Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:33 p.m.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Social Development and Poverty Reduction
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates for the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction.

On Vote 43: ministry operations, $5,747,116,000 (continued).

Tara Armstrong: Let me start by saying that my office has received a great deal of correspondence and concern around the PWD program and allocation of funding within it. I think the minister would agree that ensuring transparency and accountability for such a significant government line item is essential, focusing on the fact that the program was designed and intended for individuals who have a severe physical or mental disability.

So my first question for the minister is: does the minister consider a substance use disorder or drug addiction of any kind to be an impairment that can qualify somebody for PWD status?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Welcome to the member.

The assessment to qualify for PWD is not the minister’s but one that is made by a medical professional. The assessment is based on if there is an impairment that impedes an individual’s ability to look after themselves and perform daily life activities.

Tara Armstrong: To be clear, the minister hasn’t ruled out that some individuals are receiving PWD funding from her ministry on the basis of drug addiction.

My next question, then, is: once a PWD application is approved, does the ministry keep track of what specific disability type or category an approved applicant has? For example, a certain percentage of individuals may have autism spectrum disorder, and other individuals may have a particular type of physical disability. Do you specify by disability type?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Our staff are aware at the point of application of the nature of the disability as assessed by a medical professional. It’s not tracked afterwards. It’s important to add that there has to be a minimum of two years with the disability, as assessed by a medical professional, in order to qualify.

Tara Armstrong: In an era of digital recordkeeping and data dashboards, the minister has not provided an answer as to how these funds are being disbursed by disability type. Will the minister commit to providing me and the public with this information? I’d also appreciate, if she will, a timeline on when I can expect that information.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I’ll repeat my earlier answer to the member, which is that the disability type is not tracked. The decision about whether the person for two years has had their ability to perform daily life functions…. That’s assessed by a medical professional, and that is the basis of qualification or not for PWD.

Tara Armstrong: The minister’s budget indicates that the amount of funding allocated for disability assistance this fiscal year has risen by $100 million, which brings it up to $2.2 billion. That’s with a “b”. It appears likely that a certain unknown portion of those funds are going to people with substance addiction.

My final question. Will the minister find out the dollar amount of funding substance addiction under the PWD program and recommend to the Premier that every one of those dollars instead be allocated towards programs that will help people recover, rather than continue to fund these addictions through a program that was never intended for this purpose?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I imagine that the member has canvassed with the Minister of Health the ways that we are investing in bed-based addiction treatment.

The member may be reassured to know that within my ministry’s budget, we do pay to support individuals who are on either income assistance or PWD to participate in addiction treatment. And those rates, having been frozen for a very long time…. We, in three different ways, have increased support. Again this is part of my ministry’s budget.

Effective June 2024, as part of the 2024 budget, the daily rate for mental health and substance use facilities increased from $35.90 to $60 for registered bed-based services and from $45 to $70 for licensed bed-based services. That was a 67 percent increase. That rate increase was part of Budget 2024’s investment of $117 million over three years to continue supporting British Columbians in response to financial strains experienced by bed-based service providers due to rising inflation and the cost of service delivery.

Our previous lift, again through my ministry, was in March 2021. At that time, the monthly comfort allowance increased from $95 to $115 per month for income assistance recipients.

On October 1, 2019, user fee rates were increased for mental health and substance use facilities for the first time in ten years. Licensed facilities received a 12.5 percent increase, and registered facilities received a 16 percent increase.

That’s the end of my summary of the increased supports through my ministry budget for people accessing addiction treatment. I’ll reiterate again, though, that the purpose of PWD is financial support, so that’s a different pool of money from the one that I’ve described.

Finally, the nature of addiction can be so severe to qualify for PWD as assessed by a medical professional. But I think the vast majority would be an underlying trauma, injury, untreated pain, as we hear so often, that leads to addiction. Certainly, what I’ve heard from our folks on the front line and those who are assessing PWD applications is that we have a lot of people out there with concurrent problems, addiction being just one of them.

Kristina Loewen: In the earlier section, the minister mentioned 187 total integrated support workers when we were discussing HEART and HEARTH. Can you clarify how many per region?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I can get a lot more granular than this, but I’ll start by saying that in the North, we have 16 in position of 18 that are funded. In Vancouver Coastal, we have 49 hired into 52 positions that are funded. The third category is Vancouver Island — 32 out of 35. Fraser is 54, and the Interior, 36.

Kristina Loewen: Follow-up question on CLBC. I was reviewing the coroner’s inquest and counted the word “immediately” five or six times. I think five — I initially counted six, but I think it’s five — out of 15 call for immediate actions.

I know the minister is already doing some work on there, and CLBC has been doing some work. But my question is: will the minister commit to doing a cost analysis to determine budget adjustments for next year so that these can be actioned as soon as possible?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Already, we have actioned one of the recommendations, and that was included within our existing budget. Effective April 1, we have increased the home-share coordinator rate — that’s CLBC funded — that goes to the not-for-profit or the community organization service providers.

Anything else that would have budget implications, we’d be building into the budget ask for this coming year.

Kristina Loewen: Back to HEART and HEARTH: is the ministry prioritizing HEART and HEARTH clients for accelerated PWD assessments or hardship assistance? If so, what are the timelines and the outcomes?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: This gives me another opportunity to give thanks to the community integration specialists, who really do fantastic work. They will always triage people that are in the most desperate need. Medical and homelessness would always be part of their triage as something that goes to the front of the line. That’s really why they’re there and embedded in community.

[1:55 p.m.]

But it’s not about whether it’s part of HEART and HEARTH or not. We only have a handful of HEART and HEARTH communities, but we’ve got community integration specialists on the ground all over the province, and they’re very much focused on encampment response and people who are living rough. That is kind of their raison d’être.

Kristina Loewen: Has the ministry provided emergency ID recovery or expedited pathways for unsheltered clients lacking ID, one of the most common barriers to receiving income assistance. If not, why not?

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Thanks to the member for the question, because not having ID — and clients who lose ID — can be a real barrier to accessing service. This is one of the functions that our community integration specialists are really good at doing, navigating the system.

We fund ID recovery. We fund — have funded in the past with year-end funding — not-for-profits and really inspiring community organizations that do their own individual ID clinics and support their clients recovering ID. We support our own clinics, often working together with Citizens’ Services, Service B.C.

We’ve had some pilot projects in a number of communities that have been particularly innovative. Again, going to where people are. Union Gospel Mission does a really neat one where they bring a whole bunch of service providers together in Downtown Eastside.

[2:00 p.m.]

Two particular barriers can be a real challenge in that work that we are helping to navigate of replacing ID. One is if the person is from another province. Often getting birth certificates from other provinces is really challenging. I don’t want to overstate how…. If it’s outside B.C., then it is sometimes a much harder job to do. Also, if the person does not have a social insurance number, then it can become harder to be able then to get the ID that then opens up some of this income support.

But we are, as a ministry, able to provide a hardship grant to tide a person who’s really in difficult circumstance over while they are getting their social insurance number that then will allow them to get ID.

I’m really happy to take more time with the member, because there’s quite a lot of work in this area. Certainly, if any constituency office is having challenges with this, then very smart to get connected with our public service team, who can help get people over that hurdle.

Kristina Loewen: Moving on to WorkBC. WorkBC’s budget has remained virtually flat for years. How exactly has the ministry managed to maintain or expand service quality without more funding? Or is it simply delivering less to fewer people with lower outcomes?

Second, if WorkBC is supposed to be the key to the province’s workforce strategy, why hasn’t the budget grown in step with demand? Is the minister prepared to admit that this program has been deprioritized under this government?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: An important piece to note is that funding the WorkBC Centres is not the only place that we are funding skills training for people that have experienced barriers. If the member wants to canvas that, then we can talk more broadly about a number of line items and a number of ways that we are helping people. But I am going to talk only about the WorkBC Centres.

The WorkBC Centres receive both provincial and federal funding. Depending on where the member is looking in the budget, it may be that you’re only looking at the provincial line. Federal funding for employment supports was devolved to the provinces and territories 20 years ago, 15 years ago — in that kind of range.

Unfortunately, the federal government this past year did reduce its transfers to provinces and territories, something that we fought very hard. That funding pool that affected spending was a $46.5 million cut from the federal government, and we’re working to get them to restore it.

But the work that we have been doing, even with a steady budget, has been reaching more and more people in British Columbia. In the 2019-20 year, we were, through WorkBC, helping about 83,000 people a year. In the 2024-25 year, we’re expecting to exceed more than 100,000 people.

We’re getting really powerful results and outcomes. More than 32,000 people were supported using WorkBC services through their first year of employment. That’s an increase from 29,800 the previous year. Since 2019, 53 percent of WorkBC clients have found stable jobs that have allowed them to be financially independent.

Clients who use more intensive programs see even better results: 81 percent of those in the wage subsidy program and 79 percent of those in the skills training programs find jobs, and about 81 percent of case-managed clients belonging to one or more inclusion groups have found permanent employment. That’s an increase up from 79 percent the previous year.

[2:10 p.m.]

Our assistive technology services have helped 1,500 people with disabilities by providing adaptive technology for employment, and WorkBC apprentice services have helped apprentices access training to complete their trade certification. So far in ’24-25, over 12,100 apprentices have participated in this program through WorkBC.

Kristina Loewen: Can the minister explain how WorkBC engages with employers in serious and strategic ways?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I’ll just answer this briefly. I’m happy to go into more detail if the member seeks. It is a requirement of the WorkBC contracts that they work directly with employers. That looks a little bit different from community to community, depending what the needs are and depending who the employers are. But in some cases, they have job fairs. In some cases….

We rely quite heavily on the Presidents Group as well to inform successes and to work amongst employers to encourage more potential employers to participate in WorkBC programs. And always giving feedback to the contractors about what was successful and what are the in-demand jobs in that particular community.

Kristina Loewen: How exactly does WorkBC align with the province’s broader employment and economic strategy?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: So again, I’m happy to go into further detail if the member wishes, but bottom line is the province’s future-ready skills program, built with industry, built with unions and post-secondary institutions, identifying the job needs of the future, identifying barriers and ways that we can work together.

[2:15 p.m.]

The function that we have within my ministry, people that are unemployed and have faced barriers getting into the workplace…. We’ve just got a small slice of the work, but the WorkBC centres take their direction around in-demand skills, where there are vacancies and where employers are really advocating for the kind of jobs that they want to see filled. WorkBC centres align with that future-ready skills plan, but then they also inform it as well.

As we were building the future-ready skills plan, provincewide, the WorkBC centres were part of the consultation. They let our partners at Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills know what they were hearing on the ground.

It’s a really nice two-way direction. They informed the plan, but then they also help implement the plan with a continual feedback mechanism.

Kristina Loewen: I’m going to conclude now. I’m going to wrap it up. I just want to thank the minister for her time and her team for their time and just conclude with saying that I’m grateful for this ministry.

I love this role as critic, and I think these services are really valuable. I appreciate the work you’re doing.

My big concern is that the tax base is struggling. I just urge this government to incentivize the private sector, the business community, the middle class and support them because I fear for the future if we can’t support the vulnerable.

Thank you for your time.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. Seeing no further questions, I ask the minister if you would like to make any closing remarks.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I’ll give my thanks to my critic and to the support team that has guided and prepared me for estimates and also has been part of the conversation.

More than anything, I’ll close by saying the SDPR folks that are working on the front line are in every corner of the province. When I visit their offices, what they let me know about programs that are working well and are not is so valuable. They are so committed to the clients that they serve.

In many cases, there are multi-generation workers that I meet, mother-daughter teams that are working in the offices or on outreach. That says a lot. For a kid to see their parent doing really challenging work and then want to follow in their footsteps really says a lot about how they work in the world.

The most consistent thing that I hear from SDPR front-line workers is how much they love and trust the team, that their workplaces really are a place of collective commitment. People are working shoulder to shoulder under really difficult circumstances sometimes. But I’m grateful. I just want to say more than anything that our team and the people that are helping people in need are inspiring to me every day. I learn from them.

A lot of their work and ideas are reflected in our poverty reduction strategy. Their advice to me is invaluable.

Thank you, Chair. With that, I don’t need to move a motion, do I? I just sit down and say thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, and thank you, all members.

Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

Vote 43: ministry operations, $5,747,116,000 — approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We will take a short five-minute break to set up for the next ministry. We’ll come back at 2:25.

The committee recessed from 2:18 p.m. to 2:28 p.m.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

Estimates: Ministry of Jobs,
Economic Development and Innovation

The Chair: Good afternoon. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are now meeting to consider the budget estimates for the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation.

On Vote 38: ministry operations, $116,223,000.

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

Hon. Diana Gibson: I do, thank you, Chair.

I’d like to start by introducing the people with me here today: Fazil Mihlar, deputy minister; Tim Lesiuk, assistant deputy minister, small business and economic development division; Paul Pawlowski, assistant deputy minister, investment division; Nathan Nankivell, assistant deputy minister, innovation and industry development division; Brian Urquhart, executive financial officer and assistant deputy minister, management services division; Will Hoyle, acting deputy minister, trade, investment and corporate initiatives division.

Also joining us at points during the estimates will be Debbie Chew, executive director and chief financial officer of the management services division; Dave Mortimer, chief financial officer, InBC; Angelo Cocco, executive director, economic and regulatory analysis branch; Steve Anderson, executive director with our trade policy, analytics and marketing branch; Danielle Grbavac, executive director, economic strategy branch; Kim Reid, executive director, rural and regional development branch.

[2:30 p.m.]

I want to thank my incredible team for the amazing work they do to help support the people and businesses of B.C.

In this ministry, we have advanced on multiple fronts to grow the economy and create good jobs across B.C. We’re taking action, and we’re delivering results for people. B.C. is working to diversify our trade, to support our businesses and protect and create more jobs for people.

All over the world, people are looking for new trading partners as the tariff threat now impacts countries around the globe. In these uncertain economic times, we are building a stronger B.C. and protecting the things that matter most to people. We’re taking action in response to this unprecedented attack and to secure our future.

We’re working with our federal, provincial and territorial ministers and deputy ministers on a Team Canada approach. No matter what Trump throws at us, we know we are stronger together. We are defending B.C. and protecting the services people rely on every day.

We’re strengthening and growing the economy by helping people train for better jobs. We’re building new schools, hospitals and economic projects we need to stand up to Trump and secure the future, and diversifying where we sell our goods, including breaking down interprovincial trade barriers.

B.C.’s real GDP increased by 1.2 percent, or $3.7 billion, in 2024. And since 2017, B.C.’s GDP growth is 20.3 percent, second among the provinces, only behind PEI. In the face of a slower global economy and high inflation rates and interest rates, B.C. has held steady. We’ve gained 41,400 jobs since January 2024 alone.

March 2025, compared to the same time last year, saw B.C.’s private sector employment up by close to 33,000. B.C. has shown resiliency. Since July 2017, B.C. has gained close to 173,000 private sector jobs. And we are continuing to deliver for people in B.C. in ways that make a tangible difference in their daily lives.

Through global volatility and shifting economic winds, B.C. is holding steady, growing an economy that works for people, protecting what matters and building a cleaner, more secure future. We’re growing the economy and creating jobs right across the province. We’re reducing costs for families, strengthening health care and making our neighbourhoods and communities safer.

Chair, I’d like to tell you about some of the things that our ministry has been doing across our different portfolios, starting with trade and investment. For the five-month period between October 2024 to February 2025, Trade and Invest B.C. has supported 256 trade opportunities, which resulted in 49 closed export wins, which are valued at over $58 million. We launched the export navigator special advisory pilot. We delivered three export navigator webinars with a total of 65 participants.

We delivered trade accelerator programs — three cohorts with a total of 53 companies. We established our Trade and Invest representative in Mexico, completing the commitment in our trade diversification strategy to establish new offices in Mexico, Taiwan and Vietnam with representatives in each. Our team successfully closed 14 investment opportunities worth approximately $465 million.

Across key international markets, priority sectors and B.C. regions, we have established trade and investment opportunities. We also established a trade and economic security task force to bring together business, labour and First Nations leaders at the table to find ways to respond together to the tariff threat.

I’m proud to say that my team and I have been leading on the development of Canada’s mutual recognition agreement. We’ve been working across the provinces. I’ve been meeting with my federal counterparts across the federal government and all of the provinces and territories to advance recognition of goods so that B.C. goods can be on the shelves across this country.

And we worked with the Ministry of Attorney General on the draft Bill 7, designed to allow the government to act quickly while protecting British Columbia families, workers and businesses. If passed, this gives B.C. the tools needed to respond to the economic challenges we have in case of American escalation.

Another program area I am very proud to talk about is our integrated marketplace. Given its great success, Budget 2025 includes $30 million over three years to support high-quality jobs through this program, the integrated marketplace.

[2:35 p.m.]

We are establishing new test beds for B.C. businesses to test their technologies and advance innovation while simultaneously improving industry challenges that are key to our economy.

Several companies have leveraged their success with this program to scale their technology, grow their domestic and their international partnerships. One example is Niricson’s technology, which provides a new approach for infrastructure safety at the Vancouver International Airport. From their work at that test bed, they’ve grown their customer base.

Other work we’ve done is establish the industrial land office, which is working closely with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to develop new policy to support our food and beverage processing.

We saw the opening of the new B.C. Biomanufacturing Training Facility, and the B.C. Centre for Agritech Innovation has reached 32 industry projects with 19 training programs to ensure our strong and competitive economy.

We’ve also been advancing in mass timber with our mass timber sector so we have the right people with the right sets of skills advancing new mass timber programs. We’ve partnered with BCIT and Selkirk College to advance their mass timber micro-credential program and establish a mass timber training hub and a mass timber education advisory committee.

At the end of this month, the first of three years of Web Summit Vancouver will launch in this province — an exciting, marquee event, bringing thousands of investors, customers, companies, media and world-class talent to B.C. They’ll be looking at our leading-edge, innovative tech sector for opportunities to invest and bringing their companies and talent to anchor here.

Another area I’m proud to speak to is our B.C. manufacturing jobs fund. We’re continuing to create and protect thousands of well-paying jobs throughout B.C. Since the first project was announced last June, the fund has committed $146 million towards 132 projects to date, unlocking over $1 billion in private sector and other public investment for B.C. manufacturers to expand and fortify their operations.

Every $1 million invested in this fund has leveraged $7 million in total direct capital investment. So for each dollar, we’re leveraging seven dollars of investment from other levels of government and other investors. Also, $590,000 in tax revenue to the province and $5.3 million in GDP during the capital construction phase alone.

Funded projects will create and protect more than 4,700 jobs across B.C. Investing in these businesses that are ready to modernize their manufacturing is helping create and protect hundreds of jobs while ensuring innovation and clean growth across our province.

Another area we’ve been working in is our regional economic development. Local governments, First Nations and not-for-profit organizations throughout B.C. have been receiving funding through our REDIP program to promote economic diversification, clean economy opportunities and infrastructure. We’re partnering with rural community leaders, investing in the future by growing resilience and sustainability in their local economies through these impactful projects. In the first three years, REDIP saw as much as $142 million invested in more than 450 projects across rural B.C.

We’ve been committed to Indigenous economic development in partnership with the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, supporting access to economic opportunities for First Nations communities and their development corporations. Through REDIP, we’ve awarded $63.17 million to over 100 First Nation–led projects that will strengthen local economies.

B.C. also put in place a contribution agreement with Vitalus Nutrition for up to $25 million towards their milk processing in Abbotsford. This strategic investment is expected to create 100 new jobs, increasing western Canada’s milk processing capabilities and, in this uncertain time, ensuring food security with additional butter processing.

Another area we’ve been working in is small business. Our small- and medium-sized businesses were just starting to turn the corner when Trump tariffs began. The interest rates turning down, inflation turning down…. They were just feeling some breathing room and then came the tariffs.

That’s why we’ve been working diligently since 2017 to maintain an economic environment that allows our small businesses to thrive. Through Budget 2025, $67 million in funding over three years will go towards community safety programs, including a new community safety and targeted enforcement pilot that will especially target robbery, shoplifting and property crimes, providing the police with the tools to tackle street disorder and support safer downtowns and commercial areas in communities throughout B.C., something we know businesses have been asking for.

In 2017, B.C. cut the small business corporate tax rate by 20 percent — from 2.5 percent to 2 percent — and maintains the third-lowest small business tax rate in Canada.

[2:40 p.m.]

Under our small business venture capital tax credit program, over 160 small businesses raised a total of $150 million of equity capital from B.C. investors. In addition, 12 venture capital funds registered in the tax credit program have invested over $15 million in 20 small businesses.

Budget 2025 further encourages investment in B.C.’s small businesses, with an increase to the investment limit for individuals through the small business venture capital tax credit and a temporary $15 million increase to the program’s budget for the next three years.

Another very important area, dear to the hearts of us on the coast, is our maritime industries strategy. We continue to deliver the B.C. maritime industries infrastructure modernization and expansion grant program, which has been fully subscribed, committing $22.3 million in provincial funding to 41 projects over three intakes.

These projects together are delivering close to $97 million in project value, creating more than 500 jobs and upskilling almost 400 workers. Sixty-one percent of these projects provide economic opportunities to First Nations, and over half are funded in rural and regional B.C. Our maritime industries strategy is helping set the course for a more competitive and modernized maritime sector, with reduced carbon emissions and more highly skilled jobs to meet growing demand.

B.C. has everything we need to succeed: abundant resources, a diverse and growing economy and skilled and resilient workers. But with these unjustified U.S. tariffs, this is a time for unity and action. This is our moment to continue building a strong economic foundation despite global challenges, attracting investment and supporting industry to grow and innovate.

Businesses across our province have faced one challenge after another: the pandemic, supply chain issues, inflation, high interest rates and now, unprecedented and unfair and unjustified U.S. tariffs. Budget 2025 adds to the work of our government, which we’ve been doing since 2017, and helps prepare us to carefully navigate these uncharted waters so that we can put people first and protect businesses as we build a stronger, more self-sufficient future.

Helping B.C. companies scale up, saving small businesses money and protecting B.C. workers and communities will go a long way towards building a resilient economy. Regardless of what happens outside of B.C., we will do everything necessary to support British Columbians in the face of these tariffs.

We will continue to do the work with small businesses, with a whole-of-government approach, to strengthen B.C.’s economy and protect businesses, families and jobs. The journey ahead won’t be easy, but as British Columbians and as Canadians, we stand strong and united.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

I now recognize the member for Kelowna-Mission. Do you have any opening remarks?

Gavin Dew: I have very few opening remarks. I will only remark that we support jobs, economic development and innovation, and we want to maximize the time for questions, so let’s get right into it.

Can the minister expand on how the ministry works across government with other ministries such as Forests, Mining, Post-Secondary and all those other areas, in particular with regard to major projects and major investments?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: We work across government with our colleagues in other ministries on major projects like energy, mining and forestry as we are members of the regulatory efficiency board and the major project implementation board.

Gavin Dew: Can the minister expand a little bit on how JEDI measures success and in particular how it measures success quantitatively?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: JEDI measures our investment, economic activity. Here are some examples. Since 2017, B.C. has received $473 billion of private sector capital investment, enabling our economy to outperform other major provinces. In 2023, B.C. had the highest GDP growth amongst large provinces at 2.4 percent, ahead of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Between 2017 and 2024, B.C.’s economy expanded 18 percent, the highest among large provinces, ahead of Ontario and Quebec. Since 2017, B.C. has gained 172,800 private sector jobs.

Of course, getting major projects across the finish line is another metric. B.C. is expediting 18 major projects valued at $20 billion, including mines, renewable energy and natural gas, which is expected to create 8,000 jobs.

Gavin Dew: In preparing for these estimates, one of the documents that I reviewed was the 2019 to 2020 economic plan drafted by Don Wright, then deputy minister to the Premier, which I find quite interesting and which I think speaks to the mindset and approach of the Horgan government at the time.

In defining success economically, Mr. Wright wrote that quality economic growth is shorthand for growth that generates steady increases in real wages, healthy increases in per-capita real government revenue without raising tax rates, shares the benefits broadly across the province and across the population and cares for our natural environment.

Is it reasonable to assume that the tenets of this touchstone document that was circulated to all senior civil servants at the time and that, from all evidence, formed the basis for the economic strategy of the Horgan government remains a part of the thinking of this government and of this Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: The StrongerBC economic plan is a long-term framework for B.C.’s clean and inclusive economy, to create jobs and improve lives of British Columbia. Many of the plan’s 70 actions have been completed since it was launched in 2022. As of February 2025, 37 actions are complete, and 32 are underway. Similarly, 12 out of the 14 flagship actions are complete, and the remaining two are underway.

As the final piece of the economic plan, the government released Clean and Competitive: a Blueprint for B.C.’s Industrial Future in April 2024. The blueprint lays out the promises of work to drive new investment, to create new jobs and seize new opportunities in growing clean energy and sustainable industries.

Government is also advancing clean and inclusive economic growth through a priority focus on health care, community safety and reducing cost of living. Government is introducing legislation that will help accelerate permitting for renewable energy projects and create good, family-supporting jobs, as natural resources are an integral part of B.C.’s economic plan.

Gavin Dew: Respectfully, that wasn’t the question I asked. I didn’t ask about StrongerBC from 2022. I asked specifically about the 2019-2020 economic plan drafted by then Deputy Premier Don Wright, which generally could be interpreted as being the bible of John Horgan’s economic doctrine.

Just to get a really clear answer, I’m just looking for a yes or no on this. Does this government still believe in the economic ideas and the economic doctrine outlined by Don Wright and John Horgan, which are best reflected in that 2019-2020 economic plan? Just a simple yes or no question. Probably shouldn’t take a lot of time to huddle.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: As I said when I answered, StrongerBC is the economic plan, and natural resources are part of that plan. These are projects that create jobs from Smithers to Surrey, right across the province.

Some of the 18 projects that were fast-tracked in our recent announcement for employing 8,000 people across the province include Eskay Creek gold-silver project, Highland Valley Copper life extension, Red Chris block cave expansion, Mount Milligan, North Coast transmission line, Boulder-Elkhart Wind, Brewster wind, Highland Valley wind, K2 wind project, Mount Mabel wind project, Nilhts’I Ecoener project, Stewart Creek wind project, Taylor wind project, Nithi Mountain wind project, Cedar LNG, NEBC connector, T-North and others.

Gavin Dew: Okay, it doesn’t seem like I’m going to get an answer as to whether John Horgan’s economic legacy still remains part of this government’s plan, but I’ll ask about some details of that 2019 to 2020 plan. I’m going to ask multipart questions because I want to hurry this up. I’ve got a lot to get through.

Can the minister update, please, on the status of the northern strategy that was to be launched in 2019 to 2020? Further, can she update on the status of the regional economic strategies that were targeted by that 2019 to 2020 plan to be developed for the following areas: Metro Vancouver, Fraser Valley regional district, Squamish-Lillooet regional district, capital regional district, Comox Valley regional district, regional district of Nanaimo, regional district of Central Okanagan, regional district of North Okanagan, Okanagan-Similkameen regional district and Thompson-Nicola regional district?

I don’t need a detailed update on any of those, but I would just like to get a clear answer, a really simple answer, as to whether, in fact, those regional economic strategies have actually been undertaken and what the status is of them as a whole.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Northern and regional initiatives are across our programs. They include REDIP and the manufacturing jobs fund. They include the funding for economic development through the NDIT and Southern Interior Trust. They also include the work we’re doing around permitting, which is impacting getting projects approved.

[3:10 p.m.]

These are all part of a regional economic growth program that crosses all of our programs. Additionally, we have strategies like the manufacturing action plan, the maritime industries strategy, the mass timber action plan and the life sciences strategy.

Gavin Dew: That’s nice, but none of those are the ten regional economic strategies outlined and specifically called for in the 2019-2020 economic plan. It’s unfortunate to see that that just kind of fell by the wayside.

Let’s talk about another part of the 2019-2020 plan, and that’s the intellectual property strategy, which was launched in 2020.

A couple of things here. Firstly, can the minister update on how the ministry is updating or evolving this strategy in response to recent shifts in our economic relationship with the United States? In terms of measuring the efficacy of the strategy, can the minister outline what percentage of Canada’s international IP royalty receipts are attributable to B.C. and what the ministry’s target is for growing that share relative to our share of GDP?

In terms of very specific and immediate budget questions, can the minister please update us on the status of the jointly provincially and federally funded AccelerateIP strategy, which gives companies funding to get their patenting off the ground?

I gather that funding is coming to a close. There has been no subsequent announcement of any continuation of that funding, which tech leaders have described as crucial. What is the ministry doing to address that funding gap?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Thank you, member opposite.

IP is implicated in all sectors of the economy, and it’s a particular interest in our knowledge-based sectors, which is an increasingly important part of B.C.’s ecosystem.

In July 2023, that IP strategy was released, providing $2.5 million to support B.C.’s IP capacity through awareness, education and mentoring programs to ensure businesses know the importance of the methods for protecting their IP; through fostering communications and connections; through partner and mentor networks; and through centralizing IP knowledge and resources, engaging across government to ensure underrepresented sectors or other groups are aware of and have access to IP supports and programs.

IP education programs leverage $12.5 million in federal funding for that AccelerateIP program, and recipients have included other provinces, as well, including B.C. The province is delivering this IP strategy with a focus on those pieces, building awareness, literacy and capacity within our tech ecosystem. To date, this IP strategy has provided education mentorship to over 1,000 organizations, primarily in small and medium enterprises.

The ministry is continuing to explore further steps to sustainably support our innovative and cultural and commercial IP ecosystems, while ensuring that the benefits of these ecosystems continue to support the people of B.C. Given the increased volatility in global markets, such as ongoing trade aggression from the U.S., our ministry is exploring options relating to IP to strengthen a fortified B.C. economy. We will work with the new federal government to ensure there are supports available for our businesses that need to protect their IP.

Gavin Dew: So exploring options but no update on the AccelerateIP strategy. Got it.

Now that we’ve done, for now, with going through programs that haven’t come together out of that seminal economic plan of 2019 to 2022, let’s just go back to some of the fundamental economic measures that Don Wright laid out.

Mr. Wright cited a goal of raising real wages and household disposable income as central to “quality economic growth.” I had our researchers put together a table showing real median wages and household disposable income in B.C. from 2013 to 2023, and both real median wages and household disposable incomes have actually stagnated or declined in recent years under the leadership of this government.

Would the minister say that this government has failed by the definition of success laid out by Don Wright and John Horgan in that economic plan of 2019 to 2020?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: For the record, it’s important to state that AccelerateIP is a federal program that has been successfully launched, and through Innovate B.C., B.C. continues to support the delivery of IP supports and services to B.C. businesses.

[3:25 p.m.]

As to the second part of the question, from 2017 to 2024, B.C.’s average hourly wage increased 38.1 percent, the highest growth amongst provinces, ahead of Ontario and Alberta as well as other provinces. B.C.’s average hourly wage increased 5.4 percent in 2024 and is the highest among provinces.

Since 2017, total employment has increased by 351,100. Full-time employment in B.C. accounts for over 91 percent of all job growths in 2017.

Gavin Dew: The last time I checked, I think the province funded AccelerateIP by about $2 million. So not sure the minister is quite right on that. No real engagement with the matter of real median wages and disposable income, both of which have stalled out under this government, and both of which were the central indicators of success as outlined by Don Wright, who crafted John Horgan’s economic strategy. This minister doesn’t want to talk about it.

But let’s talk about a different indicator. Let’s talk about bankruptcies. I went through and reviewed some data on B.C. business bankruptcies and incorporations over a 19-year comparative period. What that chart looks like is that immediately after this NDP government was elected in 2017, it turns out that bankruptcies started rising and business formations substantially went down.

What does this say about the underlying health of the private sector under this government, and how does the ministry define success in terms of business vitality?

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: First, I want to say that I know that these are challenging times for businesses, particularly our small businesses, which are the fabric of our communities. They’re our neighbours. They’re our friends. They’re our family.

As a former small business owner myself, I know how much a small business owner puts into their business and how difficult it is when they have to face insolvency. I know that it has been a challenging time since 2017 in our province.

However, it is important to look at both the insolvencies and the new businesses. With the opportunities we’ve seen, B.C. has had the fourth lowest year-over-year increase in business insolvencies in 2024. B.C.’s rate of business insolvency per 100,000 active businesses was 100 or less from 2017 to 2022. Finally, year-over-year, in the last two months, business insolvencies were down 1.8 percent.

Gavin Dew: I’d certainly note that the monthly number of restaurant bankruptcies is at an all-time high in Canada. That certainly is challenging. We’re seeing a lot of small businesses struggling, and we’re seeing a lot of policy that isn’t particularly helping them.

Since we’re talking about economic performance, one of the things that this government likes to do is make comparisons to past governments. So I thought I would do a GDP growth comparison across the first seven years of this government’s mandate relative to the first seven years of the mandate of the government that they often like to criticize.

When we look at 2001 to 2008 as our index of a prior government versus 2017 to 2024 as our index of this government, and we look at nominal GDP, we see an average of 7.2 percent average annual growth rate in the ’01 to ’08 scenario and a 5.7 percent growth rate in the current government’s first seven years. On a GDP-per-capita basis, we saw a 6.3 percent increase under the prior government and a 4.7 percent increase under this government.

[3:35 p.m.]

When we look at that GDP-per-capita basis on a USD-denominated basis in order to understand purchasing power, what we saw is an 11.7 percent increase under the prior government and a 4.5 percent increase under this government.

I wonder if the minister would like to correct for the record some of the remarks made by her government around comparative economic growth.

Hon. Diana Gibson: We have been leading the country in economic growth, and this is despite serious headwinds: COVID, global inflation and record population growth.

Gavin Dew: Wow, I feel like I’m talking to a ChatGPT that’s malfunctioning. It would be great if we could get some substantive answers here. That would be great. If we’re going to take ten-minute pauses, we could at least get more than one-sentence answers.

[3:40 p.m.]

Let’s talk about business confidence, since the minister won’t talk about economic growth. One of the key things that I think is very important when it comes to small business is business confidence, and one of the measures that’s regularly publicized is the CFIB Business Barometer. That Business Barometer has shown rock-bottom business confidence, with B.C. often at the absolute bottom of the pack in recent months, which is a pretty scary indicator.

When I posted about that on social media, I was very surprised at the response of Michael Roy, who previously served as director of direct communications and engagement within the government communications and public engagement branch of the Ministry of Finance — which suggests that he was fairly central to the way that this government communicated around finance and such matters.

He replied that small business confidence was “a silly metric.” Does the minister agree that small business confidence is a silly metric, or does she think that it’s important?

[3:45 p.m.]

The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, I’d just like to remind everyone in the room that the rules of decorum apply in this space as much as they apply in the chambers. So I ask that we all speak to one another respectfully and thoughtfully engage in debate and remain temperate in our debate.

Just with that, I would recognize the minister.

Hon. Diana Gibson: I’ve been meeting with businesses across the province — small businesses, large businesses — doing roundtables with business associations, chambers of commerce. In fact, just today met with the roundtable with businesses from West Kelowna to engage to find out…. We know tariffs are creating headwinds, and something I’ve been hearing a lot from businesses that we’re working on is the ease of doing business review.

We are working to tackle red tape at every level, whether it’s interprovincial trade barriers or if it’s local policy barriers, so that we can help our businesses to thrive and grow and make it easier to do business. And some of these are decades-long problems that we’re tackling so that we can help businesses thrive.

Gavin Dew: I’ll come back to the matter of business confidence, but since the minister mentions meeting with small businesses and roundtables with small businesses, I just wanted to circle back to the Small Business Roundtable.

The permanent Small Business Roundtable was established in 2005 to engage in dialogue with small business owners from across B.C. to identify top-of-mind issues and opportunities facing small businesses, according to the government website. The roundtable board is comprised of small business leaders from across B.C. who collectively represent the diverse interests of small business from all regions and sectors.

Chaired by the minister responsible for small business, this arm’s-length advisory board engages with the small business community on behalf of the Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation through community consultation and through feedback received.

I just thought I would ask the minister, in light of the fact that we’re going through very challenging times for small business, in light of the fact that we’re wanting to consult with small business…. Can the minister tell me when was the last meeting of the Small Business Roundtable, and how long was it?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: There are so many points of contact with small businesses across our province — across sectors, in regions, in municipalities.

Particularly because of this moment of uncertainty and international challenges coming at our businesses, I have been meeting with businesses through associations, across regions, across sites: women’s entrepreneurs and businesses B.C., Nanaimo Chamber of Commerce, West Kelowna Chamber of Commerce, Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce, BCBC, tech sector roundtable, manufacturing sector roundtable, life sciences, direct individual meetings with BCBC, CFIB, COFI, CMA, Food Processors Association, and in one-on-one meetings with businesses large and small.

Further, I’m frequently dialoguing with B.C. stakeholders to represent workers, business and industry from across the province and with Indigenous partners regarding the potential impacts of tariffs and our work together to respond.

I sit on the B.C. trade and economic security task force — which was set up to respond to this moment, to enable that engagement with business — co-chaired by Tamara Vrooman from the Vancouver International Airport, Jonathan Price from Teck and Bridgitte Anderson from the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade. It includes many of B.C.’s businesses and business associations.

The task force is holding in-person and virtual meetings, and my colleagues and I are in frequent discussion with the chairs and members of the task force regarding potential impacts of the tariffs on B.C. businesses. Members of the task force are feeding us important information from members to help us in our decision-making.

I’m also in frequent discussion with my cabinet colleagues regarding potential impacts as I sit on the cabinet committee on tariff response, which is coordinating the whole-of-government response to protect B.C.’s workers, businesses and economy against ongoing tariff threats. The committee will continue to ensure B.C.’s response is fast, tough and fully focused on protecting British Columbians, while strengthening and growing and diversifying our province’s economy for the long term.

Finally, I sit on the committee for internal trade, interprovincially, where there is frequent contact with my federal counterparts across Canada, as we work to tackle the challenges I’m hearing from businesses on the ground, from small businesses, around interprovincial trade barriers and access to markets.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the summary of activities, but it doesn’t answer my question whatsoever.

The Small Business Roundtable has existed for 20 years as a mechanism to collect ongoing feedback from the small business community. Since the minister wouldn’t answer the question, I’ll answer it for her. My understanding is the last time the Small Business Roundtable met was two years ago, and the meeting was 15 minutes long. That seems a little bit like a problem.

[3:55 p.m.]

We have a structured institutional entity created 20 years ago to hear the voices of small business. The excuse that we’re in different times now doesn’t wash when it comes to allowing this crucial piece of feedback around small business to languish, especially when we think about the fact that this is a government and this is a ministry that allowed Small Business B.C. to go bankrupt. This is a government that doesn’t really seem very interested in talking to business, outside of a crisis, on a proactive basis.

I’ll just take the minister back to the report of the Small Business Roundtable issued in October of 2018, entitled Hearing from B.C. Small Businesses About How to Make Their Future Bright. Priority 1 was to reduce costs of doing business to maintain and strengthen economic growth and competitiveness, and in particular, some of the recommendations included reviewing the employer health tax to minimize its impact on small businesses.

That would seem quite important because that CFIB Business Barometer also measures business confidence and measures the impact of taxes and red tape. If you actually overlay the measurables in that Business Barometer and you look at responses around the weight of government red tape and payroll costs, they all go up dramatically immediately after the EHT was implemented. Furthermore, hiring intention goes down dramatically immediately after that was implemented.

You can see why, perhaps, you would have that kind of feedback from the Small Business Roundtable through their report. In fact, they specifically asked that the government conduct additional financial modelling and stakeholder analysis of the EHT to determine the extent of possible unintended consequences on small business in the short to medium term. They talked about all kinds of really interesting recommendations in here.

Two questions. Can the minister please update on the implementation status of the recommendations of that 2018 report from the Small Business Roundtable? And can she confirm whether or not the government lost interest in the Small Business Roundtable and ultimately stopped having it meet because they didn’t like the recommendations of the report?

[4:00 p.m.]

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: For the record, the last official meeting of the Small Business Roundtable was February 26, 2024, to provide input and advice on proposed changes to the securing small business rebate program to improve accessibility. On January 26, 2024, they met with the accessibility directorate of the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction.

On the supports for small businesses…. As a former small business owner, I can tell you that my priority is small businesses, and our ministry has been very focused on small businesses. We know they are the fabric of our communities. They are what keeps all of the community thriving and growing, such a key part of all of our economy. That’s why our government has been working to support small businesses with major changes that have been made.

First, B.C. continues to have the third-lowest small business tax rate in the country, at 2 percent. B.C. introduced a small business venture capital tax credit program to encourage investors to invest in B.C.’s small businesses, giving them access to early-stage funding to help them grow. We expanded access to the small business tax rate — up to $50 million in taxable capital — allowing more small businesses to have access to the tax rate for longer while they grow.

As part of Budget 2024, the province doubled the threshold for the employer health tax, mentioned by the member opposite as something that businesses have been asking for, from $500,000 to $1 million. The employer health tax threshold adjustment also includes doubling the notch rate in the $1 million to $1.5 million bracket, which ensures the tax gradually phases in for businesses with payrolls over $1 million.

We’ve been listening to small businesses. We’ve been working with them. We’ve been meeting with them, and we’ll be continuing to help them to thrive and grow. Further, our-ease-of-doing-business review is going to be the next step in ensuring that we are responding to what businesses have been asking for.

[4:05 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: Since the minister mentions the securing small business rebate program, I’d love to talk about that a little bit. Recently, Kamloops city council called for the restoration of that program, which helps small businesses recover costs incurred due to crime and vandalism. There have been a number of other questions asked around when that might be restored.

I note that vandalism certainly hasn’t ended. In fact, looking at some recent data from Restaurants Canada, 72 percent of respondents have seen an increase in crime near their restaurants over the last six to 12 months, and 45 percent of restaurant operators have been directly impacted by community safety issues.

With that in mind, could the minister please expand on why the securing small business rebate has been discontinued? Specifically, could she clarify: of the $10.5 million allocated toward the program, how much of that funding actually made it out the door and into the hands of small business? What were the administrative costs on the delivery of whatever that number was as a portion of the $10.5 million originally allocated to the program?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: The securing small business rebate program was launched on November 22, 2023, to address the impacts of vandalism on small businesses. Businesses could apply for as much as $2,000 per business per calendar year for the cost of repairs due to vandalism and up to $1,000 for prevention measures and up to $5,000 in total. After receiving feedback from the program administration and the business community, changes were made in the eligibility requirements in March 2024.

The program was developed in response to calls from small businesses, community stakeholder organizations and MLAs to address the impacts of business vandalism in B.C. Over the course of the program, 1,318 businesses were assisted, 488 businesses received reparative rebates, and 830 businesses received preventative rebates. The program closed on January 31, 2025.

The government continues to focus on and is listening to businesses that are asking for us to continue to focus on public safety. Through the appointment of Terry Yung as Minister of State for Community Safety, but further through the budget 2025, we launched a new community safety and targeted enforcement program that specifically targets the things businesses have been asking for: robbery, shoplifting, theft and property-related offences.

We’re doing this through providing police with enhanced tools and more resources so that we can curb these crimes. This will support safer communities by helping tackle street disorder, stabilize commercial areas, protect jobs and support B.C.’s economic growth, because people should feel safe when they go to work and live in downtown areas, and this continues to be a priority for this government.

Gavin Dew: I know the minister has available a dollar figure, and I would love it if she would provide that to me.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: When we receive the final report from the chamber of commerce, which is the program deliverer, we’ll be able to share those numbers.

Gavin Dew: I will look forward to seeing those numbers, and I hope that we’ll also be able to see publicly the report on the feedback provided on the delivery and structure of the program, as I gather from consultation with stakeholders that there was significant feedback provided and little adjustment made to the program.

Let’s move on to another collapse under this ministry. I’m hoping the minister can provide us with an update on the Small Business B.C. bankruptcy, and I have just a few questions on that, which hopefully won’t take too long. I’ll just spiel them all out here so that there can just be one huddle rather than five.

What percentage of taxpayer funds provided to Small Business B.C. were recovered following its collapse and entry into bankruptcy proceedings?

What, in the minister’s view, caused its financial collapse, and what responsibility does the government bear, given that it was a special purpose, publicly funded service provider and the government had direct representation on the board up until they resigned in October 2024?

The minister has publicly characterized Small Business B.C. as arm’s-length. How often did Small Business B.C. meet with senior officials from the government, and from JEDI specifically, prior to its collapse?

When exactly did the government know that Small Business B.C. was in financial trouble? Because in speaking with other stakeholders in the broader business support ecosystem, many of them seem to have known months before that was publicly disclosed.

How many of the 36 former front-line employees of Small Business B.C. are now directly employed by the provincial government, and what steps did the ministry take to retain their expertise or ensure service continuity for small businesses relying on those supports?

Given that apparently the MNP trustee who took over during bankruptcy offered a set of recommendations, including a restructuring of Small Business B.C., why did the government choose to allow Small Business B.C. to collapse and go bankrupt rather than going through a fairly routine, run-of-the-mill turnaround process to make sure that its core functions were preserved while its financial issues and apparent management issues were dealt with?

Finally, given that the collapse of Small Business B.C. overlapped with the provincial election cycle and that demonstrably, plenty of people knew that it was collapsing before the election cycle, is it fair to suggest that the government and the ministry were more focused on managing the optics or sweeping the situation under the rug than on executing an actual turnaround or support plan that would have provided continuity to the clients of Small Business B.C., which again, was under the very close management of the government, had direct board representation and for several decades had been effectively an extension of the provincial and federal governments?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Small Business B.C. has been a valued, long-term partner to the province in delivering services to B.C.’s small business community. This was a very difficult situation for the employees of Small Business B.C. and for those that accessed their services and resources, and my heart goes out to them.

SBBC was an independent, non-profit organization, and the province did not have oversight of their financial operations. The B.C. government was one of many contractors that contracted them for services, including the federal government and others.

The Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation was aware that filing for bankruptcy was a possibility. However, they had been advised by Small Business B.C. management and the board that they were taking action to address and resolve those financial difficulties. We were notified officially of the bankruptcy the day it happened.

The JEDI contract with Small Business B.C. has been reassigned to Community Futures B.C. with a term to March 31, 2025, and it includes two six-month extension options to March 2026.

The export navigator program had been delivered by Small Business B.C. since its 2016 launch. With the bankruptcy in December 2024, the province took swift action to reassign the contract and transition the program to Community Futures B.C. CFBC brings a depth of experience and resources and has been directly involved in the export navigator since it was launched in 2016, delivering some of those services previously.

The transition to Community Futures was seamless for B.C. small businesses. All export navigator staff and export advisers were rehired, and the program returned to full operation within six weeks of the bankruptcy.

Gavin Dew: I find that account somewhat implausible in light of the close supervision relationship with Small Business B.C., but I feel like we’ve canvassed that enough publicly that we might as well just specifically talk about export navigator.

“Seamless” seems like a generous characterization of the transition, given that there was very little notice provided and that all of the people that worked for export navigator, from all appearances, were fired or let go. There was no information provided at the time as to what a transition plan would be, which is rather surprising because you would think that if there was going to be a transition, it would be a planned and orderly transition, and there would be communication, rather than people being let go and having their contracts left unpaid and having no certainty as to whether they would be rehired whatsoever.

[4:25 p.m.]

I’m curious — and I’ll lay out a few questions here as well — why government didn’t simply reposition export navigator as part of their initial response to the Small Business B.C. situation. It seems like they undertook a hugely complex operation just to change what was, effectively, a flow-through of funds to a different flow-through partner. It’s like changing a payroll partner in a business. I think people would not generally expect to have a six-week interruption of being paid in a situation that was seamless or that was smooth.

I would also note that I am aware that those individuals working for export navigator have not, in fact, had a smooth experience. In fact, as it stands, all of them are still going through a bankruptcy payout process, as far as I’m aware. To the best of my knowledge, if they’re fortunate, they’ll recoup about 70 percent of what they’re owed. That’s a 30 percent haircut on amounts owed to these individuals, who the minister has described as having a seamless transition of their employment. I really hope the minister can tell us a little bit about that situation, about how she thinks that’s seamless.

I think, perhaps, really what strikes me as being most notable is that at the time when the transition was made from export navigator being reassigned to Community Futures B.C., there was actually no government announcement at that time. Every appearance suggests that government was not particularly keen to announce that change in disposition, perhaps because of the scrutiny being placed on the fallout from the collapse of Small Business B.C.

I find that particularly surprising, especially given the fact that we are currently going through a trade crisis and that trade diversification would seem to be an eminently important priority. You would think that the clients of export navigator, who had those services disrupted substantially due to the collapse of Small Business B.C. and the associated collapse of export navigator…. You’d think government would want to communicate to those people or communicate to the market that, in fact, export navigator was back up and running.

I’m really hoping the minister can just illuminate in a really honest way what actually happened with export navigator and maybe just, really specifically, talk about why there was no announcement at the time of that transition and that the only time that became public was some weeks or months later via a small Community Futures announcement in their e-newsletter, as far as I’m aware of.

In the middle of a trade war, you would think, as this government was talking about trade diversification, they’d be shouting from the hilltops about the new approach that they had taken to making sure that export navigator had continuity of operations, seamless employment, all those things.

Can the minister just walk us through the decision process there so we can understand what happened?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: As the member clearly understands, business bankruptcy was a separate organization under a trustee, which means it has its own process. It’s far more complicated than just changing a payroll partner.

Our team worked hard to ensure that the program continued, with phone calls even on Christmas Eve trying to get the contract reassigned and ensure that continuity of service for businesses. That’s because, as the member mentioned, we are in a tariff crisis, and our focus has been on ensuring that businesses had access to the program they needed during this time.

Thus, this program has been continuing to deliver business supports, providing access to 30 community-based export advisers who are specially trained and experienced professionals. These export advisers work one-on-one with businesses through three stages in the export pathway to become export ready.

Core services provided by this program include an export readiness assessment, a business needs assessment, market entry strategies support, market tools and information, and connections to support services and programs. Export-ready, export navigator clients are then referred to the trade accelerator or TIBC export services to participate in export programs, trade missions, trade shows and connections to B.C.’s trade and investment representatives.

The export navigator currently has over 400 active clients, of which 59 percent are owned by underrepresented groups and 71 percent are based in rural communities. And 27 percent of the export navigator clients begin exporting within 12 months of participating in this important program. Export navigator clients average a net increase of 28 percent in export revenue per year. The export navigator program has been co-funded by JEDI and PacifiCan, with annual funding of $1.2 million each.

Gavin Dew: Thank you. For future answers, let’s assume that I can Google and that I don’t need an overview of the entirety of the program. I am looking to get to the bottom of a very complex situation here.

[4:35 p.m.]

Given that, as the minister has said, this was a complicated situation, one of the things that I did as the critic, in trying to understand what happened, is actually ask the Auditor General to review the situation. Unfortunately, the Auditor General declined, citing the fact that Small Business B.C. may not be able to be audited since it’s being dissolved under bankruptcy proceedings.

The Auditor General specified that they do not have the mandate to conduct a performance audit of an organization like Small Business B.C., but they could normally conduct audits to determine whether organizations that received government grants complied with the grant’s terms and conditions.

I have previously made a number of requests, back in the fall, for further information on this to the ministry. The minister has described the situation as complicated. Accountability is important. Understanding and learning from failures is important.

I would ask the minister, very simply: would she agree to ask the Auditor General to review the situation around the collapse of Small Business B.C. to the fullest extent possible? If necessary, will she seek the support of her government in amending the scope of the Auditor General in order to ensure that a complete and total, fulsome forensic audit is conducted so that we can all understand what happened at Small Business B.C.?

I think this is a very easy question to say yes to, and I certainly hope it won’t take a ten-minute huddle. Thank you.

Hon. Diana Gibson: As mentioned, it is a non-profit that is not controlled by the province of B.C. The bankruptcy process is a heavily regulated process, and the trustee will issue a report at the end of that process, which we are waiting for.

[4:40 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: For the record, the minister just declined to ask the Auditor General to undertake a review of the collapse of Small Business B.C., which her government had direct oversight of and by all appearances attempted to cover up during an election. That’s just what happened. It’s really quite shocking.

But let’s move on to another lost thread with this government. When I look back to 2017, when I look back to some of the Don Wright work, I look back to the Green-NDP CASA in 2017. In that CASA, there was a mandate to establish an Emerging Economy Task Force to address the changing nature of business over the next ten to 25 years. There was also a mandate to establish an innovation commission to support innovation and business development in the technology sector.

My understanding is that the last innovation commissioner left the role sometime last year and has not been replaced. I would love to be corrected on that. My understanding, also, is that the Emerging Economy Task Force is no longer active.

Can the minister provide an update on the process for hiring a new innovation commissioner and when that might be completed? Can she provide an update on the status of the Emerging Economy Task Force and on the status of the recommendations produced by the Emerging Economy Task Force?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: For the record, I said that we should allow the trustee process to unfold and wait for the report-out.

With regards to the innovation commissioner and Emerging Economy Task Force, these were functions of the CASA. The Emerging Economy Task Force reported out in March 2020 and continues to influence the work we’re doing, as does the innovation commissioner. The influence of the innovation commissioner has helped to inform the establishment of InBC, the integrated marketplace and SIF.

The integrated marketplace has been delivering incredibly, with 30 projects, 51 businesses, $14.7 million to help businesses commercialize. Businesses in the program have gone on to not just have national sales, but international sales.

Gavin Dew: The minister seems awfully angsty about just having the Auditor General do a simple review of an obvious boondoggle. It’s really frustrating, and I really wish that the minister would get on board with transparency and support having the Auditor General do that work.

I think I just heard no answer on the innovation commissioner, and I’m going to take that as being there is no longer an innovation commissioner. I hope that perhaps, at some point, there might be an innovation commissioner again. That will be nice to hear about, and it would certainly be a continuation of commitments made to the Greens all those years ago.

Let’s talk about something different. This one should hopefully be an easier one. The provincial government has invested heavily in bringing Web Summit to Vancouver. What is the total investment across all ministries, and what measures are in place to ensure taxpayers get a return on that investment?

[4:50 p.m.]

Specifically, what is the ministry doing to ensure the economic impact of this event extends beyond downtown Vancouver and benefits innovation and entrepreneurship across the province? What actions have been undertaken in this first year of Web Summit to deliver against the mandate for a Road to Web Summit series of events and activities designed to ensure that tech innovators and entrepreneurs throughout the province have the opportunity to be engaged with and to benefit from Web Summit and from the significant investment of taxpayer dollars that has been used to bring that great event to Vancouver?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: The province has partnered with PacifiCan, Destination Vancouver, Invest Vancouver and the city of Vancouver to bring one of the world’s biggest tech conferences to B.C., Web Summit. The province is investing $2.2 million in funding to host Web Summit Vancouver this year.

The expected benefits from Web Summit Vancouver for B.C. include, but are not limited to, increased direct spending leading to provincial tax revenue, job creation, investment, trade development, venture capital attraction and an increase in B.C.’s tech brand and international profile.

Innovate B.C.’s leading sector-readiness program — so the Road to Web Summit Vancouver — to prepare start-up companies for Web Summit includes in-person and virtual events so that people and businesses from across the province can attend.

I was at a biotech event in Victoria recently, and the energy was palpable. Start-ups are so excited to be in the room. Web Summit has confirmed over 600 companies will be there, investors will be there and 15,000 guests.

The day before Web Summit, there is an investor tour around Metro Vancouver, and companies will have a chance to pitch to a global audience. This is an opportunity to put B.C. start-ups on the world stage and ensure that not just the Road to Web Summit preps them but that the event itself is a global stage for B.C. companies.

I’m hoping that I will see the member opposite there while we put B.C. on the world stage.

Gavin Dew: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate the invitation. I would love nothing more. Certainly a big supporter of Web Summit. I think it has a potential to have huge impact for Vancouver and British Columbia.

I do appreciate that there’s a one-day tour of Metro Vancouver, but I do want to flag some concern that has been expressed by a variety of different economic groups and innovation groups outside of Vancouver and the Lower Mainland around the extent of funding going into support for Web Summit without a significant regional strategy that reaches beyond Metro Vancouver.

It was brought to my attention recently that the Northern Innovation Network has lost its funding. I understand that there will no longer be core funding of $210,000 to Innovate B.C., and there has been no extension of services funding, previously of $472,000 over three years, through the REDIP-FIT program.

[5:00 p.m.]

As a result of that, several northern regions will lose all access to a tech accelerator, just as we should be thinking about diversifying our economy, and we should be thinking about resource innovation, and we should be thinking about supporting economic growth throughout the entirety of the province, not just in the Lower Mainland.

Could the minister expand on the approach that government is taking to ensure that innovation ecosystem funding is flowing to all regions of the province? Can she commit to reviewing the loss of funding for Northern Innovation Network and similar organizations and ensuring that that funding is duly restored to make sure that we’re able to strengthen our innovation ecosystem all around the province? Thanks so much.

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: The venture accelerator program continues to be available to businesses from across B.C., including rural and remote regions.

Innovate B.C. is working to leverage federal funding for ongoing regional innovation networks. Trade and Invest B.C., in partnership with regional economic operations of JEDI, is hosting a regional showcase event in conjunction with Web Summit, where regional economic development offices are invited to showcase their businesses to investors and the world stage at Web Summit.

The Chair: The Chair will call a short recess for ten minutes. We need to return at 5:15.

The committee recessed from 5:05 p.m. to 5:16 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Gavin Dew: Before the break, we heard the minister confirm that there will apparently be no return of funding for the Northern Innovation Network.

Let’s shift gears to a bit of a different issue. According to the Business Council of B.C., the underground economy in B.C. may account for 10 percent or more of the province’s GDP. One of the areas where there’s a significant underground economy is in the cannabis sector, where estimates suggest that approximately two-thirds of the sector remains underground. In fact, there’s solid evidence to suggest that the sector is actually moving back underground as a result of policy failures by both the federal and provincial governments.

As of 2024, sales of regulated cannabis reached or exceeded $6 billion, and B.C. is already home to some of the most celebrated brands. But there are significant challenges facing the sector, including but not limited to excessive taxation, illicit market pricing and the effect of the BCLDB’s 15 percent proprietary fee on margin crunch for those individuals as they do direct delivery.

There have been a fairly substantial number of different, solid recommendations coming out of professional groups and organizations in the regulated cannabis sector, including the idea of introducing a B.C. cannabis jobs tax credit; establishing a cannabis innovation and agritech fund; establishing cannabis manufacturing and processing grants; removing the farm status exemption, which would allow cannabis growers to access the same benefits as other farms; adjusting farm-gate licensing fees to align with other agricultural sectors; permitting indoor consumption with licensed production retail stores; enforcing the current regulations; or publicly endorsing a 10 percent ad valorem excise tax as a change to the federal tax approach.

When I talk to stakeholders in that sector, one of their great frustrations is that they can’t figure out who’s actually in charge of thinking about cannabis as an economic development challenge in the province, despite the size of the market.

When I tried to figure that out, I actually went onto the email directory, and I found that there exists an email address for “economic development, cannabis” under the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation that formerly employed or that apparently is associated with somebody named Bianca Wallace. But nobody in the sector seems to know who’s actually responsible for addressing that particular large, growing sector, from an economic development perspective.

Can the minister provide an update on who’s in charge of thinking through the economic development challenges and opportunities around cannabis? Has the government, in the years since legalization, developed or released a comprehensive economic development strategy for the regulated cannabis sector, including specific actions to support growth, investment and the transition from an unregulated market?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: PSSG ministry has a cannabis secretariat that oversees all non-medical cannabis policy. With relation to tax and financial issues, it’s best to ask the Finance Ministry.

Gavin Dew: Then why is there an email address for cannabis economic development under JEDI?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: That email stems from JEDI’s involvement when the legalization process was happening and is in the process of being transferred.

Gavin Dew: I would just reiterate the disappointment of stakeholders at the lack of an economic development orientation toward a growing sector. It strikes me, based on my conversations with stakeholders, that there has been no effort to shift the thinking around that particular sector into thinking of it as a regulated industry that needs to be dealt with from an economic development perspective and that has the potential to not only grow but also to repatriate revenue so that it’s taxed by government instead of by gangs.

Let’s talk a little bit about life sciences and efforts to strengthen the commercialization pipeline from research to innovation to commercialization. There’s a lot we could talk about on this front, but just a couple of questions here.

Firstly, what is the ministry doing to coordinate with the Ministry of Health, given the extent to which market access for innovative medicines is a driver of life sciences investment in the province? There is a considerable degree of frustration at the listing timelines and other dynamics with innovative medicines in B.C.

Secondly, what is the government doing or the ministry doing to address the shortage of wet labs in British Columbia?

Thirdly, will the minister consider, in light of the lack of engagement with industry over the last number of years, implementing something akin to the Ontario advisory model, along the lines of the Ontario Life Sciences Council? That brought together leaders from industry, academia and health care to advise the government on policies and strategies in order to strengthen the life sciences sector.

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: B.C.’s life sciences strategy was developed in partnership with Life Sciences B.C. and the Minister of Health. It was a collaborative initiative. In fact, we won a partnership award for the collaboration associated with that life sciences strategy. Life Sciences B.C. is a highly effective agency representing organizations from across that sector, and we meet with them very regularly.

Under our life sciences B.C. strategy, wet labs are part of our strategy. We have been investing in wet labs and mentor spaces with the adMare BioInnovations facility, in which we invested $10 million; Vancouver Island Life Sciences, our biomanufacturing training facility, where we’re investing in the training pipeline and talent pipeline; and additional biomanufacturing capacity in anchor companies, with AbCellera’s expansion, Aspect Biosystems and TRIUMF B.C. cancer radiation.

We’ve also moved from just the manufacturing into clinical trials, as well, and been investing, co-investing and leveraging federal investment dollars in the clinical trials unit at Mount Saint Joseph’s and the endowed UBC pharmacology chair.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate that and appreciate the good work of all those organizations in that sector.

The Minister of Energy recently confirmed that this government is in support of expanding the capacity of the Trans Mountain Pipeline again, specifically by dredging Burrard Inlet to allow fully laden Aframax tankers to carry oil.

Can the minister expand on the role that Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation will play in the expansion of this market access pipeline or the expansion of its effective capacity, whether that’s through mechanical means, chemical means or through the previously mentioned dredging of Burrard Inlet to allow fully laden Aframax tankers?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: I believe, as you mentioned, that you had canvassed this already with the Minister of Environment, and I think it was pointed out that this largely sits with the federal government, as most of it’s federally regulated.

Gavin Dew: That was with the Minister of Energy, who specifically confirmed that there were a number of different federal and provincial dimensions to it. I would cast the minister’s mind back to the previous efforts of her government to use every tool in the toolkit and every permit to obstruct the original construction of the pipeline.

I do just want to stay on the subject of pipelines. I cast my mind back to 2005, when the minister wrote a paper called Back to Hewers of Wood and Drawers of Water: Energy, Trade and the Demise of Petrochemicals in Alberta. That report argued that Alberta’s reliance on raw exports, like unrefined oil sands bitumen, and free trade policies was undermining value-added industry and jobs.

I would also remind the minister of her work with Firelight research cooperative, during which time she co-led research for First Nations concerned about the impacts of pipelines, mines and other resource developments.

I just wanted to double-check: is the minister personally on board with this government’s pro-pipeline agenda to build both oil and gas pipelines and support trade-enabling infrastructure? Is she personally on board?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: I believe that you canvassed the Minister of Energy on the project, and it has been answered.

Gavin Dew: Is the minister personally supportive of expanding pipelines through British Columbia? Simple question, very important. This is a ministry that has a crucial role to play in economic development. This is the minister that oversees trade, that oversees a Team Canada approach to trade, that talks frequently about Team Canada, that talks about collaborating with other provinces, that talks about the importance of a unified strategy.

This is a government that says it wants to work toward an overall national strategy on exports. This is a government that very recently has indicated that alongside the Carney government, this government is supportive of expanding the effective capacity of the Trans Mountain oil pipeline by dredging Burrard Inlet to allow fully laden Aframax tankers to transit, in order to get more Team Canada oil to international markets.

So I think this should be a really, really simple question, and I hope the minister can just let me know, is she personally on board with that agenda?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: The government has been very clear with its plan to expedite projects and publish the list which makes it really clear what the government’s position is, and it includes everything from critical minerals and energy to wind and solar.

The government is continuing to work, as am I with my team, to fast-track projects on that list.

Gavin Dew: That wasn’t an answer whatsoever.

The question is very, very simple. In recent days the Minister of Energy has made explicitly clear that this government and this Premier, in conjunction with this Prime Minister, actively support dredging Burrard Inlet to allow fully laden oil tankers to transit, so that we can get Team Canada oil to world markets as part of a Team Canada approach to diversifying our trade away from the United States of America.

I would think that the Minister for Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation, who oversees the trade portfolio, would be able to provide a simple answer as to whether she supports this government’s agenda on that matter. That seems like a very simple request to make, and if the minister is not able or willing to answer that question, it gives me very deep concern about the unity of this NDP caucus.

Let me just try this again. Will the minister confirm that she is on board with the government’s stated agenda, in collaboration with the federal Liberal government, of enabling and moving forward dredging Burrard Inlet to allow fully laden Aframax tankers, full of Team Canada oil, to get to world markets? Or will she at least confirm that she will recuse herself or remove herself from any decisions in which her own personal anti-energy or anti-oil biases might prevent her from being able to move this project forward in the most effective way possible?

I’m just looking for a really simple answer that I think should not require a ten-minute huddle.

Hon. Diana Gibson: As a member of cabinet, I support cabinet decisions, and this has been asked and answered.

Gavin Dew: I note that the minister is unable or unwilling to state her personal views on the matter, but we’ll move on.

On that same issue, though, there’s a news article out today in which the B.C. Green Party, who are currently in a confidence agreement with the NDP, “expressed surprise at the government position on the dredging of Burrard Inlet to allow fully laden Aframax tankers,” which they did not learn about until I asked questions about it of the Minister of Energy in the Legislature.

To quote the MLA for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky: “I hadn’t even heard about this until Gavin Dew asked in estimates, and I was a little bit surprised by the answer.”

Casting our mind to the Green-NDP agreement in principle here, I notice that under section 5, implementation, the parties “agree to work in good faith and with no surprises. This means both parties commit to open and honest communication on areas related to the agreement. It includes advance notice of major policy shifts on areas that are outside of but may impact the agreement.”

Would the minister characterize this as a major policy shift?

The Chair: Member, could you please explain for the Chair how this is relevant to the estimates?

Gavin Dew: I absolutely will. Unfortunately, the minister has been unable to provide a clear answer as to whether she will support the government’s direction in terms of dredging Burrard Inlet. That’s a crucial area. Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation has a role to play. Trade is a crucial aspect. Negotiating with our neighbouring provinces around trade-enabling infrastructure is a crucial aspect.

I think this is a very easy, simple question. I think it’s a very, very simple one, with an easy answer.

[5:50 p.m.]

Again, does the minister believe that the decision to support dredging Burrard Inlet to allow fully laden Aframax tankers comprises a major policy shift on the part of the government, in light of the fact that it previously opposed this pipeline?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: As minister responsible for trade and trade diversification in this moment, any opportunity that we have in British Columbia to expand our export capacity is something we’re looking at seriously. Everything that goes through our ports right now, whether that’s potash, grain, cars, even….

There are so many resources that we’re exporting and so much that’s being exported from our province and from across the country at our major ports. Exporting from our ports is something that we’re looking at seriously, every opportunity that we can, to increase. Right now, we need to grow our capacity at our ports to export, and we’ll continue to do that.

Gavin Dew: I note the minister conspicuously avoided saying oil, which her government supports exporting more of via our ports, constituting a major policy shift from years of obstructionism on that particular pipeline, which helped drive the cost up to $34 billion and require a nationalization. It strikes me as a major policy shift and something that, maybe, the Greens want to know about. But hey, what do I know? I’ll let you guys figure out your own agreement.

Let’s talk about private sector jobs. There are so many different studies with so many different timelines around public sector versus private sector job creation in the province of British Columbia. Here’s one from December of 2024 from the Business Council of British Columbia, with whom the minister met last week.

“Public sector payrolls have swelled by 45,000 over the past two years while the number of employees in the private sector advanced by a paltry 15,000. The result is that over the past two years, there have been three people hired in the public sector for every new employee in the private sector. Over the past five years, that ratio is even higher, at about 4.4 to 1.” That’s 4.4 to 1 in favour of public sector hiring.

Most economists and labour market theorists would suggest that it should be the opposite. It should be in the four to five range, in terms of four to five private sector jobs to support one public sector job. So we’ve had massive growth and, according to the budget, a 41 percent increase in the size of public sector employment in the life of this government.

Meanwhile, we’ve got this little problem with private sector growth, and that is that it really hasn’t grown. While our public sector is growing at three times the rate of the rest of Canada, we’re actually significantly below trend on private sector jobs.

If you look at another analysis, also from the Business Council of British Columbia, and you actually look at what the trend line was from January 2013 to December of 2019, and you then project that trend line forward to today, and then you compare that to actuals, we’re actually 9 percent below that trend line in terms of private sector growth. The net effect is that we’re actually missing 286,000 private sector jobs relative to what the trend line was up until December of 2019.

That seems like a bit of a problem. In light of that fact, just a very simple question: what does the minister believe is an appropriate ratio of public sector to private sector job creation in the province of British Columbia going forward?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: I’m quite sure the member isn’t suggesting that we not hire front-line health care workers, nurses or teachers and people to work in our school system with record population growth. I’m sure the member opposite isn’t suggesting that we not hire front-line workers to deliver core services people need, especially as we navigate challenging times. These are the people in our community that are out eating at restaurants, buying winter coats and getting haircuts for their kids, supporting our local small businesses. That’s what helps our communities thrive — both together.

B.C. has had private sector job growth. In 2024, we added 35,800 private sector jobs, and from 2017 to 2024, we added 165,000 private sector jobs. B.C. outperforms most provinces in self-employment job creation, and this reflects a supportive entrepreneurial environment.

Gavin Dew: I didn’t hear a ratio there. It seems as if this government has a strange belief that supporting private sector job growth means opposing the presence of a public sector. That couldn’t be further from the truth. The reality is that this government has massively swollen the size of government and has not grown the economy to pay for it, so now we face very, very real fiscal challenges and very real labour market challenges.

Just to try to bring some depth to this conversation, I’ll ask a few questions. I understand that the minister can’t provide a response right now, but I’d appreciate it if the ministry would table some analysis and response.

Has the ministry modelled the distortionary effect of rapid public sector hiring on the availability of talent for start-ups, scale-ups and established companies, particularly in areas like data science and software engineering?

Can the minister provide a five-year trend analysis on median wage growth in B.C.’s private sector versus the public sector and explain how diverging trends affect labour mobility, inflation pressures and long-term fiscal sustainability?

Finally, what is the current ratio of average total compensation, including pensions and benefits, in the public versus private sector in B.C.? What is the ministry doing to ensure that this imbalance does not distort labour market incentives or create retention challenges for private employers?

[6:05 p.m.]

In other words, what is the ministry doing about the crowding-out effect, where such a massive increase in public sector hiring is actually crowding talent out of the private sector just as we need to grow the private sector — again, grow the private sector to pay for the public sector?

I hope that I can get a detailed analysis of those factors undertaken by the ministry so we can actually be thoughtful about this conversation, not just revert to tired ideology.

Again, I would ask the minister to please provide an indication of what ratio of public sector to private sector job growth she believes is appropriate. I would remind her that the general target ratio economists talk about is five-to-one private sector to public sector and that we are currently doing roughly the opposite. So just a simple number. What’s the right ratio that her ministry is targeting as the Ministry for Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation?

Hon. Diana Gibson: There are an awful lot of questions in that question, so our ministry will get back to you on that.

Gavin Dew: I will look forward to receiving an answer in writing from the ministry to all those questions, including an identified target for the ratio of public sector to private sector job creation in the province. I look forward to seeing that.

Let’s talk about marginal effective tax rates. If you look at the history of marginal effective tax rates, British Columbia has gone from being middle of the pack in around 2005, competitive in 2011, high in around 2013 and as of 2020, the highest in Canada. So we actually have a really high marginal effective tax rate, and I would like to understand how the minister believes that is affecting economic development in the province.

Specifically, what assessment has the ministry done of the elasticity of private capital investment with respect to provincial policy changes, including increased regulation, tax shift, our growing marginal effective tax rate and labour costs? What are the affected long-run consequences for capital flight or disinvestment?

[6:10 p.m.]

I’d like to understand, again, that overall approach to addressing the growing tax burden, addressing the growing regulatory burden, but very specifically, I’d like to understand how this ministry is thinking about the implications of our nationally leading marginal effective tax rate.

Hon. Diana Gibson: That question is the purview of the Minister of Finance, and we suggest you canvass them.

Gavin Dew: The question was very specifically about not the tax itself, but the implications of our marginal effective tax rate on investment and economic development. It’s an area that I expect that probably was discussed when the minister met last week with the Business Council of British Columbia.

I think that it’s certainly very reasonable to inquire as to whether improving the marginal effective tax rate would have an effect on investment, on economic development and all those other areas.

[6:15 p.m.]

Maybe I’ll just go to another history question and look back to the minister’s former role with Canadians for Tax Fairness, where she called for a crackdown on tax havens and said that history has shown us, unambiguously, that it’s preferable to raise taxes on those with high incomes than to cut spending.

In fact, specifically during Newfoundland and Labrador’s deficit crisis, which is quite comparable to the deficit crisis that we now face, the minister toured the province to propose alternatives. She said: “There’s no reason why fairness cannot be reinstated in the income tax structures. Corporate taxes could be higher. Don’t let corporations and the wealthy off the hook.”

I do just really want to understand how the minister squares that thinking with her current role. I’d really like to understand whether she thinks that we will be better able to attract investment and economic development in the province of British Columbia if we worked on our marginal effective tax rate or if she believes that corporate taxes should be higher.

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: As the member opposite knows, when firms look to invest, they look at many, many factors, including things like a stable political environment; an educated workforce; permitting timelines; an innovation ecosystem; research opportunities, like research universities; talent pipelines; infrastructure; and overall cost — things like health care costs, which create a competitive advantage for us over states that haven’t got public health care.

As the member mentioned, B.C. Business Council mentioned that I met with them just recently, and priorities that they identified for us are things that we’re already working on: permitting timelines and ease of doing business and interprovincial trade. These are areas where we’re heavily focused on finding action.

I just want to read in the foreign direct investment numbers to show the trend that we have. B.C.’s doing very well on attracting foreign investment because we offer so much. B.C. has exactly what is needed around those factors that businesses are looking for. In 2022, it was $1.97 billion; 2023, $2.79 billion; and 2024, $3.59 billion. It’s showing a very positive trend and good level of foreign investment.

Teresa Wat: As the Trade critic, I would like to ask a question about trade, but I see I’m running out of time. I’d like to give a little bit of context before I ask the question.

On December 30, 2019, with little attention during, of course, Christmas and New Year’s period, the then minister responsible for Trade, Bruce Ralston, announced that government was closing 13 standalone B.C. trade offices in Asia. The province said the contractor service roles would now be embedded in Canadian embassies in star position.

But when NDP took over in 2017, the effectiveness of the standalone B.C. trade offices has never been publicly questioned. Indeed, this government has touted the presence and the growth of Asian trade and investment in the B.C. economy, noting in its 2018 study an exceptional return on the investment in the offices: $450 million in export deals, nearly $1.4 billion in investment and more than 4,600 private sector jobs.

Then this government has refused to release a subsequent consultant’s report, despite several requests under the FOI Act. But those who have seen the consultant report said it did not recommend closure at all. Even the federal embassies were caught by surprise about the announcement, and they said they were not consulted ahead of time, despite Ralston’s assertions.

Since the then minister said the closure is a cost-saving measure, can this minister tell us whether the government has some statistics to show how much this ministry has saved by changing the model? And since I don’t have time to ask another question, is there a performance measure to show the public with the changing of this trade office model?

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: We did not close offices. What we did was we moved to a co-located model, where our offices are co-located in the embassy, which creates the opportunity of having the calling card of the maple leaf, which opens doors that have been super advantageous for our Trade and Invest team and our businesses in B.C. This is a model that the other provinces had, including Saskatchewan and, out east, Ontario and Quebec, which was giving them an advantage over B.C.

Trade and Invest representatives have annual performance measures for the number of trade and investment opportunities they support, the number and value of trade and investment deals they facilitate. They also have targets for the number of underrepresented groups they support and the number of promotional campaigns they organize.

In fiscal year 2023-24, the ministry recorded a total of 28 investment deals, at an estimated $321.8 million in value; 103 trade deals, at an estimated $102.3 million; and supported 801 opportunities for the entire network.

Of those that are collected in Asian offices, 14 investment deals, at an estimated $101 million; 98 trade deals, at an estimated $66.6 million; and 477 opportunities were supported.

Thus far, for the fiscal year ’24-25, as of February, the ministry recorded a total of 20 investment deals, at an estimated $1.1 billion; 96 trade deals, at an estimated $56 million; and supported 734 opportunities for the entire network, as of February 14, 2025.

[6:30 p.m.]

Of those that are co-located in Asian offices, 11 investment deals, at an estimated $58.1 million; 62 trade deals, estimated at $36.9 million; and 433 opportunities were supported.

We are seeing closer collaboration between the B.C. and federal teams across the globe on joint trade and investment activities and information-sharing. That’s the calling card. Co-location in embassies and consulates allows B.C.’s trade and invest representatives to leverage the Canada brand to attract and grow B.C.’s network of business contacts for the B.C. exporters we serve and the foreign investors we engage.

We maintain 37 trade and investment representatives across Japan, South Korea, China, Southeast Asia and India, including new trade and investment representatives in Taiwan and Vietnam — markets not served under the previous contracted model.

The physical space where B.C.’s trade and investment representatives work is not material to the trade and investment outcomes they achieve. Co-location in embassies and consulates allows B.C.’s trade and investment representatives to leverage the Canada brand to attract and grow B.C.’s network of business contacts for the B.C. exporters we serve and the foreign investors we engage.

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much on behalf of myself and my colleague, the MLA for Richmond-Bridgeport. I appreciate the time today. I appreciate the spirited but engaged conversation, and I look forward to continuing our engagement over the years to come.

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

Hon. Diana Gibson: I’ll keep it short. Thank you so much to the member opposite for the questions and for the opportunity to engage. I look forward to engaging further.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, and all members. Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

Vote 38: ministry operations, $116,223,000 — approved.

The Chair: We will now take a short recess to allow the next ministry to prepare.

The committee recessed from 6:32 p.m. to 6:42 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Estimates: Ministry of
Transportation and Transit

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Transit.

On Vote 45: ministry operations, $1,191,816,000.

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

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Just very briefly, I am looking forward to these estimates in a new ministry, after a number of years in the previous ministry of PSSG.

I’m joined by capable staff: Heather Wood, my deputy minister; Paula Cousins, my assistant deputy minister; Heather Hill, my EFO; and Darrell Gunn, the senior director for the north of the province.

I look forward to an interesting discussion on the estimates of this ministry, which does some incredible work around the province. With that, I will await questions.

The Chair: I now recognize the member for Langley-Abbotsford. Would you like to make any opening remarks?

Harman Bhangu: Thank you very much, Speaker, and I appreciate the opportunity to come here and ask some well-needed questions. I’d like to hand the floor over to my colleague from Prince George–North Cariboo.

Sheldon Clare: In a letter from the minister to my office dated April 4, 2025, the minister described the Quesnel north-south interconnector preliminary design work as having “the addition of two lanes to the Quesnel River Bridge and the Quesnel rail overhead bridge.” On the ministry’s own website about the Quesnel north-south interconnector, the project, as presented, has a four-lane design with “two new superstructures to replace the Quesnel River Bridge and the Quesnel rail crossing bridge.”

Would the minister please clarify if the ministry intends to replace the Quesnel River Bridge and Quesnel rail crossing with two new four-lane bridges, or if the ministry plans to add two lanes to the existing Quesnel River Bridge and the Quesnel Rail Crossing Bridge?

[6:45 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. At this time, the focus is on the Quesnel overhead and the rehabilitation of the two lanes on that and also about maintaining the safety of the two particular bridges.

We are still in the process of determining future needs as to whether it may well be, in the future, four lanes. But at this point, the focus is on safety and the overhead of the two lanes in terms of being rehabilitated. The four lanes are possible in the future, but that still has to be determined.

Sheldon Clare: What additional phases are required, and what are the associated costs of said phases to advance the Quesnel north-south interconnector from the preliminary design phase to construction phase?

[6:50 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Again, I appreciate the question from the member. Preliminary work has been done. What’s happening now is the focus on the rehabilitation and the safety, which I just outlined in the previous question. The next stage would be to look at advanced design, which would then be part of the process of moving it up to becoming part of the capital program.

Sheldon Clare: What is the current construction cost estimate for the Quesnel north-south interconnector project as a whole?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I can tell the member that it would be a very expensive project. You wouldn’t know the exact cost until you’d got all your engineering done, your design work done and you go out to tender. I can tell you it’ll be over $1 billion in today’s dollars.

Sheldon Clare: It has been indicated that the replacement of the Quesnel River Bridge is required within 15 years, at a cost of approximately $400 million. Is this cost estimate based on a new four-lane superstructure, as per the Quesnel north-south interconnector preliminary design? Or is it based on the replacement of the existing Quesnel River Bridge, on the existing alignment, with two lanes?

[6:55 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. That estimate of the $400 million was based on replacing both structures. It was based on either a four-lane structure or two, two-lane structures. That was an estimate roughly in 2021.

Sheldon Clare: The minister has indicated to me and the member for Langley-Abbotsford that the Quesnel River Bridge and Quesnel rail crossing bridge remain in a safe and serviceable condition and receive regular inspections by qualified personnel.

Who are the qualified personnel, and what does regular inspections mean? Multiple times a year? Once a year? Every two years? Are these structural engineering inspections?

[7:00 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. All bridges in this province are inspected every year by qualified professionals. On top of that, older structures, such as the ones you’re talking about, receive a detailed assessment every few years by structural engineers.

Sheldon Clare: Would the minister please advise as to when the last inspection by a structural engineer of these two particular structures was done?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: The fall of 2023.

Sheldon Clare: I thank the minister for the responses to the questions.

I would like to move to the Cariboo Road recovery projects. How much money to date, including the announcement made by the ministry last week, has been spent on the Cariboo Road recovery projects, and what is the current value of the Cariboo Road recovery projects?

Also, does the Cache Creek crossing restoration project fall within the Cariboo Road recovery projects?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. In terms of Cache Creek, no, it’s not part of the program.

In terms of the amount that has been spent, over the last two years, it’s been $30 million, much of that on the planning stage. And then over the next three years, $630 million has been committed to the program.

Sheldon Clare: I have documentation prepared by the Ministry of Transportation and Transit from mid-April that the Cariboo Road recovery projects are valued at $1.2 billion. Has the valuation changed since mid-April, and where has that differential gone?

[7:05 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. The difference between the two figures is that the $1.2 billion is joint funding from both the feds and the province for the DFAA, which is the disaster financial assistance arrangement. The $630 million is over the next three years for projects that already, now, have gotten the engineering and can be constructed.

There will be other projects, because it goes past the three years, that are in what you would call a preliminary stage right now that will be accessing that funding as they come into the appropriate stage where they can be built.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for your responses to the questions so far.

Speaking of other projects, I would like to now move to the Quesnel-Hixon Road. On the Quesnel-Hixon Road situation, according to Ministry of Transportation documents: “Engineer assessments deemed the cost to re-establish the Quesnel-Hixon Road was in the hundreds of millions.”

While we understand the decision was made to prioritize the reliability of Highway 97 at the Cottonwood slide, can the minister please clarify the considerations of the engineering assessment as well as specific cost estimates of the engineering assessment to re-establish Quesnel-Hixon Road? What specific dollar amount does “hundreds of millions” mean?

[7:10 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. In the particular case of the slide we’re talking about that took place on that road…. When something like that happens, our staff works with outside professionals to look at what has taken place and do the technical work to understand what options there are. The number that they came back with, that you’re looking for, was over $300 million.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for the clear answer to the question.

I’d like to move now to Durrell Road. We had a preliminary chat about that today. On April 30, the ministry announced the permanent closure of 400 metres of Durrell Road, to the surprise and concern of constituents and my office alike.

The minister’s letter to my office, dated April 4, stated: “Regarding Durrell Road, technical work on this project is near completion.” The Durrell Road project had two options, option 1 being an extension to Brotherhood Road to intersect with Dale Lake Road north of the slide area and option 2 being the rehabilitation of the slide-affected 400-metre stretch of Durrell Road.

What were the technical reasons for why the ministry decided to permanently close the slide portion of Durrell Road? What were the cost estimates for option 1 of the Durrell Road project, being the extension of Brotherhood Road to intersect with the Dale Lake Road; and for option 2, being the rehabilitation of Durrell Road at the slide event?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. Two things. In terms of the stabilization that was required for the stretch of road that we’re talking about, it’s about $50 million.

[7:15 p.m.]

In terms of the technical details, that’s not quite what we have here today, but what I’d be happy to do is arrange for the member a technical briefing with the geotechnical engineer who is specific to the particular site that we’re discussing here.

Sheldon Clare: I appreciate the answer. I do have one other question about Durrell Road.

Did the ministry consider the ramifications of the permanent closure of 400 metres of Durrell Road, including fire service coverage for the residents east of the closure; the extended time for school bus commuting; the increased cost for residents on their home and property insurance; the increased emissions due to extended travel times and distance for residents and commercial, government and industrial road users; and critically, the extended time and distance for wildfire response from the south, including the Kersley volunteer fire department, to Dragon Mountain Park, which hosts north Cariboo’s critical communications infrastructure, which I had the fortune to visit just the other day?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. Yeah, I can tell you that we do take all those factors into account. We also did consult with the regional district on impacts such as fire service, for example. I can confirm — because when we had our brief conversation earlier, you mentioned issues around fire insurance — that fire service is there on both sides. Insurance is tied to that provision of those services.

But if the member has anything contrary to that, let us know. We’re more than happy to take a look at it.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for your response. I look forward to further dialogue on that particular issue.

I only have a couple of other questions. Regarding Highway 26 at Stanley, can the minister provide an update on long-term solutions to the slide event on Highway 26 near Stanley, west of the district of Wells? There is a temporary bridge that has been installed. Are there plans for a permanent solution?

[7:20 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: The work is still being done in terms of engineering and understanding exactly what would be the ideal replacement, whether that be a new bridge or a culvert. In the meantime, the current structure will continue to be in place and be maintained.

Sheldon Clare: Terribly sorry to hear that.

A question about the Ministry of Transportation and Transit office in Quesnel. Since the end of March, the Quesnel Ministry of Transportation and Transit office has been closed to the public. What are the current staffing levels at the Quesnel and Williams Lake offices compared to five-year averages? How many staff positions are temporary? How many are currently vacant? And what is the timeline for the reopening of the Quesnel Ministry of Transportation and Transit office to the public?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. The specific numbers we will get you — those numbers that you’ve asked for. But in the meantime, what I can tell you is that we are endeavouring to staff those positions in the Quesnel office. It’s not closed — like closed, closed. It’s still available by appointment by members of the public. If I could give you a timeline, I would give you a timeline, but we would like to get that open. In the meantime, Williams Lake is, in essence, the full service.

The other thing I would also add is that there are no plans, in case anybody is wondering, to close the Quesnel office.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the answer, to the minister.

Regarding the Port of Vancouver, Port of Prince Rupert, inland ports and CN intermodal terminals, I would like to move to the effects of the growing stockpiling, congestion and reductions in shipping traffic at the Port of Vancouver and Port of Prince Rupert.

[7:25 p.m.]

Last week Millar Western announced the temporary curtailment of Quesnel River Pulp, resulting in the layoff of some 90 workers. This decision in part was due to the growing stockpiling congestion at the Port of Vancouver.

Can the minister elaborate as to the situation at the Port of Vancouver, Port of Prince Rupert and inland ports at Prince George and Terrace, as well as CN intermodal terminals as far as actual or anticipated stockpiling and congestion is concerned?

Has the minister considered what the adverse effects of anticipated or actual reductions in international shipping traffic are for supply chain networks in the province?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

[The bells were rung.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Let’s just see how many bells. One. Two. Three.

The Chair: A division has been called in the chamber, and we will be taking a recess.

The committee recessed from 7:28 p.m. to 8:08 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, section A, back to order. I recognize the minister to continue his remarks.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question that the member asked me before.

I’ll start by saying that this is a very complex issue in the sense that ports are federal. The terminal operators, private sector, decide what gets stored and what flows through. That’s based on ships coming in to take product to whatever destination.

We are in a challenging time right now in terms of both south of the border and in the rest of the world because of what’s happening south of the border. All of those things impact supply chains. All of those things are outside of the control of the province.

Are we concerned about it? Absolutely. That’s why different ministries are working on different aspects of the challenges that we face, both internally, in terms of within British Columbia, but also nationally, when it comes to supply chains and the issues around….

Whether it’s ports or rail corridors, we do pay close attention to what’s going on and work as much as possible in terms of whether there are issues with the regulatory authorities who have some jurisdiction in those particular areas.

That’s the answer that I can give you at this point.

Sheldon Clare: Thanks to the minister and the staff for the responses to the questions.

I just have one final question before I hand over. The CVSE station near Red Rock was destroyed in a fire under suspicious circumstances.

[8:10 p.m.]

What is the status of the investigation, and when do we expect to see that particular scale restored to operational status?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. It’s a high priority for us. The design work is underway, and we expect construction on the new scale to start early next year.

In terms of the investigation, that’s really up to the RCMP. I can tell you from my time in my previous ministry that they will do their investigation, and at some point, they will let us know. But in the meantime, that’s in their hands.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister and the staff for their answers to the question. I appreciate all of the time that they’re all spending here this evening to serve the public.

I would now like to hand it over to the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.

Lynne Block: To the minister, I will just preface that I’m not going to ask about any infrastructure, but I’m excited that the new minister — the new policies, whatever — is living on the north shore. I’m thrilled, because I know that that will be a new endeavor to get, maybe, bridges or a third transit or something. Anyway, thank you.

Transit and transportation planning on the north shore, especially in my riding, West Vancouver–Capilano, and around Capilano University, is fundamentally failing the communities it is meant to serve.

In Eagle Harbour and Lower Caulfeild in West Vancouver, students living just beyond a rigid 4.8 kilometre radius are entirely without school or public transport and transit to Rockridge Secondary. This arbitrary boundary leaves middle-income families scrambling for costly ride-shares and inconvenient carpools — or considering relocation — while putting teens at risk on dark, unlit routes like Westport and Headland Drive.

The situation is even more dire at Capilano University. The cancellation of direct regional routes like the 239 has turned previously manageable commutes into 1½ hour, three transfer marathons. Overloaded alternatives like route 245 are routinely packed and unreliable, especially during peak student hours.

Despite CapU being situated in a designated “transit-oriented development” zone, it has been completely bypassed by recent expansions, including the new R2 RapidBus extension and the upcoming bus rapid transit, BRT, line.

This mismatch between policy and practice reveals a growing disconnect. While government and planners tout sustainability and density, on the ground, transit access is regressing. Car dependence is rising, road congestion is worsening, and the very green goals — like Teenz Bus It and reduced vehicle use — are being undermined by poor infrastructure and planning.

[8:15 p.m.]

At its core, the problem isn’t funding; it’s focus. Transit dollars are being directed toward high-profile regional corridors while essential local services are neglected. Until this imbalance is corrected, the north shore will continue to see strained families, unsafe commutes and missed opportunities for true climate resilience and equity.

To the minister, why is the ministry allowing essential communities like Eagle Harbour, Lower Caulfeild and Capilano University to be excluded from reliable transit, despite provincial commitments to equity, safety and sustainability? What concrete actions will be taken to close these service gaps in this next fiscal year?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I have a couple of questions that will assist in the formation of my answer. I know CapU is in the district of North Vancouver, correct? The other two communities you mentioned, are they in North Vancouver as well, or are they in West Vancouver?

Lynne Block: The other two are in West Vancouver. I’m West Vancouver–Capilano, and a lot of my students go to Capilano University, and there’s the glitch.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member as well as the clarification, because that has some bearing on my answer.

In terms of the bus routes themselves, the province doesn’t have a role in that. What we do, though, is help fund the investment plan. That’s where we put in the $312 million this year for TransLink to be able to provide service expansion. That money, along with what TransLink is doing, is going to result in a 5 percent expansion in terms of provision of service. That’s the largest expansion since 2018.

I understand the member’s concern about the large projects which get a lot of attention. Those are capital projects that are funded separately.

In terms of the individual bus routes or transit routes that the member is concerned about, those are decided by TransLink at that local level, involving the Mayors Council. And so part and parcel of that would be to raise those specific routes with, I guess, the mayor of West Vancouver, who would be, I think, Mark Sager. And then in terms of Capilano, it would be the district of North Vancouver.

[8:20 p.m.]

My hope would be, and I guess your hope would be, that the money that’s been given and the ability to expand…. Part of the expansion is to be focused in those underserved areas where there are significant gaps and significant demand. From what you’ve described to me, it sounds like that is one of those areas that should be a priority for where the decisions around the expansion and that 5 percent increase in service take place. I know other areas are, for example, in the south end of the south side of the Fraser.

Lynne Block: Thank you for the answer. I do appreciate that. I will review that.

I just want to let you know they had a big….

The Chair: Member, questions and comments are through the Chair.

Lynne Block: Through the Chair, my comment is that they just did a redevelopment of the Phibbs Exchange. The problem is they didn’t put any bathrooms in. So maybe that’s something that we could look at as well.

Anyway, the other question I do have is with what you’ve just said. Capilano University is designated as a transit-oriented development zone. So if I wish better transit from West Vancouver to Capilano University, you’ve been telling me that it’s through the mayors. Is that correct? And TransLink, is that correct?

The Chair: Member.

Lynne Block: Through the Chair, sorry.

The Chair: It’s not the issue of saying “through the Chair.” It’s the “you” statement. So it should be “the minister.”

Lynne Block: The minister. I beg your pardon. Thank you.

So my question to the minister is, through the Chair, whether or not the transit-oriented development zone, which is not working right now, has to go through the mayors and through TransLink.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: There were two different things going on here. I want to make sure I get at least one of them right. In fact, I know they’ll both be right.

So as the transit-oriented developments take place, it’s TransLink that makes the decisions in terms of the service levels that would be required for those particular areas.

Then the second thing I just wanted to clarify. You didn’t say, I believe, that the ministry does infrastructure, or you said that it doesn’t do infrastructure? Okay, we’re good. Thanks. The nod of the head was all I needed.

The Chair: Minister, a reminder. “Member,” not “you.”

[8:25 p.m.]

Lynne Block: The Bowser Island encampment situated on Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, or MOTI, managed land near Highway 1 and the Capilano Road off-ramp in North Van has become a source of escalating alarm for residents, commuters and environmental advocates over the past two years. What began as a small group of vehicles has expanded into a sprawling encampment of RVs, cars and makeshift shelters, located dangerously close to a high-speed, blind corner off-ramp long known for traffic incidents.

Beyond the serious public safety risks, the encampment sits adjacent to the Capilano River which supports threatened salmon and steelhead populations. Local residents have reported pollution from garbage and human waste, unauthorized dumping of fill, suspected illegal utility connections and growing concerns about slope stability and aging water infrastructure. These reports come from the Pemberton Heights Community Association and surrounding neighbourhoods, whose members fear a major accident, landslide or environmental breach.

On March 4, 2025, my MLA office wrote to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, urging immediate intervention to protect the local residents, infrastructure and the river ecosystem. The mayor of the district of North Vancouver and the president of the Pemberton Heights Community Association submitted similar appeals on March 10.

The president’s second letter, sent on April 9, after a lack of substantive response, reflected mounting community frustration, stating: “The silence from you, your ministry and your government is deafening. Your inactions continue to threaten the lives of those who drive by this encampment daily. Perhaps we should create an encampment within a kilometre of your home and see how long it takes you before you take action.”

Despite a multi-agency site visit on January 29, 2025, and a planning meeting involving MHMA, MOTI and district staff on April 14, no concrete timeline has been shared publicly for addressing the hazards.

The minister’s April 22 response acknowledged the risks, but offered only general assurances, stating that the province is working with Miller Capilano and other agencies to clean and secure the site and that a compassionate and collaborative approach is being taken. He noted that many of the occupants do not consider themselves homeless and have refused offers of support or shelter.

However, enforcement has been inconsistent. Residents report ongoing illegal driving behaviours, lack of bylaw compliance and little RCMP presence, despite escalating danger in and around the camp. Miller Capilano, the MOTI contractor responsible for the site, claims it awaits ministry direction and cannot act independently.

Meanwhile, the only shelter in North Vancouver is at capacity, and there is currently no transitional or supportive housing available in the area. The Bowser encampment has now become a flashpoint for broader dissatisfaction with how the provincial homelessness strategy, belonging in B.C., is being implemented at the regional level. Without immediate safeguards or a clear relocation plan, public trust in provincial leadership is eroding, and residents are actively considering legal options to compel action.

What is the specific timeline and action plan for dismantling the Bowser Island encampment, and how will the province ensure that individuals are relocated or supported through a humane, coordinated strategy involving housing and health outreach?

[8:30 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I can tell the member that I’m familiar with the site. I have seen some of the pictures of it, and I agree with the member that there are people there who say that they are not homeless. I’ve seen a variety of vehicles. Some of them are fairly run down; others are anything but. I’ve seen pictures of some quite expensive-looking RVs there.

The ministry has made a commitment in terms of installing garbage to get the place cleaned. Those are there. They do, on a regular basis, go in and empty them. I know that there is planning in terms of a gate to secure or to prevent people from being able to access. I’ve asked about that. I will follow up with that for the member.

Can I give us an exact timeline? No, because we do work with other agencies in trying to relocate those people who are homeless. But I will follow up with the issues raised by the member to see where things are at and what further action needs to be taken.

Lynne Block: Thank you for the response. I appreciate that. What interim safety and environmental protections besides the gate and the garbage cans, such as fencing, regular cleanup, slope monitoring, traffic enforcement and pollution containment, will be implemented immediately to prevent injury, ecological harm or further infrastructure damage while a permanent solution is pursued?

[8:35 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: What I can tell the member is that the ministry is in contact with the city on some of the concerns that the member has raised. The whole approach to this is a cross-agency and -ministry approach that’s required, obviously, in terms of the housing side of things. We take the concerns that the city will raise to the appropriate ministries, and I’ll endeavour to get further information for the member and keep her apprised as things progress on the issue.

Lynne Block: Thank you to the minister for promising to keep me apprised. That would be really helpful, because a lot of times people, every week, want to know what’s going on, what the verdict is. I realize it’s a difficult situation, but I’m sure that it will be resolved in the near future.

Thank you for that time. I thank you, Minister, and the staff, for their patience and for their fulsome responses, and I thank you, Chair.

Now I’d like to pass it over to my wonderful colleague here, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, who gave me part of his time here.

Ward Stamer: We’ll probably be running out of time, because I have a couple of questions here to the minister. So I’d like to ask the minister a couple of specific questions and try to frame it with the limited information that I have, and the history with this.

Just to get a better understanding, when we look at Budget 2025 and we look at the commitment of this government that talks about improvements to our infrastructure — not only in the Lower Mainland with TransLink but throughout our entire transportation corridor — I have some specific questions in regard to the amount of money that is being invested in Highway 1 from Kamloops to the Alberta border and in Highway 5 from Kamloops to the Alberta border.

I have some fairly specific questions and examples, and I’d like an understanding from the minister with his ministry staff on an explanation on how some of these decisions were made in the past and what we can be looking forward to into the future. First of all, I think we will agree that there is quite an imbalance between the amount of money that has been spent on Highway 1 and Highway 5.

[8:40 p.m.]

When you look at the numbers, approximately $2 billion has been spent, I believe, over the last 15 years on Highway 1 from Kamloops to the Alberta border, yet in that same time frame — even adding up the two improvements in the last two years in Exlou with the CVSE and the lights in the Exlou canyon — that number for Highway 5 is a paltry $25 million. That’s 1½ percent of what Highway 5 has received in that same time frame.

I’d like a bit of an explanation, first of all, why this ministry continues to overfund a highway knowing…. Yes, Highway 5 is not a trans-Canada highway, but it does link all the way to Ontario via Highway 16 in Alberta. Why does this ministry consistently underfund Highway 5? That’s my first question.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I just want to start off by saying it’s not true that Highway 5 is underfunded. In the last number of years, I think, one of the most important…. I’ll back up by saying that there are a number of factors that go into determining the expenditures made by the ministry in determining which projects are the priority projects, based on things such as economics, traffic volume, both commercial and non-commercial.

I think one of the biggest factors around the issue of Highway 5 was in fact the reinstatement of Highway 5 on the Coquihalla, where more than $350 million was spent, a significant amount of money that, had that reinstatement not been required, would have obviously been expended on other sections of highways in the province.

[8:45 p.m.]

That was an enormous sense of pride, not only for the ministry but for the workers that built, worked on that reinstatement, bringing it in ahead of schedule, on time, and had a significant economic impact on our highway system within the province.

So I don’t agree with the member’s assessment that we are neglecting or underfunding Highway 5. He is correct. It’s not number one, but it is very much an important transportation corridor within the province, and there will continue to be improvements on that highway, both in terms of the safety side of things but also in terms of making it more efficient for the movement of goods, both commercial and non-commercial.

Knowing the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. I also move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction and move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 8:46 p.m.