Committee of Supply

Proceedings in Section A

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
JOBS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND COMPETITIVENESS

(continued)

On Vote 34: ministry operations, $93,116,000 (continued).

The Chair: Good afternoon, everybody. I’m Sheila Malcolmson. I’m your Chair this afternoon, the member for Nanaimo.

I want to recognize that I am participating from the territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, the Esquimalt and Songhees First Nations. The rest of the members on the committee are from all over British Columbia on traditional territories, First Nations territories all over British Columbia. We extend our appreciation to them for us doing our work on their land.

We are meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness. The minister is here to answer questions from the opposition.

S. Thomson: Thank you, Chair, for taking on the role of the Chair for the proceedings for a while this afternoon.

Good afternoon to the minister and her staff that she has with her in responding here.

Our focus for the next couple of hours, I think, is going to be on the trade component or trade responsibilities of the ministry, noting that that may no longer appear in the ministry descriptor. But with a province where we’re heavily reliant on trade for economic prosperity, this is a critical part of the operations of the ministry and of the province.

I just want to reflect back to the estimates last year with the former minister, when we talked about the international trade work and international trade division. I want to read into the record his comments at that time when he made his statements. This was in lauding and commenting on the success and the effectiveness of the trade investment representatives and the TIR network.

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

“I mentioned our trade and investment representatives, who actively connect B.C. businesses with new markets and trade. They’ve given me some statistics about their effectiveness. Let me just run through a few of them.

“They’ve facilitated over 483 inbound and outbound trips involving B.C. companies and organizations. The total value of foreign direct investment influenced by ministry programs was more than $1.3 billion, exceeding the target of $1.2 billion. The total number of export deals facilitated by trade investment representatives reached 216, well exceeding the target of 150. They also give a valuation of export deals facilitated by representatives.”

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

“So diversification is important. Trade is important for a small, open economy like British Columbia, and through these services, the ministry is working to expand or reach into markets that will create new revenue streams for B.C. companies for years to come.”

Those were the comments of the former minister in the estimates last year.

[1:40 p.m.]

This leads to the obvious first question that we want to pose to the minister. Why did the ministry, suddenly and without consultation, announce the closure of 13 trade offices in our key markets in Asia on December 31, New Year’s Eve day, in 2019?

Hon. M. Mungall: I think it’s really important, if we’re going to be referring back to past estimates, to do the whole thing rather than just one quote.

In those past estimates, I’m assured by staff…. Actually, part of the discussion led to them saying and signalling that a review was about to take place because it was needed. The last review of the model for trade representation was done in 2011. So of course, eight years later it’s a good time to start doing a review.

[1:45 p.m.]

We selected PricewaterhouseCoopers to do that review of our international model. It was selected through a competitive bid process. The review examined a range of topics, including what’s working, what could be improved, how the jurisdictions manage their international networks and possible alternative models for B.C. to consider.

The member suggested we did not do any consultation. I want to correct the record. We actually did. We consulted with our trade and investment offices. We consulted with other ministries, Global Affairs Canada, Invest in Canada, B.C. sector associations, regional and economic development agencies and companies as well as individuals in other jurisdictions who operate trade and investment models. In fact, I would say the consultation was quite robust.

Notice was sent to our existing offices. Our review gave us the suggestion, and we decided to go with a different model. A notice was sent to contractors, in accordance with provisions, on December 31.

Now what we have in place is that many of our trade offices are embedded within the Canadian embassy. Many of the people who are doing the work are the very same people who were in our trade offices in the previous model. What we found is that this model is much more efficient and allows us to team up with the brand, with the Canada brand as well, and we’re able to deliver better marketing as a result.

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

The basis, as the minister has pointed out, was based on a review and a report by PwC. Last year there were references to the report being done. It’s important to note that there was an initial process, and nobody took up the response to the RFP for that initial process. Then it was restructured, and PricewaterhouseCoopers did the work.

Will the minister release this report so that the decisions and the actions taken to date on that can be measured and assessed against the findings and recommendations of that report?

Hon. M. Mungall: Just for the record, the two RFPs that the member is asking about are actually two separate RFPs trying to achieve two separate and different things. I’m told it was canvassed last year in estimates. In the interest of time — I know that the members have lots of questions — I won’t belabour that because it’s all on the record from last year.

Whether or not the member can have the report…. What has happened is that a political party has put in a freedom-of-information request for that report. Therefore, it will be posted online. The parts of it that are available for public review will be available to the member at that time.

[1:50 p.m.]

S. Thomson: I would have thought that as a matter of course, this information would be provided. The minister talked about what she noted as consultation in the process. I think all of those that she referenced and that may have been consulted in the process would have benefited from seeing the recommendations, the analysis and the work that was done through that process.

I’m surprised that it hasn’t been provided and released as a matter of course and that it’s had to take an FOI process in order to, potentially, get some parts of that report. As I’ve pointed out, it appears to be the basis on which the change or the new approach has been made. It would be important to see if, in that process, there were a business case analyzed and a legal analysis done of the approach that was chosen and recommended.

I am going to ask the minister: why not simply make the report available? If there was the degree of consultation that the minister says took place, then why not release the report so that the steps taken by the ministry to go to a new model can be assessed and reviewed against other recommendations and against the decision that was chosen?

Hon. M. Mungall: I was just double-checking with my staff, but my initial reaction to the member’s question is to highlight that the Freedom of Information Act has another component to it: privacy. When we release reports, we have to make sure that we’re upholding the law on privacy as well. We don’t just willy-nilly release every single report. We have that due diligence; we have that legal requirement. That’s definitely the case here.

We are not releasing that report for general public consumption, because we have a legal responsibility to protect the privacy of the people who have been involved, including the contractors and the subcontractors. The member is more than welcome to see the document, once it has been released through the freedom-of-information request, and will be able to look at the information that is legally, publicly available.

S. Thomson: Well, in the interests of transparency and accountability, I would have thought that those steps could have been taken. If there were specific privacy issues in there, those could have been taken out. The overall approach and the basis for the decision…. I think that the question here is: what were the main recommendations of the review?

[1:55 p.m.]

The minister said there were options. Obviously, one option has been chosen. What was the analysis behind those options? What was the business case and the legal analysis done on the specific options? That, obviously, must be done in considering the options. Or if it hadn’t been, then it should have been. Why was the report not released? This is a critical component of the minister’s responsibilities. It involves trade association sectors, key markets in our economy that are important to economic prosperity.

In the interest of having industry sectors and businesses, clients of the program, in those markets understand the basis and the rationale for proceeding, I would have thought that it would have been appropriate, and a responsibility of the minister, to release the report and the basis on which the decisions were made.

The Chair: Member, I’ll just remind you this isn’t a debate. If you want to put that in the form of a question to the minister, then I think that’s helpful. I’ll keep us focused on our job at hand here. Thank you.

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

The Chair: Yeah. I did not, myself, hear the question in that. If the minister did, then I welcome her to jump in. If not, then, with respect, Member, I’ll ask you to pose your comments in the form of a question to me, to the minister.

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

Based on the comments I made and the assertion I made, why won’t the minister simply release the report at this time so that the decision and recommendations can be assessed and reviewed against the approach that was adopted and taken by this government?

Hon. M. Mungall: The member is entitled to his opinion. That’s what we all come here for: to express our opinion. But the answer to his question stands in my previous answer. There are privacy concerns, and I’m not going to flout the law.

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

The minister talked about the consultation process and the engagement on this. Can the minister confirm or advise whether there was any consultation with sector organizations before the decision was made about the option that was chosen? We have talked extensively to the trade associations, the sector organizations. They advise that this is not the case and that they were as surprised to see the option proceed, in the timing and in the way it did, as the trade representatives were in the market.

Once a decision was made, it does not appear that there was consultation or communication with the sectors, trade organizations and key clients about this decision. It was simply announced on December 31, 2019. Can the minister advise of whether or not there was consultation once the decision was made?

Hon. M. Mungall: Just to clarify, is the member asking if there was consultation prior to the decision or after the decision? He has asked the question in two different ways. I just want that clarification.

S. Thomson: The question is: were trade associations and industry organization sectors consulted once a decision was made and consulted before the action was taken?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: Member and Chair, you’ll note that in a previous answer, I listed off those who were consulted. I noted that our trade and investment offices were consulted, other ministries, Global Affairs Canada, Invest in Canada, B.C. sector associations, regional economic development agencies and companies and individuals in other jurisdictions who operate trade and investment models.

The answer to this member’s question is yes.

S. Thomson: That wasn’t the question. I’m not disputing that there may have been some consultation with organizations as PWC was doing their review around the processes, the structure and the framework for the network, and the work in those key markets.

The question is: once the ministry had completed their analysis and decided to move forward with the option, was there consultation and engagement with the organizations around the decision that was taken and that was planned to move forward with, or not?

Hon. M. Mungall: The review conducted that consultation in terms of what best practices would be good for B.C. — what was working and what wasn’t working. That formed the bulk of the information, in terms of the report that then came back to government.

It would have been entirely inappropriate to then consult with industry stakeholders or with anyone prior to informing contractors of what the decision was in going forward. That would have would have been very disrespectful and very inappropriate to the contractors, to have people talking about their work and putting them in the balance without giving them the appropriate notice.

We followed the appropriate protocols, and we did things properly, by making our decision based on the consultation that was done during the review and informing the contractors properly.

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

Once the report was received, and PricewaterhouseCoopers had done their analysis and developed the options and recommendations, did consultation take place with the sectors, around the options and preferred approaches, before a decision was made? Or did the consultation process around developing options take place with the sectors and PricewaterhouseCoopers’ work, which would have been a natural part of their process?

Once the report was received and the options developed — the minister did advise that there were a number of options — did consultation take place with trade organizations, with sectoral organizations, with clients of the program, around those options? Which one might be the best one to take, and which would have been their preferred option?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: It’s really important to note, as I said earlier, that the services haven’t changed. So the “what” we are doing and what we are delivering on behalf of British Columbians has not changed. It’s the “how.” How we do it has changed.

Their government, when they were in power, and our government, when we were in power…. We don’t go back and ask industry associations how we should deliver particular services. We don’t ask whether we should continue on or not continue on with contracts. That is something that we decide on. The process that the member keeps trying to highlight as fair is not that. It’s very inappropriate. It’s very costly to the taxpayer. I don’t think it’s very respectful of the people who are in the positions of contracting the work.

S. Thomson: I think what’s disrespectful in this process is having the discussions with the key stakeholders who rely on those markets, who help contribute to that economic prosperity in this province and who have had the success in the program that we’ve had to date in building those markets and not have that consultation with them around the preferred options and choice.

To simply say, “We’re government, we can decide what we want to do, and we don’t have to consult,” I think is disrespectful to those organizations that have worked in partnership with government over all these years in developing those markets. That is a very, very surprising comment on the part of the minister.

The minister indicated in her earlier comments about the timing and the decision to proceed with the option that the government decided on — apparently without the consultation with the key partners in the program — was done on December 31 in accordance with notice provisions and other factors.

To the minister, what were those notice provisions? Why the apparent imperative to proceed on December 31, New Year’s Eve day, with the announcement? What drove the timing and the decisions around that announcement at that time?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: The reason why we sent out notice on December 31, December 30 in Canada and December 31 in Asia…. In both jurisdictions, to the best of my knowledge, that was a business day. It might not be a day that the member likes, because he seems to have taken issue with it, but it is a business day.

The reason why we gave notice that day is because we wanted to make sure that our contracts had at least 90 days’ notice that these changes were going to take place. Some of those contracts were coming to a natural end on March 31. Back up, and December 31 becomes that 90-day period. However, those contracts, interestingly, didn’t formally require a 90-day notice. We did so because that’s good practice. It’s standard practice, and we wanted to make sure that we were doing things in a respectful way.

I also want to note that there were some very important lease considerations, in terms of the spaces that government was leasing. We didn’t want to incur added expense to the taxpayer by having to pay extended leases. We wanted to make sure that the time frame for the contracts…. When they came to a close, the lease would come to a close. So we wanted to make sure we had sufficient notice to also close those leases in a timely way and not be forced into spending money for space we weren’t using.

S. Thomson: Can the minister provide an estimate of the costs incurred in 2019-20 in terms of the transition and the projected costs in the 2020-21 budget for the transition and the implementation of the new model?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: The member is wondering about the costs associated with the transition. There are no costs associated with the transition. In fact, what we are realizing are some savings to administrative costs. We were able to get out of what were some very high-priced leases. That’s because we’re partnering with the embassies. So we were able to get out of those high-priced leases.

With those savings, we’re putting them right back into programming. This budget item stays the same, but we’re actually, with savings from the administration side, able to put in more programming to provide better services and trade marketing for British Columbian businesses.

S. Thomson: A follow-up question on that. What were the termination requirements under the employment agreements? And what were the severance costs for the termination of those employment agreements?

Hon. M. Mungall: We’re in the middle of contract negotiations. Those numbers are not available at this time, but they will be released with the public accounts.

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

As pointed out in our earlier comments, the trade component is very, very critical to the province in terms of its economic prosperity for resource-dependent commodities and other sectors and in terms of the export market and those key markets in the Asia-Pacific and India.

Looking at the numbers — and I’m sure the minister knows these numbers — B.C. international exports have continued to decline. Exports are down 14.7 percent year to date compared to the same period in 2019. They’re down in most of the major destinations: mainland China, down 13 percent; South Korea, down 30 percent; EU, down 45 percent; India, down 48 percent; Taiwan, down 15 percent; U.K., down 11 percent.

[2:20 p.m.]

These are pretty concerning numbers at this particular time, particularly as sectors focus on rebuilding. Continuing to develop dedicated support of those key markets is imperative. To be frank, that support doesn’t currently appear to be there in this transition process. In fact, it’s a transition and implementation process that, to this point, has a lot of flaws in it. There are some real challenges, in terms of the implementation and the transition, which reflect back to our earlier comment that I don’t think the option was fully analyzed from a business and legal perspective and that lacks a clear plan.

Can the minister advise if there is a new detailed TIR framework plan that’s in place, and can the minister provide a copy of that plan?

Hon. M. Mungall: I’m a little bit disappointed that the member has failed to put the context around the numbers he was offering. We need to do that.

What has happened in the world, in the time frame, year to date, in terms of international exports, is COVID-19. Because COVID-19 started in Asia and their infection rate grew quite quickly there, they shut down. We know all these stories. We’ve seen people telling their stories — Canadians who were in Wuhan telling their stories about what that was all like.

We know that’s the case, and we know that demand for imports drastically reduced in those places. That’s the actual context of the numbers that the member is presenting. It’s not about the trade offices that he tried to correlate it to whatsoever.

I want to reiterate, though, that the services that we are delivering are the same. In terms of whether we have TIR framework plans, absolutely we do. We have very detailed strategies that are based on widespread consultation, and the people who are in those positions to deliver on those plans are doing so.

S. Thomson: Firstly, context is important. As you pointed out, that wasn’t….

The context of my question, though, was…. That’s one of the factors. There are other factors that are in play, resulting in reduced exports as well — factors like having the least-competitive framework for delivered log costs in our forest sector in British Columbia. The minister only needs to look at the report by Russ Taylor. She should take a look at that and make herself familiar with that as a factor in this case, as well.

[2:25 p.m.]

The context of the question was, at this time, with the factors…. COVID is one of those factors, and others. What is critically important is that there is a well-functioning TIR, trade representative, framework in place and settled in those markets to assist companies in rebuilding from this. It’s the path forward in these key markets. It’s going to be critical for our economic recovery.

The reality is in those markets…. Despite a detailed implementation plan that the minister just referenced, she didn’t respond to the question around whether she would provide that detailed framework and detailed plans to us. So I’d ask the question again to the minister just to confirm whether she would provide those detailed plans. So that’s one question.

The second part of the question is: can the minister confirm or advise on, of the offices that were part of this change — the 13 offices — how many offices have actually got the full transition and implementation completed and done? We’re seven months after the announcement was made. The minister said the announcement needed to be made on December 30 because of notice provisions. We’re now seven months since that time. How many offices have been transitioned properly and fully into the new model in accordance with this very detailed plan that the minister references?

Hon. M. Mungall: Of all the 13 offices, only two have not been able to fully transition — because of COVID, right?

The member is complaining that it’s been seven months; why haven’t we done everything? We have to make sure that we’re not ignoring the biggest thing that’s happening in the world right now and acknowledging how it impacts all of government business — in particular, the business we have with Asia, which has been dealing with COVID so much longer than we have here in British Columbia.

I don’t want to negate the hard work that people on the ground have been doing and having to do it through this global pandemic. They’ve been doing exceptional work, and I really want to thank them for being able to deliver on these transitions in the midst of what is the largest global crisis that I’m sure my generation will ever see in their lives.

[2:30 p.m.]

The member made some comments about where things are at regarding forestry and forestry exports. You know, I’ve got to just say that he had many, many years to build up B.C.’s forestry sector when he was the minister. Any concerns that he has about how he was not able to succeed in doing so, I’m going to leave with him.

S. Thomson: I’ll leave the minister with the report that analyzes and identifies the fact that, currently and over the last number of years, the additional costs that have been brought upon the industry have created the highest delivered log costs and the least competitive position that this industry has been in, in a long, long time.

I’ll move on with a question around the transition in those offices and in those key markets. This may be something that will have to be provided in a written summary. Can the minister provide two things: the detailed plans and the detailed TIR framework? Can the minister provide the summary of the transition arrangements in each of the offices and the number of staff involved in that transition, in comparison to the previous offices, for each of those 13 offices where the minister says that all but a couple are fully transitioned?

Hon. M. Mungall: The member was asking if he can have some of these details in writing. I’d like to increase the level of support we can give the member and offer him a briefing so he can get some of the details he’s looking for.

I do want to let him know two things on that front. One is that we are continuously responding to changes in the market. As he knows, because of COVID-19, these changes are happening more quickly and a little bit more unpredictably than we’ve been able to do in the past. So we’re trying to respond and to be nimble as best as we possibly can. We’re happy to give him a briefing. I just want to have the caveat that things might change more quickly than they normally, perhaps, would have in the past.

Secondly, there is certain information that’s proprietary information that we’re not able to disclose. It could really weaken our position in the trade markets. So we want to make sure that we’re retaining certain information that respects that proprietary confidentiality.

[2:35 p.m.]

With that, if the member has any further questions or if he wants anything else in writing, please do let me know.

S. Thomson: The minister indicated that all but a couple of offices have not fully and completely transitioned into the new model, and transitioning into the new model means staff in place, co-location in new offices, support in place and all of those arrangements. Can the minister advise, at this point, where that arrangement has not been completed?

Hon. M. Mungall: The two jurisdictions that have not been able to transition due to delays associated with COVID are India and Singapore.

S. Thomson: Can the minister, then, advise that in all those other offices that are not Singapore and India, all transition has been completed, all commitments and obligations to former contractors have been completed, and a full complement of staffing, according to the plan, is in place in every one of those other markets where the trade offices were formerly located?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: I know that we’re sucking up members’ time when I get to discuss with staff the level of detail of the transition. What I’m going to do is suggest to the member that we send him in writing where things are at in terms of that transition. He seems to be interested in a lot of the detail. Have staff transitioned? Have we moved our office furniture? And so on and so forth. We’ll send him that level of detail.

I will let him know that we are looking to actually increase the staffing complement in some of the locations. We are finding that there’s a lot of interest in B.C.’s products in some locations. I want to make sure that we have the human resources there necessary to respond to that interest so we can make sure that the interest becomes some orders and it becomes realized for British Columbia businesses.

S. Thomson: The debate process here, or the estimates questions, is the place where we get to ask the questions and probe some of the details that relate back to the ministry budget for the international trade division in terms of the program, the costs, what liabilities or other obligations may be still to realize in terms of the transition.

The question specifically was around…. Can the minister confirm that all the transition implementation obligations to former contractors, the office arrangements, all of those details in terms of implementing and moving forward on this transition plan, which has been in place for seven months now…?

The question to the minister was: can the minister confirm that in those other markets that indicated that India and Singapore were not…? Can the minister confirm that in all of those other 11 markets — China, Korea, Japan, Indonesia, all of those markets — the transition is complete, all the obligations have been completed and the services, according to the detailed plan that the minister advised was in place, are in place and have been completed? It’s quite a straightforward question in terms of whether that’s the case or not.

Hon. M. Mungall: The services that we deliver are all up and running. I’ll still provide the member with more detail in terms of transitioning offices, if he likes. But to comment on any outstanding items….

Basically, like with all contracts, we have to make sure that all the i’s are dotted and all the t’s are crossed on behalf of British Columbian taxpayers, and we’re in those final stages of doing that. So we’re just doing some financial reconciliation.

[2:45 p.m.]

S. Thomson: I’ll take that answer as meaning — and the minister can correct me if I’m wrong — that the statement that all the transition implementation, all the obligations and everything are complete, as the minister advised, in all but two of the offices, Singapore and India, is not correct.

There are still obligations, issues to resolve in some of those offices, and the level of services that were contemplated in the agreement and the plan are not fully in place. I’m going to take that as what the minister’s last answer indicated, unless she tells me that I’m incorrect.

Hon. M. Mungall: Chair, I’ve been in his shoes in the opposition, and I know when you get a gotcha and when you don’t. This isn’t one. All the services are in place — a few i’s and a few t’s dotting on some financial reconciliation. I would say that the services that British Columbians need to take place are in place.

S. Thomson: I wasn’t really trying to set up a gotcha moment here. I was trying to get to the issue at hand and the question around the status of implementing these important services in the market and in each of the offices, according to plan, first of all.

To back up a little bit, the PricewaterhouseCoopers report that did all the analysis and moved us in this direction has not been made available, and we’ll, according to the minister, need to wait for the FOI process to work its way through to be able to get that information. The detailed plan and framework for the services and the program in each of those markets the minister says is available, and I believe I heard the response that we’re going to be offered a briefing to be able to look at that framework and that market against those services.

I’ll ask again. When we see that detailed plan and what’s in that detailed plan…. I’m presuming this briefing will take place expeditiously. Will we see in that plan that each of the offices and each of the services, of the services that are in those key markets, match up against that plan, and the full services, as the minister has indicated, are in place and operational?

Hon. M. Mungall: I feel like that was a yes-or-no question, but I didn’t get the usual phrase at the end of a question period question. “Yes or no, Minister?” The answer is yes. Happy to give the member full details in a briefing, and I’ll make sure that we won’t wait for his office to reach out. I’ll make sure my office does.

S. Thomson: I appreciate this is not question period, because in this process, we actually do get some answers.

[2:50 p.m.]

Can the minister advise whether the province has received notice of disputes, claims, with any of the contractors in the offices over termination of the employment, over closure of the offices? This is getting to the point of outstanding obligations, which is one of the questions that I asked. That is part of full transition and implementation: that all of those obligations and commitments be made. This is more than just dotting i’s.

Can the minister advise if the province has received notice? That means that the full transition and implementation into the new services is not complete in a number of those markets.

Hon. M. Mungall: First, I’m going to address this hairsplitting I see coming from the opposition that — if we haven’t dotted all the i’s and crossed all the t’s but we are delivering full services — when I said we have fully transitioned, it was somehow incorrect. I want to be really clear that when I talk about fully transitioning, I’m talking about services. That’s what people on the ground are looking to see.

The bit about whether all the i’s are dotted and all the t’s are crossed, in terms of financial reconciliation…. If the member wants to try and have a gotcha moment, that’s his prerogative. But it just isn’t.

In terms of where things are at with the financial reconciliation — I think that’s where the member is trying to get to — what we do have are some balances owed to the province that are still outstanding as part of the financial reconciliation. But again, those services have transitioned.

S. Thomson: I’m not trying to set up a gotcha moment. I’m not trying to split hairs here. The process of the estimates here is to determine, within the budget of the international trade division component of the ministry, if there are potential outstanding liabilities or costs, and whether or not the transition plan has been completed.

[2:55 p.m.]

I said earlier…. The minister, again, is asserting — and I’ll take that assertion for now — that all services are in place and transitioned in those markets. We’ll see if that’s the case when we get that detailed briefing, in comparison to the plan for those specific markets.

The question relates to, in my view…. And I think it would be in the view of taxpayers as well. Are there outstanding obligations? Is there potential for outstanding obligations? That is part of the completion of the transition plan.

To the minister, has the province received notice of potential obligations? If that’s the case, then the transitions are not complete in those markets. Is there full transition with respect to all offices and leases and all of those outstanding issues at this point? It relates back to the ministry budget and whether or not the ministry has set aside funding, within the budget, for potential additional costs in the transition.

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

S. Thomson: Could the minister confirm that there are no outstanding obligations to any of the contractors or employees — people who have been involved in providing those services to the province, in partnership with trade organizations and with sectors, for many years of service in those important markets?

I’ve been in those markets. I’ve seen the work that the trade industry representatives do in those markets and the relationships that they have built up.

Can the minister confirm that there are no outstanding obligations in that respect?

Hon. M. Mungall: As far as we’re concerned, what we contend is that there are no outstanding obligations to anyone. Rather, there are obligations owed to the province.

S. Thomson: I think I want to ask some questions here around the agreements that were in place. I can list some of these questions, and the minister can respond. I’ll ask these questions with a number of questions in the overall question. This is with respect to the contracts and the liabilities that have been in place or were in place.

[3:00 p.m.]

Is there a standard form of foreign service agreements and employment agreements for the trade offices? What’s the governing law over each of those agreements? What are the termination provisions for each of the foreign services agreements and the employment agreements? Has the province complied with the termination provisions of both the foreign services agreements and the employment agreements? What liabilities arise from that, both for the foreign service agreements and the employment agreements?

Hon. M. Mungall: Sorry, Chair. I just want to make sure I understood from the member that he wanted the answers to these in writing. If that’s the case, happily, we’ll definitely get those to him in writing.

The Chair: Member, was that your intention?

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

It’s very clear from the responses to the questions that full transition and implementation of the plan is not completed and is not in place in a number of those markets. The minister can talk about services, but what’s also important is for an understanding of the obligations that may be in place, the obligations to contractors who have put in years of service to the province in helping build those important markets.

The minister’s apparent view that there’s no amount owing, that there are no liabilities and that there are no bases for any claims to the province — that’s the purpose of those questions. Since they are going to be provided in a response in writing, I’ll add some further questions to the mix here what would come as part of that response, and we can follow up from this session this afternoon, as well, by putting these questions in written form to the minister.

Again, were employment contracts terminated in a man­ner in which no liabilities, including severance, were incurred? What legal review or HR process was undertaken to address the manner in which the termination of the foreign service agreements and employment agreements was taken? Was local legal advice sought to ensure that the province of B.C. is compliant with all the applicable laws, including the local contract laws and local employment laws in the jurisdictions in which those trade offices are located?

Has the provincial government received any notices of claims, or is the government aware of a basis of any claims against the province, including breach of contract or failure to provide adequate notice of termination of employment or contractual arrangements?

Are there any disputes with other parties to the foreign service agreements or employment agreements? Are there any notices of claims or awareness of bases of claims or disputes, and what is the amount of the contingent liability? Was there assessment of the potential liability exposure conducted prior to the termination of the agreements?

[3:05 p.m.]

This goes back to our initial point around their not having had the business case and legal analysis around the options before the decision to provide the notice and the change in approach was taken. We will follow up from this discussion this afternoon with those questions in writing to the minister.

A further question, then, to the minister. Can the minister describe the employment relationship for the new staff that will be co-located in the offices? Will they be ministry staff? Will they be under appointment or a contractual arrangement? Who do they report to? What are the lines of accountability, direction and oversight for those staff?

Who will be managing them? Will they be managed by the province, or will they be managed by federal Global Affairs staff in those co-located offices? Who does the oversight and the determination that those employees are meeting the commitments? What’s the reporting relationship, and what’s the nature of their employment provision with the province and/or the federal government?

Hon. M. Mungall: I want to make sure that we have this correct information on the record. Our previous contracts with contractors were not contracts for employment. They were contracts for services. It’s an important distinction, and I wanted to make sure that that was on the record so that we were all working with the same information.

To answer the member’s questions, the employees under the new model are employees of the federal government. They report to a B.C. manager who is on site. The B.C. manager is managing the files based on what we have directed as the provincial government.

S. Thomson: Can the minister, then, confirm that the wages, benefits costs in this provision are not part of the $26 million budget in the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness?

Hon. M. Mungall: We have an MOU with Canada, and they recover the costs from us. They are employees of Canada, but they recover those costs associated with their wages and their employment from the province of B.C.

[3:10 p.m.]

S. Thomson: Can the minister advise, for the current fiscal period, subject to these estimates, what the cost and what the value of that MOU is and how those costs compare to the 2018-19 and 2019-20 fiscal years?

Hon. M. Mungall: This year’s budget, compared to last year’s budget, remains the same. In 2018-2019, it was slightly higher, at $11.26 million, and it’s now at $11.13 million. So it’s very similar.

S. Thomson: In the budget of the $26 million that is in the international trade division within the ministry, can the minister provide a breakdown of the allocation of that budget between the international trade network services — I think we’ve got that number — and the balance of the numbers, the allocation between the other components of the trade ministry, domestic marketing initiatives, trade dispute resolution, softwood lumber case involvement advocacy and litigation in those processes? So a breakdown of the $26 million budget that’s in the ministry.

Hon. M. Mungall: In our reams of binders, we don’t seem to have the exact breakdown that the member is looking for, but we’re in the process of getting it. So I thought that while we do that, if the member has another question that he’d like to ask….

[3:15 p.m.]

S. Thomson: I’ll just put another one on the record that the minister can provide in terms of the written response or the follow-up to the questions.

There have been a lot of changes and reorganization within the ministry and the trade division. One thing that we’d appreciate if the minister could provide is an updated organizational chart for the trade division and the responsibilities around the international trade program and the domestic marketing program, particularly the role of the on-site manager in those key markets.

Another question. I wanted to ask one very quick question. Can the minister provide an update on her work, her advocacy and the work of her parliamentary secretary on the softwood lumber file?

The minister well knows this is a critical file for the province, a critical file for the forest sector, a long-standing file, obviously complicated and involved in legal litigation. But can the minister provide a quick summary of the steps that she has taken in terms of advocating and working on behalf of the sector as part of her responsibility for international trade in that regard?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: This is, as everyone knows, a long-standing file for British Columbia, but Canada does remain the lead on this file. Because the issue is in litigation right now, there’s a limited amount of advocacy that we can undertake as a government, but that doesn’t mean we’re not doing what we can do.

I think the member is aware that this is a priority for the Premier, and it is an item that he regularly discusses and advocates for through his federal counterparts. I’m doing the same. Our Minister of State for Trade, who’s on the line here with me, has been doing the same.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development is with that ministry, so any questions about his particular activities would have to be directed to that ministry. The parliamentary secretary associated with this ministry is the Parliamentary Secretary for Technology.

As the member rightly knows, this is an important issue for British Columbia. We have taken many, many steps to advance British Columbia’s interests on this, and we are hoping that the current issue that is in litigation will result in this dispute having resolution.

S. Thomson: Thank you to the minister for that response. I understand, obviously, the importance of this file and the work that’s done on it. I expect this issue will be canvassed in the estimates for the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resources Operations and Rural Development as well.

I want to go back, reviewing the responses, with one question with respect to the process and the transition and implementation of the new approach in the markets. Can the minister confirm whether or not, in moving forward with the plan and the notice and the provisions around termination of the arrangements in each of those markets…?

In each different country — Japan, China, Korea, Indo­nesia, Thailand, India, Singapore, all the markets — was a legal review undertaken in moving forward with that process with respect to the employment law and contractual law in those jurisdictions before the decision was made to move forward with the notice provisions? Was the action assessed against the legal provisions around contract and employment law in those different jurisdictions, which are all different in terms of their employment and contract provisions? Was that analysis undertaken?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: We have sought legal advice and received legal advice as part of any contract that we do, including these contracts.

S. Thomson: The question was that you sought some legal advice. But can you confirm whether or not the legal review included a review of employment and labour and contractual law in each of the jurisdictions?

Hon. M. Mungall: The member well knows that I am not able to disclose the details of legal advice that we receive.

S. Thomson: To the minister: thank you for your response. As we indicated earlier, we will follow up on many of these questions and issues in written format as per the questions I read into the record.

I do want to, again, make the point that it has become clear, in terms of the response here, that it is not all settled in the termination of the former arrangements and the transition into the new model and the services that are provided in that model. We’ll look forward to that detailed briefing in that regard.

As I mentioned earlier, what we need to do is ensure that the critical support for industries and sectors is in place in those important markets. When you look at the trade numbers, the export numbers and the decline in export value that has taken place, there are many factors, as we’ve discussed, that are affecting that.

Regardless of those factors, whether it is the COVID response, whether it is the competitive position of the sectors, whether it is key issues in trade relationships — which are a factor in some of this in key markets, which is where you need to have the dedicated experienced staff on the ground in order to deal with those — we need to ensure, within the approach, that those are in place. I think it’s clear that that transition is not completed in the process after seven months from the initial decision.

[3:30 p.m.]

We’ll explore that in the detailed briefing, when we have that opportunity. I appreciate the offer of the minister to have staff reach out and organize that expeditiously.

That, I think, would complete the questions. I thank the minister for her time and the time of her staff that are supporting the minister on that. We look forward to further discussions and the responses to the written submissions and the questions we put on notice here.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your management of this process for the last couple of hours.

I’ll advise that I think the next set of questions is going to come from my colleague the MLA for Cariboo-Chilcotin.

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

D. Barnett: Thank you to my colleague from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky for giving me the opportunity to ask a couple of questions of the minister.

They’re all around one topic, Minister. They’re around the PNP program, which I understand your ministry has had for some time. I have some questions and some concerns around this program. I’ve dealt with it with quite a few clients, and not very often does it run smoothly.

My questions are…. When constituents come to my office and they bring their concerns here, we work very diligently to try and resolve the concerns. My staff will notify your office and try and work together.

There seems to be a policy change. It appears…. Now I have a case that is quite serious, quite urgent, and your staff will no longer deal with my staff. They want the name and the phone number of the client so they can deal with them directly.

Why and when did this policy change — that your staff is now not to deal with MLAs, constituency assistants and offices?

Hon. M. Mungall: To the best of my knowledge, there’s no policy change. I’m just wondering who your constituency assistant might be trying to contact. Is it a regional ministry staff person? Is it somebody here in Victoria? Is it my ministerial office? If you can let me know, I can see where the breakdown in communication is taking place and fix that for you.

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

Back to the PNP program. COVID came along, and of course, there was some time that these PNP issues could not be addressed.

My clients now have come from another country. They came here on good faith. This is just one; I’ve had more. They’ve been two years, over two years, waiting for an­swers. They have spent over $2 million fulfilling the mandate from the PNP program. They have done everything possible.

Of course, along came COVID, and now, because of COVID and other issues with the federal government, their work permit has actually run out. They have been told that they probably are going to have to leave the Cariboo, leave everything behind, leave Canada and go back to where they came from.

[3:35 p.m.]

My question is, Minister: why is this process so complicated? When they call for answers, they’re told to go to a website. They’re told to go here, and they’re told to go there. Why is the program so difficult and so unfriendly to people that we invite here to invest their money?

Hon. M. Mungall: Now, this sounds like it’s a particular case for some constituents of hers. Her original question that she had was: who can she talk to, to get some support so she can support her constituents?

What I’m trying to understand is who her CAs are talking to — if they’re talking to a local ministry person, somebody in Victoria working in the ministry or my ministerial office. If I can find out who they are talking to, then I can figure out where the communication breakdown is happening so that she can then do the work to support her constituents.

I don’t know the details of that, and I don’t ask her to reveal those details in this format. I don’t think it’s fair to those constituents. They are entitled to their privacy. What I do want to do is make sure that she has a good line of communication so that she is able to advocate for them and so that their particular concerns and experiences are being addressed properly. If she could just give me that information, and then we can go….

D. Barnett: Minister, it’s very frustrating. This is not the first incident. I did put a call in to your deputy minister. What I got back — I’m sorry — was, from Victoria, somebody else. The only thing we got was: “Please give us your constituent’s name. We’ll contact them ourselves.”

I would appreciate if somehow…. This is not the first incident with this program. If this program is going to be user-friendly…. Could there be a review done? Talk to people like my office and find out what the problems are — I’ve asked over and over again — and have this program be user-friendly. The advertising we have gotten so far from some people is not very good when we’re trying to encourage people to come here to work.

Hon. M. Mungall: My ministry office staff is working on this issue with the member’s CA. The last contact they had was just a week ago. So the individual’s concerns are being heard.

The reason why we’ve asked for the constituent’s contact details is because what we were hearing from the CA is that it’s quite complex. They are in the entrepreneur side of the PNP program, which is a lengthier program and path to immigration.

We want to make sure that we’re getting all the details accurately so that we can address their needs. That’s why the request was made to call the constituent directly. If they’re not comfortable with that, that’s fair. We can maybe have a teleconference with your CA, with yourself and with your constituents so that they have an advocate in the room. More than happy to accommodate.

I want to assure the member that we are doing our level best to support her constituent.

D. Barnett: Minister, I have the email here from your staff, which said: “We….” In other words: “Don’t bother us anymore. We want to deal with the client directly.” The client, basically, does not speak that fluently and is very concerned.

[3:40 p.m.]

It’s very upsetting to my staff that work very hard to understand the issues when this is the response we get.

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

D. Barnett: Sorry, Madam Chair.

Minister, I think you’ve heard my concerns. I would like to see this not be a policy of your ministry. I would also like to see someone — who can do something to help these people — in the ministry, in a very quick way, get a hold of my office again so that we can set up something with the client [audio interrupted].

The Chair: Member, I’m sorry. Your last four or five words got muted out again. Could you just repeat the end of the question that you have for the minister?

D. Barnett: Sorry about that. Will the minister have her staff contact my office and have this issue addressed so that we can have the conference call and deal with the issues that are before my constituents as quickly as possible?

Hon. M. Mungall: I already offered to do that. So I guess the answer to the member’s question is yes.

D. Barnett: Thank you. I will turn the floor back over to my colleague from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky.

J. Sturdy: Thank you.

I would like to follow up with the minister on some specifics around her mandate letter at this point. The first item on the mandate letter is: “Provide cabinet leadership for cross-government initiatives that support competitiveness across all sectors of B.C.’s economy.”

I wonder if the minister could describe to us how she intends to accomplish that and, perhaps, provide some specific examples of how that has actually happened. Does the minister have any targets — does the ministry have any targets — associated with this mandate requirement?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: The answer to this question is actually something that we canvassed earlier today — the same questions but regarding the service plan. We answered this question for opposition members from the Third Party as well. So I’m just wondering if the member really does need me to say the same things I’ve said before.

J. Sturdy: I guess my recollection was that there are no real targets or actions that the ministry is taking at this particular time to support competitiveness across all sectors — or no cross-government initiatives and objectives that the ministry has.

Hon. M. Mungall: I previously said that there are several initiatives. There are multiple initiatives. In fact, there is the Major Investments and Corporate Initiatives Office, which leads activities, as a secretariat, for cross-ministry government strategic initiatives that enhance our competitiveness.

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

Hon. M. Mungall: This is a shared resource. The Major Investments and Corporate Initiatives Office is a shared resource across multiple ministries. It does, ultimately, have an ADM responsible for that, and it’s my ADM for technology, connectivity and distributed growth. We all end up shortening peoples’ titles in our minds. So I wanted to make sure I got the correct one on the record.

[3:50 p.m.]

We also have a new ADM, as I noted last week. We do have an associate deputy minister who is responsible for also looking at competitiveness opportunities across ministries.

J. Sturdy: I see another piece of the mandate was to support the future of a made-in-B.C. tech sector through a variety of different strategies. I think we certainly all support that. One of them, though, was the anchoring of B.C.-developed intellectual property.

I wonder how the minister would intend to accomplish that goal. What strategies would she put in place?

Hon. M. Mungall: We’re working with Innovate B.C. to anchor IP in British Columbia. We want to make sure that tech businesses are not just starting here and scaling here but that they’re able to stay here and not end up being acquired by a larger entity that then pulls that IP out of the country.

J. Sturdy: I certainly understand what anchoring means. I am wondering how the minister intends to accomplish that.

Hon. M. Mungall: My answer was exactly that. We’re working with Innovate B.C. to develop those types of programs so that businesses will be able to stay here. They have the capital. They have the financial ability to stay here as they scale up.

One of the strategies, of course…. We’re also going to be working with the innovation commissioner on this. We’ve recently brought on a new innovation commissioner, Dr. Gerri Sinclair, so that she can specifically work on this. That’s in her terms of reference.

One of the ways we want to achieve that is by creating greater ties between B.C.’s growing tech sector and B.C.’s foundational economic sectors as well, creating those ties and allowing for that innovation from B.C. companies into our foundational economic sectors. Allowing for that type of innovation to take place will create a market for our tech sector. That’s one of the ways that you get IP to stay here.

[3:55 p.m.]

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

The Emerging Economy Task Force…. This was a report that was commissioned in 2018 and due in the spring of 2019. I think the quote is: “The final report is due in the spring of 2019 and will be made public shortly thereafter.”

As the minister is well aware, that report wasn’t made public until a year after that. Can the minister explain why it took almost two years to produce that report?

Hon. M. Mungall: The length of time to do the work reflected some personal extenuating circumstances. Obviously, out of respect for their privacy, we won’t be going into detail around that. But as soon as the work was able to be completed, we reviewed the report, we reviewed the recommendations, and we released it.

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

Hon. M. Mungall: We received the final report, with all of the i’s dotted and all of the t’s crossed, on May 11, and we put it out to the public.

J. Sturdy: Okay. Thank you to the minister. For clarity, instead of taking a year, it took close to two years to submit that report. Is that what I’m understanding?

Hon. M. Mungall: Chair, I’m getting a lot of repetitive questions coming from the opposition. I just want to be clear that I’ve already stated the answer to this.

The report took longer than anticipated for personal extenuating reasons. I’m not going to get into that. We respect peoples’ privacy in this government. When we got the final report, we released it.

The Chair: That seems like a great place to finish for the moment. For the purpose of switching Chairs and the cleaning protocols that are necessary, I’m going to recess the committee for ten minutes. We’ll see you back at ten minutes after four. This committee stands recessed.

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

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

C. Oakes: First, I want to thank the minister for her time today and for this opportunity. I know it’s a long day. So I appreciate the time that you’re providing us to ask questions on behalf of British Columbians.

Second, I want to really acknowledge all of your incredible staff. I’ve had the privilege to work closely with some of them. I know the dedication that they are doing on behalf of British Columbians. So I would like to thank them.

My first question…. I always start estimates off with this very important question. Earlier today we heard from the minister that there is a reduction in the minister’s budget. The minister described it as administrative in nature. Has there been any decrease in FTEs for the ministry? If so, where do the FTEs stand?

Hon. M. Mungall: No, there’s no decrease in FTEs. It is purely administrative in terms of reducing the chairs and the desks and all those things.

Before I pass it back to the member…. I’m sure that the member and I could go for a nice iced tea on a patio and talk about how amazing the staff are that she got to work with and that I do now. She hasn’t been able to see them up close in this COVID-19 period, but I have. It has been a real inspiration to see how dedicated they are to British Columbians, especially the small business sector, which has been hit so hard by the economic impacts of COVID-19.

[4:15 p.m.]

They have been working flat out, making sure that we’re able to deliver programs and hear feedback and hear what’s going on and stay close to the ground in terms of what’s happening for small businesses so that we can respond as a government. I know that she would love to hear how great they’re doing and probably misses them.

C. Oakes: Yes, I do miss them.

Hello. Hi, everyone.

I particularly want to send a special shout-out to the small business secretariat and all of the folks who have worked diligently on the small business file but, as well, the regulatory file. I know how committed the team is on the regulatory count and how seriously they take that. So again, I want to acknowledge and thank.

I will say, on behalf of many people in the province of British Columbia, that when there was a name change through this ministry, we were hoping that small business would, once again, be acknowledged as a priority in the title and be recognized in this ministry. I’ll continue to advocate on behalf of this sector and for small business to be acknowledged.

Minister, I’m afraid…. At 11:49 this morning, the minister…. I missed a little piece. The minister said that she could provide a ministry-by-ministry regulatory count. I apologize. I missed where that information is going to be provided, if it’s something that is public or if it’s something that the minister will be sending to us.

Hon. M. Mungall: It is on open data, but rather than trying to ply through many, many websites, we’ll email it to you directly.

C. Oakes: I thank the minister for that. I reviewed the regulatory red tape and service agreement, and I couldn’t find it in there. So thank you for making it much easier for us.

That is important work that is being done, and we want to make sure that continues to happen — that the regulatory count continues to be reviewed. It’s critically important for the competitiveness for businesses and for people in British Columbia.

I also want to thank former deputy minister Fazil Mihlar for the incredible work and leadership that he has done in multiple ministries. I was certainly pleased when he was the deputy for this particular ministry.

Earlier today we certainly heard that, perhaps, there’s a shift in the prioritization of this ministry or this government. We’ve seen a little bit of regulatory red tape creep up in this ministry. We’ve seen competitiveness. We talked about that earlier today, and there are certainly some concerns about that. Exports are down. There are some concerns on the jobs plan.

I guess, on behalf of British Columbians across this province…. Is there a reprioritization of government away from job creation and competitiveness? We’re starting to see, and this is even before COVID-19, a real lack of…. We’re going from the most competent jurisdiction for small business in Canada to seeing a significant decline in that. Then, of course, we’ve seen some of our…. The minister mentioned it earlier today — that we are seeing industry and capital fleeing from British Columbia.

Has there been a significant reprioritization of government away from competitiveness and job creation in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Mungall: No.

C. Oakes: That’s good to know.

Earlier today, when my colleague talked about competitiveness and how we are measuring what that index looks like for competitiveness in British Columbia, the minister did go through the list of how…. Part of those metrics is around productivity, taxation and permitting.

[4:20 p.m.]

I went back and I reviewed some of my local files. I think a good place for me to start, especially as an MLA for Cariboo North, one of the most forest-dependent communities in North America…. Having the opportunity, over the last two years, to visit so many communities that have been impacted by the competitiveness challenges that we’ve seen with the forest sector firsthand and how that impacts not just workers, not just small business and self-employed contractors but families in so many of our communities.

I know that the minister understands that, as a rural MLA. So when the minister acknowledged that there hasn’t been a shift in priorities, but we’ve seen competitiveness, especially in sectors such as our forest economy, decline, how does the minister reconcile this?

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

I’ve pointed out, and I’ve done this on numerous occasions for the opposition, that we’re in a global pandemic. This global pandemic started in Asia much earlier in the year and has whipped around the world and is still very active. That pandemic has caused economic activity globally to decline, and B.C. is not immune to that. The items that the member is speaking of in terms of downward investment and downward exports, as an example, are a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

I’m not too sure if she’s trying to characterize it as something else. It sounds like she’s trying to characterize it as a priority change of this government. I would argue that putting the word “competitiveness” into a ministerial title shows exactly how dedicated this government is in terms of making sure that B.C. is globally competitive. We are now having to deal with the constantly shifting impacts of COVID-19. That being the reality, we continue to identify ways in which we can innovate and grow B.C.’s economy and make sure that we are globally competitive.

C. Oakes: What I was exploring with the minister is that prior to COVID-19, the changes that we have certainly seen…. I mentioned that for the past two years I have been travelling to communities across British Columbia, forest-dependent communities that have experienced significant impacts to the forest sector as a clear result of a couple of things.

First, there have been challenges with competitiveness. Actually, let me read out…. The minister mentioned earlier the Council of Forest Industries. So I just went, after the minister had acknowledged the Council of Forest Industries…. I wanted to explore to see what their most recent press release was in response to some of the comments that the minister mentioned on the forestry side.

Specifically, what the Council of Forest Industries talked about was that the high operation costs due to high stumpage rates and red tape was causing significant challenges for the competitiveness of the forest sector economy. Both stumpage rates and regulatory count are a responsibility of this government and tie in with the ministry. The ministry acknowledged that that is, in fact, a metric that is measured in competitiveness, but we’ve heard firsthand from industry that this is causing a challenge.

The minister earlier laid out the matrix of how competitiveness is measured by government. I reviewed what we are hearing from stakeholder groups around what they are experiencing with the challenges of competitiveness. This existed prior to COVID-19. This isn’t something that has just happened. It has been under this government’s watch, where there has been a reduction in competitiveness by the policies and decisions that this government has made.

Again, to the minister: I’m wondering how you reconcile the fact that there hasn’t been a change in priority around competitiveness when we’ve seen it firsthand in the forest sector?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: We’ve canvassed this issue extensively this morning. We talked about…. I provided the opposition with answers regarding how the forestry sector has come about in its current situation and how we are looking to rebuild the competitiveness for the forestry sector, focusing on value-added and opportunities with innovation in the forestry sector. We’ve canvassed this extensively.

What I hear from the member is questions on how we reconcile some of the challenges that the forestry sector is experiencing right now. The reality is that a lot of the problems that they are facing are a result of negligence from the previous government. That’s my particular view. I know the member is going to disagree with that, and we can have that debate back and forth. But I feel like we already have done that this morning.

C. Oakes: We heard earlier that the regulatory count has gone up in British Columbia, specifically around UNDRIP and the increased regulatory count in that. That obviously has an impact on competitiveness and other regulatory increases that we’ve seen by this government.

We’ve spent the last week in question period discussing, very closely, the legislation around the WorkSafe amendments, around Bill 23, the significant concerns of business across British Columbia and the cost increases that will result in that.

Again, the minister is increasing the regulatory burden on businesses, specifically the forest sector. Not the minister — I apologize. Government has certainly made significant changes both through legislation and through regulation to increase the costs to the sector in British Columbia.

The minister also acknowledged earlier that…. Well, I’m going to have to unequivocally disagree, where I think it’s a good thing when we see forest companies invest in other jurisdictions. I unequivocally think that that is a significant concern of all British Columbians when we see investment leave our province. I think there is nothing to celebrate about that, and I highly disagree with the minister’s comments earlier on that. I could provide you the exact…. I believe it was at 10:32 this morning that the minister was talking about that.

Where I will agree with the minister — and I think this is important in estimates debate — is to talk about the importance of the value-added sector. I understand. We’ve had several pellet plants in our community. We’ve seen some close. We’ve seen, unfortunately, a very significant value-added industry in my community just, unfortunately, going through some significantly challenging times. We are all working diligently to try and support them.

I guess, and this is completely different…. How does the minister see growing a value-added sector without having a primary forest industry to provide the fibre to the value-added sector? For example, the minister talked at length about the pellet sector this morning as an understanding of what is happening with the forest sector and where she sees significant opportunities, specifically discussing Japan. I’m wondering how she sees a value-added sector such as pellets growing if we do not have a primary industry to provide those chips.

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: From my perspective, when B.C. companies are growing, that’s a good thing. When they’re able to be operating on the global marketplace, that’s a good thing. Again, that’s not to the point of her question or to the point of what she’s trying to raise, I believe. I think that she’s trying to get details around the primary forestry industry.

Now, we’ve canvassed the issues around the regulatory count and our government’s commitment to maintaining a baseline of no net gains since 2004. We’ve canvassed our government’s view around the competitiveness of the forestry industry and how we’re going to build that competitiveness. The member might disagree with that. That’s okay. We’re all here to express our opinions about that.

In terms of details around the competitiveness and how we are managing our forests, I would have to direct the member to the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development.

C. Oakes: Thank you, Minister. I do intend to raise some of these questions with Forests, Lands and Natural Resources. It’s such a critically important sector for so many of our communities, especially…. Well, I shouldn’t say…. It impacts every part of British Columbia and all of the people in British Columbia. So it’s equally as important.

I just want to canvass one more piece, though, to that. I guess a little bit of clarity. We want our businesses, of course, to grow. I think it’s a good sign when you see capital investment in British Columbia. What is not so…. It’s a significant failure on the part of government if you see significant investment and companies that have been in existence in our province for decades pick up their capital and move to other jurisdictions, thereby closing their mills.

[4:35 p.m.]

In 2019, what we’ve seen…. Well, we’ve seen significant mill closures, and we’ve seen significant curtailments. Six sawmills permanently closed in 2019 and several more extended curtailments. Pulp mills and other secondary industries have certainly been impacted. What we’ve seen is that investment has, unfortunately, moved to other jurisdictions because the other jurisdictions are far more competitive.

When you go from being a province where you are the jurisdiction that is one of the lowest-cost operational producers to now becoming the highest-cost producer, you’re going to see a response where you’re going to see just that capital and those companies move their investment to other jurisdictions outside of British Columbia, and that’s deeply troubling. That’s going to have deep, deep impacts on every aspect of our economy.

Again, I guess the reason why I was exploring how the minister sees an expansion of the value-added sector…. Specifically, the minister mentioned the pellet sector. How does the minister see an increase in value-added such as a pellet sector if you don’t have a primary forest sector because they’ve moved to other jurisdictions because of the red tape and the operating costs and regulation that the province has put in place?

Hon. M. Mungall: Chair, I feel like I have canvassed a lot of the issues that the member has brought up several times last week and today. I feel like that question was the same question before, where I had to direct her to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. I didn’t quite hear anything new there. So I’m going to have to direct her back there again.

The Chair: Cariboo North, a new question?

C. Oakes: I am seeking clarity. The minister earlier talked about the value-added sector — about how it is an important part of the competitiveness in British Columbia. With all due respect, the minister has not acknowledged how the value-added sector, specifically the pellet sector, is expected to grow if there isn’t a primary industry to provide the chips.

Maybe I will try it this way. Is the minister supporting a competitive direction that suggests that we should be chipping green wood to see a growth in the value-added sector in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Mungall: How our forests are managed and how trees are harvested in our province is just not a regulatory system managed by this ministry. I’m just not able to provide the member with answers to those types of questions. I’m going to have to, once again, direct her to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Operations. I apologize for that, but we’re just not responsible for those regulations here.

What we are responsible for is in terms of the FII and marketing our forestry products to the world, which we are doing. I’m happy to answer questions around what the activities are from the FII, the Forestry Innovation Investment. If there are questions about how we’re marketing our products globally, I’m happy to answer those questions. But in terms of how we manage our forests, again, those details are just not with this ministry.

C. Oakes: It was the minister that brought it up — the value-added sector — and talked about the efforts that they were doing on the pellet sector. She also earlier discussed the importance of ESG and the social licence. I just don’t think that there is a social licence out there, at least not in my region, for this government to be going after green stands and chipping them for the pellet sector.

[4:40 p.m.]

Unless the minister can demonstrate how they will have a plan to improve competitiveness for a primary industry, such as forestry…. I think that’s incredibly troubling of this minister and this government and goes to my earlier comments of a significant shift we’ve seen in this government’s priorities.

While it’s all good to say that there isn’t a reprioritization or a change, when we see it every single day on the ground in our communities…. We’re facing those impacts of the regulatory increases. We’re seeing the increasing costs to small businesses, and we’re seeing the increases and capital flow out of British Columbia. It goes back to the earlier question that I had about concerns of the change in prioritization in how this government is looking at competitiveness and how it intends to attract investment into the province of British Columbia.

I will move on, because I think that I probably won’t get greater clarity from the minister.

At 10:40 a.m. this morning, in a question of competitiveness, the minister mentioned that the government is playing catch-up because the previous government did not have a plan. In relation to the conversation of jobs, economic development and competitiveness, just to remind perhaps the minister that….

We talked earlier about the incredible work and efforts of our public servants in the ministry, and I really want to thank them. We were so proud that we were leaders. We had a significant jobs plan, and we were seeing numbers that were extraordinary and something to be very proud of. We were leading the country around regulatory reform and moving drastically to make life better for British Columbia through those efforts. We were seeing exports on the rise. We were seeing exports up.

Again, I’ll disagree with the minister that we didn’t have a plan. We had a significant plan. In fact, that plan left this government with a significant surplus that I know that the government…. Thank goodness we have that surplus for the situation we’re in today. The minister was very critical and said that they’re working off not having a plan and are playing catch-up. A $2.7 billion surplus that the former government left this government I think suggested that we left a pretty solid plan.

I guess the minister is part of the economic recovery plan that was formed on April 2 and has supposedly been meeting weekly and biweekly with stakeholder groups. Could the minister share with us today — and especially all the small businesses that have been deeply impacted across the province and all of the people that are deeply impacted and waiting desperately to see what the economic recovery plan is — provide us today with what this government’s economic recovery plan is?

Hon. M. Mungall: At this time, I’d like to take an opportunity to thank the incredible members of our Small Business Roundtable. While they don’t directly sit on the Economic Recovery Task Force, I’ve been meeting with them, initially biweekly and now monthly, so that we can get feedback to the government in terms of how our programs are helping people, what we need to change, what we can advocate to the federal government on, what’s working for them and what’s not and what some of the ideas are that they have.

I’ve been taking those back to the Economic Recovery Task Force, whether at those meetings or directly to the Premier and Minister James, and it’s just been incredible working with this group of people. British Columbians are very well served by the people who are giving of themselves and their time to be on this Small Business Round­table.

The member asked for me to launch our economic recovery plan right here during estimates. I think she knows the answer to that question, which is: this is not how we provide that type of information to British Columbians. Rather, she also knows that we are in the process of developing that plan through consultation with British Columbians. We did a direct consultation where people were able to share their ideas online and submit them by July 21, which was just two days ago.

[4:45 p.m.]

We’ve been doing sectoral round tables. We’ve also been speaking with some of the people most hit. I had, with the Premier, two round tables with young people, who, by and large, have seen their unemployment numbers rise to 29 percent right now as a result of the pandemic.

We need to be inclusive. We have been inclusive. We also haven’t been sitting back. Every day another press release goes out about some of the programs that we are launching immediately through our restart plan, which is where we still are. We’re in phase 3 of the restart plan. We’ve been announcing programs to help people, as we go along, as well.

We cannot forget — it’s very important to remember — that reducing the spread of COVID-19 is completely linked to our ability to recover economically and to ensure that we reduce the economic impacts of COVID-19 as well. Our work to reduce the spread of COVID-19, from the very beginning, is also part of ensuring that we have a strong economic foundation from which to recover.

C. Oakes: I guess I was a little surprised, then, today — for every single British Columbian, for every single small business that has been deeply impacted by COVID-19 — to hear the Premier talk about an opportunity for an election this fall.

First, I will suggest…. I have concerns about the seriousness…. I certainly do not have concerns around Dr. Bonnie Henry and Minister Dix. But when the Premier goes out and, for many people, dismisses the serious impacts that they have felt, the small businesses and the impacts that they have had…. To hear the Premier basically dismiss it by saying, “Oh yeah. There’s an opportunity that we could explore for having an election come the fall,” I find dismissive to all of those folks out there, across the province, the people who are really struggling.

The minister has been working since April on an economic recovery plan. At almost every event that the minister has talked at or town halls or across the government, quite frankly…. The government has talked about this $1.5 billion that’s being put aside for an economic recovery plan. Every other province in Canada has come out with what their economic plan is and, specifically, how they are going to support their workers and the small businesses that employ the workers in British Columbia.

I reminded the minister — and she acknowledged it — that 98 percent of business in British Columbia comes from the small business sector. Further, 1.1 million workers rely on small businesses for their jobs — to support their families, to ensure that they have a roof over their heads and to ensure that they have food security.

I think it’s a relevant question to ask the minister. You’ve been consulting. You’ve been talking. I know the Small Business Roundtable, and I know they’ve been providing strong recommendations to the Economic Recovery Task Force and to the minister.

Of the $1.5 billion that the government keeps talking about, which is there for economic recovery, specifically when they go and talk to the small business stakeholder groups…? How much of that $1.5 billion will be available for the small business sector?

Hon. M. Mungall: Our plan for the $1.5 billion is not finalized. So I cannot give the member a number.

C. Oakes: What does the minister say to the tourism sector? We’re going to shift now, sector by sector. I know that, certainly, the minister has met, and these reports have all been sent to the government.

[4:50 p.m.]

The question is…. COVID-19 has certainly hit the tourism sector harder than any other economic sector in British Columbia. Virtually the entire sector has endured closures and extensive employee layoffs. Many businesses are already foreclosed due to the lack of cash flow, an issue that we have continued to bring forward to this government, and mostly have only partially reopened.

To put it into perspective, in 2018, the tourism industry involved about 19,300 businesses and generated $8.3 billion in provincial GDP from $20.5 billion in direct visitor spending and created direct employment for more than 300,000 people in every community in the province of British Columbia. Recent modelling estimates suggest a 65 to 70 percent decline in tourism revenues in British Columbia. They are not expected to exceed $6.5 billion in 2020, and that’s the best-case scenario.

On the worker front, today accommodation and food services have suffered a 49 percent decline in employment. The culture and recreation industries experienced a 35.3 percent decline in employment. Without urgent and substantial help to sustain the tourism employees and the families that they support, we’re going to see devastating impacts.

The minister has repeatedly talked about the need to support people in British Columbia, the need to support workers in British Columbia, the need to support young people. I will remind the minister that a significant portion of the workers that are impacted in the tourism sector are young people.

The association has brought forward a very clear request to ensure that there is a jobs plan so that this ministry actually continues on with a jobs plan and that we see a way to support workers in British Columbia. The minister likes to say she supports workers. How much of the $1.5 million…? What will the government do to provide the emergency working capital program — to support and maintain over 120,000 jobs with the front-line tourism business?

Hon. M. Mungall: I know the member comes from a rural part of British Columbia, and I come from a rural part of British Columbia. Like her, in my communities that I represent, tourism is extremely important. It’s a very important aspect of our economy. It’s an area where a lot of people get their first jobs and start building a career. A lot of small businesses are in the tourism sector, particularly in rural British Columbia.

[4:55 p.m.]

If I sat here and listed off all the people I know in this sector as small business owners or employees of small businesses, I would take us right to the end of the day, at the very least, which is where I anticipate we’re headed. But I won’t use up the member’s time in that way. Suffice it to say that it has been very challenging for the tourism sector.

The member is asking me a question that is similar to the previous question, which is how much of the $1.5 billion our government has set aside for economic recovery, on top of making sure that we have a strong economic foundation from which to recover. We’ve been putting…. Well, the numbers are in, and it’s over $5 billion. It’s actually $6.26 billion that we’ve put forward in terms of our initial response to COVID-19, which is also a response to reducing the negative economic impacts of the pandemic.

In terms of how much from that $1.5 billion is going to be spent on small business or on tourism or on mining or on any other sector, I’ll just let the member know that I’m not able to answer those questions. There are no numbers for those details right now, because we have not released our plan. It’s still in the works. And only two days after the public consultation finalized, I think it would be inappropriate to all of a sudden turn around with a plan. It would basically suggest that we never had the intention to listen to people, and we have all the intention to listen to people.

C. Oakes: Thank you to the minister for recognizing the importance of tourism in our rural communities.

Where I’m hearing, obviously…. The significant challenge, especially from young people, is in our urban settings. We all have friends and family that live in the city. I think of folks that live in Metro Vancouver and Surrey and folks that live in Victoria and on the Island. They’re absolutely devastated. They count on the tourism sector. They count on these jobs to support them. They’re terrified, and they’re incredibly concerned about what the future looks like. They can’t go on relying on programs. They know that these programs that the government has put in place are not going to be around forever.

Youth unemployment in British Columbia is up 266 percent since January but is only up 114 in the rest of Canada. That’s an alarming statistic. That means B.C. has done more than twice as badly as the rest of Canada when it comes to supporting young people.

Adult female unemployment in British Columbia was up 152 percent in January. In the rest of Canada, it’s 115 percent. So that means adult female unemployment has worsened 37 percent in British Columbia since January, compared to the rest of Canada. The rest of Canada has come forward and has a plan. They have a jobs plan. They have an economic recovery plan. They’ve communicated that out to the public. We’re still waiting for ours. We’ve been waiting since April, when the economic recovery team was implemented by the government.

The minister has had so many meetings and has clearly listened to people but hasn’t implemented anything. We’re an extraordinarily different scenario than the rest of Canada, because we don’t have a plan.

To the minister: when you see how our young people and our women are being so significantly impacted at a much higher rate than the rest of Canada, what is your jobs plan?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: In some of the comments that the member was sharing, I thought I heard her say that our government hasn’t done anything for British Columbians during this pandemic. So I just wanted to correct the record with a few items because the list is actually very long. I want to appreciate the member’s time so that she has time to share her views and perhaps ask some questions.

I’ll just share a few items. We did a tax deferral to September 30 for the employer health tax, the PST, the carbon tax as well as other taxes. We delayed increases to the carbon tax and new PST tax applications. We did $700 million for a reduced school property tax rate, and that’s a permanent reduction. That’s a 25 percent reduction for businesses, $700 million in costs to B.C. coffers.

And $80 million for Canadian emergency commercial rent assistance; a commercial eviction ban until the end of July for those whose landlords don’t use the rental assistance program that the federal government put forward; restaurant delivery of alcohol with food; wholesale liquor pricing model introduced for the hospitality sector; $550,000 for Buy B.C. e-commerce program; temporary layoff period extended to 24 weeks; WorkSafeBC’s sector specific information and resources to help businesses reopen safely; $10 million in grants to tourism destination marketing organizations; and $600,000 to the B.C. Tourism Resiliency Network to support 19,000 tourism-related businesses. The list goes on.

There are child care supports. There are the rental supplements, and so on. I can send all of that information to the member so she has that.

[5:05 p.m.]

Then, in terms of where our economic recovery plan is, I feel like I’ve answered that. Keep in mind that we have been thinking about economic recovery from day one. As I said, it goes hand in hand with our response, the health and safety response, to COVID-19. If you don’t have health, you don’t have safety. You’re not going to have a strong economy. So we have to make sure that British Columbians are safe and they are reducing the spread of COVID-19.

I really want to take this opportunity to thank businesses for taking this so seriously. I have been able to do that several times but never on the record with Hansard. I want to take that opportunity to thank businesses, because if they had not taken the words of Dr. Henry to heart and had done what was necessary with their own bottom line to reduce the spread of COVID-19, British Columbia would not be the envy of North America right now for our success rate in terms of reducing the spread of COVID-19. So British Columbians should be very proud of what we’ve all been able to accomplish by working together.

From that point in time where we had to shut down, we’ve also had to restart. We’ve had a very careful, slow but sure restart plan that is integral to opening up our economy. We’re seeing in the labour force survey that a lot of the labour activity that’s taking place is exactly what we’re seeing in our communities, with our restaurants opening up, patios opening up. Retail is starting to open back up, and so on. We’re starting to see economic activity restart, and this is all very good news.

We know that going forward, economic recovery from pandemics in the past has taken about three to five years to be fully realized, so we need to have a plan for that. Our plan is not going to be rushed. It’s going to be done right. It’s going to be thoughtful. That’s exactly why we’re working on it right now.

If the member would like to compare us with other jurisdictions, such as Alberta, I feel very confident that what we’ve done in B.C. has been very forward-thinking, very appropriate, very mindful, very thoughtful. A lot of other provinces, including Alberta, are actually looking to us for advice. I’ve been having calls from other jurisdictions for advice, actually, in terms of how we maintain a strong economy through all of this.

I’d also like to point out that prior to COVID-19, our government had done some work in terms of developing analysis on how to grow our economy. I know that we’re not allowed to have props, Chair. I won’t share it over the screen, but I will just make sure that the member is aware of the title: A Framework for Improving British Columbians’ Standard of Living. That document is publicly available. I know that the opposition has it.

If she’s wondering what kind of plan we have, we have already started to initiate plans with this, with the Emerging Economy Task Force, and with the innovation commissioner report as well. We have a variety of research and documents that are paving the way for the province of British Columbia. It might not all be housed in a short document, but rather, these are very detailed documents. I’m happy to get them to the member if she doesn’t have them.

C. Oakes: What I have to offer to the minister, I guess, are some heartfelt…. I deeply hope that the government is successful with your plan, because we need your economic recovery plan to be successful for all of the people that depend on us in our communities across British Columbia. I want to acknowledge the work that’s been done on the public health side and the work that has been ongoing and that I know will continue.

I need the minister to understand the significant consequences that we could be facing if we don’t have a very clear economic recovery plan and, specifically, if we don’t have support for the job creators in our province.

[5:10 p.m.]

I listed off the very real and significant unemployment numbers in the tourism sector and specifically how this is going to impact our young people and women. I look at the challenges that they already have, and I am seriously concerned. Perhaps maybe because I’m increasingly sensitive, having experienced the last two years of a forestry crisis and having had the constituents come into my office….

Minister, things can go very bad for people in a really short amount of time. I think the government needs to be cognizant of that.

One of my constituents — we had a mill closure — had a significant downward spiral where they’ve had to live in a camper. They had to live in a camper over the winter. Another constituent is an electrician and didn’t qualify for a pension bridging program. His wife was diagnosed with breast cancer and had to travel for surgery and treatments. Then they became where they didn’t have food security.

It’s not statistics that we’re talking about here. We are talking about people in British Columbia and the significant impacts if we do not get the economic restart to start working for people in British Columbia now. We are doing worse on the economic side than other jurisdictions across the country. We’ve heard that our unemployment numbers are certainly more challenged than other areas across Canada, and that strictly ties into what that plan looks like.

I would say to the minister…. I really appreciate the fact that she read out the initiatives that this government is doing. I think what is equally important…. It’s great to have rhetoric, and it’s great to have strong words and to be optimistic and to put out strong messages, but we need to have deliverables. We need to see that. When we have significantly high unemployment rates, that should be very alarming to the minister. We should be seeing some adjustments to some of the programs that the government has put forward to ensure that it’s reaping the benefit for all people in British Columbia.

I appreciate the work that you’re doing. Look, I know that this is unparalleled times, and it’s difficult. But, again, going back to what I said earlier, we have to get it right.

According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, 70 percent of small businesses in British Columbia have had to take on debt. This is higher than the Canadian average of about 67 percent. Small businesses, at this point, after only a very short amount of time in this pandemic, expect that it will take more than a year to pay off. The average small business has incurred $129,194 of total estimated debt, and that sits at about $16.9 billion in British Columbia. To finance the COVID-19 revenue shortfalls and extra costs, B.C. businesses are relying on personal savings, credit cards, bank loans, retirement savings, mortgages, loans and families and friends.

Without a clear economic recovery plan come September, when a significant portion of these programs become due, what are these small businesses, who have already incurred so much debt…? How do they go back and look at…? Now that all the programs are done, how do they take on more risk, more operating costs and more uncertainty because of some of the legislation that’s been brought forward by this government and increased regulation by this government…. How do they take those risks and incur more debt to stay open?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: Perhaps the member would like to rephrase the question. The way she’s phrased it at this point is just not a question that lands within this ministry. The question she’s asking is actually one that small business owners would have to answer themselves. I’m just wondering if she can maybe rephrase to get the type of information she’s looking for.

C. Oakes: I’d be happy to rephrase.

What modelling has the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness completed to review an analysis of the small business sector in British Columbia that…. Following the end of economic recovery plans, what do they estimate we are going to see in bankruptcies? What is the estimation that we are going to see in workers that, unfortunately, will no longer have a job?

Hon. M. Mungall: I appreciate the member rephrasing the question. I took it to understand: what kind of modelling do we have to understand potential impacts of bankruptcies or the number of bankruptcies small businesses might incur and then the overall impact that might have on the labour market?

The Ministry of Finance does that data. They collect data and do modelling on insolvency and employment forecasts. The Minister of Finance did provide the most up-to-date figures in her recent presentation and economic update, Economic and Fiscal Scenario: Update ’20-21, on July 14. I would refer the member back to that document. If she has more detailed questions, they would best be directed to the Ministry of Finance.

What I can tell her is that every jurisdiction is having trouble really pinning down these types of forecasts and these types of details because things have been shifting so frequently, so much and so unpredictably as a result of COVID-19. So getting those numbers and them being solid is not as easy to do as it perhaps has been in the past.

C. Oakes: Thank you to the minister. I certainly understand the challenges. I will have questions on the small business side that I’ll be raising with the Minister of Finance.

Some of the programming, certainly…. Understanding the programs, as the minister had identified earlier, does help us understand from a jobs, economic development and competitiveness nature specifically how those supports will be rolled out to the minister.

Communication is always something that’s critically important for British Columbians. We heard in the government’s own Small Business Task Force that clear, concise information from government is critically important.

I guess I do have a question on one of the programs that the minister did identify earlier as one of the programs. There have been some changes to the CEWS. It seems rather complicated.

[5:20 p.m.]

Could the minister just help both me, as the critic, and the many people that I’m sure are watching these estimates understand exactly how that program is going to work?

Hon. M. Mungall: I think I need a clarification. When I hear CEWS — we all live in acronym soup here — I’m thinking of the Canada emergency wage subsidy. Is that what the member is talking about, or is she talking about a different program that, perhaps, we have given another name to?

If it’s what I just asked about, that’s a federal program. So I’m not able to give those details in the estimates debate. If it’s about the $1,000 a month that the province of B.C. was doing, that was delivered by the Ministry of Finance.

If she wants to just clarify, I’ll try my best to get the answer.

C. Oakes: The minister earlier acknowledged the Small Business Task Force, and one of the recommendations was around government communications and how government can be communicating out to people and ensuring that people understand the programs that small businesses have available to them.

I am certain that the minister has heard clearly from the round table and from other agencies about the complication of the Canada emergency wage subsidy program, which is critically important, I might add, to ensuring that there is a recovery plan. I don’t imagine…. Well, actually, to be honest, in the minister’s own…. In the press release for the economic recovery team, it talked clearly about those partnerships with the federal government. Those are important, and it is part of the plan.

Maybe I’ll read it out to the minister so she clearly understands what small businesses are being faced with. I know that often governments will come out and say: “Hey, look, we’ve got these great programs. Don’t worry about it.” In fact, the minister talked earlier about the list of programs and why we shouldn’t be concerned about any kind of economic recovery because the minister has listed all of these programs.

Just to recap what the new wage subsidy looks like, a firm with a 30 percent decline from a year ago would drop by more than half. The new formula the government will use is to take the year-over-year revenue decline percentage, then multiply it by 1.2. A 30 percent decline would yield a 36 percent subsidy, and then the numbers worsen. At the end of September, the multiplier is reduced to only 1.0. A month later it goes to 0.8 and then to 0.4 the month after that to conclude the CEWS program.

I only list that because it’s highly complicated. I do not necessarily feel that the impact will support the comments that the minister has made in the past about that — that the government is looking at supporting small businesses in economic recovery. Again, the minister mentioned some of the other programs such as the tax deferrals and other programs, which are coming to a close in September.

[5:25 p.m.]

Could the minister, again, help me understand what the government is actually providing for support for small businesses that have been impacted by COVID-19 and how the government will support these small businesses to stay open so that they can create jobs for British Columbians?

Hon. M. Mungall: The program that the member was talking about, the Canada emergency wage subsidy, is a federal program. So I can’t comment or provide any further details on that.

I have heard feedback, obviously, from the Small Business Roundtable on whether it works or whether there are some issues with it and so on. I always pass that feedback on to my federal counterpart in the federal government, and they are so grateful to receive that feedback and to hear what’s going on, on the ground, for people — the ministers themselves. That’s why we have regular phone calls at their insistence.

The member…. What I also heard, from her comments, was a real need for clarity, and that came from the Small Business Task Force. Of course, everybody wants to have greater clarity from government. And fair enough. I agree. So what we did with COVID-19 is…. We knew that people needed support.

Before I continue on with how we delivered some support in accessing services and so on, I also want to acknowledge the amazing work that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, as well as the B.C. chamber network, were doing. They were on the phone, I think, around the clock in the first month or two, answering questions from small businesses and doing their best to support people through this very scary time. And I want to thank them and all of their staff and volunteers who are helping them to answer all of those phone calls and really stepping up to the plate to help their fellow British Columbians.

The service that we supported through the provincial government is Small Business B.C. I know that the member is well aware of that excellent small business organization. They just do stellar work, and they really ramped it up when we provided them the funding to do so since the pandemic hit.

We developed a program with them to expand their one-on-one supports so that people could either email…. They could chat, they could phone in, and there was a human being at the other end of that line six days a week, in multiple languages, able to support businesses with all kinds of questions about all of the various federal and provincial, as well as some of the municipal, programs.

[5:30 p.m.]

Just a hats-off to Tom Conway at Small Business B.C. They’ve been doing just a stellar job since we launched that program on April 16. They have also expanded website services. They’ve been doing webinars, walking people through the process of application, how to move a business online — all the types of questions that businesses had in terms of getting, maybe, some professional support. They’ve developed modules. They’ve put those webinars online, and people have been accessing them.

I’m going to give you some numbers though, Member — I don’t want you to just take my word for it on how popular these support services were — which show how much they were needed. The total calls that they served over the first 12 weeks of this service, 2,698; total emails, 586; total chats, 1,174; and total page views — this is an incredible number — 223,012.

It goes to show that businesses were very much looking for this support. We were able to deliver it, and I’m very glad that we could, because people needed a lot of clarity in this rapidly changing time.

C. Oakes: Well, I don’t disagree with the member that small businesses desperately need assistance. I’m not surprised by the page views that the minister read out.

Quite frankly, what small businesses are saying in the province of British Columbia is that the supports…. While it’s great to have a list of what the supports are, the reason why you’re having the views is because the small business sectors themselves are not finding the necessary supports that are going to help them.

Even if there is a program that’s out there, (a) many of them don’t qualify, or (b) it’s just not a program that is going to help their business. What I would say, again, is that rhetoric and words are one thing, but results are another. And when you see that we have such a significantly high unemployment rate in British Columbia, when we see that our small businesses are forced to take on greater debt than any other small business sector in Canada, that suggests the programs that the government has put in place aren’t working.

How long will it take for this government to recognize that what they are doing, they need to retool, they need to rethink, and that they need to make sure that they’re putting a plan in place before we lose more small businesses, before they become so clearly in debt that they have no choice but to make some incredibly difficult questions?

The minister was very quick to criticize the previous government on a lack of a plan. To the minister: what is the plan to support small businesses moving forward to ensure that they do not have to incur such significant debt, so that they can start hiring people back and create employment for people in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Mungall: I have listed out some of the programs that we put forward as a government that have been helping small business. I hear from the Small Business Roundtable regularly, getting that feedback. They have consistently….

I’m happy to show the member my notes. We have taken extensive notes at all of these. You don’t have to wait for a freedom of information request. We’re happy to share them appropriately, in terms of making sure that we retain the confidentiality that the members of the round table expect.

I have been hearing very positive feedback from the business community who may not have the same partisan interest that the member has in the budget estimates process. I don’t begrudge her for that. I love our system, and I think it’s great. But I’m going to take some of her comments with a bit of a grain of salt when they’re so different from the comments that I hear directly back from the Small Business Roundtable, from my regular meetings with my own local business community and from my regular meetings sitting with many stakeholders in the business community, as well as the non-profit sector, labour and the creative sector around the Economic Recovery Task Force.

[5:35 p.m.]

The feedback that we have been receiving, predominantly, on our programs is very, very positive.

I’m also going to just point out that…. I felt like the member was suggesting that there are no results, that we don’t have anything to show for the actions that have taken place. I’m going to just highlight that I just gave the member some very significant numbers in terms of people accessing the information that we have been putting out there.

It’s not because the programs aren’t successful or that they just can’t find it on the government website. All that information is there too. It’s because different people reach out to different points of contact to get information for help. They might contact constituency offices, and that’s exactly why I sent personal emails to every single MLA with details on how they can support their constituents in this critical period, as we were shutting down and then looking to restart.

The numbers that I’ve shared from Small Business B.C…. They’ve been doing excellent work, and I don’t want to minimize the type of work that they’ve been doing and the supports that they’ve been putting out there. I don’t think the member wants to either.

I just wanted to make sure that we had that clearly on the record — that these types of supports are very valuable and that people are using them. It’s part of our overall goal to make sure that we’re delivering on the Small Business Task Force recommendations to provide greater clarity to small businesses.

C. Oakes: To the minister: thank you for that. Again, I honestly hope that the minister is correct. I hope that the confidence that the member has displayed about the fact that the minister feels that there are adequate programs out there and supports for small business and for workers in the province of British Columbia…. I hope you’re right.

The metric that I’m using is when I walk down my main street and see how many of my small businesses are closed. I mean, that’s the metric I look at. I would say for every MLA on this call, I am certain that you are seeing in your communities a significant shift and a significant change in the small businesses that are actually open.

I’m also certain that through their offices, MLAs — all MLAs in this House — have heard significant concerns about the small businesses that still have not been able to restart and the fact that they are looking at this terrible fear that, come September, a majority of these programs that have helped support, to a small degree, some of them to get up and relaunched…. When those programs and those funds from government, which isn’t going to happen….

Those government programs aren’t going to be around forever. What happens to those small businesses? What happens to our communities? What happens to our neighbourhoods? Quite frankly, what happens to the young people in our lives — whether they’ll have a job? What happens to women? Will they have a job?

While I appreciate that the minister has read off the page views of people looking at the Small Business B.C. website, the metric that I’m looking at is how many small businesses are actually open in our communities or will legitimately be able to stay open.

Then the second piece that I’m hearing very clearly is: what happens if there’s a second wave, businesses have not been able to rebound and the supports have not been there for them to have any type of revenue come back in? Most have seen significant reduction in the revenue, even the folks that are open, and then they’re going to be faced in late fall, early winter with another cash bill, because they’re going to have to pay taxes on the programs that they have accessed. What does that mean?

[5:40 p.m.]

I am deeply hopeful that the Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness, who was very clear to criticize the previous government for a lack of what she said was a plan, will understand clearly what the plan is when we don’t have these programs in place come September, when small businesses have incurred significant debt and when, come next year, they’re going to have to start paying back taxes on what they’ve incurred? What is that going to do for British Columbia and for the people in every single one of our communities?

Again, the minister has acknowledged that they have clear priorities and that there haven’t been any significant changes. What is the minister going to do, come the fall, to support small businesses?

Hon. M. Mungall: We’ve canvassed the issue of the economic recovery plan that our government is putting in place. We’ve canvassed that it’s going to be released once we’ve been able to provide good analysis and really take in all the ideas and feedback that we’ve received from around the province.

To answer the member’s question directly, once we have our plan released and we start implementing it, we’re going to be able to see more programs, on top of the programs that we’ve already put out, for small businesses.

C. Oakes: Moving beyond the economic recovery piece, more to the Small Business Task Force report.

Earlier the member talked about some of the items that have been moved forward through the Small Business Task Force but missed the fundamental comments that were made through the Small Business Task Force. What was clearly acknowledged to the government, through their own Small Business Task Force, was that cumulative tax increases and an increase in red tape, death by a thousand cuts, would have significant impacts on small business.

Prior to COVID-19, this government had 23 new or increased taxes and had also, as we heard this morning, increased the regulation on small businesses. The Small Business Task Force sent a clear message to government that both items would really impact small businesses and, quite frankly, their competitiveness.

Why has the minister ignored these two very vital recommendations, which her very own Small Business Task Force recommended?

Hon. M. Mungall: We’ve canvassed the issue of the regulatory count with this member and other members extensively today. I’ll reiterate again, just to remind the member, that one of the recommendations was extending the net-zero regulation requirement to 2022. We have been upholding the net-zero regulatory increase.

[5:45 p.m.]

We’ve committed to not increasing or, I should say, not ensuring that we have net-zero…. We have pulled the net-zero regulatory requirement from our base level of 2004, and that is still the case. We’ve canvassed that extensively.

In terms of taxation, that lies with the Ministry of Finance. I know that the member said 23 new taxes, and I fully encourage her to debate that number and any rhetoric around that number with the Minister of Finance. I’m sure she’s looking forward to that debate and those questions in estimates. That’s where I’ll have to direct her on that.

C. Oakes: I’ve only asked one question on the regulatory count. So I will continue. We are in estimates debate — just so that staff are available.

The minister committed to a net-zero regulation count. I would remind the minister that that count has normally been done year over year. The regulatory count for 2017-2018 was 166,919, and as of March 31, 2020, the regulatory count was 167,635. When I do the math, that looks like an increase, in my mind, so certainly not a net-zero. It’s certainly an increase.

If, in fact, the ministry has made that shift from looking year over year versus going back to 2004, that’s a very significant shift in the priorities of this government and, specifically, the small business accord that was signed.

I recognize that, earlier, the minister talked about the fact that each piece of legislation goes through…. The name has changed. I think the minister talked about economic…. No. There was a different name that the minister used to acknowledge the regulatory count through each of the ministries and the legislation and how they’re measuring that. That was something our government started, and I’m pleased that the government continues to do that.

I guess my question is…. The increased count of 166,919 was as of March 31, 2020. Have all of the new pieces of legislation that have been brought forward this session been included in that regulatory count?

Hon. M. Mungall: The regulatory count would include any regulations associated with legislation that has been fully passed up until the end of the fiscal year, which would be March 31.

C. Oakes: Does the minister still have to…? The previous framework was that the minister had to sign off on each piece of legislation that was passed or that was going to be presented to this House. I understand the confidentiality nature of the fact.

[5:50 p.m.]

I’m not asking specifically for that process, but does the minister still have to sign off on each piece of legislation according to the small business accord and the small business lens and the legislative framework that has been put forward to government on a responsibility that the government has to include small business and regulation as a key parameter of any legislation that’s brought forward?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: We do have a regulatory impact checklist. The policy that governs the checklist and the checklist itself are available online.

I always am happy to provide members with a copy sent to them via email, because I know that sometimes rooting around on the government website can be a bit challenging. That’s just because we have a lot of information online. I’m happy to just streamline that process for them, if their Google search doesn’t get what they’re looking for, and get that to her.

The member will know that the checklist was developed with the Small Business Roundtable, and currently our process is that once checklists are completed, they are subject to cabinet confidence.

C. Oakes: Thank you to the minister. I’m pleased that that framework still continues and that checklist exists.

We’ve seen, up to March 31, an increase in regulation. That is prior to any of the legislation that has been brought forward this session.

The minister has outlined that she does sign off on the checklist framework that the Small Business Roundtable put in place. What is the process? We’re seeing the net zero go up, so I’m wondering. Does that…? I guess I find it difficult that the minister can’t necessarily say that they have success when they have a net zero. We’re seeing already, to March 31, that we’ve had an increase. Now we’ve got the bills that have been put forward to this House that certainly have significant concerns about the increase in regulation.

Bill 23, you know…. While I can’t speak specifically of that, what I can say is that the organizations on the Small Business Roundtable are the same organizations that have put forward serious concerns about the red tape and the regulation that Bill 23 presents.

To the minister: you are responsible for signing off on this framework. Did the minister sign off on this particular piece of legislation that will increase the regulatory burden on small businesses in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Mungall: The process for who signs off on the regulatory impact checklist for each piece of legislation has always been and still is the minister responsible for the legislation being proposed.

I just want to make sure that we’re clear on the policy that defines the number of regulations. The baseline is 2004 in the commitment from the previous B.C. Liberal government and one that we have continued, because we’re not so partisan that we just throw everything out if it’s a good idea. I agree that making sure that we have a baseline to keep regulations in check — that there’s a net-zero increase from the 2004 levels. It’s not that the numbers allowed have increased or so on. We’re still working with 2004 numbers and a net-zero increase from those 2004 levels.

C. Oakes: I think what’s troubling with that is that this is first time we’ve actually seen those numbers go up. So it’s certainly a trend that is alarming to me. I reflect on all of the British Columbians….

When you look at reducing red tape, it is non-partisan. One of the most successful consultations that has happened in the last few years was around red-tape reduction and the ideas that have come forward from British Columbians all over the province. I think with great pride, for example, of the one idea about making it easier and simpler for organ donation registration and what a significant impact that piece of red tape that had changed had on how it can absolutely impact people’s lives.

[6:00 p.m.]

I have seen that firsthand and had the privilege to see many of those ideas. So I guess I am concerned when we see increases, and I’m concerned when legislation is brought forward that I know is going to continue to increase that.

Moving back to the Small Business Task Force and the recommendations that were put forward, another one of the recommendations that the task force would put forward is the keen need for certainty — certainty in decisions that government makes for small business and to ensure that we continue to have investment in our province and that job creators continue to take the risk and take on the debt to create those jobs.

How is the minister measuring that matrix of certainty? Maybe I’ll ask: what is the checklist that the minister uses? She mentioned earlier today that there hasn’t been a change in prioritization in this ministry. How is the minister measuring certainty for small business?

Hon. M. Mungall: One of the things that…. We want to create predictability.

The member asks: do we have a type of checklist to ensure that businesses have greater certainty? We look at things that will help create greater predictability — a minimum wage increase, for example. Rather than that being left up to the government of the day and the political whims of the day, we created a step-by-step process that had certainty around minimum wage increases.

[6:05 p.m.]

We want to make sure that we’re streamlining services so that that creates greater certainty so businesses know where they can get the services and supports that they need, questions answered about, perhaps, taxation — PST and so on. That net-zero regulation requirement is also very important to creating certainty.

We want to make sure that when we’re working with businesses, with the small business community, that we are providing sufficient advanced notice for any changes that may be coming so that they’re able to prepare. The only thing certain is no change, yet the only thing constant is change. So we want to make sure that we’re having enough advanced notice for businesses.

We also want to make sure we’re doing as much consultation as required and as possible so that businesses are involved and are engaged in decisions and changes that are going to be taking place. I wouldn’t say that’s housed in any particular checklist, which is like what we have for our regulatory impact checklist. But these are the items that the ministry definitely has in mind as we look to create greater certainty.

C. Oakes: One of the things that we canvassed earlier is legislation that’s being brought forward in this House. It is very clear and evident that there wasn’t certainty that was brought forward. There wasn’t consultation, and small businesses certainly haven’t been given the necessary time to prepare.

The other comment I’ll make is that one of the opportunities that we have in opposition…. As the critic for small businesses, I’ve had the opportunity to talk to small businesses and stakeholder groups across this province. What I will suggest, too, is that by this new….

The one reality out of COVID-19 is that we’ve had to find new ways of reaching out and listening closely. In so many respects, actually, this has proved to be advantageous, because I can say all of the opposition MLAs have been regularly reaching out to their small business stakeholders and listening closely to their concerns. We have done town halls.

We’ve taken that information that we’ve heard firsthand from small businesses across this province, and we have bundled it in a non-partisan fashion. We have sent those ideas and suggestions forward to the government in 60 different suggestions and 13 different letters that we’ve brought forward. We were hopeful that we would see the same level of non-partisan support that we’ve certainly seen on the health side on the economic side. We’ve been disappointed that those recommendations have not moved forward.

The minister mentioned minimum wage. Well, it was very clear…. The minister acknowledged that she’s been listening to small business stakeholder groups. She would know that every single small business stakeholder group in the province had raised concerns to this minister through various forums — and to the Premier.

The fact of increasing costs at such a challenging time when there is very little revenue or no revenue coming in creates great uncertainty and great challenge for small businesses in the province. Increased regulation, increased costs to small businesses and tax increases create great uncertainty to small businesses. Shifting priorities cause significant challenges to small businesses.

I said up front that I want the government to be successful. We need you to be successful with the plan for small businesses. We highly encourage the government to consider the recommendations that we’ve heard from small business stakeholder groups across the province. Their thoughtful recommendations are recommendations that have been consistent since April. Small businesses are deeply concerned that they continue to wait for what a plan will look like.

[6:10 p.m.]

I want to turn a little bit of the focus. Earlier I had mentioned my significant concern with the lack of a jobs plan that this government has and the impact that the lack of a jobs plan will have on young people.

I now want to turn to the lack of a jobs plan and the impacts it will have on women. The outlook for women in the face of the pandemic is devastating, experiencing the biggest setback in gender equality for a generation. This should be troubling for every single one of us. Support is needed in financing, training to women-led micro and small enterprise.

I want to share with you, Minister, some thoughtful recommendations. If the minister wants to provide a response back in writing, I certainly understand. But I committed to Melanie that I would raise this as a small business owner, living in northern British Columbia.

Her recommendations are to forgive the $40,000 loan for women business owners who continue to not be able to work due to the school and daycare closures; extend eligibility of the 75 percent wage subsidy for hiring in-home child care so female business owners can return to work; provide enhanced opportunities for women-owned businesses to access public procurement contracts that they are qualified to do; and, long term, address the tax code to support women-owned businesses — for example, child care as a business expense.

We have to do more to support women entrepreneurs. I’ve certainly heard the minister, in the past, talk about the need for this. Can the minister outline specifically the supports that this government is providing for women entrepreneurs?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: Just on a couple of comments that the member made.

I’ve been hearing from small businesses on a host of issues, and our government’s been very responsive in terms of turning around and either developing a new program or changing some policy through this period of COVID-19.

Not all businesses asked to not see the minimum wage increase. Some businesses certainly did. I just want to acknowledge that the increase was going to the lowest paid workers — minimum wage workers. They have been incredibly hit hard because of the pandemic. So we did not want to take that certainty away from workers.

I want to thank the member, though, for sharing the comments from her constituent, I believe — sorry if I have it wrong, Member — Melanie. I really appreciate hearing that kind of direct feedback. A lot of the feedback that you were sharing were federal government programs. I’ve made note of that, and we’ll be sharing it with my federal counterpart. As I said earlier in the estimates process, I have regular meetings with my federal counterpart to share with them the feedback that I’m hearing on the ground from businesses all across B.C.

Some of the ideas you shared are very worthwhile, considering that your recommendations from your caucus are already a part of the public consultation process that just completed two days ago. We’ll definitely take some of those ideas and put them in for consideration as well.

That’s what we’ve been saying all along with our economic recovery public consultation process — that good ideas can come from anywhere. Nobody has a hold on them. We wanted to make sure we opened it up to British Columbians like Melanie so we could hear their ideas.

In terms of what our government is doing to support women in businesses, well, I think we can’t ignore the fact that our government put forward the largest historical investment in child care and that that has helped all families and all parents but particularly women parents, as we know that still, today, women take on a larger amount of domestic labour and child rearing than male counterparts in a heterosexual relationship. That child care component is very important for women.

Some of the reasons that we’re seeing women not re-enter the workforce as quickly as, perhaps, their male counterparts as jobs become more online is the matching of jobs restarting and child care restarting. There might be a lag in their child care, for example. I really wanted to acknowledge how important that historical investment in child care is.

One of our streams with the export navigator program is specifically for women. I have personally seen the success. The member talked about using metrics from her own backyard, in her own community, where she sees how businesses are doing. Well, I would say that a metric like that is how I would measure some of the success we’re seeing for women out of the export navigator program, because in my community of Nelson, I’ve seen several businesses headed by women do exceptionally improved sales because of the export navigator program. I think I’ve mentioned this earlier in estimates — Lillie and Coho Hats. You can buy them online. They are very fabulous.

Then another way in which we are ensuring that we’re supporting women in businesses is that all of our legislation and regulation has a GBA+ lens applied to it as well so that when we’re making legislation and regulation that are going to be impacting the business community, we have that very specific lens that has proven, all over the world, to provide a better analysis of the gendered aspects of legislation and policy-making.

C. Oakes: Thank you to the minister. Thank you for being open to listening to the recommendations that have been put forward by both opposition caucus and by constituents that we have heard. I do appreciate that.

[6:20 p.m.]

I, too, am deeply concerned about the lower-paid workers in our province. I’m worried that they’re not going to have a job. It’s one thing for the minister to talk about the importance of looking after those workers. But we’ve clearly canvassed today why it’s so essential that we have an economic recovery plan when we hear clearly the unemployment rate that this province is facing. A significant portion of that is lower-paid workers. On behalf of these workers, we need a plan now. We need an economic recovery plan now.

The Tourism Industry Association of B.C. submitted, this week, a recovery stimulus package for British Columbia’s tourism and hospitality sector that brought forth some very thoughtful recommendations that would actually help support workers, not just rhetoric or aspirational conversations about how we want to help workers. It will actually put people to work. I think that’s a critically important thing.

Out of that were the recommendations we canvassed earlier about making sure that there is an economic recovery grant, not just tax deferrals. Cash flow is a significant challenge for so many. The restaurant sector is having trouble. They’re concerned about how they’re going to pay rent, how they’re going to pay suppliers, and how they’re going to hire people back on and keep them hired, especially if there’s a second wave. That plan is critically important.

I just wanted to go back quickly, though, to the member’s comments on child care and housing. I agree with the minister. I agree, as we move forward to support women, how critically important that is and how, from a small business perspective…. I understand very clearly. The B.C. chamber and other stakeholder groups have identified that as a serious concern of small businesses.

In my community, I have seven spaces that are $10-a-day daycare — seven spaces. I recognize that it’s one thing to talk about investments that are being made, record investments in child care. But when I have seven spaces, I am challenged with understanding how the minister can support the idea that that’s somehow a success. We heard clearly from the parliamentary secretary responsible for child care this week that we are going to be significantly challenged on the child care front with COVID-19, that we do not have enough spaces and that we are going to have significant challenges. For the minister to talk about what a great job they’re doing when we just don’t see those results on the ground is very troubling.

On the housing front, this government has done a terrible job on delivering the housing starts that they promised. They promised British Columbia these housing starts that we’re just not seeing. We’re seeing housing starts go down. We’re seeing the supply nowhere near what the government should be providing. That has a real impact on women, it has a real impact on young people, and it has a real impact on small businesses.

I know we’re coming close to the end of that. I really do want to thank the minister. What I will say is that one of the privileges of being in opposition is that we get to be aspirational. We get to put ideas and thoughts out there. It’s a great opportunity. I had the opportunity to listen to the member when she was in opposition. I have heard some of the aspirational ideas that the member put forward. I know with all sincerity that all of us as MLAs want, clearly, the best for British Columbians. I want to thank the member for that. What I will also say is that governing is hard. Governing is difficult. It’s critically important, as we learned in government, to have a very clear, concise plan.

[6:25 p.m.]

As we look at closing and providing, I guess, my final remarks to the minister, what we’ve canvassed through estimates over two days is that there has been a pretty significant shift that we’ve seen through the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness, and this priority shift has happened before COVID-19 happened, to be clear.

We’ve experienced a significant reduction in confidence that we’ve seen from small businesses. We were, at one time in Canada, leading the country in small business confidence, and prior to COVID-19, that has been significantly reduced. We canvassed that last year in estimates, and I was hoping for a stronger, clearer plan from this minister on how and what steps this government would take to improve that business confidence.

We heard from the minister that we have seen capital flee from British Columbia. The minister earlier, in discussion on the forest sector, talked about how that’s a good thing when you see growth and investment leave the province. I disagree.

We heard from the minister that there’s a commitment from a net-zero and a small business lens that will be continued. But what we also saw from this minister is that there’s actually an increase in regulation, and that increase is going to increase the costs of small business and have dramatic effects on people in British Columbia.

What we heard from this minister is that exports are actually down under this minister. We have heard from this minister, from a competitive nature, that the metrics that we are looking to measure competitiveness…. That’s permitting, taxation — those issues. We clearly know….

The minister was the former Minister of Energy and Mines. I can tell you on the permitting side, under our government — especially when you look at the placer sector — you could get a permit through in about 60 days. That has now gone up to anywhere from 180 to 240. So I don’t count that as a very strong success or a strong indicator or a strong metric in how the minister has outlined the success that they are doing.

The minister talked about the success that they’re having on child care and housing. We just don’t see that.

Finally, the minister talked about the importance of supporting workers. Again, when we have seen higher unemployment rates, then, across the province, and specifically higher unemployment rates for young people, that should be incredibly alarming.

My final comment to the minister, my final plea to the minister. Everything I’ve identified here, and my colleagues have, during these estimates of Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness suggests one thing: it is critically important today that the minister take seriously what is happening on the economic front in British Columbia. It is critically important that this minister and this government come out as quickly as possible with an economic recovery plan before we lose more businesses and more workers are without long-term jobs to support their families to make sure they have a roof over their head and to ensure that they have food security.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I ask the minister if they would like to make any closing remarks before I call the vote.

Hon. M. Mungall: I’m very glad to hear the member express her strong, strong support for universal child care and affordable housing and for making sure that we get more affordable housing out into the communities around British Columbia. I look forward to seeing her supportive vote for those items and, perhaps, supporting the budget when we complete estimates.

I have a suspicion, based on the rest of her comments, that she may not be supportive of the overall budget. She clearly has some concerns.

I disagree with the way she and some of her colleagues have characterized the state of the economy here in British Columbia and where things are headed. But you know what, hon. Chair? That’s why we have a democratic system where we’re allowed to debate and offer up our different points of view, and thank goodness we have it.

[6:30 p.m.]

On that note, I just want to say that I’m not able to sit in this chair and answer questions without the tremendous help of the ministry staff people. What you don’t see in this little box here is the number of great people that are in this room with me — all safely social distancing. It’s a large room. They’ve been able to help me in providing information from stacks and stacks and stacks — and I know the member will remember all of this — of binders, making sure that we’re prepared and able to provide as much information as we can that comes from this ministry.

I want to thank them all very much for all of their efforts and for all of their help. What they can’t see in this room is that the member has given a thumbs-up for all of you guys and all of your hard work.

I also want to say, because I have the floor, Chair, and I know that I have to give it up here….

Before we go, I also want to say thank you to my wonderful family: my incredible husband — it’s our ninth wedding anniversary today — and my beautiful two-year-old son, who is just the light of my life. I wouldn’t be able to do this job if I didn’t have that family support. They travel with me wherever I go around the province. We get to be together, and they provide me with the strength to keep on keeping on with all the wonderful work that this ministry and this job and being able to represent British Columbians entails.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you, Minister and all Members.

Vote 34: ministry operations, $93,116,000 — approved.

Hon. M. Mungall: I move that the committee rise and report resolution and completion on the estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. I thank all of you. Have a good evening.

This committee now stands adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 6:33 p.m.