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 advertising. With the various social media platforms, it’s important to 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 necessarily be influenced, whether it’s social media or paid advertising 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 we have access to more information daily. We sit on social media. We get 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 algorithm on social media, which I don’t think is where we get our 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 2021.

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.

Now, the government of Canada has jurisdiction over national 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 coming forward,. is really important. I’m quite certain that the people, as mentioned by the critic…. There was an ADM that brought forward the report, back in early 2017, that had been commissioned by the former government. The fact is that this has followed through in the result of something that is important, and I hope that it’s enough.

I know that I’ll be supporting it, and I look forward to the debate about it, making certain that consultation has taken place in terms of the different groups that are going to be impacted or that think they’re impacted by this. I know that I’ll be hearing from the fish and game clubs, the B.C. Wildlife Federation and many others. I look forward to having the answers for them, to make certain that they understand exactly what this is. I look forward to supporting this in the coming days.

M. Elmore: I’m pleased to join you from the traditional territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations.

I’m pleased to rise and speak in favour of second reading for Bill 4, the Firearm Violence Prevention Act, and to join my colleagues in this second reading debate.

I’m pleased that Bill 4 will be bringing in a number of measures to really prioritize and curb gun violence — certainly, a concern not only in Metro Vancouver but across the province. The result of the successful adoption of Bill 4 will be having an impact on gang members and making sure that they have fewer options to buy, transport or possess real and imitation firearms under this legislation, devised to make British Columbia’s streets safer.

I want to address the bill and also contextualize my comments with respect to concerns that have been raised to me here in Vancouver-Kensington and, in particular, the great work that our South Vancouver community policing centre does in terms of partnering with the Vancouver police department and engaging residents and businesses in the area to address safety and security concerns.

Generally, Bill 4 is premised in…. One of the central considerations and the aim for Bill 4 is to ensure that British Columbians feel safe in their communities and their neighbourhoods and that what’s happening with gun violence and gang activity is unacceptable. We see these stories on the news, impacting communities right across the province. It’s unacceptable.

[4:15 p.m.]

Bill 4, the Firearm Violence Prevention Act, is about ensuring that our police agencies have the right tools to be able to prevent crime, disrupt organized crime groups and gather evidence in support of successful prosecutions — all important components. This legislation is part of our government’s multi-pronged approach to target gun and gang violence.

We know that it’s not only one measure that we need to bring an end to gun and gang violence. I think that Bill 4 is an important step in that direction. Today we’re in second reading, but it’s built on the 2017 Illegal Firearms Task Force report, which provided recommendations to help our government respond to the public threats from illegal firearms in B.C.

This legislation represents a major milestone in implementing these recommendations to enhance public safety on illegal firearms and associated violence. A number of my colleagues in the House have outlined concerns in different areas that they have heard from their constituents on.

I want to just take a moment and talk about the South Vancouver community policing centre, which is very active in my constituency. They do great work. They partner with the Vancouver police department and really bring together — there are many across B.C. — a number of community police centre models that operate. I think it’s just a great model to really engage the public, neighbours, residents and businesses in terms of supporting each other, building community and also being proactive with respect to ensuring security, ensuring that folks are safe in our communities.

The programs that they enact…. They have a very capable board of directors. I just spoke to them last weekend — president Gus Lal, secretary Anna Tse and vice-president Chris Chung — about their priorities in terms of ensuring that our communities are kept safe. That’s the context of Bill 4, I think, giving these added measures and the ability for the police agencies and the Vancouver police department to be able to confiscate, and bringing in measures against guns, imitation guns. This also complements and supports the efforts of the South Vancouver community policing centre and really contributes towards greater safety in the community.

I want to address…. I’ve heard concerns from folks in terms of what the impact on rural areas is. We know there’s no question that the vast majority of firearm owners in B.C. are law-abiding. This legislation specifically targets illegal and imitation firearms. Illegal and imitation firearms both present a huge challenge to our policing agencies. The legislation, Bill 4, will have virtually no impact on legal firearm owners. Bill 4 is aiming to prohibit the sale of imitation firearms and low-velocity firearms to youth.

We know and we’ve heard different members talk about how, as youth, they grew up using airsoft or BB guns or different firearms, particularly in rural B.C. This won’t change. It won’t impact that. Youth can still receive these as gifts and be permitted to use them if there’s no prohibition against these firearms in their communities. That’s an important consideration.

Part of Bill 4 — and the importance of really targeting illegal and imitation firearms, of course — is that we know we hear from the police agencies that it’s so difficult to discern whether these imitation firearms or low-velocity firearms are real or not. They’re really indistinguishable. We can’t tell the difference. I guess that’s part of the appeal, in terms of marketing, and why people are enticed to purchase them — because they look like the real thing. But often they can place the carrier, often youths, in critical danger in these circumstances.

So we want to take steps, number one, to protect youth and ensure they’re not placed in those circumstances. These concerns are certainly here in Metro Vancouver and right across our province.

[4:20 p.m.]

I want to talk about — it’s been raised, and we’ll get into it more in the committee stage — the jurisdiction. We have shared jurisdiction with the federal government. The federal government, the government of Canada, has jurisdiction over national firearms regulation and control in the Firearms Act and the criminal use of firearms in the Criminal Code. We work together in B.C. Our province, our jurisdiction, has to do with firearms with regard to public safety and law enforcement and the use of firearms while hunting in the Wildlife Act.

Those are jurisdictional issues and questions, but it’s important that Bill 4 integrates that and ensures that they’re lined up and also closes some gaps, ensuring that Bill 4, our provincial law, is consistent with the federal law, which is under review — there’s a review underway — and that we take the steps to ensure that we have a made-in-B.C. law that’s going to serve and protect British Columbians. So that’s a consideration with respect to more the details of the bill and sorting out these jurisdictional issues.

The question is: what’s currently in place in terms of a ban? And it’s correct. Under federal existing legislation, there are restricted handguns and prohibited firearms, such as machine guns, and there are limits on who can possess them and transport those firearms. Generally, there are restrictions in terms of only being able to be used at target practice at a gun range, at a gunsmith or gun show, or used by a peace officer or firearms officer for verification, registration or disposal.

It is to distinguish between…. Non-restricted firearms, such as hunting rifles, are not subject to the same possession and transportation restrictions. The big target that Bill 4 wants to address is that imitation firearms and low-velocity firearms are largely unregulated. So it’s really a gap. It’s a policy gap. It’s a regulatory gap. That’s really one of the main priorities in terms of Bill 4 — looking to regulate this area.

Another area that’s of concern, and it has been raised in the context of safety for kids in schools…. Certainly, we see just the terrible school shootings in the United States. It’s really got to be one of the worst nightmares for any parent, even to see that happen. So certainly, ensuring that our schools are safe is an important consideration.

Many schools and other designated properties…. While they have policies prohibiting the possession of firearms and other types of weapons on their premises, currently, if someone brings even a lawful firearm or imitation firearm onto school grounds, and it’s in violation of school policy, there is little recourse for law enforcement if the person is not otherwise committing an offence. So that is also an area aimed to be addressed by Bill 4.

We’re looking to establish the prohibition that will allow for enforcement when a person unlawfully brings a firearm or imitation firearm onto a designated property, such as a school, a hospital — we heard that from the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, in terms of her experience as a community nurse and issues around hospitals — so that firearms or imitation firearms are prohibited on these designated properties — schools, hospitals or places of worship. This prohibition closes the gap that we have currently that exists for non-restricted, low-velocity firearms and imitation firearms. We want to make that explicit, and we want to bring that into law. We want to close that gap.

These changes, of course, were undertaken in a very thoughtful and careful manner in a broad-based consultation. They were developed in response to the 37 recommendations made in the 2017 Illegal Firearms Task Force final report. The recommendations that came forward related to a wide range of issues — policing, policy, education and prevention.

[4:25 p.m.]

Generally speaking, the objectives of the Illegal Firearms Task Force were to examine, to take a look at: what are our B.C. and our government of Canada legislation and enforcement policies? So to do a scan and really assess what’s in place.

Second, identify the gaps and what needs to be put in place, prioritizing and taking special aim and focus to combat illegal possession and illegal use of firearms within B.C. explicitly, and to develop a report with key findings and recommendations to bring forward.

This was undertaken. The task force was led by Mr. Wayne Rideout, a very capable retired RCMP member who held the rank of assistant commissioner and for several years had been in charge of investigative services and organized crime in B.C. The task force conducted their consultations between September 2016 and February 2017 and really had experts on board and heard from experts in terms of managing firearms, dealing with organized crime in B.C., reviewing research, conducting interviews with individuals and organizations, and community consultations across the province.

I think that’s a really important key in terms of…. When we want to bring forward legislation, it’s important to canvass widely to get input from experts. To get input right across different stakeholders — individuals, businesses, gun owners — right across the board. To hear input, and to seek that widely. To engage First Nations. Certainly, we’re obliged, under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, to consult. I’m confident that the recommendations in the report are comprehensive. I’m pleased that it’s informing Bill 4 that’s before us today.

Of course, we know that the continued need for this legislation is highlighted by the recent increase in gang and other forms of violence in B.C. The question is: how will Bill 4 make British Columbians safer? The legislation is designed to disrupt gang activity — for example, drive-by shootings, the supply of imitation firearms to youth by gang members for use as an intimidation tool and low-level drug dealing. We want to really interrupt that and really disrupt bringing youth into that gang culture and that gang activity and exposing them to that lifestyle.

The legislation will make it more difficult for gang members to use legitimate shooting ranges for target practice. It will also give police more tools to impound vehicles and seize firearms related to gang activity. The province’s mandate with the legislation is to increase public safety by addressing these enforcement gaps in our existing federal and provincial legislation and really prioritizing regulating imitation firearms that are currently unregulated. This bill will close that gap.

In addition, the Firearm Violence Prevention Act will work in tandem with the federal efforts to promote public safety. Of course, balancing and taking into effect and recognizing that to promote public safety, permitting will continue for responsible gun ownership — for legal firearms users. Certainly, the vast majority of people who own and operate firearms and are very conscientious are not targeted with this legislation.

We have a federal review underway — Bill C-21, which is being discussed. We’ll await to see the results to ensure that Bill 4 and our regulations are integrated and that it lines up with the federal changes that are coming.

So what was the scope of consultation? We have, of course, many who use firearms legally in B.C. for a number — a wide range — of interest groups. There were consultations with 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.

[4:30 p.m.]

I also attended public hearings on these issues. Certainly, in Vancouver, it was hundreds of people who attended to share their experiences and give their suggestions and recommendations.

In addition, consultation with the treaty First Nations, the Nisg̱a’a Nation; 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, the Métis Nation of B.C.; and also with Indigenous educational organizations such as the First Nations Education Steering Committee, the First Nations Schools Association, and the Indigenous Adult and Higher Learning Association — really, a broad-based consultation to get input to ensure that concerns were raised and that there weren’t unintended consequences for different sectors.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

We know that, of course, there are businesses with the airsoft and paintball communities. Consultations were held with that industry, with the related recreational sector. The new restrictions are not intended to interfere with the continued operations of these industries, as well as consideration with implications for the film industry.

We know that the intent of Bill 4 is to ensure that for gangs and organized criminals, we disrupt their activities. Now, we don’t expect them to pay attention to this bill or deliberations, even when it’s enacted. So how will this legislation negatively impact their day-to-day operations?

The answer to that is mainly through enabling more enforcement tools to disrupt the commission of gang-related crime and more tools in the hands of our police agencies. For example, police will have the power to impound motor vehicles that are found to be transporting unauthorized firearms. We expect that that’s an important consideration, and police agencies have been asking for the ability. Police are being provided with new authorities to seize illegal firearms. These illegal firearms will be efficiently forfeited to the province under this legislation. So that’s a positive step.

There will also be violation tickets, in terms of enforcing the prohibitions under the act. Those tickets are more geared towards impacting low-level members of gangs and organized crime and also holding individuals accountable for actions when previously there was no accountability for these violations. So those are some concrete steps that are new in the toolbox of police agencies, to take steps and measures, as well as additional penalties for carrying or possessing an imitation firearm.

All offences of the act will be enforceable by a violation ticket and penalties imposed by the court upon conviction. The ticket amounts are going to be established by regulation. If a person is convicted of causing a public disturbance with a low-velocity firearm or imitation firearm, they could be subject to a maximum penalty or fine of $5,000 and/or 12 months imprisonment — so bringing in that measure.

As well, the consideration is for youth — that if youth are found to be in violation, there will be an opportunity for early intervention with youth at risk to try and extricate at-risk youth from the possibility of being drawn into gang culture. So more ability to be able to support youth, to intervene if youth are being targeted to be recruited into gangs and for proactive measures.

[4:35 p.m.]

As well, there are clear definitions in terms of an imitation firearm, defined as objects that could reasonably be mistaken to be real firearms and the distinction, as well, between toys that are clearly not real guns, such as water pistols. That will also be…. Some of these measures and definitions will be clarified by regulation.

In closing, I’m pleased to see Bill 4 come forward. It’s been the work of many years in process in terms of the recommendations coming forward from the report in 2017, coming forward from the IFTF report. Thirty-seven recommendations covering a broad scope of initiatives came forward from the report, and this legislation, Bill 4, deals with a number of those recommendations. I think that very clearly will be a positive step to allow police agencies to intervene and disrupt gang and criminal activity.

The costs for implementing this legislation are…. It’s not accompanied by significant costs. The purpose of the bill is to allow police — to give them more tools to disrupt gang and organized crime activities.

That’s just an overview and some of my thoughts and reflections with respect to Bill 4. I’m pleased it’s coming forward, and it will have a positive impact in terms of ensuring that gang members will have fewer options to buy, transport or possess real or imitation firearms.

In closing, I’m pleased to speak in favour of Bill 4, the Firearm Violence Prevention Act. Once it goes through committee stage, I’m hopeful and confident that it’ll play a positive role to bring more safety and security and to really disrupt illegal gang and gun activity across our province.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Now we go over to the Minister of State for Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

Hon. N. Cullen: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. A small but perhaps important point of order. As I was listening to the debate this afternoon, I believe, during the speech from the member for Kelowna West, I think he inadvertently mistook myself for the good member for Skeena in his comments, not that I disagreed with any of the comments the member for Skeena made with respect to this bill or this issue.

I don’t want to chalk this up to bald bias. I know those of us in the follicly challenged community sometimes are mistaken for each other. I hope the member for Skeena takes no offence in being mistaken for me. He’s a much better-looking version of it than I am, but I just wanted the record to be corrected — that I think in his comments the member from Kelowna was actually referring to the member for Skeena on what his comments were about this bill. Just to make sure that the record was clarified before we went further in the debate.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you to the member for Stikine, and thank you for the clarification.

We will now move on. I’m going to join that follicly challenged club myself one of these days but, for now, let the golden locks flow. Anyways, moving on.

Thanks, Members. I would like to ask the member for Surrey–White Rock to join us now.

T. Halford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That’s a tough one to follow. I will do my best.

What my dad always used to tell me, and he still does, is that there is really never a wrong time to do the right thing. I do fully believe that this legislation is the right thing. I have been an MLA here for all of three months, just a little bit over three months. It’s been a journey. It’s been a fun journey, an interesting journey and an educational journey.

[4:40 p.m.]

One of the first things that I was able to do was that I put forward a private member’s bill on third-party delivery fees. This is something that all members are aware of. We talked about it during the election, and both parties agreed. It was at a time when our restaurants were in crisis, and they’re still in crisis.

I put the bill forward and didn’t hear anything. Then to the credit of the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, a few weeks later they made the changes that we all were expecting.

Now, in that time, were jobs lost? Did people suffer? Likely, yeah, they did.

This legislation that we’re talking about today actually can save lives. I believe it will save lives. I just want to go through the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Earlier today he made some comments, and I just want to read them again because they’re important. “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 2021.”

The truth is that to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, these are facts. But he’s absolutely correct. They have followed us here. They’ve followed us into my community, to the communities in Prince George, every community that the 87 of us collectively represent. What I want to point out is that the recommendations came forward in 2017. The facts that the Minister clearly laid out a little while ago are all after that.

The fact is that in May of 2019, Marvin Hunt, at the time the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, introduced legislation that addressed many of the items that we’re talking about today. And I want to really applaud the member for Surrey-Panorama because she spoke so passionately. I know she’s passionate about it, and she spoke to the fact that she was receiving calls in her office weekly about gang violence. I think a lot of the MLAs have received calls like that as well.

That member was in cabinet for two years. We could have made those changes. We could have supported a private member’s bill that would have saved lives. I am fully supportive of what we’re here discussing today. I think it’s very important. But at the end of the day, we owe it to our constituents to do what’s right at the time. I believe that supporting that private member’s bill in May of 2019 was the right thing to do, yet we heard crickets. We’re talking about it almost two years later.

Like I said in my original quote, there is never a wrong time to do the right thing, and I’ll fully support this bill. But I really, really do believe that this government, a government that’s been a government for over 1,000 days, could have done something sooner. We knew that gang violence was a problem in our province. I’ve seen it in my community of Surrey. I know that gang violence knows no boundaries in terms of municipalities. It’s in Prince George. It’s in Williams Lake, like the member for Skeena mentioned. I support the legislation brought forward today, but I think that at the end of the day, we all have to realize that everybody here, whether they’re in government or in opposition, can play a part in this.

In May of 2019, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale did his best to play a part, and nothing happened. But what if something happened? What if we took that private member’s bill and what if we actually put it forward and we voted on it and it passed? Would the stats that the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General read into the House today be different? They may be.

[4:45 p.m.]

I want to thank the Speaker for allowing me to speak to the bill today. I will support the bill. I just want to make sure that we all recognize that this is something that touches every single community in every single riding. I’m glad to see the legislation put forward today.

Hon. M. Dean: I’d like to start by recognizing that I am speaking to everybody today from the traditional territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, now known as the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations, and also the Scia’new Nation at Beecher Bay as well. I’m very honoured to live and to work in these territories.

I’m very pleased to speak in favour of Bill 4, the Firearm Violence Prevention Act. People deserve to feel safe in their communities and in their neighbourhoods, and what’s happening with gun violence and gang activity is gravely concerning. I see the harm experienced by young people in my community. I know there are women living in fear in their own home because their violent partner has a firearm in the house. I know gun violence is in my community of Esquimalt-Metchosin, and it’s so damaging. These measures are going to be another tool in our community to protect victims of gun violence and, most importantly, to prevent gang activities to escalate and to take control.

The Firearm Violence Protection Act is about ensuring our police agencies have the right tools to be able to prevent crime, disrupt organized crime groups and gather evidence in support of successful prosecutions. This gives me an opportunity to say thank you to West Shore RCMP and Victoria and Esquimalt police. Thank you to them for working collaboratively with community agencies and with my staff. I also want to say thank you to the West Shore municipalities, who provide funding for youth who fall through the cracks and could end up in gang activities, and especially thank you to the cities of Colwood and Langford.

This legislation is part of our government’s overall multi-pronged approach to target gun and gang violence, and it does represent a major milestone. We are going to be implementing recommendations that do enhance public safety in relation to illegal firearms and associated violence. It is truly needed, because we have seen gun violence and gang activity increasing, and the tentacles of it are reaching further and further into and deeper into my community.

Now, of course, we do know that many British Columbians are legal firearms owners. But we know that within British Columbia, handguns are favoured by gang members. Handguns, we do know, are also lawfully owned by collectors and target shooters in this province. So we are making sure that we are bringing forward legislation that is appropriate and will achieve the objectives and the targets that we want to achieve with it.

This Firearm Violence Prevention Act provides law enforcement with more tools to address the illegal use of handguns and other types of firearms as well, so it is designed to have a minimal impact on legal gun users. It’s targeting illegal and imitation firearms, and of course, as I said, there’s continuing need for this legislation because of the increase in gang and other forms of violence in B.C. I’ve seen examples of this in my community and across the region of greater Victoria over the past ten years or more.

When I was running a community social services organization, we provided a service to youth in our community where there were concerns about them being targeted for gang recruitment, about them being targeted for exploitation, where there were already concerns about their mental health and their vulnerability and possibly lack of connection to family, for example — young people who were falling through the cracks and who wanted to belong and who could be groomed and targeted by gang recruiters who were coming into my community.

[4:50 p.m.]

Some of the names of the gangs I cannot even mention here because the language they use is absolutely not parliamentary, but we know that there are several gangs who operate in the capital regional district. Some of them have connections to the Lower Mainland, and some of them just operate here.

As we observed this increased risk in our community, we created the first gang prevention program for our region. It was called CRED, the crime reduction, education and diversion program. I want to express my appreciation today for all of the staff at Pacific Centre Family Services Association, especially the co-executive directors, Liz Nelson and Jen Munro. Special, special thanks to Mia Golden for her pioneering work in this area.

She is the professional who is in the community. She is on the street. She goes into encampments because that’s where she knows she’s going to find the youth who are being the most exploited, who are being recruited into gangs, who are being brought up the hierarchy of the gang structure. She’s the person who those youth can turn to. She goes to them so that they know that they have someone that they can turn to who can help them exit.

The kinds of services that she provides are one-on-one support plans and assessment, providing information resources and pro-social opportunities and choices for youth participants, like running a group, for example. She makes sure that support, resources and information are available to families and to communities, as well, and to leaders in communities. She organizes the coordination and collaboration with other youth-serving agencies in the community so that everyone is watching out for our most vulnerable and the youth in the community who are being targeted and exploited. She’s been engaging in ongoing information-gathering through online media, walking the streets and networking. She gathers intelligence and information that’s really vital to her being able to find the targeted youth as well.

Now often, when youth come to the attention of law enforcement, they’re even more deeply already entrenched in substance use and criminal activity. Of course, they’ve been recruited into that, and then it makes it even harder for them to escape.

As the CRED program creates community relationships with families, schools, health providers and other service agencies, youth can then actually be sent off and diverted in their pathway and their trajectory. They can get support and help earlier and then be helped to actually to remove themselves out of what might be a longer career in gang activities and getting more involved in gun violence. This enables the CRED program to spearhead wraparound care at a time when it’s most likely to become effective and before the youth become fully entrenched.

In 2019-20, CRED provided service for 206 youth and their families. Of those, 116 identified as male, 86 were female, three non-binary and one transgender. I know from having overseen the program that children even as young as 11 have been served by this program. In fact, I heard the other day about a 14-year-old non-Indigenous girl who was recruiting an 11-year-old non-Indigenous girl into sexual exploitation. Of course, she was being coerced to do that. So the whole hierarchy is getting into younger and younger groups of youth and children.

One day in the office before I moved into this role, Mia had just had a visit from a young Indigenous man who had just had his fingers broken by a gang member because he hadn’t paid him back for some drugs. [Audio interrupted.] The involvement in gang culture and operations is escalated from this initial grooming and recruitment to full belonging and then involvement in serious crimes and harmful use of drugs. So as part of our toolkit, this legislation is designed to disrupt gang activity like drive-by shootings and like the supply of imitation firearms to youth by gang members for use as an intimidation tool and low-level drug dealing.

[4:55 p.m.]

An experience of service providers like the Pacific Centre Family Services is really important to inform this kind of legislation. There was quite a lot of consultation during the period of drafting this legislation with, for example, rural and firearms interest groups such as the B.C. Wildlife Federation; Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia; Wild Sheep Society of B.C.; B.C. Cattlemen’s — could be Cattlepeople’s — Association; B.C. Target Sports Association; and the B.C. Trappers Association.

The ministry also consulted with treaty First Nations, the Nisg̱a’a Nation, Indigenous leadership organizations such as the First Nations Summit, Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, B.C. Assembly of First Nations, First Nations Justice Council, Métis Nation B.C., and with Indigenous educational organizations such as the First Nations Education Steering Committee, First Nations Schools Association and Indigenous Adult Higher Learning Association.

Indeed, aspects of the proposal were adjusted in response to concerns that were raised by some of these organizations. As I’ve said, the legislation provides police with more enforcement tools to disrupt the commission of gang-related crime.

Let’s have a look at some examples. Many schools and other designated properties have policies that explicitly prohibit the possession of firearms and other kinds of weapons on their premises. But take this, for example. Currently, when a person brings a lawful firearm or imitation firearm on school grounds and it’s in violation of school policy, there’s no recourse for law enforcement if the person isn’t otherwise committing an offence.

So, establishing this prohibition will actually allow for enforcement action when a person unlawfully brings the firearm or imitation firearm onto a designated property such as a school or a hospital or a place of worship. This prohibition closes the gap that exists for non-restricted low-velocity firearm and imitation firearms. The legislation will also make it more difficult for gang members to use legitimate shooting ranges for target practice. It will give police more tools to impound vehicles and seize firearms related to gang activity.

Police have been provided with new authorities to seize illegal firearms, and then these will be forfeited to the province under this legislation. Substantial violation tickets are intended to be established to enforce the prohibitions under this act. These tickets will impact low-level members of gangs and organized crime and hold individuals accountable for actions that are currently not prosecuted.

All of the offences in the act will be enforceable by violation ticket as well as penalties imposed by the court upon conviction. The violation ticket amounts are going to be established by regulation when the act is actually implemented. If a person is convicted of causing a public disturbance with a low-velocity firearm or imitation firearm, they could be subject to a maximum penalty of a fine of $5,000 and/or 12 months imprisonment.

If a minor is convicted of using a low-velocity firearm or imitation firearm in a prohibited area, they could be subject to a maximum penalty of a fine of $1,000. The penalties related to carrying or possessing imitation firearms, particularly for youth, will allow for early intervention with these gang-recruited and gang-involved youth. Programs like the Surrey Wraparound program and CRED are an invaluable part of our response to gang activity and culture, now and in the future.

Importantly, as well, this legislation will also protect from civil liability social workers and health professionals who, in good faith, breach client confidentiality by reporting information to police to prevent gun violence.

For me, this is an important dimension of this legislation and really important in the area of gender-based violence. Women who are living with intimate partner violence who reach out for services trust their counsellors. Unfortunately, there are far too many examples of men using firearms in their homes to exert power and control as part of their gender-based violence.

[5:00 p.m.]

When I was working in the community social services sector, we ran a community-based program offering support and safety to women who were living with partner violence. I heard of profoundly concerning situations right here in our community, in our neighbourhoods. One guy held a gun to the head of his partner in front of her children. Another guy pointed his gun at his partner and threatened to kill her.

In many situations, the woman won’t report this to authorities. She won’t feel safe enough to go to the police because, often, she’s been threatened that if she makes a report, her children will be removed or she will be killed. With this legislation, these risks in family homes will be able to reported by the counsellor without [audio interrupted] continues to need safety and support.

This legislation supports other ongoing efforts to suppress gang activity, including strengthening coordination and information-sharing across the justice sector, using laws and regulations in new ways to disrupt gang members’ movement and activities and engaging communities, families and others to help keep young people out of gangs and help members exit gang life.

While I’ve talked today a bit about some of the truly worrying situations in my community, there are also stories of success. A young Indigenous man was served by CRED, and through his work with his counsellor, he chose to exit the gang that he was involved with. He was supported in moving physically, and far, away from where they were operating. He created a different pathway for his future, a different life ahead of him.

With this legislation and other supports that our government is investing in, we will hopefully hear more of these stories of success and safety.

D. Coulter: Mr. Speaker, it’s an honour to speak in front of you once again, here in the people’s House.

I am fully in support of this bill, and I think it’s a very important bill. Gun violence is devastating, and it is pervasive in our communities. Even one person shot is one person too many.

People deserve to feel safe in their communities and their neighbourhoods. What’s happening with gun violence and gang activity is unacceptable. The Firearm Violence Prevention Act is about ensuring that our police agencies have the right tools to be able to prevent crime, disrupt organized crime groups and gather evidence in support of successful prosecutions.

This legislation is part of our government’s multi-pronged approach to target gun and gang violence. The 2017 Illegal Firearms Task Force report provided recommendations to help our government respond to the public threats from illegal firearms in British Columbia, and this legislation represents a major milestone in implementing those recommendations to enhance public safety on illegal firearms and associated violence.

There is no question that the vast majority of firearm owners in British Columbia are law abiding. I, myself, grew up in a family that did target shooting and hunting and that sort of thing. They always followed the law. This bill would not affect them very much. It is designed to target gang violence, for sure. It targets illegal and imitation firearms and will have virtually no impact on legal firearms owners. I looked at the legislation, and I can’t see where it would affect myself or my family.

[5:05 p.m.]

We’re prohibiting the sale of imitation firearms and low-velocity firearms to youth, with the understanding that it is quite common for youth to grow up using airsoft or BB guns — I certainly had one — particularly in rural B.C. This won’t change. Youth can still receive them as gifts and will be permitted to use them if no prohibition against the discharge of firearms or imitation firearms exists in their communities.

Police say that it’s extremely difficult to tell whether these imitation firearms and low-velocity firearms are real or not, which can place the carrier, often youth, in critical danger. As well, criminals use these imitation firearms to threaten and strong-arm innocent folks.

It’s important to note that the crime and violence are not uniquely urban phenomena. Rural and remote communities may be more vulnerable due to isolation, timeliness of response, availability of community resources.

Chilliwack is not free of gun violence. It’s definitely not a place that is free of gangs. I don’t know. Many of you may have heard of the United Nations gang. It was founded in Chilliwack. So we do have, or had, a pretty big problem, and this bill works to address that.

I’ve seen gun violence up close. I had a close friend…. I had a pretty nasty work accident. So I was rehabbing at G.F. Strong. I lived there for a little while, actually. There was a young man who shared a room with me. He was a doorman at a club in downtown Vancouver, and he was shot in the back with a shotgun. He was very hurt. He lives with a lot of pain now, a lot of nerve pain. He uses a wheelchair.

If we had something like this 23 years ago now, I think…. I think it’s possible that this piece of legislation could have prevented such a tragic, tragic outcome.

Firearms are an area of shared legislative authority between the government of Canada and the province of British Columbia. The government of Canada has jurisdiction over national firearms regulations and controls in the Firearms Act and the criminal use of firearms in the Criminal Code.

My friend the member from Langley is a lawyer. He’s keenly aware of this.

The province has jurisdiction over firearms with regard to public safety and law enforcement and the use of firearms while hunting from the Wildlife Act.

Under existing federal legislation, for example, handguns and some long guns are restricted as well, and prohibitive firearms — machine guns…. Owners have federal authorizations that limit where they can possess and transport these firearms. Generally, they are only allowed to take the firearm from their residence to target practice at a gun range, a gunsmith or a gun show or a peace officer or chief firearms officer for verification, registration or disposal.

I think the member for Langley has been to gun shows before. He just said.

However, non-restricted firearms — for example, hunting rifles — are not subject to the same possession and transportation restrictions, where imitation firearms and low-velocity firearms are largely unregulated.

Many schools and other designated properties have policies prohibiting the possession of firearms and other types of weapons on their premises. Currently when a person brings a lawful firearm or imitation firearm to school grounds, in violation of school policy, there is little recourse for law enforcement if the person is not otherwise committing an offence.

Establishing this prohibition will allow for enforcement action when a person unlawfully brings a firearm or imitation firearm onto a designed property, such as a school, hospital or place of worship. This prohibition closes the gap that exists for non-restricted, low-velocity and imitation firearms.

[5:10 p.m.]

The development of this legislation is in response to the 37 recommendations made by the 2017 Illegal Firearms Task Force report. The recommendations in the final report include changes to legislation and enforcement policies, as well as recommendations relating to policing policy, education and prevention. The objectives of the Illegal Firearms Task Force were to examine provincial and federal legislation, interdiction and enforcement policies, and to identify gaps and needs to combat illegal possession and illegal use of firearms within B.C.

They were tasked with developing a report with key findings and recommendations to be presented to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. The task force was led by Mr. Wayne Rideout. He was recently appointed as assistant deputy minister and director of police services. He’s a retired RCMP member who held the rank of assistant commissioner and for several years had been in charge of investigative services and organized crime in British Columbia.

Between September 2016 and February 2017, the task force, consisting of experts with a wide range of experience in managing firearms and organized crime in B.C., reviewed and surveyed existing published research, interviewed numerous individuals and organizations and conducted community consultations around the province.

The continuing need for this legislation is highlighted by the recent increase in gang and other forms of violence in British Columbia. This legislation is designed to disrupt gang activity such as drive-by shootings and the supply of imitation firearms to youth by gang members for use as an intimidation tool in low-level drug deals, like I mentioned before.

The legislation will also make it more difficult for gang members to use legitimate shooting ranges for target practice and give police more tools to impound vehicles and seize firearms related to gang activity. We do not want gangsters practising how to shoot at shooting ranges, that’s for sure.

The province’s mandate with this legislation is to increase public safety by addressing enforcement gaps in existing federal and provincial legislation, such as regulating imitation firearms that are currently unregulated, and this bill is intended to fill those gaps.

I could go on, but I think I’ll leave it there. I think all members of this House should be supporting this legislation. I’ve heard members from both sides saying that they will support this legislation. I think that is a good thing. It’s a good thing for British Columbians. It’s a good thing for our youth. It’s a good thing for anyone who has the potential of getting in the crossfire of gang activity.

P. Alexis: I’d like to acknowledge that I come before you from the unceded and ancestral territory of the Sto:lo people, including Kwantlen, Leq’á:mel, Matsqui, Sumas and Sq’èwlets territories.

It’s my pleasure to rise today, and I believe I am the final speaker, and address this crucial legislation, the Firearm Violence Prevention Act, Bill 4. The 2017 Illegal Firearms Task Force report provided recommendations to help our government respond to the public threats from illegal firearms in British Columbia. This legislation represents a major milestone in implementing these recommendations and enhanced public safety on gun violence. If passed, this proposed legislation will take direct steps to address this public safety crisis, based on expert advice and evidence-based solutions.

It will penalize drivers who move illegal firearms and allow us to impound their vehicles. It will stop the sale of imitation and low-velocity guns to youth and make it illegal for youth to fire or display these weapons anywhere a provincial, federal, First Nations or municipal law prohibits discharging firearms.

[5:15 p.m.]

It will inhibit gang members’ use of shooting ranges and strengthen user-related recordkeeping. It will stop people from having real or imitation firearms in specific locations, like a school. I know the minister certainly discussed this as well.

As a former teacher, I know all too well the importance of safety for our children in school and how important it is to maintain a caring, sensitive and open environment to enhance not only their learning but their protection. Unfortunately, as we heard before, while many schools have policies prohibiting the possession of firearms and other types of weapons on their premises, right now, when a person brings a lawful firearm or imitation firearm on school grounds, in violation of school policy, there is little recourse for law enforcement if the person is not otherwise committing an offence.

I want to stress that we know that the vast majority of British Columbia’s gun owners are law-abiding. Rest assured; these changes will have no impact on them. We know, for example, that it’s quite common for youths to grow up using pellet or BB guns, particularly in rural British Columbia. This will not change. Young people can still receive them as gifts and will be permitted to use them if no prohibition against the discharge of firearms or imitation firearms exists in their communities.

I also want to acknowledge the committed and ongoing work of B.C.’s law enforcement in helping to control gun crime and reduce gang violence. It’s well documented how much progress has been made in recent years to reduce violence from organized crime. I have no doubt that enhancing their existing capacity by turning our attention to illegal firearms will allow them to further reduce violence.

However, despite the significant advances in combatting gang crime and the violence it brings to our communities, many challenges remain. This legislation will support and build upon the continuing and targeted enforcement already in place — which means reduced violence, fewer shootings, more charges for those involved, and crucially, fewer youth entering gang life.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Sadly, it should come as no surprise that the police in Abbotsford and Mission and its municipal leadership have been calling for more aggressive gun legislation and enforcement for years. For too long, the city of Abbotsford has been plagued with a terrible gang and organized crime problem, one that has shown itself to be a scourge to young people, their families and the surrounding communities. We have lost over 100 young men over the past few years. Preventing youth involvement in gangs has been a major concern for many of my constituents, especially in Abbotsford. We know there is no easy solution.

I want to acknowledge Dr. Satwinder Bains and her colleagues at the University of the Fraser Valley for their fine work on this topic, specifically with their 2019 paper Developing Strategies on Violence Prevention and Community Safety in Abbotsford, B.C. As they point out throughout their work, “gangs do not exist within a void.” Their activities impact our entire community and beyond.

“It would be a mistake indeed to think that local gangs can be neutralized without addressing the broader role” organized crime plays within them. We know that gang crime is “neither unique nor limited to Abbotsford.” Unfortunately, “our province has become a major transshipment point for guns, drugs and other illicit goods.” Guns, however, remain a massive problem since “firearms are fairly easily acquired by gang members.” We know that local solutions to the gang crisis can’t magically fix all these problems, but steps such as what we’re debating today are nevertheless absolutely necessary.

[5:20 p.m.]

This legislation is part of our government’s multi-pronged approach to target gun and gang violence and the Firearm Violence Prevention Act is about ensuring our police agencies have the right tools to be able to prevent crime, disrupt organized crime groups and gather evidence in support of successful prosecutions.

We are putting expert advice into practice to reduce shootings related to gangs and the drug trade, give police additional tools, help make our communities safer and stem the tide of young people entering gang life.

I fully support the implementation of Bill 4.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Government House Leader to close the debate.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Okay. I see by the time, hmm…. Okay. I do know that some members appreciate it when we are able to adjourn a little bit early.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh, you may be here this weekend, but I do know there are other members in the House that have to travel to destinations up nearer you. So they always appreciate it when we are able to.

So I will speak for a bit, but….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Absolutely.

Anyway, it’s my pleasure to rise and to close debate on this particular piece of legislation. I want to thank members for the participation in the debate.

I want to thank my critic for his thoughtful comments, because yes, the committee did start while he was on this side of the House. It was one of the things I received when I became minister. He will know that of those 37 recommendations, we did start to implement many of those recommendations.

I think it’s important, as I’ve said earlier, to recap some of the initiatives that we have undertaken. To me, I know that when I became minister and I met with E Division, I said: “Look, I think we have a really unique opportunity at this point to move forward and to make some important changes.”

One of the things that I was most keen to do was to put in place, after hearing from the RCMP and other police forces, a witness protection program, that witness security program, as a fundamental cornerstone of how we move forward in the area of public safety in British Columbia.

We were relying on a federal program, which was fine in its own right, but it didn’t meet the specific needs of British Columbia. It didn’t meet the specific requirements of British Columbia and recognize the unique circumstances that we have in this province, particularly when it comes to organized crime, because it’s not monolithic. There are all different varieties. There are different groupings, different demographics, so we need to be able to respond to that. That was one of those initiatives that we were able to put in place early on.

At the same time, we had this really great report that had been done. My new director of police services was the individual who worked on that and put that together. I have an enormous amount of confidence in his work and in him, and that’s why he’s director of police services. So we were able to put additional recommendations into practice, and then we’ve been working on them methodically, to get the recommendations from that report implemented.

As I said earlier in my remarks, one of the other ones was the forensic lab for firearms. Again, it’s one of those things where we go: “Oh, we should have one of those here in B.C.” Ottawa is great. They do a lot of good stuff. But again, Ottawa is 3,000 miles away. On some days, it’s more like 30,000 miles away. It takes time, and there can be bottlenecks and delays, because there are lots of other provinces wanting things done.

So putting in place that firearms forensic lab, which is in Surrey, is going to make a real difference in terms of the tools that police have to be able to deal with gang crime, organized crime and those who use firearms in various types of criminal activity.

[5:25 p.m.]

I toured that lab, and it was really amazing to see the technology in place, to be able to watch them as they can take two different casings or a casing and compare it. The match and the level of detail — you fully understand how far technology has advanced that you see just the slightest little differentiation in how the metal has been damaged in that firing.

Or what happens when…. You think you can just erase a serial number off a firearm. The reality is that, even when you do that, you make an impression in the chemical composition of the metal in that firearm that can be brought out to show what a criminal thinks has been taken off. It’s still there. They can bring it out with either, often, acid-based products or an infrared or laser technology. That’s absolutely incredible.

Well, that’s here in B.C. That’s here in B.C. now — again, an additional tool. As my colleague across the way, my critic, rightfully pointed out, it’s not about what patch you have on your arm. It’s about the support that you get. It’s support in terms of equipment. It’s support in terms of resources. But it’s also the tools that are in place.

That’s where this legislation comes into effect, because it provides additional tools that were identified in gaps that police have wanted change to be made in. After all, if you ask most people, they would think it’s insane that you could legally walk into a place of worship or a hospital and have a 12-gauge shotgun, for example. That’s just nuts. So absolutely, that’s a positive change. You go to buy body armour. Why shouldn’t you be fingerprinted when you’re buying body armour?

Here’s where I will take a little issue with someone. I thought most of the comments coming from the opposition side were actually very thoughtful, very good. But I must admit to being a little sort of, “Hmm, okay,” when criticized for not enacting a private member’s bill at the time it was introduced. I’m like: “Okay.” I listened and thought: “Hmm, okay.” Then I was thinking: “Well, where were you when I…? What were you thinking when I talked about…?”

I introduced a private member’s bill to ban body armour. At the time, I remember that there was some mocking and some laughter that came from the government benches of the day back then. Then a few months later or sometime later, oh my god, there is the government, introducing a bill to ban body armour. It was the right thing do, but I also understand how the system works. That is: private member’s bills are great, but they have to go through the proper process. You don’t just table it and then expect the government to adopt it the next day. What we did was to…. This was part of a package, a suite of legislative reforms and legislative changes that all fit in together — so new regulations around body armour requiring fingerprints.

Again, we know that gangsters and gang members often want to go to shooting ranges. Shooting ranges are very popular. People like to go and practise. What’s wrong with showing identification when you go? What’s wrong with showing who you are? If that helps to discourage someone whose only interest in going to a gun range is to try and…. Well, you know that they have illegal, nefarious actions in mind. What’s wrong with ensuring that they have to sign in and they have to show proper ID so there’s a record of them having been there? Nothing at all. Does that impact legitimate gun owners? No, it doesn’t. But it sends a message to those who would use illegal firearms: “You know what? We are on to you. We are doing things to disrupt your activities.”

Likewise, when police pull over a vehicle that has a hidden compartment…. What do you need a hidden compartment for? You don’t need a hidden compartment in a car. You’ve got a glovebox. That’s where law-abiding people put their cell phone when they’re driving — or should be putting their cell phone when they’re driving — or their wallet or whatever, something that they want out of the way. It’s not a place to hide an illegal weapon. It’s not a place to put an illegal weapon.

[5:30 p.m.]

Again, tighter regulations around hidden compartments on vehicles. Police stop a car. It’s been speeding. It’s been fleeing the police, or the police pulled it over, and there has been some suspicious activity, or they’re concerned about it, and they see an unauthorized weapon. Well, they could confiscate the weapon, but there wasn’t much more they could do.

Well, now we have the ability, with this legislation, to impound that car, to impound that vehicle. Again, it’s a way to disrupt activities of those who are engaged in illegal activity. Police have always been concerned around safety. What we have seen is a proliferation of these imitation weapons, which are often….

When we were kids growing up, you could see a cap gun, a water…. There’s no way you could ever mistake them to be anything other than what they were, which was a toy cap gun, whatever. But today there is a deliberate market around imitation weapons that are so real that police cannot tell the difference.

We have all heard the stories and seen the scenes on TV where a terrible tragedy has resulted. Too often it involves a young person. Well again, this legislation addresses that. It also recognizes that in many parts of this province — rural British Columbia, the back country — people grow up with a BB gun and an air rifle. And while we’re saying that we don’t sell them to minors, we also recognize….

You know what? If you’re living in a part of this province where there are no restrictions in the local government in terms of places where you can use them, hey, that’s fine. This bill does not target lawful gun owners. This bill targets those who use illegal weapons or try to transact illegal weapons, and that’s our focus. That’s why I think that this report and its recommendations that form the basis of this legislation, to my mind, are so important. When they’re combined with the other initiatives that we’ve taken and put in place, I think they make a real package that is going to help police in terms of doing their job.

Hon. Speaker, I could go on for a lot longer, but I know that we are going to have a vote. After the vote, I would suggest that we will adjourn. In fact, I know we will adjourn, because as House Leader, I get to say we’re going to adjourn. It is Thursday, and I know that a lot of members would like to get on their way, get back to their constituencies for tomorrow and the weekend.

With that, I will finish my remarks. And as I said at the beginning, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 4, Firearm Violence Prevention Act, 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 moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday morning.

The House adjourned at 5:34 p.m.