses. There are some real

opportunities here.

I also want to say that this last year, year and a half, in terms

of identifying how to support businesses, has mor­phed over time.

The initial response of government has been to do broad-based support,

because, again, we didn’t know which sectors, how many, how long

businesses were going to be impacted by this pandemic, because we didn’t

know what was happening. But over time, we have certainly come to learn

— and thank goodness for science — about how to best proceed.

[3:35 p.m.]

We’ve certainly seen some businesses do quite well in the context

of the pandemic. As a result, making sure that we are tailoring our

supports has become really important, and making sure that we’re

tailoring our recovery activities and our recovery programs so that we

can simulate in the right way has been absolutely critical.

This is something that we’ve heard, certainly, from the Economic

Forecast Council. I know the member was listening to them intently back

in whenever it was. I want to say January. My mind is muddled. The

months all run together, but I think it was January.

They were also really clear that the time going forward for this

budget was really to make sure that we were tailoring and targeting

supports. The time for broad-based supports made sense back last year,

but now is the time to tailor them. It was based on the expert advice of

the Economic Forecast Council and others that we shifted gears into a

more tailored response.

M. Bernier: A lot of numbers there. Appreciate it. Just so the minister knows,

some of the questions, obviously, might seem a little, not necessarily,

redundant. I’ve got the budget document in front of me. I know some of

the answers, but I think it’s important to even get them on the record

when I ask them.

I appreciate the minister highlighting some of those numbers

there. If I understood correctly then, especially on the IEI, the

increased employment incentive program…. Yes, I will acknowledge what

the minister said, that $190 million has been put aside for this

program, but only $5.5 million has been spent to date from the numbers

that the minister has acknowledged.

Do we have, then, a sense — maybe I’ll ask this as well — of how

many businesses have actually applied? How many applications have we

received in the government for this? We’re talking about $5.5 million.

It sounds like a lot, but in the scheme of what was allotted in the

budget, it’s not. Of course, we want to encourage.

The reason why I’m asking is, are we seeing a lot of people

applying that maybe don’t qualify? Do we need to look at restructuring?

The last thing we want is to have money there to help businesses and

it’s not going out the door, which, again, in this situation, as the

minister and I, I think, have both been saying it helps businesses, but

this is really people. This is about people at work. This is about

recovery. This is about jobs. Maybe I’ll start with that one and say:

how many people have applied for this, not just the dollars

out?

Hon. S. Robinson: What I can tell the member is we’ve had 1,700 businesses apply,

and 1,400 were approved. Only 100 have been denied. The rest are in

progress.

M. Bernier: If we’re talking about $190 million and I know the minister has

said this before. But how many businesses are eligible to apply then? If

there’s $190 million allocated, obviously the work was done to determine

ap­proximation of how many businesses and then how many people

that could translate into.

[3:40 p.m.]

I’m just kind of curious. If there are only 1,700 — 1,400 approved

— in the scheme of tens of thousands of businesses in British Columbia,

I’m just kind of curious what kind of research, studies were done within

the ministry for them to come up with $190 million?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to remind the member — he said, at the very end,

what kind of analysis or reporting did the ministry do — we’ve been

developing these programs as quickly and as efficiently as we can, which

is not what I would say is normal government processes, which some would

argue is far too slow under normal circumstances.

I also have really come to appreciate the importance of

understanding what’s going on and unintended conse­quences. I know

the member understands that, and that’s why, typically, in government,

things don’t often move as quickly as we need them to. But in this case,

we have been moving very quickly, so it means that there haven’t been

reports done and the traditional thorough analysis that one expects

under normal conditions.

The estimate that we’ve been working with is about 50,000

employers was the frame for developing this program. Again, I want to

remind the member that online applications only opened March 30. So just

about ten weeks ago. Not very long. It will close December 31 of this

year. So making sure that we have…. Get word out. Let businesses know

that hiring folks will certainly make a difference.

The other thing I want to point out is I believe that as we open

more, I think the opportunities are there, because this is a about

hiring more people on the payroll. I believe — and this is a sense I get

from talking with business owners in my community and others — that

businesses have been maintaining status quo. Like, if they found an

equilibrium of some kind under the current phase that we’re in as part

of COVID safety plans, keeping everyone safe…. I do believe there has

been a bit of a hesitancy to do a lot of hiring because, again, not

knowing how fast things are going to be opening up.

[3:45 p.m.]

I am going to imagine — and I’m sure we can have a discussion in

the fall, or perhaps next estimates — that as we move into phase 2,

starting tomorrow, and then, hopefully, if all things go well, July 1,

when we are into stage 3 of the opening, and then into stage 4, again,

fingers crossed, knocking wood — there’s lots of wood to knock on around

this place — where we get back to what I think we know as normal. I

think we’re going to see a tremendous uptake, just moving

forward.

M. Bernier: Hopefully, there’s a lot of uptake. You would assume, especially

in the private sector, there’d be a lot of uptake, considering we have

around 61,000 people in the private sector who are still, as part of

COVID, looking for work or for opportunities to get back to

work.

Maybe the minister said this. I apologize if I missed it in her

answer. When is the credit applicable for the hiring? It was my

understanding, when it was originally announced, it was last year. The

minister said this year. So I’m confused now.

Hon. S. Robinson: I apologize. It is my fault. I got ex­cited thinking about….

We’re moving tomorrow into a new phase, and I got really excited. So I

want to apologize and correct the record. This is for between the third

and fourth quarters of last year.

I apologize. As I sat down, I said: “Wait a minute. That’s not

what this program is about.” So I want to apologize to the member if,

for a second, he was confused. I was the one confused. I was thinking

about recovery and what the next four months are going to look like for

all of us, and that’s going to make a significant difference for

everyone.

Again, I want to correct the record. I made an error in describing

the program. That’s why I do think it’s important that we do get the

word out — to make sure that those that did increase…. Make the

application. It’s an opportunity to…. Again, this was designed, when we

weren’t 100 percent sure about how things were going to be moving

forward, to stimulate recovery. I know that there are more businesses

out there who should be applying and, perhaps, don’t know about

it.

While I’m on my feet, I…. The member had asked…. We were talking

about the small and medium-sized bus­iness grant earlier. I walked

into my dry cleaner feeling badly. I’m grateful that I get to wear

suits. I actually brought him some suit jackets. He said things have

been really slow. People are not going to weddings. They’re not dressing

for work. They might, but they’re only the top half with slippers on

their feet. I asked if he’d heard about the small and medium-sized

business grant program, and he hadn’t.

Again, I think that’s been…. A significant challenge is making

sure that a lot of the small businesses that are eligible can actually

get the supports that they need.

I think this is a bit of work. We are inundated with news all the

time. Everyone waits for three o’clock for the latest numbers, the

activities around vaccination. How quickly can we get vaccinated? People

aren’t always hearing or noticing opportunities to get the help that

they need. It is there, and I think it’s incumbent on all of us here in

this chamber to remind folks to make their applications.

M. Bernier: First of all, I should…. Maybe I shouldn’t say this. I was going

to say…. For the dry cleaners, there are a lot of men’s jackets, thanks

to Zoom, that are getting done and not necessarily pants, thanks to

being able to sit at home with a camera from the waist up. I didn’t mean

to digress there but to go along with the minister’s

comments.

I was going to ask, maybe, this. The minister just bro­ught

this up. The minister raises a really good point. Be­cause of the

situations and because of COVID and the uncertainty, there were not a

lot of people hiring. But now we’re in a recovery situation, and

government has been very…. They’ve been talking a lot about recovery,

just as everybody has. How do we move forward? If businesses ever need

help, it’s through recovery.

[3:50 p.m.]

One of the things that I heard was that there were a lot of

businesses that maybe didn’t access this the quarter that it was

accessible — October to December of 2020 — because of that uncertainty.

So I think there’s an opportunity here, maybe, for the minister to

consider. I’m curious on her thoughts.

When we talk about $190 million, when we talk about…. The minister

didn’t mention this earlier. I’ll throw it out there. I think it’s

around 50,000 businesses that could be eligible, and we’ve heard of only

1,700 applying. I use the 50,000, I believe, even from a number that the

minister said last year. I stand to be corrected, but I thought that was

the number the minister said, when we were talking in this House, of

businesses that are eligible.

There’s obviously a lot of angst, uncertainty or concern from

businesses around this program, but the government has put the money

aside to try to incentivize higher. As I said, when you get 61,000

people in the private sector unemployed, we’d love to see that too, and

this program, maybe, could help.

So is the minister, is government looking at maybe continuing on

and not having a hard end date for this program? I think my fear, and I

believe the minister might agree with me…. The odds of us seeing a

massive uptake of tens of thousands of businesses in a couple of weeks

is probably not realistic. What can we do to try to incentivize and get

the word out by allowing more opportunity?

I know there are lots of different grant opportunities that we

have and will talk about. But this one specifically. What can we do to

try to get more businesses involved? That would be possibly extending

the deadline. Is that a consideration?

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

Just for those participating both virtually and in the

chamber, a reminder, of course, that we don’t eat in the chamber.

That goes back to your homes as well, as they are part of the

virtual chamber. If you’re holding meetings or phone calls with

other members, or anyone, really, please check yourself out for a

minute so that you can come back and focus on the work that we’re

doing here. Thank you, Members.

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I think it’s important that we go back in time. When we saw

employment numbers significantly drop in the early days of the pandemic,

that was certainly most concerning. As we started to sort out how to

help people — businesses and people — we wanted to get people

employed.

[3:55 p.m.]

That’s the whole purpose of this — to employ folks. This program

was designed around that — making sure we were, at the time that we

needed to be, stimulating em­ployers to do new hires. This, of

course, is based on where we were at, at that point in time.

What has been interesting for us here in British Columbia is that

we’ve seen a steady increase of employment month over month, and until

April and May and the circuit breaker decision made by public health, we

saw a drop. But I’m pleased to say, and I know that the member joins me

in being pleased, that we had 99 percent employment right now, in May

2021, that we had in February of 2020.

I’m glad to see that the member from Kamloops has finished his

estimates. It’s great.

So with 99 percent employment that we have here in the province,

really, for all intents and purposes, we are back to where we were

pre-COVID. I think that’s a testament to the businesses. I mean, the

fact that…. In fact, I’ve certainly been hearing complaints from

businesses that they can’t find people. Restaurants can’t find people.

They’re eager to open. Gyms can no longer find people. I think it’s a

different kind of problem to have.

We’re certainly investing in getting young people trained up, in

this budget. We’ve invested significant dollars in micro-credentialing

and in other programs, youth corps sort of programs to get youth

working, investing in child care so that women can get back into the

workforce — so really providing the supports that people need so that

they can contribute to the economy.

Things about this pandemic have really evolved over time. Making

sure that we are responding to what’s happening before us, I think, is

also really critical. I think that’s what has made us so successful here

in British Columbia — really paying attention to the evolution of the

pandemic and then responding to it as it unfolds.

In this context, we’re always evaluating programs. The member

asked if we’re evaluating and monitoring, and of course that’s what

we’re doing. That’s why about twice a week I get updated numbers so that

we can see what’s happening. But the reality on the ground is that we’re

back to full employment from our pre-COVID levels, and that’s a good

thing. I think it’s something that we can all acknowledge and take pride

in the fact that we have been so resilient as a province.

M. Bernier: I think, at this point, the minister and I are going to have to

agree to disagree, for sure.

There are 61,000 unemployed people that wouldn’t agree with the

minister’s last comments that we’re back to pre-COVID levels, unless the

government wants to continue looking at the numbers that they have in

front of them of creating 40,000 new public sector jobs, which really

skews the fact that we’re not there. They’ve created 40,000 new, I would

say, government jobs, public sector jobs, and I’m not speaking against

those.

What’s been troubling is that, with all due respect to the

minister and the other ministers who have spoken on this issue and

continue to stay inside a little message box about being at 99 percent,

that’s cold comfort and actually almost insulting to the 61,000 people

who are not working. If we were actually at a point where everybody was

back to work, I would be applauding and saying: “This is great. Everyone

is back to work.” But it’s not everyone; it’s some.

I guess the question, though, around that…. I don’t want to

digress, and I might ask the minister questions on the employment

numbers later, even though it is, technically, a different ministry. But

on this specific program, just looking at the numbers quickly that the

minister mentioned — $5.5 million of $190 million…. Obviously, we want

to see some flexibility or an opportunity for a new intake, maybe,

because if it’s being considered on three months of last year, my fear

is that anybody who thought they could have applied at that time has

already applied.

[4:00 p.m.]

I’ve got no data to back that up other than talking to businesses

who are saying: “I didn’t hire a lot of people at that time, but when I

need help is right now. Because my business…. I’m trying to decide

whether I’m going to stay in business or not, whether I can actually

last six more months.” Any kind of program such as this to encourage

hiring people back is important.

But where my question is going to go…. The minister said just over

4,000 people, 1,700 applications, which I wrote down. How many of those

are part-time, and how many are full-time? Was there criteria built into

the application process that it had to be full-time employees? The

reason why I ask that is because a lot of businesses might not have been

in a position to hire just part-time or were not worried about the

part-time until now when they’re trying to get going again.

I look at the tourism sector, hopefully, which will get

go­ing, and hospitality sector, which is starting to get going.

Some of those are classified maybe as part-time positions, I would

say.

I think the minister would know. I have five kids. She has

children herself. A lot of them probably work in those sectors to help

themselves as they’re starting out, and a lot of those are part-time

jobs. Did those qualify as well for this grant? Or was it full-time

only? Is there a breakdown of that 4,000 people of what’s full-time and

part-time?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to correct the member, first. I want to start…. But I never

said that everyone in British Columbia is back to work. We’re at 99

percent of where we were in February. So I think that’s an important

distinction to make, because that’s what we’re looking at. Where are we

compared to pre-COVID? We have to have some way of measuring where

things are at.

[4:05 p.m.]

I do know that now that we are moving into recovery, everyone is

sort of breathing this sigh of relief, planning their lives, planning to

travel around the province, planning to go out to restaurants, planning

to have Father’s Day barbecue at my place, which I’m very excited about.

These are things that really are stimulating and moving things

forward.

For those that continue to look for work, the opportunities that

are before us are really exciting. I would love to — and I can’t imagine

any jurisdiction that wouldn’t love to — have 100 percent of all of

their eligible folks in their jurisdiction fully employed. That, I

think, is something that we can all aspire to. But I want to be really

clear that I’m speaking to where our numbers are compared to February

before the pandemic struck. That’s what the comparison is. We’re at 99

percent — in May 2021, our employment numbers are — compared to February

of 2020. So I want to make sure that that’s well understood.

Now, in terms of…. The member was asking questions about the IEI

program. The way it works is that employers take a look at their

third-quarter payroll, fourth-quarter payroll, and that’s where the

comparison is made. So there’s no distinction between full- and

part-time. It really is just about payroll.

Again, it’s one of those things where you want to keep the

application simple and easy for the employers, because they’re already

working so hard to keep businesses going. You want to be able to have

some tools that help you make those distinctions so that you can

determine eligibility. So it’s really just what their total payroll

numbers were between third and fourth quarter.

M. Bernier: So let me just think of it this way, then. On the application

process, did it have to actually be identified as new employees? What if

they gave existing employees a raise and all of a sudden their payroll

went up? Does that mean that now they qualify themselves?

If I was the

boss of a company and I gave myself a 20-percent raise, according to the

payroll documents it looks like I’ve increased my payroll. Would I

actually get a tax incentive for that now?

Hon. S. Robinson: The employers qualify for the credit when they increase their

payroll by adding new employees or providing wage increases. So it is

about both. I just want to point out that I provided the member with the

number of existing employees with increased remuneration. That’s almost

14,000 employees who got increased. So it’s 13,796 employees who

received an increased remuneration. But employee wages above $1,129.33

per week do not count towards the credit.

This is to encourage employment of low- and middle-income workers.

This is where we felt that we were seeing that those were the folks that

were being laid off. Those were the folks sort of at the bottom of the….

For the employers who needed to make cuts because business had slowed

down, those were the folks who were being impacted the most. They were

also the people who had the least ability to weather temporary layoff,

as well.

[4:10 p.m.]

Again, if you gave your folks who work in your store — your dry

cleaner, your grocery store — a $1-, $2-an-hour increase, you were

eligible, but if you were a CEO making a six-figure salary, that

increase wasn’t eligible.

M. Bernier: Listening to the minister’s answer, I go back, almost, to a

question I asked a couple of questions ago around part-time and

full-time. When this was an­nounced…. I believe it’s written even

on the application process on the website that remuneration needs to be

broken down by employee — by employee class — through the application,

when you’re applying for it.

The ministry should have some kind of documentation that shows how

many people applied for a part-time in­crease, how many for a

full-time increase, or how many applied that didn’t have any staff

increases at all, and they just gave their existing staff wage

increases. We must have some kinds of stats to back this up, do we

not?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to remind the member that in putting these programs

together, we wanted to keep things as simple as possible, because

employers were certainly telling us that having to fill out forms was

really not how they wanted to spend their time, or needed to spend their

time, in terms of operating their businesses. So we really took that

feedback from them and kept this as simple as possible.

I had read into the record and shared with the member that the

information that we did collect was the number of existing employees at

these businesses with increased remuneration, that we had 13,796, and

the number of net new employees on payroll. We had 4,163. That was

really important. Now, in terms of those where we see an increased

remuneration, it could be that their hours got increased. So they were,

perhaps, 15 hours a week, and now they’re 28 hours a week. Or they got a

wage increase — kept their same hours, but got a wage

increase.

Again, this is about trying to get…. Again, we have to think back

to where we were, because that’s, I think, what’s really challenging

about some of these programs, because the world has changed again, and

it keeps changing on us, darn it. The world keeps changing, which is a

good thing, because it’s moving in the right direction, so I think we’re

all very excited about that. At least I am.

[4:15 p.m.]

The program was about stimulating enough that people could work.

They could either work more, or they could work for more — more of a

wage. Again, this was about getting money into people’s pockets and

keeping the economy going so that people could pay their bills, because

that’s what we were facing at the time. It was with that in mind that

this program was designed.

Of course, lo and behold, the world changes on us again, and we

have different problems. As my late mother would say, sometimes these

are good problems to have, if we’re opening up. Eight months ago this

was the problem we wanted — to be back at employment numbers that we had

in February and carry on business as usual. This is, I think, what we

all want: making sure that we can get those thousands of people who have

yet to find work — to make sure that there is opportunity for

them.

I know that, certainly, the tourism sector has been incredibly

hard hit. Now, with moving into stage 2, I know lots of people are

starting to book holidays, knowing that they can travel around the

province, starting tomorrow.

The member is pointing to himself. I will confess that I started

making phone calls yesterday to see what was available and where I was

going to be going with my family. We all so desperately need…. British

Columbians, I think, have done a yeoman’s job in keeping each other safe

and really taking care of each other. The present for us at the end is

that we all get to travel around this fabulous province, supporting

those businesses in our communities and our tourism sector businesses

and hospitality sector. I’m looking forward to doing my part to do

that.

Again, I think it’s really important, when we look at these

programs, to remember the context we were in and the program design that

was developed for a certain time and place. While the member asks about,

“Do we know how many part-time? How many full-time?” it’s not data that

we collected, because we wanted to keep it as simple as

possible.

M. Bernier: I know businesses appreciate that. I guess, looking at some of the

stacks of letters I get, I wish some of the other things that government

has rolled out had been that simplistic, as the minister is trying to

make this one be, because there’s a lot of frustration in some of the

other areas. We’ll probably cover off some of those tomorrow so I can

get some sense from the minister on some of the other

programs.

Surprised, though, in this case, that we don’t have the data for

part-time, full-time, because it’s hard for government to quantify and

say what the increase truly could be without that data. I’m sure that’ll

come down the road, when we start seeing income tax being reported and

companies putting forward their taxes as well.

I’m going to agree with the minister. It’s all about trying to get

people back to work. There’s no argument there. We’re trying to, I

think, all work towards and accomplish and support the same things. So I

go back, then, to a question I had earlier that didn’t get a fairly

straight answer. I’ll give the minister an opportunity again.

If there is $184.5 million of this that has not been spent — I’ll

use the word “spent” — or has not been attributed yet to businesses

through an application process for this, what’s the plan? What I mean by

that is that we have this booked in the budget, which I assume — the

minister will correct me if I’m wrong — would be part of the booked

projected deficit and would take into consideration this $190 million as

well as other spending and other grants and other programs.

If the idea is truly about incentivizing, if we have this just

under $185 million, what’s the plan with that then? Is that just going

to be saying: “Okay, well, it’s off the books now. We’re not having to

spend as much because there wasn’t the application there”? Or are we

going to look at other programs with that money? What’s the Finance

Minister’s thought around that?

[4:20 p.m.]

If it’s about incentivizing again — knock on wood, as we are

talking about — we’re getting to the stages where people are excited. As

the minister has rightfully acknowledged, people have maybe a bit of

that cabin fever for sure and are excited to get back out and explore

the province, be with their families, their loved ones. But for many,

many people, that also means the opportunity to get back to work. For

businesses, it’s about the opportunity to, hopefully, expand back to

maybe what they even were pre-COVID.

Is there an opportunity there to maybe look at being a bit more

flexible on this one? Again, if we had said $150 million of the $190

million went out, I’d say: “That’s pretty successful. Those that applied

got it. We’re going to see some goals here.” So $5½ million is

successful for those people. I’m not taking away from that — for the

people that did qualify. But I would say that there is a lot of

opportunity here that we can expand on.

So is there…? Maybe in the next

quarter, or now that the government is rolling out recovery plans —

whatever those will look like — where does this fit into the recovery

plan? Is there an opportunity to use these funds in a different

way?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m happy to provide the member with a response. I’m hoping we

might be able to take a five-minute break after the end of my response,

if that would be fine.

Again, I appreciate the member’s question. The fact that we have

been continually responding as things evo­lve, I think,

demonstrates that government is always paying attention to all of our

programs and adapting as we go forward.

But businesses do have to the end of December to make

applications. While businesses may have actually in­creased their

payroll, they may not have gotten around to making the application,

which I think is certainly…. We have said they have until the end of

December. So I don’t want to suggest that it’s closing any time soon.

There’s lots of opportunity for businesses to make application. It

really has only been just a couple of weeks that we have been receiving

applications. There’s still lots that we don’t know in terms of what’s

coming in.

Again, it’s a program that was really about responding to a crisis

and developing based on what we wanted to incentivize between third and

fourth quarter. So there is a still a lot of — I’ll call it — runway for

folks to get their applications in. That will continue to provide us

with feedback.

We are going to continue listening to businesses and monitoring

the situation and making sure that we can continue to respond to the

needs as we learn more about what’s happening. I do think with us moving

into the next stage…. We’re going to be doing it quickly. I think there

is two weeks in between now and July 1, when we’re going to be in phase

So really, seeing what happens on the ground, I think, is

important, and taking stock and engaging with business, which we have

been doing — my colleagues have been doing — regularly to see what’s

needed as part of recovery. That’s been what we’ve been

doing.

We’re always happy to hear from members opposite in terms of what

they’re hearing, because that will feed in, as well, to government being

responsive to business.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

The committee will be recessed until shortly after 4:30. Thank

you, Members.

The committee recessed from 4:24 p.m. to 4:32 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to have an opportunity to ask some questions of the

minister at this time. I’m going to start with a question that my

colleague, Saanich North and the Islands, asked of the Minister of

Energy and Mines in estimates in that ministry, about Site C.

colleague asked: how certain is the minister that $16 billion is the

final price tag for this project, and is there a point at which this

government identifies this project as being too expensive?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m pleased to see the member taking her place in this estimates

debate. I welcome her to it.

I know the member knows that a lot of things have certainly

changed since the Site C budget was approved in 2018. Responding to

COVID-19 and a need for some new geotech measures to ensure the dam’s

safety are, I would say, two of the big examples that have certainly

faced this project.

However, Site C is now over 50 percent complete, which is a good

thing. It gives us more certainty, with key river-diversion milestones

now behind us. That’s also a good thing. As well, a lot of experience

has been gained in keeping the workforce safe through COVID-​19.

It took a significant amount of undertaking to make sure that this

project could keep going. Independent experts have confirmed that the

new geotech measures will, indeed, make the dam safe. So these are all

good things that have been progressing.

Now, with all of this information that we have…. B.C. Hydro has

updated its cost estimate for completing the Site C project with the

project assurance board under the oversight of the project