First Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, March 18, 2021

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 34

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Chinook salmon

J. Sturdy

Kus-kus-sum project

R. Leonard

Myalgic encephalomyelitis

N. Letnick

Journée de la francophonie

A. Mercier

Douglas treaty and hunting and fishing rights

A. Olsen

Northeast Vancouver urgent primary care centre

N. Sharma

Oral Questions

Supportive housing and action on homelessness

S. Bond

Hon. D. Eby

Addiction services in Interior Health Authority and status of Pathways Centre

T. Halford

Hon. D. Eby

Hon. S. Malcolmson

Mental health and addiction services

T. Stone

Hon. S. Malcolmson

K. Kirkpatrick

J. Tegart

Opioid crisis and Carrier-Sekani addiction treatment facility

M. de Jong

Hon. S. Malcolmson

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 4 — Firearm Violence Prevention Act (continued)

Hon. M. Farnworth

A. Olsen

M. Morris

Reporting of Bills

Bill 4 — Firearm Violence Prevention Act

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2021 (continued)

A. Wilkinson

Hon. D. Eby

THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2021

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. A. Kang.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. H. Bains: In the House today is my good friend, my supporter, TJ Dhillon. He’s

accompanied by his beautiful wife, Aman, daughter Ava and son Hugo. They’re

here to witness question period and then hopefully visit this very

magnificent House of theirs to see how the business of the people is

conducted here. Please help me give them a very, very warm

welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CHINOOK SALMON

J. Sturdy: Salmon fishing in waters around Vancouver and the south coast is

an important part of our natural heritage and what makes our region so

special. Few other places in the world can you live in such an amazing

place and have the opportunity to fish for our treasured salmon and, in

particular, chinook salmon.

In recent years, there has been considerable attention paid to

chinook, and rightly so. Of particular concern are threatened stocks

originating from the upper reaches of the Fraser River.

Last year the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans issued a

dramatic “no fishing for chinook” regulation in Howe Sound and other

areas of the south coast during the period of August 1 to August 31. The

regulation had significant negative social and economic impacts on

coastal communities. However, there is little evidence this reduction in

targeted harvest zones had the desired effect of increasing the survival

rate of salmon returning to spawn.

In many of our local Vancouver fisheries, chinook stocks of

concern are simply not present in the area during this time or, if so,

at extremely low numbers. In fact, the vast majority of our south coast

springtime chinook fishing opportunities did not encounter chinook

stocks of concern over 99 percent of the time. They do, however,

encounter many fish from U.S. hatcheries or from rivers on the south

coast that aren’t experiencing the same challenges as Interior Fraser

chinook.

The Sport Fishing Advisory Board has provided Fisheries and Oceans

Canada with sound, science-based proposals to allow for the fishing of

salmon where chinook stocks of concern are essentially not present in

the area. To further safeguard wild chinook stocks of concern, many of

these proposals only allow for the public to harvest the hatchery-marked

chinook. Where endangered chinook are present in greater numbers, areas

could be closed to protect these fish. The Sport Fishing Advisory Board

proposals are an effective way of protecting chinook for future

generations.

We have the responsibility to protect this species yet, at the

same time, preserve our recreational fishing culture, all the associated

fishing-related businesses and, especially, the communities that have

always been part of our west coast fishing culture.

KUS-KUS-SUM PROJECT

R. Leonard: I’m pleased to share a story that weaves together environmental

action and reconciliation in the Comox Valley.

A sawmill site on the edge of the Courtenay River that has sat

vacant since the mid-2000s was the subject of a lot of speculation about

what should be done there. In 2014, Project Watershed, a local

environmental non-profit organization, saw an ecologically and

culturally valuable natural asset that could be restored to its

pre-contact state and returned to the caretakers of the land of plenty,

the K’ómoks First Nation, for stewardship, as they had done for

millennia before white settlers arrived on our shores.

Spearheaded by Project Watershed, a joint effort was formed

between themselves, the K’ómoks First Nation and the city of Courtenay

to build healing relationships with the K’ómoks First Nation and our

community within a project to unpave paradise, restore salmon and

wildlife habitat and positively impact climate change.

[10:10 a.m.]

K’ómoks First Nation gave it the name Kus-kus-sum. The first land

transfer to Project Watershed from Interfor, who was a willing and

flexible seller, was completed recently after over three years of

fundraising. Removing over eight acres of pavement is now underway. The

depth and breadth of the community commitment has been and continues to

be inspiring.

Kus-kus-sum has ignited the imagination of the community and the

city of Courtenay. Local family foundations have joined children,

cracking open piggy banks and exchanging birthday gifts for donations.

This innovative project has also gained the significant approval of the

provincial government, I’m proud to say.

Kus-kus-sum weaves environmental action with reconciliation

efforts, revealing local injustices from a buried past and creating a

synergy with restoration work that has propelled the healing journey as

it reaches into families, schools and the whole community. Anyone can

join a Kus-kus-sum. We proudly paddle together to a brighter

future.

MYALGIC ENCEPHALOMYELITIS

N. Letnick: I rise in the House today to speak on behalf of the estimated

77,000 British Columbians with myalgic encephalomyelitis, or

ME.

ME is a complex chronic disease. According to the World Health

Organization, it is a neurological disease, and 75 percent of those

affected are unable to work, while 25 percent are homebound or

bedridden. In many pa­tients, the disease is triggered by viral

infections.

People with ME experience a substantial loss of physical and/or

cognitive function. The impact on quality of life is not unlike that of

multiple sclerosis, stroke, diabetes, lung failure and cancer. Someone

with severe ME may be bedridden and have trouble

communicating.

In British Columbia today, it can take years for a diagnosis.

Worse yet, many remain unaware or ill-informed about the disease, and as

a result, there are often misdiagnoses or inappropriate or even harmful

treatments. Current estimates report that it would take 300 years for

all of B.C.’s patients to access the complex chronic disease

program.

We all need to do better. As dedicated public servants, we can

take action to raise awareness and promote positive change to make such

programs more widely accessible, which is why I am encouraging every

member of this House to take

part in the My MLA and ME campaign.

Starting this month, the ME/FM Society of B.C. will be reaching out to

all MLAs to help us better understand this disease. Patients involved

with the society will also be reaching out to our offices to help answer

any questions.

For more information, please don’t hesitate to reach out to the

ME/FM Society. Together, we can take many steps to learn more and help

fight against this disease and bring positive change to the lives of

British Columbians today and for generations to come.

JOURNÉE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

A. Mercier: British Columbia is incredibly fortunate to have a vibrant

francophone community. Later today, at a special virtual celebration,

the province will proclaim March 20 as Journée de la francophonie en

Colombie-Britannique.

There are more than 70,000 francophones and over 300,000

French-speaking people in British Columbia. They come from all parts of

the world and are an integral part of our province, contributing to a

strong and inclusive society.

We’ve heard it time and time again: “This past year was

different.” We’ve heard the phrase “in these uncertain times” over and

over again. Well, when times are uncertain, we can count on British

Columbians to step up, to go above and beyond. Our B.C. francophone

community did just that.

The theme for this year’s B.C. francophonie day celebration is

“Going beyond in time of pandemic.” “Aller plus loin en temps de

pandémie.” At today’s special event, we will recognize an organization

that went over and above the call of duty to help some of British

Columbia’s most vulnerable populations. This organization adapted its

services quickly to deal with the unique challenges of supporting

British Columbians while respecting public health orders and

guidelines.

I’d like to invite you to join us virtually today at noon on the

B.C. government’s YouTube channel to find out which francophone

organization is going to be recognized and to show your appreciation and

celebrate B.C.’s francophone community.

Je vous invite donc à célébrer virtuellement la Journée de la

francophonie en Colombie-Britannique avec tous les francophones et

francophiles de la province, au­jourd’hui à midi.

Merci.

[10:15 a.m.]

[French text and translation provided by A.

Mercier.]

DOUGLAS TREATY AND

HUNTING AND FISHING

RIGHTS

A. Olsen: I hear members of this chamber sincerely acknowledge the

traditional and even unceded territories of their local Indigenous

People. This is an important change from 2017, when I was first elected

to represent my territory,

W̱SÁNEĆ.

We are 169 years and one month removed from the day that Sir James

Douglas collected the marks of our SIÁM , guaranteeing the

fishing and hunting rights of the

W̱SÁNEĆ. This institution has

never fulfilled its responsibilities to that treaty. In the years

following, officers took away our

SX̱OLE , sacred

fishing nets, and arrested our hunters.

More than two decades ago my father was arrested by officers

empowered by the laws created in this chamber for participating in his

treaty-protected hunt. His name was added to generations of hunters

forced into the courts to defend their name, their dignity and to

elevate their rights, even as lawyers representing this chamber tried to

tear them down.

My father and our people persevered. We are here today with many

successful defences of our fishing and hunting rights, including my

father’s victory at the Supreme Court of Canada. Jim, Morris, White,

Bob, Bartleman, Morris and Olsen are just some of the names of the

warriors who fiercely and selflessly defended our rights.

As we all humbly acknowledge the traditional territories of our

ridings, you would think that our lawyers would no longer be dragging

W̱SÁNEĆ hunters into court to

undermine and erode. Ten years after my father’s victory, a new case,

Sampson, was added to this intergenerational list. Those territorial

acknowledgments are meaningless if the province stubbornly pushes ahead

with cases like Sampson.

It’s time for those with authority in this House to stop arresting

our hunters and do what Douglas did. Sit down with our leaders to ensure

those words the members utter in here don’t ring as hollow as the

promise that Douglas made our ancestors has turned out to be.

NORTHEAST VANCOUVER

URGENT PRIMARY CARE

CENTRE

N. Sharma: I rise for the first time in person in this House with good news

for my community. On February 15, the Vancouver Northeast Urgent and

Primary Care Centre opened its doors in Vancouver-Hastings. This urgent

primary care centre and its committed staff will be serving my community

with a range of services from non-urgent primary care, harm reduction,

mental health services and making much-needed connections to family

doctors.

For years, I know that thousands of families have gone without a

family doctor or easy access to primary care. Too often people are left

waiting for hours in emergency rooms for stitches and broken bones,

concerned about how long they will have to wait for urgent medical care.

I’ve had the opportunity to visit this facility, and I saw firsthand how

committed and passionate the front-line workers are to serving the needs

of my community. I know this facility will help thousands of families,

and I’m told that since opening its doors, it already is serving my

community well.

I look forward to watching the UPCC expand and grow over time and

make further connections with service providers for families, seniors,

youth at risk, serving as a vital link to addressing the unique urgent

primary care challenges of my community. In fact, today community

organizations are coming together with UPCC staff to connect virtually

to learn about this important addition to my community.

I want to thank the committed front-line workers, Vancouver

Coastal Health, the Minister of Health and the Ministry of Health for

addressing the important health care needs of my community and serving

people closer to home.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction is

seeking leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Simons: Thank you very much, everyone. I just want to take this

opportunity to inform the House that it is my 19th anniversary to my

beautiful partner, Slim Milkie. Many of you know him, and I just want to

acknowledge my beautiful spouse and the 19 years we’ve been able to

spend together.

Oral Questions

SUPPORTIVE HOUSING

AND ACTION ON

HOMELESSNESS

S. Bond: Maple Ridge, Kamloops, Nanaimo and now Penticton. All of these

cities have had their concerns about how to provide appropriate supports

for those dealing with mental health and addictions ignored and, in

fact, steamrolled by this government.

[10:20 a.m.]

Yesterday when the Premier claimed he was “working with the city

of Penticton,” his Attorney General was actually bullying elected

officials in the city of Penticton. He has repeatedly insulted local

officials and ignored their very legitimate concerns about the lack of

adequate provincial mental health supports. At a time when Penticton is

asking for more mental health supports, the government is cutting

funding to the Pathways program, to the addiction treatment centre so

desperately needed.

To the Premier, does he believe that cutting services, ignoring

the needs of people in Penticton and elsewhere, threatening and bullying

a community is acceptable?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the important question.

It’s a difficult situation, as Minister for Housing, when a

municipality makes a decision to close an emergency shelter with 42

people in it and they have nowhere to go. What do you do? There are two

options. One is that you ignore the issue. You let the city empty out

the shelter into a local park, and you hope that an encampment doesn’t

result from it. The alternative is, as the member says — and I freely

acknowledge this — to use what are quite draconian provincial powers to

override that local decision and continue to operate the

shelter.

There are no good options here. I don’t pretend that this was a

good option or a solution to homelessness. It is a necessary decision.

It is a hard decision. But to me, taking into account the dignity and,

frankly, the lives of 42 British Columbians, 42 Penticton residents, 80

percent of which have lived in Penticton for five or more years…. What

to do in that situation? It turned out to be a difficult decision, but

at the end of the day, the only decision — to continue to operate the

shelter, to move ahead as quickly as we can to put supportive housing in

place so that we can close the shelter and we can all move

forward.

I say to the member and I say to the mayor and council in

Penticton: that’s the only non-negotiable. The only non-negotiable is

that we will not go backwards and move people out of shelter back into

parks. Anything else is on the table. Let’s talk about it. Let’s work

together.

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: That’s an amazing change of tone by this Attorney General when

he’s called on to answer a question in the Legislature. He started this

discussion in a dismissive, combative, bullying way. To

suggest…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Bond: …that the locally elected officials in Penticton don’t care about

the residents in their community would be absolutely inaccurate, and the

minister should withdraw that remark.

He has been the problem in this discussion from the beginning.

Let’s be clear. Penticton was shocked when this minister, instead of

sitting down and having thoughtful and reasonable discussions about an

issue that matters to the local Penticton council and all British

Columbians, started to bully and threaten that if they didn’t listen, it

was his way or the highway.

Let’s be clear. Penticton needs — and so do other communities

across British Columbia — full, wraparound services to support people

with mental health and addictions challenges. That’s what the Penticton

council was asking this minister for. Instead, what did they get?

Bullying and threats.

How can the Premier…? Once again to the Premier, how can he

justify bullying municipalities at the very same time that he and his

government are failing to provide adequate resources for people who need

help and closing an addictions treatment centre?

[10:25 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member is simply wrong. The reason she doesn’t provide any

quotes for my insults and bullying is because they don’t exist. They do

not exist. She suggests….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Members have asked the question, and the time to get the

answer….

Hon. D. Eby: The member suggests that because I said if Penticton emptied the

shelter out into the park, an encampment would likely result, and that

our use of provincial powers could result in a court challenge that

would result in exactly that outcome. That we would provide tents and

manage, as best as possible….

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: We have a thousand tents in a stockpile. That’s right. That we

would provide tents….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: That we would provide tents to people as a basic shelter from the

elements…. The member says that’s bullying. Well, that’s just a

fact.

I had two meetings with Penticton — extended meetings on Zoom,

more meetings than any other city that doesn’t have an active encampment

— before they made this decision, in an effort to avoid this outcome. In

one of those meetings, I said to Penticton council: “I suspect we agree

on far more than we disagree on. Let’s keep working until we find

something we disagree on.”

Well, unfortunately, we found something we disagreed on. That was

whether or not we should go backwards and dump 42 people out into a

park. I will not withdraw that. That is a disgraceful

decision.

I am very sympathetic to municipal leaders in the time of COVID,

facing addiction and mental health issues that are more visible than

they have ever been. Our government is very sympathetic — $100 million

in a stronger communities fund to grapple with these issues, billions in

housing. We cannot go backwards. That’s the only

non-negotiable.

I am keen to work with Penticton council. My phone is on. My door

is open. I have said that so many times. I disagree profoundly with

their decision. I look forward to working with them.

ADDICTION SERVICES IN

INTERIOR HEALTH AUTHORITY

AND STATUS OF PATHWAYS CENTRE

T. Halford: Recently the Premier claimed that we need to do more at the

provincial level and that we need more resources to do that. We all

agree with that. But Penticton has learned that the Premier’s idea of

doing more actually means threatening more tent cities and fewer

addiction treatment centres.

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

Will she stop making the situation worse and restore the cuts to the

Pathways addiction treatment centre?

Hon. D. Eby: Currently in Vancouver and Victoria, we’re spending literally tens

of millions of dollars of public money to respond to encampments. We’re

dealing with encampments across the province. And I’ll be blunt. These

are the product of 16 years of underinvestment in housing and supports

in our province. We won’t solve this problem overnight.

The member fundamentally misrepresents our efforts. My extremely

reluctant decision in Penticton was informed by trying to avoid an

encampment, not expand them or threaten them with an encampment — to

stop an encampment from happening. The member fundamentally

misrepresents the addiction treatment approach of the health authority

in that area as well. They’re bringing those services in-house to

provide better and more integrated services.

I understand if the members have concerns about providing services

in their community. I want to work with them. The Minister for Mental

Health and Addictions wants to work with them. We want to work with city

councils. We are working with city councils across the province in

really constructive ways. Penticton is the only city where we are using

paramountcy right now.

I’ll just say, with respect: I think that, in this House, we share

concerns about homelessness, addiction and mental health, and this

government has done a lot more than we’ve seen previously.

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

T. Halford: My question was on Pathways. Clearly, we have a minister

responsible for mental health and addictions that has little

responsibility for the file of mental health and addictions.

I’ll try it again. For 20 years, Pathways has delivered critical

services. This non-profit is being forced to close because this

government decides it knows best, replacing an experienced non-profit

with a model that has few, if any, staff with lived

experiences.

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

she step up and stop making it worse and give those with addictions the

supports they need?

[10:30 a.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: As I’ve said before to the member, Pathways has been a valued

contributor in Penticton for almost two decades. We’re grateful for

their work. Addictions counselling is important. Their service, their

contracted service to Interior Health, has been valuable and

appreciated.

This is what Interior Health is doing: shifting away from only

addictions counselling, bringing the service in-house so that there is a

broad range all along the entire continuum of care for addiction

support, including treatment, recovery, bringing it in-house, not having

it only available for Penticton but for the entire South Okanagan. This

is an expansion of service, which is just what our government is

committed to and just what people across British Columbia and in the

South Okanagan have been asking.

This is what else we’ve brought to Penticton. A new urgent primary

care centre is opening at the end of March. It will provide long-term

primary care but with a particular focus on people with mental health

and addictions — again, looking at that underlying health. In the

Interior Health region more broadly, ten government-funded youth

treatment beds.

We’re doubling youth treatment beds across British Columbia,

something that the B.C. Liberal government failed to do when they had 16

years to do it. We’ve also added, this month, in the Interior, five new

innovative outreach teams — they’re called integrated treatment teams —

being able to deliver service to people that have not been able to walk

in the door of a counselling or addictions treatment and recovery centre

because of child care.

There is much more to do, but we are delivering a tremendous

expansion that’s going to help people.

MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION SERVICES

T. Stone: The reality is that after four years of this government, the

situation is worse than ever. Instead of helping, they’re shutting down

the Pathways addiction treatment program. This is a program that helps

over 1,000 people in Penticton every single year. Regrettably, in

Keremeos, the same thing is happening, where a youth residential

substance use treatment program has been shut down.

Again to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, will she

admit that her approach is failing four years into this government, and

will she ensure that our most vulnerable populations in communities

across the province actually receive the supports that they so

desperately need?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: We are committed to expanding access to mental health and

addictions treatment and support. In four years, we have done so much

more than the previous government did. We are reaching more people.

We’ve made historic investments. We’ve expanded, in every way, access

and the range of services. We’ve been building a continuum of care for

mental health and addictions treatment while fighting two public health

emergencies.

There was no system in place when we formed government in 2017.

Ten youth treatment beds have opened in Kelowna, in early March. Another

ten are going to be ready by the end of the month. We’re adding more

beds as we enhance and streamline services to get better-quality

care.

A new 20-bed specialized treatment centre for youth opened in

Chilliwack last summer, supporting youth ages 13 to 18.

The Ashnola at the Crossing centre in Keremeos hasn’t been open

for more than a year. Interior Health let the centre know earlier this

year that they won’t be renewing their contract. In fact, Ashnola did

not apply to have their contract renewed.

We are adding services in many other areas in the region. People

accessing support in their most terrible time of need have got much

[audio interrupted].

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

supplemental.

T. Stone: Again, this is a government that’s been in power now for four

years. They keep talking about the former government. They are the

former government. In these last four years, homelessness is up

dramatically. Tent cities are popping up everywhere. Overdoses and

deaths from overdoses are up. That’s on their watch, their four years in

office.

[10:35 a.m.]

The bottom line is this: the addiction crisis is worse than it’s

ever been — again, under this government. Communities and social service

agencies are practically begging the government to provide the

additional resources needed so that they can better support vulnerable

populations in their communities.

In my hometown, Kamloops city council just recently passed a

motion calling on…. They’re urging, pleading for this government to

ensure that they’re directing true wraparound supports and services to

ensure that the people who need those supports are getting them in

Kamloops.

Again to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, will she

stop making the situation worse, and will she ensure that the supports

are provided that are desperately needed by vulnerable populations in

communities across the province?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: That there is more to do is not in question.

The pandemic has made everything worse. It has increased

homelessness. It has increased the overdose crisis. It has stretched

people’s personal mental health. It has meant that mental health and

addiction services have had to go to half capacity and modify their

operations. Everything is harder right now. There’s no

question.

Our government, before the pandemic, had invested and expanded

services deeply and, since the pandemic began, has stepped up in every

way, in many of the ways that Kamloops council is asking — safe supply,

decriminalization as a way to remove stigma. We have transformed,

provincewide — in the greatest and fastest transformation of mental

health care access — online mental health supports that are reaching

people in every corner of the province. We’ve opened B.C.’s first mental

health and response centre in Surrey, opened a new mental health and

wellness centre at Royal Columbian.

That the opposition dedicated only one-quarter of the budget in

this October campaign, what our government and our party was willing to

commit to mental health and addictions, tells me a lot about the level

of their commitment to the cause, and the voters chose

accordingly.

K. Kirkpatrick: On this government’s website, there is this wonderful video. It’s

currently there. It talks about the value of the Sequoia and the Alder

youth recovery homes, both located in Vancouver. These provide needed

beds for young people experiencing homelessness, mental health and

addiction.

Now, the only problem with this great video is that government cut

the funding last year to both Sequoia and Alder House, and they’re both

closed now.

Why is the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions making things

worse with cuts instead of giving people the help that they

need?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The expansion of services in every way — whether it’s youth,

whether it’s overdose, whether it’s addiction — is unprecedented. The

need is unprecedented, and there is absolutely more to do.

There are many services that have moved in-house because they

should be part of the health care delivery system. We don’t want to have

mental health and addictions treatment separated from health care. This

happens. Contracts change with the health authorities.

In every way, we’ve expanded access to services. We have got

integrated youth and child mental health teams in five different regions

of the province, a way that we’re working together to prevent small

problems from turning into big ones. Doubling youth treatment beds,

launching new health services for post-secondary students, 24-7 access

to counselling, expansion of funding for suicide prevention and mental

wellness in Indigenous communities, building, with the First Nations

Health Authority, six rebuilt addictions treatment centres…. I could

talk all day about the work that we’ve implemented.

[10:40 a.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: As my colleagues have pointed out and as I’ve heard from my social

services colleagues, under this government, things have gotten worse.

They have not gotten better.

This minister is responsible for ensuring that the services are

there for people, but her budget is smaller than the Office of the

Premier. Clearly, more resources are needed to help people get better,

yet programs like Sequoia and the youth Alder House recovery home are

being cut.

When will this minister stop passing the buck, accept

responsibility and start giving people the support that they

need?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: We have got a long way to go to overcome the overdose crisis and

to connect people immediately and quickly with the mental health

supports that they need, but wait times are shorter. There are more

services available in the four years that we have had

government.

The pandemic has set everything back on homelessness, mental

health and the overdose crisis. There is a direct link. But thank

goodness we put so many of those supports in place — $746 million from

my ministry alone to mental health and addictions over a five-year

period. Out of the Health Minister’s budget, $2.7 billion

annually.

I’ll remind the member again: her own party committed only 25

percent of what New Democrats did to the public in the election campaign

in October, just six months ago. That, to me, says a lot about the B.C.

Liberals’ commitment to the cause, let alone what they failed to do over

the 16 years that they were in power.

J. Tegart: Yesterday Christine Sorensen, president of the B.C. Nurses Union,

had this to say about mental health services: “We are under-resourced

and understaffed, and we have no place sometimes to refer patients when

they are discharged.”

This is happening under the watch of this Minister of Mental

Health and Addictions. Things are worse, not better.

Why is the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions failing to

give people the help they so desperately need?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Workers on the front line, whether they’re in the non-profit

centre or whether they’re nurses and health care practitioners, were

asked to do so much with so little support. It’s something that we are

working hard to overcome.

We’ve expanded people in seats. The expansion of funding to health

care workers is unprecedented under the four years we’ve been in

government. The expansion of services for people seeking help. The

reduction in wait times, although it’s still too long, is, again,

unprecedented in B.C.’s history.

We are not only relying on nurses and primary care providers but

expanding from a pure support perspective. We’ve got eight new Foundries

about to open up. That will be a total of 19 across the province, where

youth and young people up to age 24 can access mental health and

addictions supports, especially on a peer level so that they can support

each other.

Increasing support for mental health in the workplace and an

unprecedented increase in the budget commitment to both public health

and also to mental health and the overdose crisis.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Fraser-Nicola on a supplemental.

J. Tegart: Well, Mr. Speaker, stopgaps are not enough. The minister is not

doing enough. She needs to step up, accept responsibility and take the

necessary steps to ensure a comprehensive mental health and addictions

system.

Will the minister admit her approach is failing and start

providing support to people who so desperately need it?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: As was stated so clearly by Dr. Bonnie Henry, it is hard to fight

two public health emergencies when there was no system of care in place

in 2017.

We’ve been working hard every day. The creation of a dedicated

ministry, the first in Canada, to focus every day on mental health and

overcoming the overdose crisis is an expression of our commitment to

building that system of care, where there was none.

[10:45 a.m.]

The unprecedented expansion of services, both on overdose response

and on mental health and combatting mental illness…. It’s unprecedented.

The extent of the budget — again, unprecedented.

Is there more to do? Yes, there is. Is every life lost tragic?

Yes, it is. We are working hard in every way to make things better. I’m

delighted to hear that the opposition now cares about this issue, and I

hope we can work together on this.

OPIOID CRISIS AND CARRIER-SEKANI

ADDICTION TREATMENT

FACILITY

M. de Jong: The minister says she can speak all day. Well, that may be the

case, but here’s what people in Penticton are hearing. They are hearing

threats, and they are hearing insults.

To the Minister of Mental Health, if you live in Prince George,

you’re scratching your head because you’re trying to understand how it

is and why the government actually opposed a proposal that would create

a desperately needed 60-bed treatment facility in Prince

George.

Can the Minister of Mental Health explain how it is that with

record numbers of people dying, she couldn’t even manage to convince her

own cabinet colleague the Minister of Agriculture not to oppose the

creation of a desperately needed treatment facility in Prince

George?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: That the overdose crisis has taken so many lives in British

Columbia and that it has hit Indigenous People disproportionately is not

fair. Because of that, in our partnership with the First Nations Health

Authority, our government has committed $20 million to build two new and

six replacement healing centres that the First Nations Health Authority

will oversee.

On March 4, Chief Corrina Leween wrote to me, letting me know that

the independent Agricultural Land Commission had turned down the

Carrier-Sekani application for a non-farm use. On March 9, I met with

the Chief and committed to her at that point that we are continued

investors in the project. We’re counting on the Carrier-Sekani being

able to build it, because the need is so deep.

The independent ALC said that they found it not to be an

appropriate non-farm use. I have committed to the Chief that I will work

with my counterparts to try to find a path forward. It was not the NDP

government that opposed the non-farm-use application. It is the NDP

government that is investing with the Carrier-Sekani in new

construction.

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

M. de Jong: There are a couple of things that the minister conveniently tries

to ignore in providing that answer. First of all, last year her

government attempted to shut down a women’s treatment centre in my

community, in Abbotsford, and they would have succeeded had they not

been called out and been embarrassed into changing.

In the case of Prince George, we are talking about marginal

agricultural land that has been used as a resort, and no one can

remember it ever being farmed. Here’s what the decision said: “While the

panel appreciates the social benefits of the proposal, it could further

alienate the property from future agricultural endeavours and is

therefore inconsistent with the mandate of the commission.”

This government gave that commission their mandate. A new mandate,

Mr. Speaker, that they are now using to frustrate the creation of the

very treatment facilities that we so desperately need in this

province.

One thousand seven hundred and twenty-six people have died, Mr.

Speaker. All of us are impacted by that. All of us care about that. But

apparently, in the minds of the officials within the Agriculture

Ministry who opposed the proposal in Prince George, that doesn’t

qualify. That represents an appreciation of the social

benefits.

[10:50 a.m.]

We’re talking about people staying alive. The minister says she

cares about keeping people alive. I believe she cares about people

staying alive. Then it’s time for her to do her job as minister and

speak to her colleague and make sure that agencies that want to create a

place where they’ll stay alive can build that place, and 60 people will

stay alive.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s question and the member’s concern. It

sounded like there was a question. If the member wants to get to the

question…. I’m more than happy to let him get to the question, if he

didn’t already ask it.

Mr. Speaker: Government House Leader, take a seat.

Member for Abbotsford West, continue.

M. de Jong: Well, the Government House Leader may want to step in, but there

is actually only one person that can answer this question. It is the

Minister of Mental Health, who has explained what she did after the

decision.

We’d like to know…. I want the minister to explain to this House —

the Minister of Mental Health — what she did before the decision from

the ALC to ensure that members and colleagues in her government were

supportive of a desperately needed facility that should be built, can be

built, would be built, except for the actions of this

government.

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said, I appreciate the question from my colleague across the

way.

Let’s be clear. The Minister of Mental Health and Addictions has

outlined, step by step, all the kinds of programs, the investments this

government has made since taking office four years ago — proper plans in

place.

What we hear from the opposition and what we hear from that side

in this question is that they are wanting government to interfere with

the decisions of an independent body whose job and mandate is to look

after agricultural land, to turn back the clock on the old days, where

cabinet ministers interfered constantly in decisions of an independent

body.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s hear the answer.

Hon. M. Farnworth: What this government has said…. It has outlined that there was a

decision made, but they are working with the proponents on a path

forward. That’s the appropriate way to do it, and that’s the method that

this government is taking forward.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

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

Mr. Speaker: The member for Courtenay-Comox, I hear, had a point of order?

R. Leonard: I believe the rules that we are operating under relate to online, the

hybrid setting. If we wanted to raise points of order, if we wanted to speak

from our hybrid position, our virtual position, we should be doing it through

the chat line.

Mr. Speaker: That’s correct, Member. Bring it to the attention of the Clerk. That’s the

way to do it, yes.

[10:55 a.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 4 — FIREARM VIOLENCE

PREVENTION

ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 4;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 10:57 a.m.

On clause 5 (continued) .

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move an amendment to clause 5.

[ CLAUSE 5, by renumbering the proposed clause 5 as clause

5 (1) and by adding the following:

(2) For certainty, this

section must be construed in

accordance with

section 35 of the Constitution Act,

1982 .]

The Chair: Members, we’ll wait a few moments while the amendment is

distributed to all members. Members in the chamber, a copy will be

distributed to you shortly. Members online, you will be receiving a

copy electronically.

On the amendment.

[11:00 a.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: This amendment arises out of the debate that we had on Bill 4 last

week.

As you know, I agreed to stand down on clause 5 so that I could

consider the issues and concerns raised in this House. I believe that

the bill was in the right and did what we intended it to on public

safety, but I understand the concerns raised by the member for Saanich

North and the Islands.

We have brought forward the amendment, which I believe will deal

with the issues raised. This

section must be interpreted as being in

line with

section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982. That’s why this

clause is being clarified this way, as well as a number of other clauses

which will be cross-referenced with

section 5 to ensure that they are

also interpreted the same way. Those are technical.

I most certainly appreciate the concerns raised by the member. As

I said, it was certainly our intention to make sure that it’s in line

with UNDRIP, which I believe it is. This clause will further strengthen

that.

I thank the member for raising the issue. The amendment we have

before us, I think, will deal with the issues that all of us want to

assure, in this House, are addressed in the appropriate way.

A. Olsen: I’d like to start my brief comments…. I’ll keep my comments to

this clause, and we’ll move through the other clauses fairly

quickly.

I just want to, first, raise my hands to the minister in gratitude

for taking the time and the space to have a lengthy debate, a week ago

yesterday, and for the patience that he exhibited as we worked through

some of the information that, I think, is not widely accessible to

British Columbians.

[11:05 a.m.]

We were able to account for the history, as it has unfolded, and

the challenges that some of the laws that have been created in this

chamber — the impacts that those laws have had on people. I really

appreciate the debate that we had.

While I acknowledge that the amendment that’s being proposed

doesn’t directly address or include references to specific hunting

rights, it is important that what is being acknowledged is that this act

cannot and should not infringe upon those treaty rights. As well, I

think it’s important to acknowledge that this amendment provides

additional protection where I think it should, and that’s in the

legislative process rather than in the regulation-making

process.

I want to, at this point in the debate, acknowledge that the

important changes that need to be made within the approach of the

government, the approach of the agencies and ministries that are

empowered by the government and the laws that we make in this House….

Those changes need to be made in the Wildlife Act.

To provide further protection to the Douglas treaties hunting

rights or the treaty 8 hunting rights, just Indigenous hunting rights in

general…. Those need to be reflected in a different act, at a different

time, in a different conversation. I look forward to engaging the

government, as I know Indigenous leaders do and Indigenous hunters do,

on those important conversations as any changes to the Wildlife Act are

contemplated.

As I just mentioned, I think it is important that this is

reflected in the legislation. I acknowledge the minister’s suggestion

that this is going over and above. However, I think it’s important that

when we’re making these laws and this information is brought forward,

the actions are taken, and that’s what we see here today.

I think one of the challenges that has informed my life personally

is that when rights are established or rights are affirmed through these

court processes, we do our best to not continue harassing those people

that have those rights — to then have to go back and defend and back and

defend. That was one of the reasons why I pushed back so strongly on the

suggestion that the appropriate place for these discussions, or some of

these discussions, is in the courts. It’s very expensive, very timely

and costly, both in terms of personal energy as well as feelings and, as

well, the impact that it has on the communities, especially on the

rights and title holders.

My final comments on this. This is to the minister and to all of

the government. I believe that this process we’re undertaking here today

with this amendment is a reflection of how this place best works, where

issues are raised, pauses are taken, reflections are made, amendments

are tabled. We have this discussion. Then we move on to the next

section, and we move on to the next piece of legislation.

It’s in the spirit of that that I’ve got a tremendous amount of

gratitude for the Government House Leader, for the minister responsible

for this bill, Public Safety and Solicitor General. I thank him and the

government for taking this time, over the last week, to reflect on this.

It has given me the opportunity, as well, to reflect on this with the

leaders of our community.

With that, I’m happy to support this amendment. I’m happy to

continue the work that we have ahead of us, in our relationship with

government, to ensure that future pieces of legislation that are brought

to this chamber also reflect the important work that many of our

ancestors…. Our S¸ELELW̱ÁÁN ,

those people that came before us, laid that pathway for us.

I raise my hands, Minister.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM . Thank

you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak.

[11:10 a.m.]

M. Morris: I agree with this amendment as well.

It’s good to see

section 35 of the Constitution Act highlighted

here. The constitution is the very fibre of what supports all the laws

in British Columbia and across Canada here. So to recognize the very

broad application of

section 35 I think is the appropriate way to

go.

I applaud the minister for taking this move.

Amendment approved.

Clause 5 as amended approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: With that amendment to clause 5 now adopted by the committee,

there is a need to make a consequential amendment to a number of clauses

of the bill to amend cross-references to

section 5 within the bill.

These proposed amendments were distributed to members with the amendment

to clause 5.

As such, I seek leave to move the following motion.

[That the passage of clauses 10, 62, 65, 80, 86, 94, 95 and 101 of

Bill (No. 4) intituled Firearm Violence Prevention Act by the

Committee be rescinded, and that the Committee reconsider the clauses

for the purpose of considering proposed amendments.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Members, clauses 10, 62, 65, 80, 86, 94, 95 and 101 of Bill 4

are again before the committee and will be considered in their

proper order.

On clause 10.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move an amendment to a cross-reference as a consequence to the

amendment to clause 5 adopted earlier.

[ CLAUSE 10, by adding the underlined text as

shown:

Exemptions for designated officials and prescribed

exemptions

(1) In this section:

“designated official” means an individual who is

any of the following:

(

a) a peace officer, other than a mayor, as described in

paragraph (a), (

b) or (

c) of the definition of “peace officer” in

section 29 [expressions defined] of the

Interpretation

Act ;

(

b) a conservation officer within the meaning of

section 1

(1) [definitions] of the Environmental Management

Act ;

(

c) a wildlife officer;

(

d) a park officer or park ranger within the meaning of

section 1 [definitions] of the Park Act ;

(

e) an employee of an armoured car guard service within

the meaning of

section 1 [definitions] of the Security

Services Act ;

(

f) a prescribed person;

“wildlife officer” means an individual who is

any of the following:

(

a) an assistant director, director or regional manager

within the meaning of

section 1 (1) [definitions and

interpretation] of the Wildlife Act ;

(

b) a prescribed officer or employee of the

government.

(2) A designated official who carries out an action that

would otherwise contravene any of the following provisions does not

contravene the provision if the action is lawful for the purposes of

exercising the designated official’s powers or performing the designated

official’s duties:

(

a) section 3 [prohibition against using,

transporting, carrying or storing firearm in unsafe

manner] ;

(b)

section 4 (1) or (2) [prohibition and requirement

respecting firearm or imitation firearm in vehicle or

boat] ;

(c)

section 5 (1) [prohibition against

discharging firearm from vehicle or boat] ;

(d)

section 6 (2) [prohibition against operating

vehicle if certain firearms, ammunition or devices in

vehicle] ;

(e)

section 8 (2) [prohibition against causing public

disturbance with low-velocity firearm or imitation

firearm] .

(3) The regulations may establish exemptions in relation to

a prohibition or requirement under

section 3, 4, 5 (1) , 6 (2), 8

(2) or 9 (2).]

Amendment approved.

Clause 10 as amended approved.

On clause 62.

Hon. M. Farnworth: For those watching, the reason that we do this is because

section

5 is referenced in a number of other sections. By doing the amendment in

section 5, we want to make sure that the technical aspects are correct.

That’s why we move on each subsequent

section that has been impacted by

an amendment to

section 5.

With that, I move an amendment to a cross-reference as a

consequence to the amendment to clause 5 adopted earlier.

[ CLAUSE 62, by adding the underlined text as

shown:

Power to arrest without warrant

62 A peace officer may arrest a person,

without a warrant, if the peace officer reasonably believes that the

person is committing an offence by contravening any of the

following:

(

a) section 3 [prohibition against using,

transporting, carrying or storing firearm in unsafe

manner] ;

(b)

section 4 (1) or (2) [prohibition and requirement

respecting firearm or imitation firearm in vehicle or

boat] ;

(c)

section 5 (1) [prohibition against

discharging firearm from vehicle or boat] ;

(d)

section 6 (2) [prohibition against operating

vehicle if certain firearms, ammunition or devices in

vehicle] ;

(e)

section 8 (2) [prohibition against causing public

disturbance with low-velocity firearm or imitation

firearm] ;

(f)

section 9 (2) [prohibition against possessing

low-velocity firearm or imitation firearm if subject to federal

prohibition] ;

(g)

section 11 (1), (2) or (3) [prohibition against

selling, renting or supplying low-velocity firearm, imitation

firearm or ammunition to minor] ;

(h)

section 15 (2) or (3) [prohibition against minor

discharging or possessing low-velocity firearm or imitation firearm

in prohibited area] ;

(

i) section 18 [prohibition against possessing firearm

or imitation firearm in or on designated

property] ;

(j)

section 32 (1) or (2) [prohibition against using

shooting range if identification or federal licence not

produced] ;

(k)

section 57 (1) [duty to permit peace officer to

inspect certain weapons and things] ;

(

l) a prescribed provision of this Act or the

regulations.]

Amendment approved.

Clause 62 as amended approved.

On clause 65.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move an amendment to a cross-reference as a consequence to the

amendment to clause 5 adopted earlier.

[ CLAUSE 65, by adding the underlined text as

shown:

Higher penalty offences

(1) A person who contravenes any

of the following commits an offence:

(

a) section 3 [prohibition against using,

transporting, carrying or storing firearm in unsafe

manner] ;

(b)

section 4 (1) or (2) [prohibition and requirement

respecting firearm or imitation firearm in vehicle or

boat] ;

(c)

section 5 (1) [prohibition against

discharging firearm from vehicle or boat] ;

(d)

section 6 (2) [prohibition against operating

vehicle if certain firearms, ammunition or devices in

vehicle] ;

(e)

section 8 (2) [prohibition against causing public

disturbance with low-velocity firearm or imitation

firearm] ;

(f)

section 9 (2) [prohibition against possessing

low-velocity firearm or imitation firearm if subject to federal

prohibition] ;

(g)

section 11 (1), (2) or (3) [prohibition against

selling, renting or supplying low-velocity firearm, imitation

firearm or ammunition to minor] ;

(

h) section 18 [prohibition against possessing firearm

or imitation firearm in or on designated

property] ;

(

i) section 29 [prohibition against providing false or

misleading information in shooting range records] ;

(

j) section 57 [duty to permit peace officer to

inspect certain weapons and things] ;

(

k) section 63 [prohibition against obstructing

inspection, search, seizure or arrest] ;

(

l) section 64 [prohibition against providing false or

misleading information to peace officer] ;

(

m) a court order made under

section 68 (1) [court

order to prohibit possession] ;

(

n) section 75 [prohibition against providing false or

misleading information about low-velocity

firearms] ;

(

o) section 76 [prohibition against producing false or

misleading identification] ;

(

p) section 77 [prohibition against producing false or

misleading federal licence or authorization] .

(2) Unless subsection (3) applies, a person who commits an

offence under subsection (1) is liable,

(

a) if the person is an individual, to one or both of the

following:

(

i) a fine of not more than $5 000;

(ii) imprisonment for not more than 12 months,

(

b) if the person is not an individual, to a fine of not

more than $100 000.

(3) If a person who commits an offence under subsection

(1) has, within the previous 5 years, committed the same offence or another

offence under that subsection, the person is liable,

(

a) if the person is an individual, to one or both of the

following:

(

i) a fine of not more than $7 500;

(ii) imprisonment for not more than 18 months,

(

b) if the person is not an individual, to a fine of not

more than $200 000.]

Amendment approved.

Clause 65 as amended approved.

On clause 80.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move an amendment to a cross-reference as a consequence to the

amendment of clause 5 adopted earlier.

[ CLAUSE 80, by adding the underlined text as

shown:

Regulations in relation to firearms and imitation

firearms

(1) For the purposes of

section

10 (3) [exemptions for designated officials and prescribed

exemptions] , the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make

regulations establishing full or partial exemptions in relation to a

prohibition or requirement under any of the following:

(

a) section 3 [prohibition against using,

transporting, carrying or storing firearm in unsafe

manner] ;

(

b) section 4 [prohibition and requirement respecting

firearm or imitation firearm in vehicle or boat] ;

(c)

section 5 (1) [prohibition against

discharging firearm from vehicle or boat] ;

(d)

section 6 (2) [prohibition against operating

vehicle if certain firearms, ammunition or devices in

vehicle] ;

(e)

section 8 (2) [prohibition against causing public

disturbance with low-velocity firearm or imitation

firearm] ;

(f)

section 9 (2) [prohibition against possessing

low-velocity firearm or imitation firearm if subject to federal

prohibition] .

(2) A regulation under subsection (1) may do any of the

following:

(

a) specify purposes for which or circumstances in which

an exemption applies;

(

b) establish criteria, conditions, requirements or

obligations that must be met or complied with in relation to an

exemption;

(

c) specify how a person or entity may or must prove or

establish that an exemption applies.]

Amendment approved.

Clause 80 as amended approved.

On clause 86.

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move an amendment to a cross-reference as a consequence to the

amendment to clause 5 adopted earlier.

[ CLAUSE 86, by adding the underlined text as

shown:

Wildlife Act transition

(1) In this section:

“effective date” means the date on which

section

87 of this Act comes into force;

“former Act” means the Firearm Act ,

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 145;

“pre-existing permit” means a permit under the

Wildlife Act that

(

a) exists immediately before the effective date,

and

(

b) exempts a person from a requirement under

section 9

(1) [offence] of the former Act.

(2) A reference in a pre-existing permit to an exemption

from a requirement under

section 9 of the former Act is deemed to be a

reference to an exemption from the corresponding requirement under any

of the following provisions of this Act:

(

a) section 4 [prohibition and requirement respecting

firearm or imitation firearm in vehicle or boat] ;

(b)

section 5 (1) [prohibition against

discharging firearm from vehicle or boat] .

(3) Section 24 (8) (d) [suspension and cancellation of

licences] of the Wildlife Act , as it read immediately

before its repeal by

section 96 of this Act, applies in respect of a

person who

(

a) is alleged to have committed, before the effective

date, an offence under

section 3 [exercise of care for safety of

others] of the former Act, and

(

b) is convicted, after the effective date, of the offence

referred to in paragraph (

a) of this subsection.

(4) Section 85 (1) (a) [failure to pay fine] of

the Wildlife Act , as it read immediately before its amendment

section 98 of this Act, applies in respect of a person who, on the

effective date, has not yet paid a fine imposed as a result of the

person’s conviction, before the effective date, for an offence under the

former Act.]

Amendment approved.

Clause 86 as amended approved.

On clause 94.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move an amendment to a cross-reference as a consequence to the

amendment to clause 5 adopted earlier.

[ CLAUSE 94, by adding the underlined text as

shown:

Section 83 (2) (

c) is repealed and the following

substituted:

(

c) section 3, 4 or 5 (1) of the Firearm

Violence Prevention

Act , . ]

Amendment approved.

Clause 94 as amended approved.

On clause 95.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move an amendment to a cross-reference as a consequence to the

amendment to clause 5 adopted earlier.

[ CLAUSE 95, by adding the underlined text as

shown:

Section 19 (3) of the Wildlife Act, R.S.B.C.

1996, c. 488, is repealed and the following substituted:

(3) If a regional manager issues a permit respecting the

use of firearms, the regional manager may

(

a) exempt a person from

section 4 or 5 (1) , in

whole or in part, of the Firearm Violence Prevention Act ,

and

(

b) specify the conveyance or type of conveyance to which

the permit is limited.]

Amendment approved.

Clause 95 as amended approved.

On clause 101.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move an amendment to a cross-reference as a consequence to the

amendment to clause 5 adopted earlier.

[ CLAUSE 101, by adding the underlined text as

shown:

Section 108 (3) is amended by adding the following

paragraph:

(d.1) in respect of a regulation under paragraph (

d) of

this subsection, exempting a person from

section 4 or 5 (1) , in

whole or in part, of the Firearm Violence Prevention

Act ; . ]

Amendment approved.

Clause 101 as amended approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move an amendment to a cross-reference as a consequence to the

amendment to clause 5 adopted earlier.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We don’t need to amend anything. We’ve

finished the 101. The script took us a little further than we needed

to go. We’re now moving on to the title.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank members for their contributions during this committee

stage debate.

With that, I move that the committee rise and report Bill 4

complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:17 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 4 — FIREARM VIOLENCE

PREVENTION

ACT

Bill 4, Firearm Violence Prevention Act, reported complete with

amendments, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate, Bill 10.

P. Milobar: With the fast movement of that bill, if we could have a couple of

minutes of recess to find our speaker who still has the floor, that

would be appreciated.

Mr. Speaker: The House will be in recess for ten min­utes.

The House recessed from 11:20 a.m. to 11:28 a.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — SUPPLY ACT

(N o . 1), 2021

(continued)

A. Wilkinson: A pleasure to be here.

Now, continuing on Bill 10 — this is a supply act, of course —

which provides for $13.4 billion of spending, with no outline of what

that spending will consist of and no understanding, for this House, of

how it came to be or why it is required. Apparently, it is to continue

the budget of last spring, which was brought in shortly before COVID

occurred. In the words of the Premier himself, it became essentially

meaningless as soon as it had been passed.

We have no guidelines as to why this budget is being presented

now. We have no guidelines as to what it will be spent on. To add insult

to injury, we see that

section 1 says that it legally deems last year’s

estimates to be the estimates for 2021, thereby exempting $13.4 billion

under

section 23 of the Financial Administration Act. Of course, that

section states: “A sum appropriated by a Supply Act must not be spent

for any purpose other than those described in the estimates of revenue

and expenditure….”

[11:30 a.m.]

We don’t have any estimates of revenue and expenditure. We have no

idea what this money will be spent for. When my remarks were truncated

the other day, by the end of the day, we had heard from the minister of

state from Stikine that we were not to worry; there were only 30 more

sleeps. I absorbed that description and thought: what a dismissive,

disparaging way to talk to the people of British Columbia.

That $13.4 billion is $2,680 for every single human being in this

province. In my family of five, that’s $13,400. The Minister of Finance

apparently bumped into us on the street corner and said: “Oh, by the

way, could you just give me $13,400?” The obvious question from any

British Columbian would be: “What for?” The answer from the Finance

Ministry and from this government is: “Well, that’s none of your

business.” Well, do we have a Legislature where questions can be asked?

“Oh, not about this. This is immune from questioning. This is immune

from scrutiny. We’ll just spend it however we see fit.”

The reaction from me, as a taxpayer, and from anyone on the street

corner or in a Tim Hortons, any location in this province, would be:

“Don’t be ridiculous. You want me to volunteer $2,680 to you, or for my

family of three, $8,000? The answer is no, unless I know what you’re

going to spend it on, unless I know what you’re going to do with

it.”

This is the very reason why there was a huge cleanup in public

finances back in 2001, to require balanced budget legislation, to

require fixed budget dates, to cement in the use of an Economic Forecast

Council, to give credibility to British Columbia’s finances again, after

it had been shredded by this very NDP government in the late 1990s. Our

financial credibility was shot to pieces, with falsified budgets, with

unconventional accounting practices and with massive overspending and

use of special warrants on a regular basis. Steps were taken to clean up

British Columbia’s credibility and to make sure that we had credible

finances once again.

Transparent fiscal management is the hallmark of modern

government. Everything should be available online so that any citizen,

any auditor, any lender can look at it and say: “Ah, I see the state of

British Columbia’s finances.” That is going out the window with this

bill. It’s just a sign of how high-handed this government has become

very quickly, in terms of its attitude to public

accountability.

We saw this further, just before the election, with $1.5 billion

in recovery spending that was left untouched until the week before the

election. Then it was launched as the StrongerBC plan with an elaborate

ad campaign. We still don’t have a full accounting of what that was

about. We still don’t know where that money was going. We take the

example of the small business grants.

The last year has laid waste to our tourism sector. The art

sector’s revenues have collapsed to near zero. Airlines have virtually

shut down, with massive losses and a huge loss of employment. The hotel

sector is on its back. We all sit here in Victoria and know that the

Empress Hotel has sat empty for six months, completely shut down. All of

those employees are unemployed.

So what happens? This government comes up with a grant program of

$345 million six months ago. We’re near the end of the fiscal year. It

happens in two weeks. The fiscal year is over. How much of that money

has been invested in the future and in the recovery of British

Columbians? Well, the minister announced yesterday it was $87 million.

Less than a quarter of the funds allocated have actually been invested

in British Columbians.

We extended good faith towards this government, both the Green

Party and ourselves, throughout 2020 to deal with the pandemic and what

we described then as a near-wartime economy. This is how we have been

treated and how the people of British Columbia have been treated — with

a disrespect, in terms of how they are allowed to recover from this

pandemic and how their finances are going to be treated by this

government.

This is not a piggy bank for the NDP. These are public funds that

have to be invested for public works, in the public interest. That’s why

most of us got elected — to make sure that the public interest is

served. This is by no means serving any public interest, with a

secretive expenditure of $450 million for every one of those 30 sleeps

that the minister of state talks about.

[11:35 a.m.]

This is shameful — that the NDP members can sit on their side of

the House and grin and say: “Don’t worry about it. Just support us.”

Support what? What is it that you’re planning to do? Tell us what the

plan is. Tell the people of British Columbia what the plan is. Then you

might earn some respect and some credibility. Instead, you’re busy

burning that credibility by acting in this high-handed and dismissive

way.

We have to remember that these businesses that are in so much

trouble are not Fairmont Hotels. It’s not Air Canada that’s going to be

in trouble as a result of this. It’s when we walk down the high streets

of our cities and towns.

Whether you walk through the streets of Trail, up Government

Street here in Victoria, on Broadway in Vancouver, on Victoria Street in

Kamloops, Bernard Street in Kelowna, or through central Nanaimo, one

business after another is empty. The for-lease signs have proliferated.

The for-lease signs are put up on top of the “50 Percent Off” and

“Everything Must Go” signs.

People have literally just walked away, sometimes leaving

inventory in the stores. They don’t even bother to paper up the windows.

These shops are just abandoned as they were. This is where we are now,

and this is what cries out for government to get its act together and

support these failing businesses.

It’s, of course, hard for the NDP to come out and say what they

appear to be doing, which is a Darwinian approach to business. “Ah, a

bunch of them are going to fail anyway. We’ll just watch them collapse.”

Government exists in Canada to make life better for people, to help

people through hard times. The NDP are chronically parroting how…. They

like to say that they protect the most vulnerable people, when in fact,

these small businesses are sinking out of sight and drowning right in

front of us.

When it comes to what government is supposed to deliver, what this

$13 billion could be used for, $450 million a day, close to $20 million

an hour for the next 30 days…. What could it be used for? Well, let’s

look at the Vancouver Coastal website. Yesterday it said, when you go to

the vaccine sign-up page: “We deeply apologize to seniors and families

for the poor experience many received…and for not meeting your

expectations.” That’s 13 months into this pandemic.

We all remember on March 11, when it was declared. We all remember

coming back on March 16, when the buildings were empty, when we’d all

gone home. That’s one year ago, and the planning horizon for a website

was 12 months. The only one that got going was Fraser Health. That is a

colossal failure on the part of this government in terms of serving the

people of British Columbia.

We’ve heard this week, in these halls, of 94-year-olds who are

still trying to get through on the phone lines. Is that serving frail,

elderly people, by just leaving them hanging on phone calls for hours

and hours, day after day, when they’re worried sick about their health?

That is unacceptable, yet have we heard any kind of plan to remedy that?

No. There are still no websites, except Fraser. It’s still a phone-in

system.

We’ve heard from other provinces that they’re miles ahead of

British Columbia in vaccination rollout — Alberta and Ontario, most

particularly. Needless to say, the comparison with Washington state and

Alaska is dramatic. British Columbia is dead last in this race amongst

the neighbouring jurisdictions. Part of that is because this government

couldn’t figure out that it needed a registration website over a

one-year period. Here they come along, asking for $13.4 billion for

goodness knows what. How can we trust this government to look out for

the public interest when that’s the record?

There’s another area which is fundamental to what this government

does in British Columbia. No matter who’s in office, health care and

education are our core functions. That’s the essence of why we’re here.

I received an email just this morning from a parent in Vancouver, saying

that their four children in high school are adrift. They’ve had 1.75

hours of instruction this year.

[11:40 a.m.]

The surrounding districts — he sent me a chart, and we validated

this elsewhere: West Vancouver, full-time high school; North Vancouver,

full-time high school; Burnaby, full-time high school; Richmond,

full-time high school; Surrey, full-time high school; francophone school

district, full-time high school; New Westminster, 80 percent of hours.

They have constraints, so that’s a pretty good result in terms of

anything short of full-time. Vancouver school board, 1.75 hours a day,

to be increased to 2.75 hours a day.

The insult added to the injury was that families in my riding in

the city of Vancouver were sent a letter from Vancouver school board on

March 11, which said that effective April 26, 2021, in-person learning

will go up to two hours and 45 minutes for grades 8 and 9 and to two

hours and 45 minutes two days a week for grade 10. That’s it, 18,000

students left adrift. No sports, no social activity, no meeting their

friends, no school, nothing to do. This is shameful.

The real insult comes in bullet 4. Effective April 26, 2021, the

Vancouver school board would allow any student wanting to attend school

all day to do so. Sounds great. We can all go back to school. We can get

educated. We can see our friends. We can have something to do, other

than sitting around all morning waiting for afternoon school.

The joke is on the students and the parents, because guess what

that consists of. You can go in the morning, whether it’s math or

afternoon for a second time. That is an insult, and it is a complete

betrayal of the public trust we put into the K-to-12 education

system.

It does not affect Richmond, Burnaby, Surrey, North Vancouver or

West Vancouver. It is only the city of Vancouver. It is only the

students in my riding and ten others. It is only those 18,000 students

who have been left adrift and watching as their mental health

deteriorates.

We are hearing this in abundance from parents and students, that

they’re depressed, that they’re miserable. They’re wondering if, in

grade 11 and 12, they’re going to get into the college or university

programs they’ve been dreaming of. Their lives are being scuttled by

this government’s inaction with the Vancouver school board. This is

shameful.

This is what the public trust consists of, looking out for our

most vulnerable. That’s why all of us went into elected office. These

18,000 students, who can’t speak for themselves, have just been dumped

in the gutter. This is unacceptable, and we will continue to push this

point until this government takes the action it needs to press the

Vancouver school board to actually deliver the statutorily required 22½

hours a week. It’s written into the education act. VSB chooses to

flagrantly violate that act, and this government has done nothing to

address it.

Now we vote on $13.4 billion for we’re not sure what. What will

change? What will be the goals? What are the outcomes for this spending

plan? What are our objectives? Will we know when we get there? Will

these concerns be dealt with, or will it just be swept under the rug?

Will we have a proper website in Vancouver Coastal Health? Surely, out

of $13.4 billion, someone can build a proper website.

Or will we just have more of the same — concerns being dismissed,

frail elderly and students being completely disappointed and blown off?

What is the purpose of having such a large spending budget? Where is the

accountability? When will we find out what it’s for? Apparently we never

will. “Just trust me,” say the Premier and the Finance

Minister.

This goes to the very integrity of our system. It’s why all those

statutes were passed 20 years ago to make sure that our budgets are

clear and transparent. It has been now completely dismissed by this NDP

government.

I bring that back to every member in this House. Why did we get

elected? To look out for the people who need our help; to build a future

based on our strengths and our competitive advantages; to build up our

small businesses, our resource industries, our biotech, our software,

our tourism; to be the very best that we can be.

We have accepted a public trust that comes with an enormous

burden, to serve the public interest. This bill does the exact opposite.

This bill requires votes against. This is not an acceptable method of

running the finances of the province. It is undemocratic, and it needs

to be opposed at every possible turn.

[11:45 a.m.]

Perhaps we should suggest an amendment and change the title from

Bill 10, Supply Act, to the “Blank cheque and abuse of public trust

act.” That’s exactly what this is, a blank cheque that is a flagrant

abuse of the role of government.

Perhaps, in this unfortunate process, there will be some kind of

conclusion, some learning, some improvement of performance where this

House will learn that it’s not about power. It’s about public service.

That’s what makes you proud at the end of the day. That’s what lets you

look in the mirror on your way home and say: “I did good work today

because I served the public interest.” It should not be about what you

can get away with. It’s about what you can be proud of.

Sadly, I return to the minister of state’s remarks that we should

just let everything go. We should trust them. We should work with them.

Certainly not what he did in Ottawa for 14 years — exactly the opposite,

actually. But the idea that somehow we should just roll over and accept

this one-page bill that ignores our democratic process — that has no

objectives, no goals, no understood purpose other than power for the NDP

— is completely unacceptable.

You can be assured that I and my colleagues will be voting against

it and making as much noise as we can to find out what an abuse of the

public process this is, and how, for the students of Vancouver, for

those frail elderly folks who are still on the phone, this has been a

failed government since the election. And if this is how we’re going to

conduct the business of the province, this is a failure of the NDP as an

elected government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m not sure if you would prefer that I

suggest that debate be adjourned or if you want to carry on for a few

minutes.

Deputy Speaker: We’ve got some time. I think we can continue on.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the Finance Minister for tabling this bill, which

is….

We’ve seen it many times from both governments. Usually, it is not

the subject of hyper-partisan hyperbole, but it has been this time. The

reason for that is that the budget was delayed so that the Finance

Minister could incorporate all of the impacts of the pandemic, as well

as our responses, so that there could be debate on as reliable a budget

as we can put forward in these exceptional times.

For the opposition to complain about the idea that — in a time

where government revenues have been dramatically impacted by the COVID

pandemic, where businesses and individuals across the province are

profoundly affected financially — we would take a little bit more time

in order to make sure that the budget that’s put in front of the members

of this House is as accurate and projects as best as possible what we’re

going to do, how we’re going to respond and what the impacts of the

pandemic have been….

To pretend that this is an elaborate attempt at some kind of

trick, when we have these interim supply bills literally every time

there’s a budget that goes past the end of a financial year, is a bit

much.

I accept absolutely their right to want a budget earlier. That’s

fine. But the reason for the delay in the budget is to assist the

opposition and the public in understanding the state of the public

finances and what we’re going to do. There are no tricks here. It’s

quite clear.

The one thing I do take exception to is the pretending — the sort

of high-handed posturing of the opposition that, oh, in their time, they

were such wonderful financial managers, and they presided over such

transparency in relation to budgets, that the government should take

lessons from them about their instructive model that they put

forward.

Let me just remind members about the tricks and games and garbage

that was put in front of the public in the form of B.C. Liberal budgets

and projections for Crown corporations. Just a highlight reel, noting

where we are on the time.

ICBC, right? The Crown corporation is hemorrhaging money before

the election. What do we do? Oh, we book the sale of headquarters, even

though it hasn’t even been listed for sale. We book the sale of

icbc.com, the URL, to the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, even

though it hasn’t been sold.

Little Mountain, a housing development, a functioning community

full of low-income people — a beautiful community, people working

together and living together — sold off, bulldozed with no replacement

housing so that the government could book the sale and claim a balanced

budget. Unacceptable.

[11:50 a.m.]

B.C. Hydro. Massive deferral accounts — massive — to hide the cost

overruns of that corporation, criticized extensively by the Auditor

General.

B.C. Lottery Corp. Booking proceeds made by taking dirty money

that turns out everybody knew — in government at the time, the B.C.

Liberal government — was dirty. But they kept taking the money because

they were worried about losing the revenues.

If you’re taking dirty money, if you’re bulldozing low-income

communities, if you’re pretending that our Crown corporations are

solvent when they’re not, if you’re creating deferral accounts that are

going to impact ratepayers for decades because you’ve given away money

to your donors through these run-of-river projects where you’re paying

an outrageous rate for hydro that we don’t need that we’re selling at a

loss, then you come to this place, like the Leader of the Opposition,

and you say, “We were paragons of transparency around our budgets….” Are

you kidding me? And on a bill that has happened….

Every time there’s a budget, we go past the end of the fiscal year

with supply. It pays for schools. It pays for hospitals. It pays for

supports in housing. It pays for social housing. It pays for everything

that makes the province run.

We see gamesmanship around supply bills in the United States. How

does that end up? Government workers go unpaid. Essential services are

shuttered. The only people who hurt are the people in the communities

that don’t get those services. Nothing is gained by it.

I regret very much seeing gamesmanship about what is traditionally

a non-controversial matter of course for the business of government to

allow full debate in the estimates on the budget. I regret putting

forward a budget that is complete and accurate to this House and the

public so they can understand the impacts of the pandemic and how their

government is going to respond being characterized as tricks around the

budget.

I cannot abide the idea of being lectured by the opposition about

transparency in relation to budgets after all the garbage they put

British Columbians through — the massive auto insurance increases, the

bulldozing of the Little Mountain community, the escalating hydro rates.

Unacceptable.

Now, I will note that, although tangentially related to the bill,

the Leader of the Opposition discussed the incredibly terrible situation

faced by parents of high school students in Vancouver and the need for

additional instructional hours. I’m glad to hear the member speaking out

on that issue. Vancouver MLAs hosted a town hall on that issue

exactly.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Very grateful for teachers and the staff in our high schools in

Vancouver working through the pandemic and grateful for the work they

do, and because their work is so important to families and to students,

we’re really encouraging the school board to increase that instructional

time.

Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

Copyright © 2021 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

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

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.