Fifth Session, 41st Parliament (2020)
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(HANSARD)
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY,
SECTION A
Virtual Meeting
Friday, July 17, 2020
Afternoon Meeting
Issue No. 12
ISSN 2563-3511
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Committee of Supply | |
FRIDAY, JULY 17, 2020
The committee met at 1:34 p.m.
[R. Leonard in the chair.]
Committee of Supply
Proceedings in Section A
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDIGENOUS
RELATIONS AND RECONCILIATION
(continued)
On Vote 32: ministry operations, $47,124,000 (continued).
The Chair: Good afternoon. It’s a pleasure to see you all here, on the screen. I’d just ask members that you wait to be recognized by the Chair before speaking.
With respect to questioning, we will, as always, strive to ensure that all members are afforded the opportunity to participate in debate. It’s helpful to the Chair if members organize the order of questioning amongst themselves so as to limit the number of members seeking the floor at the same time. If several members do seek the floor at the same time, it will remain at the Chair’s discretion to determine which members will be recognized.
D. Ashton: Madam Chair, I’d like to turn the floor over, with your approval, to the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin for some questions.
D. Barnett: Thank you to my colleague from Penticton for the time to ask the minister some questions.
Thank you, Minister, for allowing us to ask a few questions. As you know, I am in the Tsilhqot’in territory. I’m in the land title area. I have a couple of questions around the process and what is happening in the land title area.
My first question. There are people who have been displaced, as you know. Is your ministry one of the ministries that is involved in negotiations for compensation for those that have been displaced in the title area?
Hon. S. Fraser: I thank the member for the question. We’ve been in discussions. I know the member and I have had these discussions over the last number of years. She is well aware of the Supreme Court decision going back to 2014, a landmark decision, 1,700 square kilometres as title area for the first time ever by the courts.
Our ministry has been involved since that court decision, so going back to 2014, certainly before my time and spanning into the previous government’s. Since then, we are continuing the dialogue with the Xeni Gwet’in, with the Tsilhqot’in and with the property owners and tenure holders. That work continues.
D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister, for that response, but I would appreciate the answer to my question. Will your ministry be part of the compensation package, if it is resolved?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. We’re working with both the Xeni Gwet’in and the property owners, and we have been. But there is no property conversation happening with MIRR.
Acquisition. Those discussions are happening between the Xeni Gwet’in and the property owners. To date, that has led to the Xeni Gwet’in acquiring two properties. Those are the conditions right now.
D. Barnett: Thank you to the minister for that answer.
My next question is on the engagement with non-Indigenous people regarding anything that you can disclose on the governance model that I know the federal government and the provincial government are working on with the Xeni Gwet’in for the title lands. The concern is: will the roads and access be turned over to the Xeni Gwet’in in this government’s negotiations, or will they remain with the province of British Columbia?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question.
Public roads will remain public roads. I would note that in the court decision in 2014, roads were not part of the decision. Publicly maintained roads were cited — that they would continue to be publicly available. That’s been our consistent position.
D. Barnett: Thank you to the minister for his response.
The other question that I have is around the triparty agreement that the province and the feds and the Tŝilhqot’in have. I know that you’re into land management negotiations, and maybe this is a question for Forests, Lands and Natural Resources. But as you are the minister, I thought I’d bring the question up to you. If I’m in the wrong department, I’m sure you’ll tell me, and I would appreciate that.
Your triparty agreement, the land management plan that I know is being worked on with the government and the First Nations…. In these negotiations, I know that we’re all trying to settle reconciliation, which is very important to everybody. Everybody would like to see reconciliation done so that we can have some security, and everybody can move on.
The issue of concern is that there is land use on the table that has not been disclosed to the public at large. My question for that is: is there land on the table for reconciliation? If there is land on the table, will the federal government also be putting dollars on the table to help the compensation and the full reconciliation?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. These are good questions.
As I mentioned, the court determined 1,700 square kilometres as title land, and that’s 2014. Subsequently, with the previous government, worked on an accord…. They signed an accord signed by the province. It included commitments to discuss additional lands.
For the member’s knowledge here, no land negotiations outside of the treaty area have occurred. But if they were to, this would be done with transparency, and we’d have a process involving the communities.
D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I have one more question for the minister. I’m switching direction now for the minister.
The northern Secwépemc, as we all know, have been in treaty since the early 1990s, and the last I heard, it was at stage 5. I think I asked the same question last year. How and what has the treaty advanced to in the last year? Is it still in stage 5, or are we nearing stage 6?
Hon. S. Fraser: The treaty status is still in stage 5.
D. Barnett: I have one more question, if I may. The Alkali Lake First Nations, which are also in my riding, are not in the treaty with the northern Secwépemc. I understand that they have been doing negotiations on their own. Are they in negotiations with the province on a package, or, to the minister, can you answer that or not?
Hon. S. Fraser: I thank the member, again, for the question. That’s the Esk’etemc. I got confused by Akali Lake. We’ve got general dialogue there. We work with them with forestry agreements and such, but there is no active land table.
D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister. I will now turn this back to my colleague from Penticton.
L. Throness: Thank you. I appreciate the minister being here today.
I only have one question. It deals with two couples in my riding: Michael and Beverly Prevost and Ed and Andra Tucker. They live in the Chilliwack River Valley in the Slesse Park area. There are three properties with burial mounds on them. The first one was purchased when the property was unoccupied. Those people became saddled with a debt of $200,000, and they couldn’t build on that property. So after much negotiation, Forests and Lands bought them out, and we so appreciated that.
There are two occupied properties next door. They also have burial mounds on them. Mr. and Mrs. Prevost and Mr. and Mrs. Tucker have lived there for a long time, and they have been told now that they really…. Theoretically, they can do anything they want on that property, but technically and practically, there are so many restrictions on them that they really can’t do anything with those properties. Both of them are of retirement age.
I wrote to your colleague the Minister of Forests and Lands last May, and he got back and said that they wouldn’t compensate or buy them out. He said this, though. I want to read from his letter from May 7 of last year. It says:
“The Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation is also aware of this issue, and representatives met with the Prevosts and also the Tuckers and the Ts’elxwéyeqw Tribe in February of 2019. While MIRR does not have the ability to achieve a short-term resolution for them, their negotiating team is exploring a broader approach to support the tribe’s interest in cultural and heritage protection.”
I met with the Stó:lô people as well. They’re very frustrated with the situation because they would very much like to obtain the entire area as sacred space, which the first property is now. It would really make a difference to the Stó:lô people, as well as to the Prevosts and the Tuckers, if we could resolve this through the assistance of the minister’s ministry.
I’m wondering if anything has happened on this issue in the last year. Could the minister update me, and could he give me some suggestion as to what might happen in the future?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thank you to the member for the question.
Yes, my senior staff have been meeting, and they’ve visited the site. They met with the Prevosts and the Tuckers, and there is work continuing there. The member knows — he’s alluded to it already — that these are challenging situations for everyone involved, but I’ll assure the member that we’ll continue to work with the parties, all the parties, to find a resolution to this as quickly as possible.
L. Throness: Just one follow-up question. I appreciate that answer. That’s good news.
There is ongoing, right now, the SXTA negotiations, which involve a number of First Nations, concerning issues up and down the Chilliwack River Valley, and a large land and cash offer has been made. Could this situation be folded into that larger negotiation and be resolved as part of that larger SXTA negotiating table?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks again to the member. It’s an interesting suggestion. I appreciate that he’s providing suggestions towards a solution, and I applaud him for that.
The SXTA is supportive of us finding a resolution, working directly with the Ts’elxwéyeqw and the parties. We will continue to work at finding a resolution, and we’ll look at all options, including the suggestion from the member.
The Chair: Do we have any further questions?
S. Sullivan: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, critic, for allowing me to elbow my way in here.
First of all, it’s wonderful to see the renaissance of First Nations, to see all the incredible diversity and the enthusiasm of all the economic development.
My concern. I want to focus on those who are not First Nations, other non-status Indigenous people and also Métis people. I was reading through the Métis Nation relationship accord too. It was signed in late 2016. There was a commitment to create a secretariat and that each party would commit two members.
I’d like to ask the minister: has this been done? What efforts have been made to breathe life into this MNRA, the Métis Nation relationship accord?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thank you to the member for Vancouver–False Creek for the question. It’s a good question.
There’s still work to be done to implement the accord. But on this specific issue that the member refers to, I would note that my deputy minister and the Métis Nation B.C.’s new CEO spoke earlier this week and committed to getting the secretariat up and running as soon as possible.
S. Sullivan: As I read through the accord, there’s supposed to be an annual meeting with the president of the Métis Nation and the minister. I suppose that that has not happened yet, then. I believe it’s from 2016. So that would be several meetings. If I could get an update on that.
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member, again, for the question.
I myself have met numerous times with Clara Dal Col, the president of the Métis Nation B.C., on a number of issues, including dealing with the declaration act as we were leading up to bringing that into force last November. There’s still work to be done. I’ll be frank with the member. That’s why these discussions have begun with the new CEO and my deputy minister. I recognize that we need to move forward on some of the issues of the accord.
S. Sullivan: Thank you, Minister.
As I read through the agreement, there is a lot of emphasis on the progress report, which would be written by March 31 each year to be put on the ministry website. I guess I assume that the reports have not been made. If that’s true, have any progress reports been made on the issue of the Métis Nation?
Hon. S. Fraser: There is a progress report being developed right now. It’s in draft form. It’s just being confirmed. We are working with Métis Nation B.C. to get that out as soon as possible.
S. Sullivan: That’s excellent news. Thank you to the minister. It’s, I guess, very important that the province of British Columbia should show good faith by acting on the agreement that has been signed.
Can I ask a question about funding? I know that the Métis Nation makes up one-third of all Indigenous people in B.C., but I’m just wondering if the minister could describe how he thinks about funding decisions. Is there a model? Would it be one-third of funding would go to Métis Nations for certain issues? Or is there a hierarchy on how much funding is given based on, perhaps, a different formula? If the minister could enlighten me on that.
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question, again.
Our ministry funds…. We’re responsible for funding what has been agreed to in the accord. That revolves around the governance of Métis Nation B.C. and the work that they do. The last fiscal I think it was around half a million dollars.
Besides that, there are various ministries that are working with the Métis on a number of initiatives that are reflective of their ministries. There’s funding that’s specific to those various ministries, but I don’t have the numbers of what those are for and how much they are, I’m afraid. They’re just not accessible to us right now.
S. Sullivan: Thank you, Minister.
I was looking through the budget documents, and I was trying to find how much was committed to the Métis Nation relationship agreement. I didn’t find that. I don’t know. It might be in a different fund. For example, I know the recent gaming funds that were allocated to Indigenous People. How much of that was allocated to the Métis?
Hon. S. Fraser: The funding from our ministry, MIRR, is from our core funding. That would be for the governance funding that has been agreed to in the accord.
The gaming revenue-sharing initiative that we began last year — it should continue for 25 years — is solely First Nations–focused. There are no funds designated for Métis in that funding stream.
S. Sullivan: Can I ask why that would be? I guess that’s what my previous question was trying to get at. Is there a hierarchy of Indigenous People that the minister generally uses to think about these issues? Where does, for example…? Certainly, the Métis Nation — where would that fit? Also, non-status Indians, according to the Indian Act, and urban Aboriginal People. How do they fit into that kind of funding?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. It’s a good line of questioning.
Just for the record, the modelling that was arrived at for the revenue-sharing from gaming was…. It’s been a long-term issue. The First Nations Leadership Council has been actively involved in promoting B.C., joining most of the other provinces that have already embarked on revenue-sharing with First Nations. This has been a long-term issue.
I got elected in 2005, and it was one of the first issues that…. I remember meeting with Grand Chief Joe Hall of the Stó:lō. He was involved in the First Nations Gaming Commission that came out of the work done by the Leadership Council.
When we started, just a couple of years ago, working on this formally with the First Nations Gaming Commission, what was determined…. We looked at various models that were out there across the country, and the Ontario model was largely what we mirrored our model in British Columbia on, because it seemed to be the most effective, providing the most benefit for the First Nations communities in that jurisdiction. So it was agreed to by both to head in that direction. That’s how we arrived at that.
That being said, we very, very much value our relationship with the Métis people, of course, including non-status and off-reserve Indigenous people. And in working with the Métis, valuing that relationship besides the accord…. The reason that the discussion happened, coincidently this week, between the new president and my deputy was to actually energize that relationship, I think, in a way that it hasn’t been before. That was agreed upon, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do.
S. Sullivan: I should let other members take a role here, but perhaps just a final basket of questions. The minister can respond to the ones that he’s most able to.
I guess, on the funding, it does seem that there is kind of a hierarchy of Indigenous People. I know that as far as the constitution is concerned, there is no hierarchy and that we should try to treat all Indigenous People equally. I guess, when I think about other things…. For the Métis people, Michif is the language, and I’m not sure if there is much support for that language.
Also, just another point. Some areas are looking at special economic zones for the Métis Nation or for non-status Indians. I’m just wondering if any of those have been considered by the minister.
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks, again, to the member.
The accord, of course, spans back to 2016 and was built together with the Métis. It’s what we use as our guide, both parties, to find out what embodies the priorities and issues that the Métis want to talk about or work on. Language was not part of that accord. I know that spanned into the previous government, but that was not part of that accord.
As I mentioned, we’re recognizing — both Métis Nation B.C. and our ministry — that we need to energize this process and re-engage and look at priorities. If the priorities change and language has become an issue, Michif is, of course, very…. I’ve been to a number of Métis Nation events, and it’s a beautiful language. It’s part of such a rich Métis culture. We’re open to that. But for now, it has not been part of the priorities through the accord.
S. Sullivan: Thank you very much.
D. Ashton: The next up we have, who has asked for some time, is the member for Peace River North.
D. Davies: Yes, good afternoon. Thank you, Minister, for taking some questions here. I hope everything’s well.
First of all, I want to start…. I’ve got a few questions here, most of them around the TLE, treaty land entitlement, process that is going on up here in the northeast.
I appreciate that the ministry has hosted some public meetings. I’m sure that you’ve received word that they have been very well attended. I have had the chance to attend, I think, most of them. Of course, full houses. So I definitely appreciate it. I know the people certainly appreciate having a say and having their voices be heard. I want to extend that thanks on behalf of the residents to the minister.
Of course, with that being said, it has raised many questions, as well, around the process. I’ve just got a few questions here. First, there is a committee that was formed a number of years ago. It’s an independent committee run by a few folks up here. I know you know the names Andy Ackerman and Jim Little. They’ve been instrumental in producing this public engagement that the minister is now part of.
I guess one of the questions is that they have been asking the ministry to see the recommendations that have come out of some of these meetings, asking the local and regional staff for these recommendations before they go to cabinet to be discussed. They’ve been asking to have what this is going to look like. They’ve been told, time and time again, that it’s cabinet confidentiality. Of course, these recommendations are coming from these public consultations being put forward.
The committee is hoping to have their eyes on what these recommendations would be like. I’m just looking to see if the minister can commit to the stakeholders group that these recommendations, before they go to cabinet, will be brought forward to the committee.
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. I’m very familiar with the issues, and I very much appreciate him. We’ve talked before on these issues.
I just want to, first off, thank those full houses, the attendees. Their involvement is important, and I very much respect that. We did commit that the attendees would receive a what-we’ve-heard report or a meeting summary, in essence, prior to any decisions being made.
My understanding is that report will be available very soon. It’s almost ready. The input that we’ve received from all of those people in the region who took the time to come out to these meetings is being compiled. It’s almost complete.
The member touched on it. First of all, there have been no final land decisions made. This is still work ongoing. I think I know the two specific pieces of property that are probably of most interest. The member and I have talked about that before, but there has been no decision made yet. The information that was compiled, that he’s referring to, through these meetings, will be provided. That will, in essence, be part of the rationale, I think, as we move it forward through our government processes.
D. Davies: Thank you, Minister, for that.
I understand that minutes will be shared and distributed. But minutes of what happened at the meeting, I think, are only one piece of the question that folks are asking and wanting to see. The understanding, certainly, at the meetings was that there would be recommendations done by the local and regional staff of the ministry that would be put forward to yourself and the ministry and cabinet at large.
I guess that is what the people want to see — what the local staff is putting forward as recommendations to cabinet. That’s what we’re hoping to see. So I just wondered if the minister would be able to commit to that today.
Hon. S. Fraser: I think the number of people that have shown up at these meetings is a testament to their stewardship, their interest in their homes and their land. I understand that, I appreciate that, and I respect that.
It’s also a testament, I think, to the transparency that we’ve been able to bring and achieve in this process, which I think is essential also. I would note that there’s also First Nations involvement in some of these discussions and outreach that has been happening, which I think is also essential.
The work is happening. I think some barriers are breaking down, or silos, as I’m hoping they are within our own government. I just want to be clear that the regional staff are listening closely to this, and they’ll be making their recommendations at some point to cabinet, around the land issues. Again, I don’t have any discretion on recommendations to cabinet. There are rules in place that I must adhere to as far as cabinet confidentiality, and those kinds of recommendations would fit under that category.
D. Davies: Like I say, we certainly hope that we get a chance to see these recommendations prior to decisions being made. Hopefully, I’ll look forward to seeing those.
Another question. It all comes out of the public meetings that were had recently as well as, as you can imagine, numerous emails and phone calls received by my office from residents. The TLE. You had alluded to it — the two properties, of course, Red Creek and the Charlie Lake lands — regarding the Blueberry River First Nations and that process. There has been significant opposition at these public meetings, as well as through letters to the editor locally, and so on and so forth.
Recently now we’ve seen some turmoil within Blueberry River First Nations as well. I know that the minister is very aware of what’s happening within the leadership and some of the challenges. The petition. Sixty-three percent of the members of the Blueberry River First Nations are calling for the resignation of the Chief. I know that’s going through a process, and I understand that there have been some recommendations brought back.
With that all being said, has the ministry taken into consideration all of this turmoil and opposition from within the general public, as well as the opposition from a majority of the members of Blueberry River First Nation, to re-evaluate the properties that I previously mentioned?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thank you, again, to the member for the question.
I am aware and the province, of course, is aware of the Blueberry River First Nations leadership issues that are happening right now and the contesting that’s happening from some community members and councillors as well. At this time, we are continuing to work with the current elected chief and council as this process unfolds, and we’ll abide by any final determination from official community leadership.
The member must know also that these discussions have been going on…. It must be 15, 16 years, well back in time. So they are very well developed.
I think, also, it’s important to know that the Blueberry River First Nation settlement and land agreement must be ratified through a majority vote by community members, regardless of leadership, for the settlement to be finalized. So it’s within the length of time that this has been worked on. There is a process around the controversy over leadership, but there is, I think, a strong rationale for still moving forward, being mindful of what might unfold but knowing that we have a process that would require the majority of the Blueberry River residents and community members to vote on.
D. Davies: Thank you to the minister for that.
Minister, one final question. It’s kind of, actually, on behalf of myself and my colleague from Peace River South, as it certainly generally covers the entire northeast, around TLE again.
One example specifically is the Saulteau First Nation, sites around Moberly Lake, very specifically. There are other sites: Carbon Lake, Moose Lake near Tumbler Ridge. There have been many rumours, of course, that have floated around, around access. These recreation sites have been in regular use forever by the public, of course, including First Nations, for recreation, as well as a number of residents. There are a number of residents around the Moberly Lake area.
There is a lot of angst around, first, if the public will continue to have access to these recreation sites and these lakes. Secondly, I think the bigger concern is the residents that live around these lakes having their access limited, forcing residents to drive many, many miles around to different access points that they would not have to do, as a result of the TLE settlements. Your local staff, Dale Morgan, was asked this question publicly. He could not even give a straight answer.
I guess what residents and the general public are looking for is a commitment from the minister that first, these recreation sites and these lakes will continue to have public access and, as well, that the residents that live in some of these remote areas will not be dramatically inconvenienced by having to make these incredible alternate routes to get to their homes.
People are looking for some sort of security and to be assured that things will remain the same. So I’m just looking to see if the ministry and the minister can give that commitment, please.
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for these questions. I very much appreciate them.
The parcels that the member is referring to are in the very, very early stages of discussions. Public access has been raised already, though, and it’s certainly important to us. Public access will be protected. I would also say that the Saulteau themselves are committed, in our discussions with them, to that public access too.
Suffice it to say, it’s very, very early days in these discussions. There will be a lot of community work that will follow as this unfolds.
P. Milobar: Thank you to the member for Penticton for finding time for me to slot into his estimates.
A couple of questions for the minister. We have a situation in my riding that started about two or 2½ years ago. It started in Clearwater with a group called the Tiny House Warriors. They were moved out of that provincial park. They moved on to a piece of Crown land in Blue River. They’ve been there now for over two years.
They go up to Valemount from time to time. They cause a lot of disruption in the town. They scream, and they yell. They drive people out of the campground, a private business right next door, continually. People cannot stay overnight. If the minister is unsure of that, I invite him to come to Blue River and spend a night or two in the campground and get the full experience, if he would like.
The town of Blue River has tolerated this for two years. They are fed up with the Tiny House Warriors. In fact, their area director for the regional district today got the regional district board to agree to fire off a very stern letter to the Premier, demanding a face-to-face meeting with the Premier.
The two area Chiefs, duly elected Chiefs, both from the Simpcw as well as the Tk’emlúps, have issued statements very strongly against the Tiny House Warriors, making it very clear that they do not represent their views. The Chief of the Simpcw has made it very clear that they feel that they are being left out in the cold by the government, because they fully supported the Trans Mountain pipeline project, and this government, very obviously, does not.
What discussions has the minister tried to engage in with this protest group and with the community of Blue River to try to find some resolution? I want to be very clear to the minister, because I’ve heard other answers today, that I’m not asking questions about policing, and I’m not asking questions about Crown prosecutions. I will save those for the Attorney General and the Solicitor General.
I am specifically asking the Minister of Indigenous Relations what direct action his ministry has taken to try to actually bring some peaceful resolution to this problem that’s been ongoing for 2½ years now, all the way from Valemount down to Clearwater, for the residents of that corridor, along a project that his government does not support.
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. The request for formal engagement has only been received recently from the Simpcw. It was this week, I believe. We’ll take that meeting, our ministry will, and we will follow up with them.
P. Milobar: Well, Minister, this has been going on for two and a half years. The community itself, Blue River, has been making requests for the government to step in for over a year, for sure. I understand that the Simpcw have just made their formal request, but the community itself has asked for government to intercede in one way or another.
What I’m hearing from the Indigenous Relations Minister is that although the community has been calling out for the better part of over a year for some sort of discussion to even happen, which one would assume would come from the Indigenous Relations Ministry for discussion purposes, with the protesters, no action was going to be taken until a Chief — very publicly, in a very public meeting — called out the government for lack of action and followed it up with unprecedented media stories with the neighbouring Chief about the lack of action from government, and citing, in that very public meeting, and as cited many times, that the Tiny House Warriors do not represent the Simpcw. They do not represent the Tk’emlúps. They do not have permission from either nation to be there protesting.
The town does not want them there protesting any longer. Many people in the valley, from Valemount all the way down to Clearwater, feel that this is a direct result of the government taking a lack of interest because of the remoteness of the location but also because it’s a protest around the Trans Mountain pipeline, which this government has vowed to use every tool in the toolbox to stop.
Earlier today I had to listen at length to the minister justify Nathan Cullen being hired on to make sure that discussions happened between the community itself and the Wet’suwet’en people and to provide that space for discussion by seeing similar types of scenarios along a project that the government did approve of, a contract that, as the minister said, was reasonably average. I would hate to know what the top end of reasonably average is, if Mr. Cullen is in the average. That must mean there are a whole lot of consultants getting paid a lot more money than even what Mr. Cullen is getting paid.
To the Indigenous Relations Minister, how much budget and how many dollars are they expecting to budget to try to resolve a dispute that has been going on for more than two years now and has actually been percolating in the background long before the encampments actually got set up?
Hon. S. Fraser: There’s a lot covered in that question. Our ministry just received a formal engagement, a letter. I told the member that we’ll take that meeting, and that’s with respect and recognition of the nations involved. We will follow up with them.
P. Milobar: The question is that the community itself, the community of Blue River, has been asking for engagement for well over a year from this government. The community of Blue River has been asking for, at a minimum, dialogue, an intermediary between the protesters and the community. The government has ignored that completely, at the same time going out and spending an exorbitant amount of money, in my opinion, to hire NDP insider consultants to work at very healthy wages.
That may be considered what’s in the norm. Certainly, there must be some sort of NDP insider that could be hired as a consultant over the last year and a half to have helped the people in Valemount down all the way through to Clearwater to at least have some discussions.
Is the minister saying that there will only be discussions with the Simpcw, and there will not be discussions with the town or the protesters?
Hon. S. Fraser: I would remind, again, to the member, that the government just received requests for formal engagement this week. I did say that we will take that meeting, and we will follow up with them. The issue has been in place for a couple of years now.
I know that other ministries — FLNRORD, Parks, Municipal Affairs and Housing — and my ministry have been involved in informal dialogue, with the communities that the member has cited and with the nations, over that two-year period. We have just received a request for formal engagement. We will take that. If the member has knowledge of criminal activity in the meantime, or any public safety issues, that needs to be addressed through the RCMP. I would urge him to do that.
P. Milobar: Well, the cold reality is this. In the first answer that the minister said, he didn’t indicate that he’d had even back-channel or quiet conversations with the communities, with the protesters or with the nations. That would have been appreciated in the first answer when I first asked if there had been any dialogue taken.
Secondly, the community is fed up with the advice of: “Phone the RCMP.” They phone the RCMP, and the RCMP’s hands are tied because the Crown won’t move forward with any charges. Missing in all of this is the Indigenous Relations Minister, who at the same time is making sure that large contracts for consulting go out to try to do the exact same thing that this valley is being asked for. This valley is being asked to be treated the same way as the minister decided to treat communities in northern B.C., on a pipeline route that the government supported. They are not.
We have eight-year-olds trying to go for a swim in Blue River, on the beach with their parents, being yelled at and called white supremacists and rapists. They turn around and ask their parents: “What is a rapist?” That is the situation Blue River is dealing with on a regular basis.
I do hope that the minister will come up with the appropriate funds to get proper dialogue going, meaningful dialogue going, to see what it is the protesters do or don’t want. The protesters are currently protesting a manned camp that’s not even being built in Blue River, as we speak.
It’s shocking. It sounds like the minister either was totally unaware of this situation over the last two years, which should fall directly into the purview of his ministry in terms of trying to ease relationships between Indigenous nations and other communities, or sat silent if he did know about it. Either way, it’s not acceptable.
The community has been asking for help. They have been asking for help ever since the first encampment was set up in the North Thompson park 2½ years ago. Valemount had a bit of a flashpoint about three weeks ago. One would hope the minister would know about that.
It is simply not acceptable and not good enough. I do hope that the minister today can commit that the same types of resources and dollars that are being expended for Mr. Cullen to write reports that we may or may not get to see will be expended for the residents of Blue River, Valemount and Clearwater.
Can the minister commit to a similar level of engagement and dollars being spent as we’re seeing with the Wet’suwet’en issue up north?
Hon. S. Fraser: We just received, this week, a formal request for engagement from the Simpcw, as I mentioned to the member already. We’re trying to make things move quickly in government sometimes. This is this week. I have committed to the member that we will….
This is the first written request for such a thing. We have had discussions before on this. The request will be honoured. We will take the meeting, and we will commit to following up.
M. Lee: Can I ask, in terms of the implementation of UNDRIP, what role the minister plays?
Hon. S. Fraser: For the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, the role there is the lead role in the implementation of the declaration act. That being said, all ministers in government have a role to play, as clearly laid out by the Premier in our mandate letters that came out at the beginning of our term.
M. Lee: I do have a series of questions about UNDRIP implementation. My next question to the minister is: have there been any decision-making agreements entered into under section 7 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act?
Hon. S. Fraser: Madam Chair, I’m saying no.
M. Lee: During the committee debate, which we remember well, on Bill 41, the member for Abbotsford West and myself asked the minister whether the government would be devoting more people, resources and funds to the implementation of UNDRIP. The minister at that time referred us to this estimate process.
Could I ask the minister…? As there is no funding increase under the ministry’s budget — in fact, there’s actually a decrease — were any resources or funding within the ministry redirected to facilitate the implementation of the declaration?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. What we did in this ministry is we created a new division over two years ago now, the reconciliation transformation and strategies division. The budget is about $2 million a year — just a hair under, I think — and that came out of core budget.
M. Lee: I would just like to ask, then: in terms of the $2 million budget, was there any change in terms of resources, in terms of what was deployed under that $2 million budget, for the development of the action plan? Of course, we received the annual report. There are costs relating to that, as well as the alignment of laws. So what is the plan of that group and expenditure changes to deal with those initiatives?
Hon. S. Fraser: That funding, just around $2 million, is to go towards staff and overhead operations, basically.
M. Lee: Just to clarify, given that this unit was established two years ago, has there been any change to that budget dedicated to that particular division since the passing of Bill 41?
Hon. S. Fraser: To the question, the budget change is, give or take, $22,000 from last year to this year.
M. Lee: Thank you, Minister, for that confirmation. Basically, then, as I understand it, with the $22,000 increase, that’s almost a status quo budget, which means that there really hasn’t been any substantive change — additional resources, funding-wise — added to this division.
In view of that, does the minister believe that the government is meeting the requirement under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act to undertake all measures necessary to align the laws with the declaration?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks for the question. The quick answer is yes.
The unit that we created was…. I think it shows it was appropriately funded. We were just anticipating where we were going with this for the next steps. Really, the next steps are going to involve potentially creating new laws and potentially amending laws. That’s a cross-government responsibility. Various ministries will have their own responsibility for aligning those laws.
M. Lee: I was looking at the annual report. On page 15, at the bottom of that page, there’s reference to ensuring transparency and supporting that, including opportunities for engagement with local governments, stakeholders, industry and labour as appropriate. That statement is somewhat consistent with the minister’s indications during the committee stage on Bill 41.
At this point, given that the report was reporting until March 31, 2020, and now we’re in July, recognizing there’s been very unusual times and challenging times for our province in COVID-19…. Despite that, can I ask what opportunities the government has considered with First Nations for engaging the broader community in this process?
Hon. S. Fraser: In answer, part of the new division involves coordinating with stakeholders and that engagement that needs to happen, and intergovernmental relations, for instance, too, with UBCM and others and local governments — just like in the development of the act itself, continue to engage with all, again, around the annual report. We will continue that work also as we develop the action plan.
M. Lee: I appreciate that there is a lot of complex work and moving parts that need to be brought together on the action plan.
With the response that the minister just provided, will there be an opportunity for those other stakeholder groups, including industry, labour and local governments, to provide comment on the priorities, goals and measures that will be determined as required to be reported on in the annual report under section 5 of DRIPA, the act? Will there be those opportunities for those other stakeholders to provide comment on the action plan?
Hon. S. Fraser: One of the things about the act is the commitment to transparency. I know that the member…. We canvassed this quite a bit in the committee stage.
The work that we did with all sectors, stakeholders, local government, industry, labour, NGOs — across the board — was, I think, quite impressive. That work will continue. That commitment to transparency requires it. We did get recommendations last year from UBCM. We welcome those, and we will be soliciting those, too, as we move forward.
M. Lee: On page 14 of the annual report, there is a reference: “Processes and policy mechanisms are being explored to ensure Indigenous engagement” — this is with the alignment of laws work — “from identifying legislative priorities to developing tools to assess alignment with the UN declaration to new processes for developing and amending legislation in collaboration and cooperation with Indigenous Peoples.”
Can the minister provide a further update on the types of progress and examples of processes that have been done with Indigenous Peoples of our province in the development of legislation, including in this session, as legislation has been tabled in this House, as well as review of existing legislation? Could the minister please provide examples of that work that has occurred?
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question, again. The declaration act itself requires government, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous Peoples, to ensure that our laws, the provincial laws, are consistent with the UN declaration.
I know it’s been used before — I actually don’t like using the term anymore — but it has been described as generational work. The priorities of this requirement have yet to be confirmed. Some guidance has been found through the concrete actions work that we’ve done with the leadership council. That was 2015. And we took that and added to it in 2018.
Under the commitment document and the shared vision, guiding principles, that has helped, I think, guide us, to some extent, around making sure things are consistent — with forestry and child welfare, for instance. The Environmental Assessment Act would be another example of how that works.
We’re early days, and we have a pandemic. It’s not been the ideal conditions. Public service is relying on the ten draft principles that we provided fairly early on. That’s two years ago now too. And public service is becoming much more practiced at including Indigenous input into policy and policy design and legislative work. That sort of thing is ongoing, so we’re developing this. Plans are being developed as we speak, and those discussions are underway right now.
M. Lee: I appreciate that that is ongoing work.
I just want to come back to one part of my question, which relates to the legislation that has been brought, by this government, into the House in this session. I know that, for example, in the second reading speeches that I was involved with, with the Attorney General and the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, they both made comment about the work that was underway in relation to the Emergency Program Act and review, including a modernization of that act.
That’s an example where, at least, government ministers have acknowledged the need to do further work. I would have thought that that work under this DRIPA Act would have occurred prior to the government introducing legislation to amend the Emergency Program Act in the material way that they did in that Bill 19 that came forward.
That’s my question, Minister. For the rest of the legislation that came into the House, was there a similar review — and taking all measures necessary — to ensure that those new laws, as amended, would be consistent with the declaration?
Hon. S. Fraser: Much of the legislation that’s before the House in this session here — as the member knows, laws can take a long time to be created; legislation is complex — was underway well before the introduction of the declaration act, for instance. We were very, very transparent about that as we moved towards the act and as we were working with the leadership council.
First Nations were made aware that we had things in the hopper already. That being said, I think many of those pieces of legislation…. I think the member pointed out that the public service, ministries and ministers are becoming much more attuned to the involvement of Indigenous People when it comes to the development of legislation. I think that’s reflected in some of the work done by Children and Families and the Environmental Assessment Act — those sorts of things that predated the declaration act, but the ministers were very mindful of the spirit and intent of the act that was yet to come.
I think it’s still a work in progress, but we’re developing those processes now to try to bring more consistency to it.
M. Lee: I know that there have been some questions asked about the MOU with the Wet’suwet’en that Canada and this province entered into on February 29, 2020. Section 4, under the section entitled “immediate,” states: “B.C. commits to engage in these negotiations consistent with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.”
Could I ask…? What are the ways in which B.C. is engaging in the negotiations to be consistent with the act?
Hon. S. Fraser: Again, thanks to the member for the question.
I think the MOU helps…. If there is a key issue in it, I would suggest that it’s helping to ensure the support of the nation towards their work on self-determination, which is a central feature of the UN declaration. But crafting the MOU itself was done to reflect and be consistent with the values within the UN declaration. In other words, it’s a lens that we will apply to the work that’s underway.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister.
Members, we’ll now take a ten-minute recess while we undertake cleaning and safety protocols in preparation for a new committee Chair. You’ll be seeing someone new in ten minutes.
The committee recessed from 4:06 p.m. to 4:18 p.m.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
A. Olsen: Thank you very much for this opportunity. I’d like to thank colleagues in the official opposition for giving us this space to ask a few questions. And thank you to the minister ahead of these really incredible responses that are coming, I’m sure.
I’d just like to ask a few questions in and around the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, which came into force last fall, which we voted on and supported last fall, and the work as it starts to now be applied. With respect to that work, a question around how DRIPA will apply to amendments, amending acts that are in place. Then, as well, a question…. Maybe I’ll just start with…. Actually, I’ll ask this as well: how does it apply to amendment acts?
As well, there are a couple of bills, particularly, in front of us right now…. We have heard a considerable amount of concern around a lack of Indigenous consultation or a lack of appropriate levels of Indigenous consultation with respect to some legislation that’s on the papers right now and that we’re debating.
I’m wondering about the minister’s position on that and the questions around whether or not the new legislation that’s in front of us has been adequately consulted and whether that’s a priority.
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the Leader of the Third Party. I appreciate his questions.
The declaration act, as the member knows, is our framework for reconciliation. It creates obligations to ensure that our government’s work today and tomorrow is aligned with the UN declaration. The act requires all of government, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous Peoples, to ensure that provincial laws are consistent with the UN declaration. This also does apply to amendments to laws as well, ensuring that existing provincial laws are consistent with the UN declaration.
It’s a process that will happen over time, not overnight. But ministry officials have been delivering virtual presentations across government on the declaration act and the government’s obligations under that act, as well as supporting the ministries as they develop their legislative proposals. The ministry has also had discussions with Indigenous partners regarding legislative priorities and to discuss how to gather input from Indigenous Peoples on their priority areas for legislation and legislative development or amendment.
The alignment of the new legislation with the UN declaration is one of the key priorities of the declaration act and for government. The work for most of the bills introduced in the current session occurred, as the member may be aware, before the declaration act came into force. This work was guided by ministry mandates to implement the UN declaration and involved consultation with Indigenous Peoples that relied on existing mechanisms.
We know we’ve seen bills come forward here well before our completion of the UN declaration, like the EA, the Environmental Assessment Act, for instance. That actually used, I think, the spirit and intent of the UN declaration, even though we did not have our act in place. But I think it was quite successful.
The declaration act. In effect, the government and our Indigenous partners need to determine an approach for review and also development of legislation that is collaborative, constructive and efficient. We are working on that. It’s underway, and it’s informed by the experiences from the current session. I think we’re getting there and that there’s still work to do, but I’m confident we’ll get there if we work together with the spirit of cooperation.
A. Olsen: We’ve had a few conversations about this time that we’re in right now, which is the time shortly after passing the legislation, and the challenge that that’s going to be. I recognize that there’s going to be some legislation that’s in process.
When I think about some of the amendments that we’re debating right now with respect to energy policy and how encompassing this is in terms of how engaged Indigenous communities have been in this process over a number of years, it seems shocking to me that we would be having the kinds of letters sent to us about the lack of direct consultation about the impact that that would have.
I recognize that we are going to be debating this, but I’m just wondering, from a kind of higher-level perspective: what can the ministry do and what is the ministry doing to ensure that…? You know, there are going to be varying levels of interest in legislation. This one seems to me to be pretty high up there. There are millions of dollars invested. There are directions that Indigenous communities have taken. What is the ministry doing to ensure that these areas of high interest, of course, are not being legislated prior to that important work being done?
Hon. S. Fraser: I think the member knows that we’ve held a number of sessions in government, with ministries and ministers, around how to cooperate and consult appropriately, in keeping with the values within the UN declaration, right through the public service. All the work that we did — it was two years ago now — by introducing the ten principles, was to try to make sure that everyone is educated on the values that we are seeking to display as we move forward with legislation.
The member also has acknowledged that some of these pieces of legislation have been underway for a while. They’ve been worked on for a while and have been introduced in a time that has some challenges with COVID and the pandemic — the issues or the challenges that we’re all dealing with now.
On Bill 17, with Energy, Mines, their bill…. I don’t know the details, but I do understand that the minister has had a process of engagement that is believed to be appropriate under the challenging conditions.
That being said, I know that the member will need to probably ask some of these more detailed questions directly with that minister. I speak with that minister and with other ministers about this all the time. We discuss how we can do this better and what’s appropriate for a level of appropriate consultation and cooperation with Indigenous Peoples. It’s work in progress, but I think we’re moving well along on this. Again, I’ll cite pieces of legislation that have already come forward that, I think, captured the spirit and intent of the UN declaration very, very well.
I appreciate the member’s question, and I look forward…. I’ll tune in also when he asks these questions of the minister. Mind you, he may have already had his estimates; I’m not sure on that. Perhaps we can corner him in the hall together.
A. Olsen: We have, Minister. We’ve had the opportunity to canvass some of these issues with respect to energy and energy policy with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.
Certainly, the appropriate place to discuss the legislation is during the debate of the legislation, and I respect that. However, I am trying to get to just understanding the role that the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation is playing, to ensure that we’re addressing some of these important and difficult situations before they arise. That’s essentially the spirit of the question that I’m asking — not to debate a bill that has a place for us to debate and that will be coming forward for us.
I’m just switching gears here a little bit, Minister, with respect to systemic racism, the issues that we’ve been dealing with in our province over many decades, the issues that were exposed on the front lawns of the Legislature earlier this year — it seems like a much, much longer time ago than it actually was — and recognizing that COVID-19 has, I think, surfaced some anti-Asian racism in the province that has also existed for many decades.
We’re seeing studies that show that Black Canadians are more likely to fall ill during the pandemic, due to racial biases. Indigenous communities in B.C. are facing a health care crisis. We see that most recently in my riding. My riding has been implicated with Island Health in dealing with that.
I’m just wondering. With respect to the issues around systemic racism, we’re dealing with it, seemingly, in a couple different silos right now. Health care. We’re dealing with it in policing; I’m on a committee for that as well. How is the minister working with his fellow cabinet members to address the issues of systemic racism that pervade the institution that we’re a part of?
Hon. S. Fraser: I thank the member for the question. I guess I’d open with acknowledging that systemic racism is real. It exists in this province. That was clearly identified 25 years ago in Canada, in general, through the royal commission on First Peoples: systemic racism within institutions, policing — across the board, really.
The first piece, I think, of addressing systemic racism is acknowledging that it’s real. I would submit that we’re part of a ministry here — all my colleagues, myself — that’s the antithesis of racism: Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.
To be more specific in the answer to the Leader of the Third Party’s questions, as he knows, the Premier came out immediately on the issue within the health care system of systemic racism issues that were raised there. The Premier made an affirmative statement very clearly saying there was no place for systemic racism. The Health Minister stepped up immediately.
Of course, we have a review of that going on. The member is very much aware and involved. Our ministry has provided a staff person to work with Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond on that.
I’m just going to just touch on a few things. I would suggest that important to changing the culture are cross-government issues around, even, the K-to-12 curriculum addressing the realities of our history, which has not been done before; having the first law degree in the world at the University of Victoria, respecting and recognizing Indigenous law. All executives within government took a blanketing exercise, which was very powerful and meaningful and, I think, a game-changer for many people in realization and self-reflection.
Those are some of the things I would touch on for the member.
A. Olsen: Thank you, Minister, for that response.
To my colleague the critic, I’ll ask one more question here and then cede the floor back to you.
Just wanting to follow up. Recognizing the extremely limited amount of time that we have, I’m trying to hit on a couple of areas here. Just to, I think, make the point: dealing with systemic racism shouldn’t be broken into a bunch of sub-systems of a much bigger institution that needs to be addressed in the provincial government and our public institutions. So just wanting to make that point. I certainly do appreciate the response from the Premier and from the Minister of Health and other ministers that have dealt with this.
One final question. Then I’ll cede the floor back. It’s just in the context, again, at a very high level for the minister, with respect to the economic recovery from COVID-19 and just a question around Indigenous-owned businesses, Indigenous partnerships. How has COVID-19 changed the prioritization of the DRIPA action plans? How is the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation assisting Indigenous communities to get the best opportunities they can from the economic recovery and the advocacy that’s happening behind the scenes with the government and other ministries as well?
Maybe touch on that, and I’ll cede the floor. Thank you for your time today, Minister.
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. I know he’s aware that we have been involved in…. Our ministry has been heavily involved in the COVID-19 response, and we will continue to be throughout the recovery period.
We are working with other ministers and other ministries to make sure that the perspectives of Indigenous people and the supports for Indigenous companies and businesses are reflected in our recovery plan. I think that has been made clear across the board. Government and all ministries have responded in that way, and we’ll be seeing the results of that soon, I think, as we move further into the recovery phase.
Also, with that, many nations have expressed a really strong desire to work with government and to partner with government through the recovery phase, to be true partners in the recovery for the whole province of British Columbia. That is, I think, again, another important step that we need to take, with government working closely, with respect and in recognition of the role of Indigenous Peoples, First Nations, in the recovery plan, as a government.
I would also submit, I think…. You don’t get economic recovery, as we’ve seen in other jurisdictions, unless you can actually address the health issues associated with the pandemic. Other jurisdictions seem to be taking a different approach than we are in British Columbia.
I’ll let the member know that there’s ongoing work. There was a call earlier today with…. As the member knows, there are many nations very concerned about the health of their communities, many of them isolated communities. Of course, key issues around elders and protecting them….
We had a very productive dialogue today involving the provincial health officer — Dr. Bonnie Henry was on the call throughout — and the nations that have been raising issues publicly about their concerns about reopening to try to address those concerns, the medical concerns. That will help provide the opportunity and, I think, the space for Indigenous businesses to be able to reopen safely, as other business could too.
You have to deal with the health part. As a ministry, we are working directly and doing our part in those discussions as well.
J. Thornthwaite: I have a question for the minister specific to the addiction services for First Nations people in the north. Unfortunately, I was unable to get to it in Mental Health and Addictions, but I thought, because it is pertinent to First Nations and your file, that you might be interested in this.
I talked to a service provider in northern B.C. His work is predominantly with Indigenous People suffering from addiction. He said: “The First Nations Health Authority will fund a patient to go to private treatment, but they will only give $40 a day. That works out to $3,000 max that they will pay. That’s nothing when we talk about the feeding, housing and treating of a person for eight to 12 weeks.” At the same time, the beds in private facilities remain empty because they’re not funded, and people have actually died waiting for beds.
The service provider continued: “The consequences of addiction do not tend to wait for the bureaucratic process to satisfy itself. Essentially, people are dying every day while they wait for paperwork to be processed, funding to be approved and counsellors to tell them that they are ready for treatment. Our current system needs to be deconstructed and rebuilt based on models that are efficient, effective and reflect the needs of patients, northern lives, Indigenous values and financial responsibility.”
The deaths — and we know this — among First Nations, Métis people and Inuit in B.C. between January and May of this year jumped by 93 percent compared to the same number last year. So my question to the minister is: why is the minister not supporting Indigenous People in the north to get addiction treatment?
Hon. S. Fraser: I thank the member for the question. I understand and empathize with the member in raising this. I want to acknowledge those lives that have been tragically lost, and for their families, my heart goes out. Mental health issues, as the member knows, are complex in the best of times. But during the pandemic with COVID, that has compounded many issues, and I know the member knows that too. The statistics, I think, affirm that too.
I know that the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, my colleague, has a mental health and addictions strategy that she has been developing. The minister responsible has committed to finding solutions — as well as all government, I would suggest — and is actively involved with Indigenous People and communities. Her work with organizations….
The First Nations Health Authority is involved in trying to address the solutions that are so difficult to find during a pandemic. I know that that work continues with haste and with urgency.
I thank the member for the question.
D. Ashton: Minister, thank you for our questions being answered this afternoon and to your staff for answering them.
I’m an accommodating critic. There have been a lot of people that had a lot of interest in your ministry. Unfortunately, I know I’m getting the hook at five o’clock sharp tonight. What I would ask the minister is…. I do have quite a few questions, sir. I could submit them to yourself and to your wonderful staff to have the opportunity for them to be answered as soon as possible.
Hon. S. Fraser: I want to thank the member opposite. My critic has been supportive in much of what we try to do. He’s provided advice in many cases. I respect him greatly, and I will do everything I can to get the answers to those questions to him as quickly as possible. I’d also let him know that I’m available any time he needs to speak with me, personally, and as minister also.
Thank you so much, Dan. I know we’re not supposed to use names, but thanks for juggling a lot of questions in a very short period of time. You did it very well.
The Chair: Members will notice I did not step in and say: “Don’t say ‘you.’” I don’t have so much of a problem with it when people are amiable and friendly, only when we’re getting off-tone with each other, in a sense. So thanks, Members, for making my job easier.
Noting that, I think it will now be the time to move the vote, as I don’t see any other questions for the minister.
Vote 32: ministry operations, $47,124,000 — approved.
Vote 33: treaty and other agreements funding, $39,442,000 — approved.
The Chair: That being done, our business here for the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation estimates is now complete.
Members, we’re going to be moving to another set of estimates, but we will take a ten-minute recess. It’s five o’clock. We will resume at 5:10 to give ministry staff and everybody a chance to get into appropriate places. Thanks, Members.
We are now in recess for ten minutes.
The committee recessed from 5 p.m. to 5:11 p.m.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
JOBS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND COMPETITIVENESS
On Vote 34: ministry operations, $93,116,000.
The Chair: Does the minister have an opening statement?
Hon. M. Mungall: I do. Thank you very much, Chair.
First, I’d like to acknowledge that I am here in Victoria on the traditional territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking peoples, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.
I am in the Oak Room in the Legislature. For those who don’t know where the Oak Room is, it’s on the beautiful third floor. Here with me is my deputy minister, Christine Kennedy, and my ADMs, Selena Basi, James Harvey, Christine Little, Susan Stanford and Joanna White. We have some really excellent staff who are on the line to help answer opposition members’ questions, and we are maintaining good social distancing in this room.
First off, I’d just like to acknowledge that it’s been quite a calendar year, 2020. I think nobody saw this pandemic coming around the world the way it has. It’s been a very mind-boggling time in many, many ways.
Recently we had some pretty big numbers come rolling out with our economic forecast here in British Columbia. We’re forecasting a B.C. government deficit of $12.5 billion. This is on top of unprecedented job loss as a result of this pandemic. But we also see those jobs coming back online slowly but surely as we slowly but surely restart economic activity, as we become more safe and successfully reduce the spread of COVID-19.
With that, let me just take a moment to thank all British Columbians who are watching. I know we don’t have a large audience outside of government. But including all those who work in government, we would not be able to say that we’ve successfully reduced the spread of COVID-19 in this province and be the envy of many jurisdictions around the world, especially in North America, if it wasn’t for people heeding the advice and the guidelines of Dr. Henry and her leadership — the ability for all British Columbians to follow that, especially for small businesses, which had put a lot of risk on the line in terms of their incomes and their ability to put food on their own tables.
If people did not take this as seriously as Dr. Henry asked us to take it and do the things that were needed to do to reduce the spread of COVID-19, we would not have been able to flatten the curve, and we would be in a much more dire situation than we are right now. I want to thank everybody for doing that, because I know it wasn’t easy. It wasn’t easy for small business owners, it wasn’t easy for larger industry, and it wasn’t easy for workers. That they did it is a real testament to the strength and resilience of British Columbia.
I want to thank also all of the people in my ministry, who I have observed from the middle of March, from day one, just working at full tilt, making sure that we had an economic foundation. We knew recovery was going to come; we didn’t know when. It was very difficult, in early spring, to know what the future held, but we knew that we would get to a place of economic recovery.
People in this ministry were working flat out. The concept of overtime didn’t even occur. People are on salary, so being able to collect overtime was not their incentive. It was the duty to British Columbians that brought them to be working, I think, almost around the clock, making sure that British Columbians had that economic foundation, as I said, and that businesses were being supported from very day one. I’m just so grateful that I get to work and to have been a witness to this amazing work that public servants have been doing since March.
One of the things I do want to mention, though, is something that is outside of COVID a little bit, but it’s definitely important in light of COVID: some of the successes that we’ve had. I really want to pull out one, because I’ve seen the success it’s had in my community in Nelson, one of the communities I represent. We expanded the export navigator program to provide free support for businesses owned by Indigenous Peoples, women and youth. I have seen the success of this program and what it meant for small businesses in the communities that I represent, and I know that’s the case all across the province.
I was really pleased that our government could partner with the federal government to deliver this program. It’s not a big-ticket item, one of those big-ticket items that a lot of people talk about, but it’s one that I wanted to just pull out and highlight because it has allowed businesses in small communities to expand their operations and create more family-supporting jobs in our communities. It’s always beneficial for small communities to have those family-supporting jobs, as we know.
Going forward, we know that economic recovery is fundamental to getting us back on track. It’s not going to be a quick fix. It’s going to require long-term, resilient, sustainable growth. That’s why we are taking the time we need to do this right, rather than rushed. We want to make sure that it benefits all British Columbians. That’s exactly why we’re also taking the time to listen to them, hear their ideas and hear their expectations of what they want from economic recovery. Once that closes, we’ll be able to fully ramp up our plan for economic recovery.
As you know, Chair, and as members know, we’ve also been putting programs out as we go along, because we know that certain areas need that support right away, as part of our restart plan.
Finally, Chair, before we get into questions, I want to take a little bit of a personal note that this is the first estimates I’ve had in this place as the minister where I wasn’t either pregnant or breastfeeding. In the past, those realities have required a lot of support from opposition members so that I could do the job of going to feed my son or having to grow him. They have been very supportive in the past, and they’ve been, I guess, just allowing those special circumstances and giving me the space to do what I needed to do — which was take an extra-long break, for example, and things like that.
I wanted to just take a moment to say, upon personal reflection of the last three estimates that I’ve had with opposition members, I really thank them for their patience and their support. It’s not easy doing this job on any given day. Especially it wasn’t easy having to do this job being pregnant or breastfeeding. I really appreciate their acknowledgement of my physical needs at the time and thank them. We will not be taking extra-long breaks this year, because I don’t need to. Thank you very much, Chair.
With that, let’s get started with the questions that I know that are going to be very thoughtful, very substantive, coming from both the Third Party and the official opposition.
J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister for an impressive collection of staff, which I’m sure we’ll be drawing upon significantly, certainly over the next hour, anyway, and then beyond into next week.
What we’ve decided to do is, if it’s all right with the minister, rather than having the Third Party be ducking in and out, we’ve taken a page out of some of the other estimates and have decided to provide an opportunity of a complete period of time for the Third Party to start this set of estimates.
For the first 45 minutes, I’m handing the reins over to the Leader of the Third Party. From there I’ll go into — I guess for a short period of time, anyway — some of the overview for the ministry with general questions. Then, as we go into estimates next week, we’ll have a segment on trade and one on small business. Just so the minister can sort staff.
With that, again, I thank the minister for her time, and the staff, and I’ll pass it on to the Leader of the Third Party.
A. Olsen: Thank you to the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky country and hello to the minister. I think this is our first opportunity to engage in estimates. I appreciate the opportunity to ask some questions in your new role — Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness. I’ve got some, I hope, really great questions here for you.
Last week the minister stated on the record that COVID-19 stimulus spending will focus on CleanBC as a driver for innovation and a greener economy. We are highly dependent on international supply chains as was noted and as we’ve seen, actually, and as has been exposed in the past number of months as we’ve been dealing with COVID-19. There are many opportunities, as we raised in question period last week, to foster a made-in-B.C. strategy for manufacturing goods.
I’m just wondering if the minister can explain how the supply hub for PPE operates. Who’s involved? Then maybe the other side of the question, which is: what is the minister doing to foster local production outside of PPE?
Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you for the question. I think a lot of people have the same question as the member.
In relation to the member’s question, the two bodies that currently are involved with the supply hub are EMBC and Citizens’ Services. That’s who my ministry worked with at the beginning, in terms of setting it up.
I will note that the B.C. companies Thrive and Traction on Demand worked with us to set up the supply hub. It was initially set up to address shortages in PPE for health care. That was well disclosed and well discussed in news articles earlier in the spring. I won’t go into what was all happening there, but that was the initial purpose.
Since then, since more PPE has become available, what we’re using the supply hub more for now is to meet the needs of the health sector as well as our foundational public services and social service organizations so that they can all safely operate and continue to provide services to citizens.
The second question was about what we’re doing to foster local production outside of PPE. For the layperson, we often think of hand sanitizer as included in personal protective equipment, but technically, it’s considered outside of PPE.
We’ve been doing a lot of work to help distilleries retool their operations so that they can be creating hand sanitizer and distributing hand sanitizer around the province. I know that many members in the building will be familiar with the hand sanitizer from AG Hair. That’s what’s on my desk. I know it’s on many people’s desks.
We also have many other companies, like Parallel 49 Brewery, 18 Wheels, Westlab in Surrey, Breathe Medical, Packright Manufacturing and Frontline Medical Supply, just to name a few. The list goes on quite a ways. As the member can see, we’re working with many different organizations on a variety of things, including WestBond Industries with disinfectant wipes and Prototype Integrated Solutions for gloves, to make sure that we are making those products available to British Columbians at this time.
I’ll also point out that we’ve been working with Small Business B.C. on its PPE marketplace. This is a matching part of their website where businesses who are providing PPE can be listed on the PPE marketplace that Small Business B.C. provides, and small businesses can see who in British Columbia is providing those things — like hand sanitizers, gloves, industrial disinfectants, and so on — and they can purchase directly from other British Columbian companies.
I think that answers the member’s two questions. If not, he can clarify, and I’ll do my best to get him an answer.
A. Olsen: I appreciate those responses, recognizing that there are many industries and many sectors that could be included in that. So I appreciate that we’re definitely not going to have the time to go into it.
Certainly, recognizing the on-demand ordering culture that has evolved in the most recent years where stockpiling of…. I think it was most exposed in the personal protection equipment, the PPE that we continue to refer to here. There’s on-demand ordering where stock levels get to a certain point. In some cases, it’s automated. Systems will order. There’s not a culture of keeping a lot of protective equipment or other important products in storage.
With that as the context, the government is doing extensive consultations on how to invest — and I’ll choose to use that word, “invest” — $1.5 billion into British Columbia to ensure that we are more resilient, coming out of it. I recognize the answer here could very easily be, “We’re in the middle of the consultations, and spending that money before that’s done is not likely to happen,” especially here at budget estimates.
I’m just wondering if maybe the minister can provide some highlights with respect to the sectors of the economy that she’s prioritizing to receive a stimulus, specifically around CleanBC but maybe more broadly as well.
Hon. M. Mungall: The member’s question is a great question. I feel like I could actually, probably, do a good designated speaker, two-hour speech just talking about the process that we have in place to develop our economic recovery plan.
It’s a very inclusive process, as the members all know and as I mentioned earlier. We have online engagement. We’ve also been doing a lot of different round tables with specific sectors, with economic sectors as well as advocacy sectors, like the environmental movement, which brings us to CleanBC.
I’ll say…. The two round tables that I participated in most recently were with youth. One was a group of 30 under 30. Another was a larger group of young people from all across the province. The concept of CleanBC came up repeatedly throughout those two round tables. So we know…. British Columbians are affirming the need to have CleanBC as a lens through which we understand economic recovery.
On that note…. Of course, nothing is solidified, and I’m certainly not going to spend any of that $1.5 billion here. What I’m going to highlight for the member are some of the key components of CleanBC that, of course, were informing our budget prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and will certainly continue to inform it going forward. The two I really want to highlight, of CleanBC, are reducing GHGs through our transportation sector as well as through our built environment.
We know that our Go Electric program for electric vehicles is very popular. It has been wildly successful, way more successful than we ever dreamed of just two years ago. One of the questions that we’re looking at is: how do we accelerate that even further, knowing that global transportation is looking to go more electrified using green electricity?
The other part is our built environment, thinking about how we can accelerate some of those retrofits that we know reduce GHGs in our homes as well as our workplaces, and so on. These also provide opportunities for economic stimulus.
That’s very, very high level, very broad. Some of the ideas that we saw in CleanBC are being reaffirmed even more in our sectoral round tables and, like I said, especially with young people, who have been impacted the most in terms of job loss around the economic impacts of COVID-19.
A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for that response.
The trends impacting the labour force pre-COVID included issues in the gig economy, in income inequality, immigration, the declining labour force. We see this in a number of different sectors and heard about the anecdotes from a number of different sectors.
COVID-19 has pushed these trends, I think, to the forefront in various aspects of our economy, and we’re starting to see some very hard hit areas. The minister just mentioned one that we’ve raised in question period around 150,000 youth who are currently unemployed, 29 percent of the demographic between 15 and 29. Those are very shocking numbers.
Just, I think, shifting gears here a little bit. How is the minister looking at stimulating jobs for the youth that she mentioned earlier, for the gig workers and for hospitality workers, recognizing that in some cases, there’s going to require a transition here from where they were working to maybe where they’re going to be working? Just some thoughts from the minister on that.
Hon. M. Mungall: We have some very specific programs that we’ve done.
Now, I know the member is aware — I just want to make sure that we have it on the record, however — that our government responded very quickly with the announcement of the emergency benefit for workers. That was the one-time payment of $1,000. We’ve had a lot of other programs to help make sure that workers were supported as they had to see their jobs be laid off, or they had to stay home to make sure that we were reducing the spread of COVID-19.
On top of that, we need to make sure that we’re offering good training opportunities that bring people into strong family-supporting jobs. I want to let the member know about one particular program that my ministry has taken the lead on in partnership with Advanced Education. That’s what we’re calling digital bootcamps. We ran two pilots. The first one had ten people. The second one had 42 people. So far, both cohorts have graduated with an 85 percent success rate of moving right into the digital economy, right into jobs that were very well paying.
We’re looking to expand those bootcamps and to provide further opportunities for people to get into this growing sector. The member will know that the tech sector is really important, especially the clean tech sector, in terms of reducing GHGs in a lot of our traditional industries. Being able to participate in these types of bootcamps gets people into the tech sector and into opportunities that are really important to delivering on CleanBC as well.
I also want to mention, as the member noted, that youth were especially affected by unemployment in the service industry. We have been engaging with young people to develop strategies for work and career through programming. That includes the $5 million youth community partnership program. This is in support of relevant skills and work experience.
We have a few programs. Of course, the bulk of those types of training programs would be delivered by Advanced Education. These programs are all targeted to making sure people get into good-paying jobs in sectors that we know are going to be very important going forward.
A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for the response to that question.
Following up in the COVID-19 vein here and talking about the competitiveness aspect of the minister’s ministry, a question with respect to how COVID-19 has impacted the competitiveness of B.C.’s economy, I guess, in very general terms, obviously. Then maybe some more specifics around who our biggest competitors are, what sectors those are in and, I guess, an initial view of how this might have changed due to COVID-19.
Hon. M. Mungall: First, what I’ll do for the member is just start off by pointing out some of the hardest-hit sectors. But I want to come back to his question around the larger issue of British Columbia’s competitiveness on a global scale and how we’re faring in that.
I just want to acknowledge, though, that we’ve had some very hard-hit sectors as a result of COVID-19, especially in the services, including retail, food services, accommodations and tourism, in particular. This isn’t unlike any other jurisdiction. This is something that other jurisdictions around the world are facing as well. Of course, the closure of borders has hit various sectors quite hard.
We also have other issues around commodity pricing and so on and how COVID-19 has affected commodity prices and other major industries.
That all being said, it is difficult to assess competitiveness implications at this time. COVID-19 is shifting continuously day by day still, and we see increasing cases all throughout the United States. Of course, that is our largest trading partner. So how that impacts trade — it’s hard yet to fully measure out everything that is going on and the overall impact that it’s having, especially when trade levels remain this low all throughout the world.
Having said that, though, I will say that B.C.’s underlying competitiveness…. We were on a good footing going into the pandemic. We had a very strong economy. We had high employment. And that all was in our favour. We still have a very strong, skilled workforce. We are a desirable place to invest. We are a safe place to invest. There is a lot of investment confidence when we look at it from a global perspective. We are a desirable place to visit and live in terms of being a tourism destination. And we are blessed with an abundance of natural resources, clean energy and a growing and, in fact, thriving tech industry.
We have a very good foundation, and we work very hard to maintain a good foundation during this pandemic. So going forward, we feel that we have a good footing heading into what is going to be some changes in the global economy. We feel that we’re poised to capitalize on that.
We also offer a lot of investors around the world things that they’re looking for, which is a strong labour force, a safe environment and an abundance of natural resources, as well as something that I know the member will be very interested to hear. There is a greater desire to ensure that the energy being used in manufacturing, transportation, and so on is coming from a source with less GHGs. And we know because of B.C. Hydro, we have quite an advantage on that front as well.
A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for that response. I would love to spend a lot more time talking about competitiveness — and just the word “competitiveness” — and the desire to compete with the jurisdictions around both the benefits, obviously, of being in competition and then, as well, maybe some of the less desirable outcomes of racing to the bottom perhaps in some cases.
There are the gives and takes there that over the coming months, I’ll be engaging the minister on. But I’m going to move on here to a couple of areas.
I’d just like to raise my hands up in gratitude for the appointment of the second innovation commissioner, Dr. Sinclair, and the work that’s been done in the innovation commissioner role as well as the emerging economy task force. The EETF, the emerging task force, just released the report not too long ago. I just was wondering. There were recommendations that were made with respect to issues in our current labour force and long-term planning.
A last question before I focus a couple of questions on some riding-related issues that are not in the questions that we’ve provided to the minister. Perhaps the minister can respond to the recommendations of the EETF report and how the ministry is going to implement them across policy, industry, public service practices, etc.
Hon. M. Mungall: I’m just trying to organize my thoughts here for the member, in terms of where to begin in answering all of the things we’re doing. Maybe just let me start with saying a big thank-you to everybody who is on the emerging economy task force and to Kathy Kinloch, who is the chair.
It was a lot of work, and it wasn’t easy work to try to look 25 years into the future and identify emerging economies that are just nascent now, where they might end up being in that time, and how we as a government can support that. That’s not easy, right? Then you have wild cards come out of nowhere. One came a lot sooner than we thought, which was COVID-19.
Before releasing the task force report, we kind of had to take a bit of a step back and say: “Oh, my goodness. Is this still relevant as a result of COVID-19?” What we saw was that it absolutely was. That’s why we wanted to get it out to the public, even though it was at the height of the pandemic. We wanted to get it out to the public because a lot of businesses were starting to think: “What’s in store for me? What’s in store for our future? How do I adapt my business to that?” It was really clear that that task force report was going to be very helpful for a lot of businesses. So we had that released to the public.
The same can be said for the innovation commissioner report. That’s why we released them at the same time. We wanted to be able to make sure that we had some ideas for where the future was going so businesses could start to think about their own futures, business owners as well as their employees. In terms of actually meeting the recommendations, though, there is one that I really want to pull out.
Now, we looked at several of their recommendations and have already gotten underway in what we need to do to implement those recommendations, including supporting technology and innovation through cluster development and regional accelerators; bringing in new talent through the provincial nominee program, regional pilot program; supporting exports through the export navigator program, which I highlighted earlier in my opening remarks; supporting capital through the small business venture capital tax credit program — sometimes we just love long names for a program, and there it is; supporting research infrastructure through the knowledge development fund and so much more.
I really want to highlight this one, because it really shows our dedication to the recommendations that came forward. One of the recommendations is to enhance the financing options available in the emerging economy. Create a provincial investment vehicle to support local investment. We have recently appointed a new associate deputy minister to do exactly this. We have an ADM who’s responsible for one of these key recommendations.
It’s a recommendation that in my experience in the short time I’ve had this ministry, I’ve heard multiple times from the innovation and tech sector that we really need to look at, in terms of supporting investment vehicles. So we have somebody who is raring to go and is getting started on what exactly we can be doing to implement that recommendation.
Also, we’ll let the member know that the emerging economy task force report doesn’t just rest with us, in this ministry, but it will be used to guide the work of our new innovation commissioner. I’m so pleased. We just put out the press release today. Dr. Sinclair comes to us with a wealth of tremendous experience in the tech sector, but also in finance, as well, and how to ensure that we’re really able to grow the sector.
She is going to be able to take what Dr. Alan Winter gave us and really run with it and make sure that we’re implementing it. So I’m really excited to see her get up and running and get moving on the work that’s ahead of her with these two reports and, no doubt, the many people who are in these sectors all throughout B.C.
A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for that response.
Of course, in welcoming Dr. Sinclair, it would be appropriate…. I think in between last estimates and this estimates, Dr. Winter left the position, so I should raise my hands up and thank Dr. Winter for the incredible work that he did since 2018 in establishing that office. Of course, there’s lots of work to do when you’re establishing an office and you’re the first commissioner. So thank you to Dr. Winter for his incredible work as well.
I would love the opportunity, as the minister said, to have two hours to respond to any one of these. I would love two hours to ask questions in any one of these areas. I’m just trying to do my best to honour the space that we have here, as well as get some high-level questions, as they are, on the record and use the time that we have as best as possible.
I’m going to switch gears here. We’ve provided these questions that I’ve asked up to this point and others to the minister in writing. There are a couple of riding-related issues that I’d like to take the last remaining few minutes that I have to just put on the record and then, as well, ask the minister. Perhaps we’re going to have to follow up, but at least, start the questions here.
There’s one challenge that’s been faced by Gulf Island communities. Both of these issues are related to the Gulf Island communities. The first one I’m going to talk about is the rural definition and the definition of rural and urban communities. Basically, if you are a community within the regional districts of Metro Vancouver or capital regional district, you are deemed to be urban communities.
I have very rural communities that are part of the capital regional district, and the community leaders have been working for years on this. I know that the minister has received the cc’s from my community members to the ministry. The previous minister was dealing with this issue as well. It has to do with the Island Coastal Economic Trust and how that was worked out. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has sent a letter to her counterpart in the federal government with respect to the federal view of the rural-urban definition for the Gulf Island communities.
I’m wondering if maybe the minister can respond to…. If adding the Gulf Island communities to ICET, as it’s known, is something that’s going to continue to take a long time and may be not desirable, is there a way that we can achieve the desired outcome, which is to have those Gulf Island communities be reflected for what they are? If not isolated, they’re rural, and there’s nothing about them that’s not rural.
I think the frustration is growing, and I think that we could probably find another mechanism to change that definition to ensure that they have access to funding that other communities that are much, much larger and much, much more urban do have access to.
Hon. M. Mungall: Yes, this is an issue that I am actually quite familiar with. Thank you to the member for bringing this up and revisiting it. We were in the process of making some decisions back in early March, and then our direction and our focus as a government totally switched. I’m sorry that was the case. Going forward, though, we’re pulling this back up right now.
I just want to say to the member that I totally get it that the Gulf Islands are rural. I’ve travelled around there, and, yeah, I never thought anything different, that they were rural. Of course they are. So wanting to now come to a decision…. He’s absolutely right: this consultation has been going on for a very long time. I don’t think we need to be continuing on with that consultation. We need to have a decision, one way or another, so communities can move forward.
I want to let the member know that in the time frame of COVID coming and causing such a massive shift in focus, we haven’t lost sight, though, of the Gulf Island communities, especially when it comes to connectivity and making sure that they have digital access. We have been in conversation with those communities in making sure that even though they’re not a part of ICE-T right now, they are able to access some funding so that they can improve connectivity.
You being a representative of rural people and myself being a representative of rural people, I know how important this is for your constituents. So I want to make sure that they’re going to be able to get that online connection, especially right now with all of us doing life like this, over Zoom.
A. Olsen: My time is up. I really appreciate the minister folding…. You read my mind for my last question. I don’t need to ask it. I think our offices are connected to continue the conversation about interconnectivity and the importance of it. It was power lines, and then it was telephone lines, and now I think it’s fibre optics. So we will get connected and have a conversation about that.
Thank you to my friends and colleagues in the official opposition for making this time and keeping it a single block. I’ll cede the floor now to my friend from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky.
J. Sturdy: To the Leader of the Third Party, we’ll have to get together on a side table. We’ve had the same conversation around rural designations in the Sea to Sky.
We did manage to move Bowen Island from a rural designation, for FLNRO’s assessment anyway, into a rural designation just for their purposes, despite being a part of Metro. I think there are a number of communities that would very much like to be a part of NDIT, which was, as you know, formed as a result of the sale of B.C. Rail. Yet there are communities…. Specifically, Pemberton, my community, is not part of NDIT and is not part of ICE-T and is sort of in a bit of a hole. So maybe the minister and I could talk about that at another time.
Thank you for the opportunity to ask some questions. The ministry, I think as we all understand, was changed around. The name was altered. It went from Ministry of Jobs, Trade and Technology and was replaced with Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness.
Can the minister help us understand what the rationale for that change is, what the implications may be and how the focus may be shifting?
Hon. M. Mungall: I recognize that when I first started in this position and we had a ministry name change, there was some concern about that change, specifically why the word “technology” was no longer in the ministry, and then some concern that perhaps technology, this important sector in our economy, was no longer a focus of the ministry.
I want to just lay that concern to rest, because it doesn’t need to be there. We are very, very much still focused on technology and the opportunities that it brings to make our other, traditional sectors in British Columbia more competitive on a global scale. I guess that’s the nuance that we wanted to bring about when the name changed from Jobs, Trade and Technology to Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness.
Our government’s view is that innovation and technology are imperative to ensuring that British Columbia’s economy is competitive on a global scale. That means: how do we marry innovation and the technology sector with some of our more foundational industries — mining, agriculture, forestry, to name the most obvious?
That is where we came about to add “Competitiveness” into the title. I’d also say that it’s something that we hear all the time from B.C.’s various economic sectors. How do we address the issue of competitiveness? How do we ensure that B.C. is on the cutting edge of opportunity, and opportunity for investment in that global marketplace? So we wanted to highlight that that is the focus of this ministry, and it’s looking at it from an economic development perspective, as well.
I hope that answers the member’s question and lays to rest any concerns that somehow we’re not focused on technology anymore or on trade anymore. Rather, I want to be very clear that those are a primary focus of what we are able to do from an economic development perspective for our province.
J. Sturdy: Thank you for that answer. I guess there were a couple of pieces that came about out of…. We’ll delve into trade and technology a little bit later.
With the change in the ministry, there was quite a delay in publication of the minister’s mandate letter. I’m not quite sure why that took so long to emerge publicly. I think it was April before we actually saw it, or maybe even May.
Then the other piece that was particularly concerning to me, and quite a challenge for me and us, is that the service plan that was posted on the website, until this morning, was 18 months old. The ministry produced a new service plan for us to discuss in these estimates today. I’m really curious why it took so long for that service plan to emerge and be made public.
Hon. M. Mungall: All government service plans for the upcoming fiscal year are posted with the budget documents on budget day. The updated service plan was part of that original package that would have been posted online with all the budget documents.
I apologize to the member for this on behalf of my ministry. Unfortunately, what happened for a few ministries…. Some kind of glitch took place, and the service plans were not posted on ministry pages. I apologize to the member for that. That’s a mistake on our part.
Once we became aware of it — and we became aware of it because this was brought up in another set of estimates — we took a look at ours, and there it was. The mistake was there. We managed to fix that first thing this morning. I apologize greatly to the member for that inconvenience for him.
J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister for that. I do understand that mistakes happen. It doesn’t make our job any easier, but then, that’s not your task.
What it did do, however, was it did give me a chance to become much more familiar with the previous service plan and compare it with the one I saw for the first time today. The previous member had talked about competitiveness. One of the key strategies that disappeared was a line funding programs to help scale up businesses in key sectors where B.C. is globally competitive.
I wonder why that objective or strategy has gone away. Where does the minister see that B.C. is globally competitive?
Hon. M. Mungall: Very quickly, to the member, the service plan template changed. So some of the wording around our goals and our performance planning changed.
I just want to highlight that — I appreciate that he just got this today; again, I apologize for that — in the new one, goal 1 in our performance planning is: “B.C. businesses are supported to start up, scale up, grow and stay in B.C.”
Similar to the strategic performance goal that he was talking about in his question, a lot of the programs and a lot of the key strategies, and so on, are very similar under that particular goal as what was in the previous service plan. Really, this just reflects that a service plan template changed, so some of the wording changed as well.
The Chair: Noting the hour, Minister.
Hon. M. Mungall: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and report progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness.
Motion approved.
The Chair: Thank you, Members. Enjoy your weekends. We will see you next week.
This meeting is now adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 6:31 p.m.