Fifth Session, 41st Parliament (2020)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, August 13, 2020
Afternoon Sitting
Issue No. 358
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Orders of the Day | |
THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 2020
The House met at 1:32 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Finance.
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Gibson in the chair.
The committee met at 1:32 p.m.
On Vote 25: ministry operations, $267,491,000 (continued).
The Chair: Hon. Members, due to some technical problems here, we’ll take a brief recess. We’ll get the committee back together momentarily.
The committee recessed from 1:38 p.m. to 1:41 p.m.
[S. Gibson in the chair.]
Hon. C. James: Thank you for your patience, Members. The fun of technology is that once in a while, it doesn’t work. So we’re back again.
S. Cadieux: Welcome back, Minister. We’ll continue on this afternoon. We’ve got a number of more questions on the supplementary estimates.
We’ll start in with this. Yesterday government announced the hiring of an additional 500 contact tracers that were going to be necessary. We understand that that falls within the health and mental health supports bucket, under critical services in the contingencies allocations. Can the minister tell us, please, what the anticipated cost of 500 contact tracers is?
Hon. C. James: The specifics around the cost for the 500 contact tracers is a Ministry of Health item, obviously. They will be not all hired at the same time. There will be different costs, based on when those people will be brought in, but that’s, again, a Ministry of Health budget item. Just from the $5 billion and where the dollars come from, obviously, that does fit with part of the pandemic budget here that we’re talking about, the supplementary estimate.
We have over $1 billion, as the member will know, allocated for the Ministry of Health. Those costs, again…. As we’ve talked about, that’s a notional allocation that has been put aside. I expect that there’ll be some of these costs that will come out of that. Then there’s also the federal safe restart dollars that are coming to the province. There’s a portion of those, and I know we’ll talk about that a little bit when we talk about the second supp.
There are dollars that are cost-shared, and there are dollars that are just coming to the province that are all federal dollars. Those negotiations haven’t finished yet. So the federal government will be announcing that when they’re completed. But there will be health dollars coming in that portion of federal dollars as well. We expect that some of those will go towards contact tracing as well.
S. Bond: Thank you to the Finance Minister for that response. Obviously, we understand that this is a health-related measure. But is the minister saying that she doesn’t have a sense of what the cost of that initiative would be? One would assume that, considering she’s managing the overall funding envelope for a pandemic response, she would have some sense of what that package of additional workers would cost.
I’ll ask that question again. I’m going to ask a second question. We’ve already started to receive…. I’ve received, already, constituency email about the fact that this is, basically, for a potential surge. In the release that was done by the government, they made it clear that they’re managing 98 percent of the contact tracing at the moment. So I’m glad to hear the minister say that they’re not all going to be hired at once. Obviously, it should be matching the circumstances. Does she not have some sense of what the cost is, considering it’s coming out of pandemic dollars, basically under her watch?
I’m also going to ask a question. The release itself talked about: “This is a welcome surge capacity and will also allow some of the other important work that has been put aside necessarily to focus on the pandemic to be picked up again.” The money that’s been granted to the Ministry of Health is for pandemic-related issues. The release points out that there’s going to be other stuff that was set aside, which doesn’t sound like that’s necessarily directly related to the pandemic.
Can the minister give us a better sense of her understanding — as the Finance Minister, who’s looking after the pandemic envelope — of what the cost is going to be for contact tracing? Is there going to be an apportionment of those dollars, based on what’s pandemic-related and what is overall public health capacity?
Hon. C. James: I think I want to just…. Again, it’ll sound like a continued focus on this. But it’s really important, when we’re looking at the COVID action plan, to recognize, again, that these are notional allocations that are put aside. These are not specifics. The specifics, again, come as the year goes on, as we look at the costing. But we have put notional allocations aside for a number of different pieces.
This piece, again, if you look at the 500 FTEs, if you look at the cost, the notional allocation would be between $40 million and $50 million — again, within the envelope that we put aside, the over $1 billion that we put aside for Health.
The member also asked about whether this was an issue of COVID or whether there were pieces related to ministry work. As I’ve said earlier, COVID-related pieces come out of this supplementary budget. That’s what this is for. These are obviously COVID-related expenses.
As I mentioned, we’ll be looking at federal dollars around safe restart that also relate to these. So these dollars, again, will come through, as I said, the budget that’s already notionally allocated in the area of Health for COVID.
S. Cadieux: Thank you, Minister, for that.
It does raise another question — not that these contact tracers aren’t necessary or that it’s not a legitimate thing to be included here. It is, and we’re not suggesting that it’s not. Obviously, there are COVID-related expenditures that wouldn’t be made otherwise. This is one of those things.
However, the minister did bring up, in her answers, the fact that this might also be covered by the safe restart dollars coming from the federal government. When we had our briefing, staff alluded to the same — that actually, some or many of the things that have been announced by government as a part of the $5 billion and the spend that’s, we expect, going on, is out ahead of what the federal government has done. But on some things — for instance, child care — the federal government will likely be backstopping some of those dollars through the restart plan.
It’ll be very interesting to see, when that comes out, how that adjusts or how government and the minister then adjust their numbers relating to their $254 million child care spend that they’re suggesting is part of the business support spend.
I think that’s important, because with every dollar that the federal government might decide to provide to the province for non-cost-shared supports…. Staff indicated that some of those things were things that have already been paid for. So if that’s the case, then, theoretically, that frees up dollars in the plan or in the contingency to be spent on other things.
I think that’s what we’re trying to get at here today, Minister. It isn’t a criticism of the fact that child care supports need to be provided or contact tracers need to be paid for. It’s that we’re trying to get clarity on the numbers, because government, through estimates, is supposed to provide some clarity to the opposition about what it is they’re asking opposition to help support through the budget. That is the purpose of estimates.
I think that’s what we’re trying to get at with our questions today. It’s to understand the spend, understand how these expenses are falling out. Are they what our government has proposed they might be, in terms of envelopes?
When we look at the allocations that are notional for prudence, I agree. I’ve said that already today a number of times — that that is smart, right? Planning ahead. We’ve got the rest of the year to get through. Needing to allow for that and have some flexibility and the ability to move is important. I understand that. But in the spirit of working together, which I believe that the opposition has shown in relation to the pandemic, we’re just asking for some clarity.
When I asked earlier about what amount is being held back, notionally, in health and mental health, in financial supports, the reason is to understand what we’re looking at, going forward. Not everything on the list has a contingency or an allocation built in, notionally, for a spend, should it be necessary, if there’s a resurgence. For example, the pandemic pay, which I understand was a federally announced program that our government, the minister’s government, was to cost-share on. That’s in here as $106 million that government needed to put towards that and did and made the decisions about how to spend that money.
We’re going to move to some questions about that, but certainly, I am curious now if the ministry is under the illusion, through discussions with the federal government, that money is coming to backstop some of the spend that has already happened. What other things on this list does the government expect that the federal government is going to announce, and are any of those things in the fall, should there be a resurgence, going to need to be backstopped with contributions by government — for example, another go of pandemic pay?
Let’s just get into that. How did government decide who was in and who was out in determining the recipients for the pandemic pay?
Hon. C. James: I think the member is quite right. This was a federal program. There was the opportunity for us to be able to cost-share with the federal government.
I think it’s important to note — and I know the member will have heard me say this before — that there isn’t one program that’s going to recognize and support everyone during these difficult times. It’s part of the reason we’ve put a whole range of programs in place, to provide that support to individuals and to businesses, because we recognize that one program doesn’t support everyone.
We felt it was important to be able to partner up with the federal government, to be able to access the dollars. We wanted to try and…. The kinds of principles we looked at, just as other provinces have done — we looked at front-line workers who are working with a vulnerable population, where physical distancing is difficult. We wanted to try and get as many individuals supported as possible, so to try and get the dollars to as many people as possible. There are about 250,000 individuals who are eligible for this pay.
Again, looking at the workers, we looked at the area of health. We looked at the area of community social services. In the core public service, we looked at the areas of corrections and social services.
We’re pretty consistent with what Ontario looked at, for example. We have a bit broader definition than Ontario, but the key really was to look at those people who were working on the front line with the most vulnerable populations, where physical distancing was more difficult, and in the areas that I outlined.
S. Cadieux: Just for clarity…. Much of what the minister says, I understand. I certainly understand the challenge in determining who is providing that front-line service and to who and so on. But I do have a question in relation to the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction and the eligible groups under that ministry.
Not to in any way put any emphasis away from the importance of the work that people in that ministry do, but employment and assistance workers, service delivery division assistant supervisors all were eligible. But in my time in that ministry, certainly with my visits to those offices, the vast majority of client service was delivered behind desks, behind partitions, so physical distancing would have been very possible in those circumstances.
I’m curious as to how, for example, that was seen as something where physical distancing wasn’t possible and, therefore, workers were eligible. Yet workers in long-term-care facilities that are not subsidized by government — for example, that are providing direct, one-on-one care for elderly people that are very at risk — were not considered essential in this circumstance.
Hon. C. James: I certainly recognize that not everyone who has provided services was able to be funded through this pot of money. No question about that. I fully recognize that. It’s why, as I said, we’ve tried to make sure there was a range of programs, because we knew this one pot of money wasn’t going to address all those who provide care during the time period.
On the issue of private care or private bed facilities in long-term care, for example, we did focus, as I said, to make sure we could get as many people funded as possible. We did focus on provincially funded services. So there are private facilities where some of the beds are publicly funded, provincially funded. They did get the percentage of hours that are worked for those beds. They did get those resources in those facilities, so there were supports for some of those facilities if they were publicly funded services within that facility. So that was counted for there.
Then on the employment assistance workers, in fact, many of those workers were asked to do supports during the pandemic. There were people who were providing support. We did, as the ministry does when we look at these programs, make sure that we had those discussions around where the front-line work was happening, and that’s why those people are included.
S. Cadieux: I don’t disagree, Minister, that this is challenging and certainly wasn’t going to be a program that served everyone. Indeed, it wasn’t the provincial government’s program to begin with. I acknowledge that.
The provincial government made decisions about who was in and who was out. They made a decision that supervisors of administrative services were in. That doesn’t sound like a front-line delivery service to me, that couldn’t be done without social distancing or behind plexiglass or what have you. Maybe I’m wrong. I’ve been wrong before.
It is curious to me, when you look through the list from each ministry of who is in and who is out, that there are an awful lot of circumstances where there are people included where it’s…. No doubt their jobs are important. No doubt they continued working through the pandemic, but so did lots of people. Yet as the minister says, in some circumstances, in organizations where we have seen the biggest challenge, arguably, with COVID, in long-term care, working side by side, government made a decision to include some people and not others — even in the same facility. That is confusing.
I don’t think anybody would argue that the people doing the work and those in long-term care facilities were certainly on the front lines of this. Did government do a gender-based analysis of the pandemic pay before making the decisions about who was in and who was out, and can the minister provide that to us today?
Hon. C. James: I think the member knows that GBA+ is a priority and a focus of the government. All Treasury Board submissions that come forward need to include an analysis of GBA+.
I think this is an important point. I didn’t get a chance to raise it this morning when we were talking about…. Any requests that come forward for pay from the supplementary estimates piece, of course, have to have a Treasury Board submission and, of course, have to go through that rigour.
When we had a discussion earlier this morning about existing budgets and the existing budget that ministries have versus the supplementary estimates and the opportunity to be able to access supplementary estimates for a COVID-related specific area…. The usual kind of process that’s in place for all governments, where Treasury Board submissions need to be done — need to come forward and need to go through that rigour — applies. I think that’s an important piece to note.
The main point that was identified on the GBA+ for the pandemic pay was that health and social services are — no question — female-dominated professions. If you’re looking at what areas to set as priorities, and you’re looking at GBA+, those areas, those female-dominated professions, obviously, are places that one should be looking at.
Just a couple of statistics. Ninety percent of nurses, medical lab workers and pathologist assistants are women, and 78 percent of community and social service sector workers are women. Those were considerations, again, that came forward as part of the Treasury Board submission.
S. Cadieux: Thank you, Minister.
Again, there’s been a lot of talk, certainly, about the seniors care sector through this pandemic. A number of significant adjustments have been made as a result — single-site orders, for example, which, of course, there is a significant cost to implementing. That’s included in this contingencies allocation, according to the documents.
How can the minister explain the incongruence between the health care implications of single-site orders applying unilaterally across the sector to all care homes yet, at the same time, making the decision that pandemic pay would only be given to the publicly funded ones? Why not…? Especially knowing that the vast majority of the employees in these organizations are women, and we know the wages are low in this sector. That’s a discussion for us all on another day, I think. But we know that women are the majority of workers in this sector. We know they’re not well paid.
At the same time as government decided to apply the pandemic pay to relatively well-paid, in comparison, government employees on the front lines, government decided not to include all workers in the seniors care sector. Can the minister explain her rationale?
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
The Chair: Minister.
Hon. C. James: Thank you very much, Chair. Welcome to the chair.
I think, again, as I said at the very start of the discussion around the pandemic pay and, in fact, around all programs and services, the member is quite right. You have to make a choice. You have to make a choice about who is going to be included and who isn’t, because it’s not an endless pot. It, in fact, as I said, is a federal government program that we were leveraging to be able to provide supports in the province. So, yes, we did make a choice, as I mentioned, around the criteria for people to be able to get these supports.
Does that mean that there are others who are deserving of supports? Yes, and in fact that’s part of the reason that, as we built our COVID-19 action plan, we really looked at where the federal programs were and looked at where some gaps were and looked at how we could fill in those gaps, as a province, to try and provide support to exactly the kinds of discussions that the member is raising.
Our emergency benefit for workers, for example…. When the government first brought in their program, it was a very narrow program. With all of the advocacy by Premiers of other provinces and Finance Ministers and others, we saw that program broadened. But it was a very narrow program, and there were a lot of people who didn’t fit that program. We brought in our emergency benefit program to be able to provide some support there.
The climate action tax credit that we implemented through the COVID-19 action plan is income-tested. Again, it’s a program that goes to those who are most in need. So the member is quite right. This is about choices. We had to make choices about where the dollars were going to go, how we could get them out the door and how we could make sure that the most amount of people as possible could be able to get the supports. That’s exactly why we made the choices we did.
S. Cadieux: I appreciate government is about making choices. It’s clear that this government chose unionized workers and government workers over extending the benefit to all the workers in one sector. That’s the choice government made.
Now, government could have made a different choice, or government could have made more than one different choice, in order to ensure that all the workers in, for example, assisted living and seniors care that are doing the same jobs and that are, in some cases, in the same building could have received the top-up. Government could have decided to provide a lesser amount per hour but provide it to everyone. But they didn’t. They decided to pay the unionized workers or the workers in only government-subsidized placements.
It’s an interesting choice. It is an interesting choice, indeed, and I think government will be remembered for that choice.
Why wouldn’t government have opted to provide a slightly lower dollar amount, maybe $3 an hour instead of $4, in order to spread the support to more people, especially when, as they say, the minister’s decision excludes workers that work side by side in these organizations, in some cases, and certainly provide the absolute same essential front-line service care to our most vulnerable seniors.
Hon. C. James: I think we’ve had some of this discussion where I talked about the fact that we wanted to make sure that the dollars that went out were meaningful. The member is quite right. All of these are choices that government makes.
I do want to make a correction, though. The member continues to say that this focused on unionized employees. That’s not accurate. It, in fact, goes to union and non-union. The issue is the provincially funded services. For example, in community social services, in particular, many are non-union workers who provide contracted services on behalf of government — provincially funded programs. They receive the pay as well. So it’s not related to union or non-union. It’s related to provincially funded services.
As I said, we’ve kind of canvassed this. The member is quite accurate that these are choices, and we made the choices based on, as I said, a scan across the country, a scan across other provinces to look at what other provinces were doing. Again, we matched up with Ontario around looking at the community social services piece, the health piece — the importance of looking at that piece — and the justice end, as well, to again make sure that we could provide as many people as possible with the funding that was going to be meaningful to them.
S. Bond: Well, we certainly appreciate that the minister and the government had to make choices. Whether it comes down to union or non-union, there was a delineation made somewhere that there are workers working in care homes today….
Basically, I think if you were to look at one of the lessons we will have learned from this pandemic, it’s that care homes in many ways were the epicentre and are the epicentre. Yet there are workers who are doing exactly the same work who got pandemic pay and others that didn’t.
I’m sure the minister…. Although she provided us the “provincially funded” answer, I’m sure there must be a degree of discomfort for her in answering that question. There are people who deserved — and we’ve heard from a lot of them — that provision of pandemic pay for the equal work that they were doing.
Just a couple of other follow-ups. Then I know my colleague wants to go back for another question about the recovery issue.
I should say to the minister that this is one of the most responded-to initiatives that the government put in place. I am sure that every MLA in the Legislature heard from people who believed, and rightly so, that they were on the front lines serving British Columbians during the pandemic, and they were not on the pandemic pay list.
We understand the complexity — federal program, provincial, a combination, all of those kinds of things — but there are a lot of people who felt they were left out of this initiative. I think the minister is well aware of that.
I wanted to raise an issue about…. I won’t do it with the specifics now, but I know that a number of people, including constituents in my riding, have contacted the minister’s office directly and also have used the email — it was TemporaryPandemicPay@gov.bc.ca or something like that — to check on their ability to actually receive pandemic pay and have not heard back. I would love to hear from the minister whose responsibility it is to deal with some of those specifics.
I have, for example, a constituent group in my riding that deals with the transition of men from the correctional system. Certainly, they fit the criteria. The only information they’ve received to date is that the staff appear to be eligible, but the government was only paying, as the minister has noted, provincially funded organizations. They are federally funded, yet they absolutely fit the criteria that was laid out.
Hopefully, the minister could just provide me with some sense of the long response time that some of these organizations are facing as they try to sort out, as they stand up for the people that work for them, whether or not there is a way to get clarity on whether their workers can receive pandemic pay.
Hon. C. James: I know we’ve canvassed this well, but I’ll just emphasize again the fact that there are many, many critical workers who provided support across our province.
I would agree with the member — and I said this when we announced the pandemic pay and the partnership we’re going in with the federal government — that in fact, there are critical workers across this province in almost every profession, whether we’re talking about grocery clerks, municipal workers, transit drivers or long-term care. You name it. There are people who provided extraordinary service.
Yes, this was one program out of a number of programs. The criteria was put in place with the aim to make sure that as many people as possible who were providing provincially funded services would be able to get these supports. No question that there are many, many others who provide that support.
Just on the member’s question around people writing in and people who have questions, the tracking is about 1,500 emails that came in to the address that the member was talking about. They’ve all been responded to at this stage. People may not have liked the response or may have wanted more information in the response, but they have all been responded to.
Communication now has also gone out to the employers. So the employers have also been notified now about whether they are eligible or their employees are eligible or not or which employees are eligible and which aren’t. That communication will go out to the employees as well, and then we’ll see the pandemic pay follow after that.
S. Cadieux: Minister, we’re going to switch back to the recovery fund — the $1.5 billion that is yet to be allocated publicly. I do this because this is an area of concern.
In our questions this morning, we talked a bit about how things were sitting, where things were at with the $5 billion that had been allocated for the pandemic and if the initial targeted amounts of $2.8 billion for people and $2.2 billion for business were still, in fact, the case.
A number of things have changed, the minister has indicated. A number of reallocations have happened, and there’s approximately $300 million less now allocated towards business — and has indicated that the child care component is being considered a business support. I don’t disagree. That is a support that supports both the employers and the individuals.
That wasn’t the indication in the original plan. So that’s a change. The minister indicated that there might be more changes and that some of the $1.5 billion that had been earmarked for economic recovery and a task force put together to help government decide what was needed in that area gave business, at that time, some indication that government understood the challenges and that government was prepared to act.
Till now there hasn’t been much support from government for business. The minister will point to the school tax relief, which is certainly a large number. There’s no doubt there. It’s now sitting outside of the $5 billion. Originally it was in, but government has seen fit to move that to a separate sort of pot.
That really targeted a segment of businesses — certainly not the majority of small businesses, as the majority of small businesses don’t own their premises. They don’t own the land that they’re in. They’re leasing or renting. So even if, eventually, that school tax relief trickles down to businesses, it’s likely going to be too late for many, given the numbers we’re hearing out of the board of trade, in terms of the number of businesses that have permanently already closed their doors and the anticipated closures that still loom.
We’re concerned about this. We’re hearing from small businesses, as I’m sure the minister is, about the inadequacy of the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program and the fact that it is so undersubscribed and not providing a lot of support. I know the minister knew that and put in place the no-eviction backstop to try and deal with that a little bit. But indeed, that isn’t going to provide any support to businesses who, when that no-eviction backstop stops, will be evicted for unpaid rent and/or face civil suits, as we’re already seeing in some cases, for unpaid rents.
I think business has been hoping, desperately, that government had a plan for the economy and that government was going to be able to step in and explain what that looked like, what that recovery plan looked like for the economy. But we’re not getting a lot of answers that provide that kind of comfort today from the minister.
She mentioned that jobs are the primary focus, of course, of the economic recovery plan, as they should be, but then suggested that perhaps those jobs had to fall within certain sectors like tourism, also extremely important right now and desperately waiting for support from government. That youth and women…. All things that I think we can all get behind in terms of the importance of focusing in that area.
However, we’ve also been hearing rumours, Minister. For example, that the tourism industry is going to have lots of money in September in advance of a fall election. We’ve been hearing rumours that there are about five dozen climate adaptation projects that are going to get funding out of that $1.5 billion. So while they might be completely legitimate and important projects that need to get done, they are likely to be temporary, sort of project-based funding.
How does that help the businesses that have had to lay off women, youth and close their doors, who haven’t been able to pay their rent for months? How does that help them in an economic recovery? Or is this just a further eroding of that $1.5 billion that had been set aside for the business economic recovery plan?
Hon. C. James: I know the members heard this, this morning and have heard this often, but it is an accurate statement to remind everyone that all of the work that we’ve been doing through COVID is about economic recovery.
I think that has been proven, over and over again, when we talk about — and businesses have been calling for this as well — the need for confidence by consumers, by individuals and by workers. If people don’t feel that confidence, then they won’t see their businesses recover. Whether we’re talking about initial supports that were put in place in March, whether we’re talking about the restart process and supports that were put in place through the restart process or whether we’re talking about going into the economic recovery plan in the next number of weeks, all of these pieces, in fact, are related to economic recovery.
The member talks about the information that we’re getting around economic recovery. There is no question. If I look at the submissions; if I look at the round tables that were held; if I look at the virtual town halls; if I look at the sector-by-sector virtual round tables and town halls of the Premier, myself, the Minister of Jobs and other ministers involved in particular areas — everything from a youth table, to a number of entrepreneurs, to those in the tech industry, to business leaders — we’ve held a number of those kinds of consultations, which have provided us with an extraordinary list of recommendations.
The member kind of brushed aside a couple of pieces of values that she mentioned. Well, in fact, those are issues that are coming forward. Those are pieces that are coming forward through this process. I think it’s important, again, to remember the context that, in fact, all the work is about economic recovery.
I’m glad the member agreed that child care is business, because, in fact, it is business. I think it’s important to acknowledge that. It’s not only business and individual business owners, but, in fact, it’s also a huge economic driver for this province and a huge economic driver when it comes to recovery. So, yes. These are business expenses. These are pieces that impact businesses and provide that support.
Again, the member talked about the property tax cut. That is unique to British Columbia — that we have provided that large an investment to support businesses. It’s over $700 million, not as a deferral but an actual cut — dollars going directly to businesses. The member said that many small businesses aren’t seeing that support. Well, let’s remember — in fact, this has been a topic of discussion in the Legislature — that many small businesses have triple-net leases. What do they have to pay as part of the triple-net leases? They’re required to pay property taxes. That’s part of their triple-net lease.
The B.C. Business Council, as well as many other businesses, in fact, called for a 25 percent reduction in property taxes as one of the first pieces that they were looking for, for both support and economic recovery. That’s exactly what this is. That’s exactly the kind of support that we’ve provided to businesses, as we look at the number of pieces.
The eviction ban. There are certainly problems with the federal program when it comes to support around commercial rent. We’ve raised those issues.
Again, we were a leader in British Columbia by moving ahead with what was called for by businesses, which was to put an eviction ban in place. If a business actually was able to apply for the program and didn’t, bring an eviction ban in to put some additional pressure on. That was called for by businesses, and again, we moved ahead on that piece.
Wholesale liquor pricing — again, called for by the industry. That’s already moved on. Tourism, local marketing relief for the destination organizations — again, a piece we’ve already moved on. The agricultural sector and supports for the agricultural sector — again, asked for, called for and followed through on.
I think it is important…. The member mentioned rumours. I’m not going to deal with rumours. I think all of us have been in these jobs long enough, if we take a look at the work that all of us have done, to know that there are always rumours swirling around about absolutely everything.
I think it’s important, as we put together these programs and services, to, again, look at the supports that are there and talk about the work that’s coming. The economic recovery will be an additional piece to the work that we’ve already done.
S. Bond: Actually, I think we do need some levity during these discussions. The Finance Minister just, first of all, talked about how we don’t deal with rumours. Well, the key rumour at the moment is that there may be a fall election. I can assure you the opposition didn’t start that rumour.
Perhaps this is a time that the Finance Minister might be wondering why we’re asking these kinds of questions, because there were specific criteria laid out in terms of direct support to businesses in British Columbia. The point is that many, many small businesses are not feeling the direct impacts of the money that has been set aside supposedly for business in British Columbia.
If we want to talk about rumours, the Finance Minister could end one right today. She could tell us that there’s not going to be a fall election and that this money — which, by the way, is taxpayer money, which I know she knows — is not being used as part of that pre-election kind of approach that might well be going on here. We can talk about rumours all right. We have lots to say about that. The Premier, even today and yesterday, refused to put an end to that rumour.
I digress. Let me go back to…. I’d like to have one issue clarified around pandemic pay, if the minister doesn’t mind. Could she just…? In table 3, when that document was tabled, when the minister tabled that document, pandemic pay was…. Actually, $106 million was allocated to temporary pandemic pay. Is the minister working within that envelope? Does she expect to spend all of that or more than that on pandemic pay?
Hon. C. James: Again, as I pointed out and as the member acknowledged, these are notional allocations. I’m going to continue to remind all of us of that. The notional allocation for pandemic pay is $425 million. That’s including the federal and the provincial dollars. The provincial portion of that is $106 million.
That’s the notional allocation. Specifics will come as we get to Q1, as we get to Q2 and as the dollars go out the door and we know the specifics.
S. Bond: Thank you very much to the minister for that clarity. I appreciate it.
We certainly recognize that there are notional allocations. You can imagine how challenging it is for us and for British Columbians when you start thinking about…. We keep hearing about: “This is notionally allocated. This is moving from here. We may move it.”
We understand the need for flexibility, but our job is to actually drill down and try to sort out whether or not the commitments that the government made to specific types of support are being delivered. In fact, we sit here today, and we listen to everything that we think might be coming out of the $1.5 billion economic recovery fund. Believe you me, that would be miraculous. The minister simply can’t do it all.
As we saw with pandemic pay, that requires choices, and choices mean that there are going to be people who get the support they need and deserve and people who are not. That’s just a fact, and that’s part of the reason the minister gets the salary she gets to be the Finance Minister. It is tough. There’s no doubt about it.
Our job is to try to get to the bottom of those numbers. So let’s look at a couple more items out of the economic recovery fund.
I had a colleague that made this observation to me, and I really appreciated it. I thought we would raise it today. When you think about economic recovery and economic stimulus, for example, some of the most successful programs have been application-driven programs where organizations, small businesses, regional districts and other organizations come together to apply for funding. They know what it takes, on the ground, to stimulate the economy and drive job growth.
Can the minister tell us…? At this moment in time, are there any specific initiatives captured within the economic recovery fund that would look at an application-based program, where people on the ground, knowing what they need, would be able to apply for direct support?
Hon. C. James: As the member knows, the economic recovery fund will be announced in the next number of weeks. It’s not announced yet, so I’m not going to get into specifics around what may or may not be included. That’s work in progress right now.
I do think there are a couple of principles that are important through this process, and I’m sure the member would agree. I know some of her focus around efficiencies. This is a piece that, in fact, is very important.
We want to make sure that as we move ahead with economic recovery, it is done in a way that is efficient and that makes it a smooth and straightforward process. If there are programs that come forward that have application processes, you want those to be straightforward, not complex, so the money can get out the door.
Those are principles that we are continuing to look at as we look at the economic recovery plan. I think they’re critical for making sure that, as I said, the support goes out in a way that works and in a way that’s efficient.
S. Bond: On June 16, the Premier actually said: “We had planned, within the $1.5 billion, to fund a paid sick leave program.” Can the minister confirm that that was the plan and give us an update on what her expectations are regarding the funding of that program?
Hon. C. James: This is a critical piece, and it points out again the discussion that we were having earlier about everything being about economic recovery. If people are going to work sick, we know that that is going to cause difficulties. We know that that’s going to cause problems for any kind of economic restart, which then causes problems, obviously, for any kind of economic recovery. So this is a piece we recognized early on.
The member will know the leadership that our Premier provided across this country in discussions with first ministers and discussions with the federal government. The Premier was a leader out on this issue, advocating for a sick-pay program not simply for British Columbia but in fact for all of Canada, because obviously what happens in other provinces and other economies impacts us as well. The Premier, early on, was out talking about this, as I said, and recognized how important it was going to be to both safe restart as well as economic recovery.
I’m really proud of the fact that because of that leadership and because of the leadership of other groups and organizations and labour organizations who have been pushing this issue for a long period of time as well, we saw the federal government step up and say that they will, in fact, provide funding and administration of the sick-leave program. That will now be part of a federal government-funded program that I think is critical to economic recovery.
S. Bond: Well, thank you. The Finance Minister actually misses the point. The point being that we’ve spent the last two days hearing the minister say that everything is notional and no decisions have been made. The Premier went out in public and said: “We planned, within the $1.5 billion, to fund a…sick-leave program.” That sounds like a predetermination of some spending out of the $1.5 billion.
Can the minister just rethink — look at that question again? Are there any other spending allocations that have been predetermined? Apparently the $1.5 billion was going to fund a sick-leave program. What else is the minister considering funding out of the $1.5 billion?
Hon. C. James: I’ll just give a very factual response back to the member. The $1.5 billion, as the member knows, will be announced. The economic recovery plan will be announced in the next few weeks, and the member, along with others, will see the specifics that are in that program, the programs that are going out and the economic recovery additional support work that has been done in addition to the dollars that we are already spending and that we’ve already announced.
S. Bond: Well, thank you to the Finance Minister. I appreciate that, but apparently, some of the decisions, or contemplated decisions, were made as early as June. A lot of the consultation with the economic recovery group and others was following that, so it will be interesting to see how that aligns.
From that perspective, let’s look at some of the asks that have rolled in to the minister’s desk. While she says she’s not going to make an announcement today…. I can understand that. They want to save it up and perhaps roll it out, because — heaven knows — there are a lot of rumours about what might happen this fall. I noticed the Finance Minister didn’t take the opportunity to put an end to the rumour that there may well be a fall election.
Let’s talk about the tourism sector. We know that it’s a very significant economic driver in British Columbia. We know that there has been a very significant ask. Some very large numbers have been asked for by the tourism sector.
Can the minister perhaps give us a sense of what percentage of the recovery fund the tourism sector will be getting? Will the minister be responding and looking at the direct ask that the Tourism Industry Association of B.C. asked for? It was a very large figure. What can the tourism sector expect to see out of the $1.5 billion?
Hon. C. James: The member is quite right. I’m not going to announce the economic recovery plan today in estimates. That will come in the next few weeks. That’s work that’s being done. That will be the response on any specifics around what’s coming forward in the plan because, as I said, that’s work underway.
I can assure the member that we have had a number of submissions from, obviously, the formal tourism industry, but individual businesses, individual workers who work in that sector, and all of those have been thoroughly reviewed through this process.
S. Bond: Well, thank you to the Finance Minister. Obviously, it’s actually a bit disappointing and difficult. You know, we’re talking about taxpayer money here. We’re talking about the parties in the Legislature coming forward to support the $5 billion package, knowing that British Columbians need support. We’re talking about an economic recovery package of $1.5 billion, which will be announced after the Legislature ends its session.
We are in the position of asking questions. The minister has answered with the same answer to virtually every question. Basically, it’s “more work being done; just hold that thought.” Well, this is taxpayer money, and the Finance Minister knows that full well.
Let me just remind her that the requests from the tourism industry group…. Let’s just lay that out, because if this is granted, there’s not a whole lot of room in the $1.5 billion. Let’s start with: working capital recovery grant request of $475 million; support for adaptation costs of $190 million; support for developing resilient B.C.-focused supply chains, $15 million.
Will the Minister of Tourism be responding to the tourism industry request and providing them with the funds that have been specifically requested for those three initiatives?
Hon. C. James: As I said already, I’m not going to give specifics around the $1.5 billion. Those will be announced. But I do think it’s important to talk about the accountability piece. In fact, we are accountable, and I am accountable. Government is accountable for those dollars — how they’re spent, where they’re allocated and the choices that are made. We will be accountable and responsible for that.
The specifics will come out, as I mentioned, through the economic recovery plan. I’m happy to book a time, once we get the date for that, with the critics to go through a thorough briefing of that plan so that they are aware of the specifics in the plan as well. That will also be released to the public, and the public will also have an opportunity with each of the quarterly reports that come out in Q1 and Q2 to again look at the specifics that are there.
The member is accurate that there is accountability around those dollars and necessary accountability around those dollars. As I said, we have looked at this, the Tourism Ministry and others have looked at the submissions coming in from not only tourism but from all businesses across British Columbia.
S. Bond: Well, thank you. Both the minister and I have been in the Legislature long enough to know that when the session is over, the chance for the opposition to do a thorough critique, to have a conversation and to actually vote about those kinds of things has ended.
Yes, the minister has always been very gracious and helpful about providing briefings, but let’s be clear. By that point, the decisions will have been made and our opportunity to take a much deeper dive into what that looks like will have ended. So that is incredibly disappointing.
Let’s move on to another group. The B.C. Business Council has introduced a very thorough recovery plan. I’m sure the minister has read it and has looked at the recommendations, as we have. The B.C. Business Council is calling for a 50 percent cut to the PST for two years to promote growth. Is the minister prepared to support that recommendation?
Hon. C. James: Again, all of the submissions that have come in will be thoroughly reviewed, as they have been. All will be thoroughly considered, and the decisions will be made when the plan comes out in September.
S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. One of the significant issues that we’ve discussed both in responses in the Legislature and outside…. There has been a significant request for the extension of tax deferrals to the end of 2020. Will the minister today commit to extending tax deferrals?
Those are the kind of practical things that help small businesses on the ground in British Columbia. That’s a decision that the minister could easily have made earlier in the session. She could make it today. Is she prepared to extend the tax deferral deadline to the end of 2020?
Hon. C. James: I know the member has heard me say this. I’ve responded in question period, and to the press and to the members as well, that we did defer a number of pieces, both filings as well as tax payments to October 1.
As I’ve said previously, we are taking a look at the restart. We are taking a look at the economy and where things are going. We’ll be making those decisions around that date and whether that date needs to be moved, whether there are other decisions to be made. A number of different ideas and approaches have come in. We’ll be making that decision shortly.
S. Bond: All right. Chalk up another one to we’ll have to wait and see. Again, it’s interesting that all of these decisions are being made post a legislative session and in the midst of a lot of speculation about the potential for an election. I think the minister knows full well what that implies about some of these decisions.
Let’s move on to the joint recovery submission from the coalition of housing sector groups, including the Urban Development Institute, and there are others. Can the minister tell us whether their recommendations are being considered, including recommendations for building retrofit incentives into a recovery plan and for exempting additional energy conservation materials from the PST? I know the minister has already referenced skills training.
Two very specific requests around retrofit incentives and exempting additional energy conservation materials from the PST. Are those being considered for the recovery announcement?
Hon. C. James: As I’ve said, and I’ll continue to remind the member, yes, we are reviewing all of the submissions that have come in. I talked about the values earlier that we’re looking at. Certainly the retrofits piece is already a priority for our government, already built in as one of the CleanBC initiatives. So obviously it fits with programs that are already in place as well.
All the submissions have been thoroughly read, have been thoroughly reviewed and are thoroughly considered.
S. Bond: Well, we’ll continue with the long list of asks the minister has received. I can assure British Columbians that when you start adding up the cost of all of these requests, the minister and the government have some tough decisions to make in the weeks ahead. My assumption is that most of them have been made, and we’re just waiting for a convenient announcement date. So we’ll wait to see which ones of those will be announced.
Let’s just pursue the presentations that have been made, for example, by the Canadian Home Builders Association. I’m assuming that the minister is contemplating, then, some tax incentives for residential construction, also looking at development cost charge deferrals, those kinds of things. Is the minister considering the recommendations that have been made by the Canadian Home Builders?
Hon. C. James: As I’ve said, all proposals that have come forward are read. They’re thoroughly reviewed, and they’re thoroughly considered.
S. Bond: Well, I think that’s a perfect segue. All submissions have been — would be — thoroughly considered.
The Leader of the Opposition has, actually, written to the Premier with over 60 ideas — I’m sure the Finance Minister is well aware of them — that would address some of the issues related to COVID-19. There’s a large number of recommendations that fit with the intent of the economic recovery and stimulus package. Can the minister assure us that…?
I’d be happy to start going through some of the very specific requests that have been made. I’m sure she’s well aware of them — targeted tax reductions that would promote economic growth, looking at a 90-day holiday on the PST, hotel tax and EHT. Again, those not being a deferral but an actual relief, a provision of relief. Looking at the province’s capacity to provide rent relief. Is there a second wave in the fall? How will they manage that?
There was a great deal of thought and effort put into a series of ongoing letters that came over a period of time, provided to the Finance Minister and to the government, with a list of ideas and suggestions. Are those being considered in the minister’s plan for economic recovery?
Hon. C. James: Yes, as I’ve said, all submissions — I received a copy of the letter from the Premier’s office, as well, from the Official Opposition — are read. They’re received. They’re reviewed, and they’re considered as part of the larger plan.
The member talked about choices. Choices will have to be made. But yes, the official opposition’s ideas are in the mix, as everyone’s ideas are in the mix.
S. Bond: I’m relieved to hear that. I am hopeful…. Should any of those important suggestions be included, it will be interesting to see how those are captured.
I want to continue on the whole theme of economic recovery. The minister obviously knew that we were very concerned about the fact that we did not have a sort of state-of-the-province sense of the economy.
On July 14, she presented her economic update. She said at that time, and she’s referenced it numerous times: “We look forward to sharing the recovery plan framework in September.” Can the minister tell us now when exactly she will present the framework to the public?
Hon. C. James: The members can expect the economic recovery specifics, the spending of the $1.5 billion, in the fall. We expect that in September.
S. Bond: Oh my. Thank you for that question and the answer, such as it is.
[S. Gibson in the chair.]
These are unprecedented times. The opposition and members of the Green Party stepped up in good faith and came to the Legislature to actually respond quickly. Now what do we find? The minister is going to present the recovery plan after the House has risen, instead of allowing it to be subject to the appropriate scrutiny from elected officials. Even today: “Well, you’ll get it in the fall.”
Today during question period, all we heard about was the Premier’s requirement that we should all be thinking about being more collaborative. Well, I would like to suggest that this is hardly a collaborative approach to looking at economic recovery. The opportunity we have as the opposition to scrutinize those plans is when the Legislature is in session. We are now going to have to wait. The minister won’t even give us a date. That, once again, fuels all kinds of speculation about what other things are on the government’s mind about the fall.
Let’s try this question. Will the plan be a formal plan? Will it have specific spending attached? The minister called it a framework. Will it be more than a framework? Will there be a formal plan with taxpayer dollar spending outlined clearly so that British Columbians — and the opposition, for that matter — will have a sense of exactly how the minister plans to spend $1.5 billion of taxpayer money?
The Chair: Minister.
Hon. C. James: Thank you very much, Chair. Welcome to the chair.
It will be a plan. It will have notional allocations, just as we did with the COVID action plan that came out, for the spending of the $1.5 billion.
S. Cadieux: You know, the minister may think that this is fun to get up and attempt to jump around the question with her answers. But in fact, this is the opportunity that is supposed to be provided for the opposition to ask questions.
I’m going to just remind the minister. Parliamentary Practice, fifth edition, chapter 12, “Scope of Debate”: “The supply process can be lengthy and detailed, providing members the opportunity to review all government ministries by asking questions about ministry plans and proposed spending, and to consider and approve the money that is requested by government.” That’s what this estimates process is about.
In this very unusual year, at a time when we have been cooperative, when we have made numerous statements, even today, of the fact that we’re not trying to criticize what the government is spending on…. We are just trying to get some clarity on what government is doing with the $5 billion of taxpayer money that they are spending to react to the pandemic.
Government itself, through the Finance Minister — and the Premier, at times — has made conflicting statements about how that money’s going to be spent. They have made public statements about the importance of economic recovery, at the same time telling the public that economic recovery in their eyes is the health recovery.
Nobody in this House is suggesting that the health recovery isn’t first, most paramount and got to be done. We are supportive of the efforts. But when we ask questions about…. Okay. So how much is spent up to date, today? Given that we’ve been through the first five months of this, where are we at? How much money have we spent of that $5 billion? How much money does government have in reserve should there be a fall surge?
That is not an unreasonable question, Minister. That is not unreasonable at all, when government itself has said that they’re putting together a task force of experts, essentially, in the business community and of employees through labour, etc., to provide advice to government on how to spend that $1.5 billion. That was the statement when that task force was put together.
We’re now asking: are these things that that task force and members of it have put forward being included in that $1.5 billion? Or the minister’s earlier statements today about that $1.5 billion: “Well, you know, it might have to go to other things.”
We’re trying to get some clarity so we can help the minister by, frankly, approving the budget. That’s our job. So to say, “Well, we’ll give you the details in Q1 in September. You’ll find out about last year and where we’re at in public accounts,” which are already delayed, Minister, is not very cooperative.
I respect the minister greatly. She’s a good person and I know has been working very hard through this process. So have we — to try to be cooperative, to try to put forward thoughtful suggestions for how to approach economic recovery, at times for things related to the health recovery. Today I’m not feeling like we’re getting much transparency from the minister.
Let’s try this one more time. Will the minister provide any sense of what is going to be included in that economic recovery plan?
We’ve got multiple billions of dollars in requests from various sectors, including sectors like the non-profit sector that is 74 percent women employees, that are laying employees off left, right and centre and don’t think they’re going to be able to recover. They’re calling for a $500 million resilience fund. That seems to fit with the minister’s values that are going to guide her. But we don’t have any sense that this is going to be included, that there’s going to be support for the non-profit sector included in the recovery plan.
Will the minister commit today that there will be support for the non-profit sector writ large as a part of the recovery plan?
Hon. C. James: There is no question that these are unusual times. There is no question that in a pandemic, with the kinds of needs that are out there for businesses and for individuals, the kinds of challenges that we have been facing since the pandemic, that every jurisdiction…. This is not unique to British Columbia. The challenges that we’re going through are global challenges.
Every government, every opposition, every legislature has gone through the challenge of making determinations around ensuring that we are accountable, ensuring that those dollars are there and also ensuring, as both members have said during this debate on estimates, that we also have the ability to be nimble, to be flexible, to be responsive and to be able to meet the needs that are out there. That’s critical.
Yes, these are unusual times. There’s no question about it. But I think going through this process, going through the process of talking about the fact that these are notional allocations…. I understand that that is difficult for the members. But I think the members are doing exactly what I would expect them to do, which is to ask the questions, to ask where the dollars are and to ask what the notional allocations are and what will happen if that shifts. Those are exactly the kinds of things that I would expect as part of our discussions.
There is no intent to not engage in this process. In fact, we’ve been engaging in this process. I recognize that the member wishes there was more certainty here or more specifics. But I am providing the information and the reality of the situation that we’re in — recognizing, again, that in the middle of a pandemic, there are going to be changes. There are going to be needs that come forward.
Again, we will have the recovery plan. We have received hundreds of submissions with very good ideas, a wide range of ideas. Obviously, much larger amounts than the $1.5 billion — billions and billions of dollars — if we looked at all of the proposals.
As both members have said, this is about choices. This is about making sure — and I am using the words very carefully — that we have read, that we have reviewed and that we have considered the proposals that have come forward. That is respect for the proposals and the work that the groups, organizations and individuals have sent in.
That is the respectful thing to do. It’s also the smart thing to do, because there are good ideas and good approaches. Many people have different ways of looking at recovery and different ways to get there. There isn’t one plan. There is no crystal ball, as has been said so often during this pandemic. There is no crystal ball that says: “Here’s how you deal with a pandemic, and here’s the path you take to economic recovery.” The path on the pandemic is an unknown, so we have to make sure we’re responsive.
Yes, we are taking the time, because tough choices will have to be made. We will not be able to fund everything that has come forward in ideas and approaches. That’s the process we’re going through now, making sure that we are thorough in our approach to all of the submissions that have come in to be able to make the good decisions that need to be made.
The member mentioned the not-for-profit sector, a critical part of our economy in British Columbia and a critical part of community — not simply our economy but, in fact, providing supports and connections. For many groups and organizations, the not-for-profit sector is their go-to when it comes to support.
As the member will know, we had a representative from the not-for-profit sector on the Premier’s Economic Task Force, as well, to make sure that we had a direct, week-by-week connection of what was going on in that sector. We have provided supports, for example, through the community gaming grants. Those grants, as the member will know, are based on a portion of gaming revenue. We haven’t had gaming revenue increase, but we have protected those grants for the not-for-profit sectors. That’s a piece, again, of economic support during COVID to make sure that those organizations are supported.
Yes, all proposals that have come forward will be thoroughly read. They’ll be thoroughly reviewed, and they’ll be thoroughly considered.
S. Cadieux: I don’t doubt the minister’s sincerity in her commentary. But despite the fact that this is a global pandemic and that other jurisdictions around the world are also grappling with the same or similar challenges — obviously, differences based on their local circumstances….
The government called us back into session. The government called us back to go through estimates. Provinces next door to us were able to put together an economic plan and explain how they were going to invest in their recovery. They managed to do it over a month ago.
The B.C. Business Council has put forward an incredibly thorough plan for recovery for British Columbia that includes not just a request of government but suggestions for businesses in the private sector and how they should act and how they can collectively contribute going forward. It’s an incredibly complex and thorough document. They managed to get that done by now.
The minister has not been able to put together an economic recovery plan in time for us to review it here in the estimates process, which provides the opposition the opportunity for scrutiny of government spending, of the budget of British Columbia and, in this case, an extraordinary budget and extraordinary supplemental estimates. They knew it was coming, but they chose not to make that information public ahead of this process so that instead we can just be told: “Well, there are estimates. We have a notional allocation for $1½ billion.” It’s not very reassuring.
The minister also, today, has made a number of comments about the fact that, well, we have other tools. She, in fact, used that exact quote on July 20, basically: “We have…other tools that we have had in government to be able to add additional dollars to the $5 billion…. That includes the tax measures that we can put in place, and those are pieces…we continue to do outside of the $5 billion.”
I don’t disagree that there are mechanisms by which the minister can make choices that either stimulate or harm the economy, businesses and individuals in this province. But we’re here because the minister put forward an economic update in July, and we’re dealing with the estimates that are trying to make sense of a budget from February that has no real relevance, coupled with an update that suggests we’re now going to be in deficit by $12½ billion. No, actually, make that $13½ billion because of additional spending announced about a day later.
Now, the minister is saying that she might use other tools — again, without the scrutiny of this House — through this process, through a discussion of a budget and estimates, that would put a possible other strain on the budget and, potentially, add to the deficit. Now, they might be really good things that we would be in support of, but we don’t know because the government isn’t talking about them. Instead, they’re waiting until after the House rises, till after the session is finished, to make those measures public. That is a political decision.
Can the minister please provide an outline of what tools, outside of the $5 billion, she intends to use and the extent, financially, that she is currently planning to use those tools?
Hon. C. James: I want to emphasize again the fact that we have been working on recovery since March. We have been working on economic recovery since we started putting forward our COVID plan, since we started addressing the health crisis, since we started addressing the programs, services and supports that were there.
The member mentions other provinces and plans. I talked about the fact that whether it’s our cut in property taxes and the supports that we put in place or the eviction ban, those are pieces that we in fact have put in. We are unique across the country in putting those pieces forward — which, again, are pieces that all build towards economic recovery.
The member asked about tools outside the $5 billion. Those are tools that we’ve already been utilizing and that are already part of the reporting out that was done in July — tax measures, for example. I know the member’s submission, from her opposition, includes tax measures. Those, again, are outside the $5 billion but are measures that need to be thoroughly reviewed, that need to be considered and that need to be considered in the whole. I think that’s the other piece that is critical here. We aren’t talking about picking one submission and saying that this is the solution to the economic recovery. It is critical, and it is important.
We believe in listening to all of the voices in British Columbia, listening to business organizations, to community organizations, the not-for-profit sector, individuals themselves, workers and labour. We need to make sure that we hear thoroughly from all of those groups and organizations and then make the difficult choices. Yes, they are going to be difficult, but that’s an important piece that’s there.
Regulatory reform has been talked about. It’s come forward in a number of the pieces. That’s another tool that may be outside the $5 billion — policy levers that could be looked at that may be outside the $5 billion. Those are the kinds of measures that are critical to also be considered as part of economic recovery.
I wonder, hon. Chair, if we could just take a quick recess and then come back to the next set of questions from the members, if that works for the members.
The Chair: Hon. Members, we’ll take a recess and return to our committee shortly, in approximately ten minutes.
The committee recessed from 3:55 p.m. to 4:08 p.m.
[S. Gibson in the chair.]
S. Bond: I appreciate the opportunity for that recess, especially for the minister. Appreciate that.
I have a straightforward question for the minister. Have the decisions been made about the package that will be announced in the fall related to economic recovery?
Hon. C. James: No, those decisions are being made. We’re going through the materials, as I mentioned.
S. Bond: Who will make the final decision about what’s in that package?
Hon. C. James: This is government, so cabinet.
S. Bond: Does the minister anticipate that we’ll have an opportunity to scrutinize and discuss that during a fall session?
Hon. C. James: We have a calendar in place, and I expect if and when we have the fall session that that would be a topic of discussion, I’d imagine.
S. Bond: To summarize, then, before my colleague and I move on to the revenue side of the equation, which seems to get very little discussion, to be candid….
There’s a lot of discussion about spending, and much of it we recognize as critical at a time when families and businesses need support. We also need to see the other side of the balance sheet, which is the revenue side.
To summarize what we’ve learned so far, there are a lot of notional allocations. There are billions of dollars of asks, which will be impossible to fulfil. Cabinet will ultimately make a decision about what the economic recovery plan looks like, and it will be announced after the session ends. We’re not certain whether there will be, as the minister points out, a discussion about the fall session calendar, and there are growing rumours about a fall election.
We’ve had several hours of discussion about this now. It is very discouraging to be sitting and spending hours discussing, first of all, the estimates of a budget which has basically now been rendered irrelevant, from the perspective that we’ve had a pandemic and we’ve had $5 billion of spending agreed to in addition. We’re looking at two sets of supplementary estimates, yet there will not be the opportunity to have rigorous scrutiny of the kinds of things the government is going to decide to spend taxpayer money on. And it is not an insignificant amount.
The minister knows full well that we will be facing billions of dollars in deficit. Again, we’re not standing up to not recognize that…. Virtually every jurisdiction in the world is facing a similar type of circumstance. But in terms of the quantum and how that’s going to be managed in the years out, we know nothing. Basically, the answer is: “Wait and see.”
I actually think British Columbians deserve better than that. I think that the minister, knowing full well that this is a very unique set of estimates, could well have come with more detail, used a timeline that allowed for the kind of scrutiny that one would expect with the kind of spending of taxpayer dollars that we are talking about.
Let’s talk about revenue. We know that there are significant declines in revenue. Could the minister tell me today…? She’s told us that — wait and see — there will be an economic recovery framework, plan, announced in the fall. Is there a revenue-generation plan that will be a companion document to that one?
Hon. C. James: Just before I get to the question, just to touch on a few of the member’s comments she made as she moved into her question around the work that’s being done and the timing of the work that’s being done.
Just to once again emphasize the fact that the focus of the government has been on making sure that we provided supports immediately to businesses and to families. The work that we’ve done from March until now is focused on exactly that — dealing with the health crisis, dealing with the challenges that were there, dealing with the immediate supports for families and for businesses. Yes, all of that is part of economic recovery. We are also going through the process of looking very thoroughly to all of the proposals that have come forward around economic recovery.
I think it’s just important to mention again that there isn’t a moment from this calendar year, in fact, that there has not been full-on, full-out work by the government, by cabinet, by members, by staff in focusing on how we look at not only economic recovery but at all the immediate supports.
On the revenue side, just to touch a bit, as the member has talked about, on revenue, there’s obviously a link between economic recovery and revenue. There’s obviously a link in many of the approaches that have come forward on economic recovery, because many of those approaches talk about revenue. They talk about tax measures. They talk about tax reductions, which, obviously, have an impact on revenue.
The economic recovery piece is linked completely to the budget process as well, because obviously, whatever happens in the economic recovery…. Remember the economic recovery is 1.5 billion one-time dollars. So anything that is ongoing would have to flow into the budget, and any decisions, obviously, that relate to revenue become part of the budget and become part of that cycle. So they are both linked and have to be a conversation that happens at both tables as well.
S. Bond: Well, it’s ironic that as I ask a question about revenue generation, the minister’s immediate response is that it’s about taxes and tax reductions and tax incentives. Actually, a revenue-generation plan also includes important concepts like restoring confidence in British Columbia, allowing it to continue and to restore its place in the economy in Canada. It’s about competitiveness. It’s about all of those things.
Since the minister mentioned taxes, does her revenue-generation plan rely on an additional increase in taxes?
Hon. C. James: Just on a couple of the pieces that the member mentioned. I’m sure she remembers that I’ve talked already about competitiveness.
I’ve talked already about building confidence and the importance of that, the importance of ensuring that British Columbia continues to maintain our very competitive approach, whether we’re talking about the investments that we’re making that provide opportunities for businesses who are interested in investing in British Columbia and see us as one of those jurisdictions that is positive or whether we’re talking about the tax pieces.
We’re focused on a long-term recovery right now. I’ve said already that we’re not contemplating tax increases. We’re looking right now at economic recovery, at revenue, as the member talked about, and how we, again, support businesses in a whole range of ways, whether it’s, as we’ve talked about, the skills training piece or whether, as we’ve talked about, other supports need to be in place around the regulatory regime. There are a number of different opportunities there, and all of those are being considered.
S. Bond: Well, I appreciate hearing that, because I think that it’s one thing to talk about revenue generation, and it’s something completely different to systematically rebuild what it took many, many years for us to restore in British Columbia, for us to make sure that this was a place where people chose to invest, to create jobs and to deal with growing the economy, not simply growing the number of taxes.
Are the minister and the government exploring tax incentives or tax breaks to stimulate spending and looking at how increasing revenue happens as a result of those tax breaks, those tax incentives — basically growing the economy by looking at other things than taxpayers’ pockets?
Hon. C. James: I talked earlier about the number of proposals that have come in and the ideas and the approaches and the different paths that people take around economic recovery. There have been a number of proposals come in that look at everything from…. Some of them are looking at tax cuts. Some of them are looking at tax incentives. Some of them are looking at credits. There’s a whole range of ideas that have come forward.
We will be focused again on what the best mix of options are that we could consider that will provide the opportunities for businesses, that will create that environment to grow the economy, that will ensure that British Columbia continues to keep our reputation as a good place to invest, as a good place to do business.
That has been our focus since we became government as well, in the investments that we’ve made, whether it has been investments in housing or investments in child care, whether it has been the small business tax, the PST on electricity. We have continued to make sure that we are also focused on looking at those kinds of measures that continue to provide opportunities to keep that best-in-B.C. kind of approach that we have for businesses. Yes, that will continue to be a focus.
As I said, there are a number of proposals that have come forward and a number of very creative ideas that have come forward in those areas as well.
S. Bond: Does the minister have any plans to raise additional taxes?
Hon. C. James: Sorry, the member cut out. Just something “taxes” is all I heard. If the member could just repeat the question.
S. Bond: Does the minister have any intention of raising additional taxes or creating new taxes or raising taxes?
Hon. C. James: As I said in the previous question, we aren’t focused on tax increases through this process. We’re focused on economic recovery. That’s where our focus is: economic recovery. We believe that has to be the work that needs to be done. There are a number of different proposals, as I mentioned, a number of different measures, and the economic recovery plan will come out in the fall. So that’s just a repeat of the response I gave before.
S. Bond: Let’s move on to the economic scenario that was provided and used to generate the economic update. The minister made it clear that that was based on a series of assumptions. So I want to walk through a number of questions that relate to the assumptions that led to that economic update.
The timing of business recovery was a factor in the model. In fact, there’s a quote: “Underlying the economic scenario is an assumption about the pace of rehiring — for example, the extent to which industries start to rehire employees as they resume operations under the guidance and orders of the public health officer.”
Can the minister tell us…? What was the timeline for business reopening that was used in the midline scenario?
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
Hon. C. James: I appreciate this discussion because I think it’s an important piece. We had a lot of discussion previously around this, around bringing forward a scenario. I know I’ve chatted, as well, with the member around this piece and the challenge of an economic scenario versus a forecast when you’re in these kinds of uncertain times, when we don’t really know, when no one has a crystal ball, when there is no plan for what happens if there’s a pandemic and how long that occurs. I think that these are important pieces.
When we looked at the hiring of employees, when we looked at the employment piece, we did go through an analysis of employment by industry, an analysis of industry data, looking at various sectors and looking at the timing and the extent of business recovery and the eventual rehiring of employees. The members will have heard me say that businesses opening up is different than full employment. There are a number of businesses, as the member will know well, that in fact are hiring partially — bringing in some of their employees, not all of their employees as yet.
The midline scenario that the member asked about took that analysis into account, and it is placed with the fact that hiring would be underway across many sectors of the economy by around September. I think if we look at the employment numbers, that’s roughly what we’re seeing. A number of economists have said that they think, actually, that the recovery is going a bit better than they’d expected and that they’d predicted.
It’s early going yet. I think we’re going to have to watch, over the next number of months, but if you look at the July employment stats, you’re seeing that about 58 percent of jobs that were lost since February have been recovered. Again, that points, as we’ve talked about in the mid-scenario, to hiring underway — not full hiring, not full recovery but, in fact, hiring underway by many businesses.
S. Bond: I should have asked at the outset. It would have made it easier, probably, for the minister and her staff.
We would also like to know what the timelines were for the “More Optimistic Scenario” and the “Less Optimistic Scenario.” We’re talking, of course, about table B1. If the minister could provide us with, in essence, the three dates. Again, maybe a bit more…. I guess we’ve had a lot of talk about “notional” and flexibility. I’m assuming, then, since the minister didn’t give us one, that there wasn’t a date at which point the minister would’ve considered that the midline scenario would’ve been used.
Could she provide us with the other two timelines and, perhaps more specifically, a date, if possible, roughly, with the more optimistic and the less optimistic scenarios?
Hon. C. James: As I mentioned, the midline scenario looked at hiring being underway across many sectors by around September. Then the member asked about the less optimistic. That was looking at that scenario by December. The more optimistic was looking at that scenario by July.
S. Bond: I appreciate that. Thank you to the minister for that.
The scenario that was tabled also said: “Industries such as accommodation and food services, wholesale and retail trade, information, culture and recreation, and transportation and warehousing are not expected to fully recover all of the recent job losses by the end of 2021.”
Certainly, we listen to the stories and the concerns expressed, the questions raised specifically by our Tourism critics and others — the sector itself, obviously a very, very hard-hit sector. If the scenario suggests that the sectors aren’t expected to fully recover their jobs until December 2021, can the minister give us a sense of why there hasn’t been a more expedited approach to providing some accelerated tax measures or relief for these industries?
When we think about it, if tourism jobs, for example, aren’t projected to recover until December 2021, why hasn’t the minister considered a specific financial package or tax relief for the tourism sector? Certainly, we’ve heard loud and clear from the sector. We’ve heard it from opposition. We’ve heard it from others. The scenario itself points out that that is a significantly and dramatically impacted sector.
Can the minister give us her rationale for not having been more expeditious in dealing, particularly, with these hard-hit sectors and, specifically, with the tourism sector?
Hon. C. James: There is no question. The member spoke specifically about a number of industries, but tourism, obviously, has a big impact.
I have to say, as a Victoria MLA, that there is no question. I see it in my own community. I see it in friends and family. I see it in individuals who work in the sector. There is no question that it has an impact on the work that occurs and the challenges that we face when it comes to the economy.
It’s also going to need support at all levels, from the federal and provincial governments. A large portion of recovery in these particular areas will be related to the pandemic and to how the pandemic evolves.
If we don’t see international travel…. If we don’t see health and safety being addressed — and, therefore, international travel doesn’t occur — that has a huge impact. If we don’t see the borders open because of the pandemic and the lack of quality health going on, that’s going to have a big impact, obviously.
It’s going to be a critical piece that we all have to work on together. It ties back, again, to why the importance of health and why the importance of addressing the pandemic is such a critical part of economic recovery. All of these industries rely on the pandemic — how it evolves and addressing that piece.
Despite all of that, despite the fact that…. We have to watch all of those outside factors, and we have to all be working together to follow the health guidelines of our jurisdiction and other jurisdictions. There are, and have been, supports in place that businesses have been able to access in the immediate term. Again, tourism, obviously, is one of those hard-hit sectors. As well, some of the other sectors that the member mentioned are also part of the considerations that are being looked at through economic recovery.
For the immediate…. Again, part of our direction with COVID-19, our action plan that we brought out in March, was to look at where there was work being done by the federal government and how we could support that by filling in the gaps and ensuring industry got support.
The federal government, of course, has a loan program that they put out for businesses. Many businesses have used that opportunity — a $40,000 loan, $10,000 of that non-repayment. The wage subsidy program, for those businesses that have been able to carry on, is 75 percent of the salaries paid.
From our end, we put in, again, additional support and additional encouragement for businesses to take part in the commercial rental assistance program; a property tax cut, which wasn’t a deferral but a cut that, again, is helping a number of businesses; and then a number of deferrals as well.
We also put some extra support in, as the member will know. I think everybody has been seeing the campaign around local destination tourism, again, to support local businesses. We provided support and funding in that area as well.
Is there more to do? No question. That’s part of the economic recovery work and, I think, also part of the work we have to do across the country, with the federal government and provinces, to really look at how we support these hardest-hit industries through this pandemic.
S. Bond: I appreciate the minister’s response.
The minister referenced circumstances that may well continue to be a challenge, looking at how the pandemic develops or continues in the months ahead. I mean, today, for example, I had a pop-up on my screen. The heading from a media piece just a few minutes ago is: “B.C. is trending towards massive growth of new cases in September.”
I think that we have certainly learned that this is something we’re going to have to live with. We’re going to have to manage risk. We’re going to have to work our way through this, and that will, obviously, continue. None of us want to see headlines like that.
It’s a good segue, though, for my next question. Perhaps the minister can tell us whether the mid-line scenario that was presented assumes a second wave in the fall.
Hon. C. James: To the member, I think the member has described this as one of the bigger challenges: to be able to really look at any kind of quantitative analysis right now around a second wave, what impact that would have and what size the second wave would be. I think those are all challenging pieces as part of….
The member mentioned the information coming out from the Ministry of Health and modelling data. That’s why they’ve worked so hard — the Centre for Disease Control and the Ministry of Health — at looking at modelling — so that, again, we could have some of those scenarios.
We did presume a second wave as part of the forecasting. Again, I think, as the member would expect, with the low midline and high, that would depend on the scenario. Obviously, we expected for the low scenario that there would be a longer period of time, that the pace and the timing of recovery would be slower because of a longer second wave. Midline assumption, obviously, would be midway, and high would be less of an impact. So all depending on the scenario of the second wave and the resurgence.
It’s part of why we’ve included those risks and why we say frequently that this is simply a scenario, a snapshot in time, with the best data that is available at this point in time — recognizing that as we move into the fall, those all have to be looked at as part of our ongoing fiscal statements.
S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. It’s good to know that that’s been contemplated in those scenarios. It does, obviously, make sense the way that it’s been articulated in terms of more or less optimism.
I want to shift thoughts for just a moment here before my co-critic has some additional questions. On May 1, 2020, an email from Don Wright to the Deputy Ministers Council identified the “integrated transportation and distribution strategy,” or ITDS, as “a key piece of our economic framework and an important part of our path to recovery.” That was in May.
Does the Ministry of Finance…? Are they partners? Are they part of this ITDS? Can the minister explain what its connection would be to the government’s economic strategy, the framework that the minister is talking about releasing?
Hon. C. James: This was a budget initiative — part of the budget, not part of the… I mean, obviously, everything, as I said, all of the spending, is about economic recovery, but not part of the economic recovery envelope. This is planning work that is being done, as the budget outlines, by the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. So it’s part of the budget process, not this process.
S. Bond: All right. Well, thank you to the minister for that.
The head of the public service identified a path to recovery and an economic framework in May. The minister is suggesting that that is linked to the next budget cycle. Is that what her answer just was?
Hon. C. James: Just to be specific with the member, this planning process — this integrated transportation and development planning process to be undertaken — was part of this year’s budget. It’s on page 45, for the member, of the budget that was released in February — part of the three-year fiscal plan and part of the ongoing work around economic recovery that is done.
It’s not specifically related to COVID in a broader sense. I think all of us would agree that transportation is a key part of any kind of economy and that if we’re looking at an integrated approach around transportation, that’s critical. But this was part of the budget, and it was announced as part of the budget.
S. Cadieux: Well, it’s interesting. Certainly, it would suggest, then, that the minister suggested the economy needed a recovery plan before COVID started, because the budget was prepared. The budget document, page 45, would have been printed long before we entered into the pandemic officially in British Columbia and officially starting talking about the need for investment and $5 billion in additional spending, plus a recovery plan.
That’s an interesting answer from the minister. We’ll be curious about that as we move forward into the second supplemental estimates, I expect.
Moving on to a few questions around competitiveness and how that factors into the economic recovery, given where we’re at today. The government’s 2019-20 economic framework, which was titled A Framework for Improving British Columbians’ Standard of Living, calls for “maintaining competitive tax conditions,” page 24. I don’t disagree with that statement. I think that is absolutely an essential part of maintaining an economic competitiveness.
What can the minister tell us about what she thinks the impacts of Alberta’s decision to accelerate its plan to lower corporate income tax to 8 percent will have on B.C.’s competitiveness, moving forward?
Hon. C. James: I want to start with the piece around the transportation development planning, just to clarify for the member. I know she’ll find the information on page 45 of the budget. This section of the budget that came out in February was speaking about provincial transportation investments. That’s the focus of this section.
The section that talks about the ITDP reads:
“A new integrated transportation and development planning process will be undertaken by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. This process will develop a collaborative vision for B.C.’s transportation and affordable development needs that contribute to an efficient and accessible multimodal transportation network that connects communities, regions and global markets.”
This builds on the initiatives outlined below, which talks about other initiatives in transportation “to promote and develop seamless transportation connections,” just so the member is clear about the description that was in the budget.
Back to the tax pieces that the member mentioned. It is important. The member has heard me say this. Each budget and each fiscal statement we bring out is to make sure that we remain competitive across this country. Tax measures are one measure — an important measure, no question — and we continue to remain competitive across this country. But it is simply one measure.
In fact, if you look at businesses across the globe, businesses are not only investing in other areas, such as community health, the environment, social cohesion. Businesses look at a whole range of factors when they’re looking at competitiveness. They look for a well-educated, well-trained workforce. We’ve seen that very clearly with, for example, the film industry, where many businesses will talk about the fact that there are film tax cuts offered in different jurisdictions. Yes, that attracts some, but in fact, most look for a well-educated, well-trained workforce that they know they can rely on. They can hit the ground running as they make their investments.
They look for affordable housing. We talked about this yesterday. Businesses have talked to me about finding a great employee who’s going to bring some expertise to their business. They’re keen to have them. They look at the real estate page, and they decide to look somewhere else, because there isn’t, in fact, affordable housing available for them. They look for care for their family — good hospitals, good schools, quality child care. Again — critical. If you’re someone who’s looking at investing in British Columbia, or you’re going to be hiring employees, you want to make sure that those supports are in place.
They look for certainty and confidence. One of those keys, of course, is a diversified economy. Again, British Columbia does very well in that area, around diversified economy. So I think it’s important to recognize that, yes, tax measures are important, and as the member mentioned, there are tax changes that are coming in Alberta. I think the challenges that Alberta faces when it comes to the deep deficits and the deep challenges facing their province are going to be very difficult, but I think it’s important, again, to recognize it’s not simply the government who is recognizing the important placement of British Columbia when it comes to investments.
In fact, the rating agencies have all maintained our rating. We’re the only province with a triple-A rating. Those have been maintained.
The quotes that have come from both economists as well as the rating agencies talk about the fact that B.C. is in a very good position to weather this storm. B.C. is in a very good position for economic recovery as we come back.
Is there a lot of work to do? No question. Do we have to remain alert to the issue of competitiveness? No question there as well. But I think we’re very well positioned. I think all of us know the real strengths of British Columbia, and we’re very well positioned to be able to weather this economic storm.
S. Cadieux: I don’t disagree that B.C. was in a better position. In fact, we got it there. Thankfully, government has been able to maintain that for their first couple of years in office.
I also agree with the minister that it isn’t just taxes. There are other things that both individuals and businesses will look at when they’re looking at where to locate. I agree that affordable housing is one of those things. I would expect the minister is particularly concerned about that at the moment, given that in the three years since the NDP took power and made a great deal of commentary about how they would solve that problem, house prices are up, and so are the rents in British Columbia. That certainly isn’t adding to our attractiveness at all in British Columbia.
Getting back to the tax question, which is, actually, what I’m trying to focus on here, has the Ministry of Finance done any analysis regarding businesses that might choose to move and relocate to Alberta as a result of the tax conditions, and will she share that analysis?
Hon. C. James: I think, as we talked about, one measure is not going to have a huge impact. It’s going to be a number of measures.
Do we monitor business investment and the shifts that may happen in business investment — whether it’s businesses investing here in British Columbia, whether it’s businesses not investing in British Columbia, moving somewhere else? That’s something, of course, that we continue to monitor, but not specific to one change and one jurisdiction.
We are always monitoring our competitiveness and always monitoring our investment. In fact, we believe that because of the position British Columbia is in, you may actually see increasing investment as people look at jurisdictions across the country and where they’re going to invest.
S. Cadieux: Well, thank you, Minister. I don’t disagree again. It’s not one measure.
Certainly, there are a number of circumstances — tax-specific: the EHT, now the corporate income tax. There are a number of situations where B.C. is lagging or falling behind Alberta in terms of competitiveness on those factors.
Now we look at their economic recovery plan, which has a number of very targeted actions, a very clear intent to attract new investment to Alberta from British Columbia — and other jurisdictions as well, I’m sure. But certainly, we are a likely target for some of those companies to move their head offices and move their investment. With that goes jobs. They’re making some very clear and, I would say, intentional moves to try and build that competitive advantage into their economy over ours.
What is the minister intending to do to counter those moves — not directly but essentially — through making changes in British Columbia, beyond monitoring? What does the minister have planned in terms of actions to improve B.C.’s competitive advantage? Because at this point, on housing and on taxes, we certainly aren’t in the No. 1 spot.
Hon. C. James: I think this is, I guess, a re-emphasis of a couple of previous questions where we talked about the competitiveness and the member asked what we’re doing about our competitiveness in British Columbia.
In fact, we’ve been focused on our competitiveness since the first budget that was tabled. I talked about the investments and the focus that we’ve taken in British Columbia — second-lowest small business tax rate across the country, triple-A credit rating, diversified economy.
As well, when it comes to businesses and competitiveness, of course, attracting workers is one of those pieces. I have talked in previous questions about the investments we’ve made in education, in post-secondary education, in particular: adult basic education, free of tuition; English language learning, free of tuition; former children in care get a tuition waiver; eliminating interest on student loans; the access grant program that’s coming this fall for students to be able to get into university; again, the first non-refundable grant program. All of those, again, will provide a well-educated workforce.
Again, if we look simply at the tax pieces, we also have the lowest personal income tax rate in the country for people making up to $140,000. That again adds to our competitiveness. If we look at all those pieces, we hold up very well, from my perspective, on the kinds of areas that businesses look at, beyond, as the member has agreed herself, simply the one measure of income tax. We’ll continue to make those investments. The budget has those investments in it.
The member will know we have the child opportunity benefit coming as well this fall, which provides support to families. It previously ended at the age of 6, now goes to 18, which, again, is a large support for individuals.
Then, again, we have the $1.5 billion coming forward. Then we have a budget process where we will be continuing to look again at competitiveness, at business investment, because obviously, that’s a critical part of the importance of economic recovery, whether we’re going through COVID or whether we’re looking at simply building the strong sustainable economy that we need to in our province.
S. Cadieux: Frankly, I don’t hear much in there that’s comforting. There was a lot of restating of previous decisions of government that have a peripheral relevance, I guess.
I’ll take one of them as an example — the access grant, which will actually be available to fewer people than the one that preceded it, which it’s replacing. Now granted, it’s a different focus. I get that. I don’t have a problem with government making the change to make it a needs-based upfront grant. I don’t have any problem with that at all. But the minister does neglect to mention the fact that there is almost no more money in it, and although it’s promising great potential amounts of money of up to $4,000 per student, the previous grants were available to more people.
I’m not sure that that’s a shining example of something that is going to drive competitiveness in British Columbia. It’s a good thing for students. But I’m not sure that is the kind of thing that will give a great deal of comfort to those businesses who are worried about the bottom line, worried about their competitiveness against other jurisdictions and looking at where they should locate their head offices.
I’ll take the minister now to the economic framework again. The ’19-2020 economic framework stated that government would develop “competitiveness frameworks” which included “complete analysis of factors, including productivity, wages, exchange rates, synergies, regulation, permitting efficiency and rates of taxation.”
Clearly, that’s the sort of thing that we’re trying to get at here. It said that government was going to create these frameworks. Has the Ministry of Finance been responsible for developing any of those frameworks?
Hon. C. James: This is being done through the Ministry of Jobs. The deputy to the Premier is involved in this as well, and this is work that’s underway.
S. Cadieux: I’m glad to know it’s underway. Has that work been adjusted, delayed or accelerated in response to the pandemic? Will the results of those frameworks — and understanding our competitiveness — be referenced at all in the economic recovery, the $1.5 billion strategy that is going to be announced to the public sometime this fall?
[S. Gibson in the chair.]
The Chair: Minister.
Hon. C. James: Thank you very much, Chair. Welcome back.
It might be helpful, and I think it perhaps makes it a little bit clearer, to remember that economic recovery doesn’t happen just because of COVID. Economic strength and an economic plan isn’t happening simply because of COVID. There’s work that every government focuses on, perhaps in different directions and different priorities. But in fact, we have a focus on the economic recovery of British Columbia or the economic strength of British Columbia — an economic plan for our province — in our budget.
I think it’s important to recognize that, yes, there’s the $1.5 billion that’s focused on COVID and economic recovery from COVID, but in fact, all of the spending that we do each year that gets built into the budget focuses on the economy, focuses on the strength of the economy.
In fact, if the member looks at the budget — pages 21, 22, 23, 24, for Budget 2020 — it really focuses on exactly that. Key areas include: maintaining a competitive business climate, supporting reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, powering the province’s CleanBC future, investing, as we talked about earlier, in infrastructure and transportation, investing in technology and innovation. I think, again, it’s important to recognize that, yes, there’s one piece with the $1.5 billion, but in fact, budget investments are investments in building a strong economy.
Capital investments: $22.9 billion, a historic investment in capital, built into the budget. Those dollars, again, will help us through this economic recovery with COVID, but they already have a focus. So I think it’s important just to recognize that it’s not simply the $1.5 billion that provides an economic plan and an economic strategy for British Columbia. Each and every budget does that through the choices government makes through the priorities that government sets.
While I appreciate the member’s comments around education, I would argue that, in fact, education is key to a strong economy. I would argue that reconciliation is key to a strong economy. I would argue that housing is key to a strong economy. If we don’t address those pieces, we will not have a sustainable, long-term economy built into the future, and we will not attract the kinds of investments that we need to make in British Columbia.
Yes, there will be the $1.5 billion coming forward, but I think it’s important to recognize, again, the investments that are made through each of the budgets that are made and have been made by our government — our key investments, as I’ve talked about — around competitiveness, around jobs and around support for investments in our province.
S. Cadieux: I don’t disagree, but we’re not talking about the budget. We’re talking about the supplemental estimate — the $1.5 billion focused on recovery. We have an economy in shambles as a result of a pandemic. Business as usual isn’t enough. The budget, as presented, isn’t enough.
We’re asking if the economic framework that was theoretically, I would expect, an ongoing part of the process of government in prepping their budget this year…. If they are doing any additional, new or adjusted analysis around competitiveness to inform the $1.5 billion in economic recovery dollars that government has set aside….
It is becoming, from the minister’s answers, more and more obvious that this government doesn’t look at that pot of money as an economic stimulus package or an economic competitiveness package but more as a stopgap measure. I certainly don’t hope that. I hope that that is not true.
Anyway, moving on. The minister actually segued for me. As a part of the commentary through the process over the last number of months — and I don’t have the quote in front of me — at some point in time, the minister was quoted in the media as saying that there was not an intention to add new capital or infrastructure spending to the budget because there was already a big plan in place. So we wouldn’t be expecting to see additional capital or infrastructure projects as a part of the $1.5 billion recovery plan and the additional supplemental estimates that we’ve seen.
Then the Premier has since stated that he has every intention of not letting a federal dollar go wasted. If the federal government puts forward infrastructure money as part of the federal recovery program in the fall, then, from the Premier’s words, one would expect that the Finance Minister will need to find some dollars in the capital or infrastructure budget to match those, and clearly that isn’t in the plans so far.
Does the minister have a list or a count of projects under $50 million that are tender ready today, that could be advanced immediately should the federal government decide to tell the provinces there’s an infrastructure program requiring matching dollars?
Hon. C. James: No question that infrastructure is a critical part of any budget. I think the member knows.
I’ve talked about the capital spending that we have in our budget. We do see it as a critical part and already made that investment — $32.6 billion over three years of the plan if you include all of the capital spending. And $22.9 billion for taxpayer-supported capital investments already built into the budget and already there to be able to move ahead on those dollars and those projects — critical projects for all corners of British Columbia — when you look at our capital investments.
I do think, when we look at capital investments, it’s important to recognize, again, that those federal dollars…. The member talked about federal dollars that may come into our province, and she mentions the conversation that I had about federal infrastructure. We have, in fact, tapped into federal infrastructure dollars and are eager and keen, if the federal government expands the opportunities that are there, because we have, in fact, tapped into a number of those programs, most of those programs, already.
If the federal government comes with expanded matching dollars, we’re certainly open to that conversation to further expand capital projects. But as I said, at this point, a couple of the programs that have come forward are programs that we’ve already tapped into.
One of the pieces we are looking at, though, is to look at all of our existing projects that are in the queue for capital projects — to look at projects that perhaps could be moved ahead, that are shovel-ready, that could be fast-tracked, that could be moved ahead as part of getting the economy going again through capital spending. So that’s an additional piece of work that’s being done as well for existing capital projects.
S. Bond: In light of the time that we have left allocated to us — and, believe me, we are truncating our questions in various sections — let’s move to the supplementary estimates No. 2, please, for the minister and her staff. We will only have a short period of time, but I think it’s important to canvass some basic questions about the not one supplemental estimates but two.
Can the minister confirm whether this $1 billion in additional spending authority will be added to the deficit that she announced in the economic update?
Hon. C. James: Yes, that’s something I’ve already spoken to.
S. Bond: Thank you for that. We obviously want to have it on the record.
Could the minister tell us, at this point, what her anticipated total deficit will be?
Hon. C. James: As the member knows, the July scenario — and again, remembering this is a scenario…. We’ll have Q1 coming; we’ll have an opportunity to be able to update. But the scenario had a $12.5 billion deficit to it, and we’ve now added $1 billion to it, so that’s $13.5 billion.
S. Bond: The minister…. I’d like her to try to explain for us. I think that the envelopes of funding have been called “buckets” of money. Can the minister give us an outline of the funding “buckets” and what those will be for the federal agreement?
Hon. C. James: I think, just to be clear, that the member is quite right. There are a number of different buckets or areas, whatever we want to call them, for funding. There’s only one that applies to this $1 billion, though, because there’s only one of those that is cost-shared. The other pieces are not cost-shared.
The reason we put the $1 billion aside is to match, we hope — the negotiations are still going on — the $1 billion that we will receive from the federal government. That’s for the very specific area of municipalities and transportation — so transportation related to municipalities. We will be expected to cost-share on a 50-50 basis for the federal assistance.
The member will know that a couple of weeks ago, they announced the specific amount for transportation, which is $540 million. We haven’t completed our negotiations yet on the municipalities and the other pieces. We’re certainly aiming to get our full amount, as much as we can. I think the member will know that the Premier has been a very strong advocate around the federal government and getting funding. That piece is still to come, and that’s why we put the $1 billion aside to be able to match on that specific area, because that’s a 50-50 cost-sharing piece.
S. Bond: Thank you for that answer.
Can the minister, then, confirm, so that we have it on the record, that because it’s a cost share and it’s for two very specific things, the province would be precluded from taking any of the $1 billion that’s coming and using it for anything else that’s COVID-related, other expenses? This would be new incremental spending and a cost-matching program. It would go to municipalities, transportation, and it would be new incremental spending — no ability for the province, for example, to use it to pay down any of the other issues related to COVID-19?
Hon. C. James: This is the challenge of still being in negotiations and discussions. We’ll give the member the information, certainly, that we have.
As I mentioned, the $540 million has been confirmed around transportation, that portion of the $1 billion. That’s already committed. That would be an allocation, obviously, that would already be committed from the $1 billion, because we are required to match in order to receive those dollars. So that would be already committed to. We certainly hope, in our negotiations, that we’ll continue to get the rest of the money to total up to $1 billion. That’s our aim in the negotiations, and those negotiations are still ongoing.
The member asked a very specific question around what the vote permits. We are not precluded in the vote from using the dollars that may be remaining for other COVID-related priorities, but that’s certainly not our intent at this stage. We are aiming for getting the entire $1 billion from the federal government and being able to put it towards this. But the member asked very specifically, and no, it’s not precluded in this vote. The vote gives the ability for the money to be spent on COVID — again, specific to COVID-related priorities.
S. Bond: All right. Well, I’ll just ask this, and then I’m going to…. I know that my co-critic has some questions to sort of wrap this piece up. As I said, we’re truncating questions like crazy here.
The transportation piece is already committed. The government is working to try to acquire the rest of the $1 billion. What I want to just be very certain about is…. The government is not precluded from using this for other COVID expenses. What I want to know is whether or not the minister is committed to devoting all of the federal funding, the matched federal funding, to new incremental spending and, in essence, not using it to pay for some of the other COVID-related things that the government has already announced.
I would assume the intent is to match the federal government and to make sure that it is on top of a new, incremental spend. I’ll wait for the answer, but as I do that…. Certainly, I know my colleague will also make some comments. I want to thank the minister. I know she works very hard to be prepared and to provide us with as fulsome answers as she can.
Obviously, she has sensed our frustration today as we continue to be faced with a wait-and-see in terms of what the economic recovery plan would look like, the details around the $5 billion of spending, in terms of taxpayer dollars. We believe that there should be an opportunity for rigorous discussion about those things.
Having said that, a very heartfelt thank-you to the staff at the Ministry of Finance. We know they’re working flat out, as are all public servants. We’re grateful, and we do appreciate the briefings that have been provided to us.
Thank you to the minister.
I know my colleague will have some questions about the B.C. Ferries component to wrap our time together.
Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member. To the previous member, thank you for the questions, and thank you for the debate. We’ll have a chance to wrap up in a few minutes.
On the specific question, this is new funding. This will be new additional spending that would be coming in.
S. Cadieux: Minister, could you just clarify…? There was some statement earlier that this funding envelope of $1 billion was because of…. There is an anticipation of the federal restart dollars related to municipalities and transportation. Could you just clarify it?
The minister has mentioned that they expect at least $540 million for transportation, and they’re hoping for up to the $1 billion. How do the municipalities factor into this? Is there additional spending outside of TransLink and B.C. Ferries?
Hon. C. James: Yes, the member is correct. It’s all under the municipalities envelope. We’re certainly negotiating for additional money for municipalities beyond TransLink, B.C. Transit and B.C. Ferries.
S. Cadieux: Thank you, Minister, for that.
Then following up on that, if this is cost-matched funding for municipalities for transit…. We’re expecting at least $540 million for transit. Are municipalities expected to cost-share on this at all, or is this called support to municipalities through transit and paid for by the federal and provincial governments?
Hon. C. James: The intent and the hope is that this will actually be very specific. It will be federal and provincial funding to municipalities, with no expectation of cost-sharing.
S. Cadieux: Thank you, Minister.
In addition to the previous announcement about money for municipalities for transit, which spurred on these second supplementary estimates for an additional $1 billion — matching dollars, in anticipation of negotiations that are not yet complete — we have now heard, again, that B.C. Ferries is going to be eligible for cost-matched bilateral funding. The Transportation Minister says that this funding will be inside that $1 billion envelope.
If the provincial government is not successful in adding to that $540 million, will B.C. Ferries get a share of the $540 million?
Hon. C. James: The $540 million includes TransLink, B.C. Transit and B.C. Ferries. That’s a piece that has already been negotiated. We’ve completed those negotiations. So the $540 million includes those three entities for funding.
S. Cadieux: What we don’t know is whether or not the province will be successful in negotiating any more money. I would suggest that all three of those entities — municipalities, ferries and transit — will not be happy to hear that that is the envelope. I’m sure they’ll be hopeful that the province is also successful in accessing that additional up to $1 billion.
There are probably a myriad questions we could ask about B.C. Ferries, but I’m going to ask one final question related to supplemental estimates and the restart agreement.
What we understand is that this one piece of the federal restart agreement is the cost-shared piece — the transit, municipalities and ferries — but that in the restart agreement, there will be other funding, quite significant funding, that British Columbia is anticipating receiving from the federal government, which the government will then allocate against spending that they’ve already made or already allotted in the $5 billion — for example, child care or some of the health-related spending.
We are in estimates. Can the minister please estimate for me the amount of money that is currently notionally allocated in the $5 billion that the minister is hoping to recover from the federal government through the restart agreement?
Hon. C. James: I think the ongoing challenge, of course, is that these federal dollars were just announced, as the member knows, not that long ago. This is why we came forward with $1 billion to make sure we didn’t miss the opportunity, even though negotiations are still going on. I can’t give the specific allocations yet because we haven’t signed off on the agreement yet, so the determination hasn’t been made around the specific amounts for British Columbia.
The member is quite right, though, that part of the restart does provide the opportunity for existing spending that has occurred, particularly in the area of health and protective equipment, etc., to be able to be allocated. But again, we’re not making any of those decisions until we see the B.C. allocations, how much those allocations are and whether those allocations will go towards expenses that had been put in place or whether they’ll go towards new expenses and new needs that are there.
I appreciate the member’s question. It’s frustrating for everyone, I think, that some of these programs only came in, in the last couple of weeks, and we’re still in those discussions going on.
S. Cadieux: Thank you, Minister, for your candour there. I think we’re just trying to get a sense of what the total budget is here. What are we looking at? When we know that, what are the things that are missing? Where are the holes? Where are the problems?
As the minister herself has mentioned a number of times today, there are many, far more, needs and legitimate potential solutions to those needs and ways to spend money than government has. It’s going to be about choices. Certainly, all we’re trying to do is get a sense of where government believes the right choices are and how they plan on spending the, well, $60 billion, plus the other $6½ billion or $7½ billion that we’re providing through supplementary estimates.
I appreciate the time. I will echo my colleague’s comments that we very much appreciate that the minister is working hard on the file through this time. So are the staff behind the scenes — lots and lots of dedicated people putting in lots of hours trying to make this work. We do appreciate that. We do appreciate the briefings that we’ve had, and we look forward to briefings coming up in anticipation of the recovery announcement of the $1.5 billion and how we’re going to spend that as a province. They are the taxpayers’ dollars, and we all have an interest in seeing that those are spent wisely and will have the effect that is intended.
With that, I’ll thank my co-critic for her efforts. This has been a unique and challenging way to do estimates from, you know, the 1,000 kilometres apart or whatever we are, and I do appreciate the time and the efforts of the minister and staff.
With that, we will allow the minister to wrap up.
Hon. C. James: Thank you to my co-critics. Thank you to the other MLAs who took part in the debate on the estimates for the Ministry of Finance.
I think the member closed off with exactly the best description, which is that these are very unique times, very unique times for the experiences we’re going through. I think there’s some frustration on all of our parts that there are pieces that are still in play, pieces that, as I talked about — negotiations, federal programs — are ever changing.
I think, again, it’s an intent of making sure that we’re trying to be as responsive as we can, to make sure that we are meeting the needs that are out there. And the member is quite right. There will be many more needs than there are funding and supports in place for.
This is a very difficult time, but I also believe, as I have seen through the COVID-19…. I have great faith in British Columbians, in the leaders in our province and the people of our province, in the workers, the families, the communities and the businesses. We are, as a province, a very strong, entrepreneurial-focused province and care deeply for each other. I believe that if we stay with those values, if we stay focused on the work we have done together through COVID, if we stay focused on the work we have done to support each other as we look forward, B.C. will be in a very good position.
I appreciate the discussion that we’ve had. I appreciate the flexibility that people have had to show through this process.
I want to express my huge appreciation to the Ministry of Finance staff. As I’ve said often, I boast to my colleagues that I think the Ministry of Finance staff are the best staff in all of government, but as the minister responsible for the public service, I think all public service employees are the best staff across the board. They really do serve the public in British Columbia — not a political party, not a political government. They, in fact, serve the people of British Columbia. It truly is an extraordinary gift to be able to work with individuals who have that kind of commitment. So a huge appreciation to my colleagues who have taken part.
With that, I know I have a series of motions that I now have to pass.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister. We’ll embark on that at this moment. We have a total of 11 votes; 25 has already been moved.
Vote 25: ministry operations, $267,491,000 — approved.
Vote 26: government communications and public engagement, $28,326,000 — approved.
Vote 27: B.C. Public Service Agency, $54,381,000 — approved.
Vote 28: benefits and other employment costs, $1,000 — approved.
Vote 44: management of public funds and debt, $1,196,835,000 — approved.
Vote 45: contingencies (all ministries) and new programs, $1,066,042,000 — approved.
Vote 46: capital funding, $2,789,336,000 — approved.
Vote 47: commissions on collection of public funds, $1,000 — approved.
Vote 48: allowances for doubtful revenue accounts, $1,000 — approved.
Vote 49: tax transfers, $1,686,000,000 — approved.
Vote 53: contingencies (all ministries): federal and provincial pandemic support, $1,000,000,000 — approved.
Hon. C. James: I move that the committee rise and report resolutions and completion and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.
The House adjourned at 6:30 p.m.