Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS

(HANSARD)

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY,

SECTION A

Virtual Meeting

Thursday, July 23, 2020

Afternoon Meeting

Issue No. 14

ISSN 2563-3511

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Committee of Supply

Proceedings in

Section A

Estimates: Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and

Competitiveness (continued)

S. Thomson

Hon. M. Mungall

D. Barnett

J. Sturdy

C. Oakes

THURSDAY, JULY 23, 2020

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

[S. Malcolmson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Proceedings in

Section A

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

JOBS, ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT

AND COMPETITIVENESS

(continued)

On Vote 34: ministry operations, $93,116,000

(continued) .

The Chair: Good afternoon, everybody. I’m Sheila Malcolmson. I’m your

Chair this afternoon, the member for Nanaimo.

I want to recognize that I am participating from the territory

of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking

people, the Esquimalt and Songhees First Nations. The rest of the

members on the committee are from all over British Columbia on

traditional territories, First Nations territories all over British

Columbia. We extend our appreciation to them for us doing our work

on their land.

We are meeting today to continue consideration of the

estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and

Competitiveness. The minister is here to answer questions from the

opposition.

S. Thomson: Thank you, Chair, for taking on the role of the Chair for the

proceedings for a while this afternoon.

Good afternoon to the minister and her staff that she has with her

in responding here.

Our focus for the next couple of hours, I think, is going to be on

the trade component or trade responsibilities of the ministry, noting

that that may no longer appear in the ministry descriptor. But with a

province where we’re heavily reliant on trade for economic prosperity,

this is a critical part of the operations of the ministry and of the

province.

I just want to reflect back to the estimates last year with the

former minister, when we talked about the international trade work and

international trade division. I want to read into the record his

comments at that time when he made his statements. This was in lauding

and commenting on the success and the effectiveness of the trade

investment representatives and the TIR network.

Here’s what he said at that time. This is from the

record.

“I mentioned our trade and investment representatives, who actively

connect B.C. businesses with new markets and trade. They’ve given me

some statistics about their effectiveness. Let me just run through a few

of them.

“They’ve facilitated over 483 inbound and outbound trips involving

B.C. companies and organizations. The total value of foreign direct

investment influenced by ministry programs was more than $1.3 billion,

exceeding the target of $1.2 billion. The total number of export deals

facilitated by trade investment representatives reached 216, well

exceeding the target of 150. They also give a valuation of export deals

facilitated by representatives.”

For 2017-18, those numbers were $449.7 billion.

“So diversification is important. Trade is important for a small,

open economy like British Columbia, and through these services, the

ministry is working to expand or reach into markets that will create new

revenue streams for B.C. companies for years to come.”

Those were the comments of the former minister in the estimates

last year.

[1:40 p.m.]

This leads to the obvious first question that we want to pose to

the minister. Why did the ministry, suddenly and without consultation,

announce the closure of 13 trade offices in our key markets in Asia on

December 31, New Year’s Eve day, in 2019?

Hon. M. Mungall: I think it’s really important, if we’re going to be referring back

to past estimates, to do the whole thing rather than just one

quote.

In those past estimates, I’m assured by staff…. Actually, part of

the discussion led to them saying and signalling that a review was about

to take place because it was needed. The last review of the model for

trade representation was done in 2011. So of course, eight years later

it’s a good time to start doing a review.

[1:45 p.m.]

We selected PricewaterhouseCoopers to do that review of our

international model. It was selected through a competitive bid process.

The review examined a range of topics, including what’s working, what

could be improved, how the jurisdictions manage their international

networks and possible alternative models for B.C. to

consider.

The member suggested we did not do any consultation. I want to

correct the record. We actually did. We consulted with our trade and

investment offices. We consulted with other ministries, Global Affairs

Canada, Invest in Canada, B.C. sector associations, regional and

economic development agencies and companies as well as individuals in

other jurisdictions who operate trade and investment models. In fact, I

would say the consultation was quite robust.

Notice was sent to our existing offices. Our review gave us the

suggestion, and we decided to go with a different model. A notice was

sent to contractors, in accordance with provisions, on December

Now what we have in place is that many of our trade offices are

embedded within the Canadian embassy. Many of the people who are doing

the work are the very same people who were in our trade offices in the

previous model. What we found is that this model is much more efficient

and allows us to team up with the brand, with the Canada brand as well,

and we’re able to deliver better marketing as a result.

S. Thomson: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

The basis, as the minister has pointed out, was based on a review

and a report by PwC. Last year there were references to the report being

done. It’s important to note that there was an initial process, and

nobody took up the response to the RFP for that initial process. Then it

was restructured, and PricewaterhouseCoopers did the work.

Will the minister release this report so that the decisions and

the actions taken to date on that can be measured and assessed against

the findings and recommendations of that report?

Hon. M. Mungall: Just for the record, the two RFPs that the member is asking about

are actually two separate RFPs trying to achieve two separate and

different things. I’m told it was canvassed last year in estimates. In

the interest of time — I know that the members have lots of questions —

I won’t belabour that because it’s all on the record from last

year.

Whether or not the member can have the report…. What has happened

is that a political party has put in a freedom-of-information request

for that report. Therefore, it will be posted online. The parts of it

that are available for public review will be available to the member at

that time.

[1:50 p.m.]

S. Thomson: I would have thought that as a matter of course, this information

would be provided. The minister talked about what she noted as

consultation in the process. I think all of those that she referenced

and that may have been consulted in the process would have benefited

from seeing the recommendations, the analysis and the work that was done

through that process.

I’m surprised that it hasn’t been provided and released as a

matter of course and that it’s had to take an FOI process in order to,

potentially, get some parts of that report. As I’ve pointed out, it

appears to be the basis on which the change or the new approach has been

made. It would be important to see if, in that process, there were a

business case analyzed and a legal analysis done of the approach that

was chosen and recommended.

I am going to ask the minister: why not simply make the report

available? If there was the degree of consultation that the minister

says took place, then why not release the report so that the steps taken

by the ministry to go to a new model can be assessed and reviewed

against other recommendations and against the decision that was

chosen?

Hon. M. Mungall: I was just double-checking with my staff, but my initial reaction

to the member’s question is to highlight that the Freedom of Information

Act has another component to it: privacy. When we release reports, we

have to make sure that we’re upholding the law on privacy as well. We

don’t just willy-nilly release every single report. We have that due

diligence; we have that legal requirement. That’s definitely the case

here.

We are not releasing that report for general public consumption,

because we have a legal responsibility to protect the privacy of the

people who have been involved, including the contractors and the

subcontractors. The member is more than welcome to see the document,

once it has been released through the freedom-of-information request,

and will be able to look at the information that is legally, publicly

available.

S. Thomson: Well, in the interests of transparency and accountability, I would

have thought that those steps could have been taken. If there were

specific privacy issues in there, those could have been taken out. The

overall approach and the basis for the decision…. I think that the

question here is: what were the main recommendations of the

review?

[1:55 p.m.]

The minister said there were options. Obviously, one option has

been chosen. What was the analysis behind those options? What was the

business case and the legal analysis done on the specific options? That,

obviously, must be done in considering the options. Or if it hadn’t

been, then it should have been. Why was the report not released? This is

a critical component of the minister’s responsibilities. It involves

trade association sectors, key markets in our economy that are important

to economic prosperity.

In the interest of having industry sectors and businesses, clients

of the program, in those markets understand the basis and the rationale

for proceeding, I would have thought that it would have been

appropriate, and a responsibility of the minister, to release the report

and the basis on which the decisions were made.

The Chair: Member, I’ll just remind you this isn’t a debate. If you want

to put that in the form of a question to the minister, then I think

that’s helpful. I’ll keep us focused on our job at hand here. Thank

you.

S. Thomson: Are you asking me to pose this as a question?

The Chair: Yeah. I did not, myself, hear the question in that. If the

minister did, then I welcome her to jump in. If not, then, with

respect, Member, I’ll ask you to pose your comments in the form of a

question to me, to the minister.

S. Thomson: Okay, thank you. I’ll ask the question then again in this

way.

Based on the comments I made and the assertion I made, why won’t

the minister simply release the report at this time so that the decision

and recommendations can be assessed and reviewed against the approach

that was adopted and taken by this government?

Hon. M. Mungall: The member is entitled to his opinion. That’s what we all come

here for: to express our opinion. But the answer to his question stands

in my previous answer. There are privacy concerns, and I’m not going to

flout the law.

S. Thomson: I’ll take that as a no and move on to the next

question.

The minister talked about the consultation process and the

engagement on this. Can the minister confirm or advise whether there was

any consultation with sector organizations before the decision was made

about the option that was chosen? We have talked extensively to the

trade associations, the sector organizations. They advise that this is

not the case and that they were as surprised to see the option proceed,

in the timing and in the way it did, as the trade representatives were

in the market.

Once a decision was made, it does not appear that there was

consultation or communication with the sectors, trade organizations and

key clients about this decision. It was simply announced on December 31,

2019. Can the minister advise of whether or not there was consultation

once the decision was made?

Hon. M. Mungall: Just to clarify, is the member asking if there was consultation

prior to the decision or after the decision? He has asked the question

in two different ways. I just want that clarification.

S. Thomson: The question is: were trade associations and industry organization

sectors consulted once a decision was made and consulted before the

action was taken?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: Member and Chair, you’ll note that in a previous answer, I listed

off those who were consulted. I noted that our trade and investment

offices were consulted, other ministries, Global Affairs Canada, Invest

in Canada, B.C. sector associations, regional economic development

agencies and companies and individuals in other jurisdictions who

operate trade and investment models.

The answer to this member’s question is yes.

S. Thomson: That wasn’t the question. I’m not disputing that there may have

been some consultation with organizations as PWC was doing their review

around the processes, the structure and the framework for the network,

and the work in those key markets.

The question is: once the ministry had completed their analysis

and decided to move forward with the option, was there consultation and

engagement with the organizations around the decision that was taken and

that was planned to move forward with, or not?

Hon. M. Mungall: The review conducted that consultation in terms of what best

practices would be good for B.C. — what was working and what wasn’t

working. That formed the bulk of the information, in terms of the report

that then came back to government.

It would have been entirely inappropriate to then consult with

industry stakeholders or with anyone prior to informing contractors of

what the decision was in going forward. That would have would have been

very disrespectful and very inappropriate to the contractors, to have

people talking about their work and putting them in the balance without

giving them the appropriate notice.

We followed the appropriate protocols, and we did things properly,

by making our decision based on the consultation that was done during

the review and informing the contractors properly.

S. Thomson: I’ll ask this question, maybe in a little bit different way, to

the minister.

Once the report was received, and PricewaterhouseCoopers had done

their analysis and developed the options and recommendations, did

consultation take place with the sectors, around the options and

preferred approaches, before a decision was made? Or did the

consultation process around developing options take place with the

sectors and PricewaterhouseCoopers’ work, which would have been a

natural part of their process?

Once the report was received and the options developed — the

minister did advise that there were a number of options — did

consultation take place with trade organizations, with sectoral

organizations, with clients of the program, around those options? Which

one might be the best one to take, and which would have been their

preferred option?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: It’s really important to note, as I said earlier, that the

services haven’t changed. So the “what” we are doing and what we are

delivering on behalf of British Columbians has not changed. It’s the

“how.” How we do it has changed.

Their government, when they were in power, and our government,

when we were in power…. We don’t go back and ask industry associations

how we should deliver particular services. We don’t ask whether we

should continue on or not continue on with contracts. That is something

that we decide on. The process that the member keeps trying to highlight

as fair is not that. It’s very inappropriate. It’s very costly to the

taxpayer. I don’t think it’s very respectful of the people who are in

the positions of contracting the work.

S. Thomson: I think what’s disrespectful in this process is having the

discussions with the key stakeholders who rely on those markets, who

help contribute to that economic prosperity in this province and who

have had the success in the program that we’ve had to date in building

those markets and not have that consultation with them around the

preferred options and choice.

To simply say, “We’re government, we can decide what we want to

do, and we don’t have to consult,” I think is disrespectful to those

organizations that have worked in partnership with government over all

these years in developing those markets. That is a very, very surprising

comment on the part of the minister.

The minister indicated in her earlier comments about the timing

and the decision to proceed with the option that the government decided

on — apparently without the consultation with the key partners in the

program — was done on December 31 in accordance with notice provisions

and other factors.

To the minister, what were those notice provisions? Why the

apparent imperative to proceed on December 31, New Year’s Eve day, with

the announcement? What drove the timing and the decisions around that

announcement at that time?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: The reason why we sent out notice on December 31, December 30 in

Canada and December 31 in Asia…. In both jurisdictions, to the best of

my knowledge, that was a business day. It might not be a day that the

member likes, because he seems to have taken issue with it, but it is a

business day.

The reason why we gave notice that day is because we wanted to

make sure that our contracts had at least 90 days’ notice that these

changes were going to take place. Some of those contracts were coming to

a natural end on March 31. Back up, and December 31 becomes that 90-day

period. However, those contracts, interestingly, didn’t formally require

a 90-day notice. We did so because that’s good practice. It’s standard

practice, and we wanted to make sure that we were doing things in a

respectful way.

I also want to note that there were some very important lease

considerations, in terms of the spaces that government was leasing. We

didn’t want to incur added expense to the taxpayer by having to pay

extended leases. We wanted to make sure that the time frame for the

contracts…. When they came to a close, the lease would come to a close.

So we wanted to make sure we had sufficient notice to also close those

leases in a timely way and not be forced into spending money for space

we weren’t using.

S. Thomson: Can the minister provide an estimate of the costs incurred in

2019-20 in terms of the transition and the projected costs in the

2020-21 budget for the transition and the implementation of the new

model?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: The member is wondering about the costs associated with the

transition. There are no costs associated with the transition. In fact,

what we are realizing are some savings to administrative costs. We were

able to get out of what were some very high-priced leases. That’s

because we’re partnering with the embassies. So we were able to get out

of those high-priced leases.

With those savings, we’re putting them right back into

programming. This budget item stays the same, but we’re actually, with

savings from the administration side, able to put in more programming to

provide better services and trade marketing for British Columbian

businesses.

S. Thomson: A follow-up question on that. What were the termination

requirements under the employment agreements? And what were the

severance costs for the termination of those employment

agreements?

Hon. M. Mungall: We’re in the middle of contract negotiations. Those numbers are

not available at this time, but they will be released with the public

accounts.

S. Thomson: We’ll look forward to reviewing that information in the public

accounts process.

As pointed out in our earlier comments, the trade component is

very, very critical to the province in terms of its economic prosperity

for resource-dependent commodities and other sectors and in terms of the

export market and those key markets in the Asia-Pacific and

India.

Looking at the numbers — and I’m sure the minister knows these

numbers — B.C. international exports have continued to decline. Exports

are down 14.7 percent year to date compared to the same period in 2019.

They’re down in most of the major destinations: mainland China, down 13

percent; South Korea, down 30 percent; EU, down 45 percent; India, down

48 percent; Taiwan, down 15 percent; U.K., down 11 percent.

[2:20 p.m.]

These are pretty concerning numbers at this particular time,

particularly as sectors focus on rebuilding. Continuing to develop

dedicated support of those key markets is imperative. To be frank, that

support doesn’t currently appear to be there in this transition process.

In fact, it’s a transition and implementation process that, to this

point, has a lot of flaws in it. There are some real challenges, in

terms of the implementation and the transition, which reflect back to

our earlier comment that I don’t think the option was fully analyzed

from a business and legal perspective and that lacks a clear

plan.

Can the minister advise if there is a new detailed TIR framework

plan that’s in place, and can the minister provide a copy of that

plan?

Hon. M. Mungall: I’m a little bit disappointed that the member has failed to put

the context around the numbers he was offering. We need to do

that.

What has happened in the world, in the time frame, year to date,

in terms of international exports, is COVID-19. Because COVID-19 started

in Asia and their infection rate grew quite quickly there, they shut

down. We know all these stories. We’ve seen people telling their stories

— Canadians who were in Wuhan telling their stories about what that was

all like.

We know that’s the case, and we know that demand for imports

drastically reduced in those places. That’s the actual context of the

numbers that the member is presenting. It’s not about the trade offices

that he tried to correlate it to whatsoever.

I want to reiterate, though, that the services that we are

delivering are the same. In terms of whether we have TIR framework

plans, absolutely we do. We have very detailed strategies that are based

on widespread consultation, and the people who are in those positions to

deliver on those plans are doing so.

S. Thomson: Firstly, context is important. As you pointed out, that

wasn’t….

The context of my question, though, was…. That’s one of the

factors. There are other factors that are in play, resulting in reduced

exports as well — factors like having the least-competitive framework

for delivered log costs in our forest sector in British Columbia. The

minister only needs to look at the report by Russ Taylor. She should

take a look at that and make herself familiar with that as a factor in

this case, as well.

[2:25 p.m.]

The context of the question was, at this time, with the factors….

COVID is one of those factors, and others. What is critically important

is that there is a well-functioning TIR, trade representative, framework

in place and settled in those markets to assist companies in rebuilding

from this. It’s the path forward in these key markets. It’s going to be

critical for our economic recovery.

The reality is in those markets…. Despite a detailed

implementation plan that the minister just referenced, she didn’t

respond to the question around whether she would provide that detailed

framework and detailed plans to us. So I’d ask the question again to the

minister just to confirm whether she would provide those detailed plans.

So that’s one question.

The second part of the question is: can the minister confirm or

advise on, of the offices that were part of this change — the 13 offices

— how many offices have actually got the full transition and

implementation completed and done? We’re seven months after the

announcement was made. The minister said the announcement needed to be

made on December 30 because of notice provisions. We’re now seven months

since that time. How many offices have been transitioned properly and

fully into the new model in accordance with this very detailed plan that

the minister references?

Hon. M. Mungall: Of all the 13 offices, only two have not been able to fully

transition — because of COVID, right?

The member is complaining that it’s been seven months; why haven’t

we done everything? We have to make sure that we’re not ignoring the

biggest thing that’s happening in the world right now and acknowledging

how it impacts all of government business — in particular, the business

we have with Asia, which has been dealing with COVID so much longer than

we have here in British Columbia.

I don’t want to negate the hard work that people on the ground

have been doing and having to do it through this global pandemic.

They’ve been doing exceptional work, and I really want to thank them for

being able to deliver on these transitions in the midst of what is the

largest global crisis that I’m sure my generation will ever see in their

lives.

[2:30 p.m.]

The member made some comments about where things are at regarding

forestry and forestry exports. You know, I’ve got to just say that he

had many, many years to build up B.C.’s forestry sector when he was the

minister. Any concerns that he has about how he was not able to succeed

in doing so, I’m going to leave with him.

S. Thomson: I’ll leave the minister with the report that analyzes and

identifies the fact that, currently and over the last number of years,

the additional costs that have been brought upon the industry have

created the highest delivered log costs and the least competitive

position that this industry has been in, in a long, long

time.

I’ll move on with a question around the transition in those

offices and in those key markets. This may be something that will have

to be provided in a written

summary. Can the minister provide two

things: the detailed plans and the detailed TIR framework? Can the

minister provide the

summary of the transition arrangements in each of

the offices and the number of staff involved in that transition, in

comparison to the previous offices, for each of those 13 offices where

the minister says that all but a couple are fully

transitioned?

Hon. M. Mungall: The member was asking if he can have some of these details in

writing. I’d like to increase the level of support we can give the

member and offer him a briefing so he can get some of the details he’s

looking for.

I do want to let him know two things on that front. One is that we

are continuously responding to changes in the market. As he knows,

because of COVID-19, these changes are happening more quickly and a

little bit more unpredictably than we’ve been able to do in the past. So

we’re trying to respond and to be nimble as best as we possibly can.

We’re happy to give him a briefing. I just want to have the caveat that

things might change more quickly than they normally, perhaps, would have

in the past.

Secondly, there is certain information that’s proprietary

information that we’re not able to disclose. It could really weaken our

position in the trade markets. So we want to make sure that we’re

retaining certain information that respects that proprietary

confidentiality.

[2:35 p.m.]

With that, if the member has any further questions or if he wants

anything else in writing, please do let me know.

S. Thomson: The minister indicated that all but a couple of offices have not

fully and completely transitioned into the new model, and transitioning

into the new model means staff in place, co-location in new offices,

support in place and all of those arrangements. Can the minister advise,

at this point, where that arrangement has not been completed?

Hon. M. Mungall: The two jurisdictions that have not been able to transition due to

delays associated with COVID are India and Singapore.

S. Thomson: Can the minister, then, advise that in all those other offices

that are not Singapore and India, all transition has been completed, all

commitments and obligations to former contractors have been completed,

and a full complement of staffing, according to the plan, is in place in

every one of those other markets where the trade offices were formerly

located?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: I know that we’re sucking up members’ time when I get to discuss

with staff the level of detail of the transition. What I’m going to do

is suggest to the member that we send him in writing where things are at

in terms of that transition. He seems to be interested in a lot of the

detail. Have staff transitioned? Have we moved our office furniture? And

so on and so forth. We’ll send him that level of detail.

I will let him know that we are looking to actually increase the

staffing complement in some of the locations. We are finding that

there’s a lot of interest in B.C.’s products in some locations. I want

to make sure that we have the human resources there necessary to respond

to that interest so we can make sure that the interest becomes some

orders and it becomes realized for British Columbia

businesses.

S. Thomson: The debate process here, or the estimates questions, is the place

where we get to ask the questions and probe some of the details that

relate back to the ministry budget for the international trade division

in terms of the program, the costs, what liabilities or other

obligations may be still to realize in terms of the

transition.

The question specifically was around…. Can the minister confirm

that all the transition implementation obligations to former

contractors, the office arrangements, all of those details in terms of

implementing and moving forward on this transition plan, which has been

in place for seven months now…?

The question to the minister was: can the minister confirm that in

those other markets that indicated that India and Singapore were not…?

Can the minister confirm that in all of those other 11 markets — China,

Korea, Japan, Indonesia, all of those markets — the transition is

complete, all the obligations have been completed and the services,

according to the detailed plan that the minister advised was in place,

are in place and have been completed? It’s quite a straightforward

question in terms of whether that’s the case or not.

Hon. M. Mungall: The services that we deliver are all up and running. I’ll still

provide the member with more detail in terms of transitioning offices,

if he likes. But to comment on any outstanding items….

Basically, like with all contracts, we have to make sure that all

the i’s are dotted and all the t’s are crossed on behalf of British

Columbian taxpayers, and we’re in those final stages of doing that. So

we’re just doing some financial reconciliation.

[2:45 p.m.]

S. Thomson: I’ll take that answer as meaning — and the minister can correct me

if I’m wrong — that the statement that all the transition

implementation, all the obligations and everything are complete, as the

minister advised, in all but two of the offices, Singapore and India, is

not correct.

There are still obligations, issues to resolve in some of those

offices, and the level of services that were contemplated in the

agreement and the plan are not fully in place. I’m going to take that as

what the minister’s last answer indicated, unless she tells me that I’m

incorrect.

Hon. M. Mungall: Chair, I’ve been in his shoes in the opposition, and I know when

you get a gotcha and when you don’t. This isn’t one. All the services

are in place — a few i’s and a few t’s dotting on some financial

reconciliation. I would say that the services that British Columbians

need to take place are in place.

S. Thomson: I wasn’t really trying to set up a gotcha moment here. I was

trying to get to the issue at hand and the question around the status of

implementing these important services in the market and in each of the

offices, according to plan, first of all.

To back up a little bit, the PricewaterhouseCoopers report that

did all the analysis and moved us in this direction has not been made

available, and we’ll, according to the minister, need to wait for the

FOI process to work its way through to be able to get that information.

The detailed plan and framework for the services and the program in each

of those markets the minister says is available, and I believe I heard

the response that we’re going to be offered a briefing to be able to

look at that framework and that market against those

services.

I’ll ask again. When we see that detailed plan and what’s in that

detailed plan…. I’m presuming this briefing will take place

expeditiously. Will we see in that plan that each of the offices and

each of the services, of the services that are in those key markets,

match up against that plan, and the full services, as the minister has

indicated, are in place and operational?

Hon. M. Mungall: I feel like that was a yes-or-no question, but I didn’t get the

usual phrase at the end of a question period question. “Yes or no,

Minister?” The answer is yes. Happy to give the member full details in a

briefing, and I’ll make sure that we won’t wait for his office to reach

out. I’ll make sure my office does.

S. Thomson: I appreciate this is not question period, because in this process,

we actually do get some answers.

[2:50 p.m.]

Can the minister advise whether the province has received notice

of disputes, claims, with any of the contractors in the offices over

termination of the employment, over closure of the offices? This is

getting to the point of outstanding obligations, which is one of the

questions that I asked. That is part of full transition and

implementation: that all of those obligations and commitments be made.

This is more than just dotting i’s.

Can the minister advise if the province has received notice? That

means that the full transition and implementation into the new services

is not complete in a number of those markets.

Hon. M. Mungall: First, I’m going to address this hairsplitting I see coming from

the opposition that — if we haven’t dotted all the i’s and crossed all

the t’s but we are delivering full services — when I said we have fully

transitioned, it was somehow incorrect. I want to be really clear that

when I talk about fully transitioning, I’m talking about services.

That’s what people on the ground are looking to see.

The bit about whether all the i’s are dotted and all the t’s are

crossed, in terms of financial reconciliation…. If the member wants to

try and have a gotcha moment, that’s his prerogative. But it just

isn’t.

In terms of where things are at with the financial reconciliation

— I think that’s where the member is trying to get to — what we do have

are some balances owed to the province that are still outstanding as

part of the financial reconciliation. But again, those services have

transitioned.

S. Thomson: I’m not trying to set up a gotcha moment. I’m not trying to split

hairs here. The process of the estimates here is to determine, within

the budget of the international trade division component of the

ministry, if there are potential outstanding liabilities or costs, and

whether or not the transition plan has been completed.

[2:55 p.m.]

I said earlier…. The minister, again, is asserting — and I’ll take

that assertion for now — that all services are in place and transitioned

in those markets. We’ll see if that’s the case when we get that detailed

briefing, in comparison to the plan for those specific

markets.

The question relates to, in my view…. And I think it would be in

the view of taxpayers as well. Are there outstanding obligations? Is

there potential for outstanding obligations? That is part of the

completion of the transition plan.

To the minister, has the province received notice of potential

obligations? If that’s the case, then the transitions are not complete

in those markets. Is there full transition with respect to all offices

and leases and all of those outstanding issues at this point? It relates

back to the ministry budget and whether or not the ministry has set

aside funding, within the budget, for potential additional costs in the

transition.

Hon. M. Mungall: As it relates to the budget, what we’re waiting for are the

amounts owed to the province.

S. Thomson: Could the minister confirm that there are no outstanding

obligations to any of the contractors or employees — people who have

been involved in providing those services to the province, in

partnership with trade organizations and with sectors, for many years of

service in those important markets?

I’ve been in those markets. I’ve seen the work that the trade

industry representatives do in those markets and the relationships that

they have built up.

Can the minister confirm that there are no outstanding obligations

in that respect?

Hon. M. Mungall: As far as we’re concerned, what we contend is that there are no

outstanding obligations to anyone. Rather, there are obligations owed to

the province.

S. Thomson: I think I want to ask some questions here around the agreements

that were in place. I can list some of these questions, and the minister

can respond. I’ll ask these questions with a number of questions in the

overall question. This is with respect to the contracts and the

liabilities that have been in place or were in place.

[3:00 p.m.]

Is there a standard form of foreign service agreements and

employment agreements for the trade offices? What’s the governing law

over each of those agreements? What are the termination provisions for

each of the foreign services agreements and the employment agreements?

Has the province complied with the termination provisions of both the

foreign services agreements and the employment agreements? What

liabilities arise from that, both for the foreign service agreements and

the employment agreements?

Hon. M. Mungall: Sorry, Chair. I just want to make sure I understood from the

member that he wanted the answers to these in writing. If that’s the

case, happily, we’ll definitely get those to him in writing.

The Chair: Member, was that your intention?

S. Thomson: Yes, I think we can go on that basis at this time. The point

being….

It’s very clear from the responses to the questions that full

transition and implementation of the plan is not completed and is not in

place in a number of those markets. The minister can talk about

services, but what’s also important is for an understanding of the

obligations that may be in place, the obligations to contractors who

have put in years of service to the province in helping build those

important markets.

The minister’s apparent view that there’s no amount owing, that

there are no liabilities and that there are no bases for any claims to

the province — that’s the purpose of those questions. Since they are

going to be provided in a response in writing, I’ll add some further

questions to the mix here what would come as part of that response, and

we can follow up from this session this afternoon, as well, by putting

these questions in written form to the minister.

Again, were employment contracts terminated in a man­ner in

which no liabilities, including severance, were incurred? What legal

review or HR process was undertaken to address the manner in which the

termination of the foreign service agreements and employment agreements

was taken? Was local legal advice sought to ensure that the province of

B.C. is compliant with all the applicable laws, including the local

contract laws and local employment laws in the jurisdictions in which

those trade offices are located?

Has the provincial government received any notices of claims, or

is the government aware of a basis of any claims against the province,

including breach of contract or failure to provide adequate notice of

termination of employment or contractual arrangements?

Are there any disputes with other parties to the foreign service

agreements or employment agreements? Are there any notices of claims or

awareness of bases of claims or disputes, and what is the amount of the

contingent liability? Was there assessment of the potential liability

exposure conducted prior to the termination of the

agreements?

[3:05 p.m.]

This goes back to our initial point around their not having had

the business case and legal analysis around the options before the

decision to provide the notice and the change in approach was taken. We

will follow up from this discussion this afternoon with those questions

in writing to the minister.

A further question, then, to the minister. Can the minister

describe the employment relationship for the new staff that will be

co-located in the offices? Will they be ministry staff? Will they be

under appointment or a contractual arrangement? Who do they report to?

What are the lines of accountability, direction and oversight for those

staff?

Who will be managing them? Will they be managed by the province,

or will they be managed by federal Global Affairs staff in those

co-located offices? Who does the oversight and the determination that

those employees are meeting the commitments? What’s the reporting

relationship, and what’s the nature of their employment provision with

the province and/or the federal government?

Hon. M. Mungall: I want to make sure that we have this correct information on the

record. Our previous contracts with contractors were not contracts for

employment. They were contracts for services. It’s an important

distinction, and I wanted to make sure that that was on the record so

that we were all working with the same information.

To answer the member’s questions, the employees under the new

model are employees of the federal government. They report to a B.C.

manager who is on site. The B.C. manager is managing the files based on

what we have directed as the provincial government.

S. Thomson: Can the minister, then, confirm that the wages, benefits costs in

this provision are not part of the $26 million budget in the Ministry of

Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness?

Hon. M. Mungall: We have an MOU with Canada, and they recover the costs from us.

They are employees of Canada, but they recover those costs associated

with their wages and their employment from the province of

B.C.

[3:10 p.m.]

S. Thomson: Can the minister advise, for the current fiscal period, subject to

these estimates, what the cost and what the value of that MOU is and how

those costs compare to the 2018-19 and 2019-20 fiscal years?

Hon. M. Mungall: This year’s budget, compared to last year’s budget, remains the

same. In 2018-2019, it was slightly higher, at $11.26 million, and it’s

now at $11.13 million. So it’s very similar.

S. Thomson: In the budget of the $26 million that is in the international

trade division within the ministry, can the minister provide a breakdown

of the allocation of that budget between the international trade network

services — I think we’ve got that number — and the balance of the

numbers, the allocation between the other components of the trade

ministry, domestic marketing initiatives, trade dispute resolution,

softwood lumber case involvement advocacy and litigation in those

processes? So a breakdown of the $26 million budget that’s in the

ministry.

Hon. M. Mungall: In our reams of binders, we don’t seem to have the exact breakdown

that the member is looking for, but we’re in the process of getting it.

So I thought that while we do that, if the member has another question

that he’d like to ask….

[3:15 p.m.]

S. Thomson: I’ll just put another one on the record that the minister can

provide in terms of the written response or the follow-up to the

questions.

There have been a lot of changes and reorganization within the

ministry and the trade division. One thing that we’d appreciate if the

minister could provide is an updated organizational chart for the trade

division and the responsibilities around the international trade program

and the domestic marketing program, particularly the role of the on-site

manager in those key markets.

Another question. I wanted to ask one very quick question. Can the

minister provide an update on her work, her advocacy and the work of her

parliamentary secretary on the softwood lumber file?

The minister well knows this is a critical file for the province,

a critical file for the forest sector, a long-standing file, obviously

complicated and involved in legal litigation. But can the minister

provide a quick

summary of the steps that she has taken in terms of

advocating and working on behalf of the sector as part of her

responsibility for international trade in that regard?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: This is, as everyone knows, a long-standing file for British

Columbia, but Canada does remain the lead on this file. Because the

issue is in litigation right now, there’s a limited amount of advocacy

that we can undertake as a government, but that doesn’t mean we’re not

doing what we can do.

I think the member is aware that this is a priority for the

Premier, and it is an item that he regularly discusses and advocates for

through his federal counterparts. I’m doing the same. Our Minister of

State for Trade, who’s on the line here with me, has been doing the

same.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Forests, Lands, Natural Resource

Operations and Rural Development is with that ministry, so any questions

about his particular activities would have to be directed to that

ministry. The parliamentary secretary associated with this ministry is

the Parliamentary Secretary for Technology.

As the member rightly knows, this is an important issue for

British Columbia. We have taken many, many steps to advance British

Columbia’s interests on this, and we are hoping that the current issue

that is in litigation will result in this dispute having

resolution.

S. Thomson: Thank you to the minister for that response. I understand,

obviously, the importance of this file and the work that’s done on it. I

expect this issue will be canvassed in the estimates for the Ministry of

Forests, Lands, Natural Resources Operations and Rural Development as

well.

I want to go back, reviewing the responses, with one question with

respect to the process and the transition and implementation of the new

approach in the markets. Can the minister confirm whether or not, in

moving forward with the plan and the notice and the provisions around

termination of the arrangements in each of those markets…?

In each different country — Japan, China, Korea, Indo­nesia,

Thailand, India, Singapore, all the markets — was a legal review

undertaken in moving forward with that process with respect to the

employment law and contractual law in those jurisdictions before the

decision was made to move forward with the notice provisions? Was the

action assessed against the legal provisions around contract and

employment law in those different jurisdictions, which are all different

in terms of their employment and contract provisions? Was that analysis

undertaken?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: We have sought legal advice and received legal advice as part of

any contract that we do, including these contracts.

S. Thomson: The question was that you sought some legal advice. But can you

confirm whether or not the legal review included a review of employment

and labour and contractual law in each of the jurisdictions?

Hon. M. Mungall: The member well knows that I am not able to disclose the details

of legal advice that we receive.

S. Thomson: To the minister: thank you for your response. As we indicated

earlier, we will follow up on many of these questions and issues in

written format as per the questions I read into the record.

I do want to, again, make the point that it has become clear, in

terms of the response here, that it is not all settled in the

termination of the former arrangements and the transition into the new

model and the services that are provided in that model. We’ll look

forward to that detailed briefing in that regard.

As I mentioned earlier, what we need to do is ensure that the

critical support for industries and sectors is in place in those

important markets. When you look at the trade numbers, the export

numbers and the decline in export value that has taken place, there are

many factors, as we’ve discussed, that are affecting that.

Regardless of those factors, whether it is the COVID response,

whether it is the competitive position of the sectors, whether it is key

issues in trade relationships — which are a factor in some of this in

key markets, which is where you need to have the dedicated experienced

staff on the ground in order to deal with those — we need to ensure,

within the approach, that those are in place. I think it’s clear that

that transition is not completed in the process after seven months from

the initial decision.

[3:30 p.m.]

We’ll explore that in the detailed briefing, when we have that

opportunity. I appreciate the offer of the minister to have staff reach

out and organize that expeditiously.

That, I think, would complete the questions. I thank the minister

for her time and the time of her staff that are supporting the minister

on that. We look forward to further discussions and the responses to the

written submissions and the questions we put on notice here.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your management of this

process for the last couple of hours.

I’ll advise that I think the next set of questions is going to

come from my colleague the MLA for Cariboo-Chilcotin.

The Chair: Thanks to the member for Kelowna-Mission for your

work.

D. Barnett: Thank you to my colleague from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky for

giving me the opportunity to ask a couple of questions of the

minister.

They’re all around one topic, Minister. They’re around the PNP

program, which I understand your ministry has had for some time. I have

some questions and some concerns around this program. I’ve dealt with it

with quite a few clients, and not very often does it run

smoothly.

My questions are…. When constituents come to my office and they

bring their concerns here, we work very diligently to try and resolve

the concerns. My staff will notify your office and try and work

together.

There seems to be a policy change. It appears…. Now I have a case

that is quite serious, quite urgent, and your staff will no longer deal

with my staff. They want the name and the phone number of the client so

they can deal with them directly.

Why and when did this policy change — that your staff is now not

to deal with MLAs, constituency assistants and offices?

Hon. M. Mungall: To the best of my knowledge, there’s no policy change. I’m just

wondering who your constituency assistant might be trying to contact. Is

it a regional ministry staff person? Is it somebody here in Victoria? Is

it my ministerial office? If you can let me know, I can see where the

breakdown in communication is taking place and fix that for

you.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister. My client is very upset.

Back to the PNP program. COVID came along, and of course, there

was some time that these PNP issues could not be addressed.

My clients now have come from another country. They came here on

good faith. This is just one; I’ve had more. They’ve been two years,

over two years, waiting for an­swers. They have spent over $2

million fulfilling the mandate from the PNP program. They have done

everything possible.

Of course, along came COVID, and now, because of COVID and other

issues with the federal government, their work permit has actually run

out. They have been told that they probably are going to have to leave

the Cariboo, leave everything behind, leave Canada and go back to where

they came from.

[3:35 p.m.]

My question is, Minister: why is this process so complicated? When

they call for answers, they’re told to go to a website. They’re told to

go here, and they’re told to go there. Why is the program so difficult

and so unfriendly to people that we invite here to invest their

money?

Hon. M. Mungall: Now, this sounds like it’s a particular case for some constituents

of hers. Her original question that she had was: who can she talk to, to

get some support so she can support her constituents?

What I’m trying to understand is who her CAs are talking to — if

they’re talking to a local ministry person, somebody in Victoria working

in the ministry or my ministerial office. If I can find out who they are

talking to, then I can figure out where the communication breakdown is

happening so that she can then do the work to support her

constituents.

I don’t know the details of that, and I don’t ask her to reveal

those details in this format. I don’t think it’s fair to those

constituents. They are entitled to their privacy. What I do want to do

is make sure that she has a good line of communication so that she is

able to advocate for them and so that their particular concerns and

experiences are being addressed properly. If she could just give me that

information, and then we can go….

D. Barnett: Minister, it’s very frustrating. This is not the first incident. I

did put a call in to your deputy minister. What I got back — I’m sorry —

was, from Victoria, somebody else. The only thing we got was: “Please

give us your constituent’s name. We’ll contact them

ourselves.”

I would appreciate if somehow…. This is not the first incident

with this program. If this program is going to be user-friendly…. Could

there be a review done? Talk to people like my office and find out what

the problems are — I’ve asked over and over again — and have this

program be user-friendly. The advertising we have gotten so far from

some people is not very good when we’re trying to encourage people to

come here to work.

Hon. M. Mungall: My ministry office staff is working on this issue with the

member’s CA. The last contact they had was just a week ago. So the

individual’s concerns are being heard.

The reason why we’ve asked for the constituent’s contact details

is because what we were hearing from the CA is that it’s quite complex.

They are in the entrepreneur side of the PNP program, which is a

lengthier program and path to immigration.

We want to make sure that we’re getting all the details accurately

so that we can address their needs. That’s why the request was made to

call the constituent directly. If they’re not comfortable with that,

that’s fair. We can maybe have a teleconference with your CA, with

yourself and with your constituents so that they have an advocate in the

room. More than happy to accommodate.

I want to assure the member that we are doing our level best to

support her constituent.

D. Barnett: Minister, I have the email here from your staff, which said:

“We….” In other words: “Don’t bother us anymore. We want to deal with

the client directly.” The client, basically, does not speak that

fluently and is very concerned.

[3:40 p.m.]

It’s very upsetting to my staff that work very hard to understand

the issues when this is the response we get.

The Chair: Member, could you put that in the form of a question,

please?

D. Barnett: Sorry, Madam Chair.

Minister, I think you’ve heard my concerns. I would like to see

this not be a policy of your ministry. I would also like to see someone

— who can do something to help these people — in the ministry, in a very

quick way, get a hold of my office again so that we can set up something

with the client [audio interrupted].

The Chair: Member, I’m sorry. Your last four or five words got muted out

again. Could you just repeat the end of the question that you have

for the minister?

D. Barnett: Sorry about that. Will the minister have her staff contact my

office and have this issue addressed so that we can have the conference

call and deal with the issues that are before my constituents as quickly

as possible?

Hon. M. Mungall: I already offered to do that. So I guess the answer to the

member’s question is yes.

D. Barnett: Thank you. I will turn the floor back over to my colleague from

West Vancouver–Sea to Sky.

J. Sturdy: Thank you.

I would like to follow up with the minister on some specifics

around her mandate letter at this point. The first item on the mandate

letter is: “Provide cabinet leadership for cross-government initiatives

that support competitiveness across all sectors of B.C.’s

economy.”

I wonder if the minister could describe to us how she intends to

accomplish that and, perhaps, provide some specific examples of how that

has actually happened. Does the minister have any targets — does the

ministry have any targets — associated with this mandate

requirement?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: The answer to this question is actually something that we

canvassed earlier today — the same questions but regarding the service

plan. We answered this question for opposition members from the Third

Party as well. So I’m just wondering if the member really does need me

to say the same things I’ve said before.

J. Sturdy: I guess my recollection was that there are no real targets or

actions that the ministry is taking at this particular time to support

competitiveness across all sectors — or no cross-government initiatives

and objectives that the ministry has.

Hon. M. Mungall: I previously said that there are several initiatives. There are

multiple initiatives. In fact, there is the Major Investments and

Corporate Initiatives Office, which leads activities, as a secretariat,

for cross-ministry government strategic initiatives that enhance our

competitiveness.

J. Sturdy: Is there new leadership at the MIO? Who is in charge of the

MIO?

Hon. M. Mungall: This is a shared resource. The Major Investments and Corporate

Initiatives Office is a shared resource across multiple ministries. It

does, ultimately, have an ADM responsible for that, and it’s my ADM for

technology, connectivity and distributed growth. We all end up

shortening peoples’ titles in our minds. So I wanted to make sure I got

the correct one on the record.

[3:50 p.m.]

We also have a new ADM, as I noted last week. We do have an

associate deputy minister who is responsible for also looking at

competitiveness opportunities across ministries.

J. Sturdy: I see another piece of the mandate was to support the future of a

made-in-B.C. tech sector through a variety of different strategies. I

think we certainly all support that. One of them, though, was the

anchoring of B.C.-developed intellectual property.

I wonder how the minister would intend to accomplish that goal.

What strategies would she put in place?

Hon. M. Mungall: We’re working with Innovate B.C. to anchor IP in British Columbia.

We want to make sure that tech businesses are not just starting here and

scaling here but that they’re able to stay here and not end up being

acquired by a larger entity that then pulls that IP out of the

country.

J. Sturdy: I certainly understand what anchoring means. I am wondering how

the minister intends to accomplish that.

Hon. M. Mungall: My answer was exactly that. We’re working with Innovate B.C. to

develop those types of programs so that businesses will be able to stay

here. They have the capital. They have the financial ability to stay

here as they scale up.

One of the strategies, of course…. We’re also going to be working

with the innovation commissioner on this. We’ve recently brought on a

new innovation commissioner, Dr. Gerri Sinclair, so that she can

specifically work on this. That’s in her terms of reference.

One of the ways we want to achieve that is by creating greater

ties between B.C.’s growing tech sector and B.C.’s foundational economic

sectors as well, creating those ties and allowing for that innovation

from B.C. companies into our foundational economic sectors. Allowing for

that type of innovation to take place will create a market for our tech

sector. That’s one of the ways that you get IP to stay here.

[3:55 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: I’m glad the minister mentioned the innovation

commissioner.

The Emerging Economy Task Force …. This was a report that

was commissioned in 2018 and due in the spring of 2019. I think the

quote is: “The final report is due in the spring of 2019 and will be

made public shortly thereafter.”

As the minister is well aware, that report wasn’t made public

until a year after that. Can the minister explain why it took almost two

years to produce that report?

Hon. M. Mungall: The length of time to do the work reflected some personal

extenuating circumstances. Obviously, out of respect for their privacy,

we won’t be going into detail around that. But as soon as the work was

able to be completed, we reviewed the report, we reviewed the

recommendations, and we released it.

J. Sturdy: What date was the report submitted to government?

Hon. M. Mungall: We received the final report, with all of the i’s dotted and all

of the t’s crossed, on May 11, and we put it out to the

public.

J. Sturdy: Okay. Thank you to the minister. For clarity, instead of taking a

year, it took close to two years to submit that report. Is that what I’m

understanding?

Hon. M. Mungall: Chair, I’m getting a lot of repetitive questions coming from the

opposition. I just want to be clear that I’ve already stated the answer

to this.

The report took longer than anticipated for personal extenuating

reasons. I’m not going to get into that. We respect peoples’ privacy in

this government. When we got the final report, we released

it.

The Chair: That seems like a great place to finish for the moment. For

the purpose of switching Chairs and the cleaning protocols that are

necessary, I’m going to recess the committee for ten minutes. We’ll

see you back at ten minutes after four. This committee stands

recessed.

The committee recessed from 3:59 p.m. to 4:12 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

C. Oakes: First, I want to thank the minister for her time today and for

this opportunity. I know it’s a long day. So I appreciate the time that

you’re providing us to ask questions on behalf of British

Columbians.

Second, I want to really acknowledge all of your incredible staff.

I’ve had the privilege to work closely with some of them. I know the

dedication that they are doing on behalf of British Columbians. So I

would like to thank them.

My first question…. I always start estimates off with this very

important question. Earlier today we heard from the minister that there

is a reduction in the minister’s budget. The minister described it as

administrative in nature. Has there been any decrease in FTEs for the

ministry? If so, where do the FTEs stand?

Hon. M. Mungall: No, there’s no decrease in FTEs. It is purely administrative in

terms of reducing the chairs and the desks and all those

things.

Before I pass it back to the member…. I’m sure that the member and

I could go for a nice iced tea on a patio and talk about how amazing the

staff are that she got to work with and that I do now. She hasn’t been

able to see them up close in this COVID-19 period, but I have. It has

been a real inspiration to see how dedicated they are to British

Columbians, especially the small business sector, which has been hit so

hard by the economic impacts of COVID-19.

[4:15 p.m.]

They have been working flat out, making sure that we’re able to

deliver programs and hear feedback and hear what’s going on and stay

close to the ground in terms of what’s happening for small businesses so

that we can respond as a government. I know that she would love to hear

how great they’re doing and probably misses them.

C. Oakes: Yes, I do miss them.

Hello. Hi, everyone.

I particularly want to send a special shout-out to the small

business secretariat and all of the folks who have worked diligently on

the small business file but, as well, the regulatory file. I know how

committed the team is on the regulatory count and how seriously they

take that. So again, I want to acknowledge and thank.

I will say, on behalf of many people in the province of British

Columbia, that when there was a name change through this ministry, we

were hoping that small business would, once again, be acknowledged as a

priority in the title and be recognized in this ministry. I’ll continue

to advocate on behalf of this sector and for small business to be

acknowledged.

Minister, I’m afraid…. At 11:49 this morning, the minister…. I

missed a little piece. The minister said that she could provide a

ministry-by-ministry regulatory count. I apologize. I missed where that

information is going to be provided, if it’s something that is public or

if it’s something that the minister will be sending to us.

Hon. M. Mungall: It is on open data, but rather than trying to ply through many,

many websites, we’ll email it to you directly.

C. Oakes: I thank the minister for that. I reviewed the regulatory red tape

and service agreement, and I couldn’t find it in there. So thank you for

making it much easier for us.

That is important work that is being done, and we want to make

sure that continues to happen — that the regulatory count continues to

be reviewed. It’s critically important for the competitiveness for

businesses and for people in British Columbia.

I also want to thank former deputy minister Fazil Mihlar for the

incredible work and leadership that he has done in multiple ministries.

I was certainly pleased when he was the deputy for this particular

ministry.

Earlier today we certainly heard that, perhaps, there’s a shift in

the prioritization of this ministry or this government. We’ve seen a

little bit of regulatory red tape creep up in this ministry. We’ve seen

competitiveness. We talked about that earlier today, and there are

certainly some concerns about that. Exports are down. There are some

concerns on the jobs plan.

I guess, on behalf of British Columbians across this province…. Is

there a reprioritization of government away from job creation and

competitiveness? We’re starting to see, and this is even before

COVID-19, a real lack of…. We’re going from the most competent

jurisdiction for small business in Canada to seeing a significant

decline in that. Then, of course, we’ve seen some of our…. The minister

mentioned it earlier today — that we are seeing industry and capital

fleeing from British Columbia.

Has there been a significant reprioritization of government away

from competitiveness and job creation in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Mungall: No.

C. Oakes: That’s good to know.

Earlier today, when my colleague talked about competitiveness and

how we are measuring what that index looks like for competitiveness in

British Columbia, the minister did go through the list of how…. Part of

those metrics is around productivity, taxation and

permitting.

[4:20 p.m.]

I went back and I reviewed some of my local files. I think a good

place for me to start, especially as an MLA for Cariboo North, one of

the most forest-dependent communities in North America…. Having the

opportunity, over the last two years, to visit so many communities that

have been impacted by the competitiveness challenges that we’ve seen

with the forest sector firsthand and how that impacts not just workers,

not just small business and self-employed contractors but families in so

many of our communities.

I know that the minister understands that, as a rural MLA. So when

the minister acknowledged that there hasn’t been a shift in priorities,

but we’ve seen competitiveness, especially in sectors such as our forest

economy, decline, how does the minister reconcile this?

Hon. M. Mungall: Earlier I answered these questions.

I’ve pointed out, and I’ve done this on numerous occasions for the

opposition, that we’re in a global pandemic. This global pandemic

started in Asia much earlier in the year and has whipped around the

world and is still very active. That pandemic has caused economic

activity globally to decline, and B.C. is not immune to that. The items

that the member is speaking of in terms of downward investment and

downward exports, as an example, are a result of the COVID-19

pandemic.

I’m not too sure if she’s trying to characterize it as something

else. It sounds like she’s trying to characterize it as a priority

change of this government. I would argue that putting the word

“competitiveness” into a ministerial title shows exactly how dedicated

this government is in terms of making sure that B.C. is globally

competitive. We are now having to deal with the constantly shifting

impacts of COVID-19. That being the reality, we continue to identify

ways in which we can innovate and grow B.C.’s economy and make sure that

we are globally competitive.

C. Oakes: What I was exploring with the minister is that prior to COVID-19,

the changes that we have certainly seen…. I mentioned that for the past

two years I have been travelling to communities across British Columbia,

forest-dependent communities that have experienced significant impacts

to the forest sector as a clear result of a couple of things.

First, there have been challenges with competitiveness. Actually,

let me read out…. The minister mentioned earlier the Council of Forest

Industries. So I just went, after the minister had acknowledged the

Council of Forest Industries…. I wanted to explore to see what their

most recent press release was in response to some of the comments that

the minister mentioned on the forestry side.

Specifically, what the Council of Forest Industries talked about

was that the high operation costs due to high stumpage rates and red

tape was causing significant challenges for the competitiveness of the

forest sector economy. Both stumpage rates and regulatory count are a

responsibility of this government and tie in with the ministry. The

ministry acknowledged that that is, in fact, a metric that is measured

in competitiveness, but we’ve heard firsthand from industry that this is

causing a challenge.

The minister earlier laid out the matrix of how competitiveness is

measured by government. I reviewed what we are hearing from stakeholder

groups around what they are experiencing with the challenges of

competitiveness. This existed prior to COVID-19. This isn’t something

that has just happened. It has been under this government’s watch, where

there has been a reduction in competitiveness by the policies and

decisions that this government has made.

Again, to the minister: I’m wondering how you reconcile the fact

that there hasn’t been a change in priority around competitiveness when

we’ve seen it firsthand in the forest sector?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: We’ve canvassed this issue extensively this morning. We talked

about…. I provided the opposition with answers regarding how the

forestry sector has come about in its current situation and how we are

looking to rebuild the competitiveness for the forestry sector, focusing

on value-added and opportunities with innovation in the forestry sector.

We’ve canvassed this extensively.

What I hear from the member is questions on how we reconcile some

of the challenges that the forestry sector is experiencing right now.

The reality is that a lot of the problems that they are facing are a

result of negligence from the previous government. That’s my particular

view. I know the member is going to disagree with that, and we can have

that debate back and forth. But I feel like we already have done that

this morning.

C. Oakes: We heard earlier that the regulatory count has gone up in British

Columbia, specifically around UNDRIP and the increased regulatory count

in that. That obviously has an impact on competitiveness and other

regulatory increases that we’ve seen by this government.

We’ve spent the last week in question period discussing, very

closely, the legislation around the WorkSafe amendments, around Bill 23,

the significant concerns of business across British Columbia and the

cost increases that will result in that.

Again, the minister is increasing the regulatory burden on

businesses, specifically the forest sector. Not the minister — I

apologize. Government has certainly made significant changes both

through legislation and through regulation to increase the costs to the

sector in British Columbia.

The minister also acknowledged earlier that…. Well, I’m going to

have to unequivocally disagree, where I think it’s a good thing when we

see forest companies invest in other jurisdictions. I unequivocally

think that that is a significant concern of all British Columbians when

we see investment leave our province. I think there is nothing to

celebrate about that, and I highly disagree with the minister’s comments

earlier on that. I could provide you the exact…. I believe it was at

10:32 this morning that the minister was talking about that.

Where I will agree with the minister — and I think this is

important in estimates debate — is to talk about the importance of the

value-added sector. I understand. We’ve had several pellet plants in our

community. We’ve seen some close. We’ve seen, unfortunately, a very

significant value-added industry in my community just, unfortunately,

going through some significantly challenging times. We are all working

diligently to try and support them.

I guess, and this is completely different…. How does the minister

see growing a value-added sector without having a primary forest

industry to provide the fibre to the value-added sector? For example,

the minister talked at length about the pellet sector this morning as an

understanding of what is happening with the forest sector and where she

sees significant opportunities, specifically discussing Japan. I’m

wondering how she sees a value-added sector such as pellets growing if

we do not have a primary industry to provide those chips.

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: From my perspective, when B.C. companies are growing, that’s a

good thing. When they’re able to be operating on the global marketplace,

that’s a good thing. Again, that’s not to the point of her question or

to the point of what she’s trying to raise, I believe. I think that

she’s trying to get details around the primary forestry

industry.

Now, we’ve canvassed the issues around the regulatory count and

our government’s commitment to maintaining a baseline of no net gains

since 2004. We’ve canvassed our government’s view around the

competitiveness of the forestry industry and how we’re going to build

that competitiveness. The member might disagree with that. That’s okay.

We’re all here to express our opinions about that.

In terms of details around the competitiveness and how we are

managing our forests, I would have to direct the member to the Ministry

of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural

Development.

C. Oakes: Thank you, Minister. I do intend to raise some of these questions

with Forests, Lands and Natural Resources. It’s such a critically

important sector for so many of our communities, especially…. Well, I

shouldn’t say…. It impacts every part of British Columbia and all of the

people in British Columbia. So it’s equally as important.

I just want to canvass one more piece, though, to that. I guess a

little bit of clarity. We want our businesses, of course, to grow. I

think it’s a good sign when you see capital investment in British

Columbia. What is not so…. It’s a significant failure on the part of

government if you see significant investment and companies that have

been in existence in our province for decades pick up their capital and

move to other jurisdictions, thereby closing their mills.

[4:35 p.m.]

In 2019, what we’ve seen…. Well, we’ve seen significant mill

closures, and we’ve seen significant curtailments. Six sawmills

permanently closed in 2019 and several more extended curtailments. Pulp

mills and other secondary industries have certainly been impacted. What

we’ve seen is that investment has, unfortunately, moved to other

jurisdictions because the other jurisdictions are far more

competitive.

When you go from being a province where you are the jurisdiction

that is one of the lowest-cost operational producers to now becoming the

highest-cost producer, you’re going to see a response where you’re going

to see just that capital and those companies move their investment to

other jurisdictions outside of British Columbia, and that’s deeply

troubling. That’s going to have deep, deep impacts on every aspect of

our economy.

Again, I guess the reason why I was exploring how the minister

sees an expansion of the value-added sector…. Specifically, the minister

mentioned the pellet sector. How does the minister see an increase in

value-added such as a pellet sector if you don’t have a primary forest

sector because they’ve moved to other jurisdictions because of the red

tape and the operating costs and regulation that the province has put in

place?

Hon. M. Mungall: Chair, I feel like I have canvassed a lot of the issues that the

member has brought up several times last week and today. I feel like

that question was the same question before, where I had to direct her to

the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. I didn’t

quite hear anything new there. So I’m going to have to direct her back

there again.

The Chair: Cariboo North, a new question?

C. Oakes: I am seeking clarity. The minister earlier talked about the

value-added sector — about how it is an important part of the

competitiveness in British Columbia. With all due respect, the minister

has not acknowledged how the value-added sector, specifically the pellet

sector, is expected to grow if there isn’t a primary industry to provide

the chips.

Maybe I will try it this way. Is the minister supporting a

competitive direction that suggests that we should be chipping green

wood to see a growth in the value-added sector in British

Columbia?

Hon. M. Mungall: How our forests are managed and how trees are harvested in our

province is just not a regulatory system managed by this ministry. I’m

just not able to provide the member with answers to those types of

questions. I’m going to have to, once again, direct her to the Ministry

of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Operations. I apologize for

that, but we’re just not responsible for those regulations

here.

What we are responsible for is in terms of the FII and marketing

our forestry products to the world, which we are doing. I’m happy to

answer questions around what the activities are from the FII, the

Forestry Innovation Investment. If there are questions about how we’re

marketing our products globally, I’m happy to answer those questions.

But in terms of how we manage our forests, again, those details are just

not with this ministry.

C. Oakes: It was the minister that brought it up — the value-added sector —

and talked about the efforts that they were doing on the pellet sector.

She also earlier discussed the importance of ESG and the social licence.

I just don’t think that there is a social licence out there, at least

not in my region, for this government to be going after green stands and

chipping them for the pellet sector.

[4:40 p.m.]

Unless the minister can demonstrate how they will have a plan to

improve competitiveness for a primary industry, such as forestry…. I

think that’s incredibly troubling of this minister and this government

and goes to my earlier comments of a significant shift we’ve seen in

this government’s priorities.

While it’s all good to say that there isn’t a reprioritization or

a change, when we see it every single day on the ground in our

communities…. We’re facing those impacts of the regulatory increases.

We’re seeing the increasing costs to small businesses, and we’re seeing

the increases and capital flow out of British Columbia. It goes back to

the earlier question that I had about concerns of the change in

prioritization in how this government is looking at competitiveness and

how it intends to attract investment into the province of British

Columbia.

I will move on, because I think that I probably won’t get greater

clarity from the minister.

At 10:40 a.m. this morning, in a question of competitiveness, the

minister mentioned that the government is playing catch-up because the

previous government did not have a plan. In relation to the conversation

of jobs, economic development and competitiveness, just to remind

perhaps the minister that….

We talked earlier about the incredible work and efforts of our

public servants in the ministry, and I really want to thank them. We

were so proud that we were leaders. We had a significant jobs plan, and

we were seeing numbers that were extraordinary and something to be very

proud of. We were leading the country around regulatory reform and

moving drastically to make life better for British Columbia through

those efforts. We were seeing exports on the rise. We were seeing

exports up.

Again, I’ll disagree with the minister that we didn’t have a plan.

We had a significant plan. In fact, that plan left this government with

a significant surplus that I know that the government…. Thank goodness

we have that surplus for the situation we’re in today. The minister was

very critical and said that they’re working off not having a plan and

are playing catch-up. A $2.7 billion surplus that the former government

left this government I think suggested that we left a pretty solid

plan.

I guess the minister is part of the economic recovery plan that

was formed on April 2 and has supposedly been meeting weekly and

biweekly with stakeholder groups. Could the minister share with us today

— and especially all the small businesses that have been deeply impacted

across the province and all of the people that are deeply impacted and

waiting desperately to see what the economic recovery plan is — provide

us today with what this government’s economic recovery plan

is?

Hon. M. Mungall: At this time, I’d like to take an opportunity to thank the

incredible members of our Small Business Roundtable. While they don’t

directly sit on the Economic Recovery Task Force, I’ve been meeting with

them, initially biweekly and now monthly, so that we can get feedback to

the government in terms of how our programs are helping people, what we

need to change, what we can advocate to the federal government on,

what’s working for them and what’s not and what some of the ideas are

that they have.

I’ve been taking those back to the Economic Recovery Task Force,

whether at those meetings or directly to the Premier and Minister James,

and it’s just been incredible working with this group of people. British

Columbians are very well served by the people who are giving of

themselves and their time to be on this Small Business

Round­table.

The member asked for me to launch our economic recovery plan right

here during estimates. I think she knows the answer to that question,

which is: this is not how we provide that type of information to British

Columbians. Rather, she also knows that we are in the process of

developing that plan through consultation with British Columbians. We

did a direct consultation where people were able to share their ideas

online and submit them by July 21, which was just two days

ago.

[4:45 p.m.]

We’ve been doing sectoral round tables. We’ve also been speaking

with some of the people most hit. I had, with the Premier, two round

tables with young people, who, by and large, have seen their

unemployment numbers rise to 29 percent right now as a result of the

pandemic.

We need to be inclusive. We have been inclusive. We also haven’t

been sitting back. Every day another press release goes out about some

of the programs that we are launching immediately through our restart

plan, which is where we still are. We’re in phase 3 of the restart plan.

We’ve been announcing programs to help people, as we go along, as

well.

We cannot forget — it’s very important to remember — that reducing

the spread of COVID-19 is completely linked to our ability to recover

economically and to ensure that we reduce the economic impacts of

COVID-19 as well. Our work to reduce the spread of COVID-19, from the

very beginning, is also part of ensuring that we have a strong economic

foundation from which to recover.

C. Oakes: I guess I was a little surprised, then, today — for every single

British Columbian, for every single small business that has been deeply

impacted by COVID-19 — to hear the Premier talk about an opportunity for

an election this fall.

First, I will suggest…. I have concerns about the seriousness…. I

certainly do not have concerns around Dr. Bonnie Henry and Minister Dix.

But when the Premier goes out and, for many people, dismisses the

serious impacts that they have felt, the small businesses and the

impacts that they have had…. To hear the Premier basically dismiss it by

saying, “Oh yeah. There’s an opportunity that we could explore for

having an election come the fall,” I find dismissive to all of those

folks out there, across the province, the people who are really

struggling.

The minister has been working since April on an economic recovery

plan. At almost every event that the minister has talked at or town

halls or across the government, quite frankly…. The government has

talked about this $1.5 billion that’s being put aside for an economic

recovery plan. Every other province in Canada has come out with what

their economic plan is and, specifically, how they are going to support

their workers and the small businesses that employ the workers in

British Columbia.

I reminded the minister — and she acknowledged it — that 98

percent of business in British Columbia comes from the small business

sector. Further, 1.1 million workers rely on small businesses for their

jobs — to support their families, to ensure that they have a roof over

their heads and to ensure that they have food security.

I think it’s a relevant question to ask the minister. You’ve been

consulting. You’ve been talking. I know the Small Business Roundtable,

and I know they’ve been providing strong recommendations to the Economic

Recovery Task Force and to the minister.

Of the $1.5 billion that the government keeps talking about, which

is there for economic recovery, specifically when they go and talk to

the small business stakeholder groups…? How much of that $1.5 billion

will be available for the small business sector?

Hon. M. Mungall: Our plan for the $1.5 billion is not finalized. So I cannot give

the member a number.

C. Oakes: What does the minister say to the tourism sector? We’re going to

shift now, sector by sector. I know that, certainly, the minister has

met, and these reports have all been sent to the government.

[4:50 p.m.]

The question is…. COVID-19 has certainly hit the tourism sector

harder than any other economic sector in British Columbia. Virtually the

entire sector has endured closures and extensive employee layoffs. Many

businesses are already foreclosed due to the lack of cash flow, an issue

that we have continued to bring forward to this government, and mostly

have only partially reopened.

To put it into perspective, in 2018, the tourism industry involved

about 19,300 businesses and generated $8.3 billion in provincial GDP

from $20.5 billion in direct visitor spending and created direct

employment for more than 300,000 people in every community in the

province of British Columbia. Recent modelling estimates suggest a 65 to

70 percent decline in tourism revenues in British Columbia. They are not

expected to exceed $6.5 billion in 2020, and that’s the best-case

scenario.

On the worker front, today accommodation and food services have

suffered a 49 percent decline in employment. The culture and recreation

industries experienced a 35.3 percent decline in employment. Without

urgent and substantial help to sustain the tourism employees and the

families that they support, we’re going to see devastating

impacts.

The minister has repeatedly talked about the need to support

people in British Columbia, the need to support workers in British

Columbia, the need to support young people. I will remind the minister

that a significant portion of the workers that are impacted in the

tourism sector are young people.

The association has brought forward a very clear request to ensure

that there is a jobs plan so that this ministry actually continues on

with a jobs plan and that we see a way to support workers in British

Columbia. The minister likes to say she supports workers. How much of

the $1.5 million…? What will the government do to provide the emergency

working capital program — to support and maintain over 120,000 jobs with

the front-line tourism business?

Hon. M. Mungall: I know the member comes from a rural part of British Columbia, and

I come from a rural part of British Columbia. Like her, in my

communities that I represent, tourism is extremely important. It’s a

very important aspect of our economy. It’s an area where a lot of people

get their first jobs and start building a career. A lot of small

businesses are in the tourism sector, particularly in rural British

Columbia.

[4:55 p.m.]

If I sat here and listed off all the people I know in this sector

as small business owners or employees of small businesses, I would take

us right to the end of the day, at the very least, which is where I

anticipate we’re headed. But I won’t use up the member’s time in that

way. Suffice it to say that it has been very challenging for the tourism

sector.

The member is asking me a question that is similar to the previous

question, which is how much of the $1.5 billion our government has set

aside for economic recovery, on top of making sure that we have a strong

economic foundation from which to recover. We’ve been putting…. Well,

the numbers are in, and it’s over $5 billion. It’s actually $6.26

billion that we’ve put forward in terms of our initial response to

COVID-19, which is also a response to reducing the negative economic

impacts of the pandemic.

In terms of how much from that $1.5 billion is going to be spent

on small business or on tourism or on mining or on any other sector,

I’ll just let the member know that I’m not able to answer those

questions. There are no numbers for those details right now, because we

have not released our plan. It’s still in the works. And only two days

after the public consultation finalized, I think it would be

inappropriate to all of a sudden turn around with a plan. It would

basically suggest that we never had the intention to listen to people,

and we have all the intention to listen to people.

C. Oakes: Thank you to the minister for recognizing the importance of

tourism in our rural communities.

Where I’m hearing, obviously…. The significant challenge,

especially from young people, is in our urban settings. We all have

friends and family that live in the city. I think of folks that live in

Metro Vancouver and Surrey and folks that live in Victoria and on the

Island. They’re absolutely devastated. They count on the tourism sector.

They count on these jobs to support them. They’re terrified, and they’re

incredibly concerned about what the future looks like. They can’t go on

relying on programs. They know that these programs that the government

has put in place are not going to be around forever.

Youth unemployment in British Columbia is up 266 percent since

January but is only up 114 in the rest of Canada. That’s an alarming

statistic. That means B.C. has done more than twice as badly as the rest

of Canada when it comes to supporting young people.

Adult female unemployment in British Columbia was up 152 percent

in January. In the rest of Canada, it’s 115 percent. So that means adult

female unemployment has worsened 37 percent in British Columbia since

January, compared to the rest of Canada. The rest of Canada has come

forward and has a plan. They have a jobs plan. They have an economic

recovery plan. They’ve communicated that out to the public. We’re still

waiting for ours. We’ve been waiting since April, when the economic

recovery team was implemented by the government.

The minister has had so many meetings and has clearly listened to

people but hasn’t implemented anything. We’re an extraordinarily

different scenario than the rest of Canada, because we don’t have a

plan.

To the minister: when you see how our young people and our women

are being so significantly impacted at a much higher rate than the rest

of Canada, what is your jobs plan?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: In some of the comments that the member was sharing, I thought I

heard her say that our government hasn’t done anything for British

Columbians during this pandemic. So I just wanted to correct the record

with a few items because the list is actually very long. I want to

appreciate the member’s time so that she has time to share her views and

perhaps ask some questions.

I’ll just share a few items. We did a tax deferral to September 30

for the employer health tax, the PST, the carbon tax as well as other

taxes. We delayed increases to the carbon tax and new PST tax

applications. We did $700 million for a reduced school property tax

rate, and that’s a permanent reduction. That’s a 25 percent reduction

for businesses, $700 million in costs to B.C. coffers.

And $80 million for Canadian emergency commercial rent assistance;

a commercial eviction ban until the end of July for those whose

landlords don’t use the rental assistance program that the federal

government put forward; restaurant delivery of alcohol with food;

wholesale liquor pricing model introduced for the hospitality sector;

$550,000 for Buy B.C. e-commerce program; temporary layoff period

extended to 24 weeks; WorkSafeBC’s sector specific information and

resources to help businesses reopen safely; $10 million in grants to

tourism destination marketing organizations; and $600,000 to the B.C.

Tourism Resiliency Network to support 19,000 tourism-related businesses.

The list goes on.

There are child care supports. There are the rental supplements,

and so on. I can send all of that information to the member so she has

that.

[5:05 p.m.]

Then, in terms of where our economic recovery plan is, I feel like

I’ve answered that. Keep in mind that we have been thinking about

economic recovery from day one. As I said, it goes hand in hand with our

response, the health and safety response, to COVID-19. If you don’t have

health, you don’t have safety. You’re not going to have a strong

economy. So we have to make sure that British Columbians are safe and

they are reducing the spread of COVID-19.

I really want to take this opportunity to thank businesses for

taking this so seriously. I have been able to do that several times but

never on the record with Hansard . I want to take that

opportunity to thank businesses, because if they had not taken the words

of Dr. Henry to heart and had done what was necessary with their own

bottom line to reduce the spread of COVID-19, British Columbia would not

be the envy of North America right now for our success rate in terms of

reducing the spread of COVID-19. So British Columbians should be very

proud of what we’ve all been able to accomplish by working

together.

From that point in time where we had to shut down, we’ve also had

to restart. We’ve had a very careful, slow but sure restart plan that is

integral to opening up our economy. We’re seeing in the labour force

survey that a lot of the labour activity that’s taking place is exactly

what we’re seeing in our communities, with our restaurants opening up,

patios opening up. Retail is starting to open back up, and so on. We’re

starting to see economic activity restart, and this is all very good

news.

We know that going forward, economic recovery from pandemics in

the past has taken about three to five years to be fully realized, so we

need to have a plan for that. Our plan is not going to be rushed. It’s

going to be done right. It’s going to be thoughtful. That’s exactly why

we’re working on it right now.

If the member would like to compare us with other jurisdictions,

such as Alberta, I feel very confident that what we’ve done in B.C. has

been very forward-thinking, very appropriate, very mindful, very

thoughtful. A lot of other provinces, including Alberta, are actually

looking to us for advice. I’ve been having calls from other

jurisdictions for advice, actually, in terms of how we maintain a strong

economy through all of this.

I’d also like to point out that prior to COVID-19, our government

had done some work in terms of developing analysis on how to grow our

economy. I know that we’re not allowed to have props, Chair. I won’t

share it over the screen, but I will just make sure that the member is

aware of the title: A Framework for Improving British Columbians’

Standard of Living . That document is publicly available. I know

that the opposition has it.

If she’s wondering what kind of plan we have, we have already

started to initiate plans with this, with the Emerging Economy Task

Force, and with the innovation commissioner report as well. We have a

variety of research and documents that are paving the way for the

province of British Columbia. It might not all be housed in a short

document, but rather, these are very detailed documents. I’m happy to

get them to the member if she doesn’t have them.

C. Oakes: What I have to offer to the minister, I guess, are some

heartfelt…. I deeply hope that the government is successful with your

plan, because we need your economic recovery plan to be successful for

all of the people that depend on us in our communities across British

Columbia. I want to acknowledge the work that’s been done on the public

health side and the work that has been ongoing and that I know will

continue.

I need the minister to understand the significant consequences

that we could be facing if we don’t have a very clear economic recovery

plan and, specifically, if we don’t have support for the job creators in

our province.

[5:10 p.m.]

I listed off the very real and significant unemployment numbers in

the tourism sector and specifically how this is going to impact our

young people and women. I look at the challenges that they already have,

and I am seriously concerned. Perhaps maybe because I’m increasingly

sensitive, having experienced the last two years of a forestry crisis

and having had the constituents come into my office….

Minister, things can go very bad for people in a really short

amount of time. I think the government needs to be cognizant of

that.

One of my constituents — we had a mill closure — had a significant

downward spiral where they’ve had to live in a camper. They had to live

in a camper over the winter. Another constituent is an electrician and

didn’t qualify for a pension bridging program. His wife was diagnosed

with breast cancer and had to travel for surgery and treatments. Then

they became where they didn’t have food security.

It’s not statistics that we’re talking about here. We are talking

about people in British Columbia and the significant impacts if we do

not get the economic restart to start working for people in British

Columbia now. We are doing worse on the economic side than other

jurisdictions across the country. We’ve heard that our unemployment

numbers are certainly more challenged than other areas across Canada,

and that strictly ties into what that plan looks like.

I would say to the minister…. I really appreciate the fact that

she read out the initiatives that this government is doing. I think what

is equally important…. It’s great to have rhetoric, and it’s great to

have strong words and to be optimistic and to put out strong messages,

but we need to have deliverables. We need to see that. When we have

significantly high unemployment rates, that should be very alarming to

the minister. We should be seeing some adjustments to some of the

programs that the government has put forward to ensure that it’s reaping

the benefit for all people in British Columbia.

I appreciate the work that you’re doing. Look, I know that this is

unparalleled times, and it’s difficult. But, again, going back to what I

said earlier, we have to get it right.

According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, 70

percent of small businesses in British Columbia have had to take on

debt. This is higher than the Canadian average of about 67 percent.

Small businesses, at this point, after only a very short amount of time

in this pandemic, expect that it will take more than a year to pay off.

The average small business has incurred $129,194 of total estimated

debt, and that sits at about $16.9 billion in British Columbia. To

finance the COVID-19 revenue shortfalls and extra costs, B.C. businesses

are relying on personal savings, credit cards, bank loans, retirement

savings, mortgages, loans and families and friends.

Without a clear economic recovery plan come September, when a

significant portion of these programs become due, what are these small

businesses, who have already incurred so much debt…? How do they go back

and look at…? Now that all the programs are done, how do they take on

more risk, more operating costs and more uncertainty because of some of

the legislation that’s been brought forward by this government and

increased regulation by this government…. How do they take those risks

and incur more debt to stay open?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: Perhaps the member would like to rephrase the question. The way

she’s phrased it at this point is just not a question that lands within

this ministry. The question she’s asking is actually one that small

business owners would have to answer themselves. I’m just wondering if

she can maybe rephrase to get the type of information she’s looking

for.

C. Oakes: I’d be happy to rephrase.

What modelling has the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and

Competitiveness completed to review an analysis of the small business

sector in British Columbia that…. Following the end of economic recovery

plans, what do they estimate we are going to see in bankruptcies? What

is the estimation that we are going to see in workers that,

unfortunately, will no longer have a job?

Hon. M. Mungall: I appreciate the member rephrasing the question. I took it to

understand: what kind of modelling do we have to understand potential

impacts of bankruptcies or the number of bankruptcies small businesses

might incur and then the overall impact that might have on the labour

market?

The Ministry of Finance does that data. They collect data and do

modelling on insolvency and employment forecasts. The Minister of

Finance did provide the most up-to-date figures in her recent

presentation and economic update, Economic and Fiscal Scenario:

Update ’20-21 , on July 14. I would refer the member back to

that document. If she has more detailed questions, they would best be

directed to the Ministry of Finance.

What I can tell her is that every jurisdiction is having trouble

really pinning down these types of forecasts and these types of details

because things have been shifting so frequently, so much and so

unpredictably as a result of COVID-19. So getting those numbers and them

being solid is not as easy to do as it perhaps has been in the

past.

C. Oakes: Thank you to the minister. I certainly understand the challenges.

I will have questions on the small business side that I’ll be raising

with the Minister of Finance.

Some of the programming, certainly…. Understanding the programs,

as the minister had identified earlier, does help us understand from a

jobs, economic development and competitiveness nature specifically how

those supports will be rolled out to the minister.

Communication is always something that’s critically important for

British Columbians. We heard in the government’s own Small Business Task

Force that clear, concise information from government is critically

important.

I guess I do have a question on one of the programs that the

minister did identify earlier as one of the programs. There have been

some changes to the CEWS. It seems rather complicated.

[5:20 p.m.]

Could the minister just help both me, as the critic, and the many

people that I’m sure are watching these estimates understand exactly how

that program is going to work?

Hon. M. Mungall: I think I need a clarification. When I hear CEWS — we all live in

acronym soup here — I’m thinking of the Canada emergency wage subsidy.

Is that what the member is talking about, or is she talking about a

different program that, perhaps, we have given another name

to?

If it’s what I just asked about, that’s a federal program. So I’m

not able to give those details in the estimates debate. If it’s about

the $1,000 a month that the province of B.C. was doing, that was

delivered by the Ministry of Finance.

If she wants to just clarify, I’ll try my best to get the

answer.

C. Oakes: The minister earlier acknowledged the Small Business Task Force,

and one of the recommendations was around government communications and

how government can be communicating out to people and ensuring that

people understand the programs that small businesses have available to

them.

I am certain that the minister has heard clearly from the round

table and from other agencies about the complication of the Canada

emergency wage subsidy program, which is critically important, I might

add, to ensuring that there is a recovery plan. I don’t imagine…. Well,

actually, to be honest, in the minister’s own…. In the press release for

the economic recovery team, it talked clearly about those partnerships

with the federal government. Those are important, and it is part of the

plan.

Maybe I’ll read it out to the minister so she clearly understands

what small businesses are being faced with. I know that often

governments will come out and say: “Hey, look, we’ve got these great

programs. Don’t worry about it.” In fact, the minister talked earlier

about the list of programs and why we shouldn’t be concerned about any

kind of economic recovery because the minister has listed all of these

programs.

Just to recap what the new wage subsidy looks like, a firm with a

30 percent decline from a year ago would drop by more than half. The new

formula the government will use is to take the year-over-year revenue

decline percentage, then multiply it by 1.2. A 30 percent decline would

yield a 36 percent subsidy, and then the numbers worsen. At the end of

September, the multiplier is reduced to only 1.0. A month later it goes

to 0.8 and then to 0.4 the month after that to conclude the CEWS

program.

I only list that because it’s highly complicated. I do not

necessarily feel that the impact will support the comments that the

minister has made in the past about that — that the government is

looking at supporting small businesses in economic recovery. Again, the

minister mentioned some of the other programs such as the tax deferrals

and other programs, which are coming to a close in September.

[5:25 p.m.]

Could the minister, again, help me understand what the government

is actually providing for support for small businesses that have been

impacted by COVID-19 and how the government will support these small

businesses to stay open so that they can create jobs for British

Columbians?

Hon. M. Mungall: The program that the member was talking about, the Canada

emergency wage subsidy, is a federal program. So I can’t comment or

provide any further details on that.

I have heard feedback, obviously, from the Small Business

Roundtable on whether it works or whether there are some issues with it

and so on. I always pass that feedback on to my federal counterpart in

the federal government, and they are so grateful to receive that

feedback and to hear what’s going on, on the ground, for people — the

ministers themselves. That’s why we have regular phone calls at their

insistence.

The member…. What I also heard, from her comments, was a real need

for clarity, and that came from the Small Business Task Force. Of

course, everybody wants to have greater clarity from government. And

fair enough. I agree. So what we did with COVID-19 is…. We knew that

people needed support.

Before I continue on with how we delivered some support in

accessing services and so on, I also want to acknowledge the amazing

work that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, as well as

the B.C. chamber network, were doing. They were on the phone, I think,

around the clock in the first month or two, answering questions from

small businesses and doing their best to support people through this

very scary time. And I want to thank them and all of their staff and

volunteers who are helping them to answer all of those phone calls and

really stepping up to the plate to help their fellow British

Columbians.

The service that we supported through the provincial government is

Small Business B.C. I know that the member is well aware of that

excellent small business organization. They just do stellar work, and

they really ramped it up when we provided them the funding to do so

since the pandemic hit.

We developed a program with them to expand their one-on-one

supports so that people could either email…. They could chat, they could

phone in, and there was a human being at the other end of that line six

days a week, in multiple languages, able to support businesses with all

kinds of questions about all of the various federal and provincial, as

well as some of the municipal, programs.

[5:30 p.m.]

Just a hats-off to Tom Conway at Small Business B.C. They’ve been

doing just a stellar job since we launched that program on April 16.

They have also expanded website services. They’ve been doing webinars,

walking people through the process of application, how to move a

business online — all the types of questions that businesses had in

terms of getting, maybe, some professional support. They’ve developed

modules. They’ve put those webinars online, and people have been

accessing them.

I’m going to give you some numbers though, Member — I don’t want

you to just take my word for it on how popular these support services

were — which show how much they were needed. The total calls that they

served over the first 12 weeks of this service, 2,698; total emails,

586; total chats, 1,174; and total page views — this is an incredible

number — 223,012.

It goes to show that businesses were very much looking for this

support. We were able to deliver it, and I’m very glad that we could,

because people needed a lot of clarity in this rapidly changing

time.

C. Oakes: Well, I don’t disagree with the member that small businesses

desperately need assistance. I’m not surprised by the page views that

the minister read out.

Quite frankly, what small businesses are saying in the province of

British Columbia is that the supports…. While it’s great to have a list

of what the supports are, the reason why you’re having the views is

because the small business sectors themselves are not finding the

necessary supports that are going to help them.

Even if there is a program that’s out there, (

a) many of them

don’t qualify, or (

b) it’s just not a program that is going to help

their business. What I would say, again, is that rhetoric and words are

one thing, but results are another. And when you see that we have such a

significantly high unemployment rate in British Columbia, when we see

that our small businesses are forced to take on greater debt than any

other small business sector in Canada, that suggests the programs that

the government has put in place aren’t working.

How long will it take for this government to recognize that what

they are doing, they need to retool, they need to rethink, and that they

need to make sure that they’re putting a plan in place before we lose

more small businesses, before they become so clearly in debt that they

have no choice but to make some incredibly difficult

questions?

The minister was very quick to criticize the previous government

on a lack of a plan. To the minister: what is the plan to support small

businesses moving forward to ensure that they do not have to incur such

significant debt, so that they can start hiring people back and create

employment for people in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Mungall: I have listed out some of the programs that we put forward as a

government that have been helping small business. I hear from the Small

Business Roundtable regularly, getting that feedback. They have

consistently….

I’m happy to show the member my notes. We have taken extensive

notes at all of these. You don’t have to wait for a freedom of

information request. We’re happy to share them appropriately, in terms

of making sure that we retain the confidentiality that the members of

the round table expect.

I have been hearing very positive feedback from the business

community who may not have the same partisan interest that the member

has in the budget estimates process. I don’t begrudge her for that. I

love our system, and I think it’s great. But I’m going to take some of

her comments with a bit of a grain of salt when they’re so different

from the comments that I hear directly back from the Small Business

Roundtable, from my regular meetings with my own local business

community and from my regular meetings sitting with many stakeholders in

the business community, as well as the non-profit sector, labour and the

creative sector around the Economic Recovery Task Force.

[5:35 p.m.]

The feedback that we have been receiving, predominantly, on our

programs is very, very positive.

I’m also going to just point out that…. I felt like the member was

suggesting that there are no results, that we don’t have anything to

show for the actions that have taken place. I’m going to just highlight

that I just gave the member some very significant numbers in terms of

people accessing the information that we have been putting out

there.

It’s not because the programs aren’t successful or that they just

can’t find it on the government website. All that information is there

too. It’s because different people reach out to different points of

contact to get information for help. They might contact constituency

offices, and that’s exactly why I sent personal emails to every single

MLA with details on how they can support their constituents in this

critical period, as we were shutting down and then looking to

restart.

The numbers that I’ve shared from Small Business B.C…. They’ve

been doing excellent work, and I don’t want to minimize the type of work

that they’ve been doing and the supports that they’ve been putting out

there. I don’t think the member wants to either.

I just wanted to make sure that we had that clearly on the record

— that these types of supports are very valuable and that people are

using them. It’s part of our overall goal to make sure that we’re

delivering on the Small Business Task Force recommendations to provide

greater clarity to small businesses.

C. Oakes: To the minister: thank you for that. Again, I honestly hope that

the minister is correct. I hope that the confidence that the member has

displayed about the fact that the minister feels that there are adequate

programs out there and supports for small business and for workers in

the province of British Columbia…. I hope you’re right.

The metric that I’m using is when I walk down my main street and

see how many of my small businesses are closed. I mean, that’s the

metric I look at. I would say for every MLA on this call, I am certain

that you are seeing in your communities a significant shift and a

significant change in the small businesses that are actually

open.

I’m also certain that through their offices, MLAs — all MLAs in

this House — have heard significant concerns about the small businesses

that still have not been able to restart and the fact that they are

looking at this terrible fear that, come September, a majority of these

programs that have helped support, to a small degree, some of them to

get up and relaunched…. When those programs and those funds from

government, which isn’t going to happen….

Those government programs aren’t going to be around forever. What

happens to those small businesses? What happens to our communities? What

happens to our neighbourhoods? Quite frankly, what happens to the young

people in our lives — whether they’ll have a job? What happens to women?

Will they have a job?

While I appreciate that the minister has read off the page views

of people looking at the Small Business B.C. website, the metric that

I’m looking at is how many small businesses are actually open in our

communities or will legitimately be able to stay open.

Then the second piece that I’m hearing very clearly is: what

happens if there’s a second wave, businesses have not been able to

rebound and the supports have not been there for them to have any type

of revenue come back in? Most have seen significant reduction in the

revenue, even the folks that are open, and then they’re going to be

faced in late fall, early winter with another cash bill, because they’re

going to have to pay taxes on the programs that they have accessed. What

does that mean?

[5:40 p.m.]

I am deeply hopeful that the Minister of Jobs, Economic

Development and Competitiveness, who was very clear to criticize the

previous government for a lack of what she said was a plan, will

understand clearly what the plan is when we don’t have these programs in

place come September, when small businesses have incurred significant

debt and when, come next year, they’re going to have to start paying

back taxes on what they’ve incurred? What is that going to do for

British Columbia and for the people in every single one of our

communities?

Again, the minister has acknowledged that they have clear

priorities and that there haven’t been any significant changes. What is

the minister going to do, come the fall, to support small

businesses?

Hon. M. Mungall: We’ve canvassed the issue of the economic recovery plan that our

government is putting in place. We’ve canvassed that it’s going to be

released once we’ve been able to provide good analysis and really take

in all the ideas and feedback that we’ve received from around the

province.

To answer the member’s question directly, once we have our plan

released and we start implementing it, we’re going to be able to see

more programs, on top of the programs that we’ve already put out, for

small businesses.

C. Oakes: Moving beyond the economic recovery piece, more to the Small

Business Task Force report.

Earlier the member talked about some of the items that have been

moved forward throug