Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, May 11, 2021

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 66

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Employment Standards Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021

Hon. H. Bains

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Small Business Awards and businesses in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky area

J. Sturdy

Visual impairment and checkered eye badges

D. Routley

Mining Month and mining resources

T. Shypitka

Child care on Mayne Island

J. Routledge

Logan Stankoven and hockey championship win

P. Milobar

Noise pollution and vehicles with modified tailpipes

S. Chandra Herbert

Oral Questions

Youth addiction services and youth stabilization care legislation

P. Milobar

Hon. S. Malcolmson

T. Halford

COVID-19 response and use of rapid testing

A. Olsen

Hon. A. Dix

Subsidized housing and rent freeze

B. Stewart

Hon. D. Eby

Co-operative housing leases and protections for tenants

T. Stone

Hon. D. Eby

Funding for school fruit and vegetable snack program

M. de Jong

Hon. L. Popham

I. Paton

Personal Statements

Apology for comments made in the House

Hon. N. Simons

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, independent audit report, Management of the

Conservation Lands Program , May 2021

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — InBC Investment Corp. Act (continued)

M. Dykeman

G. Kyllo

S. Furstenau

T. Shypitka

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport (continued)

T. Wat

Hon. M. Mark

TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2021

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: G. Kyllo.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 2), 2021

Hon. H. Bains presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Employment Standards Amendment Act

(No. 2), 2021.

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 13, the Employment Standards

Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021. This bill amends the Employment Standards

Act to provide up to three days of paid sick leave related to COVID-19

for employees in British Columbia. This paid leave will be available to

employees until December 31, 2021.

This new leave will better support workers during the pandemic,

giving workers three days of paid leave for circumstances related to

COVID-19. At the same time, we know we need to support businesses that

are already struggling due to the pandemic, so the province will be

stepping up in a major way to support employers with the

costs.

The bill also amends the Employment Standards Act to provide B.C.

employees with a permanent entitlement to paid personal injury and

illness leave. The new paid leave will be effective January 1, 2022. The

number of days that employees will be entitled to each year for paid

personal illness and injury leave will be set by regulation, after

consultation with employers, workers, Indigenous partners and other

stakeholders over the coming months.

Having paid sick leave is good for businesses, good for workers,

good for our communities, and it will help our economy recover

faster.

Mr. Speaker: Members, you heard the motion. It’s first reading of the

bill.

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 13, Employment Standards Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SMALL BUSINESS AWARDS AND BUSINESSES

IN WEST

VANCOUVER–SEA TO SKY AREA

J. Sturdy: Last week communities from across the pro­vince recognized

small business as part of the 18th annual Small Business B.C. Awards.

This year, naturally, it was the virtual edition.

I’d like to acknowledge all of 558 nominated businesses, from

Okanagan tiny homes to Bowen Island Integrated Health. There were a

record number of nominations, 937 in all, from 88 communities, which

really speaks well to the passion of the sector in very challenging

times. This year’s awards not only recognized entrepreneurial

innovation, determination and perseverance, but in response to the

pandemic, entrepreneurs inevitably had to demonstrate adaptability and

resilience.

In West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, 16 businesses were nominated from

across the region, from Bowen Island, West Vancouver, Squamish and

Whistler. Sectors included transportation, wellness, recreation, food

and beverage and even new ways to deliver integrated health services in

small communities.

Three West Vancouver–Sea to Sky businesses were recognized as

finalists in their respective categories:

Sḵwálwen Botanicals from

Squamish, for the people’s choice award in best community impact; Chiwis

Kiwi Chips, also from Squamish, for best solopreneur; and Sea to Sky

Sourdough BReD in Whistler, which was not only a finalist in the best

youth entrepreneur category, but founders Natasha and Ed Tatton also won

the award. From baking sourdough loaves for friends to running a 100

percent plant-based, vegan-friendly retail bakery in Whistler’s

Creekside, the couple is baking their way to small business success one

loaf at a time.

[10:10 a.m.]

I hope we’re all inspired to see the hard work and determination

from so many small business owners. It’s critical that we better support

small businesses in this very challenging time, whether through recovery

grant programs, staff recruitment or reduced tax burdens.

I trust this House will be as committed, focused and innovative as

our small businesses are.

VISUAL IMPAIRMENT

AND CHECKERED EYE

BADGES

D. Routley: This message is a statement from Pat Portsmouth, my friend who has

worked tirelessly for her life on behalf of people on the blindness

spectrum.

Most people who use a white cane have severe blindness, and they

use the cane as a tool for independent travel. Some people use the white

cane as a symbol, strictly to indicate to others that they have some

degree of blindness. People on the blindness spectrum who do not need a

white cane as a travel or safety device may choose to use a cane or a

checkered eye badge to indicate that their vision is impaired. Now, the

checkered eye badge is, as it suggests, an eye with a checkered iris and

indicates that the person is visually impaired.

The awareness of a person’s hidden needs can alleviate confusion,

frustration and embarrassment for people with blindness and those with

whom they interact. What people who wear the symbol want you to do is

understand that they have some kind of visual impairment. Keep in mind

that there’s a spectrum of types and amounts of blindness. The checkered

eye symbol gives you only one piece of information — that I am on the

blindness spectrum.

Since visual information may or may not be useful for people who

wear the checkered eye, here are a couple of tips. If a person seems to

be struggling and in need of help, ask them first. When giving

directions, ask if a person can actually see any of the landmarks that

you might reference. Their mission is to make it more comfortable for

people who have vision impairment and increase the understanding of

their predicament. It’s to educate the public about the two options for

self-identification.

The checkered eye project was founded in 2000 by Libby Thaw, a

stay-at-home mom in Port Elgin, Ontario. Living with low vision herself,

Thaw noticed an unmet need and rose to the challenge. Significant

collaboration has oc­curred with Rotary clubs and

chambers.

I’d like to celebrate these efforts and encourage all members: if

you see someone with a badge, feel confident that you understand them

and maybe let them know.

Thank you very much to Pat Portsmouth.

MINING MONTH AND MINING RESOURCES

T. Shypitka: Each May we observe Mining Month in British Columbia for a very

good reason. Mining Month 2021 gives us the opportunity to learn more

about how the industry is transitioning to accommodate the demand for

renewable energy and a low-carbon future.

It also starts with thousands of British Columbians who are

directly employed within a mining industry that pro­vides

good-paying jobs. Plus it creates even more employment indirectly for

those who supply equipment and materials throughout the

province.

As a matter of fact, B.C. has a global reputation as a leading

jurisdiction for mining rich, diverse mineral de­posits in every

corner of the province, such as gold, lead and zinc, all key ingredients

to renewable energy, infrastructure and electronics.

It might also interest you to know, Mr. Speaker, that as province,

B.C. is the largest producer of copper and steel-making coal in the

country. Four of the largest of these coal mines are proudly in my

region of Kootenay East. We are also the second-largest producer of

silver in the country and the only producer of molybdenum. Mr. Speaker,

let’s not any of us forget the hundreds of aggregate and gravel

producers.

B.C. is excellently poised to being a world mining leader. We have

the hard-working people, the natural abundance of metals and minerals

and a world-dominating technology sector to back us up. All we need to

get us over the finish line is a fair and speedy permitting process,

strong fiscal policy that allows us to compete and funding to perpetuate

the mining cycle with strong geoscience.

The truth is nobody does mining better than British Columbians. We

have the highest environmental, safety and human rights standards in the

world, supported by a deep commitment to responsible, culturally

sensitive de­velopment and production, along with meaningful First

Nation partnerships.

In conclusion, I would like to congratulate, on this Mining Day,

associations like MABC, AME, Geoscience B.C., East Kootenay Chamber of

Mines and the B.C. Stone, Sand and Gravel Association and all those

workers and suppliers.

[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: We noticed something the member did. We’ll deal with it

later.

[10:15 a.m.]

CHILD CARE ON MAYNE ISLAND

J. Routledge: Mayne Island is getting a new child care centre. Now, it’s in

Saanich North and the Islands, but it’s also been part of my life for

almost 40 years, and I thank their member for encouraging me to speak

about this initiative.

This isolated community of 1,000 is composed largely of retirees

and weekenders. The local economy, driven by tourism and seniors’

infrastructure, functions only be­cause working-age adults are

willing to locate there, and they are having families. It’s a baby

boom.

Like elsewhere, these young couples need two incomes to make ends

meet, and there are few child care options, so the Mayne Island Early

Childhood Society was created in 2018. There are 30 families living on

Mayne Island with children under the age of six. Twelve of these

families can access child care; 17 are wait-listed.

Thanks to a new spaces grant, plans are being developed for a

permanent facility that can accommodate more families and respond with

flexibility to the needs of those who service this island economy. It

will house an existing program that celebrates the unique

environment.

It’s nature- and place-based. Children learn to navigate the

forest safely and steward the ecosystem. It’s STEM-based. There’s a lot

to learn about science in the forest. It’s community-based. They visit

local farms and businesses, making themselves known and knowing others.

They bring these lessons and experiences back to the classroom in

storytelling, arts and crafts and dramatic play.

Once I can visit Mayne Island again after the pandemic, I look

forward to seeing the child care kids out and about in their iconic

choo-choo.

LOGAN STANKOVEN

AND HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIP

WIN

P. Milobar: Earlier this spring my colleague from Kamloops–South Thompson

kicked off the WHL season, and I will be having hockey-themed comments

today, but spoiler alert, I am not the singer out of the two Kamloops

ridings, so there will be no singing today as a result.

But it does seem fitting that as the WHL season winds up and our

Kamloops Blazers have now clinched their second back-to-back B.C. title

against stiff competition, I thought I’d take a couple of minutes here

to highlight the accomplishments of one young man from Kamloops — and,

actually, Team Canada — at the recent U18 World Championships that were

held down in Texas, where Canada won the gold medal.

Logan Stankoven is a Kamloops born and raised hockey player who

was actually drafted by the hometown Blazers, and that is no small feat,

to play with the pressure of your hometown fans. It’s exciting but can

also put a lot of pressure on a younger player. Logan has excelled for

years, always playing up in age and excelling in that way.

This year he was fortunate enough in his draft year to be selected

to go down and take time away from the Kamloops Blazers, the team he

loves so much, to represent Ca­nada at the U18s. There, with his

hard work and dedication, he was quickly…. His leadership abilities were

recognized instantly. Logan was fortunate enough to be appointed an

assistant captain for Team Canada — again, a very high honour when you

consider the leadership and talent any Canadian hockey team assembles at

any age group.

Down there, Logan wound up being fifth for Team Canada in scoring

as we brought home the gold, and in fact, scored the winning goal for

Canada in the gold medal game, which was very exciting as

well.

To Logan, to all of Team Canada — I would ask this House to please

pass along our sincere congratulations for all their hard work and

dedication and the excitement that we’ll have watching them as their

careers develop over the next few years.

NOISE POLLUTION AND

VEHICLES WITH MODIFIED

TAILPIPES

S. Chandra Herbert: To the driver, it’s loud. It’s strong. It’s powerful, muscly. It

makes seniors jump. It scares babies. It’s strength.

To the rest of us, it’s arrogant. It’s mean. It’s inconsiderate.

It’s not nice. It doesn’t make you look too cool and makes us mad at

you.

To my son, he says: “Papa, look,” — he’s four — “there goes a fart

bike. There goes a fart car.” I asked him why and, well, I guess you

understand why he thinks the loud motorbikes or loud cars or trucks that

modified their tail­pipes might sound that way.

[10:20 a.m.]

But a message to all those who think that it sounds cool: if a

four-year-old thinks that you sound like you’re farting, probably not so

cool.

It’s a challenge that’s bugged my constituents in the West End for

many years. Indeed, people all across the world are struggling with how

you deal with people that modify their tailpipes on their vehicles to be

as loud as possible, to be as obnoxious as possible. Under the B.C. law,

it’s illegal to ride a bike or a car or a truck with a modified

tailpipe. But in the last year, fines were issued only 24 times,

according to the ICBC stats that I got. The police are too

busy.

Other places around the world are trying to figure out ways to

deal with this. Is it sound cameras? Is it banning the modification? Is

it blitzes like the police do in Vancouver to try and alert people not

to do this? There are all sorts of ways to address it. We just need to

start.

I’m pleased to be working with constituents and with folks at the

city of Vancouver to look at ways to address this issue. With more

people at home and the summer coming, the complaint level, I know, will

only go up as the noise level goes up.

So don’t be a fart-car or a fart-bike driver. Think of your

neighbours.

Oral Questions

YOUTH ADDICTION SERVICES AND

YOUTH STABILIZATION CARE

LEGISLATION

P. Milobar: When the Premier put his political ambition ahead of public health

and then tried to camouflage it by throwing his partners in the Green

Party under the bus, he said: “We took steps this summer to address the

challenges that families faced when it comes to the scourge of opioids,

and we were rebuffed by our colleagues in our so-called stable

administration.”

Well, the Premier may have thrown the Greens under the bus, but he

was all words, with no action or follow-through, based on his quote. It

is now eight months later, and there is still no action. Last week

Vancouver Island saw the death of two children, one just 12 years old.

They didn’t get the help they needed.

Can the Premier tell those parents why, after using it as a

political excuse, he has taken no more action on helping

families?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Thank you to the member for the question. The death of a child is

a tragedy that no family should have to face. My heart goes out to

them.

We’ve been working hard to build up the system of voluntary

supports and have added services in so many areas in response to the

families that have told me and told colleagues how hard it has been to

access service. Despite the number of new supports built in, young

people still fall through the cracks, and for that, I grieve along with

the peers and friends and families that have lost young ones.

The approach that we’ve taken…. Although understanding absolutely

that there are parents who do believe, and I agree with them, that

stabilization care might have made a difference in the lives of their

children, the focus that I have as minister right now is on building up

that system of voluntary care.

That will work to save lives right now, and it will also

facilitate the complex conversations that are ahead of us as we

re-address legislation to stabilize young people after an overdose and

work to connect them with care before they’re discharged.

Mr. Speaker: The Opposition House Leader on a supplemental.

P. Milobar: Well, let’s be clear. That 12-year-old was seven when this Premier

took over the reigns of government. It’s been five years.

The Premier thought that Bill 22 and protecting children was

important enough to plunge B.C. into an election and put the government

on hold for two months in the middle of a pandemic, even though Bill 22

was widely panned by many. He insisted this was the reason that he had

to go to an election.

Well, this pandemic is one public health crisis. The opioid crisis

is another one, and it’s been going on for that five years. The

Premier’s words are cold comfort to the families.

[10:25 a.m.]

Here’s another quote from the Premier. “I believe this is an

important bill because I’ve talked to parents who’ve lost children. They

wanted government to do something so there was at least a legacy for the

loss of a loved one.”

Once again, here we are eight months later, and there is no new

legislation. None on the horizon. It seems like the Premier was only

worried about his legacy eight months ago, not bringing forward

legislation in a meaningful way.

Again to the Premier, when will the Premier be introducing a new

bill that helps parents and families?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Again, my thoughts are with the family and the friends of the two

young women who lost their lives this month, and many more. That over

1,700 people have lost their lives to the toxic drug supply in this year

of the pandemic is heartbreaking.

Our work to expand the system of care has been going on the last

few years, and it continues. The unprecedented investment announced this

past month by the Finance Minister, half a billion dollars to build up

that mental health and addictions response, is work that carries on.

Again, unprecedented investment.

There is so much more work to do. Yet to have just already almost

$100 million of this budget dedicated particularly towards supports for

children and families, to be doubling youth treatment and recovery beds

is unprecedented in British Columbia’s history.

To be training up new health care support mental health workers in

many of our universities and post-secondary institutions. To have added

to new school districts the integrated child and youth teams, trying to

get ahead of problems, trying to address problems while they’re still

small, before they build into a crisis.

This is work that we’re doing across the continuum of care,

building up those voluntary supports, which will give a different

flavour to the public consultations and work around stabilization care

legislation, work that is ahead of us. But our focus right now is on

building up voluntary care.

T. Halford: That answer is little comfort to this 12-year-old’s family. That

answer is too late for this 12-year-old’s family and for this

12-year-old.

Ally Thomas overdosed three times before and ended up at Victoria

General Hospital. The fourth time, as we know, was fatal. As her family

was looking for help, Ally fell through the cracks. As the minister just

put it moments ago, our youth are falling through the cracks. Those are

the words of the minister in this House today.

Interjection.

T. Halford: Sorry, I’m being heckled by the Attorney General while I ask about

the death of a 12-year-old.

Interjections.

T. Halford: Be respectful.

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

Interjection.

T. Halford: Sorry, I think the death of a 12-year-old is serious.

Mr. Speaker: Please continue, Member.

T. Halford: As Ally’s mom put it: “If I was able to be there for her, if I had

the help and she had the help, I think she would be here right

now.”

The Premier justified a pandemic election that put government on

pause by saying he needed a majority to help families like

Ally’s.

My question to the Premier today is: where is that help for Ally’s

family?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: We’ve heard from families who lost children to overdose, who

believe that better care after an overdose would have saved their child.

Our government agrees, which is why we are trying to build up the mental

health and addictions response system for young people across the entire

continuum of care.

That young children, young people still fall through the cracks is

a [audio interrupted], something that weighs on every person, of course,

on the front line; every peer; every friend. It’s a heartbreaking loss

for someone so young.

Again, I extend my condolences to the family and friends of the

two young women on Vancouver Island who died to overdose this month. We

remain as a government deeply committed to building up that system of

care, to preventing loss of life to drug toxicity, to tackling addiction

and mental health problems while they are still small

problems.

[10:30 a.m.]

Building up, doubling the number of youth treatment beds. Working

to build up better post-overdose connection to care. That’s what last

summer’s legislation was intended to do. We did hear that getting the

voluntary care built up and on the ground is an important companion to

that legislation, and that is the work that we’re doing right

now.

I appreciate the member’s support for both building up more

services and for a legislated solution. They must work together, and

that is the work that we’re determined to do.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.

T. Halford: When this story broke, the minister and the Premier both said they

couldn’t respond due to privacy, but let’s give them the facts. A

12-year-old has lost their life. She overdosed four times, and she did

not get the help she needed.

I’ve got two 12-year-olds in my house. You can smirk all you want,

but at the end of the day, when we are talking about the death of our

youth….

We are talking about legislation that this Premier promised to

bring in and then used it as an excuse to head us into an election. I

think British Columbians, I think our youth and I think the families and

those that have lost their loved ones deserve better than what this

government has given them.

My question to the Premier is this. Where is the legislation that

he promised to deliver in the summer? It’s eight months later, and our

families can no longer wait.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The death of a child in these circumstances is something

that….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Minister.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: May I proceed?

Mr. Speaker: The minister will continue.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The death of a child in circumstances like this is something that

the coroner will investigate. I look forward very much to the advice of

the coroner and that of the Representative for Children and Youth. We

want to know, from the analysis that we’ll receive from them, whether

stabilization care would have helped in this to prevent these two

deaths. I’m hungry for that advice and that information.

We also want to learn as much as we can about what services were

offered and how it is that young people still continue to fall through

the cracks, despite the number of new supports that we have added in the

time that we’ve had in government, and whether the investments that we

have planned ahead are going to be adequate to continue to respond to

the increased toxicity in drugs that’s been caused by the pandemic but

also the intense pressure that young people are on and the mental health

supports.

We’re working as hard as we can to build up those supports, to

build up that system of care to save lives. We will learn every lesson

that we can from the loss of these two young lives. We will honour the

process that the coroner and the Representative for Children and Youth

has laid out for us to do that, with respect, and do everything we can

as a government to prevent further loss of life.

COVID-19 RESPONSE AND

USE OF RAPID

TESTING

A. Olsen: The results from a University of British Columbia trial of rapid

testing in first-year residents has come back with positive results,

positive cases and positive findings. Twenty-five PCR-confirmed cases

were caught in this trial, stopping further transmission from spreading

from highly infectious yet asymptomatic people. The trial’s results

noted that students preferred to test themselves, when given the option,

and effectively decreased the spread of COVID-19 due to great

engagement.

The study from UBC shows success using rapid tests in communal

settings and that people are wanting agency in what they can do to bend

the curve. Directives to stay home and stay safe are passive and have

exhausted people. Rapid tests are a tool of engagement. They give people

something to do. They give people an action and an active role to play

in our pandemic response.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Will this government be

using the results of this study to implement a revised rapid testing

strategy in British Columbia?

[10:35 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for his question.

I would start by disagreeing somewhat. I think that there is a

role for all British Columbians, and British Columbians have done an

excellent job in following public health guidance, engaging with one

another on it and following public health orders. You’ve seen that

repeatedly as case counts have gone up and then come down because of the

actions of British Columbians.

With respect to rapid testing, our policy is directed by our

scientific experts at the BCCDC and the provincial health officer. We

laid out that policy in detail on March 3. Dr. Bonnie Henry did on

behalf of the province. That allows for an increased use in rapid

testing.

Some of the technology that the member is talking about is very

recent here in British Columbia. Some of the technology that’s been used

in other jurisdictions isn’t yet licensed in Canada.

Absolutely, the idea of responding to this pandemic is to adapt

and adapt again. So all studies that are put in place on the issue of

rapid testing are reviewed by both the BCCDC and the provincial health

officer, and they’ll be used to guide policy in the days to

come.

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

supplemental.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for the response.

couple of days ago talks about testing and screening as important tools

to help reduce the risk of outbreaks quickly, to identify and isolate

cases and to limit spreading in workplaces and in the community. It goes

on to say that across the country, rapid tests have already helped to

identify and stop the transmission of over 11,000 confirmed cases of

COVID-19.

The reluctance of this B.C. NDP government to remove barriers to

rapid testing is, frankly, astonishing. They did, finally, change the

restrictions to allow non-medical professionals to administer rapid

tests in the workplace. As of last week, 33 workplaces have applied for

these point-of-care tests, and zero have been approved.

British Columbia is falling behind on rapid testing in the

workplace. We have used 1 percent of the rapid tests in our stockpile,

with more than a million of these tests set to expire this fall. The

federal industry advisory panel has called for rapid tests in the

workplace and said that B.C. is dragging its heels.

My question is again to the Minister of Health. Why has this

government created barriers to access rapid tests in the midst of this

pandemic?

Hon. A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, I’m really surprised that the member, on this

precise point of how to use testing — which surely, amongst all

subjects, should be guided by scientific experts and is, in British

Columbia…. Suddenly it becomes a partisan issue. It’s not a partisan

issue.

Our policy is guided by the Canadian committee. We’ve heard

regularly from Dr. Dhalla and Sue Paish, who will be familiar to members

of the House and who are chairing the federal committee, and from Dr.

Bonnie Henry and the BCCDC.

Our policy around rapid testing was based first on validating the

test, which was important, then doing a series of pilot projects and

setting out a policy and now using them more and more as the technology

evolves. That is based on the scientific evidence.

It’s not a trade agreement where one political party has one

position and another has another position. We are being guided by Dr.

Bonnie Henry, by the BCCDC, by federal advice and by the scientific

evidence. That will continue to be the case in the coming days and weeks

of this pandemic.

SUBSIDIZED HOUSING AND RENT FREEZE

B. Stewart: Tenants of subsidized housing in B.C. were shocked to learn that

they did not qualify for the rent freeze under this government. The B.C.

Housing notice tenants received says: “The government of B.C. rent

freeze does not apply to…rent-geared-to-income.”

Why is the Premier raising rent on people in subsidized housing in

the middle of a pandemic?

Hon. D. Eby: Rent-geared-to-income is exactly as it is described. You pay the

rent that you can afford according to your income.

The reason why there’s not a rent freeze required for that group

is because it’s directly tied to the tenant’s income. If you’ve lost all

of your income because of COVID, then your rent goes down accordingly.

If your income has gone up despite COVID, you pay rent accordingly. It’s

a very carefully tailored mechanism.

To be blunt, the entirety of people living in supportive housing

are paying well below market rent. It’s supportive, affordable housing

geared to the individual person’s income.

[10:40 a.m.]

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

B. Stewart: I think that when it comes to the pandemic issues, that answer is

a bit insensitive. The fact is that these people are still renters.

They’re still paying, to B.C. Housing, a rent. The Premier is the only

landlord in the province who gets a raise in rent this year. He has

exempted his government from his own rent freeze rules, and the tenants

who need it most are the ones who pay.

Why is the Premier playing by a different set of rules and

charging B.C. Housing tenants with rent increases, or is this just

another botched NDP plan?

Hon. D. Eby: I guess I would take the member’s concern more seriously if he

hadn’t just been on the radio advocating against free cell phones for

low-income people. Let me read the quote. He says he’s on the side of

the people in supportive housing. Well, that’s interesting. He blamed

the fact that Telus is providing free cell phones. He said: “So,

frankly, the reason that homeless people are coming….” First of all, he

said, homeless people are coming to British Columbia from across Canada.

The reason is “because it’s the best option in Canada,” in a lot of

cases, because the government has “even provided cell

phones.”

So the member…

Interjections.

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

Hon. D. Eby: …is on the radio advocating against low-cost cell phones for

people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Then in this

question period, he says rent geared to income is somehow unfair to

people when it’s actually geared to their actual income. The member

needs to get his stories straight. Whose side is he on?

CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING LEASES

AND PROTECTIONS FOR

TENANTS

T. Stone: Tri-Branch housing co-op is home to 220 tenants in Coquitlam, all

of whom are seniors and low-income earners. These residents were shocked

to learn recently that their lease will not be renewed next year. It

will expire. They have written to the Premier to ask the Premier, to

urge the Premier, to purchase the land so that these folks can retain

their affordable co-op housing units. The president of Tri-Branch, Dave

Pylypol, says: “They’re in a panic. This is home to many, many people

for four decades.”

Interestingly enough, Tri-Branch is located in the riding of the

MLA for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain. He’s nowhere on this issue. This co-op

is literally in the backyard of the former Housing Minister and the

current Finance Minister. She’s also missing in action on this

file.

The question is this. Will the Premier step up, and will he save

these hundreds of affordable co-op homes in Coquitlam?

Hon. D. Eby: This is an issue we’re dealing with across the province. There are

a number of co-ops that were established by the federal government when

they used to support co-op housing — they don’t anymore — and that are

on leases that are expiring. South False Creek in Vancouver is another

example. There’s a very large co-op in Burnaby.

I appreciate the member drawing this to my attention. Of course,

I’ve heard about it from local members as well. B.C. Housing continues

to work with co-ops that are in distress like that, and I’ll make sure

that they are working on that. I thank the member for raising that

important issue.

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

supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, we know why the government won’t step in to protect these

homes. The answer is because the developer evicting them is the

International Union of Op­erating Engineers pension fund. The

Co-operative Housing Federation of B.C. president, Thom Armstrong, says:

“Now the union pension funds trustees say to themselves: ‘We have to get

a market return on the value of our property.’”

The IUOE just happens to be the same union that has donated over

$590,000 to the NDP. It just happens to be one of the NDP’s 19

hand-picked unions that are benefiting at taxpayers’ expense from the

NDP’s discriminatory union-only mandate on major infrastructure

projects.

Again the question to the Premier is this. Why is the Premier

throwing 220 British Columbians, mostly seniors and those on low

incomes, out of their homes in this af­fordable housing co-op to

reward the NDP’s union donors?

Hon. D. Eby: Let’s be frank. If we had already purchased the building, the

member would be standing up saying that we purchased it to favour the

union. If we didn’t, we’re not purchasing it to favour the union.

There’s no win here. But I can tell the member, if he’s legitimately

concerned about the tenants in the building, that B.C. Housing is

working with the union to have negotiations about an appropriate price,

based on appraisals. That conversation is ongoing.

[10:45 a.m.]

I’m well aware of the issue, and we are concerned about the

tenants in the building. The vital issue, to us, is protecting the

tenants and making sure that they are looked after. That is definitely a

priority. I thank the member for raising the issue and for his

encouragement to buy the building.

FUNDING FOR SCHOOL FRUIT

AND VEGETABLE SNACK

PROGRAM

M. de Jong: For over 15 years, the B.C. school fruit and vegetable nutritional

program has been creating an exciting direct link between students in

the classroom and farmers. Today over half a million students, in over

1,400 schools right across British Columbia, receive regular shipments

in public schools, in First Nations schools. They receive regular

shipments of fresh fruit, vegetables and milk. It’s been a tremendous

success — until now.

Why do I say that? I say that because — unbelievably, for me and,

I think, many others — the small society that runs the school fruit and

vegetable program has been told that the government funding that they

have been receiving for over a decade, that allows them to provide fresh

fruit, vegetables and milk, is ending and won’t be continued.

My question is to the Agriculture Minister. Can she please explain

why her government is eliminating funding for a program that has

provided half a million students with fresh B.C. fruits, vegetables and

milk?

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question. The fruit and vegetable program is

something that has been very valuable, and we have worked with the

association for a number of years. The funding for the fruit and

vegetable program comes from the Ministry of Health. We have had

discussions on how to find ways to support this incredible

association.

M. de Jong: Well, that might be the first example of passing the nonexistent

buck that I’ve seen in this House.

Look, I’m troubled that the minister continues to speak in the

past tense about a program that has been such an incredible success,

that has been funded by previous governments and by this government

until now. Here’s what people say about this. This is from the Chalo

School on Mile 293, Alaska Highway, from someone that’s worked there for

six years: “I can tell you with 100 percent honesty that the vegetables

that we receive at the school are the only vegetables that some of our

students get.”

I got a handful of letters from Quadra Island, from Merritt, from

Big Lake Elementary, from Clinton, from École Martha Currie in Surrey,

from right across British Columbia, touting the benefits of this

program. All of this costs between $3 million and $4 million. That’s

roughly the same amount that the Premier’s office budget is going

up.

The society is now at their wit’s end, and I hope the minister

will take account of this. Without the funding commitment from

government now, they cannot plan to operate into next year, into the

next school year. They’ll have to notify the 1,000 farmers that their

products aren’t going to be required. They’re going to have to notify

the 4,000 volunteers, that help distribute the products to students,

that their help is no longer required.

The merits of this program speak for themselves. Will the minister

stand in this House today and confirm that the funding, that has kept

this program alive and made it such a success, won’t be ended but will

continue? Give the kids their milk money.

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you again for the question and for highlighting an amazing

program that has been operating for a number of years, bringing fruits

and vegetables and milk to schools around British Columbia. We will be

looking at ways on how to support this type of program. I’ll be having

discussions with the Minister of Health and the association in the near

future.

But the member is correct. In some cases, this is the only fresh

produce or fruit that schools receive, especially in our northern

communities. But we’ll be working within the Ministry of Agriculture,

within our Feed B.C. program to look at ways to support more fruit and

vegetables that are grown and processed in B.C. to be distributed in

B.C. throughout all of our major institutions, including

Health.

I. Paton: Well I, personally, am happy to say I’ve been very involved over

the years with B.C. agriculture in the classroom. I've worked with Ms.

Pat Tonn on this project, which 98 percent of teachers in B.C. have told

us how important it is for this program to continue with children in

schools getting milk, vegetables and fruit and going home and telling

their parents how important it is for them to continue to eat those

products as they grow older.

The B.C. school fruit and vegetable nutritional program has been

seeking funding since February. On March 22, they met with the Minister

of Agriculture. In April, they emailed her, saying: “Will the program be

government-funded, or is it no longer supported? The answer is required

by May 10” — which was yesterday — “in order to prepare plans and order

B.C. products.” But the budget came, and the deadline passed yesterday

with no funding for the program, no money for fresh vegetables in the

classroom, yet $4 million for more spin doctors in the Premier’s

office.

Why did the Premier find the money for spin doctors in his office

but not for B.C. fruit, vegetables and milk for children in

classrooms?

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you to the member for the question, again highlighting a

program that is very valuable and is something that many schools in many

parts of British Columbia depend on. We will be working together with

the association and the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education

to look at how a program can continue.

We know that the earlier that children get a taste of fresh

British Columbia produce in their lives, the more chance that they will

have to be healthy eaters. This is something that I’m very interested

in. I know the Minister of Health is, and the Minister of Education, and

we will be working together to find a way to distribute this amazing

produce around the province.

[End of question period.]

Personal Statements

APOLOGY FOR COMMENTS

MADE IN THE

HOUSE

Hon. N. Simons: During the question period, I used a word, an unparliamentary

word, and I would like to apologize for that.

Point of Order

Hon. D. Eby: I rise on a point of personal privilege.

I was incredibly…. I understand this is a place where debate takes

place on sensitive issues. Certainly, I took exception with some of the

debate during the member for Surrey–White Rock’s remarks.

I think where my concern about unparliamentary conduct arises is the

fact that the entire government side is wearing masks, yet the member

suggested that the government side was smirking about the death of a

12-year-old. It was a fundamental misrepresentation. It was

inaccurate.

I ask that the member withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Members.

It’s true that all members wear masks here. Nobody can see people’s

faces. That’s true.

However, at the same time, the Chair heard a comment from the minister

which was not acceptable and, as well, was unparliamentary. The Minister of

Social Development and Poverty Reduction used a word that started with “l,”

and that’s not acceptable. I ask the minister to withdraw that as

well.

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. N. Simons: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the word I used to define what the member

for Surrey–White Rock said. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: That’s fine. Thank you.

Again, Members, I just want to remind everybody that yes, it’s

understandable that in the question period, everybody is passionate and

concerned about the issues that they’re dealing with in their own

communities, and those questions must be raised. But we don’t have to be

personal.

At the same time, please try to understand that we are conducting

business on behalf of all British Columbians. We are being watched. Be

careful with our behaviour and our comments. So again I would politely and

in a friendlier manner ask each and every one of you, when you stand up to

ask a question and answer questions, be careful, because we are being

watched, and it’s our responsibility to conduct our business in a very

responsible way. Thank you.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour to present this report: Management of

the Conservation Lands Program from the Office of the Auditor

General of British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 5, InBC

Investment Corp. Act. In Douglas Fir Room, Committee A, I call continued debate

on the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — I n BC

INVESTMENT CORP. ACT

(continued)

M. Dykeman: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to continue. Although

I’m continuing from yesterday and I can’t remember the exact sentence I

was on, I will start where I believe I ended off.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I was talking about the contradictions in listening to some of the

members opposite speak in regards to the InBC bill, and the

contradictions truly are glaring from the opposition. In one sentence,

you’ll hear: “Oh, do not spend any money. Wait, you’re not spending

enough money.” That’s complete tommy-rot. If obstinance is a measure of

effective opposition, then I believe that the opposition is hitting it

out of the park.

Bill 5 builds off targeted, important and needed supports we have

provided through this pandemic. I’m not sure if the members opposite

have been at the same session of government that I have, but in case the

supports provided were missed, just a few of them include $800 million

in ongoing supports.

It builds on: the targeted grants and services announced in

StrongerBC; $150 million in support of increased employment incentive

tax credit, which is ongoing; $35 million to help B.C. farmers with

temporary foreign workers; $10 million over three years to expand the

domestic market for B.C. products; $235 million in PST savings for

businesses; and $195 million in funding to continue the small and

medium-sized business recovery grant.

That’s just to name a few. I mean, we also have $70 million for

the Canadian emergency commercial rent assistance program, $60 million

in other targeted emergency financial relief and $31 million that allows

liquor licences, such as for restaurants, bars and tourism operators to

purchase beer, wine and spirits at reduced wholesale costs.

I just heard the other day from one of my constituents and

friends, Wally Martin, and he has initiated many energy-efficient and

organic practices at his bed and breakfast in Langley East, including

installation of solar panels and reduction of electrical energy use by

80 percent. He is now an independent power producer and sells energy

back to B.C. Hydro. I had the honour to tour his passive house recently,

and he wrote to me to thank us for our support. He is the recipient of a

one-time small and medium-sized business recovery grant.

He said: “We’re excited to complete relevant meaningful

improvements to our tourism business and the historic hotel. This

assistance is greatly needed and will position us to serve the community

in many important ways. The assistance will not only help us but will

support a number of local suppliers and contractors as we complete

numerous improvements.” This is just one example.

[11:00 a.m.]

It’s prudent, and it’s good governance to be a forward-thinking

government. For 16 years, many of us felt like we were experiencing

whiplash. As once again…. A member of the opposition in this last

sitting referred to the Hunger Games a number of times. I can

tell you right now, coming from a school board background, hon. Speaker,

that was like the Hunger Games .

Wow. I remember my son’s first day of school, being told he had to

bring his own toilet paper, nine reams of paper, napkins — buy every

supply known to mankind just to go to school. To quote the Hunger

Games again: “Destroying things is much easier than making

them.” That would describe those 16 years quite aptly.

Proper planning, forward thought and investment in support of

businesses is good governance. Our government is working to make things,

to build things, to have a prosperous, secure and equitable British

Columbia. That’s something that our government understands and

prioritizes.

We understand that we need to build a future. That you can’t…. And

I cannot believe I’m responding to the opposition, explaining this. You

can’t just keep taking. You can’t just keep spending. You have to

actually build a future. That is what this government is committed

to.

InBC will have a triple-bottom-line investment mandate aiming to

establish B.C. as a globally competitive low-carbon jurisdiction;

promote values that make life better for people in B.C., including job

creation, advancing, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, promoting

diversity and inclusion; and achieving a financial return on

investment.

It’s not about just handing out cash to your buddies. It’s not

about turning around and saying: “Well, we gave the people that we felt

needed money, money.” No, we’re looking at a fulsome plan, one that

says: “Okay. Well, let’s invest in this province, and let’s also support

people that need help now.” That’s a balanced approach. That’s why I’m

so excited about the InBC bill.

This is exciting for our province. We are known internationally as

an innovative province that’s home to cutting-edge businesses, and this

bill — this plan — will support businesses, attract them to this

province.

In my riding alone, we have fantastic innovative businesses like

CubicFarm Systems Corp., who provide unique, automated, on-site,

commercial-scale food and livestock feed technologies, working to

transform the agriculture system to enable local food and feed

independence. Langley has many other innovative businesses — an

agriculture sector, tourism, air transportation, food and beverage

processing, manufacturing and several innovative home-based

businesses.

Investments made by InBC will have, as I mentioned before, a

triple-bottom-line mandate, and they will focus on producing a financial

return while also making British Columbia a better place for people,

communities and businesses to thrive. So it’s considering the people,

the planet and the profits. That is a wise investment. That is

forward-looking. That’s what a province needs, especially as we support

this province to be the leader that it is, as it comes out of this

pandemic.

InBC will take both public and private enterprise and pursue

economic development through meaningful partnerships — entrepreneurs,

businesses and communities. This fund with critical capital will be

provided to B.C.-based companies so that they can grow and stay in this

province. It’s about investing — keeping people here, keeping businesses

here, providing good-paying jobs here, supporting companies here. This

will create family-supporting jobs in all regions of this

province.

Supporting start-ups and helping promising businesses scale up is

a wise investment. Attracting world-class talent to our province will

continue to invest back into our province, so this will stimulate

innovation, family-supporting jobs, a resilient economy that works for

everyone.

As I mentioned before, this province is known for its innovation,

and that’s why even though this has been such a challenging time, our

province has been persevering through it. These types of investments

will allow our province to remain resilient no matter what we face in

the future.

We’re looking, with the InBC bill, to provide meaningful

partnerships. That’s how we build provinces. We look at what sorts of

partnerships you can bring together, what sort of innovation will come

out of that, and what sorts of entrepreneurs will look at that

innovation and say: “This is a place that I want to invest

in.”

[11:05 a.m.]

Although we heard from the opposition recently — members opposite

were talking about how there wasn’t enough support — as I mentioned a

minute or so ago, there has been tons of support. But this is about the

next step. This is about planning. This is about looking to the future.

That’s why it’s such a privilege to stand up and speak in favour of this

bill.

Aligning our province with significant changes in the world, like

environmental change, social change, technological change and

reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, is good for our province. The

return on that will be stable, well-paying jobs — a prosperous future

for our province.

With that, I can’t state my support enough for this bill, but I

will take my seat and thank you for the opportunity to speak in favour

of this wise investment for our province.

G. Kyllo: I am proud to rise today and take my place to speak on Bill 5,

InBC Investment Corp. Act.

As all British Columbians will know, businesses have been

struggling over the last 14 months on account of COVID. There are over

8,000 businesses that have already been lost, and an additional 25,000

businesses are currently at risk of closure, representing employment for

upwards of 300,000 British Columbians.

This particular bill that’s before us today sets out spending

plans of $500 million. The first tranche…. My understanding is the first

$100 million will not be available for any businesses to actually make

application for, for a full year.

Businesses are struggling now. This House, all members of this

Legislature, unanimously approved a $5 billion additional increase in

spending in March of last year so that government would have the

resources to provide those necessary supports for businesses. The need

was last year, throughout the entirety of 2020, and it continues today.

This bill that is before us is far too little, far too late and

definitely misses the mark.

The one program that government did put forward, their $345

million COVID restart program, sat for over five months while the

Premier did his broad public consultation. Now, it’s interesting. When

businesses are struggling and there is an opportunity for government to

provide those supports, it takes five months of consultation with a

broad swath of British Columbians, and we only saw the plan announced as

part of the NDP’s snap election platform.

Just think about that for a second. All members of this

Legislature unanimously approved a $5 billion spending plan — so

government had the resources so that they could provide those necessary

supports for businesses that are struggling — five months before they

even announced the program. Then the Premier chose to put his political

self-interest ahead of the health and well-being of British Columbians,

and not a penny flowed from that fund for upwards of three months, on

account of that unnecessary snap election.

When the government had an opportunity to provide supports for

businesses, they failed miserably. Of that initial $345 million

announcement, it’s my understanding that less than $200 million, as of

today, has actually gone out the door. Businesses need support today. I

certainly don’t disagree that there is a need for a longer-range plan,

but where is the broad economic strategy for this government? It does

not exist.

Now, I was very proud to serve as the parliamentary secretary to

then Minister of Jobs and Skills Training with responsibility for the

B.C. jobs plan. That jobs plan was initially adopted in 2011. It was a

long-range strategic plan that set out eight different areas of the

province that had a huge opportunity for significant growth, and it was

extremely successful.

We know what happened in the 1990s. I know that was a long time

ago, but after three terms of NDP government, B.C., for the first time

in the history of our province, was a have-not province. We went from

No. 1 in economic growth to No. 10. We had the highest unemployment rate

in Canada. It took a lot of heavy work from 2001 through to 2017 to get

B.C. on top.

[11:10 a.m.]

Yet what do we see? We see a government that fails to have any

broad economic strategy. What has happened over the last five years is

that we’ve seen a continual erosion of the competitiveness of British

Columbia as a jurisdiction.

The member speaking before me spoke about the need for investment

attraction. Well, I’ll tell you what. When companies are looking to

invest in British Columbia…. We have great geography; we have a highly

skilled workforce. But businesses — this is an extremely competitive

marketplace. Our corporate tax rate in British Columbia today is a full

50 percent higher than our neighbouring province of Alberta. In Alberta,

it is 8 percent. In B.C., it is 12 percent. It is important that B.C.

remains competitive, and right now it is not.

We have an employer health tax that was brought in by this

government, put an additional $1.9 billion of additional new tax burden

onto the backs of B.C. businesses. If we look to neighbouring

jurisdictions with which B.C. competes, like Alberta for example, they

do not have an employer health tax. B.C. is saddled with some of the

highest-cost tax pressure of any jurisdiction in Canada.

So when we look to this particular bill and the necessity it to

support businesses now…. As I said, 8,000 businesses have already been

lost. There are an additional 25,000 businesses that are at risk,

representing employment for 300,000 British Columbians.

Their restart program: an absolute abysmal failure. This program

will not be up and running and available for businesses to even make

application to for a full year. So the question that I have is: where

are the supports for businesses today? Actually, direct funding supports

from British Columbia to help support businesses are one of the lowest

in Canada, one of the absolute lowest in Canada. That’s

offensive.

Now, there’s been lots of conversation and media coverage in

recent weeks about a lack of transparency. We’ve seen a reluctance of

this government to share very important health data. Only after a leaked

report was actually shared with the media, now government is suddenly

waking up to the need and necessity and finally agreeing to start

sharing that data.

With respect to the additional $5 billion of costs that was

applied to Site C, it’s been absolute crickets with re­spect to

the actual information that led to coming up with that astronomical

number. Vaughn Palmer, one of the most esteemed journalists in British

Columbia, asked government on this particular bill: “If this truly is

one of the most transparent and open governments in Canada, let’s have a

look at the business plan.” Sorry. Won’t be disclosed. Excuse given:

cabinet confidentiality.

It’s a business plan. Five hundred million of British Columbian

taxpayer dollars are being set up for this particular fund, and the

government will not share a business plan? They won’t even share with

British Columbians or the media the different work that was undertaken

in order to actually put this plan together.

Then we have to also have a look at the board appointments. Now,

this is offensive. If there is going to be an independence of the

management and the oversight of InBC…. There was no call. There was no

open call for individuals that have significant expertise to actually

make application to actually sit on the board, to help guide the

direction of this huge, monumental $500 million in investment? No. It

wasn’t even listed on the CABRO website. So who gets appointed? Who

makes those decisions?

[11:15 a.m.]

These appointments are critical to the success of this program.

It’s also critical to the independence. But what do we see? The majority

of the nine-person board have strong ties to this government. British

Columbians should be under no illusion that these board appointees….

They were identified and selected by this government. There was no open

call.

They’ve identified the individuals that they feel, in their own

opinion, would provide the best oversight for this organization. So nine

of these members — Carole James, former Finance Minister, leader of the

NDP; two deputy ministers; a Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

economist; special adviser to the Jobs Minister Glen

Lougheed.

You just have to think: how is it that British Columbians can

trust this government, a government that actually has purposely withheld

important health data from British Columbians, a government that is

unwilling to share a copy of the business plan that actually led to the

development of InBC? You’ve got a government that has hand-picked their

own board appointees to actually have oversight and to manage the InBC

fund.

We see a time when businesses are struggling, and the golden plan

that comes forward from the fiscal managers of this province is a plan

that doesn’t put a penny out the door to help any struggling businesses

today, without the first dollar even available for application for a

full year. That is offensive. There is no business plan. There’s no

broad economic strategy. There has been no tax review. All we have seen

from this government is additional tax burden layered onto the backs of

already struggling small businesses. Businesses are at an absolute

breaking point.

I was talking to a jeweller the other day. He was sharing with me

that he and his wife have been working around the clock trying to make

their lease payments, trying to keep their business open. Their

employees are taking home bigger cheques than they are. They have

utilized a significant portion of their savings in order to bolster up

and to actually try and get through here, because they are optimistic

business owners. They see the opportunity for a bright sky on the other

side.

Where is the support for this government? There isn’t any. Despite

the government sitting currently, this budget, $3.1 billion…. Now,

that’s $3,100 million of COVID contingency. When providing the

opportunity for paid vaccination leave for workers, interesting — Bill

3, less than three weeks of broad public consultation, and government is

able to move forward, putting additional tax burden on the backs of B.C.

businesses.

But when faced with the opportunity to actually provide supports

for businesses, the Premier of this province, who put himself as the

chair of the Economic Recovery Task Force, fuddled around for five

months before British Columbians saw the slightest semblance of a plan.

And then that plan was shelved, for the most part, in order to satisfy

the political self-serving interests of this government.

With money not flowing, businesses need support now. I’m certainly

fully supportive of a plan, a broad economic strategy, but it does not

exist. This current government is very big on spending plans, but when

it comes to the revenue side of the ledger, the opportunity to support

family-supporting businesses, to support and attract new investment to

our province, an absolute failure.

[11:20 a.m.]

I’m very concerned, as I think British Columbians are in an

increasing amount — lack of transparency, lack of a plan, handpicked and

selected board members. Just think about this for a second, when we have

a look at what the NDP claimed to be their community benefit fiasco. The

CBA scheme excludes 85 percent of construction workers from actually

working on Highway 1 construction jobs in this province. The gross

misuse of tax dollars is offensive.

I was proud to be part of the previous government. In 2015, I

stood with the then-federal MP in Revelstoke to announce a 2.5-kilometre

highway expansion project for four-laning at Illecillewaet, 46

kilometres east of Revelstoke. That project was initially budgeted at

$35 million.

For a multitude of reasons, the project didn’t move forward. What

did this government do? They rean­nounced the same project, not at

$35 million but at $64.2 million. The same project. Oh, actually, Mr.

Speaker, I should retract that. They actually reduced the project. It’s

no longer 2.5 kilometres. They reduced the scope from 2.5 kilometres to

2.1 kilometres and nearly doubled the cost of the project.

Guess what happened when British Columbians were invited to have

the opportunity to actually bid on this project. There was only five

verified bidders. The bids…. The lowest bid was over $84 million. This

is a $35 million program that was actually reduced in scope by 20

percent, yet the cost is over two times the magnitude as it was

originally budgeted. The disrespect for taxpayers is absolutely a

concern.

A significant portion of British Columbians work in the private

sector, and they’re the ones that need support. They need support now.

Government has the financial ability. Government has a significant COVID

contingency fund but are hesitant to use it.

When I questioned Bill 3 in this Legislature — now, Bill 3 is the

Employment Standards Amendment Act, which actually provides paid leave

for workers to get vaccinated. I certainly appreciate the value of that,

but government had the opportunity, through a tax credit or otherwise,

to actually provide funding for those businesses. But what do we hear

from this government? Nothing. Zero. No funding.

We have a government that seems incredibly at odds with the

private sector. I don’t know why that is. Businesses are struggling now.

They need the supports.

With that, I will take my seat, but I certainly have significant

concerns on the timing, the lack of transparency and the actual outcomes

of the InBC Investment Corporation Bill 5.

S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to have the opportunity to speak to Bill

Our caucus has been calling for a strategic innovation fund for a

long time, including through the entire minority government. We welcome

the intention behind this bill. There are, indeed, exciting

possibilities here, but at the moment that is all that they are. They

are possibilities.

We do have a number of questions. I’ve heard these questions also

raised by the members of the official opposition about some of the

choices made in this legislation and in the structure of the fund, about

the independence of the board, about how effective this fund will be at

meeting its goals and about transparency and accountability.

We are supportive of the principle of a strategic innovation fund,

which can support the growth of tech companies here in B.C. and

strengthen and grow our tech sector, and create more quality jobs in

British Columbia. It can also encourage innovation that aligns with our

strategic goals and strategic advantages, especially around climate and

life sciences.

Tech sector growth has been an issue in British Columbia. We have

a significant problem where we lack the infrastructure to support tech

companies to grow to scale and to anchor in British Columbia. It has

been identified for quite a while that this has disadvantaged our

province in terms of expanding in this industry.

[11:25 a.m.]

Too often we have promising start-ups, but they aren’t able to

grow up here, so they end up being acquired by U.S. companies or move

elsewhere, and we lose the talent, the business activity and the

potential growth of a tech ecosystem in our province.

The B.C. Tech Association has said, in responding to the

announcement of a strategic innovation fund: “This has huge potential to

support the growth of B.C.’s tech start-ups with funding for the

programs and supports necessary to scale.”

However, they also noted that there may be missed opportunities in

the way that this fund has been designed and structured. I’ll dig into

this more in committee stage. Generally, this government has come up

short when it comes to outlining an ambitious direction for our economy

and taking the steps to make it a reality.

This fund has the ability to support something of a shift in our

economy — the growth of emerging technologies and innovative companies

that align with our goals — but it doesn’t make up for a lack of vision

and ambition. Government needs to be clear about what it is trying to

achieve with a fund like this and set the mandate and scopes so that

decisions are effective and support the growth of our economy in a

positive direction.

The opportunity for this fund to support innovative technologies

that help us tackle the central crises of our time, including the

climate crisis, is important. It could help us to seize the economic

opportunities that we have in British Columbia by developing

technologies that address and provide solutions to the climate

crisis.

For many years, we have shared concerns of experts and industry

leaders about the opportunities B.C. is forgoing by not having

investments targeted at growing this part of our economy, in comparison

to other provinces — notably, Quebec and Ontario. B.C. has been way too

pensive and has missed opportunities to leverage federal investment. We

are very hopeful that this can start to signal a shift in how we

approach this sector.

We have seen some concern about the picking of winners and losers

through a fund like this, or that this amounts to corporate welfare.

However, a well-designed and strategic innovation fund isn’t in the

business of picking winners and losers. It’s in the business of

investing strategically in our economy and supporting innovation that

aligns with our goals and values and fixes gaps in the ecosystem that

exist today that are barriers to growth.

We still don’t know how this is going to be executed in practice,

and we have a lot of questions that will remain. The structure of InBC

and how it will work in practice and how well it will fulfil the promise

and potential will absolutely need to be dug into at committee stage. We

need more priority around the investment criteria.

Section 4 of this

bill says that the purposes of the corporation are as follows: “(

a) to

make investments that achieve a financial return; (

b) to make

investments that support the social, economic, and environmental policy

objectives of this government….”

There is some concern that we have around this. We absolutely

support the idea of a triple-bottom-line approach, particularly

regarding sustainability climate impacts. But we are concerned that this

language is too vague, and we absolutely need to know more.

The NDP’s economic and environmental policy objectives currently

include massive fossil fuel subsidies and betting on LNG. As we can see

from graphs that have been released this week, B.C. is a significant

outlier of western countries and democracies in terms of reducing our

greenhouse gas emissions. While the rest of the world has gotten on

board and is reducing those emissions, ours are going in the wrong

direction.

We are concerned that we would see hundreds of millions of dollars

deployed to attempt to clean up inherently dirty fossil fuels. Or, as it

should be, is this money actually going to go to innovative companies

that can help tackle the climate crisis? It’s impossible to actually

answer this question from the definition, and I think that we can all

agree that “trust us” is not enough at this point. We need more clarity

on the board’s mandate and scope of activities and the structure of how

decisions will be made, including the independence of the board

chair.

The bill lays out a structure that includes representation from

within the public service and the private sector. However, it is a

little surprising that InBC’s board has been appointed already. News

came out late last week. But given that we are in the process of

debating this legislation right now, it seems a little presumptive to

appoint a board before the legislation has actually passed the House

that enables the framework for that to happen.

[11:30 a.m.]

Even with a majority, I think it is important for a government to

respect the processes and procedures of this House, and of course, we

will want to properly understand the process that was used to appoint

this board and the plan.

I’ll point to the comments made in the Vancouver Sun by

Vaughn Palmer. He mentioned that the InBC Corp. will be governed by

principles of “transparency and accountability,” as what the Minister of

Jobs mentioned in his opening comments. But when he asked the minister

for the business plan on which this high-risk venture was based, he was

told it was a “confidential document for cabinet eyes only.”

As Mr. Palmer points out, this half billion dollars for this

investment fund is public money, and so is the risk, but the business

plan is the exclusive property of the minister and the cabinet

colleagues. I think that what we need to see is a far greater level of

transparency on this and many other issues related to this

government.

Overall, we support the intent and the principle behind this bill.

We need to have many questions answered, and we need to see much more

detail on how this will be implemented. We will be pursuing these

questions at committee stage.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party.

T. Shypitka: I’d like to take my place here in speaking to Bill 5, entitled the

InBC Investment Corp. Act.

Off the top, I have some mixed feelings about this bill. Like with

other bills I’ve seen over the past four years, the title and the second

reading

interpretations can be misleading. As they say, the devil is

always in the details, and I think it is key that the people of B.C. can

rely on my side of the House to make sure we uncover those

details.

Let me start off by saying that as we look to the recovery of our

province from the hardships that this pandemic has brought us, we need

to utilize every aspect that our government, people and industry have to

offer. There is a real opportunity in turning this health crisis into an

opportunity for us in British Columbia to rise above the rest of the

planet in manufacturing a made-in-B.C. plan that will stimulate growth,

encourage and promote skills training and partner with Indigenous

communities for the benefit of all British Columbians.

We have the smartest and brightest people on the globe right here,

and we have the means to do it. We have four strong pillars of our

economy that have never let us down: agriculture, forestry, fishing and,

of course, in this month of May, mining. But we also have a fifth pillar

that has spawned from these other four pillars, and that is our growing

and booming technology sector.

Our tech sector is wide in scope, including interactive and

digital media, information and communications and engineering services.

This expanding sector also has a symbiotic relationship with our

original four pillars of the economy in providing clean technology for

mining, oil and gas extraction and life sciences for agriculture,

fishing and forestry.

We have some of the best educational institutions anywhere in the

world. I speak to institutions such UBC, BCIT, Simon Fraser, Capilano,

Emily Carr, the Justice Institute, Kwantlen Polytechnic, Royal Roads,

UNBC, UVic and my alma mater, the College of the Rockies — all told,

dozens of private and public universities and colleges with fine and

proven track records in graduating our newest bright minds.

Our land base in British Columbia is second to none and is one of

the few places on earth that includes ocean, desert, fertile plains,

rocky mountains, rainforests, freshwater lakes and streams and the most

diverse species of fish and wildlife anywhere to be seen. B.C.’s unique

geographical location to markets of the largest importers in the world,

like the United States, China, Japan, Mexico, Hong Kong and South Korea,

is a definite advantage to harness. We have the means indeed.

Government’s role and responsibility, in my opinion, is to harness

these advantages and to create the conditions that allow growth for jobs

and industry and to allow us to compete fairly with any jurisdiction on

earth.

[11:35 a.m.]

The way that government creates these conditions is through

legislation, regulation and policy. This is what all of us in this House

are hired to do, in part. This is perhaps our biggest task we’ve been

assigned with, and it is super important.

However, what Bill 5 represents is something a little beyond what

my colleagues and myself envision as what government’s role is supposed

to be. Using public money to invest in order to facilitate what

government should be doing through other means, such as legislation,

regulation and policy, is a dangerous proposition that has a good

probability of failing.

Government has more than enough problems right now to get many of

these projects off the ground. If the government is sincere about

economic recovery and getting jobs back in place, we need immediate

action. Bill 5, if brought forward, will allocate funds that will not be

able to make investments until the spring of 2022, and even that will

not have an immediate effect, as this is a three-year rollout. This will

leave our economy in an idle position for at least another year. That is

simply not acceptable.

Government cannot take their eye off the ball. The focus that is

required to address the hardships that our B.C. businesses have endured

for the past 14 months…. To ask for another year is just simply too long

to wait. If government wants to do something immediately to get some

good, high-paying jobs and benefits to Indigenous and non-Indigenous

communities across the province, then I have a long laundry list of

items they may want to jot down.

We can start, first, in our natural resource sector and improving

our permitting and application times. We have seen notice of work and

other forms of permitting go from 120 days to 300 days and more. We can

do this by enforcing our permitting offices with proper resources and a

system that truly understands mining and oil and gas

extraction.

We can accomplish this by breaking down the silos between

ministries so that only necessary referrals to other ministries come

back to the permitting office in a timely fashion. Government can offer

higher capacity to First Nations, in collaboration with industry across

the pro­vince, so that the industry can rely on timely and

well-informed consultations with our First Nations partners.

This bill represents investments to providing funding. Well, if it

is funding that government is interested in, then I would suggest they

can start with replacing the funding to organizations like Geoscience

B.C., which had unanimous, all-party support and was recommended by the

Standing Committee on Finance for this year’s budget, of $6.5

million.

Further to that, government can develop a long-term, sustainable

funding mechanism to fund Geoscience B.C. at $5.5 million per year for

fiscals 2022-23 and ’23-24 and beyond. This money will go a long way to

identifying and mapping our natural resources so that others can come

behind to explore, discover, develop and produce. It is critical that

this important information continue as fluidly in order to provide

consistent data.

Finally, we need to protect our critical metals and minerals here

in Canada. Just last month the federal government developed the Canadian

minerals and metals plan, which includes a list of 31 critical minerals

and metals. This list is integral to contributing to Canada’s economic

and national security, achieving Canada’s transition to low-carbon

futures and requirements by Canada’s international allies such as the

United States, the EU, the U.K., Australia, Japan and South Korea, which

may need these minerals for economic and national security reasons

themselves.

Many of these metals and minerals, such as copper, molybdenum,

nickel and rare earth metals are here in B.C., not to mention the only

aluminum smelter outside of Quebec, and we need to find more, as the

With such a strong mandate from the federal government, now is the

time to coordinate efforts with Geo­science B.C. and approach the

federal government together to leverage provincial funding of public

geoscience. Just right there, we can boast a 100 percent return without

much use of public money, while simultaneously providing expert mapping

and data collection to the treasured metals and minerals we have in this

province and in order to move to a low-carbon future.

There is nothing wrong with getting good companies off the ground,

and access to capital is most definitely a barrier to business. But with

this bill, it seems like government is pledging to turn a new leaf. We

have seen for 14 months now the botched rollout of public money already.

A previous speaker mentioned that part of the $5 billion the government

asked for 14 months ago is still yet to get into businesses’ hands that

desperately need it. Some will never get the chance, as those businesses

have gone insolvent already.

[11:40 a.m.]

This government has proven time and time again that managing the

public’s money is about as successful as juggling chainsaws. It always

ends in a disaster. I have guide-outfitters and fishing guides in my

region that have not seen a drop of business for the last two seasons.

By the time InBC takes effect, they’ll be into their third season and

not likely around anymore. They also fear they will fall through the

cracks yet again.

Just in the mining sector alone, we have at least half a dozen

projects that just need the last extra push to get into production.

Artemis’s Blackwater, Osisko’s Cariboo Gold, Skeena’s Eskay Creek, the

extension of Newcrest’s Red Chris, Ascot’s Premier — these five mining

projects represent about 3,000 high-paying jobs and $2.2 billion in

expenditure. This will cost nothing for us to get this over the goal

line, and it will be a huge injection into our economy.

For the sixth project, it could be many others, like Seabridge’s

KSM, Kutcho Copper, North Coal in the Kootenays or the silver, gold,

copper Galore project. These are shovel-ready projects that are just

sitting, waiting to just give that last extra push.

Also, there are 275 exploration projects that represent an

additional 3,850 jobs and an additional $500 million spend — ironically,

the same amount of money the government wants to take from the taxpayer

and make them cough up for their investment scheme. Yet instead of

political will, we have not seen this government bring online one new

project to production yet. We haven’t seen a new mine from this

government since they took power in 2017.

Another rationale for why government should stick to government

and not take a shot at being investment brokers is that even if

successful, the business environment needs to be competitive. If

government can’t get a hold of fiscal policy and improving process and

regulation, then all this experiment will do is set up more businesses

to fail. I was a business person for over 30 years, and at the end of

the day, a business person just wants to be left alone with the least

amount of input from government.

Entrepreneurs have an inherent ability to dream, create and

succeed and fly. All they need is government to clear the runway.

Government has the ability, as long as it has the will, and I don’t

believe this government has the will. We see that clearly in what the

government has created for business. The NDP have introduced 23 new and

increased taxes and made us an uncompetitive jurisdiction.

B.C. has the third-highest top marginal tax rate in Canada, which

impacts the recruitment of tech jobs like software development

engineers. Washington state, to the south of us, has no state income

tax. According to talent.com, a software developer earns $27,000 less in

B.C. than they do in Ontario.

B.C. has a higher corporate tax rate than Alberta and Ontario — 12

percent here, 8 percent in Alberta. We used to be less, actually, at one

point. Now in Alberta, their tax rate is 50 percent lower than what

B.C.’s is. B.C. also has the employer health tax, which is a tax on

jobs. Alberta doesn’t, and Ontario and Quebec have both moved to reduce

the HT burden on small business.

The member from Chilliwack boasts that the elimination of the MSP

was the largest middle-class tax cut in B.C. history, which is just

plainly false. The definition of a tax cut — for the member from

Chilliwack and every other member on the NDP side that continues to

drink the orange Kool-Aid that gets served up on that side of government

— is this: a tax cut is a reduction in the rate of the tax charged by a

government. The immediate effects of a tax cut are a decrease in the

real income of the government and an increase in the real income of

those whose tax rates have been lowered. Well, that is clearly not what

happened with elimination of MSP.

First, there is no decrease in the real income of the government

from this tax cut. If you remember, there was an increase, actually,

because for the first year, there was a double dip from the government:

half the MSP, and of course, there was a new EHT that was brought in.

Only in NDP-land can a tax cut bring more revenue to

government.

The second piece is that it did not decrease real in­come.

The key word there is “real” income, because even though the MSP was

gone, real income for the middle class is decreased because of how the

EHT trickles down to everyday families.

[11:45 a.m.]

First, employers are mostly middle-class and the backbone of our

economy, and they count. Second, municipalities, health authorities,

police and fire services will have an increased cost, and that goes back

in the way of higher fees and taxes. The B.C. Liberals were going to

eliminate half, with no substitute tax, in the first year and the other

half in the following year. This would not have brought any replacement

tax. This would have been a tax cut.

Speaking of taxes, our carbon tax in B.C. is the highest in the

country, with the additional caveat that there is no protection for

those emission-intensive, trade-exposed industries. The U.S., Australia,

Russia and the Middle East pay no price for carbon. Miners in Chile only

pay carbon tax on their electricity generation, at $5 per tonne of

CO 2 . B.C.’s carbon tax is currently $45 per

tonne.

There are currently 14 operating mines in B.C. and two smelters

that sustain 35,000 jobs, provide $1 billion in tax revenue to

government and account for 25 percent of B.C.’s exports. As the mines

become exhausted, new ones may not get built, due to the high cost. New

replacement mines will get built, and they will produce emissions. It

just won’t be in B.C. The NDP government’s own Mining Task Force

identified 25 areas of concern for mining in B.C., with carbon pricing

and the absence of protection for EITEs, or, as I said,

emission-intensive trade-exposed industries, being the top

concern.

As the task force identified, the lack of protection for mines and

other EITE industries, like pulp and paper or forestry, under B.C.’s

carbon tax is the single greatest barrier to the competitiveness of

B.C.’s mining industry. This comes from the government’s own Mining Jobs

Task Force.

“Within the next 20 years, nine B.C. mines are expected to reach

the end of their production and close, leaving only five operating mines

in 2040. That means the jobs, community benefits and revenues for public

services will disappear along with them. There is no guarantee B.C.

mining will continue.” That came from a report. That’s an actual quote.

This is something that InBC will not be able to tackle, and government

needs to step up now to identify it.

Now, members on the other side will argue that this fund will

propel low-emission technologies. We’ve heard that even from the Green

speaker. But why are we reinventing the wheel when industry and our tech

sector are already doing this? For example, water treatment facilities

in my home in the Elk Valley have been in the works for years, in

consultation with the Ktunaxa First Nation. Teck Coal is investing well

over $1 billion in solving selenium issues that come from 100 years of

waste rock from companies that have come and gone.

This technology is online right now, and in the coming months,

it’ll treat over 50 million litres of water per day. This is good news

not only for the Elk Valley but for the world. Mine sensoring and smart

shovel technologies have been advanced to substantially reduce waste

rock, which will, in turn, reduce water use and emissions for

transporting the waste rock. Electrification of our natural resource

sector has been ongoing for years. Less carbon intensity — it’s the

objective, and it’s working.

The energy sector covers the entire value chain, from upstream

production to downstream end use in conventional and unconventional oil

and natural gas extraction and processing. This includes petrochemicals,

renewable energy, bioenergy, innovative hydrocarbon use, carbon capture

and storage. The list is endless.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We do it best in Canada, and B.C. has been leading the way for at

least a decade. So you see, the private sector has a firm grip on this

already. If allowed and encouraged, our free enterprise system always

rises to the challenge. We all need to recognize this and give ourselves

a pat on the back.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour talks about how we all need

to put on our thinking caps to address the environment. Well, that is a

major slap in the face to our tech sector, to all the industries that

are leading the world in best environmental practices. If she were to

have her way, she would shut all our industries, only to chase that

demand to other countries that would make us all cry with their human

rights and safety and environmental standards.

If we do not support these sectors right now and make them more

globally competitive, we lose our share to countries that have abysmal

records on controlling their emissions. This is referred to as carbon

leakage. This government and members like the one for North

Vancouver–Seymour are guilty in enabling this leakage to continually

increase.

[11:50 a.m.]

Environmental, social and governance, or ESG, is a big part of

reducing carbon emissions and part of corporate planning. The list goes

on. The lack of detail and clarity with the structure of this

corporation is also a big concern. The board structure is critical. We

have heard the minister say they will have expertise. What expertise? No

definition. Will there be conflicts? We’ve seen how government handled

setting up an oversight assurance board with the Site C project. The

board that was set up — that reported to B.C. Hydro — was chaired by the

chair of B.C. Hydro himself. What is the compensation of the CEO and

CIO? Are we talking $300,000, $400,000, $500,000 a year?

All this structure comes at a cost, as we’ve seen with a lot of

our Crown corporations. What we are saying on this side of the floor is

that we want to make sure we promote B.C.’s emerging industries while

getting the best return for taxpayer dollars.

Will the government policy criteria have a profitability

requirement? If not, that would be an issue for me. As we’ve said

before, picking winners and losers with taxpayers’ dollars is a risky

game.

The independence of InBC is also questionable. A couple of weeks

ago when I first jotted down my notes for this debate speech, I noticed

that there was no posting for InBC on the CARO government website. Maybe

government can correct me on this, because who gets appointed could very

well impact the independence of investments. The independence is

arguable when you have a government minister that appoints the chair and

the members, who ultimately select the CEO and CIO.

Just over the past week, we have found out some more details on

how independent this new board of directors will be from government and

that there are no direct ties. But of course, we now see what I feared

two weeks ago. The majority of the nine-person board have strong ties to

the NDP.

So it’s a nine-person board. Carole James, former Finance Minister

and leader of the NDP is on that board. Two government deputy ministers,

who will absolutely do what government tells them to do. Canadian Centre

for Policy Alternatives economist. Special adviser to the Jobs Minister.

That is five out of nine, just over 50 percent. Go figure. It makes it

handy, come voting time. How can the NDP seriously expect British

Columbians to believe that this board is independent of government or

that investment decisions will be shielded from NDP

influence?

As the Green leader said…. Sorry. Noting the hour?

Mr. Speaker: Noting the hour, Member.

T. Shypitka: Noting the hour, I take my place and ad­journ the

debate.

T. Shypitka moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TOURISM, ARTS,

CULTURE AND SPORT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); P. Alexis in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:07 a.m.

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $156,797,000

(continued).

The Chair: Good morning, everyone. We’re meeting today to continue

consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Arts,

Culture and Sport.

I now recognize the member for Richmond North

Centre.

T. Wat: Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I understand that the B.C. Meetings and Events Industry Working

Group submitted a Safe Restart Plan Proposal to the minister on March 1.

So far, the group has not heard back from the minister. Both the tourism

industry and British Columbians fully appreciate the government’s focus

on the safe rollout and logistics, but we need to have a plan that looks

beyond the next four to six weeks so the tourism industry has some

indicators that will demonstrate reopening.

I’m sure the minister and her staff are reviewing the Safe Restart

Plan Proposal, but they cannot just sit on the document. As the

reopening documents say, in the opening: “We recommend our proposal be

considered a first step in the overall tourism and hospitality recovery

plan in B.C. By gradually easing restrictions on gathering size in this

tightly controlled environment where compliance is a top priority for

business meetings and events, we can safely jump-start the wider tourism

economy, leading the way for other sectors to follow suit.”

Other jurisdictions such as Saskatchewan, Alberta and New York

have already announced their reopening plan with phases 1, 2 and 3. When

will British Columbians learn about the reopening plan?

[11:10 a.m. - 11:15 a.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: I appreciate the question from the loyal opposition. This is

definitely the question of the hour, the question of the day, from the

sector around reopening and restart and the easing of the health

order.

Of course, these decisions aren’t being made lightly by the

provincial health officer. They’re done, as the member appreciates, for

the safety and best interests of British Columbians. Government doesn’t

make those unilateral decisions. We take the evidence-based approach

from the PHO.

In tandem, we are working with the sector. The member mentioned

meetings and conventions and travel and tourism, etc. All of those folks

are impacted because of gatherings and the limitations because of the

health order.

We’ve put together a tourism advisory table, in order to give us

counsel. There’s representation across the sector that’s going to help

inform government — recognizing that I’m not the only member at the

cabinet table, that many of us are working on our restart plan. The

Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation gets the same

questions as well. When are we going to open up the economy? When are we

going to open up different sectors of the economy?

We take that advice from the PHO and have an advisory table giving

us the counsel, not only what the issues and concerns are but their

advice on how and where we’re going to start as those restrictions ease

up.

T. Wat: I appreciate the minister’s response. But on April 28, 2021, Walt

Judas of the Tourism Industry Association said the following: “We know

there’s going to be demand for meetings and events. One of the things we

did as a follow-up, because we haven’t had a formal reply from the PHO

yet…. We sent a letter this past week to say: ‘We’d love the minister’”

— that is this minister — “‘to be a champion on our behalf.’”

Minister, there’s a lot of trust, anticipation and expectation on

the minister to champion the tourism industry on their behalf. As the

minister keeps saying, this is a people’s ministry. The tourism industry

is dying, and they’re looking upon the minister to champion it at the

cabinet table.

I definitely understand that this has to be the cabinet decision

and based on the order coming from the PHO, but the minister has to

champion on their behalf. I have another question that I would like the

minister’s response there.

Why is it that the film sector, which also has strict measures,

had an approved reopening plan, while we have heard nothing related to

the events sector, which can also enforce strict measures because they

have proven to be so professional and to be able to do it?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: The first area that the member opposite was going with, talking

about Walt Judas…. Since I became minister, Walt Judas has definitely

been in my VIP lane. I lean on him heavily for his expertise. He is a

champion for his trade. I’ve learned a lot from him. I respect his

advice. It’s why he’s part of the tourism advisory table, has helped

with the circuit breaker and has given us that counsel.

To me, being a champion at the table is leaning on people that

drive the expertise, being their advocate. The member opposite was a

member of cabinet. I mean, we can’t all get what we want. Trust me. It’s

a negotiation, and that negotiation is the interests, sometimes the

complementary interests and sometimes the competing

interests.

My whole ministry file is about people playing sports, gathering,

going to events, music festivals, going to conferences, travelling,

being shoulder to shoulder with people. Everyone in my file is impacted

by this pandemic.

To the second part of the member’s question, whether it’s around

film or whether, for me, sports — skills and drills — every single day,

all hours of the day, the question is: “When can we go back?” But part

of the premise of the member’s question is around who decides. And who

decides and reviews and considers thoughtfully all of those safety plans

and who can start or not start is done by public health

officials.

[11:25 a.m.]

The Premier has made it very clear. Who does he want to guide us

through this pandemic? It’s going to be those that have a background in

medicine, those that have an understanding of epidemiology and how to

roll out vaccinations and help a province navigate its way through a

global health crisis. I have a role to play as an elected official, and

we respect the lane of the PHO. But there’s no single recipe that

dictates what the PHO considers.

I appreciate that the member, just like everyone in my sector, is

looking for that one-two-three recipe, and it’s going to lead us to the

same conclusion. That’s not the case, because there are so many factors,

whether it’s the size of places or how close you’re going to

be.

Meanwhile, I would say unequivocally that the PHO is constantly

thinking about trying to mitigate closure and trying to keep things as

open as possible, knowing how devastating it is on all the sectors. Arts

and culture — people probably didn’t appreciate arts and culture as much

till now, in the middle of a pandemic, when you can’t go to the places

that you wish to.

I hope that helps satisfy the member opposite’s

question.

T. Wat: I appreciate the minister’s response. But if other jurisdictions,

as I cited earlier, like Saskatchewan, Alberta, New York and a whole lot

of other places can have their reopening plan announced, I don’t see why

we cannot.

Let’s move on. I don’t think I can get any response from the

minister.

Yesterday the minister mentioned that details on supports for

large attractions will be coming soon. Many have been waiting for over a

year for supports. Can the minister share with us when these anchor

attractions can expect supports? They are on the brink of collapse, and

they really can’t wait any longer.

Hon. M. Mark: I appreciate the member raising the question of anchor

attractions. Again, another group that has actively reached out to my

office. We’ve had a chance…. I’ve had a number of briefings with this

sector to understand what the needs and implications are. When I think

of anchor attractions, I think of iconic places that we’ve gone to for

years that are important to our families and our communities and that we

go out of our way to visit.

The program details are going to be coming in the next couple of

weeks. That’s the best I can tell the member. I’m not going to make the

announcement here. But I will be making the announcement shortly,

detailing what supports are going to be available.

I’m really proud that we were able to commit $120 million in

Budget 2021 to help the sector. This was a call to action, again leading

to the task force. The task force has been a driving force to tell

government what we need to do, and we’re doing that work.

When the member asks questions about being a champion, to me,

that’s what a champion is — a champion for change, not a champion for

the status quo. We’re moving forward, and I’m really proud of that

work.

T. Wat: It is really good to hear from the minister some very positive

news that the anchor attractions can expect a great announcement in the

next couple of weeks. We are counting the days to your big

announcement.

[11:30 a.m.]

I want to clarify with the minister that the minister says $120

million. Are all of those dollars for the anchor attractions?

Hon. M. Mark: No.

T. Wat: Okay.

Madam Chair, can I move on?

The Chair: Please continue, Member.

T. Wat: Thank you. I heard the minister said no. So they will get part of

the $120 million. Well, I hope the anchor attraction operators will have

much positive news ahead. As the minister is well aware, there are so

many anchor attractions — iconic attractions, as she said.

In my riding, there’s the Richmond Night Market. This is not just

my riding’s anchor attraction. This Richmond Night Market has operated

for 21 years. It’s the biggest and longest-running outdoor event in

B.C., averaging 12,000 to 15,000 visitors every evening. It’s the

largest night market in North America. Talking about tourism, the

Richmond Night Market was featured on the front page of the New York

Times in 2018. It was a colour, front-page report. So we can

see how much positive an effect this Richmond Night Market has brought

to British Columbia.

Yesterday the operator of the Richmond Night Market, Raymond

Cheung, wrote me an email asking me to convey, right now, his way of

thinking to the minister. Let me read it out:

“In all my 20 years of success running the Richmond Night Market, I

would never think we would end up in bankruptcy and pleading for support

help. It has been over one year of the COVID. I still don’t see any

accurate steps taken by the government to support our business.

“We were forced to close for our entire season last year, and this

government still has no plan to reopen our night market. How do they

expect that any business can survive two years without any income? Our

night market is carrying over 300 small businesses, with over 3,000 jobs

every summer and often millions of visitors. I don’t understand how the

government doesn’t see the value of our business — not even a single

gesture of help.”

I hope the minister can respond to Raymond Cheung of the Richmond

Night Market.

Hon. M. Mark: I guess the first place that I want to go is to, of course,

acknowledge how important these places are — I don’t know how many times

I’ve waited in line to get through to the Richmond Night Market with my

kids — and how, to me, I see those opportunities as like a cultural

exchange, to go and experience different foods. To me, the best way to

experience culture is through food. At least that’s how it has been in

my family.

[11:35 a.m.]

The first place I wanted to acknowledge is that these festivals,

all over the province, are being impacted. The fundamental reason why —

I really want to underscore this for the member; I want these places

open too — is the piece around staying in your own lane and respecting

the scientific, medical advice of public health officers, who are saying

that these places are risks to spreading COVID-19 and the variants. We

don’t want to talk about it, because we’ve been living through it for

the last 14 months, coping and surviving. I recognize that this is a

challenging time for businesses of all stripes.

I appreciate — because the member opposite has a duty to be an

advocate. That is her role in opposition, to speak on behalf of the

Raymonds of the world, who are vitally important. But there are supports

available. That is the work that we’re doing. My colleague the Minister

of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation is rolling out the small and

medium-sized business grants. The Tourism Task Force called on

government to dedicate funds for tourism-specific industries.

The member opposite mentioned a whole bunch of small businesses

that make up the nucleus of this festival, the night market. I’d

encourage her to encourage folks to apply. It’s incumbent upon all of us

as MLAs to be resourceful and understand what…. If people call our

constituent’s office, we tell them where to go: “This is where you can

turn. This is what supports are available.” I think that’s on all of us

to do, and also, building off yesterday’s questioning, to be an

advocate.

The federal government has recently announced, in their budget —

which was a day before ours — relief that’s also coming to events and

festivals. They also recognize that the sector has been challenged

because we can’t gather. I would invite the member to commit to working

with me, as she said before. If there’s anything our ministry can do to

put resources in their hands to help them apply, that is a call to

action that I invite her to step up to.

T. Wat: Thank you to the minister for informing me once again that I have

to work with her. I’m sure the minister must be excited to hear that I

am the champion for her ministry.

In fact, when I first talked to Raymond, he did not even bother to

apply for the small and medium-sized business grant. He said that he’d

heard, from all his business associates, that it was like a nightmare

applying for this grant. You have to go through hundreds and hundreds of

pages, and spend hours and hours when they’re in small business —

granted that they have the time — and they have to get the accountant to

do it. Anyway, as I’m the champion for the minister — for the ministry —

I succeeded in convincing him to apply for the small and medium-sized

business grant. Lo and behold, he was successful, and he got $35,000

recently.

Let me cite some figures for the minister to see how it’s like a

drop in the bucket. The Richmond Night Market, between when they went

public asking for help and today, will have been on the hook for

$585,000 in leases, not to mention about all the other office

expenditures and the thousands of dollars they wasted last year in

ordering all the paraphernalia from China to prepare for their 20th

anniversary. Will the Richmond Night Market receive enough funds to

cover this shortfall, or might they have to close?

[11:40 a.m. - 11:45 a.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: Again, I appreciate the member raising the question and issue with

respect to the night market and advocating for her community. I imagine,

as the critic on behalf of the loyal opposition, she’s advocating for

every constituency that’s impacted, because people can’t

gather.

I’m really, really pleased to hear her encourage her constituent

to apply for the small and medium business grant. That’s one program.

That’s one program in a wide range of programs that we’re trying to roll

out the door as a government, recognizing that individuals and

business…. Because you can’t have businesses without employees, without

people.

Whether it’s deferrals on hydro, whether it’s subsidies for rent,

whether it’s the wage subsidy to help the worker, whether it’s an ICBC

rebate to help with your affordability, whether it’s the emergency

benefit to help you just have a bit more change in your pocket…. All of

those things collectively are decisions that government is making, while

we also have to balance those measures of being fiscally responsible —

stewards of taxpayers’ dollars. We’re going to have to pay it back.

Someone has got to pay it back.

We hope that the spectrum of supports are going to help the

Richards of the world that she’s talking about, recognizing that there

is a wide range of folks. To her audience of small and medium

businesses: apply for the grant. The door is still open. That’s free

money that they don’t have to pay back. It’s not a loan. It’s the most

comprehensive and most generous grant program in the country. I’m proud

of that.

That’s my suggestion to the minister — to encourage the business

owner to apply for that. We’re going to be advocating for those dollars

to come to B.C. from the federal government, from their 2021 budget that

says more supports are going to come to festivals and events here in

B.C.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. I ask the minister to move the motion for

progress, please.

Hon. M. Mark: I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave

to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.

Copyright © 2021 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.