Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, February 15, 2022

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 148

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Earl Seitz

P. Milobar

Black community and Hogan’s Alley in Vancouver

B. Bailey

Impact of forest management on biodiversity

M. Morris

Services at Surrey Memorial Hospital

G. Begg

Elizabeth Burke

D. Davies

Inclusion Langley Society

M. Dykeman

Oral Questions

Affordable rental housing and rebate for renters

S. Bond

Hon. D. Eby

M. Bernier

Access to primary health care and diagnostic services

S. Furstenau

Hon. A. Dix

COVID-19 relief grants for live events industry

T. Stone

Hon. R. Kahlon

COVID-19 relief grants for gyms

L. Doerkson

Hon. R. Kahlon

COVID-19 relief grants for businesses in Kamloops

P. Milobar

Hon. R. Kahlon

Question of Privilege (Speaker’s Ruling)

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 2 — Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 4) Amendment Act, 2022 (continued)

M. Lee

Hon. J. Osborne

D. Ashton

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2022

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

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.

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.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued Committee of the Whole, Bill 2, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act.

[11:15 a.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 2 — MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING

AND

VALIDATING (N o . 4)

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 2; R. Leonard in

the chair.

The committee met at 11:16 a.m.

On clause 1 (continued) .

M. Lee: I just wanted to pick up on the discussion we were having with the

minister when we concluded yesterday’s committee stage

debate.

I know the member for Skeena and myself have been talking to the

minister in terms of the nature of the level of consultation and

collaboration with local First Nations in respect of this bill. The

minister, in response to a question I asked yesterday at the end of the

day, said that notification was sent on January 29, which was

considerably late in the process, given when this bill was tabled in

this House.

I know that looking back at the

interpretation that we are left

with, as members of this chamber, around the implementation of the

Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act itself, that in the

absence of the formal action plan that is still in draft form, we have

to turn our attention back to the discussion that we were having with

the former Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation about

what cooperation and consultation means with Indigenous peoples in this

province.

As we have canvassed yesterday and on previous bills, it means

more than just notification. I wanted to again ask…. In the review and

the determination that only notification at this juncture was

appropriate, given the nature of the bill, it’s my understanding that

the minister is indicating…. Is the government of the view that when we

look at

article 19 of DRIPA, the government is in full compliance with

article 19?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Nice to see you in the chair

again.

I’d like to take the opportunity to introduce Michelle Dann, who

is the executive director of the governance and structure branch, and of

course, I am joined again by staff — Tara Faganello and Patrick

Glanc.

[11:20 a.m.]

Thank you to the member for the question. As a re­minder,

yesterday I did speak about the notification. I did state that it was on

January 29, but I’d like to correct that, please. The notification letter was

sent to the NNTC Chiefs on January 26. The letter was then added to the agenda

for the NNTC Chiefs meeting on January 31.

I’ll state again what I explained yesterday, which is that when

the Indigenous law group, in the Ministry of Attorney General, reviewed

these amendments…. Again, these amendments are very specific, narrow in

scope, apply only to the village of Lytton and will give them the legal

certainty that they require to move forward with the governance and

operations for recovery in Lytton, that they are to re-establish or

replace what they lost — again, very narrow in scope. It was the advice

of the Indigenous law group that notification was necessary. That is

what we did.

M. Lee: I just wanted to, again, state that the intention of raising these

points in this House at this point in time is to really get a full

understanding as to what this government has been doing for the last

seven months. The mere fact that it provided notification not on January

29 but three days earlier, on January 26, doesn’t give me much

comfort.

I want to come back to this

article 19, because again, in the

absence of the action plan in terms of how this government is

implementing UNDRIP in this province, we are left with the debates we

had in this House 26 months ago.

Let me ask, if I can break this down, in

article 16…. Would the

minister agree that, under this Bill 2, there will be an implementation of an

administrative measure that may affect Indigenous peoples?

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member for the ques­tions. They are all of a

similar nature, and I am providing the answer with respect to notification. I

will add that we are cooperating with the NNTC as is expected and needed in

this case and will continue to do so. But I have answered the question and

don’t mind moving on.

The Chair: I’d just like to urge the member to move on. This has been

canvassed repeatedly, apparently.

M. Lee: Yes, Madam Chair. I understand the minister’s response, but with

respect, it did not answer my question.

I can either assume two things. One is the government has not formed a

view as to whether

article 19 has been com­plied with — that they’re only

basing their decision through the Indigenous legal group of the Ministry of

Attorney General. Based on the review of the nature of Bill 2, it does invite a

larger discussion as to whether this government has considered the requirements

of DRIPA.

If the minister is not prepared to answer that question and only refers

back to the fact that notification has been provided, then I’m not getting any

confirmation as to whether it’s the government’s view that

article 19, an

administrative measure that may affect Indigenous peo­ples, is actually

at stake in this Bill 2. I would have thought that that is something that we

would have understood.

[11:25 a.m.]

I can ask the question a different way, which is: why was notification

provided to the tribal council on January 26 — on what basis?

Hon. J. Osborne: I’m happy to answer this question again and to state clearly that

notification was provided on January 26 to the NNTC based on the advice

of the Indigenous law group in the Ministry of Attorney General, based

on their assessment of the narrow scope of this legislation that

pertains only to the village of Lytton and the replacement or

re-establishment of what they lost.

The Chair: Just a reminder again that we’re wanting to move on to canvass

a different angle.

Member.

M. Lee: Well, Madam Chair, I would say that to remind the chamber and the

members in the House that back on November 27, 2019, in committee stage

on Bill 41…. In response to a question from myself to the former

Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, we canvassed the

discussion of what cooperation and consultation meant, and the minister

certainly did acknowledge that it is in the hands of

government.

I can only assume, from the minister’s lack of response in not

responding directly to my question, that when I match that up with what

had been said in this chamber 26 months ago, there is a recognition by

government that the implementation of administrative measures that may

affect Indigenous peoples is ultimately still in the hands of

government.

When I literally asked that question to the minister

res­ponsible back when this bill was adopted 26 months ago, the minister

said yes. So we are talking now about a situation where the town of Lytton is

trying to progress to rebuild itself. This government, with respect, is not

meeting its duties in a timely fashion. This is putting everyone at risk. This

is my point.

The mere fact that the minister is not prepared to give this House

any understanding as to the level of transparency that’s required I

think really causes concern. Again, in the absence of the action plan on

UNDRIP, in the absence of understanding the nature of the notification,

I think all members of this House should have great concern as to how

this bill is being approached.

I would just ask the minister to consider, as this bill is being

implemented — Bill 2, that is — that the nature of the notification may

not be sufficient because of what is at stake here.

D. Ashton: I would just like to thank the member for Vancouver-Langara for

helping out on some of the questions.

Again, thank you, Minister, for being here. I also thank your

staff very much for being here to answer some of these questions. These

questions, along with what the member for Vancouver-Langara and myself have

asked, we think are incredibly important and will help, not hinder but help,

expediate getting those people back into their homes in Lytton.

[11:30 a.m.]

I would just ask, again, with regards to the tribal council’s role

in Bill 2. The member for Vancouver-Langara has asked questions about

the process of it.

My question is: is there going to be any concern by the tribal

council in regards to the question that was asked of the minister, by a

reporter, where the minister stated it is a very important archaeological site,

as well, and, again, where the minister was asked a question about debris

clearing, working with First Nations partners and all other stakeholders?

Again, is there any concern that the ministry, the minister but especially the

people of Lytton should have regarding questions that may or have been asked or

actions that are taking place currently, my understanding, about archaeological

assessments in the townsite?

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. Indeed, this was canvassed

yesterday, but I will provide a similar answer to yesterday in that this is an

all-of-government approach to helping Lytton recover. This means more than just

the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is hard at work on this. All ministries are

working closely with First Nations and stakeholders to do everything we can to

expedite the return of Lyttonites to their community.

These amendments in this bill, again, are narrow in scope and confined

strictly to the re-establishment of the bylaws that were lost. They provide

legal certainty to the village of Lytton in the rebuild, which will benefit

Lyttonites and their surrounding community members, including Indigenous

community members, by providing that legal certainty for the repeal and

replacement of bylaws.

The Chair: Just a reminder, again, that this was also canvassed yesterday, as

the minister has said. So hopefully a new line.

Recognizing the member for Penticton.

D. Ashton: I appreciate this, but I’m still going to query.

The minister just earlier today stated: “This is to help

re-establish and replace the losses that these people have suffered.” What I’m

looking at is how the bill, Bill 2, is giving the opportunity for the people of

Lytton and the government of Lytton, the municipality, township, to go ahead.

But for those people to replace what they had in Lytton and the losses that

they’ve incurred, there are processes. Those processes are going to be dictated

to by the re-establishment of the bylaws that have been — apparently, some —

lost in the township of Lytton.

One of my questions is…. This comes directly from somebody in

Lytton that has apparently started the process where they have been asked to

provide a clean archaeological slate for their deeded piece of property. It’s

also my understanding that the insurance company that’s involved with this has

said: “That’s not our cost. We’re not touching this.”

[11:35 a.m.]

If this is true, what is happening there…. One, who is going to be

providing that clean assessment? How long is that assessment going to

take, not only for independent, free-deeded pieces of land but also for

the municipality? Is it, at this point in time, slowing down the

process? Four is: who’s writing the check for it?

Hon. J. Osborne: To be clear, the amendments being proposed are specific to the

replacement of bylaws for the corporation of the village of Lytton. This is

under the purview of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. This is why we have

brought this important piece of legislation forward as one step, as one

component of the recovery process.

The member speaks to a number of equally important parts of the recovery

process. Today I’m here to speak to this bill in committee stage, and I’m doing

just that.

The Chair: Member, would you please relate your comments to the bill and

motion that is at hand, then.

D. Ashton: Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, through you, although I appreciate it, to

the minister, I brought up how important MEVA is, but I have also brought up

the strength that MEVA has. MEVA can be interpreted by many to be

different.

I, as a former local government official and a minister…. When we as

local government have that hammer in our hand that MEVA can give, we can do a

lot with it. We can do a lot that is a benefit to the people that may require

some quick and effective bylaws to make a difference. But those bylaws can

affect the people that those bylaws should actually be protecting.

I fully understand that the minister would like to concentrate just on

the MEVA, but she herself has said, not only in this House but publicly, that

it’s an important archaeological site, when she was asked questions about it.

And this legislation, I feel, is going to have a positive influence and may

have a detrimental influence with people trying to get back into living in what

was some normality that they experienced before the fire.

I appreciate — I greatly appreciate — the minister and staff trying to

address just specifically MEVA, but MEVA is going to cast a big shadow there. I

hope that MEVA, with the utmost of respect to their immediate neighbors, the

bands…. My understanding, five or six bands of Indigenous peoples around the

Lytton area…. We all want this to be worked together. They had terrific losses

themselves.

Some of their concerns the minister brought up…. It is an important

archaeological site. Also, we have to work with First Nations partners. So this

is what we are going to have to do. I just hope…. I’ll just ask a very pointed

question: will the MEVA bill that is being right now presented, Bill 2, address

the concerns that have been brought up by not only the member from Langara but

also the member from…? I can’t say his name, and I apologize. I do not remember

his location at this time.

There have been three of us that have brought this forward — plus,

unfortunately, from a member that is unable to attend here today that is the

member for that riding. I’ll drop the question after this to the minister if

she can assure me and my peers but, more importantly, the people of Lytton that

MEVA is going to facilitate them getting into their homes and somewhat

establishing a normal lifestyle and life holdings in the town of Lytton and

working in conjunction, respectfully, with their neighbours that are now asking

for archaeological site exploration and heritage confirmation.

That’s all I ask, Madam Chair.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes, the MEVA amendments will facilitate people recovering and returning

to the village. They are providing the village with the legal certainty that

they need to re-establish bylaws that were lost wholly or partially. This will

provide them with the good governance and operations that they need to be able

to conduct in order to assist people in recovering, providing the services that

people are depending on.

Archaeological permitting is a provincial process, so is unrelated to

the MEVA amendments we are discussing today.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: The Chair has been very generous in allowing some latitude in

pursuing these lines and asks that we really stick to this

bill.

D. Ashton: In

section 57(1), in what circumstance would the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council prescribe an earlier date? That is in

regards to the validation period.

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question regarding the validation period

and how it could be shortened by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

regulation.

That could be done if it is needed, if all the bylaws that were lost or

partially lost in the fire have been replaced and there’s no longer a need for

the validation period. Any decision to shorten the period will be done in

consultation with the village of Lytton, area First Nations and other affected

stakeholders.

D. Ashton: The minister is talking about the proposed ten-year permitting time of

MEVA legislation being held in place, I assume.

The Chair: The minister indicates yes.

D. Ashton: Can the minister explain the retroactive provisions in subsection

1(4)?

Hon. J. Osborne: These amendments contain provisions to address their retroactive

application for several reasons. The retroactive application of

section 58 may

be required as the council of the village continues to operate and govern in

relation to bylaws that were lost. The retro­activity can be used to

validate any action or decision taken by council from June 30, 2021, to

whenever this

section is brought into force by regulation.

The retroactive application of

section 57 might be re­quired in

instances where council repeals a lost bylaw and believes that they’ve met the

legislative requirements and then later becomes aware they did not meet a

requirement. Upon request from Lytton council, the province may modify, waive

or replace the requirement by regulation with the appropriate terms and

conditions to ensure that the bylaw was validly repealed.

[11:45 a.m.]

D. Ashton: Those are all my questions on

section 1. I have questions on the

following sections, but

section 1, no.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

D. Ashton: I also would like to apologize to my peer from Skeena for

forgetting his place of residency and representation. He is a gentleman

that has vast knowledge. That’s what we heard yesterday in some of his

questions.

To the member for Skeena: I apologize for forgetting where you

came from.

Section 2. In subsection 58(3), it mentions actions or decisions

taken in bad faith. Could the minister explain this?

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes. The amendments also validate actions taken under Lytton’s

bylaws since the fire, and the validation is required since the contents

of the bylaws are unknown to council. Council may have inadvertently

taken actions that are contrary to the bylaws, so long as the actions

and decisions were not done in bad faith — i.e., it was a mistake. This

element is designed to be brought into force at a later date only if

required.

D. Ashton: How would the minister or her staff know if an action or decision

has been taken in bad faith?

[11:50 a.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: First, I think this is a good example of why a cautious and

case-by-case approach is required in circumstances where the village of

Lytton might approach the province and ask for this ability to be

used.

In this case, staff would review the evidence to determine whether

it was a genuine mistake and be assured that it wasn’t done in bad

faith. If there was a concern about it, it would not be taken forward to

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for the regulation-making authority

that the LGIC has. The village would then be required to follow the

legislated requirements.

D. Ashton: Is there a reporting process from the general public or from someone in

staff whose attention was drawn to this to report it, first of all, to the

staff in the of­fice, and then would it flow up to the ministry staff?

What is the process for the public input on this, if there is such a

thing?

Hon. J. Osborne: Lytton needs to follow the requirements of the Local Government

Act when they repeal, amend, replace or make any bylaw.

In this case, if, in that process, a procedural piece was

inadvertently missed and was identified by a member of the public or a staff

person or a council member, for ex­ample, this can come forward in an

open council meeting, where it can be discussed. Staff may be directed to

ap­proach the province to discuss an exemption, which is what these MEVA

amendments largely are about, to pro­vide that exemption to a procedural

piece so long as, again, it was a genuine mistake made in good

faith.

[11:55 a.m.]

D. Ashton: Being the judge and jury for bylaws is what a council is. I’m just

trying to follow the process. Is there a procedure that an individual can do

because of the expedience?

Again, I want to thank everybody for trying to get peo­ple back in

their homes, but sometimes things get overlooked. Is there a procedure that the

public can access that doesn’t involve a possible oversight by council, where

it can be looked at, at the ministry, because the ministry is initiating these

MEVA regulations?

Hon. J. Osborne: Members of the public are always en­couraged to take their

concerns forward, about any local government activities, to the local

government directly. That, indeed, is the case for Lytton.

Should an individual approach the province separately, provincial staff

would go back and ask the individual to talk to the village of Lytton. Again,

staff in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs are working closely with staff at

the village of Lytton on matters like these and many, many others to do with

recovery.

With this, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave

to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:57 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted

leave to sit again.

Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

Copyright © 2022 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.