Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: D. Coulter.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

A. Olsen: Today I’d like to introduce Katherine. She’ll be watching proceedings in the House today. She shared the story with me of her 36-year-old son who has suffered from an addiction to drugs since he was in high school — bullied, suffered from ADHD, abused, assaulted from the age of nine, attended many, many treatment centres, detox stays were too short, no aftercare according to the family.

It’s gone on now for a long time due to COVID without detox and treatment, and he’s feeling what many who suffer this feel. That’s the shame and stigma that society has heaped upon these challenges.

Today I want to again lift my hands up to the parents and the families who are struggling with a loved one, helping a loved one through these challenges. The Holding Hope families — I want to raise them up and elevate their stories and continue to share their stories as we struggle with this together.

Hon. K. Chen: On behalf of the Speaker and myself, I’m actually very honored to have this opportunity to wish a constituent, a friend, an uncle, a long-time community volunteer and someone who is also known by many members in this House, Mr. Mike Sandhu — or, as I call him, Uncle Mike — a happy 80th birthday.

I have known Uncle Mike for many, many years — actually, through the Speaker, who is also a close friend with Uncle Mike for years. Uncle is someone who is always connecting people in the community, helping his neighbors and friends when they have questions about government issues or services, bringing them to local MLA offices and making sure people get the support that they need.

As many members in this House who know him well, Uncle Mike is always full of energy. Uncle is always there for you when people need him, and just like the Speaker, I’m so grateful that Uncle has been like family to me. The three of us actually live just a few blocks away from each other. We’re like a big family in our beautiful community in the Cariboo area in Burnaby-Lougheed. I’m so grateful to be part of this family.

I hope the House please joins us to wish Mr. Mike Sandhu a happy birthday with lots of good health and happiness.

G. Kyllo: I’d like to recognize the retirement of a dear friend and a strong community member of Sicamous, Wayne March. After over a quarter century of managing the Sicamous and District Recreation Centre — a founding member and manager of the Sicamous Eagles Junior B Hockey Club — and at the youthful age of 76, Wayne will be hanging up his skates.

Wayne, thank you very much for a lifetime of service to the community and to the sport of hockey. We’re forever grateful for your many contributions and wish you all the best in retirement.

Would the House please join me in thanking Wayne for a lifetime of contributions to hockey and the district of Sicamous.

Hon. D. Eby: I was just looking around the House, and I think it would be a shame if the suit of the member for Abbotsford South went unrecognized. I wonder if the House would please make the suit feel welcome this morning.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

ANXIETY AWARENESS

T. Halford: I first learned about anxiety at a fairly early age. My grandfather, growing up, was my hero. He was my best friend. He was a World War II veteran. He was a pilot in the air force. Toughest guy I know. He was the first one that I actually saw struggle with anxiety. We would have family barbecues and events, and he would disappear for short periods of time.

[10:10 a.m.]

I didn’t really understand. Then, at a later age, I did understand. He was having panic attacks. This was something that I got more familiar with as I grew older, and it was actually something that he and I both shared together as I grew older. It was kind of a mutual support.

There are a lot of things that I am proud that I’ve gotten from my grandfather. This is actually on that list as well. It’s something that I think we all need to talk about, especially today, because today is the inaugural World Anxiety Day.

Everyone here in this chamber has felt the impacts of anxiety in their lives, in their own personal lives or the lives of those around them, whether they realize it or not. We’ve all been affected by an anxiety disorder. Anxiety can hamper our ability to find enjoyment among friends and family, like I just mentioned previously. It can flood our minds and overwhelm our judgment. Anxiety can undermine our interpersonal connections and our quality of life.

Nearly one in five Canadians were diagnosed with an anxiety disorder — I’m one of them — prior to the pandemic, impacting women at almost double the rate of men. As we all know, this pandemic has had a significant impact on our mental health.

As we look forward to back to normal, we have to make sure that we’re talking about this every day. We need to make sure that we’re talking to each other and that we’re ending the stigma when it comes to mental health and — today, specifically — when it comes to anxiety.

I think we all in this House realize the important tools that we have to speak out on these important issues. I take that very seriously. My grandfather is no longer with us, but I am sure that he’d be proud that we’re talking about this and that we’re talking about his anxiety in such a positive way. It was something that actually made me more proud of him — the fact that he was able to be open about it and we were able to support each other.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I look forward to talking about this tomorrow and in the days ahead.

GRADUATES OF 2021

N. Sharma: I’d like to send my heartfelt congratulations to all the graduates of 2021 in our province and in my riding of Van Tech, Notre Dame, Templeton and LaSalle. This has, no doubt, been a challenging year in your academic career, and your resilience and hard work have not gone unnoticed.

I want to commend all of you for completing this chapter in your life during a time when all of our lives around the world have been disrupted so profoundly from the pandemic. You’ve had to deal with obstacles beyond your years, juggling assignments and studying for exams while staying connected virtually. I know for far too many, this has led to higher anxiety and uncertainty during a time when you’ve had to make some of the biggest decisions in your life.

This pandemic has encouraged us all to look deeper and inward and identify with what really matters to us. It urged us to rethink traditions and conventional paths, and it has taught us how resilient we can be when we work together in the face of huge obstacles. Let this be a gift to you for your future. Dream hard, stay curious, try new things, and don’t be afraid to make mistakes along the way. We will be there for you, so don’t forget to ask for help whenever you need it.

The future looks bright with minds and hearts like yours. It also looks more inclusive, more welcoming and more understanding. I’m so proud of you for hanging in there and getting it done. You’ve proven to us all how resilient you can be in the face of unforeseen challenges.

Here’s to you, class of 2021. Now go out there, do magnificent things, and make us all proud.

ALS AWARENESS AND
ADVOCACY OF DEANE GORSLINE

C. Oakes: This Global ALS Awareness Day on June 19 and 20, Deane Gorsline, a Cariboo hero, will be taking the Walk to End ALS to a whole new level, walking 28.5 hours on Parliament Hill to bring forward the urgency to end ALS.

Before his diagnosis in 2018 at the age of 29, Deane, a combat engineer and combat diver with the Canadian Armed Forces, was well on his way to accomplishing his career and personal goals. In the words of Captain Gorsline: “I believe being a warrior means that you are willing to die rather than have your cause compromised. You apply the essence of your soul to the cause and stand in the face of adversity, no matter what the consequences.”

[10:15 a.m.]

Together, Deane, with his lovely wife Dani, supported by his parents, Barb and Jim, are driven by massively transformative purpose to further ALS research for others. In February of 2020, he co-founded and chaired the ALS Action Canada group, whose mission became advocating for expedited drug approval processes and bringing clinical trials to Canada to make promising new drugs available for persons living with ALS.

In B.C., progress is being made with the foundation of Project Hope and the ALS Society of B.C., but urgency is critical. Let’s inspire a call to action in our province to have a laser focus on a cure for ALS, which may open the door for a cure for other neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease.

We have such distinguished scientists in this province, like another Quesnel graduate, Dr. Marco Marra, who decoded the SARS virus and is the UBC Canada Research Chair in Genome Science. I know we can do this. Let’s make this our mission to Mars.

Deane, thank you for your service to this country. Please let us all come together and fight for Deane as he has fought for us. June is ALS Awareness Month. Now is the time to fund the research and invest in British Columbians to ensure we find a cure.

HANSARD SERVICES

R. Leonard: I’d like to address the House in praise of some unsung heroes here in the Legislature. Pre-COVID-19 pandemic, when 87 MLAs arrived on a Monday morning, they were assured that there was no need to adjust their microphones. In fact, don’t do it. Cameras were at the ready. Behind the curtain, like the Wizard of Oz, the people of Hansard, with the greatest precision, have for decades recorded the words and the sights and sounds of democracy at work.

Now, you may be picturing this great chamber in the Legislature, but one also has to go beyond these marble walls, down the halls to the Douglas Fir and Birch wood-panelled rooms for more activity that must be recorded, all at the same time, as budgets are explored and bills are debated. When committees go on tour to engage with British Columbians where they live, the folks from Hansard are up late at night and are hard at work in the earliest hours of the morning, long before the first words are recorded for posterity.

They build up and break down the sound and video systems multiple times a day and find ways to connect with Victoria to be sure everything is transcribed accurately and in context, first into the Blues, or draft, and finally into a polished, complete record ready to share with the world — testament to a transparent and functioning democracy.

When the pandemic hit and we were all sent home, Hansard kept on the job to find new ways to bring us all together so democracy could continue to function. The hybrid session is a confusing array of in-person and virtual appearances on screen, yet Hansard makes each second in the whole show a work of art. While we tear our hair out over IT challenges, Hansard never lets us down.

I want to thank Mike and Amanda and Simon and the whole crew that’s down working in front of all those screens and really say: please, let the whole House appre­ciate the work that they do to support us.

PRIDE CELEBRATIONS
AND WORK FOR LGBTQ2S+ RIGHTS

A. Olsen: June is Pride Month. To celebrate, I want to start by looking back. The month of June was chosen to celebrate Pride in commemoration of the Stonewall uprising in June of 1969, where advocates like Marsha P. Johnson and Stormé DeLarverie stood for equal rights and liberation. They were unapologetic in their identities in the face of violence, discrimination and hate.

We have our own history in Canada and British Columbia, too. In 1973, Vancouver saw its first Pride celebration with a picnic and art celebration in Ceperley Park as part of the first national Pride Week celebrated in several cities across the country. Vancouver’s first Pride Parade followed five years later. In 1988, Svend Robinson became the first openly gay member of the Canadian Parliament. And in 1995, Jamie Lee Hamilton became the first trans person to run for public office anywhere in Canada.

[10:20 a.m.]

Those mentioned and so many others that have paved the way stood up not only for themselves but also for the community at the time and also for the freedom of those who would come after them. As I think about the future of Pride, I imagine a community of radical acceptance, supported by both those who identify as LGBTQ2IA+ and those who do not. We need to ensure that anywhere in British Columbia, one could find this community.

In the words of Audre Lorde: “It’s not our differences that divide us. It’s our inability recognize, accept and celebrate those differences.” I celebrate those who have come before, those who are here now and those who will make our future even brighter and more vibrant. And I thank those who are doing the work to keep our queer and trans youth safe, supported and, like those who came before them, apologetically themselves.

I encourage everyone to participate in this work of creating a safe and accepting world, and I’d like to thank Abby Koning for helping me with these words and helping our caucus as our intern over this spring session. Thank you, Abby, and thank you to all of those who have stood up and have been unapologetically themselves.

VALUES AND PUBLIC POLICY

R. Russell: Good morning, everyone. I reflect today upon how we recognize value and how it informs our work here. I had the honour to work with a brilliant philosopher some years ago, and I use the word “brilliant” intentionally, given that I believe she radiates brightness into other people’s lives.

We had the opportunity to work together on a project about how our ecological understanding of our environment, specifically our oceans, has the potential to inform our behaviour and, in turn, our ethics, regarding our interactions with the sea around us.

I like to learn, and at the heart of my learning in that process with Cathy was how we as individuals, or collectively as a society, come to define our values. One of the key tenets of this philosophy of value is that we even decide how to attribute value in very different ways, let alone what we value.

We can value outcomes, which is, I think, obvious to most of us. We value our health care system’s ability to heal and make people well, for example. But we also value process. In health care, we probably value a system that doesn’t present procedural obstacles to racialized people.

Finally, we also value duty. This might place value on the obligation we see to provide universal, publicly funded medical care. Recognizing this trio of duty, process and outcome helps shape my understanding of what we’re doing here. I think much of our role in this House as politicians is to take the wisdom of our knowledge keepers — science, elders or otherwise — and overlay a lens of social value atop those truths.

The reason that I use my time today to speak to this is we occasionally lose track, I think, of how malleable and diverse not just our values themselves are but also our process for determining value.

It’s important that how and what we value is regularly reviewed as the foundation of our policy. I use management of our forests as an example. We have always valued economic returns, and eventually, fibre volume became proxy for dollars. But now, we’re recognizing more and more that we need to shift back to managing our forests for more comprehensive value. That value will be diverse, and it’ll change.

It will, no doubt, include a central place for economic returns. But it’ll also include, fundamentally, community autonomy, recreation, biodiversity and much more. Because of this, I look forward to the discussions ahead about the forestry intentions paper released last week, which starts to sketch out a road map, putting value more explicitly back into the equation.

Oral Questions

ANCHOR ATTRACTIONS PROGRAM FUNDING
FOR PACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION

S. Bond: Well, after 15 months of begging for help, the Premier promised to save the PNE. And to absolutely no one’s surprise, he bungled it again. A month ago he told British Columbians that he would do what it takes to save the fair. But yesterday PNE president Shelley Frost had this to say. “Our requests for additional consideration from the province are falling on deaf ears.”

Will the Premier keep the promise that he made and provide $8 million that the PNE requires to survive?

Hon. M. Mark: I appreciate the question from the member opposite. The PNE is vitally important to our communities. It’s an iconic attraction in East Vancouver. Recently we heard good news that they were opening on June 11, and that is positive.

[10:25 a.m.]

The restart plan is showing promise that we are going to return to a new level of normal. I want to assure the member that we have worked with the PNE. My staff have met with the PNE. There are some technical pieces that the member is aware of.

The municipality is responsible for the PNE. I’ve spoken to the mayor about the PNE. We are working with the PNE. That was part of the announcement for our major anchor attractions, to support those that have been impacted by this pandemic. That was a call to action for targeted funding.

The application deadline closed on Monday, and I hope that there is good news that will work in the favour of the PNE and other anchor attractions.

I’ll just put it on the record that we are doing the advocacy, working with the PNE, and also asking the federal government, and $400 million was put on the table for events and festivals. We’re going to make sure that B.C. gets its fair share.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

S. Bond: I’m not sure which part of the question the minister missed. Yesterday the president of the PNE said that the request was falling on deaf ears. The minister can trot out all the lines she wants. The president of the PNE said this government is not doing what its Premier promised to do. He made a promise: “I will save the PNE.”

Let’s hear what else the Premier said. He said a month ago: “It’s attractions like the PNE that we had in mind when we developed the program.” But the PNE has over two million guests and 4,300 employees, over 30 times more employees and guests as other attractions in the category.

Again, Shelley Frost writes: “Interestingly, fairs and festivals are not even eligible for this funding. We are only able to apply through Playland, so it is not designed to support organizations like ours.”

Despite what the minister continues to say, the PNE does not fit the category. The Premier said he designed the program for the PNE, but apparently, he botched it. Will he provide the urgent aid it required or will this incredible provincial asset have to close forever?

Hon. M. Mark: The PNE recently announced that they’re opening on June 11. That is positive news. The member is mischaracterizing the announcement that we made two weeks ago, that the Premier and I made. It wasn’t designed for the PNE. It was designed to support the ecosystem, our tourism ecosystem. It was designed as a call to action in partnership with industry experts who said that we needed to send relief out the door to help with anchor attractions.

In the Lower Mainland, in rural communities and for tour bus operators — that was the intent of the grant. It’s not a loan. It’s a grant. Up to $1 million is available for applicants. The deadline closed on Monday. It was a transparent process.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s listen to the answer, please.

Minister will continue.

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Decisions haven’t been made. I’ll put it on the record again. The city has a role to play. They have jurisdiction over the PNE. We have a role to play, which is why we announced the major anchor attraction, and hopefully good news is going to come once we’re finished reviewing the applications, hundreds of which we received.

The federal government…. I’ve had active conversations with the federal government on what they’re doing for major events and attractions, and $400 million is on the table. I’m ensuring that we get our fair share here in British Columbia.

ANCHOR ATTRACTIONS PROGRAM
AND COVID-19 RESPONSE FOR
EVENTS AND FESTIVALS

C. Oakes: Just to clarify: it’s Playland that is opening. We’re excited. Where is the support for the PNE? So the botching doesn’t end with attractions like the PNE — oh no. The Premier has completely bungled this file.

The Minister of Tourism virtually stood in this Legislature and told groups like the Quesnel Rodeo, the North Thompson Fall Fair, the IPE and a host of other groups to apply for this funding. So what did these groups do? They listened to the minister. They applied. What was the response? I quote: “As noted in the program guidelines, festivals and events are ineligible.”

Can the Premier please tell these groups why they were so badly misled?

[10:30 a.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: The only people that are misleading the public are the official opposition. This has been a call to action from the tourism sector who suggested, who advocated that we get targeted funds to anchor attractions, which is exactly what we’ve done. This is a part of the Tourism Task Force calls to action and recommendations.

I’ll remind the member that we’ve been working around the clock to get relief dollars out the door to help the much-impacted tourism sector. When I tell the member opposite in full transparency that we are advocating with the federal government to ensure that we get our fair share of the $400 million for events and festivals, that advocacy is going to continue. So $50 million in a grant, not a loan, is a significant investment, on top of the 4,100 tourism businesses that received the small and medium-sized grants — up to $45,000 in grants, not loans.

I’ll remind the member, as I did last week, that money has gone out the door through the B.C. Arts Council to support festivals — through Creative B.C., through Amplify B.C., through gaming grants. Our government is doing everything we can to support these vitally important institutions across British Columbia.

Good news is coming, especially as we continue to restart and open up our communities for travel and gathering and events.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo North on a supplemental.

C. Oakes: We’ve heard from this minister repeatedly, saying that good news is coming, while, in good faith, we brought forward to this House questions from our constituents — questions, concerns raised — on festivals and events that had not been able to apply for any of the funding that this minister continues to bring forward in this House.

We’ve brought forward in this House, to this minister, the fact that we have groups like the Quesnel Rodeo Club and many others that needed support now. So in transparency, what does this minister do? She says: “Tell these groups to apply for this funding.”

Surely to goodness, this minister knows what the program guidelines are. So why is it that when we ask this minister for groups that had, up till now, been ineligible for the multitude of different programs, the minister said to apply? This minister stood in this chamber and told them to apply and gave them false hope. The minister’s incompetence has left these groups wondering how they’re going to survive.

To the Premier, will he do the right thing and allow these groups to apply for the funding that the minister cruelly promised and then ripped away?

Hon. M. Mark: Well, maybe the member will stand in the chambers and talk about the clawback on people with disabilities and their bus passes and apologize for that cruel decision.

What I’ve been doing, from day one, is moving the dial on the calls to action from the Tourism Task Force. That is what the public service has been doing. We’ve been working around the clock to get relief out the door to support the sector.

It is disingenuous for the member to suggest that we are trying to mislead anybody. A transparent process — an invitation for anchor attractions to apply for a grant, not a loan — with full disclosure was on our website. At no time did I suggest to the member that I’m going to be reviewing those applications — that me, as the elected minister, is going to make those decisions. This is going to go through an adjudicative process. The application deadline closed on Monday.

I hope that good news is going to come — good news that is going to help a sector that has been hard hit. We’re going to continue doing that work, and I hope that it’s going to support constituencies across our province to welcome visitors back to anchor attractions, because we haven’t been able to gather and travel and all of those things because of the pandemic. I think it’s good news, and I’m going to continue doing the work.

FOREST AND RANGE AGREEMENTS AND
INDIGENOUS RIGHTS AND TITLE

A. Olsen: It’s really painful for me to have to say this, but when it comes to Indigenous relations and reconciliation, this government has dusted off the 1990s playbook.

To be clear, the conflict and contention over the land base does not come from honouring human rights. It comes from denying and violating them.

[10:35 a.m.]

The Attorney General told me in budget estimates that until an Aboriginal Crown has been negotiated by treaty or decided by courts through litigation, the Crown maintains control over the land and resources. That is the old position of denial, and it’s not what our Supreme Court has said.

While the Premier talks about sovereignty and title for Indigenous People, our Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation is out there advancing the same old models of forestry agreements put in place by the B.C. Liberals over a decade ago. These agreements are based on the denial of Indigenous rights — saying rights are asserted; not accepting that they exist, not recognizing that nations have any ownership in land and resources. They are designed to achieve greater stability for the Crown to keep cutting trees, to keep extracting resources.

To the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, will the minister admit that these forest and range consultation and revenue-sharing agreements are designed to secure Crown opportunities to continue harvesting resources off the land?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the question. I think it’s an important issue.

Regrettably, I think the member fundamentally misstated what I told him in estimates. We talked about — and it was an important discussion — the importance of negotiation and partnership between government and First Nations as we wait for a formal treaty agreement or a decision from a court, a recognition of rights and title on the land and that there are two competing sovereignties — Indigenous sovereignty and the European colonial sovereignty — and that reconciling those two is the work ahead of us.

So for him to stand in this place and pretend the conversation was about something else or that we’re taking an approach of three decades ago, when so much has happened since then, including all of us standing together on UNDRIP, is very regrettable.

A. Olsen: Anybody and everybody in this province, I invite them to go and watch the estimates debate, because it’s not regrettable. What’s regrettable is that the Attorney General is trying to reframe what he told me. What he told me was that the way that Indigenous nations can get title over their lands is by going to court or by signing a treaty. Going to court took the Tŝilhqot’in 25 years. There are nations in this province right now that are languishing 30 years without a treaty.

While this government is pleading for the space to protect old-growth trees with Indigenous nations, they’ve been rapidly signing forest and range agreements to secure their ability to just keep cutting and, in fact, to silence Indigenous nations who want to speak out about these things. More than 130 of these forest and range agreements have been signed; 40 have been signed in 2021 alone. These agreements entrench racist stereotypes and the Attorney General’s position of denial.

The Attorney General tried to reassure me that the situation wasn’t as grim as I was making it out to be: “Perhaps it’s all about perspective.” The members of this chamber, and all British Columbians, should know the truth. This B.C. NDP government is currently arguing in court, in multiple pieces of litigation, the opposite of what the government is saying publicly: that certain Indigenous People don’t exist as a people, that their rights have been extinguished — if they ever had them in the first place — and that even if there are rights, they’re effectively meaningless.

When the Premier and others say the good words and have no intention of following through, it’s hurtful. We were out recognizing that pain that we were all feeling this week.

To the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, how does the minister responsible for reconciliation stand on the sidelines while his colleagues drag us back to the dark decades of denial of rights?

[10:40 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I hear the member’s passion on this. I think we all feel passionate about this really important work. I wouldn’t discount the agreements that government has reached with nations like Lake Babine, with Carrier-Sekani — remarkable progress, section 7 agreements being negotiated across the province. There’s really important work happening and, in fact — in one of the areas that the member raised in this House on a number of occasions, Fairy Creek — agreements with and partnership with the three nations there, respect for their positions, with respect to the resources in that area.

I take his point on litigation. There’s room for improvement. We’re working with the First Nations Leadership Council on guidelines related to litigation, but we’re not going to reach reconciliation through courts. It’s not binary — treaty or courts — as the member said, nor did I say that in estimates. There are a number of agreements that we can reach with nations in between those two as we work towards a long-term and sustainable treaty.

I think this is important work. I think we’re making good progress, and there is more to do.

COVID-19 RESPONSE FOR
SMALL BUSINESSES

T. Stone: During the Premier’s pandemic election, he made clear to small businesses that supports for them would not be delayed. We now know that the Premier has bungled this as well. In estimates, the Minister of Jobs admitted that less than 50 percent of the business support grants have actually been paid out to businesses.

The question is this. Fifteen months into the pandemic, why is it continuing to take so long to get supports out the door to businesses that desperately need the help?

Hon. R. Kahlon: During the 14 hours of estimates discussions, I shared with the member multiple times the facts, which are that B.C. has the highest per-capita support for people and businesses in Canada, and we’re really proud of that. And that’s reflected in the 99 percent job recovery rate, leading the country. Just recently, we’ve had economists from various organizations talk about how good a position B.C.’s economy is in. We know that businesses have been struggling. We know that. And that’s why we’ve put significant dollars on the table to support them.

The member wants to talk about grants. The original program had 15,000 businesses we were hoping to support. Well over 18,000 businesses have applied. In fact, we’ve increased the budget from $300 million to $430 million so that we can support more businesses during what is a very challenging time.

We’re proud of the supports we’ve been able to provide. It’s showing in the job numbers for the province. And of course, we’re going to continue to support businesses through this challenging time that we’re in.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, the reality is that British Columbia is actually No. 8 in the country, No. 8 in per-capita direct supports and grants for small business — No. 8, not No. 1. Sixty-eight percent of all of the supports that are provided to small business here in British Columbia are in the form of deferrals and loans, which, I remind the members in government, have to be paid back. The CFIB has said that the average debt that a small business in B.C. has taken on during the pandemic is $170,000.

The minister talks in glowing terms about his government’s record in pushing supports out the door. Let’s take a look at that as well. The circuit breaker grant, launched two months ago — 40.4 percent of those dollars are out the door. The launch online grants, launched four months ago — only 37.9 percent of those dollars are out the door. But this is the doozy. This is the big one. The small business recovery grant, launched eight months ago — only 49.8 percent of the dollars are out the door.

This government’s supports for small business have been characterized by half-measures, arbitrary eligibility rules, delays getting dollars out, and being number 8 of all provinces in the country per capita in direct supports. It’s embarrassing how the Premier continues to bumble along with less than half of these supports out the door. And that’s according to the Jobs Minister. These are his numbers from estimates over the last couple of days.

Now, I’ve heard from Toni, who runs a fitness centre in Fort Nelson. Toni says: “I still haven’t even received a response on whether or not I qualified or how much I will be receiving, even though the circuit breaker is over.”

[10:45 a.m.]

The question to the Premier is this. How many more business owners like Toni are still waiting and waiting and waiting for the money that is owed to them by the Pre­mier?

Hon. R. Kahlon: As we canvassed for many hours in this House…. The member chooses to cherry-pick one line of a report. If he chooses to read the rest of the report, I highlighted for the member, in fact, over 12 pages, where it’s highlighted that B.C. leads the country in economic recovery supports for people in businesses — the uncomfortable truth for the member opposite, all the members opposite, that B.C. is leading the country in economic recovery in jobs, leading the country. Every single province we are leading in economic recovery.

Bryan Yu, chief economist for Central 1, says B.C.’s economy “has performed better than expected.” Ken Peacock, chief economist for the B.C. Business Council, said: “I would say the B.C. economy is in pretty good shape. It’s pretty healthy.” Peacock said that a more dire forecast didn’t materialize because B.C.’s lockdown didn’t last as long as expected, and government spending supported businesses and individuals, and businesses adapted.

I appreciate that the member has got a job to do, and he has to find something to be critical of, but he should be proud of how we, collectively, in this province have handled the pandemic and how well the economy is doing, and we’re going to continue to support those businesses that do need supports.

REOPENING OF MARINE BORDER AND
SUPPORT FOR CRUISE SHIP INDUSTRY

K. Kirkpatrick: The Premier has bungled the cruise ship issue from day one. He arrogantly refused to work with the Americans on technical stops, blithely said the bill bypassing our ports would never pass, and he refuses to acknowledge the danger to a $3 billion industry that employs tens of thousands of people.

John Nicholson is the vice-president of hotels and restaurants at the Listel Hospitality Group, and he’s pretty blunt. “We’re super worried about the cruise ships by­pass­ing British Columbia now.” There’s a lot of discussion about the border being opened earlier than expected.

To the Premier, has he secured from the Prime Minister a commitment that when the land border opens, the marine border will open at the same time?

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. The cruise ship industry is incredibly important to our economy, and I’m very pleased that the numbers prior to the pandemic, under our government, were very encouraging. For the first time in B.C.’s history, for example, we exceeded over one million passenger boardings in the cruise ship terminals in our province, a 22 percent increase over 2018. Clearly, the industry views us as a very valuable market, an area of international expansion.

The pandemic, however, has changed everything. This has been one of the most hard-hit industries around the globe. It has been one of the industries that’s been under an intense spotlight in terms of safety. These are very confined spaces. The cruise ship industry is not reopening with mass numbers of passengers on board. In the United States, in fact, sailings are not happening yet. The Centers for Disease Control is having trial sailings, but even in that, it’s unclear whether they’ll be able to rescue much of a season.

What we’re prepared to do is work with the federal government on having a phased reopening, work with the industry. I’ve written to the Minister of Transportation in Ottawa, saying that we’re prepared to talk about technical stops. We believe that our provincial health office can make that work. We certainly have no objections of Americans getting to another part of America, in this case Alaska, using our ports, using our waters. We want to support them as they recover from the economy.

Look, the United States and Canada are doing things a little bit differently. We don’t have 50,000 people in a baseball stadium right now in Canada. That’s not how we’re doing things here. They’re opening up in a way that, perhaps, would make many Canadians very uncomfortable. But the discussion around border reopening is being led by the Prime Minister. He’s told Canadians he’ll have an update on or about June 21. We look forward to that, and we’ve made our views known.

Mr. Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–Capi­lano on a supplemental.

K. Kirkpatrick: I thank the minister for his response. However, I did not hear the answer to the question in that response.

[10:50 a.m.]

No one is saying to give the cruise ship sector special treatment. They’re saying to treat everyone equally and fairly. This sector for British Columbia employs thousands of people, directly and indirectly.

Gurpal Nagra is the owner and operator at MacLure’s taxi. This is what he says: “If we could get cruise ship traffic here at some point this year, it would be immense for the taxi industry. That’s a steady source of income for drivers who have suffered through this pandemic. If the land and air borders are opening, we hope the Premier is making sure the ports open at the same time. It’s only fair.”

Again, to the Premier, has he secured a commitment, advocated for and secured a commitment, from the Prime Minister that the federal government will open up the marine border at the same time as the land border?

Hon. R. Fleming: I think this discussion flows out of what we just heard from the Minister of Jobs and Economic Recovery. The reason British Columbia has performed better than other provinces, the reason our economy is in better shape is because we haven’t had political rhetoric guiding our response.

We’ve led with science about how to safely reopen every single industry and to guide reopening and safe business practices in the province, and that is no different when it comes to the cruise ship industry. We are going to let the Centre for Disease Control, our provincial health officer and our Canadian federal counterparts guide that discussion.

I find the line of questioning a little bit absurd because it ignores how complex the cruise ship industry is. It’s a congregate setting. It’s buffet dining. It’s a whole bunch of things that are very supportive of the spread of transmission.

Just the other day in the Mediterranean, passengers with variants were spreading the disease on a ship there. They disembarked in Sicily. There’s worry about exposure there.

This is something that should not be rushed into. It should be examined carefully. That’s what’s happening right now. We believe we can support the request of the Alaskans. We’ve made that position known. That’s what British Columbia feels, and we’ve put that in writing to the minister.

When it comes to reopening the borders, this is a multi-layered discussion. We want to have American visitors here. We want to do it safely. There are discussions about vaccine passports and all the sorts of safe measures that would allow that to happen.

We look forward to the cruise ship industry opening up again in British Columbia. We are on a trajectory of incredible growth. We support that industry. We support a strong tourism economy. That’s what we’ve done to support that industry through this pandemic, and we’ll do it when it’s safe to reopen and when science says it’s safe to reopen.

COVID-19 RELIEF GRANT ELIGIBILITY
FOR ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BRANCHES
AND ANAVETS CLUB

B. Banman: It would seem that the only way to get the Premier’s attention is to have him be a member of your club. That seems to be the only plausible explanation as to why the Premier has chosen to support one veterans group over another. That is fundamentally unfair, and it’s unjust.

After weeks of asking, the Premier finally provided relief to the Royal Canadian Legion, as he should have in the first place. But he inexplicably left out the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans from the very same funding. This group wrote a letter to the Premier on May 21, and it was brought up several times in this chamber.

“Both entities perform invaluable contributions, assistance and support to our esteemed veterans. So to choose only one rather than both to receive the funding is essentially saying that our members and services are not as worthy or as valuable in your government’s opinion and thought process.”

So the question. Will the Premier do the right thing — respect all veterans and provide the relief they’ve asked for?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it’s fair to say that every member in this Legislature respects our veterans. To suggest otherwise is absurd.

I shared with the member…. Just in the last day or two, I shared with the member from Kamloops that we received the request. We’re working on it, and we’ll have more to say soon.

[10:55 a.m.]

[End of question period.]

Speaker’s Statement

COMMENTS BY MEMBER AND
RESPECT FOR PRESIDING OFFICER

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday afternoon, during second reading debate on Bill 7, the member for Columbia River–​Revelstoke made comments regarding what he perceived to be a lack of participation in debate on the bill by members of the government caucus.

Upon hearing the comment, the Deputy Speaker intervened. He cautioned the member not to cast aspersions on other members. When asked repeatedly by the Deputy Speaker to withdraw his remarks, the member refused to do so. As a result, the member was not given the opportunity to complete his speech. Second reading debate was thereafter closed, as no other members indicated that they wished to participate in the debate. The House then proceeded to a new item of business.

During the intervening recess, the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke used an unparliamentary word when speaking to the official opposition House Leader about the events that had transpired in the House. However, as the chamber audio was still live, the remark was heard by other members in the chamber and those participating remotely.

I have a number of observations to make on this matter. First, having reviewed the transcript of proceedings, I conclude that the comments made by the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, while speaking to Bill 7, about members of the government caucus, while immoderate, do not fall into the category of remarks which require an immediate withdrawal.

I appreciate the desire of the Deputy Speaker to raise the tenor of debate in this House. However, in this case, the member’s comments were not inconsistent with remarks made on previous occasions, including remarks made by other members earlier in the same second reading debate.

It is important that the rules of this House and the expectations of those who take their seats in this chamber apply fairly and consistently to all members. However, it is also inevitable that, in responding in the moment, any presiding officer may occasionally fall into error to the displeasure of one side of the House or the other.

Although I conclude that the remarks made by the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke were not unparliamentary to the extent that would require a withdrawal, I must express my disappointment that the member repeatedly refused to follow the clear direction of the Deputy Speaker. This changed the tenor of the exchange and causes me great concern.

The members of this House have agreed, through the standing orders, that the presiding officer shall hold significant responsibilities and powers to address disorderly conduct. The refusal to take the direction of the Chair is contrary to the rules of the House and is an example of gross misconduct and will not be tolerated.

The role of a presiding officer is not an easy one. It is difficult to constantly gauge and react immediately and accurately to the unpredictable nature of members during debate.

One of my predecessors, Speaker Sawicki, when ad­dress­ing the House in 1994, noted: “It is a delicate balance that every Speaker must strive to achieve between respect for freedom of speech and the need to maintain order, between the rights of the majority to govern and the rights of the minority to he heard. In return, every Speaker must be able to rely upon all hon. members to be vigilant in support of the institution itself.”

The members who take on the responsibilities of a presiding officer require our respect. They take on these duties on behalf of all members to protect and uphold the rules, customs and practices of this institution. Any disrespect shown to a presiding officer reflects very poorly on the Legislative Assembly as a whole.

[11:00 a.m.]

I will offer two reminders to all members. First, if a member wishes to call the attention of the Chair, whether in the House or in committee, to the violation of our standing orders or practices of this House, they’re able to do so by raising a point of order. If members are unsure about the usage of points of order, the Chair and the Clerks-at-the-Table are always happy to provide guidance and to answer any questions.

Second, members should not engage in any exchanges when the House or a committee is in recess, as the audio continues to be live during that time.

Finally, I note that the member for Columbia River–​Revelstoke did use unparliamentary language during the recess. While the comment was unintended to be heard by others, it was, and the member should withdraw this remark. I call upon him now to do so.

Personal Statement

WITHDRAWAL AND APOLOGY
FOR COMMENTS MADE IN THE HOUSE

D. Clovechok: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Yesterday I used intemperate language in this House. I’d like to apologize and withdraw them. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour to table a report from the Representative of Children and Youth entitled Skye’s Legacy: A Focus on Belonging.

Petitions

R. Merrifield: I would like to present a petition today on behalf of 4,500 parents of British Columbia students, representing all 60 school districts across the province.

These parents are opposed to the current provincial health order in relation to mandatory masking of school children. They oppose the mandate for all children in grades 4 through 12 and do not support further measures to extend masking to lower grades.

The organization has an intention not to divide people. Instead, they simply want parents, children, people of B.C. to be able to retain their autonomous rights over the decisions surrounding their children. I will forward the petition to the Office of the Clerk on behalf of these parents.