Committee of Supply

Proceedings in Section A

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TOURISM, ARTS AND CULTURE

(continued)

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $155,323,000 (continued).

The Chair: I’d like to start by recognizing that I’m speaking to you today from the traditional territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, now known as the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations. I’m very appreciative to them for the honour of doing my work on their traditional territory.

We are today going to be continuing consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture.

Minister, did you have any opening remarks, or would you like me to go straight to members for questions?

Hon. L. Beare: Straight to members. Thank you, Chair.

T. Wat: Before the lunch break, the minister told us that she’s aware of the federal government’s pledge of over half a million dollars for a Chinatown storytelling centre. This announcement, she must know, was made by the federal Minister of Small Business, on behalf of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, in August 2019 at the Sun Yat-Sen Classical Chinese Garden. She also announced investment totalling more than $4.4 million for cultural infrastructure projects across B.C. by 46 arts, culture and heritage organizations.

I wonder why the Chinese-Canadian museum is not included. Has the minister taken advantage of Ms. Ng’s physical presence in Vancouver to have a face-to-face meeting with her to seek the federal support and funding for this provincial-level museum?

Hon. L. Beare: No, I did not meet with the minister while she was in Vancouver. I meet on a regular basis with Minister Joly, from economic development and tourism, and I meet with Minister Guilbeault, Minister of Heritage from Canada. We have ongoing conversations.

T. Wat: Does the minister think that she has missed the best opportunity for the Chinese-Canadian museum to be part of this year’s federal government’s cultural infrastructure project, since she did not even try to secure a meeting with Minister Ng?

Anyway, I move on. The $1 million funding news release on November 8, 2019, said that establishing a Chinese-Canadian museum is part of the government’s partnership with the city of Vancouver to work together to pursue a UNESCO World Heritage Site destination for Vancouver Chinatown. The Chinese-Canadian museum is crucial for the UNESCO destination.

How will the obvious disconnect between the province and the federal government be viewed by UNESCO? Will this disconnect be an obstacle to our pursuit for the UNESCO heritage site destination, not to mention that we don’t even have a detailed plan for the museum? How can we expect the federal government to pursue this destination project on behalf of the provincial government and the city of Vancouver?

Hon. L. Beare: To the member’s question, there is no disconnect. I work very closely with my federal counterparts, as we all do across government. I work particularly closely with my fellow ministers. As we said before the break, we have exciting news coming soon, and there will be more details then.

[1:35 p.m.]

T. Wat: Well, failing to secure any financial support from the federal government is obviously a disconnect. I disagree with the minister; I’ll put it on record. The minister again repeated that there would be exciting news in the near future, in the coming months.

This comment is really cold comfort to the Chinese-Canadian community, as they have been waiting for the so-called exciting news since 2017. They expected more tangible details from the minister or the Minister of State for Trade, whom the Premier has tasked with this project. He said early this year that there would be a detailed plan. Since the Minister of State for Trade is not here but is tasked with that job, I’m sure the minister is responsible for this project.

Can the minister, once again — this is the last time I’m putting this on record — tell this House…? When she said, “in the near future, in the coming months,” how near will that be? Two months? Three months? Four months? Next year? The year after? I’m sure that the community, the Chinese-Canadian leaders that are watching this debate, want a more tangible and not a general answer.

That will be my last question. I know I cannot get any concrete response from the minister.

Hon. L. Beare: Chair, the member has had a number of responses from me that said that in the coming weeks there is very exciting information coming.

It is weeks, Member.

T. Wat: Now it’s in the coming weeks, so I’m really excited. If it’s in the coming weeks, that means it’s within the next month. I wonder why the minister can’t give us some indication of when that will be. Anyway, we move on.

Talking about the pursuit for the UNESCO heritage site designation for Vancouver Chinatown, I’m really shocked to note that on February 7 this year, the Chinese-Canadian heritage properties regulation was repealed. This regulation is a register of heritage properties.

In fact, just to refresh the memory of the minister, two years ago, back on February 1, 2018, an order-in-council was signed by the minister — together with the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development — to list 21 Chinese-Canadian heritage sites in the Chinese-Canadian heritage properties regulation. These 21 sites included the Vancouver Chinatown and the Victoria Chinatown.

I simply cannot understand why…. Two years after the minister signed an order-in-council to recommend the inclusion of those 21 Chinese-Canadian heritage sites in this regulation, without consulting the community, without any announcement, at a time when the government has chosen Vancouver Chinatown as a hub for a Chinese-Canadian museum and given the recent increases in racism and hate against Asian-Canadians, why was this repealed?

I am fully aware that this heritage act does not fall under the file of this minister. However, the minister is responsible for multiculturalism. She should be fully aware that the repeal of this Chinese-Canadian heritage properties regulation will have a huge impact on her multiculturalism file and on the Chinese-Canadian community.

Can the minister tell this House why, as the minister responsible for multiculturalism, she supports the Minister of FLNRORD’s move to repeal this regulation?

Hon. L. Beare: The member said it in her question. This is not a piece of legislation that fits in my ministry. She will need to pose the question to the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources, who hasn’t had his estimates process happen yet. Her ability to ask that question to the minister is there.

[1:40 p.m.]

T. Wat: This minister co-signed the order-in-council with the federal minister back in February of 2018. This minister cannot shirk her responsibility. If she does not have any responsibility on this heritage site, on the recommendation of 21 Chinese heritage sites into this now repealed Chinese-Canadian heritage properties regulation, why did she sign it?

The minister cannot just shirk the responsibility. The minister is responsible for multiculturalism. This has everything to do with multiculturalism. I don’t understand why she can shirk her responsibility like that and just push it off to the other minister.

Hon. L. Beare: Absolutely not shirking any responsibilities here. I don’t have details in front of me of that. I’m not the minister responsible for the legislation. I absolutely understand the member’s question, and the best place to pose that is to the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources.

T. Wat: I have to put it on record that the minister cannot say that she has nothing to do with the repeal of this regulation, as she co-signed an order-in-council on February 5, 2018, to recommend the inclusion of 21 Chinese heritage sites into this now repealed Chinese-Canadian heritage properties regulation. I know I cannot put it anywhere, but I want to put it on record that, as the minister responsible for multiculturalism, she has every responsibility to talk to her colleague about at least having a consultation with the community.

I’m just quickly quoting a community member on how disappointed he is with this. He is the elected executive of the National Congress of Chinese Canadians, the NCCC, David Choi. Upon learning about this repeal, he said: “Anything that is a deliberate act carried out blatantly to not honour or to whitewash B.C.’s Chinese-Canadian heritage is a dishonour and a disservice to B.C. Chinese-Canadian history and B.C. heritage.” He continued to make some comment. I don’t think I have time to quote that here. I’m sure the minister would not have any response to it.

I just want to remind the minister that these 21 historic sites that she and her federal minister co-signed back in February 2018 to recommend the inclusion in the now repealed regulation of the sites nominated by British Columbians under the previous government’s program — the provincial historic recognition program to recognize the heritage value of the historic sites — had been chosen for their diverse heritage value. They would go to tell a more complete story of the people, places and events that have contributed to the development of B.C.

That’s why, I guess, the minister co-signed with the federal minister to include these 21 sites in this regulation. So to repeal this regulation two years later totally doesn’t make sense.

Why is this government taking this damaging big step to stomp on B.C.’s Chinese heritage when this government claims to respect the Chinese community’s undeniable contribution to the province?

Hon. L. Beare: Thank you to the member. Absolutely, we value the input and the work of the Chinese-Canadian community. The question has been asked and answered. The best place to pose this question is to the ministry that has the responsibility for the legislation, and that would be FLNRO. Thank you, Member.

T. Wat: Thank you, Minister, for the non-answer again. The minister has absolutely not responded to my question, but let’s move on.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, Member. Thank you.

T. Wat: Through the Chair, to the minister. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I understand that there is still $1.5 billion left in the COVID-19 relief fund allocated by this government. Can the minister confirm this?

Hon. L. Beare: Yes, we can confirm that.

T. Wat: Thank you, Minister. This fiscal year budget for multiculturalism shows a cut of $45,000, close to 2 percent. Has the minister allocated some funding from the Finance Minister for the Chinese-Canadian museum, since there’s no financial support coming from the federal government? I don’t see any budget allocated for this museum.

[1:45 p.m.]

Also, has the minister requested funding for the anti-racism program, given what’s happening in the world and in B.C., as I stated earlier in my opening statement?

Hon. L. Beare: To the member, as she knows, government is going through a process to allocate those $1.5 billion. The Premier and the Minister of Finance announced this at the end of June. We are going, ourselves as ministers, sector by sector and assessing what the need is for recovery funding. The broader public has a chance to provide their input, too, through the online forum.

I absolutely agree with the member’s priorities. We have the same priorities here at the ministry, and those are items we are contemplating in our recovery proposals for the $1.5 billion.

T. Wat: I want to confirm that this minister has allocated and requested additional funding for the minister’s multiculturalism and anti-racism programs, including the Chinese-Canadian museum and more programs for anti-racism.

Hon. L. Beare: The process is still ongoing. I agree with the member, particularly around the anti-racism piece. There are a number of priorities we’ll be looking at as government and what submissions go forward. But the process is ongoing, so no final decisions have been made on what is going forward yet.

I thank the member for her input. I suggest the member also fill out the online survey. We took the input here that the member has provided as well, and we will feed that into the entire process we’ve got going on for submissions. But thank you to the member for her passion on this subject.

T. Wat: Will goal 3 in this year’s service plan be impacted due to COVID-19?

Hon. L. Beare: We are looking up the answer as we speak. Did the member want to pose a second question at the same time while my staff is pulling out the service plans, and we can do both at once?

T. Wat: Thank you to the minister for trying to speed up the process and trying to get more questions into this debate, because we only have one more hour to go.

So far, what kind of extra anti-racism work is being undertaken by Resilience B.C. in the face of the spike in race-motivated crimes since the outbreak of COVID-19 and all the other phenomena?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I want to thank the member for the question.

Question 1 is goal 3. No, goal 3 has not changed. It has not been impacted. It remains the same. “The promotion of diversity and inclusion is the cornerstone of the new strategies to combat racism, to build understanding and respect for one another across British Columbia’s multicultural society as well as to reduce barriers and enhance a wide variety of sports and recreation activities.” That goal does remain intact.

Now, for the member’s second question, there’s a more substantive answer that I will give. I have been trying to be brief for the member, but I think the member will want to know all this information. So I’m going to read out a bunch of the amazing work we’ve been doing.

We absolutely believe that hate has no place here in British Columbia. We want to make sure we are leading the way — and we are leading the way here in our province — in tackling racism.

Some of the things that we’ve been doing. We established the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner. We implemented the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. We launched the new Resilience B.C. Anti-Racism Network. We announced our plans to review the Police Act. We initiated work on race-based data collection strategies. I mean, these are amazing accomplishments for our government.

We, through the pandemic, continued to actively engage communities and stakeholders on the subject of racism. We hosted a town hall in June, for example, on racism that had more than 6,000 participants. In response to the rise of anti-Asian racism, we launched a new Resilience B.C. Network website with information, in English and 12 additional languages, for both victims and bystanders.

I know that the member is extremely passionate about this subject. We are doing everything we can, as a government, to ensure that all British Columbians live in a place that they can feel safe and they can feel welcome and they can feel free from discrimination.

T. Wat: Thank you to the minister for giving a detailed account of what is being undertaken. I’m glad that the minister has the same passion as I have.

Since the ministry is facing…. Even though it’s a small cut, close to 2 percent of the multiculturalism program, I still want to go back and make sure…. Will the minister make her advocacy to the Finance Minister a top priority in her deliberations with other ministers? It’s very important, at the cabinet table…. As I was once a minister, I know that you really have to speak out and make it a top priority, if you believe in your ministry and in your philosophy.

Hon. L. Beare: Yes. I can confirm for the member that this is not only a top priority for myself but for the Premier as well. We value this work here in the province. We want to make sure that everyone feels safe.

T. Wat: I have to say…. Just now the minister cited a series of work that she has done on the multiculturalism file. I think the minister has nothing to tell the Chinese community. They desperately need a museum. I have to advocate for that on and on again and make sure the minister will make that a top priority.

Now back to the renamed Resilience B.C. Anti-Racism Network program. The ministry has awarded $240,000 to the Victoria Immigrant and Refugee Centre Society to serve as a provincial help, with the remaining $300,000 for the community groups all over the province that are involved in this program.

The ministry can actually save $240,000 if the program is coordinated by the minister’s very capable and very professional staff. More community groups can be involved. It’s what we did and what your ministry did in the previous OARH program.

[1:55 p.m.]

Can the minister tell this House the rationale for spending an extra $240,000, at a time when your ministry is facing a budget cut, for the Victoria Immigrant and Refugee Centre Society?

Hon. L. Beare: Thank you to the member for the question. So another fulsome answer to give here for the member, because I know this is something she’s very interested in.

There are a number of reasons and a number of areas that the program differs from the OARH program that the member was referencing. While we were having our input sessions out in the communities, what we heard strongly from the community is that they wanted a community-based input avenue with collaboration with the ministry but also arm’s length.

Some of the differences of the OARH program are…. It’s expanded. It is a bigger program, and we do only have eight people in the ministry who work on the multiculturalism file, doing amazing work. But there is a lot of really good work to do.

The program is expanded. It’s a hub-and-spoke model that’s been designed to address gaps in anti-racism programming that were identified during our consultations and previous discussions with the previous ministry’s OARH partners.

The main difference is that individual communities will receive new supports from a centralized hub service provider who has specialized expertise in addressing racism.

T. Wat: I still disagree with the minister. We should not have spent $240,000 for this Victoria society. Instead, we should have distributed the money to more individual community groups in their location to participate in this program.

How many community groups are involved in this renamed program? Is the selection of the participating organizations decided by this Victoria society alone? Have contracts been awarded to the participating community groups? I would like to have more details on this.

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: The program has been expanded to 40 communities. They are receiving an increase in funding as well. The communities were chosen by a call for applications, and we expect to have the 40 communities in place later this month.

T. Wat: I just want to figure out the allocation of the minister’s budget. You faced a cut of close to 2 percent, yet you increased $240K for this Resilience program, the former OARH program. This is extra spending for one community group as the so-called coordinator. How does it affect the other programs that are going on in the multiculturalism file?

Hon. L. Beare: I want to assure the member that the 2 percent reduction is being dealt with administratively within the ministry. No programs are being affected. It’s being covered through a reduction in travel, those types of things. As well, it’s those same savings across the ministry where we were able to increase the budget to the Resilience B.C. program.

T. Wat: Thank you, Minister. It’s good to know no program has been cut.

I would like to put on the record that if there are contracts awarded — whichever organizations have been chosen — information can be given to me, so that I know, on how many municipalities are involved in this Resilience program.

Going back to this Resilience program, it seems to be the outcome of the work done by the former Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism. According to the news release on November 20, 2019, this network program is the result of a series of community dialogues, led by the former parliamentary secretary, in July and August in 2019. But there was no government release that listed the communities or any information about the former parliamentary secretary’s tour, other than what he himself posted on his personal Twitter account.

Since this consultation is so crucial for the government’s revamping of the former anti-racism program, the OARH, why did the ministry not promote the two-month-long consultation so that more people in different communities could attend?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: The consultation was targeted consultation. We did use the previous OARH network. They invited leaders from across their communities, and the previous parliamentary secretary went out and did the consultation to feed the work that we’re doing within the ministry.

T. Wat: I am disappointed that it was not open to the general public who are involved in this anti-racism program. Their feedback is just as important as community leaders.’

As far as we can gather from the former parliamentary secretary’s Twitter and other sources, the tour began on July 8, when the first stop was in Comox Valley, and was concluded in Cranbrook on August 28. In the middle of the tour, on July 29, he was appointed as the Parliamentary Secretary for FLNRORD and began to visit communities around B.C. that were affected by the forestry crisis. Due to the lack of government publication on the anti-racism tour and the forestry meetings, the exact purpose of the community visits was blurred.

On September 10, 2018, in response to a question asking the former Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism to name the forestry communities that he visited, he responded: “I was in Prince George, Fort St. James, Mackenzie, Quesnel, Williams Lake, 100 Mile, Clearwater, village of Clinton, Merritt, Cranbrook and Castlegar over the last three weeks.”

Cranbrook was visited by the former parliamentary secretary as part of the anti-racism tour. So my question to the minister is: how much was spent on the anti-racism dialogue tour? Was the former parliamentary secretary using funding from this anti-racism tour to consult forestry communities?

Hon. L. Beare: The parliamentary secretary’s work was for multiculturalism. It was for the anti-racism conversations on the tour. The total cost of the tour was $32,780.

T. Wat: Thank you, Minister, but he was doing the work as the Parliamentary Secretary for FLNRORD. I wonder. Was it because he was already travelling in the province and rural consultations were needed? Was that why he was appointed as a Parliamentary Secretary for FLNRORD?

Anyway, going to the next question. Our previous government had entrusted $100K to the city of Vancouver for the establishment of a monument to commemorate the historic legacy of Vancouver’s Chinatown as part of the former multiculturalism ministry’s commitment to unveil a plaque in 15 historic sites throughout the province.

I have asked about the progress of this monument in the last three budget debates. The Agriculture Minister, who took on the 2018 budget estimates debate for this minister, provided me with a more positive response. She said: “We have been working with the city of Vancouver, and there is $100,000 put away in trust in order to facilitate the unveiling of the plaque in Vancouver. I can assure the member that an invitation will be coming to her as soon as that is sorted out.”

Of course, being as passionate as I am, I’ve been waiting, waiting, waiting for the invitation to attend the unveiling ceremony — but no luck. Last year the response from the minister to my question was simply: “The money is still in trust. It’s with Vancouver, and the city of Vancouver is the lead.”

[2:10 p.m.]

The minister’s response has given us an impression that this Vancouver Chinatown monument has nothing to do with her ministry. This is an extremely disappointing response. The unveiling of this commemorating monument is the wish of not only the Chinese-Canadian community but many British Columbians who appreciate and value the historic significance of Vancouver Chinatown.

This is this minister’s portfolio, and this is the money coming from this government. It’s the taxpayers’ money. You cannot just say: “Oh, we entrust the money to the city of Vancouver, and they are the lead. I wash my hands of it.” This is not a very responsible response. I think the ministry should get on top of it and make sure that this is happening.

I ask once again, for the fourth year, on the record. Has the minister followed up with the city of Vancouver and worked with the city of Vancouver to advance this project, which is anxiously awaited by the Chinese community and the bigger community?

Hon. L. Beare: To the member, the answer is still the same. The money is still in trust with the city of Vancouver. We work very collaboratively with them on a number of things. And when the city is ready to move forward…. As we work with a number of projects with them, I’m sure the invitation will come from the city of Vancouver to the member when the time is right.

T. Wat: I have a feeling that every answer I get from the minister in today’s debate is to ask me to wait. It doesn’t matter that I’m waiting, but the Chinese community cannot afford to wait.

This particular project was started way before this government took power. It doesn’t make sense that three years afterwards the minister is telling this House and British Columbians and the Chinese-Canadian community: “Well, just wait. It will be coming.” When will it be coming? We’ve heard nothing. Zero.

I’m asking the minister: can the minister, for once, give us a more tangible response? Because before I came to this debate, the Chinese-Canadian community, my supporters, my constituents, have been asking and trying to get an answer from this minister, because you never get an answer in the last debate that you have with this minister.

Can I get some tangible answer, please, Minister?

Hon. L. Beare: As the member said, the work has been going on long before we were in government as well. So this is work that is ongoing. The money is in trust with the city of Vancouver. When the city of Vancouver is ready, as we are working on a number of projects with them, I’m sure the member will receive that fantastic invitation from the city when the time is right.

T. Wat: Again, every answer is: “Wait. The news will come.”

I wonder whether the minister will make it a priority for the Chinese-Canadian museum and this particular monument in Vancouver Chinatown. The Chinese-Canadian museum…. I can understand you have financial difficulty because there’s no budget allocated to your ministry. But for this project, it’s so easy. The money is there, and the plan is there.

Can the minister just tell this House something? What’s the progress? Don’t just keep giving these same answers, saying to wait for the good news, to wait for the exciting news. How many years, how many months, do we have to wait for this exciting news?

Hon. L. Beare: Asked and answered a few times now.

T. Wat: I’ve been really disappointed — not only me, as I said. I represent the community, and the community is extremely disappointed that I am not able to get any answer from this minister on the most looked-forward-to Chinese-Canadian museum, no tangible plan, nor this monument, which should have been in place now and part of the application for the UNESCO designation. The minister keeps saying: “Well, just wait for the answer. Just wait for the good news. I’ve given you the answer.”

[2:15 p.m.]

I guess no matter how many questions I ask, I won’t get any answer. I have to move on. But I have to put it on record that I have not got any substantial response from the minister on the Chinese-Canadian museum, as well as on this commemorative monument for Vancouver Chinatown, even though the previous government has already allocated $100,000. Let’s move on.

On June 12, a virtual town hall on racism was held on Facebook, hosted by the minister responsible for multiculturalism, the member for Delta North. I applaud the government for hosting this event to discuss systemic racism in B.C. Unfortunately, as the opposition critic for multiculturalism, this is, I think, the fourth time in the debate that I appeal to this minister to inform me — the same as for the $1 million announcement. I didn’t have the time to mention that.

Now that I’ve talked about this virtual town hall, I have to put it on record that for such a huge announcement, such a significant announcement of a Chinese-Canadian museum in the Chinese Cultural Centre, I wasn’t informed, even though I requested at the debate a few times to please inform me because I’m the opposition critic for multiculturalism, and I’m really passionate about this file. Again, I was not notified or invited to participate. I only learned of it from Facebook.

The Minister of Health has done a far better job of inviting one government MLA and one opposition MLA to co-host a virtual town hall on COVID-19 in every region, to make this truly a non-partisan event. How come this minister did otherwise?

Hon. L. Beare: This was the Premier’s town hall. He co-hosted it himself with Minister Kang, alongside the members of the Multiculturalism Advisory Committee. This was done in that frame.

T. Wat: The minister has not responded to my question. At the COVID-19 town halls, the virtual town halls — there have been so many going on — every time there’s one government MLA and one opposition MLA, to make it a non-partisan issue. I’m sure anti-racism and multiculturalism should be non-partisan as well.

The government MLAs had put forward a motion to discuss this issue. We, from our side, from the opposition, also stood up in the House to support that we all, together, should try to make British Columbia a truly welcoming, inclusive province.

For such an important virtual town hall, I really applaud the government for taking the initiative to talk to the public on systemic racism. How come the opposition multiculturalism critic, who is a former multiculturalism minister and who has shown so much passion for this file, was not informed and wasn’t even invited as a co-host or to speak a few words at the virtual town hall?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I agree with the member absolutely. Anti-racism is a non-partisan issue. This town hall was specifically to speak on the actions that government was taking, that government has been doing, but, mainly, to hear from the experts. It was Minister Kang who hosted the town hall.

To the member, I hear her point, and thank you for bringing them up.

T. Wat: I want to go back to the minister’s earlier comment saying that this virtual town hall was initiated by the Premier. By saying that, you’re giving an impression that the Premier is not inclusive. The Premier is just totally partisan. But I don’t think the Premier thinks that anti-racism, multiculturalism, is a partisan issue.

Since the Minister of Health has set a very good example before this virtual town hall was held, it looks like it’s a deliberate effort to exclude the opposition from this virtual town hall. I know that I won’t get anywhere, but I have to put this on the record.

I also want to put it on the record that, hopefully, in future, for any events regarding multiculturalism — of course, including anti-racism — the opposition critic will be informed. In spite of the fact that I make this appeal every time in this budget, it never happens. I am putting on record that I hope next year, if we are going to have a debate, I don’t have to repeat this again.

Moving on….

Hon. L. Beare: Sorry, Member. I had raised my hand there. I thought there was a question wrapping up in there.

The member is right. I misspoke on the Premier. So I do retract that statement. I was thinking of a different town hall that the Premier had done, and no, that was not the case. And of course, the Premier is inclusive.

I was thinking of a different focus conversation that the Premier had with another community. So just to put on the record that I did misspeak, and that that was not the case. The Premier, of course, is very inclusive.

T. Wat: Thank you to the minister for the for the clarification.

The Minister of Citizens’ Services was appointed on January 22 this year. A news release issued the following month, on February 10, announced that the Minister of Citizens’ Services retains her responsibility for multiculturalism. But now that the Minister of Citizens’ Services is the minister, no longer the parliamentary secretary, that means that there are two ministers responsible for multiculturalism at the cabinet table.

Could the minister advise this House the line of authority between herself and the Minister of Citizens’ Services on the multiculturalism portfolio?

Hon. L. Beare: Really, all ministers are responsible for multiculturalism. This is a value and a priority of our government. It’s a value and a priority of all our MLAs. So everybody is responsible.

The way the work is delineated here, as the member was asking…. The budget has remained in my ministry, which is why I’m answering the questions during estimates. It’s because the budget has remained intact. That was the smoothest possible option. And the Minister of Citizens’ Services is taking the lead on the file.

T. Wat: Thank you for the clarification.

If the Minister of Citizens’ Services is taking the lead on this file, I guess it may be more appropriate for the Minister of Citizens’ Services to be sitting here to respond to some of the questions.

The questions that I asked, the crucial question about the Chinese-Canadian museum, the commemorating monument…. It looks like the Minister of Citizens’ Services is the face of multiculturalism, and this minister is actually at the back, controlling everything.

[2:25 p.m.]

I can see that ever since her appointment as Minister of Citizens’ Services, she attended multiculturalism events and issued news releases under her title as the minister responsible for multiculturalism. This Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture is not included in the news releases nor attends any cultural events. That was quite different before, when she was the parliamentary secretary responsible for multiculturalism. So it’s really confusing.

The budget is in the hands of this Minister of Tourism. If the Minister of Citizens’ Services has a different opinion from this minister — for example, if she wants to see a budget coming for the start of the Chinese-Canadian museum — who is the lead? I want to know who the lead is for multiculturalism. Who can advocate for things that can happen for the multiculturalism file?

Hon. L. Beare: For the member, this is good news. You have two ministers who are strong advocates for multiculturalism right now. What better place to be in the file?

The estimates debate that we have here is based on the budget. That’s what it’s supposed to be. The budget has remained in the TAC Ministry, and the Minister of Citizens’ Services is the lead for multiculturalism.

T. Wat: According to the minister, this is good news. I guess we have to have two ministers for every portfolio. Then we’ll bump up the cabinet members. I’ve never seen this, in my experience. I’ve never heard of it, in my experience, either. I truly don’t understand it. It’s confusing to the general public.

This Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture is controlling the budget. She makes all the calls, and the Minister of Citizens’ Services is the face of multiculturalism. By talking to the Minister of Citizens’ Services, who is responsible for multiculturalism, you won’t get anything done. She is not the one that’s the lead. She has to take the call from this minister.

I think this creates a lot of internal fights and lots of confusion to the general public. Will the general public approach this minister if they want to advocate for anything or approach both ministers to make sure…? The Minister of Tourism controls the budget and will make things happen. At the end of the day, the one who controls the budget will make things happen.

How about staffing? I just want the minister to clarify more, instead of saying that it’s good news to have two ministers advocating for one file.

Hon. L. Beare: I’m very unclear if there was a question there.

T. Wat: My question is: does the Minister of Citizens’ Services have any spending authority? Does she have to run the decision by the Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture whenever she has any initiative that she wants to advocate? Is she junior to this Minister of Tourism?

Hon. L. Beare: Our government is extremely collaborative. I don’t know what the member’s experiences were previously in government. Our government works extremely collaboratively, breaking down silos across ministries, in the best way possible, so that we can all work together.

The Minister of Citizens’ Services and I work extremely collaboratively. We all share one goal of government, of trying to advance the work on anti-racism and anti-hate and trying to work collaboratively to encourage increased supports for multiculturalism across the province. The member is painting a picture that just doesn’t exist.

The spending authority is within TAC. The budget stayed in the ministry, as that was the smoothest transition. It was already there, so it remains here. The Minister of Citizens’ Services and I work very collaboratively.

[2:30 p.m.]

T. Wat: Thank you for the clarification, but it still doesn’t really make sense.

From what I heard from the minister today…. Is the minister giving us an indication that because multiculturalism is such an important file, we need two ministers to be overseeing this file? Does it mean that other files are not as important — like municipal affairs, housing, ICBC, child care, education and a whole lot of others?

Do we need to have two ministers for each file if we set the example of having two ministers for such an important file that the Premier pays a lot of attention to and values? I just want to be enlightened.

Hon. L. Beare: I’m just absolutely baffled by this line of questioning here from the member. The member was the parliamentary secretary. She retained the lead on the file when she became the Minister of Citizens’ Services, which is excellent. She is a fantastic advocate and Minister for Multiculturalism.

The budget is very closely entwined within the TAC ministry at the moment. The simplest solution was to leave the budget intact and allow me and the minister to work collaboratively together.

I understand the member wants to ask multiple questions on this, but it’s been answered. We are working together collaboratively. The budget stays in TAC, and we’re all working together to advance the interests.

D. Clovechok: I think the simple question to the minister is: does the Minister of Citizens’ Services have any budgetary authority in making independent decisions?

Hon. L. Beare: Asked and answered. The budget remains in the TAC ministry.

T. Wat: From past experience, I know this government always does things very differently and very strangely. If the minister is responsible for multiculturalism….

I used to be the Minister of International Trade, and the multiculturalism file never fell under this ministry. But because the Premier appointed me as the Minister for Multiculturalism, all the budget decisions, all the resources, were moved into the Ministry of International Trade so that one minister could make the decisions.

It really creates a lot of confusion that the Minister of Citizens’ Services is the face of multiculturalism yet all the budgetary decisions are made by the Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture, who has no profile in the multicultural community.

Because the Minister of Citizens’ Services is now the minister responsible for multiculturalism, this minister is not being seen at any events. Her name is not quoted in the news releases. So this minister is totally a non–minister for multiculturalism. And for this minister to be responding to the questions that I’m asking about multiculturalism, I think, is a joke.

D. Clovechok: To my previous question, then, your answer, Minister, is no. She does not have any decision-making ability independently in the budget. That’s all done through your ministry. Collaborative or not, does she have, yes or no?

Hon. L. Beare: We collaborate on decision-making, and I have authority within the TAC budget.

T. Wat: I guess we cannot get anywhere on this topic. Since I have a little bit of time, I want to go back to the commemorative monument.

I just want to put it on record that from the minister’s response, the $100,000 is coming from this government. Does her answer imply that it’s entirely the decision of the city of Vancouver whether they are going ahead with this monument or not and this ministry has nothing do with it? Just wash their hands of it? Give you the money, and you can do whatever you want to do?

Hon. L. Beare: This has been canvassed before.

[2:35 p.m.]

T. Wat: I don’t think the minister has answered my question. My question is: is it entirely the decision of the city of Vancouver to decide whether they go ahead with the monument? If they are not going ahead with the monument, will our government be putting some pressure on them?

Three years have passed. That was started by the previous government. More than three years have passed, and I’ve heard nothing from this debate about the progress.

We have to be answerable to British Columbians for the taxpayers’ money. That $100K. If I left it in my ministry when I was a minister, I could have done a lot of things. I could have unveiled many more plaques to commemorate the historic sites for the Chinese community.

We purposely allocated $100K because we see Vancouver Chinatown as a very valuable legacy. This is the second-oldest Chinatown in North America, and there is so much history, so much legacy there. That’s why we purposely put aside $100K. One hundred thousand is not a small sum of money.

Hon. L. Beare: As I said to the member before, we work collaboratively with the city of Vancouver. There is absolutely no indication that this is not happening. You know, this is part of the ongoing work. So the member’s speculation on what to do with the $100,000…. The plaque is in the works with the city of Vancouver, and I have answered this question a number of times.

T. Wat: If, as the minister says, it’s in the works with the city of Vancouver, at least there should be something that this minister can inform this House of.

Have they started the design of the monument? Who is going to design it? Before we left the government, we asked a very well-known architect — who, unfortunately, passed away — to design the monument. Can the minister even tell us whether the design of the monument has been completed? Not even any piece of detail?

That’s why I think we need the Minister of Citizens’ Services to respond to this question.

The Chair: Member, the minister has answered these lines of questioning. Do you have another line of questioning for the minister?

T. Wat: I guess I must say that I’m so disappointed that I could not get anywhere for the last hour or so.

I cannot go back to my constituents and tell them that this is the kind of response you want to get from the Minister of Tourism regarding the multiculturalism file, especially on the most important issue of the Chinese-Canadian museum and this commemorative monument in Vancouver Chinatown, now that the city of Vancouver and this provincial government have committed to work with the federal government to make this UNESCO world heritage destination of Vancouver Chinatown happen.

In the absence of this connect with the federal government, in the absence of any plans for the Chinese-Canadian museum, in the absence of any information on this commemorative monument…. It already has the budget right there, yet we get nothing from this minister.

On that note, I guess, I don’t want to waste time. I want to leave the time for my two colleagues to probe on the Tourism file. I must thank the staff of multiculturalism for their dedication, for their hard work, for their professionalism, to make British Columbia truly an inclusive and welcoming province. We have to join hands, not take this issue as a partisan issue, and work together for the benefit of every single British Columbian in this province.

I thank the minister for the time.

A. Olsen: Thank you for the opportunity. I’d like to thank my colleagues in the official opposition, the members for Parksville-Qualicum and Columbia River–Revelstoke, for giving me the time to ask a few questions in this important ministry.

I’m going to get to the tourism sector in just a second here, but there is a question, with respect, in a similar vein to the questions that have been asked previously by the member for Richmond North Centre.

I met with the minister a few months back now, maybe a bunch of months back now, with respect to museums and the funding for First Nations Indigenous repatriations. I see that there was yet another announcement of another about $500,000, I think it was, to it.

[2:40 p.m.]

This is an important time. We spoke about this privately, but it’s an important time for me to put on the record the challenges that I’ve heard.

While there are a lot of Indigenous communities that receive $30,000 a year to do this work…. You’re not going to hear complaints from Indigenous communities for receiving any funding to do this work, but I think it’s important to really acknowledge on the record here how, in the grand scheme of the work that needs to be done, this money actually impacts and the fact that a repatriation of ancestors, a repatriation of items of cultural significance, can cost upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

When this work gets underway within an Indigenous community, there is an incredible impetus for it to continue, meaning that those communities become committed to this work. That commitment often costs numbers of other budget line items in other budgets, because once the work has started, it cannot stop. That’s part of the cultural reality once the intention is set.

I presented the ministry with some ideas about how it is that, perhaps, the process can be streamlined and how we can work with our museum systems here — primarily the Royal British Columbia Museum — to ensure that Indigenous communities are not starting this work with the incredible burden of having to continue it.

I’m just wondering if the minister has considered some of the other options to how this work can be funded, recognizing that many Indigenous ancestors are still in displays in museums around the world. Many of our very sacred items of cultural significance are still in museums around the world, being viewed as artifacts rather than for their cultural significance.

I’m wondering if the ministry has worked with the Minister of Indigenous Relations and the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to clear up some of the real challenges that Indigenous people have in the province with this area.

Hon. L. Beare: I want to thank the member for the question. I know this is something that the member is deeply passionate about.

We have spoken about this on a number of occasions but one in particular, where the member was discussing his desire to see government move forward with funding, and we were able to provide the $500,000 in funding for repatriation. We recognize that the respectful return of cultural belongings and ancestral remains is essential to the preservation and the continuation of cultures all across our province and our communities.

We know Indigenous cultures rely on this for traditions and spiritual healing and for the work of Indigenous communities that is happening. So to the member’s question specifically, I will always look for ongoing and new ways to fund repatriation, and the member has my commitment to do that. This is a priority for us here in the ministry and in government.

As the member knows, by adopting the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action, we’re committing ourselves as a government, all of us, to do this work. We are committing ourselves, alongside the Royal B.C. Museum, alongside the B.C. Museums Association, and our Indigenous communities to do this work together.

It takes all of us to continue working together, as the member said, including MIRR, including FLNRO and including the Indigenous communities to work together as we advance the next steps on supports. But the member can rest assured I will constantly be looking for ways to fund this work.

A. Olsen: Thank you for that commitment. I look forward to continuing to work with the minister on this really important and critical issue to reconciliation and a very important signal to Indigenous people that this provincial government…. In addition to the various significant steps that we’ve all taken together, it’s a significant indication to Indigenous people that reconciliation is important work.

[2:45 p.m.]

Shifting gears a little here to tourism. It’s been an issue that I’ve also raised in question period. Acknowledging that in 2018, the tourism industry generated about $20.5 billion in annual revenue…. It’s a substantial amount of money for our province, a substantial industry for our province. The Premier said, on the record, that the government is working with the tourism industry, working on a tourism recovery plan. The minister suggested, similarly, that she’s been listening to and working with the tourism sector.

Many of the responses to questions that I and my colleagues in the official opposition have been asking to this ministry and to other ministries have always been…. Well, the response has been: “You know, dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic has slowed things down.” There are lots of questions I could ask about tourism, but I’m asking this question today, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the government’s response to that recovery.

The tourism sector has been one of the hardest hit, if not the hardest hit. It’s going to be one of the longest-lasting impacted industries in the province as well. Right now Destination B.C. is spending money on a campaign to promote B.C. tourism, aimed at British Columbia residents. They’re the only people that can support the tourism industry right now. Domestic tourism is really the only option, as the borders remain closed between Canada and the United States, and international travel is very restricted.

Look, I’ve talked with so many people in the tourism sector — I’ve got as old a relationship as any in this sector — that are expressing deep frustration at the direction of the funds going to marketing when the businesses themselves have not received support. Without supporting operators, unfortunately, many businesses will just fail, and there’s going to be a significantly shrunken tourism market.

What is the minister doing to support provincial tourism businesses on the supply side of the business?

Hon. L. Beare: The member kind of asked two questions in there. He was asking about the Destination B.C. marketing funding being directed towards domestic — which, I know, is something he wants to ask about as well — and he asked about the supply side. So I’ll go ahead and answer both for the member, in the interest of time, because I know that the Green Party has to do a lot of work to get to all the different estimates.

I’ll start with the supply side. For the member, absolutely, we recognize how impacted tourism has been by COVID. They are arguably the industry hardest hit by the pandemic. We continue to work on a number of things with the tourism sector. We continue to work on the demand side, as the member was referencing. You know, we provided the $10 million in additional funds to CDMOs to ensure that they’re ready to welcome visitors across the province, as we did move into phase 3, for example.

I’m not going to focus on the demand side. What the member wanted to know was on the supply side specifically, and I agree. We recognize that to grow and sustain tourism, you have to do both. You have to support both the demand, and generate the interest, and have the supply there, the products and services, for visitors to enjoy once they are travelling across our province. For the supply side of the sector, we want to make sure that they’re well positioned.

Our government is taking a number of actions that do help the supply side. On the hospitality sector portion of tourism, for example, we supported restaurants with their liquidity by ensuring that they had wholesale liquor pricing, the ability to sell liquor, off-sales. We supported their expansion of patios to increase patrons, maintaining social distancing.

[2:50 p.m.]

We launched our Tourism Resiliency Network to help the tourism businesses navigate the sea of information and supports that are out there to ensure that we actually have businesses accessing the supports they need so that they can access liquidity and remain open. We are providing stimulus funding for organizations and communities to support tourism product. We do these through a number of funds and continue to do them for government.

The best answer to the member’s question is…. I agree. On the supply side, we are working with the sector. We have been and continue to. One of the priorities I have, moving into recovery, is on destination development. We have our 20 destination development plans that focus on the regional supply side of tourism. This has been the culmination of years of work, and this is the work we’re going to keep doing to make sure that the supply is there.

To finally answer the member’s portion of this question, absolutely. As part of the ongoing recovery process and the $1.5 billion, I definitely view a need for supply support within those requests. The tourism sector has been asking for that, and it’s something that we will be putting forward as a ministry.

That was one of the member’s questions. Then, in his big opening there, he asked a second question about Destination B.C. marketing to British Columbians. Why is the money being spent there? British Columbians can only travel across the province.

It’s really important, for the member, that we…. Destination B.C. quickly pivoted, right from the beginning of the pandemic, and moved to an Explore B.C. Later campaign to really ensure that British Columbians and visitors who are accessing Hello B.C. from all across the world knew that B.C. would be eventually open again and would want to welcome visitors but not for now.

We waited till phase 3. We’re in phase 3. We’re back to our Explore B.C. campaign. We know that the domestic market is not a silver bullet for tourism operators, but it does provide that lifeline that tourism operators need for the summer, if we can get some of that summer.

Destination B.C. did make sure they pivoted that marketing focus to a robust domestic travel program. Their research shows that resident intention to travel within B.C. continues to grow in numbers, with 77 percent of people surveyed saying they’re intending to travel this summer within their own province.

We, as a ministry, and Destination B.C. want to provide all the information available to the residents of British Columbia so that we’re encouraging dispersion across the province. People can travel far and wide, in every corner of the province, and access tourism opportunities — access experiences, if you will — that they’ve never done before. There aren’t enough British Columbians who have gone grizzly bear viewing or who do sport fishing, for example. We want to make sure that British Columbians know about all these opportunities.

We want to capture that $6.7 billion that British Columbians spent internationally on tourism. If we can capture a portion of that, we can provide tourism operators some relief over the summer.

I will try to be more succinct in my next answers. The member had a lot of questions in that one opening sentence. So there you go.

Thank you, Member.

A. Olsen: I’ve seen the advertising. I would say that if it was directing people towards specific experiences, that would be one thing. Unfortunately, those ads are very disconnected. They’re very generic and just say: “Explore B.C.” That’s about it.

The other aspect of it is…. In talking to community leaders within tourism communities, community leaders whose communities rely on tourism…. That might be a clearer way of putting it. The businesses in those communities are in chaos right now. Many of them don’t have the workforce that they need. Some of them didn’t know whether they were coming back or not. To market to that industry right now without providing a clear indication….

The minister continues to refer that there is a plan. I’m not sure what the plan is. There have not been any details provided for the plan.

[2:55 p.m.]

As the member for Parksville-Qualicum pointed out, one of our businesses here, Wilson’s Transportation, has noted to her, to me and to many others, I’m sure — to everybody that will listen — that every day that there isn’t a plan dealing with the next 18 to 24 months, clarity for the next 18 to 24 months…. The business owners that I’m talking to are in turmoil right now. They don’t know, because there has not been a plan that has been laid out.

That’s a real challenge. We’re marketing to businesses that may or may not be there. We’re encouraging people to travel to communities that may or may not have it open. Many people are still concerned, and the businesses are in a marathon, not a sprint. Yet we’re dealing with it as a sprint.

I’ll just move to my next question. My understanding is that tourism is guided by both the minister’s strategic framework for tourism and Destination B.C.’s strategic plan. Given the significant impact of the pandemic on tourism and tourism’s uncertain future, will both of these plans be reviewed and updated to reflect the changing realities of tourism?

Hon. L. Beare: The short answer to the member is: yes, they will. Both the strategic framework within my ministry and DBC’s strategic corporate plan continue to be the foundation for which the work has been done in the ministry. But they definitely need to be updated.

You know, even without the impacts of COVID-19, you would want to update your strategic plans. But it’s important in light of this, of course. As part of that regular review, that would have happened. Of course, we will be doing it now to review those strategic plans to make sure that we’re supporting the sectors here in B.C.

To the member’s question, yes, we are.

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

Will the minister be re-evaluating Destination B.C.’s $50 million marketing budget, given that if many British Columbians travel this summer, and many won’t because of fear and anxiety, it won’t have a significant economic impact — and calls from the industry leaders for direct support to businesses?

Hon. L. Beare: Obviously, the marketing budget within Destination B.C. will have to shift according to COVID and what the plans are. Destination B.C. is always ongoing and updating their information and the work that’s being done within DBC. But their $50 million budget stays intact and will not be changing.

As I mentioned before to the member, I know that he’s hearing some sentiment of British Columbians who don’t want to travel, and there will be a portion that don’t. But Destination B.C.’s research has shown that 77 percent of people surveyed say they are intending to travel this summer, across their own province.

I know I will be myself. I’m looking forward to it. I believe Dr. Henry is taking the weekend off herself to go do some exploring. In fact, I have my husband and my daughter here with me waiting for this process to finish, so we can go inject some much-needed tourism dollars into the Victoria community soon.

While there will be people who won’t want to travel, 77 percent of British Columbians are indicating they do want to travel. So Destination B.C. will be adjusting their marketing budget within that $50 million, which stays intact, to address those concerns, while, of course, we do also have to keep our eye on our international markets and make sure we protect our spaces in those markets, because we do know those bookings are made 18 months out, usually, in general.

There is work ongoing and being done, and Destination B.C. received an additional $6 million, as well, for marketing from the federal government through Destination Canada. So we’ll continue to support them. We’ll continue to work with them so that they’re producing products, which they do so amazingly well, that are speaking to the need of the marketing here in B.C.

A. Olsen: To my colleagues in Parksville-Qualicum and Columbia River–Revelstoke, just one, maybe two more questions, and then I’ll cede the floor to you.

[3:00 p.m.]

When will the leaders in the tourism industry here in British Columbia, the operator side, have some details in terms of how the provincial government is going to support their businesses over the next 18 to 24 months, noting that what we see now is not necessarily what will…? The fall and the winter are going to be incredibly hard for some of the operators, and other operators are going to be just getting going. So I’m just wondering when the sector will see the government’s plan for support on the supply side.

Hon. L. Beare: As the member knows, we are in the process of consultation on the recovery funding, the $1.5 billion that the Premier and the Deputy Premier announced.

On top of the consultation I’ve been having with the industry up until this point, we’ve had a very specific recovery consultation. The public is weighing in. I’m continuing to meet with all the business leaders — TIABC, the RDMOs, the CDMOs. I’m continuing to meet with sector organizations, individual businesses, the entire tourism ecosphere.

One of the big answers we need as part of what we will be doing, moving into the future for tourism, is what that recovery funding recovery will look like. That’s a big portion of that, and that work is ongoing right now.

We will continue to work together. We are listening very closely to the tourism sector. We continue to hear the requests. We’ve been able to meet a number of them to date. I have a whole list here that I know the member doesn’t want to hear right now; he wants to know what we’re going to do, moving toward. What we are going to do is continue listening to the sector and develop a plan that meets their needs and develop a path forward that meets their needs.

A. Olsen: That’s been a consistent answer from the minister that normally I wouldn’t complain about. The minister is listening. I think that’s a really positive thing. However, I’ve also been listening, and I’ve been hearing a very, very consistent message for maybe eight weeks now — ten weeks, 12 weeks — that the issues that…. The message has been very, very consistent from sector leaders of what’s needed to happen, what’s needed in order for support for the industry.

We approved $1.5 billion of recovery money months ago. I was in the Legislature and approved and was part of that very surreal day in the Legislature a number of months ago. So that money has been sitting there.

I recognize that the tourism industry is one industry in a number of ministries and a number of different sectors in our economy. But it’s one in which, I think, the industry leaders have been consistent. They’ve been clear. Their message has not changed. It has not wavered. In fact, the situation for them has only gotten worse over the past number of weeks.

Again, I hope that, at some point, the minister will deliver to the industry a clear plan so that business owners — and the employees of those business owners — who are on the steps of Legislature, who are looking at what their life is going to look like, can make the decisions they need to make. Some of them are going to be making tragic decisions that they’re no longer going to exist. Others are going to be making decisions that they’re going to bear down and go for it.

I’ll just ask this question one more time, and then I will cede the floor. What is the time frame? The consultations go on; the message hasn’t changed. What’s the time frame?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: To the member, I appreciate everything he said. You know, I could easily just say thank you and take the input. But there are a couple of things I want to say.

I don’t want to leave the impression, by any means, that we have not been doing work to date. I know the member knows we have and that we’ve been working really hard.

We continually receive requests from the industry. We’ve been able to meet a number of the requests — for example, some of the TIABC requests submitted to support a program that encouraged B.C. workers who have been laid off to find employment with local agribusiness tourism. We heard from industry that this was an opportunity, and we developed a program with go2HR and created that opportunity to expand their job board and match up people.

Industry wanted to allow restaurants and pubs to sell liquor products, takeaway services and have the hospitality pricing. We were able to meet that. They asked for deferral of hydro bills or relief on hydro bills. We were able to meet that. They asked for deferral or relief on ICBC payments. We were able to meet that.

We have a ton of work that has been done, to date, and we’re going to keep doing it. Every day I talk to the tourism sector, and every single day I hear the needs. And I know the member does too. He’s out there in his community. I hear the need.

We have the process ongoing for that $1.5 billion. That’s a key component to decisions moving forward and what will be available for the sector. We’re just going to keep doing the hard work. This is a sector that’s been deeply impacted, and I know he’s there alongside me in wanting to make sure we provide the best opportunities for the sector moving forward, and we’re going to do that.

Thank you so much to the member for the questions. I appreciate your time.

M. Stilwell: Thank you, Minister. It’s nice to be here, back again to discuss some of the things that have happened in the tourism industry since the COVID pandemic hit.

As the minister knows, tourism is one of the B.C.’s biggest industries. It brings in billions of dollars in annual revenue. It provides hundreds of thousands of jobs to British Columbians. It feeds families, builds communities and, really, fuels the economy.

Since the pandemic, I know, as the minister has been hearing — we’ve been hearing daily, as the Leader of the Third Party said — how desperate they are. We have heard from businesses in the tourism sector that are facing crippling uncertainty and, in some cases, even bankruptcy — just like the Wilson’s Transportation business that the Leader of the Third Party mentioned.

There has, to date, been, really, little reassurance for the tourism operators from this government and from the Tourism Minister. For example, she’s probably going to talk to us about deferral payments and how that’s supposed to help businesses. But the problem with the deferral payments is that after three months, even with the phased approach to reopening over the summer, the revenues may not be there to support these businesses enough to pay. Obviously, what they’ve been advocating for, what they’ve been asking for, are loans and grants and things that would be better suited for them.

As we move forward, I’d just like to start discussing some of the general impacts that the pandemic has had on tourism and the ministry. We know that government has obviously had significant revenue gaps of its own as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. But what I’d like to know is how that revenue gap has impacted the ministry’s expenses and how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted revenues within the scope of the Ministry of Tourism.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: The budget for ’20-21 remains the same for the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture. There are two areas of impact of note for the member, being PavCo, for the loss of convention business and the closure of B.C. Place, and Royal B.C. Museum, which had some minor impacts due to a temporary closure as well.

M. Stilwell: Are there any plans in place to support both PavCo and the museum with additional funds that they have lost out on and to move forward in the future?

Hon. L. Beare: We are reviewing. We’re early in the process. We’re trying to review and understand the impacts to the businesses. Obviously, we’ll be taking a look at the opportunities moving forward.

D. Clovechok: Have there been job losses associated with both of those entities?

Hon. L. Beare: At PavCo, there have been temporary layoffs, work-shares and some reductions of hours, which affect around 160 people. Other than the temporary closure at Royal B.C. Museum, there was zero impact to the staff.

M. Stilwell: Thank you, Minister. Has the ministry been given any additional funds due to the COVID-19 pandemic? If they did receive any funds, how are those funds allocated within the various departments within the ministry?

Hon. L. Beare: The fiscal plan remains intact. In addition, we received $10 million for community destination marketing organizations. There are a number of other asks we have within government. We’re going through the recovery process, and we will see what funds are allocated from that. To date, the fiscal plan remains intact, plus the $10 million.

M. Stilwell: So that $10 million has all been allocated, and there’s nothing left unused to be re-appropriated?

Hon. L. Beare: Yes, the $10 million has been allocated.

D. Clovechok: Could the minister detail the allocation of those dollars?

Hon. L. Beare: It went to 59 community destination marketing organizations. I’m sure the member doesn’t want me to read the 59 communities on the list. I’d be happy to send him the list of communities if he’d like.

[3:15 p.m.]

D. Clovechok: Thank you to the minister. We would appreciate having a detailed breakdown, and the exact amount of dollars that went to each one of those organizations, within a week.

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

M. Stilwell: When we look at the key service plan targets for the ministry, what has been changed, or has anything been changed, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and will those targets be met?

Hon. L. Beare: The service plans will be updated as part of next February’s budget.

M. Stilwell: Obviously, there have been financial impacts within the ministry and within government. How is the ministry able to forecast the financial impacts going forward, when you look at PavCo or the Royal British Columbia Museum?

Hon. L. Beare: I just want to remind the member — of course, I know she’s well aware — that the pandemic is ongoing. So all the impacts are not known yet. The pandemic is still here with us.

Government is working with all of our Crowns. For the Royal B.C. Museum, we will be able to forecast their revenues, based on the attendance levels, of course. We’re working with PavCo to assess what the impacts are for cancellations and deferrals. Fortunately, in PavCo, a number of the events were actually deferred and moved to a future date. So there’s a positive there. We’re working with PavCo to address and take a look at mitigation.

D. Clovechok: Working with PavCo on these issues, as well as other areas, requires strategic planning. You mentioned that strategic planning earlier on in this debate.

I’m wondering if the minister can share with us the strategic planning strategies that have been applied and accomplished over the last four months since this pandemic broke out. One would think that that strategic planning is all ready to roll out.

Hon. L. Beare: I had previously referred to Destination B.C.’s corporate strategy and our tourism strategic framework. I think the member might have misheard. But to answer the member’s question, 16 weeks is a very short amount of time to shut down parts of our economy and restart it to address the COVID pandemic.

[3:20 p.m.]

Government did allocate the $5 billion to address immediate impacts. That process is still going on, and we are daily working with industry and all sectors in responding to policy and funding requests as are needed.

D. Clovechok: Sixteen weeks seems like a long time, but for so many of the businesses in British Columbia that are associated with tourism, it’s becoming a lifetime.

That didn’t really answer my question, Chair. What specific strategic planning has this ministry done in preparing a plan, going forward, for the tourism industry?

Hon. L. Beare: Well, the member knows that we continue to work with the sector very closely. We’ve been having that conversation, and we will be updating our tourism strategic framework to Destination B.C.’s plan. We are working on addressing the requests that the industry has.

Once the recovery consultation process finishes, we will be able to have a better idea of what supports are available for the sector, for recovery for moving forward, and we’ll be able to address more needs then.

D. Clovechok: It would seem that there’s a timeline issue yet here again. Give us a specific time when this is going to roll out. People can’t wait much longer. What’s your timeline? Not next week, not a month. When is it going to happen?

Hon. L. Beare: This is an unfair characterization of the work being done. Supports have been rolling out this whole time. We are continuing to do work with the sector.

We know that 16 weeks has felt like a lifetime to the tourism industry because we know how difficult…. They have been impacted. We are going through our process here in government, and we will continue to go through that process. I will continue to work extremely closely with the tourism sector to address all of their needs.

M. Stilwell: I recognize that there is a process in government, but these are businesses that are struggling to maintain cash flow. With service industries — including restaurants, hospitality, tourism — among the hardest hit and the closure of borders, it’s had a dramatic impact on the industry. They need money to help the businesses survive.

An estimated 41 percent will not be profitable this year. Out of 200,000 small businesses in B.C., an estimated 10 to 15 percent won’t be around in 2021. The bulk of those are in the previously thriving tourism sector.

The minister really just needs to describe what the recovery plan looks like. Will there be additional funds, coming from the $1.5 billion that government has set aside for the COVID pandemic, put into tourism?

I know she mentioned it to the Leader of the Third Party, but this money was set aside months ago. The industry leaders have been clear, and they’ve been consistent. The situation is getting worse day by day. The tourism operators expect some kind of relief, some kind of financial support, to keep their cash flow going so that they can keep their doors open.

When will the funds be available for things like tourism infrastructure projects or for businesses to keep their doors open?

Hon. L. Beare: This characterization is just not accurate of what is happening in the sector. Of course there is going to be funding provided, of the $1.5 billion, towards tourism. I just don’t even understand the member’s question.

The members don’t seem to think there was any support provided to date. We know that the sector has been impacted greatly. I’m going to read now, for the member — in the interest of time, I’ve been trying to keep my answers brief — a long list of supports right now. We know more is needed.

[3:25 p.m.]

Members know that work is being done. We have been supporting the tourism sector, and we will continue to support the tourism sector. We included in the $5 billion of relief, which was provided in the action plan, a number of measures and supports that went to workers and businesses, which includes tourism businesses.

We provided the $1,000 B.C. emergency benefit for workers. We provided a temporary rent supplement, freezing rents and ensuring no one is evicted as part of COVID-19.

We enhanced payments through the B.C. climate action tax credit and delayed several tax filing payment deadlines, including for the MRDT accommodation tax. We cut commercial property tax bills for most businesses and gave businesses more time to pay their property tax bills. We were able to cut those bills by 25 percent.

We partnered with the federal government to provide commercial rent assistance of up to 75 percent and took the additional steps of protecting businesses and preventing landlords who are eligible for rent assistance programs from evicting tenants.

We supported commercial transportation, through ICBC, by deferring premiums, suspended insurance for idle commercial vehicles and increased flexibility around vehicle use.

We’re providing small business customers three months of financial relief on their B.C. Hydro bills.

We’re ensuring no one can be terminated for COVID-related leaves or absences, including our tourism workers. We extended the temporary layoff period to 24 weeks for COVID-19-related reasons. WorkSafeBC is waiving premiums for employers who are approved and received the CEWS benefit for furloughed workers.

We continue to work and champion the interests of the tourism sector. We’re supporting restaurants with liquidity by providing wholesale liquor pricing and the ability to sell liquor with takeout and delivery services.

We’re helping displaced tourism workers find work in other sectors, like agriculture, in cooperation with go2HR.

We designated hotels and RV parks as an essential service to house essential service workers and returning residents in vulnerable populations, allowing them to continue operating.

We provided flexibility in the use of grant funding for organizations whose events were unable to take place.

We supported patio expansions for the hospitality sector to increase patrons while maintaining social distancing.

We provided stimulus funding for organizations and communities to support tourism products and destination development.

I continue to meet weekly with my federal counterparts to ensure that B.C. has a strong voice at the table. I advocate for more support, federal funding and improved program eligibility for B.C. businesses. We have a number of successes there. In the interests of time, I won’t read through those successes.

We have supported, also, the tourism sector by accelerating disbursements of the 14 resort municipality initiative communities. We launched the Tourism Resiliency Network to help businesses navigate the supports available and adapt to the new normal. We provided $10 million to 59 B.C. community destination marketing organizations so that they can retain critical staff and offset fixed expenses.

Through Destination B.C., we were able to provide $400,000 to 15 tourism associations to put health and safety measures in place. We were able to provide $130,000 to 130 community-owned visitor centres.

We used the $6 million we received from Destination Canada for recovery marketing.

There’s more here. In the interests of time, I’m not going to keep reading.

For the member, the tourism sector has been impacted. We all agree on that. We all agree it’s a priority.

We are doing the work. We are continuing to do the work. Tourism is going to be, obviously, contemplated in that $1.5 billion in recovery, and we will keep working with the sector to identify and address their needs moving forward. Any characterization that the work isn’t happening or hasn’t been done simply isn’t there. We know there’s more to do, and we are going to continue doing that.

I thank the members for their support of the tourism sector. It is important here in B.C.

M. Stilwell: Thank you to the minister. She did read off a lengthy list of supports, none that actually came from her own ministry. Many of those supports are still the supports that don’t actually help the businesses. The minister says that she’s out there listening to the community and to the industry. Is she not hearing what they’re saying?

[3:30 p.m.]

The COVID-19 impact report clearly articulates that this isn’t about marketing. That’s not what businesses need to actually survive. Marketing shouldn’t be the focus; rather, financial assistance like grants or lowest-interest loans. Those are the things we’re talking about. They need liquidity. What is the point of tourism marketing if there are no companies around or left standing to actually market?

By putting the money into marketing, you’ve only addressed the demand side of tourism. So what are your plans to support the supply side of tourism, to ensure that the businesses are still around to serve the tourists? Now that we are in phase 3, and we’re starting to move about — and, hopefully, one day soon, we’ll be able to start welcoming international tourists — what is your plan, Minister, to support these businesses?

Hon. L. Beare: I have recognized…. I did with the leader of the Green Party as well. I absolutely understand liquidity is important. A number of those supports that I read out did provide liquidity to businesses. For the member to say they don’t just simply is not accurate.

We do understand that liquidity is arguably the number one request coming in from the tourism sector. We understand that, and that is part of the ongoing process of the $1.5 billion.

Respectfully to the member, we are working on this. We’re working closely with the tourism sector, and we are listening.

D. Clovechok: With the money that was allocated to the DMOs through the MRDT tax, the minister…. If she doesn’t know, she should know, that the allocation to those 59 communities really did nothing but keep the lights on.

What is the ministry’s plan to make up those shortfalls to those DMOs that basically have nothing other than to keep the lights on, through the amount of money that was given. It’s appreciated, but it’s nowhere near enough.

Hon. L. Beare: The member is correct that the intent of the funding was so that those organizations were able to keep the lights on and keep their staff employed. This was very important for us, so that those organizations would be ready to welcome visitors to their communities all across the province once we were able to move into phase 3, which we are.

The CDMOs were very thankful of that support. We do realize they’re in a difficult position moving forward, as is the entire tourism sector. There’s a lot to address. So for the CDMOs, some of the work to date being done, again, as with everything with the tourism sector, there is more to do. This has been 16 weeks. There’s a long road ahead of us as well.

Today, to date, some of the work that’s been done is the $6 million from Destination Canada that we helped to secure will be divided up amongst the CDMOs — $1.5 million additional funds in co-op marketing has been provided through DBC to the CDMOs. Destination B.C. has shifted their marketing from international to just domestic to drive tourism into the areas and increase the revenues.

This is some of the work being done to date, and we will continue working with the sector.

[3:35 p.m.]

The Chair: Members, are there any more questions?

The member for Parksville-Qualicum.

M. Stilwell: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for being understanding as we navigate this world where we are not working side by side in the same room and working remotely from each other, and recognizing when we can take turns to speak.

Obviously, there’s an estimated 70 percent revenue drop in the tourism industry. Without that direct help from government — be it from the remaining $1.5 billion in COVID relief funding or a tax holiday from the EHT, PST, or some sort of incentive program to get more British Columbians travelling within British Columbia — it’s still looking pretty grim for many of the tourism operators.

I’m just wondering if the minister can advise the House what tax relief measures that the minister has advocated for the tourism industry to the Minister of Finance or to the Premier.

Hon. L. Beare: As the member knows, I will continue to be a strong advocate for the needs of the tourism industry, including to all of my colleagues. Any tax questions she should be asking the Minister of Finance. I know she’s asking what my advocacy is to the Minister of Finance. Really, the member just needs to know I continue to advocate and will continue to advocate.

I have heard the list of concerns and suggestions from businesses. The members opposite have put forward numerous letters to both myself and to the Premier with their thoughts. They are all part of the mix. So thank you, Member.

D. Clovechok: My colleague just got kicked out of the system. She’s going to be coming back. I’ll carry along.

I want to talk a little bit about planning. The minister talks about 16 weeks as being a very short period of time. It’s almost like an excuse that it’s been such a short period of time. My questions are going to come around planning.

Quebec, as a good example, just came out with a $750 million program that was going to be spread over two years, and that’s for both supply-and-demand tourism. Alberta has come out with what they call a cooperative investment program. The Atlantic provinces are well into this already. Yet here we are, 16 weeks later, and British Columbia does not have a formal tourism plan.

I’d like to get the minister’s perspective on what’s taking so long, aside from doing surveys, to present a plan to British Columbians?

Hon. L. Beare: This is just reframing of a question I’ve already answered. A large part of the piece we are waiting for is the recovery process that’s ongoing. Member, the question is asked and answered, and I’d love to keep talking about some new subjects, please.

D. Clovechok: I would strongly disagree it’s the same question. The question I’m asking is: why has there been no formal plan put forward? Here we are, 16 weeks later — and you can excuse it as you want — saying that it’s ongoing. We’re waiting for a survey after 16 weeks.

Seriously, the question is simple. What has your ministry been doing in terms of putting a plan together over the past 16 weeks, aside from the survey that was just released?

Hon. L. Beare: I have addressed this a couple times now. We are continuing to do the work. I have outlined that in previous answers. I’ll outline for the member some of the areas we’re focusing and have been focusing on to date.

[3:40 p.m.]

We have been focusing on response, recovery and resilience. We, as a government, provided the $5 billion in support for businesses across B.C., for families and for people. Relief was an initial part. We shifted marketing to domestic marketing campaigns, so we addressed the immediate needs of where our people could travel. We continue to protect our international spaces and the work being done there, in our international markets, to ensure that when we are in a position to welcome visitors again from outside the country, we will be able to do that.

We continue to work closely with the sectors. We work towards recovery and what that looks like. That’s the process that’s ongoing right now. We continue to work on resilience in the tourism sector, as I addressed before in earlier questions. We continue work on destination development and focusing on building our supply side in the area.

Member, this is the same question, and I’m happy to keep giving these answers. You know, 16 weeks is a short amount of time, I’m saying, in the long journey that is a pandemic. We have done a marathon and a sprint all in the same amount of time in those 16 weeks. We still have a long path ahead of us, and tourism is going to be part of that long, long journey.

We are continuing to do the work. We will have more information when we know our supports coming out of recovery. But this is just some of the work that’s ongoing. So to the member: thank you for asking your questions, but we will keep working with the sector directly to address their needs.

D. Clovechok: To the minister, this is a couple times that you’ve spoken about the supply side and all the work that the ministry is doing in the supply side of tourism. We would be really interested if she could break down that work and what that actually looks like. I’ll be really honest with you. That’s not what we’re hearing through the multiple regional town halls that we’ve held over the last 16 weeks, and that’s not what we’re hearing from the tour operators.

Please share with us what you’ve actually done on the supply side of tourism.

Hon. L. Beare: I gave a fulsome answer previously to the leader of the Green Party. I’ll provide some additional information for the member.

We did accelerate our disbursements of the 14 RMI community funding to make sure that we are increasing their capacity and revenues and making sure that they continue to work on the projects, which are supply side, within their communities.

We provided $14 million to 150 projects to support economic development and recreational activities for British Columbians throughout the province. That’s through rural community development grants. And 98 of those projects supported tourism destination development initiatives totalling almost $9 million — for example, trade networks, camping grounds, airport expansions, connectivity, cultural centres, signage, tourism master planning.

We have active transportation grants providing $9 million to cost-share 23 infrastructure projects and 21 active transportation network plans provincewide. These develop multimodal transportation that benefits visitors and improves destination competitive advantage.

We have the MOG grants as well — community, culture and recreation projects which our government is a part of, rural and northern communities infrastructure grants. In CCR, we did $34.4 million in 39 projects. In RNC, we provided $8.1 million to 15 projects. And 90 percent of these funded projects…. Sport facilities that support our visitors. It’s arts and culture centres, recreation and sport centres, boat launch facilities, First Nation longhouses, art centres, trail systems.

We have a cross-government approach to tourism, and we are supporting tourism. We have our 20 destination development areas that we will continue to focus on and work on in the future. So there’s just a taste, to the member, of some of the supply.

[3:45 p.m.]

We know that there’s more to do. I will continue saying that to the members. This is to date. We have more to do. This is a long journey, as well, ahead of us, and we will continue working with the sector.

D. Clovechok: It is definitely going to be a long journey. That’s certainly something that we can attest to. But from what I’ve understood in some of the projects that you’ve just cited, there’s still no plan. There is still no formal plan for tourism recovery. So we’ll just leave it at that and read that into the record.

Some parts of the industry — like the seasonal operators and guide and wilderness viewing companies or ventures — have few options and very minimal supports from government as they do not qualify for federal and/or provincial assistance programs. If you talk to outdoor adventure tourism companies, and we certainly have throughout our town halls that we’ve hosted throughout the province, wildlife viewing tours are simply no replacement for those cancelled tours from European or American guests.

We’re talking a lot of potential bankruptcies in the future. How are they supposed to support themselves at this time with no federal or provincial support? What consideration has the minister given for these businesses, and what is her plan to support them?

Hon. L. Beare: I am meeting with those organizations on an ongoing basis and numerous times over this pandemic and continue to meet with them and hear from them directly — what they are saying to me directly.

Obviously, liquidity is a huge part of that, as I have already addressed in our conversations over this past hour. We will continue to work with the organizations and put that into the recovery process moving forward.

We also continue, just for the member’s knowledge, to bring up liquidity as a key piece of the conversations that we have with our federal government counterparts to ensure that the programs that are being offered through the federal government…. You know, members of those organizations are able to apply for. There have been difficulties with the tourism sector in a number of areas of these programs — the ability to prove lost revenue, those types of issues. There’s been a number of them. We continue to work with the federal government as well.

I understand the member’s concern about the adventure tourism sector. They have been extraordinarily hard hit in this. We are working with them directly. I am speaking with them directly. We will continue to work with them and try to identify and address their needs through the recovery process.

The Chair: Member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, I’ll ask you for one more question, and then we’ll be taking a recess after the minister has responded.

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

We do agree on one thing. Liquidity is an issue for all tourism businesses and operators today. The minister just said that she’s meeting with adventure tourism operators on an ongoing basis. If the minister could take a minute and just explain some of the outcomes of those conversations and what solutions that her ministry has offered to these folks in those industries that would give them some reflection of hope for the oncoming months.

Hon. L. Beare: There are a number of pieces I could pull off the list that I read into the record before, but it’s on record. It’s in there.

If the member is asking if there has been a specific adventure tourism package created, no, there hasn’t been — not yet, to date. There is the recovery process that we’re going for. We know that the tourism sector is very hard hit. We know all the concerns that the sector is bringing forward. We’re feeding that into the process, and we will do our best to address as many concerns as we can from the tourism sector.

The Chair: Members, this committee will now recess for ten minutes. We’ll resume at 4 p.m.

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

[R. Kahlon in the chair.]

D. Clovechok: The minister has been talking today about open meetings and relationships she has with her federal counterparts, which is good. But I would like the minister to explain to us if she’s been an advocate for federal dollars. I know that both Quebec and the Atlantic provinces just received, I think it was, around $47 million in that area. Why has British Columbia received none of that, and what is she doing to rectify that?

Hon. L. Beare: Yes, our government works very collaboratively with the federal government on a wide range of issues, including supports for tourism. We were able to secure some supports from the federal government in early June, which helped our tourism operators and workers in communities all across the province, through the Tourism Resiliency Network.

We are working very closely with our federal counterparts to ensure that B.C. receives additional support and its share of federal dollars. I’m confident that the federal government appreciates that and will continue to recognize the importance of tourism here in B.C. The western ministers and I had a call with Minister Joly on Thursday to discuss this specific issue, and I have another call with the minister next week, so we continue.

The question was: can I assure the member that I have been advocating? Yes, I have, and yes, I will continue.

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

One of the questions to the minister that we’ve heard throughout our town halls, which were many town halls over the last 16 weeks, is the absolute frustration from the tourism industry that on the Premier’s economic recovery task force, there has been nobody on that task force from the tourism industry. I would like the minister to tell this House today why that is.

Hon. L. Beare: Tourism is very thoroughly represented on that council. There’s representation of the Business Council of B.C., the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the Vancouver and Surrey boards of trade, which very broadly represent the interests of the business communities all across our province, including the tourism sector.

There’s no individual business sector that is singled out on the Premier’s council. The broad business sector is represented. Tourism is represented by all the organizations that I just mentioned. The Premier and Minister James and I just held a specific roundtable on June 30. I hosted a virtual meeting. The Premier and the Minister of Finance and I hosted a roundtable discussion about tourism and how we’ll build a recovery together.

[4:05 p.m.]

D. Clovechok: It would seem to me that the sector of business in the province of British Columbia, which generates $20.5 billion to GNP in this province, should not be looked upon as a broad base and that someone is representing them. Again, I think it’s really a shame, to be honest with you, that tourism was not considered to sit on that economic recovery group.

I would like to know from the minister if she will go ahead and advocate to the Premier immediately for someone to be put on to that task force.

Hon. L. Beare: The ministers task force is already chosen. It has been meeting and ongoing for months now. I’m confident that the tourism sector is represented through all the business organizations that I indicated.

I’m confident in the work that I am doing, as the minister, to be out there engaging with the community and to make sure I am hearing their concerns directly, as well as the Premier and the Minister of Finance. We are all out there having these conversations.

I thank the member for the concerns. I will continue to do the hard work in engaging with the sector.

D. Clovechok: From your answer there, I’m just going to make an assumption, then, that the Premier’s economic task force is a closed shop, with no opportunities for anyone else to participate, even though they would like to participate.

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

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

Tourism in B.C. will look different than it’s looked since World War II. There has never been anything like this before. It’s unprecedented. In the impact that it’s going to have, it’s never needed leadership more than it needs it now.

Frankly, this government and this minister should have done better, and they should have acted faster. There’s a stark, stark lack of leadership here. Frankly, I think this government is devoid of help in this industry. It cared, seemingly, more about securing an NHL hockey team in Vancouver. There was absolutely zero chance of that ever happening, but they spent time and effort on that. In doing so, they spent time on that and ignored guide-outfitters, fishing lodges and all the people that are actually being hurt so desperately and needing help in this province.

There’s no guarantee of consumer travel here. Consumer confidence is not high. No matter what the statistics will tell you — I know; I live in a tourism community — those tourism numbers are down.

I think it’s going to be a rough road. Without a plan…. That’s what we’ve discovered here today. Whether it be multiculturalism, whether it be tourism, there’s absolutely no long-term plan, after 16 weeks of being into this pandemic. The minister and the government, quite frankly, need to do better.

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

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

Are there any other members that have questions?

Seeing no further questions, can I ask the minister if she would like to make any closing remarks before we call the vote?

Hon. L. Beare: To the members and to all the members of the tourism sector across British Columbia, I absolutely understand and my entire ministry and our government understand how deeply impacted tourism has been by the COVID-19 pandemic. We know the devastating impact it’s had on businesses and families across the sector.

We have done a bunch of work to date and have worked incredibly closely with the sector. We will continue to do the work, moving forward.

Just for the member’s knowledge, on some previous comments. I do have different parts of my ministry, some that work on sport and some that work on tourism. We are able to do two things at once, which is a good thing.

[4:10 p.m.]

We are going to continue to work very closely with the tourism sector as we move towards recovery, now that we are on phase 3 and we are able to move a little more freely across the province. I appreciate the members’ concerns and their passion for the tourism sector.

I want to thank all my staff who are here before me and virtually for the assistance today but mainly thank them for the incredible work that they have done during this COVID-19 pandemic — everybody has been working full tilt — and all the staff and team at Destination B.C. for all the hard work they’ve done as well.

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

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

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

[R. Kahlon in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CITIZENS’ SERVICES

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

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

Hon. A. Kang: First of all, hi. Good afternoon to everyone. It is certainly a great honour to be here today.

We have the great privilege to be gathered on the territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, including the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

I am honoured to be here today to speak on the ministry’s estimates for the 2020-2021 fiscal year. I’m joined by Deputy Minister Jill Kot as well as our ADM of corporate services and EFO Dean Skinner.

Every day our staff dedicates themselves to making life better and easier for people in B.C. Our team is on the front lines, helping people access government programs at 65 Service B.C. centres and through the Service B.C. contact centre. We’re charting government’s path into the digital age and creating more ways for people and businesses to interact with us securely online.

In fact, earlier this week, we announced a new feature for the mobile B.C. Services Card. People now have two ways to activate a mobile card: sending a video or making a live video call. The mobile version of the B.C. Services Card helps people access services quickly, safely and securely online.

We also maintain government’s IT network, including email, remote access, video conferencing and other essential tools. Citizens’ Services staff are government’s 24-7 defence against cyberattacks.

Our staff provides guidance to public servants on protecting people’s personal information and storing records properly. Ministry staff investigate information breaches and run the vital freedom-of-information program. Our ministry is also responsible for managing approximately 1,800 properties around the province. When it comes to connectivity, we work hard to encourage the expansion of high-speed internet in rural and Indigenous communities through our Connecting B.C. program.

On top of it all, we’re also making meaningful improvements to the way government purchases goods and services with B.C.’s first-ever procurement strategy. This is a massive undertaking that involves around $7 billion in spending every year. It maximizes opportunities for small and medium-sized businesses while also creating social, environmental and economic benefits for people.

Our ministry has had a key role in government’s response to COVID-19. The arrival of COVID-19 really showed what our ministry is made of as Citizens’ Services, and the first thing we did was to make sure people had access to the information they needed. We created the COVID-19 phone line to help relieve pressure from 811. We’ve been providing daily updates to the province’s COVID-19 website.

[4:25 p.m.]

Our ministry is also providing support for other growing needs during this time. We’re temporarily allowing access to new software tools to help essential services respond to people’s urgent needs during the COVID-19 pandemic. We are also helping procure PPE and hand sanitizer and are working to establish a logistics warehouse in Metro Vancouver. We continue to provide staff to assist with travel screening and welcoming people back to British Columbia.

I also want to emphasize how important it is that we are doing the good work that we are doing right now. I want to emphasize how proud I am of the team at Citizens’ Services. Their positive attitude, expert guidance and tireless dedication in making life better for the people of British Columbia has resulted in a meaningful and powerful response to one of the greatest crises we have. While the work is far from done, the efforts of Citizens’ Services staff have helped flatten the curve.

We continue to support people and their families through this difficult time. As we move forward to a new normal, I know that the people at Citizens’ Services will continue to go above and beyond.

With that, I am pleased to take questions.

S. Thomson: Good afternoon, everybody. I appreciate the opportunity to begin the estimates for the Ministry of Citizens’ Services.

Firstly, I want to congratulate the minister on her appointment to this position and let her know that we fully understand the importance of this ministry with its direct interface with so many of our citizens in British Columbia. A very, very important role and important ministry, and one that sometimes, or in a lot of cases, flies under the radar in terms of the things that they do and they support. So I’m hoping, during our process here, that we can bring some of this out.

Just to let the minister know, we will be sharing the questions with my colleague MLA Stewart, who is the co-critic for the ministry. Hopefully, we can manage that. We will be having a couple of interventions from a couple of colleagues, probably just around or after five o’clock. We’ve scheduled those, and we’ll let you know when that intervention is going to come. They’ll have a few questions each — just a couple of the colleagues at that time.

To let the minister know our schedule, we’re going to spend the first part of questions on budget issues and general operational issues — COVID impacts and those kinds of areas around the budget. Then move into connectivity and the connectivity programming and agenda. Then into privacy and the privacy issues — cybersecurity concerns. Then some questions around Service B.C. and its operations. Then we will have a section or an area around the FOI responsibilities of the ministry.

Our anticipation is that, given the time that we’ve got today — with, essentially, a couple of hours here for today — some of this will move over to the 16th when we return to estimates. So our anticipation is that the FOI portion of our questions would not take place until we return on the 16th. So if there are specific FOI staff that you have waiting and available, we probably…. In fact, I know we won’t be getting to those today, so some people might be able to sneak home just a little bit earlier today, on a Friday afternoon.

[4:30 p.m.]

That’s the agenda. We look forward to getting the questions started. I appreciate the minister’s opening comments.

We had a technical briefing from your staff — we really appreciate having that opportunity — and went through a lot of the budget ’20-21 that was tabled. I think it was very clear in that discussion, as has been the case in other estimates, that the budget tabled is not the budget that the ministry is, and will be, operating with. There are going to be significant changes to the line items and to the operational areas of the ministry as a result of the role and the response to COVID.

The first question. During the technical briefing with your staff, we were advised that there are a lot of costs and fiscal pressures on your ministry in terms of responding to the COVID pandemic. I’m wondering if the minister initially, to begin with, could advise where those cost pressures are — the divisions or the operational areas that are facing the most significant fiscal challenges in responding in terms of the budget — and if she could quantify those cost pressures to date.

We’ve had a quarter — April, May and June. Given the fact that there has been significant engagement with the Ministry of Finance on this, it would be our understanding that those cost pressures are known, identified and quantified at this point. That would be our opening question. If the minister could provide some comments and some information there, in terms of cost pressures and fiscal pressures on the divisions, and quantify those if she can.

[4:35 p.m.]

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

For 2020-2021, the ministry is working closely with the Ministry of Finance to ensure that costs related to the COVID-19 response are managed within government’s overall fiscal plan. Costs incurred by Citizens’ Services will be a combination of costs recoverable from other ministries and those funded within the Citizens’ Services voted appropriation. Citizens’ Services will continue to work with the Ministry of Finance to monitor COVID-19-related costs throughout the fiscal year.

S. Thomson: Yes, recognizing that there were some costs incurred in the previous fiscal year, based on the timing of the start of the pandemic, I wonder if the minister — just in terms of one part of this question; I know it’s not in these estimates — would have an indication what that amount was that had to be absorbed within the ministry’s general operating for that current fiscal year.

Then the second part. Going forward, you’ve said that some of it will be cost-recoverable, that some of it might have to come from voted appropriations and that some may come from government’s overall fiscal response. That’s a general answer. It doesn’t answer the question around quantifying those amounts at this point and the question of where, within the operating divisions, those cost pressures are being incurred.

If you have to absorb them within operating portions of your ministry, which are the ones that are facing the most significant impacts? Can you quantify the amounts? To this point, you’ve said that you’re monitoring them. There are active discussions with the Ministry of Finance. If they’re being monitored, they must be known, even if it’s obviously not a final total, for sure. This is an evolving situation, but if you’re monitoring them, you should be able to have an estimate, by the key divisions within your ministry, of those impacts on a quantified basis.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: The costs incurred in 2019-2020 that were absorbed were $700,000. We’re currently tracking what we’ve been spending right now, and it’s a work in progress.

I just wanted to say that right now the pandemic is still going. It’s only been three months into this fiscal year. So we are working through this as we are speaking right now. We’re working with ministries on what we can recover from them and also figuring out what we can absorb.

Finally, I just wanted to emphasize, again, that we’re working with Finance to estimate the remainder.

B. Stewart: My colleague’s computer has been giving him technical difficulties. So I’m going to take our next question.

Thank you, Minister, for that response. You may have had some impacts prior to your fiscal year-end. While not the direct focus of these estimates, we’re just wondering about impacts on services and programming, especially with the shutdown of the province in the middle of March that may have curtailed an order to deal with this, whether it’s hiring, employee replacement, capital investment or systems upgrading.

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

[4:45 p.m.]

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

S. Thomson: My apologies for whatever technical issue just happened. Hopefully, it doesn’t happen again.

Just going back to the line of questioning previously…. Thank you to the minister for the answer around the last fiscal year, recognizing that it didn’t have an impact on operations and things. But again, we know the situation is continuing. We know it’s evolving. But the core of our question…. This has been a theme through the other estimates, where ministers have not been forthcoming in terms of being able to provide us with quantifiable or specific information on the fiscal impacts of the current situation on their ministry operations to date.

With all the information that is in the discussions and the briefings, and even in the direction from the Minister of Finance that ministers are accountable vis-à-vis this funding, these amounts, it’s our view that at this point they should be able to provide the information on two things: where the major cost impacts are in the core operations of the ministry — and the minister outlined, in her opening comments, all the various work that Citizens’ Services is doing in helping respond to the COVID crisis — and an estimate, to date, of those costs.

The minister has said that they’re monitoring them — monitoring means calculating and knowing what those numbers are — and that there are ongoing discussions with the Minister of Finance and ongoing discussions with other ministries in terms of looking for some recoveries of those costs. So in terms of recovering costs, you must know what those costs are that you’re trying to recover from other ministries, if you are.

Again, the question would be: could the minister provide the information on the key areas where the cost impacts are occurring and a quantity, or a quantitative number, in terms of what those specific impacts are? I think it’s important to get a sense of where those impacts are, what the numbers are. And if there’s not recovery from the other ministries, depending on how they’re being impacted, and in the allocation of funding from the COVID response funding…. There are obviously lots of pressures on that.

It is important for us to know that if the ministry has to absorb a good portion or some of those costs, in quantifying those, then it has the potential for impact on operations and services currently provided by the ministry. The numbers that are in the current ’20-21 budget that was tabled are obviously going to be significantly different than the ones that we will be seeing when accounts are provided.

[4:50 p.m.]

It’s clear that the budget that was tabled is not the numbers that are going to be there for the specific ministries unless there’s a direct offset of everything that was being incurred that wasn’t planned on pre-COVID.

Hon. A. Kang: A lot of the responses that Citizens’ Services had during COVID-19 are within existing operations. We have made several purchases. For example, things such as cleaning supplies and PPE, some technology to support remote work, as well as building the COVID-19 website and the call centre.

[4:55 p.m.]

The items that we purchased and the things that we did were on behalf of government. Some of these items will be recovered by the ministries.

To give an example of how we are operating within the budget, we have 65 Service B.C.s around British Columbia, and we remained open during this time. It wasn’t doing anything different. We just pivoted to a different way of offering services to make sure that all citizens are supported during this time.

The long answer short is that a lot of our responses were done during COVID-19 and were within existing operations.

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

The technical briefing advised us that there were significant cost pressures on components of the ministry. What I’m hearing from the minister is either one of two things. One is that she is saying that it’s all going to be absorbed within the existing operating budget as tabled in 2021, which would lead to the conclusion that there is going to have to be some impact on services and operations of the ministry because the budget was provided prior to COVID. Or they’re counting on recoveries and a share of the COVID response fund.

Can I ask the minister: has there been any allocation of the notional allocation of the COVID response funds, the $1.5 billion that is currently left in the COVID response funds, to the ministry? Has there been any allocation, any notional allocation, and if there has, how much of that money has currently been spent?

Hon. A. Kang: The $1.5 billion economic restart fund…. The process has just been announced by the Premier. So the process is still open. We’re participating to ensure that Citizens’ Services can contribute in the best way possible to this important initiative.

It is an ongoing process, and no notional funding at this time.

S. Thomson: Can I ask, maybe just to try to get a little bit more specific here, and to see, to probe here: will the COVID situation have any impact on the ministry’s current capital plan that is outlined in their budget?

[5:00 p.m.]

There is $333 million in capital expenditures in the plan. Has the COVID situation impacted any of that capital spending in terms of projects’ timing, projects being deferred? Any detail or information that the minister could provide there?

Hon. A. Kang: We are not anticipating any major impact. It’s still early on. The pandemic is still occurring. We’ll continue to be monitoring the situation very closely. For example, there are no impacts in our construction projects.

Related to other COVID costs, similar to my response before, the ministry is working very closely with the Ministry of Finance to ensure that costs related to the COVID-19 response are managed within the government’s overall fiscal plan, and any costs incurred by Citizens’ Services will be a combination of costs recoverable from other ministries and those funded from within Citizens’ Services’ voted appropriation.

My ministry will continue to work with the Ministry of Finance to carefully monitor the COVID-19-related costs throughout this fiscal year.

S. Thomson: Thanks for that response. I note that one of the significant portions of the capital costs is within the office of the chief information officer, so not a construction project. I take it, from the minister’s answer, that they’re not anticipating any impact on that capital portion of the chief information officer, which is capital. It is primarily in systems and data protection, and that side of it, and upgrading systems. Hopefully, there’s no impact there.

We’ll ask again around the recoveries. There is, within the ministry, a very significant amount, over $200 million, in recoveries for the operational divisions of the ministry.

[5:05 p.m.]

Can the minister advise where she sees the potential for the…? The minister said they’re looking to get recoveries from other ministries and external sources. Where are the major, significant risks in meeting those recovery targets that are currently in the 2020 budget?

Hon. A. Kang: In terms of recoveries, we are anticipating to meet our targets. We could actually see increased recoveries because of the work we are doing on behalf of other ministries. So we do not see any risks in this area.

S. Thomson: I thank the minister for that response. Hopefully, that’s the case.

Just to ask one further question on the potential impacts here. Does the minister anticipate that there will be any impacts to the service plan performance measures and targets that are in the current service plan from the impacts of managing the COVID response within her ministry in the areas that she has responsibility for? Any impacts on the targets and the measures that are currently set out in the service plan?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: We do anticipate that we will be meeting all of our targets in our service plan.

S. Thomson: I’m going to turn over some questioning here to my colleague. But just to say, at this point, I’m disappointed that the minister has not been able to provide the answers to the basic questions that we asked off the top: where are the greatest pressures, and can the minister quantify that amount, to date, within the ministry?

The minister has indicated that they’re closely monitoring it, that they’re working with the Ministry of Finance on it, that they’re working to see what will be able to be recovered from other ministries — obviously planning, even though it’s an evolving situation, around what may have to be adjusted within the operational divisions of the ministry in order to deal with this.

It would seem to me that that number, even on an overall basis — or at least by the divisions that have the greatest pressures, cost pressures, and risks — compared to the numbers that have been tabled in the ’20-21 budget, would be known at this point and should at least be able to be quantified and estimated to this point. It’s surprising that that’s not the case. Just as my colleagues in other estimates have indicated, it’s a surprise to them, as well, that those figures are not forthcoming, clearly, at this point, given what must be….

I know within the Ministry of Finance, within the ministries, senior financial officials are monitoring and tracking those numbers and costs. So it is surprising that we are not able to get those answers.

With that, I’ll turn the microphone over to my colleague for some questions around connectivity and that part of her budget.

B. Stewart: I just want to thank the minister again. I want to just talk a little bit about connectivity. I think that there’s no question that in the last 120 or so days, we have found out the importance of connectivity, and we’re living the dream right now.

Minister, in your mandate letter, written on February 11…. You were appointed some five months ago, to the day almost. We were talking about how your mandate was eight points: “Continue to expand connectivity to communities throughout the province to support new economic opportunities and improved access to government services.”

Now, in our pre-briefing, we were advised that there was a change happening and that connectivity was being shifted over to the Ministry of Economic Development and Competitiveness. I guess the obvious question is: what is the rationale behind that? Once this is done, how are we going to reconcile what the budget numbers are that are being moved over in terms of staff and budget for this change?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: We anticipate an upcoming change. But for now, the budget remains in Citizens’ Services. Government regularly evaluates where functions best fit, so anticipating change recognizes the importance of connectivity to economic growth.

We will be getting more details. Details will be worked out later.

[5:20 p.m.]

B. Stewart: Thank you, Minister. I guess I’m looking at…. I mean, I know that they make regular changes, but I’m not quite certain about the rationale on this, especially when it is a top priority in your mandate letter and they’re taking that away from the ministry.

I think the current pandemic situation, as I suggested before, has clearly demonstrated a need for enhanced broadband and cellular service. I guess what I’m wondering about is: can the minister confirm that there are no provisions in the budget that we’re debating for additional capital to meet connectivity needs in the province, given the greater online processes for access to services, engagements and online education?

Hon. A. Kang: I would like to recognize that connectivity is a huge priority for our province. The connecting British Columbia program funds the connectivity projects, and that funding is held within the Northern Development Initiative Trust. There is still funding available currently.

To answer the member’s question, there’s no funding added to this process. There’s no new funding.

B. Stewart: Considering how much the world has changed in the last 120 days, is the ministry not advocating for additional funds to help connect rural communities in British Columbia that still don’t have connectivity?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: There is $36 million still available through this program. New federal funding will also be coming available, and we are looking to have that funding allocated through the remaining fiscal year.

I would also like to emphasize that I will always be advocating for connectivity funding.

B. Stewart: Thank you, Minister, for your comment there and that number.

I want to go to the minister’s service plan and, on page 9 of the service plan, objective 3.1. This is a performance measure. “High-speed Internet is expanded with increased bandwidth in rural and Indigenous communities.” It talks about the expansion and the reason for this and the partnership, like you mentioned, with the Northern Development Initiative Trust.

The question that we’re a little bit perplexed by is that the metrics are to be determined, in terms of what it is that the goal is. Now, I don’t know if that’s something that…. You must have it by now. You certainly know how important it is. So could we get the performance measure for 3.1 in your service plan, please?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: For 2019 to 2020, the forecast is 479 communities, and in 2020-2021, the target is 525 communities. But I would also like to note that the member perhaps has the previous service plan, so I will make sure my staff sends the updated one to you.

B. Stewart: Well, Minister, just so you know, I printed this service plan off last night off of the government website. So there are more places than just me that don’t have the correct service plan.

I want to introduce my colleague from Chilliwack-Kent, who has some questions on this particular issue.

L. Throness: Minister, I have five remote areas in my riding that have little to no Internet service. Under phase 3 of the connecting B.C. program, which was announced on June 1 by a government press release, the government gave Internet providers just 30 days for all work to be completed by June 30 in order to get a grant.

One operator in my riding, who was interested, didn’t even bother applying, because he didn’t think he could get a tower built and other equipment installed in just a month. I find this very frustrating.

My question is: why did the government set a deadline of June 30 to apply to expand really necessary rural Internet services? That was too short a window for operators to move. That impedes improvements to several of my communities who lack service now.

I have one question in follow-up after that.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: The member is referring to the special COVID-19 intake that was created rapidly to enhance connectivity in rural communities, and that intake was very specific to projects that could be completed quickly.

I do have some very good news for the member and his community. There is a program that is still open for project applications, such as the ones that he has described that are more complex, with ample time to submit proposals. So I would really recommend that the member work with his community and with telecoms.

The good news is the next…. It is a rotating intake, and it will always be open until the fund is exhausted. This rotating intake is quarterly, and the next deadline is September 15. But they can continue to apply for this program, because there are still funds available.

L. Throness: Thank you, Minister. I have no further questions.

D. Barnett: I live in a rural and remote region, and Northern Development Trust, of course, has looked after broadband projects for a long time — the previous government and this government. This year — I think it was earlier this year — there was $40,000 put into NDIT to administer for projects.

Those projects were not new money. It was old money, but it was to redirect it. Many remote communities have received broadband, but it has gone past miles and miles and miles of homes and subdivisions who were not hooked up to it, and it was through Telus.

Can you tell me, to the minister, when people who have got the fibre optic line going down their roads will be able….? Will the ministry support them being hooked up? Many of them had children going to school or university. I have written many, many letters to yourself, Minister, and to the previous minister. All I ever get is: “Well, NDIT.” Well, I know NDIT did not direct all those funds.

Minister, when can these people be assured, with the fibre optic that is going past their place, that they will be hooked up?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: First of all, I’d like to set the record straight that no funding was transferred from NDIT for the 20 projects that the member is referring to. The project was funded by the All Nations Trust Co. to connect 13 First Nations that they contracted with Telus.

I would encourage the member to work directly with communities and telecommunication providers to submit a proposal to build on and leverage the investments made by ANTCO to expand available connectivity in her appropriate area. The connecting B.C. program is now accepting applications.

I also would like to emphasize that the federal government has set a target for all households to be connected by 2030.

The Chair: The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin for a follow-up.

[5:45 p.m.]

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister. I have difficulty in accepting that answer. Because we have this $1.5 billion to put into economic development, I would hope that your ministry will have some input and provide funding for these people.

The line goes right past their houses. The line is there. It just needs a hookup. I would hope that your ministry and your government would promote this and move this forward for constituents who really and truly need it — and get it done as quickly as possible. We’ve had fires, we’ve had floods, we’ve got COVID, and we’re still waiting.

Thank you very much, Minister. I look forward to seeing something happen in the very near future.

S. Thomson: Before we move on to some questions around the privacy responsibility of the minister, I just wanted to ask one further budget question in the hopes that maybe I’ll be able to get one specific number in this case.

The minister advised, in her opening comments, that her ministry was responsible for the coordination and the purchasing of all PPE equipment in response to COVID. I expect that this is one where the minister is hoping that there will be some recoveries from other ministries, in terms of some of those costs.

Can the minister advise on the total cost of the purchase of PPEs that has been incurred by the government, through her ministry, and under which operating division that would have occurred? Did it occur under procurement and supply services or another component of the ministry? Can the minister advise on the total cost to date?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: I would like to begin by saying that we understand that there’s a global shortage, and there’s a shortage across Canada as well. This is one of the problems that I have been working on with my colleagues all across Canada, from different provinces and territories.

One of the questions was: which division? This is the procurement and supply division. Since COVID-19, the procurement and supply division has been providing procurement and logistics support to emergency management B.C. Procurement and supply has been assisting EMBC in securing PPE in the middle of the global pandemic and unprecedented supply chain challenges.

The costs for these purchases have not yet been calculated, but my ministry is undertaking these procurements to secure PPE and related supplies for non-health sectors to support B.C.’s restart plan. Supplies could include masks, such as the N95 or surgical masks, and other things such as gloves, gowns, protective goggles, face shields, industrial and general cleaners, bleach, hand sanitizer, and wipes.

The government plans to make the surplus goods available on a cost recovery basis, with prices set to align with fair market value. Our focus will be on providing the surplus PPE and cleaning supplies to public sector entities, including the broader public sector, first responders, local government, First Nations, and social sector organizations.

S. Thomson: To the minister: thank you for that response. Again, it’s surprising that there isn’t a quantifiable number known there. It’s maybe a question that would need to be explored with emergency management B.C., but, again, given that costs are being monitored, the engagement with the Ministry of Finance on it, it still is very surprising that we’re not getting the specific numbers in terms of responses to the questions.

With that, I’m going to move on to the privacy component and some questions around the privacy responsibilities of the minister. Firstly, we know that privacy is becoming more and more important. The minister attended the privacy and freedom-of-information conference in Victoria and, in fact, spoke at the opening of it. I think it was probably the first presentation she made very early on, just after she was appointed as minister. A lot of great information was provided at that conference on privacy protection, threats, risks, cybersecurity, freedom of information processes.

[5:55 p.m.]

As a general question, I’m wondering if the minister could just describe or comment on what steps are being taken within her ministry, within the ministry of the chief information officer, on enhancing government’s protection — protection of data, privacy, the protection against outside threats. Clearly, in this digital world, that’s something that’s growing.

Could the minister provide an overview of what steps are being taken within the ministry and government to address this?

Hon. A. Kang: In response to the member, it was my first Privacy and Security Conference. I want to acknowledge that, also, there were the members of Kelowna-Mission and Kelowna West. They both attended the conference, and they were there at dinner. I’m so glad that we all share the same passion in privacy and security.

The protection [audio interrupted] data and network is a top priority for this government, especially where it concerns British Columbians’ personal information. Government must take steps to protect itself from online attacks, no matter what the source or the strategy. Cybercriminals are becoming increasingly sophisticated. That requires us to be ever vigilant and up to date with technology.

In British Columbia, we have the office of the chief information officer, which provides government with strategic leadership in IT security. Our staff of experts have systems to protect our networks that operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and this includes firewalls, intrusion prevention systems, and anti-virus software. It is also very important for us to be vigilant because many government records hold sensitive information, including the personal information associated with citizens and businesses.

While my ministry works hard to protect the valuable information and work of government, I also want to remind all British Columbians to be just as careful about cyberthreats and to protect their online information. By working together, we can help reduce cybercrime throughout the year.

S. Thomson: Thank you, minister. Clearly, it’s a key area of prime importance for the minister’s responsibilities.

In 2018, there was an internal audit, or review, done of data centre security. There was a summary report provided that talked about the areas that were addressed in the report and recommendations made within the report, but the report was not released due to internal sensitivities contained within that report.

[6:00 p.m.]

There were key areas that were addressed in the report. The audit talked about the need for fiscal and environmental security management, data security management, security incident management, and there were ten recommendations in the report.

Can the minister advise on the status of all of the recommendations that were provided in that report?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: The audit of the 2018 findings included ten recommendations, and we are substantially complete in terms of implementing recommendations from that audit. In terms of the status of each individual recommendation, we will be able to follow up with you perhaps on Thursday, if that’s okay with the member.

We will provide the details on Thursday, but also, I would like to say that the member of Kelowna West did point out that our website was out of date. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The website is now updated.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, and thank you to the member from Kelowna for bringing that to everyone’s attention.

S. Thomson: That’s a quick response on one thing, at least. We will appreciate receiving the detailed information on the response to those recommendations. We can probably just receive that in writing from the minister, because I think on Thursday, given the limited time, we’ll be focusing on some other areas. So if the minister could commit to provide that in writing, that would be appreciated.

One other question that I wanted to ask, and it relates back to the budget. Given the identified importance of data security and protection of privacy in the systems, all the work and the work coming out of those recommendations, can the minister advise why, in the office of the chief information officer, a close to $900,000 reduction in the operating component of the office and over a $3 million reduction on the capital side of that ministry…?

It would seem counterproductive or counterintuitive to see reductions in that part of her ministry, given the increasing importance and increasing threats that the minister commented on in her previous response.

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: In terms of the $900,000 reduction, it’s primarily our portion of the governmentwide operation reductions. The government manages IMIT minor capital investments through a funding envelope. The 2020-2021 IMIT minor capital envelope…. The member is correct. The budget is $110.5 million. It is $3 million lower than last year’s budget. This year government chose not to increase the 2020-2021 envelope due to historical capacities of ministries to manage IT projects.

The reality is that most ministries have been able to spend in past years and have never exceeded $100 million. But I would like to also say to you: rest assured that the critical systems and priorities of the OCIO remain intact.

S. Thomson: I would just ask, as a follow-up, for information, whether the minister — we can provide this request in writing — could provide a breakdown of the projects within that capital funding envelope, within that office.

I’d like to ask one other question of the minister, just to get her perspective on this. As she knows, one of the key areas going forward — particularly coming out of the COVID pandemic response — is on questions and policy and approaches around contact tracing. There’s a lot of discussion, and work is being done at the federal level on, potentially, a contact tracing app that could be utilized.

[6:15 p.m.]

We know of the concerns and the investigation that’s underway, by privacy information offices, around Tim Hortons and how information may be used there in terms of contact tracing. Could the minister provide some comments on her thoughts and perspectives around this and advise on what discussions she is currently having, within the ministry and with her colleagues, through other provinces and federally, around the approach to contact tracing?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: I am aware that my CIO continues to have conversations with other jurisdictions through her work with the federal CIO council. Any contact tracing application would have to comply with our legislative framework, specifically FOIPPA. Any specific questions should be directed to our Ministry of Health, as they are the lead for this. But I am always interested in what other jurisdictions are doing, and we are participating in these discussions. This is a topic that’s near and dear to my heart.

S. Thomson: Thank you, Minister, for the response. This will, obviously, be an ongoing area of important policy discussion within your ministry, within the Privacy Commissioner and within other provinces and jurisdictions in terms of ensuring there’s a harmonized approach to it.

Had a couple of other just quick questions that we would like to ask that we might be able to get in here before our time runs out today. This is around your procurement policy.

One of the suggestions that has come forward…. We’d just like to ask if the minister has given any consideration to this at all, in terms of responding to pressures that businesses are currently under — cash flow issues and things.

So whether the minister has given consideration in the procurement side of things with contracts with small and medium-sized businesses — in terms of being able to, once contracts are provided through that process and through the procurement policy and approach, pay an advance or an initial part of that contract in advance before completion so that the businesses are not waiting until the end of the contract in order to get paid and then having to wait a number of days for final invoicing and everything like that.

So whether the minister’s given that any consideration in terms of assisting the cash flow and liquidity of businesses during this very difficult time.

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: This is certainly a very interesting idea. I have not heard of this idea specifically. This would be an answer…. It’s a financial policy question, and this would be best brought up with Finance.

The Chair: Minister, noting the hour, can I ask the minister to move the motion?

Hon. A. Kang: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture and report progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Citizens’ Services.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee now stands adjourned. All of you, please have a safe weekend.

The committee adjourned at 6:26 p.m.