Orders of the Day

Hon. K. Conroy: I call continued second reading on Bill 9, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2022.

In Section A, I call continued estimates on Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport, to be followed by the Ministry of Labour.

[1:35 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 9 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

(continued)

S. Furstenau: I rise to speak to Bill 9, the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act.

I don’t have a huge amount to say. The bill amends three pieces of legislation: the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, the Legal Profession Act and the Notaries Act.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The changes to the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act remove the ability to object to the small claims decisions, and those objections would be moved to judicial review with the B.C. Supreme Court. I will echo the comments of the member of the official opposition in that we are not opposed to these changes, but we’ll want to dig into them a little bit at committee stage.

I think what’s important to think about, as we would all know from experiences with our constituency offices, is that a lot of people feel that processes are unfair, and they seek resolution through various bodies to remedy that sense of unfairness. It will be important to hear about the understanding that that sense of fairness will have to be embedded in, I hope, these changes that are being made.

One of the concerns is the difficulty that people have of accessing what they feel to be justice, oftentimes. The impartiality that we see in Provincial Court and Supreme Court — with judges who have gone through lengthy training, education and experience — is recognized as an important facet of the delivery of justice in British Columbia.

The tribunals and the various civil bodies that we have don’t require that same level of training and experience. The members are appointed by government and there can be a sense of: “How do I know whether or not this is an impartial decision, or if this is a decision rooted in justice and fairness?” I think it is so important that our institutions really confirm for people that justice and fairness are at the root of decision-making, and that when people don’t have that experience, they have an avenue to have that addressed.

I refer, from personal experience, to our community having dealt with the Environmental Appeal Board hearing of a permitting decision related to our community in Shawnigan. Weeks and weeks of hearings at the Environmental Appeal Board resulted in a decision that upheld the decision to grant a permit, and the recourse for our community was, of course, an appeal to the courts, to the Supreme Court of B.C., for a judicial review. But that recourse wasn’t guaranteed. We had to make the case to a judge that it be heard.

One of the interesting outcomes from that experience was…. This is a long story, so I won’t get into it. In the decision that was ultimately made by Justice Sewell, in his judicial review of this Environmental Appeal Board hearing, he indicated that what had transpired over the process of this permitting and in the way that that permit got granted, and then in the experience that the community went through, it struck at the heart of the integrity of the Environmental Management Act.

What has always been a mystery to me since then is that that didn’t provoke a particularly strong response from the government at the time, or from the successive government, to say: “Wow, we definitely don’t want things that strike at the heart of the integrity of our laws. We want to make sure that that never happens again.” That’s not what I have witnessed or experienced.

I look forward to hearing the debate at committee stage of the bill. I expect that the Attorney General will be wanting to convey to the opposition members how this will improve fairness, accountability and, ideally, good judgment and good decision-making.

[1:40 p.m.]

The changes to the Notaries Act and the Legal Profession Act give the respective board of governors abilities — it’s my understanding — to increase the interest rate on trust accounts and not give their clients any notification that they’ve done so. This is a little bit of a concern to us, I think, for obvious reasons.

On the themes of transparency and accountability and justice and fairness, I think that governments really do have an added burden, particularly in the times we’re in, to ensure that people can look at how any kind of process, particularly that involves money and the accumulation of it and the spending of it, is actually quite transparent and accountable.

From what we understand from the bill, the revenue earned from the trust accounts would go to legal education, legal research, legal aid, law reform for law libraries. These are important elements of running the Law Society, but the discretion granted to the board of governors raises some pretty significant questions about accountability and transparency that we will be wanting to explore in committee stage.

With that, I will end my comments and look forward to watching the unfolding of the debate on this bill.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the members for their second reading remarks, helpful guideposts from the opposition about areas of interest to them. Just a couple of quick remarks to respond to some of the questions that were raised that may help focus questions in committee stage.

With respect to the interest on trust accounts — lawyers’ trust accounts, notary trust accounts — this allows the Law Foundation, which is not the Law Society, to negotiate arrangements with commercial banks and credit unions around interest rates. They already have the authority. Lawyers are not allowed to keep the interest from their trust accounts. They have to remit it over to either their client or to the Law Foundation. At the client’s request, it can go to the client. If the client doesn’t request, the interest from the trust account goes to the Law Foundation.

It already funds all these things, so this is a way to negotiate with the banks to get more interest for both clients and the Law Foundation and the Notary Foundation. So this is a win-win for everybody. It’s not sort of a strange, anti-transparent interest rate trick. This is actually a goal to increase the resources available, if the client wishes, to the client and, otherwise, to the Law Foundation to do their continued good works, which are already funded by interest on these trust accounts.

The second piece is a question around justice and fairness related to allowing a judicial review in B.C. Supreme Court rather than — it’s called a trial de novo — a brand-new trial in Provincial Court.

Just a little background. The civil resolution tribunal was actually invented, for lack of a better word, or created by the opposition B.C. Liberals. I think that the intent at the time was to create a parallel justice system that didn’t interfere with or even come close to taking any of the constitutional responsibilities of the Supreme Court or any jurisdiction away from the Provincial Court.

It was layered on top. You could still go to small claims court in Provincial Court, or if you found Provincial Court and the processes not to be in keeping with what you wanted to do and your claim was below a certain amount, $5,000, you could go to the civil resolution tribunal. You would do your small claims case through the civil resolution tribunal. You had the choice. You still have a choice to go through the civil resolution tribunal or through the Provincial Court.

The trick was that the civil resolution tribunal, in order, I think…. I don’t know. I don’t want to attribute motive, but I think the reason was just to reassure the courts that they would still maintain the final decision-making authority. The person who lost the civil resolution tribunal hearing could then, for the application fee, go to Provincial Court and start a new trial in Provincial Court and then wouldn’t have to take any other steps.

That had the effect of cancelling the civil resolution tribunal judgment. If the person who was successful in the civil resolution tribunal said, “Hey, what the heck?” and went to Provincial Court, they would have to prove their case all over again in Provincial Court, do the whole trial again, and then come up with another decision from Provincial Court, which itself was then reviewable in B.C. Supreme Court again.

[1:45 p.m.]

I understand why it was done in the early days when this was an experiment. It was a pilot. It was a lean start-up, all those kinds of things. The civil resolution tribunal has really proven itself as a world-leading virtual tribunal responsible for some significant claims in our province. They still have concurrent jurisdiction, meaning you can go to either Provincial Court or to civil resolution tribunal.

The goal here is so that people don’t feel tricked. Right? You go to the civil resolution tribunal. You win your case, and then you find out you have to do the whole thing again in Provincial Court from scratch. It feels like you’ve been tricked. What was the point of that civil resolution tribunal process? So really, this is aimed at addressing people’s sense of justice and fairness. “I won the case at the civil resolution tribunal. So why do I have to do the trial all over again in Provincial Court?”

Really, we’re trying to meet people’s expectations with this change around justice and fairness and still provide the courts with their constitutional guarantee — B.C. Supreme Court — that they have the final say. Regardless of what the tribunal says, the B.C. Supreme Court can overrule that decision on judicial review.

To clarify a couple of the remarks, I wouldn’t want members to be concerned about this, because I think they’re all really positive things. I hope they are things that all members of this House can support, because I think that they do increase justice and fairness. They increase access to justice and resources for vital legal advocacy work that’s done across the province funded by the Law Foundation and the Notary Foundation.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 9, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2022, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. K. Conroy: I call estimates on Ministry of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation.

Deputy Speaker: We’ll take a short recess to allow the minister and their staff to come take their place, and we will resume shortly. Thank you, Members. The House is in recess.

The House recessed at 1:47 p.m.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
JOBS, ECONOMIC RECOVERY
AND INNOVATION

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 1:53 p.m.

On Vote 36: ministry operations, $110,426,000.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. I’d like to call the committee into session. We’re here for ministry estimates for Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation.

Minister, I believe you might have an opening statement.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you, hon. Chair.

It’s nice to see all my team here with me today for these estimates. It’s been a year. It’s been another interesting year. But here we are.

I’ll start by acknowledging the folks that are here that are supporting the work of the ministry. We have Bobbi Plecas, my deputy minister. We have James Harvey, associate deputy minister for investment and innovation. We have Joanna White, who is the assistant deputy minister for management services and the executive financial officer.

[1:55 p.m.]

We have Tim Lesiuk, who is the assistant deputy minister for innovation, technology and investment. We have Jeff Vasey, who is not physically in here but in the building, assistant deputy minister for the office of mass timber implementation, and Chris Rathbone, who is not actually here right now but will be here in the morning, assistant deputy minister for small business and economic development. Kerry Pridmore is the assistant deputy minister for trade and industry development.

We also have another host of teams joining us. Leslie Teramoto is the executive director for interprovincial trade and investment operations. Lori Henderson is the executive director for rural operations. Angela Coco is executive director for small business and economic development. Morningstar Pinto is the executive director for small business and economic development.

Paul Pawlowski is the executive director for investment analysis and policy. TJ Parhar is executive director for regional inclusive economic recovery. Tara Cameron is director for executive operations in the deputy minister’s office. Jill Earthy is the new chief executive officer for InBC. David Mortimer is the chief financial officer at InBC. Michael Loseth is the chief executive officer for Forestry Innovation Investment, FII. Raghwa Gopal is the CEO of Innovate B.C.

I want to thank this amazing team of people who have worked incredibly hard through very difficult times, through the pandemic. I know we’re going to dive into a lot of the important topics, but I just want to say how challenging these last few years have been for the people of British Columbia.

I want to say a big thank-you to these extraordinary people and to all the people in the civil service who have worked around the clock, under extreme pressures, to be able to put programming in place to support people and businesses through what has been one of the most challenging times, certainly, of my life and our history as a province.

With that, I look forward to hearing the questions from the members opposite.

T. Stone: I would like to begin what I’m sure will be a scintillating eight hours of exchange between the minister and the opposition over the next couple of days.

I’m also really thanking the incredibly hard-working men and women of the ministry that I think have done exceptionally good work under extremely trying circumstances through this pandemic. It certainly has not gone unnoticed by British Columbians. I know I speak for all of my colleagues in the opposition when I say thank you very much for your service.

We are here to focus on the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation, and we’ve got a range of questions. I’m going to focus a fair bit of our time on the economic plan and the range of initiatives that are contained therein. I wanted to start off, though, with a few general questions. I think we can all agree that, whether speaking as an individual British Columbian or a small business owner, we’re all exhausted.

We’re all tired. British Columbians are ready to, hopefully once and for all, come out of this pandemic. But we’ve said that three or four times now, as we’ve kind of come out of it and gone back in and out and back in. I just wanted to ask the minister this first very general question. In the context of all of the lessons that have been learned….

With respect to restrictions that have been implemented — again, to keep people safe and stop the spread of COVID, minimize economic impact, and so forth — based on the lessons learned, is the minister working with, and can he give us some details of what the work would look like if he answered yes…? Is he working with others in government on what the transparent COVID metrics would look like?

[2:00 p.m.]

If we ended up having to impose more restrictions on small businesses, in particular, what would those metrics look like, based on everything we’ve learned up to this point, that would really drive the minister’s preparation of programs and supports, and so forth, for those small businesses which have been and would presumably be impacted, should we find ourselves having to go back into a period of time — hopefully not — whereby we would have to live with further restrictions?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Certainly, I think there are a lot of lessons learned across the province, across Canada and across the world on how to manage these types of situations. Now, every wave of the pandemic wasn’t the same. Every single wave of the pandemic had different challenges.

I think the premise of the question from the member is probably more appropriate for the Ministry of Health. The member will know — and I’ve shared this extensively in the House — that the decisions around what restrictions are brought in and when they’re brought in are made by the provincial health office. The provincial health office decides what’s needed and when they’re needed. I have never tried to step into that space. I respect that boundary.

I respect that they have a need to make decisions in a pandemic to protect British Columbians, and they’ve made those. We’ve worked around that and tried to ensure the supports are there. But that decision-making process is certainly with Dr. Henry and the provincial health office and may be a better question for the Ministry of Health.

What I will say is that one of the lessons that we did learn to support the community — and I say community broadly, whether it’s First Nations or industry or our partners in labour or not-for-profit — was that we need to bring people together and we need to ensure that they get the information that we have so that they can be informed of what we’re doing, to help us all work together to navigate these challenging times. It was a very important lesson that we learned, I think.

When we started what we call the Industry Engagement Table…. We have over 140 organizations that are present. Dr. Henry and sometimes the Minister of Health come on to that session, share the most up-to-date information and allow people — in one space — to ask questions so that it’s not a question of what conversation is happening in another room somewhere else with someone else, but having that forum where everyone can ask questions.

They’re hearing the same questions and the same answers. So we found that space created to be an excellent place for information to be disseminated but also an opportunity for us to hear from them about how they could help and what issues might arise from certain decisions that the provincial health office may make.

It was a really positive, I think, process. It showed that when we work together, we can accomplish anything. That’s certainly my hope as we start coming out of this pandemic — that we can continue that level of cooperation to get some good things done.

T. Stone: I appreciate that. I guess, at the end of the day, one would hope that the lessons that have been learned over the past two years, in part, would be reflected in the approaches taken, moving forward.

I’m not talking about the decisions by the provincial health officer and the public health community around health-driven restrictions. I’m really talking about: what more and how much better could government and the ministries on the front lines of this prepare small businesses for the impacts of restrictions that could be forthcoming in the future?

I want to move on. Again, this is a fairly generalized question. I think it would be safe to suggest — and the minister, I’m assuming, will agree with me on this — that small businesses have been really hit hard, depending on the sector. Some sectors went through the pandemic and even grew. Opportunities presented themselves, and so forth.

There are many sectors and many small businesses that were really hit hard, many that went out of business and a lot that are still, to this day, struggling and are barely hanging on. We see that determination of entrepreneurs, at the core of who they are, as risk-takers, to press through. But there are a lot of struggling small businesses and small business people out there.

[2:05 p.m.]

The CFIB’s latest survey from February — a few stats, which I think reflect the struggle. Two-thirds of B.C. businesses are below normal revenues, or 55 percent are below what had been their normal staffing levels. CFIB says that the average small business has taken on over $150,000 of debt during the pandemic. That number actually increases to an average of about $200,000 for businesses in the hospitality sector.

On and on the numbers go, and it’s easy to rattle off a bunch of stats. I appreciate that behind all of those stats are real people and the struggles that they’ve gone through and that they continue to go through.

One of the realities, I think, of what we’ve been through and what small business people have been through is reflected in the sheer numbers of these business people that have said that they’re really struggling from a mental health perspective. I think that is a reality across the whole population. But we are seeing an extraordinary number of business owners here in British Columbia saying that they’re very close to, if not at, burnout. CFIB puts a finer point on it and says that British Columbia is reporting the highest level of burnout amongst small business owners, coming out of this pandemic.

The question I wanted to ask…. Again, I appreciate that it’s a high-level question, and there would be different agencies involved, and so forth. But can the minister speak to any focus that his ministry has placed on ensuring that there are supports available to small business owners from a mental health perspective?

Are there programs to help people adjust to their reality in life at the moment — which, in many cases, is depression and other forms of mental health? Are there things that are happening within the minister’s ministry that are focused on supporting small businesses and the small business owners, their staff, through what have been extremely challenging times and have resulted in significant mental health challenges for these individuals?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There were a lot of pieces there. I’ll start with the big one, which is mental health.

I think members across the way and members on our side have all talked to small business owners who have been navigating these challenging times, and the mental health pressure on so many of them is a huge, huge issue.

[2:10 p.m.]

As the member highlighted, there are some businesses that have really been challenged through the pandemic, but there are many, many businesses who have actually thrived through the pandemic. It’s two stories, certainly, that are out there. It depends on what sector you are and whether you’re people-facing or not.

As we were talking about learnings from the pandemic, I think one of the biggest learnings is that when you make investments in people and you make investments in supporting businesses, you get the outcomes that we all want to see. That’s certainly, I think, the lesson that we’ve learned from this pandemic.

I’m going to try to avoid this exchange with the member, but I have to say it once, which is that we provided one of the highest per-capita supports for people and businesses in the country. I think that’s why we’re in a position now where we’re able to see the fastest job recovery rate in the country, one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. Wages are going up.

All the positive things that we’re seeing are because of those supports. In fact, if you listen to folks across the country and North America and even the world, that’s an important conversation that’s happening. When you invest in people, you do get the outcomes that you want to see in your economy.

The member also asked about — kind of was going at — businesses that are shut down. You know, we have seen, throughout the pandemic, that insolvencies are actually flat because of the historic amount of dollars that was supported for people and businesses. A lot of businesses were able to navigate.

Now, I’m not saying all. We know there are some businesses in our communities that just couldn’t make it through the challenging times, but many did. In fact, British Columbia is ranked No. 1 when it comes to continuing business activity and recovery through all the provinces in the country.

I think that kind of gets at the question the hon. member was raising, but if he wanted something more specific, I’m happy to take that back.

T. Stone: Well, I won’t ask another question along these lines. I will just underscore that, again, in that most recent CFIB survey, 74 percent of small business owners here in British Columbia say that they are either at or nearly approaching a burnout. That has obvious mental health implications, so I think that that’s something that needs to be squarely on our radar screen for all of us, moving forward, to make sure that these hard-working men and women are well supported.

Again, I don’t expect that this will be a significant back-and-forth in our exchange, but I do have to correct the record in terms of what the minister said about the level of supports and this constant refrain of No. 1 in Canada. The details really do matter.

When you actually look at the gross totals of all supports that have been provided to businesses across the country and you sort that on a per-capita basis, British Columbia is actually No. 8 in line in terms of the level of supports that are provided that are not liquidity-related, which is all of that debt that I’ve talked about. When you actually look just at the grants — the cash in pockets, the help with cash flow — British Columbia actually has provided the lowest amount of financial supports — so the tenth spot out of ten provinces.

Again, I don’t expect we’ll go back and forth on those numbers. We likely agree to disagree. But those are the actual numbers.

I did want to ask the minister about one, while we’re talking about economic recovery. I’m going to spend the vast majority of my time today talking about the forward-looking economic plan. But just while we’re on this topic of struggling small businesses and recovery as a theme here and now, we, I think, are concerned, as many British Columbians are, about the potential end of the temporary expanded service area authorizations.

[2:15 p.m.]

I’m sure that the minister would agree that one of the key lifelines for restaurants and breweries and distilleries, these hospitality businesses which have been really, really hit hard — on-again, off-again restrictions, sometimes with no notice, sometimes with a bit more notice, the absolute hammering of their revenue and now the significant challenges of finding labour, finding people to come and work for them. I mean, it’s just been challenge upon challenge upon challenge for restaurants, breweries, distilleries and others in the hospitality space.

Against that backdrop, one of the initiatives that the government brought in, I believe, back in 2020 was this temporary expanded service area policy, which threw a bit of a lifeline to a number of these hospitality businesses by allowing for the expedited approval of patio space that, against the backdrop of capacity limits, and so forth, really enabled, I think, a lot of these businesses to actually survive.

These temporary permits were put in place very, very quickly with no fees. The patios were built, and they were paid for. In many cases, the businesses assumed some of the costs for putting these patios in place. They’re loved by patrons, and again, they represented a lifeline for small businesses.

It seems beyond odd, as we highlighted in this chamber yesterday through a line of questioning in question period, that the government was planning to end this temporary expanded service area authorization as of June 1 and basically tell these businesses, “If you want to make these patios permanent, well, you’ve got to go back to the drawing board. You’ve got to reapply. You’ve got to pay a fee. You have to submit plans for the patio space again,” which already exist. “You’ve got to enter into a referral process with local governments.” And on and on and on.

It says on the government’s own website, the liquor and cannabis regulation branch website, that this entire process can take up to ten months. So assuming that the government moves forward with this for June 1 and assuming that many of these small businesses…. And we’ve certainly heard from a lot of them. It would appear that many of them haven’t initiated the process for following this onerous, costly process to make these patios permanent. Many of them stand the very real possibility of losing their patio space as soon as the weather has warmed up a little bit.

I mean, people already, certainly down here, are starting to enjoy patio space again. You can certainly do it when the cherry blossoms are out down here. It’s not quite that time of the year up in Kamloops, let alone Fort St. John.

Whether you’re that business owner of that business or you’re a patron, that is something that people love. It’s something we can all look forward to. It’s something that’s been a lifeline. And many of these businesses would appear to be staring down the very real possibility of losing that patio space and perhaps, due to the length of the process in play, possibly having to watch the forthcoming spring and summer patio season pass them by.

I just want to ask the minister: why is this transition or this decision to move away from the temporary expanded service area policy, which has been such an important piece of the survival of these hospitality businesses, being so poorly handled? Whether it’s through his ministry directly or whether it’s through other ministries, this has jobs implications. These are small businesses for which this minister is a champion within government by virtue of his role. Why would the government decide to do this and end this temporary expanded service area policy? Why not just make this policy permanent? Grandfather these businesses and make it permanent?

[2:20 p.m.]

Any net new businesses that don’t have these patios now can enter in whatever the process is. But just recognize that these businesses have been hard hit with debt and lost employees and lost revenue and barely hanging on. Why not just make this policy permanent?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think the member and I agree that the small businesses in B.C. have been incredibly resilient through these challenging times. Navigating the pandemic, ensuring that they can keep their workers and people safe — all have been challenging. I’m actually very proud of the support we were able to provide businesses to make those pivots and make those transitions.

There are a couple of things. We talk about the restaurant industry, and obviously it’s close to my heart, having family that was in the business for almost a decade. And it was difficult then, but I can’t even imagine how hard it is for many of these businesses during these times.

I think it’s important to highlight that we made a lot of changes to not only support them through the pandemic but also make sure that they’re more resilient going forward. Whether that’s the 25 percent reduction in liquor pricing, which I know that the sector had been asking for a long time…. That’s made permanent. The cap on food delivery — more and more they’re becoming reliant on food delivery, and they knew what that meant. These are big, big wins for the restaurant and hospitality sector that we’ve made. I know it’s appreciated.

Now, the question on patios is something that I do think the member should canvass with the Solicitor General, as his ministry is the lead on that. But I would disagree with his assertion that it was poorly handled. In fact, it was applauded — the way it was handled.

Now, I appreciate that there are some issues in Vancouver, and the Solicitor General highlighted that in his response. There have been people who messaged me from the exchange who say: “These are our public streets, and we want to have a conversation about whether a private business should be able to get on to the streets — to be able to decide.” So each local government has had the flexibility to make decisions. As the Solicitor General highlighted, Coquitlam moved really quick, and businesses are being transitioned real fast to be able to keep their patios.

I do think that it’s an important question. I appreciate the question. But it’s something he should canvass with the Solicitor General, since they lead on that file.

T. Stone: Well, we will canvass it with the Deputy Premier in his estimates because there is a piece of this that is his.

I will remind the minister that the minister actually was quoted in the news release when this policy was put in place in the first place. He was quoted again on a news release in June 2021. In that quote, he said: “For thousands of businesses, the grant has been a lifeline. It has allowed them to pivot to…build a patio.” That’s the minister, so I think it’s more than fair game to canvass this in these estimates here — the Ministry of Jobs and Economic Recovery.

[2:25 p.m.]

For the minister to suggest that this is being applauded…. What was applauded was the policy being implemented in the first place. What was applauded was the couple of extensions to the program that were made previously. But if the minister was to get out and engage with restaurants, breweries and distilleries — and I know he’s receiving the same emails that we’re receiving — he would know that there is frustration and anger, and it’s broadly spread across the province.

It makes no sense coming out of this pandemic, with the state that many of our restaurants and others in the hospitality business and many of these businesses find themselves…. It makes no sense to tell them that they have to engage in a process which is not a local government process. It’s not a local government–mandated process; it is a process of this government. They have to engage that process in order to try and make this space, these patios, permanent.

A process which the mayor of Delta…. George Harvie wrote one of many letters that we’ve received, where he said: “Sure. Of course. Local governments are all going to have different perspectives on this. But fundamentally, at the end of the day, nothing matters at the local government level if the province doesn’t extend the expedited approval process that exists through the liquor and cannabis regulation branch.”

I will remind the minister that that particular policy, which is on the LCRB’s website, makes it very, very clear that for these restaurants to continue to use their patio space, they have to apply to the LCRB for permanent use of this patio space. They have to pay a $400 fee. They have to submit floor plans. Then this all has to be referred to local government. It says right on the website: “Approval…can take up to ten months to complete.” This was printed off the website just yesterday.

Again I ask the minister: why would the government not decide to, ideally, just make these patios permanent and thus say to these businesses: “We are going to recognize the tremendous pain and struggle that you’ve made. You’ve made it, and we’re not going to add another layer of red tape and costs onto your shoulders. We’re going to make these patios permanent”?

If the government is not willing to do that, then can the minister advise this House if he and his colleagues in cabinet are prepared to extend the expiration deadline for that temporary expanded service area and if they’re prepared to extend the deadline out far enough to allow these restaurants, breweries and distilleries and others to take advantage of this patio space that many of them have already paid for — the patio space that already exists and the patio space that has been a lifeline for them — so that they can continue to utilize this space for the good of, the survival of their businesses through the forthcoming spring and summer seasons in 2022?

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you to the member for the question.

I was highlighting the fact that the way that government was able to move to support businesses was being applauded. Certainly, our move on the patios was being applauded. It was a really positive move.

The member says it’s red tape. Respectfully, the member knows that his party was in government for a long, long time, and it was never changed. The rules were never changed. I assume the rules were there for a purpose. Although I appreciate that many of the businesses used the grants that we provided them, used the fast-track process to be able to open the patios, I’m supportive of them.

We’ve seen communities that have come through and made them all permanent. Coquitlam is an example. I applaud Coquitlam for their action. That being said, other communities have the opportunity to do so as well.

The member references…. Obviously, making the reference indirectly, Vancouver is the community that has got this challenge. He mentions he’s got letters from lots of communities. I’m happy to see those letters and speak to those local elected officials that raise those concerns.

T. Stone: This isn’t just a Vancouver issue. This is an issue across the entire province. It’s an issue across the entire province because the province has a critical role to play in ensuring that this policy, this temporary expanded service area authorization, remains in place and therefore would continue to be that very useful tool that many of these hospitality businesses — restaurants and others — have found to be key to their continued survival.

As I said, it’s on the LCRB website, exactly what the process is that has to be followed, the application form that has to be submitted to the provincial government, a $400 fee that has to be paid to the provincial government, a survey and floor plans that have to be provided to the provincial government and referrals that then have to be kicked into gear with a local government.

That referral piece — you don’t even get to that if you don’t first go through the steps that are being mandated by the province. It doesn’t matter if you’re in Ashcroft, with a patio there on a restaurant, or Delta, as in the case of Mayor George Harvie’s letter that I referenced earlier, or the city of Vancouver.

This, I would submit, is likely going to be the most egregious example of a government not really understanding or being willing to engage and support with hard-hit local businesses, when you look at the 34-page process that the city of Vancouver has laid out, and the fees and all of the rest of it. But again, you don’t even get to that local government part until you go through the required steps that the province has mapped out.

[2:35 p.m.]

All we’re asking here, on behalf of restaurants, on behalf of distilleries, on behalf of breweries, on behalf of those establishments where serving alcohol and food on a patio, an expanded patio area outside, has been such a lifeline. All we’re asking on behalf of these businesses is: will the minister commit to extending the expiration of this program, the TESA program, push it way out to the fall of this year, at minimum, to allow for these businesses to take advantage of the forthcoming spring and summer opportunities and, at maximum, just make this policy permanent so that these businesses can take advantage of this on an ongoing basis moving forward?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I would agree with the member that the patio fast-tracking process has been a success. I think it has been well received, and I think the member knows that as well.

Again, I’ll highlight two important things. One, it’s a question for the Solicitor General, since all these decisions around this are being made by the Solicitor General. I’m sure the member will raise the question there.

I’ll also highlight that communities like Coquitlam have fast-tracked the process and are making everything permanent. Local communities have the opportunity to do so, which means we should applaud the communities that are doing so.

This question is better suited for the Solicitor General, because they have all the levers to make these decisions, and a better place for estimates.

T. Stone: Again, and not to belabour the point, there’s a disconnect here, I think, between what the minister is saying is reality on this here and now in this chamber and what’s actually happening outside.

It would be a very simple decision to make, and the right decision to make, to say to all of these restaurants and all of these breweries and distilleries: “Hey, sure, we may have wanted initially to go with a June 1 expiration of this temporary expanded service area policy. But we’re going to give everyone, if not on a permanent basis…. This forthcoming spring and summer we’re just going to get ’er done.”

I’m not aware of any traffic data or collision data or other points of information that, in some cases, have been thrown back at us when we’ve suggested this policy be made permanent that would suggest that these patios have become a safety hazard or a risk to motorists or a risk in some other sense. What they’ve done is they’ve given small businesses a lifeline.

I don’t know why sometimes it’s so difficult just to acknowledge that what is being asked for here is a reasonable ask from a group of businesses that employ a lot of people that have been hit really, really hard, to just say: “You know what? Through this forthcoming spring and summer, we’re going to let you keep your expanded patio service area at no additional costs, no additional paperwork or red tape or delays or whatever. We’re going to let you continue.”

I want to move on. I do hope that the government gives that some thought, though. There have been some indications through today that there’s maybe a little crack or a little opening for some reconsideration of the expiry of this policy. I really do hope that the government does the right thing here to do good by these businesses.

I want to move on to the economic plan. I want to focus on the issue of affordability. I mean, we’ve spent a lot of time in the…. We’re approaching the end of the fifth week of this legislative session. I believe it’s a 13-week session, so we’re nearing the halfway point.

[2:40 p.m.]

We’ve spent a lot of time in this chamber talking about affordability. Why? Because it doesn’t matter if you’re talking about housing costs or rents or gasoline or groceries or a myriad of other things; the cost of virtually everything is going up. Inflation is a huge and growing challenge for British Columbians.

My first question to the minister would be this. It’s not like rising housing prices, rents, gas, groceries, and so forth, haven’t been increasingly a challenge for British Columbians. These items and inflation generally have been increasing in cost well before the war in Ukraine and through the pandemic.

I don’t see any mention whatsoever of inflation in the economic plan. I don’t see a plan in this plan to address the rising costs that British Columbians are facing. So could the minister please advise this House: why does this economic plan not address the rising costs of the so many things that British Columbians depend on day to day to raise their children, to run their business, to raise their kids and to live?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, I appreciate the member mentioning the economic plan. This gives me an opportunity, a limited opportunity: 15 minutes. But the next question will take the additional time to talk about the economic plan, which I’m very proud of.

I think that, first off, it’s important to note that we’ve had a plan that’s been guiding us through the pandemic. Because of that plan, we have the fastest job recovery rate. Because of that plan, we have the lowest unemployment rate in the country. Because of that plan, we’re actually seeing wages go up. All things that are critically important metrics, certainly on our side of the House, that we gauge on.

Now, I can give the member a copy of the plan, because he talks about key measures that are actually reflected in the plan. He talks about affordability. The plan talks about supporting people and families. In fact, child care is central to the plan, because we know that child care is a key piece of the economic success of our economy.

We know that supporting people and families is a central piece of our economic plan. We talk about housing. We talk about child care. We talk about good access to health care. We talk about access to food. I don’t recall that ever being in the opposition’s jobs plan. I appreciate the questions. That’s why we’ve got this reflected in here.

Now, the member talks about inflation. We know that there is inflation right now. We know that supply chains have been hampered because of the pandemic. And now, with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we are seeing spikes in gas prices. We may even see pressures on food. So there are implications of all of those global pieces that are moving that have impacts on it.

[2:45 p.m.]

Now, most economists will say that when you’re looking at inflation that’s caused by supply chain disruptions, that will start to ease as we start getting out of the pandemic. But we’re not waiting for that. We have already started to take action. In fact, with the StrongerBC economic plan, we had grants available for manufacturers so we could shorten supply chains — start to produce more of the products we need, closer to home. That’s why we’ve been making historic investments in child care, historic investments in housing and historic investments in access to health care.

We know all those things are critically important for the economy. There is no separation. I think gone are the days where you just talk about cutting regulations and cutting taxes for really wealthy people and hope that it works for the economy, for everyone. Those days are gone. Certainly, if that’s the premise that’s going to be advanced today, I would say that we’re in 2022, and it’s a long ways away from 2002. And that playbook that the previous government used for so many years should be retired, because times have changed.

This economic plan reflects that change. This economic plan highlights what’s critically important for us. It focuses on labour supply. It focuses on human capital. It focuses on public infrastructure, and it lays out the six critical missions that we need to ensure are front and centre if we want to ensure that our economy grows. We want to see economic growth, but we want to see it done in a sustainable way and in an inclusive way.

Now, we know that in the pandemic, the saying that Dr. Henry used — which is that we’re all in the same storm, but we’re all in different boats — is true. We know there was a disproportionate impact on some communities. We know that women, people from Indigenous and Black communities, racialized communities, those with disabilities, were disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. That’s why we stepped up with the highest level of per-capita supports for people and businesses in the pandemic to ensure that those people had the supports they needed.

That’s why we’re seeing the numbers come back to where they are. But we are not done there. We know that we need to continue to do more. This economic plan lays out a vision for that to go forward. It highlights key initiatives that we’re going to take to address the critical issues that we’re facing — whether that’s continuing to support manufacturing so we can produce things closer to home, whether that’s supporting our ports so they can continue to grow and ensure that the goods are being moved in a very efficient way throughout our regions so that we can continue to increase productivity.

It focuses on people and investing in people, ensuring they have the skills required, whether that’s post-secondary or skills training, to meet the jobs of the future. We had a labour market outlook report that highlighted how we have over one million jobs that we’re projecting to be opening in British Columbia over the next decade. We have a lot of work to do to ensure that those people have the skills that are needed to take the opportunities that are ahead of us — in fact, more jobs than people, which is certainly a different challenge than we’ve had in the past, but a challenge, nonetheless.

The member talks about affordability. I would say that it’s reflected in here. It’s reflected in this economic plan. It’s never been reflected in economic plans before. This is what’s new about it. This is what’s different about it. We talk about the economy, which is people. People are the economy. And the more people start realizing that they are the ones who drive the economy, the more they’ll realize that when we support people, it’s good for the economy.

I’m not sure how the member missed it, because it’s such an important piece of the plan. Maybe he’s going on word counts. But if he reads this, when he reads the document about inclusive growth, that’s what we’re talking about. We’re talking about those who have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic — making sure that they see the opportunities and economic growth.

Too often we’ve seen that if you look back in history, when economic growth increases, those who are most vulnerable don’t actually see an opportunity to participate in that growth. That’s what we’re talking about in this plan.

T. Stone: Well, much like this economic plan, the minister is all words and no action. I mean, he can go on for hour after hour after hour, and like the plan, there is no tangible action here. It’s all words.

[2:50 p.m.]

Housing. Give me a break. We have the highest housing costs in British Columbia’s history. It’s happened under this government. We have the highest rents in the history of British Columbia, and it’s under this government.

The Attorney General just confirmed the other day that only 5,269 units of housing have actually opened under this government in five years. Ten-dollar-a-day daycare has gone the way of the dodo bird. We’re sitting here looking at $20-a-day daycare in select communities around the province. Give me a break. We actually created child care spaces that had real people in them. Give me a break.

You sit there, and he talks about how there’ve been all of these supply chain grants that have been intended to help with challenges that we’re encountering right now. Well, I’ll remind the minister that was a grant that came out in April of 2021. There have been no new dollars to assist with supply chains since that point. He talks about wages being up. Wages are up because the low-income jobs have recovered a lot more slowly than the higher-income jobs. It’s all a law of averages.

This plan has nothing in it that focuses on the challenges that British Columbians are facing from an affordability perspective. He can fall back on his rhetoric about taxes and red tape, and that this is all just about wealthy people and whatnot, when we’re standing in this House every day this week and last week and the week before, and we’re asking about real people.

They can’t afford the cost of fuelling their vehicles to get their kids to school or to soccer. That’s not talking about wealthy British Columbians. That’s talking about British Columbians. When we’re talking about people that can’t afford the increase in rents, that’s not wealthy British Columbians. Those are regular British Columbians.

My question was: where in this economic plan is there a focused, detailed plan to address these inflationary costs that are impacting real people? Whether it’s increased housing, increased rents, increased gas costs or increased grocery bills, where in this economic plan are there details with targets and metrics that focus on those affordability challenges that British Columbians face?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m sorry that the member felt so defensive in his last answer. But the truth is the economic plans that they’ve laid out in the past have never talked about affordability. Never. In fact, their plans have never highlighted child care.

I appreciate the member said: “We did this with it.” No. They didn’t do that. In fact, when we first formed government, we had to give money through UBCM to local communities to just do an inventory of what child care spaces were available because there was no inventory. Nobody knew. There was nobody keeping track of this. It was just happening. Maybe because they believed the market would fix itself. Maybe that’s what it was.

Affordability is highlighted in this plan, if this member would take the opportunity to look. On housing, he says: “Oh, people are facing huge challenges.” And they are. People are facing challenges in housing. No doubt about it. Low interest rates. We’re seeing a record low of houses on MLS that’s driving prices up. But imagine if they had made serious investments when they were in government, so we wouldn’t have this problem now. We have built more rental units, more student housing, just in his one community alone than they built in 16 years in government — just in his community alone.

I’m not going to stand here and listen to the member lecture me about housing and how important it is. If they had made those investments, we wouldn’t be in the dire situation that we’re in now.

We can go on about other things too. We can go on about ICBC, the dumpster fire that was ICBC. I mean, left in historic debt, took money out to give tax cuts to people who were really wealthy and then left everybody holding the bag. Now we’ve been able to navigate that. In fact, we didn’t give one rebate back to people. We gave people two rebates because of the difficult changes we had to make.

We talk about MSP. We can talk about cuts for those crossing the toll bridges, which I know the newish leader, Kevin Falcon, is very proud of because that was something he delivered. We can talk about all of these things, but what I’ll highlight for the member here is part of the economic plan. We actually talk about those things that were never talked about in economic plans before. Never have they in an economic plan talked about housing. Never have they talked about child care — all of these critical, important things that we know that are vital for our economy.

Now, the member is complaining that child care now is only $20 a day — by the end of this year. I mean, the hypocrisy to talk about how we’ve only reduced child care to $20 a day. In fact, there are a lot of families that are actually at $10 a day. But you’ve got to train people, and you’ve got to open spaces, and you’ve got to build the capacity in the system.

All that work we’ve been doing is historic. Over $1 billion of investment, because we realized that it’s not only important on an equity question — we know that disproportionately that means more women entering the workforce — but we know it’s about the economy. We’ve known that from the beginning, and that’s why we put it in our economic plan. It’s never been in an economic plan before. So these are all poverty measures.

Now, the member talks about metrics. Their jobs plan talked about jobs. They didn’t care about if they were good-paying jobs. They didn’t care if it was helping support communities. In fact, in our economic plan, we have metrics in place to gauge the health of communities — whether that’s looking at the wage gap and ensuring finding ways to close the wage gap or looking at housing, rental starts, so we could actually monitor whether we can get the rental housing starts we need to.

[3:00 p.m.]

I know there’s going to be a good conversation with the member, with the Attorney General, to talk about housing. To suggest that affordability isn’t central to our economic plan is just false. I would argue that this is the first time an economic plan has talked about these key measures for B.C. That’s rare, and we’re really proud of that. We’re really proud that the metrics go beyond just GDP growth and just job numbers. It looks at wages. It looks at new rental starts. It looks at a whole host of measures that will be important for us to monitor as we go forward.

It is central. We also look at the very important question — and he says “fluff” — of grants for agritech companies, grants for manufacturers, grants for small businesses to be able to pivot and grow in these challenging times. All of these things are critically important to ensure that we can continue to have a strong economy as we go forward. The member said: “Oh, well, wages are just going up because, you know….” I can’t remember exactly what he was saying, but he just kind of dismissed it.

Hon. Speaker, wages are going up because, as a government, we prioritized that, just like when they were in government, they prioritized not increasing wages.

We know that Kevin Falcon, when he was in this House before, prioritized keeping wages down, didn’t raise the minimum wage for years, left out people that were most vulnerable. We know that they created a two-tiered wage for women, in particular, when it came to a training wage in the hospitality sector — overwhelmingly represented by women, women getting lower wages than everybody else just because they thought that was a good policy.

We are tracking a different process. We are going in a different way. This economic plan puts us on a pathway to a more equitable, more sustainable economic growth going forward, the things that are core to what we value. I would argue that the opposition should join this because this is where the public is now, not in 2002. A lot has changed in 20 years.

T. Stone: I hope the minister feels better getting that out of his system.

The reality is clear, though. This economic plan is really just a mishmash of recycled previous announcements that are lagging behind. A lot of language, very little action. He talks about metrics. Well, metrics mean nothing if you don’t have targets. There are no targets in this plan at all. We’ll go through them, but there are no targets, and the metrics that are laid out are, in most cases, lagging by a couple of years. That’s not a plan.

I appreciate that the minister will likely want to take every opportunity he can to spout off on all of the things that he wants to talk about, about the previous government, and contrast to the current government. We’re five years into his government — five years. Half a decade. Two terms this government is working on. It’s incumbent upon this government to defend its plan and to answer questions, be held accountable for the promises that it’s made, the commitments that it has put out there, and the absolute abysmal track record of this government on virtually every account.

I’m not going to go through again…. I laid out the litany of just how rich it is for this minister and his colleagues to talk about how wonderful life is in British Columbia right now, how extraordinarily good people should feel about themselves, even in question period today.

It’s extraordinary to hear the Deputy Premier patting the government on the back for all the wonderful things this government has done for British Columbians when British Columbians are crying out for help here and now. Help with rising gas prices, which the Premier promised he would address and has not. Help with rising housing costs, which his government has not addressed. Help with the rising cost of groceries. Help with the rising cost of a whole wide range of things. Instead, this minister does what this government does so well. He bounces back to misrepresenting the policies and the record of the previous government and deflecting from the abysmal record of his government.

[3:05 p.m.]

To my knowledge, I don’t think the minister has started and run a whole series of businesses himself, so maybe that’s part of the challenge here. But let’s get real and talk about the challenges that British Columbians are facing here and now and what this government should be focused on to address those challenges.

There’s nothing about the inflation crisis that we’re facing in this plan. There’s nothing that addresses the affordability challenges that I’ve mentioned, with specific metrics and targets, to give people hope that the government’s actually going to do something that might fulfil their promise to bring housing prices down or bring rents down. They could bring in the renters rebate. That promise is missing in action still.

There’s nothing about gas prices, a whole wide range of things. There’s also nothing in this plan about business competitiveness, what the government’s plan is to make British Columbia a more desirable place to invest within. There’s nothing in this plan to provide relief on a go-forward basis for struggling small businesses.

The minister points to these metrics and these targets. I don’t really know what he’s talking about. I do know that there’s a companion document to the economic plan that talks about measuring our progress. In the context of the economic plan’s two key goals and the six missions — I think the government calls them — there are a number of goals that are mapped out. Median after-tax income for households…. It lays out some metrics that go, it would appear, to about 2018, maybe 2019. That was, like, three years ago. There are no targets for this particular goal.

How about the goal of inclusive growth, supporting families and people, the Gini coefficient? It only shows metrics to, what, 2019 — again, three years ago. Where’s the target for this? How do you measure your success against backward-looking statistics?

How about the goal of inclusive growth, the mission being improving quality of life and core housing needs? An admirable target or an admirable goal — the metrics on here go to 2018. That was four years ago. Where are the targets for measuring success on that goal?

Poverty incidence. Those metrics go to 2019. Improving the quality of life and post-secondary education go to 2020. Building resilient communities…. New business openings goes to 2020. These are all metrics. They mean nothing if you don’t have targets for the years ahead.

I haven’t even gotten to the goals under clean growth. Again, these metrics…. Let’s see. Net provincial GHG emissions go to 2019. Emissions intensity goes to, what, 2018? The metrics around labour productivity go to 2020. The value-added exports go to 2016. Are you kidding me — six years ago?

How the heck does the minister expect to measure the progress of the achievement or non-achievement of these goals in this economic plan when there are absolutely no targets against which you can measure that progress?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: There’s a lot there in the hon. member’s statement. So I’ll try to get a couple in.

First, I’ll start with maybe a little bit of a backhanded comment about not having opened multiple businesses and maybe not having that skill set and to understand how important this is. There are members of this House who perhaps have started multiple businesses but then also have been in charge of important files in government and run them into the ground.

I would say that if that’s the bar we’re using to decide who is qualified or not, I think there are some members here that perhaps should reflect on their experience and the outcomes of their results. But I won’t go too much into that. If the member would like to go into more detail, I certainly can.

Now, he talked about records. I think the record that we all should be proud of here in British Columbia is the fact that we have the lowest unemployment rate in the country. I’ve said this so many times, but a big part of that is because British Columbians followed the health guidelines. They did what they needed to do to ensure they kept themselves and their communities safe, and I’m grateful. I mean, a 92-point-something percent vaccination rate is remarkable.

It’s also because we had targeted supports to support people and businesses through the pandemic. The plan we put in place worked. The member can discount that as a record that’s not important. It’s a record that we’re proud of. Certainly, other provinces look at us with envy, whether that’s the lowest unemployment rate or whether that’s the fact that we had, just in the first three-quarters of last year, 30,000 people migrate to B.C. from other provinces.

It’s the largest net migration of people between provinces, interprovincial migration, in over 28 years. People are coming here because they see opportunities for themselves and their families. Now, there is pressure. There is pressure on housing. There is pressure on a whole host of things in our society due to the pandemic, due to war and conflict.

[3:15 p.m.]

This plan takes steps to address many of those challenges, whether that’s addressing the goods and movement throughout the regions…. It looks at manufacturing and how we ensure we can have more manufacturing here. It talks about trade diversification, which is going to be very important.

At the core of the work that we’re talking about here is the fact that we are expecting a million job openings in the next ten years, and we are expecting about 630,000 of those jobs to come from young people entering the workforce. So we have a lot of work to do, whether that’s attracting people from other provinces, whether that’s attracting people from other countries to come here, set roots and be residents of this wonderful country, and also finding ways to get people back into the workforce who have left the workforce for a long time. So that’s what’s reflected in this plan.

Now, the member says there’s nothing about competitiveness. I would guide him to page 7 of the document, where we talk about B.C.’s competitive advantage. He’ll know that in that, there are a lot of the things the government is doing. We know that in order to be competitive, you need to focus on talent and capital. That’s why we’re making historic investments in skills training for people, whether that’s people that are coming into the workforce or those that are existing already in the workforce that are having to transition because of technological change or because of environmental change.

There’s the need for capital in B.C., half a billion dollars. I’m sure we’ll talk about it. But we’re also seeing a historic level of capital being invested here in British Columbia. We do have competitive tax rates. Right now in British Columbia, we are competitive. Look at child care, which helps increase our competitiveness, and the historic amount of investment we’re making, whether that’s housing or whether that’s investments in transit — extending the SkyTrain to Langley, what’s happening on the Broadway line — and other investments. All these things help ensure that British Columbia is competitive.

I’ve been talking to companies that are looking to invest in British Columbia, and they say: “It’s your people. We want to come to British Columbia because of your people, because of your skills and your talent.” That’s something that we know is core to our competitiveness and core to who we are as British Columbians, and we’re going to continue to focus on this.

The member also mentioned metrics. I would say that some of the metrics that we’ve highlighted in the plan are new. This data has never been collected. So we’re charting a new path. I would highlight Gordon Campbell, when he was Premier, I think, realized that there’s more to GDP growth. In fact, I believe he also took that step to expand the amount of metrics we use, as opposed to the narrow few. But when the government at the time realized that those metrics were actually getting them in trouble, because of certain cuts that they were making, they scrapped that.

I think it’s important for us to take that spirit that he had early on and then look at what other jurisdictions in the world are doing. That’s why we’ve taken this path with the metrics. We’re going to continue to work with our stakeholders to find better metrics, better targets for us going forward. That’s a commitment I made to them in the consultation.

Certainly, the entire plan and how it was created was done in a way that has never been done before. We took people that are from varying views, different sectors, and we put them at the same table to have conversations about what they value in the economy and where they want to go. We had tables where we had people from the environmental movement; from industry, whether it was resource development or tech; people from labour, First Nations, not-for-profits. All of them were in tables to have conversations about what they value, what they think is important for them in the economy.

What they told us was affordable housing, which we’re making historic investments in. They told us we must address the climate emergency. Every single table I was on — didn’t matter if it was industry, environmental, First Nations — everybody knew that this is the most crucial thing that we can address right now.

Health care is a competitive advantage. We heard that clearly at every single table. We need to continue to invest in health care. We need to continue and ensure that it’s accessible to people. We heard from companies from other jurisdictions that say yeah, health care is a huge cost for them in other jurisdictions, and the fact that we have public health care here gives us a competitive advantage.

We heard about closing the digital divide. We heard about immigration. We heard about the importance of reconciliation with Indigenous people.

One of the pieces that I’m really proud of is our commitment in this plan to work with Indigenous communities to create metrics on what and how they see the economy working for them, as opposed to us saying to them, “Here are the metrics we believe. Here are the targets we believe for you,” and working with them to say: “Okay, what would you like to see? How can we co-develop metrics so that we can monitor and track the same data at the same time to assess the wellness of communities?”

[3:20 p.m.]

That is historic work. It’s a new place that we’ve never gone. Of course, we’ll be soon collecting race-based data, which will also allow us to look at the health of our economy in a lens that’s never been looked at, a lens of Indigenous, Black and racialized communities, who we know have disproportionately been left out of economic opportunities in this province because of barriers. Now we’ll be able to track it and monitor it and address those issues as we go forward.

I think that the member and I won’t agree on the plan. We won’t agree on the metrics. But we can agree that we’re going to have a million new job openings in the next decade.

We have a great challenge in front of us, a challenge that’s different than in the past. You know, in the past, we’ve had people and no jobs, and now we have more jobs and less people. That’s something that we’re going to have to work on together.

T. Stone: Well, I would say to the minister, you know, suggesting that we have amongst the most competitive tax rates in British Columbia…. Against the backdrop of the highest gas taxes and gas prices in North America, the rising costs of housing, basically the most expensive real estate and housing market outside of perhaps Toronto, this is hardly establishing British Columbia as a highly competitive jurisdiction within which to operate.

The second piece that I wanted to touch on is that I’m not sure that the minister understands the difference between metrics and targets. I actually don’t take issue with any of the metrics that are included in his economic plan, because metrics are backwards-looking. It’s actually the data that illustrates what has been achieved on a particular measure. I don’t take issue with the metrics that are in here. What I take issue with is the absolute, complete lack of targets. There are no targets.

The minister says: “Well, these are a bunch of new measures that have never been tracked before in British Columbia. That’s why, you know, the metrics are what they are.” That’s nonsense. How will you know if you’re successful on a particular economic goal if you haven’t set targets for that goal? That’s the point.

The competitiveness question that I asked him, my most recent question — the competitiveness piece is one page, this glossy page in the middle of the economic plan. That doesn’t make it an economic plan. This is a brochure.

A very specific question, and I’m hoping that the minister, again, will acknowledge the difference between a metric and a target, something that’s backwards-looking and something that’s forward-looking, and answer this question. On the inclusive growth goal of medium after-tax income for households, what are the two-year and the five-year targets for this particular goal?

[3:25 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Welcome to the chair. Our previous Chair gets a break from listening to me, which I’m sure she appreciates.

Thank you to the member for the question. There are a couple of things. He referred to competitiveness in the document, and I would say competitiveness is weaved through this entire document. All the pieces we highlight address productivity. They address competitiveness. I think that I gave him one section to point him in one direction, but he should read the entire document, and he’ll see that weave through.

The metrics that we have in the plan are to assess the health and wellness of our economy. It’s something that we haven’t done before. A lot of leading jurisdictions around the world, certainly in Europe, are now starting to use similar metrics to monitor the wellness of their communities.

Now, I know the member will probably go to the fact that when they had a jobs plan, they promised — I don’t know — $1 trillion. They promised that they would have — I don’t know — eight new mines. They promised a whole host of things which never really happened. What we’re doing with this plan is putting in metrics to see the breadth of our economy, to track the wellness of our economy.

We’re going to continue to work with sectors that are in our economy about where we go now that they’ve seen the vision of where we’re going.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Oh, we have another member who wants to join the conversation, which is great. More people engaged in this important conversation.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The hon. member is right. I shouldn’t…. He’s a veteran of this place, so he can do as he pleases.

What I would say to the member is this. We’re going to continue to work with our stakeholders, which was a commitment we made to them when we laid out this economic vision for where we’re going — that we would continue to work with them on the metrics as we go through.

He’ll see that there are a lot of new initiatives, just like previous economic plans that were laid out — how we’re going to move these important pieces forward. Certainly, with the First Nations and the metrics we’re working to co-develop with First Nations, we will be leaders in the country on that. So a lot of work to do still.

[3:35 p.m.]

This is about continuous improvement. We’re going to have to continuously do the work to address the challenges in the economy as they’ve been identified by our stakeholders. We have a lot of work to do to address the major labour challenge that we have ahead of us, which is laid out here — one million job openings over the next ten years and not enough people to meet the job openings that we have. So a lot of work is going to be required to ensure that we’re prepared for that.

T. Stone: Is the minister confirming, then, that there is no target — a two-year or five-year target, let’s say — in relation to the median after-tax income for households goal, which is included in this economic plan?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I guess the member wants to know how we will know whether we’re actually closing the wage gap. Because it’s International Women’s Day, I will share with the member that, in fact, we already have, with the investments we’ve been making.

Right now, since July 2017, the female average wage gap has gone up 25.2 percent since July 2017. The current unemployment rate has gone to 4.4 percent. B.C. leads all provinces for employment recovered from the pandemic. That’s highlighted because of all the measures we’re taking.

We had a discussion earlier today as well, in question period. There were discussions. There were speeches about how we need to close that wage gap. I think it’s important to highlight: why is there a gap?

Of course, there are institutional challenges which we need to address, and that work is going to come through legislation. But it’s also sectors that are doing very well that are disproportionately male-dominated, whether that’s much of our resource industry, which has got good-paying jobs, the disproportionately male construction sector…. Especially when we talk about recovering….

When the economy is struggling, often people say: “Well, we should make more investments in infrastructure.” Well, that’s great. It’s important, and it helps the economy. But we know that disproportionately, it’s men that are getting those employment opportunities.

All the work we’ve been doing is to help address that, whether that’s community benefits agreements, where we get more women into the trades, whether that’s the ISI program which we launched, which was created to get more women into tech, because we know that that’s a growing sector. I know there are a lot of stakeholders, a lot of organizations that are doing a lot of good work to try to increase the participation of women in their sectors, because they’re good-paying jobs. It’s going to require a collective effort.

The member wants to know how we’re closing the wage gap. We are doing that, and we have a lot more work to do. We’re going to continue to work with our stakeholders to see where we can go and how far we can go.

With that, hon. Speaker, my team would appreciate it if we could just have a couple minutes to have a little break.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. Hearing that suggestion, the Chair suggests we will take a recess until members are ready to return — shortly. The committee is in recess.

The committee recessed from 3:43 p.m. to 3:52 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: We’re here with the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation estimates.

T. Stone: Following on my last question and the answer that the minister provided, the specific question I asked was: what are the two- and five-year targets for the inclusive growth goal of median after-tax household income? I didn’t get an answer to that, which I presume means that there are no targets.

I will also, for the benefit, hopefully, of this discussion, just remind the minister as to the difference between a metric and a target, because he keeps referring to metrics as if they’re targets. Metrics are defined as “standards for measuring or evaluating something, especially one that uses figures or stats.” A target is “a goal to be achieved.”

These metrics, in most cases — and I read them all, for the most part, into the record earlier — end at some point between 2016 and 2019. So I will just assume, unless the minister, again, can point to where in this economic plan there is an actual target, a two-year or five-year target, for this median after-tax household income goal or metric…. If he can point to where that is, I’d appreciate it. But I’ll move on.

Can the minister advise the House, advise British Columbians as to what the two-year and five-year target is for the Gini coefficient? Of course, this is a goal that certainly I support. I think everyone does. It tracks pay inequality. What is the two-year and five-year target for the Gini coefficient, which is included in the economic plan?

[3:55 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the question.

I kind of see where he’s going. I’m going to try to save him some time with his line of questioning. The member asked, under “Improving quality of life,” what…. Obviously, we have the metrics in place, which have not been in place in the past, so we’ll monitor that. But we have targets on core housing needs: 114,000 affordable new homes.

Under the poverty index, reducing poverty, the target is to reduce overall poverty by 25 percent and reduce child poverty by 50 percent. Under “Meeting B.C. climate commitments,” reducing emissions by 40 percent below 2007 by 2030, 60 percent by 2040 and net zero by 2050. Under “ESG standards,” I think it’s a new space, so we’re going to continue to work with the sector on that as it moves. Under “Resilient communities,” connectivity is a big piece of that, and we announced that we’re going to be trying to connect the entire province by 2027.

T. Stone: Again, I asked the minister, on behalf of British Columbians: what is the two- and five-year target for the Gini coefficient goal that’s in his economic plan?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member asked about the Gini coefficient. I think, first off, he’ll know that governments have not done that before here in British Columbia, so certainly it’s new. Our initial target is to start to close that gap, but we’re going to have to collect more information. We’re going to have to collect more data to make an assessment of what that long-term target will be.

Our initial target, coming out of the pandemic, is to close that gap. I’ve highlighted for him the targets under the different boxes, whether that’s inclusive growth or clean growth that we’ve got, and we’re going to continue to work with the private sector, the not-for-profit sector, the environmental movement, as we have from the beginning, to continue to look at the data, to refine the data and then figure out what targets we think we as a province should reach in ten, 15 years. But we’ve got a whole host of targets that I’ve already highlighted for the member.

T. Stone: Yeah. All of those targets that the member has mentioned are pushed out, in most cases, ten, 12 or 20 years. What I’m talking about here is the economic plan, for which he is responsible, that is supposedly the government’s road map for the investments and the policy priorities, and so forth, of government in the forthcoming years that contains, attached to this economic plan, a whole series of goals.

He’s confirmed that there indeed is no target — a two- or five-year, ten-year target — on the first goal I asked him about, that median after-tax income for households. There’s some data that seems to expire around 2019 in the attachment to this economic plan, but no target beyond that. I don’t know how you measure your progress other than to say we’re going to try to increase that number over time. That’s not a target. That’s an aspiration.

With respect to the Gini coefficient, likewise. I’m not hearing any target, which obviously means that there is no target. It’s an aspiration to close that gap.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t, largely in the context of it being International Women’s Day…. Today, I think, is a day to reflect on progress that women have made in a whole, wide range of ways and areas and a lot of work that’s still yet to be done, a lot of work that can be done in this place.

I think we can all acknowledge that it’s completely unacceptable, for example, that there is a pay differential between men and women, that women make less than men for comparable roles, or for the same role, in some cases. That’s completely and totally unacceptable in today’s day and age. I say that as someone who has three daughters. I say that as a legislator. I say that as a British Columbian.

What I find very interesting is that earlier today the government announced that it intends to move towards pay transparency measures and that it’s going to launch consultations on that effort beginning this spring and that the purpose of the consultations will be to inform the development of new legislation that will focus on closing the pay gap in British Columbia. A laudable effort, a laudable focus.

[4:10 p.m.]

I also note, however, that there are a number of facts that are included in the government’s news release that really hit you between the eyes and make you realize how important this work really is. For example, the government’s news release from today says B.C. is “one of four provinces without either pay transparency or pay equity legislation.”

This government news release from today says: “B.C. has one of the largest gender pay gaps in Canada, with women making, on average, approximately 20 percent less than men.” That’s in the government’s news release today, presumably to underscore the importance of the work that needs to be done to close that pay gap.

Well, my colleague from Surrey South has introduced in this Legislature, including again today…. Five times she has introduced legislation that would focus on that transparency. My colleague’s equal pay bill would require businesses of a prescribed size to report the pay gap between their male and female employees.

This would be focused on ensuring that businesses…. It would be about encouraging businesses to close that pay gap and provide support for female employees to negotiate equal wages. This bill is called the Equal Pay Reporting Act. It’s been introduced in this House five times. This government hasn’t taken it up. Five years in power. Now we learn today that the government intends to engage in consultations.

My question to the minister would be this. Why do he and his colleagues not support simply calling the Equal Pay Reporting Act, which is on the order paper? Why not call that bill? Call it today. Let’s have that debate, and let’s come together and pass this legislation to actually take a meaningful step — not in six months from now, not in 12 months from now, not beyond that but in the next number of days — to meaningfully close that pay gap, which I think we can all agree is egregious and should not exist for one day longer.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I know this issue is close to the member’s heart, so I appreciate the premise of the question.

Too often, us being elected officials, we come here and we think: “Oh, well, you know what? Let’s just create a law. That will solve the problem.” Why don’t we create an anti-racism law? That will end racism in this province. Why don’t we craft a law that says that you must report on pay, and that will solve the challenge of the gender pay gap. I think the member knows that that’s not how it works.

How it works is identifying employment areas where women are predominantly employed. Let’s say, for example, the hospitality sector. Instead of finding ways to support them to get good-paying jobs, instead of doing things like creating a server wage, which the member knows…. He wasn’t here. Some of his peers created a server wage in a sector that was dominated by women. The women who were serving were getting paid less than everybody else. I’m talking less than minimum wage.

I know it’s easy to say: “Why don’t we just pass this legislation, and that will address the pay gap?” We have to do a whole host of things with it. Creating a server wage to keep women with lower wages than minimum wage isn’t going to address that. So that was what was done.

What we’re doing is we’re looking at things like child care. That’s why child care is so highly featured in this economic plan. It was always discussed as a way to create more opportunities for women, predominantly, to enter the workforce, but we now know it’s about creating more economic opportunities.

We’re not waiting for legislation. That consultation is happening, because we want to make sure that everyone is on the same page, that everyone agrees with where we’re going, that everyone understands the timeline of how we’re going to roll it out, because we want it to have maximum impact. We want to consult with Indigenous communities to make sure that it’s right. But we’re not waiting for legislation. We’ve been acting already. That’s why we’re making historic investment in child care. That’s why we ended the server wage piece.

[4:15 p.m.]

That’s why, when the Minister of Health announced that he was bringing in those workers that were privatized that clean our hospitals…. We brought them back in-house because we know that will significantly increase their wages and give them a better life. Maybe I’ll have to say that that’s personal to me, because my mom was one of those people that got laid off because the previous government, in 2002, with one bill, had the single largest layoff of women in B.C.’s history.

I’m not saying that to this member. I know this member is passionate about this issue. I’m saying that legislation is an important piece — we’re going to be doing that work — but so is a whole host of things that you have to do to actually ensure that women are getting better opportunities to participate in the economy. That is things like something in our ministry that we’re focused on with ISI. It’s ensuring that women can get their first job in tech, because we know the sector is paying well and the sector is growing.

It’s across government. It’s community benefits agreements so that more women can participate in construction projects to get the experience they need to work in the construction sector. It’s going to require everyone to work together, but it’s not going to be just one legislation. It’s going to be legislation plus a whole host of other measures to ensure that we’re closing the gap.

Again, I know that it’s important to the member. It’s very important to me. When we talk about inclusive growth, that’s what we’re talking about. We’re talking about, when the economy grows, how we ensure that those that have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic actually get an opportunity to participate in that growth meaningfully. So that’s why I’m proud of the economic plan. It addresses the key piece the member says.

I certainly hope that all members participate in that engagement, to make sure that we can get that legislation right and we have good buy-in from everyone, and then we can move that conversation in a very good way.

T. Stone: Well, I find it disappointing, and I find it sad that the minister really can’t explain. He hasn’t got an explanation for why we’re five years into the NDP government…. By acknowledgment of the government’s own news release, B.C. has one of the largest pay gaps in the country. It is one of only four provinces that doesn’t have pay transparency or pay equity legislation on the books.

Five times in a row the member for Surrey South has introduced the Equal Pay Reporting Act. That wasn’t written off the corner of her desk. She did extensive consultation on this. This was written so that it could be debated in this House and could be implemented and enforced as a tool.

I would suggest that contrary to the minister’s comments about…. “Well, we’ve got to get this right, and we’ve got to look at those areas where the pay gap is significant and so forth.” That all might be true to a large extent, but why don’t we just start with a baseline of there is no workplace that’s acceptable to have a pay gap between men and women? That’s what the member for Surrey South’s bill, the Equal Pay Reporting Act, would address.

It’s sitting on the order paper. No need to engage in consultation. We could certainly have a vigorous debate in this chamber. We could certainly go through it section by section in committee stage. We could do that work, and we are prepared, in the official opposition, to start that work tomorrow.

I don’t know why this government, five years into their mandate, with arguably one of the worst current situations when it comes to pay gaps in the country between men and women, wouldn’t have a greater sense of urgency to move forward with meaningful action that would close that gap. Oh, by the way, there is a member in this chamber who has proposed a solution that many have looked at, that many in this space and many experts have agreed would get the job done in closing the pay gap. We could debate that legislation immediately.

Further, I still didn’t hear any comment or response from the minister on what the targets are, the two- and five-year targets for the Gini coefficient, which is this income inequality measurement, which, again, we can all agree is important. How do you achieve it in any meaningful way when you don’t have any targets to work towards?

[4:20 p.m.]

My question on this piece at this point would be: can the minister provide this House with any specific targets or timelines related to when this House can expect to actually be considering and debating pay transparency or pay equity legislation so that we can come together as legislators and do that work, close that gap — which would be right and just and should be happening tomorrow, not many, many months from now?

The Chair: If I might just remind members that debating legislation is to occur when we’re debating that legislation. We’re here for Ministry of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation estimates. As that bill has been now placed on the floor, the time to debate that bill would be if it was called. Just a gentle reminder to members. Thank you.

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s question, and I appreciate the advice given by the Chair. I’ll just provide one answer, and then hopefully we can move on.

I really appreciate him raising the issue from the member who brought forward a private member’s bill. I think it’s critically important that anything we bring forward ensures that it has been consulted with, with Indigenous community, with women of colour, various organizations. That work needs to happen, and we’re going to do that.

I think the member probably knows — if he doesn’t, I’ll let him know — that in 2001, the previous government, the B.C. Liberal government, actually repealed pay equity legislation. At the time, Attorney General Geoff Plant said: “I don’t think pay equity is a critically necessary component of achieving the economic renewal of British Columbia.” That was in the Times Colonist, March 23, 2001.

The Chair: Sorry, Minister, if I might. We, of course, don’t use electronic devices while speaking from the floor, just for your information. Thank you, Minister.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you, Chair.

As I was saying, I appreciate the desire to see this move forward, and we’re going to continue to work with all sides of the House to advance that. But that was repealed. In fact, I am sad to inform the member that the new leader, Kevin Falcon, voted to repeal it at the time.

I do appreciate his genuine desire to see this come through, but I think he has to reflect on the history of his party and their actions when they were in government.

[4:30 p.m.]

T. Stone: I will reflect on what I’m hearing from women across British Columbia today: that they find it completely unacceptable that five years into this government that talks a good game, rather than calling legislation that is ready to debate, they choose to engage in lengthy consultations. They could have done consultations on their own bill last year, the year before or the year before that, and they have chosen not to, which I find very, very disappointing.

Again, there was absolutely no comment from the minister on what the target is for this particular goal — closing the income inequality. We simply have a graph in the economic plan that has data current to a couple years ago, with no forward-looking targets. I think that’s a theme that is pretty obvious with this so-called economic plan.

I’d like to ask the minister about the goal that’s in the plan that relates to improving quality of life with respect to post-secondary education. The metrics that are in the plan go to 2020. No targets. What are the targets for this goal of improving the quality of life in post-secondary education? What are the two-year and the five-year targets that the government will be working towards in the achievement of this particular goal?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I appreciate the member’s comments about the legislation. I think I’ll highlight again that it’s important for us to ensure that Indigenous voices are heard when we bring it forward. We’re going to do that engagement. I hope all members can join.

I do want to emphasize to the member…. You know, he highlights the gap. Imagine if this hadn’t been repealed when they formed government. Imagine, if that had been there, where that gap would be now. I think it’s important, since he’s raised this question.

I just want to highlight, again, the quote: “I don’t think pay equity is a critically necessary component of achieving the economic renewal of B.C.”

We’re heading in a different direction, and I assume there are going to be some uncomfortable conversations with members on the other side, with their new leader, about why he voted to repeal that and where we would be now if they hadn’t done that at that time.

[4:35 p.m.]

Now, I think the other important stat for us to know is that right now B.C. has the lowest unemployment of women in the country — 4.4 percent. So there’s significant progress being made, but again, we’re not stopping the work. The pay transparency is one piece. It’s going to be important when it comes forward. I appreciate the work that’s being done by my colleague from Victoria–Beacon Hill, and I appreciate the work and the advocacy of the member for Surrey South on this. I certainly hope they can work together to ensure that all voices are reflected in that legislation when it does come forward.

We’re not waiting. We’re doing that work right now. We’re finding ways to reduce barriers for more women to participate in tech and to find more ways for new immigrant women to have their accreditations, from whichever jurisdiction they come, recognized.

The member asked questions about skills training. Now, one of the key initiatives that we are going to be launching is creating a future-ready, skills-for-tomorrow framework, which is highlighted in multiple places within the plan. That’s going to be to address the critical question, the critical challenge, we have ahead of us, which is over one million new job openings. And how do we ensure that…?

In the labour market outlook report, it highlighted that 80 percent of those jobs require some form of post-secondary training or skills training. How do we do that? How do we ensure we have that? How do we ensure that new immigrants that come have their skills recognized, to the best of our abilities? Also, if they need upgrading, how do we ensure they have that?

The member wants to know where those more concrete plans will be and how we will judge success. That will be coming out later this year.

T. Stone: Well, actually, my question was about the goal in the economic plan that relates to improving quality of life, post-secondary education. The minister didn’t touch on that. I asked for targets. What are the targets? Like, if the goal here is to achieve this, as government calls it, mission, how do you measure your progress when there are no targets?

Why don’t we try another one? I mean, there’s obviously…. As with all of the other goals that I’ve asked about, where there are no targets, there’s clearly no target for this post-secondary education quality-of-life goal.

Why don’t we try this one? The goal is building resilient communities and new business openings. The data that’s in the chart ends in 2020 — nothing for the past two years, and there are no targets.

To the minister, what are the targets, the two- and five-year targets for building resilient communities and new business openings in his so-called economic plan?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member may have missed it when I shared with him a whole host of targets. Whether it’s affordable homes — 114,000 is the target. Whether it was around reducing poverty — reducing overall poverty by 25 percent, reducing child poverty, which is really important, I think, to everyone, by 50 percent.

[4:40 p.m.]

We have targets that are in legislation. I know if the member refers to his economic plan, it said things like: “We will have LNG for everybody, and we’ll have mines for everybody.” We’ve got targets that are in legislation.

We have climate-related targets that are part of the economic plan — 40 percent reduction of GHGs below the 2007 level by 2030, 60 percent by 2040 and net zero by 2050. We have as part of the resilient communities that we’re going to connect British Columbia by 2027. All these are ambitious targets.

The member also highlighted where the plan is for addressing the million new job openings. I already highlighted for the member that one of the key initiatives that we have from this, the new actions, is to create a future workforce plan that will show how we’re going to address the skill shortage that we have. I think I’ve answered the member a couple times on that. But if the member wants to make it a third, we can.

T. Stone: The question was about new business openings. Like, I don’t understand what…. Are we talking in different languages here?

I asked about this sheet in the economic plan that speaks to the goal of “Building Resilient Communities” — new business openings. What’s the target? What’s the target that you’re going to measure against to determine whether or not you’re actually achieving that particular goal?

Let’s try another one. This goal is under the clean growth side of this so-called economic plan. The goal is to foster innovation across our economy. B.C. labour productivity.

I’m not asking here about any of the other things that the minister keeps rattling off. I’m asking about this goal, labour productivity, that’s in his economic plan that’s attached to it. What are the two- and five-year targets that the minister is using to measure progress on this specific labour productivity goal?

[4:45 p.m. - 4:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think that the member was saying in his question that he was asking about something else. He had asked about specific targets within the economic plan, so that’s what I was highlighting for him. We have specific targets for affordable housing, which is one of the metrics we’re tracking. Whether it’s child poverty, whether it’s our climate targets, that’s what I was highlighting. I think it’s important for the member to know that.

Now, this particular metric was obviously very well received from the business community. I think they’ve been asking for to us track this closely as we go forward. I think it’s important for the member to know that what gets measured gets done. That’s why we were so keen to make sure that we had this captured in our metrics as we go forward. Especially with this, it’s important to note that there’s no finish line for this, because you can’t say we’re going to have eight mines and say that’s our target.

This is about making continuous improvement, about keeping ourselves accountable to the public about how we’re making improvements. This plan is about setting direction of growth, and that’s what we’re doing with this.

Again, a whole host of targets that I’ve laid out. I’ve shared with him that we’re going to have more around the future workforce work that’s highlighted as a new initiative, and we’re going to continue to work with our stakeholders, as we come out of this pandemic, to look at our vision of where we’re going and identify new opportunities for us to take on together.

T. Stone: Well, I think at this point in the debate, it’s frankly embarrassing to have the minister stand up and try and suggest that he’s answering questions, providing answers to what are very specific questions about his plan.

I ask about household after-tax income, a goal that’s in his plan, and I get bafflegab. I ask him about the Gini coefficient and the income inequality goal which is in the plan. Doesn’t answer. There are no targets. I ask about the core housing need goal which is in his plan, and I don’t get any targets, no details.

I ask about the post-secondary education, improving quality of life goal. Again, he reverts back to bafflegab, just recycled announcements and statements that have been made in the past but nothing that bears any alignment to his economic plan. Economic diversity, no targets. The labour productivity goal in his plan, no targets. The value-added exports. I suppose if I asked him about that one too, I would get more deflection and aversion to what is a simple question.

I think this is what estimates are supposed to be all about. We’re supposed to be, as an opposition, sitting here with the minister, having a debate from an accountability perspective on the ministry’s plans for which he’s responsible and which has, as its centrepiece, an economic plan. There are all of these goals. It’s a whole appendix to the economic plan. That even goes so far as to quite boldly, considering what’s in it, talk about measuring our progress, with not a single target for any of the goals in this plan.

[4:55 p.m.]

I don’t know what else to say, other than that I think British Columbians…. If anyone was listening to this debate, I think they would be pretty disappointed that the minister can’t or won’t answer any questions specific to what is in his plan.

I’m asking about the goals. I’m asking about the goals here, for which there are some metrics, but there are no targets. He even stands up and says: “Well, you can’t measure what you don’t track.” Well, you don’t know where the heck you’re going if you don’t set any targets, and you can’t measure your success against those targets if you don’t actually establish targets in the first place. And there are no targets, not for any of the goals that are in the plan. He rattles off other targets which are old, outdated targets.

Your GHG emissions. Good luck. You’ve increased GHG emissions every single year that you’ve been in power, and your GHG emissions are actually, in CleanBC, scheduled to go up every single year. That’s in alignment with the actual budget. I don’t know what else to say about that, but I think it’s embarrassing. I’m embarrassed for the minister.

I will ask one more question about these goals. On the last page of, again, these measuring-our-progress goals that have no targets, it says that one of the next steps will be to develop a dashboard and to implement annual reporting. Can I ask a straightforward, simple question to the minister? It’s in your plan, the second-to-last bullet point on the last page. Develop a dashboard and annual reporting. Could the minister please advise this House and advise British Columbians as to when British Columbians can expect to have access to this dashboard, and when will this reference to annual reporting actually be implemented?

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member says he’d be embarrassed, and I think I maybe embarrassed him earlier when I reminded him that pay legislation was repealed by his party and his leader voted against it. I appreciate the tone has changed since that revelation.

[5:00 p.m.]

The member asked: “How are you assessing core housing needs? What are your targets?” I said: “Our target is 114,000 affordable new homes.” He said: “How are you addressing poverty?” I said: “Our target is reducing overall poverty by 25 percent and reducing child poverty by 50 percent.” He said: “How are you going to address post-secondary completion?” I said: “We have a future workforce plan that’s coming out that will lay out that information.”

At the same time, he says he’s debating me whether we can meet our targets when he talks about the CleanBC targets, and he says: “There’s no way you’ll meet your targets.” So a recognition that there are targets in his response. I highlighted for him that in “Building Resilient Communities,” one of the main pieces was connectivity, and we shared that we’re going to connect the province by 2027.

I appreciate this is part of the debate, so that’s fine. I look forward to continuing this. His follow-up question was around the dashboard and report, and I can share with him that next spring, we’ll have both the dashboard and the report public.

T. Stone: Let’s move on. Hopefully, we can get some more specific answers to the actual questions that I’m asking.

I wanted to ask a few questions about the Future Ready: Skills for the Jobs of Tomorrow plan. Can the minister advise this House when this future ready jobs plan will be finalized?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you again to the member for the question.

The Future Ready: Skills for the Jobs of Tomorrow plan is going to be very important. I think that the member would agree. I’m sure he’s hearing from employers right now that they’re already starting to face challenges finding workers. We have more people working right now than we did prior to the pandemic, which is putting a lot of pressure on our labour market.

There’s a lot of interest on this specific piece, of course, from the business community, from our academic partners, but also from labour, from environmental organizations, from Indigenous communities. There’s a lot of interest to engage on this critical question, because not only is it important for growth, but it is important for inclusive growth to ensure that those that have been disproportionately impacted get the opportunity to get the skills training that they need to take those opportunities.

[5:05 p.m.]

I’ve had the opportunity to meet with people in the tech community, for example, who say: “I would hire people right now if I could find them.” We’ve been meeting with people in the aerospace sector who say: “We would hire people right now, and we’re even willing to help train. How can we partner together to provide those opportunities?”

With one million job openings that we’re expecting here in B.C., over 600,000 of those jobs will come from new, young people coming into the workforce, which is going to be, obviously, a big chunk of that. But there are also two pockets that need to be addressed. One will be those who come from other provinces. I’ve highlighted already that we had the largest net migration, interprovincial migration, to B.C. in the first three-quarters of last year — the highest in 28 years. That’s significant. We know we’re going to need people to come here.

We also know that we’re going to need people to come from other countries, to immigrate here like I did, like my family did, like most people here and their families have. To put down roots and help, not only in the economy but also contribute through arts and culture and all of the other pieces that new immigrants bring to strengthen the fabric of our society.

Then the third piece is pulling people that are out of the labour market back into the labour market, giving them opportunities to enter the market. That’s through child care. That’s through the work that WorkBC is doing. All of this work will be led by AEST. I think that if the member wants to find out more specifics of when that plan will be public, I would advise the member that when the AEST estimates are happening, he take that up at that time.

T. Stone: Actually, no. I’m going to take it up now, during these estimates. This is the Jobs Minister. This is the Jobs Minister’s economic plan.

My next question in relation to this is the latest labour market outlook forecast, that over 80,000 jobs won’t be met by either population growth or immigration. Obviously, that’s going to create a huge job shortage here in British Columbia.

I’d like to ask the minister what specific actions are contemplated within his plan to address that massive shortage that everyone is acknowledging cannot and will not be filled via population growth or immigration.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Of course, I’m happy to talk about this topic. It’s an important one. I just couldn’t give the member a specific time, because that’s something the AEST will handle. He can do that in estimates, but happy to talk about this important topic.

It is a challenge. One million job openings and more employment opportunities than people. That 80,000 is going to be very important. How we address that gap is going to be critically important. So there are multiple ways, and it’s highlighted in the plan.

Housing. Housing is going to be a critical piece of that, because we know when people have stable housing, it’s easier for them to be able to get into the market.

The Minister of Mental Health highlighted a new initiative to build supportive housing units across British Columbia to give people the basics first, so that they can get some stability in their lives so that they can enter back into the workforce with the wraparound support services.

Child care is going to be vitally important in that. That’s why it’s featured so prominently in the economic plan. We know that as the cost for child care comes down, more people — predominantly more women — will take the opportunity to enter the labour market. We’re already seeing that, in fact, given that we’re at 4.4 percent unemployment rate for women. But we’re going to need to do more of that.

Of course, health care is critically important in that, but also transit and connectivity. We know that, now, there are a lot of families and a lot of people who are moving to smaller communities out of the larger hubs, out of Metro Vancouver, and finding a home in rural parts of B.C. That investment and connectivity is going to be vitally important for them to connect, to be able to work, now that there’s a big shift happening for more employment going remotely. So that also is going to be an important piece.

WorkBC leads the important work on those that are on income assistance, to ensure that they are supporting people with the skills training, the reskilling, the upskilling portion of it, so that people can ensure that if they have the skills — to be able to take the opportunities that arise.

I think the other big piece is Indigenous communities, and we’ve heard from Indigenous communities. They raise it all the time, which is, “We want to be part of the workforce” — the Future Ready: Skills for the Jobs of Tomorrow plan, so that they can engage to ensure that they are a part of that. They see huge opportunities for their communities to get into the labour market.

All of those things come together. I’ll also highlight the micro-credentials. We know how important micro-credentials are for so many sectors. We’re hearing from many of them to say we need more micro-credentials. We need to provide these quick skills, and we’ll train people on the job once we’ve got them. So these are the measures that we’re looking at to address that 80,000 gap that we see in the future in the labour market outlook.

T. Stone: Again, the question was: what specific actions is the minister undertaking as part of this economic plan to address the very real jobs shortage that we know is barreling at us like a runaway train, in some respects?

[5:15 p.m.]

Virtually every independent analyst, economic organization and otherwise, is suggesting that population growth and immigration is not going to make up for a large gap of 80,000, maybe more than that. So I was looking for a bit more specificity around actions beyond what the minister has talked about quite a bit today — transit and child care and these other things, which are very, very important investments. What I’m looking for in the context of this economic plan: how do we fill this gap? What are the specific actions?

I’ll ask him one more time on that if he wants to share any details there, but I’ll add this one additional piece. How much funding does the minister have at his disposal to bring this Future Ready: Skills for the Jobs of Tomorrow plan alive?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, there are a couple of things that I will say. The hon. member has been around for a long time, and he knows that not every measure of the plan is a line item that’s within our ministry. So there are going to be some questions he’s going to have to ask other ministers around the line items.

I’ll just say that I have highlighted the work that’s going to be required for us to get this 80,000 people. It’s hard. It’s not easy. It’s been a challenge for governments for a long time to find ways to get people who are out of the labour market back into the labour market.

[5:20 p.m.]

It’s not a B.C. issue; it’s a world issue. It actually happens that it’s a challenge for jurisdictions around the world. How you do it is through these investments. How you do it is through child care. How you do it is through connectivity and health care and housing and reskilling and upskilling people.

We’ve made some investments already. We announced new nursing seats around the care economy, because we know that there are three major sectors that are going to have the biggest challenges. One is the care economy. That’s nurses, people who take care of our loved ones in our care homes, ECE workers. Then there’s tech. Then there’s also the skills gap with construction.

A lot of those investments, those specific line items, the member can canvass with AEST. Of course, I’m happy to talk about this, because it’s very important. The specific dollar amounts will have to be canvassed with the minister responsible.

T. Stone: Can the minister answer this question? Will this jobs plan address the massive shortage that we have today of health care workers in British Columbia?

These are very, very important positions in our communities, in our hospitals and in all kinds of health care settings. It’s estimated that there are going to be over 142,000 openings in health care in the years ahead. The government has promised a health care HR plan, a jobs plan. They have promised that for quite a number of years now. We haven’t seen anything.

I’m asking the Jobs Minister if he can advise the House, advise British Columbians as to the status of the jobs plan as it relates to the attraction, retention, recruitment of the thousands and thousands of health care workers that we need in our province not in years ahead, but now.

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I agree with the member. The people needed in our health care system are going to be a major challenge for us as we go forward.

I know that there is work ongoing in the Ministry of Health on this HR plan. I’m sure the member will be able to canvass that with the Minister of Health in his estimates. I was trying to get some information from the Ministry of Health, and I’m not able to get it right now, but I think it might be appropriate for that to come up in those estimates.

I will say that not only do we need to train people here to take those employment opportunities, but we also need to find ways to ensure that those that are coming from other jurisdictions that have the skill sets to take on those employment opportunities are either transitioned or provided the re-skilling and upskilling opportunities to take the important jobs.

I think the member and I, last year, canvassed the need for new immigrants to have their accreditations recognized in a more timely way. That’s still, I think, a very important piece, especially coming out of this pandemic.

T. Stone: This economic plan provides for the creation of 2,000 new tech-relevant spaces in public post-secondary institutions across the province. The plan also specifically mentions the creation or the investment of a trades and tech complex at BCIT. That’s certainly a welcome investment.

We’re disappointed that construction will…. It’ll take five years to bring it online. Anyone that enters that facility five years from now, another two years after that would receive their credentials in whatever it is they’re studying. So it’s seven years out. It’s not going to make much of a difference today or in the near future, the next few years and so forth, but it’s an investment. So I certainly acknowledge that.

[5:30 p.m.]

Beyond that specific detail that’s in the economic plan, I’d like to ask the minister this. Of the 2,000 new tech-relevant spaces that are planned for post-secondary institutions, how many of those spaces are represented in or accounted for with respect to this BCIT trades and tech complex investment? How many are in other institutions?

Can he give me a breakdown of exactly how many spaces are planned for which institutions that add up to the total of 2,000 — that is, the 2,000 new seats that are provided for in this plan?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Let me start by agreeing with him that this new $137 million complex at BCIT is good news.

[5:35 p.m.]

Let me also agree with him that I wish this was started five years ago. But we’re making this investment, and it will be built in five years from now. It will help 12,000 students annually, which I think is significant.

We are trying to get answers for the member around AEST. I think, in the interest of time, I’ll flag it for the minister responsible that this question will be coming to her during AEST estimates, and she’ll be able to provide the member with more answers.

I will say that we are, right now, actively engaging with the tech community on where the greatest need for tech seats is so that we can ensure that that’s where the investments are going. That conversation is ongoing.

T. Stone: Well, I’ll follow up with this question. What I think would be very important to all members of this House, and British Columbians generally, is to hear from the Jobs minister that he will do his part in that broader discussion within government as to the allocation of these resources, and therefore these seats, with a regional perspective in mind. We have some outstanding institutions in communities like Prince George, Kelowna, Kamloops, Nanaimo and elsewhere.

I’d like to ask the minister if he could commit to ensuring that his voice is heard on this, that regional allocation of these critically important tech-relevant spaces in public sector institutions is important. That we will see some of those seats at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, that we will see some of them at UBCO in Kelowna. We’ll see some of them up in Prince George and in Nanaimo and elsewhere. Can the minister commit that he values that regional piece and that British Columbians can expect to see these seats disbursed across institutions in every corner of our great province?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can commit to the member that we are going to ensure that these opportunities are created around the province. I think too often the conversation, when it comes to tech, gets focused on Vancouver, when we know that there are amazing things happening…. He highlighted TRU. TRU is an excellent university. They’re doing great work.

In fact, we’re seeing tech hubs popping up throughout the province — Campbell River, different parts of the province. With the expanded connectivity, with more people that are in the tech sector that are actually moving to different parts of the province, we’re actually starting to see ecosystems forming all over the province.

I think ensuring that people have training opportunities closer to home so they can help contribute to their local ecosystem is going to be vitally important. I know that I share the same passion as the member to see that growth happening across the province, and not just in one region. So yes, I can commit to that, Member.

T. Stone: Beyond the investment at BCIT in the capital space there, I think the minister would also agree that there is space that exists today in the institutions across the province. Can the minister provide us with a timeline on when these 2,000 new tech-relevant spaces will be in place across our province?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it’s a question that will have be canvassed with AEST. We don’t have the AEST staff here, and I want to make sure the member gets accurate answers.

T. Stone: Moving on, page 21 of the economic plan refers to support programs to help “workers, First Nations and communities through economic transition.” I’m just wondering if the Jobs minister could tell this House what he means by economic transition and if the phrase “economic transition” is really intended to refer to job losses.

[5:40 p.m.]

If that is the case, what kinds of supports is the minister considering that would be made available to First Nations communities and workers who are impacted by this economic transition?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The section the member refers to is under Future Ready: Skills for the Jobs of Tomorrow. What that refers to is that there is major change, whether it’s because of climate change, unemployment or technological change. The labour market outlook report highlighted that 30 percent of the jobs that we have existing will be radically different within ten years, given these two massive shifts that we’re seeing in the economy.

For example, a certified electrician would need micro-credential training to be able to work on EV chargers. A carpenter may need some micro-credential training to be able to work on mass timber buildings. More and more, our farming community is working with lab coats now, because the technology is changing, and the science that’s being used on our farms is completely changing. So how do we ensure that people have the opportunities to have the skills to adjust to those changes? That’s what we’re referring to.

I’m actually really excited about this work that’s coming because, the member will agree, there are a lot of changes. The pace of change that we’ve seen in the pandemic is not about to slow down. That pace is going to continue, and we need to ensure that we’re shifting and making sure our people have the skills to take those employment opportunities. That’s what that specific paragraph is referring to.

[5:45 p.m.]

T. Stone: Well, I think we’re on the same page on this. I think we both understand what the paragraph refers to: economic transition, which can and will be driven by a wide range of different factors. No question about it.

What I want to understand, just looking under the hood a bit here on this…. What does the minister anticipate, or what is being planned within government, insofar as what supports would actually look like for communities, First Nations or workers that find themselves going through, again, “economic transition,” as it’s contemplated on page 21 of the minister’s economic plan?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah, I’m glad the member and I agree that there are major shifts coming. I gave the example of carpenters learning to work with mass timber. That work is right now happening, actually, with BCIT to ensure that carpenters have the opportunity to work on mass timber products so that they’re already shifting.

There’s this whole shift that is happening. It’s also happening with small businesses. That’s why we had $42 million for a launch online, which was helping our small businesses pivot, to adjust to the pace of change that we’ve seen. We saw a lot of businesses who were like: “I don’t even have a website. I wanted to do it. I never got to it.” So we provided these grants for them to be able to do that, to get online, because if you’re not online right now, you’re going to be left behind. So that pivot is critically important.

We’re working on the ISI program, innovator skills initiative, which is ensuring that people who have traditionally not been in the tech sector get their first employment opportunity in the tech sector. We’ve actually altered the program to work with the First Nations Tech Council. I know the First Nations Tech Council has their own accredited program that they have been working with Indigenous communities on. Now that is accepted as a credential to apply for this funding program.

We also had agri-tech grants that go to support these initiatives. There has been a whole host of things, but the future readiness plan that we’re working on will actually be focused on ramping that up, because we know that need is only going to grow.

T. Stone: The life sciences and biomanufacturing strategy, which is included in the economic plan, cites a $195 million investment. I would note that this $195 million was actually in last year’s budget, so it’s essentially been reannounced in this year’s budget and this economic plan.

I’m just wondering if the minister could advise the House: is this truly recycled funding, this $195 million? If it’s not, can you confirm that $195 million was actually spent last year as part of last year’s budget and that this is a net new $195 million?

Related to this life sciences and biomanufacturing strategy, what is the timeline associated with rolling it out so it’s fully in place?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll first start with letting the member know that the $195 million is net new money. It was not in the budget last year. I can confirm that for the member. I’m very excited about what’s happening in the life science sector right now. The member probably already knows some of this, but I just want to highlight, on the record, that right now B.C.’s life science sector is one of the fastest-growing sectors in the entire country.

There are a couple of examples of some, I think, remarkable achievements. AbCellera — which is a company that most people would know, a B.C.-based biotech company — developed the first antibiotic therapeutic which was approved to treat COVID-19 patients, which is amazing. It’s a B.C. success story. Also, every single COVID-19 vaccine in Canada that reached late-stage development in 2020 used components that were developed or manufactured by a B.C. company or scientist, which I think is also pretty remarkable for the province and something all of us should be proud of.

The biomanufacturing and life science strategy is expected to be public this calendar year. I think that’s what the member was asking about. We’re excited. We think there are huge opportunities, and I’m looking forward to making that public.

T. Stone: I wanted to just ask one more question about this life sciences and biomanufacturing strategy. I’m not understanding what appears to be a disconnect here. Page 21 of this year’s budget, so the budget that we’re here debating or going through estimates on, specifically says that $195 million was invested in the strategy in 2021-2022.

[6:00 p.m.]

What I’m trying to understand is if $195 million was announced and included in last year’s budget…. If the answer is it just simply wasn’t spent then, that it’s been brought forward and is being spent now, I get that. Or is it that that $195 million was announced last year, and it was part of last year’s budget? Is there an additional $195 million on top of that? Are we talking about $380 million total over two budgets, or are we talking about $195 million over these past two years?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The money wasn’t part of the budget originally for this fiscal year, but it is given to them this fiscal year. So it is net new money. It wasn’t in the budget when the budget was announced last year. Does that make sense?

Interjection.

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s new money. Do you want it in writing?

T. Stone: I think we’ve established that it’s $195 million, which will be new money. All I’m saying is it was referenced in last year’s budget. So it’s being spent, or it’s being repurposed — not repurposed. It’s being re-announced in this year’s budget. That’s all I’m trying to establish.

In the interests of time, I want to move on to the industrial and manufacturing action plan. This is detailed on pages 31 and 33 of the economic plan. The plan says that it’s going to be all about creating more domestic manufacturing capability, increased cross-sector collaboration, create new jobs and high-value, sustainable goods across sectors.

My question to the minister would be: when will this plan, this industrial manufacturing action plan, actually be developed? When will it be announced? When will the public know about it? Will the minister have targets, and if so, what will the targets be for increased domestic manufacturing capacity?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The vision for it is exactly how the hon. member described it, which is to scale up manufacturing here in British Columbia. The plan will be public in the next fiscal year, but I can’t tell the member what the report will say, because the report still needs to be done. But certainly happy to hear from the member if he has ideas that he thinks need to be advanced.

T. Stone: In the description of this industrial manufacturing action plan, again, one of the apparent goals, stated goals, is to increase cross-sector collaboration.

[6:05 p.m.]

What exactly does cross-sector collaboration mean in the context of this industrial and manufacturing action plan?

Hon. R. Kahlon: What we’re referring to is driving innovation through the economy. So when we talk about cross-sectoral, what we’re referring to is examples like LlamaZOO here in Victoria, where they have a technology, which now they’ve taken to mining, to work with Indigenous communities on digitally mapping entire communities.

Another example would be taking tech and then taking it into the agriculture sector. So whether that’s precision agriculture or the work that Terramera is doing around soil and regenerative agriculture, or with shipbuilding, when you look at hydrogen or battery technology, and taking that into the shipbuilding sector.

[6:10 p.m.]

We’re essentially talking about how we can work with all sectors to drive innovation through our economy and support and scale up manufacturing opportunities here.

T. Stone: The economic plan refers to a goods-movement strategy which is under development. Can the minister tell us what the timeline is for finishing the goods-movement strategy? When will the strategy be made public? How much funding will be specifically attached to the implementation of the goods-movement strategy?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I know that the hon. member, as a former Minister of Transportation, knows how important this work is. Right now we’re in the planning stage. I think the Minister of Transportation, who probably would be willing to stand up and speak to it right now — I won’t put him on the spot — in his estimates, will be able to talk more about some of the work that’s happening already on this.

We’re not going to wait for the strategy and not do anything in the meantime. There’s a significant amount of investments that are happening right now. In fact, in my community, there’s a lot of construction happening, and a lot more work will have to be done as we move forward.

What we saw with the floods, what we saw with supply chain disruptions through the pandemic…. There’s a lot of work and planning that needs to happen, and it’s going to be important work, led by the Ministry of Transportation. They’ll be able to provide you better, detailed timelines of the work during their estimates.

[6:15 p.m.]

T. Stone: The plan contemplates an intellectual property strategy. It says, specifically: “Developing an IP strategy to support the growth and innovation of B.C. companies.”

I wonder if the minister could provide an update on the status of this strategy. It’s something that I know the government has talked about for most of the past five years. Even previous to this government assuming office, there was some initial work that was being done.

I’m just curious as to what the status of this intellectual property strategy is, when it will be made to the public, what those timelines look like. And again, what, if any, funding is attached to the implementation of this strategy?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There is some initial work that has already begun on the IP strategy. We’ll have more to say publicly in the coming weeks on that. The Parliamentary Secretary for Technology will be leading an engagement this year on the IP strategy, so that work will happen this year, but some initial pieces of the strategy will be shared in the coming weeks.

T. Stone: Yes, I would appreciate an update on that. I’m quite interested in the intellectual property strategy and the potential, if we get it right as a province, for this to be a significant tool that could underpin further and more accelerated growth in our tech sector in this province.

I think my last question relates to the shipbuilding strategy that is contemplated in this plan. My understanding anyway is the minister has been tasked with the development of the shipbuilding strategy for the past two years.

I’m wondering if the minister could provide us with an update on the status of the shipbuilding strategy — what the timeline would be with respect to when the public would have some visibility into that strategy, and again, if the minister can speak to any funding that is attached to the implementation of the shipbuilding strategy.

Hon. R. Kahlon: We have two groups that are part of the planning right now. We have the industry working group, which is chaired by Robert Allan, who is the president of the Association of B.C. Marine Industries. We also have an innovation advisory council, which is chaired by my deputy minister and Brenda Eaton, who is the chair of B.C. Ferries. That work is going on right now, and we expect to have a plan, a strategy, this fall.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:20 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution and progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:21 p.m.