Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, May 10, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 65

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

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment

Act, 2021

Hon. D. Eby

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Day of Action Against Anti-Asian Racism

R. Singh

COVID-19 response and mental health

services

T. Halford

Role of mothers and nurses

P. Alexis

Role of police officers

M. Morris

COVID-19 response and role of nurses

H. Sandhu

Asian Heritage Month and anti-Asian racism

T. Wat

Oral Questions

Access to COVID-19 data and report

information

S. Bond

Hon. J. Horgan

Access to COVID-19 data and report information on

Surrey

S. Cadieux

Hon. A. Dix

Access to COVID-19 data

S. Furstenau

Hon. A. Dix

Government action on gang violence and police

officer positions

T. Halford

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. de Jong

COVID-19 vaccination plan and second dose for

cancer patients

R. Merrifield

Hon. A. Dix

Tabling Documents

Report pursuant to the COVID-19 Related Measures Act regarding Ministerial

Order M182/2021, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor

General

Motions Without Notice

Committee of Supply to sit in three

sections

Amendment to Standing Orders for Thursday sitting

hours

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Accessible British Columbia Act

Hon. N. Simons

S. Cadieux

D. Coulter

D. Davies

Hon. K. Chen

S. Bond

M. Dykeman

A. Olsen

K. Paddon

B. Anderson

S. Chant

Hon. N. Simons

Bill 2 — Public Interest Disclosure Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Eby

M. de Jong

S. Furstenau

Hon. D. Eby

Bill 5 — InBC Investment Corp. Act

(continued)

M. Dykeman

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and

Sport

Hon. M. Mark

T. Wat

MONDAY, MAY 10, 2021

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

M. Dykeman: It’s a true honour today to rise in the House. Last night was my son’s

18th birthday. I just wanted to take a moment to congratulate him and wish

him a happy birthday. He’s watching at home today. If the House could join

me in congratulating him.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Electoral Boundaries Commission

Amendment Act, 2021.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce the Electoral Boundaries Commission

Amendment Act, 2021. This bill amends the act to ensure that electoral

boundaries commissions have the independence and flexibility to

recommend electoral district boundaries that support the effective

representation of all British Columbians, whether they live in our

fast-growing urban regions or our less-populated northern and interior

regions of the province.

B.C.’s population is projected to have grown by around half a

million people since the last commission made its recommendations.

Reflecting B.C.’s strong population growth since the most recent

Electoral Boundaries Commission, the bill would allow the commission to

recommend an increase in the number of electoral districts, up to a

maximum of 93 electoral districts. To enhance the commission’s ability

to exercise independent judgment and to more closely align B.C.’s

legislation with other Canadian jurisdictions, the bill would eliminate

the three regions in the act that are collectively guaranteed a minimum

of 17 electoral districts, irrespective of their populations or other

circumstances.

Consistent with the Canadian case law on electoral boundaries, the

bill would provide minor updates to the guidance to commissions in

recommending electoral boundaries. The updated guidance includes

ensuring that it is clear that the commission has authority to

re­commend electoral districts with populations outside of the

plus or minus 25 percent deviation range when the commission considers

it necessary to provide for effective representation.

The next commission must be appointed by October 24, 2021. Taken

together, these amendments are intended to equip the commission with the

discretion and flexibility it needs to make recommendations for

electoral district boundaries that balance the principle of

representation by population with other effective representation

concerns.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 7, Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2021,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

DAY OF ACTION

AGAINST ANTI-ASIAN

RACISM

R. Singh: Today on the Day of Action Against Anti-Asian Racism, I would like

all British Columbians to take action to combat discrimination. During

this pandemic, we have seen people of Asian descent targeted and

scapegoated, leading to increased attacks against them.

Today is not just about speaking out against racist incidents.

Today is about taking concrete action to disrupt systemic racism. It’s

about asking ourselves what we are going to do about it. Everyone has a

role to play in building a more inclusive province. It starts with us.

It is not enough to be not racist. We must be anti-racist.

Living in a society steeped in colonialism and systemic racism

impacts us all. We each carry prejudices, and we must confront them. An

anti-racism information campaign was recently launched to encourage

British Columbians to do their part. Anti-racism requires something from

all of us. It can be a lot of things, but it can’t be nothing. We must

also speak up when friends, family or co-workers make an inappropriate

comment, even in private. Don’t let it slide. Listen, probe, and let

them know their words matter.

[1:40 p.m.]

To continue to push to combat racism, we will also be proclaiming

May 23 to 29 as Anti-Racism Awareness Week. We know that proclamations

alone are not enough. We must back it up with meaningful

action.

That’s why the funding for community groups to respond to racism

at the local level was recently increased. We will be launching a racist

incident hotline, and we will be bringing in legislation to pave the way

for race-based data collection and B.C.’s first anti-racism act, but we

know there is much, much more to do.

I would like to thank the Stand with Asians Coalition, which

started as a group of grassroots activists in Burnaby, for its

incredible organization to turn the Day of Action Against Anti-Asian

Racism into a national movement endorsed by municipalities and unions

across the country.

Your strength is inspiring.

COVID-19 RESPONSE AND

MENTAL HEALTH

SERVICES

T. Halford: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic last March, our

communities, our province and our world have drastically changed. We

have all experienced intense levels of stress and anxiety and the

continuous isolation from friends, family and loved ones, and it’s

seriously affecting the mental health of all families across British

Columbia.

Last week was Canadian Mental Health Week. I want to take this

opportunity to say that no one is alone in feeling stress, anxiety or

depression right now. We all realize that it’s okay to not be okay. This

year’s theme is “Let’s get real about how you feel.” It is important for

us all to know that it’s okay to talk about how you’re feeling, and more

importantly, it’s okay to seek help. Though it’s also important to

recognize a barrier for many people, particularly working mothers who

have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic…. It’s also the

cost of counselling.

Many of our communities have risen to the challenge as well. I’m

proud that in my community of Surrey–White Rock, a group of local

experts came together to develop a one-stop shop for online resources.

The website, together-sswr.com, was built by a group of eight private

psychologists and a clinical counsellor who got together to discuss what

we could contribute to help support the community. They now provide free

services to many people that are in need.

I want to thank these community leaders for the dedication to

Surrey–White Rock and for sharing their expertise. On Canadian Mental

Health Week, I thank all service providers across British Columbia who

are supporting individuals in their mental well-being. And I encourage

us all to get real about our mental health and be open to addressing our

emotions, the good and the bad.

ROLE OF MOTHERS AND NURSES

P. Alexis: I want to acknowledge that I’m speaking to you from the

traditional territories of the

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ people, the Songhees

and the Esquimalt First Nations.

Yesterday we celebrated Mother’s Day, a day where we celebrate the

person so many of us owe so very much to. I’ve been very open about the

role my mother played in my life and how her grace, passion and

determination inspired me in my own life’s work, and I want to thank all

the mothers in Abbotsford and Mission and all across British Columbia

for what they do in preparing their children for the future.

In our household, my mother Efrosini, was the core, the emotional

centre, that taught us all about the importance of practicality and

perseverance but also adventure and fun. When she passed, I made cookies

for the funeral: peanut butter, because it’s a staple, and she was a mom

six times over; a spicy ginger snap, because she was a beautiful, strong

woman; and a heart-shaped sugar cookie that was a little tricky to make

because she was a determined woman, always strong enough to see things

through.

Coincidently, the next seven days mark National Nurses Week. Much

like our mothers, nurses are counted on to always go above and beyond in

serving the greater good. But also, much like motherhood, you can’t do a

job like that well unless you truly love it.

All of us have had our own path to be in this Legislature, but I

sincerely hope that what we share is a passion for serving our

constituents, a real love for the job. We owe it to those who came here

before us, to people like our nurses, who serve with determination and

quiet dignity, and to the mothers who helped show us what love truly

is.

[1:45 p.m.]

ROLE OF POLICE OFFICERS

M. Morris: The police in Canada are amongst the best trained in the world.

They spend their days focused on the very small percentage of our

populations who are the worst-behaved citizens in our communities —

people who commit such unspeakable acts against others that the average

person cannot begin to comprehend, and people who lie, cheat, steal and

take advantage of the vulnerable.

Police do this under the rigours of a strong constitution and

Charter of Rights and Freedoms and complex, technical investigative

requirements. They do this with compassion, with empathy and

professionalism. They do this under extreme scrutiny from the public,

from the courts and from the myriad of oversight agencies, tribunals and

police boards.

The burden our police agencies carry today is immense. It often

places them as first responders to societal disorder perpetuated by

untreated mental illness and addictions and by domestic frustrations

triggered by unemployment, by housing needs, by health needs or a myriad

of other needs. Yet they do it. They do their jobs every second of every

minute of every day, with undiminished professionalism. They do it by

placing themselves in harm’s way to protect the public.

This is National Police Week 2021. Our police agencies in B.C. are

advocating for a more collaborative approach — a more integrated effort

amongst all police services, social agencies and the public in providing

a modernized approach to address not only the criminal aspects of

policing that comprise about 30 percent of police agencies’ file load,

but the social disorder that comprises 70 percent of a police agency’s

workload.

On behalf of this House, I would like to thank all dedicated men

and women across this great province who put their uniform on every day

to keep our citizens safe and to help those less fortunate navigate

through tragedies and misfortune.

COVID-19 RESPONSE

AND ROLE OF

NURSES

H. Sandhu: Today I rise in this House to celebrate Nurses Week.

I am proud to recognize amazing superheroes in scrubs: our

incredible nurses who are constantly fighting this pandemic — for over a

year — by saving many lives. Nurses are continuing to take care of the

sick by putting themselves in harm’s way. Sadly, many have lost their

lives by doing so.

In 2019, WHO declared 2020 the Year of the Nurse and the Midwife.

But who knew how difficult 2020 was going to be for our nurses? Nurses

are the lifeline of the health care system, and it would have been

impossible to deal with COVID-19 without them. Sacrifices made by our

most compassionate, caring and hard-working nurses are no secret to

anyone. Let’s take a moment to acknowledge the depth of their

sacrifices, strengths, heartaches from what they witness every day, and

their resiliency.

Nurses are great at hiding their pain, tiredness and mental and

physical fatigue behind their beautiful smiles. It takes a very special

person to be a nurse, and a strong person to face what nurses face and

deal with every single day. Nurses get physically and verbally abused

and even get severely injured at times, yet they keep on going with

their care and compassion, without judging people. Nurses provide a wide

variety of excellent care in multiple health care settings and in many

other areas. We cannot even imagine the health care system without

them.

May I please ask all the members of this House to join me to wish

all our wonderful nurses a very happy Nurses Week.

Thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for all you do.

ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

AND ANTI-ASIAN

RACISM

T. Wat: Here in British Columbia and Canada, we celebrate the month of May

as Asian Heritage Month, a time when we honour and celebrate our strong

and vibrant Asian communities and the contributions Asian-Canadians have

made to our history.

[1:50 p.m.]

B.C. has always been celebrated as a vibrant and multicultural

province where our Asian communities have been foundational to our

province’s economy, culture and identity. Certainly, COVID-19 has shed a

dark light on many of the challenges that our Asian and South Asian

communities face, including the horrific rising incidents of racism and

hate crimes.

In a recent Bloomberg article, Vancouver was called the anti-Asian

hate crime capital of North America. I’m sure all members of this House

share my feeling when I say that I’m absolutely heartbroken to see my

home, and the home of many of us here, labeled in such a way.

It is now more crucial than ever that we increase our efforts in

our mission to eliminate anti-Asian racism and all forms of hate and

discrimination in our province. This year’s theme is “Recognition,

resilience and resolve,” which is strongly embodied by our Asian and

South Asian communities. In the face of fear, misinformation and hate,

they have responded with action, unity and strength. We must all follow

their example.

I would like to take this moment to thank all the over 11,000

British Columbians who signed a petition in support of my request for

this government to declare May 29 the anti-racism education

day.

This month let us all take a moment to recognize and celebrate our

Asian history and heritage in this province and reaffirm our commitment

to making B.C. a place where people can celebrate their culture and

heritage and feel proud to call our great province home.

Oral Questions

ACCESS TO COVID-19 DATA

AND REPORT

INFORMATION

S. Bond: The opposition, the media and, most importantly, the public have

been calling for COVID-19 data transparency for months now. The Premier

not only ignored those requests, he in fact ridiculed the suggestions.

And he pretended, on a regular basis, that we were the most transparent

jurisdiction in Canada.

We now know, thanks to a very embarrassing leak to the media, that

those concerns about the lack of transparency are true. The Premier had

information that British Columbians deserved to have, including

neighbourhood-level cases, positivity and vaccination data. That

information was withheld. So much for the promise of

transparency.

Can the Premier today explain why he chose to withhold information

that British Columbians wanted and keep them in the dark, despite his

continual promises to be transparent?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her question. She will

know that, for almost 15 months now, the chief public health officer, in

coordination with the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, has been

releasing daily information about infections in health authorities —

hospitalization rates, impacts on pregnant individuals and a whole host

of other data. I believe that was trendsetting at the time.

As the member knows full well, we have more information today on

immunizations, because we are doing more immunizations than ever before.

In fact, last week 389,000 British Columbians registered to get

immunized. That’s fantastic news.

I know the member will have several more questions, so I think

I’ll pause there. Hate to waste a good answer with just one

question.

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: Let’s be clear. No one is denying that there were reports. There

were people out in the media on a regular basis. What is absolutely

clear is that not all the information was being shared. What is also

obvious is that this Premier stood up on a regular basis and said: “Oh,

we’re the most transparent jurisdiction in the country.” We now know

that is absolutely not correct.

We should be clear. The information was available. The Premier

promised British Columbians that he would be transparent, and he broke

yet another promise.

On January 14, to add insult to injury, he actually tried to

justify that by using the word “hysteria.” He actually said: “We don’t

actually want to cause hysteria by giving British Columbians

information.” His words, not mine.

The Premier can laugh and think it’s funny, but I can assure you

British Columbians didn’t think it was funny then, and they don’t think

it’s funny now.

[1:55 p.m.]

It is unbelievably disrespectful and harmful to communities like

Whalley and Newton, who have had positivity rates over 20 percent. The

Premier continues to refuse to provide more detailed data on school

cases, workplace exposures, rapid-test use and race-based data. It’s

unacceptable 14 months into the pandemic.

Maybe let’s try this. Will the Premier today stand up and

apologize for his comments about creating hysteria in British Columbia

and instead commit to providing all the information that’s available to

British Columbians?

Hon. J. Horgan: From the beginning of the pandemic, we made a decision on this

side of the House to allow public health officials to speak directly to

British Columbians with the information they needed to keep themselves

safe. That approach has served us very, very well.

Two million British Columbians have already received a first

vaccination — two million British Columbians. We’re this close to 50

percent of British Columbians eligible to have a vaccine taking in a

vaccine.

There is nobody in British Columbia, save and except perhaps the

members on the other side, that wants anything but to put COVID-19

behind us. I would suggest…

Interjections.

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

Hon. J. Horgan: …that the people of British Columbia want their government to

focus on the things that matter to them: “When am I going to get

vaccinated? Am I going to be able to go and visit my parents in a

long-term-care home that was neglected by ripping up contracts by the

former government, making sure that you had to work in one, two, three

different long-term-care facilities?”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: I will take guidance from the mouthpieces on the other side when

they apologize for what they did to health care workers and the people

of British Columbia for 16 years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. Next question.

ACCESS TO COVID-19 DATA

AND REPORT INFORMATION ON

SURREY

S. Cadieux: Let’s remember that the Premier ridiculed anyone who said that

B.C. wasn’t being transparent. Meanwhile, he continued to fail to

provide basic data that other provinces have been providing all along,

and now, not surprisingly, he’s blaming that on the bureaucrats and

looking back 20 years for anything to change the channel.

Now, look. The leaked internal reports are more than 45 pages, and

they include detailed breakdowns of case counts and vaccinations by

neighbourhood. The NDP MLAs in Surrey have been silent. The Premier has

a responsibility to be honest with people.

Will the Premier release the complete versions of these reports

and explain why he hid this data from the hard-hit community that I live

in, Surrey?

Hon. A. Dix: Thanks to the member for her question. Surrey has been, I think, a

top priority for months and months and months in this pandemic in B.C.

The member knows this and knows the work the public health officials

have been doing in Surrey throughout that period.

From virtually the beginning of the pandemic, we’ve been offering

daily reports on cases. It’s been a focus on Fraser Health for many

months. There’s a weekly surveillance report with detailed information

from the BCCDC that’s in the hands of the BCCDC. And the BCCDC consults

widely in terms of the direction it gives to public health

policy.

In Surrey, the first place that education workers were immunized

in full — in Surrey — outside of small communities. Front-line workers,

those involved in public safety — first in Surrey. Now we’re focusing on

neighbourhoods in Surrey. Surrey has been a priority from the beginning.

I think all Surrey MLAs, including the hon. member, are strong advocates

for that, and we have to continue to do that.

Surrey has faced the brunt of the pandemic because of

circumstances in Surrey — the number of essential workers and others —

something we have been speaking to virtually since the beginning of the

pandemic and work that we have to continue to do together. I’m proud of

the efforts of everyone in Surrey, including members of the opposition,

in raising registrations over this past week by 390,000. It’s a real

achievement. We need people to get registered. We need them to get

vaccinated, and we need people to continue to follow public health

guidance and public health orders at this critical moment in the

pandemic.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey South on a supplemental.

S. Cadieux: I agree we need to get people vaccinated, but that answer is not

good enough.

The Premier and the minister withheld information. There is

absolutely no justification for what has been a deliberate suppression

of information that should have been made public.

[2:00 p.m.]

The leaked documents show that the Premier knew the positivity

rate in parts of Surrey was more than 20 percent last week. For the

minister to suggest that they’ve now recognized that these are because

there are essential workers living in these hard-hit parts of Surrey is

ridiculous. Those people have been waiting for their vaccinations and

certainly have not been prioritized. All he offered was a chaotic system

of pop-up clinics that disappeared as quickly as they

arrived.

In the middle of a pandemic, in a community where people were

being disproportionately affected from the beginning, the Premier

decided to deliberately keep the public in the dark. Why? Why did the

Premier keep Surrey in the dark about this critical information in the

third wave of the pandemic?

Hon. A. Dix: The information about Fraser Health has been available every day

since last summer.

In the early months of the pandemic, in March and April of 2020,

Vancouver Coastal Health had more cases than Fraser Health. But since

the summer of 2020, Fraser Health has had the most cases, more than its

share of the population. Surrey and other communities, such as

Abbotsford, have borne the brunt of that. That’s why so much focus has

been given to contact tracing, to communication and to

support.

The people of the BCCDC who have prepared the dashboard, prepare

the weekly surveillance reports, who provide information — and indeed,

the document to which the member refers is shared with more than 100

people who are involved in developing the public health response to the

situation in Surrey and all communities around B.C. — I think, are to be

commended.

We in B.C. are taking the decision — and yes, it is a political

decision — to support public health officials, to support Dr. Bonnie

Henry, to support Dr. Réka Gustafson, to support our medical health

officers in health authorities around B.C. That is a choice we’ve made,

and they have, I think, led us through this pandemic with honour and

distinction. They will continue — and I think Dr. Henry will have more

to say about this today — to ensure that British Columbians are informed

across the province and [audio interrupted] about the pandemic and the

situation with the pandemic in B.C.

ACCESS TO COVID-19 DATA

S. Furstenau: Further to this line of questioning about these reports that were

released that provided substantially more information than what has

consistently been released to the public. The reports contain

information that scientists, the press, members in this chamber and the

public have asked for, for months. These requests have been

ignored.

Trust is a two-way street. The public must trust the decisions

being made by the government and the advice being given to them, and the

government must trust the public by providing them with the information

on what is informing those decisions and why. By failing to keep the

public fully informed, the government also fails to keep the public

fully engaged.

Information is a signal of trust by government, and substantial

data can help promote safe behaviour. It can create community cohesion,

and it can ensure that British Columbians adhere to the restrictions

placed upon them by understanding why those restrictions are

needed.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Why has his ministry,

and this government, chosen to keep the public underinformed when it

comes to COVID-19?

Hon. A. Dix: The member will know that the provincial health officer, myself,

the deputy provincial health officer and the ministry have prepared

hundreds of briefings — I believe about 200 public briefings; regular

monthly modelling efforts, which we were the first in Canada to

institute and which have kept people informed about the trajectory of

the pandemic; weekly surveillance reports with detailed information by

local health areas for months; and in the process the member talks

about, informing a broad group of people who advise the BCCDC and advise

the Provincial Health Authority on the direction government should take

in the surveillance of the pandemic and the surveillance of the health

of British Columbia.

What this has meant is that we’ve made decisions, with respect to

immunization, in respect to control of transmission of the virus, that

have focused on where people are most vulnerable. You see this reflected

in all of our immunization strategy from the beginning. I think our

provincial health officials have done a very good job. They will

continue to provide, as they have through the pandemic, more and more

information to the public as it becomes available to present. That is

what they are doing.

[2:05 p.m.]

I think that the provincial health officer is very committed to

the idea of informing the public and, in fact, has done so from the

beginning of the pandemic through extraordinary efforts. I support her

in that and will continue to be available myself and accountable myself

for the efforts we’re making.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: Often the minister prefaces his answers to these questions with

“the member will know,” but in fact, we are asking the questions because

we don’t know. The press has been asking questions because they don’t

know. Scientists and experts have been asking questions because they

don’t know the answers because the data hasn’t been provided.

Vaccination rates, case numbers by community health service

authorities have not been made public. This is data requested by

academics and scientists in B.C. to help promote safety and targeted

measures. There have been long-standing calls for more transparency of

data related to schools, workplaces and related to long COVID. Without

this data, it signals that government does not trust the public to make

informed decisions. It is an example of the government’s desire to

control the narrative and the messaging on COVID-19, rather than

completely empower the public in a health emergency.

This government has a growing issue with transparency and a

refusal to give up control of that narrative. The criticism that they

are facing is a direct result of their refusal to admit uncertainty and

change course when needed.

My question again is to the Minister of Health. Will this

government accept their fault in withholding information and commit to

full transparency in the COVID-19 response, moving forward?

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for her question.

I think what’s essential in the COVID-19 pandemic is we do

everything we can to limit transmission. That we support people when

they become ill with COVID-19, which is a terrible, vicious virus. That

we provide information to the public as we have, as the B.C. Centre for

Disease Control does every single day, updating its dashboard, and every

single week with more detailed surveillance reports.

We have to continue to do all of those things while ensuring that

people are vaccinated at a high rate, as vaccines come to B.C., and that

we focus on the most vulnerable. These those are the things we need to

do together. We need to do it together as an entire province.

Dr. Henry, again, will speak today to issues of data. We hope to

provide and continue to provide as much data as possible to people, and

we’ll continue to do that. But I think what’s important to focus on now

is that everyone in British Columbia get registered.

When your time comes, book your vaccination. When your time comes,

go and get vaccinated. In the meantime, as well, ensure that we follow

provincial health measures and provincial health guidance. Those are the

things we need to do right now at this critical moment in the pandemic.

That’s the message that’s been delivered from the beginning by Dr.

Henry, supported by a mountain of data.

We’ll continue to provide more if the public is interested in that

and needs that, and we will continue to provide it.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON GANG VIOLENCE

AND POLICE OFFICER

POSITIONS

T. Halford: From outside of Vancouver restaurants, to Delta parking lots, to

outside a Toys “R” Us in Langley and now at the Vancouver Airport, gang

violence is exploding in the Lower Mainland.

British Columbians are scared. They want to know what this Premier

is going to do to keep them safe. It’s not enough for the Solicitor

General to get up and talk tough and say it’s unacceptable and it will

not be tolerated. The words are not working.

My question is to the Premier. Will his government immediately

move to fill the 200 open positions in the provincial policing

contract?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his question.

The upsurge in gang violence that we have seen which periodically

happens in this province is absolutely just despicable. The events we

saw on the weekend are a heinous criminal act committed by people who

just have no regard for public safety or for lives or for

themselves.

[2:10 p.m.]

I can tell you what we are doing is working closely with police

agencies right across the province to ensure that they’ve got the

resources they need to get the job done. That’s why since we took

office, not only have we increased the number of police in communities —

the first since 2012, by the way — but we put in place British

Columbia’s first witness security program so that we have a program

designed to meet the needs here in British Columbia. That was one of the

top priorities of police when I first met with them.

That program is working extremely well. Since that program has

been put in place, there have been 42 convictions of murderers who might

otherwise have gotten away.

In this year’s budget, there is funding for an additional four

prosecutors dedicated solely to gang prosecution.

Interjections.

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

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I was telling the member, there is a significant amount of work

this government has undertaken. There’s a lot more to come, and we are

determined, by working with the police and the public, to get this

violence under control.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.

T. Halford: Well, I appreciate the tone and the lecture from the Solicitor

General, but his words are not working.

I asked him a direct question. I asked if those 200 policing

officers were going to be undertaken. This minister refused to answer,

so I’ll ask it again, because what we’ve seen so far is we’ve actually

seen cuts. We’ve cut the Surrey Safer Schools Together program. We’ve

set up road blocks in the Interior. But you know what? We do not have

the officers on the street to do the job we need them to do.

I will ask again, and I will ask this to the Premier. Will he take

immediate action and implement the steps to keep British Columbians

safe?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I just outlined to him

the important investments which are police priorities, which they want

to see in place, which we have done since taking office. That’s what we

are working on.

I’ll add another investment that has taken place since we formed

government, again, which they had 12 years to do but failed to do. We

put in place a firearms analysis laboratory, the first one here in

British Columbia, based in Surrey. On top of that, we increased the

IHIT, the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team, budget by 15 percent

since 2019 — ten percent since last year’s budget alone. That’s what

solves crimes, that and intelligence. Those are the tools that police

are asking for.

To his question, on the 200….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh, as a former Solicitor General, you should know that that issue

has been around, and it is related….

Mr. Speaker: Through the Chair.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh, oh. She wants to heckle. The member wants to heckle, but when

addressing the heckle, it’s all through the Speaker.

Well, Hon. Speaker, through the Speaker, guess what. Those members

that she talks about are things like mat leave. They’re in small

community policing programs, which we know have had a challenge for a

long time.

In fact, the last time that they did anything when they sat in

this House was in 2012. Since that time, we have added 30 members to

deal with those issues. We have added a 12-member team in three

communities, based in Terrace, based in Kamloops, based in Prince George

to deal with some of the pressures.

The member for Nechako Lakes came crying to me because he wanted

additional police officers in Vanderhoof. Guess what? He sat on this

side of the House for how many years and wasn’t able to get it done, but

we did. We take it seriously, and we will continue to do

that.

M. de Jong: Well, quite frankly, I’m a little bit surprised by the Solicitor

General’s tone. He can pontificate all he wants to. I could stand here

and talk about the work previous governments took to create CFSEU, the

largest integrated anti-gang police program in Canada, or talk about the

100 additional officers that were created and funded for a place like

Surrey.

But you know what? In the face of dramatically increased gun

violence, I don’t think that’s what British Columbians want to hear. I

think they want to hear about some solutions to the gang violence that’s

happening right now.

[2:15 p.m.]

Nine days, seven shootings, five deaths — those are the facts.

There are, by the Solicitor General’s own admission, 200 vacancies,

vacant policing positions, that British Columbians understandably are

puzzled by in the face of this violence.

The question my colleague asked and that I will repeat is: in the

face of this increased indiscriminate violence that is putting innocent

people at risk, what is the government, what is the Premier going to do

now? What action are they going to take today to keep people

safe?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, as I just said a moment ago, we have been working with

police on what their priorities are, which is making sure that IHIT is

funded properly, because as the member knows, IHIT is what investigates

homicides. They want to see additional funding for gang exiting

programs. This budget contains $7.6 million, additional, to do just

that.

They wanted to ensure that we have a witness security program, a

witness security program that will allow them to testify to make

stronger cases, to have better prosecutions, which results in longer

sentences. Those are police priorities. That’s what we’re working on,

and that’s what’s going to keep people safe in this province.

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

M. de Jong: Well, people don’t feel safe. They don’t feel safe at the mall in

Langley, in front of the Toys “R” Us. They don’t feel safe on the

highway, on our bridges, in our tunnels, on the way to or from work.

They don’t feel safe in their own neighbourhoods.

Ten months ago the Solicitor General quite fairly, quite

appropriately, acknowledged that there are 200 policing vacancies in

British Columbia — 200 vacant policing positions in B.C. It is entirely

understandable, as we stand in the midst of this dramatically increased

firearm violence, gun violence, to ask why those positions have not been

filled or why at least a portion of those positions, a significant

portion of those positions, haven’t been filled.

Words actually aren’t enough in this situation. What steps are the

government, the Premier, the minister prepared to take today so that

those people at the mall in Langley, those people driving their cars on

their streets, those people in their neighbourhoods can begin to feel

safe again?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll repeat again to the hon. member. We work with police on their

priorities. They’re the individuals who do the day-to-day work on the

ground. They know what’s required. They know what resources are in

place.

I’ll remind the member that when he was Finance Minister, he

provided a budget that cut $4.2 million for gang funding to fight

organized and gang crime in this province. That was part of the record

of that government.

Since taking….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh, our record? Let’s start. First off, an additional cadre of 30

officers around the province, many going to communities, rural

communities, right across British Columbia. Three- or four-member teams

in cities across the province — Terrace, Kamloops, Prince George — to

back up the work of rural police departments.

Increasing the funding for IHIT by 15 percent since we took

office, something that you never did when you sat on this side of the

House, hon. member. We put in place…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: …nearly every recommendation from the guns and gangs strategy that

we received when we took office in 2017. We’ve worked with the federal

government to ensure what, again, you couldn’t do when you sat on this

side of the House, which was improve the First Nations policing program

to make sure that we get the full complement of First Nations policing

that we should have in this province. We’ve accomplished

that.

We’ve worked cooperatively with the federal government on a guns

and gangs strategy nationwide, which saw the feds come to the table with

$50 million — $30 million and $20 million. All of that has gone to

policing in the province. All of that has gone to support the men and

women doing a very dangerous and difficult job, and I know they’re going

to get to the bottom of all of this.

[2:20 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, all questions and answers through the Chair.

COVID-19 VACCINATION PLAN

AND SECOND DOSE FOR CANCER

PATIENTS

R. Merrifield: Phil Harbridge has fought cancer and, hopefully, is winning. He is

still receiving chemo treatments for his myeloma. That has meant a delay

in getting vaccinated. Then he tested positive for COVID-19, and so did

his wife.

Cancer hasn’t stopped during this pandemic. We need to give cancer

patients the best chance at fighting COVID while their bodies fight

cancer as well.

Dr. Deepa Wadhwa is an oncologist and is pretty blunt. His

patient, Elya Martinson, has “advanced lung cancer on targeted therapy.

She would benefit from receiving her second dose of COVID vaccine within

the recommended three-week time frame.”

Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have said yes to

prioritizing cancer patients.

Today I ask on behalf of Phil and Elya, to the Premier: will

British Columbia also prioritize cancer patients and ensure they get

their second vaccinations faster, now, and dose on time?

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for her question.

Of course, having people in my family living with cancer as well,

I know the situation of which she speaks and the challenge to all

families who are dealing with a serious illness such as cancer or other

chronic diseases and chronic illnesses, people living with disabilities

in a pandemic.

It’s why, with respect to our immunization plan, we prioritize

people who are clinically vulnerable. As you’ll remember, in March we

set out 150,000 people. That has expanded since. More than 200,000

clinically vulnerable people have been immunized in every community

around B.C.

These measures, these efforts, were led by the Provincial Health

Services Authority at the direction of their vice-president, Dr. Maureen

O’Donnell, and the provincial health officer, who focuses on medical

issues and provides guidance and medical advice on these issues. These

are not issues that we’ll decide in the House between us, but rather

will be guided by the direction of medical specialists and medical

experts.

I know that Dr. Henry is seized of this issue and, as she said on

Thursday at our briefing then, we will continue to focus on supporting

people who are clinically vulnerable in B.C., including those living

with cancer, to make sure they get the maximum protection that they can

against COVID-19.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a report by the Minister of

Public Safety, Emergency Program Act, Ministerial Order M182.

Motions Without Notice

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

TO SIT IN THREE

SECTIONS

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move:

[ GENERAL

1. That the Committee of Supply for this Session be

authorized to sit in three sections, designated

Section A,

Section

B, and

Section C, to be subject to the rules that

follow.

2. That

Section A and

Section C sit in such committee room

as may be designated from time to time, and that

Section B sit in

the Legislative Chamber.

3. That Standing Orders applicable to Committees of the

Whole House be applicable in

Section A,

Section B, and

Section C,

save and except that, during Committee of Supply proceedings in

Section A and

Section C, a Minister may defer to a Deputy Minister

to permit such Deputy to reply to a question put to the

Minister.

4. That

Section A be authorized to consider bills at

committee stage after second reading thereof, and for all purposes

be deemed to be a Committee of the Whole House, and that the

Standing Orders relating to the consideration of bills in a

Committee of the Whole House be applicable to such

proceedings.

5. That

Section A and

Section B be authorized to examine

all Estimates and any public bill appearing on the Orders of the Day

at committee stage, which may be considered in the order determined

by the Government House Leader in accordance with Standing Order 27

(2).

6. That

Section C be authorized to examine all Estimates,

which may be considered in the order determined by the Government

House Leader in accordance with Standing Order 27 (2).

7. That Estimates or bills previously referred to a

designated

Section may at any time be subsequently referred to

another designated Section, as determined by the Government House

Leader in accordance with Standing Order 27 (2).

COMPOSITION

8. That the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole or

their designate preside in

Section A and

Section C.

9. That

Section A consist of 11 Members, not including the

Chair, being seven Members of the Government Caucus, three Members

of the Official Opposition Caucus, and one Member of the Third Party

Caucus.

10. That

Section C consist of 11 Members, not including

the Chair, being seven Members of the Government Caucus, three

Members of the Official Opposition Caucus, and one Member of the

Third Party Caucus.

11. That the Members of

Section A be: the Minister whose

Estimates are under examination or who is in charge of the bill

under consideration and Hon. Lisa Beare, Garry Begg, Bob

D’Eith, Hon. Mike Farnworth, Hon. Selena

Robinson, Niki Sharma, Lorne Doerkson, Trevor Halford, Karin

Kirkpatrick, and Sonia Furstenau .

12. That the Members of

Section C be: the Minister whose

Estimates are under examination and Michele Babchuk,

Hon. Adrian Dix, Hon. David Eby, Hon. Rob

Fleming, Hon. Ravi Kahlon, Hon. Bruce Ralston,

Renee Merrifield, Jackie Tegart, Andrew Wilkinson, and

Adam Olsen .

13. That substitutions for Members of

Section A and

Section C be permitted with the consent of the Member’s Caucus Whip,

where applicable, or otherwise with the consent of the

Member.

14. That

Section B be composed of all Members of the

House.

VOTING AND DIVISIONS

15. That, when a division is requested in

Section A, the

Chair shall announce that a division has been called and ring the

division bells four times. No longer than 10 minutes thereafter,

unless the Committee unanimously agrees otherwise, the Chair shall

again state the question. No Member shall enter or leave the

designated committee room, or connect to or disconnect from the

approved videoconferencing technology, after the final statement of

the question until the division has been fully taken, and every

Member of

Section A present shall vote.

16. That, when a division is requested in

Section C, the

Chair shall announce that a division has been called and ring the

division bells five times. No longer than 10 minutes thereafter,

unless the Committee unanimously agrees otherwise, the Chair shall

again state the question. No Member shall enter or leave the

designated committee room, or connect to or disconnect from the

approved videoconferencing technology, after the final statement of

the question until the division has been fully taken, and every

Member of

Section C present shall vote.

17. That if a division is called in

Section A or

Section C

at a time that, in the Chair’s opinion, is likely to overlap with

the start of a deferred division in the House, notwithstanding the

provisions of the Sessional Order adopted on April 12, 2021, the

Speaker or the Chair, as the case may be, shall be so advised, and

the stating of the question and start of the division in the House

shall be deferred no more than five minutes after the adjournment of

proceedings in

Section A or

Section C, as the case may be, to allow

for Members voting in

Section A or

Section C, as the case may be, to

participate in the deferred division in the House.

18. That divisions in

Section B be taken in accordance

with the provisions of the Sessional Order adopted on April 12,

REPORTING AND COMPLETION

19. That, at 15 minutes prior to the ordinary time fixed

for adjournment of the House, the Chairs of

Section A and

Section C

shall report to the House. If the House is engaged in a deferred

division,

Section A and

Section C shall conclude their proceedings

at the time that the division bells are rung in the Legislative

Chamber, and the Chairs of

Section A and

Section C shall report to

the House at the conclusion of the division in the House, which the

Chairs of

Section A and

Section C may do remotely.

20. That, if a report from

Section A or

Section C includes

the last Vote in a particular Ministry Estimate, after such report

has been made to the House, Members of the Government Caucus shall

have a maximum of seven minutes cumulatively, Members of the

Official Opposition Caucus shall have a maximum of four minutes

cumulatively, Members of the Third Party Caucus shall have a maximum

of two minutes cumulatively, and Independent Members shall have a

maximum of one minute cumulatively to summarize the Committee debate

on that Ministry’s Estimates. Such summaries shall be in the

following order:

a. Independent Members;

b. Third Party Caucus;

c. Official Opposition Caucus;

and,

d. Government Caucus.

OTHER

21. That this order expire on June 30, 2021.]

I know that Opposition House Leaders have received that, so

that will save us having to read through the entire three pages of

rules. If that’s fine, I seek leave to move that.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

AMENDMENT TO STANDING ORDERS

FOR THURSDAY SITTING

HOURS

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move — again, the Opposition House Leaders have

received a copy of the motion:

[That effective immediately, the Standing Orders of the Legislative

Assembly of British Columbia be amended as follows for the remainder of

the Second Session of the Forty-second Parliament which commenced on

April 12, 2021:

1. That Standing Order 2 (1) is deleted and the following

substituted:

Sittings

Daily sittings.

(1) The time for the ordinary

meeting of the House shall, unless otherwise ordered, be as

follows:

Monday:

Two distinct sittings:

10 a.m. to 12 noon

1:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

Tuesday:

Two distinct sittings:

10 a.m. to 12 noon

1:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

Wednesday:

1:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Thursday:

Two distinct sittings:

10 a.m. to 12 noon

1:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

2. That Standing Order 3 be deleted and the following

substituted:

Hours of interruption.

3. If at the hour of 6:30

p.m. on any Monday and Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday or 5:30 p.m. on

Thursday, the business of the day is not concluded and no other hour has

been agreed on for the next sitting, the Speaker shall the leave the

Chair:

On Monday

until 10 a.m. on Tuesday

On Tuesday

until 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday

On Wednesday

until 10 a.m. on Thursday

On Thursday

until 10 a.m. on Monday

subject to the provision of Standing Order 2 (2) (b).

3. That this order expire on June 30, 2021.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

[2:25 p.m.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this House, I call second reading of Bill 6. In Committee A, the

Douglas Fir Room, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and

Culture.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — ACCESSIBLE

BRITISH COLUMBIA

ACT

double-checking my signal here. Can you hear me okay, Mr.

Speaker?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. I’ve just taken the chair. I can hear

you.

I have had a request for a five-minute recess, if that’s all

right. I would like this House to be in recess for five minutes so we

can appropriately hear all the remarks. Thank you, Members. We’re just

in recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 2:26 p.m. to 2:29 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Apologies for the slight confusion at the end there — my

recognition of the member for Skeena for being ready to go when we

called on him.

[2:30 p.m.]

As we are introducing a new bill, Bill 6, I want to recognize the

appropriate minister first, and then we’ll go onwards from

there.

Hon. N. Simons: It’s my pleasure to stand today. With thanks to everyone who took

part in the development of this legislation, I move Bill 6, Accessible

B.C. Act, be read a second time.

This bill signifies the beginning of a new

chapter in the history

of the rights of people who, because of barriers, haven’t always been

given the chance to fully participate in our communities. As a province,

we expect British Columbia to be as inclusive and as accessible as

possible. As a government, our laws and our regulations should reflect

the expectations of its citizens. This legislation that has been

developed reflects British Columbia’s way — the path we’re going to take

to ensure that they do.

This law, the Accessible British Columbia Act, finally allows us,

as a society, to define with care and precision what we should expect of

our government and other organizations when it comes to being

accessible. Specifically, it gives us a way of identifying barriers,

removing barriers and preferably preventing them from being established

in the first place.

Now, this legislation has been in development for many, many

months. We are the largest province without such legislation. So I’m

absolutely honoured to be part of the process to bring this legislation

to life. I’d like to acknowledge the work of all of those who are on the

ministry, which worked very hard to ensure that this legislation laid

the foundation for the important work that will take place in this

province over the next months and years, in fact.

The legislation that we wrote, that we developed, is enabling

legislation. To describe that, I would say that it gives government the

ability to establish regulations, which we call standards, to exist not

just in government space but in other organizations that are prescribed

by government as well. These could be institutes of higher learning.

They could be government agencies. They could be businesses and

corporations. But fundamentally, this act allows government to set in

place the process for the establishment of these standards.

Now, key to our approach in this process is to ensure that the

voice of people with disabilities and those who advocate for them are

accurately reflected and, in fact, form the fundamental nature of this

relationship, based on the premise that we do “nothing about us without

us.” In other words, the work that we’re doing to reduce barriers in our

society needs to be informed by those who face them most often. In most

cases, we’re talking about the disability community, as broad and

diverse as that community is.

The province engaged in extensive consultation processes with the

disability community, Indigenous communities, the general public,

various organizations. For many months, these groups got together to

discuss what was essential, what was needed to be in this legislation so

that we could take the next important step. This is not the most

important step of all, as we continue to address barriers in our

society.

I’d like to acknowledge the hard work of everyone in the advocacy

circles of the disability community, as well as their allies throughout

British Columbia and, indeed, in other parts of Canada, who have ensured

that our interest in making our province accessible and inclusive came

to this stage.

[2:35 p.m.]

Now, we might be behind other jurisdictions, but here we are ready

to take the important steps of establishing the rules, the structures

around which we will ensure the proper regulations are put in

place.

The legislation calls for the creation of a provincial

people on the committee would be people with disabilities or advocates

who work with them. They will include Indigenous representation. In

fact, it’s part of our expectation as government that we engage in a

consultative progress that is rigorous.

Now, let me just say that it doesn’t mean that all the

consultation we undertake results in consensus at every conclusion, but

the process of coming together and of discussing the elements of

legislation that are needed creates communication. It creates the

relationships that will be an essential part of the building of

standards and plans for our province.

which will be run through the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty

Reduction, is to establish a plan for the province, a plan on how we

will go from this important step to the time where we will be able to

say that this will actually have a day-to-day impact on people’s lives —

from the now, where we are creating the conditions and the legislative

framework to make the rules, and when the rules become part of our

community, when the rules are put in place.

This isn’t a simple process. It’s actually very complex. Because

of that, we need to rely on the ongoing expertise of those who are

familiar with the subject and interested in the same goals that we have

as a government.

serving in the opposition. At the time, the reason for not creating

legislation here in British Columbia was to wait for the Accessible

Canada Act. We have it now. I’m so pleased that the work that we’ve done

here in B.C. serves to complement the federal legislation.

It’s not the reinvention of the wheel that British Columbia has

undertaken here. It is definitely British Columbia’s perspective and

British Columbia’s path, but in fact, we have relied on the experience

of other jurisdictions such as Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Nova

Scotia. We hope to be able to use the learning that we get from those

jurisdictions to help influence, promote and encourage us as British

Columbians to enthusiastically embrace the desire to make our province

accessible and inclusive.

In fact, I would like to see this legislation — in fact, I see

this legislation — as ultimately going to be resulting in rules,

regulations, standards and expectations that we have as a province, that

we have of each other. This legislation will reflect the expectation we

have of our province in being accessible, inclusive and, as one member

of the committee mentioned just after the first reading, a kinder

province. I’m very pleased that this foundational enabling legislation

is going to allow us to take the next steps towards making British

Columbia a more inclusive place.

[2:40 p.m.]

Now, I would also suggest that by tabling this legislation and by

debating it, with my expectation that it passes, we don’t have to wait

for this to have an impact on people. I think the fact that we have

tabled this legislation and that we have highlighted it as a symbol of

how we hope our province to be shows people, who may not have had the

same optimism, to maybe have a little more optimism.

To those who may have a cynical view of government, I hope it’s

slightly less cynical. For parents worried about their children with

disabilities, I hope it gives them some comfort that, in fact, we are

establishing rules that will make the quality of life of their child

better.

My hope is that with the passage of standards, we’ll allow those

who may have been precluded from opportunity because of a different

ability, a diverse ability, a developmental disability…. Perhaps they

will now have more opportunity to overcome the attitudinal barriers that

exist in our society. This is about physical barriers, this is about

attitudinal barriers, and this is about the way that we break those

barriers down and create a more inclusive and accessible

province.

Now, there have been questions around the province: “Who will this

legislation apply to? How will it show up in our communities? How do we

know what our roles will be?” Well, the first step is that with a

consultative effort, with a cooperative effort among those who are on

to have plans in place to reduce barriers so that they are accessible to

as many British Columbians as possible.

What organizations are going to have to take steps? What will

those steps be? All of this gets established early in the process in

order to demonstrate the goal of government to ensure that regulations

are appropriate, that they are embraced and that they’re

followed.

plans in a manner that reflects the interests of their business and of

the broader community. These organizations, which are yet to be

identified specifically, will be asked to make sure that their plans to

make their organization more accessible are clear, informed by the

public and informed by people in the disability community, their

advocates and their allies in order to ensure that those standards are,

in fact, the reflection of our community’s values.

Once these organizations establish their plans, and once they

participate in the process of establishing standards, there’s a

mechanism for ensuring that standards are met. I say that’s way down the

line. The compliance and enforcement aspect of this legislation is

robust and lengthy.

In my view, this legislation, as a reflection of British

Columbians, is not going to meet with great controversy. That’s my hope.

It’s my expectation that we share a belief that our society should be

inclusive. We share a belief that people should be able to participate

in their society to the best of their abilities without unnecessary

barriers being put in their way.

[2:45 p.m.]

The legislation takes the social model approach towards disability

in that it defines the barriers as the problem and the issue. The

barriers that exist, whether they’re physical barriers or attitudinal

barriers — we take the approach that what need to be addressed are the

barriers that have precluded full participation in society.

I would point out that the

definitions that we use are broadly

United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.

When I refer to the social model, I’m meaning to define it as a

structural issue in which society is responsible for removing the

barriers.

As one takes a look through the legislation, people will see that

the role of the minister in this is to ensure that he or she or they

province. We define AccessAbility Week and enshrine it in law to ensure

that there’s a time, if not on everyone’s agenda, for everyone to

recognize that as much as we have a province that is welcoming, it is

sometimes more welcoming to those who do not face the barriers that we

see.

I call this a new chapter, in recognition of the generations of

people who have fought for the rights of people with disabilities. We

can all think of the large advocacy groups who have been instrumental in

ensuring that this be on the agenda of governments. But we probably

could all think of people in our communities who have steadfastly made

the arguments to us as MLAs, to their communities, that we need to do

better. We need to do better. So many businesses and organizations have

taken steps to become more accessible, to be more inclusive. But we need

to do better.

This legislation, while it is strong on the compliance and

enforcement…. My hope is that this legislation will be an encouragement

and a guide, a guide for us as British Columbians to achieve the goal.

Annual reports from the minister will ensure that there’s accountability

in the system, description of the events and objectives and mechanisms

that they have undertaken, that government has undertaken, to pursue the

goals of this legislation, and it ensures public accountability. The

public wants to know that government is actively interested in ensuring

that standards are developed in various sectors.

In addition to the annual reports, which the minister will issue

and publish, there will be independent reports on the success of

be undertaken. My hope is that after the first five years, we’ll have a

lot to be proud of. That will depend, of course, on the energy and the

enthusiasm that I’ve witnessed already to continue and be continuing in

this endeavour.

I look forward to the public consultation that will take place. I

for Chilliwack, to be busy with this important work. I know that he’s

looking forward to meeting people in the disability sector —

communities, individuals, agencies around the province — to ensure that

[2:50 p.m.]

Thank you for your patience as I find my notes or, as the case may

be, as I don’t find my notes. However, we’ll manage.

In addition to the public accountability that is required, I’d

like to just talk a bit about the standards that we’re going to be

conjunction with technical experts as part of that process. We’ll be

looking at establishing standards in…. There’s a list in the legislation

that defines employment, the delivery of service, the built environment,

transportation, health and education. This is just an unexhaustive list

of potential areas where standards will be de­veloped.

Each of those standards will have their own expert committees or

advisers to ensure that they meet the needs of our province. I know

we’re going to hear a lot about the standard development as we proceed

through the next months and years. I’m looking forward to that process a

lot. We’ll obviously be following the principles identified in the act,

which include: inclusion, adaptability, diversity, collaboration,

self-determination and universal design. Again, it’s not an exhaustive

list. The approach of this legislation is that it is not heavily

prescriptive, but it does define what is to be expected in our

province.

No legislation and no regulations can be developed without the

active participation of people from Indigenous communities, and I was

pleased and will continue to be pleased to ensure that voices of

Indigenous People are reflected in the legislation. At this time, I

would say that it’s also important to recognize the intersectionality of

the issue, the intersectionality of disability and the complex nature of

the relationship between LGBTQ, racialized communities and the

intersectionality with the disability issues.

My intention is not to go into the details of the specific

elements of the legislation, as we reserve that for committee stage, as

the Speaker knows.

Despite the fact that I haven’t been able to find my notes, I

would just like to say that I got on to this train as it was moving. I’d

like to acknowledge former minister Shane Simpson for beginning this

process and making sure that we were all on the way to ensuring that we

had legislation by this time. It is an absolute honour that my first

piece of legislation as a minister is one that serves to raise up all

British Columbians together.

As a society, we often talk about how we treat those without a

voice or those who are more marginalized and that being a reflection of

our society.

[2:55 p.m.]

I think this is an example of legislation that is seeking to make

our society more equal, that is seeking to ensure that we’re conscious

of the barriers that exist and that we’re conscious of the importance of

removing those barriers so that people of all abilities can reach their

full potential.

It’s a pleasure that…. I’m sure that there are going to be

comments from my colleagues. I’m looking forward to hearing those. With

that, I take my place.

S. Cadieux: As I take my place in this debate today, I will admit: it is a

good day. It is a day that, as a member of this House, I am proud. Let

me attempt to illustrate why.

Imagine for a moment: what if you were the keynote speaker at an

event, but you arrived, and you couldn’t get on the stage? What if you

couldn’t speak and were not allowed to have a trusted person speak for

you while receiving medical services? What if you booked a vacation of a

lifetime and arrived at the destination to be told that they didn’t have

the room you carefully booked? What if you applied for a job, but when

they called to book the interview and they learned you had a disability,

they hung up?

What if you wanted to attend a sporting event or a concert with

friends but couldn’t sit with them because you were limited to sitting

with only one other person, and when you tried to sit with your friends

elsewhere, you were asked to leave because you were considered a fire

hazard? What if you took your three-year-old to the park to play but

were barred from getting to the playground equipment with them? Worse

yet, what if you were six years old, and you were the only kid that

didn’t get to go to your friend’s birthday party because your friend’s

house was inaccessible?

Have you ever had to decline an invitation to go to an event or an

activity with friends because there was no accessible washroom? What if

you’re blind or have limited vision, and you go to a restaurant for

lunch, and they haven’t got large print and braille menus? What if you

had a cognitive impairment and couldn’t understand the form you needed

to fill out to receive a service because the form used technical

language, long sentences and multisyllable words? Would you be

frustrated? Would you be sad, disillusioned, feel left out,

angry?

The reality is that the barriers are very real. They still exist

today, in 2021. They still exist in British Columbia. But today we start

a process to try to change that.

Now, I’ll state for the record: my quality of life is not

diminished by my disability. I am not unhealthy or unwell because of my

disability. My disability is not a personal tragedy. It is not something

that needs to be cured nor something I have to overcome. It is simply

part of what makes me, me.

We must, as leaders, help to shift the definition of disability

from a personal deficit to what occurs because a person’s needs are not

addressed. Today this Legislature is a big part of that change, seeing

the ability and removing the barriers.

I am repeatedly told by businesses when I suggest some

do by law.” I certainly would have hoped that people’s thinking would

have evolved by now, nearly 30 years after my injury brought me into

this community. But it hasn’t — at least, not enough.

Being truly inclusive means that people of all abilities have the

opportunity to fully participate in their communities. It means we

continually challenge the attitudes and beliefs about disabilities and

then recognize the value of contribution.

In 2017, 22 percent of Canadians aged 15 and over — about 6.2

million people in Canada — had one or more disabilities. Women were more

likely than men to be a part of that group. Among those with

disabilities aged 25 to 64 who were not employed and not attending

school, 39 percent of them wanted to work. That represents nearly

650,000 people with disabilities. These facts are taken from a

Statistics Canada report titled A Demographic, Employment and Income

Profile of Canadians with Disabilities Aged 15 and Over ,

published in November 2018 as part of the Canadian survey on

disability.

[3:00 p.m.]

I’d like add for the record here today, as well, that a report

published by the Conference Board of Canada in January of 2018, titled

The Business Case to Build Physically Accessible

Environments , shows that the number of Canadians living with a

physical disability that impairs their vision, hearing or mobility will

rise by 1.8 percent per year — remember that number, 1.8 percent per

year — between now and 2030 while total population growth in Canada,

over that same period, will average less than 1 percent.

The same report also suggests that implementing measures to

disabilities to work more hours, increasing GDP by $16.8 billion by

2030. This larger pool of available workers would boost the total income

of people with disabilities by over $15.5 billion. That would be a true

and real poverty reduction strategy.

This is the kind of impact we want to see for individuals as a

result of this legislation. These are the types of outcomes that we hope

will follow.

Now, my own experience with disability does lend me a perspective

— my work within the disability community broadly, both as a board

member of Disability Alliance B.C. and my work with Spinal Cord Injury

B.C. and other disability groups many years ago, and as a former

minister responsible for social programs in British Columbia. All have

broadened my views and exposed me to the vast and varied experiences of

people with disabilities. It’s taught me the importance of the

challenges associated with bringing those diverse experiences to a

common goal. Today’s legislation, I feel, is one common goal we should

all agree on.

Over my last decade serving in this B.C. Legislature, I’ve been

made significant changes to our persons with disabilities income

supports, specifically around earnings exemptions and asset and trust

exemptions. I was able to champion a provincewide consultation that led

building blocks of items government did to advance access and inclusion,

and a commitment to legislation.

I’m very pleased that this government and this minister have

brought this forward now. I hope the community has been well served by

this government in their consultations prior to the bill’s introduction,

and I hope those consulted will share any concerns they have with the

bill, anything they believe has been missed or doesn’t reach far enough.

Indeed, some of those groups have already done so.

I’ll pause for a moment, as well, as the minister did, to thank

the team in the Ministry of Social Development, specifically the team

led by Sam Turcott, who I know put great energy, enthusiasm and effort

into bringing this bill to life and who took most seriously their

endeavours to include the community in consultations and to best reflect

those learnings in the bill we have before us.

Be it the built environment, employment, communications, service

delivery, transportation or procurement, the reality is that barriers

continue to exist and even to be erected. We now have the express intent

to proactively confront those barriers and break them down. So let’s get

it right. At first blush, I think the legislation has the bases covered,

and we can delve into all of the detail in committee.

We do need to learn from those who’ve gone before, and we do need

to attempt to move to a national standard and away from creating yet

another standard. There are examples of good work already done. I know

government has considered these, and we see elements of other

pro­vinces’ and the country’s legislative efforts in this

bill.

We need to recognize that

an act, apart from other standards like

the building code, will be ineffective unless there is a requirement

within existing processes, such as building permits, that have to adhere

to the act. For example, in Ontario, despite great efforts to provide a

built environment standard that would ensure access and inclusion, it

was deemed unworkable and not included in the bill.

That enabled the lesser minimum standard to still be how buildings

are permitted, leaving businesses in a difficult position and a building

code that doesn’t conform to the requirements to meet the human rights

code or the AODA. Confusion still rules, and people with disabilities

still pay the price. We can, again, discuss this further at committee

stage as to how we will ensure that doesn’t happen in British

Columbia.

and that this government did in preparation for this legislation…. We

have heard about the struggles that Canadians with disabilities face on

a regular basis. We have heard, I believe, that British Columbians with

disabilities hope it will lead to more consistent experiences of

jurisdiction and be aligned with the federal and municipal rules. We

know it needs to be enforceable, and it needs to include penalties for

non-compliance. It must have a mechanism for complaints and

oversight.

[3:05 p.m.]

Again, today I’m sharing my thoughts here from a number of

perspectives — as a person with a disability and as someone who has been

an advocate and a service provider and a legislator.

Equality rights are at the core of the Canadian Charter of Rights

and Freedoms and certainly are entrenched in our constitution.

Guarantees of equality to all persons before and under the law go far

beyond formal words in

section 15 of the Charter.

Article 9 of the

United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities,

which Canada ratified in 2010, outlines society’s obligation to ensure

that we “take appropriate measures to ensure to persons with

disabilities access, on an equal basis with others.”

Upholding these rights to equality is why we need stand-alone

legislating the depth and breadth of things we want to see changed.

There are limitations on what legislation can and can’t do

effectively.

For the deaf community, the recognition of sign languages as

primary languages is a very positive step. Indeed, this was an amendment

to the federal legislation, before that legislation passed. However, the

deaf and Deafblind community has expressed concern that Quebec sign

language has not been included and that full recognition of the

community as a distinct cultural linguistic community is necessary to

ensure their unique needs are covered by this legislation.

I will have questions on many things as we move through committee

stage, but I expect to have a few more significant reservations or,

perhaps, suggestions for im­provements before we pass the bill.

And they follow.

Unlike the Accessible Canada Act, the sole responsibility for the

act implementation and oversight sits within government rather than an

on government-appointed inspectors, but in addition, it provides a

process for complaints by members of the public when organizations do

independently investigate complaints about non-compliance with

I, like many advocates, am concerned that the lack of an

individual complaints process could create additional barriers for

people with disabilities seeking remedy on the infringements of any

rights that they may be trying to access, which may be provided by

regulations and standards that may be developed under this

act.

Now, it is clear that government has chosen to focus on government

and, likely, government entities with this legislation, at least for the

immediate term, and not on the private sector. While I understand the

approach — and it may be the right one — it does also mean that true

positive change and the removal of barriers for people with disabilities

in their everyday lives, in their economic lives, may still be delayed

for many more years.

All of those examples I gave earlier and so many more will still

be left to individuals to advocate for change. I acknowledge that it is

possible the regulations that may be written following this act can

prescribe other organizations so that the Accessible B.C. Act will apply

to parts or all of the non-profit and private sector. But it is not

guaranteed by this act.

Furthermore, even if other organizations are prescribed, there’s

nothing in Bill 6 that prevents government from unprescribing. This

leaves the act vulnerable to influence from both the private sector or,

in fact, other entities even inside government. We feel strongly that

people with disabilities, British Columbians, deserve to feel certain

that this act is, indeed, going to ensure and enshrine their full and

meaningful access and participation in society writ large, not just

government.

The Accessible Canada Act’s definition of disability means “any

impairment, including a physical, mental, intellectual, cognitive,

learning, communication or sensory impairment — or a functional or

limitation — whether permanent, temporary or episodic in nature, or

evident or not, that, in interaction with a barrier, hinders a person’s

full and equal participation in society,” while this bill fails to

include learning and communication in the definition at all. For clarity

and consistency, I feel strongly that the definition should be in

alignment with the Accessible Canada Act.

This act provides for accountability through annual reports and

independent reviews. However, there are no prescriptive timelines for

the removal of barriers. And since when has a government report been

enough to guarantee the meeting of goals in a timely manner?

[3:10 p.m.]

Bill 6 does it explicitly state that nothing within the law diminishes

the existing rights of people with disabilities. Other Canadian

alignment with other human rights law — in our case, the B.C. human

rights code — to prevent discrimination of any kind. In Ontario, for

example, there is a reference in the AODA that specifically references

that in any dispute or conflict between laws or standards, the higher

standard of access wins. The final authority is the law that gives

people with disabilities the most access.

There is no doubt we have much to do, and the most positive thing,

in my mind, is that the stars have been aligning in terms of

understanding the need and value of diversity in the workplace and

accessible environments. I really believe we’ve largely reached a place

of consensus that more does need to be done. And as we move forward and

as this act takes life, we will undoubtedly be confronted with many more

challenges in coming to common understandings and agreeable compromises

in order to bring out this legislation and regulations to move

forward.

There will be, I understand, attempts to engage further with the

private sector, and that’s good. In doing so, I urge government to help

but also as a necessity for the fact that this 25 percent of the

population that has an accommodation need is not a discrete group. It is

not a group that needs something special. But in fact, it’s 25 percent

of every group, of every market segment, every target, every cultural

group, every workplace and every community.

It’s clear that people with disabilities continue to feel

disenfranchised by policies that are ineffective because they were not

organizations have, in fact, for years espoused the values of inclusion

missed. Even worse, frankly, unconscious bias allows folks to decide a

interrupted] problems. Then when people with disabilities are confronted

by a barrier to access, the message that sends is: “You’re different,

and you aren’t welcome here.”

This act can and hopefully will be a radical agent of change for

British Columbians with disabilities. It does send a message that

government and, indeed, every member of this Legislature, I hope, is

perhaps even more, the disabled will be looking for this act to bring

about both systemic and societal attitudinal change. It is a big

expectation to fill, but it is the right thing to do. It makes economic

and social sense.

I look forward to examining it in detail during committee stage

and hope other members will join me in ensuring the legislation is as

robust as we can make it, as we start out.

As my friend, the Hon. Carla Qualtrough said, as she spoke to the

third reading of the Accessible Canada Act, Bill C-81:

“For too long, Canadians with disabilities have had to fight on

their own when it came to advancing their rights. By bringing in new

transparency, we are moving forward toward a new culture of

“The Accessible Canada Act would work to put an end to the practice

of exclusion. With Bill C-81, we can have a system where our

institutions, not individuals, are responsible for enabling change. We

can move forward from the principle of ‘nothing about us without us’ to

simply ‘nothing without us,’ because everything is about us.”

Let’s hope this House approaches this Accessible B.C. Act with

that same spirit and intent top of mind.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I’ll say thank you.

[3:15 p.m.]

D. Coulter: It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of Bill 6, the

legislation is a significant step forward in building a barrier-free

B.C.

I just wanted to start my remarks by acknowledging some of the

incredible staff team I’ve had the privilege of working with for the

past couple of months.

Sam Turcott has been leading our efforts as the executive lead in

minister and I up to speed on this critical work has been greatly

appreciated.

Krissi Spinoza, our director of stakeholder relations and

Guillaume Dufresne, our director of policy, have been cornerstones in

establishing the positive work culture and incredible performance of the

secretariat.

Finally, Tess Hawkins, policy analyst; Shaylin Williams, policy

analyst; Brynne Langford, policy analyst; Amanda Arnet, administrative

assistant; and Denise Clair Smith, assistant to the executive lead. This

small but mighty team of eight staff have made this legislation

possible, and I’m looking forward to working with them all in the years

ahead as we work to get these standards right.

I wanted to begin by acknowledging the evolution of disability in

B.C. All barriers start as ideas, and it’s important to recognize where

the barriers we face today originated from. Historically, policies and

practices have been designed to exclude and, in some cases, eradicate

disabled people.

B.C. opened its first asylum in 1872, rebranded as the Provincial

Asylum for the Insane in 1878, which would later be renamed Woodlands

School in 1950 and again to just Woodlands in 1974. This institution was

open for over a century, having closed in 1996.

Woodlands was supposed to provide care for children and adults

with developmental disabilities and mental illness. But we know the

legacy of the institution, one that was riddled with systemic abuse. In

2002, former provincial Ombudsperson Dulcie McCallum determined that

there had been widespread sexual, physical and psychological abuse of

Woodlands residents. However, the provincial government at the time did

not accept the findings in the McCallum report.

In August 2002, a class action lawsuit was put forward by former

Woodlands residents. After it was certified, the province sought and won

a ruling at the B.C. Court of Appeal to exclude former students who

lived at Woodlands prior to August 1, 1974. This decision was applied to

the settlement agreement eventually reached in 2009 and approved in

2010, establishing a compensation claims process.

In 2018, the Premier and Minister of Health announced that former

residents of Woodlands who attended the school before August 1, 1974,

would finally receive compensation for systemic abuse suffered at the

provincial institution. At the time, the Health Minister had this to

say:

“I want to recognize the Woodlands survivors, many who I met on this

issue more than a decade ago. They have persisted against prejudice and

mistreatment from the province for decades, even after the school shut

its doors and a settlement agreement was reached with some former

residents. Today’s announcement brings some small measure of justice for

them, and I am very proud of the Premier and many advocates for making

it happen.”

Now, we’ve come a long way since eugenics, forced sterilization

and institutionalization, but we must recognize the history that has

shaped the conversation about people with disabilities.

There are over 926,000 British Columbians over the age of 15 that

have a disability. This makes up nearly 25 percent of the population. In

B.C., a higher proportion of women, 26.5 percent, report living with a

disability, while only 22.9 percent of men report living with a

disability.

Disability prevalence is also much higher among Indigenous People

across Canada. So 36 percent of Indigenous women and 26 percent of

Indigenous men report having a disability. These figures are based on

Stats Canada’s 2017 numbers and exclude Indigenous People living on

reserve.

We know that the percentage of people reporting a disability

increases with age and that people with disabilities are diverse in

terms of their experiences, backgrounds and needs. Disability types

vary.

[3:20 p.m.]

The highest proportion of disability type is related to pain, but

we know people also face disabilities impacting their flexibility,

mobility, mental health, seeing, hearing, dexterity, learning, memory,

development and more.

The way in which people experience their disability also varies

greatly. Some disabilities are continuous, while others are progressive.

Some are recurrent, and others are fluctuating. According to a survey

conducted by Stats Canada in 2017, three in five Canadians with

disabilities do not fit the conventional view of disability as

continuous and unchanging. We also know the severity of disabilities

also varies greatly.

These statistics show the sheer diversity in how disability is

experienced. It’s therefore important to remember, as we move ahead with

to opportunities will be critically important for

consideration.

I’m sure all members in this House have noticed that I use a

wheelchair. What some members may not know, however, is that I’ve been

using a wheelchair for over two decades, as a result of a serious

workplace accident. Despite using a wheelchair for many years, my

knowledge of disability, up until quite recently, was relatively

limited. I was aware of barriers I encounter on a regular basis, whether

that’s the need to circle the exterior of a venue more than once to

assess if there’s an accessible entrance and corresponding parking

spaces or, once inside, trying to identify where the closest accessible

washroom is or figure out if the venue itself has appropriate elevators

or lifts to navigate between floors.

Because of the inaccessible environments that surround us, there

have been many times where I’ve had to rely on the help of those around

me, whether it’s my aging father doing the herculean task of lifting his

son up a set of stairs — and I haven’t been getting lighter, I’ll just

say that — or my friends trying to come up with innovative ways for us

to get around downtown Vancouver as a result of accessible taxis not

being available, or my staff and caucus colleagues doing everything they

can to ensure that I’m able to effectively navigate this Legislature

that I have the privilege of speaking from today.

Barriers to being a wheelchair user exist all around us, but these

types of physical barriers represent only a subsection of the barriers

people with disabilities face in their everyday life. In many ways, as a

white cisgender male in a wheelchair, I am what many think of when they

hear the words “disability” or “disabled.” Up until recently, I wasn’t

actively considering all of the barriers people with disabilities

experience.

had the opportunity to meet with many individuals and groups who have

shared information about the barriers they face and the opportunities we

have with this legislation before us today to get this right for all

British Columbians. I’m grateful for these conversations, and I’m

committed to using my role and my privilege to advocate on behalf of all

persons with disabilities.

In 2018, the Canadian Human Rights Commission noted disability as

the ground of discrimination in 52 percent of its cases, an increase of

33 percent since 2008. The fact is we live in a world that is primarily

shaped by people without disabilities. This unfortunately leads to

increased barriers, stigma and discrimination for those living with a

disability. One of the goals of this legislation is to proactively

identify and remove barriers in every sector of society.

One of the biggest types of barriers we face is, in fact,

attitudinal. There is simply a lack of knowledge surrounding

disabilities. I recognize that as a society, we have a lot of work to do

when it comes to education. I will be the first to acknowledge that

despite having a disability myself, I by no means consider myself an

expert. I, too, have more learning to do and am committed to doing it.

But too often there is a belief that having a disability means you’re

different.

When we equate difference with negative or undesirable conditions,

we reduce people with differences as lesser citizens. This lesser-than

mentality supports the illusion that people without disabilities are

normal or whole and that those with disabilities are not. But when we

recognize the sheer diversity of humanity and that bodies of all forms,

including bodies with impairments, make up this humanity, we begin to

see people for who they are.

[3:25 p.m.]

People with disabilities, like all other people, are people full

of possibilities and potential. We can set aside the outdated notions

that we are different and instead come together as people committed to

supporting one another regardless of ability.

This milestone would not have been possible without the advocacy

and support from former Minister of Social Development and Poverty

Reduction Shane Simpson. I know Shane personally, and his contributions

to this province through the work of this ministry are undeniable. I

feel incredibly lucky to now have the opportunity to support this work

in my capacity as B.C.’s Parliamentary Secretary for

secretariat led an extensive consultation and engagement process, which

garnered feedback from nearly 7,000 British Columbians. This work

included ten regional community meetings around the province in

Vancouver, Victoria, Surrey, Fort St. John, Prince George, Kamloops,

Nelson, Terrace and Comox.

There was also a virtual town hall. It seems odd to think that

although only 18 months ago, it was a new technology back then. I think

we’ll be doing more virtual town halls in the future.

There were 75 independent community conversations, specific

engagement sessions for Indigenous peoples hosted by Naut’sa mawt Tribal

Council and an online questionnaire that garnered significant

feedback.

Advocates and organizations from across the province provided

detailed submissions of how they would like to see this legislation

shaped, which has resulted in the comprehensive bill we now have before

us. The engagement process was based on the document Framework for

and throughout the consultation was “nothing about us without

us.”

Fortunately, people with disabilities have and will continue to

play a leading role in this legislation. It’s with their continued input

that we’ll be able to ensure all British Columbians can participate

fully in their communities.

One group that has been formative in the development of this

is comprised of leaders from every corner of our province. Their insight

has helped shape the bill before us today.

Membership comprises of people with disabilities, representatives

of disability organizations and representatives from the B.C. Chamber of

Commerce, B.C. Federation of Labour, and Union of B.C. Municipalities.

Their continued advice has led us to putting forward a better bill. I’m

looking forward to continuing to work with these individuals during the

regulations.

Current members of the committee include: Chris McBride from B.C.

Spinal Cord Injury; Sarah McCrea from Prince George Brain Injured Group;

Albert Ruel, formerly of Canadian Council of the Blind; Forrest Smith,

the Greater Vancouver Association of the Deaf; Christopher Sutton,

Communication Assistance for Youth and Adults; Karla Verschoor from

Inclusion B.C.; Tania Vrionis from the MS Society; Neil Belanger from

British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society; Helaine Boyd

from Disability Alliance B.C.; Sheryl Burns from the B.C. Federation of

Labour; Marylyn Chiang from Union of B.C. Municipalities; Ross Chilton

from Community Living B.C.; Doramy Ehling from Rick Hansen Foundation;

Jonny Morris from the Canadian Mental Health Association of B.C.; Sheila

Pither from Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of B.C.; Rob

Sleath, Access for Sight-Impaired Consumers; and Timothy Stainton, UBC

Centre for Inclusion and Citizenship.

I was thrilled that they were able to virtually join us for the

event celebrating the introduction of this landmark

legislation.

Another advocate who joined us at the announcement was Sarah

Cheung, a board member of Disability Alliance B.C. I just wanted to

share some of Sarah’s words that really resonated with me.

[3:30 p.m.]

“I have a physical disability, and my parents were told that I would

never go to school or gain meaningful employment. However, I have two

undergraduate degrees from the University of British Columbia, work part

time as a lab manager and volunteer my time on various disability

advisory committees.

“Despite enduring countless barriers, I have learned to become an

advocate for myself and those with disabilities who do not have a voice.

I’ve experienced barriers with regard to health care, education,

employment, transportation, housing and community participation, but

refuse to let my disability define what I can accomplish.

“Some examples of significant barriers I’ve encountered over the

years are: (1) attitudinal biases from those in authority, health care

professionals and employers; (2) the lack of financial support for basic

physical and medical needs; (3) challenges with accessing specialized

health care; (4) struggles to obtaining meaningful employment; and

(5) the lack of subsidized accessible housing.

and ensure that all individuals, regardless of their ability, could have

equal opportunities to participate and be included in society. I’m

extremely excited to see how the B.C. government will make B.C. more

disabilities can continue to live, work and thrive.”

Sarah’s words outline many of the areas that our government is

committed to improving through the adoption of this legislation. As we

move ahead in this process, we’ll need the perspectives of advocates

like Sarah to help ensure that we get this process right.

Also at the announcement, we had Lisa Beecroft, owner of a small

business in Port Moody and co-chair of the Presidents Group. Presidents

Group is a group of business leaders who are committed to creating

inclusive and accessible workplaces.

Members of the Presidents Group, also known as the Accessible

Employers, are aware of the many advantages of having a diverse and

inclusive workforce. They have found that hiring inclusively can improve

company culture and increase employee retention. They’ve also found that

90 percent of consumers prefer companies that employ people with

disabilities. The Presidents Group currently has 25 members, ranging

from local small businesses like Tacofino and Save on Meats to large

corporations like YVR, the Port of Vancouver and Vancity Credit

Union.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Current membership of the Presidents Group includes Lisa Beecroft,

who is the owner and co-chair of the group and owns Gabi and Jules

Handmade Pies and Baked Goodness; Daniel Bregg, president of Buy-Low

Foods; Tom Conway, CEO of Small Business B.C.; Devin Currie, CEO, Maple

Communications; Agnes Garaba, chief operations officer, SAP Labs; Eric

Hopkins, president and CEO of BCAA; Nicolas Jimenez, president and CEO,

Insurance Corp. of British Columbia; Ash MacLeod, managing director and

partner at Save on Meats; Kevin Millsip, executive director of the

British Columbia Libraries Cooperative; Santa Ono, president and

vice-chancellor, University of British Columbia; Chris O’Riley,

president and CEO of B.C. Hydro.

There’s Walter Pela, managing partner, greater Vancouver area

KPMG; Erinn Pinkerton, president and CEO, B.C. Transit; Robin Silvester,

president and CEO, Port of Vancouver; Ryan Spong, co-owner of Tacofino;

Kirsten Sutton, chief technology and information officer with Vancity;

Caroline Tose, chief operating officer, HSBC; Marilyn Tyfting, senior

vice-president and CCO of Telus International; Tamara Vrooman, president

and CEO of Vancouver Airport Authority, who is the ex-co-chair of the

Presidents Group; Marsha Walden, president and CEO, Destination Canada;

Sarah White, COO and cofounder of Fairware; Sam Whittaker, assurance

market leader west, Ernst and Young; and Russell Zirnhelt, executive

vice-president of Ledcor construction.

That was a lot of names, Mr. Speaker. I’m reading them because I

think it’s very important that these people are recognized for their

work on this legislation. The Presidents Group has set, in their own

words, “a big, hairy, audacious goal” that by 2030, 51,000 more people

with disabilities in British Columbia will have appropriate employment

that fulfils their work potential and the needs of our labour

market.

[3:35 p.m.]

Many people assume that people with disabilities are unable to

work as a result of their impairments, but we know this is only part of

the reason that many are unable to find work. Discrimination, negative

perceptions and a lack of workplace accommodations are all conditions

preventing the employment of people with disabilities. More than that,

we know that accessible transportation options, information and

communications are all important components to ensure that workers are

set up for success. Fortunately, with leading employers like SAP Labs

committed to employment equity, we’re heading in the right

direction.

We know that an employer’s willingness to accommodate differences,

particularly through workplace accommodations, can make all the

difference in building an inclusive workforce. During this pandemic,

we’ve seen how workplaces have been able to adapt to keep people safe.

Many of these workplace adaptations, whether they be changes to

workstations, flexible work hours or the addition of new technology, are

the types of accommodations that would directly benefit people with

disabilities. A change as small as incorporating a scent-free workplace

or eliminating noise within the office can make all the

difference.

I do want to acknowledge that our goal with this legislation is

fantastic, but we recognize that there are many different ways for

people with disabilities to contribute and participate in society.

That’s why employment is only one of the proposed areas for standard

development.

In order for us to make life better for people with disabilities,

our government is committed to breaking down these barriers. We’re not

legislation, but I believe our government has learned from the

experiences of other jurisdictions and is putting forward a better bill

as a result. Bill 6 defines disability as “…an inability to participate

fully and equally in society as a result of the interaction of an

impairment and a barrier.” Disabilities can be physical, sensory,

mental, intellectual or cognitive and can be temporary, episodic or

permanent. We’ve provided a broad definition of disability and have also

defined “barrier” and “impairment.”

As I mentioned earlier, a large part of this work will be focused

on increasing awareness and supporting a culture change. This work will

begin with government taking the lead by developing a comprehensive

our operations more accessible and inclusive to people of all abilities.

This will be important work that will require the participation of our

professional public service, and in time, this legislation will also

identify organizations that need to chart forward similar

plans.

This legislation also makes it clear that the minister has the

AccessAbility Week, which will be happening this year from May 30 to

June 5. This fourth annual AccessAbility Week is an opportunity to

celebrate the valuable contributions of British Columbians with

disabilities and to recognize the efforts of individuals, communities

and workplaces that are actively working to remove barriers to

I recognize that people with disabilities need to have ownership

over this legislation. This legislation will call on the formation of a

regulations.

As I mentioned earlier, a guiding principle of our consultations

and of the legislation is “Nothing about us without us” and the UN

convention on the rights of people with disabilities. When Bill 6

receives royal assent, government’s first action is to appoint a

must be people with disabilities or representative of a disability

organization. Membership must also reflect the diversity of British

Columbians, including having Indigenous representation on the committee.

This committee will advise the minister on the development of

We know our province is incredibly diverse and that one, single

committee may not reflect our province perfectly. That’s why this

legislation also calls for the development of technical committees to

support the standard development process. Technical committees,

comprised of experts in their field, will assist in ensuring that we get

this right.

I also want to acknowledge this bill will call for the creation of

a new online feedback mechanism to ensure that all British Columbians

can regularly comment and engage with government directly on this

legislation. Staff are currently working on developing the online tool,

and I’m looking forward to its launch. This feedback tool is aimed at

being complementary to the work I’ll be doing across the province,

ensuring that the voices of British Columbians are heard and

understood.

[3:40 p.m.]

The bill lists eight potential areas for standards development:

employment, delivery of services, the built environment, information and

communications, transportation, health, education and procurement. This

is by no means an exhaustive list.

provide its advice and input into determining which standards should be

developed first. As I mentioned, technical committees will be formed to

provide advice on the development of a particular standard.

My role in this process will be focusing on engaging British

Columbians in every corner of the province to ensure our legislation is

effective and well understood. As we continue to get closer to a

post-COVID-19 world, I’m looking forward to the opportunity to meet

British Columbians in person to get a better understanding of how these

will require culture change, and while, as a society, we’ve made

progress in some areas, there is still more to do.

I do want to acknowledge the novelty of this legislation. In this

chamber, we have fierce debates about how we want to shape our province,

fantastic to see the House stand in unison on the need to move this

important work forward. This work is not partisan. This work won’t be

completed by a single government alone. The truth is, we will

continually need to take steps to address barriers as they arise. This

legislation sets out the framework for us to do this.

I do want to also acknowledge the words of my colleague from

in this House, and it’s a delight to hear the excitement and commitment

to getting this work done from the opposition benches.

The member recently spoke in this House on the need to address the

gaps in accessible parking. I couldn’t agree more. The member has also

spoken about the barriers faced in the Legislature. In my couple of

visits here, I’ve experienced them myself, and the member has spoken

about how this work will be transformative in ensuring all British

Columbians have an equal opportunity to participate in this province.

This, my friends, is a goal that we all share and one that I’m delighted

we are united in working towards.

In conclusion, I just want to circle back to an earlier statistic

I shared regarding the prevalence of disability in our province. Nearly

one in four British Columbians over the age of 15 in B.C. identify as

having a disability. As individuals are self-identifying, there is a

good chance this number should, in fact, be higher, but beyond that, we

know that, as our population ages, the prevalence of disability will

increase. Whether it’s genetics or, in cases like mine, an accident,

more and more British Columbians will find themselves living with a

disability.

Like I’ve mentioned, I’m supported by an amazing partner, familial

network and friends. The barriers I face are felt by those around me.

Passing this legislation demonstrates that this government and, truly,

all members of this House are committed to moving toward a barrier-free

B.C., one where every British Columbian, regardless of ability, is fully

included in our incredible communities.

The current barriers people with disabilities face are not because

of their personal problems but rather inadequate policy and design that

hasn’t kept them in mind. By placing the needs of people with

disabilities at the forefront of our work through this legislation, we

can lift the burden off of advocates and instead work with them as full

and equal members of society. Whether it’s in our workplaces, schools or

transportation systems, in the way that we communicate or deliver

services, the way in which we receive health care or navigate our built

environment, this legislation provides us with a path to a barrier-free

B.C.

With that, I’ll conclude my remarks. I look forward to hearing

words of support from colleagues on all sides of the House.

[3:45 p.m.]

D. Davies: I appreciate having the opportunity to rise and speak in support

of Bill 6. I want to thank my colleagues from Surrey South and

Chilliwack for their personal stories. I think it’s what really gives a

face to this issue that we’re all talking about here today and why we

are in support of it.

I want to go back. I’m not going to talk a long time, but I did

want to give my points. In 2015, I was elected to city council in Fort

St. John, and we had the opportunity…. I think it was through the Rick

Hansen Foundation, supported by SPARC B.C. It was called Measuring Up

the North. It was an opportunity, and it was spearheaded by one of our

local advocates in Fort St. John, Lori Slater. Some of you might know

her.

It allowed us the opportunity, and what it was is…. We, as our

city council, spent an entire afternoon in a wheelchair, and we were

sent out into our community to try and carry on a normal afternoon. It

gave me incredible pause when I was put in that situation. Looking at

some of the small little things that, I think, we take for granted, that

when a person who is in a wheelchair…. It is a barrier. It really made

me think, as a city councillor, and certainly now as a provincial

legislator, how we need to be looking at these things and how we can

improve and eliminate these barriers that are all around us.

Just going back. I had the opportunity, actually…. I think we did

it for three or four years in a row. We did this awareness campaign. A

couple of little things that really, really stood out to me were that

little rise between the curb and the street, which doesn’t look like

very much until you’re in a wheelchair. If it’s even anything much more,

you could quite easily struggle to get up on to the curb, and now you’re

stuck on the street, or it just brings you to a complete dead end. In

fact, in one case, I almost actually fell out of the chair that I was

in.

The other thing that tied quickly into that — I noticed this in

Fort St. John, and I’ve seen this in other communities — is the

crosswalk countdown, how much time you have to cross the street. You

don’t think about that when you’re just walking across the street, but

it’s significantly different when you’re in a wheelchair or you have a

mobility issue. That little tiny clock that ticks across underneath the

walking person really is not enough time in many cases.

Doors into businesses. You really start to appreciate the size,

the proper size, of a door accessing businesses, accessing our public

buildings. The ramps. We’ve all probably seen ramps that go into a

coffee shop or go up into a store out of a parking lot. I’ve never

thought about it. You would walk by this ramp, and as a person that

walks, you would look: “Okay, they’re accessible.” But they’re not very

well.

In fact, the one that I tried — I’m not going to mention the

business; I believe they may have fixed it since then — I could not, and

I’m pretty buff in the arms. I could not get myself up this ramp to go

into this coffee shop. They had a ramp, but it was so steep that I could

not get into this coffee shop.

It was an incredibly powerful experience for me. I do encourage

others to try this in their own communities if they want to see

half-an-inch curb lip is a barrier for people with mobility

issues.

I also want to talk quickly about another advocate who lives in my

riding as well, up in Fort Nelson. Her name is Kristi Leer. Kristi was

in a horrific accident about 2½ years ago. She severed her spinal cord

and is now in a wheelchair.

Before, of course, Kristi was a very active person in her

community. I’m so happy to report that being in a wheelchair has not

changed that at all. In fact, she is feistier than ever, and she has

taken on a huge advocacy role in the community of Fort Nelson and has

got that community to recognize some of these barriers that they have in

the small town of Fort Nelson.

[3:50 p.m.]

Looking at parking…. We’ve heard, I think, from other members

already in this House about parking spaces and how most of them aren’t

very good.

Kristi has…. In fact, it’s interesting. She was featured on CBC

just recently. She has a side ramp out of her van, and she has many

pictures that she’s shared where vehicles will park right beside her.

She has to wait until that person comes out and moves their car. If

they’re shopping in the store for 20 to 30 minutes, she has to wait

outside until that person moves their vehicle — again, something that I

think most of us take for granted. We don’t think about the issues and

how much that impacts someone who relies on ramp access into their

vehicle.

In fact, she has started up a Facebook page. It’s called Step Up

on Facebook. I encourage you to check it out. She is trying to advocate

and get these larger parking spots designated specifically for people in

wheelchairs that have ramps in their vehicles. In fact, I believe that

in the coming week, she’s going to be doing a presentation to the Fort

St. John city council to talk to them about adapting some of these great

things, like parking, into the communities.

I will say, though, that over the many years — I’d like to think

I’m a young guy, but I guess I’m middle-aged-ish — I’ve seen an

incredible amount of how things have come along in regards to awareness

doors, when I was younger. But I see it now. I see people talking about

it. That is a good thing.

Many of you probably know the gentleman by the name of Bo Hedges.

He is a Paralympic gold medallist for wheelchair basketball. We’ll give

him a shout-out. He’s a Fort St. John boy, and of course, an Olympian. A

lot of work that he has done with other organizations across the

province has been really amazing at advocating and bringing awareness to

this issue of mobility and wheelchairs. One of the things that he is

really big in, of course, is wheelchair basketball. When I was teaching

in Fort St. John, before I was in this place, I was at one of the

schools that was actually granted a number of wheelchairs to start a

wheelchair basketball program in our school.

I think as we start looking at that…. We hosted the B.C. Winter

Games here. It seems like a long time ago, but it was about one year ago

and a little bit — February of last year. The wheelchair basketball was

one of the most attended events out of the whole games. It was an

amazing event. I think a lot of that excitement is coming from this

raised awareness. People are talking and recognizing that people that

have a disability are just people.

My colleague from Surrey South talks about…. It’s who she is. She

doesn’t want to change it. She wants to be recognized for her as a

person. I think we all need to do more of that. We all need to be

looking at people. How do we overcome, making it best on these

individuals so that they can participate fully in everything that we may

take for granted?

I definitely want to do a big shout-out to Bo Hedges. He also

hosts an annual wheelchair basketball event in Fort St. John, which is

well attended. Again, it builds up on this awareness. I believe that

coming up toward the end of this month, in a few weeks’ time, is

national access awareness week. These things help. These events help,

where we can focus on looking at helping remove these barriers for

folks.

[3:55 p.m.]

I don’t want to take too much time. Looking at a couple other

components of this…. In fact, recently, I’ve just met with a family who

has a son that is deaf. We’ve been out working with some folks in the

deaf community. There are many lacks of support across the province. It

doesn’t matter whether it’s in education. It doesn’t matter whether it’s

in our care facilities. There is a lack of supports for people that are

deaf or with hearing impairment.

We need to be looking at how we support these communities. How do

we support people that have these disabilities — to drop those barriers,

to remove those barriers? That is something that, obviously, this

legislation that we are looking at today, Bill 6, certainly looks at, at

a high level. But it leaves it open for the time frame, before we can

actually see these issues being dealt with.

Again, being on city council for a number of years, we’ve been

start seeing action. I hope that this piece of legislation brings

forward really solid moves and a plan to see these barriers

dropped.

Last year some of my colleagues and myself visited a school called

James Cameron School. I think it’s in Maple Ridge, if I recall. It’s an

incredible school that works with children that have severe dyslexia and

other learning disabilities. But this school is an independent school

because they cannot get those supports in our public school

system.

Again, speaking as a school teacher, previously, I saw firsthand

the challenges that our teachers and support workers face in the

classroom, in our schools. We need to make sure that we are giving the

tools to our teachers, the tools to our school districts so that they

can support children that have these special needs, whether it’s hearing

impairment, whether it’s mobility issues. We need to make sure that we

have the tools for them.

I know I have other colleagues that do want to speak here. Just

looking more around at…. This bill — one of the concerns, and I just

briefly touched on it — leaves us to wonder about future legislation.

Once it’s passed, this bill, what is it going to look like to implement

it? How does it roll out, moving forward?

We need to recognize that COVID-19 has disproportionately impacted

people with disabilities. How can this legislation ensure that those

people that have been so impacted for the last 18, 19 —