First Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, March 10, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 26

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)

Chilliwack Pride Society

D. Coulter

Rolli Cacchioni

R. Merrifield

Argyle Secondary School replacement project

S. Chant

Cariboo-Chilcotin community response to COVID-19

L. Doerkson

Spirit awards for health care professionals in Campbell River

M. Babchuk

International Women’s Day and gender equity

T. Stone

Oral Questions

COVID-19 vaccine booking system and Telus contract

S. Bond

Hon. J. Horgan

R. Merrifield

Hon. A. Dix

Access to mental health services and systemic racism in health care system

A. Olsen

Hon. S. Malcolmson

COVID-19 vaccine booking system and Telus contract

P. Milobar

Hon. A. Dix

M. Lee

M. de Jong

Tabling Documents

Islands Trust, annual report, 2019-20

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 12 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2021

M. de Jong

Hon. D. Eby

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2021

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 4 — Firearm Violence Prevention Act

M. Morris

Hon. M. Farnworth

A. Olsen

P. Milobar

E. Ross

Bill 5 — Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2021

M. Lee

Hon. M. Farnworth

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2021

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: N. Letnick.

Introductions by Members

T. Shypitka: Sometimes it’s truly harmonizing what life serves us up. Yesterday I

was in this House, and I sadly announced the passing of a good friend and

the end of a life. Today I’m glad to announce a life that has just

begun.

[1:35 p.m.]

At 5:37 this morning, my nephew Dean and his wife, Shalaine, Shypitka

gave birth to their very first child. Charlotte Claire Shypitka was nine

days early but weighed in at a healthy six pounds and ten ounces and just

over 20 inches in length, if you want to know those details.

Would this House just please help me celebrate the amazing and

glorious circle of life and welcome Charlotte Shypitka to the

world.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CHILLIWACK PRIDE SOCIETY

D. Coulter: Good afternoon. I’d first like to begin by acknowledging that I’m

coming to you from the traditional unceded territory of the Stó:lō

people, in particular that of the Pilalt and Ts’elxwéyeqw

Tribes.

Today I want to highlight the important work of two groups in

Chilliwack that are working to create a more inclusive society for

LGBTQ2S+ folks. The Chilliwack Gender Support Network offers peer

counselling and other services to trans and non-binary people and

supports, on average, 15 adults and 15 youth.

In addition to their regular work with gender-diverse people, in

the summer of 2019, members of the Chilliwack Gender Support Network

decided that it was time for Chilliwack to have its first Pride event.

They organized what they thought would be a small Pride barbecue, and

over 700 people ended up attending. I had the pleasure of attending this

event myself, and it was wonderful to see so many residents gathered to

celebrate inclusivity.

The incredible turnout for the first Chilliwack Pride event

demonstrated a clear desire for LGBTQ2S+ inclusive events in our city,

and the Chilliwack Pride Society was formed at the end of 2019. The

Chilliwack Pride board members are Teri Westerby, Jackie Oldhaver,

Margaret Reid, Elizabeth Beacom, Mallory Tomlinson, Sheralie Taylor,

Lindsay Westerby and Constance Carriere-Prill.

Chilliwack Pride’s goals are to work to ensure inclusive Pride

experience across all races, ethnicities, cultures, sexualities, genders

and abilities; to promote inclusive medical and social and mental

health–related resources to members of the LGBTQ2S+ community; to

promote advocacy in the LGBTQ2S+ community; and to provide education on

diversity, equity and intersectionality.

Unfortunately, Chilliwack Pride was not able to hold a gathering

in 2020, due to COVID. But they did hold a successful citywide scavenger

hunt–style event with prizes. They also ran a fundraiser over the

holidays that raised $550 for the society towards future events, and

$150 for Imagination Library.

I commend the work of Chilliwack Pride, and I look forward to

attending their next event.

ROLLI CACCHIONI

R. Merrifield: It is with a heavy heart that I acknowledge the passing of a very

significant person in the Okanagan, specifically in Kelowna. This past

week Rolli Cacchioni, a five-term Central Okanagan public school trustee

and retired educator, suddenly passed.

During his career, Rolli Cacchioni was president of the Central

Okanagan Teachers Association, president of the Central Okanagan

Principals and Vice-Principals Association and, in retirement, was

president of the Central Okanagan Retired Teachers

Association.

He was first elected as a trustee in 2005, and he served as the

chair of the board of education from 2008 to 2012. Before joining the

board, he was a teacher and principal in the local school district and a

professor of education at UBC Okanagan.

One of his fellow trustees and friend Lee-Ann Tiede said: “Rolli

was well known and incredibly loved in this community. He was a man of

integrity who was proud of his Italian culture and especially the food.

He loved his community, was a wonderful and spontaneous singer and would

often dance with his precious wife, Mary, who he loved and adored. He

was a strong, stable presence on the board of education and will be

greatly missed by everyone around the table, both staff and trustees

alike.”

[1:40 p.m.]

Rolli was involved in many organizations in the community of

Kelowna, particularly in Rutland. His community involvement included

coaching youth hockey, rugby and soccer; tirelessly advocating for a new

Rutland Middle School; being a director of the Central Okanagan Sports

Hall of Fame, Kelowna Museums Society and the Interior Savings Credit

Union. He was a community contributor, philanthropist, educator and,

most of all, beloved.

On behalf of this House, I send condolences to his wife, Mary, as

well as all of those impacted by this loss.

ARGYLE SECONDARY SCHOOL

REPLACEMENT

PROJECT

S. Chant: I rise to speak to the House about something that I feel, and my

constituency feels, is very important. That is that we actually got a

new high school.

North Vancouver has some very, very old high schools that my

father taught in, actually. We were very lucky that some time ago,

Argyle high school was slated to get rebuilt, because it was not even

close to seismically safe. My two daughters attended Argyle high school,

and this conversation started while they were…. One was in grade 8, and

one was probably in grade 2 by that point.

We had these conversations for many years. My daughters graduated

in 2011 and 2016, and there was still not a new high school. However,

shortly thereafter, the ground started to break. We started to see the

beginning of a structure. Now we have a beautiful, brand-new high school

that is purpose-built, which is quite remarkable because in my day, high

schools were built to a plan that didn’t usually include much beyond the

planner. Now, this high school has included the administration, the

students, the teachers, the families, the school board. Everybody has

had a say on what was going on with this high school.

There is some amazing stuff there. They’ve got remarkable digital

media, etc. The principal there is Kim Jonat, another female that should

well be recognized as one of our strong leadership females. She is

compassionate. She is a professional. She’s inclusive, creative,

thoughtful, and she’s so open to a spectrum of ideas. I want to

congratulate her on seeing through the intense logistics of creating a

new school out of an old one. Getting everybody moved across happened

between Christmas and New Year’s, don’t you know.

Now my niece is also a teacher there. She does learning

assistance, supporting kids to maintain the classroom. And she had to

move herself because of COVID. Movers weren’t allowed in.

However, I congratulate Argyle Secondary School, and I also

congratulate Kim Jonat for a job extraordinarily well done.

CARIBOO-CHILCOTIN COMMUNITY

RESPONSE TO

COVID-19

L. Doerkson: In a recent speech, I saluted charities throughout the

Cariboo-Chilcotin that have risen above the challenges of COVID-19.

Today I want to continue that salute with organizations like the

Daybreak Rotary Club in Williams Lake that have managed to keep their

starfish program alive, which feeds so many children in our communities.

Lori Macala, Bill Carruthers, Scott Tucker, Andrew and Ingolf Sandberg,

Leo Rankin, Ken O’Brien, Jason Noble, Marilyn Martin, Rennie Johnson and

Joy Hennig are all parts of that team that do an amazing job fundraising

during these challenging times.

Also to mention their most recent success was when Daybreak Rotary

teamed up with CJ’s Southwestern Grill to do a drive-through rib

fundraiser that served more than 250 people in Williams Lake.

Cariboo-Chilcotin Partners for Literacy in Williams Lake and

literacy outreach in 100 Mile House have reinvented the way our children

consume books by creating story walks that have sections of the same

book along the trail and have also created their brown bag of books that

the children can simply grab and go. They have kindly included some of

our legislative colouring books in those bags as well.

Girl Guides in 100 Mile House and Williams Lake have continued to

sell their delicious cookies, and the Pathfinders recently decorated our

office in Williams Lake to help us celebrate girl empowerment in our

communities, with messages of peace.

Finally, it’s my privilege to wish the Station House Gallery in

Williams Lake a happy 40th anniversary. This little gallery is such a

fantastic part of our community and carefully, of course, continues the

tradition of allowing us to enjoy their art in their

displays.

Congratulations to all of our volunteers who have been so clever

in continuing to do such great work for all of our communities and, of

course, making our communities a great place to live, work and

play.

[1:45 p.m.]

SPIRIT AWARDS FOR HEALTH CARE

PROFESSIONALS IN CAMPBELL

RIVER

M. Babchuk: I’m extremely happy to stand up today and acknowledge the

wonderful efforts of the Campbell River Medical Staff Engagement

Initiative Society and the Campbell River and District Division of

Family Practice, who co-hosted their first Campbell River Spirit Awards,

an annual ceremony honouring our local physicians and community heroes,

supporting health care in our area.

This year’s event was originally designed to be a very large,

grand and in-person gala, but it was done 100 percent virtually due to

the pandemic. It highlighted the commitment of our medical community

during this extra­ordinary time. But it also gave us the

opportunity to honour the lifetime achievements of some of our doctors

and members of our medical community and acknowledge historic and

ongoing commitments from our medical professionals. These often unsung

heroes now get the chance to be recognized not only by their peers but

also by their community.

Thank you very much to the Campbell River Medical Staff Engagement

Initiative Society and the Campbell River and District Division of

Family Practice for creating this platform to honour medical

professionals in my community. I look forward to the next annual

Campbell River Spirit Awards, and I’m extremely optimistic that I get to

do that in person next year.

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY

AND GENDER

EQUITY

T. Stone: Earlier this week it was International Women’s Day. I rise today

to enthusiastically support efforts to recommit ourselves to achieving a

world in which every woman and girl enjoys all rights and freedoms that

are, quite frankly, her birthright.

The theme of this year’s International Women’s Day was “Women in

leadership: achieving an equal future in a COVID-19 world.” We

rightfully celebrate the tremendous efforts by women and girls around

the world while demanding a more equal future. How sad is it that women

have been hit disproportionately hard during the pandemic, losing far

more jobs than men and having fewer of those jobs come back than has

been the case for men.

Women are at the forefront of the battle against COVID, whether it

be as front-line workers in long-term care facilities or nurses, doctors

and scientists. Women are still paid less than their male counterparts.

It goes without saying that women and girls make extraordinary

contributions each and every day in business, education, sports, arts,

science, agriculture, parenting and, of course, in

government.

Yet throughout the world, women still struggle to rise to their

full potential. Sadly, many are denied opportunities for full economic

and political participation, while others are, unthinkably, forced to

marry and have children when they are still children themselves.

Education, the most powerful tool for helping girls escape cycles of

poverty and abuse and realize their full potential, remains beyond the

reach of tens of millions in far too many countries.

At this point, we can only imagine a time when International

Women’s Day isn’t necessary to shine a spotlight on the many challenges

faced by women and girls to achieve real gender equity. The harsh

reality is that we aren’t there yet — not even close.

As a father of three smart and determined daughters, a challenge

that lights a fire within me, as I’m sure it does for all parents…. As a

father, my greatest accomplishment in life will be to have done my part

to ensure that the only obstacle my daughters ever face is the limits of

their imagination. Let us all be dedicated to the work ahead to ensure

this is also the reality for women and girls in every corner of the

world.

Oral Questions

COVID-19 VACCINE BOOKING SYSTEM

AND TELUS

CONTRACT

S. Bond: On February 18, the Premier said, “We’ve got good people in place.

We’re ready to go. I’m confident,” when vaccines arrive, “that we’ll be

able to meet those expectations.”

Well, those words have certainly come back to haunt the Premier.

On the very first test of this government’s ability to roll out a

systematic vaccination program for British Columbians, the Premier and

his government failed miserably. This government’s botched contract with

Telus has eroded people’s trust and confidence in his ability to

deliver, not just in this case today, but in the future.

[1:50 p.m.]

That’s why it is more important than ever that the public gets to

see the contract. Transparency matters. We need to know what services

the Premier asked for, how much is being paid for those services and

when the contract was signed.

Straightforward questions to the Premier: when was the contract

signed, and will he release it today?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank very much the Leader of the Opposition for her question. I

acknowledged, as the Minister of Health did, as did the CEO of Telus….

On Monday, in Vancouver Coastal Health, we had a bad day. People have

bad days all the time. I’m fairly confident that Wayne Gretzky didn’t

score in every game he played in, but he kept getting on the ice and

doing the best he could. That’s exactly what we did in Vancouver Coastal

Health.

Yesterday we made 4,000 appointments. Now, keep in mind that we’re

dealing with 90-year-old-plus individuals. We had 1.7 million calls on

Monday. I’m confident the members across understand that there are not

1.7 million 90-year-olds in British Columbia.

There was a failure in one health authority; we’ve taken steps to

correct it. We’re on track to vaccinate British Columbians — 300,000

already, and more to come.

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: It certainly was a bad day for British Columbians. In fact, the

number of phone calls reflects the degree of concern that people have

about being to able to book for their vaccination. The Premier

acknowledged it was a bad day. It was a bad day. What makes the day even

worse is this Premier’s reluctance and his unwillingness to release a

contract that actually…. This Premier was out of the gate as quickly as

he could, along with his minister, throwing the service provider under

the bus.

So if the Premier has nothing to be concerned about with the

contract and the details that should be included, including how many

service providers are actually accounted for in that contract…. What are

the costs? Are there penalties associated with that contract?

We’ve heard that the second-largest health authority in our

province, which serves a quarter of our population, contracted for 33

agents. Yet Telus says that they have provided and promised 156 agents

and exceeded that number. So which is it? Straightforward way to clear

up the confusion: what does the contract say? What services did this

government request? Are there penalties for lack of delivering on that

contract?

To the Premier, he avoided that part of the question.

Straightforward question; hopefully a straightforward an­swer.

Will he tell us today when the contract was signed, and will he release

it this afternoon?

Hon. J. Horgan: This is the beauty of being in opposition, I suppose. I looked at

the front page of the Vancouver Sun today, and I saw a banner

headline above the fold: “Two elderly British Columbians ecstatic that

they had been able to get an appointment.” They’re going to be

vaccinated next week. The Nanaimo Bulletin reports that a

102-year-old veteran, born during the last pandemic, is ecstatic that he

is going to get his vaccination next week.

I know that the Leader of the Opposition — I know all of the

members on the other side — will spend the next half an hour asking

these questions. That is absolutely appropriate. I want to take this

opportunity, when I can take my feet, to say to British Columbians — to

assure British Columbians who are tired, exhausted, fed up with COVID-19

— that help is on the way.

We’ve seen time and time again how, if we focus together, our

resilience will come through. People of British Columbia understand that

the largest immunization program in B.C. history will have some bumps

along the way. But for a 102-year-old veteran in Nanaimo, who lived

through, now, a second pandemic, good news for him. Good news for all

British Columbians.

R. Merrifield: Well, I hope you got past the first page, because you would have

heard a lot more than just a couple of congratulations.

Leaders stand up and take responsibility when things go wrong.

Yesterday the Premier started to accept responsibility for the botched

vaccine rollout plan, but then he blamed others, saying: “The terms of

each health authority putting in place their infrastructure is entirely

up to them.” But then he admitted: “We oversee that and manage it in the

best interests of British Columbians.”

So instead of dodging responsibility, can the Premier today tell

British Columbians exactly what he signed off on and whether it was

adequate? Will you release the contract?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I fully appreciate that accountability ends with me. I said that

yesterday. I stand in my place again today and take full responsibility

for the entire effort of the government of British Columbia to deliver

for British Columbians. If that doesn’t meet the bar set by the newly

minted member from Kelowna, I apologize to her as well. The vast

majority of British Columbians want to come together and focus on

getting out of the pandemic, not focus on calling people names in the

Legislature. Carry on, Member.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kelowna-Mission on a supplemental.

R. Merrifield: Well, I’m sorry that the Premier believes that I am calling him

names, but I do love that I’m minted.

We have Penny Ballem saying that Telus needed to supply 33

operators. The company is suggesting that they have provided hundreds.

So the only thing confirmed is that this Premier botched this vaccine

rollout. Instead of a flurry of numbers and simply passing the buck, you

can put an end to all of this speculation.

Will the Premier release the contract that shows exactly what his

government planned for?

Hon. A. Dix: First of all, I want to encourage all those over 90 who have not

received an appointment and all Indigenous people over 65 who have not

received an appointment to call us today. The response times are very

short today, and everyone can get their appointment booked. I want to

encourage everyone to do that.

As of one o’clock today, 2,500 new appointments were booked in

Vancouver Coastal Health, bringing the number close to 7,000 over the

three days. On Monday, Vancouver Coastal Health, our appointment booking

and Telus had a bad day, but they have responded. There are agents

standing by to take appointments. I think that’s the important

thing.

Over 21,000 seniors over 90 have received their immunizations

already. We’ve booked, now, over 34,000 appointments. That work is going

to continue. What Telus did and what Vancouver Coastal Health did was

respond to a very bad day by adding resources. You can see the

difference: 360-odd appointments on Monday, more than 4,000 yesterday,

2,500 already today by one o’clock. In other words, people

responded.

I want to appreciate and thank everyone for their patience. We

are, of course, sorry that people were delayed on Monday, but progress

is being made. I encourage every single person, even those watching

question period now, to maybe put the television on mute and call and

get your appointment.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member, wait, wait. Let the Chair recognize

you.

ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

AND SYSTEMIC RACISM

IN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

A. Olsen: Let’s do a recap of what my colleague and I have asked in question

period this week. We asked about safe supply, and the government said

that it’s in the hands of the medical community. We asked about

decriminalization, and the government said that it’s in the hands of the

feds. We’ve had sincere condolences, but we’re missing the urgent

provincial action the mental health crisis requires.

Where this government is falling short, British Columbians are

stepping up, desperately trying to help each other. For example, two of

my constituents, Ella and Emma, recently started a Facebook group called

PES. PES stands for Pathetic Excuse for Support and is a place for

people looking to share their experiences after trying to access

emergency mental health services in British Columbia.

In just a couple of weeks, the group has grown to nearly 400

members, and the stories people are sharing are deeply, deeply

concerning. Instead of care and compassion, many who sought help felt

further traumatized by the stigma, discrimination and judgment they

encountered in our health care system.

My question is to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.

When is this government going to take re­sponsibility for their

policies, ones that have embedded a culture of systemic discrimination

and bias around mental health in our health care system?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Thank you to the member for the question.

We are working overtime to build up that system of care that was

not in place when our government first took government in 2017. As Dr.

Henry said at that time, it’s hard to fight a public health emergency,

and now a particularly accentuated mental health crisis, when there was

no system of care in place. So we’ve been both fighting these public

health crises while building up that continuum of care.

So with the powers we have…. This is Canada’s first Ministry of

Mental Health and Addictions to be singularly focused on building up

that system of care — expanding low- and no-cost counselling in the face

of the pandemic.

We have opened up eight new Foundries, mental health support

centres designed by youth and focused on youth and young adults.

Increasing suicide support for workplace mental health. Training new

mental health workers. Opening B.C.’s first Mental Health and Substance

Use Urgent Response Centre in Surrey. Opening the new 75-bed Mental

Health and Substance Use Wellness Centre at Royal Columbian in

August.

There is much, much more to do. But we are using the authority and

the confidence given to us by voters in British Columbia to build out a

system of care, where there was none.

Anybody in crisis now, please reach out. Our virtual and online

and text-based supports, which you can see at

gov.bc.ca/covid19mentalhealthsupports, are available for you

now.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a

supplemental.

A. Olsen: The question was about what the minister is doing to address

systemic bias and discrimination that has stigmatized people who are

presenting themselves in a mental health crisis. I did not ask for a

list. I asked for specific actions that are being taken to address

that.

I’ve heard many stories of how our system treats people when they

are suffering in a mental health crisis. Some may be offered medication

and told they’re seeking attention. Their friends and family are told

their loved ones are just attention-seekers and not a threat to take

their own lives. But all too often that’s not the case. I can personally

name more people than I wish to count.

However, if they do attempt to take their lives and return to

hospital with bodily injuries, then they are promptly attended to. When

their condition was deemed mental, they were undermined, belittled and

taunted. But as soon as their ailment was physical, they were put on

life support.

These are my peers, largely the victims of systemic bias and

discrimination toward people suffering a mental health crisis. When that

intersects with ethnicity and culture, it’s as toxic as the drug supply

that we’ve talked about this week. Mothers and fathers have lost their

children, and children have lost their fathers and mothers because

government policies have made an arbitrary distinction between mental

and physical health.

My question is to the Premier. At what point is his government

going to start treating the brain like it’s part of the body?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I apologize to the member. I did not hear the racial bias part of

his question. I did not mean to not address this serious matter

head-on.

As was discouragingly confirmed in the report that we commissioned

from Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, now titled In Plain Sight , there

is systemic racism in British Columbia’s health care system. It is

acting as a barrier to people getting access to the health treatment

that they need, and this is particularly pointed in the addictions and

mental health field. That was her finding.

For that, our government has unequivocally apologized and

indicated that this is now built into every mandate letter, every

instruction that the Premier has given us — to root out systemic racism

and to remove it as a barrier to people accessing the services that they

need and deserve.

[2:05 p.m.]

I share the member’s aim that heart and mind and every form of

physical and mental health is treated on an equal basis — that there

should not be barriers in place. This is exactly the system of care that

we are working hard to build up. We have got much more work to do, and

any barrier to access to mental health treatment on a racial basis or

any other basis, I agree, is unacceptable.

COVID-19 VACCINE BOOKING SYSTEM

AND TELUS

CONTRACT

P. Milobar: The Premier has admitted: “We should have been better prepared. We

had a bad day yesterday.” I know the Premier just wants to move on, but

British Columbians deserve to know how we got here in the first

place.

The questions today are not about what the call centre volumes are

handling today. The questions today are about the decision-making

process this government used in a contract with Telus that they thought

was an adequate contract to provide proper resources to people on the

rollout of this plan, starting on Monday — a plan that, back in

February, the Premier assured everyone they were on top of and that it

was handled.

Again to the Premier, whose signature is on this thoroughly

botched contract, how much money is being spent on what terms, and will

the Premier table that contract for everyone in the public to be able to

review today?

Hon. A. Dix: It does matter, of course, to the 35,500 people who have had their

appointments booked in the last three days. Telus responded, first by

taking responsibility and apologizing for not delivering as expected on

Monday. They’ve responded in specific and practical ways, adding

resources and addressing technical issues.

Now, if we’re going to be critical of them for Monday, we have to

acknowledge the work they’ve done since then — for example, yesterday

throughout the day, adding 68 new agents. Yesterday Telus had over 225

agents concurrently booking appointments across the five health

authorities, a 56 percent increase from Monday. They’ve trained an

additional 420 agents that will be brought online today, and the

commitment is to have 600 agents fully operationalized and productive

today. This is reflected in the numbers of appointments booked, 360 on

Monday in Vancouver Coastal Health, more than 4,000 on Tuesday, and

significantly more than that today.

The important thing, and our message for everyone, is that if

you’ve not received your appointment and you’re over 90 — born in 1931

or before — or if you’re an Indigenous person over 65, please call us

today at the numbers that are publicly available on all of the health

authorities, and make an appointment.

This immunization process has done well in British Columbia from

the beginning. We’ve received vaccine and delivered it to long-term care

and assisted living, to acute care, to people who are most vulnerable to

COVID-19. I’m very proud of the staff who’ve done this work. There are

going to be bumps, again, on the road, because it’s a significant

program, but I think our teams have done, across this immunization

campaign, very well, as reflected in the comments of the Premier and of

many people who’ve received immunizations across B.C.

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

supplemental.

P. Milobar: Well, the Premier also stated yesterday: “I’m happy to accept

responsibility and blame for this, if that’s what British Columbians are

seeking.”

What British Columbians are actually seeking from the Premier is

an answer — an answer around the decision-making and the sign-off on a

contract that they thought was adequate to handle the call volumes,

which most certainly it was not. The fact that the government won’t even

acknowledge who authorized that contract and thought that contract was

appropriate, when you have the head of Coastal Health saying they only

contracted 33 people to be on the phones, and that same person is

actually in charge of our vaccine rollout, you have questions as the

public, as the opposition.

What British Columbians are seeking are basic details about the

cost and scope of the contract that this government felt would have been

an appropriate level of service to handle call volumes.

Again, what is the Premier hiding? Why will the Premier not

release the contract and the terms and tell us who actually signed off

on this botched plan?

Hon. A. Dix: The member may wish to criticize Dr. Ballem, who I think is an

extraordinary British Columbian and who has taken on this task of

leading our immunization effort. I am proud and supportive of her work.

I think it is exceptional, has been exceptional and will be exceptional.

This is an enormous project, ensuring that 4.3 million people are

immunized, twice. I’m proud of the work that she’s done, taking on this

task and providing the leadership she has provided.

[2:10 p.m.]

With respect to the last number of days, we’ve told the members

that on Monday, there were significant difficulties, particularly in

Vancouver Coastal Health. There’s no question about that, but over the

last couple of days, people have responded.

I think what British Columbians wanted to hear was how we were

going to make it better, how we were going to respond, how we were going

to improve things, because people need to book their appointment, and

people need to be immunized — those over 90, Indigenous people over 65 —

right now. I would encourage them to call in and to get an appointment,

because I think this immunization campaign — the most important, and it

will be the most scrutinized in history, as it should be — is an

important moment for every individual.

Every time someone is immunized, it makes all of the rest of us

safer. I want to thank all of the people involved in this effort. Yes,

there was a bump in the road on Monday, and yes, the people responsible

responded by making things better. That is what I think everyone in B.C.

would expect us to do.

M. Lee: Well, I appreciate that the Premier has accepted the

responsibility and is being accountable for all of this, yet he hides

behind the Minister of Health. Questions are being asked to him in this

House, and he is not getting up. He should be accepting that

responsibility and answering the following questions.

As the Minister of Health just said on behalf of the Premier in

accepting responsibility, we are talking about 47,000 people over the

age of 90, 35,000 Indigenous people over the age of 65. It was a bad

day. It was the first day. This government has had months to plan this

out, to get the right call and online process in place. And it has

completely bungled and failed this province.

How did government retain Telus in the first place? Did it

consider other bids from other service providers? When did it sign this

contract? Did it scope it out? How is it that 33 call agents were

expected to receive calls from over 50,000, plus another 35,000

Indigenous people and their families? How was it expected that that

would be reasonable?

We are asking clear questions to this government about the

contract that they put in place with Telus. They put that contract in

place. They dictated the terms and specified what was going to be

required. The Ministry of Health and this government had months to

figure that out, and they’ve completely failed the province. British

Columbians deserve to know exactly what services government asked for

and when the contract was signed.

To the Premier, when was the contract with Telus signed, and will

the Premier make it public today?

Hon. A. Dix: I just simply and respectfully beg to disagree with the hon.

member. I think the performance of British Columbia’s health

authorities, their efforts to support people who have tested positive

for COVID-19, has been recognized across North America as an outstanding

response. It’s something we’ve done together, including members on the

opposition side, including members of the Green Party, including public

servants and health professionals and health care workers across our

province, I think to say the least.

Tomorrow is the first anniversary of the international declaration

of the pandemic, probably 14 months since we put out our own emergency

response to COVID-19. I think the effort everyone has made has been

outstanding. There have been moments when we have not done everything

right, and of course, as Minister of Health, I’m responsible for the

Ministry of Health and for that budget allocation. I take that

responsibility very seriously. But I am also proud of people in B.C. for

what they’ve done and for what they’ve achieved.

In this case, what we did was respond. Each health authority, of

course, has an arrangement — signed an agreement with Telus under our

master agreement with Telus, which was, of course, signed by the

previous government. Those agreements were put in place to ensure that

we had call centre capacity during this period. It’s natural that we

would turn to an outstanding provider such as Telus to do

this.

The reason is that health authorities are in the health business,

not in the call centre business. We needed this for a distinct period of

time. We weren’t setting up permanent call centre technology. That is

why we went down this road.

[2:15 p.m.]

I think the response of Telus…. I want to acknowledge the response

of Telus president Darren Entwistle, who has personally driven this

effort over the last two days to make things better. I want to

acknowledge that while we had a tough day on the first day, they’ve

responded very well and I hope continue to do that.

I again encourage people over 90 and Indigenous people over 65 to

call in and book an appointment.

M. de Jong: What is the Premier hiding? Will he release the contract, and if

not, why not?

Hon. A. Dix: The original agreement…. Of course, there was an agreement with

Telus, a governmentwide agreement that was signed under the previous

government, as the member will agree. Then, as part of that agreement,

further agreements were put together by health authorities. I think

we’ve seen in the last couple of days the response of this outstanding

B.C.-headquartered company, which acknowledged its responsibilities and

that it let us down on Monday and has responded with, I think, an

extraordinary effort…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Dix: …to meet the terms of its agreement over the last couple of

days.

I think what everybody wants us to do when things don’t turn out

well, when we have a bad day, is to turn around and make improvements.

That’s what I said we would do yesterday, and that’s what we did do. I

want to acknowledge everyone involved, all the staff involved, who have

worked very hard to see this be better. We’ve got an appointment-booking

process and an immunization process that will take months. It’s

important that we get it right.

I want to acknowledge the effort of everyone involved to try and

get it right over the last couple of days and make the improvements that

we see right here, right now in B.C. today.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.

M. de Jong: What is the Premier hiding? Will he release the contract, and if

not, why not?

Hon. A. Dix: I think what we have done is consistently disclosed, in terms of

appointments booked, from day one. When we had a bad day, we disclosed

those numbers. When there was a better day yesterday, the numbers were

disclosed. Today the numbers will be disclosed.

The fact of the matter is that Telus took all of the steps I

detailed to improve the situation for them. Health authorities took all

of the steps they took to improve the circumstances, and the

circumstances have improved. So I think that while we were very critical

and I was very critical yesterday of the performance of our contractor,

that performance has improved, and you can see that. People can see that

if they call our lines today and book an appointment. I encourage

everyone over 90, all Indigenous people over 65, to take advantage of

that opportunity and book right now.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a second

supplemental.

M. de Jong: What is the Premier hiding? Will he release the contract, and if

not, why not?

Hon. A. Dix: I appreciate that the members want to continue to focus on Monday.

I appreciate that many people in B.C. — and I’ve spoken to a significant

number of them — were frustrated by having to wait, as they did on

Monday, or not being able to complete an appointment with all of the

anxiety around immunization. We’ve talked about that. We’ve acknowledged

that, taken responsibility for that. Telus has, the Premier has, and I

have. Our task now, I think, is to make the improvements necessary so

that people can book and get appointments. That is, in fact, I’d say to

all members of the House, what is happening now.

There is an opportunity today for all those over 90, for all

Indigenous people over 65 to book appointments this afternoon, right

here and right now. We responded to the deficiency on Monday by adding

the resources and even more than the resources necessary to address wait

times.

I think I want to acknowledge, just as I was critical yesterday,

all of the hard work done by people at Telus, people in the health

authorities and people involved in this immunization campaign to ensure

that everyone involved gets the appointment they need, leading to the

immunization they need against COVID-19.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. J. Osborne: I have the honour to present the Islands Trust Annual Report

2019-20 .

[2:20 p.m.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage, Bill 12, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor

Corrections) Amendment Act, 2021.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 12 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

(MINOR CORRECTIONS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 12; N. Letnick in

the chair.

The committee met at 2:23 p.m.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved.

On clause 3.

M. de Jong: The change here, the deletion of the reference to subparagraph

(c), to subparagraph (b) — does that qualify…? Was that an error at the

time of drafting? Or has it subsequently been determined that the proper

or preferred reference is to paragraph (b)? I hope the Attorney

understands the nuance to my question. Was it a typographical error or a

substantive error?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that the advice I’m receiving from staff

is that this was a typographical error, that it simply should have

referred to paragraph (b), and it was a typo. It should not have

referred to paragraph (c).

[2:25 p.m.]

M. de Jong: So it’s between (

b) and (

c) in the Child Care BC Act. The existing

subsection (

c) refers to…. It’s under the definition of “child care

grant.” It means “a payment made for any of the following purposes…(

c) to improve the quality of child care” and “(

b) to facilitate the

operation of other child care facilities and services specified by

regulation.”

What is the practical effect of the change? Did the discovery of

the error arise out of stumbling upon an impediment in terms of child

care grants?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m not aware, nor the legislative drafter that’s assisting me….

By the way, it’s Cara Leitch, revision coordinator, office of

legislative counsel, in the legal services branch. We’re not aware of

any specific consequences of this typo on any particular grant or

program.

The significance of the correction is that without the correction,

subsection 12(2)(

a) of the Child Care B.C. Act is essentially rendered

meaningless because the whole sentence refers to subsection (

b) in the

definition, but then it references, instead, subsection (c). What the

error does is that it essentially makes the subsection meaningless and

neuters the ability to create a regulation, which is why that

section

was there.

I’ll advise the member, though, that if this error had been

discovered by someone that was trying to do something and they weren’t

able to do something in relation to the grants, I wouldn’t necessarily

have known about it; nor would the staff member who’s assisting me. I

will check in with my colleague the minister responsible for child care,

but as far as we know, there was no specific incident that led to the

discovery of this error. It was just identified through a routine review

by legislative counsel.

Clauses 3 to 7 inclusive approved.

On clause 8.

M. de Jong: I think several of my questions relate to this. In the Freedom of

Information Act, as it presently reads,

section 3(3) and the

subsections…. The words within the parentheses seem to be summaries of

what sections refer to. Is this a change in approach to drafting simply

not to editorialize, if that’s a correct term, within a section? Is this

just a changed style of drafting to make the reference to the

section

itself and delete any parenthetic attempt at labelling?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll refer the member to subsections 11(1) and (2) of the

Interpretation Act, which is instructive in responding to his question —

and, in a very, very nerdy way, interesting. I found it interesting,

anyway.

Section 11 of the

Interpretation Act — I thank the member for the

question — describes exactly what a reference after the end of a

section

added editorially can look like. If it doesn’t look like that then leg.

counsel can’t edit it without bringing the bill back to the

House.

In order to be able to add it editorially, and to provide someone

who’s using the statute with a bit of a map to the meanings of each of

the sections so they don’t have to flip back and forth, the

Interpretation Act says that “if a reference to a provision of the

enactment or any other enactment is followed by italicized text in

square brackets that is or purports to be descriptive of the subject

matter of the provision.…” It goes on to say that the subsection

applies.

The only way that leg. counsel can change things that are this

kind of editorial guidepost for users is if they’re italicized and in

square brackets. The member will note that the amended sections are not

italicized, and they are not in square brackets. They are in round

brackets, which is why this is in front of the House today to strike it

out. Then leg. counsel can add in editorial notes that are the proper

formatting under the

Interpretation Act.

M. de Jong: Well, that’s helpful. Last question on this. The unitalicized

words here, though, are not being replaced. Does the Attorney anticipate

that would happen subsequently, or will it just be left with the

section

references?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised by leg. counsel that the intention is to go back

through, after these are struck from the statute itself, and add in

proper editorial notes that reflect similar information but are in the

proper formatting for the

Interpretation Act.

Clauses 8 to 14 inclusive approved.

On clause 15.

M. de Jong: This is probably the only

section in the bill that I wondered

about in terms of actually qualifying under the criteria for the type of

change contemplated in this bill.

It adds (ii): “authorized to practise the designated health

profession of midwifery.” It’s a section, I take it, about the

appointment to a board. The

section being dealt with, 46(4.1)(c), grants

to the College of Nurses and Midwives some participatory rights in terms

of selection to the body, which is one thing. But then (ii) further

refines who that may be. It struck me that if the argument is: “Well,

that was an oversight….” It does somewhat change the intent.

[2:35 p.m.]

Look, this is not the end of the world. I don’t pretend this is

the most contentious thing in the world. It clearly is not. But insofar

as these bills are designed to address sort of errors of typographical,

I’m not sure substantive omissions would qualify. In the bill, this is

the only one that struck me as perhaps getting very close to that

line.

Hon. D. Eby: I think I understand the member’s point. He’ll let me

know.

In the old section, the member will see that the description of

the professional college was the College of Midwives of British

Columbia. In the new section, the member will see that the description

of the regulatory body is the British Columbia College of Nurses and

Midwives. There were two professional colleges that were

amalgamated.

Under the old policy, midwives were guaranteed a spot under

section (c), because they were the only members of the College of

Midwives. There were no nurses. So when the colleges were amalgamated by

regulation, this

section needed to be updated to reflect the proper name

of the college, which is the College of Nurses and Midwives. But by

doing that, it created the possibility there wasn’t clarity that there

was a space designated for the health profession of midwifery, because

now you have a college that isn’t exclusively midwives.

That is how this is not a substantive change but a necessary

change following the amalgamation of the two colleges.

M. de Jong: That’s a helpful answer. I follow the Attorney’s logic and

recognize the skill and diligence of the legislative counsel

branch.

I will simply say this. I think we have to be careful, because the

tool that has been created here to correct errors and typographical

errors…. I’m not sure it was meant to extend to oversights. It strikes

me that this is an oversight — a valid one, as the Attorney General has

pointed out.

For future reference, I just think we have to be mindful of that

fact in the use we make of the tool. But the Attorney’s answer, in this

case, is helpful in explaining why the addition exists.

Clauses 15 to 19 inclusive approved.

On clause 20.

M. de Jong: Is that a new trend? Is this indicative of a new trend, again, in

drafting — the replacement of the word “issued” with “given”? It appears

a couple of times in this bill, and I’m not going to ask each time it

appears.

Is there something specific about the sections, or is it just

general now, amongst those who are experts in the canons of

construction, to use the word “given” instead of “issued”?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that the statutory drafting protocol

that’s being applied here is the rule in favour of consistency and that

the subsections were a concern to drafters because in some sections, it

said “give,” and in others it said “issue.” There are preferences to

have a consistent verb in those positions, so “give” was selected. But I

can also advise the member that the staff member that is assisting me

today advised me that she’s not aware of a broader trend or preference

for “issued” or “given.” It would depend on the context.

Clauses 20 to 27 inclusive approved.

On clause 28.

M. de Jong: Similar type of question and not something we need to spend a lot

of time on. The replacement of “148 to 150” with the actual numbers. Is

there, again, some rule of drafting that we should be alive to now that,

in certain circumstances, the numbers are listed, as opposed to the

range?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that the standards of style adopted by the office of

legislative counsel include expanding ranges of

section numbers whenever

it is reasonably practicable. I guess the answer is that it depends, but

for this three-number range, it was felt appropriate to expand

it.

Clauses 28 to 32 inclusive approved.

On clause 33.

M. de Jong: I’m assuming that the answer to what would have been my question

about

section 33 is similar to what we heard a few moments ago with

respect to

section 15, but the Attorney can confirm that.

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, without this clarification, with the amalgamation of the two

colleges, “nurse” could be defined as a midwife, and that would not be

correct. This is to correct that.

Clauses 33 to 39 inclusive approved.

On clause 40.

M. de Jong: On clause 40, I was more interested in the…. I was going to call

it a sectional note, but I don’t know what you call it when it’s a

clausal note. In any event, it refers to “implements an amendment that

was inoperative under the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2006.”

What does that mean, inoperative?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There was a Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act in 2006 which

attempted but failed to correctly amend the Integrated Pest Management

Act.

Section 25 of that 2006 misc bill said that the text to be struck

out was “or take any other action as authorized in the warrant.”

Unfortunately, the actual wording of the Integrated Pest Management Act

was “…or take other action as authorized in the warrant.”

The member will note that the word “any” is missing. So while the

effect of the misc bill was good in terms of rendering that particular

part of the

section inoperative, it was not effective in removing the

text. So that’s what we’re doing here today.

Clauses 40 to 43 inclusive approved.

On clause 44.

M. de Jong: The three items in

section 44 that my question relates to, in the

table there, are item 4 referring to

section 38, item 6 referring to

section 40 and item 7 referring to

section 41. I’m not going to ask the

general question about what is the significance of the dates that have

been selected for coming into force. In a couple of cases, I can pretty

much figure that out.

But the question that is probably worth asking in a proceeding

like this is: is there any significance with respect to…? I believe I

understand. I can anticipate the answer, but I’m going to ask the

question anyway. Is there any significance with respect to any ongoing

litigation, pending litigation, administrative matter, administrative

consideration or review that the changes we are approving here might

have an impact upon?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise that to the best of the knowledge of the staff member

assisting me, and to the best of my knowledge, this bill came up through

the errors identified by the editors within the office of legislative

counsel, legal services branch, and not as a result of any pending or

ongoing litigation or administrative matter.

I mean, obviously, these are all administrative matters of

potential significance in future litigation or in government action,

which is why we correct these errors to ensure clarity. But I can advise

the member that to the best of my knowledge and the best of the staff

member’s knowledge, there is not anything active on that

front.

Clause 44 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:50 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

(MINOR CORRECTIONS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Bill 12, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act,

2021, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage of Bill 4.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 4 — FIREARM VIOLENCE

PREVENTION

ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 4; N. Letnick in

the chair.

The committee met at 2:53 p.m.

On clause 1.

M. Morris: Just one question on this one. It’s the

definitions

section of

this bill, on boats. So a pretty broad definition here. I’m just

wondering if the minister can tell me whether it includes kayaks,

canoes, fishing tubes that are commonly used by people in remote areas

as well?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer is: yes, it does.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved.

On clause 3.

M. Morris: I’ll have a number of questions throughout this first

part.

Section 3 is: “A person must not use, transport, carry or store a

firearm in a manner that (

a) poses a risk to the life or safety of an

individual, or (

b) poses a risk of damage….” Is there a duplication of

this contained in the Criminal Code of Canada?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, there is. It is within

section 86 of the Criminal

Code.

For example, if an intoxicated person discharges a firearm over

the head of another individual, then a Criminal Code charge is likely

appropriate. But if an inexperienced firearm owner passes a loaded

firearm to another person by gently throwing it, then a violation ticket

under this act may be appropriate. That’s where the overlap is. But

also, there’s a reason, because there may be situations where the

provincial regulation is actually the appropriate way to go.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

M. Morris: On subclause 4(3), it says: “For certainty, for the purposes of

subsection (1), a firearm is loaded even if the firearm is temporarily

incapable of being discharged.” I’m curious as to exactly what this

particular

section covers. Does that mean if the safety is on, or that

means if the bullets are in the pocket? I’m not sure how broad this

section goes.

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is a technical amendment that was requested by the

conservation service. And to your response about the safety, the answer,

obviously, would be yes. But the issue that they’re particularly

concerned about is removing the bolt and then trying to say that it’s

not loaded.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

M. Morris: This one says: “A person must not discharge a firearm in, on or

from a vehicle or boat.” Now when I read this…. Of course, I’m sure the

minister has probably had many calls on this, and a lot of our

colleagues have, across the province here, coming from legitimate

hunters.

I’m wondering.

Section 27 of the Wildlife Act provides the

authority for somebody to shoot from a boat as long as the engine is

inoperable. Is this

section in conflict with that particular

section?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, it is not going to be in conflict. The Wildlife Act is

currently being amended, and there will be a consequential amendment in

that to establish the regulations around being able to fire from a boat

while hunting.

M. Morris: Just to be clear, because this was a real bone of contention for a

lot of people across the province here. Is it the intent of the minister

to ensure that regulations are established to allow hunting from a

boat?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer to that question, hon. Member, is: absolutely,

categorically, yes.

A. Olsen: I just have a series of questions here with respect to Indigenous

hunting rights. In the late 1990s, Ivan Morris and Carl Olsen were

“arrested and charged with several offences under the British Columbia

Wildlife Act, including: hunting wildlife with a firearm during

prohibited hours, hunting by the use or aid of a light or illuminating

device, and hunting without reasonable consideration for the lives,

safety or property….” That’s

section 29. That’s what they were charged

under.

As a matter of fact, the Morris case was one where they were

hunting from a motor vehicle. Crown argued that this was inherently

unsafe. But nothing they did was unsafe, and this was actually fought by

the province all the way to the Supreme Court, where it was found that

they were not hunting unsafely, the very issue here in

section

I just want to ask this question. Has the minister consulted with

the appropriate Douglas treaty and Treaty 8 First Nations on the impact

section 5 on the treaty-protected rights, as successfully defended in

the Supreme Court of Canada.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In answer to your question, we are very much aware of those treaty

rights and obligations. There will be, continuing in the development of

these regulations, further consultation with First Nations around this,

and if there need to be, there is the ability to do exemptions under

this. We will ensure that if an exemption is required to ensure that

those rights are protected, that one will be put in place.

A. Olsen: As my line of questioning unfolds, I think what I would like to be

very clear on is that there’s a strong differentiation between what is

written in the legislation and then what is regulated. I think that

what’s written in the legislation is actually very dangerous when it

comes to those treaty rights.

An excerpt from the R. v. Morris Supreme Court of Canada

decision.

“The Tsartlip’s right to hunt at night with the aid of illuminating

devices is protected by the North Saanich treaty. The historical context

indicates that the parties intended the treaty to include the full

panoply of hunting practices in which the Tsartlip people had engaged

before they agreed to relinquish control over their lands. One of those

practices was night hunting and, as the trial judge acknowledged, night

hunting by the Tsartlip includes, and always has included, night hunting

with the aid of illuminating devices” — including from a

vehicle.

That last part was what I have added.

Even on a literal construction, the language of the treaty

supports the view that the right to hunt “as formerly” means the right

to hunt according to the methods used by the Tsartlip at the time of and

before the treaty. The right of the Tsartlip to hunt at night with

illuminating devices has, of necessity, evolved from its pre-treaty

tools to its concurrent implements — the use of guns, spotlights and

motor vehicles — and reflects the current state of the evolution of the

Tsartlip’s historic hunting practices.

Did the minister consult with Indigenous nations, including the

Tsartlip First Nation; the W̱SÁNEĆ

nations, the four nations; the Douglas treaty nations; or the Treaty 8

nations?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In answer to your question to the specific groups you named, no.

The consultation was done with the general First Nations leadership

groups within the province. What I can also tell you is that this

particular

section is not a new section. It is replacing

section 9 of

the old Firearms Act. So it is not new. It is just replacing what is

already in existence.

As I said, we fully understand the treaty obligations that the

province is required to honour. If it is required for there to be an

exemption, we most certainly will be doing that. This piece of

legislation is intended to put in place the regulatory framework, and

we’ve made that commitment that we will do just that.

A. Olsen: In light of the declaration…. And I thank the minister for

acknowledging that the government understands its obligations under the

treaty. However, the actions of the government have, over the last

decade or so and arguably the last couple of decades, three decades

maybe, since Morris and Olsen were first picked up in the 1990s,

arrested on wildlife charges…. The actions of this government have not

demonstrated that they’re prepared to do anything about the information

that they literally have sat on a 2006 Supreme Court case for almost 15

years.

In light of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Act and the minister’s admission that he understands the clear impact of

this potential on Indigenous Nations, in addition to the fact that there

was a commitment under the DRIPA that all new acts and even acts that

were currently existing…. So the fact that — to the minister’s initial

response — this is replacing a law that already was in existence, either

way, there was a commitment from this government to engage Indigenous

Nations that are impacted by these laws.

If the government does know that the Tsartlip in particular but

the W̱SÁNEĆ in total and then, as

well, the Douglas treaty, as a group of treaty nations, including the

Treaty 8, who also have got similar language in their treaty…. What did

the minister use to determine that consultation at the legislative

development stage was not needed?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In answer to your question, at the consultation stage, the groups

and organizations that were contacted in terms of being consulted with,

were the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Summit, the

Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, Métis Nation, Modern Treaty Nations and the

Nisg̱a’a Nation. Comments were

received from Indigenous treaty nations. The

Nisg̱a’a Nations were fully

considered during the development of this bill.

The other point that I would make: as I said, consultation

continues to be ongoing in terms of the development of the regulations.

This bill will not be implemented until those consultations are

completed.

A. Olsen: Thank you. I should have started, but I will kind of now start by

saying that I agree with the premise of this bill and the name of this

bill, the Firearm Violence Prevention Act.

I think it’s important to acknowledge that the arguments that I’m

making here today, or the questions that I’m asking the government

today, are in the framework that I support the government’s intentions

to diminish the amount of firearm violence in our province. Now, part of

the challenge is, under the charges that

W̱SÁNEĆ people in particular, but

Douglas treaty Indigenous people in general, have been charged with,

they’ve been, at their heart, safety-related matters. The conservation

office have arrested hunters, including Morris and Olsen — and Sampson

now, in 2016 — based on safety.

They’ve actually unsuccessfully argued to the Supreme Court that

there was an inherent unsafe aspect of the Tsartlip hunt or the Saanich

hunt. I’m going to quote the decision of the Supreme Court

here:

“However, it is acknowledged that it could not have been within the

common intention of the parties that the Tsartlip would be granted a

right to hunt dangerously, since no treaty confers on its beneficiaries

a right to put human lives in danger. This is confirmed by the language

of the treaty itself, which restricts hunting to ‘unoccupied lands,’

away from any town or settlement.

“Since British Columbia is a very large province, it cannot

plausibly be said that a night hunt with illumination is unsafe

everywhere and in all circumstances, even within the treaty area at

issue in this case. Accordingly, while

section 29 of the Wildlife Act,

which prohibits hunting or trapping, ‘without reasonable consideration

for the lives, safety or property of other persons,’ is a limit that

does not impair the treaty rights of Aboriginal hunters and

trappers…which apply without exception to the whole province, are

overbroad and infringe on the treaty right to hunt. Something less than

an absolute prohibition on night hunting can address the concern for

safety.”

I want to point out that in the… I think that the language of this

decision is that it was found that the Tsartlip had a right to create

laws over their hunting and that there has never been an inherent lack

of safety around the traditional hunting practices of the Saanich. There

is a troubling matter here that needs to be exposed, because the reality

of it is that for a very long time, this provincial government has been

trying to derogate those treaty hunting rights. It could very easily be

seen…. And in fact, I’m very concerned about the impact of the specific

language of this clause in the legislation.

The minister continues to point out that this will be done through

regulation. But what’s in the legislation is really important, because

the regulations can change. We’ve seen regulation change. Any

government, any time, that has its mind to it, can change the

regulation. We’re in here debating this legislation. It is a slower

process and requires this back-and-forth between the minister and

members of the opposition to ask questions.

[3:15 p.m.]

This is an appropriate place for the consultation to have been

done in advance of, not after, this legislation being passed. There have

been 40 years of jurisprudence clearly stating the province does not

have jurisdiction in this area around the federally protected rights to

hunt. Yet we see in

section 5 that they are limiting…. The provincial

government is attempting to overstep, when it comes to Indigenous

hunting rights, into an area that, in fact, they’ve been arguing, in

that 40 years of jurisprudence, that they want the authority to

overstep. They’re actually making that overstep in this law.

What’s really, really challenging…. And I’ve got a long quote here

from the decision that talks about the fact that in

section 88 of the

Indian Act, it cannot be used to incorporate into federal law provincial

laws that conflict with the terms of any treaty. The provinces may

regulate treaty rights under certain circumstances.

What we have here is a situation where

section 5 is overstepping

into an area. As a lawyer who’s argued this has pointed out to me, this

really feels like an attempt to slip through the back door, where going

through the front door has failed.

Did the minister or ministry staff review case law and acknowledge

the limitations of provincial law in the context of federal

jurisdiction, when it comes to the treaty-protected rights of the

Tsartlip and others in the development of this bill?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the questions from my colleague across the way. I

just want to assure him. First off, the province is not seeking to do

something through the back door.

[3:20 p.m.]

The province is fully cognizant of its obligations, both in terms

of how legislation is developed and ensuring complying with UNDRIP and

treaty obligations. I can tell you that the issues that he’s raised were

considered in the development of this legislation. That’s why that

consultation and the groups that I listed did, in fact, take

place.

The concerns that the member has were not concerns that were

raised back to us. But what I am telling the member is this: we have

done consultation. I have made the commitment that those consultations

are going to continue, because we want to make sure that what we put in

place is done correctly, is done properly and recognizes that rights

around hunting exist. They have been established in the courts. We are

not going to impinge on that or try to impinge on that by doing

something through the back door. As I said, until this is complete, that

will not be implemented.

A. Olsen: I think it’s important to paint the picture of the potential

impact of this. Carl Olsen is my father, so I know this case really

well. He reminds me of it often, and so he should. This charge that he

successfully fought took ten years of his life. It’s been 15 years,

almost, since the decision was passed down, yet nothing of consequence

has happened.

If Morris and Olsen Jr. — if I and my cousin — are out hunting and

we get picked up and this law is passed, there is a decision point that

could be made where we don’t then get charged under the Wildlife Act

necessarily. We get charged under this act. So what is solely a hunting

case, which is argued to the Supreme Court of Canada about hunting, now

becomes what looks more like a Criminal Code charge under the Firearm

Violence Prevention Act,

section 5, if it passes — or clause 5, as we’re

debating it now.

There is now this new, more robust law that then…. I should remind

that the point has always been to undermine and erode those hunting

rights. The province said as much, often as much, in the Morris-Olsen

case. When the judge asked the Crown what their intention was with the

fishing rights…. My dad remembers this clearly, and he articulates to me

clearly that the province said they wanted to get rid of those too. So

maybe they do. Maybe the conservation officer does have to charge us

under a hunting violation.

However, the question is why are Tsartlip members and Saanich

members continually…? If the minister’s word is that the Crown fully

understands its obligations under the treaty, why is Sampson still

sitting in front of the courts today? Yet another Saanich member being

picked up on yet another hunting case, questions about their character

and their integrity yet again being put before the people so that then

the Crown can yet again try to fight and undermine and erode the hunting

rights of the W̱SÁNEĆ

people.

Now, I can take the minister at his word. We’ve spent 3½ years

working alongside each other on this. It doesn’t extend much past me,

because there has been very little demonstration by the province of a

willingness to act. In fact, I have in front of me here a letter that

was sent as recently as February 24, 2021, to Minister Rankin, Minister

Conroy and Minister Eby from Chief Don Tom of Tsartlip, highlighting a

long case history starting in 1859.

[3:25 p.m.]

It was talking about 1852, seven years before the first Wildlife

Act; Governor Douglas, the representative of this crown that we wear on

our buttons; talking about a 1914 case from Edward Jim; talking about a

1916 case from Gus Morris; talking a 1965 case from White and Bob, that

landmark case that changed the entire world here in Canada; talking

about

section 88 of the Indian Act; talking about 1989 and the

Saanichton Bay Marina case that the provincial government lost in the

British Columbia Court of Appeal; talking about Dr. Barbara Lane in the

Bartleman decision, where the court established that the Saanich

People’s hunting areas are far greater than just

W̱SÁNEĆ, within just Saanich;

talking about

section 35; then finally getting to the Morris-Olsen case,

talking about the acquittal of the court; and then talking about the

Sampson case.

There is a long history of cases with the Tsartlip.

I think the minister has to forgive the

W̱SÁNEĆ, the Tsartlip, for…. When

the minister says we’re going to continue this consultation after the

legislation is passed, after all the members of this place have

demonstrated their support for this bill, the Saanich, the Tsartlip, are

just going to have to trust this government to reflect the rights — that

the provincial government isn’t trying to overstep its rights here,

where it has been clearly defined that the Tsartlip have a right to hunt

from a vehicle. In fact, our traditional hunt was from the bow of a

boat, using pitch lanterns. That was….

In this letter, the question is asked: why is the province

continuing to pursue…? If the province does know, as the minister said,

why is the province continuing to pursue the prosecution of Jonathan

Sampson? Is the province willing to end the prosecution and explore the

other options contemplated by the province’s legislative commitment —

the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act — in reaching a

co-jurisdiction agreement, building mechanisms for sharing information,

designing protocols to avoid and resolve conflicts as they arise and

clarifying jurisdictional space the province will vacate over treaty

rights?

These court cases have all along identified the fact that there is

co-jurisdiction in this area. Yet the province, in this bill, is

operating and acting like it has the only jurisdiction. The letter from

Minister Eby, on behalf of the government, in response was: “It’s before

the courts.” Of course it’s before the courts, because this government

and this province continue to arrest treaty-protected Indigenous People

for undertaking their treaty right.

So you have to…. I think the minister has to recognize how flat

the response is, how flat it falls with people who have been fighting

for generations to protect their treaty rights to say: “Oh, the

consultation will continue.” Yet this government, the minister, the

ministry did not actually directly consult — I did confirm this morning

— the Indigenous nation whose members continually get picked up,

arrested, whose names continually get dragged out there, who continually

lose a decade of their life fighting the Crown, who’s trying to overstep

its bounds.

[3:30 p.m.]

To the minister, can he see the potential threat to a

W̱SÁNEĆ person who now is facing

not only wildlife charges but also charges under

section 5 of the

Firearm Violence Prevention Act?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s questioning in this. I want to make it

clear, as I said a few moments ago. This

section is replacing an

existing

section in the existing legislation. So the issue that the

member raises, that he says is the problem, could, in fact…. Those

charges could have been previously laid under this

section that he is

talking about in those cases. But the fact is that they

weren’t.

This piece of legislation is not hunting legislation. It is

dealing with gangs and firearms and firearm safety. That is its purpose

and intent. As the member…. Treaty rights that have also been decided by

the court and court cases, and have been upheld in court cases, will

trump this legislation. As I said, there’s no intent to do something

through the back door.

In terms of consultation…. One of the reasons why I’ve said that

that consultation will continue is to make sure that we are not

infringing on those rights. But the other advantage, too — what will

also happen — is that through court cases…. I understand that we want to

get away from the court case process. But the fact is that there are

court cases that evolve rights over time as well — that the regulatory

framework has the ability to be flexible and to adapt extremely quickly

to changes that may be necessary. But what I made clear is that the

consultation will continue.

The member has indicated, from his perspective…. The nation that

he has been talking about…. That consultation is crucial, and that will

continue. That is going to shape if, for example, exemptions are

necessary or if there are issues in the framework that need to be in

place. Then that will, in fact, happen.

The Chair: The member for Saanich North and the Islands.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good to see you.

I have just been sent

section 9, as the minister noted, of the

Firearms Act and acknowledge that it was there before. However, we are

drafting a new piece of legislation, and this is now going to be put

into yet another piece of legislation.

This is the opportunity that we have to have done this work in

advance of. Post consultation or consultation in mid-stream — once the

members of this place, and presumably the majority there, have voted in

favour of this bill, this will be the framework that that conversation

happens in.

[3:35 p.m.]

What I’m attempting to inform, in this decision and in this

process today, is that we have an opportunity, before we codify this in

legislation, to have had that consultation, and it didn’t happen. That

was the commitment. The commitment wasn’t to do it after the fact, not

to do it later.

I think that what’s important is that the perspective of the

Chief, in the letter that was written and responded to, actually, by the

government just today, was a recognition and acknowledgment that the

behaviour of this institution, the behaviour of this provincial

government, has been to establish — or reinvigorate, as the language

says — the provincial jurisdiction over hunting rights of the

W̱SÁNEĆ people, of the Tsartlip,

claiming justification jurisdiction to interfere with our, with their,

including mine, treaty and hunting rights.

Wildlife officers have been out arresting Tsartlip people,

W̱SÁNEĆ people, and the court

cases that the minister talks about as a remedy are not a remedy at all.

They’re soul-destroying. They require an incredible amount of resources

from a people that don’t have an incredible amount of resources to fight

an institution that has all the resources in the world that it wants.

That’s not fair.

That’s why this part of the process needs to be a good one. That’s

why we made the commitment in the DRIPA to do this work in advance of,

so that we could then not have to be in court expending resources that

would be better expended on health care and on education and on social

development and on economic development and all those things.

Instead, where are our resources going? Our resources are going to

defend our people who have been wrongly arrested for violations of an

act that’s not applicable to them. Now we’re in the process of adding

another one or, to change the language, renewing another one. We’ve not

done a good job of understanding that this is actually going

to….

As the member for Prince George–Mackenzie pointed out, the hunting

community in general has shown concerns about this. However, for the

Indigenous hunting community, who have a treaty-protected right, this is

going to disproportionately impact them. I am somewhat dismayed. If the

minister’s comments that they fully understand the impact that this has

on the Tsartlip and they’re fully aware of the court cases and the

jurisprudence around this from the Tsartlip…. To have the Chief tell me

this morning that, no, they’ve not been consulted directly on

this….

Tsartlip continues to show up in the Supreme Court of Canada

documents. To just assume that this is not going to impact them because

it was a clause or a

section in a piece of legislation that currently

existed — I find it really troubling. Then, when the First Nation

reaches out to say, “Hey, we need to talk about those hunting rights,”

the response from the Attorney General is: “It’s before the courts, so

we can’t talk about it.”

What the Tsartlip and what the Saanich have been trying to

accomplish with this provincial government is to have a discussion about

co-jurisdiction. With that, I think the only remedy for this that could

strike the level of confidence that’s necessary is for the minister to

amend this

section to be very clear in the legislation that this does

not derogate or abrogate any treaty right.

Is the minister prepared to do that in the legislation?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said a moment ago, treaty rights trump this legislation. It

is in the existing legislation. It’s not new. It’s going into this new

act. We are dealing through regulation with any issues that may arise

that need to be addressed. So at this point, I would say that is the

approach that we’ve taken, and it is the approach that we’ve taken

through the consultation process that we did.

I understand the member’s concern and about his specific nation.

But as I said earlier, and I’ll just reiterate, when this legislation

was developed, we did go through Indigenous leadership organizations. As

I said, they were the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations

Summit, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, Métis Nation B.C. — all of whom

share those same concerns around issues, around rights when it comes to

hunting — as well as the treaty First Nations, the

Nisg̱a’a Nation. They all have

that same interest around their hunting rights.

We’ve made it clear that we will continue the work that was

already done, that their work will also continue, in ensuring that the

obligations we have a responsibility to uphold are in fact upheld and

that the primary purpose of this bill has been regulatory. That’s the

approach that we’ve been taking. But I am mindful of the member’s

comments. I’m mindful of his concerns, and I will follow up with him on

them.

A. Olsen: I’m very troubled that the minister continues to use the defence

of treaty rights in court as a remedy when we have a remedy in front of

us that is much cleaner, that requires far less of an individual’s soul

to be destroyed in the process and that requires far less resources from

an Indigenous nation to be expended to defend those rights.

It’s troubling to me that after reading out the number of times

that our relatives have been arrested and hauled before the courts to

defend those treaty rights, only for the next generation to have their

names added to that. White and Bob, Morris, Sampson, Olsen and Morris,

Bartleman — every generation has its defender of the treaty

rights.

The minister is essentially saying that the next generation after

me, after us, will also have to have their defender of the treaty

rights, when the minister could put into this act, either at this clause

here, clause 5, a note that this does not derogate the treaty rights of

hunting — and I have an amendment — or an amendment at

section 10 to say

that nothing here abrogates or derogates the rights of Indigenous

people.

We could do that work here today. We could make this clean and

clear. We could ensure that as far as this act goes…. We still have a

lot of work to do in the renewal of the Wildlife Act, but we could

ensure that this act doesn’t abrogate or derogate the hunting rights and

ensure that we are able to achieve what the minister wants to achieve.

And I agree….

[3:45 p.m.]

If this is about gun violence and gang violence in British

Columbia, I just am not understanding what the hesitation is or what the

holdback is in putting in a clause, in taking a pause here on this

particular clause and putting in place the language in the legislation,

at the time at which we’re debating it, so it’s enshrined in legislation

— that protection.

This government, previous governments, the whole government

institution has a long way to go to gain the trust and to earn the trust

of Indigenous people. We just started in 2019, and this would be a

dramatic step.

I can tell you that there’s a lot of concern that’s being sent to

me about yet another act that we may have to defend ourselves against in

the future. It’s now being what’s debated.

I ask the minister again. Will he pause at this moment, with this

clause, and do the work that was needed to be done in advance — not

after the fact — with the people who have been most adversely impacted

by this, which his government acknowledges they’re aware of, which

they’ve received a letter on and which we currently have a member before

the courts on? This generation’s Morris-Olsen. This generation’s

White-Bob. This generation’s Bartleman. This generation’s Morris. This

generation’s Jim.

Why do we have to keep doing this? Why can we not do this work

appropriately, as was committed in the Declaration on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples Act? What is the hesitation on behalf of the minister

to do this work up front and now, recognizing that this actually has a

potential devastating impact on Indigenous people? Yet we could achieve

what the minister wants to achieve, in addition to clarifying this very

important point on behalf of Indigenous people, who continually are

getting dragged in front of the courts to expend a huge amount of

resources to defend themselves, even after winning in the Supreme Court

of Canada?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess what I can tell the member is what I’ve been saying. Look,

this legislation has been developed in the context of the existing

legislation, as it relates to this section. This

section is not new.

It’s not being used to do anything backdoor. It’s not going to come into

force at the earliest until spring of 2022 — which allows, as I have

said, the time for additional consultation to take place around any

issues that may arise. That’s the process that gives us, I think, the

greatest flexibility to address issues that need to be dealt

with.

The reality is that in the development of this, as I’ve already

stated, we have gone out and met — I’ve listed them for the member now —

all the different groups and leadership groups, nations, about this

legislation. I think the path that we have taken and are dealing with is

the right approach.

We will continue, as I’ve said, to ensure that it’s implemented in

a way — not in a way — that respects the rights and treaty obligations

that exist, that will exist and that will continue to exist. As I’ve

said repeatedly, they trump this legislation. This legislation does not

take away from them, nor does this legislation seek in any way to take

away from those rights and treaty rights that exist and will continue to

exist.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for the response. Recognizing that this

bill could be enacted now but wouldn’t be regulated until 2022, I’m not

sure…. Well, this is eerily reminiscent of previous conversations that

we’ve had around this, around the fact that I, as a legislator — and, I

think, all 87 of my colleagues in this place — need it to be put on

notice here that voting in favour of this now is moving forward a

process that the previous parliament agreed we wouldn’t do anymore. We

agreed that we wouldn’t do consultation after the fact or

consultation….

[3:55 p.m.]

It has to be acknowledged that the discussion about the

regulations is substantially different than the discussion about the

legislation. Had that been a robust conversation with our Chief, with

our legal advisers in the room, of the

W̱SÁNEĆ, of the

W̱SÁNEĆ Leadership Council, of

the W̱JOȽEȽP, the Tsartlip Chief,

then they could have, at that time, acknowledged the fact that there is

an increased recognizing that this is not designed for hunting, that

there is

an act. But it could be used.

I think that that is the most important aspect of this: that

because it hasn’t, it doesn’t mean it won’t. That’s the threat to

Indigenous people, who have a treaty-protected hunting right. The other

threat to putting our head down and proceeding and passing this vote is

that there’s no way to unwind that once it’s in place. We then accept

that the legislation, as it was voted on, is the legislation that we are

regulating.

Whereas if we paused and had that conversation in a more

thoughtful way, or if the government had a thoughtful way….

I’m raising the fact that our Chief has told me that he has not

been consulted. I’m acknowledging the fact that the minister has said

that he understands and that the government understands and recognizes.

I am adding further emphasis to the fact that the process….

When the minister says that this legislation doesn’t trump treaty

rights, he’s not acknowledging the incredible effort it takes to defend

those treaty rights. That’s something that I have witnessed. That’s

something that I know all too well. That’s something that our families

in W̱SÁNEĆ know and understand: the

amount of resources that it takes to defend our rights.

While the minister can stand here today in this House and say,

“Don’t worry. It doesn’t trump it,” that doesn’t mean that one of our

people can’t be picked up on a charge. Then their life spirals into an

incredibly difficult decade of defending a right that the minister stood

here today and told us all that we acknowledge exists but that requires

a court process to defend and to win. And, might I add, when you do win

— like White and Bob, like Morris-Olsen, like Saanichton Bay Marina,

like all the court cases that the government has on the record because

my Chief wrote them about it in February — it doesn’t matter, because

the government picks up the next guy, picks up the next hunter, to start

that process. The legal Groundhog Day starts all over again.

All of my colleagues here who are poised to vote in favour of this

without the legislation should be on notice that it is in contravention

to the commitment that we made to the DRIPA, to the Declaration on the

Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, where we said there’s going to be a

new process for new legislation, and a new process for old legislation

that’s being reviewed, in this place.

It is on the record that the minister acknowledges that he

understands the full context of just how involved Tsartlip, as an

Indigenous Nation, and the W̱SÁNEĆ,

as a collection of villages within the

W̱SÁNEĆ Nation, are involved in

this. Yet they’re not the names on the consultation. There was no

consultation. Even though Tsartlip continues to show up in the

jurisprudence, they weren’t part of that consultation. That must make

everybody in this place feel really nervous about proceeding with this

bill. Again, to point out, this is not about hunting, per se. That work

is still to come. The impact of this, the firearms….

I have amendments in front of me. I’m prepared to amend this bill.

However, I feel really uncomfortable doing it, because in the process of

the last four days, that’s not the appropriate amount of time to sit

down and have a conversation. It shouldn’t be on me to have that

consultation with the Indigenous Nation that has so often showed up in

the jurisprudence. So much of their money has been invested in defending

their members.

[4:00 p.m.]

I don’t even know, I can’t even tell you, if this language is the

language that’s appropriate. It’s the language that we were able to put

together on the short notice of a few days here in this place. Even it

does disservice to the bigger conversation that needs to be had here. Do

you amend clause 5, or do you amend clause 10? I have amendments for

both of those.

I think the prudent thing to do here is to pause. We’re here for a

long time this spring and this summer. Pause. The minister can reach out

to Chief Don Tom, who’s the Chief of Tsartlip but also has a leadership

role in our province. Sit down with the lawyers. Have the

conversation.

He may find out that this was a good process because they learned

something. Might find out that nothing needs to be changed at all

because the chief says that. But I can tell you right now that the text

messages that I have and the conversations that I have are of a great

deal of concern. That is not the appropriate kind of atmosphere to be

pressing ahead and say, “Don’t worry. We’ll do it in regulation,”

because as we’ve seen, regulations can change with the stroke of a pen.

Legislation takes an appropriate amount of time.

I’m really, really hesitant to put any amendments on the table in

case I don’t get this legal language exactly right. Is it

section 35 of

the constitution? Is it the treaty-protected rights of the

W̱SÁNEĆ? Is it treaty rights writ

large across the province? I don’t know how, in this language that I

have in front of me, to properly identify the protection that needs to

be in place.

I just know that there’s a great deal of concern being raised to

me that there is an increased vulnerability, and the people who will be

disproportionately impacted by that are the people that have been

defending themselves in the court when this province arrests them and

drags them all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, generation after

generation after generation. That should be enough to just press pause

for a few minutes, to take a deep breath.

I ask all of my colleagues from all sides of the House: please, do

not support moving this along until that important and good work is

done.

I ask the minister one final time: will he pause this?

This is the best possible outcome, even if nothing comes of it. It

is a few moments in time in this legislative precinct. It is a blip on

the radar of this place, but it means a lot to the building of trust

with Indigenous Nations in this province to say: “You know what? Your

issues are as big as the issues that we have in this place as we’re

making legislation.”

The important work of this place isn’t too great for an Indigenous

Nation who has expended an incredible amount of resources to defend

themselves, because it will cause no comfort to them to hear the

minister say: “Oh, don’t worry, because this law doesn’t trump the

treaty. The treaty still stands.”

Well, in order for the W̱SÁNEĆ

people to defend themselves with the treaty, they’ve got to spend a

decade in court. They’ve got to go to Ottawa.

Will we take a pause, take a breath? Will the minister commit to

having that conversation, or do I have to put these less-than-perfect

amendments on the table to continue this conversation and to try to slow

this process down a little bit so that that conversation can be

appropriately had with the appropriate chief?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s comments and his concerns, but I want to

make a couple of things clear. As I’ve already said, first off, this

isn’t new. I stress that because the concerns that he has raised have

not been done through this section, and they are not going to be done

through this section. But I do appreciate the member’s

concerns.

I’ve also outlined the consultation that has taken place and that

during that consultation, those concerns were not raised. I’ve also

outlined to him that it is the spring of 2022 when this legislation will

be implemented and that on this

section and on other sections, a

regulatory process is, we think, the best way forward on this particular

bill, because it is not a hunting bill. It is a firearms and a safety

bill. It is not designed in any way, shape or form to take away

from….

As I’ve said, treaty rights trump this. But having said that, and

understanding the genuine concern that the member has, I am prepared, at

this point, to stand this

section down and to continue on with other

sections of the bill. I am prepared at this point to do that, because I

do understand what the member is saying and where he’s coming from. As I

said, I want to assure him that there is nothing nefarious in this

section. There’s nothing…. It’s not designed to…. But at this point, I

will stand this

section down, and then we can proceed to other

sections.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for that commitment and that show of

good faith. I will just end this part of this debate on this

section

with the acknowledgment of where I started in my series of questions and

in the information that I provided today.

Most of those recent arrests have been on safety-related charges,

section 29 of the Wildlife Act. So part of the challenge is around gun

safety. There has been a long history of jurisprudence around the

inherent unsafe practices of the

W̱SÁNEĆ hunt. The Supreme Court

of Canada found that there is nothing inherently unsafe. In fact, there

have been no incidents to date, thank goodness, about the

W̱SÁNEĆ hunt.

Just as the minister pointed out that this this bill is about

safety, this was one of the primary motivating forces behind me standing

for so long on this

section of the bill today. It’s because our people

are being picked up on safety-related issues. I’m wary of

that.

Thank you for that. I appreciate the minister taking the time, and

I certainly hope that in the time the

section is stood down, the

ministry reaches out to the chiefs of the

W̱SÁNEĆ nations and to the

Douglas treaty nations, for that matter — all 14 on Vancouver Island —

and make sure that this bill reflects that proper consultation

process.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM. Thank

you.

[4:10 p.m.]

The Chair: The offer has been made to have this

section stood down. We

can take further questions on this section, or we can deal with them

later if members prefer. I’m willing to take questions now, but of

course, the minister has offered that it be stood down until a later

date.

P. Milobar: Just one or two questions. I appreciate that the

section sounds

like it’s going to be stood down, and I know another colleague has a few

questions on this area as well.

Really, the concerns are that this is something we have seen

unfold in this chamber, post the passing of UNDRIP. Now, this will be

the third time. Last session, we had Bill 17, and we had Bill 22, both

of which — the complete bills — had to be withdrawn by government,

because it was found that they didn’t consult properly. By their own

admission, they didn’t consult properly. They withdrew the bills. In

fact, that lack of consultation was then later used by the Premier as an

excuse for the bills being pulled. It was actually that they couldn’t

get support with the Green Party and that we needed to have an election

over that.

Now today we’re hearing that there was some consultation. By the

minister’s answers, it doesn’t sound like it was adequate consultation,

because the minister has even acknowledged that there needs to be more

consultation once this bill is passed. “Just trust me. We’ll take care

of it.”

The problem is — and the member previous is right — that that is

not what Indigenous leaders were expecting with UNDRIP. They weren’t

expecting that government would continue on with passing bills and say:

“We’ll talk to you about it later. But once everything’s kind of in law,

we’ll play with a little bit of regulation on the edges, and we’ll see

where we can proceed with that.” It’s not acceptable for a mining

company to do that if they’re trying to get a permit. It certainly

should not be acceptable for the government to try doing that when it

comes to legislation, especially this fresh after the passing of

UNDRIP.

The question I have to the minister around not just this

section

but the overall bill…. If there’s an acknowledgment that further

consultation needs to be done so that it’s done in a proper way with

this bill and sections of this bill — and sections within a bill all

start to interconnect — why, if the government has already chosen to

withdraw Bill 22 and Bill 17 previously, would this bill not just be

withdrawn completely and put on hold until proper consultation has been

done and attempted?

No one on our side is opposed to public safety, to cracking down

on gangs, to making sure that police and enforcement have the tools they

need and the legal system has the tools they need to keep the

law-abiding citizens of our province safe and crack down on gangs. We’re

not saying that at all. However, that doesn’t mean that legislation just

gets to get rushed through without proper checks and balances and

consultations done that this government actually put in place for new

legislation.

So to the minister: if the minister is prepared to stand down

section 5 for the time being, why will the minister not just stand down

the entire bill and make sure proper consultations take place over the

next few months? Provide that certainty to this chamber and to the

public. Make sure that we can advance — in a proper, meaningful way —

legislation under UNDRIP that still accomplishes the public safety goals

that I think everyone shares in terms of restricting access to illegal

firearms to gangs and providing police the tools to properly crack down

on the illegal gun owners.

That’s ultimately, I think, what everyone wants to see happen. But

we can’t turn a blind eye to the legislation that we all passed

unanimously in this House around UNDRIP. Will the minister stand down

the complete bill to make sure that the proper consultations are

addressed and brought back forward so that we can ensure the safety of

our citizens?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I listened with interest to the comments from my colleague across

the way. I’m just going to say this. I agree to stand the

section down,

because the member raised some particular concerns that I believe we can

address. We have a difference of opinion at this point on those

concerns, in terms of the approach. But in terms of standing down what

is otherwise, I think, a very strong bill that all members of this House

should support…. We have no intention of standing down a

bill.

There is no intention of standing down a bill right now that will

make it illegal to have hidden compartments in vehicles. We are not

going to stand down a bill that bans or that makes it illegal to walk

into a hospital or a place or worship with a shotgun. The member may

think that we need to consult on that. We do not need to consult on that

anymore.

We do not need to consult, in terms of when you walk into a

shooting range, should you have to register and sign your name on a form

and show some identification? There’s no need for consultation anymore

on that. There is no need to deny the police the ability to deal with

those who carry fake firearms that are made to look real and too often

result in a tragic circumstance that could be avoided.

They had 16 years to do something like that. After 16 years…. I

will give my current critic credit, which I did during the second

reading debate, that he commissioned a report that landed on my desk. I

said, “These make good recommendations” — and worked with some of the

best minds in policing to put them into legislation. We do not need to

wait any further to deal with that.

What I have said and I think is the appropriate thing to do is

that there are some questions around this

section that my colleague

across the way feels very strongly about. I said I’m prepared to look at

that. I may come back and say: “I looked at them, and we’re not going to

change direction.” But I understand where he’s coming from. I understand

what he was talking about, and I said I am prepared to look at that. But

I am not prepared to — what in my view is, in essence, a stunt — stand

down an entire piece of legislation. That is unnecessary.

This House is dealing in committee stage with legislation on a

clause-by-clause basis, as it always does. Sometimes on those clauses….

Many times there is agreement, and other times there are disagreements.

There may be amendments made. From time to time the minister has the

prerogative to say: “You know what? There’s an issue here that’s been

raised, and I’d like to look a little closer, and so I’m standing down a

section.” That is the appropriate thing to do. But it does not mean to

say that the rest of the bill does not continue. We continue on the

other clauses and all the parts in that bill that will make that bill

whole.

So no, we are not standing down the bill. But we are, as I said,

prepared at this time to look at that

section 5 and some of those issues

the member raised.

Clause 5 stood down.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

So clause 5 has been postponed. We will come back to that

before we get to the end of the bill reading.

We are now on clause 6, Members, so I’ll draw your attention

to clause 6, as clause 5 has been postponed, or stood down, as the

terminology has it.

On clause 6.

[4:20 p.m.]

P. Milobar: On clause 6 and also as a follow-up. I apologize to the minister.

I seem to have struck a bit of a nerve there. I’m not quite sure why.

But the reality is the request that was made was not to stand down for

an indefinite period of time. We’re in this House till the end of June.

The House will be prorogued at the end of March, and the bill could be

reintroduced in the middle of April.

The reality is, what has changed since my colleague first started

working on this when he was in government is that UNDRIP has passed in

the interim.

I would note the minister was not prepared to bring forward our

private member’s bill that was trying to deal with secret compartments

in cars either, as a first step. There were lots of things the minister

has not been prepared to do.

The request is quite simple. It is to take that step back now that

concerns have been raised around the level and adequacy of consultation

under the backdrop of UNDRIP that this government brought in and

introduced and this chamber unanimously supported. We’ve already seen

two bills have to be pulled because of that.

The minister knows that any new legislation is always going to

stand some form of scrutiny after the fact, with legal challenges and

questions and concerns. The minister has acknowledged that he has

further consultation to do on parts of this bill after this bill has

passed, after the fact, which goes totally contrary to the spirit and

the intent, more importantly, of the legislation around UNDRIP that we

passed.

Again, we are not saying that we are opposed to cracking down on

gangs and gun violence and bringing in better tools, whatsoever. We are

not saying to delay this indefinitely. It is not a stunt. I don’t think

First Nations leaders that expect to be properly consulted on

legislation under the terms of UNDRIP would consider that a stunt. I

think they would consider that that means the government is actually

doing and following through on the commitments they made to Indigenous

leadership across this province.

The minister could very well be accurate that they will do a quick

scan with Indigenous leadership and they will read through, now that

some areas have been highlighted, and say: “We don’t have huge issues

with this now that we understand what impact it would or would not have

on our nations.”

But to stubbornly refuse to even take that step and bring this

back to this assembly for us to all work to advance public safety for

law-abiding citizens and crack down on gangs and hidden compartments and

all of the sundry items that the minister brought forward does not seem

to make a lot of sense when you consider we’ve been waiting for years

for this, as the minister points out. Waiting for an extra month or two

to make sure we get it right and to make sure the spirit and intent of

UNDRIP has been fully committed to is not a bad thing.

Again, I guess we could go

section by section. Is the minister

prepared, if not to remove the whole bill, then to remove

section

Hon. M. Farnworth: No.

E. Ross: This is no stunt. This is actually your government’s doing. This

is why I warned this Legislature not to play politics with Aboriginal

rights and title. It’s not just treaty rights we’re talking about here.

We’re talking about the constitution,

section 35. I warned your

government a number of times not to do this, not to make a political

statement with UNDRIP, because there was already a pathway laid down in

Canada, through

section 35 and the pursuant case law.

To mess around with it when we had so much progress in Canada, so

much progress since 1982, and then to throw in a vague bill talking

about how every single piece of legislation is going to be in line with

UNDRIP….

[4:25 p.m.]

You caused this. Your government caused this. You talk about the

consultation that might happen at the regulatory stage. As First

Nations, this is our problem, because a peace officer, a police officer,

a conservation officer is not going to have the time to interpret the

law or the case law. They haven’t read Mikisew Cree or Gladstone or the

Haida court case. They haven’t done that.

When we get stopped for a firearms violation, our only recourse is

to go to court and get the court to actually review some of that case

law that was decided 20 years ago, or maybe create new case law. It

actually creates financial pressures on all of us. I’m talking about all

British Columbians.

I made mention of this in my previous comments to this bill,

hoping that the government did their consultation as per rights and

title that have been dictated by the courts in Canada and B.C. Not only

that, but by clauses in your own bill.

You already cited off the consultation you’ve done with the

leadership council, the AFN, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the

summit, but those parties are not governing bodies of Aboriginal rights

and title. They don’t represent rights and title. They don’t have rights

and title. The rights and title you talk of are actually held on behalf

of communities. So it only stands to reason that whoever represents that

community actually represents the rights and title of the community. The

organizations you talked to — I have no idea who they represent. They’re

political bodies.

In terms of the language that you use in your UNDRIP bill, you

said: “‘Indigenous peoples’ has the same meaning as aboriginal peoples

section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.” You also said that

“Indigenous governing body” in UNDRIP — your bill, your act….

The Chair: If I might remind the member to speak through the Chair as

opposed to directly to the minister. Thank you.

E. Ross: Good point, Chair. I’ll try to remember that.

Then through the Chair to the minister, the definition that the

government put forward in their own UNDRIP bill: “‘Indigenous governing

body’ means an entity that is authorized to act on behalf of Indigenous

peoples that hold rights recognized and affirmed by

section 35 of the

Constitution Act, 1982.”

Last time I checked, the leadership council, the summit, the AFN —

they do not hold rights and title. Your consultation is not only

flawed…. I don’t know if it’s going through the back door — the

minister’s own words. I don’t know if it’s that, but it’s definitely not

consultation. It doesn’t stand up to the principles of case law or your

own UNDRIP bill.

If you do stand down, and you are willing to look at clause 5 —

what you told my colleague from Saanich North — then am I to presume

that the government will actually abide by its own UNDRIP bill, their

own act, and the rights and title case law that has been laid out in the

courts in Canada and B.C., and consult with the real leaders that have

rights and title on behalf of their members? We’re talking about 203

bands in B.C. If you want to live up to the principles of the UNDRIP

bill that the government put up as well as talked about how the

foundational piece will be

section 35….

Is that what the government is proposing to do in terms of

standing down? Do a real consultation.

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s comments. I know that they were directed

section 5, which has been stood down. We are actually on

section 6,

which is around establishing an offence for driving a vehicle

transporting illegally possessed and illegally stored firearms,

prohibited ammunition and prohibited devices.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

I will say that I stood the

section down in response to the member

for Saanich North and the Islands’ questions. He raised some points that

I said that I’m prepared to take a look at. I have committed to doing

that, and that’s why that

section is stood down.

In terms of this particular

section and the consultation around

this bill and this section, we have done the appropriate consultation,

not just generally but also as it relates to UNDRIP. As I said a moment

ago, this

section is dealing with driving a vehicle, transporting

illegally possessed and illegally stored firearms.

E. Ross: A point of order that I was overlooked in the comments to

section

5 to begin with. The Chair rectified that by recognizing that and

allowing me to speak to the subject matter.

The subject matter at hand from my colleague from Saanich North

was: was proper consultation carried out? According to the UNDRIP bill

put together by the government, as well as case law, as well as

consultation with the wrong parties altogether, says to me that it was

not carried out correctly. It was actually given to political bodies to

actually represent the rights and title of 203 specific bands in B.C.

that each have specific rights and individualities in terms of what

we’re talking about here.

Now, this government said that they would consult on the

legislation and make sure that all laws were aligned with UNDRIP. But

they keep changing the goalposts. Just recently the question was asked

on a finance bill. The last answer given by this government said: “Well,

we don’t have to consult because it doesn’t affect rights and title.”

Well, that’s not what I remember when we were debating the UNDRIP bill.

I don’t remember that. In fact, some of the language there says that all

laws in B.C. will be aligned with UNDRIP.

I’ll say it again. This is what I warned about when you start to

play politics with rights and title when we have a clear road map with

case law that defines the roles and the responsibilities of each party,

whether it be the First Nations side or the Crown or the private sector.

There were rules. Yes, you had to interpret them a bit, but now you’ve

got the

interpretation of UNDRIP. This government is actually stepping

aside of those promises they made in their own UNDRIP bill, and they’re

going with consultation with the leadership council, meaning the AFN,

the summit.

What I’m asking…. I’m all for safety. First Nations are all for

safety. I mean, we want to do that. But we don’t want the confusion to

face our people on the ground. We don’t want the confusion to face law

enforcement people on the ground, when they’re trying to interpret this,

when they meet up with a First Nations person who might be carrying a

firearm for the purposes of exercising their rights and

title.

I’m asking you: if the stand down is going to be to do proper

consultation, will the proper consultation involve the leaders that

represent Aboriginal rights and title on behalf of the true holders?

That’s the communities of B.C. — the Aboriginal communities of B.C.

That’s my question.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have already answered the question. We believe that we have done

the appropriate consultation required under UNDRIP, but I am also

mindful of an issue that the member for Saanich North and the Islands

raised. I agreed to stand down that

section to look at some concerns

that he raised, and I have made that commitment. So that’s why this

section has stood down.

As I said, with the rest of the legislation, again, we have

followed the appropriate consultation. I appreciate the member’s

concerns, but I believe I’ve answered the question.

[4:35 p.m.]

M. Morris:

Section 6, and it’ll pertain to

section 7, as well, appears to

have a lot of similarities to

section 94 of the Criminal Code,

unauthorized possession in a motor vehicle. I’m just wondering if the

minister could comment on the similarities and the purpose of including

6 and 7?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member is correct. It does overlap with the Criminal Code

offence. It does that because while the Criminal Code…. There’s the

criminal charge, the fact that we have the ability to level

administrative penalty at the provincial level. We are then able to say:

“This is an illegal firearm, and as part of the administrative penalty,

we are seizing the vehicle or impounding the vehicle that that illegal

firearm was found in.”

Clauses 6 and 7 approved.

On clause 8.

M. Morris: So clause 8. Prohibition against causing public disturbances with

low-velocity firearms or imitation firearms. Again, a concern to many

people throughout the ridings in the province here. Particularly, I know

we’ll be talking about regs further on in this particular bill, but

section 2: “A person must not use, carry or store a low-velocity firearm

or imitation firearm in a manner that causes or is likely to cause a

disturbance in a public place.”

We have, on a regular occurrence throughout British Columbia,

individuals that use pellet guns or BB guns for target practice in their

backyard or in some location throughout the province here. I’m just

wondering if the minister has put much thought as to how this may impact

this kind of activity throughout the province.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yeah, we did take those issues into consideration during the

development of the legislation. The member is quite right. There are

differences between rural British Columbia and urban British Columbia

and the concerns around…. For example, from police, it’s particularly in

urban areas where you have, often, very small backyards and realistic BB

guns, for example. That’s a problem. Local communities in many Lower

Mainland municipalities already have bylaws in place governing the

discharge of those kinds of activities and those kinds of weapons. But

we understand that in rural British Columbia, it’s entirely appropriate.

So the regulations that will be developed will, in fact, recognize

that.

M. Morris: Just to follow up on this particular

section as well. Is the

legislation designed to…? I guess in certain regions of the province,

the mere fact that somebody is carrying a firearm…. It could be a

low-velocity firearm, a BB gun, a pellet gun, something like that. Would

just carrying that firearm constitute causing a disturbance?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer to that question is: yes, it could. If you’re carrying

a low-velocity firearm that’s looking like a high-velocity weapon — a

lot of times, we see that they are designed that way — that could

definitely be an offence.

M. Morris: I can certainly understand with weapons that may resemble an

authentic firearm…. I go back to A C