First Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, March 4, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 21

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act, 2021 (continued)

M. Starchuk

B. Stewart

M. Dykeman

D. Coulter

M. Elmore

S. Furstenau

J. Brar

Hon. J. Osborne

Bill 4 — Firearm Violence Prevention Act

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. Morris

J. Sims

E. Ross

S. Chant

B. Stewart

M. Elmore

Hon. N. Cullen

T. Halford

Hon. M. Dean

D. Coulter

P. Alexis

THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 2021

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 9.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 9 — LOCAL ELECTIONS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

(continued)

M. Starchuk: With regards to Bill 9, the amendments to the Local Elections

Campaign Financing Act, I’d like to just close with a little

summary of

where we left off, reminding those that are joining us now that I did

have a couple of elections as a municipal person. So I’m understanding

full well the implications of what’s coming forward.

The proposed amendments, when it comes down to campaign finances,

are a big part of what is inside of here in Bill 9. One of the things

that becomes incredibly important is the registration framework for

those parties that are out there. It makes it more accountable for

Elections B.C. to make sure that those relationships continue on with

those organizations.

[1:35 p.m.]

With regards to the financial reporting, we take a look at what’s

in there for the financial disclosure of reporting requirements to

ensure the transparency of all types of EO financial activities in

non-election years and to maintain the integrity of the campaign

financing framework of the LECFA by providing greater transparency. This

is important because this is in non-election years, as the funding is

going through, and the actual ability to be open and transparent and

accountable to those campaign funds that are coming in, in the off

years.

As a person who sat in a municipal seat, I can tell you that there

were many times when people were wondering where the donations were

coming and when they were coming. This legislation gets rid of that

anomaly that’s there. We’ve heard of allegations of donations when they

come to certain votes. This legislation will remove that part of

it.

When we talk about the contributions that come in, we’re talking

about moneys that come in, whether they have value, non-monetary

properties or services that are provided without compensation. These are

important because there’s plenty of time during the election campaigns

when office space can be made available at a different price.

When we talk about election advertising, the amendments talk about

a pre-campaign period, which will begin 60 days before the first day of

the campaign period and close the day before. The pre-campaign periods

make it very clear as to how we’re going to capture those expenses that

are paid. This becomes increasingly important in the digital world of

know who is paying for that advertising and how much they

paid.

This will ensure clarity as to the activities that are captured,

as election advertising in local elections takes place. It ensures

consistency with LECFA and the Election Act, respecting the types of

activities that are captured as election advertising. It’s important to

note that this recommendation was made by Elections B.C. in their report

of the 2018 general local elections.

When we come to the third-party advertising, what it does is limit

the potential influence of large donors on election discourse. It

ensures that the sponsorship contributions are treated in the same way

as campaign contributions in LECFA. It also ensures consistency with the

provincial Election Act, which sets sponsorship contributions at

$1,200.

Then, finally, when we talk about investigative powers, the

proposed authorities would provide Elections B.C. with a greater ability

to conduct investigations into possible contraventions of LECFA and also

ensure that investigative authorities in LECFA are consistent with those

set out in the Election Act.

Along with that, with regards to monetary penalties, the penalty

amounts would be tied to the contravention where it makes sense to do

so, and where a contribution exceeds a limit, up to double the amount of

the contribution or tied to monetary penalty amounts.

Additional monetary penalties are intended to increase compliance

with LECFA. Where non-compliance occurs, monetary penalties are

administratively easier punishment to impose than pursuing an offence

through the Ministry of Attorney General and the court

system.

At this point, I would like to thank the minister and her staff

for a comprehensive bill. From what we’ve heard so far today, it seems

that all parties are somewhat in agreement that removing large corporate

or other organizational donations is overdue and now can align with the

B.C. spending.

I stand here in support of Bill 9, and I thank staff and the

minister for what they’ve done.

[1:40 p.m.]

B. Stewart: I rise this afternoon to speak on Bill 9. I know that it’s really

important that British Columbians know that there is clarity and

transparency when it comes to elections of any sort. Of course, this is

moving ahead on work that was done previously to bring into effect some

alignment between local elections, as well as the Election Act — I

believe it was Bill 28 — brought in, in November of 2017, that makes

some very significant restrictions.

I think that one of the things that we’re looking for is…. We’re

supportive of those type of actions — to make certain that there is that

certainty, as close as we can get to transparency, and that there is no

hanky-panky, as some people would say, going on in terms of indirect

benefits that are being received by candidates or parties.

One of the things about the electoral process is that it’s

something that we don’t see as being written in stone. The fact is that

the legislation needs to be dynamic, as we’ve seen with some of the

things that have happened in other jurisdictions where new technology

has been used and in place and put into influencing election outcomes. I

think that that’s why this is a dynamic and constantly evolving kind of

process.

In this particular case, Bill 9 amends the Local Elections

Campaign Financing Act, the Local Government Act, the School Act and the

Vancouver Charter. I know that it’s not yet come to local elections in

my area or riding, but I know that it’s certainly much different in

urban areas, probably more so in the Lower Mainland than in other parts

of the province. But I think it is important that there is compliance

with regulations and rules. This is one of the reasons why I and the

rest of our caucus will be supporting this legislation in

principle.

Obviously, we want to seek clarity in terms of some of the

regulations and how that’s going to be given the credibility and

certainty that these regulations are going to be meaningful to everybody

that’s running — all parties and all efforts to try to make certain that

it’s an even playing field for everybody that’s contesting a particular

spot.

You know, the other thing is that there’s going to be an extension

to the pre-campaign period from 29 to 89 days. I do think that that is

important, as we’ve seen with fixed election dates. That is something

that is important — that people do have the opportunity to not

both on TV or in print, etc., and to make certain that those investments

made by outside influencers are taken into account in terms of what

they’re trying to do and that there are some controls and

registrations.

I think that these are some of the tools that Elections B.C. is

going to need to be able to deliver this, to make certain that people

that are candidates have a fair chance and that it’s an equally fair

chance for them to be able to seek leadership or be able to be an

elected official in their communities.

I struggle with one of the comments that I see in the act about

access to strata properties and other properties for canvassing. I

haven’t quite figured that out myself in terms of how I can get through

into the buildings and be able to door-knock in apartments. It’s not

something that I…. I know a lot of people do question.

I have done my share of door-knocking, and I know that it’s a

challenge. And it becomes a more difficult challenge as buildings become

higher density in more urban and built-up areas. I do think that it puts

some people in certain ridings or certain communities at a significant

disadvantage by not being able to speak to all of the people that are in

those ridings.

It is important, because it can’t be just done by mail drops and

speaking to the strata councils and things like that. There is a need to

make certain that access, in any way it can be created, would be a

benefit to the election process.

[1:45 p.m.]

I do think that…. I spoke briefly about digital advertising. As we

saw with the use of Cambridge Analytica in another election in another

place, it was significantly influential or considered to be influential

in making an outcome that has significantly changed the world — the way

that Europe is operating today. I think that the situation is that we

need to make certain that, with those tools, there’s transparency around

those types of uses and that Elections B.C. has the ability to make

certain that that type of influencing, technology or whatever, is either

limited or that it’s open and available to all the

participants.

I think about the difference in the politics of being a local

government official, whether it’s a school board…. You volunteer

yourself to the task of standing up and trying to do what’s right,

whether it’s the neighbourhoods in your community or your children that

are in schools. I think that what you really are looking for is that you

want to make certain that there is the opportunity — that you can get a

fair chance at showing that you have the ability. Unfortunately, that’s

a changing set of boundaries, and it does make it more difficult. But I

think it is important that there’s more encouragement.

I don’t see it in this bill, but I hope that we don’t get to the

point of having to pay for votes in terms of civic and other elections,

etc. I think it is meant to be grassroots. That’s something that speaks

to the people and speaks to the institutions that are being governed by

these people that are elected through this process.

I look forward to the fact that this will be coming to committee

stage in the coming days and the fact that this is continuing positive

work in terms of election transparency and freedoms. Thank you very much

for that, Mr. Speaker.

M. Dykeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to rise and speak in

support of this bill.

I would like to start off by acknowledging that I’m joining you

today from the traditional, ancestral and unceded territories of the

Matsqui, Kwantlen, Katzie and Semiahmoo First Nations.

I would like to say that this legislation today will strengthen

transparency and modernize local election financing, and it’s such a

privilege to be able to speak in favour of this. I think that this is so

vitally important. During B.C.’s local elections, which are held every

four years, there are 1,660 elected positions voted on in 250 local

government bodies in communities ranging in size from less than 200

people to more than 600,000.

I first ran in 2011 in local government. I remember one of the

things that stood out to me was the amount of money that was being put

into local elections. When I first ran, I had no intent at all to put my

name forward for office. I hadn’t really paid attention too much to

local elections prior to that. Walking down the street, I would look at

the signs and think: “My goodness. There are signs everywhere. There’s

so much money being spent here.” Really, after those elections, I would

start to sort of look through the disclosures — I didn’t even know those

were public — and talk to other people who were monitoring local

elections themselves or wanted to put their names forward.

I remember sitting there talking to a couple of parents in my

neighbourhood. I ran…. Like so many other people, something affected my

personal life. They were going to close my children’s school, so I

thought I’d run. I remember talking to four or five other parents. They

said: “Well, there’s no way that I would run for office. It’s too

expensive. I can’t compete with other people putting their names

forward.” I remember thinking there’s a great deal of concern about

that. It’s rather unfair.

[1:50 p.m.]

Looking at this legislation, I’m so pleased to be part of a

government that’s strengthening local election campaign financing rules

to increase accountability and transparency. It’s another example of

ensuring that we’re putting people at the centre of local politics.

These changes will modernize and strengthen tools available, which will

be available to investigate and enforce campaign financing.

I think that that’s another important action in public confidence.

I’m always dismayed when you hear public perception that office is for

the elite or the independently wealthy, a narrative which really goes

back as far as I can recall. These improvements will make local

elections more fair and transparent for everyone, which really

translates into a government that works better for the people of

B.C.

I think that another observation that I think that this

legislation will assist with is that we have become — it’s been

exacerbated during COVID — a society that’s more disengaged, even though

information which is given to us in an algorithm. What I hope with these

changes and these restrictions in campaign financing and transparency is

that we’ll have a little bit of a return to direct-connection

campaigning, where we’re getting out into the community and people are

getting on doorsteps more, once it’s safe to do so, and exchanging

information in places where people gather.

It has become, unfortunately, a race of who can write the best

information. I think that this might move us a little bit closer to

connecting more within communities and in campaigning. I hope that we

see that out of this legislative change.

What are the changes that are being made? Well, the landmark 2017

legislation that took big money out of politics was applied to the 2018

general local elections. Coming out of that, the ministry of municipal

affairs and staff worked with partners, including Elections B.C., UBCM

and the B.C. school trustees and others that were consulted, to improve

the accountability and transparency of campaign financing. The

amendments reflect that work. I think that that really shows what

happens when a wide group of people come together with a commitment to

make something more transparent and improve that.

How are they going to make these elections more transparent and

fair? Well, the legislation — which, once again, is building off the

landmark legislation introduced in the fall of 2017 — will ensure

donations to elector organizations are clearly identified as political

contributions no matter when they are made, which is another fantastic

improvement in the steps towards transparency. It’s coupled with

requiring that organizations provide financial reports on an annual

basis — I think that that’s a big step forward — so that people of

British Columbia know where their money’s coming from and how it’s being

used, which I think is another fantastic step towards

transparency.

Something that…. You would hear, just in anecdotal conversations,

a lack of trust within people in the community — a perception that

things are not fair. I’m grateful to see those amendments. That’s

another example of the government believing the people should be at the

heart of politics and not money. I’m grateful to see that there seems to

be wide support for these amendments and really, really happy to see

everyone stepping forward to support those changes.

The changes follow the legislation and reflect feedback and input

from partners, as I mentioned. It’s a great thing to see such a widely

consulted amendment, moving towards accountability and transparency. The

changes announced will also provide just a much more robust framework to

investigate, which is an important component in keeping people

accountable.

[1:55 p.m.]

The changes are going to be coming into place, hopefully with a

smooth transition, to apply to the 2022 general local elections. It’s

great to see such a sort of immediate timeline, also allowing an

opportunity for people to have enough time to transition. The only

exception to the rule is limiting sponsorship contributions, which come

into force right away, and it will only apply to sponsorship

contributions made to support the 2022 general local

elections.

In the meantime, though, what’s fantastic is that the

by-elections, or assent votes, held between now and the fall of 2022,

will be following the current rules and allowing a reduction of

confusion. So the changes also will allow for transparency in a way that

allows people to easily implement it and hopefully, in turn, build

public confidence.

I hope that these changes will allow people who look at something

within their community that they’re concerned about, like I did back in

2011, and be more willing to put their name forward. Be more willing to

participate in the democratic process. Anytime we can get more people

involved and more people feeling like they are part of that process, the

more robust and the more strong our democracy becomes.

It’s something that I think is also a great message for youth

coming up. We hear over time that youth don’t want to become involved in

politics because they don’t feel as though it’s fair. They don’t feel as

though it’s transparent, or they don’t feel as though they have an

avenue in or there are financial barriers.

I’m very fortunate to be able to sit in this chair, but I’m

grateful to see that our government has committed to moving forward and

making changes that will allow lots of people to have the opportunity to

participate in a transparent and fair democracy in this wonderful

province.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this legislation. I will

take my seat now.

D. Coulter: I’d first like to recognize that I’m on the territory of the

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people,

Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

I’m really happy that I can be here again today with you, Mr.

Speaker. You’ll be happy to hear I don’t have phone numbers today. I

don’t have phone numbers today, so I’m sure the member for Peace River

South is disappointed as well.

I wanted to speak to this bill because it is close to my heart. I

was a locally elected official. I was a school trustee. I ran in many

local elections. This makes the system a lot more fair. It actually

injects a bit more democracy in the system, which is great.

You know, the B.C. NDP in 2017…. We put the people back at the

centre of politics by getting rid of the wild west rules in provincial

politics. Then we did the same in local elections as well. The

amendments in this legislation are just building on that. I know we’re

calling them “elector organizations,” and that’s what they’re currently

called in the legislation. For all intents and purposes, they’re

political parties. So I’m happy to see that they’re going to be treated

just like a provincial political party in that they have to do financial

statements every year. They have to register and do annual financial

disclosure statements, of course.

I think that just makes sense on any level — and also requiring

them to fundraise the exact same way as political parties fundraise in

between elections. We can no longer use union or corporate donations to

keep our lights on anymore at our political parties. We must get

individual donations. That, again, puts people at the centre of

politics. So I really like these rules.

[2:00 p.m.]

I come from Chilliwack. It was not uncommon for people to bankroll

their own campaigns — $5,000, $10,000, $15,000. When you don’t have

limits, and you can do things like that, you can’t…. It makes it really

hard to compete with that kind of money. I think it does a disservice to

our government, to politics and democracy, if it’s a pay-to-play system

such as that.

I also really like the amendments around third-party advertising.

I come from Chilliwack, and we have had third-party advertisers standing

on freeway overpasses or standing on corners. They have signage made;

they’re handing out materials. Very often they don’t register, and that

is quite disappointing. I like that it’s extending the timeline so that

you have to declare that you’re a third-party advertiser much further

away from the election. It creates a longer election period, I guess you

could call it.

You know, we just had a school board by-election in Chilliwack,

and it got pretty rough. There was an illegal billboard that went up —

pretty misogynistic. It really, really tore our community in two, just

this one billboard. I also like the amendments around the investigative

powers that we’re going to give Elections B.C. now. It will be much

harder to do those kinds of shenanigans if you can be investigated and

you can be penalized under the Election Act.

I didn’t want to speak very long, but I really did want to speak

to this bill, because it is close to my heart. I think amendments like

this, and moving in this direction, are what we need to do in our

province, like I said, to put the people back in politics. I don’t have

a phone number for you today, but I do have a catchphrase. I’d just like

to leave it at that.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to be joining you from the traditional

territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh

Nations.

I’m pleased to rise and speak in support of second reading for

Bill 9, the Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act. The importance and

significance of Bill 9, generally, in terms of the rationale, is that

the intent is for the government to strengthen local election campaign

financing rules, for the purpose of increasing accountability and

transparency for elections and to ensure that people are at the centre

of local politics.

These changes will modernize and strengthen the tools available to

investigate and enforce campaign financing rules. I think that

certainly, this is key, and such an important foundation of our

democracy at all levels, municipal, provincial and federal: that as much

as possible, we have a level playing field and that we remove big money

from really having an undue impact and influence on our elections and

impacting and really distorting our democracy.

Key to, and central to, Bill 9 is the belief that people should be

at the heart of politics, not money — people having the opportunity to

bring forward ideas to be engaged and to be elected to represent the

concerns of constituents. That should be the key to finding a focus. It

shouldn’t be how much money you can raise or how many big donors can

bankroll your campaign that will be the deciding factors in terms of

electability.

Now, the changes that we’re seeing in Bill 9. These build on the

framework of our government’s landmark 2017 legislation, to put an end

to big money in politics and put the people back at the centre of

government decision-making. That was a significant initiative that our

government brought forward to establish at the provincial level, and

these changes follow.

[2:05 p.m.]

The changes we’re discussing today in Bill 9 follow that

legislation in 2017 and also reflect that it’s informed by feedback and

input from our partners, such as Elections B.C. and the Union of B.C.

Municipalities, as well as insight gained from the 2018 elections. I

think this is an important component as well, the importance of

consultation, working with stakeholders, working with partners and

really being informed in terms of best practices and recommendations

moving forward — so key to Bill 9. And I think it’s much needed,

certainly, in our municipal elections to improve accountability and

transparency in local elections, especially for elector organizations

and those who sponsor advertising.

We’re modernizing the tools available to investigate and enforce

campaign financing rules. We know that even if there are rules in place,

if we don’t have effective means to investigate, enforce and also

administer fines, if that’s the case, there needs to be a deterrent as

well, and there need to be repercussions. That’s an important

component.

These changes that we will be deliberating in Bill 9 will make

local elections more fair and transparent for everyone. And in my mind,

I certainly don’t think any one of my colleagues on either side of the

House can argue that that doesn’t make government work better for people

right across British Columbia.

With respect to Bill 9, I want to talk generally about some of the

key points and get into areas I think are significant and also

important. The key point is that the changes that we’re announcing today

build on historic finance reforms previously. It’s going to result in

amendments to the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act.

These include, and my colleague previously referenced this,

increasing transparency and accountability for elector organizations by

requiring them to register with Elections B.C., complete annual

financial reports during non-election years to ensure that there’s

accountability right across the board, not only in an election period,

and also to prohibit them from accepting contributions from unions,

corporations or individuals to pay for operational expenses in the

non-election years so that there’s not a gap created and that it’s only

during the period of elections where these measures are brought

in.

I do want to make a point as well. I know that the majority of

British Columbia does not have elector organizations. It’s mainly

individuals who run. But in terms of elector organizations, as they’re

defined in local elections, it’s an organization that endorses

candidates in a local election. Elector organizations are often referred

to as civic political parties. And specific to elector organizations,

the regulation of election advertising for an additional 60 days will be

added to the pre-campaign period, where existing election advertising

rules apply. There will also be sponsorship limits consistent with

campaign contribution limits to reduce the potential influence of large

donors on the election. Concretely, Elections B.C. will have more tools

to investigate and enforce contraventions under the act. So those are

some key areas.

Now, what will that mean? How will it be administered? We’re

making amendments to the Local Government Act, the School Act and the

Vancouver Charter to help and assist governments to administer these

elections. What will that mean? Some examples and some impacts will be

to ensure that candidates have access to residential properties, such as

strata properties, which were previously excluded, and also to be able

to canvass voters and distribute candidate information. This is the

rationale in terms of just having the opportunity for candidates to get

information to eligible voters and to ensure that voters are informed

about the candidates running and issues important to those

candidates.

We also are addressing the disenfranchisement of some individuals

by removing the requirement that individuals be a resident of their

community for at least 30 days in order to vote — I’ll get into that a

little bit later — and removing the requirement for administrative order

to trigger a by-election in all cases where the court declares an

election invalid.

[2:10 p.m.]

When will these changes take effect? There’s going to be a

transition period. To ensure it’s a smooth transition to these new

rules, the plan and intention is for these rules to apply to the 2022

general local elections coming up. They’ll be here before we know it,

next year in the fall. It will be upon us before we know it. That will

allow us some lead time to get these changes out, to inform individual

candidates and also elector organizations and third-party advertisers.

It will allow them the opportunity to understand the rules and the new

landscape and also to communicate those changes.

The one exception is the rules limiting sponsorship contributions.

That will come into force right away, and that will only apply to

sponsorship contributions made to support the 2022 general local

election. That’s to take steps in case there are any folks with deep

pockets who want to make immediate contributions before the changes

officially take place. That’s to address that issue.

We do have a number of by-elections underway between now and the

next municipal election for the 2022 general local election. In the

meantime, any by-election between now and fall 2022 will follow the

current rules under the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act. That’s

to ensure some continuity. We have a number of by-elections underway

that we’ll expect to be…. They’ll be under the current rules.

Now, one of the issues…. You know, the question answered…. What’s

the process in terms of ensuring that there is accountability and

transparency for local elections? One of the measures is to ensure that

organizations provide financial reports on an annual basis so that

British Columbians know where the money is coming from, where it’s being

used and, certainly, that that is available to the public on an annual

basis. So that’s one of the measures that will be brought in.

When we look at what some of the changes are, as well, in terms

of…. What will change in terms of how local elections are mandated, and

what’s the general practice for local elections? Some of the changes

will be to establish a pre-campaign period that increases the length of

time election advertising is regulated. Before the act, it was 29 days —

generally one month. Now a change to 89 days, so basically three months.

So that’ll be three months before the election that that will be the

pre-election period and that the regulation of advertising will be

applied to that period.

Another very significant piece is that sponsorship contributions

will match the provincial campaign contribution limits set in 2017. I

know many members in the House will be familiar with that amount. It’s

$1,200 for an individual contribution. In terms of lining up and

integrating municipal elections, that will also be the level. It’s

$1,200. So we can apply that across the board.

In addition, changes…. Elector organizations will be required to

officially register with Elections B.C. To ensure that Elections B.C.

has the tools they…. There will be new investigative tools to support

investigations and additional penalties to fine people who do not comply

with the new campaign financing rules.

Of course, we know that most candidates and elector organizations

comply and do their best to comply with the rules. In the event that

infractions have been brought to the attention of Elections B.C., they

have the opportunity to investigate and also apply penalties as a

deterrent. So those are additional changes.

Now, elector organizations, also referred to as civic or local

political parties, will have to register with Elections B.C. and

complete annual financial reports, similar to provincial political

parties. Electoral organizations will be banned from accepting

non-campaign contributions to pay for operational expenses such as

office supplies and staff salaries in non-election years. This means

that they will have to fund all campaign expenses through campaign

contributions.

[2:15 p.m.]

In terms of these changes, they didn’t come out of thin air. I had

referenced earlier that there were consultations that were undertaken

and recommendations that came forward from…. That included Elections

B.C., the Union of B.C. Municipalities, which represent…. We have a

total of 189 local governments and the Islands Trust, so certainly a

large number of areas that conduct elections.

In addition, First Nations that utilize the Local Elections

Campaign Financing Act were consulted and the B.C. School Trustees

Association, which represents our boards of education throughout British

Columbia. Local elections — most include, as well, the election of

school trustees.

Now, changes will come into force across the province for the 2022

general elections. By-elections underway now will be under the current

rules.

The date for the restrictions, in terms of the sponsorship

contribution limits, will be made retroactively, effective from March 4,

2021. This is, I mention, to ban sponsorship contributions being made

between the time the legislation is introduced and royal

assent.

Now, we know that there are, here in the Legislature, 87

constituencies and 87 MLAs elected. During B.C.’s local elections, held

every four years, the number is 1,660 elected positions voted on in 250

local government bodies, in communities ranging in size from less than

200 people to more than 600,000 people. We have electoral organizations,

not in the majority, that endorse candidates in local elections. They’re

referred to as civic political parties. But in most communities and

areas, it’s mainly folks running independently or maybe with loose

networks.

The changes that are being brought in under Bill 9 are positive.

We’ll see an improved regulatory framework for elector organizations, in

terms of improving the efficiency — a centralized registration framework

for elector organizations.

You can imagine, with the over 250 areas that elect

representatives, if each had to administer theirs independently. The

advantage of having it centralized provincially is that there’s a level

playing field across the board. There’s standardization. Across the

province, British Columbians can be assured that rules that apply in

their area — whether rural, urban, on the Island, interior or the north

— are consistent regulations across the province. So I think that that’s

positive.

We are seeing, as well, changes to election advertising, primarily

with the expansion of the pre-election period. The pre-election

advertising period expanded from one month to three months — well, 89

days. Election advertising is now to include paid canvassing activities.

This means that people who are paid to go door to door in support of a

candidate or elector organization will be subject to election

advertising rules. That’s put under the category of having to account

for costs for campaigns.

In addition, there will be third-party advertising limits — a

contribution limit for third-party advertisers at $1,200. That levels

the playing field across the province and also brings it into line

provincially, as well, with our provincial contribution limits. Those

are some important pieces.

[2:20 p.m.]

We have a new regulatory framework. We have additional oversight

with respect to election spending and advertising in the pre-campaign

period. I mentioned that there are also new investigative and

enforcement tools that Elections B.C. will be…. That also has to

accompany these changes. It will allow the B.C. Chief Electoral Officer

the ability to investigate and enforce violations of the Local Elections

Campaign Financing Act.

What are some of these components? They’ll be able to request

records from companies that deal with online advertising to understand

who is sponsoring advertising and how much was spent — often that’s an

issue — and to identify who the third-party advertisers are and to

really track that down and get an accounting of that. So that’s

important.

In the case that that information is not forthcoming immediately,

Elections B.C. has the ability to request a court order to seek records

from financial institutions and really conduct, if needed, a more

in-depth investigation in terms of the financial

accountability.

Changes are being made to help with the administration of campaign

financing requirements in local elections. What are some of these areas?

We’ll be familiar with them, many of my colleagues here, in terms of

provincial elections.

These will include extending late filing timelines for reports,

allowing flexibility for Elections B.C. to make minor corrections to

financial reports and allowing candidates and electoral organizations

and giving them the flexibility to modify campaign financing

arrangements up until election day. These are some of the concrete steps

and questions, I know, that will be coming and local candidates who are

preparing now and electoral organizations will be keenly interested in.

These are quite significant.

Accompanying that, as well, is the improved framework for monetary

penalties, which is important to ensure that there are deterrents, not

only to deter those who really violate these infractions, but to really

recognize that the vast majority of candidates and electoral

organizations do their best to abide by rules and regulations. It’s

important to have the ability to provide that deterrent for those who

may be tempted or otherwise not pay as strict attention to the laws,

regulations and requirements.

Changes accompanying Bill 9 will be a more robust framework of

monetary penalties that Elections B.C. can use to enforce compliance

with local election campaign financing rules. Elections B.C. will be

able to issue monetary penalties for 50 or more violations of local

election campaign financing rules. That’s just giving more ability for

Elections B.C. to flex their muscle and to encourage compliance with

these changes.

These amendments are meant to bring consistency between the Local

Election Campaign Financing Act and those established for provincial

elections in the Election Act, so to provide some consolidation, as

well, between those. But of course, needing to be responsive and to

recognize the unique nature of local elections, they’re very different.

We have, certainly, a number of similar practices but certainly very

different in terms of municipal elections versus provincial

elections.

Changes are proposed for the School Act to also improve and

modernize the administration of local elections. So there are a number

of changes coming for the School Act as well.

There’s more to get into, lots to get into, in terms of the

details of Bill 9, but I just want to speak in terms of some of the

overarching themes and the areas that are being prioritized and

addressed in terms of Bill 9. I just want to finalize, sum up and

conclude my remarks.

[2:25 p.m.]

Bill 9, the Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act, is a positive

bill that will strengthen our local election campaign financing rules,

with the goal to continue to ensure that accountability and transparency

are paramount for elections and really with the fundamental goal to

ensure that people are at the centre of local politics and to take big

money out of politics.

I’m from Vancouver. We have pretty big budget local elections, in

the millions of dollars, here in Vancouver. So this act, Bill 9, will

level the playing field, bringing in the contribution limits, extending

the advertising for the pre-election campaign period, improving the

regulatory framework. I think that these are really key measures that

will level the playing field and, I think, really improve and strengthen

democracy, which is key and so important.

We know that it’s also a challenge in terms of ensuring that we

have adequate representation in elected government, all levels of

government, that reflect the population at large. We know that the

diversity of our elected officials doesn’t represent our communities and

demographics. Particularly, women are underrepresented. Racialized

people are underrepresented. Certainly in Vancouver and through Metro

Vancouver, over 50 percent of the population are racialized or

Indigenous people, yet in terms of elected officials at the municipal

level, we don’t come anywhere close to electing folks who are racialized

or who are Indigenous or from other backgrounds, people with

disabilities, who are also underrepresented. Those are systemic

issues.

The measures in Bill 9 don’t necessarily address those explicitly.

But in terms of addressing those structural barriers and levelling the

playing field, I think that that contributes towards addressing some of

the systemic issues around underrepresentation in our democracy, which

are key and which are so fundamental to having a vibrant and robust

democracy. British Columbians need to see themselves and their

communities reflected in their elected leadership, reflected in

leadership right across our province and in all areas, particularly at

the elected level.

We have structural institutionalized barriers to that access. I’m

not going to get into it. There’s more to delve into and to comment on

outside of Bill 9. I’ll keep my remarks specific to Bill 9. But in terms

of ensuring we have a level playing field, I think the changes proposed

in Bill 9 really contribute to ensuring we have more accountability and

transparency in our elections and that these changes will move towards

modernizing and strengthening the tools to investigate and enforce

campaign financing rules.

It’s my hope, and it’s my belief as well, that Bill 9 will build

and strengthen our democracy and also really encourage more

participation in our local elections and, I hope, greater representation

as well.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the second reading of

Bill 9.

S. Furstenau: I’m delighted today to speak to Bill 9, the Local Elections

Statutes Amendment Act, and the reforms that it will be bringing to

local elections to ensure that the elections are more transparent, more

fair and better serving of democracy.

I want to start by really giving a shout-out to Vancouver Green

councillor Pete Fry. He and the other Vancouver Greens have been pushing

for reforms to local election financing for quite a while and, in fact,

passed a motion in February of 2020 that was unanimously supported at

Vancouver city council, calling for annual contribution limits,

mandatory public disclosures, elimination of all corporate and special

interest donations to municipal political parties.

[2:30 p.m.]

Pete and the Vancouver Greens and, I would expect, locally elected

officials across the province are celebrating the introduction of this

bill as a big step towards continuing to bring reforms to our elections

and our democracy in B.C. In the context of that, it is really important

to recognize the reforms. This is one of many pieces of legislation that

have come in since 2017.

In the last government, as part of the confidence and supply

agreement, strengthening democracy was very much the first part of the

entire confidence and supply agreement, and removing big money from

politics was a significant and very important step that was taken. It

was something that the Greens actually did ahead of the 2017 election:

banning corporate and union donations to our party in 2016, before the

legislation was brought in to make that change apply to every political

party in B.C.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Other initiatives have been brought in. Of course, the first

changes to the local elections act that we saw in 2017 really

demonstrated that a shift was possible when you make structural change.

Going to UBCM in 2017 and then back, after the 2018 elections happened,

it felt like a sea change in seeing the faces of who was elected

locally. There were far more women, many more women mayors, for example,

and far more diversity. It was a start.

We have a long ways to go, and when we look at, for example, the

resignation, just recently from the Terrace council, of a councillor who

cited bullying — that’s Jessica McCallum-Miller, an Indigenous

councillor, who resigned — we know that there is a lot of work to be

done to continue to make elected spaces safe for women, for people of

colour, for Indigenous People, because we’re not quite there yet. We’re

still facing these issues, and this is a very sad story of this

councillor resigning, citing the systemic racism and bullying that she’s

facing. So there’s much work to be done.

Another reform that was brought in because of the confidence and

supply agreement in 2017 was reforms to lobbying in B.C. It is now

possible to see who is lobbying whom in this province and to get a

really clear indication of how much time government spends with

particular groups or industries or organizations that are lobbying. That

was another important part, something that was in our 2017 platform,

which was brought in as part of the confidence and supply agreement in

the previous government.

I think we can all agree that there is not ever going to be an end

to the effort, attention and focus that we have to put on to ensuring

that democracy remains strong, that it remains focused on serving the

people that we represent as elected officials. We see the risks to

democracy everywhere right now, and hyper-partisanship. An increasingly

non-transparent approach to governance is something that we are seeing

in jurisdictions across North America and around the world.

I think it is incumbent on all of us to be incredibly vigilant in

our roles as elected officials, to put the protection, well-being and

health of democracy at the centre of our work, because we are the

carriers of that in the roles that we play in this building that we’re

in.

[2:35 p.m.]

This act does make some good steps towards that. It establishes a

pre-campaign period — increasing the length of time that election

advertising is regulated — from 29 days to 89 days. So that kind of

pre-election period when anything goes has been diminished, and we have

the extension of a pre-campaign period of 60 days in which regulation

will exist. I think that is a really important step, because the amount

of money that can go into election spending before the regulation period

comes in can be significant and can have very significant impacts in

terms of outcomes of an election.

This bill limits sponsorship contributions to $1,200 to match the

provincial campaign contribution set in 2017 — again, an important and

necessary step to ensure that large amounts of money aren’t having an

oversized influence in outcomes of elections. It clarifies the types of

activity that count as election advertising. That includes paid

campaigning, mailing election materials. In a time as we are in, where

information and false information — misinformation, disinformation —

have become so prevalent and so dominant, regulation around what is

election advertising is really a crucial step to ensure that we are

proactively addressing this issue.

It requires elector organizations to register with Elections B.C.

That’s transparency and accountability. It provides Elections B.C. with

new investigative tools to support investigations, and additional

penalties to fine people who do not comply. We know that it’s that

combination of rules and enforcement tools that actually creates

behavioural changes.

I’m pleased that this bill has come forward. We will be supporting

it. We will be very much engaged at committee stage to look more deeply

into the specifics, but I think this is a very good step. As I said,

it’s a continuation of work that has been done since 2017, important

work. I think what we should all be striving for is that transparency,

accountability and, in our roles, integrity, honesty — recognizing the

work that has come before us and really striving to continue to do the

best work that we possibly can, particularly when it comes to democratic

reform and elections.

On that note, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to this

bill. I look forward to supporting it at the end of this

debate.

J. Brar: I’m delighted to add my voice in support of Bill 9, amendments to

the local government campaign financing act. This legislation will make

local politics more accountable to the people. I think that’s a good

thing. The amendments proposed in this bill will strengthen local

election campaign financing rules to increase accountability and

transparency for elections, ensuring that people are at the centre of

local politics, rather than big corporations and big developers with

deep pockets. That’s a huge change, and it’s a good change for local

elections, moving forward.

These changes will strengthen the tools available to investigate

and enforce campaign financing rules. Our government believes that

people should be at the heart of politics — not money. The changes to

the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act are built on our government’s

historic 2017 legislation to put an end to big money in politics and to

put people back at the centre of government decision-making. This

legislation is kind of an extension of the same idea.

[2:40 p.m.]

The legislation also responds to analysis and consultation

following the 2018 local government general elections. Key stakeholders

were also consulted, such as Elections B.C.; the Union of B.C.

Municipalities, which represents B.C.’s 189 local governments and the

Islands Trust; First Nations that utilize the Local Elections Campaign

Financing Act; and the B.C. School Trustees Association, which

represents boards of education. These improvements will make local

elections more fair and more transparent for everyone, which translates

into governments that work better for the people of this

province.

Amendments to the local government campaign financing act include

increasing accountability for elector organizations by requiring them to

(

a) register with Elections B.C., (

b) complete annual financial reports

during non-election years — this is the year when there is no election;

they have to provide annual financial reports as well at that time — and

(c), prohibit them from accepting contributions from unions,

corporations and individuals to pay for operational expenses in

non-election years. That was the practice in the past, and that is going

to change once this bill becomes legislation.

We are also making amendments to the Local Government Act, School

Act and Vancouver Charter to help local governments in administering

these elections. These amendments include ensuring candidates have

access to residential property such as strata properties to canvass

voters and distribute candidate information and removing the requirement

for a ministerial order to trigger a by-election in all cases where the

court declares an election invalid.

When will these changes be implemented? We want to make sure that

there is a smooth transition to these new rules so they will apply to

the 2022 general local elections. The one exception is the rule

exempting sponsorship contributions, which comes into force right away

and will only apply to sponsorship contributions made to support the

2022 general local elections.

I would like to conclude by saying that I fully support this bill,

because I believe that people should be at the heart of politics, not

money. This legislation will do exactly that. It will make local

politics more accountable to the people. That’s a good thing, and that’s

a good change for everyone.

Thanks for the opportunity.

Deputy Speaker: Unless there are other speakers keen to join the debate, I’m going

to recognize the Minister of Municipal Affairs to close second reading

debate.

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to all the members who have spoken to the bill today. I

want to recognize the comments from the opposition critic for Municipal

Affairs, the member for Penticton, for his thoughtful commentary and add

that I, too, look forward to working with him in the months and years to

come and value the local government experience that he brings to this

House, as I do that of all the members who have previous local

government experience.

I also want to thank members for thoughtful and articulate

comments, particularly some of the addition to the history of LECFA, the

Local Election Campaign Financing Act, in particular for the fact that

all parties mentioned the strong support and partnership of UBCM and how

we all value the support of local governments — the partnership and the

relationship that we have.

This bill is about how this government is committed to strong

campaign finance rules and laws to ensure that people are at the centre

of decision-making. In that spirit of learning and improving and making

amendments to serve the people of British Columbia better, I want to

thank all the members again. I look forward to the next stage and being

able to answer more questions about some of the finer details of this

bill. I look forward to that discussion and debate on Bill 9.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole

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

today.

Bill 9, Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act, 2021, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 4, intituled Firearm Violence

Prevention Act.

BILL 4 — FIREARM VIOLENCE

PREVENTION

ACT

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 4, the Firearm

Violence Prevention Act. This bill creates the Firearm Violence

Prevention Act, repeals the B.C. Firearm Act and modernizes aspects of

the Body Armour Control Act and Armoured Vehicle and After-Market

Compartment Control Act. The bill responds to the recommendations made

by policing experts in the 2017 Illegal Firearms Task Force report to

address gang and gun violence.

Gang-related homicides and violence impact the safety of all

British Columbians. There were over 80 confirmed gang-related homicides

and attempted homicides in British Columbia in 2019, and from January 1

to October 31 of 2020, there were 70 confirmed gang-related homicides

and attempted homicides. Gang violence and homicides, particularly in

the Lower Mainland, is a problem that has followed us into

In addition, the misuse of low-velocity and imitation firearms in

public places, particularly in urban centres, needs to be addressed.

These incidents cause public panic and are a drain on police resources

and a risk to public safety. These low-velocity and imitation firearms

can be indistinguishable from the real thing and are largely unregulated

and easily accessible by our youth.

This legislation is aimed at combating the problem of gang

violence by introducing measures to deter gangs from using shooting

ranges; creating an authority to impound vehicles used to flee from

police or to transport illegal firearms; and increasing safety in

schools, hospitals and places of worship by prohibiting the possession

of firearms, low-velocity firearms and imitation firearms in these

locations.

Many of you may think that that is in fact already the case. It

is, if it is a prohibited weapon. But it is not the case if it is an

allowed weapon. I think most of you would be shocked to know that you

could walk into a hospital with a 12-gauge shotgun and you would not be

breaking the law. There may be policies in place, but there is no

enforcement mechanism. This legislation will change that.

Increasing safety in schools, hospitals and places of worship. As

I said, prohibiting possession of firearms, low-velocity firearms and

imitation firearms in these locations is important, as is providing

civil liability protection to professionals who report potential for

firearm violence by an individual to police.

Again, I’ll give an example of that. Just a few days ago an

individual came into the emergency ward at a hospital in New

Westminster. Staff noticed that they had a firearm in their belt, inside

the waistband. They called police. Police resources came. As it turned

out, it was an imitation firearm, but it looked just like the real thing

— and, as a result, causes real concern and fears for safety in the

hospital, and police resources are used.

This legislation will also prevent the misuse of low-velocity

firearms like airsoft, BB and pellet guns and imitation firearms by

vulnerable minors and establish new offences for the unsafe and

irresponsible use of firearms and low-velocity firearms.

[2:50 p.m.]

I fully recognize that the majority of firearm owners are

law-abiding. This bill is the result of extensive consultations with

police and law enforcement experts; community-based organizations;

educators; health professionals; hunting, sporting and rural interest

groups; and others who have an interest in reducing gang violence and

supporting the responsible use of firearms in B.C.

In addition, ministry staff have consulted with Indigenous

leadership organizations, including the B.C. Assembly of First Nations,

First Nations Summit, Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and Métis Nation;

Indigenous educational organizations, including the First Nations

Education Steering Committee, First Nations Schools Association and

Indigenous Adult and Higher Learning Association; and modern treaty

First Nations and the Nisg̱a’a

Nation. Comments received from Indigenous leadership and educational

organizations as well as modern treaty First Nations and the

Nisg̱a’a Nation were fully

considered during the development of this bill.

While some aspects of this legislation are modelled on laws in

Quebec and Ontario, the breadth and scope of our Firearm Violence

Prevention Act’s approach to reducing gang violence is, I think, a

leader in Canada.

This is an important piece of legislation, and I think it’s

important to recognize that this is just one component of what our

strategy has been. It builds on work that we started in 2017, which was

the initial report that had 37 recommendations. We’ve already

implemented a number of recommendations that are critical in terms of

dealing with gang violence and illegal firearms in this

province.

The first, obviously, that was supported by both sides of this

House, was the witness security program, a made-in-British-Columbia

approach to witness security to get people to be able to testify, to

give evidence in a witness security program that enables police to

develop and produce stronger and better cases that will enable a much

more successful prosecution and result in a much more significant

sentence. That’s critically important.

Another particular component of our work which I am very pleased

with was the opening a few weeks ago of the new firearms forensic lab in

the city of Surrey, a $1½ million facility that allows us here in

British Columbia to do forensic work on firearms and the ammunition in

terms of not having to send it to Ottawa to get the work done, which can

cause delays and backlogs — doing our own work here in B.C. that’s

available to municipal forces and RCMP forces throughout B.C. Again, a

significant component of the work that needs to be done.

This legislation implements other recommendations that were a part

of that report that was commissioned in 2017. I think this is an

important step forward, and I look forward to the discussion, to the

debate in the House on the bill. I hope that it will be supported by all

members of this House. I think, as I said, it is an important step

forward. And then, I’m sure that there will be questions. At that point,

I will also look forward to the committee stage debate where we can go

further into detail into the different aspects of this particular piece

of legislation.

With that, I look forward to the remarks and the comments from

members of this House on this important piece of legislation involving

public safety, and I take my seat.

M. Morris: It was interesting. I was quite happy to see this legislation —

get the briefing on this yesterday. I just want to remind the minister

that this was a product of our era.

Back in 2016, we had a significant issue with guns and gangs, in

the Lower Mainland, particularly, but throughout the province. It was my

office at the time that commissioned the study, developed the Illegal

Firearm Task Force and the resulting study that was completed in the

spring of 2017.

It was tabled when I was still sitting in your chair, Minister,

but you did have the good fortune of receiving a duly completed report

with some excellent recommendations by your current acting ADM. He was

the right man for the job on that. So we look forward to this. There

will be a number of questions coming up in the committee stage as

well.

[2:55 p.m.]

You know, I have to say that the effectiveness of a police service

— it doesn’t matter what police service it is — isn’t predicated upon

the shoulder patch that they wear. It’s predicated upon the level of

support they get from their government, whether it’s municipal,

provincial or federal. But most importantly, it’s reflective of the

tools that we as lawmakers provide them. I think this legislation is a

tool that will have some impacts on the gang activity right across

British Columbia.

I’ve got two sons in the RCMP, both currently serving in

plainclothes positions that deal with guns and gangs and the drug trade.

It’s ferocious out there. There are drive-by shootings in many

communities throughout B.C. Police vehicles are getting shot

at.

Illegal firearms are a real problem in this province. Going back

to the comments that the minister made, this isn’t targeting legal

firearms. This is targeting illegal firearms. This is targeting the

people that will never, ever be allowed to carry a legal firearm licence

or a firearm. It’s targeting known criminals, for the most part, that

take advantage of the loopholes that we’ve had in the law. Again, like

the minister alluded to, the law pertains to prohibited weapons right

now. There’s no problem at all in prosecuting somebody for violating a

prohibited weapon or carrying a prohibited weapon in a public place. But

there’s nothing stopping them from carrying a rifle or

shotgun.

Society has changed immensely over the last two or three decades,

where these kinds of things are now frowned upon by the public. I will

be asking questions in here. There are a couple of sections dealing with

a public disturbance by carrying an imitation firearm or some kind of

firearm. So there’ll be some finessing that we may have to do around

that particular aspect and others. But this is something that is sorely

needed.

As a former police officer, in listening to other serving police

officers in the area here, it’s not uncommon to find a firearm under the

seat of a car or in the door pocket of a vehicle or pickup truck.

Oftentimes the occupants of the vehicle will step out, and they’re: “Aw

jeez, I don’t know where that came from. Maybe it was a rental. Maybe

somebody else had it.” Of course, it doesn’t meet the criminal test of

“beyond a reasonable doubt,” so the firearm is seized, and everybody

goes on their merry way. Nobody gets to face any punitive measures for

that illegal activity.

Overall, my first blush at this legislation, this bill, is

promising. It looks very good. I am looking forward to popping the hood

open on the committee stage to look at a few sections in there dealing

with the airsoft issues, pellet guns, those kinds of things, and access

to ranges and whatnot. But overall, this is a piece of legislation that

I support, and I’m sure my colleagues will support it, as well, as we go

through this.

I’m sure law enforcement agencies in British Columbia are looking

forward to having that tool in the toolbox to be more effective in

combating guns and gangs in the province.

J. Sims: It is my pleasure today to rise and speak on this motion. First of

all, let me say that on both sides of the House, I am sure every one of

us wants our communities to be safe. We want our kids raised in safe

communities. None of us likes it when we get a phone call or we read in

the media that there has been another shooting.

I’m not saying that this piece of legislation is going to fix all

the problems that exist around gang violence that we see in our streets,

not just out in the Lower Mainland but I know out in rural communities,

as well, or the middle-sized communities. It is a very, very serious

concern to each and every one of us, and we want to make sure that the

police, whether they are the RCMP or the municipal police, have the

tools they need in order to do their job.

That’s what we hear over and over again: “We don’t have the tools

we need.” There is no magic pill. There isn’t a quick fix that’s going

to fix all of these things. What we need is a multi-pronged approach.

This particular piece of legislation is exactly that. It’s not the total

response of government to what’s going on. It is one component of

it.

[3:00 p.m.]

As you heard my colleagues ahead of me tell you, this wasn’t just

done out of the blue. There was a task force. The task force worked

very, very hard in order to get input from everybody, and they did a

pretty extensive consultation. The consultation wasn’t just with the

RCMP. They went out into the communities and consulted with a wide range

of people, whether it was in the rural communities or in the urban

communities. I just want to read into the record the groups that were

consulted — for example, the rural and firearms interest groups such as

the B.C. Wildlife Federation, the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C.,

the Wild Sheep Society of B.C., the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, the

B.C. Target Sports Association and the B.C. Trappers

Association.

Also consulted were the treaty First Nations, the

Nisg̱a’a Nation and Indigenous

leadership organizations such as the First Nations Summit, the Union of

B.C. Indian Chiefs, the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, the First

Nations Justice Council and Métis Nation B.C., and with Indigenous

educational organizations such as the First Nations Education Steering

Committee, First Nations Schools Association and the Indigenous Adult

and Higher Learning Association. That just gives you a sampling of the

people who were consulted.

What this legislation does is that it’s moving forward and

implementing the 37 recommendations that came out of the task force.

With this legislation, what we have now is that the recommendations are

either fully implemented or in the process of being implemented. A

significant amount of work has been done in this area. I really want to

do a huge shout-out to the Solicitor General for the work he has done in

this area and for the sensitivity he has shown, because this is a very,

very sensitive issue in many, many communities. Everyone is wanting us

to do more to end the violence.

I can tell you that where I live — it’s not a surprise; I’m an MLA

for Surrey-Panorama — parents tell me that they dread hearing that sign

of gunshots or hearing that there’s been a gunshot. The first thing they

want to do is to go and make sure their kids are home and safe. You

know, that’s a terrible way to live. By the way, let me assure you that

Surrey doesn’t have shootings going on all the time. It’s not just

Surrey. It’s Burnaby. It’s Vancouver. It’s Abbotsford. It’s

Kelowna.

We hear about it right across the….Whether you live in Nanaimo,

whether you live in Victoria or whether you live in Surrey, no parent

wants to get that phone call that says that your child has been hurt or

fatally shot. No parent wants to get a phone call to say that their

child or their youngster was the person who was holding the gun or who

was suspected of holding the gun.

The community has been looking, in Surrey especially, for some

very, very specific supports. We’ve put additional moneys into the

schools to prevent — to help young people get out of gangs. But police

were also telling us that they needed some tools. They needed some tools

in order to intercept and then to enforce. One of the things that

surprised me was that schools could make decisions about not having guns

on the school site, but if it was a legally held gun, there was very

little recourse for the police after that. Then parents would be

wondering: “Well, why…? What’s happened here? A kid at school, or an

adult, had a gun, and it’s okay?”

We just heard the Solicitor General talking about an incident at a

hospital. Also, we hear — we’re all oversensitized, and we need to be —

about violence in our communities. I think horrific incidents in places

of worship have also alerted us to the fact that we need to make sure

that legislation is in place and then enforcement, so that the police

can actually take action against people who are taking guns into places

that they should not be taking them into.

[3:05 p.m.]

Part of this legislation also will penalize those who transport

illegal firearms. That seems to be common sense to me, and as I would

say, it passes the nod test. Of course, if they’re illegal firearms,

those who transport should be punished and penalized as well. It also

will allow the impounding of vehicles which are used to transport

illegal firearms or to flee police.

I’ve been amazed, when I did one of the tours that I got to do

during my last term, to find out the kind of alterations that happen to

cars in order to conceal the carriage of weapons and other illicit

materials — you know, making your car almost like an armoury. Well, if

you’re doing that, then that should send out an alarm, and now the

police will have some tools to find out why somebody is going through

getting those alterations done in their cars and be able to prevent

that.

It also, in here, talks about toy guns or imitation guns. We’re

not talking about the ones little, little kids play with — or maybe, in

some cases, we may be. But we have heard over and over again of horrific

incidents where the police have absolutely believed that the imitation

gun was actually a real gun, with dire, dire consequences, and we want

to be able to avoid that. So there is very strong language in here to

stop the sale of imitation and low-velocity guns to youth and also make

it illegal for youth to fire or display these weapons anywhere

provincial, federal, First Nations or municipal law prohibits

discharging firearms.

Sometimes when we think of firearms, or when I thought of firearms

in cities, I thought of handguns. Once again, when I went on a tour of

one of our facilities, I actually looked at some of the weapons that had

been seized by the RCMP — or by the police, I should say — because it

happened from right across the province. Looking at the kind of

artillery that was gathered there, you almost felt it was in a war zone.

Those are the kinds of weapons you would expect to see in a war zone —

what happened to the long guns that had been sawed off, and they’ve been

then sort of accelerated in order to shoot in very, very lethal

ways.

It was very, very disturbing to see that and to know that those

are not uncommon on our streets and in the hands of people in our cities

and in our communities around the province. I’m very, very concerned

about that, and I’m really happy that this will also help to tackle some

of those issues.

Now, I don’t want parents to think that they can never buy their

kids a toy gun, though, personally, I did not, and many parents do not.

But they’re looking at guns that have been altered. That’s what they’re

looking at — that have then been amplified to be used as weapons. That’s

very, very important.

Also, I can remember a project, as I’m talking about this, that I

thought was rather beautiful that was carried out by the teachers at the

B.C. Teachers Federation, led by a wonderful woman called Susan Ruzic.

What she did was this art project — and it was led out, and they got

funding for it — where people gave their guns, and out of those weapons

were created works of art. I went around and saw some of those. This was

kids bringing in their toy guns into school and then the class making

amazing art out of it. I thought what a wonderful project, and what a

wonderful way to teach about peace.

[3:10 p.m.]

I also want to assure folks out there that this is not about

attacking those who need to hold guns legitimately in our rural

communities. It is not about going after those. I know that there are

hunters who will have licences and hold guns. This is not about those.

This is not about those who live in remote communities and have licensed

guns for protection as well as for hunting.

I think it’s really, really important. This is not like…. I know

that it’s a very emotional issue. I was in Ottawa when it was a very

intense debate around this issue. So I had a lot of, when this

legislation was coming forward…. I wanted to see that it wouldn’t impact

our rural communities in a negative way.

On the other hand, I think that more and more of us, as we’re

seeing the increase of gun violence…. We saw what happened in Nova

Scotia, we’ve seen what’s happened in religious places, and we see

what’s happened in our streets. You know what? We’re thinking yes, let’s

give the RCMP the tools they need, because when they have the tools they

need, then they can enforce the laws that exist. I think that is very,

very important.

I want to read out a quote. This quote is given out by Dwayne

McDonald. He’s the assistant commissioner, B.C. RCMP criminal operations

— Federal Investigative Services and Organized Crime. What a lengthy

title, but important work. This is what he had to say. “These

recommendations targeting illegal and imitation firearms will provide

police with the necessary tools to advance investigations and combat gun

violence in our communities. Denying criminals access to these weapons,

as well as further regulating armoured vehicles, body armour and

after-market compartments, are key steps in enhancing public

safety.”

When I read this, I kept thinking: I’m surprised all of this

didn’t exist before. I just assumed it would have, because if you’ve got

illegal firearms, surely we had enforcement measures in place, but we

did not. Once again, this does not target your legitimate hunter who has

a licence and uses it to go hunting or lives in a rural community. The

Illegal Firearms Task Force report was very, very specific. This is part

of their recommendations.

I also want to say, as I said a little bit earlier, that this

isn’t going to solve, in total, the problems we have out in our

communities and streets. But this is part of a process to suppress gang

activity, including strengthening coordination and information-sharing

across the justice sector. We’ve done that, too, using laws and

regulations in new ways. Really, what we’re looking at is disruption,

because if you can disrupt gang activity and have that cooling-off

period in there, it can actually go a long way to reducing the number of

guns and illegal activities out on our streets.

We have a lot more work to do in this area. I’ve always said what

we need is a multifaceted approach. What we need is education, early

intervention and enforcement. Then, of course, with enforcement also

comes…. There is always the punishment side of it, with the sentencing

that happens, whether it’s fines or other kinds of sentences. But after

that must come fully supported rehabilitation.

At this time, I also do want to give a shout-out to the group of

people who work very hard in our communities to help young people get

out of the gang life that they might have walked into, either

accidentally or very naively, thinking they could go in and come out

very easily. Teams led by people like Jag Khosa in Surrey and Abbotsford

and in that region…. I know that after parents have contacted me, I’ve

called his unit a number of times and they’ve immediately connected with

the family, talked to the young person and seen what kind of

interventions they could put in place.

[3:15 p.m.]

Those kinds of issues are very, very important, and making sure

those programs continue to be funded is very important as well. It’s not

only about prevention and punishment. It also has to be a lot about

rehabilitation.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that living in Surrey, there are

very few families that you would come across who have not been impacted

directly by gun violence in their extended family or in their friendship

circles or in their neighbourhoods. When they come and sit in your

office after yet another shooting, and you are talking to them and

listening to them, they just cannot understand why we can all not do

better and do more.

As I say, it’s not just the responsibility of the RCMP or the

police or different levels of government or our communities. It’s all of

us working together, because at the end of the day, nothing is as

important as keeping our kids safe. Right now, I would say there are

many, many parents who are not feeling safe and who are also feeling

that their kids are not being looked after.

Some people will also raise the issue, like: “Why are you guys

getting into this? This is not your jurisdiction.” Well, there is

federal jurisdiction. There is provincial jurisdiction over different

things. This legislation is definitely the purview of our province.

That’s why this legislation is coming forward, and it does not go

against the recent announcements from the federal government. This is

not a response to Bill C-21. This is a made-in-B.C. approach. I would

say, even though we’ve learned from other jurisdictions, that other

jurisdictions will be looking at us after this is passed and saying that

this is leading in trying to address gun violence and the kind of fear

that is out there in our communities.

More than that, it’s about giving tools to our police officers but

also to our legal system so that once somebody is apprehended with a gun

that they should not have, then there are enforcement measures in place.

I realize that this is also going to have quite an impact on people who

may not realize that their car was being used for illegal activity. So

now, when a car gets impounded, they’re going to find out soon enough.

Also, I do know that car rental companies will be impacted as

well.

All of this was taken into consideration. It’s about cutting off,

doing a disruption, making sure that those who have illegal weapons…. We

have additional tools so that we can police and enforce and also make

sure that people do know that there are serious consequences when you do

keep breaking the law over and over again, and that we are not going to

be tolerating gun violence in our streets to the extent it has been

happening.

This legislation is, as I said earlier, going to have quite an

impact, I would say, on those who are at the low level, and it also

brings right into it kids or young people who are being used as conduits

to convey drugs. Often, if they’re doing that, they may have a weapon on

them as well. Now that we’re actually looking at the vehicles and being

able to reinforce a lot of what we couldn’t reinforce before, where the

vehicle was concerned, it actually will make it very, very much easier

for us.

firearms regulations and controlling the Firearms Act and the criminal

use of firearms in the Criminal Code. That’s their jurisdiction. The

province has jurisdiction over firearms with regard to public safety. I

really want to stress that. It’s in regard to public safety and law

enforcement, and the use of firearms while hunting is in the Wildlife

Act.

[3:20 p.m.]

One of the questions that I have already asked previously, when I

was looking at this legislation, was a concern around shooting ranges,

because I know they’re very, very popular in the Lower Mainland. They

are very popular, I’m sure, all over the province. There are different

kinds of shooting ranges. There are those where my kids used to go.

These are some of the kids I taught in Nanaimo. They would get on the

ferry so they could come over to the Lower Mainland and do paintballing.

You need to know that that group was consulted as well. So the

consultation was wide and deep.

I think some regulation of the shooting ranges…. It’s not

extraordinary. It’s like keeping a record. Do we really want those who

have ill intent to be able to go to the shooting ranges and practise

before they come out and may use those weapons in real life on our

streets? My response would be absolutely not.

Once again, this is not meant to interfere with or intervene with

anybody who has a legitimate desire, because of hunting or because of

marksmanship, of going to these ranges. But once again, there will be

records kept. Those records will inform us, and very, very quickly those

authorities in charge can begin to look at patterns of what is happening

and make sure that they do address that.

How is this legislation going to make British Columbians safer? I

would say that legislation sitting on paper, any legislation, does not

make anybody safer. What is going to make people safer is that now the

RCMP and our other police forces in B.C. are going to have the tools

they need. They are going to take these tools. They’re going to take

these tools into the streets to disrupt the gang activity that does

exist. I don’t think anybody on either side of the House is going to

deny that.

I was really, really happy to see my friend the opposition critic

speaking in support of this. I know from my conversations with him in

the past that he cares very, very deeply about building safe

communities. I give him kudos for the task force that they put in place.

I’m so happy that we have taken those and that it just didn’t remain

recommendations on paper, that we’ve actually taken those

recommendations and we’re moving forward with implementation.

There are some of you who are going to want to learn more about

this. If you want to learn more about firearms and the federal

legislation, I would encourage you to go to the website. Nowadays, all

of us have a lot of time, and we are spending it either on Zoom or

Teams, or we have time at hand.

Non-restricted firearms. This is the question, while I’m speaking

to you, that came into my mind again. Those are hunting rifles, okay? As

I said previously — and I cannot stress this enough, maybe because I

need to stress this enough because of my previous experience with this

conversation — they are not subject to the same possession and

transportation restrictions, while imitation firearms and low-velocity

firearms are largely unregulated right now.

We have to make sure that our schools, our hospitals, our places

of worship are safe. In my riding, I really would like to get to the

stage when I can go a couple of weeks without getting a phone call about

another shooting, either in our city of Surrey or nearby us in

Abbotsford or in Burnaby or in Vancouver.

I’m a mother and a grandmother, and many of you know that I’m a

great-grandmother as well. That’s not the kind of world I want for my

kids. I want our kids to be able to go out and play in the streets. I

want to be able to go into my own backyard.

[3:25 p.m.]

I can still remember — and this was three years ago — lying in bed

in my house in Surrey-Panorama and the ricochet of gunfire waking me up

as the house behind us was targeted. I can tell you, as much as I knew a

lot about this and had talked to people who had been impacted by this

personally so many times, the heart palpitations and that fear you

have…. I remember, still, running immediately into my mother’s bedroom

to see that 93-year-old to make sure that she hadn’t heard, and if she

had heard, that she had someone there to talk to.

Then the next day to find out that somebody was fatally shot in

that house — it was quite something and, I can tell you, very scary for

the whole neighbourhood. Not for one moment did anybody in that

subdivision, in that area of homes, think that they were going to be hit

in their own community by a ricochet of guns being shot into a house

from the outside. If having legislation like this will ensure that there

is a disruption, there is more enforcement, there is more punishment,

then — you know something? — we are all on the right path.

I know I have very little time left. So before I do finish

speaking, I do want to do…. Sometimes those who serve us go through a

lot of personal stuff that happens in their lives. They have deaths.

They have to deal with trauma, just as much as anybody else.

Right now I do want to take a moment to acknowledge Jag Khosa, who

worked so tirelessly to get our kids out of gangs and everything. His

father, Sirhind Singh Khosa, passed away at the age of 86, an amazing

man who lived through the partition of India — born in Pakistan, moved

over to India, where he grew up from the age of nine, then came to

Canada and built an amazing life for his kids here.

One of the things he taught his kids was life gives you a lot, and

you give back. When I look at his grandchildren, who are engaged in

social activism in different ways, or look at the work that his children

are doing, I’m sure he would be proud of them.

Once again to our police officers, everywhere in every corner of

the province, we thank you, because we know every day you fight to keep

us safe. You are on the front lines. You go out every day, with your

families worried about you, not knowing what that day will hold for you.

What you need to know is that each and every one of us in this

Legislature appreciates every single thing you do. Thank you for keeping

our communities safe and for the work you do.

E. Ross: It is a pleasure to speak to Bill 4, which has got to do with

firearms. I’ve been listening to the conversation here today from both

sides of the House, and I have to agree, mainly about what we have to do

about the unlawful use or transportation of firearms. I understand the

difficulties that people are facing in terms of violence in certain

parts of B.C. in relation to gangs. But this bill goes beyond

that.

This was in consideration going as far back as 2016. It was under

the task force that was commissioned by Premier Christy Clark. It

actually started the ball rolling on this, on what we’re talking about

today. It was important back then, and I think it’s even more important

today. This was also followed up by the work done by former

Surrey-Cloverdale MLA Marvin Hunt.

[3:30 p.m.]

Basically what all of these initiatives were trying to do was to

replace the existing Firearms Act and give tools to the police force to

actually help combat gang activity, as well as combat the unlawful use

and transportation of firearms.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

It’s a pretty interesting story, actually, because my background

comes from being around firearms, right from a young age. By the way,

when we’re talking about…. We’re not talking specifically about gangs in

my riding. But I do know there’s gang activity in places like Williams

Lake, for example, so this is not just Vancouver or Surrey or places

like that. It’s not just a problem there. It’s spotted around different

parts of rural B.C. as well.

Getting away from the specifics of this bill, we also have

problems of unlawful use of a firearm, overall, up in our area. I know

this bill is not intended to go after that specific activity, but it

does exist. It’s hard to describe what can happen in a small community

when a registered gun is used for an unlawful activity. It’s quite

scary. I’ve heard the previous member talk about how scary it was to

wake up to the ricochet of bullets. I don’t think it matters where

you’re from, whether you’re in Surrey or up in our riding or northern.

If you find unlawful use of a gun close to you, like somebody coming

into your backyard and shooting your dog, that is scary. But that is not

what we’re talking about here today.

I really commend all those people on the task force, as well as

the government staff and all of those people that picked up the ball

from the task force that was developed in 2016, as well as followed up

on the work of former Surrey-Cloverdale MLA Marvin Hunt and actually got

this bill here today.

I did tell you that I do have different perspectives on this,

based on where I come from. But you know what? We’re in B.C., and in

B.C., many of our community members live, work and play in the bush, and

we know what it means to be responsible gun owners. First Nations as

well. We know what that means.

More importantly, we know the importance of handling firearms

safely. But there’s a bit of a difference here, because as we all know,

on-reserve rules are not the same as off-reserve rules, meaning

provincial Crown land. On-reserve activities are actually mandated under

the federal government, which kind of gives a bit of a grey area when

we’re talking about these types of laws coming down. That goes for gun

registry. That goes for gun ownership.

For the most part, Aboriginal gun owners who have the right for

hunting and whatnot are responsible gun owners and voluntarily

participate in the programs that are out there aimed at safe handling,

safe transportation and safe, secured locations for their firearms. But

it’s quite uncertain in terms of the rules.

I wasn’t quite sure myself, but I understood, based on the

teaching that I had from my dad, that there had to be a way to get rid

of unlawful guns and promote the safe use of firearms. There had to be a

way. In fact, I convinced my father to voluntarily participate in the

firearms amnesty program, to give up all of those firearms we

accumulated over the last 60 years from all over the coast and just turn

them in to the RCMP. We weren’t sure whether or we had to or not, but we

knew it was the right thing to do. We just didn’t want those firearms

falling into the wrong hands.

Then we started to read more about the registry and the training

and the licensing. Voluntarily, we decided to participate. I know many

First Nations who do this voluntarily and also go for the training and

learn how not only to handle firearms safely but also to transport

firearms safely and securely.

[3:35 p.m.]

I don’t really see any reference in this bill to anything related

to First Nations and understanding what First Nations are requesting

when it comes to either ownership or transportation or what this bill is

about. It would be helpful if First Nations understood how far this

extends, because we do have that line of federal jurisdiction versus

provincial jurisdiction.

I’m sure that at some point, the Aboriginal community was

consulted. They must have been. The right to hunt is an Aboriginal right

protected by the Constitution of Canada. So I’m sure the government took

this into consideration and will include, somehow, that consultation and

provide some direction for those First Nations who both live on reserve,

which is not the province’s jurisdiction…. But there are a lot of First

Nations who live off reserve that will be questioning what this really

means.

In the same breath, we also have to acknowledge that this is

actually related to gang activity, but there is First Nation gang

activity in places like Williams Lake. I think this type of legislation

crosses all boundaries. It crosses all jurisdictions in terms of what

we’re trying to achieve here. I hope the government actually can show

their consultation with First Nations communities, as outlined in their

own UNDRIP bill — the promise to consult on every bill and every

legislation that comes through the House. Firearms are connected to

Aboriginal rights and title, because it’s the right to hunt. I haven’t

seen it, but I’ll read through it again, and then I’ll double-check,

just in case I missed it.

My own experience with firearms goes back to when I was a kid.

Even before I was ten years old, I was taught how to operate a firearm.

But like many of my colleagues here, I didn’t go to school for it. I

didn’t go to an RCMP course. I was taught by my dad. The teaching that

he taught me wasn’t very fun. It wasn’t that really touching father-son

moment, where we’re connecting. It wasn’t like that. It was a really

serious teaching lesson, as a young kid.

I’m sure many people went through the same thing. They had to go

through the motions of making sure the firearm was empty, making sure

the gun was always pointed up, making sure you always checked the safety

mechanisms, making sure you always put it away again — look after it —

making sure the rust doesn’t accumulate. Then after I went through the

teaching, I had to do it again and again and again. It was serious

business.

My brothers went through the same thing. There was no laughing.

There was no joking. By the way, First Nations love to laugh and joke.

But my dad took this really seriously, and my brothers took it really

seriously. The point being was basically: “Look, you’re going to have to

come out and help us hunt. Sooner or later, you’re going to have to

learn, and you’re going to have to do this safely, because none of us

want to get shot.” It wasn’t a joke when we were talking about

firearms.

Today we still do it, but it’s more formalized. You go to a

firearms course, and you learn all this — and more, by the way. You

learn more in that, as well, you start to learn about the regulations

and the laws about owning a firearm as well as storing firearms. Now I

see the province has picked up part of the jurisdiction in terms of

transporting it, which will actually help RCMP combat gang violence more

effectively, which is not just an urban issue. It’s rural. There are

parts of B.C. that deal with this type of violence as well, so it

actually helps a lot of different people around B.C. feel a lot

safer.

For those people that were working on this back in 2016, I’m sure

they had that in mind. My colleague Marvin Hunt, previous MLA — I’m sure

he had this in mind. So the continuation of the work here is

commendable. I’m just hoping that the full consultation was

done.

[3:40 p.m.]

Another experience I had growing up, as a young man, was taking

the formal training to operate a firearm and store it. It was under RCMP

training, of course, but it was for my work. I worked for Department of

Fisheries and Oceans. It was for protection. It’s actually a huge need

up in the area where I come from, because you never know. In my

territory, there are grizzly bears, black bears, moose, deer, cougars.

You name it; we’ve got it. An angry moose could take you out just as

quick as an angry black bear or angry grizzly bear, which actually

happens quite often. Not as often as back in the old days, but pretty

traumatic.

The point being I understand that there are lawful gun owners,

firearms owners, out there that want to go to the firing range, for

instance. Perfectly acceptable. Follow the laws. Follow the new law that

will be created here. But there are other uses for firearms that we have

to consider as well: First Nations’ right to hunt, as well as those who

have to work in the bush, because you just can’t predict what’s going to

happen out there in the bush. Things you face out there are not tame.

I’ve had the last 45 years plus to learn that firsthand.

But it’s all based on the idea of owning firearms in a safe manner

and a lawful manner. The world we’re moving into, it seems, is actually

requiring more laws just to keep our people, our citizens, safe here in

B.C. But the grey areas are where I see a gap here in terms of First

Nations. The clarification of the bill, in that respect, would be

helpful.

When we’re talking about that…. I was talking about myself as

basically a civil servant. I worked for the Department of Fisheries and

Oceans, going into streams and rivers counting salmon, where absolutely

you’re going to see a grizzly, going to see a moose, and you are going

to see a black bear. So in that respect, civil servants do need some

type of fallback or protection, just in case.

There are other civil servants that need firearms as well, and

this bill is not talking about that. But I think it’s important to

clarify exactly what we’re talking about and exactly what we’re not

talking about, because firearms are part of our society. I mean, in some

cases there are some civil servants — especially in today’s day and age

with all of the stress, all of the anxiety — that are going into really

sensitive situations. In some of those situations, these civil servants

have to think about whether or not there’s going to be a firearm that

will be used.

It’s not fun, trying to guess whether or not there’s a firearm in

a certain location and that the civil servant might be required to carry

a firearm. But some civil servants might not. Some civil servants are

not required to carry firearms. So I can see what they were thinking

back in 2016 to try and make it safer not only for the citizens of B.C.

but also make it safer for civil servants to go out there and do their

jobs safely and return home safely that night. I know it’s not 100

percent foolproof. Nothing ever is. But this is a step in the right

direction.

I want to make this clear. We’re talking more about the unlawful

use of firearms and the unlawful transportation of firearms and this

basically being the tool to combat gang violence, no matter where it is.

I hope I’ve described that clearly, because there are a lot of lawful

gun owners that go above and beyond what’s mandated by regulation or

laws. There are a lot of them, and a lot of them will applaud this when

they see how specific it is. There are a lot of people that, whether

you’re doing it for hunting or for your job or doing it just for

recreation and going to the firing range…. By the way, I understand that

this legislation does touch on the ability to go participate in the

firing range, which is good.

[3:45 p.m.]

But I think it’s important to understand that at the very high

level, at least, people understand what we’re talking about here.

Because Bill 4 mainly will penalize drivers who transport illegal

firearms. Bill 4 will authorize the impoundment of vehicles used to

transport illegal firearms or flee police. This was also included in MLA

Marvin Hunt’s 2019 private member’s bill, which unfortunately didn’t

make it to debate. Bill 4 will prohibit people from having real or

imitation firearms in specific locations where these objects would not

have a legitimate purpose, including schools and hospitals.

If you read about this and you see it on the news, the replicas

are so real. They’re so realistic. They could be toys. They could be

squirt guns. They could be the pellet guns for that new sport that

they’ve got. But the RCMP have no idea. You can’t tell. Say it’s dimly

lit or it’s raining. It’s hard to tell whether or not this is a real gun

or not, and it’s a really unsafe position to be put in, let alone

whether or not they’re carrying a knife or something.

That’s what this bill was attempting to achieve. It wasn’t

attempting to achieve to outlaw squirt guns. But maybe later on we could

talk more about the standards of what goes into a toy gun and do

something to make it signal that it’s just a toy. I’ve always disagreed

with the idea of making a toy so realistic that it looks like it’s made

of steel and it looks like it’s got all the features. There’s got to be

something that we can legislate that shows this is not a gun, because

those people are going out there to do that, the public service, on our

behalf, and it’s hard for them to decide, in the matter of a few

seconds, whether it’s a toy or not. I think this is a good start to

making that differentiation.

Bill 4 will prohibit the sale of imitation and low-velocity

firearms to youth. This kind of ties back into the previous point. We’ve

got to be sure that the parents understand what this young person is

doing when they buy an imitation firearm — that it looks so realistic

that there might be some confusion. At the very least, I agree with

this, that parents should know what’s going on with what their children

are buying. Thank you to the task force of 2016 and Marvin Hunt for

that.

Curtail gang members’ use of shooting ranges. Yes, and really make

the legislation be the buffer between the owner of the firing range and

the person wanting to use the firing range, instead of just leaving it

up to the owner of the establishment to make that call on their own.

It’s not fair. Now the business owner can say: “Well, it’s the law. I’m

sorry.” It’s in the same vein as going to buy alcohol. You’ve got to

produce identification. You’ve got to show proof that you are a lawful

gun owner.

Thank you to all the task force for this, and thank you to Marvin

Hunt. I have always spoken to this. Protect social workers and health

professionals from civil liability, and expand existing laws concerning

armoured vehicles, body armour and after-market compartments, which

criminals often install in their vehicles to hide and transport illegal

firearms and drugs.

This is just a broad overview of the bill. I know there’s going to

be more debate about this and more to be said. But again, our primary

interest here as a caucus is to give law enforcement the tools necessary

to make our communities safer all across B.C. and a better place to

raise our families. That’s why I supported this back when my colleague

Marvin Hunt proposed this as a private member’s bill in 2019. I’m

looking forward to reviewing this more and listening to the other people

get up and speak to this bill.

For all the reasons I’ve outlined, I intend to fully support Bill

4 once we’ve had a chance to examine this legislation at committee stage

and, as well, find out where the Aboriginal gun owner falls into this

legislation.

[3:50 p.m.]

S. Chant: I appreciate this opportunity to speak to the group on this very,

very, very important topic.

I am speaking to you from the unceded territories of the Musqueam,

Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations, and I am very grateful to be able

to live, play and learn on these lands.

Like the previous speaker, I have a take on weapons that has been

part of me for years and years and years. As far back as I can remember,

my mom…. When I was age four, my brother came home from the fish boats.

He worked on the fish boats as a teenager. He came home from the boats,

and he brought a rifle into the house. My mom said: “Get that thing out

of here. We will not have weapons in this house, because our impulse

control is not good enough that we won’t shoot each other instead of

yelling at each other.” Now, she spoke in jest, but she also later spoke

in truth, because our family fought hard and yelled hard, and if there

was an available weapon, it might get used, and she was not going to put

her family at that risk.

I come to you as a family member. I come to you as a health care

provider. I come to you as a member of the military for over 40 years. I

also come to you as a family member who has a policeman in the family.

My nephew by marriage is a police officer, and he has been working with

various specialty teams around weapons and weapons management for many

years. We are grateful to all of the people in our public environment

that try and hold our public safety as high as possible.

A long time ago, when I was working in psychiatric nursing, we

used to get clients coming in, brought in the door of our locked unit,

and the first thing we would say to them is: “Okay, any weapons you’ve

got, put ‘em on the counter.” I was one of the biggest of the nurses in

that group — and we were all females — but that was a question we had to

ask: “Give us your weapons. Put them on the counter so that we can make

sure that you are safe, that we are safe and that other clients in this

area are safe.” That’s been part of our history for many, many years. As

health care providers, we always have to be aware of weapons.

Current day. When my colleagues in home care are going out, before

we go, we do a risk screen over the phone with the clients, or with the

clients’ care providers, asking: “Do you have any weapons in the house?

If you have weapons in the house, how are they stored? Are they stored

properly?” “The weapons are here. The ammunition is there. Everything’s

locked up.”

In the event one of our care providers or our clinicians gets into

the home and discovers a weapon, we’re in a quandary because,

technically, confidentiality says we’re not supposed to tell anybody

about that weapon, yet there is a potential for danger, for danger to

people who are going into homes to provide service. Whether it’s

palliation, whether it’s home support, whether it’s anything else, we

need to always have these gun laws.

Again, as previous speakers have said, we’re not trying to

penalize or punish or consequence people who know the gun laws, follow

them and use their weapons safely. That’s not the intent here. The

intent here is to give some recourse to working with our increasing

danger that comes from gangs or from illegal use of weapons in a variety

of ways.

It isn’t just gangs that illegally use weapons. It’s other people

that perhaps feel they are unable, for whatever reasons, to get their

point across or show that they have an authority. So they bring a weapon

along to give them authority. They may not be planning to use it, but

they want to be able to brandish it because that’s what they’ve seen on

TV, and that gives them power. Sometimes that is a very dangerous

power.

As has been expressed, it is very difficult to tell between a real

weapon and a fake weapon or an imitation weapon, and that person can be

dealt with very, very hard, very, very fast, to the point of being hurt,

because nobody knows and people have to act swiftly to allay the

danger.

A little more recently I was in our own Safeway. This was a couple

of years ago. I’m in Safeway. I’m puttering around doing my grocery

shopping, and all of a sudden there’s a commotion.

[3:55 p.m.]

Of course, like a good person that I am, I went towards the

commotion instead of away from it, because that’s what nurses do. And

there was somebody wandering around in Safeway, behaving erratically,

with something in their pocket. That is very scary. Don’t know quite

what it is; see a little bit of it.

At the moment, it’s being managed by Safeway. Then in come the

next level. The police are called. They come in. They corral the person.

The person is clearly not in full capacity of what we will call normal

behaviour, or whatever. All of a sudden, that person ends up tasered.

They did not have a weapon on them, but they were behaving very

erratically. If a weapon had been shown, there would have been a much

more vigorous response as well. It frightened me.

It frightened me that we didn’t have the opportunity to say: “Hey,

what’s going on here? What can we do?” However, I knew that the people

who were doing their job were doing their job to protect all of us.

Because they had to. Because they didn’t have recourse to do something

different.

Risk…. People who follow the rules, who store their weapons

properly, who transport them properly, who purchase and sell them

properly — not a problem. Not a problem. However, we have a whole group

of people who don’t do things properly. They do things in a way to

intimidate others, to frighten others, to hurt others and to kill

others. We have the evidence of that. All you need to do is look through

the newspapers.

It’s not just in British Columbia. It’s throughout Canada. It’s

also in the rest of the world. We know this, and we have a

responsibility to try our best to set something in place so that we have

the opportunity not only to say, “Okay, we’re going to curtail this,”

but we also have the potential to consequence it, and we have the tools

for our public officers to safely and effectively deal with illegal use

of weapons.

I’ve had the opportunity, as a parent, to support a young lady who

was living with us for the time being, who is of Indigenous background,

and who wanted to do her firearms safety because that was really

important to her. Absolutely. Signed the papers. Give her the

opportunity. Let’s get it done. The more people know about how to handle

a weapon safely, the better off they are and the more likely they are to

see when somebody isn’t doing it properly and speak to it.

I’ve had Girl Guides out on a firing range. It was a spectacular

day using .22s and learning totally new stuff for a lot of them. I’ve

been on a firing range many, many times myself. Always learning. Always

redoing the safety protocols. Always making sure that we’re doing things

in a way that’s appropriate.

These people are not the ones we worry about. The people we worry

about are the ones that are doing illegal things with weapons that

they’ve either garnered illegally, or they have purchased them

effectively but they’re doing the wrong thing with them.

Gun violence impacts innocent people, as we already heard. A

ricochet can kill. A ricochet can make a permanent impact on somebody by

disabling them, by making it so that their life has changed in a

heartbeat. I was in a place where Corporal Cirillo was killed in Ottawa.

I was with my unit at that very point when we got the news. He was on

the cenotaph. He was doing guard duty on the cenotaph, and he was

killed, because he was wearing a uniform, by somebody who had a weapon

they never should have had.

Survivors. Survivors of weapons incidents are traumatized forever.

Whether a child has been injured, whether it’s an adult, whatever.

Anybody who survives a gun incident — they are permanently traumatized.

I have some stories I could tell about clients I’ve worked with.

However, I’m not going to tell those stories, because it’s about

clients, and I’m a nurse.

[4:00 p.m.]

Mental health clients. They’re at terrible risk already. They’re

terribly vulnerable. People get frightened when people act abnormally —

when they shout, when they cry out, when they gesticulate madly because

something is going on in their head that we don’t understand. You add a

weapon to that, and they are at huge risk. We know of this. We all know

this. Again, these gun violence mechanisms will allow us to deal with

that — maybe more safely, maybe more effectively.

Our police have to be able to respond quickly and decisively to

protect public safety. So the more we reduce the imitation weapons out

there, and the more we reduce illegal weapons out there, the more

effective our police can be in managing public safety. The police are

accountable. They’re accountable to their training, and they’re

accountable to their rules of engagement, as it were. They’re

accountable to that. If we can’t give them effective tools, then they

are restricted by those things as well. We have seen the effect of some

of those restrictions sometimes.

Now we are giving them more effective tools. We’re not seeking to

penalize or restrict the people who are using firearms in a way that

reflects responsibility for public safety and use those weapons…. And I

call them weapons. They are weapons. If you want to use them for what

they were legitimately purposed, please go ahead and do that. Transport

them effectively, store them effectively, and as pointed out by the last

speaker, maintain them effectively so that they continue to be safe.

Because as a weapon, as a gun, they are safe until they are fired. If

you fire them safely, they’re still safe. However, there is always the

potential to fire them unsafely.

This act leads us to enhancing general safety of the people of

B.C. What is not to like about that? By giving increased capacity to our

public safety officers to respond, to enforce and consequence the

illegal use of firearms — or poor transportation, as has been pointed

out several times, and handling and storage — we are giving them the

tools to help us in our public safety goals.

When I had small children — which is quite a while ago; I do have

to say that — my husband and I…. My husband is ex-navy. We had a myriad

of safety plans.

What are we going to do if we lose the kids? What are we going to

do if we lose the dog? What are going to do if we lose the kids and the

dog? What are we going to do if one of us gets sick or injured while

we’re out on a camping trip? What are we going to do when our kids are

in school and we’re at work and we’re separated by a body of water and a

bridge comes down? What are we going to do when our kids start getting

into relationships? How do we help keep them safe?

These are all things that every parent, or that all parents,

encounter in a variety of ways — their own spectrum of concerns. At some

point, while my kids were relatively small, all of a sudden we had to

start thinking about what are we going to do if we’re in a place where

there is an active shooter? What do we do? What do we do to preserve our

own safety? What do we do to preserve the safety of our kids? What do we

do as health care providers, as ex- and current military? What is our

role in the event that something happens while we are there?

Of course, the police will say to me every time: “Suse, just get

out of the way, get yourself safe, and don’t do anything.” Of course, my

thing is a little different than that sometimes. However, as a parent,

having to make an active shooter plan — what is that? Why would we have

to do that? But we do now. We do now, and we did then. My kids’ school

had lockdown plans that they practised in case there was an active

shooter in the school.

I’ve just had the opportunity — and I’ll do a brief shout-out — to

tour a brand-new school in my riding, Argyle, which just opened in

December after being completely rebuilt to meet safety and seismic

things. I’ve just been on a tour through there. They have lockdown plans

in the event of an active shooter in school.

[4:05 p.m.]

This says to me that this bill is critical and that it’s needed to

move through, that it’s needed to give our public safety officials the

opportunity, the tools and the mechanisms to safely protect our folks

from folks who are using weapons illegally.

Now I get the opportunity, in an amazing way, to say thank you to

the people that have worked on this bill and brought it forward; to say

thank you to all the stakeholders who have put their input in, talked

about this and worked on this; to say thank you to our Minister of

Public Safety for the work that they’ve done in bringing this bill

forward — and to his predecessors. I believe that this is very, very

important to our community, and I believe that it will create a great

difference.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to speak to the

assembly.

B. Stewart: It’s an honour to be here again in the Legislature speaking in

person and speaking about Bill 4. From the very personal stories that

members have shared in this House about their communities, the impacts

of gangs and violence, and all of the things that go with that, I think

that at the end of this, there is broad support for improvements to

empower our peace officers to being able to do the right thing and being

able to get to the bottom of this.

I rise today because of a couple of things. This is a problem that

didn’t just start last year and that didn’t start five years ago. When I

first was elected in 2009, I remember the Solicitor General of the day

was the head of, and had previously been involved in, the gang task

force. We heard a lot about it. I do think we really do need to address

it and make certain all of the tools that are there, and needed, are in

the hands of the people that are confronted with these people — whether

it’s just roadside safety checks or vehicles that are in places that,

perhaps, they question as to why they should be there.

I know that that has probably also led to some of the changes

requested by the municipality of Surrey in terms of moving ahead with

its own police force. I think they’re frustrated by the fact that every

week they appear to have issues, and I just wanted to tell them that we

empathize. It bothers me more…. It doesn’t mean that they’re happening

in every community, but it has happened in our community. It was in

August of 2011 that we had the gang-related shooting of Jonathan Bacon.

The story on that is that three people were convicted, and there was a

young lady that was paralyzed.

The whole problem was, as former mayor Sharon Shepherd said

recently, the fact that the city knew, the RCMP knew, that the gangs had

infiltrated and moved into the city of Kelowna and, I’m sure, many other

communities. I heard earlier about the fact that Williams Lake…. And

I’ve heard stories from my former colleague, the member for

Cariboo-Chilcotin, about the issues up there. I do hope that the things

that the peace officers are asking for have been properly addressed in

Bill 4.

I do also want to congratulate the Solicitor General on the fact

that he’s brought forward a bill that somewhat has similarities to what

former MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale, Marvin Hunt, had brought forward a

couple of years ago, and to see that we’ve moved ahead on this. What I

do think is important is that there is a degree of

consultation.

[4:10 p.m.]

We heard from the member for Stikine about the issues with

firearms that transcend provincial rules and are in both federal

jurisdiction and provincial jurisdiction. How do we work with the whole

issue about consulting and bringing people on side to make certain that

communities are safer?

I know that this legislation is going to bring forward people that

are in the legitimate category of hunters, trappers and things like

that, that carry weapons for all of the reasons that the member for

Stikine cited, whether it’s grizzly bears, cougars, moose or any of

these other wild creatures. Having lived in the Stikine for a period of

time, I know I’ve had my share of scares in the bush without

firearms.

I’ve also spent a good deal of time walking and seeing the

province as a registered hunter. I have to say that it is important that

rifles be transported properly, that they follow all of the principles,

etc. That group doesn’t get to opt out of that. They need to follow the

rules so that there is safety in terms of other hunters and themselves

and passengers and things like that.

I do think that consultation, bringing people along as to why Bill

4 is