Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: D. Davies.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Farnworth: As all of us know in this House, the work that we do is ably assisted, for all parties, by our caucus interns. Each session we get to have a new group. It’s my pleasure today to introduce the 2022 B.C. government caucus interns.

They’re here in the gallery today, and they are: Ireland Bellsmith — she studied criminal justice at the University of the Fraser Valley; Jerika Caduhada, who studied English literature and Spanish, honours, and transitional justice and post-conflict reconstruction from the University of Western Ontario; Aidan Guerreiro, theatre and political science, University of Victoria; Corie Kielbiski, who studied political science and English at the University of Victoria; and Kate Korte, political science, honours, from the University of Victoria.

Would the House make these amazing young people, who are going to assist all of us, most welcome.

Hon. H. Bains: In the House today is Karen Ranalletta. She is the president of CUPE B.C. and, I might add, their first female president in 26 years. Joining Karen is Martina Boyd. She is their legislative coordinator for CUPE B.C. Please join with me and give them a warm, warm welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

EARL SEITZ

P. Milobar: It was a few years ago now that, on a farm outside of Duchess, Alberta, a legend in Kamloops media, radio and TV broadcasting was born. In Kamloops, over the last year and a half or so, we’ve seen many of our long-standing journalists retire. Today I’d like to take a couple of moments to talk about Earl Seitz.

Earl started his radio career in 1968 as a DJ in Cranbrook. Shortly thereafter, Earl “the Pearl” Seitz, as he came to be known, decided to go to Nelson. In 1970, he switched to sports. From there, his career would flourish.

It didn’t take that long to move from Nelson to Kamloops, though. In 1974, Earl moved to Kamloops and started doing play-by-play for the then Kamloops Chiefs. Shortly thereafter, he also became the face on CFJC TV. Earl spent 48 years at CFJC in the sports department. I can tell you, as somebody growing up in Kamloops back in pre-Internet days, it was always a thrill if your team or your sporting accomplishments were mentioned by Earl, either on the radio or on the TV.

Earl covered every sport imaginable at the local level and had lots of contacts nationally, but it was his love of local sport, I think, that really made him the legend he is in Kamloops. By all accounts, I think he has just about every program, for every tournament in the last 48 years that Kamloops has ever hosted, meticulously organized and stored. In fact, when the pandemic hit, Earl made sure to show old clips of sports when sports were no longer available to be watched live.

A Lifetime Achievement Award by the Radio Television News Directors Association in 2011. Kamloops Sports Hall of Fame in 2019.

Earl is now retired, and his wife, Velma, with their two kids and three grandkids. He’ll be missed on the sports scene, but he’s not gone in our hearts.

Will the House please congratulate Earl on a career of accomplishments.

BLACK COMMUNITY AND
HOGAN’S ALLEY IN VANCOUVER

B. Bailey: I’d like to take you back in time to a bustling Black community with a beloved eatery at the heart of it all.

[10:10 a.m.]

Vie’s Chicken and Steak would stay open late. Perfor­mers would come after their shows. We are talking about the top entertainers of the day: Lena Horne, “Count” Basie, Louis Armstrong, Ella Fitzgerald.

Zenora Rose Hendrix worked there, cooking and running the popular diner. Nora was a pretty good musician herself and sang at the church, the African Methodist Episcopal Fountain Chapel. Nora’s young grandson, Jimi, would come from Seattle in the summers and often helped out in the restaurant.

One can’t help but wonder if all this exposure to talent had an impact on young Jimi. He spent his summers, as he got older, playing his guitar at local haunts, prepping for what would become one of the most storied careers in rock ‘n’ roll history: the career of Jimi Hendrix.

Where was this community — L.A., Atlanta? No, this community is Hogan’s Alley, right here in Vancouver. From the early 1900s through to the 1960s, Hogan’s Alley was a multicultural area that hosted an enclave of Black Canadians who had resettled from American states to find work, generally on the Great Northern Railway system. Yet despite the neighbourhood’s thriving business and cultural scene, city officials voted to level Hogan’s Alley and displace its many residents to build the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts.

This Black History Month I encourage you to famil­iarize yourself with the incredible history of Hogan’s Alley and the ongoing, important work of the Hogan’s Alley Society. The history of racism and the decimating of this vibrant community is one we should all know, to understand what happened to B.C.’s Black community and the context of the racism far too many people experience today.

IMPACT OF FOREST MANAGEMENT
ON BIODIVERSITY

M. Morris: When I was a child, I embraced the outdoors as a coping mechanism for the stresses of life. As I got older, the outdoors became not only my source of sol­ace but a source of food and nutrition for my family. Fish to fowl to wild game, such as moose and elk; wild strawberries, blueberries, huckleberries; and other varieties of wild harvest were common on our tables.

Over many decades of observation and interaction with the wilderness, I began to recognize a symbiotic relationship between flora and fauna, between species — the natural food chain necessary for survival of all species: the importance of broadleaf plants and grasses that produce the flowers, the fruit and seeds relied upon by insects, birds and small rodents that, in turn, provide protein for raptors and carnivores; the importance of aspen, birch, cottonwood and every other species of deciduous tree, not only as a food source for ungulates, birds and insects but as critical habitat for over 60 species of B.C. wildlife that nest and den in tree cavities.

I’ve observed the critical role these trees play in transpiration, shade and moisture retention, wildfire mitigation. But over these several decades — decades that equate to over half a century — I’ve observed the cumulative effects of forest harvesting and the transformation of primary mixed forests to monocultural conifer plantations.

I’ve witnessed the silencing of our forests. No longer do I hear the numerous species of birds, the gentle sounds of owls and the sounds of a cow moose communicating with her calf. No longer do I hear the mating call of the pine marten in early summer.

Our forests used to be so much more than a mere source of wood fibre. Seventy-five years of a sustained-yield forest strategy focused only upon conifer growth and yield has silenced our forests.

SERVICES AT
SURREY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

G. Begg: Surrey Memorial Hospital has the distinction of having B.C.’s busiest ER, and it’s big. It’s big enough, in fact, to equal three NHL hockey rinks. It’s big enough to have the cachet as Canada’s largest emergency department.

I had the great pleasure, a week ago, to tour the critical care tower at SMH, where I learned that Surrey Memorial Hospital has been at the epicentre of the COVID response for its community, for the Fraser Health Authority and for the province.

The nurses, the respiratory therapists, allied health care workers, doctors, porters, cleaners have stretched and sacrificed to care for one-quarter of the sickest ICU patients in British Columbia and have done so while having the busiest emergency department in the province and the busiest pediatric emergency department in the province.

[10:15 a.m.]

I learned, as well, that their vision is that (1) health care happens in the community; (2) health care is provided by teams; and (3) beds and programs are people, not re­sources. They are a work family and have not just carried the massive hospital demand by treating their colleagues as family but also by engaging their patients and their families as partners.

The critical care department has developed innovative health service programs and novel research that isn’t just about treating the sickest patients but preventing patients from developing critical illnesses and providing direct care to the community and long-term-care facilities to prevent hospitalization.

Surrey’s COVID follow-up clinic has seen almost one-half of the patients in the provincial COVID long-term-care clinics and actively supports the research that is happening provincially.

I know that all members in the House will join me in applauding these dedicated women and men at Surrey Memorial for their service to this province and its residents.

ELIZABETH BURKE

D. Davies: Elizabeth Burke was born and raised in northeastern B.C. Her family’s seasonal home was a canvas-wall tent that was set up along the beautiful banks of the Fort Nelson River near the old Fort Nelson settlement.

At a young age, Elizabeth, along with her brothers and sisters, was taught how to efficiently harvest, gather and preserve the abundance that the land provided. Elizabeth’s parents were kind, hard-working and generous people. They would sit and share their vast knowledge and skills they had learned from previous generations of the Dene people.

During the winter months, Elizabeth’s family would venture to their remote trapline by sled dog or snowshoe. The family, together, built miles of trapline, set their traps, collected and skinned their harvest and prepared the furs for sale. The days were long, bitter and cold, and they worked hard. In the spring, the family would leave their trapline and set out for the old Fort Nelson settlement in the hope of selling and getting a good price from the Hudson’s Bay Company.

At a very young age, Elizabeth, along with her brothers and sisters, was taken from her family and sent to residential school. The entire family was beyond devastated. Elizabeth was returned to Fort Nelson and settled down with a kind, hard-working man, and together, they raised a family.

In 1981, Elizabeth started her employment with school district 81 in Fort Nelson. She was hired as a cultural native demonstrator and soon became the Aboriginal teacher assistant and a teacher of the Slavey language.

Liz became a prominent member of the school community and was well respected by her co-workers and loved by all students. She was a friend to all and would patiently teach elementary students the art of beadwork, the Slavey and Dene language, helping children cross the street safely, keeping their shoes tied, keeping peace on the playground and helping children to read and write.

Just like her mom and dad, she would sit with the children for hours and share her vast knowledge that she has learned and that was passed down by generations of the Dene people. For the last 40 years, Liz has been a role model to the children of the north, teaching her resilience, her grace, her kindness and her love. Liz recently retired from school district 81.

Thank you, Elizabeth Burke, for your 40 years of service to your community.

I know that she’s watching right now.

INCLUSION LANGLEY SOCIETY

M. Dykeman: It’s a privilege to rise in the House today to recognize an important organization in my community, the Inclusion Langley Society.

For over 60 years, Inclusion Langley has been working hard to support over 1,400 children with developmental or support needs, youth and adults with intellectual disabilities and autism spectrum disorder, as well as their families. Today Inclusion Langley is one of the largest non-profit community organizations in Langley, providing a diverse range of services, employing over 300 people, with 95 of them having worked there for over ten years.

Inclusion Langley focuses on providing opportunities for individuals to live meaningful lives, making sure that those supported by them can find housing, employment and social support, in addition to a broad range of programs and services that they provide that are funded by the ministries and Crown agencies of the province of British Columbia.

[10:20 a.m.]

From family respite and support services to Aboriginal supported child development, they are there for families every step of the way. In addition to all of the important work they do to help those in their care, they also work on advocating and advancing the inclusion of citizenship of people with intellectual disabilities. They do this both provincially and nationally. It is safe to say that Inclusion Langley cares deeply about those with developmental or support needs as well as their families.

When talking about all the good that Inclusion Langley does, I should also mention the amazing leadership team behind this organization: Dan Collins, the CEO of Inclusion Langley, and the society’s wonderful board of directors, a dedicated group of volunteers made up of family members, self-advocates, local business people and other involved community members.

Part of what makes Inclusion Langley so extraordinary is their strive for excellence in helping those with needs.

Thank you for all the meaningful work you and your team undertake each day in our community.

Oral Questions

AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING
AND REBATE FOR RENTERS

S. Bond: Well, yesterday the Premier was clearly more concerned about opinion polls than he was with the sky­rocketing cost of rent. The Premier’s comments were out of touch with the experience of the majority of renters in our province. To suggest that life was more affordable for renters is simply not true.

During this Premier’s time in office, the average rent in Surrey has gone up by a whopping $2,700 per year. Why wouldn’t the Premier know that? Well, perhaps it’s because the NDP MLAs representing that region are silent and not standing up for the renters in their constituencies.

I can suggest to the members who think that’s amusing….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Order, please.

S. Bond: I would suggest that if the MLAs that are laughing and chuckling about rent going up by $2,700…. I think their constituents would have something else to say to them about that.

Today will the Premier explain to Surrey renters why they’re paying $225 a month more in rent despite his multiple promises to make life more affordable for them?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s a very important question, and I’m glad the member is asking it.

When our government came into power, one of the first things we changed was to remove the additional 2 percent annual surcharge to every tenants’ monthly rent that the previous government had in place. Tenants, every year, would see a 2 percent rent increase plus the cost of inflation, and we changed that to just inflation. Then when COVID hit, we said: “No rent increases during the pandemic.”

When the member stands up and says she’s concerned about renter affordability…. When she was on this side of the House, she added 2 percent for no reason — just an extra 2 percent every year. It would have buried families if we allowed that to continue, and we stopped it.

She raises an important point about new tenancies. New tenants are struggling to find a place to live. It’s a big problem. That’s why we’ve really emphasized the construction of new rental housing. In fact, in the last five years of our government, we’ve had more rental housing registered than in the 15 years that they were in power.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

S. Bond: Five years. Five years, multiple promises, over and over again: “Life’s going to be more affordable.”

Let’s look at Langley. Rents are up over $2,800 per year. In Maple Ridge, the hike has been almost $2,700, hardly more affordable by anyone’s standards. The minister knows that young people can’t afford to buy in the Lower Mainland anymore, and now under this government they’re also being priced out of the rental market.

[10:25 a.m.]

The Premier — not once but twice — promised a renters rebate of $400. Now, we absolutely know that it will not cover the massive increase in rents that renters across this province have experienced, but it would make a difference.

So a very straightforward question. It was a promise more than once that there would be a renters rebate in British Columbia. Can the minister confirm they intend to keep the promise they made to renters?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, we’re working on it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: All right, Members. The first question is over. It’s okay.

Let’s continue with the second question.

M. Bernier: This government wants to continue trying and the Premier and the minister want to continue trying to pat themselves on the back, which shows just how out of touch they are with what’s really happening on the ground right now for people, for families. After five years, it has never, ever been less affordable to live in this province.

They’re not listening to what the people have to say — people like Alison, who was just evicted from her home. Alison was evicted, and she says: “For me to find an equivalent-sized property in the same general area, my rent is now going to go up by $600. All of our monthly expenses have gone up.”

Members can chuckle. Members can laugh at this issue. But it’s an important issue facing people like Alison who can no longer afford an NDP government.

Even in places like Courtenay-Comox, rent has gone up almost $3,300 a year. But what do we hear from the MLA representing that area? Nothing. Life is not affordable anymore for so many people, and people are silent on the NDP side.

If housing affordability is…. You know, it’s interesting to hear what the minister said. I’ll give him another opportunity. We have the sixth budget coming up — five years of an NDP government — and multiple times, for five years, where they could have solved this issue and promised a $400 renters rebate.

Do we expect to see it next week, then, in the budget?

Hon. D. Eby: There is nobody on this side of the House laughing about the situation faced by renters in this prov­ince, not a single person. What we find amusing is the idea that the B.C. Liberals are the party of renters. I mean, that’s funny. That is funny. Give me a break. Give me a break, hon. Speaker.

I mean, we do face a really serious issue. We had 19,567 people move to British Columbia from other countries in the last three months of last year. And 5,717 people moved to B.C. from other provinces. That’s 25,000 people in the last three months of the year. They’re all looking for housing. They’re all looking for a place to live. So we need to bring more rental housing stock online to help press those rents down.

People are trying to find housing. They want to come to British Columbia because we have an economy that works for everyone, but that brings challenges. It’s a good challenge for us to work on — to get more rental housing, to make renting more affordable for people. I’m glad the members are raising this issue. It’s not something to be taken lightly, and we’re working very hard on it — $2 billion in the HousingHub to build affordable housing, 34,000 affordable rental housing units across the province since we formed government.

We’ve got a lot more work to do, but we’ve got a good start.

Mr. Speaker: Peace River South, supplemental.

M. Bernier: They definitely have a lot more work to do, and that would be starting by actually coming good on any of their election promises that they’ve promised to the people of British Columbia.

I thought I heard something about how gas prices weren’t going to go up, that the Premier was going to fix that. Silence — failed promise. I heard cell bills weren’t going to go up, that that was going to be fixed under this government. Silence. Nothing happened — failed promise. A $400 rebate promise — failed promise. One failed election promise after another.

[10:30 a.m.]

Look. I’m glad that the minister acknowledged we’re caring about people, because we are. This is an important issue. They can chuckle all they want. We’re raising it be­cause we’re hearing from people in our communities, and we’re bringing it forward to this House, unlike the NDP MLAs on the back bench who are silent on this issue, absolutely silent.

By $1,500 rent has gone up a year in Richmond. By $2,600 a year in North Vancouver, rent has gone up. Crickets. I don’t hear anything from the members representing those ridings who are speaking up on behalf of the constituents who can no longer afford to rent.

To the “say anything to get elected” government, will they actually start following through with their promises to help renters in British Columbia so they can afford to stay in this beautiful province?

Hon. D. Eby: I appreciate the question. I wonder, though, about a party who chooses a man, Kevin Falcon, to be their leader who is undeniably a real estate speculator, to lead them into better housing policy. The first thing he says that he’s going to do….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Come to order. Order.

Hon. D. Eby: The first thing he’s going to do….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: You’re wasting your precious time, Members.

The minister will continue.

Hon. D. Eby: The member says they’re looking after people. The first thing he’s going to do is to get rid of the speculation tax that brought 18,000 vacant homes on to the rental market for people to live. These are the big ideas to look after people.

I’m sure the members don’t want me to go into the speculation engaged in by the other side. I’m sure they don’t. I can tell you whose side they’re on. It is not the side of ren­ters, and it is not the side of British Columbians.

ACCESS TO PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
AND DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

S. Furstenau: When asked yesterday about growing in­equality in accessing primary health care services in this province, the Minister of Health says that he has referred the matter to the Medical Services Commission. The Medical Services Commission is responsible for ensuring that all B.C. residents have reasonable access to medical care, including diagnostic imaging.

Yesterday my colleague brought up the fact that British Columbians are being forced to pay for these services. The minister implied that this government is okay with services such as diagnostics and preventative screenings requiring a fee because, as he said, they are “non-medically necessary services, beyond the health care system.”

On the one hand, the minister says that he is concerned with inequality in our health care system, but in the same response, he indicates that his government is comfortable with British Columbians paying extra fees for access to health care.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Does the minister see these additional fees as creating two-tiered health care, based on the ability to pay in British Columbia?

Hon. A. Dix: I’m very surprised the member talks about diagnostic services. In the final year of the previous government, we did 174,000 MRIs in British Columbia. Last year, during COVID, we did 252,000. That work was done by health professionals, and it made a real difference.

When you, as we had in the north, underserve MRIs, as happened — less than half of the national average of MRIs in those communities…. When you underserve them in a place, people have no option for medically necessary care often, to get that. We changed that.

How did we do it? By going in…. There was one MRI machine going 24-7 in the public system. There are now 12. We bought from the private sector additional MRI capacity, and we added MRIs all over the province, including here on Vancouver Island.

This improves public health care. It improves public health care for everyone, and that’s what we’re going to continue to do.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.

[10:35 a.m.]

S. Furstenau: I wasn’t speaking specifically about diag­nostics. I was speaking about the reality. The question was very clear, and it was following on the question from my colleague yesterday.

There are clinics in British Columbia that are charging additional fees so that patients can access diagnostic and preventive health care services. My question to the minister was about where he stands on the fact that people are paying additional fees to get additional access to primary health care in British Columbia.

At the same time, under this government’s watch, corporate delivery of health care is creeping into our system. We are seeing a corporatization of primary health care with Telus Health and their partner, Babylon. To be clear, a private multi-billion dollar corporation is delivering health care and charging additional fees to people who want access to premium care.

My question, again, to the Minister of Health. Can he explain to British Columbians how and why, under his watch, a global telecommunications company is delivering health care in our province?

Hon. A. Dix: The members did ask questions yesterday with respect to a clinic in the member for Saanich North and the Island’s constituency. He’ll know, and I think that he knows this, that last year the Medical Services Commission did take action. They got a response from the clinic. The clinic worked its way back into compliance. Of course, we’re still working with that clinic.

What that means is the actions that we have taken to improve the Medicare Protection Act and to bring in force sections of that act that had been left dormant have seen real results for people. We’re going to continue to do that in every case.

The New Democratic Party, as people will know — it’s not just us; I think it is all members of this House — is the party of public health care. I will continue to do everything that I can, including adding MRIs, including repatriating workers who have been contracted out, including bringing back services in his constituency and others for home care, including building hospitals in the public system for the public. That is what we’re going to continue to do under this government.

COVID-19 RELIEF GRANTS
FOR LIVE EVENTS INDUSTRY

T. Stone: Small businesses that make up the wedding and events industry in British Columbia have lost between 70 percent and 90 percent of their revenue over the past two years. Paige Petriw of Spotlight Events says: “The im­pact on our industry extends six to 12 months minimum beyond any lockdown period. We cannot open and close overnight.”

The damage has been done to these businesses, and they feel like they have been abandoned by this government for the past couple of years. What they need now, however, is financial support in order to be able to reopen.

My question to the Premier is this. Why has the Premier allowed these small businesses to completely fall through the cracks when it comes to needed supports, and will the Premier commit to actually flowing the supports to businesses in the events sector so that they can do what they need to do to call their employees back and get back open in communities across this province as quickly as possible?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I will start by acknowledging and thanking B.C. chambers across the province. This is B.C. Chamber Week, and I know it’s been acknowledged in this House.

We have been engaging with the chambers. We’ve been engaging with businesses throughout this pandemic. Over half a billion dollars of grants directly going into the pockets of businesses. In fact, the types of businesses the member mentioned also had access to those grants, and those dollars were there to be able to support businesses to pivot and to adapt through this pandemic.

The results? The results are that we are leading the country in economic recovery. We have the lowest unemployment rate in the entire country. We have 30,000 people, net, moving to British Columbia this last year alone. That’s the highest in over 28 years. People are coming to British Columbia because they see opportunities. A report was laid out last week that lays out that we have one million new job openings coming to British Columbia over the next ten years. Lots of opportunities.

[10:40 a.m.]

The economy is humming along very well. We’re the envy of the country. The wages are also going up. I know that there has been lots of discussion today about affordability. I know that the newish — I’ll say “newish” — Leader of the Opposition, Kevin Falcon, said that wages going up is not good. He said the minimum wage going up is a bad decision. I know that it was their economic policy for many years — in fact, ten years — not to raise minimum wage. Their policy was to keep people down, keep their wages down.

We’re going in a different direction. The investments we are making are making a difference. Businesses are doing well. Some are struggling. We’re going to continue to support them.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Kamloops–South Thompson, supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, the minister’s rambling, I can only as­sume, leadership speech…. He might be warming up and testing out some lines.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

T. Stone: It’s falling flat with the businesses across the province, like Judy’s, like Paige’s, like all of the other small businesses in the events sector that aren’t sure that they’re going to be able to actually turn their lights back on when they’re allowed to reopen. He didn’t mention anything in response to the question about the business that I mentioned, the specific example.

To the minister: you can say it over and over again. It doesn’t make it right. British Columbia is No. 8 when it comes to providing direct grants to support small businesses — No. 8.

Let’s try this again. As I said in my first question, the events sector has been completely forgotten by this government when it comes to supports. Everything the government has put out there has been bungled. It certainly hasn’t made its way to businesses in sectors like the live events sector and the events sector generally.

Judy Reeves. Here’s another real example, a real person. I want the minister to hear this and respond to this specific situation. Judy Reeves owns Edge Catering. It’s a Vancouver-based catering company. She says: “My business has been financially and operationally decimated since the start of the pandemic.”

Interjections.

T. Stone: If Judy Reeves were in here and could see the members opposite laughing at her very real crisis with her business, I don’t think she’d be very impressed. It’s appalling.

Judy Reeves says: “My business has been financially and operationally decimated since the start of the pandemic. I have laid off 50 staff and lost $3½ million in revenue last year alone. I have significant overhead that I must maintain daily, and I’m trying to retain my key staff that I have invested in over the years. I continue to barely keep my business afloat, but this government has completely shut us out of financial supports.”

The question to the Premier would be this. What does the Premier have to say to Judy Reeves, who, despite consistently doing the right thing through this pandemic — respecting all health measures, always trying to do good by her employees, all the while losing 90 percent of her revenue over the past year — is ineligible? She’s ineligible to receive a single penny from the government’s most recent grant to support small business.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll start by saying to Judy and others that I know that some businesses have had a challenging time over the last two years of the pandemic.

We have been there to support businesses. The member knows we canvassed this at great length in estimates last year, about the supports that were available. In fact, I think we shared in writing, also, with the member on the supports that were available. So supports have been there.

Judy can also know that the support we provided for businesses was for those that were directly closed by health orders. Businesses that were not directly impacted….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member asked a question for Judy. I think the member should give me…

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

Hon. R. Kahlon: …an opportunity to share some information with Judy. His heckling is not helping Judy get any answers.

The message to Judy would be that there are, right now, programs available. From the beginning of the pandemic, we’ve worked with the federal government to make sure that our programs are fully aligned. We are supporting businesses that are directly shut down by the pandemic, and the federal government is coming up to 75 percent rent and wage subsidies for any business impacted by the pandemic. If Judy needs help to be able to access those dollars, we’re certainly willing to help.

[10:45 a.m.]

COVID-19 RELIEF GRANTS FOR GYMS

L. Doerkson: Gym owners are also frustrated. Gym owners were shocked when they found out that they had to be a mega-corporation and employ more than 99 people to qualify for the full amount of the closure relief grant. Only the NDP could come up with a plan like this.

Chantelle, of Fit City Athletica, says that, to make matters worse, they were told that because some of their employees were part-time, their grant amount may be reduced by 80 percent, to $1,000.

Will the Jobs Minister please explain why, after these businesses have been forced to close, he is punishing them?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member will know that we have consistently provided the highest per-capita supports for people and businesses in the entire country. The member will also know that gyms have access to the financial supports. We have provided the supports to businesses and, in particular, gyms that are impacted. In fact, many gyms in his community have already been approved, and many have started to receive the money already.

I’ll just share, with the member, this. We heard from businesses, some that were providing youth programs, that they weren’t fully closed, but they still were not getting the revenues anywhere close to where they were prior to being shut down. We changed the program requirements so that they could get access to the financial supports as well.

The supports are there. Gyms are accessing it. I met with the Fitness Council last week. They’re very pleased that these supports are getting to businesses that desperately need the help.

Our main message to the public is: “Now that you are able to get active and be fit again, go back to the gyms. Take care of your mental and physical health.”

Mr. Speaker: Cariboo-Chilcotin, supplemental.

L. Doerkson: Frankly, that is offensive and insulting.

Re4rm Fitness in Williams Lake is now permanently closed under your funding models. Chantelle says: “Funding was simply not enough and could not be delivered fast enough to be much help to our gym. Heating bills alone were more than $1,000, and rent much more than that.” I would suggest that very few gyms in this province actually employ the 99-plus people needed to get the full grant.

To the minister, if the NDP was sincere in their attempt to help these businesses, why would they introduce something so unrealistic?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think there’s…. Certainly, I hope there’s no disagreement in this House that we need to continue to follow health guidelines. Some measures were needed by PHO to ensure that we can keep our communities safe. I know those additional measures have been challenging for gyms, in particular, because they’ve been closed.

We have continued, from the beginning of the pandemic, to provide the highest supports per capita for people and businesses in the entire country. Businesses have access to support, as I shared with the member from Kamloops, who wasn’t aware that it’s in partnership with the federal government. Our grants are direct grants. They don’t need to pay them back, because that’s what we heard from the sector. The federal government is providing up to 75 percent for wage and rent subsidies for businesses that are impacted.

These measures, I know, are supporting a lot of businesses through British Columbia. I know that some are still feeling the pinch, and we’re going to continue to be there to support them as we navigate these challenging times.

COVID-19 RELIEF GRANTS
FOR BUSINESSES IN KAMLOOPS

P. Milobar: The minister just isn’t being forthright with the public. We’re No. 8 in support; 66 percent of provincial supports is actually debt being put onto businesses. The minister, every time, repeatedly, seems to refer back to saying, basically, that he’ll help you fill out forms for federal programs, because he has no way to actually help the business with his own bungled programs.

Here’s another example of a bungled program. In Kamloops, we have a café and lounge. In December, it was shut down with the latest restrictions, shut down by the local liquor inspector because the appetizers on the menu were deemed to not be full meal service. But now the Jobs Ministry disagrees and says, no, actually, the menu did qualify. This business is not able to access the grants after being closed by this government.

Will the minister reverse this and make sure that this business is made whole for them doing the right thing and shutting down when they were told by the government to shut down?

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think I want to take this opportunity to thank both Dr. Henry and the Minister of Health, and the entire team that’s been working around the clock to ensure that the public can stay safe. I’ve had the opportunity to talk to colleagues across the country, business owners from across the country. They all point to British Columbia as a province that did it right.

We had the least amount of disruptions. We continued to see the economy open in a very safe way. It was always measured, with safety first. How do we ensure that we can continue to operate businesses in a safe way? That means that we had the least amount of disruption to businesses — from any province in this country. We had the least amount of disruption to manufacturing. Construction continued to operate.

Overwhelmingly, every stakeholder — and they’ll know this too, if they’ve had a chance to talk to stakeholders — will tell them that the handling of health here in the province and the measures and the financial supports have been welcomed by businesses across the country.

In fact, just in Kamloops, $11 million in grants have gone to businesses in their community — $11 million to small businesses so they can continue to operate in a very safe way. The results speak for themselves — the fastest job recovery rate, the lowest unemployment rate.

People are moving to British Columbia to seek better opportunities, because they know this is the place to be to better their lives and better their opportunities for their families. We’re proud of that. We’re going to continue to work with businesses impacted.

[End of question period.]

Question of Privilege
(Speaker’s Ruling)

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have my ruling available now. I ask for your indulgence. It’s going to be a bit lengthy.

Hon. Members, the Chair is prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the member for Saanich North and the Islands last week. The matter submitted to the Chair is complicated and is not an easy one to resolve. An imputation with respect to a member deliberately misleading this House is a very serious matter that the Chair must approach with utmost diligence.

On February 8, after Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor opened the present session with the Speech from the Throne, the member for Saanich North and the Islands reserved his right to raise a question of privilege regarding comments made by the Minister of Citizens’ Services in the course of debate on Bill 22, entitled Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2021, in the preceding session.

On February 9, the member for Saanich North and the Islands rose on his question of privilege and made a number of representations and submissions to the Chair. The member’s submission focused on remarks made by the Minister of Citizens’ Services during committee stage considerations of Bill 22, specifically in relation to a clause of the bill that, if enacted, would allow the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to set an application fee for freedom-of-information requests made under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The member for Saanich North and the Islands drew the Chair’s attention to several instances in Hansard where, over the course of her exchanges on various clauses of the bill, the minister noted that she was listening to input on the potential application fee. The member for Saanich North and the Islands noted that on the day after the conclusion of committee stage debate on Bill 22, the third reading and final passage of the bill, followed by royal assent of the bill….

All of it occurred in the afternoon of November 25, 2021. An order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council was made, on the advice of the Minister of Citizens’ Services, setting an application fee for freedom-of-information requests.

This order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council stemmed from authority granted to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council through the enactment of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2021, being Bill 22.

[10:55 a.m.]

The member for Saanich North and the Islands submitted that the minister’s statements in the course of committee stage debate on Bill 22 regarding ongoing consultation and feedback on a potential application fee for freedom-of-information requests were not accurate. The member also submitted that the timing of the order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council demonstrates that the decision on the matter was already made, even before the bill had passed all stages of considerations in the House.

This resulted in the member for Saanich North and the Islands raising this question of privilege and making an allegation to the Chair that the Minister of Citizens’ Services deliberately misled the House in the course of debate on Bill 22, which he submits constitutes a contempt of this House, being a serious breach of parliamentary privilege.

The Chair will note that the member for Saanich North and the Islands was given a great deal of latitude to outline his question of privilege at some length. For future reference, the Chair reminds all hon. members that such submissions are to be brief.

The member for Abbotsford West made further representations in his submission to the Chair and read into the record and tabled email exchanges between the minister and officials in the Ministry of Citizens’ Services regarding a decision note on an application fee. The member for Abbotsford West also drew the Chair’s attention to precedents of this House regarding previous allegations that a member had deliberately misled the House.

The Minister of Citizens’ Services requested an opportunity to make representations to the Chair after reviewing the matter, a request that the Chair granted. On February 10, the minister rose to do so, stating that her words had been misrepresented and noting that no final decision on the application fee had been made until after the enactment of Bill 22.

The Chair thanks the member for Saanich North and the Islands, the member for Abbotsford West and the Minister of Citizens’ Services for their submissions, which assisted the Chair’s review of this question of privilege. The parliamentary privileges enjoyed by this House and its members are intended to allow for the discharge of constitutional functions without interference, intimidation or obstruction.

In considering a question of privilege, it is the duty of the Chair to ensure that it meets four established criteria. First, the question of privilege must be raised at the earliest opportunity. Second, the question of privilege must be a matter directly concerning the privileges of this House, of a committee thereof or a member thereof. Third, the question of privilege must be raised to correct a grave and serious breach. Fourth, the question of privilege must be raised in order to seek a genuine remedy that the House has the power to provide and for which no other parliamentary process is reasonably available.

In examining the question of privilege raised by the member for Saanich North and the Islands, the Chair concludes that all criteria have been met. It is, therefore, the Chair’s duty to carefully examine the submissions made and to provide a ruling on whether a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred.

Before offering an examination of the submissions made to the Chair on this question of privilege, the Chair must acknowledge that the matter arose in a previous session and that statements and questions were made in a Committee of the Whole. Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, fifth edition, confirms at page 402 that a matter of privilege arising in one session can be addressed in a subsequent session. The criteria that a member raise the question of privilege at the first opportunity remains, which has been satisfied in the instance at hand.

[11:00 a.m.]

Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, fifth edition, at page 282 states: “Matters arising in a Committee of the Whole, such as points of order and questions of privilege, must be settled in the Committee, and cannot be raised in the Legislative Assembly without a report on the matter from the Committee.”

In the matter raised by the member for Saanich North and the Islands, the remarks in question by the Minister of Citizens’ Services all occurred at committee stage consideration of Bill 22. The Chair carefully reviewed the precedents of this House, including previous Speakers’ rulings in this respect. In considering the circumstances at hand, the Chair has concluded that the examination of the question of privilege must continue. To decide otherwise would severely restrict the ability of members of this House to seek a remedy to a potential breach of privilege.

If, in the future, a member becomes aware of circumstances that transpired in a committee that no longer exist, the Chair does not believe that to be a valid reason to preclude the member from raising a question of privilege in the House for consideration by the Chair. The House’s precedents in this regard are intended to respect the autonomy of the matters that transpire in committee, of which the House has no knowledge until the committee reports thereon to the House.

However, when the committee in question no longer exists and a member, therefore, does not have the ability to raise the matter within that forum, it is appropriate to raise the matter in the House at the first opportunity. The House must not be hindered from possibly remedying the matter.

The Chair must now assess the allegation brought forward by the member for Saanich North and the Islands: that the Minister of Citizens’ Services deliberately misled the House during proceedings on Bill 22.

The Chair will note at the outset that an allegation that a member and, in particular, a minister has deliberately misled the House is a serious accusation and ought not to be made lightly. Once made, the Chair’s role is to determine, based on the evidence presented, if the member deliberately misled the House — and the Chair emphasizes the word “deliberately” — and to determine whether the House was thereby prevented from exercising its duties or was obstructed in doing so, amounting to contempt.

In the Chair’s review of the parliamentary authorities, Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand offered the most comprehensive test for what may constitute a deliberate misleading of the House. On pages 775 and 776, the auth­ority states:

“There are three elements to be established when an allegation is made against a member regarding the member’s statement: the statement must, in fact, have been misleading; the member must have known that the statement was inaccurate at the time the statement was made; and the member must have intended to mislead the House.

“The standard of proof required is the civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities. The serious nature of the allegation demands that it be properly established. Recklessness in our use of words in debate, although reprehensible and deserving of censure, falls short of the standard required to hold that a member deliberately misled the House. An allegation will be made out where a member questions a Minister over information given and the same information is repeated and later can be shown as false….

“For a misleading of the House to be deliberate, there must be an indication of an intention to mislead. Remarks made off the cuff in debate can rarely fall into this category, nor can matters of which the member can be aware only in an official capacity. But an inference of an intention to mislead can be drawn where the member can be assumed to have personal knowledge of the stated facts and made the statement in a formal manner or situation, such as by way of personal explanation.”

[11:05 a.m.]

As previously stated, the role of the Chair is to examine the representations and submissions as evidence presented and to determine whether a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred. With respect to the submissions of the member for Saanich North and the Islands, it is not appropriate for the Chair to rely on the opinions or views of the other parties, including members of the press gallery. The Chair did, however, examine the references to Hansard and to the parliamentary authorities cited in the member’s representations.

In considering the email exchanges tabled by the member for Abbotsford West, the Chair acknowledges that the emails centred around a decision note and an application fee. However, a copy of the decision note was not provided. Nor do the emails tabled by the member allow the Chair to conclude with certainty how the decision note and application fee that were the subject of those email exchanges pertained to the provisions of Bill 22 or freedom-of-information requests.

With respect to the representations made by the minister, the Chair must accept her submission that a final decision on the application fee had not been made until after Bill 22 duly passed all stages of consideration in this House and that she views the commitment she made in the course of debate as being fulfilled.

In making a determination on such a matter, the Chair must examine any evidence that (1) proves that the statement was misleading; (2) establishes that the member — in this case, the minister — making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and (3) that the member intended to mislead the House in making the statement.

The question that the Chair must ultimately draw a conclusion on is the following: did the statement of the Minister of Citizens’ Services during committee stage debate on Bill 22 contain contradictions that would allow one to conclude that she intentionally misled the House? Some hon. members may believe that to be the case. However, the minister confirmed to the Chair the validity of her responses.

Disagreements on the nuances of debate occur fre­quently in this House, and it is not the role of the Chair to adjudicate them. The Chair will, as did the member for Abbotsford West in his submission, draw the House’s attention to the words of Speaker Schroeder, who, in concluding a ruling on a similar matter on June 8, 1982, noted:

“It might be appropriate to observe that in this Chamber, by its very nature, countless disputes relating to allegations of fact will arise — and with great frequency. To routinely convert those disagreements into what amounts to a charge of deliberately misleading the House would be contrary to well established traditions observed throughout all parliaments. This tradition states that all Honourable Members will accept the word of all other Honourable Members — a tradition which I commend to this House.”

In other words, our practice, for good reason, is that an hon. member’s statement is to be accepted by the House in the absence of indisputable evidence to the contrary. In the event that a member has clearly and deliberately misled the House by deceptive statements, the Chair may have a role to play to ensure that the privileges of this House are protected.

The Chair balances this observation with a reminder to all hon. members that public trust and confidence in this institution depend on the integrity of each and every member. This is a serious responsibility, of which we must always be mindful as we undertake our constitutional duties.

Having carefully and thoroughly considered the submission of the member for Saanich North and the Islands, the member for Abbotsford West and the Minister of Citizens’ Services, the Chair cannot conclusively conclude that the Minister of Citizens’ Services deliberately misled the House. It is therefore the ruling of the Chair that a prima facie breach of privilege has not occurred.

Hon. Members, I ask for your indulgence as I offer additional thoughts that I hope you will take time to reflect on.

[11:10 a.m.]

As hon. members know, the key principle of responsible government is that the confidence of the majority of members of this House is needed for any government to govern, to create laws and to authorize expenditure, impost and taxation. This House spends a considerable amount of its time focused on business brought forward by the exec­utive.

It is within this forum where the principles of responsible government and ministerial accountability are upheld. The executive is entrusted with the great responsibility of governing, and it is the important and legitimate role of this House to examine and undertake effective scrutiny in that respect.

That may only be achieved when an elevated level of debate exists in this place. The majority of the members of this House have an important role to fulfil in ensuring that the mechanisms of accountability and scrutiny of the executive are well exercised. This is, after all, the people’s House, and all hon. members have an obligation to fulfil on behalf of British Columbians to uphold the democratic values that we all hold very dear. To be effective in this regard, the executive must be forthcoming with the House on questions put by members in the course of exchanges in this place.

I know that all hon. members have great concern for the fragile state of democracies around the world. The events and shifting social dialogue that we see around us are troubling. We all have a role to play in upholding and championing our democratic system of governance, which starts with always doing our utmost to respect the fundamental work and processes that unfold in this very chamber and the roles of all members, no matter which side of the aisle they sit on.

I conclude with these thoughts for your consideration. May they always be at the forefront of all hon. members’ minds as we discharge our duties in this place.

Thank you for your indulgence.